[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

Well that's the thing! PR4 isn't SUPPOSED to truly challenge professional, competent shadowrunners directly. Has Shadowrun ever really presented mafia soldatos and Lone Star beat cops as as being a peer threat to shadowrunners?  Shadowrunners have always been expected to handle those sorts of opposition easily and quickly. Not be fortunate to be victorious against them.

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!

Thank you, and no, I wasn't taking anything personal.  I enjoy a good rules debate

But speaking personally, yeah I'd like to see a smaller DV on grenades too, but honestly bringing them down doesn't solve what I see as the core problem: not being able to dodge TWO of them.  Even if DVs were cut in half, you're still autodead anyway against optimized opposition, right?

So that's, imo, the fix. Why do the NPCs even have grenades in the first place?  If you're trying to kill the PCs, just decree that they have heart attacks and they die.  Way easier.  Is it broken that a PC can throw a grenade, cash in 4 minors for a 2nd major and then throw a 2nd grenade with no defense possible?  Kind of, admittedly.  But there IS a counter for the GM.  Chemsniffers.  Put them in lots of doorways.  The Mad Bomber can't go anywhere without triggering HTR.  Sure, he'll kill a bunch of them before he goes down, but he WILL go down.  There's always another wave of HTR after the one you just blew up.

[adzling]

The rules aren't to blame there. Bad GMs are bad GMs.

nice, blame the gm, classic.

the rules are clearly to blame, lormyr has clearly shown it and common sense indicates it just from reading them.

[Lormyr]

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.

I disagree, because I found both the poll and the discussion (in that thread and others) quite varied. The results were all over the place, even if you could fairly section them into demographics.

You're right though, nothing can compensate for a bad GM. I know you are quite pleased with the system even if you do have a few mitpicks, and I am genuinely glad that you and others are. I still feel it needs some core re-work and a lot of polish, primarily around the Edge system.

Well that's the thing! PR4 isn't SUPPOSED to truly challenge professional, competent shadowrunners directly. Has Shadowrun ever really presented mafia soldatos and Lone Star beat cops as as being a peer threat to shadowrunners?  Shadowrunners have always been expected to handle those sorts of opposition easily and quickly. Not be fortunate to be victorious against them.

I agree. But a few of those encounters, depending on the numbers, opening with anticipation or pre-edge pretty strongly ups their threat level against "average" PCs. A few of those encounters before a rest and/or full edge refresh could get hairy quick, and that is on stat blocks we agree are mildly threatening at best.

But speaking personally, yeah I'd like to see a smaller DV on grenades too, but honestly bringing them down doesn't solve what I see as the core problem: not being able to dodge TWO of them.  Even if DVs were cut in half, you're still autodead anyway against optimized opposition, right?

So that's, imo, the fix. Why do the NPCs even have grenades in the first place?  If you're trying to kill the PCs, just decree that they have heart attacks and they die.  Way easier.  Is it broken that a PC can throw a grenade, cash in 4 minors for a 2nd major and then throw a 2nd grenade with no defense possible?  Kind of, admittedly.  But there IS a counter for the GM.  Chemsniffers.  Put them in lots of doorways.  The Mad Bomber can't go anywhere without triggering HTR.  Sure, he'll kill a bunch of them before he goes down, but he WILL go down.  There's always another wave of HTR after the one you just blew up.

Halve their damage, halve their explosion radius, and add a defense test just like every other attack in the game and the issue is entirely resolved.

That really is the problem with grenades. There is no good way to use them without them in a balanced way, because their mechanics are inherently unbalanced. And sure, chemsniffers, metal detectors, frisks, and all manner of other measures can certainly catch their presence. But lets face it, the character willing to use grenades is usually not concerned about subtlety. HTR, as stated in the book, will just be walking into a new wave of death until the PCs run out of grenades. I don't know about anyone else, but that a single, cheap, easily accessible item can cause that situation (let's just be loud and see how many HTR teams they have on tap!) seems like a neon sign for a game mechanic that should be addressed.

And sorry, I didn't intend for my loathing of explosives to derail from the AR/DR/edge conversation.

[Xenon]

Consider the iconic katana. Attack value of 10. With even 2 points of Strength behind it, you have an attack rating of 12

Attack rating of 12 is the same as Walther Palm Pistol have at close range. I don't really see the issue with a Katana wielded by an agile (but weak) Elf having an attack rating of 12 when it comes to edge gain. Why should you not gain a tactical advantage when using a melee weapon at melee range compared to using a firearm at melee range....?


Also, Katana is the melee weapon with the highest listed AR (unless you count the exotic monowhip). Forearm snap blades, Knifes, Clubs, Extended baton, Saps & Stun Batons, cybernetic hardening or shock weapons, Handblades, Hand razors only have an AR of 6 (or less) at its most optimal (and, in most cases, only!) range category.

This is still a smaller benefit than high Strength offered in 5e.

Even if small, it is still a bigger benefit for melee weapons than we had in SR6 up until now ;-)

Now there is a[nother] reason for a melee focused character to not dump stat Strength.
This was part of what a lot of people asked for. This is a good thing.

Is it a realistic emulation of real life? Probably not (but does it have to)
Will many melee focused characters put some points into Strength? Probably yes.

Will many melee focused characters go for a troll with an augmented exceptional strength rating of 14? No (but why would we consider it a good thing to 'force' all melee characters into playing a troll...?)

Even a plain old knife is 6, and most of the weapons PCs would carry are 8-10.

And with a strength of 2-4 (which I guess is a range that PCs will aim for) you will end up with a Knife AR of 8-10. Do you really think it is unreasonable that a weapon in its most optimal range category have an AR of 8-10 (rather than just 6)?

Also note that not a single firearm have an AR of less than 8 in their optimal range category and some firearms even have an AR that goes all the way up to 14
(and all this is before adding stuff like smartgun or ammo bonuses).

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.

If you have a melee focus and still decide to dump your Strength (because it does not add directly to strength anyway) you will actually have a hard time gaining edge when attacking someone. In fact, odds are that a big armored opponent will actually gain edge on your attack (unless perhaps you specifically use a higher AR weapon such as a combat axe or katana).

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.

I can't talk for your table, but many encounters in Shadowrun are designed with grunts (that share their professional rating worth of edge in one single pool and where only one group of them may use edge at a time and only once per combat turn) and perhaps a named character (for example a lieutenant of some sort that follow regular edge rules).

If you play tactically enough you should often be able to prevent the grunt edge pool from increasing and you should also be able to often be able to net a gain of edge while fighting them.

"adding strength to AR for melee weapons is huge because it will help with Edge gain"

I sure hope you are not pointing at me when you quote that, because this is pretty far from what I actually said:

Strength might not be the most valuable attribute in the game (and it does not directly affect the damage value...

Slipped by 6 posts while writing this

[Hobbes]

And sorry, I didn't intend for my loathing of explosives to derail from the AR/DR/edge conversation.

 

Grenades really should be triggering the harshest response from the game world the GM is willing to throw at the PCs.  And HTR teams should be tactically aware enough to not walk into a rolling barrage.  Details will vary wildly based on the situation of course.  But if the building is already blown full of holes and everyone is dead.... just fire off a half dozen HE Missiles from a safe distance and have done with 'em.  Follow up with an Astral scout or a swarm of cheap drones.  Blame the terrorists for the collateral damage, it's why they pay the PR team.

This is mostly a table issue IMO as no matter what you do with AoE damage the PC will have some kind of access to it.  Either Spells, Chem Grenades, or Explosives.  Any and all of them can be abused.  If one grenade isn't enough, fine bust out the burst fire launcher.  Or have the Rigger fire off half a dozen from the Rotodrone murder squad.  Or have three mages on the team.

If the players are knocking down buildings with spells and explosives or tossing around chemical weapons they should expect the GM to pull out the biggest hammer in the toolbox if they stick around. 

Unless of course its some kind of Barrens/CZ/war zone where no HTR team is paid to care : )   Then, by all means, break out the 120mm Mortar squad and frag some hoops. 

[Michael Chandra]

Slipped by 6 posts while writing this

You may need some Counterspelling vs that Decrease Reaction spell on you.

[skalchemist]

So, my intent with this question was to ask about the specifics of the rules.  I think its obvious that a lot of people don't like the rules for melee combat, which is fine.  I personally have no problem with the idea that Strength has limited utility, but I can see why some would really dislike it.

However, my suggestion is if someone wants to a) argue the current melee weapon rules (assuming it has changed as I suspect) are great or awful, or b) talk about house rules to make them more suitable for someone's style, or c) generally discuss whether a bunch of stuff (e.g. grenades) is balanced or not, that be a separate thread?  Because the conversation here (especially the conversation about grenade damage) seems important but its going to be lost buried in a thread where its off topic, I think.  I say this as a person who just posted a huge off-topic wall of text in a thread about toxins last week. 

[penllawen]

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.

If disliking SR6 makes you a bad GM, well, shucks. Better tell my players to find a new table then.

[Lormyr]

In respect to Skalchemist's request I'll refrain from further debate in this thread other than to tell Xenon that no, my comment was not directed at him or any other specific individual. It was a blanket statement to anyone who believes that adding str to AR for melee attacks will make much of an overall difference.

[MercilessMing]

Aw, I haven't gotten to chime in yet.
I like that Unarmed damage went to a static number.  I'm very happy that the melee rules are more consistent now between unarmed and armed damage, attack rating, etc.  But it's still in the grappling rules and I hope that was an oversight.  When rules are consistent and logical, you don't have to look them up all the time. 
I disagree that strength has more utility now.  I think it's even more of a dump stat.   Attack rating is just not that important.  Combat characters have many ways to gain edge, either on their own or through support characters, but they're limited in how fast they can gain it.  We're talking about an attribute, a very big karma investment.  Even if playing a melee specialist, I have a hard time imagining a situation where I would spend karma on raising my strength over literally any other attribute, or any skill related to my function.  Actually, I take that back, I can imagine I might spend up to 15 karma to raise the attribute to 3, as a melee specialist, if I had my body, agility, reaction, willpower, close combat, stealth, athletics, and perception maxed, just so I could carry more.  I wouldn't think of spending 15 karma to raise my melee AR by 1, let alone 20 or 25 or 30.