Sounds good, if you intend to redesign all weapons.

If you got some extra time, design a working hit location system as well. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Sorry, english is not my main language. I meant exactly this, just replace "the whip" with "the firearm". If someone wants to shoot me from ~1m, i will try to push his hand away.

and then redesign the armor system.
and make armor for feet.
and make armor for hands.
and make armor for eyes.
and make armor for mouths.
and make armor for ears.
and make armor for noses.
and make armor for necks.

spleens ! ... spleens need armour too (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

That stuff can still be left abstracted, for the moment. It works well enough as is.

Melee does not, however, currently work well enough. It does less damage than it should to be balanced or realistic.

~Umi

Incorrect Dakka... melee attacks have reach of 0... and qualify for two weapon.

They can be used as per the two-weapon fighting rules in arsenal. You cannot cite me anything to the contrary except to state your own opinion/bias that unarmed should not be able to. I'll repeat that... it's nothing except your bias stopping someone from doing a left cross... followed up by a kick as a second weapon.


The 'two-weapon' attack rules splitting dice pools are quite usable with unarmed attacks... though due to the nature of the rules.. the lack of extra 'situational modifier' dice like reach and the like... doing so unarmed is often far less effective than doing so with a weapon... especially weapon foci.

Two-weapon fighting requires two weapons. Body parts are not weapons unless detached and wielded. That is why brass knuckles work and bare fists don't.

I'm with Falconer on this.

You can use Unarmed to attack multiple enemies with the same Complex Action. The martial arts rules clearly show this to be the case. Mechanically this is identical to making two separate attacks on the same target. Why would one be allowed, but not the other, especially without strict RAW indicating such?

~Umi

I agree that this is the way it should be, but the rules say otherwise. There are no rules for attacking the same target without weapons (i.e. unarmed) more than once. Using weapons with the Unarmed Combat skill is a loop hole. I cannot say whether this is intentional.

@Stahlseele: By writing "a working Hit Location System" I thought all those would have to be included anyways.

Actually, Dakka, the rules do not say otherwise - they in fact merely fail to say so. Thus, you're arguing against RAI by citing a lack of RAW. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

The rules we do have written out suggest to us pretty clearly how this is meant to be handled. Please don't obfuscate things without a solid reason.

~Umi

They say you need a weapon with reach 0 or 1. Parts of your body are not weapons.
If you want RAW:

Also by definition unarmed combat is combat without weapons.

You really want one? I've got it, but it's really outside the scope of this thread. I think you're just being facetious though.

A straight +2 or +3 to bladed weapons goes a long way towards redesigning them with little actual work.

I was.

This does nothing to the increased/decreased AP of the original suggestion.

But it does address the larger theme of a melee weapon being more dangerous than it is and more dangerous than a small caliber weapon (provided you get hit by it) without a complete redesign.

if you want melee weapons to be really dangerous, change the damage code from STR/2+x back to STR+x . . .

edit: if that's too much, change it so only bladed and blunt weapons get the boost, not whips and not unarmed weapons.

it would shift melee back into Troll, Ork, Dorf Territory a bit and away from the Dandelion Eaters and Breeders.

So then we get into the matter of what a "weapon" is, which becomes philosophical and argumentative, so I'm going to try to keep this grounded in the shallow end of things.

You argue that punching someone with a bare hand doesn't employ a "weapon", but punching them with a glove on that hand does employ a "weapon". That's clearly absurd. Whether the instrument you are attacking with is a part of your body or a foreign object manipulated as a tool is irrelevant. Any physical thing you attack someone with is a "weapon", be it a gun, a sword, a pencil, or your body.

The Unarmed Combat skill isn't defined by not employing a form of "weapon". It is defined by the usage of the human body as a weapon. Your fist is just as much a weapon as a sword is. It is a physical object used to inflict force. The only difference involved is that a sword is not a part of your own body, and that a sword offer increased leverage, sturdiness, and sharpness.

A tool doesn't have to be a foreign object to be a "weapon". A fist is a "weapon". So is an elbow, a knee, a foot, and even your teeth. These are "Natural Weapons", as they are called when employed by Critters. Similarly, implanted cyberweapons are also still "weapons", despite no longer being foreign objects, but rather a part of the body of the combatant.

~Umi

That's kind of what I was thinking. It means a troll with a combat axe or claymore and decent skill is frightening up close. And if you want to be a human, shell out for the STR boosters to match up or be quick enough to avoid getting cleaved in two.

Yeah, a troll with a giant two-handed axe looming over you should be much more horrifying than a scrawny elf with an Ares Predator IV aimed at you from across the room. Sadly, the elf is gonna deal 12P+ combined if he hits with two shots, while the troll needs a strength of 13+ to match that.

~Umi

edit: Never mind, missed the edit to your post.

I'm assuming you're referring to the current Str/2+x rather than the straight Str+x Stahl and I were talking about, yes?

My bad! I realized my error only after I posted. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

~Umi

STR+X instead of STR/2+X leads to some pretty silly things, i'll admit . .
BUT COME ON!
It's what we fragging want out of SR anyway damn it <.<
Furthermore, it makes Melee-Weapons better than Unarmed Combat.
And it gives Samurai a Reason to go with Melee Weapons instead of unarmed combat.

If that glove is designed to inflict injuries, yes, a regular glove, no.

Just as absurd as most jurisdictions distinguish between assault with a weapon and regular assault.
Wikipedia at least seems to disagree with you.

No it isn't

That is your opinion.

This is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one.

Being separate from the user is part of the definition of tool. Weapons are a subset of tools.

I've yet to find a rule system that manages to avoid silly things in combat. Yeah, that troll will butcher pretty much anything other than other trolls in melee (and even then that other troll isn't happy)...but then the idea for anyone else who sees that is a) shoot it b) shoot it more c) EMPTY THE FRAGGIN' MAGAZINE INTO IT!

Or, if using SR4A, shoot them a few times with SnS rounds. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ork.gif)

I'd hoped to avoid the nitty-gritty, but oh well, here we go.


Design and original intent has nothing to do with it. If you can inflict physical harm with an object, it is a physical weapon. Despite not being intended for usage as such, a toothbrush is a weapon in appropriate circumstances.


We're not talking legislation, we're talking common sense and, more importantly, the mechanics of SR. A physical weapon is anything you can physically harm someone with. If you can deal damage with it in SR, and it isn't a Magical effect or environmental effect, it is a weapon.

A wet and limp noodle, for example, isn't a weapon - you can't possibly inflict any sort of physical harm with it. No GM would allow you to deal damage with it. A pencil, however, is a weapon - although unwieldy, you can kill or wound a person with it. Most GMs would allow you to use it as an improvised weapon, albeit a flimsy one that is likely to impose negative modifiers, suffer a low DV, and probably break after the first strike.


It, doesn't actually. "In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary."

Thus, blackmail can be a "weapon". Knowledge can be a "weapon". This is how the English language works. The concept of a "weapon" is a thing that gives you an advantage over an adversary. That is what a weapon is.


The RAW you quote more closely supports my statement than yours. It specifically mentions the use of the human body in combat, and nowhere states that the human body itself is not a weapon.


Actually, it's logical fact based on accepted norms of language and concept.


Since you fail to indicate what exactly you mean by this, or what you define as "sufficient", or to expand in any meaningful or constructive way, I have no useful response to this blurb.


By this logic, implanted cyberweapons cease to be weapons, as they are no longer separate from the user - not just physically, but magically as well, as they take up Essence.

Also, to use your own point of reference, Wikipedia has this to say on tools:

"A tool is any physical item that can be used to achieve a goal, especially if the item is not consumed in the process." And before you start on further pedantry, Wiktionary lists "item" as "a distinct physical object", and in turn lists "object" as "a thing that has physical existence". :eyeroll:

Nothing in there about foreign objects, or about tools beind separate from the body. In fact, your body is itself an object, as are the various individual components of it. Again, this is how the English language works.

~Umi

Jesus, you two. I get that the entire purpose of this board is to split hairs into nanometer-fine slices, but can you just agree to disagree?