[The Dweller]

There are two problems with this character.

One is that you dump everything else to be good at unarmed combat. This is a one-trick pony, as you mentioned. The problem is that it isn't a particularly good trick. The ability to take down 2 people standing right next to each other within charge range is neat, but you can't do anything else and in a whole lot of situations, you're just screwed.

As someone else mentioned, shadowrunners aren't one-man armies.  If the team has a face, a firearms expert, hacker, etc then this character's role is quite defined what part he plays.  I admit it was a pretty basic example, but I figured for those curious they might design a test more to their liking to see how the character would fare.

Incidentally, Kick Attack can't work with Hardliner Gloves.

And it didn't.  The kick attack was simply listed to fill up the other maneuver spot.  I considered describing the scene with Bruce kicking the two opponents (and then not bothering to list the gear examples at all), but the image of Bruce wearing his articulated fighting gloves was in my head and I left the fight as is.

The second is that this character would be dramatically improved by taking ware. You could if you so desired make a mundane who's just flat-out better at melee and is much less of a one-trick pony. Or you could make an augmented adept who is just as much a one-trick pony, but dramatically better at melee to the point of making this guy look like a joke. Neither is particularly hard to build, although if you don't believe me I'd be happy to outline them for you.

Actually, I'd love to see that outline (in whichever thread location is appropriate).  As a GM, I've looked at concept after concept ever since I picked up my old first ed hardback, and I'm having a hard time picturing a melee combatant that could dish out an attack with the level of damage this adept appears to be able to do.

[The Big Peat]

Swampfox, could you point me to the gear that gives you +4 AGI above your natural threshold that isn't cyber/bio ware? Replicating that with Adept powers is 6 MP or 4.5 MP with a way. Initiative passes are similar, providing you don't want a drug addiction (which will threaten your essence in and of itself).

Agi + 3 or Rea + 2 and 2 IPs both fit into one point of essence (or one power point in other words), without even monkeying around with a better grade of  implant. And both of those would cost more than one power point. That's a big difference in the short to medium term. And I can't see the gear that replicates that sort of thing.

[The Dweller]

The problem I noticed. Movement rate is divided by the number of Initiative passes in a combat turn. Mr. Bruce has 3 IPs. So he moves 8.33 meters in an IP. So he would not close distance before being shot.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Mr. Bruce would receive a couple bursts from ceska machine pistols before he could get punchy.

That was an error on my part.  I didn't mean to list the (15m) after mentioning the triads were standing at medium range (which is 6-15m for their guns).  I meant to word that as them being 'within' their medium range to make the example fight work.  In my mind I pictured them a step or two away from a position where their odds of shooting accurate were better (i.e short range).  I just didn't convey that to the reader (really my bad).

This is just some nitpicking, do the Triads have knives or guns as their readied weapon here? Cause if it's the guns you can assume they took aim and are prepared to fire should he attack them. Mr. Bruce might take a couple bursts before he gets 2 steps.

This is again my being vague and not setting the scene with more detail.  I pictured the scene through a Hollywood cinematic lens.  Triad member one has a knife slip into his hand from up his sleeve while number two pulls the sword from under his coat.  As Bruce looks side to side for an escape to avoid the confrontation, the one with the knife says "Don't try to run, omae" and opens his coat to reveal his firearm.  Bruce decides he wants to avoid the gunfire (and the authorities it will likely bring) and figures the thugs are confident enough to believe they can take him, so he turns to offer them the fight they obviously want.

[The Dweller]

Nitpick:  Raise Strength to 5, or (better yet) drop it to 3.  Having a Strength of 4 is a waste of points when your primary goal is makin' a melee monster. 

Doh!  I missed this part.  I was under the impression you always round down.  Did I miss a sentence on rounding somewhere?

[Cass100199]

Something has been bugging me about these character threads and I finally figured it out: when did roleplaying become about dice pools? A good GM will adjust the opposition level so that player doesn't get killed for simply being unable to throw 20+ dice at something. A GM can't play a good character for you. The character should be character first. If it isn't, it's glorified math.

[SwampFox]

Swampfox, could you point me to the gear that gives you +4 AGI above your natural threshold that isn't cyber/bio ware? Replicating that with Adept powers is 6 MP or 4.5 MP with a way. Initiative passes are similar, providing you don't want a drug addiction (which will threaten your essence in and of itself).

Agi + 3 or Rea + 2 and 2 IPs both fit into one point of essence (or one power point in other words), without even monkeying around with a better grade of  implant. And both of those would cost more than one power point. That's a big difference in the short to medium term. And I can't see the gear that replicates that sort of thing.

The Big Peat, please note that I did say "usually" in my post.  I am fully aware that there are some pieces of ware that, if you're playing a short-term or one-shot character, are good ideas to get.

And Cass, I know what you mean.  For things like Influence and social interactions, the group I'm in is much more likely to roleplay them out.  About the only time the dice get involved are when they're being used to determine whether or not a lie is being bought, or how much more nuyen our face can wrangle for us out of a deal.

[UmaroVI]

The second is that this character would be dramatically improved by taking ware. You could if you so desired make a mundane who's just flat-out better at melee and is much less of a one-trick pony. Or you could make an augmented adept who is just as much a one-trick pony, but dramatically better at melee to the point of making this guy look like a joke. Neither is particularly hard to build, although if you don't believe me I'd be happy to outline them for you.

Actually, I'd love to see that outline (in whichever thread location is appropriate).  As a GM, I've looked at concept after concept ever since I picked up my old first ed hardback, and I'm having a hard time picturing a melee combatant that could dish out an attack with the level of damage this adept appears to be able to do.

Sure. Before I do, would you mind filling in the rest of this guy's stats? It's helpful to compare the full package "side by side," as it were, in discussions like this. It also helps to keep things focused; otherwise it will be easy to get sidetracked with things that would help or hurt either character.

[UmaroVI]

Nitpick:  Raise Strength to 5, or (better yet) drop it to 3.  Having a Strength of 4 is a waste of points when your primary goal is makin' a melee monster. 

Doh!  I missed this part.  I was under the impression you always round down.  Did I miss a sentence on rounding somewhere?

SR4A 159 "Melee Damage."

You do round down by default but SR is a game system of general rules with lots of fiddly little exceptions.

[Critias]

Taking an adept down the unarmed combat demigod route is plenty of fun, but building one should either be a matter of making a character that's awesome anyways and that you have fun with, or purely an experimental exercise in character building.

So you believe a character can't be designed that does both?

Taken out of context, rather than including the next sentence, sure, it looks like I believe that.  But my point was that this area is for character creation and critique, not for starting in-depth arguments about whether adepts are worthwhile characters or not.  See the end of this post for more on that.

If the character can't stack up, can't be just as useful or moreso than another, then why play it? 

And yet you're getting defensive when people try to say things about whether or not this particular character can stack up, how useful this character is (compared to others), etc, etc.   

And what optional rules?  Nothing used in Bruce had any optional header in front of it.

The Adept's Way is clearly (albeit unfortunately, in my opinion) stated as being entirely optional rules.  Ways and their benefits are fully optional and require GM approval.

This is part of a character someone is playing in a local game.  And I was fishing for critiques on it (positive or otherwise).  And it looked like you were the one person that was making an outright argument over its viability (let alone the ability for someone to enjoy playing it, which the person is). 

You began the thread with "A fair number of people seem to have the view that physical adepts don't quite stack up to augmented characters at character creation."  That's not how someone starts a thread fishing for critiques on just a single character, that's how someone starts a thread fishing for critiques about adepts at all.   Which was the point of most of my post -- I'd prefer folks didn't start in-depth philosophical debates about the viability of entire archetypes here, but rather conversations about specific characters.

"A fair number of people seem to have the view that physical adepts don't quite stack up to augmented characters at character creation" is the way to do the former, not the latter.  The bulk of what I'm saying is "Man, I wish this guy hadn't opened the can of worms here."

[Cass100199]

There is a thread below about Adepts vs. Augmented. Not that big a difference.

[The Dweller]

Something has been bugging me about these character threads and I finally figured it out: when did roleplaying become about dice pools? A good GM will adjust the opposition level so that player doesn't get killed for simply being unable to throw 20+ dice at something. A GM can't play a good character for you. The character should be character first. If it isn't, it's glorified math.

I know we're off topic, but my guess would be around the time where building the character block by block instead of rolling dice to determine stats became the norm.  With great customization came great number crunching.

[UmaroVI]

The other problem is that if you're not careful, it's easy to have people show up with characters that have disparate power levels without really trying. It helps to have a clear understanding of how the game balance works so that as a GM or player you can avoid that.

[The Dweller]

Sure. Before I do, would you mind filling in the rest of this guy's stats? It's helpful to compare the full package "side by side," as it were, in discussions like this. It also helps to keep things focused; otherwise it will be easy to get sidetracked with things that would help or hurt either character.

I'll have to get a hold of the player to see how the character was finished out first.  Off the top of my head I simply remember some of the backstory elements.  Though I suppose I could fake it and fill in what sounds right based on the background.

[The Dweller]

The other problem is that if you're not careful, it's easy to have people show up with characters that have disparate power levels without really trying. It helps to have a clear understanding of how the game balance works so that as a GM or player you can avoid that.

Something I should point out then.  This was for a gaming group that's been playing on and off since the beginning of the game.  They've retired characters and concepts over the years and shortly after the release of 4th decided they would do so again and take a break as new source material was released.  That said, when they decided to start back up recently, they didn't want to make characters that felt like they were just beginning their running career.  But they also didn't want to use extra BP or any other advancing options.

So the general idea here was that each player would specialize in a field that was important overall to the group and would try to excel (in that one field) out of the box.  Its definitely not a concept for everyone as you say, and I should have included mentioning that at the beginning.

[The Dweller]

Taken out of context, rather than including the next sentence, sure, it looks like I believe that.  But my point was that this area is for character creation and critique, not for starting in-depth arguments about whether adepts are worthwhile characters or not.  See the end of this post for more on that.

But, this did involve character creation.  It wasn't merely a test concept sitting in a notebook, which was why I took the opportunity to post (most) of it.

And yet you're getting defensive when people try to say things about whether or not this particular character can stack up, how useful this character is (compared to others), etc, etc.   

Ahem, who doesn't attempt to defend any points brought up to scrutiny in a project they've had a hand in developing?   

The Adept's Way is clearly (albeit unfortunately, in my opinion) stated as being entirely optional rules.  Ways and their benefits are fully optional and require GM approval.

After going back through The Way of the Adept I was going to argue this as the words optional rules don't appear anywhere in the product itself.  But now I see that optional title in the sell sheet.  The group in question with the player of this character has one overriding house rule- no optional rules.  My fault really for simply diving into the product, and I'll have to remember to watch before I buy if somethings not really canon.  Although without warrior's way there is very little that will change regarding the effectiveness of the character.

You began the thread with "A fair number of people seem to have the view that physical adepts don't quite stack up to augmented characters at character creation."  That's not how someone starts a thread fishing for critiques on just a single character, that's how someone starts a thread fishing for critiques about adepts at all.   Which was the point of most of my post -- I'd prefer folks didn't start in-depth philosophical debates about the viability of entire archetypes here, but rather conversations about specific characters.

The  responses live up to the impression I had that it was going to turn into a adepts vs augments no matter what I said.  I could go back and edit the original post to try and restore focus to just the character itself, but I think it would be for moot.

"A fair number of people seem to have the view that physical adepts don't quite stack up to augmented characters at character creation" is the way to do the former, not the latter.  The bulk of what I'm saying is "Man, I wish this guy hadn't opened the can of worms here."

Worms can be packed with protein.  But that aside I've always been under the impression that a character concept will always come under fire when placed out in the open.  I'd also like to point out that I looked at the Combat Medic in this forum section and saw the debate of augmented vs unaugmented vs magic in it.  Then I saw the 'Do adepts have advantages that augmented do not.'  It didn't really look like my can was out of place based on the other things on the shelf