[GLD]

Just got the Sixth Edition today and I'm going over the rules. This has been something I've been trying to figure out for a while now and I cannot possibly reconcile rules as written with the logic of game design and any form of reality. Am I to understand that strength plays no role in the application of damage with melee weapons? It doesn't determine dice pool for melee attacks, it doesn't increase DV, it does basically nothing as far as a standard melee attack goes. That a Troll with 9 Strength and an Elf with 2 will do the same damage when smashing an enemy with an axe, assuming they have the same close combat skill rating?

[Ajax]

You are correct. The only effect Strength has on mêlée combat as written is for Unarmed damage... 

My group house ruled both Athletics and Close Combat to be Strength-based skills. It’s been working quite well for us, but YMMV.

[Shadowjack]

I don't mind the spirit of the change but in practice, there are weird issues like unarmed attacks from trolls with high strength dealing more damage than a combat axe. I play a razorgirl with hand razors and she deals more damage with her fists than the razors, she has 6 strength. You can expect lots of house rules and I'm sure the combat book, Firing Squad, will have some optional rules to help.

[GLD]

Well thanks for the confirmation. It just feels like Strength is practically a dump stat now as it influences very little. Even at 6 Str, you get just as much effect with a pair of cheap knucks. What else besides carrying capacity and grappling? The idea of changing the attribute for Close Combat to Strength would go a long way in mitigating some of the inherent weirdness of it all. Or doing a DnD style, use whichever is higher between Strength or Agility.

[Shadowjack]

Strength is also used in climbing, calculating unarmed attack rating, pushing, pulling, breaking out of grapples, preventing someone from disarming you, defending against the decrease attribute spell, and perhaps a couple more things. I have been considering awarding edge in melee situations in which one person/creature has a significant strength advantage. I like that because close combat lacks ways of gaining edge due to lower attack ratings. Any thoughts on that?

[Michael Chandra]

Good one, I like that. You're right that compared to Rigging and gunning (and facing), many other approaches tend to lack in Edge-methods. I don't mind as much for mages, since magic is still really awesome, but with close combat it would be nice to have a few extra ways.

[Finstersang]

Strength is also used in climbing, calculating unarmed attack rating, pushing, pulling, breaking out of grapples, preventing someone from disarming you, defending against the decrease attribute spell, and perhaps a couple more things. I have been considering awarding edge in melee situations in which one person/creature has a significant strength advantage. I like that because close combat lacks ways of gaining edge due to lower attack ratings. Any thoughts on that?

I was going to say that "Preventing from the decrease Attribute spell" is a bit redundant under the assumption that Strength might be a dumbstat, since it only protects you from decreasing itself. Then I realized that you still collapse when a mundane Attribute reaches zero (Wow, I just noticed that Decrease Attribute is quite a tool against dumbstatters in general... ). You can also add Strength requirements for Machine Guns to that list.

So yeah, the problem isn´t really that Strength is a "Dumptstat" (it isn´t), it´s the fact that Strength scales with unarmed combat for both AR and Damage Calculation while having no impact on melee weapons at all. A Strength Score of 5 is already enough to compete with most melee weapons, often making them obsolete alltogether. And that´s without bringing stuff like Dermal Deposits and Bone Augmentations into the mix. And bear in mind that melee weapons have first to be readied (and hidden and public) while fists are always available.

I´m not sure if it´s going to cut it, but your suggestion is surely better than leaving Strength completely out of the mix for armed combat. If you want to go the "edgy" route: Why not do the most obvious thing and add Strength to the baseline AR of the Weapon? Most Melee Weapons have Attack ratings that are so low that one can only wonder if these were originally supposed to have Strength added to it and then someone in editing convieniently deleted a sentence or two...

[Shadowjack]

Strength should absolutely add to melee weapon attack rating and I plan to house rule it as such. I have a razorgirl with handrazors and she is deadly, but I'm hard capped at 6 attack rating some guy with 3 body and no armor can stop me from gaining edge.

[CigarSmoker]

a few uses of strength are not mentioned yet in this thread ... not really what i consider a true dump stat (but far from perfect ):

- You need 5 strength for heavy machine guns. (3 str for light machine guns) That one rule is on CRB 6th p.257 .

- Bows use strength for their damage since you can only use a bow with rating equal to your str.

- Grenades use unarmed Attack Rating (and thats Strength + Reaction)

[Finstersang]

Strength should absolutely add to melee weapon attack rating and I plan to house rule it as such. I have a razorgirl with handrazors and she is deadly, but I'm hard capped at 6 attack rating some guy with 3 body and no armor can stop me from gaining edge.

You might want to try out my current houserule: If the the Strength of the Character is higher than the base damage code of the melee weapon, add the difference to the AR and half of the difference (round up) to the Damage Code.

Scales pretty well, even for Troll brutes with larger weapons. The damage and AR values aren´t going totally through the roof, and you can be (almost) sure that a weapon will do more damage than your fists alone, unless you use Bone Augmentations. Of course, the Monowhip is exempt from that rule 

a few uses of strength are not mentioned yet in this thread ... not really what i consider a true dump stat (but far from perfect ):

It´s a dumb stat, but not a dumpstat 

Strengthless melee weapons and the resulting imbalance between armed and unarmed combat is just so extremely disagreeable for most players that it overshadows all the remaining uses of the attribute.

Besides that, the only grievance I have is the fact that Sprinting uses Agility now (And the changes to Sprinting are quite stinky anyways. Why changing it from +2 to +1 Meter per Net Hit? That only devaluates the actual skill check that´s used for that action).

[Shadowjack]

Interesting idea, Fintersang. I'll consider it Thanks.

[penllawen]

Strength is also used in climbing, calculating unarmed attack rating, pushing, pulling, breaking out of grapples, preventing someone from disarming you, defending against the decrease attribute spell, and perhaps a couple more things.

Sure. It’s not nothing, but it’s pretty thin. Stack all that up against, say, the many uses for Agility and it starts to look like the least important attribute in the game.

Consider an armed melee combat build with Strength 1, Charisma 1, and a point left to spend (they suck because they didn’t pick A for Attributes). Should they put that point into Strength or into Charisma? Bearing in mind every runner has to pass a basic Con or Etiquette check from time to time? And adding the point to Strength does only the stuff you have listed. I’d have the Charisma, personally.

[Shadowjack]

Strength is also used in climbing, calculating unarmed attack rating, pushing, pulling, breaking out of grapples, preventing someone from disarming you, defending against the decrease attribute spell, and perhaps a couple more things.

Sure. It’s not nothing, but it’s pretty thin. Stack all that up against, say, the many uses for Agility and it starts to look like the least important attribute in the game.

Consider an armed melee combat build with Strength 1, Charisma 1, and a point left to spend (they suck because they didn’t pick A for Attributes). Should they put that point into Strength or into Charisma? Bearing in mind every runner has to pass a basic Con or Etiquette check from time to time? And adding the point to Strength does only the stuff you have listed. I’d have the Charisma, personally.

It's not ideal but imo the value of strength really boils down to who your GM is and what kind of campaign is being played. If your strength is low then its pretty easy to disarm your character or get one net hit on a decrease strength spell to reduce your strength to 0 and incapacitate you. Now personally I think that spell is bullshit when used that way but it is RAW.

[Michael Chandra]

Decrease Attribute is a Physical spell, and Touch, so you'd need to pass an unarmed Close Combat opposed test to use that spell, and can't do it from the astral as a sneak either. So doesn't sound that OP to me.

[Shadowjack]

It's still pretty questionable imo, getting one-shotted like that would a lot of people. But I admit I did not know those details you provided and that does make it much weaker.