Melee vs Ranged, Balancing the two Options

[Tarantula]

And after one punch in your chin/cheekbone(or a martial artist doing something such as a half-fist to the throat, collapsing your trachea), I doubt you could shoot him at 20ft anyway. And yes, he would just be standing there, like a silhouette.

Its pretty easy to knock most people out with a punch (without a glove). The countless youtube fight videos show it when the person gets a lucky shot off and connects right. With a professional fighter, you can be assured their punch will hit hard, and connect in the right places.

[krakjen]

2.000 x 80 / 0.05 = 3200 N for the fist.
vs.
0.005 x 900 / 0.05 = 90 N for the bullet.

Isn't speed supposed to be squared ?
If you want to calculate energy, you need Joules.

Your numbers are kinda wrong...
Let's get some more precise informations.

A 9x19mm parabellum bullet for example, will weight 8.0 g and travel at 350 m/s. Developing an energy of 494 J.
A .357 magnum bullet, more fitting to a heavy pistol I think, will weight 158 g (yeah!) and travel at of 380 m/s. All for an energy of 731 J.
And that's only pistol ammunitions. Rifles ammunitions will go way higher.
For example, 1775 J for the standard 5.56 NATO rounds, and more than 4000 J for the infamous 8 mm Mauser.
Let's not even look at the higher caliber...

A good punch will go at 8 m/s, a top karate strike at 10-15m/s. But you can't just calculate it by saying "I will launch my fist at that speed".
From wikipedia, I found a karate strike has an energy of 450 J and boxer Rocky Marciano was supposed to have been measured at 1028 J.

The size of the area where that energy is received is important too, and there again it's the bullet advantage...

[cryptoknight]

And after one punch in your chin/cheekbone(or a martial artist doing something such as a half-fist to the throat, collapsing your trachea), I doubt you could shoot him at 20ft anyway. And yes, he would just be standing there, like a silhouette.

Its pretty easy to knock most people out with a punch (without a glove). The countless youtube fight videos show it when the person gets a lucky shot off and connects right. With a professional fighter, you can be assured their punch will hit hard, and connect in the right places.

Oh I expect to be knocked out... but in this test we aren't testing combat conditions... I will eventually wake up... and then I will shoot him. It's about who's willing to quit first... I expect him to punch me and quit before I get to shoot. And if I get to pick my gun to shoot with... I'll take either an 8 gauge shotgun, or an elephant rifle.

[ZenGamer]

Oh I expect to be knocked out... but in this test we aren't testing combat conditions... I will eventually wake up... and then I will shoot him. It's about who's willing to quit first... I expect him to punch me and quit before I get to shoot. And if I get to pick my gun to shoot with... I'll take either an 8 gauge shotgun, or an elephant rifle.

Of course you'd get to pick the gun as he got to pick the fighter. I'd take the rifle, and at 400 meters I wouldn't miss. Even if it didn't kill immediately, there is no way the boxer would then be able to cross that 400 meters to punch a second time.

Of course, after a punch I might be really hurt, so I would probably request a week or so to recover, and if the rifle round didn't kill the boxer I'd give him the same week to recover before round 2. Fair is fair.

Also, nobody in their right mind would do this for fun, so there would have to be some valuable prize for the last man standing. Also, it would have to be immune from laws - no use having such a stupid pissing contest if the guy with the gun has to go to prison afterwards for murder.

[krakjen]

I think a good shooter with a shotgun will ALWAYS beat an excellent boxer.

Because the boxer must close in to strike, and a shotgun does not forgive...

[Kerberos]

See, and I'd argue the shooting should come from average shooting distances, and not melee ranges. Which increases the chances of a bad shot/miss.

In that case I'd argue the punching should come from average shooting distances as well.

[Tarantula]

In that case I'd argue the punching should come from average shooting distances as well.

Punching is being done in average punching ranges. Shooting should come from average shooting ranges.

[CanRay]

Punching is being done in average punching ranges. Shooting should come from average shooting ranges.

And then, for the Control Group, Shooting should be done at average punching ranges, and punching should be done at average shooting ranges.

Got to keep this scientific now.

[Shiloh]

Ok, but lets have Mike Tyson (or whoever the super boxer ATM is) punching you, with no gloves, and you don't get to defend yourself. Still take the deal?

Sure, so long as there's no timescale for when I have to shoot him back by. He stands still and takes a .22short in the base of his skull when I get out of hospital, and I'll shake his hand when he digs himself out of his grave. He may K.O me, but he won't kill me with one punch. And I'm neither exceptionally strong, nor trained with a handgun. There's a reason they're known as "equalisers".

[Slymoon]

Melee is commonly considered inferior to ranged because you first have to close the distance, and is resisted with two dice pools (three on full defense), as opposed to range's one (two on full defense).

I am currently considering a way to balance them, and am asking for what you would see as the pro's and con's.

Make ranged defense work as Reaction+Dodge, with full defense Reaction+Dodge+Dodge/Gymnastics.

The primary cons I can currently see with the issue are as follows:
Dodge may become a must-have skill
How having two pools on regular defense will stack with cover.


I decided to try decreasing the power of ranged instead of increasing that of melee (by removing one of the defensive pools) because Shadowrun is the first game system I have seen that takes parrying into account, and I see no reasonable reason to remove it.

Keep in mind (at least Sr3 wise) melee also has less DP modifiers: no movement mods. Which you will oten have in ranged.

[Tarantula]

Sure, so long as there's no timescale for when I have to shoot him back by. He stands still and takes a .22short in the base of his skull when I get out of hospital, and I'll shake his hand when he digs himself out of his grave. He may K.O me, but he won't kill me with one punch. And I'm neither exceptionally strong, nor trained with a handgun. There's a reason they're known as "equalisers".

Never said he'd kill you. Point was effectiveness in combat. If you get incapacitated/give up first, he wins. If he is incapacitated/gives up first you win.

[Kerberos]

Punching is being done in average punching ranges. Shooting should come from average shooting ranges.

And whyever should that be? The thing about ranged is that it is ranged, though it can also be used both close up. Punching can be done only close up. That is an advantage for ranged, not for punching.

[cryptoknight]

Never said he'd kill you. Point was effectiveness in combat. If you get incapacitated/give up first, he wins. If he is incapacitated/gives up first you win.

Then for scientific accuracy we should go for simultaneous actions.

I will set it up so that his punching me causes a shotgun to fire a slug striking his head.

[Tarantula]

And whyever should that be? The thing about ranged is that it is ranged, though it can also be used both close up. Punching can be done only close up. That is an advantage for ranged, not for punching.

Yes? One which I pointed out. Someone said that unarmed strikes couldn't compare to damage done by firearms. It can. Either one can incapacitate you. Punching is less likely to kill you (represented by being Stun damage). The fact that a punch or a shot can both incapacitate is my point. You don't really want either to happen to you.

And yes, as pointed out, it takes considerably more skill to use a punch effectively as compared to a pistol.

[SprainOgre]

Yes, both are not good. However, a punch in the gut is going to hurt like a bitch. A shot in the gut is going to kill your monkey ass in a couple of hours without medical treatment. Sure, both can fuck you up. One shoves a chunk of metal into your body, bounces it around, ripping apart your internal organs. The other impacts and will certainly bruise you, and if you get hit right, by someone who knows reasonably well what they're doing, then you're going to be in a world of hurt. I think most martial artist/hand-to-hand/melee combatants will agree that a gun wins though.

Hell, a random twitch of the muscles in your arm as you drop can kill someone with a gun in your hand. I don't see that really happening with a fist or a knife...

[Apathy]

Yes? One which I pointed out. Someone said that unarmed strikes couldn't compare to damage done by firearms. It can. Either one can incapacitate you. Punching is less likely to kill you (represented by being Stun damage). The fact that a punch or a shot can both incapacitate is my point. You don't really want either to happen to you.

And yes, as pointed out, it takes considerably more skill to use a punch effectively as compared to a pistol.

Just because either can incapacitate you doesn't mean that they do comparable damage. You can kill someone with a spork, if you stab them hard enough and in the right place with it. That doesn't mean that spork damage is equivalent to sword damage. At equivalent skill levels, any handgun (even a little .22) is more likely to inflict incapacitating damage than an unarmed fist. You can point out that Mike Tyson has a very good chance of knocking someone out, but a similarly skilled pistoleer will kill you nearly 100% of the time with a 9mm.

[Tarantula]

Just because either can incapacitate you doesn't mean that they do comparable damage. You can kill someone with a spork, if you stab them hard enough and in the right place with it. That doesn't mean that spork damage is equivalent to sword damage. At equivalent skill levels, any handgun (even a little .22) is more likely to inflict incapacitating damage than an unarmed fist. You can point out that Mike Tyson has a very good chance of knocking someone out, but a similarly skilled pistoleer will kill you nearly 100% of the time with a 9mm.

At equivalently high skill levels the ability to incapacitate with either gun or unarmed strike approaches 100%. At lower skill levels, it is easier to incapacitate with a gun. But, at the higher skill levels, they are both able to incapacitate on a frequent basis. The ability to incapacitate is why I say they do comparable damage. (Again, as I said, fists won't kill easily, which is why they have the base Stun damage, not Physical). If you can drop someone in a punch by doing 10S, or kill them with a gun by doing 10P, its still comparable damage.

SprainOgre, you don't punch someone in the stomach to incapacitate them. You'd hit them in the temple, chin, throat, nerves, spine, etc. Your argument is like saying getting shot in the toe won't kill you, so guns are worthless.

[ZenGamer]

Yes? One which I pointed out. Someone said that unarmed strikes couldn't compare to damage done by firearms. It can. Either one can incapacitate you. Punching is less likely to kill you (represented by being Stun damage). The fact that a punch or a shot can both incapacitate is my point. You don't really want either to happen to you.

And yes, as pointed out, it takes considerably more skill to use a punch effectively as compared to a pistol.

.

At equivalently high skill levels the ability to incapacitate with either gun or unarmed strike approaches 100%. At lower skill levels, it is easier to incapacitate with a gun. But, at the higher skill levels, they are both able to incapacitate on a frequent basis. The ability to incapacitate is why I say they do comparable damage. (Again, as I said, fists won't kill easily, which is why they have the base Stun damage, not Physical). If you can drop someone in a punch by doing 10S, or kill them with a gun by doing 10P, its still comparable damage.

SprainOgre, you don't punch someone in the stomach to incapacitate them. You'd hit them in the temple, chin, throat, nerves, spine, etc. Your argument is like saying getting shot in the toe won't kill you, so guns are worthless.

Now we're reading the same book, even maybe on the same page!!!

.

[SprainOgre]

SprainOgre, you don't punch someone in the stomach to incapacitate them. You'd hit them in the temple, chin, throat, nerves, spine, etc. Your argument is like saying getting shot in the toe won't kill you, so guns are worthless.

Sine shoting someone in any of these places is going to be at least as bad, if not worse in some cases, with a gun, I don't see what you're getting at. However, since you need to go to those areas with an unarmed strike to incapacitate, a gun give you some more options on places to hit to get the job done, doesn't it? Also, to build on the "shot in toe" example, getting punched in the toe is just as useless then, isn't it? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Tarantula]

Sine shoting someone in any of these places is going to be at least as bad, if not worse in some cases, with a gun, I don't see what you're getting at. However, since you need to go to those areas with an unarmed strike to incapacitate, a gun give you some more options on places to hit to get the job done, doesn't it? Also, to build on the "shot in toe" example, getting punched in the toe is just as useless then, isn't it? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

I'd say hitting where you intend to hit (such as areas to incapacitate) is represented by how skilled someone is, and again, ties into how I said that the skill requirement to be incapacitatingly effective with a firearm is considerably less than to be the same with unarmed strikes.

Assuming both people are skilled enough to reliably hit their targetted areas, (and in the case of the unarmed striker, with necessary force), they are still equally incapacitating.

Again, this spawned because someone claimed that unarmed strikes were not comparable with firearms in terms of damage. They are, it just takes a lot more skill to get there.

[SprainOgre]

Right, right. And I agree that, yes, unarmed/hth combat can be devastating in a fight. However, it's not as efficient as be trained in a firearm, which costs fewer points. This, however, is a good thing since that's really how things work. But sure, I can easily agree that getting punched by someone who knows what they're doing is not a happy place to be, the same as being shot.

[Tarantula]

Yes. I never said they were equally efficient. Just that they are comparable for damage.

And, to get back on topic, the things melee trades in terms of overall effectiveness it gains quite a lot in various qualities. (Legal, quiet, doesn't have to be readied, stunning, multitude of ways to use it (subduing, maneuvers, etc)).

In other words, I think that while the damages of the two methods of attack are comparable, they both have their advantages and disadvantages, and trying to "buff" melee up to equal firearms would unbalance them.

[Kyoto Kid]

I'd rather not be punched in the face by Mike Tyson...

...I'd rather not have my ear or nose bit off by Mike Tyson (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) .

[paws2sky]

I know this comment isn't particularly useful, but this pissing contest thread is so full of win. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

[Triggerz]

I would allow characters in melee with a ranged combatant to defend against it like it was a melee attack, thus adding Dodge/Close Combat skill...
This would keep the advantage of ranged combat when you have range, but make melee the undisputed master of... Well... Melee...
But I don't think this fix alone would bring them up to par, a lot of the problem also stems from the fact that shooting is a simple action while hitting is a complex one, changing melee attacks to simple actions would make it much more balanced too...

Disclaimer: these are just ideas I'm throwing out there, an appart from a gut feeling I cannot prove nor disprove anything about them...

I don't think that adding a melee skill to defense against ranged weapons in melee is the way to go. You could argue that you can grab the arm of the shooter and keep the gun pointing away from your face, so melee skills should count. The fact is, though, that if the guy with the gun is able to move away from you just a couple steps, then he can shoot you without your melee skills doing much to help. For that reason, I think that a better way to handle this is to use Subduing rules (BBB, page 152). Grab the arms of the guy and keep the gun pointing away from you. It's likely that the guy will break the grapple during his action, but he'll need to spend a Complex action to do that, so no shooting at you after that, unless the guy with the gun has more IPs. If the grappler has more IPs though, he will be able to inflict some serious damage on the guy with the gun, so the IP advantage runs both ways. For people with the exact same number of IPs, it could lead to a long fight with lots of grapple and break free. I think it works reasonably well for unarmed vs ranged weapon, but I'm not entirely sure how to handle, say, bladed weapon vs ranged weapon. The Subduing rules make more sense for someone using his hands than for someone using a knife. Maybe the Clinch maneuver could allow you to add your melee skill to defense tests against ranged weapons while clinched? Anyways, just throwing that out there too.