RobBoyle wrote:

Most likely, yes, MoS would cap out at 99. Anything beyond that is pretty much overkill anyway.

That's fine and good, but the current mechanics make it so that skill with bonuses can make achieving that MoS easier with a greater window of rolls. This system makes MoS a static element solely tied to the dice. It works and is a heavy simplification of the present mechanics, but it may also be a severe oversimplification of the degrees of success or failure mechanic.

RobBoyle wrote:

I think you're mistaken here. MoS on Opposed Tests is not calculated by subtracting the loser's from the winner's roll -- you simply use the MoS of the winner. That's how it is in the rules now and that's likely how it would stay if we made this change. So if two people in an Opposed Test both roll under their skill but one rolls a 60 and one a 59, the winner would succeed with an MoS of 60. There's no math involved.

One element of the currently-existing math is that your opponent's die roll in an opposed test innately affects your potential window for success. It means that one character's performance at a skill test affects his opponent's performance. This also means that some opposed tests could be quickly ended if one character rolled above another character's target number and still succeeded. He was guaranteed to beat out his opponent, and there is suddenly need only to roll one set of dice (actually pretty handy for me as a GM).

Decivre wrote:

It could be easier overall if you converted the mechanic into a "roll over" one, and currently existing modifiers would not have to be changed if the target number was a static 100 and all skill values and modifiers were added and subtracted from the die roll (skill of 50 with +20 modifier? 1d100 + 70, every point over 100 is MoS). This would require a dramatic alteration of the present mechanics, though. Probably too much so.

We specifically discarded a roll-over mechanic because we were trying to eliminate math from the equation as much as possible (even addition, though especially subtraction). Rolling and comparing numbers is much simpler than rolling and doing addition.

RobBoyle wrote:

This is similar to what we already have, only you're suggesting using the loser's roll as the MoS rather than the winner's. My taste would be to keep MoS as based on the winner's roll, just to have it be consistent with standard Success Tests. I could see where some people might not like the fact that the loser's effort isn't reflected in the MoS in these cases, but I think simplicity wins out here. If we went with your suggestion of using the loser's roll to determine MoS, MoS would actually be higher when the loser got a higher roll, which is counterintuitive.

Not quite. As I mentioned, your MoS was based on the loser's roll only if the loser actually succeeded (in other words, MoS is equal to the lowest successful roll while the highest successful roll is the winner). If someone rolls higher but is still the loser, then he obviously failed and his roll isn't counted at all; your roll becomes MoS.

Of course - with all that worrying about high skilled characters in opposed tests I completely forgot that the current rules use the number rolled as MoS for opposed rolls already! So if it's a 'problem' it's already a problem, and I think Rob's right anyway - MoS over 99 is overkill anyway. Shredders: I wonder if the root of my concern about the AP value for shredders is because armour values in EP seem low. The shredder just highlight this because it makes anything less than Body Armour useless. Modern day bullet proof armour can stop a modern day handgun - so it seems reasonable to assume that the same should be true in EP. The Armour Vest description sounds most like the EP equivalent to modern day kevlar vests - and it has an armour value of 6/6. Even a light pistol does 11 DV on average, so that's significant damage that's getting through from the lightest handgun you can get. It only gets worse from there ! Should armour values be increased across the board ? I know this could lead to an arms race, and I'm sure the numbers were picked carefully for some reason.

I do not have that much experience with the ystem but the proposed changes look good to me, makign the initiative math easier makes figuring it out quicker makes it go quicker, especially if you have to roll every turn. One thing I would like to comment on (I have not had time to go through the full forums to see if it was mentioned in the past) is that the factions and backgrounds do not look properly balanced to me, the differences are small, but it seems to me that if you convert them point totals they do not all have the same total. It is a minor thing, but there are alot of optimizers out there.. That and I think Lunar Colonist ans Martian should have different mechanical effects, as it is they are identical. Also I can not see any reason to ever use SA fire if the weapon also supports BF and you are not down to your last few rounds.

Gee4orce wrote:

Because in real life - and probably in most RPG combat situations - firearms combat is at very close range. Only 5% of gunfights take place over 15yds, 80% below 7yds, 50% below 2yds ! (source: the very well researched GURPS:Tactical Shooting).

Maybe, but the factors influencing those numbers would not necessarily be the same in EP. A gunfight at under 2 Yards or ~1.8 meters is only really going to happen when one party can sneak up on and surprise the other, or you bump into each other. fighting in the street will be closer then fighting on an open plain, but the primary factor in how close combat is when it starts is going to be target recognition, and this is a setting where you would expect people to be able to notice their target farther off, plus since firing from a distance with cover is safer then firing from up close (which is the only range that a shredder is over powered, as anything over 30 meters and they become a weak weapon) so that is what people would be trying for. Now I have not read well any gurps book, so I do not know if they broke those numbers down into catagories, as a standard gunfight in an old west town probably averages different ranges then they would in the wilderness of the same period.

Gee4orce wrote:

Shredders: I wonder if the root of my concern about the AP value for shredders is because armour values in EP seem low. The shredder just highlight this because it makes anything less than Body Armour useless. Modern day bullet proof armour can stop a modern day handgun - so it seems reasonable to assume that the same should be true in EP.

The thing is body armor does not stop you from getting hurt from the bullet that it catches, there is still an impact that is damaging your body, every bit of energy from the impact is still hitting you, all it is doing is distributing the impact to turn a lethal hit into a non-lethal one. If anything the armor value is a reflection of how much of the impact the armor itself can absorb and how will it is redistributing the rest of the impact. even with all their advances if a bullet were to puncture their chest most characters would be severely wounded.

I really like the idea of making MoS and opposed rolls simple blackjack. I'm willing to lose a bit of edge case granularity for a faster and more elegant system. If you want to make skill over 100 better, you could go with the Pendragon method: Any amount of skill over 100 is added to your roll. So a character with Infosec 150 after modifiers who rolls a 26 can increase it to an effective 76 for the purposes of MoS or opposed rolls. If he rolls a 95 he gets an effective 145, and beats the pants off his opponent. I know I speak blasphemy here, but you need to get rid of the Speed attribute. Having a stat that determines how many more turns you get compared to the other players is cruelly unfair to those who, for lack of system mastery, misguided roleplaying concerns or being sleeved in a substandard morph don't max it out. The combat system in general is too fiddly. For a game of dark transhumanist space opera in which death is a temporary inconvenience and the extinction of transhumankind is a real threat, rolling five times to see whether you fall over when you get shot is fiddly and lame. Take advantage of the resleeving mechanic and make combat fast and brutal. Specifically, get rid of the rules for knockdown and unconsciousness - assume almost everyone will have medichines or whatever that will keep them in the fight (flats are an ignorable edge case). Lose Death Rating too: sleeves stop working when they run out of durability, and it's time to break out the grapefruit knife. Give everyone less Durability across the board. It should be relatively easy to kill an unarmoured target with a single burst of gunfire. Firefights should leave dead bodies everwhere. Rethink the armour rules. Robots wearing power armour is stupid. Make it relatively easy for a synthmorph to get the equivalent of heavy armour or better, and then prevent it from wearing heavy armour over the top. You don't need to give a reason. There's no reason for cheap aftermarket additions to significantly increase the effectiveness of all armour - it's just another way for people who read the rulebook more to get an advantage over the poor suckers who want to get on with playing the game. All the ablative patches and reflective coatings and whatever come free with the armour and are represented by the stats of said armour. Get rid of the Steel morphs. I liked it when synthmorphs had a bunch of inherent advantages, but biomorphs gave far superior attribute modifiers. It differentiated them, gave a reason for people to use all those cool biomorphs (and they are cool!) without resorting to handwavy social stuff, and it made sense: minds evolved to live in biological bodies will tend to be more at home in those bodies than in artificial ones. In the Altered Carbon sequels, Kovacs complains about how synthetics just don't feel right, and can't wait to get out of one into a nice sleek combat biomorph. Lose the Infolife background advantage/disadvantage. All it does is make Infolife a strictly superior option for hackers and a strictly inferior option for anyone else. Make it easier to buy equipment. At the moment, it is very easy for a player to spend a lot of CP on buying a cool morph and implants and equipment, and then lose it in the first session because the GM wanted to to move the campaign to some other part of the solar system. I'm not sure what you can really do about this aside from making equipment abstract, which is probably a bridge too far - but a sidebar saying 'you can't farcast a sleeve or guns or implants. Talk to your GM about how often you are going to be leaving your body behind you'

Gee4orce wrote:

Of course - with all that worrying about high skilled characters in opposed tests I completely forgot that the current rules use the number rolled as MoS for opposed rolls already! So if it's a 'problem' it's already a problem, and I think Rob's right anyway - MoS over 99 is overkill anyway.

Forgive me if I'm missing something but that's just not the case as far as I am aware.

Core Rules p119 wrote:

In this case, the MoS/MoF is still determined by the difference between the character's roll and their target number.

We are discussing Rob's suggestion that in the case of Opposed Tests (or possibly all tests) MoS is purely determined by the number rolled on the dice. This is much better than the current situation where you are less likely to win the better you performed, which is stupid. However it caps MoS at 98. This is a problem because at the top end results become extremely swingy. If you've got a modified skill of 130+ then you can currently expect a MoS of 30+ 99% of the time. The proposed change makes MoS purely random. It doesn't matter how skilled you are, the higher a MoS you need the less likely you are to achieve it. You are as likely to achieve an excellent success the first time you try your hand at something as you are after spending forty years becoming the most skilled exponent in the entire galaxy. Changing to a fixed TN of 100 and adding skill to dice roll you eliminate both the original problem and the major flaw in the proposed fix. While this is a major change to the way the system currently works it is not in any way more complex. In fact cleverer people than I assure me that it is an order of magnitude less complex. Other than institutional inertia I can't think of any good reason not to just bite the bullet and go with the better solution.

ranx wrote:

I really like the idea of making MoS and opposed rolls simple blackjack. I'm willing to lose a bit of edge case granularity for a faster and more elegant system. If you want to make skill over 100 better, you could go with the Pendragon method: Any amount of skill over 100 is added to your roll. So a character with Infosec 150 after modifiers who rolls a 26 can increase it to an effective 76 for the purposes of MoS or opposed rolls. If he rolls a 95 he gets an effective 145, and beats the pants off his opponent.

This. The newly-proposed system creates an overall cap of 98, after which all further points and bonuses become completely useless outside of present penalties. And if you're the sort that wants better odds at hitting a better MoS, you can forget it; once you hit the cap, your chances of getting an MoS of 30+ are a flat 69% (30-98; queue snickers) much as your chances of getting 60+ are a flat 39%.

ranx wrote:

I know I speak blasphemy here, but you need to get rid of the Speed attribute. Having a stat that determines how many more turns you get compared to the other players is cruelly unfair to those who, for lack of system mastery, misguided roleplaying concerns or being sleeved in a substandard morph don't max it out.

You know, I've played Shadowrun since the early 90s, and have never really questioned speed mechanics back then. I adjusted to the idea that fast characters should be able to get so much more done every game round. Now that you mention it and I take a step back and look at this system I've used for years, this is a bit of a problem. Speed almost creates a tier system, within which characters can only really compete with those on the same or lesser level. a non-combat character with higher speed is still a threat if the other character has used up all their actions... the character with higher speed now has one or more phases where no one else can do anything. It also creates a few mechanical discrepancies which make little sense: let's say you have one character that is speed 4, another that is speed 1, and both of them have the same exact assault rifle. The character with speed 1 can fire their weapon in fully automatic at a pace of 10 rounds a turn (10 bullets every 3 seconds is a 200 rpm rate of fire). That same gun in the hands of someone with speed 4 can fire at a rate of 40 rounds a turn (800 rpm). That's not the only oddity. When the character of speed 1 lays down suppressive fire over the area where the character with speed 4 is, he uses up a single complex action and the character with speed 4 is suppressed the entire turn, with only 10 rounds spent. If the character with speed 4 tries the same trick on the character with speed 1, and that character is not behind cover and has to use their turn to get behind cover, then the character with speed 4 needs only use his first action phase suppressing... after which he has 3 phase in which he can do whatever he wants. If that character with speed 1 is already behind cover when suppression occurs and simply delays their actions, then it seems as though the character with speed 4 has to burn through 40 rounds, unless delaying your actions also delays when your next phase occurs. This also seems to create a flavor discrepancy. There is literally no disadvantage to having greater speed, and all the advantages in the world. You'd think that the majority of morphs in the Eclipse Phase universe would have some sort of speed enhancement. Labor workers get a 100% efficiency increase if enhanced to a speed of 2, which only gets better as your numbers get higher. Soldiers of all colors almost require speed enhancements to be worth a damn, and yet only furies, reapers and sundivers have any sort of speed enhancement for default (+1... the ghost doesn't have greater speed even though it would be nothing but good for him in any stealth scenario). However, there is a potential quick fix to the issue, and it's hidden amongst things that are already present in the game. There are plenty of things in-game (sleights, equipment and the like) that provide extra mental/mesh actions. Perhaps equipment that provides a speed bonus should merely supply the character with extra complex actions (infomorphs get 3 complex actions in a round) perhaps with the caveat that they all can't be the same type of action. This would [i]dramatically[/i] nerf the combat advantage of added speed, while still providing some advantage overall. It might need some tweaking of wording to get to work, and is probably a mechanic that would require severe testing.

ranx wrote:

The combat system in general is too fiddly. For a game of dark transhumanist space opera in which death is a temporary inconvenience and the extinction of transhumankind is a real threat, rolling five times to see whether you fall over when you get shot is fiddly and lame. Take advantage of the resleeving mechanic and make combat fast and brutal. Specifically, get rid of the rules for knockdown and unconsciousness - assume almost everyone will have medichines or whatever that will keep them in the fight (flats are an ignorable edge case). Lose Death Rating too: sleeves stop working when they run out of durability, and it's time to break out the grapefruit knife. Give everyone less Durability across the board. It should be relatively easy to kill an unarmoured target with a single burst of gunfire. Firefights should leave dead bodies everwhere.

Base humans with 20 durability are generally very frail overall. They can't take much before they go down in any given fight. That said, I think that allowing other characters to have more durability goes in line with the idea that transhumans are more hardy (in some cases much more so) than the original ones. Besides, the bread and butter of combat is wounding, not durability. If I'd agree to anything regarding health, it's increasing the penalty for wounds (-20 per, maybe). Also, it might be meant to emphasize the fact that the biggest threat to your life in this world isn't guns and knives. It's nanoswarms that can melt you to liquid crap, alien viruses that can turn you into an insane mutant death machine, and weapons of instantaneous extinction. Against these, your durability amounts to dick.

ranx wrote:

Rethink the armour rules. Robots wearing power armour is stupid. Make it relatively easy for a synthmorph to get the equivalent of heavy armour or better, and then prevent it from wearing heavy armour over the top. You don't need to give a reason. There's no reason for cheap aftermarket additions to significantly increase the effectiveness of all armour - it's just another way for people who read the rulebook more to get an advantage over the poor suckers who want to get on with playing the game. All the ablative patches and reflective coatings and whatever come free with the armour and are represented by the stats of said armour.

I think that an armor cap might help mitigate the extreme advantage that armor provides. Limit the overall effectiveness of worn armor to half durability, and make it so that further points beyond that simply allow you to ignore armor-piercing weapons to some degree. This means that frail morphs remain frail, and beefy morphs like the reaper are still armored death machines... but doesn't completely make bullets useless against certain threats.

ranx wrote:

Get rid of the Steel morphs. I liked it when synthmorphs had a bunch of inherent advantages, but biomorphs gave far superior attribute modifiers. It differentiated them, gave a reason for people to use all those cool biomorphs (and they are cool!) without resorting to handwavy social stuff, and it made sense: minds evolved to live in biological bodies will tend to be more at home in those bodies than in artificial ones. In the Altered Carbon sequels, Kovacs complains about how synthetics just don't feel right, and can't wait to get out of one into a nice sleek combat biomorph.

I don't agree with this. The general transhuman precept in the setting is that synthmorphs don't necessarily feel bad, and that it generally comes down to preference more than anything. This explains why there are so many people who are very comfortable in an artificial shell (the steel liberators). It also means that we can tackle the issue as more of a holdover of old thinking than some built-in disadvantage... the biggest hurdle that synthmorphs have to face is not some inherent problem, but the ever-present and much more subtle element of bio-chauvinism.

ranx wrote:

Lose the Infolife background advantage/disadvantage. All it does is make Infolife a strictly superior option for hackers and a strictly inferior option for anyone else.

Agreed. I think that we all should go through the backgrounds and balance them all against each other to a better degree. Build all backgrounds and factions with a point value of 40 in mind (most of them are already built around this value), and don't worry about the limitations involving specific morph. A person building such a character likely already is going to fit his character within that limitation, and a benefit for it isn't necessary.

sjmcc13 wrote:

Janusfaced wrote:

In Called Shot, I must win with 30+ MoS. It means, If my Target Number is 70 and my target succeed at roll 30, I must roll between 31 and 40. 30- roll is lose or deadlock, and 41+ roll doesn't have enough MoS. So my success rate is 10% in current MoS rule.

Maybe, but called shots should be hard in the first place, as you aare aiming for something that is smaller and normally faster moving then your normal target. Plus if you want to talk about the chances of a called shot hitting, you should do the full math, not just one case, which is wrong anyway because if you rolled a 0, 11 or 22 you would have had a critical and beat his 30 so the odds in that case are really 13%, not including moxie point shenanigans. for a attack 70 attack skill after all modifiers against a fray skill of 40 (80 halfed) you will still have an ~32% chance of making the called shot.

True, but the new proposed "blackjack" mechanic actually makes this roll completely easier. If your opponent rolls a 30, and your target is still 70, you now succeed anywhere between 31 and 70... your MoS is directly tied to your roll, meaning that the same shot was that much easier. I think that was his point... the new proposition actually makes a called shot that much easier, while the old system made sure that it was a challenge if your opponent rolled well enough.

Decivre wrote:

True, but the new proposed "blackjack" mechanic actually makes this roll completely easier. If your opponent rolls a 30, and your target is still 70, you now succeed anywhere between 31 and 70... your MoS is directly tied to your roll, meaning that the same shot was that much easier.

Yes, but is it making it to easy? one of the problems with called shots in some other systems I have played (though they might have been house rules) was that they were too easy, and this is can be a problem depending on the players.

Decivre wrote:

I think that was his point... the new proposition actually makes a called shot that much easier, while the old system made sure that it was a challenge if your opponent rolled well enough.

, But your opponents actions should be making the shot harder, plus what is important is the average case, not a specific sub case, in this example being used to show how the mechanic is flawed, it leads to ANY hit meeting the MoS requirement.

ranx wrote:

STUFF GOES HERE

I would just like to come out as a voice of dissent to most of these changes, just so it is known that there is such. Most of those changes are not little things that slightly change the system (Like the initiative change). While a potential MoS errata is fairly major, it is something that I can accept might be required for some people to enjoy the game more, and it hardly affects me either way. However, most of the changes you propose do not just slightly change the game. They have the potential to make a drastic change to the “feel” of the game, moving it farther from the “crunchy” side of things to a more narrative mode. On Combat being fiddly; A lot of people like fiddly combat. A lot of people like having plenty of tactical options. It is a draw to the game, and changes to it would be met poorly by a lot of those people (To the point where I think a fair few would change system. I know my group and I would.) On the removal of Death Rating; Seriously? Because combat in EP isn't already deadly enough? Almost every single gunfight in my game is done in the first two action turns. Guns destroy people already. The average person (DUR 30, Armour 12/12) can take three good shots to the chest by someone with a Heavy Pistol, and there is a decent chance that one of those shots might knock them unconscious. You want to give people even less of surviving? Why? You can already kill an unarmored target in a single burst with ease. DUR 30, Automatic Rifle firing Hollow Point on burst fire does an average of 28 damage. That person is almost certainly unconscious (WIL*3 at a -40 modifier due to wounds), very close to bleeding out (You only have to roll slightly above average), and is generally out for the count. Even if they get back up, their wound modifiers are going to make them useless. On armor rules; Why does it not make sense for a humanoid robot to be able to wear armor? Most of them are shaped like us, are as strong or much stronger than us, and are generally better than us. They are walking tanks, and are generally combat machines. This is countered by the huge social pressure not to be a walking, talking toaster. Meat good, metal bad. On armor additions (I.e why does someone with a basic competency in the rules do better than I do?); It is a 400 page book, most of which is skippable. The gear chapter is an hours read, tops. I never understood why people who complain about very basic rules mastery. Note, I am not talking about D&D 3.5E stuff where there were nub traps all over the place. It is as simple as having a basic understanding of how the rules work. Not difficult. An hours work, do it in bursts while you are on the toilet or something. InfoMorphs; Oh no, the purely electronic background specifically designed to appeal to the people who like the play the Hacker character is good at what it does. Woe! Oh, and it actually isn't strictly inferior for everyone else. In fact it is fantastic to take for any character other than a Face. It essentially lets you “multiclass” into being a Hacker for an extremely low cost, while leaving your “main” class free. Equipment; So the GM clearly sees that a character has invested a lot of their CP into equipment, and then decides to take it all away, without warning the player beforehand? That isn't a problem with the system, its a problem with the GM. God forbid someone has to be cognizant of the setting/system at character creation. That would just be terrible. TL;DR, I am feeling snarky today, and probably come across as a jackass. Devs – some of us really like the system as it is. Please be aware that the people on these forums might not represent the entire EP community (Although my views also suffer from this, so ignore if you want I guess).

I'm not going to quote everything you say, because I mostly agree with you. However, I will cover a couple things.

CodeBreaker wrote:

On armor rules; Why does it not make sense for a humanoid robot to be able to wear armor? Most of them are shaped like us, are as strong or much stronger than us, and are generally better than us. They are walking tanks, and are generally combat machines. This is countered by the huge social pressure not to be a walking, talking toaster. Meat good, metal bad. On armor additions (I.e why does someone with a basic competency in the rules do better than I do?); It is a 400 page book, most of which is skippable. The gear chapter is an hours read, tops. I never understood why people who complain about very basic rules mastery. Note, I am not talking about D&D 3.5E stuff where there were nub traps all over the place. It is as simple as having a basic understanding of how the rules work. Not difficult. An hours work, do it in bursts while you are on the toilet or something.

I would go so far as to include the fact that any piece of armor can be custom-fitted for a body of virtually any shape. It wouldn't be that ludicrous for someone to make a full-body leather trenchcoat designed for an octomorph... and in that same vein, I could see someone making custom armor suits for reapers designed to compliment their already-present armor capability. However, one problem I do see present with the current system is that there is no particular limitations inherent with armor... You could theoretically put on layer after layer after layer of various armor varieties (robotic enhancement, then worn armor, then stackable worn armor, etc.) to get it to disgusting levels. I think there should either be some semi-reasonable limit to just how much armor you can wear, or to how much effectiveness that armor can have.

CodeBreaker wrote:

InfoMorphs; Oh no, the purely electronic background specifically designed to appeal to the people who like the play the Hacker character is good at what it does. Woe! Oh, and it actually isn't strictly inferior for everyone else. In fact it is fantastic to take for any character other than a Face. It essentially lets you “multiclass” into being a Hacker for an extremely low cost, while leaving your “main” class free.

It's a bit more severe than that. Lemme just quick-build part of an infolife character here: INFOLIFE EXAMPLE COG 1, COO 30, INT 15, REF 20, SAV 1, SOM 23, WIL 15 Infosec 80, Interfacing 80, Programming 80, Research 80 Skill Points remaining to be spent: 217 No other points spent. This one isn't particularly great (the consensus at my tables among the munchkins is that the best COG score for infolife is 11, 21 with exceptional aptitude), but it showcases the big issue. This character got 366 total points worth in skills with only 183 points (326 with only 163 in optimal builds). Considering that most backgrounds are worth 40 free points, this one being worth 173-193 free points is a bit of a discrepancy. Your only limitation is to not purchase social skills (unless you want to lose free points) and to start out with a couple negative traits. This pretty much means that infolife makes not only the best hackers (maxed out stats), but hacker-soldiers. They are effectively the best combat background (mesh or real life), hands down. So yeah, that needs some correcting.

CodeBreaker wrote:

ranx wrote:

STUFF GOES HERE

I would just like to come out as a voice of dissent to most of these changes, just so it is known that there is such. Most of those changes are not little things that slightly change the system (Like the initiative change). While a potential MoS errata is fairly major, it is something that I can accept might be required for some people to enjoy the game more, and it hardly affects me either way. However, most of the changes you propose do not just slightly change the game. They have the potential to make a drastic change to the “feel” of the game, moving it farther from the “crunchy” side of things to a more narrative mode.

I wouldn't worry too much, the devs are pretty unlikely to implement any of the drastic changes I suggested. I'm not particularly inclined to get in an argument over them, but I feel like a few of the things I said could be clearer so I'll elaborate on my reasoning a bit.

Quote:

On Combat being fiddly; A lot of people like fiddly combat. A lot of people like having plenty of tactical options. It is a draw to the game, and changes to it would be met poorly by a lot of those people (To the point where I think a fair few would change system. I know my group and I would.)

I like tactical options! Tactical options are grand. What I want to reduce is handling time. There are five rolls involved in shooting someone (which you can do twice per phase): Attack, defence (which will be low to meaningless for most characters), damage (which involves addition, then subtraction, then subtraction again), knockdown and unconsciousness. At no point in that process are tactical decisions made - you just roll to get a number to compare to another number to generate another number and so on. If you streamlined that process, you could get to the actual tactical decision points a lot faster. People would fall asleep less waiting for their turn, too.

Quote:

On the removal of Death Rating; Seriously? Because combat in EP isn't already deadly enough? Almost every single gunfight in my game is done in the first two action turns. Guns destroy people already. The average person (DUR 30, Armour 12/12) can take three good shots to the chest by someone with a Heavy Pistol, and there is a decent chance that one of those shots might knock them unconscious. You want to give people even less of surviving? Why?

Reducing survivability is just a side effect of my actual goal, which is speeding up combat. Eclipse Phase is a golden opportunity to achieve this, because you can have a system that kills people in one or two dice rolls, and PCs can still come back from the stack or a backup or as a fork.

Quote:

You can already kill an unarmored target in a single burst with ease. DUR 30, Automatic Rifle firing Hollow Point on burst fire does an average of 28 damage. That person is almost certainly unconscious (WIL*3 at a -40 modifier due to wounds), very close to bleeding out (You only have to roll slightly above average), and is generally out for the count. Even if they get back up, their wound modifiers are going to make them useless.

This is exactly what I mean. Lose the unconsciousness roll and the bleeding out roll and the wound modifiers and just say that they're dead. Easy!

Quote:

On armor rules; Why does it not make sense for a humanoid robot to be able to wear armor? Most of them are shaped like us, are as strong or much stronger than us, and are generally better than us. They are walking tanks, and are generally combat machines. This is countered by the huge social pressure not to be a walking, talking toaster. Meat good, metal bad.

I don't care if Synthmorphs are walking tanks. That's a totally legitimate advantage to playing a Synthmorph. Have an armour rating of 50/50 for all I care. What bothers me is that the way to construct a walking tank is to build the terminator, then cover it in patches, then put on a body-stocking that is itself covered in patches, then wear another suit of armour over the top of that (also covered in patches, naturally). That's the bit that's stupid. A PC who wants to sleeve into a giant killbot and go toe-to-toe with TITAN deathmachines should sleeve into a giant killbot and go, not have to page through the book to find the laciest form of armoured underwear for his steel liberator to slip into.

Quote:

On armor additions (I.e why does someone with a basic competency in the rules do better than I do?); It is a 400 page book, most of which is skippable. The gear chapter is an hours read, tops. I never understood why people who complain about very basic rules mastery. Note, I am not talking about D&D 3.5E stuff where there were nub traps all over the place. It is as simple as having a basic understanding of how the rules work. Not difficult. An hours work, do it in bursts while you are on the toilet or something.

I read RPG books recreationally. I build Eclipse Phases characters that I will never use, for fun. I spend hours comparing weapons statistics to construct optimised combat models. I don't have a problem with the rules. But my friend Dave just read Altered Carbon and wants to play this cool new game I mentioned. He wants to play the awesome mercenary guy he saw in the book. He wants to do so tonight, in the one evening a week he has free. He has enough on his plate reading about the setting and the resolution mechanics and the combat rules, without also having to trawl through the equipment section to find the notes about layering armour and patches and stuff in order to keep up.

Quote:

InfoMorphs; Oh no, the purely electronic background specifically designed to appeal to the people who like the play the Hacker character is good at what it does. Woe! Oh, and it actually isn't strictly inferior for everyone else. In fact it is fantastic to take for any character other than a Face. It essentially lets you “multiclass” into being a Hacker for an extremely low cost, while leaving your “main” class free.

See, that's a problem. Where every other background is a small selection of essentially pre-spent CP, being an Infolife actually gives you points - potentially a lot of points. It's simple maths: If you spent more points on computer skills than social skills, you should be an AGI. If you spent more on social skills than computer skills, you shouldn't. It's completely at odds with the way that Character Points should represent capability. Want to be a human hacker? Too bad, the AGI hacker has 100 more CP than you do. Want to be a socialite AGI? Too bad, the human hyperelite has 100 more CP than you do. That's what you get for trying to play against type.

Quote:

Equipment; So the GM clearly sees that a character has invested a lot of their CP into equipment, and then decides to take it all away, without warning the player beforehand? That isn't a problem with the system, its a problem with the GM. God forbid someone has to be cognizant of the setting/system at character creation. That would just be terrible.

I really want to clear this up, because it sounds like I want the system to protect from bad GMs. What I actually want is for the system to enable good GMs. Farcasting is cool! The solar system is cool! It's full of interesting locations! It's totally reasonable for GM's to want to use those bunch of those locations over the course of a single session, let alone campaign. And sleeving into new morpsh for specific mission is awesome and full of plot hooks, just like in Altered Carbon! And players love their toys. I spent more time buying implants and equipment for my first character than I did on the character itself. It was fun, selecting all the cool cybernetics and stuff. But the combination of those two things - a shopping list full of cool toys, and farcasting/resleeving - created a situation where the GM had to wave his hands and conveniently have morphs identical to the ones we left behind waiting for us when Firewall sent us halfway across the solar system, and then again for the next mission, and again and again. It was an unsatisfying solution with no basis in the game mechanics. Nobody was at fault, it was just the way the system and setting combined. Wow, that was a lot longer than I expected. I'm going to bow out now before I end up resembling Frank Trollman. You didn't come across as a jackass, and I hope my style didn't sound too dismissive.

Decivre wrote:

True, but the new proposed "blackjack" mechanic actually makes this roll completely easier. If your opponent rolls a 30, and your target is still 70, you now succeed anywhere between 31 and 70... your MoS is directly tied to your roll, meaning that the same shot was that much easier. I think that was his point... the new proposition actually makes a called shot that much easier, while the old system made sure that it was a challenge if your opponent rolled well enough.

Yes, That's what I meant. In my quick math (my TN at 70, target's TN at 40, without neither critical nor moxie), my odd is 31.8% at current MoS, and 39.5% at new MoS. And even if this case is too small to mind, I am afraiding there might be some test worth to mind.

Gee4orce wrote:

Something that's just come up over in the Firing modes thread is that using BF or FA attacks doesn't actually increase your chance of hitting. Surely, more lead in the air = a better chance (even if slight) of hitting what you're shooting at ? My suggest is: BF gives you a +10 bonus, FA gives you two +10 bonuses. These bonuses can either be spent as a bonus on your TN to hit ('spreading it around' to increase the chance of hitting), or as a +10 bonus to the DV of the attack (focussed attack), or in the case of FA, one of each. Each bonus you add to the attack TN also allows you to hit one additional target within a 1m area. This slightly reduces the DV of a concentrated FA burst - if you prefer, rule that if you add both bonuses to DV, it calculates as the standard 1d10 + 10. The upshot of this rule is that you can play it exactly the same as the rules as written, or the player has the option to increase the chance of hitting at the expense of reduced maximum damage.

I... love... this rule. In fact, I think that this should completely replace the current automatic fire mechanics. It's much simpler overall to simply have bonuses to apply to damage and accuracy. Plus, it gets rid of the oddity that full auto has more armor pierces, and instead implies that full-auto fire to bypass armor via tearing through it with raw damage. One difference I might recommend is that you can only have one +10 bonus applied to damage. +20 damage in full auto with narrow shot is a bit nuts. Instead, you simply get narrow and wide shot choices... narrow shot gets +10 damage with burst, +10 damage and accuracy with full auto; wide shot gets +10 accuracy with burst, +20 accuracy with full auto.

Skimble wrote:

the fact that it's harder to succeed AND get an excellent MoS in competition is absolutely fine.

Why? Seriously, I need to understand your logic here. Alpha has a Seeker Weapons skill of 40 from a skillsoft. He fires at Beta who has a Fray of 99. Alpha is rubbish, it's not even his skill while Beta is about the best there is in the entire solar system at dodging bullets. Alpha rolls a 39 and Beta a 01. Beta has scored an Excellent Success with a MoS of 48 while Alpha has barely scrapped by with a MoS of 1. Beta gets blown into tiny pieces. Why does that make any sense. Compare that with a fixed TN of 100. Alpha rolls 61 and succeeds, barely, with a MoS of 1, Beta rolls a 99 and succeeds Excellently with a MoS of 48. Beta has a total of 148 which easily beats Alpha's 101. Beta dodges the wild shot easily and even manages to flick Alpha the finger as he slips behind cover. I can't see how that doesn't make more sense as a mechanic or how it is any more complex or how it would be difficult to slip into the text of the rulebooks with only minimal layout tweaks.

We already use Initiative as static after the first turn, perhaps that's why I have no issue with it.

While people are suggesting SR4's Narrow and Wide Bursts, I have to say that I never really liked that extra level of combat decision-making in SR4. The real reason was game-specific (involving SR4's armor/net hits rules), but I would prefer the simplicity of just combining the two. The exact numbers depend on game balance, but a Burst should give a small accuracy (and possibly damage) boost, while FA should give a larger one (and more likely both). Nothing crazy, but enough to justify the ammo expenditure.

crizh wrote:

Alpha has a Seeker Weapons skill of 40 from a skillsoft. He fires at Beta who has a Fray of 99. Alpha is rubbish, it's not even his skill while Beta is about the best there is in the entire solar system at dodging bullets. Alpha rolls a 39 and Beta a 01. Beta has scored an Excellent Success with a MoS of 48 while Alpha has barely scrapped by with a MoS of 1. Beta gets blown into tiny pieces. Why does that make any sense. Compare that with a fixed TN of 100. Alpha rolls 61 and succeeds, barely, with a MoS of 1, Beta rolls a 99 and succeeds Excellently with a MoS of 48. Beta has a total of 148 which easily beats Alpha's 101. Beta dodges the wild shot easily and even manages to flick Alpha the finger as he slips behind cover. I can't see how that doesn't make more sense as a mechanic or how it is any more complex or how it would be difficult to slip into the text of the rulebooks with only minimal layout tweaks.

Yes, there is some chance even the Worst can win against the Best, in EP rule. But if I can be frank with you, such uncertainty is the nature of percentile system. If it isn't get along with EP setting and theme, you need a fundamental redesign. Minor patchs like MoS change won't work.

Gee4orce wrote:

The current rules give you 1d10+10 DV for a concentrated full auto burst. My suggestion is the same as this only in a best-case scenario, and usually damage would be less - a concentrated FA attack would give a +2d10 to DV.

Watch your numbers there, that would only serve to make FA weapons even weaker than they already are. +1d10DV adds an AVG value of 5.5 damage to a weapon. +10DV adds 10 (Duh). As I mentioned in the Firing Modes thread, I suggested something a lot like this a few weeks ago. Instead of being able to shunt abilities about I just suggested that BF can sacrifice their +1d10DV for a +10 bonus to hit, and FA can sacrifice their 1d10+10DV for a +30 to hit. Keeps things nice and simple, the GM doesn't have to worry about someone fudging their numbers.

crizh wrote:

No, Alpha was barely successful and Beta was hugely competent. Maybe if you turn it around it might be easier to understand. Alpha also has a Fray skillsoft at 40 and Beta has a modified Spray Weapons skill of 99. Alpha rolls a 19 and barely succeeds and Bravo rolls an 18 which is a 60+ excellent success. Bravo is so accurate that he ought to get +10DV to his damage roll and yet the sorry twit he is targeting somehow evades the shot. If you look at how Bravo's rolls trend you can see the discrepancy very starkly. The lower he rolls the more damage he does, to an Alpha that rolls 19, until at some point he becomes so accurate that he misses.

Or, the upper limit of his accuracy is equivalent to Alpha's roll, while the entire range worse than Alpha's roll sets is total capacity for MoS. To do this while both player's rolls are compared, and the highest MoS wins, one would have to subtract the other's MoS in order to successfully do it, adding another layer of unnecessary math. The current system means that the player's potential success is directly influenced by the success of his or her opponent, without adding an extra step of subtraction.

crizh wrote:

And this is precisely my point. Why not use a mechanic that is less complicated, is statistically identical and doesn't require players to twist their brains in knots to comprehend? Surely the more intuitive the system is the easier it is to learn and the less it intrudes into play?

That's how I feel, but the "roll over 100" mechanic does add a bit of addition to the overall mechanic, with having to add modifiers to your roll. If simplicity in mathematics is a key goal behind the game, then it might not be the best decision... and I say that as the guy that proposed "roll over 100".

Hello, I thought I'd pitch in with some ideas, especially if we're talking some bigger changes to the core book. Not sure if it's too late in the process of making a new book, but here goes. :) I got some of the notes from this thread already: -I too thing that the MoS thing is too clunky in combat. I think all MoS could be based on how high the roll is. The higher it is, the better, if it's not over the skill number. It would have to be capped though. -Seekers and explosives are too weak, especially against vehicles. Try firing a Standard HEAP Seeker on a ground car. You might get a Wound or too on it. -Would be nice with some "mook rules", that is, rules for fast and easy NPCs. GMs can be quite overwhelmed by the record keeping in bigger fights. -Maybe a rule of what happens to a vehicle if it gets "wounded"? Loss of control? Crash? Other than that, there are some nice ideas in the thread. Try to make the combat much faster less clunky. Eirik

Another way of levelling beam with kinetic weapons would be to restrict kinetics in vacuum or exotic atmospheres. Accushot rounds seem to rely on surrounding gas to steer (no good in vacuum). Seekers seem to need oxygen for the scramjet part of their flight (no good in vacuum or inert atmospheres). The suggestions on improved aiming for beam weapons also sounded great.

This is sci-fi, it's kilograms. :)

I like Initiative the way it is. I would be opposed to changing it. Although It might be a good (read - awesome) idea to instead add a sidebar with optional/variant ways to handle some mechanics like Initiative using a d10. I also support the idea of including Shotguns. They are a versatile weapon that I don't think will ever go away. Shredder weapons that shoot clouds of diamond particles don't fit the same niche for me at all creatively or practically. A shotgun is an all purpose weapon and while it might not be as powerful/useful as a shredder weapon is at defeating armor or tech its still going to rip the hell out most biomorph's and its incredibly versatile, durable and reliable. I see pirates using it alot. Not to mention that a underpowered weapon that will tear people up and at the same time NOT punch a hole through a material into a vacuum would see alot of implementation. Stats for some other archaic weapons like the AK-47,a plain old machete, crossbows, (listed under exotic ranged but no stats), etc. would be really nice also. I plan on running alot of scenarios around old earth and relics are most likely going to be more common than functioning nanofabs. Even as a guideline they would be useful. Eclipse Phase is under the creative commons license I think you'd get good mileage out of at least having guidelines for some of these rare and archaic weapons.

sjmcc13 wrote:

Rcarter wrote:

I also support the idea of including Shotguns. They are a versatile weapon that I don't think will ever go away. Shredder weapons that shoot clouds of diamond particles don't fit the same niche for me at all creatively or practically.

Spray weapons are what shotguns would have become in the EP world. Our weapons do not stay static, they are always being refined, this is what shotguns would become. though maybe a rifle version with greater range would be nice, but they are what they would develop into. As to blowing holes in the hull of the habitat, those are going to be much thicker and heavily armored then a shredder can deal at moderate range.

Rcarter wrote:

Stats for some other archaic weapons like the AK-47,a plain old machete, crossbows, (listed under exotic ranged but no stats), etc. would be really nice also.

But the versions of those that would be common are ones upgraded/refined to include the tech of the time, so a EP machete would be a flex cutter which is even described as being Machette like, an AK would be an assault rifle.

Rcarter wrote:

I plan on running alot of scenarios around old earth and relics are most likely going to be more common than functioning nanofabs. Even as a guideline they would be useful.

Yes pre-fall relics would be common on earth, but those would mostly be the gear that was common place at the time of the fall. Unless you are changing the time period, which the way the rules are structured would not be supported very well.

I respectfully disagree. I don't think a shredder could punch a hole in a hab, but a variety of weapons in some circumstances have a large potential to damage the walls protecting us from vacuum exposure. A shotgun using common rounds does not unless that barrier is exceptionally tenuous. We've been using pump action shotguns since the late 1800's and shotguns in various incarnations for over 500 years - they haven't changed much since then, they're not going to change much in another 100-200 years despite radical technological shifts - the fact that EC's primary weapons are still kinetic slug throwers decries any argument to the contrary. While yes I think the shredder weapons are a derivative they are not a a replacement to shotgun, as I said - creatively or practically. Firearms may be streamlined and refined in eclipse phase but that doesn't mean that their archaic counterparts have vanished if anything the existence of nanofabs should make them even more readily available. Along that same vein sure I have a multitool that I can make do just about anything I want or need but sometimes a plain old crowbar is going to do the job just as well if not better.

I don't understand in what sense shotguns are needed. You've got guns, and you've got an array of magic bullets. You've also got shredders, for the cone effect. What else is there, apart from emotional anachronism? Hell, the game says you can underbarrel mount your shredder on your AR, if the lack of flexibility is what's killing you. What's this about breaching walls? Either the shotgun is firing slugs/direct kinetics, in which case it's a regular EP firearm, or it's firing a cone of something, in which case it's a shredder.