And yet claim you're not being anal about it? Perhaps you don't understand the term?

An ad hominem attack requires that I actually attack you. Stating that someone who believes the specialization doesn't work is not an attack on you, it's an attack on a position.

I did claim what you said is invalid, but never said you would laugh and call anyone noob. I said that only the most anal of GMs would do that. If you would do it then you're one of the most anal of GMs. If you wouldn't then you're not.

I agree. Giving Martial Arts as a specifialization is poorly thought out, at least until a book comes along that gives rules for MAs and how those apply to specializations.

Nah. Parry is easy to understand, and as someone pointed out it's not capitalized so it's not a rules term. They should have used Block, but it's not [i]as[i] poorly thought out.

I don't even know who did write it, but it certainly wasn't me. And it takes a lot more than that to even find my feelings, much less hurt them.

No, I made the point that any game master that would laugh and point while screwing the player for choosing a dubiously worded specialization is a bad game master. Your defense of the idea then led me to believe that you must fall into that category. After all, it's rare that good GMs defend bad GMing practices.

I didn't come to the conclusion that you were anal until you continued to defend the stance, indicating a lack of ability to be distant and philosophical on the matter over the desire to be right to the point of picking away at the niggling bits rather than the obvious intent of the rule in question. In other words, I saw evidence. If you believe that to be parsimonious you may want to check your dictionary.

Agreed. That's the real issue. You can't make Unarmed cost any more in terms of BPs than an armed combat skill. You have to keep it based off a single skill, but then allow either manuevers, which provide bonuses and penalties, or allow someone to somehow purchase extra stuff, that is better.

I'm leaning towards manuevers, like those in the Battletech listing, as the best option.

I'd have to say that I wouldn't mind a small section on unarmed in Arsenal, though. If you start going down the "You can't add X, because then you won't have Y" path, you end up losing stuff that would be good, simply because it infringes on someone else's favorites. I can't think of any *other* book to add unarmed to, so it's either Arsenal or nowhere. I'm not talking a 48 page section. More a 2 page breakdown of a few styles, and suggestions on making new ones.

Agreed.

I was taught that each block is an attack. So we attack and parry, blocking is an attack in my training.

So arguing the difference is matter of what's taught and how you look at it.

I was just emphasizing your point. There's lots of argument over semantics but it comes down to what you're being taught.

Indeed. And if you are that pedantic, Martial Arts is a completely useless Specialization, as it doesn't help at any test.

I really like this idea. This makes alot of sense to me. My question is does the specialization cost differently or is it the same as regular specializations. Is there a limit to the number of style specializations that can be used at once or is it just a +2 max?

If you make learning unarmed combat is part of a skill group that includes the melee weapons. Are you going to add the extra aspects of unarmed to the group (such that everyone is, once more, all the same) or are you going to make learning unarmed combat more expensive than learning the firearms skill group?

Would you sacrifice all your armed and ranged weapons for being really spiffy if someone is stupid enough to let you get to arms reach? If so, can I have your stereo?

How does it gimp any character?
Most people would only learn one martial arts skill in their life, if at all. You don't have to take the skills if you don't want to. Not everyone will have the same skill sets.
If your interested in Martial Arts this allows you to have a character with some flavor instead of the one flavor provided.
If you think that it hurts the characters to have so many skills then just combine a few and you have the same thing as Unarmed Combat. Just have Melee, Firearms, and Unarmed.

Some of us like Crunch with our flavor, too.

Sure, I can say "I have studied eastern european mountain ninjitsu. I am a master of the Four Winds mystic gibba gibba technique, and I am one of seven people that know the dreaded Foozle Frobaz Flying Foot of Force." And then my GM says "Roll Unarmed + Agility"

Because to go to an extreme - why do we even have weapon and unarmed styles? Just have a "Hitting People" skill, and let the PC determine whether it's a weapon or a fist or a bottle. Why not just have a "Firearms" skill and let people just pick a wepon for flavor? But people enjoy picking a weapon over another, comparing stats and availability, etc. It's role playing, but it's also a game. Melee and Ranged each have categories, weapon choices, etc. Unarmed has a skill. And then you can be an adept, and pick up stuff that way.

For me, it would be fun to go through 10-15 different styles, compare the flavors, and then get a mechanical difference in my play. If I want to play an adept focused on non-lethal takedowns and humilating my opponent, right now, I can roll two more dice when I'm doing that in flavor. With rules, I could play an Aikido expert, who also took the "Disgraceful blow" maneuver from Streetfighting, and actually have mechanics for doing so. Not an advantage, but a different ruleset. Because to me, that's cool, and fun.

It would also encourage a non-adept unarmed player. Right now the only way to get interesting unarmed stuff is to pick up adept powers. If there were rules for non-magical bells and whistles, you might see a lot less "Why on earth is everyone in my party an adept?!"

Be careful. You'll awaken Cain and he'll jump in to exclaim how awe-inspiringly great Savage Worlds is because it does that.

Well, SR4’s central premise is going away from a multitude of rulesets. We have a rule set for ranged and a rule set for melee. We also have a variety of options for both ranged and melee. In ranged you can select from pistols, automatics, and heavy weapons. In melee you can select blades, clubs, and unarmed. There may be a lot of gun info, but you’ll have to admit that all the gun nuts around here still think that the guns don’t reflect reality. Probably even less so than melee combat.

You want mechanics for maneuvers in unarmed? Why not also for Pistols then? Could be bank shot, ranged disarm, foot shots. Then when we’re done super complicating combat let’s super complicate legwork too. We’ll make social skill maneuvers. It’ll be like Ocean’s eleven.

Or we can have all of it without the rules, and all that happens is we spend less time looking through the books at the game table. The places where it does not harm game play to add complexity is things that can be done off the table. Customization rules for vehicles as an example would be added complexity I can stand behind.

I consider throwing to be the unarmed ranged attack, basically. Of possibly the equivalent of a holdout pistol.

And I've broadened beyond Unarmed - I'm fine with that.

Although stylistically, it would be silly to ignore the huge history gamers have with unarmed combat.

The manuevers would create an equivalent system that was somewhat weapon independent. A long burst is basically a maneuver that a ranged attacker can use which modifies the dice they are rolling. It can be used with a class of weapon (BF/FA), and by anyone with the right category of skills.

In theory, I'd rework weapons and unarmed to have the equivalent of SS/SA/BF/FA (something like quick/strong/defensive/overbalanced), and assign that to each weapon. But that's needlessly complicated at this point.

The simplest solution is just to add a subset that allows the melee combatant to modify *their* rolls in a similar fashion, which are restricted to a list of weapons.

Course I have yet to actually propose a list. The fact that recoil as a mechanic doesn't exist makes it harder, and I'm not willing to get as deep as that yet. I like what Battletech tried to do with Stun/Fatigue damage, though. I may work on something like that next.

To be the most consistent, I would propose the following list (the flavor could be changed as you like):

(Semi-automatic) Flurry of Blows (Unarmed, Blades, Clubs, Axes, Whips)

You strike rapidly, losing focus to add extra attacks.

You make two attack rolls, each at half your dice pool (before modifiers). If you target more than one opponent, take a -2 penalty.

(Short wide burst) Quick Strike (Unarmed, Blades, Clubs, Whips)

Your blow is fast, and thus harder to dodge, but lacks power.

-2 from defender's dodge pool, -2 DV.

(short long burst) Powerful strike (Unarmed, Clubs, Axes, Polearms)

Your blow is focused and powerful, but slow.

+2 dice to defender's dodge, +2 DV

(long wide burst) Acrobatic attack (Unarmed, Blades, Polearms, Whips)

You dance about your opponent, bewildering them, but making it harder to land a telling blow, and leaving yourself open to retaliation.

-5 from Defender's dodge pool, -2 DV, -4 to your own Dodge for the next round.

(long narrow burst) Overwhelming Force (Unarmed, Clubs, Axes, Polearms)

You charge at your opponent with little regard for your own safety. You may land a massive blow, but you may well pay for it.

Add half your strength to your DV. -2 dice from your attack roll. You may not roll any defense during the next round.

(Full Auto) All Out Assault (Blades, Axes, Clubs)
Add half your strength to your DV. +2 AP, -4 to defender's dodge pool. You are considered surprised until the end of your your next turn.

Slap fight

Rabbit punch

Bitch slap

Kick 'em in the Jimmy.

My system: Specialties cost normal (though playtesting may change this). Can only get a total of +2 bonus, yes. An aikido master vs a streetbrawling kung fu tai chi kareteka will still be an even match. Somewhat unrealistic, as the one with more styles SHOULD have an advantage in real life... but for game simplicity, each just gets +2.

That said, I'm also toying with making melee weapons part of the same skill. Call it all 'close combat'. I have a couple of rules mods to discourage hand to hand fighting, such as allowing shots at people who try to close, except if they do so by surprise or stealth. Of course, once someone's engaged you in hand to hand, I allow them attacks to stop you from getting away!

I haven't played much with this system yet, so as I said, it'll be playtesting that will determine the exact costing. If I go with a single 'close combat' skill, players will have points refunded. Same if I drop the price of additional specialisations (perhaps 2 points for the initial spec, 1 for each one past that).

So no-one liked my idea of specialisations based on opponent type? :_( I thought it would be a good way to keep the streamlined rules of SR4, but still have meaningful differences in close combat styles.

Well the thing with hacking having X skills or magic having Y skills to it, is that these are all broad areas of expertise. It's also appropriate to say that "Combat" has Z skills to it, but what you're suggesting is that "Close" Combat should require multiple skills to be good at it. This expands it into a great big role that, in most games I would think, is a waste of time. My play experience is that, although close combat happens, mainly people are getting shot. Shadowrun is a realistic game and hand to hand fighting is an archaic last resort. You could just as easily say that the Hacking skill should be broken down into different knowledge skills such as OS exploits, dictionary attacks, IP spoofing, ad infinitem. And indeed this would make sense if the game were just hacking, but the net effect of this would be to (a) make hacking a horribly big part of the game (b) make characters that just wanted hacking to be one component of their character's role obsolete and ( C ) probably make them more of a karma sink in an attempt at balance.

(A) might suit some GMs if they really want Close Combat to be a big exercise in their games, but (B) and ( C ) are my main concerns. Any system that starts opening up a big array of extra options for close combat is going to make the normal 1-6 close combat skill a poor cousin. Your Unarmed Combat 5 person, who was previously a master, must now build up an array of skills to have the same status, due to power creep. And the GM has to either turn close combat into a karma sink in order to compensate (making close combat characters less viable), or keep costs low and let close combat become much more powerful. Neither option appeals to me so I think creating additional close combat skills would not appeal.

I strongly expect any attempt to define close combat in realistic detail in the rules to bog things down and also lead to player-gm arguments when players expecting the GM / system to deal with it say: "I'm going to put him in a Boston Crab - now he can't fight back.")

I'd also disagree with your statement about martial artists not learning "every maneuvre". Oh yes, we don't set out to catalogue every japanese and chinese name and slight variation from style to style, but broadly speaking, those who really study martial arts are aware of any weak areas and attempt to compensate. And in game terms, specialisations are these wider priniciples rather than particular techniques. Even myself, who is not a particularly skilled martial artist has tried seven different martial arts to find out what suited me and I've studied four semi-seriously (karate, boxing, Wing Chun and wrestling). I'd expect a high rating in Unarmed Combat to represent someone having a studied a mix of complementary styles (or one very well-rounded art). The Shadowrun system rewards having a particular specialisation, but I don't think this is realistic if you're defining specialisations as martial arts. I think you need a different category of specialisations.

I'm not talking about it replacing the normal size modifiers. After all, even if you're a good karate-style kicker, the troll's reach has now forced you to rely on it, whereas before it was one of your available options. What I'm saying is that types of opponents could be a very elegant choice of specialisation. The aforementioned troll who mostly just picks on those smaller than himself. Naturally he'll be less effective against another troll who can box effectively and who his strenth can't overwhelm. As others have said, specialising by real world martial art doesn't work very well because there are martial arts that cover all the options quite effectively (Kung Fu or Ju-Jitsu, I would say for starters). But these sorts of preferences cut across style boundaries. I had a very good friend who was 5'3" (1.6m) and an extremely good boxer and martial artist (primarily Ju-jitsu and boxing). He had an absolute knack for taking down those larger than himself. Now I couldn't give him a specialisation in kicks or strikes or grappling seeing as he was very well rounded as a good martial artist will be, but I could quite definitely give him Close Combat (larger opponents). The more used to being able to whack someone from a distance his opponent was, the more disturbed they usually were to find him an inch away with a palm under their chin and a fist pounding their gut. Then again, I once had a great gangly sensei who seemed almost impossible to close with. Definitely a specialisation in those shorter than himself.

As an initial list of close combat specialisations, I would go with:

Unarmed Combat (Larger Opponents)
Unarmed Combat (Smaller Opponents)
Unarmed Combat (Armed Opponents)
Unarmed Combat (Subdual)
Unarmed Combat (Multiple Opponents) the Pa-Kua approach
Unarmed Combat (Spirits) a Phys Adept favourite?

A good mix of rules and flavour, I would say. I can see vivid descriptions of each of these specialisations but they wouldn't cause me big headaches in play.

Boxing, Xingyi, karate, kickboxing

what he said, maybe also some others, hapkido too? Seriously, they also do a bit of wrestling in there too... or maybe because the class I took was taught by some former bouncers too...

Bagua (Pa-kua, or however else you spell it...), taichi?

Hapkido, Wrestling, Brazilian Jujitsu