NEWS

6WE Strength useless for melee users?

  • 195 Replies
  • 5471 Views

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 8960
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #15 on: (07:08:51/08-27-19) »
It is looking like this is something I am going to house rule. I'm going to assume that all damage listed is for a str 3 individual. So that would be an unarmed damage of 2 (str/2 round up). So a combat knife that has DV of 3 I'll change to str/2 round up +1.
That does mean you're devaluating unarmed combat again, and it means that theoretically you can reach 10P with an Axe vs 5P with a big gun. So a risky houserule. Your table, but I think it's a very bad idea, since that 10P is still BEFORE net hits. At that point you're basically saying 'either go huge-strength melee, or don't bother with combat at all at my table'.

Wrest is actually rather easy to happen, so I wouldn't underestimate it as a GM weapon against abusive players.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #16 on: (07:24:03/08-27-19) »
It is looking like this is something I am going to house rule. I'm going to assume that all damage listed is for a str 3 individual. So that would be an unarmed damage of 2 (str/2 round up). So a combat knife that has DV of 3 I'll change to str/2 round up +1.
As a houserule, how about:

  • Shift unarmed damage to Str/3, rounded up (scales from 1-5S; Strength 7 still punches as hard as an Ares Predator shoots.)
  • Knucks don't have a damage code; they do the same damage as unarmed, but P instead of S.
  • Keep the fixed damage codes for melee weapons.
  • To use a melee weapon effectively, you need a minimum Str equal to its damage code minus 1 (so a 5P combat axe needs to be wielded with Strength 4.) If you don't have the minimum, either you can't use it at all or you take a penalty (eg. can't earn/spend Edge.) Strength of 2 is still enough to use a combat knife and do the same damage as an Ares Predator.
  • Maybe tweak that min Strength on a case-by-case basis for some weapons. Monowhips might not have a requirement, for example, as muscle power doesn't do much there. Same for shock gloves/stun batons.
« Last Edit: (07:43:11/08-27-19) by penllawen »

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2390
« Reply #17 on: (07:49:43/08-27-19) »
The maxed troll will a axe who is doing 8p with his fists. Maybe more with bone lacing etc. so Iím not sure itís broken. Maybe compared to guns but if so unarmed already is.

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #18 on: (07:54:17/08-27-19) »
The maxed troll will a axe who is doing 8p with his fists. Maybe more with bone lacing etc. so Iím not sure itís broken. Maybe compared to guns but if so unarmed already is.
Note that I'm suggesting reducing unarmed damage as well - "Shift unarmed damage to Str/3, rounded up"

I forgot that bone lacing does +DV though, and that messes up the scaling I was aiming for. Hmmm. Maybe just drop that? Keep the AR adjustment through the bone lacing tiers, and make bone lacing work like knucks ie. switch S damage to P.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2390
« Reply #19 on: (08:01:22/08-27-19) »
Thatís all bone lacing ever should have done. I mean in previous editions it got to +3 which is a swords damage. Really glorified breads knucks hitting as hard as a sword.

That being said this edition the easy fix would have been to give both weapons and unarmed a set damage. But have close combat use strength as the linked attribute for its dicepool. It would roughly pan out to 1/3+ base damage based on average hits. Use agility in calculating the AR instead of a fixed AR for weapons etc.

The more I read the main book the worse a lot of the basic math looks.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 8960
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #20 on: (08:13:27/08-27-19) »
If you want to keep the game unplayable from constantly having to rerun all the math, then yes, the 'basic math' won't fit. But to me, it looks like 'not everyone will like the simplifications but it does mean better playability, even if it's partially at the expense of realism'.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 434
« Reply #21 on: (08:24:46/08-27-19) »
If you want to keep the game unplayable from constantly having to rerun all the math, then yes, the 'basic math' won't fit. But to me, it looks like 'not everyone will like the simplifications but it does mean better playability, even if it's partially at the expense of realism'.

Where as I firmly believe they could have, and should have, succeeded at both playability and better than partial realism.

Lots of acceptable solutions have been discussed by folks here, including but not limited to:

- Melee weapons having a strength requirement to wield, and bigger weapons doing more damage.*

- Melee attack pool being strength + close combat.

- Weapons having low base damage (some like +0 but lethal/+1/+2), plus 1/3 of strength.

*This one is now especially a missed opportunity for me as I recently discovered that they did add a strength requirement to wielding machine guns unassisted. We added strength requirement for firearms, and still couldn't make it a factor of some kind for melee? Lol. That is amazing in all the worse ways.

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #22 on: (08:29:36/08-27-19) »
*This one is now especially a missed opportunity for me as I recently discovered that they did add a strength requirement to wielding machine guns unassisted. We added strength requirement for firearms, and still couldn't make it a factor of some kind for melee? Lol. That is amazing in all the worse ways.
And it's exactly how bows work! They need a minimum Strength equal to their Rating to use, and do Rating/2 damage with Rating/2 Attack Rating.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2390
« Reply #23 on: (08:36:16/08-27-19) »
If you want to keep the game unplayable from constantly having to rerun all the math, then yes, the 'basic math' won't fit. But to me, it looks like 'not everyone will like the simplifications but it does mean better playability, even if it's partially at the expense of realism'.

The problem is itís not better playability. There is no ease benefit to have fixed damage with melee damage but scaling strength based damage with unarmed. One system for close combat is easier than 2 and in this system super strength gets you past assault cannon damage.

 The math behind ritual magic is completely borked it is non functional, alchemy as well. No force for spells but force for spirits where unstoppable force spirits can quickly be summoned. That was bad in 5e but I think it got worse in 6e. The damage at a base level seems to work with no soak but with system mastery you can get pistols shooting at base 8d. and this is before power creep supplements come out making body only soak pools less playable than 5es massive soak pools. If this was a min max issue itís easier to deal with but itís just basic combat options.

Tecumseh

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3826
« Reply #24 on: (11:42:08/08-27-19) »
I'm tracking this thread closely because it's something I intend to house rule as well.

I'm not here to rain on 6E because there are a lot of things which are interesting and that I'm eager to try. But, for both game balance and realism, I don't like that an unarmed troll can lower his or her DV by picking up a weapon.

I've had the same debate in my head about how to scale damage, especially when light pistols do 2P and heavy pistols do 3P. But, at the same time, given the range constraints of melee weapons vs. ranged weapons I'm not sure it's a huge issue for me. But there are secondary ramifications, like how to scale the damage of thrown weapons, which don't have the same range constraints as melee weapons.

Not that I want to add more rolling, since we're trying to streamline things, but one thought was to roll Strength and add the hits to the base DV. The problem is what if you have an above-average roll and all of a sudden the Strength 8 ork is adding +6 DV to an attack, which is potentially catastrophic to a target now that soaking is Body-only. But maybe that's the one-shot attack that people are looking for. I'll probably have to roll through a few encounters to see what works best.

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #25 on: (11:55:19/08-27-19) »
I've had the same debate in my head about how to scale damage, especially when light pistols do 2P and heavy pistols do 3P.
I had the same thought. In moving from 5e to 6e, looking at how firearms damage codes were compressed:

  • a typical light pistol went from 6P to 2P
  • a heavy pistol went from 8P to 3P
  • assault rifles went from 11P to 5P
  • assault cannon went from 17P to 7P

In each case, the change is significantly greater than halving the damage in 6e. It's often closer to reducing it to a third of the old value.

But unarmed damage went from (Str) to (Str/2) -- and that's rounded up, so it's always 1/2 or better.  Similarly, bone lacing's DV buff went from +1/+2/+3 to +1/+1/+2, which is the same -- it's halved then rounded up.

This means there's a significant shift in the balance between firearms and unarmed combat in 6e that favours unarmed characters.

Now, one's opinion may vary, but I found melee characters strong enough in 5e. I have a giant in my group created by someone who is in no way an optimiser who does 15P melee damage with a Physical Limit of 14. That's plenty IMO.

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #26 on: (12:00:22/08-27-19) »
There is no ease benefit to have fixed damage with melee damage but scaling strength based damage with unarmed. One system for close combat is easier than 2 and in this system super strength gets you past assault cannon damage.
I suppose the devil's advocate extension of this is -- why doesn't unarmed combat have a static damage code, too? Why does Strength affect how much damage I do with my fists but not with a club?

(I am not suggesting that's a good idea. But it does restore the internal consistency that is missing from 6e.)

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2390
« Reply #27 on: (12:30:28/08-27-19) »
There is no ease benefit to have fixed damage with melee damage but scaling strength based damage with unarmed. One system for close combat is easier than 2 and in this system super strength gets you past assault cannon damage.
I suppose the devil's advocate extension of this is -- why doesn't unarmed combat have a static damage code, too? Why does Strength affect how much damage I do with my fists but not with a club?

(I am not suggesting that's a good idea. But it does restore the internal consistency that is missing from 6e.)

Iím actually for that. But like I said Iíd make the dice pool based on strength and AR modified by agility. Base damage of 1 or 2. You might want to give it combat options similar to burst fire all out attack or something. +2 do but you AR drops for the attack and DR drops for the combat round by x. It is one system for all of close combat and strength has value for close combat characters.

Imo like 5e certain damage values break the system. Basically if before net hits on the attack are even looked at most soak pools die or drop to an attack the DV probably got to high. Trolls punching for 11dv does that in 6e. Heck assault rifles, called shot, explosive ammo, with a long burst do that here as well. When itís just hitting that ends the fight it doesnít work in a system designed about scaling through net hits.

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #28 on: (12:52:18/08-27-19) »
Imo like 5e certain damage values break the system. Basically if before net hits on the attack are even looked at most soak pools die or drop to an attack the DV probably got to high. Trolls punching for 11dv does that in 6e. Heck assault rifles, called shot, explosive ammo, with a long burst do that here as well. When itís just hitting that ends the fight it doesnít work in a system designed about scaling through net hits.
Agreed. From what I've read, attacks are all-round more survivable in 6e; the reduction in soak roll dice from the armour change is more than outweighed by the lower damage codes. (This is the other side of the "samurai can't one-shot people any more" discussion.) And I don't mind that, I think the higher end of 5e's damage codes wouldn't hurt for being reduced a little.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2901
« Reply #29 on: (12:57:36/08-27-19) »
*This one is now especially a missed opportunity for me as I recently discovered that they did add a strength requirement to wielding machine guns unassisted. We added strength requirement for firearms, and still couldn't make it a factor of some kind for melee? Lol. That is amazing in all the worse ways.

Point of clarification: that rule is not new to 6we.  It was in 5e, too.  not that anyone ever bothered to use it, most likely...
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, youíre fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.