[Tecumseh]

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.)

[Xenon]

What did they call the combined attribute? Body?

[Leith]

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?

[Xenon]

Because of Hollywood

[adzling]

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.

[Annoch]

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.

[Lormyr]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

[Lormyr]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

[Lormyr]

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.

[Xenon]

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

[skalchemist]

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.

[Lormyr]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.