[Shinobi Killfist]

Where I have had tremendous experience is unarmed combat - nearly 10 years of prize fighting, and more street brawls than I can remember. During my prize fighting decade in my mid 20's, I wanted to learn Muay Thai badly, so moved to Thailand for a year. After 9 months of daily training I started prize fighting over there for the last 3 months of my journey. Things are very different over there. Their professional promotions do have weight classes that most of us would be familiar with. There are just as many (and the ones I fought in since I was not professional or recognized in the art) that don't have squat - they book whatever sells tickets. Literally every opponent I fought there was more skilled in Muay Thai than I was, but I had the benefit of completely dwarfing the average 140 lb. Thai fighter at 6'2" 230. Those guys were fearless though, and did not give one single f, and I had 22 fights in those 3 months. I was able to have 22 fights in such a short time, despite being outclassed in skill level, because the weight (strength) class was so unsporting that even though I got banged up a lot, one to three good to decent hits was all it took me to KO or TKO. Those fights had to be boring as hell to watch for the audience, other than maybe the sadists.

My point: Anyone who doesn't think strength is a (not the, but a) dominant factor in how deadly (force) your physical attacks are either lacks experience with the matter they are speaking of, or is divorced from reality. Go watch some of Mike Tyson's early fights from the late 80's if you want to see what happens when a much stronger person pummels a much weaker person if you need to see if with your own eyes.

thank you for this, i had exactly this same argument with a tool on reddit the other day, except he swore up and down that strength made little difference. I asked him to explain why do ALL combat sports use weight classes then and he had no good answer other than "it's irrelevant" which clearly it's not otherwise weight classes would have gone away a long time ago.

It's clear on it's face, both from a common sense perspective and a proven world perspective (weight classes) that strength is *very* important in melee combat, both armed and unarmed.

6e pisses on that, and by extension pisses on many other common sense well known physical effects in the world.

in short: it beggars belief.

and that's my core issues with 6e, it's an inane game of dank memes that make a mockery of shadowrun.

I think a core issue is people visualize strength in the most narrow terms possible, while they view things like agility in the broadest terms possible. I've always said strength should be the explosive action stat.  Its about running faster, jumping further, delivering force in various ways. But people are stuck seeing it as big lunk lift heavy object.

[Shinobi Killfist]

"Weight classes" is about length, bone density, your body's genetic ability to build body and muscle mass (there is a reason why male and female compete in different classes). You can only come so far by training your "strength" alone. You also need to be "big". The guys Lormyr was facing in Thailand was probably as "maxed out" strength-wise as he was - but being bigger, matters.

Much of this is represented by the Body attribute in Shadowrun, but it also goes hand to hand with the Strength attribute (to be honest, I don't think we would have missed out too much by combining the two into one attribute because even in real life it is hard to maximize one without the other).


I think we just agreed that skipping out on strength in favor for Charisma (or Logic) will turn you into a [slightly] worse fighter than if you put the points into Strength. That Strength matters [at least to some extent].

I think we also agree that if you wish to become a great unarmed fighter you would probably want a good mix of Body, Reaction, Agility, Intuition, Willpower..... and Strength (that the only two attributes that don't really contribute during a fist-fight would be Charisma and Logic). No matter if we talk real life or Shadowrun.

The disconnect does not seem to be if Strength (but also Armor) give you an advantage or not (because it seem as they do), the disconnect rather seem to be that the mechanical advantage you gain by investing into strength (but also Armor) is not perceived to be as potent as some of the other attributes.

So - Maybe what we are really arguing here is if gaining a tactical advantage over your opponent maybe is not as "strong" of an advantage as it perhaps should be.

...and that this would in turn boil down to that the perceived "value" of edge might be a bit on the low side.

Does that sound about right?

Have you considered that your perceived value of edge is on the high side.  Its not worthless but its far from everything.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

So - Maybe what we are really arguing here is if gaining a tactical advantage over your opponent maybe is not as "strong" of an advantage as it perhaps should be.

...and that this would in turn boil down to that the perceived "value" of edge might be a bit on the low side.

Does that sound about right?

Have you considered that your perceived value of edge is on the high side.  Its not worthless but its far from everything.

I think Xenon has it correct.  Most of us (adzling excluded) seem to feel that while Strength does impact close combat, it doesn't impact it enough.  And to recap my position, I think that it basically impacts "enough".  Its contribution isn't as granular as +1 die or +1/2DV, nor does it have a direct contribution outside of indirectly helping on Edge, I feel that indirect help on generating Edge is ultimately "enough" of a contribution.

And as for edge being "far from everything", sure you're technically correct.  The base dice pools are arguably the most important thing.  But pretty much everything other that that? It's ALL Edge.  And really there's an argument to be had for rerolls being more important than the base dice pool.  I'm not going to go so far as to say that's true across the board, but situationally, yeah.  Rerolls can absolutely trump what random chance said. And beyond rerolls, the Edge actions are by design what turns/settles combat.  Can't do edge actions without edge.  If you got the edge to spend on a Knockout Blow because of your STR, then your STR allowed you to knock that target right out.

[Lormyr]

The guys Lormyr was facing in Thailand was probably as "maxed out" strength-wise as he was - but being bigger, matters.

Haha, while I appreciate the sentiment, I am nowhere near "maxed out" in terms of human strength potential. On a SR scale I'd be a solid 4. Up from me would be powerful guys like Dwayne Johnson, and then your 6's would be the Halfthor Bjornson's that measure deadlifts in the thousands of pounds instead of hundreds. You could argue that many of those fellas are..."augmented", though.

Anyhow...

The disconnect does not seem to be if Strength (but also Armor) give you an advantage or not (because it seem as they do), the disconnect rather seem to be that the mechanical advantage you gain by investing into strength (but also Armor) is not perceived to be as potent as some of the other attributes.

This is sort of the issue. Strength adds to AR, and worn armor adds to DR. This means two things:

1). The addition may or may not matter, because you already have enough to gain/deny edge, or even with the addition you lack sufficient number to gain/deny edge. The attribute/armor can literally potentially do nothing at all.

2). More is not better. It's a simple all or nothing, where as more of everything else is strictly better because it continues to increase odds of success and/or magnitude of success (extra hits). Extra hits matter in every single opposed test in the game.

The rebuttal some have made that extra defense test dice, drain dice, damage resistance dice, ect. "did nothing" because you didn't get a hit on the die when rolled that some have made is a completely non sequitur response too. It's not remotely the same.

If there's a whole new calculus to arrive at the same (or similar) DVs for non-extreme cases, is the process truly worth it to cover the extreme cases?

What do you find extreme about them?

The ranged damage codes I listed are already basically identical to current ranged codes, it was just the melee portion that was altered significantly.

I honestly look at your anecdote and see it validating the current mechanics, not contradicting them...

I wouldn't begin to know how to equate game Edge to any real world factor other than perhaps "luck", and my "luck" is
and always has been garbage :p.

A better way to look at it would be this: when I attacked, I missed a lot or was neutralized well because they were much better technical fighters. Once I got a good hit in though, the fight was over from that one hit, or the two that followed it while they were reeling.

How you choose to interpret that is up to your perceptions, and valid.

A couple of points. The only guns that hit particularly high on the damage scale are big and not particularly concealable

True, and fair. That said, how often have you played (or anyone) played and thought "Damn, if I only I had my real gun" vs. been playing and it was a non issue?

For me, 80 something(?) sessions of Chicago Missions, times this came up: counted on one hand.

And, I'm going to quibble with you about how much of an advantage range really is.  Shadowrun isn't simulating 6th world warfare... most of the time the range to target is moot because he's in the same room with you.  Again, in the case of big guns that do the highest damage, they're not used in close quarters combat that Shadowrun simulates.  And if you try it, you suffer the penalty of a terrible Close range AR.

Haha, my friend, no argument there, but our brains are in two completely different spaces.

Yours: The range is not a big deal because usually close enough confines. (valid)

Me: That melee guy moved up to attack whoever, now he can't avoid the grenades or aoe spells at all! (valid)

It's not the range itself that is the major problem (though it is always an advantage), it is the movement restrictions.

Another point: The potential for raw DV of 10 is game-breaking.

But you can already come out of chargen swinging melee for 12P due to critical strike being a leveled power now. That aside, you can come out of chargen doing 8-9P with appropriate ranged weapons (burst fire and explosive ammo), while melee weapons are capped at 5P (6 for the holy whip). How the hell is that balanced?

Melee Guy: "Nice, got an edge on that attack I can use on my next!".

Ranged Guy: "Cool bro, but mines dead from the first shot...".

[Xenon]

Have you considered that your perceived value of edge is on the high side.

Not sure where you got that from.
I am not saying Strength (nor Armor), and by extension Edge, are a strong attributes in 6E.


I am saying that Strength and Body seem to be linked and I wonder if they perhaps should even be turned into one attribute.

I am saying that (unlike Charisma and Logic) Strength and Armor seem to have an impact on combat.

I am also saying that people (which might or might not include me) seem to think that the value of Strength and Armor is currently rather low.


I am challenging that maybe the fix here is not to change the mechanics to make strength and armor directly influence how much damage you deal or take. Maybe the fix could instead be to change the "value" of Edge.


For example, what if you could increase damage with melee attacks by +3 by spending 1 Edge or if you could reroll all failed dice with 1 Edge or if you could heal 1 box of physical damage or 2 boxes of stun with 1 Edge (I am not actually suggesting that we change Edge this drastically, it is just food for argument).

If Edge was this potent then perhaps people would also reevaluate the importance of strength and armor.


(or perhaps this is not even worth exploring and the only solution is that strength and armor should have a direct impact on the damage you do and take?).

[Lormyr]

Most of us (adzling excluded) seem to feel that while Strength does impact close combat, it doesn't impact it enough.

If we can can change the word "does" to "can", then I agree.

The base dice pools are arguably the most important thing.  But pretty much everything other that that? It's ALL Edge.  And really there's an argument to be had for rerolls being more important than the base dice pool.

Here we can fully agree. Dice pool size is the most powerful mechanical benefit you can have, with re-roll potential immediately following. That aspect of Edge I like.

What I don't like is how much action-based stuff got tied into Edge that could have been tied to either action economy or just default to make things a bit more dynamic, but I agree that is a matter of personal tastes.

[Xenon]

The guys Lormyr was facing in Thailand was probably as "maxed out" strength-wise as he was - but being bigger, matters.

Haha, while I appreciate the sentiment, I am nowhere near "maxed out" in terms of human strength potential.

What I meant was that the guys you faced probably "trained" their strength just as much as you did.

Still, even though you train the same amount, you are bigger. You weight more. You have more body mass. And with that you probably have it easier to also build more muscle mass.

It is kinda like comparing an Elf from Thailand to an Ork from the states

[Tecumseh]

Haha, while I appreciate the sentiment, I am nowhere near "maxed out" in terms of human strength potential. On a SR scale I'd be a solid 4. Up from me would be powerful guys like Dwayne Johnson, and then your 6's would be the Halfthor Bjornson's that measure deadlifts in the thousands of pounds instead of hundreds. You could argue that many of those fellas are..."augmented", though.

The real-life spectrum of Strength doesn't fit neatly into 6 categories, that's for sure. Or 7 really, if we're considering Exceptional Attribute a thing. So your Eddie Halls of the world can be your 7s, the Rock can be a 6, and Lormyr (at 6'3" 230lbs) seems like a reasonable candidate for a 5. It probably means that more of the Strength calculations should be exponential though. I was pleased when 6E made that shift in the Lift/Carry calculations.

Or, if we're feeling cute, some of the books have tongue-in-cheek references to pre-Awakening athletes being "proto-adepts". (I think Yogi Berra was one example. Bruce Lee might have been another.) Which raises the possibility that some of the Hafþór Björnssons and Eddie Halls of the world are benefiting from Improved Attribute powers. I'll sidestep the implication about better living through chemistry, which I am in no position to judge (either factually or morally), but you could thus argue that current human Strength maxes out at 8+ ... especially if you include some as-of-unwritten rules about raising Attribute maximums via drugs.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

The guys Lormyr was facing in Thailand was probably as "maxed out" strength-wise as he was - but being bigger, matters.

Haha, while I appreciate the sentiment, I am nowhere near "maxed out" in terms of human strength potential. On a SR scale I'd be a solid 4. Up from me would be powerful guys like Dwayne Johnson, and then your 6's would be the Halfthor Bjornson's that measure deadlifts in the thousands of pounds instead of hundreds. You could argue that many of those fellas are..."augmented", though.

Anyhow...

Well,  the question of chemical augmentation aside... I'm sure he's a real life example of not just hitting racial maximum, but also having benefit of Exceptional Attribute as well.  For sure an example of a real life STR 7.   (damn you wall of text posts!  Slipped by Tecumseh!)

The disconnect does not seem to be if Strength (but also Armor) give you an advantage or not (because it seem as they do), the disconnect rather seem to be that the mechanical advantage you gain by investing into strength (but also Armor) is not perceived to be as potent as some of the other attributes.

This is sort of the issue. Strength adds to AR, and worn armor adds to DR. This means two things:

1). The addition may or may not matter, because you already have enough to gain/deny edge, or even with the addition you lack sufficient number to gain/deny edge. The attribute/armor can literally potentially do nothing at all.

2). More is not better. It's a simple all or nothing, where as more of everything else is strictly better because it continues to increase odds of success and/or magnitude of success (extra hits). Extra hits matter in every single opposed test in the game.

The rebuttal some have made that extra defense test dice, drain dice, damage resistance dice, ect. "did nothing" because you didn't get a hit on the die when rolled that some have made is a completely non sequitur response too. It's not remotely the same.

Adding to STR gets you more AR, and more AR gets you more Edge.  Granted, we're talking about enough +STR to cross the 4 pip threshold, so that bonus isn't necessarily only +1 STR (although, also +1STR could be enough to get that Edge...) I think we agree that when you're reliably out-edging your opponent, you win.  Maybe STR didn't do it on its own, and maybe you got edge from more than just AR to DR comparison, but it still CONTRIBUTED.

Ok, so that serves to address the next complaint: Armor does nothing!  Ok, you get some armor, and you get enough +DR (same 4 pip threshold disclaimer as above) and now the other guy ISN'T auto-beating you because he's not out edging you.  ARMOR CONTRIBUTED!

So, near as I can see, you're saying that increasing STR, and increasing Armor, when they cancel each other out neither did anything?  That's silly.  They canceled each other out is what they did.

If there's a whole new calculus to arrive at the same (or similar) DVs for non-extreme cases, is the process truly worth it to cover the extreme cases?

What do you find extreme about them?

The ranged damage codes I listed are already basically identical to current ranged codes, it was just the melee portion that was altered significantly.

I meant extreme stat values.  2 is now the "norm", although I expect most players still consider a 2 to be "sub par". Either through familiarity inertia from 5e, or from the belief that a PC should be better than NPCs.  We're new in the edition and we don't have many published NPCs for 6we, but there's an opportunity for the game writers to keep stat inflation from happening.  But, I don't like the early signs we've seen so far.  (Free Seattle has Bunraku dolls with 6 Charisma.  Really, NPCs that are by definition lacking their own personality are somehow the human pinnacle of it?  ALL of them?!?)

Anyway. As is, everyone has 2S as a damage code for unarmed.  Pre-errata, Strength values 3-4 had 2S.  You had to be 5+ Strength to suffer a base DV nerf, which is somewhat "extreme" if you consider 2 the norm.  Of course, if you had really high STR, you're looking at a big nerf. 

However.

The ones who had pre-errata unarmed DVs of 8+ DON'T have DVs of 2S now.  Because those examples with huge STR will naturally self-select into also taking qualities/augmentations/powers that helped increase their DVs.  Sure, someone MIGHT have had 9 strength but no bone lacing, bone density, critical strike, and etc.  They would have had 5S, now down to 2S.  Yeah, that blows.  But I submit that it's reasonable to presume that anyone who makes that investment in strength also got some of those other toys.  Mathematically, they must have in order to hit 8+ DV.  They're likely now down to 4-5DV, which is a nerf yes, but that was exactly the point.  They NEEDED one, compared to other combat options.  Where they are now is still very attractive compared to other options.

I honestly look at your anecdote and see it validating the current mechanics, not contradicting them...

I wouldn't begin to know how to equate game Edge to any real world factor other than perhaps "luck", and my "luck" is
and always has been garbage :p.

A better way to look at it would be this: when I attacked, I missed a lot or was neutralized well because they were much better technical fighters. Once I got a good hit in though, the fight was over from that one hit, or the two that followed it while they were reeling.

How you choose to interpret that is up to your perceptions, and valid.

Well, I'd say remember that Edge ceased being Luck.  That's 5e thinking.  It's now more than luck... it's.. well.. Edge.  Call Edge points Tactical Advantage, and your Edge stat your capacity to capitalize upon Tactical Advantage.  Real life infantry combat schools naturally teach some skills and condition physical and mental stats, right? I submit to you that they're also training up your Edge stat.  Military leadership schools for combat officers and squad leaders? Developing your Edge stat is what they're primarily doing!

If you spent edge to force your opponent to reroll a hit on you, it's not representing you "inflicting some bad luck" on your opponent.  It's you taking advantage of a minor bit of cover most lacking your advantage wouldn't have recognized, or recognizing that you can move through a patch of terrain that has compromised vision from the shooter's field of view, or juking your opponent with a skillful head bob, or whatever.  It's not "luck", not anymore.

In my adaptation of my example to your anecdote, your superior strength granted you edge that ultimately manifested in the Knockout Blow edge action you used to bring an abrupt end to the fight(s). What did your Strength do along the way BEFORE generating that Knockout Blow edge action?  Well you know this kind of fighting much better than I do,  but I'm sure moving around the ring, keeping your guard up, and so on require Strength, yes?  In my layman's familiarity with MMA, I know that getting tired and letting your guard drop results in disaster.  You were strong enough to keep your guard up until you got an opening, and BOOM. Knockout Blow after generating some Edge.  It's not so unrepresentative of your experience, is it?

A couple of points. The only guns that hit particularly high on the damage scale are big and not particularly concealable

True, and fair. That said, how often have you played (or anyone) played and thought "Damn, if I only I had my real gun" vs. been playing and it was a non issue?

For me, 80 something(?) sessions of Chicago Missions, times this came up: counted on one hand.

And, I'm going to quibble with you about how much of an advantage range really is.  Shadowrun isn't simulating 6th world warfare... most of the time the range to target is moot because he's in the same room with you.  Again, in the case of big guns that do the highest damage, they're not used in close quarters combat that Shadowrun simulates.  And if you try it, you suffer the penalty of a terrible Close range AR.

Haha, my friend, no argument there, but our brains are in two completely different spaces.

Yours: The range is not a big deal because usually close enough confines. (valid)

Me: That melee guy moved up to attack whoever, now he can't avoid the grenades or aoe spells at all! (valid)

It's not the range itself that is the major problem (though it is always an advantage), it is the movement restrictions.

I think, once, we had a sniper shot worked into our entire Chicago experience.  And the stupid thing is we had a sniper.  It was just far more effective, under 5e rules, to accept the -3 dice penalty for shooting someone at arms reach with a goddamned sniper rifle when you're already throwing like 16 or 20 dice.

I'm kind of excited about 6we changing up all sides of that dynamic to something more *gasp* realistic!

But honestly? Virtually all the time we were indoors, or close enough to buildings while outdoors that you can go around a corner and break LOS if the other side had a meaningful range advantage.

Besides.  Since spells and critter powers didn't (and still don't) have range bands, MagicRun is likely to still dominate combat that extends beyond one's arm's reach, anyway.

Another point: The potential for raw DV of 10 is game-breaking.

But you can already come out of chargen swinging melee for 12P due to critical strike being a leveled power now. That aside, you can come out of chargen doing 8-9P with appropriate ranged weapons (burst fire and explosive ammo), while melee weapons are capped at 5P (6 for the holy whip). How the hell is that balanced?

Melee Guy: "Nice, got an edge on that attack I can use on my next!".

Ranged Guy: "Cool bro, but mines dead from the first shot...".

Ok in the time it took me to wall of text my way to this point, you still hadn't edited this portion so I have to assume this is what you actually meant.

Big DVs with Crit Strike: Well, yes, that's a thing.  But +6DV means you have to have both 1) 6+ Magic and 2) 6 PPs spent on that one thing.  If we're talking chargen, you've got an awfully one dimensional character and that's not the best assumption to base game balance on.  Post chargen? Ok, so you hit someone for 12DV.  Congrats, you gave up a whole lot of other powers to deal that much damage when you would have won the fight anyway dealing 5.  Hell of an opportunity cost to get a LOL.

But the part that confuses me is your example dialogue.  Um.  MELEE is the way you're one shotting someone, not ranged... I think you got something backwards in what you're trying to say there?

[Lormyr]

What I meant was that the guys you faced probably "trained" their strength just as much as you did.

Still, even though you train the same amount, you are bigger. You weight more. You have more body mass. And with that you probably have it easier to also build more muscle mass.

It is kinda like comparing an Elf from Thailand to an Ork from the states

While I was in Bangkok I stayed at a warehouse on the docks with about 20 other guys. Zero privacy, poverty level living basically. The training of those guys focused a lot more on technical skill and endurance, they did very little dedicated strength training past what the aforementioned training afforded them, which was decent. I on the other hand couldn't give up my dedicated strength training, so was lever pressing broken down tuk-tuks, curling 60 lb stone blocks with ropes tied around them for grips, bench pressing sealed barrels 1/2 filled with dirt, ect.

The training culture is a lot different between some cultures and combat styles, between wealth and poverty, as well as between street / amateur / professional levels, at least at that time just over 10 years ago.

The real-life spectrum of Strength doesn't fit neatly into 6 categories, that's for sure. Or 7 really

I agree. I'm just trying to make it fit as best as possible for the context of the conversation with SSDR.

I think we agree that when you're reliably out-edging your opponent, you win.

If there are no other advantages on either side to consider, such as the examples you ran with above, then yes I agree. In any realistic scenario though, strength will be irrelevant. I am willing to put effort into proving this too. Open challenge to anyone who disagrees:

You build whatever strength and melee focused character you want, with ware and/or adept powers being the only extras (no spells, summons, drugs, ect.) and I will build a strength dumped version under the same guidelines, and I guarantee you that single build will win every bout vs. said strength builds if we compare them using law of averages for hit calculations.

So, near as I can see, you're saying that increasing STR, and increasing Armor, when they cancel each other out neither did anything?  That's silly.  They canceled each other out is what they did.

But they do not always cancel eachother out SSDR, and you are intelligent enough to know this man, come on. In some cases you are completely correct. In others, the presence of one or both does nothing due to the other factors that calculate into AR/DR in play.

I meant extreme stat values.  2 is now the "norm", although I expect most players still consider a 2 to be "sub par". Either through familiarity inertia from 5e, or from the belief that a PC should be better than NPCs.  We're new in the edition and we don't have many published NPCs for 6we, but there's an opportunity for the game writers to keep stat inflation from happening.  But, I don't like the early signs we've seen so far.

Oh, I see.

Well all I can say to that is on the PC side, the vast majority of people I play with (myself included) are optimizers, so this is (and always has been) extremely common. As far as NPCs, just look at the stat blocks of grunts in the core book. Once you get to PR6+, everyone is much higher than average stats. The PR8+ guys are ludicrously premium natural specimens, with numerous base stats of 6. I agree it is ridiculously unrealistic, but that is the nature of pretty much every game I've ever played.

In my adaptation of my example to your anecdote, your superior strength granted you edge that ultimately manifested in the Knockout Blow edge action you used to bring an abrupt end to the fight(s). What did your Strength do along the way BEFORE generating that Knockout Blow edge action?  Well you know this kind of fighting much better than I do,  but I'm sure moving around the ring, keeping your guard up, and so on require Strength, yes?  In my layman's familiarity with MMA, I know that getting tired and letting your guard drop results in disaster.  You were strong enough to keep your guard up until you got an opening, and BOOM. Knockout Blow after generating some Edge.  It's not so unrepresentative of your experience, is it?

In a traditional weight-class appropriate bout, tiring is definitely the biggest threat, followed closely by psychological issues. "Real" fights (as in no rules, you are just trying to not die), like for your life or streets, is quite different, but I digress. As for strength -> edge -> knockout blow, again, life doesn't translate to game well and vice versa, so interpret as you will (and I think we both know our minds are made up on opposing ends). You say "Knockout blow, makes sense!", I say "Stronger body made more force then smaller dude's body could handle.", or gimmick vs. raw damage.

Besides.  Since spells and critter powers didn't (and still don't) have range bands, MagicRun is likely to still dominate combat that extends beyond one's arm's reach, anyway.

Fully agree.

But the part that confuses me is your example dialogue.  Um.  MELEE is the way you're one shotting someone, not ranged... I think you got something backwards in what you're trying to say there?

Yes, I meant it. You are looking for the one shot with knockout blow (requiring melee), while I am looking for the one shot with raw damage.

An elf can come into play with a 24 dice attack pool from a burst firing, explosive ammo FN-Har for 8P. Average hits on that attack roll is 8. Average defense test from the PR6 grunt yields 3 hits, or 5 with dodge. That results in 13P or 11P, which an average damage resistance of 1 hit, resulting in straight to dead with average rolls.

Knockout blow requires a minimum of two actions (since you have to spend edge on the first in order to qualify for knockout), and requires melee distance, and requires your successful hit to deal more damage than Willpower after damage resistance.

Just shoot to kill. Much simpler, much less resource intensive, much more effective combat style than melee in the current implementation.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I had another big long wall of text in the works, but I nuked it.  I think shorter is sweeter at this point.

We're walking down two different paths, Lormyr.  You seem to be arguing from an expectation that the combat rules should be in effect a wargame. Where nothing more than the rules and the dice are needed to resolve a battle between characters.  Naturally in such a paradigm, every legal options should ideally be equally balanced against other options for a fair combat simulation between different kinds of characters, and in that view Strength doesn't measure up against other potential investments.

I get that, and I can't dispute it.  Because, from that view, yes that's correct.

Suffice to say though, I don't share that point of view.  From where I'm coming from, it's NOT a wargame. You can't set your mini on a battle mat and have a throw down with another player and his character because the game has a baked in assumption that the GM is going to adjudicate odd rules interactions, so the rules tend to not even bother addressing them in the first place.  It's unavoidable.. just as one example remember it's a TRIAD of edge, not a BIAD.  You get edge 1) through AR to DR evaluation and 2) from gear/qualities that say you get it... yes those are simulationist-friendly concepts but the last leg is 3) circumstantial conditions.  If you're invisible, that's probably edge your way for the fight, right?  Well, what if it's dark.  Invisibility now counts for less.  What if the other guy has thermo, but you don't?  Ok, now YOU can't see well.  And maybe your invisibility is counting for even less, because maybe your opponent can track your position by the warm footprints you leave in the floor.  Who gets the edge in all these variations is NOT codified.  Deliberately so.  It's up to the GM to decide.

Your challenge runs afoul of this.  Your challenge ignores a whole leg of the edge triad.  let's take an example: ok I build a big troll brawler, you alter him for 1 STR but much more AGI and/or BOD or such. Unarmed, close combat type, so your 1 STR doesn't let me just easily take your weapon/gun away from you.  Obviously, your alteration will probably end up with more dice pools in soak, dodge, and/or attack all while hitting at the same DV as my original.  And granted, the particulars may result in a meaningless difference between edge generation.  Through the two "no GM needed" legs of the edge triad, at any rate.
It's the third leg that invalidates your proposal.  There's nothing stopping a GM from seeing the corner case demonstration you're attempting to make, and step in with some "reality".  Ok, you just blocked an unarmed strike from a 9 troll? And you have 1 STR?  Hmm, ok take a level of the Fatigue Status.  Or whatever.  "Oh, he's got 9 str to your 1, and you two are in fisticuffs?  Frag, that's a circumstantial bonus if I ever saw one.  Edge to the strong guy.  Etc.

[Lormyr]

I basically agree with everything in your last past, in particular our different paths, and that both are ok.

The third leg of the edge system you mentioned (GM discretion outside of rules) will always be a problem for me because my past gaming experiences involved so many petty, vindictive, and/or bad GMs that I just have no tolerance for that in my personal play anymore. Having to make a call on the fly for a situation that has no rule is one thing. Having a core system that revolves around needing to make calls on the fly to balance it out is another.

To me, slapping a character with Str 1 who blocks a blow from a Str 9 character with an automatic level of fatigue when there is nothing even remotely in the rules to support it is textbook picture of vindictive Gming, but that is just me. I understand your opinion differs, and that's cool.

We know we can't see eye to eye on this, and that's ok. I appreciate the debate and the opinions none the less.

Edit: Perhaps instead we should combine our powers to get them to do something about an issue we agree on, MagicRun, instead. :p

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I basically agree with everything in your last past, in particular our different paths, and that both are ok.

The third leg of the edge system you mentioned (GM discretion outside of rules) will always be a problem for me because my past gaming experiences involved so many petty, vindictive, and/or bad GMs that I just have no tolerance for that in my personal play anymore. Having to make a call on the fly for a situation that has no rule is one thing. Having a core system that revolves around needing to make calls on the fly to balance it out is another.

Indeed, if it's not something you like someone else telling you why they think it works or why they like it doesn't change what YOU like.

To me, slapping a character with Str 1 who blocks a blow from a Str 9 character with an automatic level of fatigue when there is nothing even remotely in the rules to support it is textbook picture of vindictive Gming, but that is just me. I understand your opinion differs, and that's cool.

Well on one hand, yeah inflicting Fatigue "just because I think you're gaming the system" is vindictive, yes.  But, on the other hand, statuses are applied by GM fiat.  Take a look at Fatigue.  Does it say when you get it?  Does it even give guidelines?  100% GM fiat.  And, we both agreed upthread, getting tired and slipping your guard is a huge potential problem in sustained combat.  MAYBE it's not fair for a GM to inflict Fatigue for only blocking one blow.  But over the course of several? Ok, much more reasonable, yes?  Ok so a combat round is 3 entire seconds.  I'm sure you're more aware than I am how many discrete blows one can throw in "one" major action over the course of 3 seconds.  It's not COMPLETELY unreasonable to suffer Fatigue in even one combat round... if you're not in shape.

And when we're talking about disparate strength... we're potentially talking about "below average" versus "well beyond real life maximums here".  If an unathletic type (1 STR) "parried" a truck hitting him, surely he'd be worse for the wear despite that block, yes?  That's basically a RL analogue for a 9 Str troll's punch being blocked?

We know we can't see eye to eye on this, and that's ok. I appreciate the debate and the opinions none the less.

Edit: Perhaps instead we should combine our powers to get them to do something about an issue we agree on, MagicRun, instead. :p

Heh, well that'd be another thread

[Lormyr]

Well on one hand, yeah inflicting Fatigue "just because I think you're gaming the system" is vindictive, yes.

That is pretty much my beef with it. If someone has a character their GM thinks is bending the rules too far, the correct response to is to discuss it out of game to come up with a happy medium, or acknowledge your play styles won't work together, so vindictive gaming doesn't happen.

Penalizing someone because you don't appreciate their playstyle, or other wrongbadfun shaming is totally unacceptable to me, and it's easy to tell when you are being targeted by it.

And, we both agreed upthread, getting tired and slipping your guard is a huge potential problem in sustained combat. Ok so a combat round is 3 entire seconds.  I'm sure you're more aware than I am how many discrete blows one can throw in "one" major action over the course of 3 seconds.

Absolutely. If you ever watch fighters it is very rare that they are actively engaged in non-stop attacks, because you wear out really quick, probably shockingly quick for anyone who's never experienced it.

MAYBE it's not fair for a GM to inflict Fatigue for only blocking one blow.  But over the course of several? Ok, much more reasonable, yes? It's not COMPLETELY unreasonable to suffer Fatigue in even one combat round... if you're not in shape.

See, that is something I could potentially get behind. First blow or two is your GM penalizing you. 4th block over 4 turns? Fatigue I think is too much, but start handing the really strong guy circumstance edge? Sure.

To be clear though, wearing out is 100% a function of Body, not Strength. Strength is actually the counter end of the equation. The more muscle mass (weight) you have, the harder it is for you to keep energy and not tire. Even though my fighting career was almost a decade ago at this point I still strength train religiously every week day because I love it (my pic is recent within 3 years, little has changed) - but I stopped doing more than casual good health cardio the day I stopped fighting. You put me in the ring now, even though I am strong as hell, I'd have about 2 good minutes to knock someone out before any chance of me winning was lost due to being winded

Plus, optimizer in me speaking here, why the hell are you blocking and not dodging anyhow? :p

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

...To be clear though, wearing out is 100% a function of Body, not Strength...

See, I'd quibble, and say that avoiding fatigue is a measure of having the strength to tolerate some sustained exertion.  And for that matter, the Fatigue status should be a very familiar bugaboo if you insist on playing a STR 1 character.  Just wearing a helmet tired the hell out of me when I was in active duty. After a few hours with a mere couple of pounds added to the load on my neck? Yeah, I was easily suffering a -2 dice on my real life skill tests.  I wouldn't say I was particularly strong OR weak.

This goes to illustrate that it's hard to parse the difference between related attributes.  What's an example of being highly reactive without using any agility?  When are you using charisma without any intuition?  It should be impossible to have high Body but low Strength, but that's never been a rule to link attributes in such ways.  We just have the mechanical tasks they're invoked in to draw a meta distinction between related attributes.