Okay, the recent discussions about Karma vs BP got me thinking, if we made players pay for their racial abilites under Karma, what would the cost be?

The way I calculated this, and I'm sure there are flaws, is as follows:

First, I'm charging for the bonus, but not the increased maximum attribute.
Start with the karma cost of a human (6 karma for a starting 2 edge); since this is our baseline, we'll be subtracting the result from other races.

10 karma - Ork: 26 karma Attributes + 10 karma (vision) - 6 karma (discount) - 20 (Impaired Attribute x2)
37 karma - Dwarf: 23 karma (Attributes) + 10 karma (vision) +20 karma (resistance, based upon Quick Healer) - 6 karma (discount) - 10 (Impaired Attribute x1)
21 karma - Elf: 17 karma (Attributes) + 10 karma (vision) - 6 karma (discount)
32 karma - Troll: 38 karma Attributes + 10 karma (vision) +10 karma (reach) +20 karma (dermal deposits) =10 karma (Celerity) - 6 karma (discount) - 50 (Impaired Attribute x5*)
*Normally you can't take impaired ability more than once per attribute, but for these purposes, I applied it twice to Charisma.

Okay, so there are my estimates for the karma value of the various metahumans. Under the current karma system, it doesn't seem like your getting that much of a discount. (and this is not counting a dwarf's and troll's need for metahuman adjusted gear (maybe a 10 karma flaw, if that) or a dwarf's reduced running speed (10 karma flaw?). If you're worried about this discount, not giving metahumans an increased limit on karma spendable on mental, physical and special** attributes may be enough of an offset.

Metavariants may be another matter.

** I just noticed the karma system does not separate special attributes from the 50% limit.

What do you think?

Not dissing your math (I didn't bother to check it, but I'm sure it's right), but ...

The final results just seem ... wrong.

- I would not consider "vision" for karmic value calculations, as it is now available for a few hundred bucks.
- Impaired attribute has a karmic value, but if you want to include it, you should add "exceptional attribute" (several times).

Yeah, it does. But I'm not sure why. It's not the math, but it may be the inputs.

Ryu, the point of including vision is that some of the karma gripes are about the freebies metas get and I think in SR4 natural vision mods still have some advantage over tech even if it's just hack resistance. I did not include exceptional attribute because that would be:
Human: +80 karma (which then reduce the modifiers below by 80)
Ork: +280 karma
Dwarf: +280 karma
Elf: +200 karma
Troll: +400 karma

Substituting metagenic improvement for the attribute costs would yield:
Ork: 190 karma
Dwarf: 220 karma
Elf: 130 karma
Troll: 310 karma

Which is way off scale.

I think that efforts to break down metatype costs into specific bonuses and penalties are rarely successful - you always miss some things, and it always boils down to judgment calls in certain areas.

I don't understand where you are getting these Karma costs from. Trolls get +4 Body and +4 Strength - a Body and Strength of 5 cost a human 84 Karma.

It seems wrong for the dwarf to be the costliest metatype. They have a lower running speed, require gear specially made or adjusted for them, suffer a penalty for using large melee weapons (if you use that advanced rule from Arsenal), and have their Reaction gimped - possibly the most commonly augmented Attribute, and it is capped at 7.

Despite the large numbers, these seem to be proportionately more in scale than the original post.

Low Light Vision is a 5 BP Positive Quality. Vision Enhancements cost a few hundred Nuyen & a piece of equipment (which can be lost, & cannot be used with spellcasting), or a few thousand Nuyen & Essence.

Yes, Low Light & Thermographic are worth 10 Karma each.


As for Exceptional Attribute, I would suggest using Metagenic Improvemen (reduced to a cost of 10 BP / 20 Karma for these purposes) in place of the cost to increase the attribute to it's starting level.

This gives us new costs as follows:

Human - 0 Karma
20 Karma (Metagenic Improvement: Edge)
-20 Karma (Racial Discount)

Ork - 70 Karma
100 Karma (Metagenic Improvement: Body, Body, Body, Strength, Strength)
10 Karma (Low-Light Vision)
-20 Karma (Impaired Attribute: Charisma, Logic)
-20 Karma (Racial Discount)

Dwarf - 70 Karma
80 Karma (Metagenic Improvement: Body, Strength, Strength, Willpower)
10 Karma (Thermographic Vision)
20 Karma (Pathogen/Toxin Resistance)
-10 Karma (Impaired Attribute: Reaction)
-10 Karma (Misc: Reduced Speed, Customized Equipment)
-20 Karma (Racial Discount)

Elf - 50 Karma
60 Karma (Metagenic Improvement: Agility, Charisma, Charisma)
10 Karma (Low-Light Vision)
-20 Karma (Racial Discount)

Troll - 115 Karma
160 Karma (Metagenic Improvement: Body, Body, Body, Body, Strength, Strength, Strength, Strength)
10 Karma (Thermographic Vision)
10 Karma (Elongated Limbs)
10 Karma (Dermal Deposits - Note: This is half the cost of similar qualities, as I am of the opinion they are overpriced)
10 Karma (Celerity)
-50 Karma (Impaired Attribute: Agility, Charisma, Charisma, Intuition, Logic)
-5 Karma (Misc: Customized Equipment)
-20 Karma (Racial Discount)
-10 Karma (High-Cost Discount*)

* Due to the increasing restrictions placed on other areas of character creation/development due to high metatype costs, the benefits provided by these costs are increasingly less useful or cost-effective. For this reason, racial costs of 50 BP (100 Karma) receive a 5 BP (10 Karma) discount, & an additional 5 BP (10 Karma) discount for every full 25 BP (50 Karma) they exceed this value (-5 at 50 BP, -10 at 75, -15 at 100, etc).



This happens to be twice the Build Point value I suggest for each race, except for Trolls, who at this price are nearly unplayable due to the limited use of Strength (& Dwarves/Orks to a much lesser extent, for the same reason). I suggest reducing the cost of Strength advancements to 10 Karma per point because of this, resulting in Ork cost of 50 Karma, Troll cost of 75 Karma, & Dwarf cost of 50 Karma.


Edit: Three responses while I was typing - just thought I would point that out.
Edit2: Reduced Troll cost by 10 Karma, added explanation.

I just decided to check, & your Attribute costs are way off.
Ork - Body 4 (6+9+12) + Strength 3 (6+9) = 42
Dwarf - Body 2 (6) + Strength 3 (6+9) + Willpower 2 (6) = 27
Elf - Agility 2 (6) + Charisma 3 (6+9) = 21
Troll - Body 5 (6+9+12+15) + Strength 5 (6+9+12+15) = 84

I think Muspellsheimr's calculations are more logical.

I think Muspellsheimr's costs are the best I've seen, if you use the modified Strength costs. I vote those costs be added as an option to the character sheet in development on these boards

They already have (for the Karmagen version of the sheet) free races (as per RAW), double-BP-cost-in-Karma races, and BP-cost-in-Karma races; this seems better than any of those.

[edit: minor clarification]

I think they are the best so far, if you don't use the modified Strength costs.

What's your reasoning?

I partially agree with Fortune. The problem is not in the high cost, but in the limited usefulness of the Strength Attribute. Reducing the cost is a temporary & half-assed fix. What really needs to be changed is the benefits of Strength. I have already begun to do this in my House Rules, increasing the Recoil Compensation it provides. As I am lacking playtest data on this, I am not sure if it is enough, to little, or to much. If to little, I am unsure what else to change (increasing melee damage to Str instead of Str/2 is not a good idea).

If you are going to start weighing (and costing) Attributes on their usefulness, then there will never be common ground. Despite popular opinion, Strength (or Charisma, or...) are actually valuable stats to some people.

A better solution, at least in my opinion, is to move some Skills to the Strength (and Body) Attributes. I would think about starting with skills from the Athletics Group, and maybe Intimidation. But again, once you start varying from canon, then everyone has their own opinions on the matter.

It varies greatly according to what playstyle, and archetype one has. In some campaigns, Charisma might be of limited use, others might see Logic as weak. I'd value strength as a full attribute.

What the heck is the grand design for strength in the basic book aside from trollbows? The actual lifting capacity you get per the book is pretty terrible.

More specifically.. strength 6 lets you lift 90kgs? And 120 kgs if you go into overload! (Well, + 5 x body score. Wowee)

Carrying capacity of 60kgs

Hooray


So a strength 12 body 12 troll can:

Lift 180 kgs

Overdrive to lift by 285 kgs

Lift over his head 70 kgs

Overdrive to lift 105 kgs

Carry 120 kgs

Overdrive to carry 190 kgs

Wow, as the world record for a snatch is 210 kgs and a clean and jerk 480 kgs (both overhead lifts), I am hardly impressed. People are seriously stronger than a 12/12 troll today. Admittedly the win olympic gold medals, but yeah.

However, when we comparing it to logic, charisma, body, agility, it sucks. Logic is worth it just because it buys you knowledge skills and is linked to a drain attribute, and is used for first aid. Hey thats not bad at all.

I see everyone's points, but I have to agree with Cthuludreams. Strength is the bastard attribute. No other attribute is so useless. Even characters who use it primarily (i.e. brawlers) don't see much use for it. Its benefits simply aren't as great as those of other attributes.

Body - damage resistance.
Agility - let me count the ways.
Reaction - Initiative, vehicle skills.
Logic - first aid, possibly drain, free knowledge skills if using BP generation or houseruled Karmagen. The best Drain attribute since it can be directly boosted (not a dice pool modifier) with cyber-and-bioware implants (encephelon, cerebral booster).
Charisma - the other dumpstat, but unlike Strength, when it's useful it's USEFUL. See Pornomancer. Also a possible drain attribute. Not as nice in that way as Logic, as it can't be raised with implants, but better than Intuition since you can play an elf.
Intuition - Perception and Initiative, possible drain attribute.
Willpower - spell defense, the only mandatory drain attribute.

Strength - A few DV for unarmed, some recoil comp (1 at 6, 2 at 9, 3 at 12), the aforementioned PATHETIC carrying capacity (which almost nobody uses anyway)... and trollbows. Which are pretty ridiculous when twinked out. I'm an archer myself, and you'd have to have some INCREDIBLY strong (i.e. special-made) arrows to survive shooting from one of those. Among other issues.

Sorry for the fragmented post; I'm on some pretty strong painkillers right now.

[Edit]: Added a couple of minor things, fixed some punctuation.

Gah. OpenOffice shanghaied my math. The way it does multiple references is awkward and I forgot to move over when creating my cost table. *bangsheadonwall*

Fixed below

Replacing the attribute cost with metagenic improvement,
Human 0
Ork 190
Dwarf 220
Elf 130
Troll 310

Alternatively, using reversed impaired attribute (+5 BP for increased racial max) added to the revised initial formula, you get:
Human: (-10 karma discount for other races)
Ork: 86 karma
Dwarf: 101 karma (81 karma with discounts proposed in initial post)
Elf: 65 karma
Troll: 158 karma (148 karma with discounts proposed in initial post)

IMO, this is more in scale, thanks for that catch, Muspellsheimr.
I did expect Elves were overpriced to reduce SR games being flooded by them so I'm not surprised by that pit on the cost curve.

Thanks for all the response guys!
By the way, for those of you that modify strength for chargen, do you do so for in-game advancement as well?

I was thinking about asking the very same question. As well as what cost(s) do you actually give for Strength in BP and Karma.

I too have been trying to figure out a way to beef Strength up a bit(har.) I like a high Strength for just plain flavor on some of my characters, but, I mean...it would be kind of nice indeed if it just did more. When sams have been known to dump the stat, there's problems.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think a high Strength should be required for combat characters-that was my problem with having all of the melee combat linked to Strength in SR3. There should be room for agile fighters, too(and let's face it, most of the melee combat actually would benefit from a high Agility.

I agree that Str(S) or (P) for melee would be a bad idea, especially with all of the ways to beef up damage.

One problem with Strength is that the Strength itself does not really...add that much to the blows. Again, I can see some points-knowing how and where to hit is sometimes more important. I mean, I'm a wuss, but if I shoved a sword in someone's gut it would hurt. But the difference in damage between Mighty Jack, the boxer with Strength 7, Critical Strike 4 and +2 DV from his boxing, and Speedy Tom, with 3 strength, Critical Strike 4 and +2 DV from boxing is only 2 DV. It's something, but it's not a lot in the long run, especially when you figure that in each case, less than half of the DV actually even comes from the strength(4 of Jack's 10 damage is Strength, and only 2 of Tom's 8 damage. In Tom's case, that's 1/4.) This just plain out makes it desirable to dump the stat to beef up other things; especially since Tom can match the 10 damage with 2 more Critical Strike levels.

Recoil bonuses might work; starting them lower could help(4-6=+1, 7-9=+2, 10-12=+3.) It's not an enormous amount of recoil, but it's a little something at least.

I think adjusting the lifting rules might work, too. Now, I know IRL folks who are top-Olympic material(6 Strength, I'd say), tend to be able to lift more than a shadowrunner with a 6, but, well, that's in Optimal Lifting Conditions(stretching, warming up, getting a good grip, etc)-not picking up a struggling mass of cyberware in a stressful combat situation. But a little boost to these might work, too-perhaps making Strength a bit more important here. As the rules stand, a character can deadlift 15kg per point of Strength. To lift more, they can roll Body+Strength to add hits. But, like this...someone that's weaker with more packed into Body can still sort of even them out. Mighty Jack with a 6 Strength and 3 Body can lift 90kg without a test, and assuming 9 hits, he can lift up to 135kg more. Really Tough Bob with a 6 Body and 3 Strength can lift a base of 45kg(half of what Jack can), but can still add a potential 135kg; in the end, Mighty Jack can only lift an extra 45kg, even though he's twice as strong. At the same time, it makes some sense that lifting is not only Strength.

I don't know how I'd adjust the lifting rules, but I'd have to mill a few things over.

And as said, linking more skills. I would just have to think about which skills would be Strength based. Making them melee again wouldn't be good; as said, Agility is important to these, and it makes playing an agile-based fighter kind of obsolete. Averaging Agility and Strength would overly complicate things and go against the flat ''skill + attribute''. I just can't think of any other things that could be Strength based. Maybe Heavy Weapons. That was Strength-based in SR3, and I could see it staying that way. Jumping is Agility based, being part of Gymnastics, which I do think could stay Agility-based. (On a slightly related note, I think Gunnery needs to go back under Logic. I don't think how limber and agile you are helps launching smart-based missiles from a car.)

Otherwise, I'm really not sure. Throwing Weapons, maybe?

as for the lifting capacity . . just make it STRx100 instead of STRx10 . . maybe carry STRx50 . .
so a STR12Troll CAN in fact, throw around MotorBikes and maybe the odd little small car . .

a bit strange at the low end, with str1 humans . . but being able to lift 100kg can propperly be explained by adrenaline rush . .
there's stories of mothers lifting cars off of their children for example . . and carrying 50kg, especially in a backpack, is quite possible, even if it ain't all that comfortable and you won't be doing it for long and you won't be foinf anything for long after the fact either . .

I was lowering the starting point and the scale. 4 - 1; 6 - 2; 8 - 3; 10 - 4; etc.

That sounds even better, actually. Not craptons to make all gun specialists want to be Rambo, but enough to at least maybe get sams thinking about the stat again.

Honestly, I don't mind seeing folks play sams more speed than power oriented. If someone wants to play a wiry little guy who is still tough or whatnot and goes with, say, Strength 3, that should be fine. BUT, the fact that the stat has severe problems is, well, the problem here. Both types(speed or brute types) should be viable, without the ''brute-types'' getting the shorter end of the stick.

well, at least in SR3 high STR meant as soon as you actually managed to hit something, it was BOUND to take Damage . .
seriously, easy enough to get a troll to STR16 on Char-Gen and with Bones of the Titan +4 Damage in unarmed combat meant 16M Damage before successes . .
in SR4? nah, even the STR16 Troll will probably hurt less than the STR9 Elf with more hits . .
Anothr way to bring Strength up to Speed would be making close combat damage not halved strength . . you could do the ridiculous again, but hell, that's what we want isn't it?

You can just start adding min strength requirements to some weapons, giving the character a -1 recoil penalty for every point they are below the min number. Light pistols would be about 2, heavies would be 3, most longarms would be about 4, with heavy weapons at about a 5.

If you think strength is a little weak, how about a bruiser optional rule or quality? Such a character would substitute Strength for Agility on Unarmed Combat tests.

I really like that.

RE: Other posts:
I think heavy weapons should be Strength-linked, I agree, since much of their operation is pointing them in the right general direction and KEEPING them pointed there. However, grenade launchers should not be Heavy Weapons if that's the case. These aren't RPG's we're talking about; they just lob minigrenades with greater range and accuracy.

Sensor-enhanced gunnery already is Logic-based; check the errata. Agility-based gunnery is the guy up in the turret controlling the weapon manually.

Thank you, it's a rule I have used for awhile now. It makes it so characters don't just dump strength out of hand when they are a ranged fighter, because with a below average strength you can only use small pistols without penalty. The 4 strength requirement for longarms seems a little harsh at first, until you see that most longarms have some recoil compensation, and the ones that don't(mainly shotguns and sniper rifles) often times have a very large kick.

One addition I forgot to mention, the numbers assume you are wielding the gun two handed, wielding a gun one handed raises the min strength by 1.

Even for pistols?

Bah actually what this debate points out, is that in a 5th edition, strength could disappear and be merged with body, no?

Good idea in theory, but in practice, unless it was very expensive, every single ork or troll would take it(well, troll anyway), and they would become too far ahead of the melee game again. Again, there is more to melee than just hitting things, and the elf with the 9 Agility and 9 Strength is rightfully more dangerous than the 5 Agility, 11 strength Troll. The Bruiser quality would be great for bruiser humans and elves(the former with no real advantage, and the elf would actually be giving himself a small kick in the pants unless he grabbed a level of Strength Optimization), but in the case of Orks and Dwarves, it suddenly becomes ''quite a bit better'', and for trolls it becomes ''yay, we win in melee all over again all the time.'' Had Trolls not been in the picture, it might have been a decent 15 point quality-since Dwarves and Orks, while they have a good Strength, it's still only a +2, AND Agility would still have lots of other uses that they could use, like other firearms, stealth, and the like. Ok, so trolls need stealth and the like too, but...I dunno, I still can't help but think it wouldn't work with them in the picture.

...damn. The more I look at this, the more trolls really do throw off the proverbial learning curve. I mean, it's a nice thought, though. I think Heavy Weapons(i agree, not Grenade Launchers) will be linked to Strength, and I'll try it out. I actually like the Strength Minimum for the firearms too; and this of course can be compensated for if you want to play someone who is more agile and the like with guns. (I have a human female gun expert that is not very large in body-healthy at a strength of 3. I really don't see her with a super-high Strength score, but to compensate, you better believe her guns are tricked out. ) I think that's partially what gun customization is about-you customize them to fit your strengths and weaknesses(as well as making them look awesome.) She doesn't use heavy weapons anyway. I use her as an example, because I actually think the minimum Str for guns would still allow for a variety of gunner types(agility OR strength based), but at the same time, make the Strength score useful for those who want to have it(by letting it add more recoil comp, for example.) In other words, it wouldn't force a ''High Strength For Gunners'' syndrome, but simply give it a benefit that the attribute needs. I really have to try it.


Now, I do recall that WoD had a thing where Martial Arts were linked to Agility(dexterity in the game), and Brawling to Strength. I...actually don't remember the difference off the top of my head, sadly. Since SR has the catchall Unarmed Combat, it might mean that dividing it up into two things-Martial Arts as the Agility based one, and Brawling as the Strength based one, would work. The difference? You can get Martial Arts qualities and maneuvers with Martial Arts, but not with Brawling. I suppose having Strength linked would be brawling's ''catch'', allowing trolls(or pimped orks/dwarves-or even bit bruisery humans and elves) to roll their huge dice with it, but honestly, I really don't see it being taken even with trolls-since most folks I know would rather have a list of maneuvers and other benefits than, on average, what turns out to be just a few more dice, unless you pump up ManBoar the Mighty's strength to the 13+ levels-and even then the 10 agility dood with mad martial arts has a bunch of maneuvers and other abilities that Manboar doesn't.

probably. alongside the switch to a D20 System



yeah so? Trolls SHOULD own in CloseCombat . . being 2,5 to 3m tall, even if you're with a normal human built means you're a lot stronger than someone with a size of 1,8 to 2m . .
See those really big guys in Professional wrestling that can just pick up other people, hold them in the air and then throw them away again . . or Andre the Giant. i think he once tipped over a car alone . .
the main problem with close combat and agility is, that every net hit ups the DV instead of making it harder to get away from being hit . . it means that an elf with STR1 and maxed out agility can STILL do horrible damage, even without martial arts maneuvres . .
let's say STR1 and agility 11 . .
STR/2=0,5 but DV can not be below 1 i think . .
then let us add in a close combat skill at level 5 . . that makes 16 dice right there . .
chances are pretty good you're going to have more hits than the other guy, chances are you're going to have more NET hits too . .
if the other guy does not get a single hit(let's say a Troll with Agility 5, STR10 and Skill 5), the elf is probably going to hit the troll as hard as several guns would . .
now factor in things like bone-lace and martial arts and you can probably surpass most guns in raw damage . . especially, since the stun track tends to be shorter and most hits will do stun damage anyway by mostly lower impact armor than ballistic armor . .

16 dice - average of 5 hits.
If the other gets not a single hit, that's DV6 against a guy with no hits.
Troll with 10 dice, str. 10, average of 3 hits, DV8 against a guy with no hits.

I just hope you joke there

I hope not, I'm dieing to play a lvl 5 Technomancer/lvl 3 rigger...

A bruiser quality allowing characters to use STR as their Melee skill wouldn't be as bad if the damage codes were changed for all melee weapons to use STR/3 instead of STR/2.

Thoughts?

Back on topic. If you think about a troll's strength, it does give him a leg up in melee damage wise. It also helps with damage ouptut and carring capacity. I would have thought it would help out with armor too. That being said, strength is usful for a lot of labor related tasks, such as kicking in a door, moving an obstacle. Thing is, not alot of skill involved in those tasks.

Not that much of a change. Remember, as it stands now, the reason why Strength is kind of...useless(well, one of the reasons), is that the majority of this big melee damage you see comes from outside sources.

Like I described above, take a guy with Strength 7(base 4 damage). Add in +3 DV with martial arts(whatever kind), +3 DV for Bone Density 4, and if you still play with the old rules like we do, +1DV for hardliners(we use the old rules for +1DV flat to unarmed, rather than the damage code, it just sat better with us.) Of his 11 DV, only four of that comes from Strength.

If it were Str/3(round up, like it is), he would be at...a base 2 or 3. It could actually hurt Strength even more than it already is. It's already usually less than half of any melee damage. Even in the case of weapons-this same guy with a 7 strength with an axe(Str/2+4), and +2DV from a blade martial art, does 10 damage. Again, less than half of it is from Strength.

It wouldn't change it much...and the change would be for the worse, though. Instead of:

Str 1-2: 1
3-4: 2
5-6: 3
7-8: 4
9-10: 5

It would look:

Str 1-3: 1
4-6: 3
7-9: 3
10-12: 4

Hmm...actually, it would only really change it by about -1DV in most of these situations...and again, the majority of the damage comes from outside sources.

It's a tough situation. Make it plain Str+Whatever damage without dividing it, and it does become too powerful. In the end, though, I don't think DV is what is making Strength suffer, it's just it's general use.

As for trolls now, I still think it's their high Body, bonus armor and bonus Reach that gives them more of the melee advantage than their Strength, since the difference between the 7 Strength whatever and the 9 Strength troll is again, only 1 DV. I also don't think that the big guy should automatically be the best in the world at melee, which is one benefit to the halved Strength. I've known plenty of big people who weren't as strong as folks who were smaller. Honestly, some of the strongest people I know are more or less of average height.

So far, the best suggestions:

-Making it count more for Recoil(Muspel's chart seems like it would work quite well)
-Try to tack a few more skills onto it(Heavy Weapons for one)
-Awhile back, someone suggested using it to help count for Armor. I still kind of like this idea. It's more math, but I would take the average of Body and Strength(round up), and then double that for the max armor you can wear before you take penalities(so a 8 body, 3 strength Ork would be able to wear 12 points of armor before taking a penalty(8+3=11/2=5.5, round up to 6, times 2.)
-Firearms with a minimum strength, as mentioned, could also work. This wouldn't prevent the 2 strength person from using a shotgun, they would just have to make sure to get a couple extra points of recoil(and honestly, it's not that hard to come by.) Small, agile gunners would still be plenty playable, since I notice in many builds those types lean more toward heavy pistols or SMGs more often than the heavy honkin' stuff, anyhow.

Those few things could be a good start, at least. Other things, like encumberance rules, could be used as well, but again, those add more math/bookkeeping to the whole thing.

Then, why don't we take a page from dice pools? The maximum melee DV is 75% of your augmented strength (or, if you prefer, 150% of your augmented strength/2).

Well, that would again, lead to other problems.

Limiting Magic DV wouldn't make sense. Critical Strike, for example, is pure magic. It doesn't matter if the person is strength 3 or strength 9, it tacks on +6 DV if you have a 6 Magic. It really isn't connected to Strength.

I actually thought about what you said-limiting DV bonuses due to Strength, but then, that would sweep the pendulum over to ''now all melee-ers will be adepts.'' Granted, melee adepts needed a bit of help, and this would give it to them-but it would give it to them a bit too much. You basically couldn't play the ''little guy that's going to dooo something!'' (yes, Yakuza vs. Mafia reference ) , unless he was an Adept. Again, I can't think of a logical reason to say ''you can't have more than +3 Critical Strike unless you have more than a 3 Strength), unless you changed the way the very power worked(somehow connecting it to strength instead of magic.)

This could actually make adepts even more desireable, to the point of too much so. Say the 3 Strength adept is limited to a max of +4 DV through mundane means. He grabs this. He also gets 6 levels of Critical Strike, bringing his DV to 12 anyway. The mundane guy with a 3 strength? If he's limited to +4...yeah. Why even play a mundane fighter anymore?

This is the tough part I was thinking of. I want to make it more useful, while not overly punishing people who might want to play the kickass old guy whose skill says more than his strength. There should be room for both. I mean, yes...the 9 Strength guy does get +3 DV over the 3 strength guy, which is an advantage...but it's also a little less of an advantage than you'd think. But...help too much on the higher end, and then it unbalances in another way.

This is why I think the key lies into giving Strength more utility, rather than raw damage.

Edit: Never mind.

An option for Trolls and Orks might be to halve the strength bonus (round down) and use that as a melee damage bonus directly. Trolls get +2 strength and +2 damage while Orks get +2 strength and +1 damage bonus. that, however, makes dwarves, orks and trolls have the same base strength which might seem as a negative to many people. Well... you could also do the same for the dwarf then... +1 strength and +1 damage bonus...


just an idea...

Being my idea, I believe increasing the Recoil Compensation is the way to go.

More skills being Strength-based would help, but I honestly do not see any of the current ones being moved to Strength.

I suggest avoiding making Armor Encumbrance Strength-based. Weight Encumbrance is fair game, but difficult with the weightless abstract system. If you do use Strength, I suggest using Body+Strength, instead of Body-Strength Average x 2. Simpler, cleaner; will most likely reduce the amount of armor people can wear though.

Strength requirements for firearms would work, but I will avoid it as unnecessarily complicated.


Provides unnecessary complication to the system. Also, the example of the difference between Strength 3 & 7 being only 2DV - might I point out that 2DV is also the difference between a holdout & assault rifle? 2DV is actually quite a bit. Yes, the majority of melee damage usually comes from the weapon, but Strength does make a noticeable difference.

And finally, the problem with the Brawler quality, in addition to the possible balance issues already addressed, Strength allows you to hit things harder, not hit things. This is one of the many major problems I have with d20 - in melee, Agility rightfully determines your ability to hit your target, & Strength determines the base damage you inflict. Net Hits on your attack add to damage to reflect better aim - the greater your Net Hits, the more vital an area you strike.

Somehow, 2DV looks like a lot when you look at guns, but with melee, it looks like less. It might just be my perception of the whole thing; but it somehow does. Like, when I hear about the holdout vs. assault rifle, I'm thinking ''yeah, the AR is quite a bit more powerful.'' When I think of the Strength 7 guy with the axe doing 2DV more than the Strength 3 guy, I somehow think ''that's it?'' I'm not sure why. Likewise, the same thing when I look at the 7P of a sport rifle vs. the 9P of the assault cannon. That's another ''that's it?'' moment for me. Not sure why, just an odd perception thing.

It might just be a case of stuff I've seen in game. I've seen far more assault rifles take people apart than I have holdouts, thus I think ''yeah, they're quite a bit more powerful.'' However, I've seen plenty of Strength 3 people take people apart with an axe perfectly easily, and it wasn't that much more difficult than the Strength 7 person.

I'm not sure that I entirely agree. In most martial arts, we're getting hit by our opponents all the time, but we use our defensive skill to mitigate the damage by absorbing it on a more resilient body part, or turning so that a solid blow becomes a glancing blow at an oblique angle. With enough strength differential, blocking a roundhouse kick with your shin just leaves you with a broken tibia. If I'm fighting someone with the power of a charging rhino he doesn't need to land clean blows precisely on a vulnerable location in order to strike a debilitating blow.

This isn't really reflected well by the existing rules. Maybe it would be more accurate to house-rule that each turn both combatants took damage from the other (at the standard Str/2 plus modifiers) and had to lower the damage recieved using a body+/-net hits damage resistance roll. This might create something more like my personal experiences, where I usually felt pretty worked over even after winning a fight.

Which is where the base DV from Strength comes in. Remember, on average, Strength provides more damage per point than Agility.

Also, in most martial arts (including all the ones I take seriously - karate is good for discipline, & that's about it), you are deflecting/avoiding blows, not blocking them. When you block, you reduce the damage you take, but do not negate it - when you deflect or avoid, you negate the damage, & can often throw your opponent off balance, & end the conflict.

The reason why 2 DV is worth less on a melee weapon is that melee weapons cannot be used at range.

I think we both have different perceptions of what's effective then, which are based on our own styles and experiences. My experiences came from Muay Thai and Boxing, and sparring included lots of blocking and mitigating damage by arranging for it to hit less vulnerable areas. If you can go multiple rounds in a boxing ring without your opponent connnecting with you then you're a lot better at it than I ever was...

It isn't just the DV difference that makes larger guns deadly. It's suppressive fire, long bursts, short bursts, wide bursts, narrow bursts... you can't spray & pray with holdouts or brass knuckles.

[Edit]: Minor clarification.

A trained Aikido martial artist (for example) can deflect a strike, & in doing so move you off balance and take control of your body through joint-manipulation. Or one of many different things.

Different martial arts have different tactics, but in general the ones that deflect are far superior to the ones that block. As I said, blocking reduces the damage you take, while deflecting negates it. In addition, if you block, you are going to continue as you have been - if you deflect, you likely open the opponent up for a counterattack (often included as part of the deflection), or at the very least allows you to gain a better position.


It is difficult to explain - I would suggest looking into Aikido to begin with. Find a skilled instructor, and observe what they can do. Participate if you can.