[adzling]

if anything the edge mechanic, lack of realistic protection from armor and lack of strength affecting melee weapon damage makes it feel less realistic and more divorced from reality / pink mohawky.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

if anything the edge mechanic, lack of realistic protection from armor and lack of strength affecting melee weapon damage makes it feel less realistic and more divorced from reality / pink mohawky.

For all of 5E's complexity and crunch, it still could never be described as a "realistic" game engine.  If you're going to embrace the cinematic physics paradigm, may as well streamline the rules, neh?

@Stainless: I wonder how many tests will involve Strength?

We know that melee weapons won't be pegged to STR to derive DVs.  And because 6E removes Limits and Recoil as game mechanics, obviously Strength can't help in those areas either.

But Strength was relevant to more than just that in 5E.  Strength was also involved in:

Carrying capacity/encumbrance
Linked to a few skill tests
Grappling/Physically restraining
Archery
Defending against various magical effects such as Levitation, Binding, Engulf
A minimum strength threshold is established to be allowed to wield some heavy weapons (e.g. machine guns)

No reason to expect that any of those won't still be true in 6E unless/until you hear they won't.

[Lormyr]

I haven't been able to keep up on the latest 6e info, but if they have strength being 1). A determining factor on what melee weapons you can wield, and 2). Str + Close Combat being the attack roll rather than Agi + Close Combat, then strength will still be fairly valuable for melee builds.

[Shinobi Killfist]

if anything the edge mechanic, lack of realistic protection from armor and lack of strength affecting melee weapon damage makes it feel less realistic and more divorced from reality / pink mohawky.

I guess it depends on how you are defining the terms BT/PM. Yeah my idea for the Frankie cybog from one piece running around in a speedo and hawaian shirt isn't that less viable than dude in armor and that definitely feels more PM. But, your actions and tactics to survive might need to me far more BT.

[Michael Chandra]

I haven't been able to keep up on the latest 6e info, but if they have strength being 1). A determining factor on what melee weapons you can wield, and 2). Str + Close Combat being the attack roll rather than Agi + Close Combat, then strength will still be fairly valuable for melee builds.

I cannot wait until Martial Arts. Definitely something that could involve Strength and my never-finished HTR templates contained several techniques, especially for the Pointman who was configured to be able to intercept and disable.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I haven't been able to keep up on the latest 6e info, but if they have strength being 1). A determining factor on what melee weapons you can wield, and 2). Str + Close Combat being the attack roll rather than Agi + Close Combat, then strength will still be fairly valuable for melee builds.

I had not thought about #1, but #2 is what I hope happened. Its not a direct line of strength to melee damage but it does help. Admittedly I really hope they just read the rules wrong and strength is tied to Dv in some way. I'm kind of expecting unarmed to not effect it and your base damage to effectively be 0, and only net hits determine damage. as the idea barring magic etc that strong dude hitting you with your fist does more damage than strong dude hitting you with an axe is so asinine I can't think that would get in.

[Shinobi Killfist]

if anything the edge mechanic, lack of realistic protection from armor and lack of strength affecting melee weapon damage makes it feel less realistic and more divorced from reality / pink mohawky.

For all of 5E's complexity and crunch, it still could never be described as a "realistic" game engine.  If you're going to embrace the cinematic physics paradigm, may as well streamline the rules, neh?

@Stainless: I wonder how many tests will involve Strength?

We know that melee weapons won't be pegged to STR to derive DVs.  And because 6E removes Limits and Recoil as game mechanics, obviously Strength can't help in those areas either.

But Strength was relevant to more than just that in 5E.  Strength was also involved in:

Carrying capacity/encumbrance
Linked to a few skill tests
Grappling/Physically restraining
Archery
Defending against various magical effects such as Levitation, Binding, Engulf
A minimum strength threshold is established to be allowed to wield some heavy weapons (e.g. machine guns)

No reason to expect that any of those won't still be true in 6E unless/until you hear they won't.

So mechanically not enough to put points into when shit like reaction, intuition etc are around. Basically you put in a courtesy point so your GM doesn't constantly engulf you to make a point.

It's why I assume there is something we are missing, strength has to do more than that.  It is too obvious of a flaw. At least previously melee builds would take it.  Now, I don't think anyone would take it just so they can use a heavy weapon.

[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 unarmed attack value (so effectively it may help grab a point of edge).

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

*stuff*

So mechanically not enough to put points into when shit like reaction, intuition etc are around. Basically you put in a courtesy point so your GM doesn't constantly engulf you to make a point.

It's why I assume there is something we are missing, strength has to do more than that.  It is too obvious of a flaw. At least previously melee builds would take it.  Now, I don't think anyone would take it just so they can use a heavy weapon.

Well opinions are inherently subjective. There's never an objective answer as to whether a point of Strength is better as a point of Intuition.

However, if you expect to be viable in close combat with low Strength, it's not the "GM making a point" when you're neutralized by an NPC Levitating your combat axe out of your weak little fingers.

[Shinobi Killfist]

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).

Jesus, that's just bad.  Well I'll most likely house rule it so melee is a strength based skill.  How did that get past play test? Did literally no one play a melee character or something.

[adzling]

you'd have to ask Banshee, i was not involved in any game design or play-testing, only errata.

[Shinobi Killfist]

*stuff*

So mechanically not enough to put points into when shit like reaction, intuition etc are around. Basically you put in a courtesy point so your GM doesn't constantly engulf you to make a point.

It's why I assume there is something we are missing, strength has to do more than that.  It is too obvious of a flaw. At least previously melee builds would take it.  Now, I don't think anyone would take it just so they can use a heavy weapon.

Well opinions are inherently subjective. There's never an objective answer as to whether a point of Strength is better as a point of Intuition.

However, if you expect to be viable in close combat with low Strength, it's not the "GM making a point" when you're neutralized by an NPC Levitating your combat axe out of your weak little fingers.

So the GM is wasting major actions on being cute, and player then just uses a minor action to quick draw a gun and shoot the mage? The party will thank the 1 strength troll tank for getting the GM to not fireball the party. Getting your attack value up isn't enough of a reason to put points into strength as it does virtually nothing else. Its a reason to avoid weapon based melee builds. Maybe unarmed will work out, but I'm not going to put valuable points into strength to get that little out of it for a katana street sam, I'll just ditch the concept. I routinely make less effective characters, i like A in skills I like my troll decker.  But this is mechanically bad past that.

[Shinobi Killfist]

you'd have to ask Banshee, i was not involved in any game design or play-testing, only errata.

I'm assuming errata doesn't cover things like this yet.

[adzling]

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

[Iron Serpent Prince]

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.