Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Which is more powerful?

Posted by: klinktastic Aug 3 2007, 04:09 PM

I am a complete nub to the game, but I just want to get an idea of the realitive usefulness and power of both types of combat. Anything thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Klinktastic

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 3 2007, 04:13 PM

Bullets go farther, have a higher rate of fire, and are harder to parry. Also for most characters even small arms are at least as deadly as any sword they could wield and the high end of ranged combat rather trivially exceeds the capabilities of the high end of melee.

Melee has advantages, but power is not on that list.

-Frank

Posted by: Critias Aug 3 2007, 04:13 PM

By default (just like in real life, most of the time), firearms trump close combat. That's no reason to be wholly unprepared for melees, however. There are always times you can't bring your guns to the party, times your metarace and/or augmentations can make for a truly fearsome strength score, times visibility modifiers will mean shooting misses against a determined opponent out to close with you, times that a fight starts while your opponent is too close for you to shoot well, times a knife is quieter than a gun, and on and on and on.

A good combat character is going to be well versed in both. But I'd lean (just like I do in real life) a little more towards the bang-you than the kung-fu.

Posted by: PlatonicPimp Aug 3 2007, 04:23 PM

the only time melee ever trumps guns is when the melee person ambushes the gun person.

Melee, however, is generally quieter than shooting, and doesn't need reloading.

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 3 2007, 04:37 PM

What Critias said. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being competent in melee, I just wouldn't suggest going overboard, that's all. My most successful melee artist was an adept who focused his 'ware and power points on stealth and athletics rather than melee combat. Rolling 18 dice with a bound and attuned monowhip was plenty good enough for taking people down quietly on surprise tests.

Posted by: Zen Shooter01 Aug 3 2007, 04:45 PM

Shadowrun is a near future setting, so ranged has more killpower than melee, because that's the way it is in RL. There's a reason armies gave up spears for rifles centuries ago.

But, especially in the dense urban environment common in Shadowrun, where stealth is a significant factor, and in places where the carrying an SMG isn't practical, melee can have great advantages.

Posted by: Adarael Aug 3 2007, 05:05 PM

There's one caveat I'll put on Platonic's statement, which is 99% correct:

The only time melee ever trumps guns is when the melee person ambushes the gun person or the person in melee is a physad with a high-rating weapon focus.

The ability to add a metric shitton of dice if you've bonded a weapon focus spear or axe is not a small thing, and can mean a whole lotta splat. In general you'll be far better served with a gun, though.

Posted by: odinson Aug 3 2007, 05:09 PM

Melee also works good when it's 4 on 1. +4 to the dice pool of attackers -4 to the defender. But if the 4 attackers had guns they would probably kill the defender just as quick.

Posted by: pestulens Aug 3 2007, 05:25 PM

Falkenberg: "Ever think, Lieutenant, that every military generation since World War One has thought theirs would be the last to carry Bayonets?"
Slater: "No sir, I never did."
Falkenberg: "Few do. My old man was a CoDominium University professor, and he thought I ought to learn military history. Think about it: a weapon originally designed to convert a musket into a pike, and it's still around when we're going to war in starships."
Slater: "Yes, sir---"
Falkenberg: "Because it's useful, Lieutenant --- as you'll find out someday."

edit: I do think that ranged is generally more useful, but when you are prepared for male and the other guy isn't, then it's over. The deciding factor isn't surprise or whether you are an adept (Both helpful but not critical) it's whether or not you can get close enough.

Posted by: Marwynn Aug 3 2007, 05:28 PM

I was gonna vote Magic but well, ranged can actually trump it at times.

It is useful to not specialize too much and not rely on guns. Those can be disadvantageous at times. And you don't have to be THAT strong to do some damage in melee; use a shock glove or get some forearm snap blades for something less conspicuous than an axe. Even 2-3 points in exotic melee for the monowhip can be extremely scary for even the nastiest Troll. (Provided you have a decent Agility score that is.)

There's a time and place for everything. Sometimes it's even advantageous for you to melee.

Yes, even Mages; low drain and with a +2 on touching attacks for unarmed.

Posted by: bibliophile20 Aug 3 2007, 05:31 PM

two words--Combat Sense.

Nothing makes the gun bunnies more pissed off than the melee adept that they can't hit.

Posted by: Critias Aug 3 2007, 05:43 PM

Stuff like ambushes and "four on one" fights and stuff all still holds true for guys with guns, though, too (just like in real life). Sure, if you bring three friends to whoop my ass in a boxing match, you'll do real well. But if I bring three friends to shoot at one guy, the same thing happens. All else being equal (skill, stats, etc), numbers = win, regardless of weaponry involved.

Four of ANYthing is better than one.

And I don't see how a specialized Adept with a bonded weapon focus still trumps a guy with a gun. If the guy with a gun has anywhere near the same points, nuyen, and availability to make "a guy with a gun," he'll just shoot the Adept while he's well outside of sword/poleaxe/whatever range, anyways. That's the number one reason guns are cool, after all -- you don't HAVE to be close to be dangerous.

QUOTE

two words--Combat Sense.

Nothing makes the gun bunnies more pissed off than the melee adept that they can't hit.

Yeah, but a truly maxed-out shooter against a truly-maxed out Combat Sense adept still has the advantage of diminishing returns, and bursts/autofire to help him out.

Or is the "-2 dice to each dodge roll for every attack after the first" a houserule that I've just gotten used to (not asked sarcastically, I'm honestly not sure)?

Posted by: imperialus Aug 3 2007, 05:50 PM

a character built for melee can be just as powerful as one built for a gunslinging. They're just very different animals. A troll physad can dish out a shitload of damage with his bare hands. A elf gunslinger can throw just as many dice when he's plugging away with his pistol or SMG. Thing is there will always be those occasions where the trog is stuck at the far side of an open space while a sec-guard with an assult rifle is shooting at him and the elf might find himself in tight quarters grappling with a troll gangbanger. It's useful to have both because situations will arise where one or the other is nessesary.

The biggest downside to melee is that damage codes have to take troll strength into account. If you're a troll this is great, if not, it can hurt.

Posted by: PlatonicPimp Aug 3 2007, 05:51 PM

in an open field with perfect visibility, yes. In a complex environment, cosing the distance becomes easier. Using a gun at distances under a few meters is a lot more risky, as all of it's advantages go away. Longarms especially, because in a melee the other person is likely closer than the end of your barrel.

Posted by: Aaron Aug 3 2007, 06:00 PM

Knockdown is another factor. If I tag you for more damage than your Body with a ranged weapon, you'll fall down, probably into cover if you're clever. If I tag you for the same amount in melee, I just got a bonus.

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 3 2007, 06:11 PM

QUOTE (bibliophile20 @ Aug 3 2007, 12:31 PM)

two words--Combat Sense.

Nothing makes the gun bunnies more pissed off than the melee adept that they can't hit.

Problem is, if anything, shooters often have more points free to blow on combat sense than melee adepts do, since they don't lose as much from treating strength as a dump stat.You also don't need to blow full defense to add skills to defense against melee, so if anything the gun bunny combat sense adept whips up on melee specialist combat sense adepts. Combine that with the aforementioned penalty from already defending against an attack and close combat doesn't look so hot for anything but stealth and the nastiest troll adepts. I will say that even a mundane troll getting a good lock on someone can be gameover though.

Posted by: Eleazar Aug 3 2007, 06:16 PM

QUOTE (Aaron @ Aug 3 2007, 01:00 PM)

Just because a target falls down doesn't mean the target can't get hit again by the gunner. If the PC knocks a target down on their first simple action they still get to fire again to hit the target. The target hasn't fallen down yet; the PC would probably be hitting the target, with the second simple action, in the process of the target falling down. With melee the PC would only get one complex action. If the PC happens to be playing a gun bunny, the target will most likely be dead on the second shot. The PC can delve out more damage than a melee character and can do so at range. The target is also usually getting less defense dice when attacked by range, thus more damage again. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

EDIT: One thing I will give melee characters is the weapon focus bit. Gun bunnies can not be as effective as a physical adept against spirits.

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 3 2007, 06:20 PM

QUOTE (Aaron @ Aug 3 2007, 01:00 PM)

Even if they fall down into cover the gunfighter can defer their next action and fire again once Mr. Melee blows an action on getting back up.

Posted by: Eleazar Aug 3 2007, 06:22 PM

QUOTE (Whipstitch)

QUOTE (Aaron @ Aug 3 2007, 01:00 PM)

Even if they fall down into cover the gunfighter can defer their next action and fire again once Mr. Melee blows an action on getting back up.

That and as I said, they do not immediately fall down right then and there. It takes time to fall down and this would give the gunner enough time to pump another burst shot into them.

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 3 2007, 06:26 PM

The important thing is no matter how your GM handles falling, getting knocked down really sucks. Especially since once you've been hit you are subject to damage modifiers, which will start tearing down your initiative score whether or not you choose to blow an action on getting up. Drawing first blood has definite advantages, and it's easier to do with guns.

Posted by: Dashifen Aug 3 2007, 06:57 PM

Subduing combat has a place, too, especially for stealthy types that could ambush a guard subdue them, drag them to a broom closet and get away quickly and quietly.

Posted by: Aaron Aug 3 2007, 07:29 PM

QUOTE (Whipstitch)

That's assuming you can get up; you might fail the roll.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 3 2007, 08:39 PM

...as much as I like melee combat, I have to vote for ranged. Melee combat became even more at a disadvantage in the re-write when:

...the old counterattack rule was taken away (the Counterstrike Adept power isn't quite the same).
...the penalty for firing a gun while in melee or firing into melee was effectively eliminated.
...the effective power of a mundane (ie. non Adept) melee attack was reduced.

Posted by: Ryu Aug 3 2007, 09:08 PM

Both "work" indoors, but not all fights take place indoors. It was an SR3 moment ("better" melee) where three PCs charged the enemy and one took down the opposition while they had not reached the enemy ranks...

For the runner, silence can be worth much more than killing power. Do what you want, but don´t neglect either side.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 3 2007, 11:35 PM

Cyberzombie Troll Archers for the win!

Posted by: mfb Aug 4 2007, 12:48 AM

...hey...

Posted by: Aaron Aug 4 2007, 01:01 AM

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)

...as much as I like melee combat, I have to vote for ranged. Melee combat became even more at a disadvantage in the re-write when:

[...]

...the penalty for firing a gun while in melee or firing into melee was effectively eliminated.

I dunno. A penalty of -3 isn't superfluous. Also, as a GM, I usually favor taking away sighting bonuses from systems like smartgun and laser targeting.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 4 2007, 01:36 AM

Which is most powerful? The one you decided to focus on the most during character creation.

Posted by: Glyph Aug 4 2007, 04:18 AM

You can make brutally effective melee-based characters, but usually ranged combat skills are the ones that get used more. As another poster said once:

QUOTE (Narmio)

In a world with third storey windows being considered "close", tiny helicopters wth machine guns and opponents with an annoying habit of being many meters away behind cover, expecting to get by on melee combat is insane.

I have made all kinds of melee-based characters, but all of them have had one thing in common. Every one of them also had a ranged skill of some kind.

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 4 2007, 04:44 AM

It's truly a case of context being everything. Taking melee skills into a pitched gun fight is a bad idea. Grabbing a guy and twisting his sorry ass into a pretzel when no one is looking= good idea.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Aug 4 2007, 06:51 AM

I think the poll tells one story, and then the commentry another

A) Poll: Ranged combat is clearly better overall

B) comments: Now after saying that I am going to have to point out that melee has a time and a place.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 4 2007, 06:54 AM

No, the poll is basically saying that "if you have to choose, in a setting like Shadowrun and reality itself, firearms naturally reign supreme" while the comments are "firearms reign supreme on the whole, but you can build a brutal melee specialist with ease, too; one just takes more work than the other."

Posted by: Critias Aug 4 2007, 07:43 AM

I don't see how the poll versus commentary are telling two different stories. Choosing which is more powerful isn't a "guns are a 100, melee a 0!" sort of call. Maybe guns are a 51, melee a 49 (to any given poster), in which case the poll answer is still going to be "guns are the more powerful of the two."

It's quite possible to choose firearms for a weapon whenever you can, and still acknowledge that being well-rounded enough to acquire a competent skill level in melee combat is a good idea. It doesn't have to be a one or the other, all or nothing, choice (aside from when casting a "one or the other" vote in a poll).

Posted by: Ravor Aug 4 2007, 07:51 AM

Exactly, we'd probably get similar lopsided results if the poll was asking whether firearms or magic was more powerful, but it doesn't change the fact that while a good Mage can kill a man with her mind, a great Mage knows when to kill him with her gun instead.

Posted by: Glyph Aug 4 2007, 08:59 AM

QUOTE (Ravor)

The scene from Wizards comes to mind.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Aug 4 2007, 09:10 AM

QUOTE (Critias @ Aug 4 2007, 02:43 AM)

*blinks* I think I got somewhat misunderstood. The poll is 55 vs 0 in favour of firearms at the time of writing. That is a clear and unambiguous statement that guns are better.

But then people (and I presume they are voting) are posting comments like

QUOTE

It's truly a case of context being everything. Taking melee skills into a pitched gun fight is a bad idea. Grabbing a guy and twisting his sorry ass into a pretzel when no one is looking= good idea.

Ie melee has a time and a place.

QUOTE

It's quite possible to choose firearms for a weapon whenever you can, and still acknowledge that being well-rounded enough to acquire a competent skill level in melee combat is a good idea. It doesn't have to be a one or the other, all or nothing, choice (aside from when casting a "one or the other" vote in a poll).

Exactly! Melee has a time and place - the second story behind the 55 to 0 trouncing of melee in terms of potency.

Sorry for not being clear

Posted by: James McMurray Aug 4 2007, 05:04 PM

The two are not incompatible. The number of situations in which a gun is more useful than a fist are so numerous that guns are more powerful. However; the number of times that fists are better is not 0.

Rocket Launchers are far and away more powerful than sling shots. That doesn't mean there is never a situation where a slingshot will be more useful than a rocket launcher.

Posted by: knasser Aug 4 2007, 05:50 PM

Melee is an option that can only happen when ranged combat has failed. Therefore Melee's usefulness is dependent on the weakness of Ranged. Hoping your opponent is weak is not the same as being strong.

Ranged combat is more powerful.

Posted by: Shagu Aug 5 2007, 08:59 AM

According to the consensus here, ranged attacks are better than melee for the obvious reasons. But when engaged in close quarters to an enemy, I would rather have superior melee skills than have to rely on a gun; in that situation, the better hand-to-hand/blade handler will win ten times out of ten. For example, Kan (my character) is better at handling blades and unarmed combat, but he still carries an HK MP5-TX on him as well as his katana, shurikens and throwing knives.

But Kan is extremely talented at handling a ranged weapon as well...his bow. Many don't seem to realize that a bow and arrow is just as much of a ranged weapons as any firearm. And his shurikens and throwing knives come in handy as well...are those not ranged weapons as they are thrown rather than shot? That's something else you have to consider as well...and seeing as how I'm not limiting this to just firearms, I'm gonna give the nod to ranged weapons over melee.

--
Kan Kugarugu, Orkrunner for hire

Posted by: Shrike30 Aug 5 2007, 09:06 AM

Give me a MP5-TX in my hand at close range, and somebody else a sword in their hand at close range, and it's going to be an interesting situation.

A lot of handgun training (and to a lesser extent some of the training you get with long guns) revolves around using them at what are essentially contact distances... retaining the weapon, warding off blows with one hand while firing with the other, firing from the ground, firing close in to your body because you can't extend your arms, how to fire at point blank without pushing the slide out of battery, firing with your off hand due to the primary being grappled or disabled... useful stuff like that. So, "ranged combat" even has some hybrid skills that venture into the close combat area, intended to allow the weapons used for such to remain effective in situations where many would say they're too close to maintain an advantage.

Close lets you engage combatants at close range. Ranged lets you engage combatants at close range... and beyond. And there's nothing out there keeping you from braining the yahoo in front of you with the heavy object in your hands or punching him in the face with it. Not a hard choice, for me.

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 5 2007, 06:04 PM

I always take a gun skill to at least 4 and I -almost- always take unarmed up to 4 and get the Parry specialization with some of my first points of karma. This is because of an important point that's been glossed over a bit so far: Gun skills are purely offensive while Close Combat skills can also add dice to defense tests regardless of whether or not you're on full defense. A nice benefit if you're like me and typically take Gymnastics over Dodge. Some extra dice in your back pocket is nice to have when the 'star is swinging that stun baton at your head.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 5 2007, 08:00 PM

...KK may not be the swiftest minded kid on the block but she does know that it's much better to take your opponent down from a distance. Even though she has extensive training (44 BPs worth) in both Blade and Unarmed combat, she more often than not chooses to use her six guns. Only when the "open" for a swift silent kill in melee presents itself will she take it.

One area where Melee (for an adept with Killing hands or weapon focus) trumps guns is when going up against critters with immunity to normal weapons. My Boxer Hannah unfortunately never came up against a spirit. Would have liked to see what her 8DV Killing Hands punch would have done.

Posted by: Marwynn Aug 5 2007, 08:05 PM

Wouldn't Dodge be a better investment for a Gun-focused character instead of Gymnastics? You can use it on normal defense and full defense, and you might not have the room to use Gymnastics properly.

That is, if you're not going to pick up a melee skill.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 5 2007, 08:19 PM

Can't you use them in tandem? I'm pretty sure it's not an "either or" sort of thing. It's a "use one then the next" if not "use them both together in some situations" sort of thing, yes?

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 5 2007, 08:39 PM

QUOTE (Marwynn @ Aug 5 2007, 03:05 PM)

Wouldn't Dodge be a better investment for a Gun-focused character instead of Gymnastics?

Of any one skill, yes, dodge is the least expensive and most complete defensive package you can purchase. By the RAW, there's no space limitation on gymnastic dodge, however, so not having enough room is houserule territory. Since Gymnastics covers full defense, balance, breakfall, leaping and dance (great for enthralling performance) and unarmed helps defend against subdual combat once your opponent has already achieved a lock (which Dodge cannot help you with), I'd rather pair gymnastics and unarmed than depend solely on Dodge. I honestly only take Dodge for Magicians and Technomancers. Even with the karma hungry adept, I'd rather take Gymnastics, Synthacardium, Improved Ability Gymnastics (which costs less points than Improved Dodge, because Gymnastics is technically not a combat skill) and Enthralling Performance instead of buying dodge. It's obviously more expensive but you actually end up dodging better with it in many situations and netting some great athletic ability as well as Enthralling Performance, which is great for characters dabbling in the Social Adept department. Oh, and you get to punch people right in the teeth if you have to, which is a nice, if situational, bonus.

Posted by: Critias Aug 5 2007, 09:29 PM

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)

Even though she has extensive training (44 BPs worth) in both Blade and Unarmed combat, she more often than not chooses to use her six guns.

Instead of Blades and Unarmed, if you're a six-gun totin' character, spend a few points on Clubs (and ask your GM for an "improvised" specialization, if you want).

Then "buffalo" folks, like the Earp brothers were so very famous for. A big sturdy wheelgun is a fine skull-buster, and it's not like you're going to jam it or anything like you would the fiddly bits of some high-tech automatic.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 5 2007, 10:06 PM

QUOTE (Critias)

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid @ Aug 5 2007, 03:00 PM)

Even though she has extensive training (44 BPs worth) in both Blade and Unarmed combat, she more often than not chooses to use her six guns.

...OK, this is where character style comes into play. Kelly was trained in blades and unarmed at the dojo in Kyoto, part of the character story and the whole basis of her "Bushido Cowgirl" style. Primarily she is an expert with fists and blades, though through her training, she knows there is both a right and wrong time and place to use them.

Hence, on many runs, she tends to fall back on her secondary attack, her Warhawks. She is effective with them because she can take the benefit of both a smartlink (without giving up essence) and the Take Aim action since the Warhawk is only SS.

A better route (though it would have reduced all her melee DPs) would have been to just take the Close Combat Skill Group. Since she has the Ambidexterity Quality, she can effectively trade off between shooting, punching, slicing (or pistol whipping) if caught in close quarters. I thought about that, but all of her melee DPs would be 9 save for her Blades which would be 11/12 with reach (Power II WF).

In the campaign she was originally designed for she needed all the offence/defence she could get.

Posted by: Sterling Aug 5 2007, 11:22 PM

I'm the one, in case you care.

I'm not going to say that firearms are not less powerful than melee. But I find melee to be more potent.

The argument is always 'well, someone with a gun can attack the melee guy twice as the melee guy is closing to take one punch'. That's fine, if the opponents are 10 meters apart and in a area devoid of cover, etc, then of course the advantage goes to the guy with the gun.

But the truth is you're in a city like Seattle that's got six million people in it. That's double the current population as of 2006 (which isn't bad considering VITAS, etc). It's not going to be so cut and dried that person A wants to shoot person B who can't close in time. The setting matters. The people in the area witnessing (and providing cover) matter.

It's all dependent on the surroundings and the circumstances. If one ambushes the other, that creates a huge advantage that may counter discrepancies in power. With two identical characters (but one is a melee type and one a ranged) whoever gets surprise is more than likely to win the whole fight. But who wins can be as simple as whether they turn a corner and bump into each other (melee range!) or one stalks the other and sets up shop on the roof across from his home.

So the GM really defines which is more potent. Using RAW, I find melee to be more potent due to a few points.

Ammo. A ranged character can run out of bullets/arrows/knives, whatever, but a melee character's fist would never go 'click click click' and do nothing.

Concealibility. There are many places with MAD dectectors and chemsniffers built into the front door. If you try to bring a gun in (even a ceramic one), the ammo itself may give you away. Barring extremely illegal bodymod cyberware, the average pugilist will not have that concern that his fists will be confiscated.

Legality. If Lone Star stops you and decides to physically search you, there's not a lot you can do short of palming to hide that heavy pistol. If you have a permit, you might walk away with a fine paid, etc. But the melee guy will be patted down, warned about the stun baton, and sent on his way while Lone Star is grilling the ranged guy over if the gun's been used in any crimes lately, etc.

I do realize a katana-wielding melee character is asking to have the serious problems in terms of concealibility and legality as the same ranged character with an assault rifle, so I am aware that the gear itself has a large part of this discussion. A monowhip is just as hard to spot as a holdout pistol and does twice the damage, but in terms of legality one of those is getting you thrown in jail the second the Officer doing the patdown finds it.

I could, in fact, counter the 'well, the melee guy has to close to attack so the ranged guy wins' argument with 'so the ranged guy is trying to find the melee guy in a crowded noisy bar, and the melee guy steps up behind him'. It's an entirely situational debate. I would like to point out the difference in how many runners spend time in crowded noisy bars compared to runners that hang out in wide-open park spaces.

I'm sure we could have gear-based debates all day 'well, if the melee guy is wearing a chameleon suit..', 'well, the ranged guy has ultrasound and APDS' and each of those is valid as well. But it really depends on the GM to determine where the runners are and the surroundings will determine which is more powerful more than a comaprision of gear or damage potential will.

But the guy who can attack twice a pass and at range cannot use his attack in all situations. His basic method relies on ammunition of some type, and he can be disarmed. The melee character can go anywhere and retain the same level of threat regardless of the setting. That's potency.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 5 2007, 11:34 PM

You can take all that stuff you just said about melee, and then factor in an Adept with Distance Strike, and then all those 'advantages' can be given to Ranged Combat (in SR) as well.

Have I mentioned before that I absolutely hate Distance Strike??!

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 5 2007, 11:43 PM

Well, as explained in the Symbolic Link thread, Magic is the ultimate distance weapon.

But the point remains - you can sniff out guns pretty easy, but the character with Bone Density and the Orthoskin Shock upgrade is as dangerous as always, no matter where he is.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 5 2007, 11:55 PM

QUOTE (Fortune)

You can take all that stuff you just said about melee, and then factor in an Adept with Distance Strike, and then all those 'advantages' can be given to Ranged Combat (in SR) as well.

Have I mentioned before that I absolutely hate Distance Strike??!

...I do too, since it costs so fragging much. An Adept (MA 5) with Improved Reflexes 2 & Distance Strike has pretty much tapped out her PPs. at chargen. I wouldn't even consider of adding Distance Strike later for it would take two Initiations and Attribute increases (that's 78 Karma).

...which is why I try to make sure my physads have some form of ranged attack like guns or throwing.

Yeah, adepts were left out in the conversion equation.

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 6 2007, 02:29 AM

I blame monowhips and shock gloves. It takes quite a few power points and/or muscle to outperform those two choices. As convenient as it is for many of my characters, I do find it a li'l disheartening that I have characters who treated strength as an afterthought or in some cases even a full on dump stat and still match or even outdamage a 6 or 7 strength swordsman fairly easily. It really does tend to split characters into four groups:

1. Gunslingers. Guns, dodge and low strength.

2. Gunslingers who also take unarmed (shock hands/glove, bonelacing) or monowhips and call it a day. Still unlikely to have a strength score higher than 3 or 4 points.

3. People who took a melee skill and have a strength score somewhere around 6 to 8 points. Mundanes in group 3 are rarely much better off in melee than people in group 2, despite having spent (in some cases a lot) more points. Really need to be adepts (read: massive point sinks) to clearly outperform group 2 in hand to hand.

4. Melee God Troll. Double digit strength, but ironically still probably better off with ranged attacks. Why bother punching someone when you can have a bow and arrow that you could easily use to go monster truck hunting? After all, if it's not dead after the first couple of 12DV+ narcoject laced arrows, you should really consider another line of work. Or at least running like hell.

I'd like to see the characters in group 3 get some love, but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Sterling Aug 6 2007, 02:51 AM

QUOTE (Fortune)

You can take all that stuff you just said about melee, and then factor in an Adept with Distance Strike, and then all those 'advantages' can be given to Ranged Combat (in SR) as well.

Have I mentioned before that I absolutely hate Distance Strike??!

You have an excellent point, except that distance strike means it's a melee attack and in the 'melee guy has to close with shooter guy' all you do is have to close LESS distance.

The potency argument I made also has a small flaw (but not in regards to ammo) when you factor in cyberguns. You can't smack the gun out of his hand if the gun is literally IN his hand.

But that's the point. You can't run out of ammo, be disarmed (unless it's literal), or be arrested for possesion of your fists. You can have a silenced gun, you can conceal it, but when you're unarmed you're SOL.

I didn't touch on magic because it is the great equalizer. There are touch range spells and the mage LOS rules mean that with the proper setup, a mage can nuke someone from ranges that would make a sniper drool.

Another argument is skill-based. If you give me a gun right now, with the little training I have in firearms, I have 6-11 or so chances to kill you at range. But I would have a hard time trying to kill you with, say, my bare hands or a pencil. A gun is easier to pick up and use. I can easily pick up and wear a black belt, but that isn't going to make me as dangerous as a true martial artist.

I guess my main point of the argument is this; if I have two identical samurai (for purposes of the ranged vs melee test) and they're melee and ranged specialists respectively, then the ranged guy wins in the 'open field' category. The tight alley might go either way, but the melee guy wins in the airport, the secure facility, the mall, the prison.. and any other location with tight or crowded terrain, security that disallows firearms, or any other location that can negate the advantage a fiream gives over melee. There are more melee-favorable conditions and locations than your wide open areas, and that shouldn't be a point that's open to much debate.

Pre-Deus, the Renraku arcology had a huge mall, an amusement park, a zoo, and many other attractions coupled with the tightest security available. People loved going there because they felt safe, and when the ranged sammy and the melee sammy walked in the door, the ranged sammy was no longer able to be potent. I'm sure there could be individual cases (ceramic cyberguns, compressed-air powered cyberdarts, etc) that could circumvent the security, but if we go straight average guy with a predator versus average guy with fists, there's definite advantages favoring Mister Predator wielder until the ammo runs out, as long as he has that Predator available to him.

If we take the next logical step (skill six and skill two variations) then the skill six automatics, skill two unarmed ranged samurai Roger, versus the melee samurai Mike with unarmed of six, and automatics two.. we fix the ranged advantage game. Both blaze away with guns, but Mike's trying to keep Roger pinned as he closes. Both with agility of say six are potent with a gun (Roger being obviously superior), but once Mike closes the distance the advantage shifts significantly. Of course, nothing stops Roger from keeping his gun in the melee combat (we assume Roger's not an idiot), but Mike's also no chump and will try to disarm Roger ASAP. Once Roger's unarmed, we're seeing my main point all over again, nothing is more potent than a weapon that is integral and never runs out of ammo.

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 6 2007, 03:11 AM

I'd like your point better sterling, if it weren't for the fact that, well, it's really rather hard to hit an opponent in unarmed combat. Defending against a melee attack means you can add your dodge/unarmed skill at least once. Roger can fire twice and preemptively spend an initiative pass to go on full defense, which means he'd get a chance to roll Reaction+Unarmed or dodgex2 if he had to, and as the defender, he wins any ties. Mike, on the other hand, has to close, can only attack once and only gets to add skill if he goes on full defense, otherwise he's stuck relying on his reaction score against Roger's gunfire. If Roger makes a knockdown it's probably game, set, match right there, since you can't get up and make a melee attack in the same round. And an automatics specialist forcing a knockdown with an aimed burst is going to be more likely than a melee called shot. Bringing a knife to a gun fight is just plain a bad idea in shadowrun. My longest running SR4 character was an ambidextrous gunfighter who actually kept his offhand free to abuse Unarmed 4 with the parry specialization. The unarmed skill was really just to keep from being defenseless in high security zones and to keep from getting pummeled before I shot the guy dumb enough to try and melee an armed man. Gun-kata anyone?

Posted by: Sterling Aug 6 2007, 06:30 AM

QUOTE (Whipstitch)

Again, if Mike is just running in a straight line towards Roger, then yes, it could end up exactly as you described. And that's an advantage ranged combat has.

Forgetting Distance Strike for this scenario (because it does turn a melee character into the equivalent of a guy firing a SS weapon with a limited range.. but also somewhat levels the field for the adepts), if Mike decides to do some smart tactical moves while trying to close... he can increase his chances. Things like utilizing cover (-2 dice to -6) and Mike holding up a Flash-pak (-4 dice, only -2 with flare comp) would help reduce the dice pool of Roger, which means Mike can close. I'm not sure how others would rule on 'gymnastics as dodge' being used to close distance, but it's another option as well. Thermal smoke grenades don't quite help Mike as much since he suffers from the effects as well.

It really does boil down to the rules allowing ranged to do more damage as targets have a tougher time reducing it, but that balances the drawbacks to requiring a pistol or SMG to do that damage. One critical glitch (gun jam!) later, and that advantage is gone.

I guess what it really means is the melee-focused characters all should take flaws like 'agoraphobia' and just try to avoid open spaces with limited cover. It should be easier to be a meleer then, because avoiding those places means you won't run into the ranged characters, as they're all claustrophobic, and rightfully so.

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 6 2007, 07:02 AM

My gm tried balancing things against a gun-heavy group we had made once by having us fight in a tight area. Problem is my roommate's character was weapons specialist with a CMDT and a cyberarm gyromount. Ever seen what happens when a guy with 15 dice with longarms opens up a wide choke full narrow burst against two opponents in an area a bit larger than a large walk in closet? It ain't pretty. And hand to hand is affected by vision modifiers just like anything else, might I add. You're just stuck trying to get reach modifiers and weapon foci instead of smartlinks for melee. You can also critical glitch with your fists as well as you can with anything else. I always take unarmed if at all possible, I really do. But as an offense it firmly falls under the plan B category for just about all of my characters.

Posted by: Dashifen Aug 6 2007, 02:09 PM

@Sterling:
I know in my games I have always allowed Full Defense to be taken while in motion. I didn't think it was a house rule. That way, Mike could be performing Gymnastic Dodges while running (note: not sprinting) toward Roger giving him a little extra ability to survive until he closes.

@Everyone:
And, never underestimate the benefit of a shield. I've seen a character move down a hallway relying on their shield to help them survive until they close. Granted, the character who did so was one of Whipstitch's #4 above: the troll melee god, so he felt reasonable assured of success. 'Course, I did end up killing him while he tried that maneuver once, so it's (clearly) not fool-proof.

Posted by: klinktastic Aug 6 2007, 04:50 PM

Is there a way to make a melee based character, who uses firearms, but is stealthy and mobile? That way for turn 1 or 2, i get into position, then jump the bad guys from behind? Remember, I am going to be part of a team, its not just me running around with my sword trying to kill people. So if my team diverts attention, can't I stealth in and attack from behind. I'm thinking invisibility and levitate might be good here.

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 6 2007, 05:03 PM

QUOTE (klinktastic @ Aug 6 2007, 11:50 AM)

Is there a way to make a melee based character, who uses firearms, but is stealthy and mobile?

Yep, it's perfectly possible. Just about every Street Samurai player in shadowrun sooner or later realizes it's worth giving up a die or two of pure combat ability in order to take some Infiltration dice. Rolling for successes on your first successful sneak attack while your opponent can't toss even a single die to defend themselves (or even better, avoiding the fight period) is an intoxicating experience. It's expensive, but I'd also look into getting yourself a chemical protected, nonconductive and thermal dampened chameleon suit for runs where you know you're going to go the pure unadulterated stealth route. It really sucks if you ever lose the suit because it's so expensive, but it's a wonderful tool to have.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 6 2007, 05:44 PM

QUOTE (klinktastic)

...yeah, KK

Agility 5
Strength 5
Ambidexterity Quality
Infiltration 4 (Urban)
Athletics Skill Group 4
Improved Ability Power 2 (Gymnastics)
Pistols 4 (Revolvers)
Unarmed 5 (Martial Arts)
Critical Strike Power 2
Killing Hands Power
Elemental Strike Power ( Electricity)
Blade 5 (Katana)

Posted by: klinktastic Aug 6 2007, 06:11 PM

which is better: elemental strike or penetrating strike?

Posted by: knasser Aug 6 2007, 06:20 PM

Sterling, the gist of your argument is that melee is better than ranged in situations where you can't used ranged. Whilst that is a valid observation in that these situations exist, it's not really affecting the conclusion as to which is more powerful as the reverse is exactly as true for ranged combat. If you want to address it on these terms then there are two relevant considerations. The first is which is most powerful when both are possible, and this one we have answered. The second is which has the most situations when the other can't be used.

This latter point we could have a longer debate about, but I have three things to say about it in favour of ranged.

Firstly, several of your example situations such as airports, are not in fact situations where ranged combat can't be used. They are situations where you can't use ranged combat. The guards wandering around with SMGs are perfectly able to do so and gain the power advantage because of it. There are very few environments in a Shadowrun game where it is truely gun-neutral. Almost any situation where you're settling things with melee, people with guns are shortly going to appear which you can't compete with unless you also use ranged weapons.

Secondly, many of the reasons why you couldn't have a gun on you apply equally well to melee weapons. No guns in an airport, but no knives, either. And definitely no combat axe.

That brings us onto my third point which is that if the melee attack is unarmed, then it is normally very weak. If you have bone lacing (often detectable on the same scans that would have picked up your gun), then you can do physical damage. Most people have to work their way up the stun track, however. Even of those that don't, it's a lot slower to kill someone with your bare hands than it is with a gun. That's a big disadvantage in the sorts of situations where for some reason you don't have a gun available, e.g. in the middle of a bar or an airport or on the street.

Posted by: Ravor Aug 6 2007, 06:22 PM

Personally I pay the extra to get ( Rating 3 ) Pentrating Strike as opposed to Elemental, but in terms of pure power, it's really a toss-up in my opinion. (Provided of course that you ban "Sonic" as being viable as I have.)

Posted by: Dashifen Aug 6 2007, 06:44 PM

QUOTE (klinktastic @ Aug 6 2007, 01:11 PM)

which is better: elemental strike or penetrating strike?

That one's mostly up to you. Depending on the element chosen, you can get some pretty cool secondary effects, but the penetrating strike reduces armor so that's rather nice, too.

You should note that, in my games -- which are relevant since you'll be playing in one of them, elemental strike only adds the secondary elemental effects to the attack. Thus a fire attack will do damage based on your normal melee attack but will also cause the target to be burning (which may cause further damage) and things like the Sound elemental effect doesn't punch through armor, but does cause the nausea associated with the elemental's secondary effects.

Posted by: klinktastic Aug 6 2007, 06:45 PM

so would electricity act like a shock glove?

Posted by: Dashifen Aug 6 2007, 06:50 PM

Essentially, yes, but actually better (depending on how a GM reads the FAQ). The FAQ basically indicated that you can either punch someone wearing a shock glove or you can zap them (unless I misread it). No punching + shocking, in other words. I'd check the FAQ, but the shadowrun site is down for now. Anyway, the electrical elemental attack actually would produce a punching + shocking attack. I'd still apply non-conductive armor bonuses though.

Posted by: Marwynn Aug 6 2007, 06:56 PM

I like Blast personally. Not very subtle, but you could knock people down a lot easier.

Electricity's countered with Nonconductivity, but Fire has its uses even with the resistant item upgrade. It's flashier though, but itcan give you effects that you may not have on hand as a pure Adept.

Sonic is just too good, no armour resistance and no real possible upgrades to defend against it. Well, unless you have Cyberears with the Dampener in it.

Piercing Strike's always on though.

For the most common elements they're even in power. Halving Impact Armour where it's usually at 6 on most pieces of armour is the same as getting -3 on it with the benefit of kicking more butt the less armour the target is wearing.

It's a toss-up. I'd get both if at all possible. But a Mystic Adept could do something wicked with the Elemental Aura spell; You add your net hits as bonus Elemental damage of a specific type, and the force of the spell damages whoever attacks you in melee range. I'd go with Piercing Strike there.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Aug 6 2007, 08:26 PM

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)

...or the Adept with several levels of Critical Strike, Penetrating Strike, and Killing Hands.

Posted by: Chrome Shadow Aug 7 2007, 06:46 PM

Ranged Combat is more powerful, but I prefer not having a reason to use it...