My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Ranged vs. Melee Question, gun on fist |
 Jul 19 2004, 08:01 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Shooting Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123  |
Pistol whipping damage is listed in a book, though. I think it's CC, and the damage was STR+1 M Stun
|
 |
 
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 08:07 PM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
You definitely can shoot the charging person, and on your action you can always shoot them instead of rolling melee. It's best to shoot the charging person before they get to you, that's what guns are good at. You just cannot chose to use furearms to defend with instead of melee combat unless you're going to swing it like a club. On your own action you can do what you want but there's going to be penalties. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 19 2004, 09:48 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 16-July 04 Member No.: 6,488 |
In other wordsy, you can attack by shooting a firearm (albeit with the flat +2 TN penalty to reflect your opponent doing whatever he can to keep you from aiming it properly) but you cannot counterattack by shooting one. At best you can use it as a club.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 11:28 PM
Post
#29
|
|||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Actually, in that case, it might be even more difficult to bring your weapon to bear. When fighting against a polearm with your bare hands, about the only defense you can manage is to slap the blade away, or try and trap it between your palms. Neither one of these options is particularily appealing, incidentally. The only other defense I can think of would be to grab the shaft and make your way up; but that's simulated by the Close Combat maneuver. In either case, if I have a cyberhand, I'll be blocking with that as much as possible. And don't forget, you don't need to pin the gun, you just need to ruin his aim.
Nicely put! |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 19 2004, 11:38 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
UMS O.G. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 444 Joined: 18-May 04 Member No.: 6,335 |
The only way to defend against a polearm barehanded is to grap the haft of the weapon and start kicking. Anyone who thinks they can slap away a glaive or halberd has some screws loose. I know a man named Sasha who can demonstate this to anyone who's into pain.
BTW I'm impressed that such a simple Q & A thread evolved into this. Damn Dumpshock is fun. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 11:43 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
no kidding. there's no way in hell you're going to shoot anybody with anything while someone is swinging a meat cleaver on a pole at you, without taking some sort of penalty.
with the adept power i mentioned, i'd orginally considered making it a combat option or even a maneuver. my first idea involved giving different firearm classes a Reach modifier based on size: holdouts would be reach 3, light and heavy pistols would be reach 2, SMGs would be reach 1, rifles and shotguns would be reach 0, and anything larger would be reach -1. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2004, 02:36 AM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
My issue is really that there is no skill which makes it easier for you to handle a firearm in close quarters combat. I don't like the idea that everyone, everywhere, with any kind of firearm against anyone with any kind of melee weapon has the exact same penalty.
The argument for the penalty keeps shifting, too, I might add. First, it's that you can't effectively aim because of the size of your weapon, and now it's that you're distracted. I'd wager that you couldn't hit someone with a meat cleaver on a pole very well if you were spending half of your time keeping them from pointing their hand at you (certainly not as well as if they were totally unarmed). mfb's idea about giving reach to firearms works for me to balance that one out since you're effectively dividing your attention between attacking and not getting shot. [edit]On another note, are there any real world fighting styles that teach how to deal with firearms without getting up close and personal? I'm not a widely knowledgable person in the field, so I ask because I don't know. Every technique I've seen involves getting very, very close to the other guy and staying inside the range where he can use his weapon. Disarming doesn't count since that's a seperate part of melee ;)[/edit] |
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2004, 03:07 AM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 214 Joined: 8-June 03 Member No.: 4,696 |
That skill would be firearms (well, pistols, SMGs, etc). You get the same penalty as everyone else, but higher skill still translates into more successes.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2004, 03:15 AM
Post
#34
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 16-July 04 Member No.: 6,488 |
That's already incorporated into the melee combat rules. Melee combat is a completely different beast, mechanically, than ranged combat. In melee combat, it's not a "I swing, now I'll stand still while it's your turn" thing. You're constantly attacking, counterattacking, dodging, blocking, and parrying throughout the entire scenario. In ranged combat, it's pretty much the opposite. You're aiming and then pulling the trigger... and that's it. If someone is there swatting at the gun or otherwise doing whatever they can to keep you from aiming properly, you don't have much of a defense against it except to keep trying to aim. That's where the +2 penalty kicks in.
What does that have to do with anything? Who's trying to shoot you? If you're attacking with a firearm in a melee situation, then you're not shooting it, you're using it as a melee weapon. At that point it follows the standard melee rules with the pistol functioning as a Reach 0 clubbed weapon. If you're defending against a melee attack and you want to counterattack, the same holds true. Again, you can attack by shooting a firearm in melee but you cannot counterattack or defend by shooting one. And if you're not trying to shoot it, you're actively engaged in melee combat and use the pistol was a club. Your options are pretty black-and-white.
While not being a real-world art, Equilibrium has a good scene at the very end of two opponents in melee range "counterattacking" either with their pistol as a club or with an unarmed attack as their opponent gets their turn to shoot during their attack. They both keep missing completely. Finally, Preston gives up trying to shoot him and engages in a melee attack on his turn and ends the combat. It's a perfect example of how the rules work. If you want to come up with some house rules, make a martial art maneuver along those lines. Maybe something like increasing the target modifier by +1 for every two successes you make on your "counterattack" against the gunman, with the option for the gunman to use every two of his successes to "counter" the counterattack. Reach still shouldn't matter, however, since your opponent isn't actively trying to get around yours to damage you, he's just trying to point either at you or another target. 'Course that'll just slow down combat, but... <shrugs> |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 20 2004, 04:24 AM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
A while ago I remember someone came up with some simple rules for this. I think it was as simple as adding +1 for anything involving a stock, and an additional +1 for long weapons like shotguns, rifles, and up. They didn't take into account the opponents weapon or skill, though. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 20 2004, 03:03 PM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
You know, I buy that in D&D. I don't buy it so much in SR. The time scale is vastly different between the two (6 seconds vs. ~1 second), for one thing. My argument is simple. Making a melee attack on someone holding a firearm should either be harder, or it should be easier for the person with the gun to shoot his attacker. Why? Effort spent ruining someone's aim is not effort spent directly trying to damage them. I'd rather just remove the penalty to shooting alltogether and make it a melee option. Hell, I'd even make it more difficult to get shot as a whole, but it would make the melee combatant slightly less effective. Let's say for a +1 to your melee TN, you can impose a +2 TN penalty to any ranged attacks performed by the target of your melee test. It would do damage as normal, and the effect would last until the end of your opponent's next phase. The bonus would be that it would even affect an opponent who managed to move away. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 20 2004, 03:08 PM
Post
#37
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Similarly effort spent ruining someone's melee attacks is not effort spent directly trying to damage them. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 20 2004, 03:27 PM
Post
#38
|
|||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
There is a flaw here because in any competent martial art, the act of ruining someone's aim is accomplished in such a way that it inherintly damages them. In fact, everything you do offensively or defensively should be damaging the opponent. He swings on you? You damage him. You block? You damage him with the block alone. He has a gun? You wrench the gun to throw off his aim and break his fingers in the process. The gun is a fantastic level, and he has at least one finger inside a fingerguard and it has noplace to go. You can also be kicking knees out and various other things at the same time. You're always hurting your opponent.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 20 2004, 03:48 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
Given all other factors being equal, in a one second time frame of melee combat, who would be more injured, a defender with bare hands, or a defender with a pistol in his hand? Let's say the attacker has a katana, just for simplicity sake.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2004, 04:09 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Well since I've never trained with a katana and know nothing of their techniques I cannot answer with 100% certainty. In defending against a firearm a handheld weapon is a disadvantage IMHO because you need at least one free hand to grapple, and the katant needs 2 to use effectively, and is better used a few steps back, the opposite of where you want to be in this case, which is right up close. In reality the katana really changes the scenario and not really for the better in my opinion. The "For simplicity sake" makes it much more complitacted.
Ideally though, you'd end up doing the same amount of damage to the person, it would just be done in different ways. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2004, 06:26 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Street Doc Group: Admin Posts: 3,508 Joined: 2-March 04 From: Neverwhere Member No.: 6,114 |
Actually any martial art worth its salt teaches that the best defense against an oncomming attack is first and formost to move.
Take aikido for example- they regularly train in disarming an attacker using a knife, a sword and a short staff (polearm). The most basic technique is to avoid the attack an use a distractionary strike (what they call atemi), usually to the face, before disarming the person. If you had a pistol in your hand, and you weren't into the whole "non-violent conflict resolution" that aikido teaches, you could just as easily move out of the way and shoot the guy in the face. Personally I've trained in japanese weapon arts for about 10 years and various unarmed martial arts for close to 7. I'm not saying I'm and expert, or that I've ever been in a situation like this, but I would never even ATTEMPT to attack a guy with a gun, regardless of what melee weapon I had to work with. Thats just a really stupid way to get dead. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2004, 06:30 PM
Post
#42
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Just standing there getting shot is a far more stupid way to get dead. No matter how bad you suck at melee combat, your chances of staying alive are far better if you engage the guy with the gun in melee than if you tried to run, hide, whatever. As has been stated before, shooting someone in melee is a heck of a lot more difficult than shooting someone several meters away. This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Jul 20 2004, 06:31 PM |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 20 2004, 06:39 PM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
I'll agree that it's harder. But at the same time, I'd say it's harder to effectively attack someone in melee if they have a gun. Since a portion of your attention is dedicated to keeping the weapon at bay (it doesn't have to be much to matter, this is a 1 second slice of time we're talking about here), your ability to render effective damage to the gun wielder is also going to be impeded. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 20 2004, 07:08 PM
Post
#44
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Compared to attacking someone in melee if they have a knife? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 20 2004, 07:29 PM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
If you're unarmed, I'd say the knife is as hard or maybe harder to fight against. If you're armed, I'd say the gun is harder to fight against. Particularly if you are armed with a reach weapon. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 20 2004, 08:31 PM
Post
#46
|
|||||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
I agree with that mostly. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 20 2004, 10:22 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
I like the penalty for firearms in melee combat, melee combat can be a turbulent environment considering all that is probably going on. No time to aim or get locked on someone who is all over the place.
This penalty also teaches folks to shoot people before they get too close. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 21 2004, 04:26 AM
Post
#48
|
|||||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
Again, not as much as you might think. I've tried a training session with a pistol crossbow vs. a boffer sword, and it worked out decently. He's got to defend as well, and in all liklihood his gun will be his best blocking implement. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 21 2004, 05:28 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
UMS O.G. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 444 Joined: 18-May 04 Member No.: 6,335 |
I've always found that with any one handed weapon with reach/mass you got the gun weilder cold. Your off hand goes for the gun and you bring your weapon hand around at full speed his bare hand will not stop a sword/axe/mace. Knife, different story. Two handed weapon, different story. +2 modifier, good compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 12:24 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.