[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).

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.

Okay on the game balance side of it. Let’s say it was 1/2 strength again. A dagger 1+5 for a troll would be assault cannon damage. Same troll with a sword more than that. And that’s not a super enhanced troll. Just a normally strong one. The lesser damage from other attacks may have forced it as it starts getting unwieldy if it’s 1/3 strength or something. I am curious how normal unarmed works now, and hell killing hands. Does killing hands just set a damage.

That being said the easy fix was too tie the dice pool to strength which makes more sense in the first place outside any balance discussion. Virtually everything you are doing in a fight is strength based. And this actually in effect comes close to 1/3 str damage. A bit more because missing is 0 damage and you’d hit more often. Simple house rule to fix their terrible rule.

[Mirikon]

STR being pulled off melee weapons, the changes to initiative, the skills squash, the potential clusterfrag that edge apparently is, and other such things make me nervous. It is like they decided to purposefully not make the mistakes of 5e by doing all new ones. Waiting until it comes out so I can get a good look at things, but...

[easl]

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.

Others have complained about the loss of pink mohawk play, but this seems to me a change to increase it. 

You're absolutely right it's not realistic. Neither are kung-fu movies or movies where the protagonists wield katanas against goons using SMGs.  Any game system that makes martial arts, melee, and guns each competitive with the other is clearly going for a cinematic feel.

Will it work? Dunno. I'm looking forward to finding out.

[Mirikon]

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.

Others have complained about the loss of pink mohawk play, but this seems to me a change to increase it. 

You're absolutely right it's not realistic. Neither are kung-fu movies or movies where the protagonists wield katanas against goons using SMGs.  Any game system that makes martial arts, melee, and guns each competitive with the other is clearly going for a cinematic feel.

Will it work? Dunno. I'm looking forward to finding out.

Melee and guns shouldn't be 'competitive', except in the idea that it is harder to get a shot on someone that is in melee (either with you or with someone else) and that melee is useless until you actually get in melee range. Guns should always be the 'mechanical' winner, while melee is for situations where guns can't be used or are impractical (bar brawls, trying to be quiet, limited ammunition, sneak attacking a sentry, etc.). And this is coming from someone who played several melee-focused characters in 4E, when guns were just against Reaction for the defense test, while melee did REA+INT. Yes, ranged was the superior option. But melee is damn cool, and has uses where ranged might not be the best choice. Using something because it looks cool is far more of the Pink Mohawk thing than having everything be competitive.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I guess is depends on how you define effective. If it’s purely damage I have no problem with melee being as effective or even more so with magic. Guns just have advantages melee can’t compete with. Mainly range.

[Lormyr]

While I am not aware of exactly how strength will factor into unarmed melee damage, I will find it absolutely hysterical if it turns out that maximum strength characters end up doing more damage with unarmed strikes than the same hulks wielding an axe, or sword, or sledgehammer.

[Shinobi Killfist]

While I am not aware of exactly how strength will factor into unarmed melee damage, I will find it absolutely hysterical if it turns out that maximum strength characters end up doing more damage with unarmed strikes than the same hulks wielding an axe, or sword, or sledgehammer.

Yeah even a combat knife makes no sense.  And that’s I think damage 1. Hell the improved skeletons cyberware could quickly be a detriment to damage since they are 1,2,3 for plastic-titanium.

I think a somewhat coherent system with those damages would be unarmed base damage 0. And all melee skills based on strength. But alas we know that is not to be.

[Finstersang]

I´m on the fence about the Strength thing.

As I understood, Strength still plays a role in determining the Attack Value, which can result in Edge gain (or Edge-Denial, depending on the opponent), while it doesn´t contribute to the Damage Value. That does make some sense for many melee weapons, especially Blades and Knifes. The most important factor with bladed and pointed weapons is where you hit, not how much muscle you put behind it. That´s why I actually find SR5 more unrealistic in this regard: A swift surprise attacker with a knife is a deadly threat in reality, even if it´s just some lanky methhead. However, in SR5 that Methhead (or BTL-Junkie) would never be able to significantly hurt you, even with a lucky hit. Strength was everything. Now, Strength can only give you - well - a bit of an Edge. That somewhat fits, at least for these kind of weapons. And while it doesn´t fit as good with weapons like Clubs or Axes: Lifting an axe over your head and smash it straight down is something even a Strength 1 nerd should be able to pull off. It will be a shitty performance though, which will likely give the opposition Edge as well. And if that´s not enough punishment for the potential 1-Strength Axe murderer build, the GM could also argue with encumbrance: "Yeah, you can take your Axe, but not much stuff beyond that".

There are still two major problems here:

• The whole Attack Value/Armor/Edge-mechanic (as far as we know so far) is likely to be a total disaster. 1 Edge isn´t doing much of a difference, and with a maximum of 2 Edge per pass (or is it per round? Yeah, it´s probably per round, since that would be even worse  ), Strength will often yield no benefit at all - Just like armor. If that whole mechanic wouldn´t be so stupid, there would be much less grief about Strengt only counting for the Attack value.
• With unarmed Attacks still using Strength for the purpose of Damage Calculation, Strength-maxed Characters would be more dangerous unarmed than with a melee weapon - and that just isn´t realistic, let alone balanced. The main advantage of unarmed combat is that it´s available everywhere. Using a weapon should always be more of threat than using your fists alone (apart from adepts, maybe).

There are easy fixes to these problems. One would be to tweak the Attack Value/Armor/Edge clusterfuck interaction into something more reasonable and rewarding. Shouldn´t be too hard, and it´s also a good idea when looking at the other half of that problem (armor being almost useless for avoiding damage and giving you magic mojo points instead). The other would be an option to further buff the damage of Melee weapons for exceptionally stong characters. It´s just really telling that the writers weren´t able to see these pitfalls themselfes...

[Michael Chandra]

While I am not aware of exactly how strength will factor into unarmed melee damage, I will find it absolutely hysterical if it turns out that maximum strength characters end up doing more damage with unarmed strikes than the same hulks wielding an axe, or sword, or sledgehammer.

It's Hulk smash, not Hulk axe!

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

There is old "Stun vs Physical damage" dimension as well to factor in when considering Unarmed vs Weapons.

[Michael Chandra]

Knucks, Bone ware, Killing Hands.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I´m on the fence about the Strength thing.

As I understood, Strength still plays a role in determining the Attack Value, which can result in Edge gain (or Edge-Denial, depending on the opponent), while it doesn´t contribute to the Damage Value. That does make some sense for many melee weapons, especially Blades and Knifes. The most important factor with bladed and pointed weapons is where you hit, not how much muscle you put behind it. That´s why I actually find SR5 more unrealistic in this regard: A swift surprise attacker with a knife is a deadly threat in reality, even if it´s just some lanky methhead. However, in SR5 that Methhead (or BTL-Junkie) would never be able to significantly hurt you, even with a lucky hit. Strength was everything. Now, Strength can only give you - well - a bit of an Edge. That somewhat fits, at least for these kind of weapons. And while it doesn´t fit as good with weapons like Clubs or Axes: Lifting an axe over your head and smash it straight down is something even a Strength 1 nerd should be able to pull off. It will be a shitty performance though, which will likely give the opposition Edge as well. And if that´s not enough punishment for the potential 1-Strength Axe murderer build, the GM could also argue with encumbrance: "Yeah, you can take your Axe, but not much stuff beyond that".

There are still two major problems here:

• The whole Attack Value/Armor/Edge-mechanic (as far as we know so far) is likely to be a total disaster. 1 Edge isn´t doing much of a difference, and with a maximum of 2 Edge per pass (or is it per round? Yeah, it´s probably per round, since that would be even worse  ), Strength will often yield no benefit at all - Just like armor. If that whole mechanic wouldn´t be so stupid, there would be much less grief about Strengt only counting for the Attack value.
• With unarmed Attacks still using Strength for the purpose of Damage Calculation, Strength-maxed Characters would be more dangerous unarmed than with a melee weapon - and that just isn´t realistic, let alone balanced. The main advantage of unarmed combat is that it´s available everywhere. Using a weapon should always be more of threat than using your fists alone (apart from adepts, maybe).

There are easy fixes to these problems. One would be to tweak the Attack Value/Armor/Edge clusterfuck interaction into something more reasonable and rewarding. Shouldn´t be too hard, and it´s also a good idea when looking at the other half of that problem (armor being almost useless for avoiding damage and giving you magic mojo points instead). The other would be an option to further buff the damage of Melee weapons for exceptionally stong characters. It´s just really telling that the writers weren´t able to see these pitfalls themselfes...

Even for blades strength is a huge factor. Yes in real life a blade is very dangerous. In real life I’m not wearing armor that stops assault rifle rounds though. Naked dude against lanky guy with a knife is taking 5+ damage a hit in 5e. Called shot 7+. That’s pretty reflective of a knifes damage. Set damage 1 though not so much. Outside compared to a pistols 3 damage 

But with melee combat even blades strength determines a ton about the blow and your ability to get past defenses. It is what would define the dice pool realistically.

But outside that look I hit your artery attack with a blade. Stab a hibk of meat. How deep the wound is depends on strength now include bones or armor blocking the path etc. Your ability to get to the organs is based on strength. 1 edge won’t reflect that in the slightest.

[Lormyr]

As I understood, Strength still plays a role in determining the Attack Value, which can result in Edge gain (or Edge-Denial, depending on the opponent), while it doesn´t contribute to the Damage Value.

That is not really significant, considering:

1). Any weapon does the same thing, regardless of Attribute ratings in the case of ranged weapons (which have a set number).

2). Even with the Initiative changes, I am very skeptical that combats will last more than a round or two at most. Edge accumulation doesn't seem like it will be a major factor if that is accurate. You touched more on this later in your post though, which we seem to be largely in agreement on.

There is old "Stun vs Physical damage" dimension as well to factor in when considering Unarmed vs Weapons.

If that is as easy to negate in 6th as it is in 5th, it's a non-factor.

[Lormyr]

Even for blades strength is a huge factor. Yes in real life a blade is very dangerous. In real life I’m not wearing armor that stops assault rifle rounds though. Naked dude against lanky guy with a knife is taking 5+ damage a hit in 5e. Called shot 7+. That’s pretty reflective of a knifes damage. Set damage 1 though not so much. Outside compared to a pistols 3 damage 

But with melee combat even blades strength determines a ton about the blow and your ability to get past defenses. It is what would define the dice pool realistically.

But outside that look I hit your artery attack with a blade. Stab a hibk of meat. How deep the wound is depends on strength now include bones or armor blocking the path etc. Your ability to get to the organs is based on strength. 1 edge won’t reflect that in the slightest.

A story somewhat related to the topic:

I was a professional prize fighter for over a decade. That pic on my profile was me about a year short of my prime. 6'2", 238 lbs, 19" arms, bench press a little over 300 lbs. I had a Russian friend, who was an absolute monster of a man, named Volya. Dude was something like 6'8", 380 lbs., and he had a tattoo of an anchor on his left arm that was the size of my entire arm, and it maybe took up about 2/3-3/4 of his arm. I once watched him sheer an old solid metal 70's buick car door right in half, horizontally, with a battered claymore. That thing was barely even sharp anymore.

We don't really have ork, troll, or supernatural human level strength to compare such things with, but Volya was the closest thing to it I have ever seen, and for him, power absolutely mattered in any blow he struck, with anything, period.

Like a lot of huge guys his size, he died way too young. Miss that guy.

[easl]

Melee and guns shouldn't be 'competitive', except in the idea that it is harder to get a shot on someone that is in melee (either with you or with someone else)

AIUI this is not realistic either. IIRC Winston Churchill was in the last generation of soldiers to be issued swords for actual use (as well as pistols; Afghan war, late 1800s), and afterwards he made sure swords were essentially eliminated from the british military, as they were no match for a pistol even in close fighting.

But melee is damn cool, and has uses where ranged might not be the best choice. Using something because it looks cool is far more of the Pink Mohawk thing than having everything be competitive.

I agree. As I said, I'm okay with the conceptual choice of making close-combat, melee, and ranged characters all viable, even if  doing that requires throwing the book out on realism.  Others may disagree, and I'm cool with that too.