[Cynical Paladin]

I have a question on the starting attributes available under priority creation. I've noticed that the points available for lower priorities is a lot less than in SR5; specifically only 8 points for priority D and 2 points for priority E.  Under SR5 it was 14 points and 12 points respectively so its quite a big change, especially what you consider that the base value for all attributes is now 1.

My question is question is; is this intentional or is a a typo?  Because if so then ALL characters as going to start out with lower stats across the board. Yes characters now have more starting karma so which could be used to off set the values but I'm not comfortable starting characters with that much karma.  I'd prefer they earn it in game.

One last thing, it's a little unclear on how to raise Edge at character creation, can you use attribute points or can Edge only be raised with adjustment points?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

The new values are quite intentional.

As for Edge: you cannot spend points from your attributes pick on Edge. You can only spend points from your metatype pick, and/or spend customization karma to improve Edge.

[Cynical Paladin]

I'd be interested in hearing the rational for this decision.  Priority A is the same as in 5th edition, 24 points.  Yet all other priorities are lower and priority E is a mere 2 points.  Is this even a valid choice at character creation?  And if not why is it included in the first place?  I'm not trying to be argumentative, in general I like how 6th edition is less complicated than 5th.  I'm starting a game for a group who has no experience with Shadowrun and I never could have introduced them to 5th edition, the learning curve was just too steep.  But I don't understand this change.  A low priority in attributes should hurt but you should still be able create a viable character with it, and I'm not sure that's the case anymore.  Am I missing something here?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well I can't speak for the reasons, but here are my guesses based on my observations:

One of the not-so-loudly-advertised, yet apparently evident, goals was to give a minor tweak downwards in dice pool sizes. You can see this across the board in numerous examples: Armor doesn't add to soak. "Average" in a stat is now 2 instead of 3. You're capped out at +4 bonus dice to any skill test.  All of these sorts of things still doesn't stop you from being able to get 16-20 dice in a skill or two, but it does make it less "necessary" for you to do so.  12 dice counts for a little bit more than it did in 5e, since the NPCs all tend to have a slight nerf to their dice pools.

As for the viability of Attributes E pick, that's a recurring topic of discussion with varying views. I won't go into all mine, other than just to say "yeah, but at least 9 times out of 10 you probably REALLY ought to consider rethinking that choice."  You'll need to hit some perfect storm/trifecta of using a big metatype pick, requiring lots of gear, and not really minding having bad physical stats.  A Dwarf Technomancer who spends all his time in VR, has expensive drones/vehicles, and maybe uses lots of cyberware to augment his stats is the kind of build that can get by with Attributes E.

[Shinobi Killfist]

It’s one of those how do you define viable things. With enough ware/magic you can pull together enough dice to be a functional character. But I doubt there is a case where you couldnt make the character better with different priorities.

[Michael Chandra]

Enemies default dicepools are down from before, since they start at 2+2 instead of 3+3. And dicepools overall are down due to far less modifiers. So it's not as broken as it sounds. And yes, any priority E hurts like hell.

@Stainless: RAW still says skills can only be boosted +4, not dicepools, so until errata completely override that section it's still unlimited dicepool modifiers. (Raw also calls specializations/expertises 'dice pool bonus'es.) Not that there's many ways to actually gain those bonus dice.

[ZeroSum]

And yes, any priority E hurts like hell.

Except Magic E if you're playing a mundane character

[CigarSmoker]

Yet all other priorities are lower and priority E is a mere 2 points.  Is this even a valid choice at character creation? 

just search in the 6th core book pdf for "inferior prime runner" those are created with B; C; D; E; E
So if a GM wants to make someone with very low Attributes and Sills by purpose, thats the way to go.

[Noble Drake]

Priority E in Attributes does look like a big hurdle... but it is mitigated by where your other priorities end up. For example, if you went Resources D, Magic C, Metatype B, and Skills A you could make a Dwarf mage that still has decent attributes and dice pools that are just fine for the things you need to do - especially if you lean on spells that boost stats.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Priority E in Attributes does look like a big hurdle... but it is mitigated by where your other priorities end up. For example, if you went Resources D, Magic C, Metatype B, and Skills A you could make a Dwarf mage that still has decent attributes and dice pools that are just fine for the things you need to do - especially if you lean on spells that boost stats.

You're not wrong, but to reiterate a sentiment upthread, swapping Resources and Attributes would probably have resulted in a better character.  In addition to what you have above, the character idea just absolutely must be having some gear that necessitated the Higher-than-E Pick for resources.  Maybe he just has to have a flash car? Or a great fake SIN? Or maybe this awesome focus he "found" that he intends to bind with his first post-chargen karma...

[Noble Drake]

...swapping Resources and Attributes would probably have resulted in a better character.

I don't like to engage in debates of which character is "better" than another on the conceptual level.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

...swapping Resources and Attributes would probably have resulted in a better character.

I don't like to engage in debates of which character is "better" than another on the conceptual level.

Well, if your wish-list of gear for the character is in the neighborhood of 8,000¥ (or near enough over that some karma can get you there) it is indeed "better" to not devote a bigger-than-necessary pick to Resources.  But, maybe you do want to spend more than that.  Lots of reasons why you might.  Lots of reasons why you might not, too.  Of course there's no one "better" character idea than another, but there absolutely ARE better priority arrays than others to realize a given character idea.

[ZeroSum]

I agree that "better" is a loaded term.

How about "karma efficient" or "more optimized" instead, because there are definitely ways to play with the priority table to gain an objective karma advantage between two builds with an identical concept. See some of the threads I've created recently, especially where Tecumseh has commented; by swapping two priority picks I've been able to gain a straight up mechanical advantage in that one would have required less karma to build from the ground up using karma instead of priority.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I agree that "better" is a loaded term.

How about "karma efficient" or "more optimized" instead, because there are definitely ways to play with the priority table to gain an objective karma advantage between two builds with an identical concept. See some of the threads I've created recently, especially where Tecumseh has commented; by swapping two priority picks I've been able to gain a straight up mechanical advantage in that one would have required less karma to build from the ground up using karma instead of priority.

Well, if you wouldn't call that "better" and instead prefer "more optimized", I wouldn't disagree.

I empathize with the implicit argument that "less optimized" is still supposed to be fun and welcome.  The flipside of the "more optimized" argument is that there's precious little reason to not go Priority A in Attributes, almost no matter what your concept is.  And if everyone puts A in the same pick, it turns down the diversity of character builds.

[ZeroSum]

@Stainless Steel Devil Rat
I only think the term "better" is loaded because what is better or worse can be largely subjective. Math on the other hand is objective, and "efficient" is less subjective than "better" in my opinion.

This is purely semantics, of course, and I wholly agree with your second statement.

One of the design goals in 6th Edition was to streamline and make "the rules move faster while still giving players lots of choices and tactics." I do not think the Priority System accomplishes this, because there are objectively more efficient ways to build the same character. This does not encourage choice, it penalizes those who either a) do not have the capacity to understand the nuances and/or the system mastery to make choices based on this fact, or b) artificially limits character advancement after character generation due to how advancements are calculated.

You should absolutely be able to build the character you want and play it however you like. But when you can approach the same build in two different ways and one objectively gives you more resources (be that nuyen, skills, or attributes) than the other, the system is not balanced nor streamlined.

While Karma Builds are definitely more complex, they are objectively more balanced because the balancing act of priority tables are not involved.