[skalchemist]

I'm sure this has been addressed elsewhere, but it seems like an important enough topic to have its own thread, so...

The new pdf of the rules provides a footnote in the melee weapons gear table...

* Whips add the attackers Reaction instead of Strength to the Attack Rating

Is it just me, or does this suggest that Strength is added to the Attack Rating of non-whip melee weapons?  I note that the example on page 109 has also been altered to add Strength to the gangers Bike Chain attack rating.  Is it just me, or is that idea not mentioned anywhere else in the rules?

Strength + listed Attack Rating for melee weapons plus the flat 2S damage code for unarmed damage pretty much resolves all the ambiguity around melee and unarmed for me.  Essentially, the Melee Weapon replaces your Reaction in the AR calculation (except for whips), and its damage code replaces the flat 2S damage code for unarmed.  That's clear and maintains the value of melee weapons (although I'm betting some people will not be happy that damage no longer takes Strength into account). 

But it seems weird they didn't add that into the paragraph on Attack Ratings on page 39 (where they mention the unarmed Attack Rating).

Also, I find it a bit funny that they changed to the flat 2S damage code, but then didn't change the "Strength/2" reference in grappling (which was previously the only reference to unarmed damage).  I feel safe to assume this was just an oversight.

[Xenon]

It seems reasonable that strength (or reaction in the case of whips) is added to the listed AR of existing melee weapons (and to reaction when it comes  to unarmed combat).

Strength now make [most] melee weapons better. Something that a lot of people asked for.

Switching to a melee weapon will now [often] also not be worse than using unarmed if you are very strong. Also something that a lot of people asked for.

Strength might not be the most valuable attribute in the game (and it does not directly affect the damage value which I know some people asked for), but I am pretty sure a lot of characters with a melee focus will not use Strength as a dump stat. Which is I think is good enough.



Perhaps the intent is that grappling still deal strength / 2 when you squeeze someone...?

[skalchemist]

It seems reasonable that strength (or reaction in the case of whips) is added to the listed AR of existing melee weapons (and to reaction when it comes  to unarmed combat).

I agree it is reasonable, Xenon, I actually think the way they have resolved this is a good solution, assuming it IS the way they have resolved it.  But the text seems to call that in doubt.  For example, the Attack Ratings for the archetype characters don't appear to have been altered in any way. The Street Samurai has an Attack Rating of 10 for the Katana, when if this rule is correct I think it should be 17(20).  The Adepts melee weapons all only show the base value, not modified by Strength.

Which is why I am asking the specific question (of you and others): where is it stated explicitly (as opposed to by example or in a reverse reading of a footnote) in the new PDF that the AR values in the melee weapon tables on pgs 249-250 are added to Strength (or Reaction in the case of whips) to get the "final" AR?  I can't find it. 

EDIT: you know, hold that question.  I feel it might be unfair to ask it quite yet; better to wait for the separate document of the errata and see if that resolves the question. 

[Plan_B]

P. 109, Step 2 of the sidebar on Melee close combat example. It specifically states that you add your Strength to the weapon's Attack Rating.

[skalchemist]

P. 109, Step 2 of the sidebar on Melee close combat example. It specifically states that you add your Strength to the weapon's Attack Rating.

Plan B, yeah, I noticed that.  But that's not really a rule, right?  That's in the example.   I mean, it implies there is a rule.  But the archetypes imply to my mind there is not a rule, because they do not show this change.  Also, none of the antagonists in the "Wild Life" Chapter seem to have strength figured in to their melee weapon attack ratings either, including the ganger with the bike chain (pg 204).  There it just shows an Attack Rating of 7, not 9.

But as I said, I'm happy to wait for the errata file to show up and see what it says.  If the errata mention that changed example and the whip footnote, I can't see how they will not answer my question (and likely imply that they missed adding a specific rule to page 39). 

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I can't comment on most of what's being discussed, but I can comment on the Attack Rating examples on the Archetypes and NPC statblocks:

The convention for ARs is to not include modifiers (with the sole exception of Laser sights.. that one IS baked in.) If the convention is to add everything in, then GMs have to remember to take them away when the bonuses aren't warranted.  Of course, the converse is if they're not added in by default, then GMs have to remember to apply them.  There's no win/win here.

[skalchemist]

The convention for ARs is to not include modifiers (with the sole exception of Laser sights.. that one IS baked in.) If the convention is to add everything in, then GMs have to remember to take them away when the bonuses aren't warranted.  Of course, the converse is if they're not added in by default, then GMs have to remember to apply them.  There's no win/win here.

Thanks SSDR, that's useful info.

[penllawen]

The convention for ARs is to not include modifiers (with the sole exception of Laser sights.. that one IS baked in.) If the convention is to add everything in, then GMs have to remember to take them away when the bonuses aren't warranted.  Of course, the converse is if they're not added in by default, then GMs have to remember to apply them.  There's no win/win here.

Why aren't they listed in brackets? The same way we list, say, the accuracy bonus of smartlinks in 5e. Or a physad's attribute boosts in 5e/6e, as they're something that might or might not apply. It'd be a lot more convenient for players to be reminded a bonus applies to this value than just rely on them noticing there's a bit of gear elsewhere on the sheet that affects it.

Also it doesn't make much sense that laser sights get treated differently.

Also it should repeat this (quite important) information at the head of the Archetypes chapter, not just wherever it is buried in the Gear chapter. It's not at all clear that this is the case for Archetypes and NPC statblocks.

[penllawen]

Strength now make [most] melee weapons better. Something that a lot of people asked for.

Well, as ever, the devil is in the details.

Consider the iconic katana. Attack value of 10. With even 2 points of Strength behind it, you have an attack rating of 12 - already on par with an assault cannon or sniper rifle. It's pretty likely to generate Edge. Put 4-5 points of Strength behind it, and it's all but guaranteed against most opponents.

So we still have no power delta between an averagely strong human and a troll who can (according to RAW) lift over a ton. They'll both generate the same 1 point of Edge, with the same 2/3rds chance of generating 1 extra hit (assuming the player forces the opponent to reroll a hit on their defence test.) This is still a smaller benefit than high Strength offered in 5e. A more accurate statement would be "Small amounts of strength make most melee weapons slightly better. However larger amounts of strength do not improve them further."

There's a further consequence to this, which is that (to my eyes) the attack values of melee weapons were not calibrated to have Strength added to them. They're all very high. Even a plain old knife is 6, and most of the weapons PCs would carry are 8-10. This means adding Strength on top makes armour quite ineffective in melee combat now - you're almost always going to concede a point of Edge when attacked or counter-attacked. Perhaps this change is intentional, although given the various inconsistencies pointed out by skalchemist in the first post, it's believable that they were overlooked. Even if intentional, it's a noteworthy shift in balance from the original version of 6e.

[Lormyr]

There's a further consequence to this, which is that (to my eyes) the attack values of melee weapons were not calibrated to have Strength added to them. They're all very high. Even a plain old knife is 6, and most of the weapons PCs would carry are 8-10. This means adding Strength on top makes armour quite ineffective in melee combat now - you're almost always going to concede a point of Edge when attacked or counter-attacked.

While the wave of errata that was released was a very minor improvement (primarily in clarifying adept/essence issues), the simple fact of the matter is that the powers that be are either unable or unwilling to land on a solution that is both balanced and matches common sense expectations (armor helps you avoid being harmed, a troll twice as strong as a human will strike harder, ect.) when it comes to this issue. I know that some people really like the new system, and that's cool if you do. But liking the way it was done and trying to defend that it makes any logical sense are two completely different things.

We had a 9+ hour session that had 5+ fights in it, which were back to back with no rest period. Edge generation and management was a problem for the PCs through that entire session, and I want to explain this carefully. This was not due to the fact that generating Edge was overly difficult - it is a slow but steady process that is essentially guaranteed. It was due to the fact that every time the party encountered a new combat, they had foes with totally fresh Edge pools to contest against with their diminished Edge pools. During a confrontation Edge is pretty easy to generate slowly, but you have very little opportunity to do so between conflicts due to the "don't abuse Edge gain" clause.

That is the real problem with the Edge system, and the real reason that all this "armor does help because it gives/prevents Edge gain" and "adding strength to AR for melee weapons is huge because it will help with Edge gain" is just inaccurate. When every battle your GM is (rightfully) wielding his baddies Edge for their maximum effect with anticipations, and disarms, and pre-edge re-rolls for high dice pool attacks, and so on, and your players are struggling just to keep a point or two in reserve from one fight to the next because they need to keep using it all to alpha strike before they get rocked or to try to mitigate some of the enemy top edge actions that come at them every fight you will understand what I mean.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

"Preventing Edge Abuse" isn't meant to prevent all edge gains in non-combat situations.

If you're having trouble gaining edge between combats (unless of course, these are waves of combats with literally no time between them) it's IMO a problem with your GM, not the rules.

Edit: A thought regarding this:

It was due to the fact that every time the party encountered a new combat, they had foes with totally fresh Edge pools to contest against with their diminished Edge pools.

You're making it sound like these combats were with NPCs with high edge pools?  Because Edge=Professional Rating, and it's a shared pool across the bunch rather than every NPC getting that value.  If you're fighting high PR NPCs, over and over, well.. A) it sounds like the GM is throwing your team into a meat grinder and B) what ELSE should you expect when you're thrown into a meat grinder?

[Lormyr]

That is just the issue though, SSD. One man's "that's Edge abuse!" is another man's "why not, that seems perfectly appropriate.". You have but to look back on the huge thread discussion of this from a few months ago to see how drastically the poll varied.

Edit: You will also have that some players are far more clever than others, and will be smarter about making effort to generate Edge outside of combat. I concede that that is hardly an Edge issue since it will affect a substantial number of other factors as well, but it now gives the clever players a substantial mechanical advantage over more passive/reactive players.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

That is just the issue though, SSD. One man's "that's Edge abuse!" is another man's "why not, that seems perfectly appropriate.". You have but to look back on the huge thread discussion of this from a few months ago to see how drastically the poll varied.

Like I said... it sounds like a GM issue.  If everything to him is edge abuse, what do you want the rules to do about it?

[Lormyr]

You're making it sound like these combats were with NPCs with high edge pools?  Because Edge=Professional Rating, and it's a shared pool across the bunch rather than every NPC getting that value.  If you're fighting high PR NPCs, over and over, well.. A) it sounds like the GM is throwing your team into a meat grinder and B) what ELSE should you expect when you're thrown into a meat grinder?

It was. You read my stress test report. Our follow up session was just more of the same, so I didn't post it out since no new information/opinions were discovered and the first one took significant time to type out.

Now you may not agree with this assessment, but I would argue that enemies lower than PR4 are so weak that they are hardly able to challenge even slightly optimized basic characters, unless perhaps in extreme numbers. So even just using that as a baseline, that opens up the group attack to pre-edge or anticipation every fight.

And please don't take this last comment personally because you know I respect you, but PR is irrelevant anyhow bro, we have grenades! Let's just equip everyone with grenades and then the only stat that matters is Initiate for who gets to go first to use them!

[Michael Chandra]

That is just the issue though, SSD. One man's "that's Edge abuse!" is another man's "why not, that seems perfectly appropriate.". You have but to look back on the huge thread discussion of this from a few months ago to see how drastically the poll varied.

Like I said... it sounds like a GM issue.  If everything to him is edge abuse, what do you want the rules to do about it?

That poll hardly varied much, really: Asides from those that basically said EVERYTHING was edge abuse, there were only a few people who considered a lot of scenarios edge abuse. So honestly, it's a matter of 'is the GM reasonable, or are they so anti-SR6 that they're beyond reason'. The rules aren't to blame there. Bad GMs are bad GMs.