IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Movement penalty aply to melee?, Contraditory rules on pages 108/123/174
Lycan
post Feb 23 2005, 12:52 PM
Post #1


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24-January 05
Member No.: 7,012



Does the movement penalty apply to melee combat ?
If you read SR3 page 108, you will say: Yes, of course, it affects all target numbers.
But, if you go to page 123 you will see no such penalty on the melee modifiers table, even though the firearms modifiers table has.
Then, in page 174 it says: "Astral combat uses the same rules as Melee ... astral character can attack other astral forms with no penalties for astral movement".
This lastry entry may or may not be of relevance, but either way the question remains.
Personally, I think the penalty goes go all target number, but my swordsman PC thinks otherwise...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
toturi
post Feb 23 2005, 12:58 PM
Post #2


Canon Companion
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187



No, Running penalties do not apply to melee.

But if you are the GM, you can say that it does.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ranneko
post Feb 23 2005, 01:43 PM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 349
Joined: 16-January 05
Member No.: 6,984



Personally I would say no, they don't. Because otherwise it eliminates the advantage of a charge move which is a classic melee maneuver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lorthazar
post Feb 23 2005, 02:09 PM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 25-October 04
Member No.: 6,789



Or you could go halfway and rule your opponents movement affects the targeting numbers, escept when he has charged in which case it should be ignored.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mmu1
post Feb 23 2005, 03:37 PM
Post #5


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,070
Joined: 7-February 04
From: NYC
Member No.: 6,058



Given that movement is an integral part of any sort of melee combat, the only penalties that would make sense is if you were fighting in melee and trying not to move your feet, or moving in a restricted space - like fighting on a log over a chasm, or something.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dawnshadow
post Feb 23 2005, 05:44 PM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 668
Joined: 15-February 05
From: Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 7,086



The way it's been described to me, is Shadowrun fighting is not 'I stand and take a swipe with my (insert weapon here)' it's a give and take, footwork, balance, and so on. How many actual fights do you see where people just stand there and don't move? Shoot, most techniques for fighting involve moving. Especially in unarmed combat. Moving is part and parcel with it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Endgame50
post Feb 23 2005, 05:57 PM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 19-July 04
From: N 42° 43.799'. W 84° 27.901'
Member No.: 6,496



The only thing I don't like about the movement only penalizing shooters view is I've seen spellcasters run in nice little circles to make themselves harder to hit while they fire off spells no penalty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Feb 23 2005, 06:05 PM
Post #8


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



QUOTE (Dawnshadow)
The way it's been described to me, is Shadowrun fighting is not 'I stand and take a swipe with my (insert weapon here)' it's a give and take, footwork, balance, and so on. How many actual fights do you see where people just stand there and don't move? Shoot, most techniques for fighting involve moving. Especially in unarmed combat. Moving is part and parcel with it.

You'd be suprised what "Joe Public" thinks a real fight looks like vs. what they actually are alot of the time.

But point taken, SR combat is a series of things not just "I swing once, you swing back".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rev
post Feb 23 2005, 06:17 PM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 675
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 2,034



For magic it is fairly had to concentrate on doing something else while running and to focus on things visually, so you can easily justify a house rule modifier for that. I might give it +2 rather than +4 though.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lycan
post Feb 23 2005, 06:48 PM
Post #10


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24-January 05
Member No.: 7,012



QUOTE
The only thing I don't like about the movement only penalizing shooters view is I've seen spellcasters run in nice little circles to make themselves harder to hit while they fire off spells no penalty.


In fact as stated in page 108, the movement penalty applies to all actions, so it is legal and fair to apply it to spellcasting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Feb 23 2005, 06:54 PM
Post #11


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



We've started to faithfully apply movement modifiers to melee combat, and the results have been pretty interesting, to say the least. The typical action of the physad martial artist before was to run/leap in, whoop some tail, and let the teammates clean up the rest. Now they run in, stand just outside of melee range and let enemy combatants come to them, walking if they need to close the distance to strike. It has greatly reduced the importance of "Friends in Melee" rule, as the movement penalty tends to severely counteract the effect. We are considering using a "tackling" rule which allows running combatants to charge in, with the only thing the opponent can do is Full Defense.

All this is just an experiment, but it has given me and my group some food for thought.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shadow_scholar
post Feb 23 2005, 07:09 PM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 6-February 05
Member No.: 7,059



two views

1) regular walking mods should not apply, because like it has been previously stated, melee is about movement. But modifiers for running should apply, especially if they're attacking in the middle of a running movement. A good attack depends heavily on balance, and balance in the middle of a flat out run is in shorter supply.

2) depends upon the attack while walking. If the attack is from the head, body, or arms, then no walking modifiers should apply, because the feet are being used entirely for movement and balance. If the attack is a kick attack, then yes, the walking modifier should apply if they're actually trying to walk somewhere and kick attack.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Endgame50
post Feb 23 2005, 10:03 PM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 19-July 04
From: N 42° 43.799'. W 84° 27.901'
Member No.: 6,496



QUOTE (Lycan)
QUOTE
The only thing I don't like about the movement only penalizing shooters view is I've seen spellcasters run in nice little circles to make themselves harder to hit while they fire off spells no penalty.


In fact as stated in page 108, the movement penalty applies to all actions, so it is legal and fair to apply it to spellcasting.

That's true, and I think it should apply, but then we should apply movement mods to melee fighting too, right? Hence the dilemma presented in this thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dawnshadow
post Feb 23 2005, 10:18 PM
Post #14


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 668
Joined: 15-February 05
From: Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 7,086



Actually... I would think the sensible thing to do is apply it only to those tasks where moving would be a distraction or otherwise make a task more difficult.

Adding movement modifiers to someone who's got a dance centering skill (or worse yet, a dance geas) would be silly, but legal, by the rules.

Something that movement is just naturally a part of just doesn't make sense to have movement modifiers applied to.

To take a ridiculus case, just to make the point about 'all tests' being a little too inclusive...

Why would anyone apply movement modifiers to a test for running faster? It just doesn't make sense. The flip side, why wouldn't anyone apply movement modifiers to trying to throw a fireball spell at someone standing on a building while running down the street?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Feb 23 2005, 10:21 PM
Post #15


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



you'd also have to add the running TN mod to the Athletics test for increasing your running speed. by the book, that's what you're supposed to do--but i really doubt that the authors intended that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Endgame50
post Feb 23 2005, 10:22 PM
Post #16


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 19-July 04
From: N 42° 43.799'. W 84° 27.901'
Member No.: 6,496



I'll concede it would be an awful penalty to something like dancing, but I'd rule you could dance without actually having to "move" spaces.

For Martial Arts, I can see both sides. Movement is a big part of it, like in all combat really--but here's something I see. When I spar in martial arts, we weave and circle around each other, but we don't go running down corridors taking jabs at each other--that's alot harder. When you're running full bore, your balance and positioning aren't as good as if you're in a decent fighting stance. Of course, since when does reality affect SR rules? :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dawnshadow
post Feb 23 2005, 10:28 PM
Post #17


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 668
Joined: 15-February 05
From: Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 7,086



QUOTE (Endgame50)
I'll concede it would be an awful penalty to something like dancing, but I'd rule you could dance without actually having to "move" spaces.

For Martial Arts, I can see both sides. Movement is a big part of it, like in all combat really--but here's something I see. When I spar in martial arts, we weave and circle around each other, but we don't go running down corridors taking jabs at each other--that's alot harder. When you're running full bore, your balance and positioning aren't as good as if you're in a decent fighting stance. Of course, since when does reality affect SR rules? :)

Hehe.. there are a few specific things I've done in martial arts that running was a part of.. but mine were Taekwondo, so there are a lot of arial techniques and so on. They weren't used in sparring as much (at least not the running ones, I have seen double and triple kicks... heard legends about someone who does quad-kicks..) but, in a SR situation if I had someone facing the other way and could do it quietly enough (or had a friendly mage to invis me or something) a flying kick would be very appropriate.. if it'll knock someone off a horse, it'll certainly ruin a persons day to get hit with. They're mostly start-fights though, not 'in the middle', just because you DO need the range for them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Feb 23 2005, 10:32 PM
Post #18


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



I think I'd only apply a movement penalty when a character is trying to hit his opponent 'in passing'. A character running past his target and taking a swipe with his sword should have a TN penalty, as should a stationary attacker trying to hit an opponent who is running past him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Feb 23 2005, 10:41 PM
Post #19


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



realism is complex. what i might do, if i really wanted realism, is to say that the movement penalty is reduced by -2 for melee. i'd also say that using the Charging option reduces that modfier by a further -2. that makes it +0 to melee while walking, +2 to melee while running, and +0 to melee while running if you're using the Charging option.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Feb 23 2005, 11:18 PM
Post #20


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



QUOTE (Dawnshadow)
Adding movement modifiers to someone who's got a dance centering skill (or worse yet, a dance geas) would be silly, but legal, by the rules.

I just flashed an image of Discworld Morris Dancers from "Lords and Ladies". *shudders*
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
toturi
post Feb 24 2005, 01:00 AM
Post #21


Canon Companion
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187



QUOTE
When walking, if the character is combining the movement with an action that requires some form of Success Test, the character takes a +1 target modifier.


QUOTE
Characters who are running take a +4 target modifier to any tests attempted while running.


I will partially retract my earlier statement. Movement as a result of melee does not count towards modifiers, but explicitly stated movement does. So if you are in melee and you are moved (via Zoning, Herding, etc), you do not have modifiers. If you are Moving and attempt a Complex Action to Melee, then you are subject to those modifiers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lycan
post Feb 25 2005, 09:36 PM
Post #22


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24-January 05
Member No.: 7,012



I finally made up my mind about this. I agree that some movement is a natural part of a melee attack, so the walking modifier should not apply. As for running, well... most combat movements I know that require charging do more damage but are less eficient to hit or open your defense. So everytime my PCs decide to combine a running with a combat manuever he will receive a +1 penalty on his attack and most likely it will be also considered a charge (as in cannon companion). The +2 penalty for rough terrain will also apply when appropriate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th April 2024 - 04:40 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.