 Non-Ranged Combat, Does it really suck so much? |
  |
 May 23 2007, 08:21 PM
Post
#126
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,174 Joined: 13-May 04 From: UCAS Member No.: 6,327  |
In the world of Shadowrun where normal folks can jack themselves up either with magic or cyber or drugs to be on par with the best athletes in the world, I'd say the stand off range would increase. If lots of criminals can do the 40 yards in 4.2 (or faster with cyber/magic), and some of them are troll sized, maybe armored (or even be regenerating)... oh gawd, just shoot first and ask questions later if you're within even 40 feet...
|
 |
 
|
|
May 23 2007, 08:24 PM
Post
#127
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 433 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Somewhere in Iraq Member No.: 1,789 |
But remember: "A moving target only has the illusion of safety. It's when someone yells "Pull!" that the illusion disappears and you realize you're just another skeet."
|
|
|
|
|
May 23 2007, 08:32 PM
Post
#128
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765 |
Assault rifles are notoriously problematic. Their wounding potential, typically with the FMJ bullets that are manufactured for them, is little, if any, better than a common handgun. Note the 36 kindergarten children (35 and one teacher?) by an AK-47 in... um... California? 86% survived. These are 5 year olds, man. Body of 1 candidates if ever there were any. You know, the age group where being shaken vigorously can kill... Shotguns now, particularly when loaded with buckshot (rather than birdshot) seem to produce 86% casualties... the inverse. While I can't provide the handly linky-link btw, the shool shooting is only representative, not the sole source of data. Shootings with military assault rifles tend to produce many injuries and few fatalities. Shootings with shotguns tend to be massacres. Of note, the Platt-Matix shooting, the main injury producing weapon used by the duo was the 'Mini-14' firing a 5.56mm nato (.223 calibre in reports) round. Of the Seven? wounded agents, only the two shot point blank in their car were killed. One survivor was shot while on the ground in the groin. Hunting rifles, typically using softer, expanding bullets are much better casualty producers. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 23 2007, 08:44 PM
Post
#129
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 168 Joined: 23-April 07 From: Aurora, CO Member No.: 11,514 |
That is due to the nature of how wars are fought. Assault rifles are primarily used in conventional wars (at least they were developed that way) and in a conventional war it is better to wound other (conventional) soldiers than it is to kill them because you dramatically reduce the number of people on the battlefield. If one person is wounded then it can take 2-3 people to deal with him, meaning you have removed up to 4 people from the fight. Shotguns are a different story and are more the hunting and self defense where it is better to kill so you can eat or survive respectively. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 23 2007, 08:48 PM
Post
#130
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 28-April 07 Member No.: 11,557 |
I really have no problem with melee being much less efficient, points-wise, than firearms.
Disregard the whole sword-vs-pistol-at-whatever-range argument. I've studied a few martial arts, and done a little pistol shooting, and it frankly is a LOT harder to become competent in any hand-to-hand combat vs. combat shooting. The karma costs to become more or less equal in a fight reflects that, and that's fine by me. If you want to be a melee specialist, you need to use another weapon to get an edge over a firearms wielder -- your brain. I mean really, this is SHADOWrun, you should be tricky and stealthy already, no? :) |
|
|
|
|
May 23 2007, 09:20 PM
Post
#131
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 5 Joined: 21-May 07 Member No.: 11,708 |
Might that have something to do with the incredibly advanced emergency medical care available to the general public these days? As others have pointed out, it takes a while for somone to die from their injuries unless you do some serious damage to the heart, brain, or an artery. I had to do a research project a few years ago about medical technology employed in the American Civil War. Of the 250,000 or so battlefield injuries treated by the Union, only about 950 were the result of edged weapons. Edged weapons being knives, sabers, bayonets, and even pikes if you can believe it. You'd think that it would be higher given the images we have of bayonet charges and cavalry charges with sabers, but no, for the most part when combat was close quarters they preferred using their carbines or revolvers. I formed two theories, though I never did any research to follow it up. #1. Maybe there were fewer injuries because once you close in for hand to hand combat you were more likely to just outright kill your foe. I don't chalk this up to a bayonet doing more damage but my theory is that the nature of hand to hand fighting is a bit more personal. If I drop a guy in a blue uniform from 100 yards I'm not very likely to walk up and shoot him in the head. Once he's down he's down. On the other hand, if I'm engaged in vicious hand to hand combat and I stab a blue belly, well, I bet I might just stab him two or three more times. To the best of my knowledge, there are no reliable statistics about what killed soldiers on the battlefield at this time. #2. Perhaps by the time a bayonet or saber charge made contact with the enemy one of two things happened. The chargers were repelled or the chargees broke and either surrendered or gave up the field. It's tough to engage someone in hand to hand combat when they just turn tail and run as fast as they can. Maybe my musings are veering off topic. I suppose there are some very specific situations where a melee weapon would be better than a firearm. I don't think those situations are all that common though. If someone were out to kill me and I was given the choice between a knife, or a sword, axe, or polearm, and a Colt .45 Peacemaker I'd go with the Colt every time. Marc |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 23 2007, 09:58 PM
Post
#132
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
That's the one I'd vote for. I've heard that theory discussed before (though never with real numbers). The other thing to consider about the numbers is that dead people don't seem to have been counted. So if you got killed by a bayonet charge, or bled to death before anyone collected the injured, you don't show up. And I suspect that getting stuck a couple times with a bayonet is pretty darn lethal. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 23 2007, 11:14 PM
Post
#133
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765 |
I am well aware of that. The low lethality of assualt rifle ammunition is one of the primary reasons they are often banned for hunting. It's inhumane to shoot an animal and leave it to die slowly of blood loss. Health care seems to have been less a factor in the schoolyard shooting. The fatalities, by all reports, were DOA in every case while the exact number of 'barely saved' are not reported, but the information I had (damn my faulty memory... I didn't think I'd be citing it so soon after...) suggests that all the wounded were not essentially at serious risk. Comparatively, I mean. They were shot after all. The point being I don't believe anyone recieved a 'miracle save' from medical personnel. Irony, however: Given the statistics I provided for comparative lethality in shootings, the Platt-Matix story I've returned too did involve both shotguns and an assualt rifle. Of the four fatalities, two were directly caused by the assualt rifle and none by the shotguns... A demonstration that real life often does the opposite of what it 'should'. :S |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 23 2007, 11:37 PM
Post
#134
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 98 Joined: 26-July 05 Member No.: 7,517 |
MGibster/Marc,
Thanks for the kind reply. It can be easy to get a little heated on these boards, and I'm not immune myself, as evidenced by my somewhat glacial remarks there towards the end. Anyway, I'm glad we've worked it out. :) To the comments about the relative difficulty in learning firearms vs. Hand-to-hand being a reason for more karma cost: The BBB itself clearly states that sometimes reality should take a backseat for game balance. This is a *game*, and good games are *balanced.* If there's something in the game that nobody takes except for RP purposes, something is out of whack. Melee and cyberarms were the two things that fit that mold in my game. Now all of my players consider picking up some melee, not just the guy who's bent on being the star of the next Kill Bill or Assassin's Creed. I signed on to play Shadowrun, not ShadowGun. Other arguments aside, can anyone argue (who's played past editions) that melee in general is not now weaker than it has ever been? In SR3 I could make a troll at chargen who did something around 20S damage with a vibro-blade. There were other builds just as bad. That's missile damage we're talking there. But in all your games, did melee suddenly trump ranged just because it could do obscene damage? Were the previous editions better, or worse for having good melee? I'd argue that I could quadruple the current damage of melee and it wouldn't change the nature of the game; guns will always be more desirable in a general sense for a variety of reasons. If before nobody I knew thought of melee as more than a joke, and now they are considering taking it, then I think I've done my job as a DM. As a final thought, I would put forth that the more viable options a game has for effectiveness, the more colorful and interesting it will be. OSUMacbeth |
|
|
|
|
May 24 2007, 12:53 AM
Post
#135
|
|||||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 5 Joined: 21-May 07 Member No.: 11,708 |
Thank goodness, I was afraid that we would have been making plans for pistols and broadswords at dawn. That just wouldn't do, what with my hectic schedule and fear of pain.
This is something I can certainly get behind. Depending on the genre of the game, I don't necessarily care all that much about realism. I mean we're talking about Shadowrun, a game where there are elves and trolls slinging spells in the near future where Native Americans have reclaimed some of their land. Personally, I find all that a bit more unbelieveable than melee versus firearms. The most important thing in a game like Shadowrun, to me, is whether or not the rules are fun to use and can I do cool stuff. Quite frankly, realism takes a backseat to the cool factor.
I wouldn't dream of making a Street Samurai, or any other character for that matter, who didn't have at least some skill in unarmed or melee fighting. You never know when you're going to need it. Marc |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
May 24 2007, 01:12 AM
Post
#136
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 24-March 05 From: On a ledge between Heaven and Hell Member No.: 7,226 |
One of the people where I work goes black bear hunting every year with a Bow and .45 backup. He tends to be treated politely at all times. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 24 2007, 01:23 AM
Post
#137
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,159 Joined: 12-April 07 From: Ork Underground Member No.: 11,440 |
Well if said black bear hunter has made more than one such hunting trip, then he would be defined in my book as "Competent" at least. :) And yes that means I try and not get on his "Bad Side" if I can help it. :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 24 2007, 01:53 AM
Post
#138
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
Me too. But except for adepts with weapon focuses (who will got to town on spirits, etc) going to unarmed or knives is what you do when you have no choice. It's the last ditch fallback plan, not the primary plan. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 24 2007, 02:43 AM
Post
#139
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 6,361 |
I've had some particularly deadly melee characters. Just Ask Roni about my monofiliment fountain pen of DOOM™. I took down three high stat gangers in a single pass. And I was a Mage that focused on astral combat and stealth (including the astral).
|
|
|
|
|
May 24 2007, 03:20 AM
Post
#140
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 98 Joined: 26-July 05 Member No.: 7,517 |
Yes. I am not surprised. One of my contentions is that the monowhip is too-powerful in relation to other melee weapons, to the point that only trolls really benefit from using anything else. A maxed str maxed agi human wielding a mono-sword will be outdamaged by a human wielding a whip with only agi maxed. When you consider the concealability of a mono-whip vs, well almost anything else, why would anyone ever not use it? The odds of even a decent character critically glitching are small, and if you have edge you don't have to worry about it. In a RAW game, no way would I ever use anything else (except for RP reasons.)
OSUMacbeth |
|
|
|
|
May 24 2007, 04:20 AM
Post
#141
|
|||||||||
|
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361 |
I disagree that the point you are making is the point they were trying to make, although I suppose I could be mistaken. :cyber:
I agree totally, which is why I consider such anecdotes to be competely worthless in the context of likely battlefield results, I might as well bring in anecdotes about some of the stunts one of my neighbors used to pull with firearms and expect them to hold water. (And please note that I did make a point of deriding the pro-gun anecdote a poster wrote about how easily he was able to beat the 21 foot rule, if I remember correctly I called it a "cowboy test" and useless.) <><><><><><><><><><>
Then do you remember typing and still stand by the following? (Bold Facing added of course.)
Also if you read closely you'll note that I didn't say that you claimed 'first hand expertise' with the 21 foot rule at any time, but your claims about it went a fair bit further then proclaiming its existance as fact. (And we won't go into you trying to use an anecdote about prison shankings to "prove" your point either.) <><><><><><><><><><> Well to what I imagine will be to everyone's relief I've said my piece and am done, happy hunting and remember to never bring a knife to a gunfight. :biggrin: :wink: :silly: :facelick: |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
May 24 2007, 05:14 AM
Post
#142
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
edit: nm, original post was edited.
i think the best way to look at it is this: if you've got a knife and he's got a gun, it's suicidal to assume you'll win just because you're 21 feet away. if you've got a gun and he's got a knife, it's suicidal to assume you'll win just because he's 21 feet away. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 24 2007, 05:24 AM
Post
#143
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,883 Joined: 16-December 06 Member No.: 10,386 |
Yeah, gotta go with number 2. Never forget that in many ways the American Civil War was a precursor to the entrenched warfare of WWI. Generals only attacked in the Civil War when they couldn't afford to settle for a stalemate or weren't in a position to seige; whichever side had enough time to dig a few shallow holes (almost always the south) to fire from had a ridiculous (at least in the short term) advantage, and a bayonet charge by definition cedes cover. Grant's bloody history as a general can attest to that much; even if he made the right moves to end the war, being the aggressor was ridiculously costly. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 24 2007, 06:11 AM
Post
#144
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,192 Joined: 6-May 07 From: Texas - The RGV Member No.: 11,613 |
The 21-foot rule, more correctly referred to as the Tueller Drill, states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon (or pretty much any melee weapon) can cover a distance of 21 feet.
This has been shown to be true time and time again but is limited by a couple of realities: 1) that the officer has a "typical" level of familiarity with shooting (which means not much at all, to be honest) and 2) that the officer in question is focusing entirely upon drawing his sidearm and putting two to COM rather than drawing while taking aggressive or evasive action. You try this on some of those combat handgunning guys or quick-draw artists who draw and blow off 8 rounds accurately in around one second and your assailant in question is about to have a really bad day at the office. :D Other than this little random factoid, I've seen some good stuff on this subject. Thanks for sharing, everyone. :) Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! ) |
|
|
|
|
May 24 2007, 06:49 AM
Post
#145
|
|||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
You are also talking about Mr Average-would-be-cop-stabber (which means his speed and skills are as good as Mr Average Cop). A good knife artist vs a good quickdraw artist means all bets are off. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 24 2007, 01:01 PM
Post
#146
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,706 Joined: 30-June 06 From: Fort Wayne, IN Member No.: 8,814 |
Ok, since you have down some balancing in your game, are the two biggest factors, to up melee viability, to change it from a complex to simple action and up the DV to full Strength? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 24 2007, 01:13 PM
Post
#147
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
Using straight up strength might give too much advantage to trolls. But getting rid of/nerfing the monowhip and making melee a simple action might be enough. Of course, you still have the problem that close defense if still 3-6 dice greater than ranged defense.
|
|
|
|
|
May 24 2007, 01:23 PM
Post
#148
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,446 Joined: 31-December 06 Member No.: 10,502 |
Couple little comments.
First monowips effectiveness should be mitigated by the fact(at least as I understand their use) that you need a significant amount of space to use them. And you need the area to be relativly obstruction free. Those are the situations where melee does best. While there aren't rules in the books it's just one of those things GMs are expected to come up with modifiers for based on the situation. As for balance I think in a cyberpunk game you shouldn't have melee be balanced to where a broadsword should be a main weapon. Just doesn't feel right. If that's how you want to play you may enjoy the Rifts system. Lots less of that annoying "players trying to make skill rolls to sneak up on stuff" too, as that negates melees biggest problem of your opponent being able to better defend themselves. That said I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have bigger weapons do more damage, to make them more effective when you can use them. I'm guessing arsenal will provide some of that. +something damage from dikote may do it if you want something now. But what I really wanted to do now is test a theory, and since we don't have many threads that fly this fast here this may be my only chance. My theory is when people start arguing with each other in threads they get tunnel vision. They scan through the posts going.... didn't quote more or the other guy, didn't quote me or the other guy, other guy <read>, didn't quote me or the other guy, quoted me <read>, didn't quote me or the other guy, Post. To test this if you actually read this in your next post deliberatly misspell the word "the" by adding an extra h i.e. "thhe" not a common typo, and it should be trivial to slip in. Now I just have to hope the thread keeps flying. |
|
|
|
|
May 24 2007, 01:48 PM
Post
#149
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,838 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,669 |
Interesting, but thhe posters thhat do whhat you ask will sound like thhey hhave a speechh impediment. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
May 24 2007, 02:14 PM
Post
#150
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Whhat was thhat?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 10th December 2025 - 04:52 AM |
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.