Melee vs Ranged, Balancing the two Options

[Tarantula]

Subduing is the win for fighting 1 on 1. Oh look, that big bad sammy has a full auto shotgun.... *grapple*.

Not only does the graplee need to spend a complex action, they actually have to succeed at breaking out of the grapple. As long as the grappler is moderately more skilled than the graplee, more IPs don't help all that much.

[Earlydawn]

To add some background to this thread: I've read that a LOT of Iraq War vets have experienced some kind of hand-to-hand combat. However, based on the way that the Armed Forces handle urban warfare, and engage in CQB, I can't imagine the context to this. How does it happen? What kinds of units see hand-to-hand the most frequently?

[Tarantula]

The ones closest to the enemy troops. /smartass

[Triggerz]

Yeah, it's only at roughly equal skill that the extra IP determines who gets to deal damage - either subdual damage, if the grappler has the IP advantage, or ranged damage, if the grapplee does.

[Speed Wraith]

To add some background to this thread: I've read that a LOT of Iraq War vets have experienced some kind of hand-to-hand combat. However, based on the way that the Armed Forces handle urban warfare, and engage in CQB, I can't imagine the context to this. How does it happen? What kinds of units see hand-to-hand the most frequently?

Small room/hallway = sure bet that you'll be engaged in hand-to-hand combat. The way the various first world powers handle urban combat hasn't really changed much in the last 70 or so years. The basic formula is defensive grenade (now flash-bangs, but same idea of using concussive force to provide surprise/cover for the assault) followed by a fast rush on the side of the force with the initiative. Fairly simple, and also fairly simple to get mucked up...

[Triggerz]

By the way, am I the only who thinks that subduing damage is awfully violent? Sure, you need to catch the guy first, but a Damage Value equal to Strength with no test whatsoever? The BBB says: "Consider the subdued character to be prone for any attacks made against him." So I think I would use that instead to houserule subduing damage in the following way:

Inflicting Stun damage to a subdued opponent still requires a successful melee test, but the attacker gets +3 dice for “Opponent Prone� and the defender gets -2 dice for “Defender Prone�. Damage is calculated as usual. Successfully defending does not free the defender from the grapple.

It seems to me that it would make subduing a bit more reasonable. As of now, if you have a fight between someone with 3 IPs and someone with 1 IP, then the faster guy could let the slower one act first, then subdue him, then cause (2xStrenght) DV totally unopposed, which seems a bit high. The houserule I proposed above would probably give roughly the same results on average, but it would also introduce a greater variability in the damage, which I think would be a good thing. But then again, I don't really know much about close combat, so... maybe the subduing damage rules are more realistic than I think?

[Muspellsheimr]

The damage is resisted normally, with Body+Impact. And, with a vascular choke, the vast majority of humans will fall unconscious in 3 seconds. No one can last more than 6.

[Aaron]

I've had a little Brazilian Jujutsu, not much at all, really. But if I can get a hold of you, I can seriously fuck you up if you don't know what you're doing. And that's just with a couple-three months of training. Imagine what my instructor could do to you.

[krakjen]

Yeah, and any average peon can learn to kill you dead with a gun in 2 hours.
What's your point?

[Aaron]

Yeah, and any average peon can learn to kill you dead with a gun in 2 hours.
What's your point?

My point is that someone grappling you could do a lot of damage. I was responding to Triggerz's surprise at the amount of damage that a subduing character can cause.

[krakjen]

Ho, sorry then, I didn't see you were answering that post.
My bad.

But then, I agree with you: subduing IS very powerful.

[Triggerz]

My point is that someone grappling you could do a lot of damage. I was responding to Triggerz's surprise at the amount of damage that a subduing character can cause.

I understand how deadly it can be. I just wonder whether having automatic subduing damage is the best mechanic to handle this type of stuff.

[Muspellsheimr]

It takes a complex action, and is an automatic *hit*, not automatic damage. & net hits do not add to it.

[Shiloh]

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.

That wasn't your point. You were talking about "force". And if you want to pick the ideal meleeist as your example, I'll take an MG42 at 200m on an open field with 500 rounds of belt.

Your "point" was about "force" whatever you think that means in trauma causing. My point was that guns *in general* are more dangerous then melee *in general*. Would you rather I shot you with a 9mm or punched you? I'm pretty certain I'd rather you punched me than shot me with a 9mil or even a "piss-ante 2-2".

[Shiloh]

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.

So they aren't comparable.

If you're talking combat effectiveness, a moderately skilled weapon user will take *no* damage from a skilled hand to hand fighter, because the unarmed man will be stone cold dead before they land a punch (In RL; they *are* comparable in SR4, because of mojo). At the top n% (where n is a small number) of human performance, they might have the same *stopping power* once you're in melee range, but across the sweep of combat situations guns just win. They do more actual damage to what they hit, they have better ranges, they're easier to use.

I'd still rather be punched in the throat than shot there. Because the punch does less damage. An EMT might be able to tracehotomise me, restart my heart and save my life. They won't be able to reconstruct my third and fourth cervical vertebrae and my ruptured spinal cord. Same for any other vital spot.

Guns do more damage.

Bare knuckle fighters would fight for 3 hours before one went down. Would a pistol fight in a boxing ring last that long? No. Because

Guns do more damage.

[krakjen]

Yes, but they are cases when guns won't do. Specifically Close Quarter Combat.
Military still have melee training for a reason...

Guns will do more damage yes, but if you can't hit that's useless.
And that's even worse with longarms.

[Tarantula]

So they aren't comparable.

If you're talking combat effectiveness

I wasn't. Merely capability for melee to put out similar damage, particularly in terms of shadowrun (which it can surpass most guns). IRL, punches can hit with similar incapacitating abilities as some firearms, so there is a basis for it being similar in shadowrun as well.

[WeaverMount]

How long do you have to train to learn to punch in such a way that you knick arteries?

[Tarantula]

How long do you have to train to learn to punch in such a way that you knick arteries?

Incapacitating abilities. Again, as I said, this is shown in SR by being able to punch for 10S and drop someone. Which is comparable damage to someone who can shoot a gun for 10P and kill them. The damage is comparable.

[Triggerz]

It takes a complex action, and is an automatic *hit*, not automatic damage. & net hits do not add to it.

Ok, I guess I should have chosen my words more carefully. My question is this one: once you've been subdued, does skill help in any way, or is the subduer able to inflict the same damage on you regardless of your skill? Of course, as long as you break the hold before damage is inflicted, it doesn't matter. But I am asking about those cases where the subduer has the time to inflict damage.

Anyways, our group is still transitioning to SR4, so I haven't really played yet with fourth edition rules and there's stuff in the rules I often still don't think about using. The subdued character can buy an extra IP by using a point of Edge, so he can use that to break the hold if need be. I hadn't really thought about that and I guess that's good enough a chance to avoid extreme subduing damage (which can be quite horrible when the subduer has more IPs than the subdued character, as I explained earlier).

[Tarantula]

Agreed. If a sammy has 4 IPs, and subdues a 1IP character after they've acted, then they get 3 rounds of (Strength)S damage (resisted) before the guy gets a chance to break out.

I'll side with Muspell on this one, and say that it doesn't matter how good you are, if someone has got you in a good choke (sleeper for example) you are going to go out in 3-10 seconds. Subduing is very accurate in this respect.
�
I think this is just another example of why multiple IPs are A Good Thing©

[cryptoknight]

Yes, but they are cases when guns won't do. Specifically Close Quarter Combat.
Military still have melee training for a reason...

Guns will do more damage yes, but if you can't hit that's useless.
And that's even worse with longarms.

What's your definition of close quarter combat?

If I'm within 5 feet of you with a readied, off-safe, loaded MP-5, the minute you start to step up to me, I point it at you and hold down the trigger.

You might get to punch me. If I have a sawed off shotgun instead of the MP-5... I actually doubt you will.

[Triggerz]

Agreed. If a sammy has 4 IPs, and subdues a 1IP character after they've acted, then they get 3 rounds of (Strength)S damage (resisted) before the guy gets a chance to break out.

I'll side with Muspell on this one, and say that it doesn't matter how good you are, if someone has got you in a good choke (sleeper for example) you are going to go out in 3-10 seconds. Subduing is very accurate in this respect.
�
I think this is just another example of why multiple IPs are A Good Thing©

Yeah, I know. I'm not saying the rules aren't clear on that one. They are among the clearest of all SR4! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) I proposed a house rule to make subduing damage an opposed test though (earlier in the thread), and I wanted people's opinions on that.

Basically, regular Opposed melee test, but with the attacker getting +3 DP for "Opponent Prone" and the defender getting -2 DP for "Defender Prone", as the rules say that attacks against a subdued character are treated as if the character was prone. Damage would be roughly the same most of the time, I think, but skill would now play a role. I'd like to know if it makes more sense from a RL perspective on subduing. I'm no martial artist in RL, so I have no clue about that.

[EDIT: Re-reading your post, I guess your opinion is that the rule is ok as it is, right?]

[krakjen]

What's your definition of close quarter combat?

If I'm within 5 feet of you with a readied, off-safe, loaded MP-5, the minute you start to step up to me, I point it at you and hold down the trigger.

You might get to punch me. If I have a sawed off shotgun instead of the MP-5... I actually doubt you will.

CQC is not always plain sight.
In fact it's rarely the case...

Let's say you are in a building, with your MP5, you turn a corner and I jump on you with a machete.
(why is everyone limiting melee to bare-hand?)
Not sure you will win in this situation...

Building cleaning, trench fighting, etc. There are many cases where a melee specialist can or will be at an advantage.

[Tarantula]

Yes, my opinion is that the rule the way it is is ok. Instead of punching, the subduer is trading in that ability for more guaranteed damage at the expense of being able to do anything else.