Full Version: Non-Ranged Combat
OSUMacbeth
| QUOTE |
| The majority of people who are shot live through it, and the majority of people who die from bullet wounds die minutes (sometimes many minutes) later as they bleed out. A small minority not hit in the head or heart die almost instantly of shock (hydrostatic or otherwise.) |
Is that really any different than a melee attack? If I stab someone in the gut and pierce a few organs it's going to take time for them to bleed to death. Heck, they might still be able to continue fighting. If I bash someone over the head with a rock and fracture their skull it might still take a while for them to die. I bet that in either case they would be likely to live if they could make it to a hospital in time.
| QUOTE |
| This is not like shooting outlines at the range. Someone is running at you, intent on doing you physical harm, your system is screaming with adrenaline, and you're aiming at one of two moving targets the size of a grapefruit or smaller. |
By that same token we're not talking about the pretend broadsword fighting you've been doing since you were 18. I certainly agree that there's a psychological difference between shooting down at the range versus a real world encounter but I don't understand why you're immune to that. There's a world of difference between charging an armed opponent with the intent of inflicting grievous harm upon their body and engaging in play fighting.
| QUOTE |
| sit down and do the research. I think you'll be surprised. |
By all means, if you have reliable statistics showing that those armed with knives consistently defeat opponents armed with pistols, please share.
Marc
You misunderstand me on a few points, sir. If that's my fault for not being clear then I apologize.
First, I didn't mean to imply that most people injured in melee don't bleed out or what-not just like someone who's been shot. I didn't mean to say that it happens with guns and not melee weapons. I was just trying to say that a couple of the common conceptions with regard to guns aren't true, namely that they're incredibly deadly and that they usually kill if you hit someone with them.
As to your second point, I should have been more clear. People think that guns are easier to use than melee weapons: this is true, but *only* if you are fighting someone who is also armed with a melee weapon. If you're both in melee, you must learn to parry, block, deflect, and so on to negate your opponent's weapon. If you're up close and personal with a knife against someone with a gun, even hacking wildly can produce favorable results if you aim for big targets like the stomach or throat. Being accurate with a melee weapon will always be easier than hitting a target with a ranged weapon, especially if it's moving. Even if you're in close-combat, the man with the gun still has to bring that barrel into line with you. All you have to do is start swinging.
I'm not attempting to say that my "play fighting" would prepare me psychologically for a life-and-death encounter. I am attempting to say that it has made me aware of the strengths of melee combat as opposed to the strengths of firearms. And leave off the snide insults, if you would. This is not a pissing contest. It's true that we practice with blunted edges, but the swords and armor are cold steel and leather. Put an edge on them, and we'd be dead. By the same token I've never fired a gun at a living person, either. I guess this "pretend shooting" doesn't show you how firearms work, either.
On your final point, I have never implied that people with knives routinely defeat people with guns. I *have* tried to point out that melee weapons have significant advantages, both in damage and utility, over a gun, but *only when in close-combat range.
Thank you again for the insults.
OSUMacbeth
OSUMacbeth
First, I didn't mean to imply that most people injured in melee don't bleed out or what-not just like someone who's been shot. I didn't mean to say that it happens with guns and not melee weapons. I was just trying to say that a couple of the common conceptions with regard to guns aren't true, namely that they're incredibly deadly and that they usually kill if you hit someone with them.
As to your second point, I should have been more clear. People think that guns are easier to use than melee weapons: this is true, but *only* if you are fighting someone who is also armed with a melee weapon. If you're both in melee, you must learn to parry, block, deflect, and so on to negate your opponent's weapon. If you're up close and personal with a knife against someone with a gun, even hacking wildly can produce favorable results if you aim for big targets like the stomach or throat. Being accurate with a melee weapon will always be easier than hitting a target with a ranged weapon, especially if it's moving. Even if you're in close-combat, the man with the gun still has to bring that barrel into line with you. All you have to do is start swinging.
I'm not attempting to say that my "play fighting" would prepare me psychologically for a life-and-death encounter. I am attempting to say that it has made me aware of the strengths of melee combat as opposed to the strengths of firearms. And leave off the snide insults, if you would. This is not a pissing contest. It's true that we practice with blunted edges, but the swords and armor are cold steel and leather. Put an edge on them, and we'd be dead. By the same token I've never fired a gun at a living person, either. I guess this "pretend shooting" doesn't show you how firearms work, either.
On your final point, I have never implied that people with knives routinely defeat people with guns. I *have* tried to point out that melee weapons have significant advantages, both in damage and utility, over a gun, but *only when in close-combat range.
Thank you again for the insults.
OSUMacbeth
OSUMacbeth
| QUOTE (OSUMacbeth) |
| Being accurate with a melee weapon will always be easier than hitting a target with a ranged weapon, especially if it's moving. Even if you're in close-combat, the man with the gun still has to bring that barrel into line with you. All you have to do is start swinging. |
well, yes, but you also need room to swing, which is a pretty big, slow motion compared to turning your wrist and squeezing the trigger. the thing about that 21' distance is, that's also just about the perfect distance for handgun shooting. at that range, even someone who's never fired a gun in their lives will have no trouble hitting you, no matter how much you jump around and try to get out of the way. if you knock the shooter's gun out of line with your body, then you'll have time to stab him a few times--but if you don't, he'll empty his clip into your torso before you get more than one hit in. the real advantage a blade has over a gun in a close-up fight is the fact that it's hard to deflect an attack without getting hurt--you can't just grab the blade like you can the barrel of a gun. if you can deal with that (wrap your leather jacket around your non-shooting arm, say), then the knife guy's odds of walking away go down pretty sharply.
Would anyone mind doing some Rule related number crunching with matching damages?
Sure, gimmie a few minutes. I have an excel sheet that does this sort of thing for me.
Maxed Human with Ares Predator and EX vs. Maxed Human with Monosword
All tests use called shot 4 when possible against an opponent with 6 reaction and body wearing 10/8 armor. Gun has smartlink and spec. Sword is charging and has spec.
Predator
Base Dice 19
Adjusted Dice 11
Hits 3.63
Dodged 1.98
Amor 2.64
Body 1.98
FinalDV1 7.03
FinalDV2 5.34
Total 12.37
Sword
Base Dice 20
Adjusted Dice 12
Hits 3.96
Dodged 1.98
Amor 2.31
Body 1.98
FinalDV1 9.69
As you move the opponent to one with 9 body and 9 reaction the sword slowly catches up a little to Pistol 8.41 to sword 7.71. Melee falls apart however if your opponent has even a small amount of dodge skill. Then the gap just becomes more pronounced, if you hit at all.
Ares Alpha Burst vs. Troll Adept w/ Imp. Melee 3, Weapon Focus Rating 6, 15 strength, 9agi. Charging and specced. Human is unchanged but for weapon. Not even sure if that troll is legal but let's use him for the sake of argument. The opponent has 9 rea 9 bod and no dodge at all.
Alpha bursting w/ ex
Base Dice 19
Adjusted Dice 11
Hits 3.63
Dodged 2.97
Amor 2.64
Body 2.97
FinalDV1 8.05
FinalDV2 6.36
Total 14.41
Monster troll w/ monosword
Base Dice 30
Adjusted Dice 22
Hits 7.26
Dodged 2.97
Amor 2.31
Body 2.97
Total 14.01
The troll *almost* pulled it out. In fact, now that I think of it, with a combat axe you could edge out the AR by 2/3 of a DV or so. Of course god help you if your target spent a few karma on dodge. But, what are you paying to get this troll monstrosity who can do nothing but melee combat? (melee karma cost only) At least 343 karma if you only use cyber or bio to raise your strength and agility past the racial limit. (Cost doesn't count money.) Well over 450 if you use power points to raise attributes. Not to mention 60,000 nuyen for the focus and however much you did or didn't spend on cyber.
Your human mundane can do the above damage with 148 karma, a smartlink, an alpha, and muscle tone 3. Plenty of room for other things.
I may toss up more tomorrow if anyone wants. Hope I didn't mix any numbers up, but if I did the totals should still be good. Also this comparison assumes that you add racial modifiers AFTER base attributes for purposes of karma. If you don't, things get far, far worse. Also called shot is shown at -2 dice for +1dv. Still always better as long as you hit, but the penalty makes you think a bit more. The numbers remain relatively the same regardless of which version of called shot you use.
After re-balancing melee for my campaign, characters are actually tempted to take it. A troll with a Greatsword is one of the scariest things there is, unless you're wielding an LMG or something. It's working well so far. While it's true that a greatsword master can now kill many things in one hit, even in my rebalance you still do less damage than a couple of 6p -1 shots of EX unless you're a troll or an adept. So if the melee seems overpowered, keep in mind higher end small arms will still do more damage, especially if the target is surprised. (Because of the two-shot nature of guns, negation of reaction helps them much more.)
I was initially concerned that trolls and adepts (and the scary troll adept) would unbalance the game, but past a certain DV, things just don't *get* any deader. Also worth noting that a decent DV gives melee one good advantage over ranged (other than less negative mods): You can kill more people a turn than a good firearm if they're all clumped around you and you split your dicepool just enough to hit them. Because ranged relies on two shots to output damage, making the single attack damage of melee comparable makes them the master of multi-target damage at close range. I've only seen it go off once, and it was impressive (2 dead, 1 mostly dead) but it's incredibly situational, and the group's gun adept took out 1.5 equivalent baddies that same turn anyway.
OSUMacbeth
All tests use called shot 4 when possible against an opponent with 6 reaction and body wearing 10/8 armor. Gun has smartlink and spec. Sword is charging and has spec.
Predator
Base Dice 19
Adjusted Dice 11
Hits 3.63
Dodged 1.98
Amor 2.64
Body 1.98
FinalDV1 7.03
FinalDV2 5.34
Total 12.37
Sword
Base Dice 20
Adjusted Dice 12
Hits 3.96
Dodged 1.98
Amor 2.31
Body 1.98
FinalDV1 9.69
As you move the opponent to one with 9 body and 9 reaction the sword slowly catches up a little to Pistol 8.41 to sword 7.71. Melee falls apart however if your opponent has even a small amount of dodge skill. Then the gap just becomes more pronounced, if you hit at all.
Ares Alpha Burst vs. Troll Adept w/ Imp. Melee 3, Weapon Focus Rating 6, 15 strength, 9agi. Charging and specced. Human is unchanged but for weapon. Not even sure if that troll is legal but let's use him for the sake of argument. The opponent has 9 rea 9 bod and no dodge at all.
Alpha bursting w/ ex
Base Dice 19
Adjusted Dice 11
Hits 3.63
Dodged 2.97
Amor 2.64
Body 2.97
FinalDV1 8.05
FinalDV2 6.36
Total 14.41
Monster troll w/ monosword
Base Dice 30
Adjusted Dice 22
Hits 7.26
Dodged 2.97
Amor 2.31
Body 2.97
Total 14.01
The troll *almost* pulled it out. In fact, now that I think of it, with a combat axe you could edge out the AR by 2/3 of a DV or so. Of course god help you if your target spent a few karma on dodge. But, what are you paying to get this troll monstrosity who can do nothing but melee combat? (melee karma cost only) At least 343 karma if you only use cyber or bio to raise your strength and agility past the racial limit. (Cost doesn't count money.) Well over 450 if you use power points to raise attributes. Not to mention 60,000 nuyen for the focus and however much you did or didn't spend on cyber.
Your human mundane can do the above damage with 148 karma, a smartlink, an alpha, and muscle tone 3. Plenty of room for other things.
I may toss up more tomorrow if anyone wants. Hope I didn't mix any numbers up, but if I did the totals should still be good. Also this comparison assumes that you add racial modifiers AFTER base attributes for purposes of karma. If you don't, things get far, far worse. Also called shot is shown at -2 dice for +1dv. Still always better as long as you hit, but the penalty makes you think a bit more. The numbers remain relatively the same regardless of which version of called shot you use.
After re-balancing melee for my campaign, characters are actually tempted to take it. A troll with a Greatsword is one of the scariest things there is, unless you're wielding an LMG or something. It's working well so far. While it's true that a greatsword master can now kill many things in one hit, even in my rebalance you still do less damage than a couple of 6p -1 shots of EX unless you're a troll or an adept. So if the melee seems overpowered, keep in mind higher end small arms will still do more damage, especially if the target is surprised. (Because of the two-shot nature of guns, negation of reaction helps them much more.)
I was initially concerned that trolls and adepts (and the scary troll adept) would unbalance the game, but past a certain DV, things just don't *get* any deader. Also worth noting that a decent DV gives melee one good advantage over ranged (other than less negative mods): You can kill more people a turn than a good firearm if they're all clumped around you and you split your dicepool just enough to hit them. Because ranged relies on two shots to output damage, making the single attack damage of melee comparable makes them the master of multi-target damage at close range. I've only seen it go off once, and it was impressive (2 dead, 1 mostly dead) but it's incredibly situational, and the group's gun adept took out 1.5 equivalent baddies that same turn anyway.
OSUMacbeth
Maybe when I'll wake up I'll post the monowhip vs. Anything else stats. Fortunately for skilled monowhip users, odds of critical glitch are miniscule, and can still be negated with edge.
OSUMacbeth
OSUMacbeth
| QUOTE (OSUMacbeth) |
| I'm interested to know why people think, in the game of shadowrun, it's okay that a moderately skilled user with a machine pistol will drop a large variety of things in one round, while a human with a greatsword, who pays around twice as much karma for the privilege, gets to do less damage with a weapon that is far more limited in its utility? We're talking around 100 more karma to get that strength 6, and what do you get for that? Well, gimped, actually. |
You can spend a hell of lot of points on a lot of stupid things that have minimal game utility. If I boosted Artisan (calligraphy), Armorer, Aeronatic Mechanic and Pilot Anthroform to max would you feel obligated to make them as combat effective as if they had taken 6 pts with Long Arms and carried an Alpha instead of calligraphy pen?
Similarly, spending a huge amount of points on getting to be hell on wheels with a weapon that requires you close on people with ranged weapons is just not a good way to build a combat effective character. So, no sympathy from me.
| QUOTE (OSUMacbeth) |
| Maybe when I'll wake up I'll post the monowhip vs. Anything else stats. Fortunately for skilled monowhip users, odds of critical glitch are miniscule, and can still be negated with edge. OSUMacbeth |
That's as long as a great dragon doesn't negate your edge.
The issue here is not really which is more damaging. It really boils down to the GM, because there's many devices (chemsniffer, MAD detector, patrolling drones) to thwart the gun user from carrying his weapon anywhere he or she wants to go. In contrast, a physical adept with decent unarmed is not only undetectable by comparison, but cannot (haha) be disarmed.
So sure, in an ideal situation (empty street, no bystanders, no Lone Star) the gun user has the advantage. But how often does that really happen? Most buildings have MAD detectors in the doorway. Any non RFID chipped gun that's spotted calls down max heat from nearby security. But the melee character can walk up and just pop you right in the face for decent effect (more with shock gloves) in near silence. The second you open up with a gun the concept of stealth goes right out the window.
In fact, from my early days of Shadowrun, the players had adopted a saying that went 'You fire a gun, you hose the run'. This wasn't necessarily true, but the second you started shooting the guards were making perception tests and the likelihood of things getting VERY nasty rose dramatically. It was just a warning that stealth always beats raw firepower when trying to get in and out with little to no hassle.
In a somewhat more usual setting, the gun user and the melee character spot each other at 8 meters on a busy street with (2d6) pedestrians, (1d6) vehicles, and a Lone Star drone or two (1d3). The gun user can win initiative, since the melee character is just trying to close while running full defense and taking advantage of pedestrians, vehicles, or whatever as cover. The first shot goes off, the drones are now scanning for the shooter, and the melee character is getting closer. The pedestrians all try to flee screaming (maybe a couple freeze in shock, a few others might draw weapons too) and the melee character is closing rapidly. By the time the melee character has closed to beatdown range, I'd be surprised if he or she has taken damage at all. I can't say the same for the random pedestrians.
Having rolled one of those scary troll physads, in addition to basic melee skills I also focused on being able to beat down barriers. No one expects a troll to come busting through the wall shouting 'Hey, Kool-aid!!'
I'm not saying guns aren't deadly. But guns are loud things that announce you're here to do bad things to worse people. They have their place (especially when there's a metric crapton of devil rats coming for you) but there's also a time for punching people in the face really hard, you know?
Finally, I always stress that proper street cred involves beating your opponent while using less. If they use a gun, you use a sword or knife. If they use a sword or knife, you use your fists. For the Street Samurai, there's nothing more impressive than filleting a would-be assailant armed with a machine pistol. For the Physical Adept, the other optimum method of countering the gun user is the old standby, the bow or crossbow. Maybe even throwing knives or shuriken. Even if you go ceramic gun versus ceramic knife, the chemsniffer is busy pointing to the guy with the gunpowder and screaming wirelessly to any cop in signal range.
So sure, in an ideal situation (empty street, no bystanders, no Lone Star) the gun user has the advantage. But how often does that really happen? Most buildings have MAD detectors in the doorway. Any non RFID chipped gun that's spotted calls down max heat from nearby security. But the melee character can walk up and just pop you right in the face for decent effect (more with shock gloves) in near silence. The second you open up with a gun the concept of stealth goes right out the window.
In fact, from my early days of Shadowrun, the players had adopted a saying that went 'You fire a gun, you hose the run'. This wasn't necessarily true, but the second you started shooting the guards were making perception tests and the likelihood of things getting VERY nasty rose dramatically. It was just a warning that stealth always beats raw firepower when trying to get in and out with little to no hassle.
In a somewhat more usual setting, the gun user and the melee character spot each other at 8 meters on a busy street with (2d6) pedestrians, (1d6) vehicles, and a Lone Star drone or two (1d3). The gun user can win initiative, since the melee character is just trying to close while running full defense and taking advantage of pedestrians, vehicles, or whatever as cover. The first shot goes off, the drones are now scanning for the shooter, and the melee character is getting closer. The pedestrians all try to flee screaming (maybe a couple freeze in shock, a few others might draw weapons too) and the melee character is closing rapidly. By the time the melee character has closed to beatdown range, I'd be surprised if he or she has taken damage at all. I can't say the same for the random pedestrians.
Having rolled one of those scary troll physads, in addition to basic melee skills I also focused on being able to beat down barriers. No one expects a troll to come busting through the wall shouting 'Hey, Kool-aid!!'
I'm not saying guns aren't deadly. But guns are loud things that announce you're here to do bad things to worse people. They have their place (especially when there's a metric crapton of devil rats coming for you) but there's also a time for punching people in the face really hard, you know?
Finally, I always stress that proper street cred involves beating your opponent while using less. If they use a gun, you use a sword or knife. If they use a sword or knife, you use your fists. For the Street Samurai, there's nothing more impressive than filleting a would-be assailant armed with a machine pistol. For the Physical Adept, the other optimum method of countering the gun user is the old standby, the bow or crossbow. Maybe even throwing knives or shuriken. Even if you go ceramic gun versus ceramic knife, the chemsniffer is busy pointing to the guy with the gunpowder and screaming wirelessly to any cop in signal range.
it does sound like edge weapon damage should be bumped up a little. if an average guy sticks you in the belly with a decent-sized knife, it's going to be as bad as getting shot there. if a really strong guy sticks you in the belly with a knife, he'll probably rip it around some and you'll die pretty quick.
| QUOTE (OSUMacbeth) |
| Maybe when I'll wake up I'll post the monowhip vs. Anything else stats. Fortunately for skilled monowhip users, odds of critical glitch are miniscule, and can still be negated with edge. OSUMacbeth |
Make the monowhip user a Magician or Mystic Adept. If he is smart, the glitch will not happen at all.
| QUOTE |
| You misunderstand me on a few points, sir. If that's my fault for not being clear then I apologize. |
No, dangnabbit! This is an online forum and we're all suppose to be extreme hostile towards one another. You're suppose to question my ancestry and, if possible, my manhood.
| QUOTE |
| I was just trying to say that a couple of the common conceptions with regard to guns aren't true, namely that they're incredibly deadly and that they usually kill if you hit someone with them. |
You know what, I'm going to go along with you on this one. Stab me in the gut with a stiletto or shoot me in the gut and I'm hard pressed to figure out which one does more damage. Either way, I have a good chance of dying.
| QUOTE |
| Even if you're in close-combat, the man with the gun still has to bring that barrel into line with you. All you have to do is start swinging. |
This part might be a problem if someone is armed with a rifle. I don't think it would be a big problem with a pistol.
| QUOTE |
| I *have* tried to point out that melee weapons have significant advantages, both in damage and utility, over a gun, but *only when in close-combat range. |
I remain unconvinced, but that's ok, I don't expect to be shooting at anyone or facing a hoard of charging Scotsman any time soon. Though if I ever expect it I might just join you for broadsword practice.
| QUOTE |
Thank you again for the insults. |
I didn't mean to insult you OSUMacbeth but I find that sometimes messages on boards can come out a lot more abrasive than was intended. I apologize to you.
Wow, what a love fest. I gotta go get these hippie thoughts out of my head.
Marc
So, it sounds like with melee, minus the fact the damage is somewhat weak and it takes a complex action per attack, that rulewise, we only have the -3 penalty and interception.
Does everyone seem to agree with that or am I missing something?
Does everyone seem to agree with that or am I missing something?
| QUOTE (Jagger @ May 22 2007, 08:13 PM) |
So... who here has ever been shot? Just curious on their take on it.  |
Hurts like all bloody hell and fucked my leg up good, (IF I were in a fight it would have taken me out of it, no question.) however I might add that I don't actually start seriously disagreeing with OSUMacbeth until he starts suggesting that chopping up dead animals and innocent plants are even remotely useful in "proving" the virtues of melee combat in a battlefield setting. (Well that plus he hasn't provided the stats that MGibster asked for which would be very convincing proof of his position.)
As for Shadowrun, I don't really have a problem with melee combat having far more Karma/Build Point costs in order to get roughly the same results as someone weilding an assault rifle. It seems to me that it takes alot more time and effort to learn a martial arts style then to teach someone to shoot, which is what the increased Karma costs represent. After your character has taken a few martial arts classes, disarming him just gets too ... messy ... for most corps to consider without quite alot provoking first.
Still, if I were going to rebalance melee combat, I still think that dropping an attack down to a Simple Action would go along way.
*Edit 1.1*
Well plus remember that whatever balancing is done has to be aimed towards Adepts with Killing Hands, Critical Strike, ect, if you rebalance with mundanes in mind then Adepts would become the unstopable killing machines that the pro-sammy people seem to think they are in the NERF-Magic threads...
| QUOTE (Sterling) |
| The issue here is not really which is more damaging. It really boils down to the GM, because there's many devices (chemsniffer, MAD detector, patrolling drones) to thwart the gun user from carrying his weapon anywhere he or she wants to go. In contrast, a physical adept with decent unarmed is not only undetectable by comparison, but cannot (haha) be disarmed. So sure, in an ideal situation (empty street, no bystanders, no Lone Star) the gun user has the advantage. But how often does that really happen? Most buildings have MAD detectors in the doorway. Any non RFID chipped gun that's spotted calls down max heat from nearby security. But the melee character can walk up and just pop you right in the face for decent effect (more with shock gloves) in near silence. The second you open up with a gun the concept of stealth goes right out the window. In fact, from my early days of Shadowrun, the players had adopted a saying that went 'You fire a gun, you hose the run'. This wasn't necessarily true, but the second you started shooting the guards were making perception tests and the likelihood of things getting VERY nasty rose dramatically. It was just a warning that stealth always beats raw firepower when trying to get in and out with little to no hassle. In a somewhat more usual setting, the gun user and the melee character spot each other at 8 meters on a busy street with (2d6) pedestrians, (1d6) vehicles, and a Lone Star drone or two (1d3). The gun user can win initiative, since the melee character is just trying to close while running full defense and taking advantage of pedestrians, vehicles, or whatever as cover. The first shot goes off, the drones are now scanning for the shooter, and the melee character is getting closer. The pedestrians all try to flee screaming (maybe a couple freeze in shock, a few others might draw weapons too) and the melee character is closing rapidly. By the time the melee character has closed to beatdown range, I'd be surprised if he or she has taken damage at all. I can't say the same for the random pedestrians. Having rolled one of those scary troll physads, in addition to basic melee skills I also focused on being able to beat down barriers. No one expects a troll to come busting through the wall shouting 'Hey, Kool-aid!!' I'm not saying guns aren't deadly. But guns are loud things that announce you're here to do bad things to worse people. They have their place (especially when there's a metric crapton of devil rats coming for you) but there's also a time for punching people in the face really hard, you know? Finally, I always stress that proper street cred involves beating your opponent while using less. If they use a gun, you use a sword or knife. If they use a sword or knife, you use your fists. For the Street Samurai, there's nothing more impressive than filleting a would-be assailant armed with a machine pistol. For the Physical Adept, the other optimum method of countering the gun user is the old standby, the bow or crossbow. Maybe even throwing knives or shuriken. Even if you go ceramic gun versus ceramic knife, the chemsniffer is busy pointing to the guy with the gunpowder and screaming wirelessly to any cop in signal range. |
...I like your take on this issue. Many games I've seen (mine included) often don't take into account the surroundings. It's like in the comic books, the Supervillan & Super Hero always seem to be duking it out on a street devoid of pedestrians, occupied vehicles etc. That may be fine in the Barrens, But in the denser populated areas of the sprawl there should be a significantly higher risk of collateral damage and detection.
Security measures like ChemSniffers & MAD detectors would be in lots of places at the very least, at the main entrances to a business or facility. This can seriously cramp the gunslinger's and cyber warrior's style. Once was in a scenario where KK and her team had to fly commercial (back in the SR2 - SR3 days). Of course what happens? A hijacking. While her disarmed chummers pretty much just sit there or whiff trying to default to unarmed combat, she manages to take out the hijackers with her bare hands. Not only did she prevent the hijacking, but was rewarded by the airline. Yes, there are times stealth is superior to firepower.
I also like your group's motto "You fire a gun, You hose the run". In 2070, with all the surveillance, RFID, & whatnot, yes, pulling a firearm should attract someone's attention. Currently I am running a scenario set in 2061 London. Within a disarmed citizenry such as in the UK, using a gun is almost akin to having a neon sign turn on above the character with an arrow pointing at him or her. The only people that are armed in the the nation are the military, the National Police, and of course, criminals. Pretty bleedin' hard to pass one's self off as the first two. In one early incident, The team's rigger let loose with his rotodrones. The NP has since beefed up partols around the section of the Smoke (the nickname for inner London) where this occurred.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is very tricky to play a total melee character. Even Hannah, my "gun-shy" boxer adept with the PJSS punch uses flashbangs to disorient her opponents before going in and relies heavily on her Infiltration, Gymnastics dodge, soak pool, Increased Pain Tolerance Quality, & movement to save her bacon.
The challenge when building a combat oreinted character, whether a Street Sam or Physad, is to make them versatile. When I designed KK I wanted her to be able to handle combat on all levels, ranged (her Warhawks), HTH (her Katana & Wakasashi), and close (her unarmed combat).
...hmm, I'll have to remember the Kool Aid man entrance when I run a troll Sammy. 'Ohhhh Yeahhhh!"
| QUOTE (deek) |
| So, it sounds like with melee, minus the fact the damage is somewhat weak and it takes a complex action per attack, that rulewise, we only have the -3 penalty and interception. Does everyone seem to agree with that or am I missing something? |
Pretty much. Otherwise it is stealth for the win.
| QUOTE (Ravor) |
| however I might add that I don't actually start seriously disagreeing with OSUMacbeth until he starts suggesting that chopping up dead animals and innocent plants are even remotely useful in "proving" the virtues of melee combat in a battlefield setting. |
sigh. the only thing anyone was attempting to 'prove' with that bit is how much damage it is possible for a bladed weapon to do--that it is possible for a guy with a sword to chop of your arm. which, if there's any truth to the anecdote at all, is true. you act like they were claiming something stupid, like that swords should be lopping off limbs with every hit.
the point they were making is that a good hit with a bladed weapon will do more damage than a good hit with a gun. which is true. a bullet, even one of those fancy hydrasoftnosepointhollowzomgz dealies, is going to poke a hole in you. it might poke a somewhat larger hole in you if it does something cool, like mushroom or tumble or something. it's not going to eviscerate you, which is something even a small knife can do. it's not, even with a really good shot, going to decapitate you. hit for hit, a bladed weapon does do more damage than a gun--that's the whole point behind all those fancy ammunitions, to increase the relatively crappy damage guns do.
what guns are good at, and why they replaced swords, is in getting more hits. they have range, and they are easier to use at any range--yes, even in melee, unless your opponent is trained or lucky (and it's never smart to assume he isn't one or both, which goes back to the 21ft rule). one good hit with a sword and you'll be minus a torso--but good luck getting that one hit in if the other guy's got a gun and sees you coming.
| QUOTE (Ravor) | ||
Perhaps you should go back and reread your posts, more importantly when you first admitted the fact that the "21 foot rule" was with the firearm holstered and according to other posters, most likely snapped, it was after kzt weighed in with that fact base off kzt's personal training. So to answer your question, no, I'm not in a reflexive "everyone who disagrees with me is a blind sword fan-boy", in fact based off the arguments, facts, and stances of everyone involved I'm fairly sure that with two exceptions no-one in this thread falls even remotely close to that discription. And also, just something to note, I'm playing very close attention to what and perhaps more importantly how people write their respective posistions in this discussion. |
Ravor: I am quite cognizant of my posting in this thread. I made no effort to claim first hand expertise prior to KZT or after for that matter. Before the link was posted I merely stated that I knew for a fact that it existed, and was real. After I read the link, which expanded my direct knowledge somewhat, I posted based on what was in that link for the benefit of those who were unwilling or unable to read for themselves the official story.
I don't use a holstered firearm in my job. I don't worry about the 21 foot rule either. I do, however, have to be ready to shoot people... and I know that at those sorts of ranges my weapon is potentially a liability, not an asset.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| the point they were making is that a good hit with a bladed weapon will do more damage than a good hit with a gun. which is true. a bullet, even one of those fancy hydrasoftnosepointhollowzomgz dealies, is going to poke a hole in you. it might poke a somewhat larger hole in you if it does something cool, like mushroom or tumble or something. it's not going to eviscerate you, which is something even a small knife can do. it's not, even with a really good shot, going to decapitate you. hit for hit, a bladed weapon does do more damage than a gun--that's the whole point behind all those fancy ammunitions, to increase the relatively crappy damage guns do. |
Actually, that's not true. A rifle or a shotgun can decapitate you, I've known cops and paramedics who had to deal with the results. Unlike the portrayal in SR, shotguns and rifles are FAR more deadly than pistols. That's why people who hunt grizzly bears with knives, spears or 9mm glocks are considered insane by most people, while people who hunt grizzly bears with .375 H&H magnum rifles are not. It's also why park rangers destroying "bad" bears typically use 12 gauge shotguns.
i was more talking about handguns, when i was describing wound effects. should've clarified.
it's insane to hunt a bear with a knife or sword because a) that means getting into clawin' range of it, and b) a bear's got a lot more non-vital stuff to go through, which a bullet is generally better at. SR4 rifles have armor piercing qualities, so giving bears a few points of armor (if they don't have some already; they do in SR3) would make things resemble reality in a general sort of way.
it's insane to hunt a bear with a knife or sword because a) that means getting into clawin' range of it, and b) a bear's got a lot more non-vital stuff to go through, which a bullet is generally better at. SR4 rifles have armor piercing qualities, so giving bears a few points of armor (if they don't have some already; they do in SR3) would make things resemble reality in a general sort of way.
@deek
-3, interception, and called shots to disarm (and grapple though I don't remember the details of that). Don't forget disarming/grappling as it may be your best move against a low Str oponent.
(Stuff removed cause this post was getting too long)
what I do notice is a marked lack of broadswords/shortswords on police and military forces. Even for swat teams where they're going room to room, and expect their target to show up well within 21feet, I don't think I've seen even the point guy carrying a knife as their primary weapon. I've gotta think they've got a good reason for this.
While it isn't that a knife isn't deadly. It's just I think some of you are overestimating the ease of getting a good stab in.
Try this. Get a friend, a nerf/squirtgun/paintball marker, and a knifish shaped chunk of something. Now pretend that you're wearing an armored jacket so you can kinda block with your forearms if you want. Start off a ways away and go after each other. Trade weapons and try again.
Barring one of you being vastly superior to the other I think you'll find what happens is that the melee guy takes a couple on the way over. Often taking one to the head or neck as headshots get much easier as the target gets closer. Then when the knife guy gets in range he DOESN'T just get to poke the shooter over and over. Instead the shooter will fend them off, possibly managing to continue to squirt away until things turn into a wrestling match. But even if no squirts to the CNS happened I doubt someone could wrestle very long before blood loss seriously gimps their ability to keep going effectivly.
Darn it, now I wish my brother lived closer to me. That sounds like fun.
-3, interception, and called shots to disarm (and grapple though I don't remember the details of that). Don't forget disarming/grappling as it may be your best move against a low Str oponent.
(Stuff removed cause this post was getting too long)
what I do notice is a marked lack of broadswords/shortswords on police and military forces. Even for swat teams where they're going room to room, and expect their target to show up well within 21feet, I don't think I've seen even the point guy carrying a knife as their primary weapon. I've gotta think they've got a good reason for this.
While it isn't that a knife isn't deadly. It's just I think some of you are overestimating the ease of getting a good stab in.
Try this. Get a friend, a nerf/squirtgun/paintball marker, and a knifish shaped chunk of something. Now pretend that you're wearing an armored jacket so you can kinda block with your forearms if you want. Start off a ways away and go after each other. Trade weapons and try again.
Barring one of you being vastly superior to the other I think you'll find what happens is that the melee guy takes a couple on the way over. Often taking one to the head or neck as headshots get much easier as the target gets closer. Then when the knife guy gets in range he DOESN'T just get to poke the shooter over and over. Instead the shooter will fend them off, possibly managing to continue to squirt away until things turn into a wrestling match. But even if no squirts to the CNS happened I doubt someone could wrestle very long before blood loss seriously gimps their ability to keep going effectivly.
Darn it, now I wish my brother lived closer to me. That sounds like fun.
| QUOTE |
| Instead the shooter will fend them off, possibly managing to continue to squirt away until things turn into a wrestling match. |
Properly done, the knife fighter will attempt to turn it into a wrestling match upon first contact - you don't do long-range knife play against a guy with a weapon that vastly outreaches you. Knives are really quite good in a grapple - blades cut far better on a pull than on a typical slash, and there;s typically a lot of pulling in a grapple.
| QUOTE (HappyDaze @ May 23 2007, 02:16 PM) |
| Properly done, the knife fighter will attempt to turn it into a wrestling match upon first contact |
I agree. Both in real life and Shadowrun which is why I phrased it as "until" as opposed to "if". As the gun guy essentially has a push knife that doesn't even have to get through your guard.
Trying to fight like that in shadowrun, just swinging while they fire back at -3, is also a bad move unless you are so much better than them you can reliably finish things quickly in melee. You'll want to switch to a disarm or grapple attack to neutralize the gun.
But still unless you squarely outclass your oponent just getting ahold of their squirtgun arm doesn't mean you get to poke them over and over. They like as not will have a hold on your knife arm and it's now down to who is the better grappler. And considering the knife guy will almost certainly have a number of squirtwounds the pressure is on them to win quickly.
Personally, I think there should be more concealable weapons that pack a bit more punch. With maybe some rolls o' quarters or brass knuckles too.
Honestly, for melee combat to be done effectively, you need to also conceal it nicely beneath your (cyber)skin or be stealthy. Oddly enough, cyber-characters can be very effective in melee, even when compared to an adept. A nice cyberarm, or muscle aug and you have a wonderfully dangerous razorboy/gal. Toss in some cyberlegs with hydrolics and high strength and you have a high speed DeathMachine™. Up the cybertorso body, toss an armored jacket on and you might be able to deal doom the good old medieval way, regardless of small arms fire.
On the other hand, firearms are, even nowadays, highly tuned and accurate (usually) weapons. Hard to beat a hot slug going at sonic speeds with a giant razor blade, right?
The problem is, that people with melee weapons think that they can charge a bunch of gun wielders and deal death. While that might have been true in d20 with the Combat Reflexes feat (*shutter* truly deadly in Star Wars), the abstract realism of Shadowrun makes little attempt to level the playing field. Thats because, in modern terms, they are rarely equals. The only time they are equal is in melee range and grapple(maybe).
So what are melee weapons good for? Easy. Magic. Spirit slaying, Vampire slaying, 'Shifter slaying; all are more vulnerable to weapon foci. And spirits are almost ONLY vulnerable to melee outside of banishing and a few spells.
So what if you're not magical? Well you got it.... So what? Its a matter of style. You want to be a REAL street samurai? Grab your katana and wakizashi... (maybe even that tanto in case you're captured)... and be a badass. Or maybe you could be a bit more devious. You could make yourself look terrible. Yeah. Thats right. Like a bumbling wuss or a damsel in distress. Then you stick them when they either take you prisoner, or are having fun rolling you around for their amusement. Fools get what they deserve, now don't they?
If you want to be effective at range, grab some thrown weapons skill and a flash bang or those giant strobes and some good shades. Then waltz in and slice n' dice. Or grab your chameleon suit and pull some Ghost in the Shell tactics. The tools of the modern thug have expanded to include not just the knife, fist, and club but the gun as well. Not everyone is an artist of ballistic death, but you have to prepare for those that are.
Can't just go charging in a straight line, right? Doing that is a quick, easy death for us sword wielding fools. Gotta be crafty or be dead.
Honestly, for melee combat to be done effectively, you need to also conceal it nicely beneath your (cyber)skin or be stealthy. Oddly enough, cyber-characters can be very effective in melee, even when compared to an adept. A nice cyberarm, or muscle aug and you have a wonderfully dangerous razorboy/gal. Toss in some cyberlegs with hydrolics and high strength and you have a high speed DeathMachine™. Up the cybertorso body, toss an armored jacket on and you might be able to deal doom the good old medieval way, regardless of small arms fire.
On the other hand, firearms are, even nowadays, highly tuned and accurate (usually) weapons. Hard to beat a hot slug going at sonic speeds with a giant razor blade, right?
The problem is, that people with melee weapons think that they can charge a bunch of gun wielders and deal death. While that might have been true in d20 with the Combat Reflexes feat (*shutter* truly deadly in Star Wars), the abstract realism of Shadowrun makes little attempt to level the playing field. Thats because, in modern terms, they are rarely equals. The only time they are equal is in melee range and grapple(maybe).
So what are melee weapons good for? Easy. Magic. Spirit slaying, Vampire slaying, 'Shifter slaying; all are more vulnerable to weapon foci. And spirits are almost ONLY vulnerable to melee outside of banishing and a few spells.
So what if you're not magical? Well you got it.... So what? Its a matter of style. You want to be a REAL street samurai? Grab your katana and wakizashi... (maybe even that tanto in case you're captured)... and be a badass. Or maybe you could be a bit more devious. You could make yourself look terrible. Yeah. Thats right. Like a bumbling wuss or a damsel in distress. Then you stick them when they either take you prisoner, or are having fun rolling you around for their amusement. Fools get what they deserve, now don't they?
If you want to be effective at range, grab some thrown weapons skill and a flash bang or those giant strobes and some good shades. Then waltz in and slice n' dice. Or grab your chameleon suit and pull some Ghost in the Shell tactics. The tools of the modern thug have expanded to include not just the knife, fist, and club but the gun as well. Not everyone is an artist of ballistic death, but you have to prepare for those that are.
Can't just go charging in a straight line, right? Doing that is a quick, easy death for us sword wielding fools. Gotta be crafty or be dead.
In the world of Shadowrun where normal folks can jack themselves up either with magic or cyber or drugs to be on par with the best athletes in the world, I'd say the stand off range would increase. If lots of criminals can do the 40 yards in 4.2 (or faster with cyber/magic), and some of them are troll sized, maybe armored (or even be regenerating)... oh gawd, just shoot first and ask questions later if you're within even 40 feet...
But remember: "A moving target only has the illusion of safety. It's when someone yells "Pull!" that the illusion disappears and you realize you're just another skeet."
| QUOTE (kzt) |
| Actually, that's not true. A rifle or a shotgun can decapitate you, I've known cops and paramedics who had to deal with the results. Unlike the portrayal in SR, shotguns and rifles are FAR more deadly than pistols. That's why people who hunt grizzly bears with knives, spears or 9mm glocks are considered insane by most people, while people who hunt grizzly bears with .375 H&H magnum rifles are not. It's also why park rangers destroying "bad" bears typically use 12 gauge shotguns. |
Assault rifles are notoriously problematic. Their wounding potential, typically with the FMJ bullets that are manufactured for them, is little, if any, better than a common handgun.
Note the 36 kindergarten children (35 and one teacher?) by an AK-47 in... um... California? 86% survived. These are 5 year olds, man. Body of 1 candidates if ever there were any. You know, the age group where being shaken vigorously can kill...
Shotguns now, particularly when loaded with buckshot (rather than birdshot) seem to produce 86% casualties... the inverse.
While I can't provide the handly linky-link btw, the shool shooting is only representative, not the sole source of data. Shootings with military assault rifles tend to produce many injuries and few fatalities. Shootings with shotguns tend to be massacres.
Of note, the Platt-Matix shooting, the main injury producing weapon used by the duo was the 'Mini-14' firing a 5.56mm nato (.223 calibre in reports) round. Of the Seven? wounded agents, only the two shot point blank in their car were killed. One survivor was shot while on the ground in the groin.
Hunting rifles, typically using softer, expanding bullets are much better casualty producers.
| QUOTE (Spike) | ||
Assault rifles are notoriously problematic. Their wounding potential, typically with the FMJ bullets that are manufactured for them, is little, if any, better than a common handgun. Note the 36 kindergarten children (35 and one teacher?) by an AK-47 in... um... California? 86% survived. These are 5 year olds, man. Body of 1 candidates if ever there were any. You know, the age group where being shaken vigorously can kill... Shotguns now, particularly when loaded with buckshot (rather than birdshot) seem to produce 86% casualties... the inverse. While I can't provide the handly linky-link btw, the shool shooting is only representative, not the sole source of data. Shootings with military assault rifles tend to produce many injuries and few fatalities. Shootings with shotguns tend to be massacres. Of note, the Platt-Matix shooting, the main injury producing weapon used by the duo was the 'Mini-14' firing a 5.56mm nato (.223 calibre in reports) round. Of the Seven? wounded agents, only the two shot point blank in their car were killed. One survivor was shot while on the ground in the groin. Hunting rifles, typically using softer, expanding bullets are much better casualty producers. |
That is due to the nature of how wars are fought. Assault rifles are primarily used in conventional wars (at least they were developed that way) and in a conventional war it is better to wound other (conventional) soldiers than it is to kill them because you dramatically reduce the number of people on the battlefield. If one person is wounded then it can take 2-3 people to deal with him, meaning you have removed up to 4 people from the fight.
Shotguns are a different story and are more the hunting and self defense where it is better to kill so you can eat or survive respectively.
I really have no problem with melee being much less efficient, points-wise, than firearms.
Disregard the whole sword-vs-pistol-at-whatever-range argument. I've studied a few martial arts, and done a little pistol shooting, and it frankly is a LOT harder to become competent in any hand-to-hand combat vs. combat shooting. The karma costs to become more or less equal in a fight reflects that, and that's fine by me.
If you want to be a melee specialist, you need to use another weapon to get an edge over a firearms wielder -- your brain. I mean really, this is SHADOWrun, you should be tricky and stealthy already, no?
Disregard the whole sword-vs-pistol-at-whatever-range argument. I've studied a few martial arts, and done a little pistol shooting, and it frankly is a LOT harder to become competent in any hand-to-hand combat vs. combat shooting. The karma costs to become more or less equal in a fight reflects that, and that's fine by me.
If you want to be a melee specialist, you need to use another weapon to get an edge over a firearms wielder -- your brain. I mean really, this is SHADOWrun, you should be tricky and stealthy already, no?
| QUOTE |
| Note the 36 kindergarten children (35 and one teacher?) by an AK-47 in... um... California? 86% survived. |
Might that have something to do with the incredibly advanced emergency medical care available to the general public these days? As others have pointed out, it takes a while for somone to die from their injuries unless you do some serious damage to the heart, brain, or an artery.
I had to do a research project a few years ago about medical technology employed in the American Civil War. Of the 250,000 or so battlefield injuries treated by the Union, only about 950 were the result of edged weapons. Edged weapons being knives, sabers, bayonets, and even pikes if you can believe it. You'd think that it would be higher given the images we have of bayonet charges and cavalry charges with sabers, but no, for the most part when combat was close quarters they preferred using their carbines or revolvers. I formed two theories, though I never did any research to follow it up.
#1. Maybe there were fewer injuries because once you close in for hand to hand combat you were more likely to just outright kill your foe. I don't chalk this up to a bayonet doing more damage but my theory is that the nature of hand to hand fighting is a bit more personal. If I drop a guy in a blue uniform from 100 yards I'm not very likely to walk up and shoot him in the head. Once he's down he's down. On the other hand, if I'm engaged in vicious hand to hand combat and I stab a blue belly, well, I bet I might just stab him two or three more times. To the best of my knowledge, there are no reliable statistics about what killed soldiers on the battlefield at this time.
#2. Perhaps by the time a bayonet or saber charge made contact with the enemy one of two things happened. The chargers were repelled or the chargees broke and either surrendered or gave up the field. It's tough to engage someone in hand to hand combat when they just turn tail and run as fast as they can.
Maybe my musings are veering off topic. I suppose there are some very specific situations where a melee weapon would be better than a firearm. I don't think those situations are all that common though. If someone were out to kill me and I was given the choice between a knife, or a sword, axe, or polearm, and a Colt .45 Peacemaker I'd go with the Colt every time.
Marc
| QUOTE (MGibster) |
| #2. Perhaps by the time a bayonet or saber charge made contact with the enemy one of two things happened. The chargers were repelled or the chargees broke and either surrendered or gave up the field. It's tough to engage someone in hand to hand combat when they just turn tail and run as fast as they can. |
That's the one I'd vote for. I've heard that theory discussed before (though never with real numbers). The other thing to consider about the numbers is that dead people don't seem to have been counted. So if you got killed by a bayonet charge, or bled to death before anyone collected the injured, you don't show up. And I suspect that getting stuck a couple times with a bayonet is pretty darn lethal.
| QUOTE (lunchbox311) |
| That is due to the nature of how wars are fought. Assault rifles are primarily used in conventional wars (at least they were developed that way) and in a conventional war it is better to wound other (conventional) soldiers than it is to kill them because you dramatically reduce the number of people on the battlefield. If one person is wounded then it can take 2-3 people to deal with him, meaning you have removed up to 4 people from the fight. Shotguns are a different story and are more the hunting and self defense where it is better to kill so you can eat or survive respectively. |
I am well aware of that. The low lethality of assualt rifle ammunition is one of the primary reasons they are often banned for hunting. It's inhumane to shoot an animal and leave it to die slowly of blood loss.
Health care seems to have been less a factor in the schoolyard shooting. The fatalities, by all reports, were DOA in every case while the exact number of 'barely saved' are not reported, but the information I had (damn my faulty memory... I didn't think I'd be citing it so soon after...) suggests that all the wounded were not essentially at serious risk.
Comparatively, I mean. They were shot after all. The point being I don't believe anyone recieved a 'miracle save' from medical personnel.
Irony, however: Given the statistics I provided for comparative lethality in shootings, the Platt-Matix story I've returned too did involve both shotguns and an assualt rifle. Of the four fatalities, two were directly caused by the assualt rifle and none by the shotguns... A demonstration that real life often does the opposite of what it 'should'.
MGibster/Marc,
Thanks for the kind reply. It can be easy to get a little heated on these boards, and I'm not immune myself, as evidenced by my somewhat glacial remarks there towards the end. Anyway, I'm glad we've worked it out.
To the comments about the relative difficulty in learning firearms vs. Hand-to-hand being a reason for more karma cost: The BBB itself clearly states that sometimes reality should take a backseat for game balance. This is a *game*, and good games are *balanced.* If there's something in the game that nobody takes except for RP purposes, something is out of whack. Melee and cyberarms were the two things that fit that mold in my game. Now all of my players consider picking up some melee, not just the guy who's bent on being the star of the next Kill Bill or Assassin's Creed.
I signed on to play Shadowrun, not ShadowGun. Other arguments aside, can anyone argue (who's played past editions) that melee in general is not now weaker than it has ever been? In SR3 I could make a troll at chargen who did something around 20S damage with a vibro-blade. There were other builds just as bad. That's missile damage we're talking there. But in all your games, did melee suddenly trump ranged just because it could do obscene damage? Were the previous editions better, or worse for having good melee? I'd argue that I could quadruple the current damage of melee and it wouldn't change the nature of the game; guns will always be more desirable in a general sense for a variety of reasons. If before nobody I knew thought of melee as more than a joke, and now they are considering taking it, then I think I've done my job as a DM.
As a final thought, I would put forth that the more viable options a game has for effectiveness, the more colorful and interesting it will be.
OSUMacbeth
Thanks for the kind reply. It can be easy to get a little heated on these boards, and I'm not immune myself, as evidenced by my somewhat glacial remarks there towards the end. Anyway, I'm glad we've worked it out.
To the comments about the relative difficulty in learning firearms vs. Hand-to-hand being a reason for more karma cost: The BBB itself clearly states that sometimes reality should take a backseat for game balance. This is a *game*, and good games are *balanced.* If there's something in the game that nobody takes except for RP purposes, something is out of whack. Melee and cyberarms were the two things that fit that mold in my game. Now all of my players consider picking up some melee, not just the guy who's bent on being the star of the next Kill Bill or Assassin's Creed.
I signed on to play Shadowrun, not ShadowGun. Other arguments aside, can anyone argue (who's played past editions) that melee in general is not now weaker than it has ever been? In SR3 I could make a troll at chargen who did something around 20S damage with a vibro-blade. There were other builds just as bad. That's missile damage we're talking there. But in all your games, did melee suddenly trump ranged just because it could do obscene damage? Were the previous editions better, or worse for having good melee? I'd argue that I could quadruple the current damage of melee and it wouldn't change the nature of the game; guns will always be more desirable in a general sense for a variety of reasons. If before nobody I knew thought of melee as more than a joke, and now they are considering taking it, then I think I've done my job as a DM.
As a final thought, I would put forth that the more viable options a game has for effectiveness, the more colorful and interesting it will be.
OSUMacbeth
| QUOTE |
| Thanks for the kind reply. It can be easy to get a little heated on these boards, and I'm not immune myself, as evidenced by my somewhat glacial remarks there towards the end. Anyway, I'm glad we've worked it out. |
Thank goodness, I was afraid that we would have been making plans for pistols and broadswords at dawn. That just wouldn't do, what with my hectic schedule and fear of pain.
| QUOTE |
| This is a *game*, and good games are *balanced.* If there's something in the game that nobody takes except for RP purposes, something is out of whack. Melee and cyberarms were the two things that fit that mold in my game. |
This is something I can certainly get behind. Depending on the genre of the game, I don't necessarily care all that much about realism. I mean we're talking about Shadowrun, a game where there are elves and trolls slinging spells in the near future where Native Americans have reclaimed some of their land. Personally, I find all that a bit more unbelieveable than melee versus firearms. The most important thing in a game like Shadowrun, to me, is whether or not the rules are fun to use and can I do cool stuff. Quite frankly, realism takes a backseat to the cool factor.
| QUOTE |
This is a *game*, and good games are *balanced.* If there's something in the game that nobody takes except for RP purposes, something is out of whack. |
I wouldn't dream of making a Street Samurai, or any other character for that matter, who didn't have at least some skill in unarmed or melee fighting. You never know when you're going to need it.
Marc
| QUOTE (kzt @ May 23 2007, 11:21 AM) |
| That's why people who hunt grizzly bears with knives, spears or 9mm glocks are considered insane by most people, |
One of the people where I work goes black bear hunting every year with a Bow and .45 backup.
He tends to be treated politely at all times.
| QUOTE (Demon_Bob) | ||
One of the people where I work goes black bear hunting with a Bow and .45 backup. He tends to be treated politely at all times. |
Well if said black bear hunter has made more than one such hunting trip, then he would be defined in my book as "Competent" at least.
And yes that means I try and not get on his "Bad Side" if I can help it.
| QUOTE (MGibster) |
| I wouldn't dream of making a Street Samurai, or any other character for that matter, who didn't have at least some skill in unarmed or melee fighting. You never know when you're going to need it. |
Me too. But except for adepts with weapon focuses (who will got to town on spirits, etc) going to unarmed or knives is what you do when you have no choice. It's the last ditch fallback plan, not the primary plan.
I've had some particularly deadly melee characters. Just Ask Roni about my monofiliment fountain pen of DOOM™. I took down three high stat gangers in a single pass. And I was a Mage that focused on astral combat and stealth (including the astral).
Yes. I am not surprised. One of my contentions is that the monowhip is too-powerful in relation to other melee weapons, to the point that only trolls really benefit from using anything else. A maxed str maxed agi human wielding a mono-sword will be outdamaged by a human wielding a whip with only agi maxed. When you consider the concealability of a mono-whip vs, well almost anything else, why would anyone ever not use it? The odds of even a decent character critically glitching are small, and if you have edge you don't have to worry about it. In a RAW game, no way would I ever use anything else (except for RP reasons.)
OSUMacbeth
OSUMacbeth
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| sigh. the only thing anyone was attempting to 'prove' with that bit is how much damage it is possible for a bladed weapon to do--that it is possible for a guy with a sword to chop of your arm. which, if there's any truth to the anecdote at all, is true. you act like they were claiming something stupid, like that swords should be lopping off limbs with every hit. |
I disagree that the point you are making is the point they were trying to make, although I suppose I could be mistaken.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| the point they were making is that a good hit with a bladed weapon will do more damage than a good hit with a gun. which is true. a bullet, even one of those fancy hydrasoftnosepointhollowzomgz dealies, is going to poke a hole in you. it might poke a somewhat larger hole in you if it does something cool, like mushroom or tumble or something. it's not going to eviscerate you, which is something even a small knife can do. it's not, even with a really good shot, going to decapitate you. hit for hit, a bladed weapon does do more damage than a gun--that's the whole point behind all those fancy ammunitions, to increase the relatively crappy damage guns do. what guns are good at, and why they replaced swords, is in getting more hits. they have range, and they are easier to use at any range--yes, even in melee, unless your opponent is trained or lucky (and it's never smart to assume he isn't one or both, which goes back to the 21ft rule). one good hit with a sword and you'll be minus a torso--but good luck getting that one hit in if the other guy's got a gun and sees you coming. |
I agree totally, which is why I consider such anecdotes to be competely worthless in the context of likely battlefield results, I might as well bring in anecdotes about some of the stunts one of my neighbors used to pull with firearms and expect them to hold water. (And please note that I did make a point of deriding the pro-gun anecdote a poster wrote about how easily he was able to beat the 21 foot rule, if I remember correctly I called it a "cowboy test" and useless.)
<><><><><><><><><><>
| QUOTE (Spike) |
| Ravor: I am quite cognizant of my posting in this thread. I made no effort to claim first hand expertise prior to KZT or after for that matter. Before the link was posted I merely stated that I knew for a fact that it existed, and was real. After I read the link, which expanded my direct knowledge somewhat, I posted based on what was in that link for the benefit of those who were unwilling or unable to read for themselves the official story. |
Then do you remember typing and still stand by the following? (Bold Facing added of course.)
| QUOTE (Spike) |
| Actually Ronin has the right of it: the police didn't arbitrarily pick 21 feet because they were worried about some one getting lucky. They picked 21 feet because within that range it was proven a guy with a knife (mind you, not a sword) could and would close and shank and officer before he could be shot. Not 'get lucky'. that is the average stand off distance a melee guy should rule in with a weapon. |
Also if you read closely you'll note that I didn't say that you claimed 'first hand expertise' with the 21 foot rule at any time, but your claims about it went a fair bit further then proclaiming its existance as fact. (And we won't go into you trying to use an anecdote about prison shankings to "prove" your point either.)
<><><><><><><><><><>
Well to what I imagine will be to everyone's relief I've said my piece and am done, happy hunting and remember to never bring a knife to a gunfight.
edit: nm, original post was edited.
| QUOTE (Ravor) |
| I agree totally, which is why I consider such anecdotes to be competely worthless in the context of likely battlefield results, I might as well bring in anecdotes about some of the stunts one of my neighbors used to pull with firearms and expect them to hold water. |
i think the best way to look at it is this: if you've got a knife and he's got a gun, it's suicidal to assume you'll win just because you're 21 feet away. if you've got a gun and he's got a knife, it's suicidal to assume you'll win just because he's 21 feet away.
| QUOTE (kzt @ May 23 2007, 04:58 PM) | ||
That's the one I'd vote for. I've heard that theory discussed before (though never with real numbers). The other thing to consider about the numbers is that dead people don't seem to have been counted. So if you got killed by a bayonet charge, or bled to death before anyone collected the injured, you don't show up. And I suspect that getting stuck a couple times with a bayonet is pretty darn lethal. |
Yeah, gotta go with number 2. Never forget that in many ways the American Civil War was a precursor to the entrenched warfare of WWI. Generals only attacked in the Civil War when they couldn't afford to settle for a stalemate or weren't in a position to seige; whichever side had enough time to dig a few shallow holes (almost always the south) to fire from had a ridiculous (at least in the short term) advantage, and a bayonet charge by definition cedes cover. Grant's bloody history as a general can attest to that much; even if he made the right moves to end the war, being the aggressor was ridiculously costly.
The 21-foot rule, more correctly referred to as the Tueller Drill, states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon (or pretty much any melee weapon) can cover a distance of 21 feet.
This has been shown to be true time and time again but is limited by a couple of realities: 1) that the officer has a "typical" level of familiarity with shooting (which means not much at all, to be honest) and 2) that the officer in question is focusing entirely upon drawing his sidearm and putting two to COM rather than drawing while taking aggressive or evasive action. You try this on some of those combat handgunning guys or quick-draw artists who draw and blow off 8 rounds accurately in around one second and your assailant in question is about to have a really bad day at the office.
Other than this little random factoid, I've seen some good stuff on this subject. Thanks for sharing, everyone.
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
This has been shown to be true time and time again but is limited by a couple of realities: 1) that the officer has a "typical" level of familiarity with shooting (which means not much at all, to be honest) and 2) that the officer in question is focusing entirely upon drawing his sidearm and putting two to COM rather than drawing while taking aggressive or evasive action. You try this on some of those combat handgunning guys or quick-draw artists who draw and blow off 8 rounds accurately in around one second and your assailant in question is about to have a really bad day at the office.
Other than this little random factoid, I've seen some good stuff on this subject. Thanks for sharing, everyone.
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
| QUOTE (psychophipps) |
| The 21-foot rule, more correctly referred to as the Tueller Drill, states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon (or pretty much any melee weapon) can cover a distance of 21 feet. This has been shown to be true time and time again but is limited by a couple of realities: 1) that the officer has a "typical" level of familiarity with shooting (which means not much at all, to be honest) and 2) that the officer in question is focusing entirely upon drawing his sidearm and putting two to COM rather than drawing while taking aggressive or evasive action. You try this on some of those combat handgunning guys or quick-draw artists who draw and blow off 8 rounds accurately in around one second and your assailant in question is about to have a really bad day at the office. Other than this little random factoid, I've seen some good stuff on this subject. Thanks for sharing, everyone. Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! ) |
You are also talking about Mr Average-would-be-cop-stabber (which means his speed and skills are as good as Mr Average Cop).
A good knife artist vs a good quickdraw artist means all bets are off.
| QUOTE (OSUMacbeth) |
| Yes. I am not surprised. One of my contentions is that the monowhip is too-powerful in relation to other melee weapons, to the point that only trolls really benefit from using anything else. A maxed str maxed agi human wielding a mono-sword will be outdamaged by a human wielding a whip with only agi maxed. When you consider the concealability of a mono-whip vs, well almost anything else, why would anyone ever not use it? The odds of even a decent character critically glitching are small, and if you have edge you don't have to worry about it. In a RAW game, no way would I ever use anything else (except for RP reasons.) OSUMacbeth |
Ok, since you have down some balancing in your game, are the two biggest factors, to up melee viability, to change it from a complex to simple action and up the DV to full Strength?
Using straight up strength might give too much advantage to trolls. But getting rid of/nerfing the monowhip and making melee a simple action might be enough. Of course, you still have the problem that close defense if still 3-6 dice greater than ranged defense.
Couple little comments.
First monowips effectiveness should be mitigated by the fact(at least as I understand their use) that you need a significant amount of space to use them. And you need the area to be relativly obstruction free.
Those are the situations where melee does best.
While there aren't rules in the books it's just one of those things GMs are expected to come up with modifiers for based on the situation.
As for balance I think in a cyberpunk game you shouldn't have melee be balanced to where a broadsword should be a main weapon. Just doesn't feel right. If that's how you want to play you may enjoy the Rifts system. Lots less of that annoying "players trying to make skill rolls to sneak up on stuff" too, as that negates melees biggest problem of your opponent being able to better defend themselves.
That said I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have bigger weapons do more damage, to make them more effective when you can use them. I'm guessing arsenal will provide some of that. +something damage from dikote may do it if you want something now.
But what I really wanted to do now is test a theory, and since we don't have many threads that fly this fast here this may be my only chance. My theory is when people start arguing with each other in threads they get tunnel vision. They scan through the posts going.... didn't quote more or the other guy, didn't quote me or the other guy, other guy <read>, didn't quote me or the other guy, quoted me <read>, didn't quote me or the other guy, Post.
To test this if you actually read this in your next post deliberatly misspell the word "the" by adding an extra h i.e. "thhe" not a common typo, and it should be trivial to slip in.
Now I just have to hope the thread keeps flying.
First monowips effectiveness should be mitigated by the fact(at least as I understand their use) that you need a significant amount of space to use them. And you need the area to be relativly obstruction free.
Those are the situations where melee does best.
While there aren't rules in the books it's just one of those things GMs are expected to come up with modifiers for based on the situation.
As for balance I think in a cyberpunk game you shouldn't have melee be balanced to where a broadsword should be a main weapon. Just doesn't feel right. If that's how you want to play you may enjoy the Rifts system. Lots less of that annoying "players trying to make skill rolls to sneak up on stuff" too, as that negates melees biggest problem of your opponent being able to better defend themselves.
That said I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have bigger weapons do more damage, to make them more effective when you can use them. I'm guessing arsenal will provide some of that. +something damage from dikote may do it if you want something now.
But what I really wanted to do now is test a theory, and since we don't have many threads that fly this fast here this may be my only chance. My theory is when people start arguing with each other in threads they get tunnel vision. They scan through the posts going.... didn't quote more or the other guy, didn't quote me or the other guy, other guy <read>, didn't quote me or the other guy, quoted me <read>, didn't quote me or the other guy, Post.
To test this if you actually read this in your next post deliberatly misspell the word "the" by adding an extra h i.e. "thhe" not a common typo, and it should be trivial to slip in.
Now I just have to hope the thread keeps flying.
Interesting, but thhe posters thhat do whhat you ask will sound like thhey hhave a speechh impediment.
Whhat was thhat?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.