Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Melee attacks vs. vehicles
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
kerbarian
The description of the Defense autosoft says that a drone can use it to parry against melee attacks (using Defense + Pilot). I can't find any mention of drivers or jumped-in riggers being able to do something similar. The description of attacks against vehicles on p.161 only covers ranged attacks.

So can drones parry but drivers and riggers can't parry/dodge vs. melee attacks? Or is there something I've missed in the BBB/errata/FAQ?
Kesslan
There might be simply no dodge. I mean if your that damn close to a vehicle it's abit hard to miss. Drones get a dodge I'm sure, partially because their small.

I mean the biggest combat drone I belive is the steel lynx (coffee table sized) and then there's the robots which are about human to maybe troll sized. Vehicles are a great deal larger than this (unless it's a bike).

If the vehicle is in motion I'd just have the rigger/pilot use their vehicle skill.
Eryk the Red
I'd assume you'd just use your dodge skill, added to the vehicle's Response. This fits with the FAQ's description of how you're supposed to combine your skills with the vehicle's attributes when jumped in.
Shrike30
You can totally parry with a vehicle. Just ram the guy when he tries to stab the engine block.
Demerzel
Any vehicle can be treated as a Drone. They have pilot ratings on the Limo right? If it has an auto pilot then it can be treated as a drone in the sense of giving it an order and letting it progress on its own.
Jack Kain
Lets face it the only time a vehicle will be struck in melee is.
A: the vehicle isn't moving or is going very very slowly(no dodge)
B: the guy is ontop or inside the vehicle. (no dodge)
C: Ambush(no dodge)
D: You just failed to run the guy down and he struck as you past.

In nearlly any situation where you get to attack a vehicle with a melee weapon. the vehicle couldn't possibly avoid the attack execpt for drones.

The only time this would really come up are with motorcycles. You have the gangers ridding by the guys trying to smack them upside the head with chains and baseball bats. You don't try and run someone over on a bike you stand a good chance of going flying off.
kerbarian
QUOTE (Demerzel)
Any vehicle can be treated as a Drone. They have pilot ratings on the Limo right? If it has an auto pilot then it can be treated as a drone in the sense of giving it an order and letting it progress on its own.

Sure. That would only apply when the limo/etc. is driving itself, though. If there's a driver at the wheel (or a rigger jumped into it), then the pilot wouldn't be doing anything.

Right now, my best guess would be that a jumped-in rigger could add dodge and a driver could add vehicle skill, just like they get to add for full defense. But I can't find anything in the rules to directly support that.
DireRadiant
FAQ Rigger Pools

That should answer the jumped in one.
Demerzel
QUOTE (kerbarian)
QUOTE (Demerzel @ Dec 26 2006, 11:44 AM)
Any vehicle can be treated as a Drone.  They have pilot ratings on the Limo right?  If it has an auto pilot then it can be treated as a drone in the sense of giving it an order and letting it progress on its own.

Sure. That would only apply when the limo/etc. is driving itself, though. If there's a driver at the wheel (or a rigger jumped into it), then the pilot wouldn't be doing anything.

My point was that any argument that a drone could but a vehicle can't was a little flawed... Sorry I didn't clarify that. If you start taking sizes into account you run into the issue that SR does not have a size system and you're in house rule territory.
Demerzel
QUOTE (DireRadiant)
FAQ Rigger Pools

That should answer the jumped in one.

well, the line that has defense and full defense pools parallels the ranged combat system in that it fails to include an appropriate dodge or unarmed skill without requiring you use an action. I think the original poster was interested in the pools for vs. melee, and implied that the rules indicated that the defense pools, including in that FAQ were to be used in the case of defending from a ranged attack.

I guess that the argument can be made that since a vehicle does not have arms or appendages to use to defend with they should not be applied in defense, and a vehicle gets the lower ranged defense vs. melee attacks. I'll have to go check the rules and see if it says anything specific on that.
DireRadiant
QUOTE (Demerzel)
I guess that the argument can be made that since a vehicle does not have arms or appendages to use to defend with they should not be applied in defense, and a vehicle gets the lower ranged defense vs. melee attacks. I'll have to go check the rules and see if it says anything specific on that.

Why do I have to have arms and legs to dodge or defend with? Can't I simply move out of the way and avoid, or cause the attack to hit a less vulnerable spot?
DireRadiant
Opinion only.

Range
Attacker Rolls: Agility + combat skill +/– modifi ers
Defender Rolls: Reaction +/– modifi ers
Defender using Full Defense: Reaction + Dodge +/– modifi ers

Melee
Attacker Rolls: Agility + Combat skill
Defender Rolls: Reaction + weapon skill (parry)
Reaction + Unarmed Combat (block)
Reaction + Dodge (dodge)
Defender using Full Defense: Reaction + weapon skill/Dodge + Dodge

Vehicle Range Attacks
Driver = Reaction +/– Handling
Pilot = Pilot +/– Handling.
Rigger Jumped In = Response + Dodge
Evasive Driving/Full Defense = as above + Vehicle Skill

Vehicle Melee Attacks - Not covered in RAW. On a purely speculative basis, based on the same pattern
Driver = Reaction +/– Handling + Vehicle Skill
Pilot = Pilot +/– Handling + Vehicle Skill.
Rigger Jumped In = Response + Dodge + Vehicle Skill
Evasive Driving/Full Defense = as above + Vehicle Skill
Demerzel
QUOTE (DireRadiant)
QUOTE (Demerzel @ Dec 26 2006, 04:35 PM)
I guess that the argument can be made that since a vehicle does not have arms or appendages to use to defend with they should not be applied in defense, and a vehicle gets the lower ranged defense vs. melee attacks.  I'll have to go check the rules and see if it says anything specific on that.

Why do I have to have arms and legs to dodge or defend with? Can't I simply move out of the way and avoid, or cause the attack to hit a less vulnerable spot?

well, the link that you posted indicates only:
Defense Response
Full Defense Dodge + Response

So the part you quoted was the half of my post in defense of your link, rather than the other half saying that your link didn't include the answer. wink.gif

I would be inclined to say that since you cannot block or parry with a vehicle or drone that lacks articulated appendages then you should only be allowed to use the dodge skill in the generic melee equation of defense. There isn't really any precident that I'm aware of that would indicate that a vehicle skill should be used in place of a melee skill.
Demerzel
QUOTE (DireRadiant)
Vehicle Range Attacks
Driver = Reaction +/– Handling
Pilot = Pilot +/– Handling.
Rigger Jumped In = Response + Dodge
Evasive Driving/Full Defense = as above + Vehicle Skill

Also this contradicts the FAQ you linked which gives Response + Dodge only in the case of Full Defense (requiring a complex action).
DireRadiant
QUOTE (Demerzel)
QUOTE (DireRadiant @ Dec 26 2006, 01:51 PM)
Vehicle Range Attacks
Driver = Reaction +/– Handling
Pilot = Pilot +/– Handling.
Rigger Jumped In = Response + Dodge
Evasive Driving/Full Defense = as above + Vehicle Skill

Also this contradicts the FAQ you linked which gives Response + Dodge only in the case of Full Defense (requiring a complex action).

P. 161

"Evasive Driving
Vehicles that are under attack can take a Complex Action
and undertake evasive driving—the vehicle equivalent of full defense.
Th is means the driver of the vehicle can add his Vehicle skill
dice to the defense dice pool to dodge ranged attacks (drones add
their Defense autosoft rating, see p. 239). Evasive driving cannot
be used against ramming attacks."

I simply added the Vehicle Skill as desribed int he rule book, and applied it to the pool in the FAQ.

I'm sorry it isn't all in one place for your easy reference.
DireRadiant
QUOTE (Demerzel)
I would be inclined to say that since you cannot block or parry with a vehicle or drone that lacks articulated appendages then you should only be allowed to use the dodge skill in the generic melee equation of defense. There isn't really any precident that I'm aware of that would indicate that a vehicle skill should be used in place of a melee skill.

No where does it say that using a skill requires articulated appendages. This is an assumption, and given the descriptions of the melee combat turn as an abstraction, I disagree with your assumption that articulated appendages are required to use a skill roll to defend against melee attacks. However, this is my opinion, the end result is which I would allow the platyer to use a vehicle skill to defend against a melee attack. You may choose to do it differently, as it isn't covered explicitly in the main rule book nor the FAQ.
Demerzel
QUOTE (DireRadiant)
I simply added the Vehicle Skill as desribed int he rule book, and applied it to the pool in the FAQ.


But the FAQ indicates only Response for Defense, it gives Dodge + Response in the case of Full Defense which requires a complex action to take. So you couldn't add vehicle skill to that using the rule you cited because that would require you use complex actions twice. Or perhaps I should say you’re using the base defense as what is given in that FAQ as full defense, not just defense.

QUOTE (DireRadiant)
No where does it say that using a skill requires articulated appendages.


Here you seem to be implying that you should be able to use unarmed, or an armed combat skill to block or parry with a vehicle. But above that you have not been indicating that you would agree with that position so I'm confused.

I’m referring to the portion of the rules for melee defense that indicate that you can block, parry, or dodge. Where blocking is using the unarmed skill, parrying is using any armed melee skill, and dodge is using the dodge skill. I don’t believe you can make a valid argument for using your clubs skill in a jump in rigger vehicle defense, unless your vehicle somehow is wielding a club via some sort of articulation.

We seem to be having a multithreaded conversation here...

The question is that the rules for vehicle defense seem to revolve around the ranged combat defense system; do they apply identically to melee defense? Or should the melee system, which grants larger defense pools, be used. You indicate that the rigger should use Response + Dodge by default without any action required, but the FAQ indicates that it is only in the case of Full Defense where that is the mechanic.
DireRadiant
I am assuming the FAQ is giving pools for Ranged dodge tests.

For vehicle melee defense I am postulating following the model of the larger pools, where Response + Dodge + Skill. Where skill = appropriate vehicle skill. The appropriate vehicel skill can be subsitituted instead of Parry, Block or Dodge. Mechanically there's no difference between Block, Parry or Dodge so I don't see a problem allowing the Vehicle skill to be susbstituted for any of the three.
Demerzel
So I don’t understand why you’d use dodge in your case if you’re saying that the vehicle skill should be used instead of (dodge/unarmed/armed skill).

The melee mechanic calls for Attribute + Skill, where skill can be unarmed/armed/dodge. Then on Full defense you can add your dodge into it. But the rule quote you gave indicates that you use evasive driving and then you add your vehicle skill in place of dodge (Where full defense allows you to add your dodge into the defense pool at the cost of a complex action).

It would probably be more appropriate to say that vehicle skill replaces gymnastics and you’re using a gymnastics dodge translated into evasive driving. In which case dodge is still used as your default melee defense skill (since you don’t have armed or unarmed skills with your vehicle).

But are you extrapolating beyond the rules by allowing the larger pool melee defense, or is there something that indicated that the larger pool should be used?
DireRadiant
QUOTE (DireRadiant)
Range
Attacker Rolls: Agility + combat skill +/– modifi ers
Defender Rolls: Reaction +/– modifi ers
Defender using Full Defense: Reaction + Dodge +/– modifi ers

Melee
Attacker Rolls: Agility + Combat skill
Defender Rolls: Reaction + weapon skill (parry)
Reaction + Unarmed Combat (block)
Reaction + Dodge (dodge)
Defender using Full Defense: Reaction + weapon skill/Dodge + Dodge

This is how it is in the book. I simply am assuming to extend the same to Vehicle Melee Defense.

Compare

Range: Defender using Full Defense: Reaction + Dodge +/– modifi ers
Melee: Defender using Full Defense: Reaction + weapon skill/Dodge + Dodge
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012