Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Annoch on <03-18-20/2109:51>
-
So, looking at what I believe is the newest digital copy of the rulebook it appears that outside of adept powers/cyberware that all unarmed combat has a Damage Value of 2S (2P with dermal deposits)?
Strength apparently does nothing but increase the (mostly useless) Attack Value?
So a Str 8 orc hits exactly as hard as a Str 1 elf with anemia? The same anemic elf with titanium bone lacing hits for twice the damage a Str 9 Troll mountain of muscle does?
Man, I hope I am missing something? Does strength even have a real use in this edition other than a rare lift/carry situation?
Bonus question: Am I missing any rules where strength affects general melee weapons in any way? The anemic elf and the troll mountain both hit you with a club and they both do 3S damage?
Thanks!
-
What is damage?
-
Well, it seems like you want to rant more than have a discussion, but I'll engage you.
Let's start off by acknowledging that we have a pretty fair divergence of opinion on whether adding to AR is a "mostly useless" benefit. This edition revolves almost entirely around the edge mechanic, and getting more edge/edge more easily is actually a Big Fragging Deal. That Str 8 Orc is likely gonna pound the Str 1 elf into the dirt, over time, due to an edge disparity.
Yes, melee combat went away from the Str/X+Y damage codes. Everything is (supposed to be) static DVs now. And yes, in the case of Unarmed strikes that static DV is 2S, no matter what your STR stat is. Of course certain Qualities, Augmentations, and Powers can increase that DV.
The raw DV of an attack was inflated before the errata/nerf. Consider that Massive weapons like Combat Axes and Assault Cannons did LESS damage than optimized unarmed strikes under the preceding STR/2 paradigm. You had the stupid situation where picking up a melee weapon made you less dangerous, not more. Additionally, this is an edition where a fragging anti-tank gun does 7P. I don't care how strong you are, you shouldn't be punching harder than an assault cannon. of course YMMV, but generally I trust you agree a change of SOME kind had to be made? We went, obviously, with turning unarmed DV down rather than cranking everything else up. If you build for unarmed combat, you'll take the qualities/augmentations/powers for it. And when you do, you're swinging 4-5+P punches. That's still remarkably effective, in comparison to the raw damage guns do. Yes, guns have range, but now ALL melee has mad AR, if you take high STR. And rushing into a gunfight with a knife is exactly the kind of "push your luck" heroics that edge is meant to represent!
so, TL;DR: complaining that STR 1 has the same DV as STR X is, imo, a non-sequitur. What's actually more important is the question of who got edge/got edge denied. And if you disagree with that, well then what's more important still than your DV is how big your attacking dice pool is. You do no damage even at infinite STR if you miss. And something you may have missed is that 6we is a bit more flexible with what attributes go with what skill. If you're using a big heavy weapon, your GM is perfectly within her rights to insist you roll Skill + STR instead of Skill + AGI.
Re Bonus Question: There's rules for disarming. Your strength sets an unopposed threshold. STR 1, or even 2, is just itching to give your weapon away to the enemy.
As an addendum: I will point out there's nothing stopping you from expanding the rule regarding the role of STR in hardened cyberlimbs to ALL melee weapons. Just sayin'.
-
Trust me, I wasn't going for a rant but I do admit I am a bit shocked at how little strength does in the game.
I am getting ready to GM a game for new players and one of my players wanted to make a troll bouncer type character and asked me about stats....that's what got me trying to find out how unarmed/strength actually worked.
Strength is almost unused in the game. The only uses I can find are: Unarmed attack rating, a test threshold for a 2 edge action, lift/carry, grappling. All of these are pretty corner case, particularly for a main attribute.
Body on the other hand raises defense value across the board for pretty much everything, gives you more dice to soak damage, adds boxes to the condition monitor, and more.
Again, the game literally rewards you more in close combat for having really strong bones than for actually being strong. Oh, and those strong bones also give you more body, defense, and attack value in addition to the bump to damage. The damage for titanium goes up to 4P, so our Str 1 elf is hitting at heavy pistol/shotgun/AR...or even Ingram Valiant levels and with at least decent attack rating unless his reaction is also terrible.
I dunno, it just seems a bit goofy and un-intuitive. Somehow I have to be able to explain this stuff to my players in a way that makes some kind of sense, as I don't want them to lose interest completely.
Again, not trying to attack anyone or anything.
Thank you for your answer.
-
Nobody answers the damage question 😞 It's a thought that really helps with this issue.
A apear is just as deadly as a bullet even though the force involed is very different. It is very easy to harm a person with the correct application of force and breaking bones is more a function of technique than brute force. If this seems counter intuitive, it is. But I remind you that the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.
A strong person may have an advantage in a fight that a weaker one does not, but there are many other factors to first consider in the question "how much damage will they do?" What are you hitting with? How heavy is it? What is the shape of it? What bit did you use? Where did you hit the person? At what angle did you hit them? How much of your full force actually connected?
As for the utility of strenth, it isn't particularly useful in the real world either. And there are many attributes in SR that are also not super useful. Strength is just the least useful. Or most useless.
-
On one hand I do like the idea of adding more uses for Strength, and some form of boosts to melee for it. On the other hand, given the new damage numbers, we already hit the situation where guns were completely overpowered by a big troll. So I understand the decisions made, even if I want to make tweaks. And I'd love to discuss possible houserules and ways to add that usage without unbalancing the game, but not in a topic that opens up by attacking the new global AR mechanic.
-
I haven't tried sixth in my home game yet, but I'm wondering if it would break anything to just eliminate strength, and replace it with body in the few places that it shows up?
-
What is damage?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
;D
-
I personally have no problem with the flat damage, I get why they did it, all the relatively routine damage codes (excluding things like grenades, powerful spirits) are essentially in the range of 2 to 6.
That being said, from a house rule perspective, it seems to me that the best way to figure out appropriate damage per Str level would be to compare to the Firearms damage...
Hits as hard as a heavy Pistol - +1 DV
Hits as hard as a shotgun/assault rifle - +2 DV
Hits as hard as a machine gun - +3 DV
Hits as hard as a hvy machine gun - +4 DV
I feel like thinking about it from that direction makes it clear that the question isn't really "Why doesn't Strength affect damage?", its more "How much Strength do you need to affect damage given the current range and meaning of other damage values in the game?"
My feeling is that you would need at least 6 Str to get any modification when considered in that fashion, and then maybe and extra +1 for every 3 Str above that, so...
Str 6 +1DV
Str 9 +2 DV
Str 12 +3 DV
etc.
But its really a preference thing, not something that can be objectively established in any fashion. But thinking about this way will ensure some consistency with other damage values.
EDIT: I am interpreting 6 Str to be essentially "the strongest a human being could possibly be without any magical or cyber improvements". I might have that wrong.
-
I haven't tried sixth in my home game yet, but I'm wondering if it would break anything to just eliminate strength, and replace it with body in the few places that it shows up?
Well the immediate 2nd order effect I can perceive is character generation. Attributes across the board are going to end up higher if you have one less place to assign the points. You'd probably have to rejigger the Attribute Priority allotments, but I think lots of people already think that could use some rebalancing anyway (because there's too little incentive to take anything other than A)
-
On one hand I do like the idea of adding more uses for Strength, and some form of boosts to melee for it. On the other hand, given the new damage numbers, we already hit the situation where guns were completely overpowered by a big troll. So I understand the decisions made, even if I want to make tweaks. And I'd love to discuss possible houserules and ways to add that usage without unbalancing the game, but not in a topic that opens up by attacking the new global AR mechanic.
Not really imo. A max strength troll hit for 6DV, that does not over power guns. thats a troll in my book. They hit crazy hard. Now a cybered up adept max strength Troll with bone mods and critical strike out damaged guns, but that is a lot of resources spent do beat a cheap item. And I have no real issue with a 500 kilo monster that can dead lift a couple tons enhanced by magic and tech punching harder than a gun.
Still the easier fix would have been have the skill based off of strength. Have melee weapons based off of one of the other depending on the weapon.
-
Still the easier fix would have been have the skill based off of strength. Have melee weapons based off of one of the other depending on the weapon.
Well, it pretty much already is that way. Except it's based off the circumstance rather than the weapon.
You use Strength rather than Agility while attacking Barriers, for example. I could also see using Strength while fighting underwater. It's not a simulationist game where there's an attempt to explicitly call out what attribute is used with what skill in every possible scenario. GM just says "yeah, in this case roll Strength with your skill here..." whenever it's deemed appropriate.
-
Having thought about it, I think my solution would be to leave the damage at 2S and simply substitute strength for agility in the opposed close combat test. So it is now close combat + strength vs. whatever. This has the effect of giving strength something important to do in game, it now directly affects unarmed/melee damage without being a straight increase (still gotta roll those 5's and 6's) and takes just a little out agility's dominance. It's also thematic and already fits with the existing text in the book about how important strength is for unarmed combat....
-
Having thought about it, I think my solution would be to leave the damage at 2S and simply substitute strength for agility in the opposed close combat test. So it is now close combat + strength vs. whatever. This has the effect of giving strength something important to do in game, it now directly affects unarmed/melee damage without being a straight increase (still gotta roll those 5's and 6's) and takes just a little out agility's dominance. It's also thematic and already fits with the existing text in the book about how important strength is for unarmed combat....
This has been a fairly common suggestion thus far. Given that they wanted damage codes to be more rigid in this edition, I am baffled this wasn't implemented from the start. Unless you plan to build a grappler (which is decent, but the action economy of it is less than efficient since you have to use a major to grab before you can start doing real damage), the attribute is truly without value currently.
Some people say "but disarm", to which I say "not likely". Called shot disarm takes 5 edge, does no damage, works on any weapon held, and strength is not a factor (it just requires a successful attack test vs. defense). Then you have Wrest, which is more efficient requiring only 2 edge, but it also requires you to successfully block the attack - taking both a minor action and a successful defense test with your bonus dice from block. Even with block dice bonus most enemies of PR 6 or less will have a hard time succeeding on that defense test vs. a dedicated attacker worth their salt. So is it possible? Sure. Is it likely to happen on more than rare occasion? No.
The real problem with melee attacks doing less damage (or even just equal damage) than ranged attacks is that you no longer have mechanical incentive to use them because ranged attacks have all the advantages, with the exception of generally lower AR. Compared to the higher damage capacity and better action economy of ranged weapons (not having to move to attack) though, that AR increase is not remotely sufficient to make them enticing.
-
It have been suggested before (that you get to select between agility for "softer" martial arts and strength for "harder" martial arts). Also you get to select between agility for "agile" melee weapons (such as chains, rapiers, daggers, etc) and strength for "blunt" melee weapons (such as clubs, claymores, axes).
...but I think this was mostly before we realized that strength is a function of attack rating for both unarmed as well as most melee weapons.
If you have a focus on melee weapons but dump your strength to 1 or so then you will probably not gain edge as often (or even give away edge to the opponent!) and the wrest edge action might start to cause you some serious issues. But say 3-4 strength will probably be enough most of the time. More would be to guarantee always having a tactical advantage, but also perhaps if you have a focus on grapple or archery.
And yes, I think it could actually be a good idea to merge strength into body and use the combined strength-body attribute in the few cases where strength show up. Earlier iterations of 6E the talked about turning the Perception skill into an attribute. This would have been a perfect opportunity to merge strength and body (as you would keep all the priority table and karma related stuff intact), but since skills in general are much broader in 6E I think perception as a skill actually fit well now (for perhaps the first time in shaodwrun history). This mean such a merge would probably cause some unwanted ripple effects when it comes to attribute points, metatype maximum attributes and adjustment attribute points etc.
-
I haven't tried sixth in my home game yet, but I'm wondering if it would break anything to just eliminate strength, and replace it with body in the few places that it shows up?
I've had this same thought but I haven't tried it yet. I need to run through chargen a few times using this approach to see how well it works. Anarchy combined Body and Strength together and I really liked the result. I grant that they're not the same thing, but they're similar enough that it makes sense to combine them in a game that's - by necessity - an abstraction. (To what degree it's an abstraction is often where you'll find much of the underlying disagreement about rules.)
-
What did they call the combined attribute? Body?
-
It have been suggested before (that you get to select between agility for "softer" martial arts and strength for "harder" martial arts). Also you get to select between agility for "agile" melee weapons (such as chains, rapiers, daggers, etc) and strength for "blunt" melee weapons (such as clubs, claymores, axes).
Why do people think you need to be really strong to use a claymore when they weigh around 3 kilos?
-
Because of Hollywood
-
Strength apparently does nothing but increase the (mostly useless) Attack Value?
you're 100% correct and this it's the perfect exemplar of how 6e is a game of dank memes with no connection to reality or common sense.
when a 4lb pixie hits as hard as a 400lb combat troll you know shit's gotten silly.
to all the apologists who don't see this as an issue can i ask: why do all combat sports have weight classes?
there's far more that's inane/ ridiconculous in 6e (bikini being functionally equivalent to an armored jacket comes to mind) and that's the core reason so many long time srun players have not adopted the new version.
imho 6e is just inane.
-
The point of strength being doubled up between Attack rating and the roll is fair enough.
But, since we are already just abstracting everything, we could just switch Agility to the Attack Rating and say that a more agile person can act first or are better at hitting weak spots of whatever.
Honestly you could make a case for putting any of the stats in the attack value calculation for unarmed...except Charisma probably...that would be a tough sell.
Body: A strike from a well built individual has more power
Agility: can maneuver around opponents defenses or make precise strikes.
Willpower: Has discipline and can wait for the right moment
Intuition: Strikes the weak spots without needing to think about it
Logic: Is able to find gaps in armor or can analyze the opponents moves
So...make attack rating any of the above+reaction and the test is on strength + close combat.
-
Strength apparently does nothing but increase the (mostly useless) Attack Value?
you're 100% correct and this it's the perfect exemplar of how 6e is a game of dank memes with no connection to reality or common sense.
when a 4lb pixie hits as hard as a 400lb combat troll you know shit's gotten silly.
to all the apologists who don't see this as an issue can i ask: why do all combat sports have weight classes?
there's far more that's inane/ ridiconculous in 6e (bikini being functionally equivalent to an armored jacket comes to mind) and that's the core reason so many long time srun players have not adopted the new version.
imho 6e is just inane.
I have no experience with war situations, or life or death gunfire where I am armed. I would hazard to say that in such situations, reflexes and good aim are far more vital than physical strength.
I have had some experience with armed melee combat in non-sparring situations. Physical strength is important, but so still are reflexes and good aim. Which is more? Hard for me personally to say.
Where I have had tremendous experience is unarmed combat - nearly 10 years of prize fighting, and more street brawls than I can remember. During my prize fighting decade in my mid 20's, I wanted to learn Muay Thai badly, so moved to Thailand for a year. After 9 months of daily training I started prize fighting over there for the last 3 months of my journey. Things are very different over there. Their professional promotions do have weight classes that most of us would be familiar with. There are just as many (and the ones I fought in since I was not professional or recognized in the art) that don't have squat - they book whatever sells tickets. Literally every opponent I fought there was more skilled in Muay Thai than I was, but I had the benefit of completely dwarfing the average 140 lb. Thai fighter at 6'2" 230. Those guys were fearless though, and did not give one single f, and I had 22 fights in those 3 months. I was able to have 22 fights in such a short time, despite being outclassed in skill level, because the weight (strength) class was so unsporting that even though I got banged up a lot, one to three good to decent hits was all it took me to KO or TKO. Those fights had to be boring as hell to watch for the audience, other than maybe the sadists.
My point: Anyone who doesn't think strength is a (not the, but a) dominant factor in how deadly (force) your physical attacks are either lacks experience with the matter they are speaking of, or is divorced from reality. Go watch some of Mike Tyson's early fights from the late 80's if you want to see what happens when a much stronger person pummels a much weaker person if you need to see if with your own eyes.
-
when a 4lb pixie hits as hard as a 400lb combat troll you know shit's gotten silly.
adzling I know nothing will change your mind so I'm not attempting to persuade you. I'm responding to your comment because I wish to point out to those who aren't set in their ways that the sentiment is missing what I think are the relevant points.
There's more to combat than the DV. Yes, STR doesn't affect DV... so STR 1 and STR 9 both have the same unarmed DV. And melee weapons don't (as of yet, maybe in the future...) gain bonus damage from high Strength. That's a given. But there's a small fallacy here: How much the attack is staged up (or down) have a large impact on how "hard" the hit was.
Furthermore, I wish you'd stop bringing up Pixies. They're clearly an outlier among formerly playable races, but what's more important is they're NOT as of yet a playable race in 6we. For all you, I, or anyone else reading this thread knows, if/when they ARE published for 6we they very well might have a special rule saying their melee damage is capped at 1 or 2 boxes of damage, due to their tiny mass. So you can't really compare a 4 lb pixie to a 400 lb troll... they're not both equally valid for play. And even if/when they become so, we don't know what their rules/handicaps may be.
And also: let's say the comparison is instead between a 90 lb STR 1 elf and a 400 lb STR 9 troll. Give each one an axe. Which one is going to chop through an inanimate object first? The troll will, because Strength matters for damaging barriers and Agility doesn't. Ok, so combat isn't between animate and inanimate objects? Fine, STR 1 Elf vs STR 9 troll. everything else being equal, they should have equal odds of victory if the only difference is STR and STR doesn't matter, right?
Elf w STR 1, and 3s in every other relevant stat vs Troll w STR 9, and 3s in every other relevant stat:
In unarmed combat, the Troll has AR 12 and the Elf has AR 4. Vs Bod 3, the Troll is gaining edge every attack and the Elf is not. Heck, with some armor the Troll is potentially GAINING edge on the Elf's attack, but let's pretend they're fighting in swimwear because "armor doesn't matter anyway", right?
For the purposes of this example the Troll and Elf have identical dice pools for attack and dodge and soak. Without any augmentations or melee weapons, it's going to take numerous rounds for either one to knock out the other. And the more rounds it goes, the more disadvantaged the elf with 1 STR is because the Troll is generating more edge, and will get to a dominant advantage via edge before the elf can randomly accumulate enough swings to fill out the Troll's CM. Every time.
So, that demonstrates that STR is not pointless, because where the Troll had that only that one advantage over the Elf, he wins every time. Crucially, solely because of that advantage.
-
So, that demonstrates that STR is not pointless, because where the Troll had that only that one advantage over the Elf, he wins every time. Crucially, solely because of that advantage.
That advantage is really not even remotely worth the investment though, due to how minor it is.
Make the Troll's Strength 3, and Body 9. Now that would be a distinct advantage, and one appropriate for the resources invested. For melee combat, every physical stat is more useful than Strength. Every single one.
-
So, that demonstrates that STR is not pointless, because where the Troll had that only that one advantage over the Elf, he wins every time. Crucially, solely because of that advantage.
That advantage is really not even remotely worth the investment though, due to how minor it is.
The guarantee of a favorable outcome is a minor benefit? I'm truly boggled.
Make the Troll's Strength 3, and Body 9. Now that would be a distinct advantage, and one appropriate for the resources invested. For melee combat, every physical stat is more useful than Strength. Every single one.
I wasn't addressing a complaint that Body is worth more than Strength. I was addressing the common (and imo faulty) complaint that Strength is flatly worthless. And I think the demonstration of "everything equal, except for strength. So, who wins in a face off?" aptly does the job of torpedoing that allegation.
Is Body more valuable than Strength? I acknowledge that almost all the time, yes it is. But again, that's besides the point being discussed.
-
The guarantee of a favorable outcome is a minor benefit? I'm truly boggled.
And I think the demonstration of "everything equal, except for strength. So, who wins in a face off?" aptly does the job of torpedoing that allegation.
You're right - I did not respond to you with proper explanation. Let me try that again.
Yes, your example is accurate. If all else is equal but Strength, the advantage will go to the person with greater strength.
The problem with that example that I have is that is not remotely realistic. Strength exists as part of a greater whole, not in a vacuum. The troll has 1 maxed stat, the rest are average, and no appreciable "extras" (magic, cyber, ect.). The elf has a dumpstat, and the rest all average? This will never happen, and because of that, I believe the example is inherently flawed.
Strength is like DR in the since that it scales badly because if you have enough there is no need for more. Literally everything else besides AR = more is always better (more defense dice, more attack dice, more magic dice, ect.). I get what the designers were going for, a more regimented damage code with lower numbers, and I support that goal. We can just do it better without making Strength an afterthought for the characters it should be most attractive to.
I agree that Strength is not automatically flatly worthless, but I also believe it is the only Attribute capable of being flatly worthless, which is a problem. And even in cases where it is not flatly worthless, it is largely worthless in comparison to what a higher agility, body, or reaction will get you.
-
The elf has a dumpstat, and the rest all average? This will never happen, and because of that...
It is not uncommon that, attribute wise, elf players prioritize charisma over strength. There, now the example is perfectly fine ;)
-
I think the folks saying that strength is obviously related to how much damage a person can do in a hand to fight are absolutely correct. No question.
The question is, how MUCH should it be related.
In the context of Shadowrun 6E damage codes where 2P is a light pistol and 3P is a heavy pistol...I strikes me that the entirety of human damage potential (without magic or cyber) is essentially somewhere between 1S and 3S. That's the entire range of normal human strength damage. From that perspective, just saying its 2S across the board is not that big a deal outside the context of cyberwear or magic.
EDIT - to be clear, I think there should be SOME relationship between Strength and DV in the system in a perfect world, I just don't think it would kick in until very high Strength values and am glad that now, at least, the system is fairly consistent in how it handles damage in melee vs. unarmed.
-
The elf has a dumpstat, and the rest all average? This will never happen, and because of that...
It is not uncommon that, attribute wise, elf players prioritize charisma over strength. There, now the example is perfectly fine ;)
You misunderstand. What I mean is that an elf with attributes of 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 has only 14 points, while a troll with 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 has 22. If you want the example to be appropriate that elf needs 8 more points spent, otherwise it was "rigged" from the start.
I agree with you about str and cha being common dump starts.
-
The elf has a dumpstat, and the rest all average? This will never happen, and because of that...
It is not uncommon that, attribute wise, elf players prioritize charisma over strength. There, now the example is perfectly fine ;)
You misunderstand. What I mean is that an elf with attributes of 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 has only 14 points, while a troll with 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 has 22. If you want the example to be appropriate that elf needs 8 more points spent, otherwise it was "rigged" from the start.
I agree with you about str and cha being common dump starts.
Well, bear in mind that an Elf with attributes of 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 wan't in my example. In my example, the Elf and Troll had equal values in all RELEVANT stats/skills. So that elf in my example might have had 8 Charisma. Went unspecified because Charisma wasn't relevant to the example of Close Combat.
Now, if you want to bring in more factors into the example besides the role of Strength, the demonstration becomes less stark. But, hypothetically speaking, let's say it's two combatants, with 3s in all relevant stats except Combatant A has 6 Body and Combatant B has 6 STR.
Combatant B is gaining the edge advantage due to AR in the same way the Troll was in my earlier example. But, A has an improved soak pool the Elf did not.
In the early rounds of the fight, A has the advantage. Equal dice pools mean it's an even split as to who scores a hit, but with Body 6 Combatant A is likely suffering Zero accumulated damage for every random blow that lands, whereas Combatant B is likely accumulating 1 box of damage per each of A's random hits. Barring edge, Combatant A is going to win.
But that's the rub. Edge is EVERYTHING. And B is drowning A in it. B will probably accumulate some damage, but before long A will be ground down as the dice will go B's way as rerolls overpower chance. B will get powerful Edge actions. It's not as guaranteed as the earlier example, but B's higher Strength SHOULD carry the win over A's higher Body. In practical terms, the early rounds would probably decide the ultimate outcome: A has to get B to a critical mass on wound penalties before the Edge turns the fight inevitably B's way.
- to be clear, I think there should be SOME relationship between Strength and DV in the system in a perfect world, I just don't think it would kick in until very high Strength values and am glad that now, at least, the system is fairly consistent in how it handles damage in melee vs. unarmed.
I'd like a mechanic where the DV bonus for high STR with Hardened Cyberlimbs applied instead to all Close Combat attacks. As I mentioned upthread, I think that's a fine house rule.
-
Well, bear in mind that an Elf with attributes of 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 wan't in my example. In my example, the Elf and Troll had equal values in all RELEVANT stats/skills. So that elf in my example might have had 8 Charisma. Went unspecified because Charisma wasn't relevant to the example of Close Combat.
Ok then, sure, but that doesn't really change my perception. With your relevant example being a troll with S9 B3 A3 R3 vs. an elf with S1 B3 A3 R3 you're basically saying "a strength based combat character has the advantage against a non-combat character". If you want the example to be an appropriate comparison the two characters need to be roughly equal in their field. The troll has 8 additional combat attributes over the elf. Of course he has the advantage, it's like an adult deciding to beat up children.
Give that elf a single maxed attribute and the rest average like the troll and your outcome will look very different. Give that elf all 8 missing points to make it truly even, and that strength troll is certain to lose without highly improbably superior rolls. A troll with S9 B3 A3 R3 vs. elf with S1 B5 A7 R5 for example, or even S4 B4 A5 R5 if you want a more balanced spread without dumping strength to show a strong dude vs. a ludicrously strong dude.
See what I mean?
-
I think I slipped you while you posted. I anticipated you making that point, and preemptively addressed it during my slip.
to repeat myself here on this page:
"Now, if you want to bring in more factors into the example besides the role of Strength, the demonstration becomes less stark. But, hypothetically speaking, let's say it's two combatants, with 3s in all relevant stats except Combatant A has 6 Body and Combatant B has 6 STR.
Combatant B is gaining the edge advantage due to AR in the same way the Troll was in my earlier example. But, A has an improved soak pool the Elf did not.
In the early rounds of the fight, A has the advantage. Equal dice pools mean it's an even split as to who scores a hit, but with Body 6 Combatant A is likely suffering Zero accumulated damage for every random blow that lands, whereas Combatant B is likely accumulating 1 box of damage per each of A's random hits. Barring edge, Combatant A is going to win.
But that's the rub. Edge is EVERYTHING. And B is drowning A in it. B will probably accumulate some damage, but before long A will be ground down as the dice will go B's way as rerolls overpower chance. B will get powerful Edge actions. It's not as guaranteed as the earlier example, but B's higher Strength SHOULD carry the win over A's higher Body. In practical terms, the early rounds would probably decide the ultimate outcome: A has to get B to a critical mass on wound penalties before the Edge turns the fight inevitably B's way."
-
Yep, I missed that while posting then editing. No worries.
Unless I have missed something (we are talking unarmed?), neither should gain edge on attack. Character A has AR 6/DR 6, character B has AR 9/DR 3. You need 4 or more to generate edge? If we are talking armed, then both will just generate edge on attack rolls.
-
Yep, I missed that while posting then editing. No worries.
Unless I have missed something (we are talking unarmed?), neither should gain edge on attack. Character A has AR 6/DR 6, character B has AR 9/DR 3. You need 4 or more to generate edge? If we are talking armed, then both will just generate edge on attack rolls.
Ah, yes. Fair to point out my math fail. So yes that example does go to prove basically what everyone already knew anyway.. STR is not point for better than BOD. Strength's advantage manifests in Edge, and you need to break that 4 pip threshold to get your benefit from STR, whereas every die of BOD/AGI gives you a more granular (and reliable) +1 die per point of investment. Need to invest *heavily* into STR to ensure you get your benefit, or (perhaps more plausibly) simultaneously employ other AR enhancements (investing in Reaction/employing melee weapons, cyberware, etc)
-
It's all good man, we've all been off on math before.
I get your point - strength is potentially useful for edge gain. I don't disagree with that, but I do addendum that statement with saying it's so simple to ensure edge gain on attack with melee than strength is easily made irrelevant. Monofilament whip + reaction, implanted in a fingertip or cyberarm so wrest can go f itself, actually renders strength moot.
In addition to that, it's not just Body that is superior. Each of Agility, Body, and Reaction grossly outperforms Strength point for point. It is my pigheaded stubborn opinion that Strength should be the number one factor in determining how much damage a melee attack inflicts, with the weapon itself being a very close second. A troll with a Strength of 14 should be able to hit you with literally anything and expect to mangle you, where as those with more modest to good (3-7) will want an excellent weapon to ensure their power is delivered in the most advantageous way.
-
Well, doesn't it sound like "works as intended" when MFWs render investments in STR moot? It's not like you needed 6 STR in 5e when you used a MFW, either.
And yes, Edge Gain is really the main point here and yes there's lots of ways to get Edge, potentially meaning you don't need STR to get it.
But does it actually make sense to forfeit an avenue to gain edge? Particularly one that'd be fairly reliable in the form of high STR? Because, there's always the possibility that whatever other avenues you rely on could be circumstantially denied. There's certainly a point where "lots of ways to gain Edge" becomes a struggle to gain Edge once some options go off the table. You can strategically "hedge a handicap" on your melee monster and eschew Strength, but that's just one more avenue you're willfully blocking yourself from using. Not getting edge in melee while you have low STR is akin to striking out in baseball after spotting the pitcher a free strike.
...In addition to that, it's not just Body that is superior. Each of Agility, Body, and Reaction grossly outperforms Strength point for point. It is my pigheaded stubborn opinion that Strength should be the number one factor in determining how much damage a melee attack inflicts, with the weapon itself being a very close second. A troll with a Strength of 14 should be able to hit you with literally anything and expect to mangle you, where as those with more modest to good (3-7) will want an excellent weapon to ensure their power is delivered in the most advantageous way.
Well, it depends. MOST of the time, yes BOD/AGI/REA give a superior benefit in the form of +dice on a point for point basis. However, there's no substitute for STR in certain tasks. Like chopping through barriers, lifting something heavy, and etc. Maybe there should be "more" of such situations... but again the GM can say what attribute is relevant for any given skill test. There's nothing stopping you from saying "attacks with axes and blunt weapons have to roll Close Combat + STR instead of + AGI".
-
The whip is just one example (the most egregious one). Even without adding more than 1 strength to other melee attacks, they were already balanced with comparatively solid ARs. Just like firearms though that is no guarantee, but on average, you should be looking decent.
I agree with you on the edge gain front and options. There will be times that not taking an option will be felt. That said, for the most part, hyperoptimizing will usually get you through fine.
And the problem with non-combat tasks that require strength is there is so much gear that neutralizes the need. In short, I firmly believe that any strength based melee build anyone designs will be outperformed in and out of combat (all those free attribute points from not having strength) by an agility/reaction build who dumped strength.
-
What did they call the combined attribute? Body?
Anarchy calls it Strength.
Anarchy only has five attributes - Strength, Agility, Logic, Willpower, Charisma - which has a certain appeal to it from a game-design standpoint because each Attribute is used so frequently and is thus so valuable that dump stats become significant weaknesses that show up regularly rather than minor inconveniences that can be readily avoided.
Where I have had tremendous experience is unarmed combat - nearly 10 years of prize fighting, and more street brawls than I can remember.
Thanks for sharing your experiences, which I thought were interesting.
-
...
And the problem with non-combat tasks that require strength is there is so much gear that neutralizes the need. In short, I firmly believe that any strength based melee build anyone designs will be outperformed in and out of combat (all those free attribute points from not having strength) by an agility/reaction build who dumped strength.
Well, despite the elfs and orks and wizards it's a science fiction setting. Anything that requires brute strength is justifiably better done by a tool or a machine than by elbow grease and putting your back into it. There more modern the technology, the less important strength basically is, across the board. You don't need to chop a tree down with an axe when you have a chainsaw. You don't need people to hoist cargo when you have forklifts. Etc.
So does that mean STR shouldn't factor in very often? Surely being strong still has real-life, noncombat applications even in a world with chainsaws and forklifts, right? Maybe the shadowrun requires your character to hike up to a hilltop. In real life, being strong means you can probably hike up there without getting winded. So maybe the GM decides that everyone who doesn't have at least X amount of STR gets some level(s) of the Fatigue status. It takes real physical strength to drive NASCAR or a fighter jet. If you're driving a high performance vehicle through some extreme stunts (and you're not in VR...) the GM might say you can't gain or spend edge if you have low STR. Etc.
-
The elf has a dumpstat, and the rest all average? This will never happen, and because of that...
It is not uncommon that, attribute wise, elf players prioritize charisma over strength. There, now the example is perfectly fine ;)
You misunderstand. What I mean is that an elf with attributes of 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 has only 14 points, while a troll with 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 has 22. If you want the example to be appropriate that elf needs 8 more points spent, otherwise it was "rigged" from the start.
I agree with you about str and cha being common dump starts.
You misunderstand me I think....
It is not uncommon that troll dump charisma (in favor of strength) while elf dump strength (in favor of charisma).
So, rather than comparing an elf with 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 to a troll with 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 perhaps you can change the example to an elf with 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 vs a troll with 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.
Now they spend equal amount of attributes and it is no longer rigged and the example can be used to highlight that charisma don't seem to have an impact on unarmed combat while strength, unlike what some people seem to argue, does have an impact on unarmed combat.
The troll investing in strength (rather than charisma) will probably win against the elf that invested into charisma (rather than strength). Ergo, investing into Strength is not useless if you have a focus on unarmed combat.
It is maybe not a very useful attribute, but at least I think we can agree that it seem to have more impact on the outcome on unarmed combat than for example charisma.
Anarchy only has five attributes - Strength, Agility, Logic, Willpower, Charisma - which has a certain appeal to it from a game-design standpoint because each Attribute is used so frequently and is thus so valuable that dump stats become significant weaknesses that show up regularly rather than minor inconveniences that can be readily avoided.
Interesting. Thanks.
-
Thanks for sharing your experiences, which I thought were interesting.
Mostly shared as an explanation for my I am so deeply bothered by how the attribute's combat role was implemented.
Well, despite the elfs and orks and wizards it's a science fiction setting. Anything that requires brute strength is justifiably better done by a tool or a machine than by elbow grease and putting your back into it.
You're not wrong, and I also don't have a problem with that by itself, just a problem with that in conjunction with how little else the Attribute does being so divorced from a more prominent combat role.
You misunderstand me I think....
Ah, so I did. I understand what you meant now.
I find that example just as rigged, primarily for the reasons I highlighted to SSDR above you're basically saying your combat focused troll can beat up the non-combat focused elf face. Well no duh.
The troll investing in strength (rather than charisma) will probably win against the elf that invested into charisma (rather than strength). Ergo, investing into Strength is not useless if you have a focus on unarmed combat.
If you want a proper comparison here you need to make a strength based unarmed troll vs. an strength dumped but equal attribute unarmed elf. Anything less is not saying "Here is the use of strength", it is saying "The character with superior physical attributes wins vs. the character with less".
-
Where I have had tremendous experience is unarmed combat - nearly 10 years of prize fighting, and more street brawls than I can remember. During my prize fighting decade in my mid 20's, I wanted to learn Muay Thai badly, so moved to Thailand for a year. After 9 months of daily training I started prize fighting over there for the last 3 months of my journey. Things are very different over there. Their professional promotions do have weight classes that most of us would be familiar with. There are just as many (and the ones I fought in since I was not professional or recognized in the art) that don't have squat - they book whatever sells tickets. Literally every opponent I fought there was more skilled in Muay Thai than I was, but I had the benefit of completely dwarfing the average 140 lb. Thai fighter at 6'2" 230. Those guys were fearless though, and did not give one single f, and I had 22 fights in those 3 months. I was able to have 22 fights in such a short time, despite being outclassed in skill level, because the weight (strength) class was so unsporting that even though I got banged up a lot, one to three good to decent hits was all it took me to KO or TKO. Those fights had to be boring as hell to watch for the audience, other than maybe the sadists.
My point: Anyone who doesn't think strength is a (not the, but a) dominant factor in how deadly (force) your physical attacks are either lacks experience with the matter they are speaking of, or is divorced from reality. Go watch some of Mike Tyson's early fights from the late 80's if you want to see what happens when a much stronger person pummels a much weaker person if you need to see if with your own eyes.
thank you for this, i had exactly this same argument with a tool on reddit the other day, except he swore up and down that strength made little difference. I asked him to explain why do ALL combat sports use weight classes then and he had no good answer other than "it's irrelevant" which clearly it's not otherwise weight classes would have gone away a long time ago.
It's clear on it's face, both from a common sense perspective and a proven world perspective (weight classes) that strength is *very* important in melee combat, both armed and unarmed.
6e pisses on that, and by extension pisses on many other common sense well known physical effects in the world.
in short: it beggars belief.
and that's my core issues with 6e, it's an inane game of dank memes that make a mockery of shadowrun.
-
For me, allowing melee weapons attack tests to be strength + close combat would be a barely acceptable fix. What I would really prefer is a total revamp on damage codes, though sticking with the design decision of less overall damage, which was a good idea.
Firearms should range from 2P to 6P at base, with the ability to play with firing modes and ammo, which at best should add +2 DV.
Melee weapons should be unarmed 1S, light one handed weapons (knife, baton, ect) 1P (basically just changing damage to P from S), heavier one handed weapons (axe, club, sword) 2P, two-handed weapons 3P, then add 1/2 Strength score on top.
Max ranged damage 8P, max melee damage for a troll 10P. Considering the base advantages ranged attacks have over melee, that would be ideal balance wise.
Then have armor, ratings from 1 to 4 (plus add ons) add to soak and the only two things that make the edition completely unpalatable to me are fixed.
-
"Weight classes" is about length, bone density, your body's genetic ability to build body and muscle mass (there is a reason why male and female compete in different classes). You can only come so far by training your "strength" alone. You also need to be "big". The guys Lormyr was facing in Thailand was probably as "maxed out" strength-wise as he was - but being bigger, matters.
Much of this is represented by the Body attribute in Shadowrun, but it also goes hand to hand with the Strength attribute (to be honest, I don't think we would have missed out too much by combining the two into one attribute because even in real life it is hard to maximize one without the other).
I think we just agreed that skipping out on strength in favor for Charisma (or Logic) will turn you into a [slightly] worse fighter than if you put the points into Strength. That Strength matters [at least to some extent].
I think we also agree that if you wish to become a great unarmed fighter you would probably want a good mix of Body, Reaction, Agility, Intuition, Willpower..... and Strength (that the only two attributes that don't really contribute during a fist-fight would be Charisma and Logic). No matter if we talk real life or Shadowrun.
The disconnect does not seem to be if Strength (but also Armor) give you an advantage or not (because it seem as they do), the disconnect rather seem to be that the mechanical advantage you gain by investing into strength (but also Armor) is not perceived to be as potent as some of the other attributes.
So - Maybe what we are really arguing here is if gaining a tactical advantage over your opponent maybe is not as "strong" of an advantage as it perhaps should be.
...and that this would in turn boil down to that the perceived "value" of edge might be a bit on the low side.
Does that sound about right?
-
They seem like basically good ideas, Lormyr. But, speaking as a devil's advocate on a couple points:
What I would really prefer is a total revamp on damage codes, though sticking with the design decision of less overall damage, which was a good idea.
If there's a whole new calculus to arrive at the same (or similar) DVs for non-extreme cases, is the process truly worth it to cover the extreme cases? Is it THAT important to have a leg up in both DV and edge potential? In your real-life anecdotal example (if I understand it correctly), your superior size and strength manifested as an advantage that resulted in exactly the kind of interplay I attempted to illustrate in my 2nd example, where STR was offset by some other advantage (sounds like in their case, more Close Combat skill vs your higher STR). Only in your example you actually had sufficient STR to gain edge vs their DR. You take some early damage, but unless they got to a critical mass of accumulating some wound penalties on you, your higher STR results in advantages that would in game terms be manifested by edge expenditures ultimately overwhelming the opponent. I honestly look at your anecdote and see it validating the current mechanics, not contradicting them...
Max ranged damage 8P, max melee damage for a troll 10P. Considering the base advantages ranged attacks have over melee, that would be ideal balance wise.
A couple of points. The only guns that hit particularly high on the damage scale are big and not particularly concealable. Note that the change in concealing weapons rules has a ripple effect here in the balance between melee vs guns... you can take your "concealed" fists anywhere. You can smuggle a knife almost anywhere. Not so an assault rifle, and attempting to conceal items in this edition is less effective than it was in 5e (if you're not familiar with why, it's because there's no Palming roll to hide gear anymore. Spotting concealed gear is now an unopposed perception check...). So, the point here is you're apparently not factoring in some inherent advantages that melee has vs guns in the "when can you use them" department while thinking about the inherent range advantage guns have vs melee. You should be comparing fists to Pistols, or at best SMGs. Not to assault cannons.
And, I'm going to quibble with you about how much of an advantage range really is. Shadowrun isn't simulating 6th world warfare... most of the time the range to target is moot because he's in the same room with you. Again, in the case of big guns that do the highest damage, they're not used in close quarters combat that Shadowrun simulates. And if you try it, you suffer the penalty of a terrible Close range AR.
Another point: The potential for raw DV of 10 is game-breaking. It also completely contradicts the design decision for less overall damage, which you said was something you supported. You're not SUPPOSED to be reliably able to obliterate a CM with a single attack, so that combat is a back and forth affair that stretches over multiple rounds. This is for the PC's benefit as well, remember. Not that the example of D&D was part of the calculus, but take D&D as an example of an alternate RPG. If you're fighting an impressively powerful monster (like, say, a dragon!) does the game support the realistic chance of you going from full HP to eliminated in one attack? That is not a reasonable or probable scenario so long as you're fighting a monster that's "level appropriate". What I'm saying here is games can "work" if you have to work several rounds at eliminating a target. Even combat-heavy games like D&D.
Of course, you don't HAVE to spend several rounds eliminating an opponent in 6th. Professional Rating works as a morale mechanic, and most NPCs you face will begin to be happy to give up after suffering a mere 3, 4, or even 5 damage. Dealing 10DV is quite unnecessary almost all of the time. Hit the sec guard for 5, and he should be content to hide behind cover and let you escape.
But it's important to KILL the sec guard, not just escape from him? Ok, 1) what kind of a psychopath are you playing, and why do you get your jollies off on that? 2) granted, sometimes just letting the sec guard cower doesn't stop him from radioing for backup, and maybe you're not at that stage in the run where you're making your escape. You need him offline, and you don't want to bother with prisoners or dealing with taking away his commlink. That's what edge actions are for. Being able to fill out a CM in one shot devalues edge actions that allow you to increase your DV, or to flatly fill out a CM entirely (e.g. Knockout Blow).
-
Where I have had tremendous experience is unarmed combat - nearly 10 years of prize fighting, and more street brawls than I can remember. During my prize fighting decade in my mid 20's, I wanted to learn Muay Thai badly, so moved to Thailand for a year. After 9 months of daily training I started prize fighting over there for the last 3 months of my journey. Things are very different over there. Their professional promotions do have weight classes that most of us would be familiar with. There are just as many (and the ones I fought in since I was not professional or recognized in the art) that don't have squat - they book whatever sells tickets. Literally every opponent I fought there was more skilled in Muay Thai than I was, but I had the benefit of completely dwarfing the average 140 lb. Thai fighter at 6'2" 230. Those guys were fearless though, and did not give one single f, and I had 22 fights in those 3 months. I was able to have 22 fights in such a short time, despite being outclassed in skill level, because the weight (strength) class was so unsporting that even though I got banged up a lot, one to three good to decent hits was all it took me to KO or TKO. Those fights had to be boring as hell to watch for the audience, other than maybe the sadists.
My point: Anyone who doesn't think strength is a (not the, but a) dominant factor in how deadly (force) your physical attacks are either lacks experience with the matter they are speaking of, or is divorced from reality. Go watch some of Mike Tyson's early fights from the late 80's if you want to see what happens when a much stronger person pummels a much weaker person if you need to see if with your own eyes.
thank you for this, i had exactly this same argument with a tool on reddit the other day, except he swore up and down that strength made little difference. I asked him to explain why do ALL combat sports use weight classes then and he had no good answer other than "it's irrelevant" which clearly it's not otherwise weight classes would have gone away a long time ago.
It's clear on it's face, both from a common sense perspective and a proven world perspective (weight classes) that strength is *very* important in melee combat, both armed and unarmed.
6e pisses on that, and by extension pisses on many other common sense well known physical effects in the world.
in short: it beggars belief.
and that's my core issues with 6e, it's an inane game of dank memes that make a mockery of shadowrun.
I think a core issue is people visualize strength in the most narrow terms possible, while they view things like agility in the broadest terms possible. I've always said strength should be the explosive action stat. Its about running faster, jumping further, delivering force in various ways. But people are stuck seeing it as big lunk lift heavy object.
-
"Weight classes" is about length, bone density, your body's genetic ability to build body and muscle mass (there is a reason why male and female compete in different classes). You can only come so far by training your "strength" alone. You also need to be "big". The guys Lormyr was facing in Thailand was probably as "maxed out" strength-wise as he was - but being bigger, matters.
Much of this is represented by the Body attribute in Shadowrun, but it also goes hand to hand with the Strength attribute (to be honest, I don't think we would have missed out too much by combining the two into one attribute because even in real life it is hard to maximize one without the other).
I think we just agreed that skipping out on strength in favor for Charisma (or Logic) will turn you into a [slightly] worse fighter than if you put the points into Strength. That Strength matters [at least to some extent].
I think we also agree that if you wish to become a great unarmed fighter you would probably want a good mix of Body, Reaction, Agility, Intuition, Willpower..... and Strength (that the only two attributes that don't really contribute during a fist-fight would be Charisma and Logic). No matter if we talk real life or Shadowrun.
The disconnect does not seem to be if Strength (but also Armor) give you an advantage or not (because it seem as they do), the disconnect rather seem to be that the mechanical advantage you gain by investing into strength (but also Armor) is not perceived to be as potent as some of the other attributes.
So - Maybe what we are really arguing here is if gaining a tactical advantage over your opponent maybe is not as "strong" of an advantage as it perhaps should be.
...and that this would in turn boil down to that the perceived "value" of edge might be a bit on the low side.
Does that sound about right?
Have you considered that your perceived value of edge is on the high side. Its not worthless but its far from everything.
-
So - Maybe what we are really arguing here is if gaining a tactical advantage over your opponent maybe is not as "strong" of an advantage as it perhaps should be.
...and that this would in turn boil down to that the perceived "value" of edge might be a bit on the low side.
Does that sound about right?
Have you considered that your perceived value of edge is on the high side. Its not worthless but its far from everything.
I think Xenon has it correct. Most of us (adzling excluded) seem to feel that while Strength does impact close combat, it doesn't impact it enough. And to recap my position, I think that it basically impacts "enough". Its contribution isn't as granular as +1 die or +1/2DV, nor does it have a direct contribution outside of indirectly helping on Edge, I feel that indirect help on generating Edge is ultimately "enough" of a contribution.
And as for edge being "far from everything", sure you're technically correct. The base dice pools are arguably the most important thing. But pretty much everything other that that? It's ALL Edge. And really there's an argument to be had for rerolls being more important than the base dice pool. I'm not going to go so far as to say that's true across the board, but situationally, yeah. Rerolls can absolutely trump what random chance said. And beyond rerolls, the Edge actions are by design what turns/settles combat. Can't do edge actions without edge. If you got the edge to spend on a Knockout Blow because of your STR, then your STR allowed you to knock that target right out.
-
The guys Lormyr was facing in Thailand was probably as "maxed out" strength-wise as he was - but being bigger, matters.
Haha, while I appreciate the sentiment, I am nowhere near "maxed out" in terms of human strength potential. On a SR scale I'd be a solid 4. Up from me would be powerful guys like Dwayne Johnson, and then your 6's would be the Halfthor Bjornson's that measure deadlifts in the thousands of pounds instead of hundreds. You could argue that many of those fellas are..."augmented", though.
Anyhow...
The disconnect does not seem to be if Strength (but also Armor) give you an advantage or not (because it seem as they do), the disconnect rather seem to be that the mechanical advantage you gain by investing into strength (but also Armor) is not perceived to be as potent as some of the other attributes.
This is sort of the issue. Strength adds to AR, and worn armor adds to DR. This means two things:
1). The addition may or may not matter, because you already have enough to gain/deny edge, or even with the addition you lack sufficient number to gain/deny edge. The attribute/armor can literally potentially do nothing at all.
2). More is not better. It's a simple all or nothing, where as more of everything else is strictly better because it continues to increase odds of success and/or magnitude of success (extra hits). Extra hits matter in every single opposed test in the game.
The rebuttal some have made that extra defense test dice, drain dice, damage resistance dice, ect. "did nothing" because you didn't get a hit on the die when rolled that some have made is a completely non sequitur response too. It's not remotely the same.
If there's a whole new calculus to arrive at the same (or similar) DVs for non-extreme cases, is the process truly worth it to cover the extreme cases?
What do you find extreme about them?
The ranged damage codes I listed are already basically identical to current ranged codes, it was just the melee portion that was altered significantly.
I honestly look at your anecdote and see it validating the current mechanics, not contradicting them...
I wouldn't begin to know how to equate game Edge to any real world factor other than perhaps "luck", and my "luck" is
and always has been garbage :p.
A better way to look at it would be this: when I attacked, I missed a lot or was neutralized well because they were much better technical fighters. Once I got a good hit in though, the fight was over from that one hit, or the two that followed it while they were reeling.
How you choose to interpret that is up to your perceptions, and valid.
A couple of points. The only guns that hit particularly high on the damage scale are big and not particularly concealable
True, and fair. That said, how often have you played (or anyone) played and thought "Damn, if I only I had my real gun" vs. been playing and it was a non issue?
For me, 80 something(?) sessions of Chicago Missions, times this came up: counted on one hand.
And, I'm going to quibble with you about how much of an advantage range really is. Shadowrun isn't simulating 6th world warfare... most of the time the range to target is moot because he's in the same room with you. Again, in the case of big guns that do the highest damage, they're not used in close quarters combat that Shadowrun simulates. And if you try it, you suffer the penalty of a terrible Close range AR.
Haha, my friend, no argument there, but our brains are in two completely different spaces.
Yours: The range is not a big deal because usually close enough confines. (valid)
Me: That melee guy moved up to attack whoever, now he can't avoid the grenades or aoe spells at all! (valid)
It's not the range itself that is the major problem (though it is always an advantage), it is the movement restrictions.
Another point: The potential for raw DV of 10 is game-breaking.
But you can already come out of chargen swinging melee for 12P due to critical strike being a leveled power now. That aside, you can come out of chargen doing 8-9P with appropriate ranged weapons (burst fire and explosive ammo), while melee weapons are capped at 5P (6 for the holy whip). How the hell is that balanced?
Melee Guy: "Nice, got an edge on that attack I can use on my next!".
Ranged Guy: "Cool bro, but mines dead from the first shot...".
-
Have you considered that your perceived value of edge is on the high side.
Not sure where you got that from.
I am not saying Strength (nor Armor), and by extension Edge, are a strong attributes in 6E.
I am saying that Strength and Body seem to be linked and I wonder if they perhaps should even be turned into one attribute.
I am saying that (unlike Charisma and Logic) Strength and Armor seem to have an impact on combat.
I am also saying that people (which might or might not include me) seem to think that the value of Strength and Armor is currently rather low.
I am challenging that maybe the fix here is not to change the mechanics to make strength and armor directly influence how much damage you deal or take. Maybe the fix could instead be to change the "value" of Edge.
For example, what if you could increase damage with melee attacks by +3 by spending 1 Edge or if you could reroll all failed dice with 1 Edge or if you could heal 1 box of physical damage or 2 boxes of stun with 1 Edge (I am not actually suggesting that we change Edge this drastically, it is just food for argument).
If Edge was this potent then perhaps people would also reevaluate the importance of strength and armor.
(or perhaps this is not even worth exploring and the only solution is that strength and armor should have a direct impact on the damage you do and take?).
-
Most of us (adzling excluded) seem to feel that while Strength does impact close combat, it doesn't impact it enough.
If we can can change the word "does" to "can", then I agree. :)
The base dice pools are arguably the most important thing. But pretty much everything other that that? It's ALL Edge. And really there's an argument to be had for rerolls being more important than the base dice pool.
Here we can fully agree. Dice pool size is the most powerful mechanical benefit you can have, with re-roll potential immediately following. That aspect of Edge I like.
What I don't like is how much action-based stuff got tied into Edge that could have been tied to either action economy or just default to make things a bit more dynamic, but I agree that is a matter of personal tastes.
-
The guys Lormyr was facing in Thailand was probably as "maxed out" strength-wise as he was - but being bigger, matters.
Haha, while I appreciate the sentiment, I am nowhere near "maxed out" in terms of human strength potential.
What I meant was that the guys you faced probably "trained" their strength just as much as you did.
Still, even though you train the same amount, you are bigger. You weight more. You have more body mass. And with that you probably have it easier to also build more muscle mass.
It is kinda like comparing an Elf from Thailand to an Ork from the states ;)
-
Haha, while I appreciate the sentiment, I am nowhere near "maxed out" in terms of human strength potential. On a SR scale I'd be a solid 4. Up from me would be powerful guys like Dwayne Johnson, and then your 6's would be the Halfthor Bjornson's that measure deadlifts in the thousands of pounds instead of hundreds. You could argue that many of those fellas are..."augmented", though.
The real-life spectrum of Strength doesn't fit neatly into 6 categories, that's for sure. Or 7 really, if we're considering Exceptional Attribute a thing. So your Eddie Halls of the world can be your 7s, the Rock can be a 6, and Lormyr (at 6'3" 230lbs) seems like a reasonable candidate for a 5. It probably means that more of the Strength calculations should be exponential though. I was pleased when 6E made that shift in the Lift/Carry calculations.
Or, if we're feeling cute, some of the books have tongue-in-cheek references to pre-Awakening athletes being "proto-adepts". (I think Yogi Berra was one example. Bruce Lee might have been another.) Which raises the possibility that some of the Hafþór Björnssons and Eddie Halls of the world are benefiting from Improved Attribute powers. I'll sidestep the implication about better living through chemistry, which I am in no position to judge (either factually or morally), but you could thus argue that current human Strength maxes out at 8+ ... especially if you include some as-of-unwritten rules about raising Attribute maximums via drugs.
-
The guys Lormyr was facing in Thailand was probably as "maxed out" strength-wise as he was - but being bigger, matters.
Haha, while I appreciate the sentiment, I am nowhere near "maxed out" in terms of human strength potential. On a SR scale I'd be a solid 4. Up from me would be powerful guys like Dwayne Johnson, and then your 6's would be the Halfthor Bjornson's that measure deadlifts in the thousands of pounds instead of hundreds. You could argue that many of those fellas are..."augmented", though.
Anyhow...
Well, the question of chemical augmentation aside... I'm sure he's a real life example of not just hitting racial maximum, but also having benefit of Exceptional Attribute as well. For sure an example of a real life STR 7. (damn you wall of text posts! Slipped by Tecumseh!)
The disconnect does not seem to be if Strength (but also Armor) give you an advantage or not (because it seem as they do), the disconnect rather seem to be that the mechanical advantage you gain by investing into strength (but also Armor) is not perceived to be as potent as some of the other attributes.
This is sort of the issue. Strength adds to AR, and worn armor adds to DR. This means two things:
1). The addition may or may not matter, because you already have enough to gain/deny edge, or even with the addition you lack sufficient number to gain/deny edge. The attribute/armor can literally potentially do nothing at all.
2). More is not better. It's a simple all or nothing, where as more of everything else is strictly better because it continues to increase odds of success and/or magnitude of success (extra hits). Extra hits matter in every single opposed test in the game.
The rebuttal some have made that extra defense test dice, drain dice, damage resistance dice, ect. "did nothing" because you didn't get a hit on the die when rolled that some have made is a completely non sequitur response too. It's not remotely the same.
Adding to STR gets you more AR, and more AR gets you more Edge. Granted, we're talking about enough +STR to cross the 4 pip threshold, so that bonus isn't necessarily only +1 STR (although, also +1STR could be enough to get that Edge...) I think we agree that when you're reliably out-edging your opponent, you win. Maybe STR didn't do it on its own, and maybe you got edge from more than just AR to DR comparison, but it still CONTRIBUTED.
Ok, so that serves to address the next complaint: Armor does nothing! Ok, you get some armor, and you get enough +DR (same 4 pip threshold disclaimer as above) and now the other guy ISN'T auto-beating you because he's not out edging you. ARMOR CONTRIBUTED!
So, near as I can see, you're saying that increasing STR, and increasing Armor, when they cancel each other out neither did anything? That's silly. They canceled each other out is what they did.
If there's a whole new calculus to arrive at the same (or similar) DVs for non-extreme cases, is the process truly worth it to cover the extreme cases?
What do you find extreme about them?
The ranged damage codes I listed are already basically identical to current ranged codes, it was just the melee portion that was altered significantly.
I meant extreme stat values. 2 is now the "norm", although I expect most players still consider a 2 to be "sub par". Either through familiarity inertia from 5e, or from the belief that a PC should be better than NPCs. We're new in the edition and we don't have many published NPCs for 6we, but there's an opportunity for the game writers to keep stat inflation from happening. But, I don't like the early signs we've seen so far. (Free Seattle has Bunraku dolls with 6 Charisma. Really, NPCs that are by definition lacking their own personality are somehow the human pinnacle of it? ALL of them?!?)
Anyway. As is, everyone has 2S as a damage code for unarmed. Pre-errata, Strength values 3-4 had 2S. You had to be 5+ Strength to suffer a base DV nerf, which is somewhat "extreme" if you consider 2 the norm. Of course, if you had really high STR, you're looking at a big nerf.
However.
The ones who had pre-errata unarmed DVs of 8+ DON'T have DVs of 2S now. Because those examples with huge STR will naturally self-select into also taking qualities/augmentations/powers that helped increase their DVs. Sure, someone MIGHT have had 9 strength but no bone lacing, bone density, critical strike, and etc. They would have had 5S, now down to 2S. Yeah, that blows. But I submit that it's reasonable to presume that anyone who makes that investment in strength also got some of those other toys. Mathematically, they must have in order to hit 8+ DV. They're likely now down to 4-5DV, which is a nerf yes, but that was exactly the point. They NEEDED one, compared to other combat options. Where they are now is still very attractive compared to other options.
I honestly look at your anecdote and see it validating the current mechanics, not contradicting them...
I wouldn't begin to know how to equate game Edge to any real world factor other than perhaps "luck", and my "luck" is
and always has been garbage :p.
A better way to look at it would be this: when I attacked, I missed a lot or was neutralized well because they were much better technical fighters. Once I got a good hit in though, the fight was over from that one hit, or the two that followed it while they were reeling.
How you choose to interpret that is up to your perceptions, and valid.
Well, I'd say remember that Edge ceased being Luck. That's 5e thinking. It's now more than luck... it's.. well.. Edge. Call Edge points Tactical Advantage, and your Edge stat your capacity to capitalize upon Tactical Advantage. Real life infantry combat schools naturally teach some skills and condition physical and mental stats, right? I submit to you that they're also training up your Edge stat. Military leadership schools for combat officers and squad leaders? Developing your Edge stat is what they're primarily doing!
If you spent edge to force your opponent to reroll a hit on you, it's not representing you "inflicting some bad luck" on your opponent. It's you taking advantage of a minor bit of cover most lacking your advantage wouldn't have recognized, or recognizing that you can move through a patch of terrain that has compromised vision from the shooter's field of view, or juking your opponent with a skillful head bob, or whatever. It's not "luck", not anymore.
In my adaptation of my example to your anecdote, your superior strength granted you edge that ultimately manifested in the Knockout Blow edge action you used to bring an abrupt end to the fight(s). What did your Strength do along the way BEFORE generating that Knockout Blow edge action? Well you know this kind of fighting much better than I do, but I'm sure moving around the ring, keeping your guard up, and so on require Strength, yes? In my layman's familiarity with MMA, I know that getting tired and letting your guard drop results in disaster. You were strong enough to keep your guard up until you got an opening, and BOOM. Knockout Blow after generating some Edge. It's not so unrepresentative of your experience, is it?
A couple of points. The only guns that hit particularly high on the damage scale are big and not particularly concealable
True, and fair. That said, how often have you played (or anyone) played and thought "Damn, if I only I had my real gun" vs. been playing and it was a non issue?
For me, 80 something(?) sessions of Chicago Missions, times this came up: counted on one hand.
And, I'm going to quibble with you about how much of an advantage range really is. Shadowrun isn't simulating 6th world warfare... most of the time the range to target is moot because he's in the same room with you. Again, in the case of big guns that do the highest damage, they're not used in close quarters combat that Shadowrun simulates. And if you try it, you suffer the penalty of a terrible Close range AR.
Haha, my friend, no argument there, but our brains are in two completely different spaces.
Yours: The range is not a big deal because usually close enough confines. (valid)
Me: That melee guy moved up to attack whoever, now he can't avoid the grenades or aoe spells at all! (valid)
It's not the range itself that is the major problem (though it is always an advantage), it is the movement restrictions.
I think, once, we had a sniper shot worked into our entire Chicago experience. And the stupid thing is we had a sniper. It was just far more effective, under 5e rules, to accept the -3 dice penalty for shooting someone at arms reach with a goddamned sniper rifle when you're already throwing like 16 or 20 dice.
I'm kind of excited about 6we changing up all sides of that dynamic to something more *gasp* realistic!
But honestly? Virtually all the time we were indoors, or close enough to buildings while outdoors that you can go around a corner and break LOS if the other side had a meaningful range advantage.
Besides. Since spells and critter powers didn't (and still don't) have range bands, MagicRun is likely to still dominate combat that extends beyond one's arm's reach, anyway.
Another point: The potential for raw DV of 10 is game-breaking.
But you can already come out of chargen swinging melee for 12P due to critical strike being a leveled power now. That aside, you can come out of chargen doing 8-9P with appropriate ranged weapons (burst fire and explosive ammo), while melee weapons are capped at 5P (6 for the holy whip). How the hell is that balanced?
Melee Guy: "Nice, got an edge on that attack I can use on my next!".
Ranged Guy: "Cool bro, but mines dead from the first shot...".
Ok in the time it took me to wall of text my way to this point, you still hadn't edited this portion so I have to assume this is what you actually meant.
Big DVs with Crit Strike: Well, yes, that's a thing. But +6DV means you have to have both 1) 6+ Magic and 2) 6 PPs spent on that one thing. If we're talking chargen, you've got an awfully one dimensional character and that's not the best assumption to base game balance on. Post chargen? Ok, so you hit someone for 12DV. Congrats, you gave up a whole lot of other powers to deal that much damage when you would have won the fight anyway dealing 5. Hell of an opportunity cost to get a LOL.
But the part that confuses me is your example dialogue. Um. MELEE is the way you're one shotting someone, not ranged... I think you got something backwards in what you're trying to say there?
-
What I meant was that the guys you faced probably "trained" their strength just as much as you did.
Still, even though you train the same amount, you are bigger. You weight more. You have more body mass. And with that you probably have it easier to also build more muscle mass.
It is kinda like comparing an Elf from Thailand to an Ork from the states ;)
While I was in Bangkok I stayed at a warehouse on the docks with about 20 other guys. Zero privacy, poverty level living basically. The training of those guys focused a lot more on technical skill and endurance, they did very little dedicated strength training past what the aforementioned training afforded them, which was decent. I on the other hand couldn't give up my dedicated strength training, so was lever pressing broken down tuk-tuks, curling 60 lb stone blocks with ropes tied around them for grips, bench pressing sealed barrels 1/2 filled with dirt, ect.
The training culture is a lot different between some cultures and combat styles, between wealth and poverty, as well as between street / amateur / professional levels, at least at that time just over 10 years ago.
The real-life spectrum of Strength doesn't fit neatly into 6 categories, that's for sure. Or 7 really
I agree. I'm just trying to make it fit as best as possible for the context of the conversation with SSDR.
I think we agree that when you're reliably out-edging your opponent, you win.
If there are no other advantages on either side to consider, such as the examples you ran with above, then yes I agree. In any realistic scenario though, strength will be irrelevant. I am willing to put effort into proving this too. Open challenge to anyone who disagrees:
You build whatever strength and melee focused character you want, with ware and/or adept powers being the only extras (no spells, summons, drugs, ect.) and I will build a strength dumped version under the same guidelines, and I guarantee you that single build will win every bout vs. said strength builds if we compare them using law of averages for hit calculations.
So, near as I can see, you're saying that increasing STR, and increasing Armor, when they cancel each other out neither did anything? That's silly. They canceled each other out is what they did.
But they do not always cancel eachother out SSDR, and you are intelligent enough to know this man, come on. In some cases you are completely correct. In others, the presence of one or both does nothing due to the other factors that calculate into AR/DR in play.
I meant extreme stat values. 2 is now the "norm", although I expect most players still consider a 2 to be "sub par". Either through familiarity inertia from 5e, or from the belief that a PC should be better than NPCs. We're new in the edition and we don't have many published NPCs for 6we, but there's an opportunity for the game writers to keep stat inflation from happening. But, I don't like the early signs we've seen so far.
Oh, I see.
Well all I can say to that is on the PC side, the vast majority of people I play with (myself included) are optimizers, so this is (and always has been) extremely common. As far as NPCs, just look at the stat blocks of grunts in the core book. Once you get to PR6+, everyone is much higher than average stats. The PR8+ guys are ludicrously premium natural specimens, with numerous base stats of 6. I agree it is ridiculously unrealistic, but that is the nature of pretty much every game I've ever played.
In my adaptation of my example to your anecdote, your superior strength granted you edge that ultimately manifested in the Knockout Blow edge action you used to bring an abrupt end to the fight(s). What did your Strength do along the way BEFORE generating that Knockout Blow edge action? Well you know this kind of fighting much better than I do, but I'm sure moving around the ring, keeping your guard up, and so on require Strength, yes? In my layman's familiarity with MMA, I know that getting tired and letting your guard drop results in disaster. You were strong enough to keep your guard up until you got an opening, and BOOM. Knockout Blow after generating some Edge. It's not so unrepresentative of your experience, is it?
In a traditional weight-class appropriate bout, tiring is definitely the biggest threat, followed closely by psychological issues. "Real" fights (as in no rules, you are just trying to not die), like for your life or streets, is quite different, but I digress. As for strength -> edge -> knockout blow, again, life doesn't translate to game well and vice versa, so interpret as you will (and I think we both know our minds are made up on opposing ends). You say "Knockout blow, makes sense!", I say "Stronger body made more force then smaller dude's body could handle.", or gimmick vs. raw damage.
Besides. Since spells and critter powers didn't (and still don't) have range bands, MagicRun is likely to still dominate combat that extends beyond one's arm's reach, anyway.
Fully agree.
But the part that confuses me is your example dialogue. Um. MELEE is the way you're one shotting someone, not ranged... I think you got something backwards in what you're trying to say there?
Yes, I meant it. You are looking for the one shot with knockout blow (requiring melee), while I am looking for the one shot with raw damage.
An elf can come into play with a 24 dice attack pool from a burst firing, explosive ammo FN-Har for 8P. Average hits on that attack roll is 8. Average defense test from the PR6 grunt yields 3 hits, or 5 with dodge. That results in 13P or 11P, which an average damage resistance of 1 hit, resulting in straight to dead with average rolls.
Knockout blow requires a minimum of two actions (since you have to spend edge on the first in order to qualify for knockout), and requires melee distance, and requires your successful hit to deal more damage than Willpower after damage resistance.
Just shoot to kill. Much simpler, much less resource intensive, much more effective combat style than melee in the current implementation.
-
I had another big long wall of text in the works, but I nuked it. I think shorter is sweeter at this point.
We're walking down two different paths, Lormyr. You seem to be arguing from an expectation that the combat rules should be in effect a wargame. Where nothing more than the rules and the dice are needed to resolve a battle between characters. Naturally in such a paradigm, every legal options should ideally be equally balanced against other options for a fair combat simulation between different kinds of characters, and in that view Strength doesn't measure up against other potential investments.
I get that, and I can't dispute it. Because, from that view, yes that's correct.
Suffice to say though, I don't share that point of view. From where I'm coming from, it's NOT a wargame. You can't set your mini on a battle mat and have a throw down with another player and his character because the game has a baked in assumption that the GM is going to adjudicate odd rules interactions, so the rules tend to not even bother addressing them in the first place. It's unavoidable.. just as one example remember it's a TRIAD of edge, not a BIAD. You get edge 1) through AR to DR evaluation and 2) from gear/qualities that say you get it... yes those are simulationist-friendly concepts but the last leg is 3) circumstantial conditions. If you're invisible, that's probably edge your way for the fight, right? Well, what if it's dark. Invisibility now counts for less. What if the other guy has thermo, but you don't? Ok, now YOU can't see well. And maybe your invisibility is counting for even less, because maybe your opponent can track your position by the warm footprints you leave in the floor. Who gets the edge in all these variations is NOT codified. Deliberately so. It's up to the GM to decide.
Your challenge runs afoul of this. Your challenge ignores a whole leg of the edge triad. let's take an example: ok I build a big troll brawler, you alter him for 1 STR but much more AGI and/or BOD or such. Unarmed, close combat type, so your 1 STR doesn't let me just easily take your weapon/gun away from you. Obviously, your alteration will probably end up with more dice pools in soak, dodge, and/or attack all while hitting at the same DV as my original. And granted, the particulars may result in a meaningless difference between edge generation. Through the two "no GM needed" legs of the edge triad, at any rate.
It's the third leg that invalidates your proposal. There's nothing stopping a GM from seeing the corner case demonstration you're attempting to make, and step in with some "reality". Ok, you just blocked an unarmed strike from a 9 troll? And you have 1 STR? Hmm, ok take a level of the Fatigue Status. Or whatever. "Oh, he's got 9 str to your 1, and you two are in fisticuffs? Frag, that's a circumstantial bonus if I ever saw one. Edge to the strong guy. Etc.
-
I basically agree with everything in your last past, in particular our different paths, and that both are ok.
The third leg of the edge system you mentioned (GM discretion outside of rules) will always be a problem for me because my past gaming experiences involved so many petty, vindictive, and/or bad GMs that I just have no tolerance for that in my personal play anymore. Having to make a call on the fly for a situation that has no rule is one thing. Having a core system that revolves around needing to make calls on the fly to balance it out is another.
To me, slapping a character with Str 1 who blocks a blow from a Str 9 character with an automatic level of fatigue when there is nothing even remotely in the rules to support it is textbook picture of vindictive Gming, but that is just me. I understand your opinion differs, and that's cool.
We know we can't see eye to eye on this, and that's ok. I appreciate the debate and the opinions none the less.
Edit: Perhaps instead we should combine our powers to get them to do something about an issue we agree on, MagicRun, instead. :p
-
I basically agree with everything in your last past, in particular our different paths, and that both are ok.
The third leg of the edge system you mentioned (GM discretion outside of rules) will always be a problem for me because my past gaming experiences involved so many petty, vindictive, and/or bad GMs that I just have no tolerance for that in my personal play anymore. Having to make a call on the fly for a situation that has no rule is one thing. Having a core system that revolves around needing to make calls on the fly to balance it out is another.
Indeed, if it's not something you like someone else telling you why they think it works or why they like it doesn't change what YOU like.
To me, slapping a character with Str 1 who blocks a blow from a Str 9 character with an automatic level of fatigue when there is nothing even remotely in the rules to support it is textbook picture of vindictive Gming, but that is just me. I understand your opinion differs, and that's cool.
Well on one hand, yeah inflicting Fatigue "just because I think you're gaming the system" is vindictive, yes. But, on the other hand, statuses are applied by GM fiat. Take a look at Fatigue. Does it say when you get it? Does it even give guidelines? 100% GM fiat. And, we both agreed upthread, getting tired and slipping your guard is a huge potential problem in sustained combat. MAYBE it's not fair for a GM to inflict Fatigue for only blocking one blow. But over the course of several? Ok, much more reasonable, yes? Ok so a combat round is 3 entire seconds. I'm sure you're more aware than I am how many discrete blows one can throw in "one" major action over the course of 3 seconds. It's not COMPLETELY unreasonable to suffer Fatigue in even one combat round... if you're not in shape.
And when we're talking about disparate strength... we're potentially talking about "below average" versus "well beyond real life maximums here". If an unathletic type (1 STR) "parried" a truck hitting him, surely he'd be worse for the wear despite that block, yes? That's basically a RL analogue for a 9 Str troll's punch being blocked?
We know we can't see eye to eye on this, and that's ok. I appreciate the debate and the opinions none the less.
Edit: Perhaps instead we should combine our powers to get them to do something about an issue we agree on, MagicRun, instead. :p
Heh, well that'd be another thread :)
-
Well on one hand, yeah inflicting Fatigue "just because I think you're gaming the system" is vindictive, yes.
That is pretty much my beef with it. If someone has a character their GM thinks is bending the rules too far, the correct response to is to discuss it out of game to come up with a happy medium, or acknowledge your play styles won't work together, so vindictive gaming doesn't happen.
Penalizing someone because you don't appreciate their playstyle, or other wrongbadfun shaming is totally unacceptable to me, and it's easy to tell when you are being targeted by it.
And, we both agreed upthread, getting tired and slipping your guard is a huge potential problem in sustained combat. Ok so a combat round is 3 entire seconds. I'm sure you're more aware than I am how many discrete blows one can throw in "one" major action over the course of 3 seconds.
Absolutely. If you ever watch fighters it is very rare that they are actively engaged in non-stop attacks, because you wear out really quick, probably shockingly quick for anyone who's never experienced it.
MAYBE it's not fair for a GM to inflict Fatigue for only blocking one blow. But over the course of several? Ok, much more reasonable, yes? It's not COMPLETELY unreasonable to suffer Fatigue in even one combat round... if you're not in shape.
See, that is something I could potentially get behind. First blow or two is your GM penalizing you. 4th block over 4 turns? Fatigue I think is too much, but start handing the really strong guy circumstance edge? Sure.
To be clear though, wearing out is 100% a function of Body, not Strength. Strength is actually the counter end of the equation. The more muscle mass (weight) you have, the harder it is for you to keep energy and not tire. Even though my fighting career was almost a decade ago at this point I still strength train religiously every week day because I love it (my pic is recent within 3 years, little has changed) - but I stopped doing more than casual good health cardio the day I stopped fighting. You put me in the ring now, even though I am strong as hell, I'd have about 2 good minutes to knock someone out before any chance of me winning was lost due to being winded
Plus, optimizer in me speaking here, why the hell are you blocking and not dodging anyhow? :p
-
...To be clear though, wearing out is 100% a function of Body, not Strength...
See, I'd quibble, and say that avoiding fatigue is a measure of having the strength to tolerate some sustained exertion. And for that matter, the Fatigue status should be a very familiar bugaboo if you insist on playing a STR 1 character. Just wearing a helmet tired the hell out of me when I was in active duty. After a few hours with a mere couple of pounds added to the load on my neck? Yeah, I was easily suffering a -2 dice on my real life skill tests. I wouldn't say I was particularly strong OR weak.
This goes to illustrate that it's hard to parse the difference between related attributes. What's an example of being highly reactive without using any agility? When are you using charisma without any intuition? It should be impossible to have high Body but low Strength, but that's never been a rule to link attributes in such ways. We just have the mechanical tasks they're invoked in to draw a meta distinction between related attributes.
-
While I was in Bangkok I stayed at a warehouse on the docks with about 20 other guys. Zero privacy, poverty level living basically. The training of those guys focused a lot more on technical skill and endurance, they did very little dedicated strength training past what the aforementioned training afforded them, which was decent. I on the other hand couldn't give up my dedicated strength training, so was lever pressing broken down tuk-tuks, curling 60 lb stone blocks with ropes tied around them for grips, bench pressing sealed barrels 1/2 filled with dirt, ect.
The training culture is a lot different between some cultures and combat styles, between wealth and poverty, as well as between street / amateur / professional levels, at least at that time just over 10 years ago.
Lormyr, this has nothing to do with Shadowrun 6E, but I'm pretty sure I would read your memoir. "lever pressing broken down tuk-tuks" is serious super-hero origin story fodder, is what I am saying. :-)
-
See, I'd quibble, and say that avoiding fatigue is a measure of having the strength to tolerate some sustained exertion. And for that matter, the Fatigue status should be a very familiar bugaboo if you insist on playing a STR 1 character. Just wearing a helmet tired the hell out of me when I was in active duty.
That is two separate physical feats.
Your story is a function of muscular strength and muscle fiber endurance - which is improved by strength training, and is a good example of game strength. Bearing a load.
Avoiding becoming winded in a battle, or any other prolonged physical activity that does not require bearing a load beyond your own body weight (fighting, running, swimming, sex, ect.) is a function of cardiovascular strength, which is a good example of game body.
This goes to illustrate that it's hard to parse the difference between related attributes.
Agreed, in particular on Strength and Body being easily folded as currently relates to SR6 mechanics.
Lormyr, this has nothing to do with Shadowrun 6E, but I'm pretty sure I would read your memoir. "lever pressing broken down tuk-tuks" is serious super-hero origin story fodder, is what I am saying. :-)
The lever pressing of a tuk-tuk sounds more impressive than it actually is. Those things might weight 500ish lbs., but the act of lever pressing turns that weight into more of a pulley system, so it was probably closer to only shoulder pressing 180-200 lbs.
I could fill a memoir of ages 22-30 with good stories, but I've had enough excitement for one life. I try to live boring now, and I mostly succeed admirably. :p
-
Well, it seems like you want to rant more than have a discussion, but I'll engage you.
Let's start off by acknowledging that we have a pretty fair divergence of opinion on whether adding to AR is a "mostly useless" benefit. This edition revolves almost entirely around the edge mechanic, and getting more edge/edge more easily is actually a Big Fragging Deal. That Str 8 Orc is likely gonna pound the Str 1 elf into the dirt, over time, due to an edge disparity.
Yes, melee combat went away from the Str/X+Y damage codes. Everything is (supposed to be) static DVs now. And yes, in the case of Unarmed strikes that static DV is 2S, no matter what your STR stat is. Of course certain Qualities, Augmentations, and Powers can increase that DV.
The raw DV of an attack was inflated before the errata/nerf. Consider that Massive weapons like Combat Axes and Assault Cannons did LESS damage than optimized unarmed strikes under the preceding STR/2 paradigm. You had the stupid situation where picking up a melee weapon made you less dangerous, not more. Additionally, this is an edition where a fragging anti-tank gun does 7P. I don't care how strong you are, you shouldn't be punching harder than an assault cannon. of course YMMV, but generally I trust you agree a change of SOME kind had to be made? We went, obviously, with turning unarmed DV down rather than cranking everything else up. If you build for unarmed combat, you'll take the qualities/augmentations/powers for it. And when you do, you're swinging 4-5+P punches. That's still remarkably effective, in comparison to the raw damage guns do. Yes, guns have range, but now ALL melee has mad AR, if you take high STR. And rushing into a gunfight with a knife is exactly the kind of "push your luck" heroics that edge is meant to represent!
so, TL;DR: complaining that STR 1 has the same DV as STR X is, imo, a non-sequitur. What's actually more important is the question of who got edge/got edge denied. And if you disagree with that, well then what's more important still than your DV is how big your attacking dice pool is. You do no damage even at infinite STR if you miss. And something you may have missed is that 6we is a bit more flexible with what attributes go with what skill. If you're using a big heavy weapon, your GM is perfectly within her rights to insist you roll Skill + STR instead of Skill + AGI.
Re Bonus Question: There's rules for disarming. Your strength sets an unopposed threshold. STR 1, or even 2, is just itching to give your weapon away to the enemy.
As an addendum: I will point out there's nothing stopping you from expanding the rule regarding the role of STR in hardened cyberlimbs to ALL melee weapons. Just sayin'.
Thank you for your comment on this topic. I wish this was better explained in the book. This is starting to make far more sense to me now