IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> dual weilding, a sword and a gun
djinni
post Feb 9 2007, 05:53 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 777
Joined: 22-November 06
Member No.: 9,934



so a player wants to dual wield...no problem, he's read the rules.
problem is he wants to wield a ranged and a melee weapon at the same time
Complex action melee attack - Monowhip
Simple action ranged attack - Ares Predator

so what do you think happens?
make one melee attack (half lowest pool), and two ranged attacks? (half lowest pool -2 per additional target?)

would you add reflex recorders after the dice pool split? or before?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RunnerPaul
post Feb 9 2007, 06:00 AM
Post #2


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,086
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 364



I wasn't aware that you could combine a complex action that uses one skill and two simple actions that use a seperate skill to get one complex action.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Garrowolf
post Feb 9 2007, 06:06 AM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 2-October 06
From: Athens Ga
Member No.: 9,517



personally I made melee attacks and unarmed attacks into standard actions. Grappling can turn into a complex action. This made more sense then the RAW to me and it allowed for more martial arts action. I got rid of the split dice pool stuff because it was too much when combined.

Then you let them make an attack for each action without allowing the spliting and it works out fine.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jack Kain
post Feb 9 2007, 06:16 AM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 906
Joined: 16-October 06
Member No.: 9,630



Here is how I'd imagine it work. IF and only if its possilbe

Say you roll 10 dice for monowhips normally
and 8 dice for pistols.

First you'd use the lower of the two skills as your base per dual dual wielding rules.
So pistols

You'd get four dice for two shots with the pistol (recoil and additional targets may apply) and one melee attack.

Reflex Recorders I believe are added afterwards.

Personally I think it be to much of a head ace
My elf wields a Monowhip and a machine pistol. He uses the machine pistol for guys he can't reach and the monowhip for anyone close by. He never uses both during the same Initiative Pass.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pyritefoolsgold
post Feb 9 2007, 06:19 AM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 1-February 07
Member No.: 10,861



In that case, I think he's going to have to settle for using them one at a time.

Now if he picked a simple action melee weapon, I think he could combine them into a complex action, one for one.

But as it is, a monowhip is a complicated thing to control, and I really can't imagine using one while shooting a gun simultaneously.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiskeyMac
post Feb 9 2007, 06:43 AM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 433
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Somewhere in Iraq
Member No.: 1,789



All melee weapon attacks are complex actions. I would probably make it where they can defend with the melee weapon if they already used a simple action to fire their firearm. If they use the melee weapon first then they just have to wait for the next turn to fire their firearm. Just my opinion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Garrowolf
post Feb 9 2007, 06:58 AM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 2-October 06
From: Athens Ga
Member No.: 9,517



Well the way I look at it is:

Can I punch twice in three seconds? Yes.
The rules say I can't. Well the rules are wrong.

Simple reality check.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiskeyMac
post Feb 9 2007, 07:10 AM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 433
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Somewhere in Iraq
Member No.: 1,789



Yeah, you can but can you also hit 2 times in 3 seconds when your target is ducking, weaving and punching at you? It makes sense that you can do the attack but the rules aren't just punch, hit, punch, hit. It's abstract. The 1 attack per 3 seconds just represents actually connecting with one of those hits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jack Kain
post Feb 9 2007, 08:29 AM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 906
Joined: 16-October 06
Member No.: 9,630



QUOTE (Garrowolf)
Well the way I look at it is:

Can I punch twice in three seconds? Yes.
The rules say I can't. Well the rules are wrong.

Simple reality check.

The game makes it out to be there are multiple hits involved
Its not one swing in that 3 second period. (assuming they have only on IP) Its several,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Garrowolf
post Feb 9 2007, 09:05 AM
Post #10


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 2-October 06
From: Athens Ga
Member No.: 9,517



that logic works the other way and could be said of shooting too. It's up to you but it seems like it is cool to be able to kick a gun out of someone's hand and then stab them. Or you could disarm and shoot someone with their own gun. I think that it makes the game more cinematic and fun. So far it hasn't broken the game either.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lorechaser
post Feb 9 2007, 03:42 PM
Post #11


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,333
Joined: 19-August 06
From: Austin
Member No.: 9,168



QUOTE (Garrowolf)
that logic works the other way and could be said of shooting too. It's up to you but it seems like it is cool to be able to kick a gun out of someone's hand and then stab them. Or you could disarm and shoot someone with their own gun. I think that it makes the game more cinematic and fun. So far it hasn't broken the game either.

A gun fight is a lot shorter than a knife fight or a fist fight, most of the time.

But you can still do the things you listed, you simply split your dice pool. It's not optimal, agreed, but it's possible under the current rules.

That being said, I'm not sure I agree with the complex action for melee either, I just haven't been willing to test it. ;)

For the OP, I would say that combining the two is a suboptimal choice, but you could make a single attack with each, at half of your lowest dice pool. That's the simpliest method of resolving it, but not the most optimal.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spike
post Feb 9 2007, 09:09 PM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 941
Joined: 25-January 07
Member No.: 10,765



So, now I have a question, and I'm too lazy to do the research (no, really, my book is MILES away... could take twenty minutes to get there...)

Is there any rule against splitting dicepools for complex actions?

So:

I do a melee thing.. complex action, no big. But I dual weild, say... Katana!... I split dice pool for my blade attack and roll two attacks, one for each hand!

If that's not illegal (and if it is, then SR4 has some 'splainin' to do....)... then extrapolate it out. Sure, split your dice pool (the smaller pool, natch) and now your half a complex action becomes shot a fool in the face instead of chopsocky number two.

Only one shot, because it's a split complex action, not a split simple action. You go with the 'higher level' action, just as you go with the 'smaller dice pool' gets split, unless I hallucinated that too...

Which makes me wonder what the official ruling is on intitiating a complex action with your second simple action of an IP. One of those "I just spent this simple action getting into place to go Kung Fu on his ass, but now I have to stand there staring at him like a dope with a simple action left, cause Its too complex to start swinging???" situations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jack Kain
post Feb 9 2007, 09:36 PM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 906
Joined: 16-October 06
Member No.: 9,630



There is no point in dual wielding two katanas if you have one single katana you can split the dice pool to attack multiple times.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Moon-Hawk
post Feb 9 2007, 09:38 PM
Post #14


Genuine Artificial Intelligence
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715



QUOTE (Jack Kain)
There is no point in dual wielding two katanas if you have one single katana you can split the dice pool to attack multiple times.

True.

Hey, maybe that's why no one ever uses two katanas in real life. :-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spike
post Feb 9 2007, 09:39 PM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 941
Joined: 25-January 07
Member No.: 10,765



You are missing two things, Jack...

One is Style.

The second thing is all the ... and ! I used. It's not katana, its .....Katana!!....

Keep your geek cred alive, nothing is cooler than a dikoted, tank killing katana that TWO!!! :grinbig:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Feb 9 2007, 09:40 PM
Post #16


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



sometimes, in order to have good style, you have to sacrifice substance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pyritefoolsgold
post Feb 9 2007, 10:37 PM
Post #17


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 1-February 07
Member No.: 10,861



QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
QUOTE (Jack Kain @ Feb 9 2007, 04:36 PM)
There is no point in dual wielding two katanas if you have one single katana you can split the dice pool to attack multiple times.

True.

Hey, maybe that's why no one ever uses two katanas in real life. :-)

I know of at least one martial arts sensei who specializes in two-katana fighting.I've attempted a bit of practice with my pair of Boken, and while I can see it being possible with years of practice, I'm nowhere near being able to use it in combat against a skilled opponent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spike
post Feb 9 2007, 11:09 PM
Post #18


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 941
Joined: 25-January 07
Member No.: 10,765



Of course, in real history, Musashi wasn't a two Katana freak, he used, and advocated, the small sword (wakizashi) as the off hand weapon, and never used his two sword style against a single opponent. The purpose, to the venerable master of swordplay, was to use the two weapons to herd lesser opponents into your killing zone. It was all about battlespace management back before the buzzword concept was invented. ;)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Butterblume
post Feb 9 2007, 11:33 PM
Post #19


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 19-December 05
From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex
Member No.: 8,081



I remember a story where Musashi in fact used two weapons against a single opponent, namely Shishido Baiken, who wielded a Kusarigama (don't know the english word for it, in german it's a 'Kugel-Ketten-Sichel', verbatim 'ball-chain-sickle').
Of course, the story might not exactly be accurate :D. On the other hand, it is said this encounter gave him ideas for the two weapon fighting style *shrug*.

In SR, using a melee weapon and a gun simultaneously can get complicated, e.g. normally there is this penalty for using a gun while in melee.

So, after reading through the earlier ideas, I would probably split the lowest dicepool, and allow only one shot, but without the melee modifier. Of course, this would mean people wielding only one gun would be able to shoot without penalty in melee too, but since that would require a complex action instead of a simple one, I think that would be OK.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spike
post Feb 10 2007, 12:33 AM
Post #20


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 941
Joined: 25-January 07
Member No.: 10,765



Well, the absolute 'never' might be pushing it. I was basing my comments off of what I recall of the man, and his own words on the subject, which may or may not have included the word 'never'.

Of course, I don't recall any historicity to samurai duels with Kusarigama but it does make for good storytelling. About the only thing I think that has any historical weight is the fact he killed a man with a boat oar. I think to prove a point more than anything else...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Garrowolf
post Feb 10 2007, 03:57 AM
Post #21


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 2-October 06
From: Athens Ga
Member No.: 9,517



Instead of splitting the dice pools, why not require a high skill level in order to duel wield? That would fit with the observations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djinni
post Feb 10 2007, 07:51 AM
Post #22


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 777
Joined: 22-November 06
Member No.: 9,934



QUOTE (Garrowolf)
Instead of splitting the dice pools, why not require a high skill level in order to duel wield? That would fit with the observations.

the rules precedence for splitting the dicepools is already there.
you need high dicepools in order to be effective at splitting
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ornot
post Feb 10 2007, 01:14 PM
Post #23


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,266
Joined: 3-June 06
From: UK
Member No.: 8,638



The way I read the rules a character isn't able to split complex actions up into bits. The rule about splitting melee combat dice pools is in order to attack multiple opponents with the same complex action.

Slashing someone with a sword or a monofilament whip precludes you from shooting them in the same action phase. Someone jacked up on stimulants or 'ware might be able to kick the gun out of a guards hand and then shoot him by virtue of using the first pass to disarm him in melee, and the second pass to pop a couple of caps into him.

Of course you're entitled to do whatever you like in your game, but remember the -3 dice penalty for using ranged weapons in melee will deplete his dice pool still further.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2024 - 04:49 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.