What makes a 'combat character'? Options

[FuelDrop]

Now I've been thinking of late about what makes a 'combat character' and how that differs from 'noncombat character who can defend themselves'.

My GM and I both kind of feel that the difference is one of intent. If you build your character around a certain fighting style or combat philosophy then they're a combat character. They may not be any good, but actual skill is kind of irrelevant for this. On the other hand you might have a character who's built around stealth or similar and who avoids fights if at all possible, but who happens to be very good at fighting should it come down to it. They're not necessarily a combat character.

Do people agree or are we in the deluded minority?

[Neraph]

I would define it similarly, but with a slightly different approach. A Combat Character is one who's primary focus is a form of combat. For example, you could have two streetmages with identical skills, but if one has more combat spells than the other I'd define that one as a Combat Mage and the other as a Mage. Or if you have someone with rigging capabilities who's focus is Gunnery rather than Stealth, Perception, and Shadowing, I'd say the former is a Combat Rigger and the latter is a Rigger Overwatch character.

Overall, the difference in my approach is one more of terminology than anything, so basically I agree with you.

[RHat]

Generally, I disagree - regardless of your intent to use it, I think of "Combat" as a component you add on to the character through the choices you make; by taking high Reaction, Intuition, Agility, and a solid combat skill or two (even if we're just talking Pistols and Unarmed with a Shock Hand), you're a combat character regardless of intent. Equally, you can intend to build a combat character but not actually achieve such.

[Achsin]

I'm in agreement with RHat on this one, your intent is somewhat irrelevant for determining if your character really is a combat character, it's the abilities of the character that matter. Especially in comparison to the rest of the group and your expected opposition.

I was thinking of your comparison of Himori and Zero in the Unnatural Selection thread. Sure Himori could use more dice in order to be a super killer, and she's far from optimized for combat because her skill set is more diverse and she doesn't seem to be as augmented yet. She makes for a good back-up combat character who could easily specialize and develop into a main combat character over the course of the campaign.

Zero on the other hand is billed by you as n is highly specialized as a combat character, she's set up to have just about as many dice as possible for shooting someone in the head as you can get during chargen. I can't look at Agility 9, skill 6 + spec + smartlink straight out of chargen and not think combat character, regardless of the intent of the player.

You also have the characters that are only rocking Agility 3, skill 3 and maybe a smartlink or laser sight. These are the guys that I'd say are more of the non-combat characters who can defend themselves. For the most part, they aren't really looking to kill someone with their weapon of choice, their goal should be mostly to wear down the dodge pools of the opposition a bit or perhaps get in a lucky shot. They have a chance of causing some damage, especially if they get the drop on someone, but they're not the guys I'd go to if I needed someone dead.

In the end I'd lean much more towards where on the combat prowess spectrum a given character sits in regards to the rest of the players in the group. If you're in a game where the average character is rolling 4 dice for hurting someone and your character rolls 6, you've got the combat character of your group, but take that same character and throw him to a group comprised of Himori and Zero and you're suddenly the helpless bunny who hopefully can distract the opposition or at least not get in the way. Even if your character is built around a certain combat style or philosophy.

[FuelDrop]

I'll just point out that Himori was built from the ground up for combat and has no other skills of note. She has well under half her essence left.
I am still not sure how her player managed to get her dice pools so low considering the intent and investment, more so because there are some signs of attempted minmaxing (our gm had to enforce 'no codeblock for the logic 1 character, for instance).

[RHat]

I'll just point out that Himori was built from the ground up for combat and has no other skills of note.

Which means that there's no question that the player INTENDED to build a combat character. A separate question, however, is whether or not the player succeeded.

[FuelDrop]

Which means that there's no question that the player INTENDED to build a combat character. A separate question, however, is whether or not the player succeeded.

That is also not in question. They failed... though I have to admit that it is more due to play style than inherent flaws.

[Cain]

There's certainly an aspect of both views I agree with.

My thought would be on roleplay lines: how likely is this character to resort to combat to solve a situation? For example, I have a very potent pistol adept in SR5 Missions. With his stats being what they are, he certainly looks like a combat character. However, he's tried (and succeeded) in talking his way around several fights. While he counts as combat-capable, he's not a combat character in the sense that it's always his first choice.

In another thread, I mentioned a SR4.5 mystic adept in one of my games. His combat and magical skills were very low, to the point where he came in behind the rigger in personal combat ability. His highest skill, oddly enough,was etiquette specialized in Japanese culture-- odd because he was also Uncouth, and spent a lot of points raising it. However, outside of talking to his Japanese contacts, he never used it. His usual solution to a problem was to try and stab it. Throughout the course of that game, the Cha 1 troll tried to talk their way out of situations more than he did. So, I'd classify him as a combat character, even though he wasn't particularly good at it.

[kzt]

Any competent magician that has any attack spells or summon is going to be very combat effective. In SR1-4 they will be the most effective combat character, everybody falls down from a F12 stunbolt, and a F7 stunball will often do the same thing due to the attack pool vs single characteristic defense. A F6 spirit is a real pain to deal with if you don't have a few AT rockets or other heavy weapons, a higher force spirit is really bad news.

[Angelone]

There's certainly an aspect of both views I agree with.

My thought would be on roleplay lines: how likely is this character to resort to combat to solve a situation? For example, I have a very potent pistol adept in SR5 Missions. With his stats being what they are, he certainly looks like a combat character. However, he's tried (and succeeded) in talking his way around several fights. While he counts as combat-capable, he's not a combat character in the sense that it's always his first choice.

In another thread, I mentioned a SR4.5 mystic adept in one of my games. His combat and magical skills were very low, to the point where he came in behind the rigger in personal combat ability. His highest skill, oddly enough,was etiquette specialized in Japanese culture-- odd because he was also Uncouth, and spent a lot of points raising it. However, outside of talking to his Japanese contacts, he never used it. His usual solution to a problem was to try and stab it. Throughout the course of that game, the Cha 1 troll tried to talk their way out of situations more than he did. So, I'd classify him as a combat character, even though he wasn't particularly good at it.

This. Being effective in combat doesn't necessarily mean you are a combat combat character it's the attitude. For example, in Firefly Jayne is the combat character. He's not the only one who can or is willing to fight. He's the one who's more likely to default to it and more likely to throw down as it were.

[RHat]

This. Being effective in combat doesn't necessarily mean you are a combat combat character it's the attitude. For example, in Firefly Jayne is the combat character. He's not the only one who can or is willing to fight. He's the one who's more likely to default to it and more likely to throw down as it were.

I fundamentally disagree with the definition.

[Angelone]

I fundamentally disagree with the definition.

Just because you are good at something doesn't make it who you are. Imo it's how you use it, RL example, I was in the Army, I am trained in combat, I don't see myself as a combat oriented individual. I can shoot, I can fight with fists, clubs, or knives, but that doesn't define me.

In game example two combat focused characters, let's call them Sams from here on out, are in a separate bars. Someone takes offense to the dwarf joke they just let fly and wants to fight. One Sam fights while the other tries to defuse the situation by offering to buy the offended party a drink. Which is the combat character in your mind? They are both good combat but in my mind only one let it define him.

[Ryu]

Now I've been thinking of late about what makes a 'combat character' and how that differs from 'noncombat character who can defend themselves'.

My GM and I both kind of feel that the difference is one of intent. If you build your character around a certain fighting style or combat philosophy then they're a combat character. They may not be any good, but actual skill is kind of irrelevant for this. On the other hand you might have a character who's built around stealth or similar and who avoids fights if at all possible, but who happens to be very good at fighting should it come down to it. They're not necessarily a combat character.

Do people agree or are we in the deluded minority?

I think there are a few more categories, like "character that is unable to fight" and the unhappy "combat character who can´t defend themselves". I agree with your examples, but IMO there are two dimensions involved.

[RHat]

Just because you are good at something doesn't make it who you are. Imo it's how you use it, RL example, I was in the Army, I am trained in combat, I don't see myself as a combat oriented individual. I can shoot, I can fight with fists, clubs, or knives, but that doesn't define me.

In game example two combat focused characters, let's call them Sams from here on out, are in a separate bars. Someone takes offense to the dwarf joke they just let fly and wants to fight. One Sam fights while the other tries to defuse the situation by offering to buy the offended party a drink. Which is the combat character in your mind? They are both good combat but in my mind only one let it define him.

Labelling a character a "combat character", however, is to my mind a statement not of who they are but what they can do. Behaviour, frankly, is irrelevant in the definition I consider to be applicable.

[Cain]

Labelling a character a "combat character", however, is to my mind a statement not of who they are but what they can do. Behaviour, frankly, is irrelevant in the definition I consider to be applicable.

I have to disagree. Behavior makes all the difference.

Someone mentioned Firefly. During the series, we only know that three of them can fight worth a damn: Mal, Zoe, and Jayne. Over the course of the series, all of them show an almost equal amount of badassitude. Jayne, however, gets the combat character label because he's the most likely to resort to violence. Mal is willing to resort to vicious tactics, but because he's also willing to talk his way out of things, he's not considered as much of a combat type. And Zoe is probably the most restrained of the three, while she can fight with the best of them, she actually mixes it up the least.

And they're not the only ones. Shepard Book proves that he's capable in a firefight, for example, but he's not known as a combat character. And then there's River. Considering the movie, River is actually the most min/maxed combat monster of all of them, able to take on an entire ship of reavers in hand to hand combat. But she's not considered to be a combat character at all!

[RHat]

I have to disagree. Behavior makes all the difference.

Someone mentioned Firefly. During the series, we only know that three of them can fight worth a damn: Mal, Zoe, and Jayne. Over the course of the series, all of them show an almost equal amount of badassitude. Jayne, however, gets the combat character label because he's the most likely to resort to violence. Mal is willing to resort to vicious tactics, but because he's also willing to talk his way out of things, he's not considered as much of a combat type. And Zoe is probably the most restrained of the three, while she can fight with the best of them, she actually mixes it up the least.

And they're not the only ones. Shepard Book proves that he's capable in a firefight, for example, but he's not known as a combat character. And then there's River. Considering the movie, River is actually the most min/maxed combat monster of all of them, able to take on an entire ship of reavers in hand to hand combat. But she's not considered to be a combat character at all!

But when Book or River come into the fight...

But putting it another way, if this is supposed to be a useful means of classification for characters in a group, it HAS to be about capability, rather than behaviour. The motivation for this thread actually demonstrates that pretty nicely.

[Cain]

But when Book or River come into the fight...

But putting it another way, if this is supposed to be a useful means of classification for characters in a group, it HAS to be about capability, rather than behaviour. The motivation for this thread actually demonstrates that pretty nicely.

Well, like I said: if you're classifying characters on Firefly, Jayne is pretty clearly the combat character. But in terms of capability, Mal and Zoe are about his equal. Book is an unknown, but he can hit a running target in the kneecap at ten meters; he's not considered a combat character, though, because of his attitude towards fighting.

But the most capable character is River, who kicked Jayne's ass in a fair fight. Not only is she not considered to be a combat character, through much of the series they actively tried to keep her out fights. So, it's not about capability, otherwise River would be listed as the biggest badass. It's about your willingness to resort to combat.

[RHat]

Well, like I said: if you're classifying characters on Firefly, Jayne is pretty clearly the combat character. But in terms of capability, Mal and Zoe are about his equal. Book is an unknown, but he can hit a running target in the kneecap at ten meters; he's not considered a combat character, though, because of his attitude towards fighting.

But the most capable character is River, who kicked Jayne's ass in a fair fight. Not only is she not considered to be a combat character, through much of the series they actively tried to keep her out fights. So, it's not about capability, otherwise River would be listed as the biggest badass. It's about your willingness to resort to combat.

So, the combat-incompetent guy who resorts to combat easily and often is a combat character? I think not.

[Cain]

So, the combat-incompetent guy who resorts to combat easily and often is a combat character? I think not.

Jayne isn't combat-incompetent, although he isn't especially bright.

[Sendaz]

So, the combat-incompetent guy who resorts to combat easily and often is a combat character? I think not.

won't Nature weed out the combat-incompetent who keeps resorting to combat early and often pretty quickly so he/she won't be around long enough to get labelled a combat character?

[Angelone]

I think Jayne is brighter than he acts. You catch glimpses every now and then.

Back to the main topic, if two characters both have say firearms group at 5 in SR4 or 9 in SR5, but for one it's a fallback and the other it's their go to solution. The person who is the most likely to start shooting first is the combat character.

[RHat]

I think Jayne is brighter than he acts. You catch glimpses every now and then.

Back to the main topic, if two characters both have say firearms group at 5 in SR4 or 9 in SR5, but for one it's a fallback and the other it's their go to solution. The person who is the most likely to start shooting first is the combat character.

I would argue, and am arguing, that (depending on agility scores) they're both combat characters. I don't think simple statements of direct or indirect definition are going to gain us any traction, here. I suppose the question might be what the purpose of the classification itself is.

[FuelDrop]

won't Nature weed out the combat-incompetent who keeps resorting to combat early and often pretty quickly so he/she won't be around long enough to get labelled a combat character?

They get lucky sometimes. Eventually nature will kick in, but until then...

[Cain]

I would argue, and am arguing, that (depending on agility scores) they're both combat characters. I don't think simple statements of direct or indirect definition are going to gain us any traction, here. I suppose the question might be what the purpose of the classification itself is.

Well, judging combat capacity is different than judging the likelihood of them starting a fight. So, attitude matters a lot.

If you're going into a social situation, ideally you lead with the Face, who has a lot of social skills and is willing to use them. But if you don't have a face, your best bet is the character who's more willing to talk instead of going for a gun, even if the impulsive character has a higher social dice pool.

[Angelone]

I would argue, and am arguing, that (depending on agility scores) they're both combat characters. I don't think simple statements of direct or indirect definition are going to gain us any traction, here. I suppose the question might be what the purpose of the classification itself is.

There really isn't any purpose to the classification we humans just love to label things. Also coming to an agreement on classifications lessens confusion in the long run.