@Raleel: My personal view is that the original question was answered sufficiently and that the threat has evolved into a neighboring discussion. If you feel differently, I apologize and will take this somewhere else.
@ProfessorCirno: I don't know where you're getting this from. I never said bows needed to be weaker. I actually said that strength based weaponry is quite powerful and that it doesn't need additional help. [This is contained in my first post].
The fact that strength enhancement are so relatively easy to get was part of my reasoning for this. [This is in my second post]
I did point out that bows used to be a lot stronger and that this fact might have influenced the designer's decisions regarding their current power. [This is contained in my 5th post.]
Throughout the threat you claimed that strength based weaponry was both too weak and too expensive resource wise compared to guns. I disagreed with that assessment and explained to you why.
Repeating your statement does not make it stronger. Abandoning all realism is not a necessary or even reasonable consequence of introducing fictional elements. Every James Bond movie ever made contains fictional fantasy elements (Underwater Villain Hideout in 1977... .). This did not stop the movies from trying to be realistic in their portrayal of guns. You yourself have quoted Cyberpunk 2020 as a "realistic" setting, yet it is a setting that includes the option to condense your brain and vital organs into a box to be inserted into various cyborg bodies like a freaking VHS tape into a player, but still tries to keep their gun physics straight.
The priority system consists of five priorities, each of which is to be used once. That means that every character build with the priority system, by the definition of of the shadowrun 5 chargen system, is functionally playable no matter which section priority E is assigned to. There will certainly be stronger and more well rounded characters, but just because they do not meet your standards doesn't mean they are functionally unplayable. Also note that attributes E is not the only way to build a troll adept, nor is it necessary to fulfill the requirements of the concepts we are discussing here.
Try A/B/C/D/E -> Race/ Attributes/ Skills/ Magic/ Resources. 20 Attribute Points, 28/2 Skillspoints, 7 points to be distributed between magic and edge. Spend 10 Karma on Money and you'll have sufficient for decent starting gear. This is a perfectly viable character that lacks nothing and is only behind the assault rifle until he can buy the rating 8 bow, which is the second he walks out of chargen because the thing is cheap and legal.
Magic 6: Attribute Boost Agility 1, Critical Strike Bows, Improved Ability Archery 3, Improved Reflexes 2, Combat Sense 1, Improved Attribute Agility 1
Archery (Bows) 6 (9) +2 + Agility 6 (7) = 18 Dice. Attribute boost gives 2 extra dice on average, so 20 Dice.
Rating 8 Bow with a smartlink, 17 dice with limit of 8 and a damage of 11P/-2. The only downside is you spend a simple action to ready another arrow. On the upside, you get to pump your enemies full of sweet little toxins like Narcoject for free.
And without investing anything other than 7 skillpoints, you get Blades (Knife) 6 +2 + Agility 6 (7) = 15 (17 attribute boost) with accuracy 7 and 11P/-2 Sword for melee.
This is a simple character that doesn't do anything special other than build on its strength's. (Yeah, sorry,) You can do the same (losing one agility die) with a dwarf or an ork, trading more edge for a few attribute points.
You continue to claim that non-gun weapons are inherently weaker, but so far you have not supplied one shred of evidence to this claim except for "reasons". I have given you numerous examples of how a player can capitalize on his strength, how crossbows don't need strength, how a strength 8 character, which is reasonably easy to reach is sufficient to make all non strength weapons equal to assault rifles and how higher strength characters can take their melee attacks up to assault cannon damage. Yet, you still demand for "non-gun weapons" to be labeled as inherently weaker. because you think they are.
I'll gladly agree to disagree, but I am genuinely curious as to what actually backs up your claim. So far, all you have come up with is that you need, allegedly, inordinate amounts of resources to accomplish equal damage. Given my troll example posted above, I once again, respectfully disagree.
