IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Skills and specializations, in combat
odinson
post Jul 7 2007, 07:41 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 410
Joined: 5-April 07
From: Vancouver, BC
Member No.: 11,383



So with the melee combat skills do the specializations apply equally to defense?

For instance clubs(batons) you get the +2 when attacking and defending with batons?
This makes sense in that you are limited to one weapon in the group.

How about unarmed? If you have unarmed(martial arts) would you get the +2 for attacking and defense? why would they have a parrying specialization then? would there be a point in not taking a specialization in martial arts, excluding a cyber implant?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glyph
post Jul 7 2007, 08:27 AM
Post #2


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,116
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,449



I think "martial arts" is a dumb specialization, both because unarmed combat already is martial arts (it's like having a specialization of "pointy" for blades), and because it's so pointlessly nebulous. I would rather have it simply be "attacking", giving people the option of specializing in attack, defense, grappling, or cyber-implants.

I definitely agree that a martial arts specialization should not give a bonus to both attack and defense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gothic Rose
post Jul 7 2007, 08:39 AM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 355
Joined: 3-October 05
From: Ann Arbor, MI
Member No.: 7,803



I imagine that you would choose the sort of martial art that you specialize in, and that would determine where the bonus goes - offensive forms that focus on dealing damage and being quick on the attack would give it to hit, whereas defensive forms with emphasis on blocking/parrying would get it on the parry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Jul 7 2007, 08:40 AM
Post #4


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



If you feel it's a problem, you could (a) limit it so that a character only gets to use his "martial arts" specialization if he's fighting against someone else with a "martial arts" specialiation. It's not that much less stupid, of course, but maybe against a wild-eyed back alley brawler he just doesn't know what to do (because he practices against people that "know how to throw a proper strike" so often). Or, (b), simply have the character choose when taking the specialization whether they want their "martial art" to be an offensive or defensive style, and then determine that the +2 dice only counts for either attacking or defending.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
odinson
post Jul 7 2007, 09:43 AM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 410
Joined: 5-April 07
From: Vancouver, BC
Member No.: 11,383



There already is a specialization for parry though. so giving +2 to parry would be redundant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rotbart van Dain...
post Jul 7 2007, 09:56 AM
Post #6


Hoppelhäschen 5000
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951



So, basically, it's the nonexistant 'Attack' Specialisation for me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Jul 7 2007, 09:59 AM
Post #7


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



Isn't there a difference between "parry" and "block," somewhere in the rules? I thought I saw a difference between the two manuevers, somewhere. One was only used against weapons, one only used against unarmed, maybe? I dunno. I remember them being two different options, though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rotbart van Dain...
post Jul 7 2007, 10:22 AM
Post #8


Hoppelhäschen 5000
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951



One was for armed, one was for unarmed... on the using side.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th May 2024 - 01:34 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.