[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Why shouldn't the system be built to handle a fat nerd being forced to knife-fight a SAS commando?

Because no version of Shadowrun ever WAS designed to model a fat nerd knife fighting a SAS commando. So, I don't care that DVs are assuming that the wielder is some sort of professional combatant.

Honestly, why even bother rolling dice in these kinds of scenarios.  It's like rolling dice to see whether an apple falls when you let go of it.  Everyone knows the Shadowrunner is going to do anything and everything he wants to do to the fat nerdy corp scientist that's been targeted for extraction.  When it comes to whether or not the Shadowrunner/SAS commando can beat the bodyguard in a knife fight... THAT's what's actually important rather than whether a professional combatant can subdue an untrained noncombatant.

So if the fat nerdy unwilling extractee grabs a baseball bat or other object... really the variable is can you disarm him without hurting him rather than can you beat him. In rules/meta speak, the NPC is going to be spending edge anyway if the GM is actually trying to make the NPC put up any kind of actual threat, and don't try to say that pre or post edging a roll in 5e didn't mean more than pretty much every other factor combined.  Its not new to 6WE that an edge expenditure will eclipse a weapon DV that assumes competency when being used by the incompetent. If the fat nerdy scientist actually manages to hit and subsequently whacks you with the DV of a trained professional, it was clearly dumb luck and it's the first (and probably last) time in that NPC's life anything of the sort ever happens.

[Ghost Rigger]

Why shouldn't the system be built to handle a fat nerd being forced to knife-fight a SAS commando?

Because the system isn't designed to model a fat nerd knife fighting a SAS commando.

Nice job dodging the question. Why shouldn't it be designed to model a fat nerd knife-fighting a SAS commando?

Again, no edition of Shadowrun ever WAS.

I dunno, I feel previous editions modeled it adequately.

Honestly, why even bother rolling the dice.  It's like rolling dice to see whether an apple falls when you let go of it.  Everyone knows the Shadowrunner is going to do anything and everything he wants to do to the fat nerdy corp scientist that's been targeted for extraction.  When it comes to whether or not the Shadowrunner/SAS commando can beat the bodyguard in a knife fight... THAT's what's actually important rather than whether a professional combatant can subdue an untrained noncombatant.

And what happens when the fat nerd in question is the team's decker? Does automatically get taken out with no rolls, with no chance to struggle just long enough for the streetsam to run to him and save his fat ass?

[Shinobi Killfist]

I expect the fat nerd in 6e will have a 2 agility and no combat skills so it shouldnt be hard for a runner to grab them.

There are issues with this ill outright say it’s bad design, I don’t think this is it though.

[Moonshine Fox]

An agile elven noble who is a master duelist with a rapier is just as equally deadly as a bulked up troll merc who has mastered his use of an axe.

All that was represented in previous editions by both strength and net hits contributing to melee damage; both the raw force and how you apply it matters. By removing strength from melee damage, 6e does away with the importance of raw force.

Or to look at it from the other side, it places the emphasis more heavily on the skill of the person using a weapon, which is more accurate to what happens in a fight. A scrawny 10 year old who is highly trained in a combat skill can easily take down a giant bruiser who's not as skilled. I had the bruises to prove it.

Or to put it yet another way "It ain't what you got, it's how you use it." Being jacked won't help you one bit if you don't know how to fight, you're more libel to break your own hand when you punch someone.

[adzling]

skills already affect your chance to hit.

strength affects how much damage you do when you connect.

or to put it another way:

why do we use weapons in the first place?
clearly because they do more damage than when you punch someone.
so why would someone do more damage with their fist than a sword?
the only answer can be because the game is busted in this area.
otherwise folks wouldn't use weapons, they would just punch people....

I'd say the history of warfare and combat shows just how dumb the argument of "strength shouldn't effect weapon damage" is.

this is clearly a case of simplification damaging the game for no net benefit.

which is just maddening tbh, it did not have to be this way.

[Ghost Rigger]

Or to look at it from the other side, it places the emphasis more heavily on the skill of the person using a weapon, which is more accurate to what happens in a fight. A scrawny 10 year old who is highly trained in a combat skill can easily take down a giant bruiser who's not as skilled. I had the bruises to prove it.

Or to put it yet another way "It ain't what you got, it's how you use it." Being jacked won't help you one bit if you don't know how to fight, you're more libel to break your own hand when you punch someone.

But the way it's implemented introduces the problem that between two equally skilled opponents, one being much stronger than the other doesn't matter.

[adzling]

[quote author=Ghost Rigger link=topic=29528.msg520371#msg520371
But the way it's implemented introduces the problem that between two equally skilled opponents, one being much stronger than the other doesn't matter.
[/quote]

i have yet to hear an argument that makes any sense as to why Conan swinging a greatsword should do the same damage as erkle swinging a greatsword.

clearly it's bogus.

[Lormyr]

this is clearly a case of simplification damaging the game for no net benefit.

I like some of the simplification they did. This particular issue just happens to be one that I am passionately opposed to because it is so far divorced from both logic and expectation.

But the way it's implemented introduces the problem that between two equally skilled opponents, one being much stronger than the other doesn't matter.

Bingo.

Besides that, while I agree that skill is the most prominent factor in real life, it is not the only deciding factor by a long shot.

[adzling]

this is clearly a case of simplification damaging the game for no net benefit.

I like some of the simplification they did. This particular issue just happens to be one that I am passionately opposed to because it is so far divorced from both logic and expectation.

Agreed, simplification / streamlining was required.

My issue is the same as yours; this is clearly not a rational choice nor a good choice.

I would lay money that it was borne of being backed into a corner mechanics-wise.

When you give up on rational outcomes in favor of rule of cool you end up MiB land.

Welcome to 6e.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Why shouldn't (Shadowrun) be designed to model a fat nerd knife-fighting a SAS commando..I feel previous editions modeled it adequately.

Because Shadowrun is a game where you play Shadowrunners doing Shadowruns.  In-universe, there are firefighters putting out fires. Athletes playing sports. DocWagon medics treating sick kiddos in urgent care clinics. Wageslaves working soul-crushing corp jobs. The rules aren't designed to cover any of these types of characters or activities, even though you might temporarily get involved in them for a single mission. Or even as a heavily modified, non-shadowrunner type of campaign.

The combat ability of a fat nerd is simply not relevant in a game about shadowrunners performing shadowruns. Allowing them the same DV when using weapons is well within the suspension of disbelief, imo. Especially since Edge is an even bigger X factor anyway than "professional vs non-professional" weapon familiarity.

And what happens when the fat nerd in question is the team's decker?

The decker never is the fat nerd.  Even if the decker is fat, nerdy, and has identical physical attributes and skills, the "pedestrian" fat nerd is still not a professional shadowrunner.  Even if they have identical stats, any shadowruner categorically a different thing thing than any NPC, to say nothing of a noncombatant NPC. Even while lacking the stats and technical skill of a Sammie, Deckers have a familiarity with how to "do" Shadowrun related activities that are not necessarily also true for NPC fat nerdy types.

[Marcus]

Is there a point to this? We all know and have established despite the protests of the pro faction. That the str change is terrible. So is this going somewhere or are you just wanting to see how many posts SSDR will make against it?

[Lormyr]

Even if the decker is fat, nerdy, and has identical physical attributes and skills, the "pedestrian" fat nerd is still not a professional shadowrunner.  Even if they have identical stats, any shadowruner categorically a different thing thing than any NPC, to say nothing of a noncombatant NPC. Even while lacking the stats and technical skill of a Sammie, Deckers have a familiarity with how to "do" Shadowrun related activities that are not necessarily also true for NPC fat nerdy types.

In fairness, the fat nerd vs. commando is just as extreme as the fully augmented troll vs. paraplegic pixie issue. So that aside, I have trouble getting behind your perspective, because attributes and skills are what is used to reflect one's capability in this system. So if the shadowrunner nerd has physical attributes of 2 and no melee, and the pedestrian nerd has the same, I will need you to help explain to me how there is any real difference between the commando electing to execute either (it would not be a fight).

[adzling]

It's hard to argue with physics.

That's why you will not see a rational argument in support of not factoring str into melee.

Heck even if you ignore strength and just consider the additional mass of a larger/stronger persons arm/body you would know that their blows would impart more damage.

In fact 6e knows this and factors strength into unarmed.

Which makes it even more hilarious to see folks arguing it makes sense to not factor it into armed combat.

The same irrational and poorly constructed arguments they use to support this ("skill not strength") also applies to unarmed....

[Shinobi Killfist]

An agile elven noble who is a master duelist with a rapier is just as equally deadly as a bulked up troll merc who has mastered his use of an axe.

All that was represented in previous editions by both strength and net hits contributing to melee damage; both the raw force and how you apply it matters. By removing strength from melee damage, 6e does away with the importance of raw force.

Or to look at it from the other side, it places the emphasis more heavily on the skill of the person using a weapon, which is more accurate to what happens in a fight. A scrawny 10 year old who is highly trained in a combat skill can easily take down a giant bruiser who's not as skilled. I had the bruises to prove it.

Or to put it yet another way "It ain't what you got, it's how you use it." Being jacked won't help you one bit if you don't know how to fight, you're more libel to break your own hand when you punch someone.

That’s what skill dice are for. To represent skill. Though I’m not sure I agree with your premise. Generally if a person has you on strength to any significant degree you don’t have to just be better than them. But a lot better than them. As much as I love the 3 ninjas movies they aren’t particularly realistic.


Simplification that would have actually worked here is flip the stats. Agility adds to attack value. Strength is your dice pool. Give unarmed a base damage of 1.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

In fairness, the fat nerd vs. commando is just as extreme as the fully augmented troll vs. paraplegic pixie issue. So that aside, I have trouble getting behind your perspective, because attributes and skills are what is used to reflect one's capability in this system. So if the shadowrunner nerd has physical attributes of 2 and no melee, and the pedestrian nerd has the same, I will need you to help explain to me how there is any real difference between the commando electing to execute either (it would not be a fight).

It's ultimately a derivative on the "game rules handle PCs and NPCs differently" phenomenon.

The shadowrunners with all 1s for physical stats and no Close Combat skill still has in-universe advantage over pedestrians/fat nerds/whatever-term-you-want-to-use that also have those same stats in that they ARE SHADOWRUNNERS. Even without the ability or skill of the adept or Sammie, at the very least they have experience of seeing how to properly use a weapon as opposed to the "how they do it in the movies" education the NPC non-combatant has.

Is there a point to this?

To be fair, sometimes I wonder.  I participate because I have what's in many cases a delusion that people who see something in 6WE they don't like want to hear about another way to look at the problem that might make the issue seem less severe/important.

Like, case in point today: been trying to say on the topic of DVs presuming competence leaves corners where the INcompetent might reasonably try to engage in combat... the incompetent will likely be spending Edge (or else they won't even be hitting anyway and DV is moot on a miss) and Edge expenditures count for more than that DV presumption. Ergo: those corners being uncovered by the rules aren't that "big of a deal".  Of course, YMMV.