[lunatec]

Why is strength such a non-factor in damage in melee (close combat, etc)?

[MercilessMing]

Dunno, but you can look at the House Rules thread for ideas on how to make it better. 
ICYMI - as of the latest errata, strength doesn't affect unarmed damage either, but now you add strength to the AR rating of melee weapons (except where noted).  So it's pretty useless outside of grappling.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well, that's a fairly loaded question but honestly despite that, it's fair.

I'm also not at liberty to discuss privileged information, like discussions behind the scenes with developers.  However, I'll tell you what I feel I can say.

The advantage in strength was, near as I can guess, intended to be primarily represented in the damage code. DVs being some value derived from strength goes way back. Guns have had static DVs since the beginning, and so we've had two paradigms for DVs since the beginning (Static and STR-derived).

What was new this time around was the design goal to put melee weapons on static DVs rather than being STR-derived. I can't say why this decision was made: I wasn't privy to it and even if I did know, it'd be bound by NDA. So, by extension what is new is some weapons having static DVs and some being "unarmed-like" getting derived DVs.  Why, for example, are bone lacing attacks one and not the other? (see errata flipping that back and forth). It was eventually agreed that the best thing to do is have all melee attacks work the same way rather than maintaining an arbitrary "kind" distinction.  Obviously, the Str-derived paradigm just got abandoned entirely.

In of itself, that's a fine decision to unify/streamline everything but it has 2nd order effects. Like, "Ok, well that was the main thing Strength did to help combat.  So what's the point in STR, now that there's even less role for it?" It's something that's not lost on the errata team, and proactive fixes to address that had already been proposed.  For whatever reason, they weren't entirely approved for the 2nd corrected printing of the CRB, but if you're a close reader you might be able to suss out how we didn't QUITE get down to 1 unified DV mechanic across all melee attacks and how some cases now mention adding STR to AR yet there's no rule actually saying to do that.

I'm crossing my fingers that we'll yet see some additional errata issued in the 2nd doc that for whatever reason didn't make it into the 2nd corrected CRB printing.  Barring that, I think it's fair to assume that at least the intent is to add STR to AR for melee attacks. If you're not sold on edge being a meaningful enough advantage, that likely won't satisfy you.  But otoh, if you're not sold on edge, honestly you're probably never going to be satisfied with this edition anyway as it's so central to the entire rules engine.

[lunatec]

Fair enough responses, especially considering certain restrictions. I, personally, believe that unarmed attacks could be fixed via introduction of specific specializations in various martial arts styles that focus on strength or agility, etc. Some of the weapons should also have a strength modifier to damage (combat axe, not katana). This would give trolls and orc a benefit for a niche and others would have a niche for their body styles. Maybe I am over-complicating the issue, but I sense that there is a concern amongst the runner/gm populace.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well, when Firing Line is available, it'll probably add martial arts options. In the meantime, who knows we may get some more errata that will give STR more of a role. 


And failing that: You can also rule that when using a weapon that's more about brute force than finesse the attacker must roll Close Combat + Strength rather than Close Combat + Agility.

[lunatec]

Thank you for the responses

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I'll also throw out a couple of rules that do already involve strength (which sometimes go unnoticed):

You want strength if you want to avoid being disarmed (pg. 48)

You want strength if you want to employ machine guns/assault cannons (pg. 257)

And of course there's the simple carrying capacity rules (pg. 68).  Yeah, you basically only have to go to 2 strength to be able to carry gear around, but still.

[Horsemen]

I believe the most recent errata added Strength back in to a degree.

[lunatec]

Didn't strength used to account for recoil comp at some point? Does it still do and I am blind and old?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Recoil is gone in 6we. So too then is the opportunity for Strength to help with it.

Although, as I already said upthread, note that there's still the min Stength required to wield machine guns/assault cannons. That's a kind of very coarse case of "strength helping with recoil".

[Shadowjack]

One house rule I use is to award a point of edge in a melee exchange when one combatant has a significant strength advantage.

[Michael Chandra]

To be fair, if you add Strength to all melee weapon Attack Ratings, that already plays a factor in AR vs DR. But if you're using a high-AR weapon AND have a strength advantage, a second point of edge seems in place.

[penllawen]

Recoil is gone in 6we.

How do we feel about this, BTW?

I find the 5e rules to be a pain, specifically, tracking them across turns. It’s an annoying bit of book-keeping that ends up having only minor game effects because characters going full-auto H.A.M. just need to toss in an aim action and a 6-round short burst every other turn to reset the recoil. I usually handwave it away across turns, and only apply it within a single fire action.

[Lormyr]

Recoil is gone in 6we.

How do we feel about this, BTW?

I find the 5e rules to be a pain, specifically, tracking them across turns. It’s an annoying bit of book-keeping that ends up having only minor game effects because characters going full-auto H.A.M. just need to toss in an aim action and a 6-round short burst every other turn to reset the recoil. I usually handwave it away across turns, and only apply it within a single fire action.

Recoil was more of a hassle than it was worth imo, but full-auto and suppressive fire were also entirely too good in 5e. Suppressive fire's only real counter was adept centering and a negative quality. It was like chaotic world on steroids. I'm a fan of the mechanic being gone and the firing modes being less good.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Recoil is gone in 6we.

How do we feel about this, BTW?

I find the 5e rules to be a pain, specifically, tracking them across turns. It’s an annoying bit of book-keeping that ends up having only minor game effects because characters going full-auto H.A.M. just need to toss in an aim action and a 6-round short burst every other turn to reset the recoil. I usually handwave it away across turns, and only apply it within a single fire action.

How do *I* feel about this?

Good riddance.  Tracking recoil was, rightly, mocked as one of the needlessly complicated things that kept 5e from being more popular/drawing more players to Shadowrun.  It was the kind of detail you HAD to handwaive if you wanted to have a smoothly flowing and exciting combat.

Sure, there are people who think 6we went too far the other way in rolling recoil into AR, which is a mechanic that in the end simply says whether you, your target, or nobody gets a point of edge. To them, who place their subjective line putting 6we's way of handling recoil beyond the "suspension of disbelief/line of reasonableness", to them I say I'd rather it be wrong THIS side of the line than on 5e's side.

... suppressive fire (was) also entirely too good in 5e...

penllawen, I'm not mocking you.  But I am wondering if you noticed 6we doesn't have a suppressive fire rule, and if you think that's as unacceptable? It, like a mechanic for delaying your initiative turn, is likely to be in the upcoming combat rules expansion splatbook.  I'd imagine, anyway.  If it's not there, then yeah I'd find that odd, too.