![]() ![]() |
May 5 2004, 05:53 PM
Post
#101
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
No, skill isn't part of that generalization. I was talking about TN. The advantage you mention practically disappears if, say, it's raining a little. It's the same in high-skill scenarios. There's no really good reason for that to happen. |
||||
|
|
|||||
May 5 2004, 06:03 PM
Post
#102
|
|||
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 476 Joined: 30-December 03 From: Fresno, CFS: taking out one durned furriner at a time. Member No.: 5,940 |
And would make my pack of weenies, I mean Watcher Spirits even more broken. |
||
|
|
|||
May 5 2004, 06:04 PM
Post
#103
|
|
|
Shooting Target ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158 |
??? How on earth so? At absolute most it draws out the length of melee combat since the defender has to defend (instead of counterstrike) against incoming attacks..
|
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 06:10 PM
Post
#104
|
|||
|
Shooting Target ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
Letting the watcher pack last longer so they can more readily kick the shit out of him :P |
||
|
|
|||
May 5 2004, 06:11 PM
Post
#105
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 320 Joined: 13-August 02 From: Austin, Republic of Texas (not CAS) Member No.: 3,094 |
ACL, I don't understand why you don't understand that we just don't agree with your premise that it IS broken... if it never comes up in practice, (never has in my games 6+ years) and most of the people with some MA background seem to agree with the cannon interpretation, than why should we (those of us who don't think it is broken)change it.
If you don't like the way it works, and you want speed to be more effective in melee than skill, than go ahead and houserule it for your games. but don't expect everyone else to agree with your assesment of it. or to demand that we change cannon to fit what YOU think is a major problem but not everyone agrees is a major problem. -Mike R. |
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 06:17 PM
Post
#106
|
|
|
Shooting Target ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158 |
I do understand. But a few of you are going about saying that 1) you don't understand why others see that it IS broken and 2) keep coming up with weird comments about how fixing it somehow unbalances the game.
|
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 06:18 PM
Post
#107
|
|||||||
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
I certainly don't have the practical experience you do, but it seems to me that it'd be an issue. Even if it's a rare one, I think it's worth fixing. Past that, I can't speak for your experience for obvious reasons.
I'm serious. If you acknowledge that the rule is broken and your only impetus to not fix it is lack of desire to spend time on something you feel will post little practical problem, I can't stop you, though I certainly can disagree. But there's no argument from there to say that the rule somehow should not be fixed— only that you don't want to do it.
My mistake. Misread that. And, Fahr, please read back two pages and read my rebuttle to people who think that real life experience has anything to do with this. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
May 5 2004, 06:26 PM
Post
#108
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
That's not what you said, though. You implied that I don't care about my game, based on the idea that I agree with you that this is somehow a "glaring problem" but don't do anything about it because I'm lazy. I never agreed this is a glaring problem. I never even agreed that this is truly broken.
You're right there. I'm not saying the rule should not be fixed. I didn't say I don't want to do it either, though. I said GMs and players in general might not want to do it, because the (should I say alleged) broken-ness of the rule is far less of an issue to them than changing it is. This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: May 5 2004, 06:37 PM |
||||
|
|
|||||
May 5 2004, 06:32 PM
Post
#109
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 476 Joined: 30-December 03 From: Fresno, CFS: taking out one durned furriner at a time. Member No.: 5,940 |
Sic'ing a group of six force three watchers upon a mage that isn't perceptiing yet, virtually garuntees a surprise beatdown when they go to cast a spell. Each watcher has 3 actions to attack, 3 dice to attack with a TN 2 most likely, and deals 3L staged up normally, resisted by body and armor doesn't apply. By the time the mage gets an action to shut off the astral sense, they are either knocked out, or laboring under a severe stun. And the Watchers are still there waiting for the mage to cast another spell.
Least with the counter attack rules, the mage has a chance of doing some damage before they get knocked the hell out. Note, most weenie packs don't go after the astrally assensing Adept with more dice then God. EDIT: Wow that's a flurry, was in response to ACL :P |
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 06:34 PM
Post
#110
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 320 Joined: 13-August 02 From: Austin, Republic of Texas (not CAS) Member No.: 3,094 |
aretheusa, I did read you speed post. I don't agree with your assesment. there are things that react and move faster than humans today, so I am pretty sure I can imagine what it would be like for a MA to deal with it. Take any number of animals in the natural world. such as a deer, or Boar. these animals react faster and move faster than humans can. (taking fastest human vs. fastest deer/boar/whatever) but you can still defend against them if they attack you and you know what to do, and even hurt hem back.
so I disagree with your assesment that we have nothing to compare this speed against. but really, my true bone is that like AE, I don't see this as a big enough problem to warrant slowing down combat by adding more rules to initiative. the system as it is works well enough that I have never had any complaints from anyone. and adding more rules or another system, unless it is simpler than the current one, is not likely to win me over. it's like trying to fix a off-kilter picture by jacking up one side of the house so it's level. the effort and time doe not produce a result that is significantly better (more fun, easier to do, more realistic,more balanced) than the original rules. -Mike R. |
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 06:43 PM
Post
#111
|
|||
|
Shooting Target ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
You know that you don't need to turn on astral perception to cast a spell, right? It's still a good tactic since mages will often use perception during battle for other reasons, but they don't need to for spellcasting. |
||
|
|
|||
May 5 2004, 06:55 PM
Post
#112
|
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I must say this thread is rather ironic for me, since I'm currently doing some major tweaking to my Medieval Fantasy Shadowrun melee rules. Needless to say, those are a fair bit more complex than the canon rules, and its basic functioning principle solves this particular problem quite neatly indeed.
|
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 07:12 PM
Post
#113
|
|||||||
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
In that case, I guess it doesn't really apply to you. I was referring more to BitBasher, who, in this case, seems to agree that the rule is broken, but doesn't feel it will ever practically turn up. Sorry for the confusion. Really, all I'm saying is that if you agree that it's broken, there's not much room from there to say that it shouldn't be fixed if it would require no real work from you. If you disagree that there's a problem, that's a different set of arguments entirely.
That's a pretty thin comparison. Deer and humans are so vastly different on a mental level as to make this completely fallacious.
Hey, you know, you could elaborate. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
May 5 2004, 07:25 PM
Post
#114
|
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I will make no attempt to edit this into a readable form. If you want it, PM me with your email address and I'll send it to you as an Excel 2002 file. This is just to show why I can't really elaborate here... The most important bit is the very beginning.
[ Spoiler ]
|
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 07:30 PM
Post
#115
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 693 Joined: 26-March 03 Member No.: 4,335 |
Do a lot of Faerun runs, A.E.?
|
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 07:31 PM
Post
#116
|
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
0 thus far. Maybe in 6 months...
|
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 07:34 PM
Post
#117
|
|||
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 476 Joined: 30-December 03 From: Fresno, CFS: taking out one durned furriner at a time. Member No.: 5,940 |
I coulda swore the act of casting a spell or summoning a spirit made the caster astrally active (even if not using astral perception) for a moment. Still is rather nasty for an unsuspecting mage. Though rereading the section it makes it seem like a spell has an aura that could be attacked as the mage is building it. Still is rather... cheesy. |
||
|
|
|||
May 5 2004, 07:47 PM
Post
#118
|
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
The reason why I don't use skill 1 examples is because I don't find them to be common. But okay, if you want to go with them...
Let's say that two characters are fighting, both with skill 1. One of them rolls his one dice, and it comes up a 1-- an "oops". Would you agree that he likely tripped and fell on his face? Now, we have three people with skill 1, fighting another guy with skill 1. One of the three rolls a 1, and fumbles. Would you agree that he probably tripped and fell in front of his buddies? Now, we have a crowdful of people with skill 1, fighting our poor beleagured newbie. One of the crowd rolls a 1. Would you agree that he probably tripped and fell in front of his buddies, and got trampled in the process? When we have 16 people attacking a guy, and they all have skill 1, there's an equal chance on both sides that they'll fumble. What's more the superfast crowd of attacking buddies (S.C.A.B.) has a lot more combat pool. So, yes, our target has a chance to hurt a lot of SCABs. But, he's just as likely to hurt himself-- and what's more, if he does hurt a lot of them, he probably just tripped one of them, who was in turn trampled by his buddies. Oh, and Lime-- the problem with the watcher attack pack strategy is that it's damn near instant death for any astral combatant. Whirling and unlimited counterattacks is the only way of beating the tactic. What you've missed in the tactic is the really honking huge spirit who's using the watchers as a distraction, and the mage sitting back reading a spell. Arethrusa: I don't think the rule is broken in the slightest. In order for it to happen, the attacker has to roll worse than the defender, multiple times. If he rolled worse, he did worse. It's not as bad as TN modifiers (the old reach rule was way overpowered, for one) and it's useless against multiple opponents. (Yes, the defender can have whirling-- but they can use maneuvers too.) It's not like it automatically confers some huge edge on the player; it means that he's got a chance, nothing more. If you think speed deserves more of an advantage, that's cool. That's your opinion, and YMMV. I don't share that opinion, and I think the rules are fine as is. (Well, mostly; I still like the idea of people hurting each other instead of there being a definite winner and loser. But I'm OK with the normal system.) |
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 10:37 PM
Post
#119
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
I don't think there's any problems with the melee combat rules as they stand.
And remember, Unarmed Combat is a skill that is derived from the Strength attribute, not Quickness or reaction. Every skill in SR comes from, or defaults to a single attribute. By changing the rules to include reaction/initiative bonuses to Unarmed Combat, you're diluting the point that it's your Strength attribute that sets the damage, not reaction/initiative. What's next, should we add quickness/reaction/initiative bonuses to swords 'cause you can swing em really fast compared to the mage with 6 essence? I think this whole argument is simply a bunch of twinkies who want more bonuses than Reaction/Initiative enhancing cyberware actually gives in game mechanics. If you want to add this "realism" to speed and Unarmed Combat, they we have to change the rules for Ranged combat. Why, cause a super-fast sammy ought to be able to pull a trigger more than twice a combat pass... to the point where they can empty a 15 round magazine in a semi-auto in a single complex action. After all, that's just twitching a finger 3/4 of an inch to pull a trigger, which is nothing compared to making 4-5 unarmed combat attacks in an initiative turn. |
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 10:48 PM
Post
#120
|
|
|
Shooting Target ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158 |
You didn't really read many of the posts, did you ShadowGhost?
|
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 11:13 PM
Post
#121
|
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
Have you ever seen a simple block that can shatter an elbow or knee? I have. That's one, simple block that does major damage to the human body. No side-stepping, no jumping, no fancy maneuvers, no whirling, no twisting, no dodging.
Just One. Single. Block. And the attacker has broken bones without ever landing a blow. Under your beliefs that the defender shouldn't be allowed to do damage to an attacker, or that it should somehow be limited, or much harder to harm an attacker, is unrealistic in the face of this reality. When you see martial arts demonstrations where one, ordinary human defends themselves against 8 attackers, it makes your point moot. I've studied karate, and participated in lessons where you are in the middle of a circle, defending yourself from several attackers at once, all of whom art at your belt level, for 10 minutes straight. It's exhausting, brutal hard work - you're up against people who are faster, and slower than yourself, stronger and weaker....but guess what. It's not impossible. Sometimes you lose, and sometimes you hold your own against 4-8 people at once for 30-45 seconds: 10-15 combat entire combat turns in Shadowrun. To follow it to a logical conclusion, if the defender cannot make that simple, potentially knee shattering, single block, (i.e hurt the attacker), then the attacker should be allowed completely unopposed attacks on a defender who is out of actions. Why? Because a simple block (not a counterattack, a block!) can do nasty damage. And if you can't block, you're getting hurt. |
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 11:19 PM
Post
#122
|
|
|
Shooting Target ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158 |
So in other words, because you've seen some lame videos and demonstrations where a "master" gets a bunch of his students to attack him just right, the power of Kung Fu should be unstoppable. While, in nearly the same breath, you chastise people who prefer to see more realistic results in combat as being "a bunch of twinkies who want more bonuses than Reaction/Initiative enhancing cyberware actually gives in game mechanics."
Yeaaaaaaah. Since we're throwing names around, you sound more like a twink than anyone else in the thread. Behold the undeniable power of Kung Fu! Awwwhhhhmmmm... I guess that's why every army in the world focuses extensively on Kung Fu training, because one man can take down all opponents with ease just by throwing up a single block. Especially since it takes so much longer to kill four people using an assault rifle in fully automatic mode than it would be to take them down with a single counterstrike. Awesome! I dunno. When I've seen demonstrations or watch a good movie where a fight takes place, they usually last a little longer than a half nanosecond. However, if I ever find myself under attack by a 2x4 resting on some cinder blocks, I'll be sure to call on your assistance. |
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 11:40 PM
Post
#123
|
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,028 Joined: 9-November 02 From: The Republic of Vermont Member No.: 3,581 |
I have serious reservations about martial arts skills being Strength-linked, anyway. I've never seen any evidence that natural strength makes it easier to get better in combat... in fact, my experience indicates that it makes it harder, in some ways. I've seen quite a few big strong guys who never learned proper form because simply powering the blow in there with their arm was minimally effective, and who hit a plateau fairly quickly, while the smaller guys who had to learn proper form to land a killing blow in the first place shot past them in ability. And all the "naturals" I've seen, the ones who went from beginner to knight or master in less time than I've been fighting, have been not exceptionally strong, but exceptionally fast. (And, yes, Cain, I can tell the difference between technique and raw natural speed.)
And, ShadowGhost, you might notice that the rules as they stand do let fast guys pull the trigger more frequently than slow ones. |
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 11:46 PM
Post
#124
|
|
|
Shooting Target ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158 |
Yeah, I've always linked most combat skills to (natural) Reaction myself. It just makes more sense to me even if it makes improving them easier for combat-oriented characters.
|
|
|
|
May 5 2004, 11:58 PM
Post
#125
|
|||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
I stopped jumping in about things like this, but in what I took, AKKI Kenpo Karate, Generally speaking you should be trying to hurt someone with every freaking block you make. There is no opportunity that should be passed up to hurt someone if you can. If I can block a punch hell yes I'm going to try to bruise their forearm or bicep. That's the entire point of it. There's no such thing as blocking or evading that doens't cause the attacker some pain. That's the entire idea. I don't spend any more motion hurting you then I do just stepping out of the way really. There's nothing uber about it, a lot of styles are designed from the ground up to do just that. See Aikido for examples also.
|
||
|
|
|||
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 17th December 2025 - 09:15 PM |
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.