[Senko]

I'm a mage so 14 is my abosolute max normally and I'd rather have a 3 in computers and ritual spellcasting, a 2 in perception etc etc. Of course I'm also of the opinion even 1 rank isn't wasted in magic skills since it makes the difference between rolling no dice and 7.

[gradivus]

And what most of the people who'll tell you that you might as well not waste the skill point because 7 isn't a big enough DP is- almost every skill can benefit from teamwork... so while a guy with 7DP in First aid is worse than a medkit by itself, if someone who happens to have 12DP in first aid is using the medkit, those 7 dice can translate to +1limit and +2DP for that teammate.

So yeah, low dice pools don't always translate to a waste.

[Facemage]

Unfortunately those few falling into the latter causes designers to prevent the others from having the points they need.

Yes that is exactly why designers come to the point totals that they do. Sure. Those damn ROLL-players, get off my lawn, amirite.

No, this is not really the case! If the designers wanted to give more points which should allocate to rise all your attributes to 2, they could rise your initial values to 2 (those points which you get before putting any points to attributes). But they didn't do it because some attributes at 1 is a totally playable option. With your houserules that 1 in log means an idiot who can do nothing, you can get this kind of interpretations. Would you please put your houserules to houserule threads? Moreover, you can easily rise all initial values to 2 (and cha to 4 for elves and so on) and give less attribute points in your tables. Problem solved.

If you want to create an idiot you should give him: Log 1, int 1 (note this!!!), cha 1, some nqs (uneducated, incompetence) and put all your skill points to agility and str based skills. How he can survive in shadowrun is an another story.

[gradivus]

Unfortunately those few falling into the latter causes designers to prevent the others from having the points they need.

Yes that is exactly why designers come to the point totals that they do. Sure. Those damn ROLL-players, get off my lawn, amirite.

No, this is not really the case! If the designers want to give more points which should allocate to rise all your attributes to 2, they could rise your initial values to 2 (those points which you get before putting any points to attributes). But they didn't do it because some attributes at 1 is a totally playable option. With your houserules that 1 in log is an idiot who can do nothing, you can get this kind of interpretations. Would you please put your houserules to houserule threads? Moreover you can easily rise all initial values to 2 and give less attribute points in your tables. Problem solved.

If you want to create an idiot you should give him: Log 1, int 1 (note this!!!), cha 1, some nqs (uneducated, incompetence) and put all your skill points to agility and str based skills. How he can survive in shadowrun is an another story.

While houserules belong in houserules, how an individual or group interprets a 1 in a stat is not a houserule.

Second, the rulebooks don't really support your view on attributes. Not a single archetype nor any NPC have a single 1 in any attribute. In light of this, yes, a 1 makes you stick out. Which is why many GM houserule you can't dump multiple stats to 1 with a lesser amount  houseruling you can't have any at 1.

Shoot me if you want for bringing up a houserule in the previous paragraph.

[Senko]

Unfortunately those few falling into the latter causes designers to prevent the others from having the points they need.

Yes that is exactly why designers come to the point totals that they do. Sure. Those damn ROLL-players, get off my lawn, amirite.

No, this is not really the case! If the designers wanted to give more points which should allocate to rise all your attributes to 2, they could rise your initial values to 2 (those points which you get before putting any points to attributes). But they didn't do it because some attributes at 1 is a totally playable option. With your houserules that 1 in log means an idiot who can do nothing, you can get this kind of interpretations. Would you please put your houserules to houserule threads? Moreover you can easily rise all initial values to 2 and give less attribute points in your tables. Problem solved.

If you want to create an idiot you should give him: Log 1, int 1 (note this!!!), cha 1, some nqs (uneducated, incompetence) and put all your skill points to agility and str based skills. How he can survive in shadowrun is an another story.

Except the designers have stated that 3 is the average human stat so a person with 1 logic is not the average person they are going to be less capable than that. A 1 Logic, 5 int character is going to spend most of their time going with their gut instincts because they do struggle with maths, repairing damaged equipment and the like. Sure not every person is going to be 3 in all stats but if they have a 1 or 2 they're below average, a 4+ they're above as adjusted for their race of course. That is how the developers set it up now a 1 probably isn't "Durrr me fixum thinky box" hit with stick, hit with stick but it will be someone who when working out change for a dollar is fine but when trying to perform first aid is going to struggle because they'll be going "crap he's got a piece of wood through his leg what was the treatment method again wrap round it or cut it off, place splints to hold it in place and wrap over it?, a person who is never going to enjoy chemistry because they can't remember all the different formulas. Logic and bizarely willpower are what effect memory dice pools not intuition or charisma. So a 3 willpower, 1 logic, 5 int, 5 charisma character is going to be very forgetful as well. If they are a street sam and dumped both wilpower and logic to get 6/5 in the physical stats they'll only be rolling 2 dice to try and remember something.

[Facemage]

Archetypes are not good examples to compare because they are very badly written (for example written under the rule that your maximum skill value is 4 and only one skill can be 6 or two at 5). Moreover, I'm not the only one here that interpret your 1 rules to houserule section. And because Shadowrun does not know single attribute tests, it's a logical step that you do never interpret your abilities by using only a single attribute. Moreover, with str 1 a character can carry 10 kg without any problems meaning he is not weak as a 1 year old baby. Weaker than an average human, yes but not incapacitated. And by same logic to other attributes.

Moreover, to rise all your values to 2 (or even 3) means that C or lower priorities in attributes are impossible options (lol even B is difficult now). And that's why A in skills. Why to give them at all? And it becomes really difficult to build a good troll or ork.

Do what you want, this is only a game! 

[gradivus]

Archetypes are not good examples to compare because they are very badly written (for example written under the rule that your maximum skill value is 4 and only one skill can be 6 or two at 5). Moreover, I'm not the only one here that interpret your 1 rules to houserule section. And because Shadowrun does not know single attribute tests, it's a logical step that you do never interpret your abilities by using only a single attribute. Moreover, with str 1 a character can carry 10 kg without any problems meaning he is not weak as a 1 year old baby. Weaker than an average human, yes but not incapacitated. And by same logic to other attributes.

Moreover, to rise all your values to 2 (or even 3) means that C or lower priorities in attributes are impossible options (lol even B is difficult now). And that's why A in skills. Why to give them at all? And it becomes really difficult to build a good troll or ork.

Do what you want, this is only a game! 

In Wak's archetype challenge he posted the rules by which the designers had to use to make  the archetypes. Minimum stat 2 was not one of them. Yet not a single designer over all the archetypes has a 1 in any stat. So, for this purpose, I believe archetypes is the perfect example of what the designers think of a 1 in an attribute.

And designers have chimed in, as already posted, 3 is human avg stat for each attribute making 1 sub average. Only 8.99% of the world's population is sub average in IQ (6.7 Borderline and 2.2 less than Borderline). From low average to high average (80-119 IQ), 82.2% of the population is covered.

Last but not least:
ATTRIBUTE-ONLY TESTS
The gamemaster decides when an attribute-only test is
called for and what attributes to apply. Attribute-only
tests pair two attributes together to form a dice pool,
although there may be some situations where only one
attribute applies. Here are a few attribute-only pairings
built to suit situations where no skill suffices.
Core p152 emphasis mine

[Facemage]

Ok, you are right. I have put many other arguments here and next step is to compare them. If you think that your archetype argument and some other are better than mine and for example hobbes' arguments, use them. You should also ban attributes C, D and E. And maybe put it to sr5 errata that they are banned because they create idiots, invalids and autists. Or should they get some negative qualities for free? And what about pixies? How it's possible to ever play them?

[gradivus]

Ok, you are right. I have put many other arguments here and next step is to compare them. If you think that your archetype argument and some other are better than mine and for example hobbes' arguments, use them. You should also ban attributes C, D and E. And maybe put it to sr5 errata that they are banned because they create idiots, invalids and autists. Or should they get some negative qualities for free? And what about pixies? How it's possible to ever play them?

Several things: I myself probably pick Skills B as often as all the other choices combined.
But that's me- I will not, however, go and say Skills B is the way to go since everyone has to decide what's best for their characters. You ask me about a specific build I may comment B skills might be the way to go because we''re commenting on 1 specific build and not generalizing.

The view of what 1 for an attribute means isn't  universal. But there is a good chunk of people that view it as seriously handicapped in that attribute. When I GM I turn a blinds eye to 1 stat with an augmented total of 1. 2 or more, yeah. I usually ask the player to remedy it. I myself do not play any characters with more than 1 augmented total of  1 and rarely even 1. That in no way means your game can't have attribute 1s or that 1 LOG is an idiot at your table.

Pixes, well, more than a few people on this forum would like to throw the core rulebook (hardbound edition) at the people who make pixie characters. In any event, they have the body mass of an infant; of course their str/bod is less than human avg. The other 6 attributes average better than human avg. So play them as the small, agile,fast,weak,strong-willed,  smart, intuitive, cute shits that they are. Or do your fellow gamers a favor and just don't (inserted just to make pixie-haters happy).

Seriously, no one is trying to deprecate you. Everything we're commenting on is pure opinion area, not hard rules. You have your opinions and I have mine. Neither one of us is 'right'. Let's just say, "We agree to disagree."

[Hobbes]

In Wak's archetype challenge he posted the rules by which the designers had to use to make  the archetypes. Minimum stat 2 was not one of them. Yet not a single designer over all the archetypes has a 1 in any stat. So, for this purpose, I believe archetypes is the perfect example of what the designers think of a 1 in an attribute.

Well the Archetype challenge is a different kettle of fish right?  For a character designed for a specific purpose, I know what that character shouldn't try to do, and what they should try to do.  If you're creating characters to toss out to a group of new players overspecialization is a real risk so Stats of 1 are not so good, and a splash of a skill here, skill there is actually something you're going to want for Archetypes, or really any pre-gen.  (I'm surprised none of the mages had a 1 Str....)

For player built characters you don't think about those kinds of things.  You've got your bit, you focus on that.

[MijRai]

Ok, you are right. I have put many other arguments here and next step is to compare them. If you think that your archetype argument and some other are better than mine and for example hobbes' arguments, use them. You should also ban attributes C, D and E. And maybe put it to sr5 errata that they are banned because they create idiots, invalids and autists. Or should they get some negative qualities for free? And what about pixies? How it's possible to ever play them?

Attribute C (16) puts two points into every Attribute, which puts people at flat average in every attribute for their Race.  Maybe look at the numbers before going for the 'well, you might as well just get rid of everything wrong' argument.  Not to mention being deficient in and of itself isn't bad (also, having 2 points in it is still below average, but still an improvement); the problem is people dumpstatting things they deem 'unnecessary' which equates to them being unable to survive on their own.  Having a 1 is a serious deficiency, but you can build a character around that flaw to give them, you know, character.  I've done it a few times myself; the socially inept rigger who just didn't get people like he got his drones, the lame mage who'd gotten messed up and was still recuperating from life-altering wounds, etc.  If you've got more than one 1 though, something is wrong.  That means a Limit or two are going to be poor and a good fraction of your skills, regardless of training, are going to be sub-par compared to anyone else with equivalent experience. 

[Hobbes]

I'm a mage so 14 is my abosolute max normally and I'd rather have a 3 in computers and ritual spellcasting, a 2 in perception etc etc. Of course I'm also of the opinion even 1 rank isn't wasted in magic skills since it makes the difference between rolling no dice and 7.

There are several skills that you can't default to, so 1 Rank is important if that skill is ever going to come up.  But those skills are mostly restricted (Magic/Resonance skills) or fairly niche.  Hardware is about the only skill I can think of that would regularly come up that you can't default on.

[Facemage]

I'm a mage so 14 is my abosolute max normally and I'd rather have a 3 in computers and ritual spellcasting, a 2 in perception etc etc. Of course I'm also of the opinion even 1 rank isn't wasted in magic skills since it makes the difference between rolling no dice and 7.

There are several skills that you can't default to, so 1 Rank is important if that skill is ever going to come up.  But those skills are mostly restricted (Magic/Resonance skills) or fairly niche.  Hardware is about the only skill I can think of that would regularly come up that you can't default on.

Palming.

[Facemage]

Ok, you are right. I have put many other arguments here and next step is to compare them. If you think that your archetype argument and some other are better than mine and for example hobbes' arguments, use them. You should also ban attributes C, D and E. And maybe put it to sr5 errata that they are banned because they create idiots, invalids and autists. Or should they get some negative qualities for free? And what about pixies? How it's possible to ever play them?

Attribute C (16) puts two points into every Attribute, which puts people at flat average in every attribute for their Race.  Maybe look at the numbers before going for the 'well, you might as well just get rid of everything wrong' argument.  Not to mention being deficient in and of itself isn't bad (also, having 2 points in it is still below average, but still an improvement); the problem is people dumpstatting things they deem 'unnecessary' which equates to them being unable to survive on their own.  Having a 1 is a serious deficiency, but you can build a character around that flaw to give them, you know, character.  I've done it a few times myself; the socially inept rigger who just didn't get people like he got his drones, the lame mage who'd gotten messed up and was still recuperating from life-altering wounds, etc.  If you've got more than one 1 though, something is wrong.  That means a Limit or two are going to be poor and a good fraction of your skills, regardless of training, are going to be sub-par compared to anyone else with equivalent experience.

I don't want to argument with you. I call your rules to houserules, and don't want to arguments about houserules. Some of you says that for example str 1 character is as strong as a 1 year old baby. This IS a houserule because a baby cannot carry 10 kg without problems. Do what you want with your rules.

Try to survive with a character who has 3 in every attributes. A mage have 6 dices in drain pool, good luck!
Moreover, even A in attributes, no one shadowrunner can survive on their own, because Shadowrun is a team game!!! A samurai does not need high logic, because a decker or a hermetic mage always solves the logic based problems. Well, the decker is dead? Maybe because you as a samurai wasted your resources to logic and that's why failed in your sneaking test and a dragon killed a decker.

Moreover, limits are not problems because with ware, magic or adept powers you can get higher attributes and thus higher limits. For example my mage has 1 in reaction but after adept powers his rea is 5.

[MijRai]

I don't want to argument with you. I call your rules to houserules, and don't want to arguments about houserules. Some of you says that for example str 1 character is as strong as a 1 year old baby. This IS a houserule because a baby cannot carry 10 kg without problems. Do what you want with your rules.

Try to survive with a character who has 3 in every attributes. A mage have 6 dices in drain pool, good luck!
Moreover, even A in attributes, no one shadowrunner can survive on their own, because Shadowrun is a team game!!! A samurai does not need high logic, because a decker or a hermetic mage always solves the logic based problems. Well, the decker is dead? Maybe because you as a samurai wasted your resources to logic and that's why failed in your sneaking test and a dragon killed a decker.

Moreover, limits are not problems because with ware, magic or adept powers you can get higher attributes and thus higher limits. For example my mage has 1 in reaction but after adept powers his rea is 5.

...  Seriously?  At what point did I make any comments about house-rules?  I said nothing about Strength 1 being equivalent to a baby.  I'm not talking about rulings, I'm talking about the mechanical consequences of these decisions. 

I said having low attributes is a deficiency, yes.  I also said having multiple attributes at 1 is wrong, because at that point you are a liability.  Your Limits are too low, and depending on what you've dumped, you aren't going to be able to keep up with your other allies, or perhaps even your normal day-to-day activities.  You literally cannot default a skill with a 1 in an Attribute.  A Logic 1 character is too stupid to use a computer without training, by the rules in the book.  Even then, they have to have 3 ranks in order to have any form of proficiency (4 dice being enough to buy 1 hit).  Strength 1 means a stiff breeze can cause knockdown on you, and Body 1 means you're going to be hurting for a long time after practically any form of injury.  Intuition 1 makes for an obtuse character. 

I've made characters with average attributes, yes.  Even a mage.  You see, it turns out most people are 'average.'  That's why that is the average.  I've done it for Jacks of All Trades, a street sam, a wage-mage freshly dumped into the shadows, etc.  If you're careful, you don't have to worry about high Drain.  Most of them did have something making up for their baseline attributes, but it still worked. 

And yes, Shadowrunners tend to work together (though there are lone-wolf 'runners out there).  That has nothing to do with Attributes.  Even if the game is a team game, it doesn't mean you can just go 'I have someone else to think for me, I'll just dump all of my non-combat stats because they'll be the brains' without the repercussions of such a choice (like your Logic 1 character being dumb enough to put a round in that dragon, which causes it to eat the decker).  The samurai doesn't need high Logic, but they need some Logic, just like the nerds of the team need some physical stats. 

Have fun with that magically enhanced Reaction in a Background Count!  Having augmentations doing the boosting works a little, but augmentations can end up going away.  Your base stats don't. 

P.S.  That'd be a Mystic Adept, not a Mage.  Just saying.