Firearms and Melee Options

[Morgan Vening]

Had a situation the other night, where a gunbunny PC got jumped on by a street samurai.

How does a firearm get utilized in melee? The rules as written don't seem to cover the situation. According to the rules for actions, the gunbunny just gets to take a Fire Weapon Simple Action, without penalty. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense when the melee rules talk about "several seconds of feints, jabs, punches, counters" etc.

So the gunbunny gets an unrestricted shot, and the samurai has to fight through his opponent's Unarmed ability? And while I know the whole "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" scenario, it seems a bit harsh for the sword wielder who has to cross the combat zone in the first place.

As I intend to add a street samurai to the party, I want the rules in place so he doesn't feel screwed every time he wants to jump someone with his sword.

Morgan Vening

[Tachi]

Edit: *Delete*

Woops, sorry, SR3, my bad.

[Mercer]

My old houserule was to let the target's melee or unarmed skill counter the shooter's pistols skill. That helped things a little and led to some memorable "fighting over the gun" gun fights.

Going back to SR2, I always used to say the best way to win a fistfight was with a gun. Or, you know, never bring a knife to a gunfight. However you want to phrase it.

[Kagetenshi]

Attacker in Melee Combat, +2 TN per opponent. I'm looking at the GM's screen, but it should be anywhere the Ranged Combat Modifiers Table is given.

~J

[Jack Kain]

*not an actual rule*
I'd actually think that someone (especially unarmed) could parry the gun by knocking the guys aim off track so its no longer aimed at you.
Gunbunny raises hand to aim gun, melee guy swats the hand away like he would a punch gun res off in random direction. However it be a all or nothing deal. You either negate all the hits or none of them.

[Kagetenshi]

You'd never negate more than one hit per bullet (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

(SR3, people, we have tags for a reason)

~J

[MikeKozar]

Used to say the best way to win a fistfight was with a gun. Or, you know, never bring a knife to a gunfight. However you want to phrase it.

Some people advocate bringing a firearm to a knife fight. Me, I prefer to bring a fireteam. Fair fights are for suckers.

[Ol' Scratch]

If you've ever seen the last fight scene in Equilibrium, you've seen what using a firearm in melee is like in Shadowrun.

It's pretty much like a few people described. The defender use their melee skills to "parry" and "block" the shooter by knocking his gun arm around. They get to make their usual melee defense tests against any attack the shooter makes, and the shooter gets to still use their appropriate firearm skill with all the usual modifiers (plus the using a firearm in melee penalty). You're not actually defending against the attack so much as being preemptive about it, which is exactly how dodging ranged attacks work, too.

The problem comes up when determining some of the secondary effects and consequences (such as the shooter defending against the melee opponent when it's his turn to attack). "Firefight" is a really handy martial art for a gunbunny, and it heavily implies that you can use a ranged weapon as a melee weapon in all ways. They're even allowed to learn all of the available maneuvers with that martial art, and several of them are not specific to melee attacks. Break Weapon, Disarm, Herding, Iaijutsu (which bizarrely enough works with assault cannons and sniper rifles), Riposte and Set-Up are good examples of this. I think the intent was that you could use Unarmed Attack to defend yourself in melee while wielding a firearm, but it's really, really muddy about the whole topic.

You can definitely attack in melee, though. Defending against it is arguable but fits in well if you also consider that Dodging works preemptively, too. The rest is all up to GM interpretation.

[Jack Kain]

After my Face Adept made a cheap shot against an enemy magician(leaving him with one box before being knocked unconscious) while we he was offering a bribe for us to walk away.(a little bit of negotiations happening) *have to love quick drawing*
I feinting we were interested then shot him,

The group remarked it was a dirty trick, Jack responded.
"What do you call a man who cheats during a fight?, the one left standing"

[nezumi]

By the rules, the shooter suffers a +2 modifier to his shot, so the attacker just needs to dodge that. When the attacker goes, the shooter is now defending by using his Clubs skill (since his handgun is just that - a club). If he wants to use unarmed, he needs to drop his firearm. If the sam doesn't have the Clubs skill, and doesn't make his first shot, he's about to be hurting.

In my game, I allow melee attackers a reaction test to attack a weapon being drawn in their reach, but in exchange, I allow the shooter to use Unarmed Combat or Clubs, at his choice. Still sucks, but a little less.

[Mercer]

By the rules, the shooter suffers a +2 modifier to his shot, so the attacker just needs to dodge that. When the attacker goes, the shooter is now defending by using his Clubs skill (since his handgun is just that - a club). If he wants to use unarmed, he needs to drop his firearm. If the sam doesn't have the Clubs skill, and doesn't make his first shot, he's about to be hurting.

I don't think that holding a weapon requires you to attack with it. That is, if my character was holding his Sony Pocket Secretary and got jumped, I wouldn't have to defend using Clubs with a penalty for using an improvised weapon. Likewise, a character could use a firearm as a club (although I'd be tempted to treat a pistol as an improvised weapon as well), but wouldn't be required to.

There are other situations where this would come up. You might be fighting a shapeshifter, so you grab a silver knife. You use Edged Weapons to attack (because you want the damage bonus of the vulnerability), but if you have more points in Unarmed, you would still want to use that to dodge. Or you might have knife in one hand and a pistol in the other, using Edged Weapons to defend and the pistol to shoot.

I usually put points into Unarmed because it's the one thing you always have with you.

[Jack Kain]

I've also cut a few guns apart with my monowhip, if the things are supposed to accidentally cut nearby objects apart with a glitch, it stands to reason it could slice a critical hole into rifle.

[Snow_Fox]

The way we do it is that in your original example, assuming no one has superior reactions the gun bunny gets off the shot-you're rushing me, I'm going to squeeze off a shot first- BUT that was his action. He doesn't get to use his unarmed combat skills, he can use combat pool to affect it but not the skills, using his unarmed skills as well as shooting implies that he's got two action for the price of one.

So if you shoot and drop the guy-great- but if you don't kill or at least knock him down- he's on you with a heck of an advantage for his unarmed hits.

[Kagetenshi]

Monowhips double barrier rating; I doubt they're going to be slicing any hard objects apart anytime soon.

~J

[Jericho Alar]

Monowhips double barrier rating; I doubt they're going to be slicing any hard objects apart anytime soon.

~J

meanwhile I'd like one to slice through all the hits and glitches language flying around this thread. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) I came in here looking to get away from SR4 language for awhile since I just spent 40 minutes double checking an SR4 matrix example before posting..


to answer the question* the attacker gets a +2 TN modifier when attacking if he is in melee (independent of whether or not the guy he's shooting is the one he's in melee with), the defender dodges the ranged attack normally. note that by the rules in SR3 there is not a penalty for shooting *into* melee, although some GMs routinely apply the +4 partial cover modifier in this situation.

when defending against melee in SR3 you only need one hand to be holding the 'weapon' in question: if you were holding a pistol in one hand and the other was free you could defend with unarmed as normal.

[edit]*that kage already answered upthread.

[nezumi]

I don't think that holding a weapon requires you to attack with it.

Of course not. If the street sam would like to forego his defense roll, he has that right. You do, however, have to have your weapon 'in your hand' in order to use it. You can't use a katana if you're holding a pocket secretary, and you can't fully take advantage of unarmed combat if you're holding a handgun.

Or you might have knife in one hand and a pistol in the other, using Edged Weapons to defend and the pistol to shoot.

That's allowable. You'd still take a penalty to shooting while in melee, and I'd have to double check if there are penalties for using your off-hand (which would apply to one of your weapons).

when defending against melee in SR3 you only need one hand to be holding the 'weapon' in question: if you were holding a pistol in one hand and the other was free you could defend with unarmed as normal.

Except the rules specify that unarmed combat uses 'your entire body', which is why you get a bonus when attacking with two swords or two sets of spurs, but not when attacking with two fists. Ergo, if you don't have your entire body (at least both hands) available for fighting unarmed, it would be the same as if you didn't have both hands available for using any other two-handed weapon - generally speaking, you can't, or at least you take an awfully big penalty.

[Ol' Scratch]

I wasn't aware that Unarmed Combat required a weapon, or that it even relied solely on the use of your hands. Someone needs to go and let all those Carromeleg, Capoeria and Kickboxing practioners know.

[Mercer]

I'm not aware of any off-hand penalties for melee and unarmed combat. There is a penalty for using a second firearm in ranged combat, but no similar penalty on the melee combat table. (I'm just going by the BBB, because that's what I have on my desk, and the two-weapon fighting rules were in the Cannon Companion, if memory serves. But this also gets into houserule territory, because my group never formally adopted the twf rules, since we never used them in SR2. And we're not talking about fighting with two weapons, we're talking about a character holding two different weapons and attacking with one of them.)

Further, if a character was wielding a weapon (melee weapon like a katana or claymore, a firearm, or a non-weapon like the Sony Pocket Secretary) and wanted to kick someone, to my mind they'd still be using Unarmed. I wouldn't apply a penalty either (unless it was something specific, like not letting someone use their "Boxing" specialization to kick, except we're again getting into houserule territory, because in my group we simply made the concentrations of Unarmed Attack and Defense-- again a rule we'd been using since SR2.)

I'm unaware of any penalty anywhere in the book that penalizes a character who uses Unarmed but doesn't have his hands free.

If a character has a gun in one hand and a knife in the other, and isn't penalized when he goes to stab somebody, I don't see why he would be penalized if he didn't have a knife and punched somebody, or used another part of his body (elbows, legs, even the classic headbutt) to attack.

I'm fine with a street sam running around with the knife and the gun and still using unarmed when he has to. He shoots at some gangers one round, using his pistols skill. Next IP, he stabs the shapechanger that ran up with a silver knife. Next IP, he spin kicks another ganger that has wondered into melee range, because the kid looks about 12 and the sammie can't abide doing Physical damage to the prepubescent. To my mind that would be a Pistols test, an Edged Weapons test, and an Unarmed test. I don't see a reason to penalize any of those.

[nezumi]

I'm not aware of any off-hand penalties for melee and unarmed combat.

Cannon Compaion, p. 94. "This means a character may have difficulty using their off hand to accomplish certaint asks. The gamemaster may choose to apply a modifier of +1 to 4 for tests reqwuiring off-hand use, depending on the situation."

I'm unaware of any penalty anywhere in the book that penalizes a character who uses Unarmed but doesn't have his hands free.

I admit, I'm having trouble finding this one. There's a line in one of those books responding to why my unarmed combat damage doesn't go up to Str*1.5 when I use two hands, like it does with two spurs or two hand razors. The book says that this is because the rules assume you are already using your entire body for unarmed combat. It's frustrating me to no end that I can't find it, because I know I read it. The closest I can come right now is to the FAQ which specifies two shock gloves doesn't count as two-weapon fighting. (I couldn't find the SR3 errata, so it might be in there.)

If anyone else remembers where this is, please give a holler, as it's making me crazy right now.

[Mercer]

Cannon Compaion, p. 94. "This means a character may have difficulty using their off hand to accomplish certaint asks. The gamemaster may choose to apply a modifier of +1 to 4 for tests reqwuiring off-hand use, depending on the situation."

How does off hand apply to Unarmed, which doesn't specify a particular hand (and might not involve hands at all)? I mean, if a character is right handed, and is kicking an opponent, I can't see applying an off-hand penalty to that action. (Also, if this were the case, boxers would never throw a left-hand jab, except those that never threw right-handed punches.)

I can see the logic behind an off-hand penalty, even though my group never used it. (We were all about the economy of actions.) Phrases like "may choose" and "depending on the situation" are pretty vague, as is "+1 to 4". The way the rule as written, I could say there is no penalty to using a knife in the off hand, you could say there is a +4 to the TN, and we're both basically correct. (Which still doesn't address the issue of the kick, since the character isn't attacking with an off-hand anyway.)

The book says that this is because the rules assume you are already using your entire body for unarmed combat.

Using your whole body and not being able to TWF with Unarmed seems like two different things though. One is, can you kick somebody if you're holding something, the other is "Why isn't my damage higher?" I understand the reasoning of the latter, but don't think it impedes the former. (Not getting TWF damage while both hands are free doesn't mean holding something in one hand penalizes your Unarmed attacks.)

If we're looking for a specific mention that holding something means you either have to use it as a weapon or you face a penalty to Unarmed, I don't think that rule exists.

[nezumi]

How does off hand apply to Unarmed, which doesn't specify a particular hand (and might not involve hands at all)? I mean, if a character is right handed, and is kicking an opponent, I can't see applying an off-hand penalty to that action. (Also, if this were the case, boxers would never throw a left-hand jab, except those that never threw right-handed punches.)

It's up to GM's discretion, which is why I said it MAY apply. These are the rules, as written, under melee combat. Apply them as you see fit, but don't get upset with me because they're written.

(However, in your example, the boxer is using his entire body, which is the point I touch on later. He uses a left-hand jab because only using one hand puts him at a disadvantage. Knife-fighters rarely use their knife in their off-hand, except to exploit a particular vulnerability.)

Using your whole body and not being able to TWF with Unarmed seems like two different things though. One is, can you kick somebody if you're holding something, the other is "Why isn't my damage higher?" I understand the reasoning of the latter, but don't think it impedes the former. (Not getting TWF damage while both hands are free doesn't mean holding something in one hand penalizes your Unarmed attacks.)

Interpret it as you like. I'd love for toturi to jump in here, because he knows the rules pretty well, and I imagine he's given the question more thought. But I certainly don't think my reading is an unreasonable interpretatino of the rules.

If we're looking for a specific mention that holding something means you either have to use it as a weapon or you face a penalty to Unarmed, I don't think that rule exists.

That is correct. The rules don't specifically address that question. We need to imply it given what is written.

[Mercer]

Well, the off-hand rules are separate from our discussion of can a character who is holding something use Unarmed. I mean, if you choose to include the off-hand rules as a penalty to unarmed attacks if the character is holding something (I wouldn't, and the way off-hand actions are written we'd both be correct since it's a penalty applied when the GM chooses, depending on the situation), but in your original post you said that a character who was holding a gun couldn't use Unarmed.

I mean, if you have to use a suggested rule on off-hand actions and the errata on TWF to make the case that a character holding a pistol can't make an Unarmed attack, it seems like a pretty good indication that the chain of reasoning is unnecessarily complex and probably faulty. If there was a rule that stated a character had to have their hands free to make an Unarmed attack that would be one thing, but that rule doesn't exist. (And if it did, it would still draw all sorts of ire over the many forms of attacks that don't involve hands at all.)

Either way, a character can attack with whatever skill it has access to. If he is holding a knife and a gun, he can make an Edged Weapons, Pistols or Unarmed attack. We can argue the penalties all day, but there is nothing in the book that forbids the use of the skill. In fact, assigning a penalty to the action means you get to use it.