[Annoch]

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!

[Leith]

What is damage?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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'.

[Annoch]

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.

[Leith]

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.

[Michael Chandra]

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.

[Beta]

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? 

[imthedci]

What is damage?

Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
 

[skalchemist]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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)

[Shinobi Killfist]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

[Annoch]

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....

[Lormyr]

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.

[Xenon]

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.