Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Martial Arts
Posted by: NightmareX Sep 1 2007, 09:46 AM
I was thinking about what was said in the previous martial arts thread and watching Human Weapon the past couple days, and I realized that the people opposed to maneuvers and the like were pretty much right - the SR4 rules can pretty much cover most martial arts maneuvers already and style names etc are basically fluff. So with that in mind, I came up with the following house rules for my game to fill in the few gaps. Let me know what you think.
Unarmed Combat – Martial Arts is no longer available as a specialization for this skill. Instead, the following specializations are available: Attack, Cyber-Implants, Knockdowns, Parrying, Subdual Combat, Throws.
Counterattacks – Any character involved in melee combat (including astral combat) who has a melee weapon (or is skilled in unarmed combat) can counterattack instead of parrying. This is handled by both combatants simply making Opposed Attack tests. The character with the most hits does damage to his opponent based on his net hits. In the case of a tie, neither party is injured. A character can counterattack more than one attacker in a turn, but suffers a cumulative –2 dice penalty for each attacker after the first.
With this option, do not use the description of the Counterstrike power noted in Street Magic. Instead, levels of the Counterstrike power add directly to the adept’s Attack test when counterattacking in response to a melee attack. The maximum level of this power a character can have is equal to half his Magic attribute. The Power Point cost remains unchanged.
Martial Arts – All styles of martial arts are represented by the Unarmed Combat skill and it’s specializations, and many common maneuvers (sweeps, takedowns, etc) are covered in the SR4 core rules. The additional options listed here are available to any character trained in appropriate skill.
* Disorient – A character can strike to stun or disorient an opponent. This requires a melee attack test as normal. If the attacker achieves more hits than the defender, the defender is forced to make a Body + Willpower (attacker’s net hits) test. If the test fails, the defender is stunned and suffers a -2 dice penalty to all actions for the next (attacker’s Strength/2) turns. Disorienting attacks do no damage, and multiple successful disorienting attacks do not increase the defender’s dice pool penalty but rather only add to the duration the stunned condition.
* Hard Takedown – A hard takedown works similar to a knockdown attack (SR4 page 152), but attempts to injure the opponent as well. If the attack succeeds, compare the attacker’s (Strength/2) + his net hits to the defender’s Body to determine knockdown as normal. Regardless of whether the knockdown succeeds or not, the attack inflicts (Strength/2)S damage on the defender, resisted as normal.
* Kip Up – Actually a gymnastic maneuver, a character can attempt to jump back to his feet from a prone position as a Free Action by making an Agility + Gymnastics (4) test. If the test fails, the character wastes a Simple Action and remains prone.
* Throw – Throw attempts are treated as knockdown attacks (SR4 page 152) with a slight difference. If the attack succeeds, compare the attacker’s (Strength/2) + his net hits to the defender’s Body to determine knockdown as normal. If the knockdown is successful, the defender is thrown a number of meters equal to the attacker’s net hits and suffers (net hits/2)S damage.
* Vicious Attack – A character can attempt to inflict Physical damage with any weapon that normally does Stun damage (including unarmed attacks) by taking a -3 dice pool penalty to the attack test.
Posted by: crash2029 Sep 1 2007, 10:24 AM
I really like that system. Simple, effective, and [almost] no new rules. My group likes to use martial arts and I have been wanting something a little more detailed for melee. When you combine this with called shots [power/precision strikes] what you have is a system that almost does it all. Serious kudos NightmareX.
Posted by: hyzmarca Sep 1 2007, 10:25 AM
If you're going to have counterattacks then ties must go to the attacker or else you end up in a situation where there is never any reason to not counterattack a single attacker.
Posted by: Irian Sep 1 2007, 10:26 AM
| QUOTE (NightmareX) |
| Counterattacks – Any character involved in melee combat (including astral combat) who has a melee weapon (or is skilled in unarmed combat) can counterattack instead of parrying. This is handled by both combatants simply making Opposed Attack tests. The character with the most hits does damage to his opponent based on his net hits. In the case of a tie, neither party is injured. A character can counterattack more than one attacker in a turn, but suffers a cumulative –2 dice penalty for each attacker after the first. |
I really don't like this idea. Imagine a slow fighter with 1 initiative pass and a heavily boosted adept with 3 initiative passes. With the actual rules, the fast adept can use tactics, full defense in his first action, etc. With your rule, the slow fighter could do damage three times a round. That was one of the things, that I didn't like in SR3 - you got absolutely no advantage for being really fast.
Attack vs. Defense makes much more sense for me, because so everyone has max. IPs attacks and not max the higher of your or your opponent's IPs.
If someone hits at you three times as fast as a normal human, you can't simply counter-attack equally fast. You have to defend yourself.
Posted by: crash2029 Sep 1 2007, 10:39 AM
My group made a houserule for counters. If you beat an attackers roll with at least 4 net hits, you then gain the chance to immediatly attack. Also when you beat an attacker and he glitches. FYI my group uses cinematic rules.
Posted by: NightmareX Sep 1 2007, 11:29 AM
| QUOTE (crash2029) |
| I really like that system. Simple, effective, and [almost] no new rules. My group likes to use martial arts and I have been wanting something a little more detailed for melee. When you combine this with called shots [power/precision strikes] what you have is a system that almost does it all. Serious kudos NightmareX. |
Thank you
I was trying to take the decent/useful/needed parts out of Cannon Companion and incorporate them into the basic rules (without messing around with maneuvers and styles and such).Now that I finally broke down and did something for martial arts in SR4 of course, they'll come out with a detailed martial arts system in Arsenal or something
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| If you're going to have counterattacks then ties must go to the attacker or else you end up in a situation where there is never any reason to not counterattack a single attacker. |
Good point Hyzmarka, didn't think of that (melee combat is rare in our games at best, so the counterattacks thing hasn't gotten much playtesting).
Do you think something like "In the case of a tie the attacker succeeds and the defender takes damage equal to the attacker's base DV" (ie unmodified by net hits, since there are none) would be good?
| QUOTE (crash2029) |
| My group made a houserule for counters. If you beat an attackers roll with at least 4 net hits, you then gain the chance to immediatly attack. Also when you beat an attacker and he glitches. FYI my group uses cinematic rules. |
The nice part is that this isn't an all-or-nothing "system" - it can easily be used piecemeal. But you bring up a very good point Irian, thank you. Definitely something to talk to the group about next time though that will be a few days.
A stop-gap solution would perhaps be to include something like "A defender can only engage in a number of counterattacks equal to the number of Initiative Passes he receives in any given combat turn"?
Posted by: knasser Sep 1 2007, 11:53 AM
| QUOTE (NightmareX) |
| Now that I finally broke down and did something for martial arts in SR4 of course, they'll come out with a detailed martial arts system in Arsenal or something |
Personally, I hope that the advanced melee rules (which are inevitable, I would think), will be in the Shadowrun Companion. It will give Catalyst more time to be "inspired" by your ideas.
Being one of the chief naysayers in the previous thread on martial arts rules, it's nice to be able to say that this system looks very good. It's certainly fairly simple, which is important, and it seems balanced at first glance. I'd need to look at it in more depth to see if I can spot any problems (the initiative pass issue looks like one, but your proposed fix seems a step in the right direction). But basically, looking good!
Posted by: NightmareX Sep 1 2007, 12:23 PM
| QUOTE (knasser) |
Personally, I hope that the advanced melee rules (which are inevitable, I would think), will be in the Shadowrun Companion. It will give Catalyst more time to be "inspired" by your ideas. |
They would definitely fit better there, and give more room for toys in Arsenal too
But I doubt Catalyst would be inspired by my attempts 
| QUOTE |
| Being one of the chief naysayers in the previous thread on martial arts rules, it's nice to be able to say that this system looks very good. It's certainly fairly simple, which is important, and it seems balanced at first glance. I'd need to look at it in more depth to see if I can spot any problems (the initiative pass issue looks like one, but your proposed fix seems a step in the right direction). But basically, looking good! |
Thanks much
I was definitely thinking KISS when I did these, which I one of the reasons I left out herding, whirling, zoning, and the focus maneuvers - too much effort for little real return. That and I just whipped it together in like 20 minutes or so tonight (save the counterattacks thing, that's been around for a while as the change to the adept power is a legacy thing).I'd vastly appreciate to know the results if anyone decides to play test these btw.
Posted by: NightmareX Sep 1 2007, 12:28 PM
| QUOTE (NightmareX) |
| (save the counterattacks thing, that's been around for a while as the change to the adept power is a legacy thing). |
I think..... I forget precisely why we instituted the counterattack rule.
Posted by: Faelan Sep 1 2007, 02:32 PM
My only issue really is with the Counterattack instead of Parry. The fact is that often what is described as a block/parry is also an attack. This is done via positioning said block/parry to perform that function, while in addition resulting in a damaging strike, of course this also involves what in many games would be considered a dodge/sidestep. In truth SR4 is not really designed to model this kind of detailed sparring. This maneuver would only work if this is considered a Complex Action otherwise we wind up with a situation where you will always counter attack because it costs nothing, and as previously noted a faster combatant loses his advantage.
The other maneuvers are entirely usable seeing as they are coarse, and offer a situational modifier to a single roll in general.
Good work.
Posted by: Whipstitch Sep 1 2007, 04:12 PM
| QUOTE (NightmareX @ Sep 1 2007, 04:46 AM) |
| I was thinking about what was said in the previous martial arts thread and watching Human Weapon the past couple days, and I realized that the people opposed to maneuvers and the like were pretty much right - the SR4 rules can pretty much cover most martial arts maneuvers already and style names etc are basically fluff. So with that in mind, I came up with the following house rules for my game to fill in the few gaps. Let me know what you think. |
Yeah, see, I oppose hard and fast rules for individual styles with individual maneuvers, not adding new maneuvers to the game itself.
As shows like Human Weapon demonstrate, martial arts styles are going to have a lot in common because they're all essentially trying to solve the same basic problems: How can I kill/disable/escape the man coming at me? That's obviously a gross simplification of combat, but then, so is the SR4 system, so it fits.
Posted by: Zhan Shi Sep 1 2007, 04:46 PM
I like it. Good work.
Posted by: Glyph Sep 1 2007, 08:32 PM
I have advocated replacing the martial arts specialization with a simple attack one before, and I like most of the other options presented.
The only one I have a problem with is the counterattack option. It runs into the same problem it had in SR3, namely that it not only makes extra IP useless in melee, but ensures that a low-skill speed sammie attacking a slow but high-skill character will get beaten up 3 times faster.
I still like the idea of counterattacking, but I would use the same fix that someone suggested for the SR3 rules - you can opt to counterattack instead of simply defend, but it uses up your next available action pass.
Also, for counterattacking - you've nerfed the adept Counterattack power, but you also need to decide what to do about Combat Sense. I would probably rule that it works for normal blocking or dodging, but not for counterattacking. Otherwise, it would be almost suicidal for anyone to even attempt to attack an adept with Combat Sense.
Posted by: hobgoblin Sep 1 2007, 08:34 PM
| QUOTE (Irian) | ||
I really don't like this idea. Imagine a slow fighter with 1 initiative pass and a heavily boosted adept with 3 initiative passes. With the actual rules, the fast adept can use tactics, full defense in his first action, etc. With your rule, the slow fighter could do damage three times a round. That was one of the things, that I didn't like in SR3 - you got absolutely no advantage for being really fast. Attack vs. Defense makes much more sense for me, because so everyone has max. IPs attacks and not max the higher of your or your opponent's IPs. If someone hits at you three times as fast as a normal human, you can't simply counter-attack equally fast. You have to defend yourself. |
looks like someone basically remade the SR3 rules...
Posted by: Crusher Bob Sep 2 2007, 04:10 AM
| QUOTE (NightmareX) |
| ... * Disorient – A character can strike to stun or disorient an opponent. This requires a melee attack test as normal. If the attacker achieves more hits than the defender, the defender is forced to make a Body + Willpower (attacker’s net hits) test. If the test fails, the defender is stunned and suffers a -2 dice penalty to all actions for the next (attacker’s Strength/2) turns. Disorienting attacks do no damage, and multiple successful disorienting attacks do not increase the defender’s dice pool penalty but rather only add to the duration the stunned condition. Only useful if you have a minimum of a 9 dice advantage over your opponent, as even the average guy gets 6 dice of body + will. In addition, if you have that much of a dice advantage, this attack is generally worse than a regular attack. A 1337 close combat adept with 18 dice and strength 6 attacking someone with agl 3 and unarmed 3 (body 3, will 3)gets expects 4 hits. If he just hit the guy, he'd 6 points of damage (meaning that the guy would take a -2 stun penalty). If he did one of these attacks, he'd expect to make the guy suffer -2 for 3 rounds. If the adept bothered to put a shock glove on first, the guy would suffer the damage and resist the electricity effect. * Hard Takedown – A hard takedown works similar to a knockdown attack (SR4 page 152), but attempts to injure the opponent as well. If the attack succeeds, compare the attacker’s (Strength/2) + his net hits to the defender’s Body to determine knockdown as normal. Regardless of whether the knockdown succeeds or not, the attack inflicts (Strength/2)S damage on the defender, resisted as normal. So why would you attempt a normal takedown in combat? Are the takedowns now listed in the book supposed to be the 'friendly' version of the takedown? * Kip Up – Actually a gymnastic maneuver, a character can attempt to jump back to his feet from a prone position as a Free Action by making an Agility + Gymnastics (4) test. If the test fails, the character wastes a Simple Action and remains prone. Erm, someone wtih 8 dice in gymnastics can only expect to do this aroudn 25% of the time. Someone with 12 dice can only do it around 61% of the time. It's way too difficult. * Throw – Throw attempts are treated as knockdown attacks (SR4 page 152) with a slight difference. If the attack succeeds, compare the attacker’s (Strength/2) + his net hits to the defender’s Body to determine knockdown as normal. If the knockdown is successful, the defender is thrown a number of meters equal to the attacker’s net hits and suffers (net hits/2)S damage. This one doesn't look too bad. You give up damage so that you can throw people around. * Vicious Attack – A character can attempt to inflict Physical damage with any weapon that normally does Stun damage (including unarmed attacks) by taking a -3 dice pool penalty to the attack test. |
Since multiple quotes don't seem to work too well, have added my comments inside the quote in italics.
Posted by: NightmareX Sep 2 2007, 06:55 AM
| QUOTE (Faelan) |
| My only issue really is with the Counterattack instead of Parry. The fact is that often what is described as a block/parry is also an attack. This is done via positioning said block/parry to perform that function, while in addition resulting in a damaging strike, of course this also involves what in many games would be considered a dodge/sidestep. In truth SR4 is not really designed to model this kind of detailed sparring. |
Very true in retrospect, good points. Hmm, I'll have to mention these things to the group. Loosing the next Complex action like Glyph mentioned is starting to look like the only viable way to keep this (it would help if I could remember why we instituted the counterattack thing to begin with
)| QUOTE (Whipstitch) |
| As shows like Human Weapon demonstrate, martial arts styles are going to have a lot in common because they're all essentially trying to solve the same basic problems: How can I kill/disable/escape the man coming at me? That's obviously a gross simplification of combat, but then, so is the SR4 system, so it fits. |
Yup, one of the reasons I'm loving that show - lets me compare how different martial arts work/look (in a very basic fashion of course) moreso than I ever could before
| QUOTE (Glyph) |
| I have advocated replacing the martial arts specialization with a simple attack one before |
Yeah, I got the idea come the board here, likely from you perhaps (not trying to steal it or anything bro, just incorporated kk?).
| QUOTE |
| Also, for counterattacking - you've nerfed the adept Counterattack power, but you also need to decide what to do about Combat Sense. I would probably rule that it works for normal blocking or dodging, but not for counterattacking. Otherwise, it would be almost suicidal for anyone to even attempt to attack an adept with Combat Sense. |
No need - counterattacks run off Agility + skill, whereas Combat Sense augments (defensive) Reaction. They're already mutually incompatible
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| looks like someone basically remade the SR3 rules... |
Ish
| QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |
Only useful if you have a minimum of a 9 dice advantage over your opponent, as even the average guy gets 6 dice of body + will. In addition, if you have that much of a dice advantage, this attack is generally worse than a regular attack. A 1337 close combat adept with 18 dice and strength 6 attacking someone with agl 3 and unarmed 3 (body 3, will 3)gets expects 4 hits. If he just hit the guy, he'd 6 points of damage (meaning that the guy would take a -2 stun penalty). If he did one of these attacks, he'd expect to make the guy suffer -2 for 3 rounds. If the adept bothered to put a shock glove on first, the guy would suffer the damage and resist the electricity effect. |
Hmm, very true - any ideas for a fix, or better just to ditch the Disorient thing?
| QUOTE |
| So why would you attempt a normal takedown in combat? Are the takedowns now listed in the book supposed to be the 'friendly' version of the takedown? |
Because a normal, friendly knockdown attack is more efficient at knocking down an opponent (Strength vs half Strength for hard takedown). Hard takedown trades the possibility of an effective knockdown for doing some damage.
| QUOTE |
Erm, someone wtih 8 dice in gymnastics can only expect to do this aroudn 25% of the time. Someone with 12 dice can only do it around 61% of the time. It's way too difficult. |
So, threshold 3 maybe? Or 2?
| QUOTE |
This one doesn't look too bad. You give up damage so that you can throw people around. |
Which is always fun
Thank you by the way - statistics aren't really a strong suit for me so I basically eyeballed the thresholds etc. This is exactly the kind of critique I was looking for.
Posted by: Crusher Bob Sep 2 2007, 07:25 AM
Thankfully SR4 makes the calculations much simpler
Behold the http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/binomialX.html
n = number of dice
k = number of hits you are looking for
p = .333
As for teh threshold for kippup, what level of gymnastics skill do you need to do them?
If you lower the threshold to 1:
3 dice ~70%
6 dice ~91%
9 dice ~97%
12 dice ~99%
for threshold 2:
3 dice ~26%
6 dice ~65%
9 dice ~87%
12 dice ~95%
for threshold 3:
3 dice ~4%
6 dice ~32%
9 dice ~62%
12 dice ~82%
A better way to do it is probably make it comparable to the quick draw test. If you succeed, you get up as a free action, if you don't you succeed, you get up in the regular amount of time (whatever that is). This way, your character can still look cool by doing the kippup, but if he doesn't roll well, he just takes a while to do it. It's only if you glitch that you look like a gimp.
Posted by: NightmareX Sep 2 2007, 07:33 AM
| QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |
| A better way to do it is probably make it comparable to the quick draw test. If you succeed, you get up as a free action, if you don't you succeed, you get up in the regular amount of time (whatever that is). This way, your character can still look cool by doing the kippup, but if he doesn't roll well, he just takes a while to do it. It's only if you glitch that you look like a gimp. |
Sounds like a good idea. The probabilities for threshold 3 look about right, though I have no idea how skilled a gymnast one has to be to do a kip up reliably IRL (I would guess moderately skilled).
Posted by: kzt Sep 2 2007, 09:15 AM
| QUOTE (NightmareX) |
| Sounds like a good idea. The probabilities for threshold 3 look about right, though I have no idea how skilled a gymnast one has to be to do a kip up reliably IRL (I would guess moderately skilled). |
It's a pretty standard trick I've seen people do who are not trained gymnasts. If you know the trick and are in decent shape it's not something that requires years of intense practice to do reliably.
Posted by: Cthulhudreams Sep 2 2007, 09:23 AM
| QUOTE (kzt) | ||
It's a pretty standard trick I've seen people do who are not trained gymnasts. If you know the trick and are in decent shape it's not something that requires years of intense practice to do reliably. |
So whatever required for 5 dice (a fit person with some skill) to succeed! Meaning threshold 1 really.
Posted by: hyzmarca Sep 2 2007, 09:42 AM
There are actually some very good reasons to use knockdown attacks against, particularly against opponents with equal or inferior IPs.
First, if you knock a character down then he can't move. The rules do not permit a character to crawl so he must remain in position until he stands. If he stands you can knock him down again (assuming that you have enough IPs). This is extremely useful if you keep close track of position, velocity, and cover, since you can essentially ensure that the enemy character remains where you want him to be. This also allows a melee character to beat down a character with an absurdly high sprint pool, who would otherwise by impossible to strike more than once due to his groundspeed.
Second, when an enemy is prone you receive a +3 modifier to both attack and defense, this makes it easier to beat him down and harder for him to beat you down.
Since standing up requires a simple action, it can also be used to sap the actions of a character who needs to be standing for one reason or another.
Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Sep 2 2007, 09:44 AM
Heh. Like back in the days of Oni - knock them down, shoot them with the SMG.
Posted by: Ophis Sep 2 2007, 10:17 AM
I'd run the Kip Up like quick draw with a threshold of 2 going up to 4 if there are opponents with 1 metre, to cover the idea of the other side doing things to keep you down within SRs abstract close combat. Either that or keep it at 2 and allow them to make an intercept attack as per normal movement.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 2 2007, 10:21 PM
| QUOTE (kzt) | ||
It's a pretty standard trick I've seen people do who are not trained gymnasts. If you know the trick and are in decent shape it's not something that requires years of intense practice to do reliably. |
I think it's mostly a question of body weight. I can't do it. However, I was able to show a teenager about 2 years ago how to do it and he got it after 15 minutes of practice. However, my cardio and push-and-pull strength is far superior to his.
Basically, everyone I know who can do it is basically skinny.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 2 2007, 10:24 PM
| QUOTE (NightmareX) |
| watching Human Weapon |
Human Weapon sucks, lol lol lol.
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=59309&highlight=human+weapon
(The truth is that I've never watched the show. I'm basically being silly.)
Posted by: NightmareX Sep 6 2007, 08:07 AM
| QUOTE (kzt) |
| It's a pretty standard trick I've seen people do who are not trained gymnasts. If you know the trick and are in decent shape it's not something that requires years of intense practice to do reliably. |
Sounds good. Threshold 2 it is then
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 6 2007, 10:17 PM
| QUOTE (NightmareX) | ||
Sounds good. Threshold 2 it is then |
Seriously, it should depend on bodyweight. This is my observation after many years as a martial arts/combative sports hobbyist. In fact, I'd categorize it as a gymnastics feat, albiet a simple one, rather than anything relating to combat ability.
Posted by: Da9iel Sep 7 2007, 03:12 AM
Treshold = bod? or = bod/2 or bod/2 +1?
Posted by: psychophipps Sep 7 2007, 08:58 AM
Ever get the idea that you're thinking about this "kippup" thing too hard? How about a simple stat + athletics skill to see if they pull off a cool move and make it easy on yourself and to keep the game flowing?
Another thing to mention is the fact that a kippup isn't a "free" movement. If you're up against anything but an untrained idiot (who will probably step back because they don't know what's up) your opponent will just step forward and punt you one while you're still trying to get your guard back up (as happened to me when I thought I was Jet Li once).
Just because it works on white belts doesn't mean it'll work against everyone...
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Sep 7 2007, 09:00 AM
I don't see why it would be a Free Action. Simple Action at best, win or lose.
Posted by: Irian Sep 7 2007, 09:04 AM
More body doesn't automatically mean more weight.
Posted by: Crusher Bob Sep 7 2007, 09:04 AM
It seems to be a simple action to get up normally (p137 'combat actions'). So the test is to see whether you can cut that to a free action or not.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Sep 7 2007, 09:06 AM
I know. Hence why I don't see it being a Free Action as opposed to a colorful way of saying you're getting up. I've never seen it demonstrated as something that qualifies as a Free Action. If nothing else, the regular action to stand up should be a Complex Action instead.
Posted by: NightmareX Sep 8 2007, 09:33 AM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Seriously, it should depend on bodyweight. This is my observation after many years as a martial arts/combative sports hobbyist. In fact, I'd categorize it as a gymnastics feat, albiet a simple one, rather than anything relating to combat ability. |
Actually, I wrote it as a gymnastics thing - it's just in the martial arts section for convienance and cause it was a 3rd edition maneuver (which is also where the Free action part came from).
As for basing the threshold on weight/Body, I totally see your point, but would like to keep it as simple as possible.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)