Melee attacks as simple actions Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Automaton]

Hello everyone,

My first post on this forum. I'm usually on the shadowrun4 forum but I figured I'd give it a shot overhere. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Anyway,we have been playing SR for a while now and my group found the melee rules to be a bit underwelming when compared to the ranged rules.
No their question is "Why cant we just make the melee attacks simple actions to instead of complex just like the firearms?"

No I fully understand melee movement to be more complex then firing a gun, and so its a complex action.
And perhaps melee is less "powerful" in purpose in this way for realism purposes.

But what I really want to know is, does turning melee into simple actions break the game? Does it unbalance things?
I'm not entirely sure if it does or not. I can see some problems with some martialarts specializations though.

Is it simply dont bring a knife(sword) to a gun fight? or is there more to it?

[Stahlseele]

Seeing how you can get your damage up way high in close combat, be it through terch or even more through magic, yes, there is a danger of breaking it . .

[Automaton]

But doesnt that count for ranged attacks too?

[Stahlseele]

To an extent, yes.
But it's harder to get impact armor up than it is to get ballistic armor up.

[Automaton]

Could you give me some examples of how melee damage can go up so high?

[Draco18s]

Could you give me some examples of how melee damage can go up so high?

Adept powers like Killing Fist
Adept powers like Elemental Strike
Cyber like Titanium Bones
Martial arts qualities like Krav Maga (grants +1 DV to unarmed attacks, takable up to 3 times)

Combining those, you get unarmed warriors who are doing things like Str/2 + 8.

[bannockburn]

Average Joe: Strength 3 (Muscle Replacement or Augmentation 4) = 7, base damage of 4S. Add in Bone Density Augmentation or Bone Lacing, and it can easily go up to 8P. THEN add one or more martial arts and you have an average human with a base DV of 9-10P.
That's still not really bad, but now imagine a troll. An adept, with martial arts, maybe, with Str 9, Critical Strike 6, Penetrating Strike 3, Killing Hands, maybe even an elemental attack.
12P, -3 AP without attribute boost, right there. At +1 Reach (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

None of these high DVs really make a lot of difference in comparison to a decent gun, though. Close combat is not necessarily underpowered, but a lot less powered than ranged combat. As it should be, IMO. Unfortunately, close combat with weapons is usually worse than unarmed, and to really make it worthwhile, you have to dump a lot of statpoints and building points and even qualities into being effective at it. Which is, at a closer look, also how it should be. You have to invest a lot of time to learn a martial art, whereas it is much easier to learn how to shoot.

Close combat Missions style just plain sucks, though. Wouldn't touch a melee oriented character with a ten foot pole there.

[Automaton]

Okay, so basically you're saying as it is melee can do the damage in one attack (complex action) that ranged can do in two ranged attacks (simple actions) ?

I've seen some massive damage being delt out through ranged attacks.

[Automaton]

Average Joe: Strength 3 (Muscle Replacement or Augmentation 4) = 7, base damage of 4S. Add in Bone Density Augmentation or Bone Lacing, and it can easily go up to 8P. THEN add one or more martial arts and you have an average human with a base DV of 9-10P.
That's still not really bad, but now imagine a troll. An adept, with martial arts, maybe, with Str 9, Critical Strike 6, Penetrating Strike 3, Killing Hands, maybe even an elemental attack.
12P, -3 AP without attribute boost, right there. At +1 Reach (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

None of these high DVs really make a lot of difference in comparison to a decent gun, though. Close combat is not necessarily underpowered, but a lot less powered than ranged combat. As it should be, IMO. Unfortunately, close combat with weapons is usually worse than unarmed, and to really make it worthwhile, you have to dump a lot of statpoints and building points and even qualities into being effective at it. Which is, at a closer look, also how it should be. You have to invest a lot of time to learn a martial art, whereas it is much easier to learn how to shoot.

Close combat Missions style just plain sucks, though. Wouldn't touch a melee oriented character with a ten foot pole there.

right, so firearms are more powerful then melee then... I mean thats logical too in my opinion, but a street sam with a katana should be at least a bit scary instead of "meh I've got a gun" ?

[Draco18s]

I've seen some massive damage being delt out through ranged attacks.

Usually as the result of the dice, not the base DV.

Remember, the highest base DV any gun has is about 8 (without getting into the higher powered sniper rifles). You can add to that using burst fire, but at a loss in dice (and that damage isn't used in the modified DV when comparing to armor; you might be doing 18DV with that full burst, but it's still stun!).

[bannockburn]

The reason for massive damage taken in ranged combat is usually an easier staging mechanism:

a) You roll less dice to evade the attack (usually just reaction, with full defense reaction+dodge)
b) Narrow bursts give an easily achievable higher base damage
c) Ammunition will do something similar

However, it is, as Stahlseele pointed out, easier to stack up ballistic armor than impact armor, so it is usually also easier to stage it down.

Making a close combat attack a simple action could make it very high powered. I'm not sure about breaking the system, though.
There are a ton of martial arts maneuvers that use your next attack and that could end up making some fights really really short (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'd suggest to just try it and see how it goes. Preferably with a maxed out martial arts adept, with high DV and probably stuff like combat sense, counterstrike, elemental attack and the works.

right, so firearms are more powerful then melee then... I mean thats logical too in my opinion, but a street sam with a katana should be at least a bit scary instead of "meh I've got a gun" ?

Well. Depends on the gun, and the distance. If the samurai is in 8m distance and I have only a pistol, I wouldn't see my chances too high.
If he's in a killzone, I have an MG and he's 50m down the line ... well, then it's exactly "Meh, I've got a gun" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[thorya]

right, so firearms are more powerful then melee then... I mean thats logical too in my opinion, but a street sam with a katana should be at least a bit scary instead of "meh I've got a gun" ?

Well a street sam with a katana usually is scary. For a street sam not optimized for melee combat but with a little effort devoted to probably has strength 6, agi 7, and 2 skills with a specialization in swords (or equivalent from skill wires). They're going to do 6P -1AP base and a 12 dice pool for their attack. Maybe not one strike kill territory like something optimized for melee, but if a street sam has managed to close to melee range with you, you're going to be dead on their next pass.

I don't think your change will break the game however, because the limit on melee has always been the need to get close enough to use it while people are shooting at you. Letting them kill people a little better once they get there isn't a big deal.

I might instead though, just up the base damage of all melee weapons since they usually have less net hits to pump the damage up with and penalties for calling a shot are a bigger detriment to their pools. It also makes unarmed less of an obviously superior option. If a combat axe was str/2+6P and a katana was str/2+5P, the street sam with a melee weapon is much closer to being in that seriously threatening range and you didn't have to add a second attack. And stun batons stop being much more dangerous than swords.

[Mach_Ten]

Well. Depends on the gun, and the distance. If the samurai is in 8m distance and I have only a pistol, I wouldn't see my chances too high.
If he's in a killzone, I have an MG and he's 50m down the line ... well, then it's exactly "Meh, I've got a gun" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I know we've covered this recently but, in reality this comment stands up, but in SR it does not

/snippy snip.... but if a street sam has managed to close to melee range with you, you're going to be dead on their next pass.

a SAM with a sword up close and personal is no more scary than if he was a tiny speck in the sniper sights. he SHOULD be .. but RAW does not support this view.

12 dice vs. a guard with REA 5 and bod 4 and armour say 5 as well

so say SAM does well and gets 4 hits, guard gets 2 and has to resist maybe 8P ? rolls average and takes a slice for 3 boxes (another -1 to his actions)

vs.

2 shots from a holdout with SnS or even just EX_EX .. at a total of -1 to his DP

-2 from electric shock, chance to be unconscious, or just plain dead, SAM cannot deflect the arm or the gun barrel unless he wastes an IP on full defense to DODGE
cannot parry the gun, cannot block the gun

and the guard though can stick his hand out and catch the Katana between 2 fingers and completely deflect a monofilament sword as if it were paper while doing it.

I'm starting to sound bitter again, I know sorry ... but melee weapons are utterly underwhelming unless the opponent is sleeping or "unaware"

and as soon as combat starts, unaware goes out the window.

[Automaton]

Well a street sam with a katana usually is scary. For a street sam not optimized for melee combat but with a little effort devoted to probably has strength 6, agi 7, and 2 skills with a specialization in swords (or equivalent from skill wires). They're going to do 6P -1AP base and a 12 dice pool for their attack. Maybe not one strike kill territory like something optimized for melee, but if a street sam has managed to close to melee range with you, you're going to be dead on their next pass.

I don't think your change will break the game however, because the limit on melee has always been the need to get close enough to use it while people are shooting at you. Letting them kill people a little better once they get there isn't a big deal.

I might instead though, just up the base damage of all melee weapons since they usually have less net hits to pump the damage up with and penalties for calling a shot are a bigger detriment to their pools. It also makes unarmed less of an obviously superior option. If a combat axe was str/2+6P and a katana was str/2+5P, the street sam with a melee weapon is much closer to being in that seriously threatening range and you didn't have to add a second attack. And stun batons stop being much more dangerous than swords.

Thanks for all the replies everyone! it really helps a lot. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Raising the base damage of melee weapons isn't a bad idea and solution, and something I like better then turning the complex into a simple action.

[bannockburn]

2 shots from a holdout with SnS or even just EX_EX .. at a total of -1 to his DP

Depends on the shooter. And the target.

and he can stick his hand out and catch the Katana between 2 fingers and completely deflect a monofilament sword as if it were paper while doing it.

If that is how you interpret a block, then that is your prerogative ... and problem. The rules allow it, people do it, and it can mean everything from 'swatting aside the blade without touching the edge' to 'kicking the opponent in the shins so he misses the swing' due to the abstract nature of close combat.
There is no hard rule and fact

I'm starting to sound bitter again, I know sorry ... but melee weapons are utterly underwhelming unless the opponent is sleeping or "unaware"

In Missions, yes.
My adept does just fine, both unarmed and with his rating 4 weapon focus, thank you very much (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
As does my bone density augmented face/sam.

[Stahlseele]

*nods*
melee, especially with weapons, was way more impressive under SR3 rules . .
STR+4D with 3 Reach in a Troll with 16 STR and 14 Body?
I don't care if there's a car between me and him, i'll cleave him in half!


The biggest change to the close combat system was that in SR3, no matter who initiated the attack, it was an opposed test and whoever had more hits did his damage to the other one.

[Automaton]

So if you'd change the melee system to improve on it, what would you do? turn the attacks into simple ones, raise the base damage value on weapons? both?

[Mach_Ten]

Thanks for all the replies everyone! it really helps a lot. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Raising the base damage of melee weapons isn't a bad idea and solution, and something I like better then turning the complex into a simple action.

Sorry for hijacking mate, I'd have liked to see it as simples vs complex too, but that is only one side of a double edged sword, making big choppy choppy is not Everything involved in melee weapons

*nods*
melee, especially with weapons, was way more impressive under SR3 rules . .
STR+4D with 3 Reach in a Troll with 16 STR and 14 Body?
I don't care if there's a car between me and him, i'll cleave him in half!

The biggest change to the close combat system was that in SR3, no matter who initiated the attack, it was an opposed test and whoever had more hits did his damage to the other one.

But I don't want to have to go to such extremes, or be able to cleave cars in half (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) although that would be fun

I'm talking about a peak of metaa-human capability or cybered up to the eyeballs (STR =8 AGI = 8 ) with top training (Blades 4 or 5) and a top of the line personalised grip katana or vibrosword or other piece of sharp pointy ! Should be fairly competent at defending as well as attacking.

@Bannockburn : I agree with you in the other post I made about using melee skill in defense .. really good "HouseRule" and it goes a long way to what I think a melee SAM should be capable of, but it's not in a missions class toon. without added cheese.

I don't want to play a TROLL to optimise the bejeebus out of it, (well I do, but not in my current games) I like having a downside to to the character, it's just the downside is so steep it's almost cliff like.

You all seem t ohave a view that a SAM with a melee weapon once he closes is absolutely deadly, but I can't see a single reason or example how ?
defender is at -1 to fire into melee but can literally dance circles around you to defend while you cannot defend against them at all

***Edited for clarity***

[Stahlseele]

Technically, to optimze it, you need to play an Elf.
Because SOMEBODY decided that Attribute for all combat is suddenly agility.
And more dice is more important than doing more raw damage, because you get more damage with hits from dice anyway.

If you want the melee system to be better raise the malus for using guns in melee so people actually can be forced into melee for defense.

[bannockburn]

@Bannockburn : I agree with you in the other post I made about using melee skill in defense .. really good "HouseRule" and it goes a long way to what I think a melee SAM should be capable of, but it's not in a missions class toon. without added cheese.

What houserule would that be, exactly?

And more dice is more important than doing more raw damage, because you get more damage with hits from dice anyway.

Uhm. Yes, roughly 3 dice to 1 raw damage. How are dice better after being able to defeat the opposing roll?

[Mach_Ten]

Technically, to optimze it, you need to play an Elf.
Because SOMEBODY decided that Attribute for all combat is suddenly agility.
And more dice is more important than doing more raw damage, because you get more damage with hits from dice anyway.

yeah, or Ork... considering the amount of damage you need to soak to get into combat first (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) and to do some damage after

What houserule would that be, exactly?

think you said you allow your players to use their melee skill in their defense rather than just dodge.

I might have misread.. ** EDIT** I think I have completely mis-attributed a comment to you.
Still agree with what you have said, but I'm not going to rant in this thread any longer as there's no RAW that lets Blades benefit unless you can get access to martial arts.

[bannockburn]

Ah okay, I was a bit puzzled (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Thanks for clarifying and yes, I agree.

[Dakka Dakka]

If you want the melee system to be better raise the malus for using guns in melee so people actually can be forced into melee for defense.

A good start is to fiat that opponents never are within 1m of one another unless one is unaware of the other. Net -1 for shooting in melee? come on!

I don't think Unarmed melee is underpowered, but armed melee is pretty lack luster. Except boosting a skill, buying a weapon and learning some martial arts, there is not much you can do. If you want to make it more powerful, maybe introduce new adept powers that work like the traditional adept powers but apply to melee attacks with one of the other melee skills (in addition to killing hands there is killing blades/clubs; critical strike (blades/clubs), elemental strike (blades/clubs) etc.).

[thorya]

think you said you allow your players to use their melee skill in their defense rather than just dodge.

That's just RAW. You can always choose to use your weapon skill + reaction to defend against a melee attack rather than dodge, if you have a weapon. It's called parrying.

If we use your numbers from earlier and assume that said guard has a dodge of 3 and he even has an extra initiative pass. So he defends against a melee attack with 8 dice.

He's charged by the street sam who isn't optimized for melee combat. First round, the street sam charges, he's now rolling 14 dice instead of 12 against the defenders 8. The sam on average will get about 2 net hits and hits the majority of the time, so the guard is rolling to soak 8P with 8 dice. On an average roll he's taking 5P. He's at a penalty of -1 and has had about half his boxes filled. And since that 5P exceeded his body score, he's knocked down.

The guard then tries to shoot the street sam, but he's in melee combat with the street sam so he's taking -3 to shoot the street sam and depending on how you rule it, if the street sam has reach on him the guard doesn't have the advantage of firing at point blank range. So when the guard is trying to return fire he's doing so at -4 to his shot (-3 melee, -1 wound) and the street sam gets a +2 to their defense because they were running on their previous action. So the guard doesn't have much chance of hitting the street sam on this pass unless he's got a pretty high pool to begin with.

On the next pass. The street sam is attacking the guard with a pool of 12 vs. 7 if he didn't manage to knock him down and 15 vs. 5 if he did. The street sam will hit the guard again, this time for another 7 or 8P. The defender will again soak 3 of that. At which point the defender is looking a -3 from wound penalties. The guard can try to retaliate but they're taking a -6 to their shots because they're still in melee. On the next pass they're dead.

Sure the street sam could have taken the guard out in five other ways, some faster and more effective, but the above scenario is hardly one that's just "meh, he's just got a sword". Once you're in melee with a street sam, because of the melee penalties and their bonuses when they first close with you, you don't have much chance of surviving. And full defense is pretty useless against a street sam, because they have more passes than you, so they can wait you out.

[Mach_Ten]

That's just RAW. You can always choose to use your weapon skill + reaction to defend against a melee attack rather than dodge, if you have a weapon. It's called parrying.

I misread or misremembered .. about using a melee weapon vs a firearm in melee .. different discussion sorry

as for the remainder, if guard gets +2 for point blank it's not specified in the book at what "reach" or situation you do or do not get the bonus.
I would say it only applies to unaware or characters unwilling or unable to provide defense (Ran out of dice pool or are subdued)
but that's my own opinion .. not RAW.

but ... where's Knockdown rules ? cause that is EXACTLY what i need to look up!

if that is in core rules in melee then I need to be using it .. Alot !

[Kiirnodel]

I misread or misremembered .. about using a melee weapon vs a firearm in melee .. different discussion sorry

as for the remainder, if guard gets +2 for point blank it's not specified in the book at what "reach" or situation you do or do not get the bonus.
I would say it only applies to unaware or characters unwilling or unable to provide defense (Ran out of dice pool or are subdued)
but that's my own opinion .. not RAW.

but ... where's Knockdown rules ? cause that is EXACTLY what i need to look up!

if that is in core rules in melee then I need to be using it .. Alot !

Not sure what you're talking about guard gets +2 for point blank. If you mean the +2 bonus that ranged attackers get for attacking targets within 1 meter, it is pretty explicit. But yes, what melee reach lets you stay out of that meter range isn't defined. We went over that in the other thread, and it's based on situation. For instance, a person wielding a longspear might be able to keep someone further away than someone with a whip (both reach 2). And shorter weapons require you to get in closer, giving that bonus because you have to be within a meter of them to be able to hit. If it only applied to those unable to defend, then the -3 for engaged in melee wouldn't apply (and wouldn't be specifically referenced).

Now for Knockdown... it is on page 161 of the SR4A, Other Factors in Combat section. It is also where it talks about making a Subduing attack, which is also something only melee can do.

Attacking to Knock down doesn't deal any damage, if your Strength + net hits on the attack exceeds the opponent's Body, then you successfully knock them down. You can choose to go down with them, but if you glitch you fall no matter what (worse with a crit glitch, you fall, they don't). Based on the wording, you might be able to aoid falling if you glitch but fail to successfully knock them over. But expect something else bad to happen.

[Mach_Ten]

Not sure what you're talking about guard gets +2 for point blank. If you mean the +2 bonus that ranged attackers get for attacking targets within 1 meter, it is pretty explicit.

no, it's horribly implicit. the text says within 1m but doesn't include or exclude any situational text (i.e. defender unaware etc.)
and reach doesn't include any clarification if you are within 1M when fighting

as a human, I hold a sword for example about 15 -20cm from my body and the blade is about what ? 70 -90 CM .. and it's not permanently against my opponents chest, it is at striking distance

there's no way I am ever within 1M of my enemy unless the point is somewhere tickling his kidneys !! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

giving that bonus because you have to be within a meter of them to be able to hit. If it only applied to those unable to defend, then the -3 for engaged in melee wouldn't apply (and wouldn't be specifically referenced).

hang on, the -3 for being in melee does NOT mention any range .. it just says engaged in melee not within 1M ...

anyway I digress, yes the +2 point blank in all it's ridiculousness.

Now for Knockdown... it is on page 161 of the SR4A, Other Factors in Combat section. It is also where it talks about making a Subduing attack, which is also something only melee can do.

Attacking to Knock down doesn't deal any damage, if your Strength + net hits on the attack exceeds the opponent's Body, then you successfully knock them down. You can choose to go down with them, but if you glitch you fall no matter what (worse with a crit glitch, you fall, they don't). Based on the wording, you might be able to aoid falling if you glitch but fail to successfully knock them over. But expect something else bad to happen.

does that specicy unarmed Melee ? or include armed .. and if so, has Thorya missed that an attack to knock down is a specific action that Does NO damage (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

which would be crappy as I had gotten my hopes up there of some sort of bonus for wielding a bladed weapon

[bannockburn]

It's only unarmed melee, unfortunately, just as subdual combat is.
Yeah, weapons are very meh.

But at least they look cool!

[thorya]

So there are two ways to knock someone down, both are on 161.

First, any time a character takes damage, there is a chance that they fall down. If a character takes damage equal to or above their body they are knocked down. No roll to resist at all. In ranged combat this is actually a pain since people should be falling over all the time and most people ignore it, because if a defender is prone for a ranged attack it only matters within 5 meters. But for melee it makes a huge difference, because it adds to the attack (pg 157 +3 for opponent prone) and it subtracts from the defense (pg 159, -2 for defending while prone).

The second is just to knock them down and that is what Kiirnodel is referring to. It is a separate action that is explicitly to knockdown.

[Mach_Ten]

So there are two ways to knock someone down, both are on 161.

First, any time a character takes damage, there is a chance that they fall down. If a character takes damage equal to or above their body they are knocked down. No roll to resist at all. In ranged combat this is actually a pain since people should be falling over all the time and most people ignore it, because if a defender is prone for a ranged attack it only matters within 5 meters. But for melee it makes a huge difference, because it adds to the attack (pg 157 +3 for opponent prone) and it subtracts from the defense (pg 159, -2 for defending while prone).

The second is just to knock them down and that is what Kiirnodel is referring to. It is a separate action that is explicitly to knockdown.

BOOM!

that right there is pure genius ! +1 karma to infinity, to Thorya . for reinstating my faith in the SR universe.

thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[bannockburn]

Hu? You weren't aware of automatic knockdown?

To add to this: It isn't only when you take damage that's equal or higher than your Bod stat (no matter if S or P, btw), it's also automatic if you take 10 boxes of damage, so no cop out for trolls with Bod 11 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Mach_Ten]

Hu? You weren't aware of automatic knockdown?

newp, only started playing SR4 when I joined here a few weeks back and joined in some PbP's ... trying to catchup as rapidly as possible, so I'm not a perma-n00b

so .. be aware I'll be bothering y'all for more rules advice .... well ... ALL the time ! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[bannockburn]

It's not so fun on the flipside, either (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
Getting up in that situation requires a not quite that easy test, too.

[Dakka Dakka]

It's only unarmed melee, unfortunately, just as subdual combat is.
Yeah, weapons are very meh.

That is plain wrong. The only two things you cannot do with armed subdual is improving your grip and defending against a subdual technique. There is no rule against initiating the grapple with an armed melee attack roll and later improving it with unarmed combat, nor are there rules against using unarmed combat when one or more hands are equipped with weapons.

Attacking to knockdown has no restriction for weapons whatsoever.

@Automatic Knockdown: Just to clarify, for an automatic knockdown you need to mark BOD or more boxes (or 10 boxes) on the opponent's condition monitor. Just inflicting DV 10 is not always enough. A troll with BOD 11 is highly unlikely to leave 10 boxes after soak.

[bannockburn]

That is plain wrong. The only two things you cannot do with armed subdual is improving your grip and defending against a subdual technique. There is no rule against initiating the grapple with an armed melee attack roll and later improving it with unarmed combat, nor are there rules against using unarmed combat when one or more hands are equipped with weapons.

You're right, sorry. I hadn't bothered to look it up, and I remembered the test as Unarmed Combat. Actually it's 'melee attack as normal'

@Automatic Knockdown: Just to clarify, for an automatic knockdown you need to mark BOD or more boxes (or 10 boxes )on the opponent's condition monitor. Just inflickting DV 10 is not necessarily enough. A troll with BOD 11 is highly unlikely to leave 10 boxes after soak.

Yes, the damage TAKEN must be equal or higher or 10. Not the damage before the soaking roll.

[Kiirnodel]

no, it's horribly implicit. the text says within 1m but doesn't include or exclude any situational text (i.e. defender unaware etc.)
and reach doesn't include any clarification if you are within 1M when fighting

Right, it's reach that is vague, not point blank. It's a flat +2 if target is within 1 meter. It's kind of hard to miss... There aren't any situational modifiers because those are other modifiers. If the target is aware and abe to fight back, that is why it mentions "Note that this may be offset by the Attacker in Melee Combat modifier." Otherwise it's a one sentence statement, not much to confuse. Like I said, explicit.

as a human, I hold a sword for example about 15 -20cm from my body and the blade is about what ? 70 -90 CM .. and it's not permanently against my opponents chest, it is at striking distance

Not sure what kind of sword you're using, most katanas have a blade 60-75 cm in length, you might be thinking with the handle. Add those numbers up and more than a meter away and you're swinging at air.

there's no way I am ever within 1M of my enemy unless the point is somewhere tickling his kidneys !! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

hang on, the -3 for being in melee does NOT mention any range .. it just says engaged in melee not within 1M ...

anyway I digress, yes the +2 point blank in all it's ridiculousness.

This was mentioned in the previous thread, you don't hold or fight with a katana pointed straight away from you, you strike with the blade, not the point. And yes, the goal would be for the outstretched katan to pass completely through your target (point past his kidneys).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and both of my other points were ninja'd above...

does that specicy unarmed Melee ? or include armed .. and if so, has Thorya missed that an attack to knock down is a specific action that Does NO damage (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

which would be crappy as I had gotten my hopes up there of some sort of bonus for wielding a bladed weapon

It's only unarmed melee, unfortunately, just as subdual combat is.
Yeah, weapons are very meh.

But at least they look cool!

Far as I can tell, the knockdown attack (melee only) does not specify a weapon. My guess you could use a blade to knock down an opponent by using the flat (or something) so you can apply more kinetic force. Or hook their foot or something, it's a vague maneuver, not a set form of attack.

Subduing however doesn't mention Unarmed Combat until the third paragraph when it specifies how a defender tries to escape. Before that it only says "resolve melee combat normally". At the end of the second paragraph it does say that success means that you start grappling, which would imply Unarmed Combat, but it is kind of vague. I could see arguments that you can start a subdue (grapple) using a weapon and then switch to Unarmed Combat to get a better grip once you've got hold. Think using a staff or club to get a choke hold on somebody...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hu? You weren't aware of automatic knockdown?

To add to this: It isn't only when you take damage that's equal or higher than your Bod stat (no matter if S or P, btw), it's also automatic if you take 10 boxes of damage, so no cop out for trolls with Bod 11 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Also remember, it is damage boxes taken, so, after you resist. If you manage to resist the damage it also helps you stay up.

[Mach_Ten]

snip

cheers Kiirnodel, still learning (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[NiL_FisK_Urd]

A simple houserule would be to allow to defend against a ranged attack with REA+Skill (like defending against melee) if the attacker is in melee with the defender (if i can deflect a monowhip attack with my hand, i should be able to deflect a hand with a pistol too)

[Draco18s]

To add to this: It isn't only when you take damage that's equal or higher than your Bod stat (no matter if S or P, btw), it's also automatic if you take 10 boxes of damage, so no cop out for trolls with Bod 11 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Or dragons. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif)

Knocking down a dragon is simply an "explosion"* type spell. At Force 5 or 6, it becomes neigh impossible to not be knocked down. At Force 10, it's automatic, even if you resist the spell completely.

*I think it's the explosion type. There's one that "force of the spell adds to boxes taken for knockdown tests."

[bannockburn]

What you mean is the Blast type effect (Street Magic p. 165) and it says 'add the Force to the damage inflicted when comparing to the defender's Body'.
As you only compare damage inflicted to body when there is actual damage inflicted, it still requires the dragon to take damage. So no, no free knockdown unless you damage him.

[Kiirnodel]

Or dragons. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif)

Knocking down a dragon is simply an "explosion"* type spell. At Force 5 or 6, it becomes neigh impossible to not be knocked down. At Force 10, it's automatic, even if you resist the spell completely.

*I think it's the explosion type. There's one that "force of the spell adds to boxes taken for knockdown tests."

Blast Element, yes. It has the clause: "add the Force to the damage inflicted when comparing to the defender’s Body". One could argue that it only applies to "when comparing to the defender's Body" and not the automatic at 10 boxes part, but without good reason I see no reason why a Force 10 Blast spell wouldn't knock somebody down, no matter what.

EDIT: ninja by bannockburn again (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Draco18s]

but without good reason I see no reason why a Force 10 Blast spell wouldn't knock somebody down, no matter what.

Pre'much.

I could go either way, but my preferred direction is "that way" towards where such shenanigans don't happen (i.e. I'm fine with elemental variations, some of them though are just retarded).

[Falconer]

While I agree making melee a 'simple' action is a bit broke and smacks of a DnD'ism... (melee uber alles!). Sorry there's a reason bayonets are rarely used on the battlefield....


I do think there's a good case to be made for making melee into a simple action akin to a long burst... long bursts... you can only make one per initiative pass even though it is a simple action.

That would allow the 'buckaroo' swashbuckler with the sword and pistol... swings over the deck... pops off a shot into one pud... then casually stabs another....

It would also allow for things like readying a melee weapon and attacking with it in the same turn without things like martial powers.

[bannockburn]

I do think there's a good case to be made for making melee into a simple action akin to a long burst... long bursts... you can only make one per initiative pass even though it is a simple action.

That would allow the 'buckaroo' swashbuckler with the sword and pistol... swings over the deck... pops off a shot into one pud... then casually stabs another....

It would also allow for things like readying a melee weapon and attacking with it in the same turn without things like martial powers.

I like this suggestion, sounds very cinematic (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Stahlseele]

on the other hand it opens up the way to first shooting somebody then stabbing them, or the other way around..
no clue on the math, but that also has the potential to be a game breaker.

[bannockburn]

A stylish game breaker, at least! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Stahlseele]

point.

[Falconer]

Stahl...
As opposed to just shooting the guy twice like you do now?!

I hardly find that any more game breaking at that point.


The biggest problem with that one though... is the multi-attack split dice pool problem. If I'm attacking multiple's or multi-attacking with melee weapons probably best to keep it a complex action and split the pools.

As the real problem with the whole idea is if you allowed a second attack with an off-hand as an extra simple action... especially for the unarmed types this is a real terror. left cross... right cross... knock-out...

[Dakka Dakka]

A simple houserule would be to allow to defend against a ranged attack with REA+Skill (like defending against melee) if the attacker is in melee with the defender (if i can deflect a monowhip attack with my hand, i should be able to deflect a hand with a pistol too)

If you are unarmed and the opponent has a gun, the first thing to do should be to get the gun, or at least remove it from him. So go first (possibly with Edge) and disarm make a called shot to remove the firearm from his grasp. The disarm maneuver from Arsenal unfortunately does not work against an attack with a ranged weapon.

As has been pointed out before, you are not deflecting the monowhip with your hand, you are moving in such a way that the monowhip does less or no damage to you. That could be blocking the arm and ducking under the whip and all sort of other movements. It most likely will not be positioning your hand in the trajectory of the whip (unless it's a critical glitch)

@Falconer: You cannot make more than one attack per Action phase against a single opponent with Unarmed combat unless you use one of the melee weapons that use the Unarmed Combat skill.

[Umidori]

The one thing that really bugs me about this argument is that people keep getting the real-world comparison of lethality and damage of melee weapons versus firearms wrong.

Melee weapons are in fact BRUTAL. I'd much rather be shot twice than take a katana to the chest or a hammer to the head, particularly if the person wielding the weapon is 2.75m tall and weighs 225kg. The amount of force behind even just a punch is simply staggering compared to the amount of force possessed by most bullets. Add in the mechanical advantage of a weapon acting as a lever, as well as the focusing of the energy into the edge or point of a blade, or into the head of blunt weapon, and you've got a recipe for pain.

Why are bullets more effective in modern warfare? Because of tactics and logistics. When you can deliver smaller packets of force to a target from a greater range and at a greater rate, it doesn't matter so much that each individual "attack" is weak - you overwhelm with numbers and with speed. But when it comes to a direct comparison of power, blow for blow? Melee wins every time.

This is already reflected in the mechanics of SR. If you're 50m away from a foe, he can shoot you numerous times before you ever get close enough to make an attack. But if you somehow manage to close the distance and start trading blows? Every one of your melee strikes should be FAR more damaging than any single bullet.

I will readily concede that bullets do have one other benefit - they pierce. Against unarmored foes, bullets are nasty because they can strike deeply and damage internal organs. Indeed, most casualties of firearms die from organ failure of one form or another. But once armor enters into the equation, bullets lose a lot of their lethality. They still hurt, but you're gonna end up with cracked ribs and deep tissue bruises, not perforated lungs and a shredded heart.

In my view, the best way to model this in SR would be to increase the base damage values of melee weapons, but at the same time reduce their armor penetration. The DV should be roughly representative of the amount of force a blow is able to inflict, while the AP should be representative of how easily the blow penetrates. Ballistic weapons should inflict low damage with high penetration. Blunt weapons should inflict high damage with low penetration. And bladed weapons should fall somewhere inbetween, with a sliding scale between slashing weapons and piercing weapons.

~Umi

[Dakka Dakka]

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)

[NiL_FisK_Urd]

That could be blocking the arm and ducking under the whip and all sort of other movements.

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.

[Stahlseele]

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)

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.

[Mach_Ten]

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)

[Umidori]

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

[Falconer]

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.

[Dakka Dakka]

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.

[Umidori]

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

[Dakka Dakka]

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.

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.

[Umidori]

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

[Dakka Dakka]

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)

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

When wielding two weapons in melee combat, it is assumed that a character only uses one weapon at a time, and so the appropriate skill for that weapon is used for attacks and parries. If a character wishes to attack with both weapons simultaneously (with the same Complex Action), then she must split her dice pool between the two attacks.

Also by definition unarmed combat is combat without weapons.

[thorya]

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)

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.

[Dakka Dakka]

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.

I was.

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

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

[thorya]

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.

[Stahlseele]

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.

[Umidori]

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.

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

[ChromeZephyr]

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.

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.

[Umidori]

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

[ChromeZephyr]

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?

[Umidori]

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

~Umi

[Stahlseele]

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.

[Dakka Dakka]

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".

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

That's clearly absurd.

Just as absurd as most jurisdictions distinguish between assault with a weapon and regular assault.

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.

Wikipedia at least seems to disagree with you.

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.

No it isn't

Unarmed Combat skill (also known as hand-to-hand combat) governs the use of combat techniques based solely on the use of the individual’s own body parts.

Your fist is just as much a weapon as a sword is.

That is your opinion.

It is a physical object used to inflict force.

This is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one.

An tool doesn't have to be a foreign object to be a "weapon".

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

[ChromeZephyr]

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.

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)

[Umidori]

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

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

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.

Just as absurd as most jurisdictions distinguish between assault with a weapon and regular assault.

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.

Wikipedia at least seems to disagree with you.

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.

No it [Unarmed Combat] isn't [defined by the usage of the human body as a weapon].

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.

That [a fist is just as much a weapon as a sword] is your opinion.

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

This is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one.

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.

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

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

[ChromeZephyr]

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?

[Umidori]

I just don't understand his mentality. He states that he supposedly thinks what he is arguing is stupid, that he doesn't believe it should operate the way he's arguing it does, and then the entire argument he is making in support of things working that way is based on specious nonsense and pedantry.

Why would someone DO that? What is the motivation for that sort of behavior?

~Umi

[Stahlseele]

isn't there even something in nowadays laws that considers people like boxers or karate ka or judo ka or things like these armed with a lethal weapon in any kind of fight they get into?

[Umidori]

Possibly, but again, legislation is one thing, common linguistic usage is another.

~Umi

[ChromeZephyr]

I just don't understand his mentality. He states that he supposedly thinks what he is arguing is stupid, that he doesn't believe it should operate the way he's arguing it does, and then the entire argument he is making in support of things working that way is based on specious nonsense and pedantry.

Why would someone DO that? What is the motivation for that sort of behavior?

~Umi

I can't speak for Dakka, I'm not him/her. Sorry. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) As for why someone would do that? Well, just from my observation of this board it seems that people just like to debate (or argue, if you want to look at it that way). And like a lot of things people get involved in it becomes hard to let go of something once you get started, even if it's gone far beyond any useful discussion. *shrug* Not taking shots at anyone, just something I've noticed here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And Stahl, you know better than to bring RL up here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Stahlseele]

yes, yes, i know <.<;,
but seriously?
doesn't it outright tell us that hardliner gloves are weapons used with the unarmed skill thus changing the attack from unarmed combat to an armed attack?

[RHat]

isn't there even something in nowadays laws that considers people like boxers or karate ka or judo ka or things like these armed with a lethal weapon in any kind of fight they get into?

Changes by jurisdiction, but laws pertaining to this kind of thing are not uncommon. If you put any serious time and energy into such training, it is a very wise thing to become acquainted with the particulars of the legislation in your jurisdiction.

As an interest gauge: I have some ideas for a set of houserules that would bring melee and ranged into parity, but I'd hate to take the time to properly think it through and write it up if there's no interest in it; this wouldn't exactly be a simple thing. Presuming that they worked in a way that people enjoyed and wasn't adding too much complexity, how many people using such houserules?

[Automaton]

Whomever stole my topic hand it back this instant!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) Haha

All the knockdown rules I was aware of.

Is there anyone who is using house rules to change/improve melee combat?

[Dakka Dakka]

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.

It also has to be a tool or at least an object that is separate from the user. You are claiming that parts of the user (hands feet, whatever) are weapons. I don't see that.

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.

In the SR context where does it say that magical effects are not weapons?

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.

If you can't think of a way to do harm with a wet noodle, you are not trying hard enough (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) At least with a lasagna sheet you could suffocate someone. If you cram long enough spaghetti or even better tagliatelle down someone's throat to block the larynx, you could achieve the same thing. But again those items noodles, pencils etc. are separate from the user, they are tools. They are not the user himself.

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.

This again does not say that a weapon can be integral part of the user.

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.

IMHO that is not needed because in my understanding of plain English. It is even in the name itself. Unarmed combat means combat without arms (in the sense of weapons, not limbs obviously)

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.

I meant that being able to deal damage is necessary for something to be classified as a weapon but not sufficient. Otherwise everything that deals damage is a weapon.

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.

They are still separate objects. They only canot be targeted separtely by magic.

"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:

There you have it. Distinct. The tool must be distinct from the user. A hand is not.


@Stahlseele: Yes that's what the rules say. What it does not say is that hands and feet are weapons. Armed and unarmed melee attacks have been handled differently in SR for several editions. So there is nothing new.

[rules lawyering]The book suggests that limbs are not weapons:

Certain weapons (or the arms of a troll) are longer and allow an attacker to hit a target from a greater distance, giving him a slight edge in melee combat.

If limbs (of a troll) were weapons they would be included among weapons. So at least those limbs are separate from weapons.

The other problem is that the rules in Arsenal call for weapons with reach 0 or 1. All weapons and unarmed attacks without a positive reach are given the property reach - . So by very strict reading unarmed attacks do not qualify.
[/rules lawyering]

But I guess we have to agree to disagree here. I'm out of that part of the discussion.

*hands Automaton the thread*

[Automaton]

Hey thanks Dakka Dakka (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Maybe if no has done any house rules on it I should just have my group try a couple of variations and see what happens..

[Mach_Ten]

Hey thanks Dakka Dakka (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Maybe if no has done any house rules on it I should just have my group try a couple of variations and see what happens..

Do you have access to the Martial arts rules in arsenal ?

they offer some flavour and are not *ALL* broken or OP. without just doubling up on the number of attacks and thus doubling potential DV.

alternatively, you could allow the splitting of dice pools for multiple attacks vs the same target ..
RAW allows versus multiple targets, but it's only a step further to allow against the same guy.

[Rubic]

It also has to be a tool or at least an object that is separate from the user. You are claiming that parts of the user (hands feet, whatever) are weapons. I don't see that.

Irrelevant, considering facts presented, including real-world definitions and the RAW that YOU provided.

In the SR context where does it say that magical effects are not weapons?

If you can't think of a way to do harm with a wet noodle, you are not trying hard enough (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) At least with a lasagna sheet you could suffocate someone. If you cram long enough spaghetti or even better tagliatelle down someone's throat to block the larynx, you could achieve the same thing. But again those items noodles, pencils etc. are separate from the user, they are tools. They are not the user himself.


This again does not say that a weapon can be integral part of the user.

More importantly, it does not PRECLUDE or EXCLUDE integral parts of the user from being considered weapons. I'm with you on the noodle thing, though. Hell, make it a run for somebody to do that, because their Johnson's boss wants an ironic end to the mark.

IMHO that is not needed because in my understanding of plain English. It is even in the name itself. Unarmed combat means combat without arms (in the sense of weapons, not limbs obviously)

Your opinion is superceded by both the dictionary definition, as well as rules as written. Unarmed combat is using the user's own body, not attacking without a weapon (RAW you provided). Restating, opinion is moot in the face of rules and definition provided.

I meant that being able to deal damage is necessary for something to be classified as a weapon but not sufficient. Otherwise everything that deals damage is a weapon.

I'll agree, dealing damage isn't sufficient. Dealing damage PURPOSEFULLY is, by provided definitions, and that, of course, would INCLUDE a person's own body as a possible weapon, as well as intangibles that don't even have physical form.

They are still separate objects. They only canot be targeted separtely by magic.

Many swordsmen would disagree, as would a few marksmen. The hand is the killer, the sword is but an echo.

There you have it. Distinct. The tool must be distinct from the user. A hand is not.

previously disproven by both RAW and dictionary definition.

@Stahlseele: Yes that's what the rules say. What it does not say is that hands and feet are weapons. Armed and unarmed melee attacks have been handled differently in SR for several editions. So there is nothing new.

The rules in SR4 DO NOT SAY that hands and feet ARE NOT weapons. Damage value IS provided for standard unarmed AND augmented unarmed attacks. By your rationale, that would contradict your point. Not mentioning something is not the same as specifically excluding it. Unarmed attacks are at least mentioned by damage code.

[rules lawyering]The book suggests that limbs are not weapons:
If limbs (of a troll) were weapons they would be included among weapons. So at least those limbs are separate from weapons.

The other problem is that the rules in Arsenal call for weapons with reach 0 or 1. All weapons and unarmed attacks without a positive reach are given the property reach - . So by very strict reading unarmed attacks do not qualify.
[/rules lawyering]

This would preclude LISTED weapons from the CORE RULE BOOK from being weapons, which they obviously are: Forearm Snapblade, Knife, Survival Knife, Sap, and Shock Glove. (SR4.5 pg 315, listed on the bottom of the page)

HOWEVER, stress again HOWEVER,

According to Arsenal, it WOULD include Unarmed Attacks using the Kick special maneuver (adds +1 reach to an Unarmed Attack). Your rules lawyering would support unarmed attacks being considered weapons, while depriving separate implements, both well-known and obscure, of the classification.

But I guess we have to agree to disagree here. I'm out of that part of the discussion.

*hands Automaton the thread*

Just as well.

[Automaton]

Do you have access to the Martial arts rules in arsenal ?

they offer some flavour and are not *ALL* broken or OP. without just doubling up on the number of attacks and thus doubling potential DV.

alternatively, you could allow the splitting of dice pools for multiple attacks vs the same target ..
RAW allows versus multiple targets, but it's only a step further to allow against the same guy.

@Rubic,
Seriously can we get this topic back to what I started it for instead of mega posts of unrelated discussions and opinions? Thanks.


@Mach_Ten,
I do have Arsenal yes. got the hardcover. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) The martial arts rules do offer some fun and useful options to add to your melee capabilities thats absolutely true. But it doesn't solve the "problem"

Allowing splitting up the dice pull on one target is a possibility, but it makes it a lot easier to dodge/block for the target. And melee is a lot easier to dodge then a bullet.

[Rubic]

sorry. Back on topic.

If I was going to make a change (legit or house-ruled), I'd say that a firearm in melee is subject to parrying. I'd also provide rules for pistol-whipping or rifle-butting somebody, either Improvised or Clubs as the skill, or an Arsenal-style maneuver that allows the Firearm Skill to be used to make that attack.

For Firearms, I'd house rule:

Unaimed Shot (Simple action), -2 or -3 dice to your attack, due to firing without taking proper aim. Does not stack with Attacker in Melee or Burst Fire, though it does stack with other modifiers.

Normal Shot (Complex action, Special: Simple action), normal roll, having at least sighted the target before pulling the trigger. If the target doesn't move much (is hiding behind cover, falls prone, is unconscious, etc), you can make further attacks as simple actions. Sighting a new target, or following a moving target, makes it a complex action again.

I know, this might be cumbersome to read, but it means you have to actually TRY to keep somebody in your sights, and makes shooting from the hip as difficult as it should be.

[Mach_Ten]

@Mach_Ten,
I do have Arsenal yes. got the hardcover. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) The martial arts rules do offer some fun and useful options to add to your melee capabilities thats absolutely true. But it doesn't solve the "problem"

Allowing splitting up the dice pull on one target is a possibility, but it makes it a lot easier to dodge/block for the target. And melee is a lot easier to dodge then a bullet.

well, with some other things like Riposte it looks nice

AGI 8 + Blades 4 + Specialize 2 + Personal Grip 1 for example 15 DP

if you split that you get 2 attacks @ 6/6 then add in the modifiers which goes to 9/9 or 11/9 on a charge (I'd personally only apply the +2 once for the first attack but up to you)

and not forgetting the defence is lowered by one for the second chop and they are at -1 to shoot you AND -3 to shoot at anyone else

AND then reach on top for + dice or minus defense ..

and if you do enough you can knock them down and have +3 for better ground etc.

so your one attck at 17 ish DP can go to 2 attacks at 16/14 !! depending on situation

there's a lot to consider

[Automaton]

sorry. Back on topic.

If I was going to make a change (legit or house-ruled), I'd say that a firearm in melee is subject to parrying. I'd also provide rules for pistol-whipping or rifle-butting somebody, either Improvised or Clubs as the skill, or an Arsenal-style maneuver that allows the Firearm Skill to be used to make that attack.

For Firearms, I'd house rule:

Unaimed Shot (Simple action), -2 or -3 dice to your attack, due to firing without taking proper aim. Does not stack with Attacker in Melee or Burst Fire, though it does stack with other modifiers.

Normal Shot (Complex action, Special: Simple action), normal roll, having at least sighted the target before pulling the trigger. If the target doesn't move much (is hiding behind cover, falls prone, is unconscious, etc), you can make further attacks as simple actions. Sighting a new target, or following a moving target, makes it a complex action again.

I know, this might be cumbersome to read, but it means you have to actually TRY to keep somebody in your sights, and makes shooting from the hip as difficult as it should be.

Thats actually pretty cool. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Instead of messing with the melee rules, change the ranged rules. I'll show this the group to see what they think about it.
I like the idea of fast shooting from the hip being less acurate and a simple action, while actual aming and tracking of your target being a complex action. Thats quite true to real life too.

Thanks for the input!

[Automaton]

well, with some other things like Riposte it looks nice

AGI 8 + Blades 4 + Specialize 2 + Personal Grip 1 for example 15 DP

if you split that you get 2 attacks @ 6/6 then add in the modifiers which goes to 9/9 or 11/9 on a charge (I'd personally only apply the +2 once for the first attack but up to you)

and not forgetting the defence is lowered by one for the second chop and they are at -1 to shoot you AND -3 to shoot at anyone else

AND then reach on top for + dice or minus defense ..

and if you do enough you can knock them down and have +3 for better ground etc.

so your one attck at 17 ish DP can go to 2 attacks at 16/14 !! depending on situation

there's a lot to consider

I needed to read all that a couple times and look them upt.
You're right, you can get the dice up quite a bit like this, which makes splitting the dicepool a more effective possibility.

[RHat]

well, with some other things like Riposte it looks nice

AGI 8 + Blades 4 + Specialize 2 + Personal Grip 1 for example 15 DP

if you split that you get 2 attacks @ 6/6 then add in the modifiers which goes to 9/9 or 11/9 on a charge (I'd personally only apply the +2 once for the first attack but up to you)

and not forgetting the defence is lowered by one for the second chop and they are at -1 to shoot you AND -3 to shoot at anyone else

AND then reach on top for + dice or minus defense ..

and if you do enough you can knock them down and have +3 for better ground etc.

so your one attck at 17 ish DP can go to 2 attacks at 16/14 !! depending on situation

there's a lot to consider

Or: Agility 8 + Blades 6 + Improved Ability 3 + Specialize 2 + Personal Grip 1 + Weapon Focus 4, for a total of 24. Or, if making multiple attacks, 17 split to 9/8, with modifiers bringing those up to 16/15. Or three attacks at 13/13/12. Or four attacks at 12/11/11/11.

[Mach_Ten]

Or: Agility 8 + Blades 6 + Improved Ability 3 + Specialize 2 + Personal Grip 1 + Weapon Focus 4, for a total of 24. Or, if making multiple attacks, 17 split to 9/8, with modifiers bringing those up to 16/15. Or three attacks at 13/13/12. Or four attacks at 12/11/11/11.

yup and every slice lowers their defence against the next and any other guys that want to shoot at him ... you don't NEED to hit .. you just make him stand still while the guy with a big gun blows his head off !

actually thinking about it logically

you would not do four attacks at 12/11/11/11.

you would do 5 or 6 at 5/5/5/5/5/17

otherwuise notated : glance/glance glance/glance/glance/OVERHEADCHOPPYSMITEOFDOOM!

actually, all things considered there needs to be a limiting factor ... maybe you have 10 agility, but your logic or intuition only allows you to make a certain number of attacks per CT splitting this way, otherwise combat is going to be SLOW.

can only make a dice pool split to the lowest of your mental attributes (INT, LOG, WIL)

INT 3 is lowest can only split to 3 attacks

[RHat]

You can only split a melee dice pool to attack multiple targets, though - unless using two weapons, in which case you can get two attacks against one target. So there's already a limiter. There's also the limited amount of dice pool modifiers - Personalized Grip, Specialization, Reach, Weapon Focus, and the Attune Item metamagic.

Now, that does mean you can give a Troll 7 AGI, 6 Blades, Spec, Grip, Claymore Weapon Focus 4, Improved Ability, and total Reach 3. Pre-split pool is 15, modifiers come to 10. Can cleave through 5 people at 13 dice against each. Once he gets some serious progression (Initiate Grade 4, Attune Item, Magic 8, Weapon Focus (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) , he gets modifiers totaling out to 16, so now those five attacks are at 19. At chargen, you can SURGE for Metagenetic Improvement and Elongated Limbs, letting you get the base pool up to 18 and the progressed modifiers up to 17.

Bigass troll with a Claymore? I suggest scatter.

[Mach_Ten]

You can only split a melee dice pool to attack multiple targets, though - unless using two weapons, in which case you can get two attacks against one target. So there's already a limiter. There's also the limited amount of dice pool modifiers - Personalized Grip, Specialization, Reach, Weapon Focus, and the Attune Item metamagic.

yes in RAW but we are talking about a Houserule here to make melee simple for His game only

and theorestically you can split a ATT 8 + Skill 4 pool into 12 iterative attacks and then add situation mods to each

that would be ridiculously boring and long winded

or Maybe the number of skill points in the Melee being used could be the limit, blades 4 = only 4 separate attacks?

[RHat]

yes in RAW but we are talking about a Houserule here to make melee simple for His game only

and theorestically you can split a ATT 8 + Skill 4 pool into 12 iterative attacks and then add situation mods to each

that would be ridiculously boring and long winded

or Maybe the number of skill points in the Melee being used could be the limit, blades 4 = only 4 separate attacks?

Firearms are limited in the same basic way, though - your simply action lets you attack once per weapon. May as well mirror the two.

[Falconer]

Rhat:
You can't use item attunement on a weapon focus.

That trick is primarily used by gun adepts since weapon foci only work for melee combat. But item attunement works for either and non-combat as well. It's simply weaker until you get a very high initiate grade... and won't help you in astral combat like a weapon foci would.

[RHat]

Rhat:
You can't use item attunement on a weapon focus.

That trick is primarily used by gun adepts since weapon foci only work for melee combat. But item attunement works for either and non-combat as well. It's simply weaker until you get a very high initiate grade... and won't help you in astral combat like a weapon foci would.

Aha, must have missed that sentence. Thanks for pointing that out. Pretty minor different overall, though - only 2 dice per test coming off the progressed version.

[Rubic]

Thats actually pretty cool. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Instead of messing with the melee rules, change the ranged rules. I'll show this the group to see what they think about it.
I like the idea of fast shooting from the hip being less acurate and a simple action, while actual aming and tracking of your target being a complex action. Thats quite true to real life too.

Thanks for the input!

Considering I gave the idea, I would also like to clarify:

If you have a Ranged Attacker in Melee penalty going on, you disregard "Unaimed Shot." The current rules pretty much take that situation into account, anyways. Sighting the target and maintaining the target are, essentially, taking up a simple action in this way.

Example:
Detective Sterling has tracked a dangerous criminal to a not-so-abandoned warehouse. There's no time for her to call in back up through the official channels. Fortunately, she knows some people who are quick to respond for a "reasonable fee." Her team quickly gathers in the area, while she takes the time to scout out the warehouse with a Lone Star Eyeball. Since it was late at night, only a janitor was around, and her mark has already killed the poor guy. A minute and a half later, her heavy support is standing at her side, and a few more drones give them a good tactical layout of the area.

They move into position, but not without alerting their target. Their target bursts out from a door, letting loose two blind shots from his Super Warhawk. With 5 Agi + 4 Firearms + 2 Smartlink +2 Personlized Grip, -2 for Running, -4 Target behind cover -2 for not lining up his shots = dice pool of 5, then 4 (recoil). One of his shots goes wild, the second manages to sink in to the Street Sam through some boxes, denting his cyberarm.

Detective Sterling lines up her Manhunter, and though she's no true markswoman, she squeezes off a single shot with 3 Agi, +2 Pistols +2 specialty +2 Smartlink -1 firing from Cover and a nice +3 from the TacNet the team is running = 11 dice. She lands a solid hit, which her mark soaks about half, and we'd bother calculating, except ShyGuy, their friend on a nearby building, has been tracking this scumbag since the TacNet went up.

With a 5 (7) Agi + 5 Longarms +2 specialty in Rifles +2 Skill Boost (adept) +2 Smartlink +2 Personalized Grip, +3 for Aiming before the guy left the building +3 for the TacNet for 26 dice easily from his sniper nest. The mark goes down hard, only barely alive after a good soak roll. ShyGuy doesn't personally like this sort of scum, and since the mark isn't moving anymore, he can double-tap for only the cumulative Recoil penalty, offset by his Recoil Compensation. No plea bargain for this organ donor.

They wipe their presence away and disappear into the night, knowing she'll keep her end of the bargain. The RRT shows up to chastise Sterling about chasing this guy alone. The chief will be upset that his would-be informant died "crossing into the wrong gang's turf." He'll rage about it for a few weeks and make everybody in the precinct uncomfortable. He'll also be too upset to pay attention to the evidence locker for a while, making payment that much easier for the good detective.

Not the best example, I know, but it does present the rules in a basic format. Then again, it might be considered excessive when you look at all of the OTHER negatives that show up in the combat section.

[RHat]

I just have two questions:

1: Why is Personalized Grip (a recoil compensator) being added as a dice pool bonus?
2: Why is it valued at 2?