[Shinobi Killfist]

errata is not meant to redesign the game, it's only meant to fix the borked and missing stuff.

so while we're already working on 6e (stainless and carmody have done most of the heavy lifting already) it's only to patch the stuff that's missing, broken or not as intended.

strength and how it works is working as intended afaik

I can't fathom what the intent is here honestly. Luckily a sort of patch house rule is easy. Melee uses strength for the die pool. It should have from the beginning anyways.  Agility is more hand eye coordination, balance and delicate action stuff IMO.  Strength is your explosive action stat, so it should cover running, jumping, punching, kicking etc.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I am guessing (without any inside information, mind you) that the decision to take strength out of melee damage + keep it in Unarmed Combat was an attempt to make Unarmed Combat worthwhile.

In 5e, even an Unarmed Combat Adept would almost always do more damage with a weapon, if they just had the skill to use it.

Sure, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for taking Unarmed Combat in 5e, but it always lagged behind damn near everything in actual combat ability.

This reads to me as an attempt to alter that.  "Guns can get up to 8+ DV, and so can a Troll in unarmed Combat!"

This is not to say that it makes sense, or works.  It is just my take on the intention here.

Interesting idea. But the skeletons mods which I always should have only given +1DV got you a pretty good edge at up to +3DV which is basically a katana minus the AP and reach.  I think the real issue was the capped critical strike at 1DV. In 4E you had your Base DV of 2 and then bumped that to 8 with 6 levels of critical strike. A troll might have a base DV of 5 bumped to 11. So unarmed stayed competitive.  It also felt closer to 1-3e as previously killing hands could get up to starting at deadly damage.

I'm not sure there should be a goal to balance unaugmented by either magic or ware unarmed damage with a sword or axe wielded by the same person.But maybe thier were complaints.

Personally I think its just a massive over correction to full strength DV in 5e. They bumped it from 4e to 5e trying to make strength more viable, and went too far I think.  Now they over corrected and made it worse than in 4e where it was a bit weak.

[adzling]

I am guessing (without any inside information, mind you) that the decision to take strength out of melee damage + keep it in Unarmed Combat was an attempt to make Unarmed Combat worthwhile.

In 5e, even an Unarmed Combat Adept would almost always do more damage with a weapon, if they just had the skill to use it.

Sure, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for taking Unarmed Combat in 5e, but it always lagged behind damn near everything in actual combat ability.

This reads to me as an attempt to alter that.  "Guns can get up to 8+ DV, and so can a Troll in unarmed Combat!"

This is not to say that it makes sense, or works.  It is just my take on the intention here.

i don't know the motivations for the change but i don't agree with your summation of 5e unarmed vs. melee.

unarmed has a place for high security locations that don't permit weapons AND with correct choices unarmed can be almost as deadly as armed in 5e (bone lacing, striking calluses, knucks, adept powers, etc).

the reason why people use weapons irl is because THEY ARE MORE EFFECTIVE than your fists and feet. To not have that reflected in-game seems idiotic to me tbh.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I am guessing (without any inside information, mind you) that the decision to take strength out of melee damage + keep it in Unarmed Combat was an attempt to make Unarmed Combat worthwhile.

In 5e, even an Unarmed Combat Adept would almost always do more damage with a weapon, if they just had the skill to use it.

Sure, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for taking Unarmed Combat in 5e, but it always lagged behind damn near everything in actual combat ability.

This reads to me as an attempt to alter that.  "Guns can get up to 8+ DV, and so can a Troll in unarmed Combat!"

This is not to say that it makes sense, or works.  It is just my take on the intention here.

Interesting idea. But the skeletons mods which I always should have only given +1DV got you a pretty good edge at up to +3DV which is basically a katana minus the AP and reach.  I think the real issue was the capped critical strike at 1DV. In 4E you had your Base DV of 2 and then bumped that to 8 with 6 levels of critical strike. A troll might have a base DV of 5 bumped to 11. So unarmed stayed competitive.  It also felt closer to 1-3e as previously killing hands could get up to starting at deadly damage.

I'm not sure there should be a goal to balance unaugmented by either magic or ware unarmed damage with a sword or axe wielded by the same person.But maybe thier were complaints.

Personally I think its just a massive over correction to full strength DV in 5e. They bumped it from 4e to 5e trying to make strength more viable, and went too far I think.  Now they over corrected and made it worse than in 4e where it was a bit weak.

I mostly agree, except I think magic is the exception.  If an adept kicks harder than a combat axe is have 0 issues with it. He's not jut kicking you, he is channeling deadly magic into your body. It's is no weirder to me than a fireball hitting harder than a axe.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

unarmed has a place for high security locations that don't permit weapons

Sure, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for taking Unarmed Combat in 5e, but it always lagged behind damn near everything in actual combat ability.

... AND with correct choices unarmed can be almost as deadly as armed in 5e (bone lacing, striking calluses, knucks, adept powers, etc).

This completely negates your first point of this statement.

If Unarmed Combat is useful in high security locations, it effectiveness is completely negated by needing bone lacing, knucks and such that will be detected in said high security locations.

Adept Powers can only add 1 DV, as Shinobi Killfist has stated.

Striking Calluses are hit or miss on if they are detectable.  Besides, they were dumbly written.

[adzling]

you claim my point about unarmed being almost as useful as melee is not true because you can't get unarmed augmentations into secure areas.

that's clearly crap, it's a lot easier to detect a knife or sword than bone lacing or striking calluses

and then you complain about how a specific piece of kit (calluses) were poorly written and so should be ignored?
wtf is the relevance of that exactly?

the basic premise still stands, unarmed has a place in 5e that melee weapons don't fill well and when optimized for it an unarmed character can do almost as well as a melee combatant.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

the basic premise still stands, unarmed has a place in 5e that melee weapons don't fill well and when optimized for it an unarmed character can do almost as well as a melee combatant.

You keep ignoring:

Sure, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for taking Unarmed Combat in 5e, but it always lagged behind damn near everything in actual combat ability.

Just to continue your fight.  (Emphasis added for your benefit.)

and then you complain about how a specific piece of kit (calluses) were poorly written and so should be ignored?
wtf is the relevance of that exactly?

The f'n relevance is:

You get more benefit with more calluses installed when you don't get more benefit from multiple knucks, for example.
And how, exactly, do you justify multiple calluses providing increased Unarmed Combat bonuses, when wearing mil-spec armor - for example - doesn't provide the very same benefit?

Striking Calluses are the bioware equivelant of the Rain Forest Carbine.  Poorly written.

[BeCareful]

So, to sort of summarize:
In 5e, you can never really be as good at fighting unarmed as you can be fighting with a weapon (which makes sense, as a solid metal blade will be sturdier than a foot).
You can still be reasonably good at fighting unarmed, for various reasons (to be able to attack even when disarmed, to put a slap-patch on someone, for a surprise attack, or what-have-you).
The striking callus should have common sense errata applied by the GM as needed, in case a player asks if they stack or something.
I do also think that, with equal skill, you should be able to hit harder with a club than with a fist, unless you're an adept who's invested that way.
So I don't see much of a problem with the way 5e handles it. I do want to know why 6e apparently de-coupled STR from hand-to-hand weapon damage, and I assume it's due to other reasons we haven't been able to hear yet.

[Shinobi Killfist]

So, to sort of summarize:
In 5e, you can never really be as good at fighting unarmed as you can be fighting with a weapon (which makes sense, as a solid metal blade will be sturdier than a foot).
You can still be reasonably good at fighting unarmed, for various reasons (to be able to attack even when disarmed, to put a slap-patch on someone, for a surprise attack, or what-have-you).
The striking callus should have common sense errata applied by the GM as needed, in case a player asks if they stack or something.
I do also think that, with equal skill, you should be able to hit harder with a club than with a fist, unless you're an adept who's invested that way.
So I don't see much of a problem with the way 5e handles it. I do want to know why 6e apparently de-coupled STR from hand-to-hand weapon damage, and I assume it's due to other reasons we haven't been able to hear yet.

My only guess was to reduce multiple attribute dependency for combatants. One less attribute you need for offense. At this point they should have just ditched the attribute and made the small amount left of the stat part of body.

I like some of what I heard.  I like removing force from spells though I wish they had done the same for spirits, and instead of a structured up cast I would have preferred a simple over and under cast mechanic. Basically a cantrip version, a standard version and a going all out version. But still it is a step in the right direction IMO.  I like the one pass a turn idea.  I'm not sure they implemented it right, and the loss of free actions I think is a bad idea as there is nothing exciting about using actions for chewing gum, but hey if you have your cyber jaw wirelessly enabled I'm sure you get a bonus minor aciton to do that so you can chew gum and walk at the same time. Still again, I think  its a good step in the right direction, that probably just needs some finessing, hopefully a supplement that has new maneuvers will be that finesse. I like what we have for the most part seen from edge, the causing enemies to glitch more often is questionable but overall I do like the concept of a pool that you can grow and generate quickly in play that is frequently used for usually somewhat minor effects. Kind of reminds me of a combat pool from earlier editions.  Sure you might want to go all out and use 4 edge and shoot 3 gangers at no penalty, but if they are still up and shoot at you you might not have the edge to survive it.  It sounds like a fun mechanic.

Not happy with the metahuman changes, or strength being decoupled from melee. I have nothing positive to say about either of those. The strength one seems really bad.

[Lormyr]

str adds nothing to DV for melee weapons (only unarmed for some reason) nor does it add to your dice pool (you still use agility + skill).

Str does not factor into which melee weapons you can wield.

str adds to your close combat attack value (so effectively it may help grab a point of edge).

For my clarification, is this confirmed via your eyes seeing the material or first hand from Hardy/Banshee ect? I only ask because there appears to be a lot of disconnect between the quick start rules, actual book rules, and people running things incorrectly in the podcasts and such. Hard to tell what is what at this point.

[BeCareful]

Oh, also, even though I don't personally mind whether there's a list of dice pool modifiers, or a list of What Grants Edge, either way, that's what handy GM screen cheat sheets are for.

[adzling]

str adds nothing to DV for melee weapons (only unarmed for some reason) nor does it add to your dice pool (you still use agility + skill).

Str does not factor into which melee weapons you can wield.

str adds to your close combat attack value (so effectively it may help grab a point of edge).

For my clarification, is this confirmed via your eyes seeing the material or first hand from Hardy/Banshee ect? I only ask because there appears to be a lot of disconnect between the quick start rules, actual book rules, and people running things incorrectly in the podcasts and such. Hard to tell what is what at this point.

my eyes on the core book

[Lormyr]

Thanks Adzling.

That said, I am both baffled and speechless at how that change could have possibly been seen as either good or thematically appropriate.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Thanks Adzling.

That said, I am both baffled and speechless at how that change could have possibly been seen as either good or thematically appropriate.

My snarky answer is if you look at the deadlift weight rules their concept of strength ranged from scrawny 5 year old to scrawny 12 year old. It’s cool to see that I’m peak human strength in shadowrun land despite being a middling deadlifter.

On a thematic level I’m guessing they are trying to reinforce the tv/movie thing where skinny super model tosses 250lb muscle bound dude around with ease.

[Jareth Valar]

str adds nothing to DV for melee weapons (only unarmed for some reason) nor does it add to your dice pool (you still use agility + skill).

Str does not factor into which melee weapons you can wield.

str adds to your close combat attack value (so effectively it may help grab a point of edge).

For my clarification, is this confirmed via your eyes seeing the material or first hand from Hardy/Banshee ect? I only ask because there appears to be a lot of disconnect between the quick start rules, actual book rules, and people running things incorrectly in the podcasts and such. Hard to tell what is what at this point.

my eyes on the core book

The only way I can begin to comprehend why they would divorce Str from Melee weapon damages is if the weapon damages are notably higher than most viable unarmed damage and/or there are minimum Str requirements to wield certain weapons.  Are you able/willing to confirm/deny these?

OK, I lied, still can't begin to comprehend why....I mean, a scrawny pixie with a knife does the same as troll hulk?  I can't think of a single explanation that can justify that one to me. If "game balance" is the excuse, then another look at the basic game mechanics should have been done first. I can only suspend my disbelief so far.