[Shinobi Killfist]

As they have always just been glorified brass knucks that’s the damage they should be doing. Back to 2e they have been doing sword
Level damage and that never made sense. And devalued many other attack ware like spurs or razors.

Actually, in 3E they went from (Str+2)M to (Str+4)M Stun in the CRB, but if you chose to do physical damage the power of the attack was halved.  Kinda sounds like bringing that part back would bring it more in line with other damage values in SR6.

On edit: Shadowtech (looks like 1E) also has them listed as doing half Power when they're used for physical damage.

So much for my memory. At least this lapse I won’t blame on age. It’s just been a while since I played 3e so I forgot that twist.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Most urban/indoor operations aren't going beyond 50m or so, let a lone 250m, so things like heavy pistols and SMGs have more value as standard kit (the Praetor is my go-to in 6th). Having bone lacing (even without the STR buff) in those situations give you options when someone gets up close, so you could try to shoot at reduced AR or just punch/kick them for reduced damage.

Same feelings. When I first saw the definitions of the ranges for the table, I was quite surprised. They seem unrealistic for many of the weapons, and also seem very concerned with a lot of long ranges that never get used at my table. Almost all our stuff happens at a range of no more than tens of metres. Other than that they seem fine, mechanically; they’re just... very leggy.

It’s whats lost for ease I guess. Heck a pistols short range going out to 50 meters is pretty insane in itself it’s effective range at 250 meters is crazy as well. Hitting a non moving target at 50 meters with a pistol in non combat situations requires a decent amount of practice. Most people I see at the range shoot at the 5-20 meter range with their pistols. 50 meters is like the end of many pistol ranges, it’s a brick wall past 50.

So while I get the idea of unifying distances for ease the ranges are off for imo the most common weapons used by shadowrunners. (Pistols)

[Noble Drake]

So while I get the idea of unifying distances for ease the ranges are off for imo the most common weapons used by shadowrunners. (Pistols)

Seems to me like the devs looked at a particular source of info on most commonly used firearms and saw a lot of assault rifles and shotguns as primary weapons so they set the ranges to fit those best and "squished" or "stretched" everything else to match that scale.

If I were the one making the choice on range scaling, I'd have basically set the scale to heavy pistol ranges - not because those get used most often in my experience, but because those ranges (or shorter ranges) are the ones most often coming up in runs (both of my own devising and published).

I can't say which weapons actually show up more frequently than others because, while I presume organized play has similar traits to organized play leagues for other games which I have experience where-in the characters are usually built with a concern of having the 'strongest' build for character type, I haven't actually played any organized shadowrun, and my personal groups of shadowrun players always manage to be players that want to use different types of weapons from each other (i.e. if someone has an assault rifle for their character, no one else will use an assault rifle even if they were also wanting to use automatics - they'd grab an SMG) so there's only one of each per game.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Yeah I suspect our games a similar then. No idea what organized play looks like but in ours it’s all about weapons you can conceal. People may own a assault rifle. I think our street sam finally bought one 2 runs back. But it’s only pulled out for raids which are rare for us.

I think the issue is if you modeled the ranges after pistols ranges you’d need like 20 range categories to cover a rifle or the jump from pistol end range to rifle next range would be huge.

[SDTroll]

I just wanted to put in the image that convinced me there was a problem with the lack of strength adding to melee damage.  Imagine an arena combat between a troll unarmed monster and a street kid.  How do they weaken the troll to make the fight more even? They strap Ares Hardliner Gloves on him.  Suddenly his massive, powerful fists are identical in damage and AR as the kid.  The 13 strength troll hits exactly as hard as the 1 strength kid.

[Shadowjack]

A house rule I've been testing a little is that significant strength disparities in melee combat earn edge for the stronger party. It's simple and makes sense.

[Michael Chandra]

I just wanted to put in the image that convinced me there was a problem with the lack of strength adding to melee damage.  Imagine an arena combat between a troll unarmed monster and a street kid.  How do they weaken the troll to make the fight more even? They strap Ares Hardliner Gloves on him.  Suddenly his massive, powerful fists are identical in damage and AR as the kid.  The 13 strength troll hits exactly as hard as the 1 strength kid.

Eh, I care more about realistic scenarios runners will encounter than hypothetical cases the rules aren't meant to cover to begin with.

[Ghost Rigger]

"Random corpkid showed up to the wrong place at the wrong time, and now he's a witness to our crimes! Quick, KO him before he calls the cops, but don't kill him because that would attract the wrath of his corp."

That doesn't sound very 'hypothetical' to me.

[Lormyr]

Eh, I care more about realistic scenarios runners will encounter than hypothetical cases the rules aren't meant to cover to begin with.

The rules aren't meant to sensibly cover what should happen when a peak strength character attacks a significantly weaker character while both wield the same weapon?

I'd love for you all to run a small experiment. Ask any gaming friend who is not a literal idiot the following question and see what they say:

"Character A is a 2.6 meter tall, 400kg troll, with peak musculature for his species and size. Character B is a 1.8 meter tall, 78kg human, with fairly average musculature for his species and size. Both characters wield a battle axe of the same size and craftsmanship. Whom should inflict more damage with a successful hit to the same location of an identical enemy?".

I guarantee all answers will be Character A. Why? Because it is the only answer that makes sense.

[SDTroll]

Eh, I care more about realistic scenarios runners will encounter than hypothetical cases the rules aren't meant to cover to begin with.

OK, how's this.  While on a run, your group finds a pair of Hardliner gloves.  Turn to the ork unarmed monster with the 12 strength.  "Grab those, man, they are designed to make you punch even harder."
"Nah, chummer.  Those make me punch like a anorexic elf.  I do more damage without them."

[Hobbes]

"Random corpkid showed up to the wrong place at the wrong time, and now he's a witness to our crimes! Quick, KO him before he calls the cops, but don't kill him because that would attract the wrath of his corp."

That doesn't sound very 'hypothetical' to me.

Or Troll Bouncer vs typical Decker... "Oh god quick, give that Troll a knife before he kills me!"   : )

Yeah.  Not the best.  Unfortunately house rule and hope for Errata is what you've got at this time if this is immersion breaking enough to disrupt your table.

[SDTroll]

Something I was thinking about, what do people think of having unarmed based on strength, like it is, but having melee weapons add a smaller fraction of your strength to them?  That would make it less efficient for really strong characters to use small weapons, but not eliminate the value of weapons all together. 

For example, Unarmed is strength/2.  Melee weapons get Strength/3 added to their damage.  So a knife with 1P damage wielded by a strength 2 person would do 2P, more than the 1S they do unarmed, but a 12 strength character would do 5P with the knife and 6S unarmed.  At some point, the amount of force behind the knife becomes irrelevant, once it is all the way inside you and has cracked a few ribs on impact.  The numbers are just made up, it's the concept I'm considering.

[Hobbes]

Eh, I care more about realistic scenarios runners will encounter than hypothetical cases the rules aren't meant to cover to begin with.

The rules aren't meant to sensibly cover what should happen when a peak strength character attacks a significantly weaker character while both wield the same weapon?

I'd love for you all to run a small experiment. Ask any gaming friend who is not a literal idiot the following question and see what they say:

"Character A is a 2.6 meter tall, 400kg troll, with peak musculature for his species and size. Character B is a 1.8 meter tall, 78kg human, with fairly average musculature for his species and size. Both characters wield a battle axe of the same size and craftsmanship. Whom should inflict more damage with a successful hit to the same location of an identical enemy?".

I guarantee all answers will be Character A. Why? Because it is the only answer that makes sense.

Well they are.  Just arguably the result lacks verisimilitude, and don't match up with player expectations.  Which is a problem that lacks a good solution.

[skalchemist]

In our upcoming game we have decided on a house rule that says that if you pick up a melee weapon and use it your effectiveness will not decrease from what it was when you were unarmed.  So, taking the example of a katana (AR 10, DV 4P)

* you have Strength 3 and Reaction 2; your unarmed attack rating is 5 and unarmed damage is 2S. Using the katana your AR is 10 and your DV is 4P.
* you have Strength 5 and Reaction 7; your unarmed attack rating is 12 and your unarmed damage is 3S. Using the Katana your AR stays at 12, and your damage goes to 4P.
* you have Strength 9 and Reaction 3; your unarmed attack rating is 12 and your damage is 5S. Using the Katana, the only difference is your damage becomes physical; your AR is 12 and your damage is 5P.

A few outlier effects would not follow this rule, such as Bone Density Augmentation (which essentially turns your fists into melee weapons anyway), but otherwise I think it should work for us.  I'm not sure it is particularly "realistic" in any fashion, but at least it preserves for you average Shadowrunner some mechanical value for using a melee weapon without paying a penalty for doing so.  In theory, a person's reaction time and strength could get so large that it really doesn't matter that much whether they have a sword in their hand or not, or at least doesn't matter at the scale of attack rating and damage value increments, but that really wasn't the goal of the house rule.
 It was simply to resolve the cognitive dissonance of a Shadowrunner picking up a melee weapon and suddenly being less effective.

[Xenon]

From both a Realistic and Hollywood-Realistic point of view I think it could make sense if a strong (but perhaps not very agile) troll would fair well with heavy cleave or blunt weapons (such as your combat axe example). More so than an agile (but perhaps not very strong) elf.

But at the same time I think it also make sense if an agile (but perhaps not very strong) elf would fair well with more agile piercing and cutting weapons (such as a rapier or katana). Probably more so than a strong (but perhaps not very agile) troll.


One [elegant] solution to this could be that Close Combat is linked to Strength (rather than Agility) when wielding heavy cleave or blunt weapons (such as a zweihander or a combat axe).