A general aside: There's been a lot of discussion of game balance when it comes to player builds vs. what a GM needs to do to challenge them. There are many different play styles and preferences. All of them are valid. The golden rule for everyone having fun is know your audience.
Some players optimize builds in the hopes the GM will rise to the "challenge" of challenging them. Some players optimize because the act of optimizing is an integral part of their fun, and have no preference from there how hard or little of a challenge they receive so long as the game is fun (I fall into this category). Combats don't have to be any harder or easier than your group enjoys. Likewise, if you are the sort of GM that can't enjoy running a game without challenging your players, also totally fine. Host for players who only optimize a little, don't optimize at all, or are content not doing so to be part of the game.
And as far as how resilient out the gate, using Missions standards you can come out the door with heavy mil spec (restricted gear) with R6 grey mana integration as a gnome with body 4, intuition 5, logic 6, willpower 6 who is damn near immune to anything another starting runner could hope to throw at it (23H armor and +10 dice vs. magic
in addition to the standard resistance roll for the spell in question), and "fights" by casually walking up to enemies and pulling the pin on a held grenade that can't hurt him so there is zero chance of missing the target area.
Now is that smart? Probably not. My point is that both players and GMs knowing their audience is more valuable what can or cannot be done with characters.
Street sams will easily reach 6 or 9 more soak depending on bioware vs cyberware, with armor and soak ware.
And should, if not even more. Combat is that archetype's function. They should be the most resilient vs. mundane attacks.
At the point armor truly becomes more relavent as fashion then to soak the simulationist break is just too high.
For sure. I feel the same way about the nonsensical str not effecting melee weapons issue.
some would say it's functionally irrelevant.
Unless the actual Edge-use chart comes to differ the one I have seen, this is my stance on the matter.
I do have my hopes about each of these. 1: If you're getting outnumbered 2 or 3 to one, you SHOULD be in a world of trouble... so I'm provisionally ok with this still.
If our game was based upon realistic (to our reality) standards, I couldn't agree more. But despite being more of a cyberpunk setting, it is still very much high fantasy in power levels in my opinion and experience. So when that is taken into consideration, it is hard for me to not disagree.
In 6e: Soak pools are TINY in comparison, but DVs are also somewhat lower... just not AS reduced from 5e as soak pools were.
I think most folks get that. The concern (or mine at least) is that from what I have seen so far, the numbers have not been reduced in balanced proportion to one another.
But being incapable of taking out the ganger in leather or instantly subdue the wage slave you are extracting makes you seem pathetic not a cybered up combat monster or magically powered martial artist.
I hadn't even considered that, but very much this ^.
kind of wanted to stay out of this conversation because I didn't really have anything to add that wasn't already said, but ...
this is exactly the system I suggested and playtested but got shot down
That is quite disconcerting. Just remember that time you knew what the audience wanted more than the person calling the shots. Then take their job!? Now we're shadowrunning in real life!
Would make a nice optional houserule, dunno what to do with weapon damage though... Boost all with 3? But then again, given how people complain about lethality already, not sure if it'd be a good idea.
I personally don't mind things being more lethal. I'd just like them to retain some ammount of common sense. When I wear armor, it will help to stop me from being injured. When the troll bodybuilder wields the hammer, it will hit strike much harder than the pareplegic gnome. . .