Which is more powerful?, Ranged vs Close Combat Options

[klinktastic]

I am a complete nub to the game, but I just want to get an idea of the realitive usefulness and power of both types of combat. Anything thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Klinktastic

[FrankTrollman]

Bullets go farther, have a higher rate of fire, and are harder to parry. Also for most characters even small arms are at least as deadly as any sword they could wield and the high end of ranged combat rather trivially exceeds the capabilities of the high end of melee.

Melee has advantages, but power is not on that list.

-Frank

[Critias]

By default (just like in real life, most of the time), firearms trump close combat. That's no reason to be wholly unprepared for melees, however. There are always times you can't bring your guns to the party, times your metarace and/or augmentations can make for a truly fearsome strength score, times visibility modifiers will mean shooting misses against a determined opponent out to close with you, times that a fight starts while your opponent is too close for you to shoot well, times a knife is quieter than a gun, and on and on and on.

A good combat character is going to be well versed in both. But I'd lean (just like I do in real life) a little more towards the bang-you than the kung-fu.

[PlatonicPimp]

the only time melee ever trumps guns is when the melee person ambushes the gun person.

Melee, however, is generally quieter than shooting, and doesn't need reloading.

[Whipstitch]

What Critias said. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being competent in melee, I just wouldn't suggest going overboard, that's all. My most successful melee artist was an adept who focused his 'ware and power points on stealth and athletics rather than melee combat. Rolling 18 dice with a bound and attuned monowhip was plenty good enough for taking people down quietly on surprise tests.

[Zen Shooter01]

Shadowrun is a near future setting, so ranged has more killpower than melee, because that's the way it is in RL. There's a reason armies gave up spears for rifles centuries ago.

But, especially in the dense urban environment common in Shadowrun, where stealth is a significant factor, and in places where the carrying an SMG isn't practical, melee can have great advantages.

[Adarael]

There's one caveat I'll put on Platonic's statement, which is 99% correct:

The only time melee ever trumps guns is when the melee person ambushes the gun person or the person in melee is a physad with a high-rating weapon focus.

The ability to add a metric shitton of dice if you've bonded a weapon focus spear or axe is not a small thing, and can mean a whole lotta splat. In general you'll be far better served with a gun, though.

[odinson]

Melee also works good when it's 4 on 1. +4 to the dice pool of attackers -4 to the defender. But if the 4 attackers had guns they would probably kill the defender just as quick.

[pestulens]

Falkenberg: "Ever think, Lieutenant, that every military generation since World War One has thought theirs would be the last to carry Bayonets?"
Slater: "No sir, I never did."
Falkenberg: "Few do. My old man was a CoDominium University professor, and he thought I ought to learn military history. Think about it: a weapon originally designed to convert a musket into a pike, and it's still around when we're going to war in starships."
Slater: "Yes, sir---"
Falkenberg: "Because it's useful, Lieutenant --- as you'll find out someday."

edit: I do think that ranged is generally more useful, but when you are prepared for male and the other guy isn't, then it's over. The deciding factor isn't surprise or whether you are an adept (Both helpful but not critical) it's whether or not you can get close enough.

[Marwynn]

I was gonna vote Magic but well, ranged can actually trump it at times.

It is useful to not specialize too much and not rely on guns. Those can be disadvantageous at times. And you don't have to be THAT strong to do some damage in melee; use a shock glove or get some forearm snap blades for something less conspicuous than an axe. Even 2-3 points in exotic melee for the monowhip can be extremely scary for even the nastiest Troll. (Provided you have a decent Agility score that is.)

There's a time and place for everything. Sometimes it's even advantageous for you to melee.

Yes, even Mages; low drain and with a +2 on touching attacks for unarmed.

[bibliophile20]

two words--Combat Sense.

Nothing makes the gun bunnies more pissed off than the melee adept that they can't hit.

[Critias]

Stuff like ambushes and "four on one" fights and stuff all still holds true for guys with guns, though, too (just like in real life). Sure, if you bring three friends to whoop my ass in a boxing match, you'll do real well. But if I bring three friends to shoot at one guy, the same thing happens. All else being equal (skill, stats, etc), numbers = win, regardless of weaponry involved.

Four of ANYthing is better than one.

And I don't see how a specialized Adept with a bonded weapon focus still trumps a guy with a gun. If the guy with a gun has anywhere near the same points, nuyen, and availability to make "a guy with a gun," he'll just shoot the Adept while he's well outside of sword/poleaxe/whatever range, anyways. That's the number one reason guns are cool, after all -- you don't HAVE to be close to be dangerous.

[imperialus]

a character built for melee can be just as powerful as one built for a gunslinging. They're just very different animals. A troll physad can dish out a shitload of damage with his bare hands. A elf gunslinger can throw just as many dice when he's plugging away with his pistol or SMG. Thing is there will always be those occasions where the trog is stuck at the far side of an open space while a sec-guard with an assult rifle is shooting at him and the elf might find himself in tight quarters grappling with a troll gangbanger. It's useful to have both because situations will arise where one or the other is nessesary.

The biggest downside to melee is that damage codes have to take troll strength into account. If you're a troll this is great, if not, it can hurt.

[PlatonicPimp]

in an open field with perfect visibility, yes. In a complex environment, cosing the distance becomes easier. Using a gun at distances under a few meters is a lot more risky, as all of it's advantages go away. Longarms especially, because in a melee the other person is likely closer than the end of your barrel.

[Aaron]

Knockdown is another factor. If I tag you for more damage than your Body with a ranged weapon, you'll fall down, probably into cover if you're clever. If I tag you for the same amount in melee, I just got a bonus.

[Whipstitch]

[Eleazar]

[Whipstitch]

[Eleazar]

[Whipstitch]

The important thing is no matter how your GM handles falling, getting knocked down really sucks. Especially since once you've been hit you are subject to damage modifiers, which will start tearing down your initiative score whether or not you choose to blow an action on getting up. Drawing first blood has definite advantages, and it's easier to do with guns.

[Dashifen]

Subduing combat has a place, too, especially for stealthy types that could ambush a guard subdue them, drag them to a broom closet and get away quickly and quietly.

[Aaron]

[Kyoto Kid]

...as much as I like melee combat, I have to vote for ranged. Melee combat became even more at a disadvantage in the re-write when:

...the old counterattack rule was taken away (the Counterstrike Adept power isn't quite the same).
...the penalty for firing a gun while in melee or firing into melee was effectively eliminated.
...the effective power of a mundane (ie. non Adept) melee attack was reduced.

[Ryu]

Both "work" indoors, but not all fights take place indoors. It was an SR3 moment ("better" melee) where three PCs charged the enemy and one took down the opposition while they had not reached the enemy ranks...

For the runner, silence can be worth much more than killing power. Do what you want, but don´t neglect either side.

[Fortune]

Cyberzombie Troll Archers for the win! :D