I've searched the forums and can't find any discussions on this topic. The situation we came up against in our game yesterday was a player to player in-game fight, where one was using Unarmed combat and the other, with no type of melee skills, was shooting at close range.
What we found was that the melee combatant had to deal with a Reaction + melee skill, opposed roll with the defender, but on the flip side, the shooter was simply able to move out of melee and fire with no real penalty, and dropped the other player down to defending with just reaction.
After the session, we discussed this and it just didn't seem right that melee combat was so weak. If a shooter can always just step out of close range and fire without penalty, why would anyone NOT use a gun? Seeing that melee is also a complex action, how is this every going to come out with a martial artist build on top?
I'm not saying it should, granted, but it seems that it should be a little more fair. I mean, if I had a gun (which I can shoot SA twice per phase), and and Bruce Lee was attacking me, I don't think my gun would be of too much use in the fight...
So what am I missing here and what have others experienced?
Full Version: Non-Ranged Combat
there is a reason why guns took over for the sword 
still, guns are inhernetly noisy...
still, guns are inhernetly noisy...
Isn't there a penalty for shooting while in melee?
I would apply that, when you are attacked in melee.
Bye
Thanee
I would apply that, when you are attacked in melee.
Bye
Thanee
The only two things we could find is:
-3 when attacker is in melee, using a ranged attack
-3 when defender is in melee, targeted by a ranged attack
The thing is, the attack can, at any point, use his movement to step out of melee, then shoot his weapon, thus bypassing the -3 penalty, so the attacker is potentially, never in melee, when firing...
I guess what we found out yesterday is the martial artist would move up and attack, then the shooter would step back and fire, then the martial artist would have to move up and attack again...
So, in a 1-on-1 situation, the gunman would never get the -3 penalty because he could always move...
-3 when attacker is in melee, using a ranged attack
-3 when defender is in melee, targeted by a ranged attack
The thing is, the attack can, at any point, use his movement to step out of melee, then shoot his weapon, thus bypassing the -3 penalty, so the attacker is potentially, never in melee, when firing...
I guess what we found out yesterday is the martial artist would move up and attack, then the shooter would step back and fire, then the martial artist would have to move up and attack again...
So, in a 1-on-1 situation, the gunman would never get the -3 penalty because he could always move...
| QUOTE (deek) |
| The thing is, the attack can, at any point, use his movement to step out of melee, then shoot his weapon, thus bypassing the -3 penalty, so the attacker is potentially, never in melee, when firing... |
I would apply this penalty, if the attacker was in melee at the start of his or her action.
Bye
Thanee
the attacker needs to be atleast 2 meters away from the target to not take the -3 for shooting while in a melee...
I would go with what Thanee suggested. Given how abstract the interaction of movement and phases actually is in SR, there's no problem at all saying "This doesn't play out like a Chess game, you were brawling a fraction of a second ago and that's distracting."
The game mechanics are abstraction. Things break down if you think it closely models th e "Real World".
While following the mechanics allows this
A starts in melee range of B
A moves away and A shoots B, without the melee modifier, because A has moved out of that range.
Then B moves to A and punches him.
repeat...
I think it';s simple enough to consider that if at any time during your movement you have been in melee range, the melee modifiers apply.
While following the mechanics allows this
A starts in melee range of B
A moves away and A shoots B, without the melee modifier, because A has moved out of that range.
Then B moves to A and punches him.
repeat...
I think it';s simple enough to consider that if at any time during your movement you have been in melee range, the melee modifiers apply.
Actually if a person tries to move out of CC they provoke an attack of opor........ er they trigger the interception rule on page 151 of the main book and will suffer an extra attack and may be unable to move out of combat.
That being said ranged still does have an advantage in close combat fights assuming the -3 penalty isn't significant compared to their dice pool. This makes perfect sense. The person with a pistol just has to have the weapon pointed in the right direction at point blank range and pull the trigger, making it pretty easy to get a hit.
I would suggest your melee guy read the bit on page 150 about knocking weapons out of peoples hands.
That being said ranged still does have an advantage in close combat fights assuming the -3 penalty isn't significant compared to their dice pool. This makes perfect sense. The person with a pistol just has to have the weapon pointed in the right direction at point blank range and pull the trigger, making it pretty easy to get a hit.
I would suggest your melee guy read the bit on page 150 about knocking weapons out of peoples hands.
I think the shooter has been playing too much d20. In d20 it is perfectly acceptable to take a five foot step back and unload witha ranged weapon. Remind him that this is Shadowrun. Something with less defined movement boundries.
If that explination doesn't phase, then here are some other things you might try:
1)Remember, this plan relies on you stepping back two meters every time. That's fine if you are fighting in an open field composed of daisies, but in shadowrun, you are going to run into a wall, sharp drop, car, etc. eventually
2)Stepping two meters is REALLY, REALLY easy. So much so that anyone can do it, even the martial artist. Maybe have the melee attacker make a reaction (2) test to follow.
3) If the player is going to be a super rules-lawer, then pull this one on him: The martail artist is technically still in Melee (because he started his action in melee) so there is still a -3 dice pool to hit him. Additionally, you moved, then fired, which is a -2 dice penalty. (resulting in a -5, almost as bad as a -6). If the player whines about how absurd that is, remind him that what he's doing is absurd.
(I took martial arts for a bit, and I wasn't that good, but I knew enough to keep the same distance from my opponant. If my opponant stepped back, I stepped forward. It was a reaction thing, I didn't even think about it. )
If that explination doesn't phase, then here are some other things you might try:
1)Remember, this plan relies on you stepping back two meters every time. That's fine if you are fighting in an open field composed of daisies, but in shadowrun, you are going to run into a wall, sharp drop, car, etc. eventually
2)Stepping two meters is REALLY, REALLY easy. So much so that anyone can do it, even the martial artist. Maybe have the melee attacker make a reaction (2) test to follow.
3) If the player is going to be a super rules-lawer, then pull this one on him: The martail artist is technically still in Melee (because he started his action in melee) so there is still a -3 dice pool to hit him. Additionally, you moved, then fired, which is a -2 dice penalty. (resulting in a -5, almost as bad as a -6). If the player whines about how absurd that is, remind him that what he's doing is absurd.
(I took martial arts for a bit, and I wasn't that good, but I knew enough to keep the same distance from my opponant. If my opponant stepped back, I stepped forward. It was a reaction thing, I didn't even think about it. )
It seems that what your player is failing to understand is that a character is not actually taking turns in combat, but trying to make and resolve actions simultaneously makes life difficult, so the system uses a turn based system. The prior posters have suggested a good work-around by imposing the melee penalty due to the attacker beginning his turn in melee range. If the player objects, he's being unreasonable, and probably deserves to be slapped upside the head.
I'll have to look at the interception rules. I also like the idea about allowing the melee combatant to move with the gunman...that could really just be a held "movement" action, that allows him to stay in close combat.
Granted, the only penalty the gunman has is that -3, which may not make a huge difference, but it is something...and I think that may be all we were looking at having...
And you are correct, all of us do play d20 as well, so that concept has been somewhat engrained in us:)
Great feedback thus far...a lot of stuff for me to think about before next game.
Granted, the only penalty the gunman has is that -3, which may not make a huge difference, but it is something...and I think that may be all we were looking at having...
And you are correct, all of us do play d20 as well, so that concept has been somewhat engrained in us:)
Great feedback thus far...a lot of stuff for me to think about before next game.
| QUOTE (sunnyside) |
| ...they trigger the interception rule on page 151 of the main book and will suffer an extra attack and may be unable to move out of combat. |
Interesting. Hadn't seen that rule yet.
But how is that Free Action spent, if it's not the meleers turn?
What if the meleer already had his/her turn and used up all actions, can it be taken from the next action?
Bye
Thanee
I think ranged weapons trump melee weapons and thats that. I had the same situation happen to me a few weeks back. The teams sword guy decided to backstab us. My ork was taking cover behind a van, he walked up on me and gutted me. I ran 11 meters, turned and fired. Sucking the 3 dice for emelee, 1 for running, and 1 for being wounded I still rolled 12 dice (att+skill+smartlink) and he only got to dodge with reaction, then I shopt him again and he was at reaction -2.
Guns are better than swords. Thats just the awful truth. That same guy, nearly every game, ended up with almost all his boxes of damage filled. Every time he would try to close to melee the bad guys would just shoot him.
"Hey Sam, theres a guy with a sword running at us."
"All teams fire the Ares Alpha's at the guy with the sword."
Guns are better than swords. Thats just the awful truth. That same guy, nearly every game, ended up with almost all his boxes of damage filled. Every time he would try to close to melee the bad guys would just shoot him.
"Hey Sam, theres a guy with a sword running at us."
"All teams fire the Ares Alpha's at the guy with the sword."
| QUOTE (Thanee) | ||
Interesting. Hadn't seen that rule yet. But how is that Free Action spent, if it's not the meleers turn? What if the meleer already had his/her turn and used up all actions, can it be taken from the next action? Bye Thanee |
Free actions can be used at any time during the pass.
basically, melee can only work for adepts who are highly specialised in it.
that being said, adepts who specialise in melee would generally have been much more scary had they specialised in throwing pebbles
(though distant strike or whatever can do something to mitigate that fact, at least)
that being said, adepts who specialise in melee would generally have been much more scary had they specialised in throwing pebbles
(though distant strike or whatever can do something to mitigate that fact, at least)
I've changed the melee rules a bit for my campaign, based on the following observations of the normal rules.
A melee character will always pay much more karma than his equivalent gun-wielder, and will be less effective at doing damage.
An adept troll with maxed strength wielding the most damaging weapon in the game as a weapon focus with bonuses to his skill from improved ability will still do less damage than someone with an assault rifle, who paid far less than half as much karma and has the bonuses inherent to ranged combat.
Mono-whips will do more damage generally than even the best mundane melee specialst, even if that person maxes strength.
These problems taken together are a balance nightmare. I believe in a game where you get what you pay for. No time to elaborate now, but strength adds its full rating to damage in my games and weapon damages have been re-balanced. Melee is once again something to fear.
OSUMacbeth
A melee character will always pay much more karma than his equivalent gun-wielder, and will be less effective at doing damage.
An adept troll with maxed strength wielding the most damaging weapon in the game as a weapon focus with bonuses to his skill from improved ability will still do less damage than someone with an assault rifle, who paid far less than half as much karma and has the bonuses inherent to ranged combat.
Mono-whips will do more damage generally than even the best mundane melee specialst, even if that person maxes strength.
These problems taken together are a balance nightmare. I believe in a game where you get what you pay for. No time to elaborate now, but strength adds its full rating to damage in my games and weapon damages have been re-balanced. Melee is once again something to fear.
OSUMacbeth
I don't know, I guess I'm too big of a fan of the fact that guns simply are more deadly in reality to really be concerned by the fact that all things being equal, someone with a gun IS going to kill someone with a sword.
However, if I were going to rebalance the game, I think I'd keep everything as it is except have melee attacks only count as a Simple Action.
However, if I were going to rebalance the game, I think I'd keep everything as it is except have melee attacks only count as a Simple Action.
| QUOTE (Shadow) |
| Guns are better than swords. Thats just the awful truth. That same guy, nearly every game, ended up with almost all his boxes of damage filled. Every time he would try to close to melee the bad guys would just shoot him. |
...which is why KK knows how to use both.
I still see her melee attack as the more powerful of the two since she has a better chance of net successes with her melee DP (18 - 19) than her Pistols DP (13).
There are ways to get into an advantageous position for making a melee attack, but it does require some very skillful tactics on the character's part (& couple of flashbangs lobbed in first doesn't hurt).
Admittedly in previous editions it was a bit easier (especially with the old SR2 movement rules).
In a world with guns specializing in melee combat and excluding ranged combat skill is not a good idea.
That being said melee shouldn't be discounted. As said the system provides attacks of opportunity in melee if the target attempts to get past you or flee. I DON'T care that it sounds like D&D, its the same basic premise.
Here's an idea
Normally you dodge gunfire by reaction only. (excluding full defense).
However if you are engaged in melee with the guy shooting at you, instead of the attacker taking the normal penalties.
You can defend like a parry (weapon skill+reaction), which makes sense to me. You use your weapon or fist and knock there gun out of the way.
That being said melee shouldn't be discounted. As said the system provides attacks of opportunity in melee if the target attempts to get past you or flee. I DON'T care that it sounds like D&D, its the same basic premise.
Here's an idea
Normally you dodge gunfire by reaction only. (excluding full defense).
However if you are engaged in melee with the guy shooting at you, instead of the attacker taking the normal penalties.
You can defend like a parry (weapon skill+reaction), which makes sense to me. You use your weapon or fist and knock there gun out of the way.
You can only fire pistols in melee (with that -3 penalty). If the martial artist doesn't intercept and you are able to step back you can fire larger weapons. Watch any of the kung fu movies set in the 19th and 20th century and you'll notice that the martial artist always keeps as close as possible to the gunmen.
Same principle applies to SR. Try to manuever the gunman into an area where he can't move around as much and try to stack odds in your favor. Try to find ways to maximize your abilty to intercept.
Same principle applies to SR. Try to manuever the gunman into an area where he can't move around as much and try to stack odds in your favor. Try to find ways to maximize your abilty to intercept.
| QUOTE (Ravor) |
| ... all things being equal, someone with a gun IS going to kill someone with a sword. |
All things being equal, within 20' (6m?) the sword wins. That's why police officers don't let you close if you're armed.
Honestly, I think that swords are more likely to disable/kill with a single "attack" than a small arm, which would make them deadlier in close combat.
That being said, guns are deadly, and also require less skill to use effectively. Like the other's have said, there's a reason why there are so common.
My 2¥ is to assess the in melee penalty if you're in melee at all diring your action, and also the movement penalty (because you moved).
It's a lot harder to keep a weapon on target if he's swinging at you and you're duckin' and dodgin'
| QUOTE (DireRadiant) |
| The game mechanics are abstraction. Things break down if you think it closely models th e "Real World". While following the mechanics allows this A starts in melee range of B A moves away and A shoots B, without the melee modifier, because A has moved out of that range. Then B moves to A and punches him. repeat... I think it';s simple enough to consider that if at any time during your movement you have been in melee range, the melee modifiers apply. |
Martial Artist would seek to ensure that thye firearm could not be used against him. Being shot kinda sucks. So in a non-turn based world he would attempt to move with the 'man with the gun who was trying to shoot him' inorder to improre his chances of not getting shot.
What he said.
| QUOTE (ronin3338) |
| All things being equal, within 20' (6m?) the sword wins. That's why police officers don't let you close if you're armed. Honestly, I think that swords are more likely to disable/kill with a single "attack" than a small arm, which would make them deadlier in close combat. That being said, guns are deadly, and also require less skill to use effectively. Like the other's have said, there's a reason why there are so common. My 2¥ is to assess the in melee penalty if you're in melee at all diring your action, and also the movement penalty (because you moved). It's a lot harder to keep a weapon on target if he's swinging at you and you're duckin' and dodgin' |
Umm, no, because part of 'all things being equal' means that both weapons are out and at ready, as well as roughly equal skill/ability, ect...
As for police not letting someone armed close in with them, sure, but it isn't because the sword is mighter then the gun, its because they don't want to take the chance that sword/knife guy is going to get lucky.
As for swords being more likely to get a one shot kill/disable, well, I'd have to see some real proof for that one. (However please note that I'm not really interested in partaking in such a debate because quite frankly I've seen similair debates about WOD vampires and I'm not impressed with the quality of the "proof" either side tries to spew.)
However, I do agree that the -3 carries over the entire IP, it makes sense and doesn't trump the fact that in a world of firearms, melee is at best a good backup.
*Edit*
Quoted ronin3338 for clarity.
I would give the Gun Guy the Attacker in Melee Combat modifier as well as any movement & visibility modifiers. The Melee Artist shouldn't get the Defender in Melee Combat modifier [just visibility/movement modifiers] because he's not fighting someone else while getting plucked off by the Gun Guy, he's chasing the Gun Guy around and keeping him in melee range.
The Melee Artist should consider the Charge Attack. As long as he moves 2 meters, he gets a +2 dice pool modifier and doesn't get affected by any running modifiers. That's a good incentive. Another idea is learning Gun Kata.
I think guns are better in most situations but you can't beat melee in tight quarters or surprise situations.
The Melee Artist should consider the Charge Attack. As long as he moves 2 meters, he gets a +2 dice pool modifier and doesn't get affected by any running modifiers. That's a good incentive. Another idea is learning Gun Kata.
I think guns are better in most situations but you can't beat melee in tight quarters or surprise situations.
The reason guns normally win is because combat is race to hurt the guy as much as possible before he can hurt you as much as he can.
So with a gun vs a knife it is: Can the shooter, pull his gun and hit you, before you; can cross the intervening distance, draw your Knife, and stab or slice something important.
It is harder to shoot someone if they are holding the gun or your wrist and attempting to determine where it is pointing.
So with a gun vs a knife it is: Can the shooter, pull his gun and hit you, before you; can cross the intervening distance, draw your Knife, and stab or slice something important.
It is harder to shoot someone if they are holding the gun or your wrist and attempting to determine where it is pointing.
I disagree with that statement to a point. If both contestants are standing 3 meters apart staring at each other with weapons drawn (gun guy w/gun; melee artist w/melee weapon of choice) then the Gun Guy will probably win. However, if the melee artist already has his weapon drawn (which any self-respecting melee artist would) and the gun guy doesn't have his weapon drawn, then I would place my bet on the melee artist closing to within attack range before the gun guy can pull his weapon and shoot.
But that argument is moot since I've always seen shadowrunners ready their weapon as soon as infiltration starts so that type of situation doesn't happen. Sec guards on the other hand depends on what type of alert or security is there. Usually slung over a shoulder or holstered unless actively searching for an intruder.
But that argument is moot since I've always seen shadowrunners ready their weapon as soon as infiltration starts so that type of situation doesn't happen. Sec guards on the other hand depends on what type of alert or security is there. Usually slung over a shoulder or holstered unless actively searching for an intruder.
| QUOTE (OSUMacbeth) |
| I believe in a game where you get what you pay for. |
I hear what you're saying, but Shadowrun has never been like that. Not in the sense that all approaches to something are equal. It's always been more of a Rock, Paper, Scissors game. For me, that leads to some of the edginess of it all.
I think Melee is great in some situations, but not all. (and I disagree that only adepts can play samurai, street sams can get pretty nasty too.)
If you (as a Melee goer) win initiative over the opponants, you can close to melee range, then attack (depending on how far away they were) or close to melee range at least. If they are a good gunman, they are now screwed. If they try to run away, you get a free attack, and stop them. (BTW, thanks for pointing out the interception rules.)
Now if you loose initiative, or whatever, then it's not the best idea. Still, in some cases it works better.
ADDITONALLY, most armor has better ratings against balistic than against impact, so you are more likely to damage something. (unless you dish out massive ammounts of cash for APDS)
Additional additional, Melee has two advantages over ranged. One, it's cheaper (Don't have to buy ammo) and two, it doesn't need to be 'reloaded' So, yes, guns beat melee in a lot of ways, but that doesn't mean melee is useless
If you (as a Melee goer) win initiative over the opponants, you can close to melee range, then attack (depending on how far away they were) or close to melee range at least. If they are a good gunman, they are now screwed. If they try to run away, you get a free attack, and stop them. (BTW, thanks for pointing out the interception rules.)
Now if you loose initiative, or whatever, then it's not the best idea. Still, in some cases it works better.
ADDITONALLY, most armor has better ratings against balistic than against impact, so you are more likely to damage something. (unless you dish out massive ammounts of cash for APDS)
Additional additional, Melee has two advantages over ranged. One, it's cheaper (Don't have to buy ammo) and two, it doesn't need to be 'reloaded' So, yes, guns beat melee in a lot of ways, but that doesn't mean melee is useless
Three comments.
First when talking about the sword guy it seems some people are thinking about movies where the sword master is attacking nameless extra #27 and with one swing lops him in half with extra blood splurtage.
In an age of wearable armor you have to expect even a sec guard to get his jacket sleeve with it's kevlar weave + ceramic plates in the way of your incoming blade (why he is able to block a sword with a H2H skill).
The point being, especially against skilled opponents, you can't expect to finish it in one blow. Which is where you can get into trouble.
melee is best used as a backup or a sneaking skill (where they get no defense roll).
H2H is nice for when some ghoul is trying to bite you. I guess melee would also do if you had a knife out.
Next a RAW mechanical comment.
Remember you set your movement on your action and in melee take no penalty for walking. You also get to move on each pass, not just when you have your action.
So lets say a slow strong troll charges a wired shooty guy with 4 passes.
So the battle would go.
Shooty guy shoots, troll charges in and attacks
shooty guy moves back (provoking an intercept attack) but the troll also moves on that pass! So they'll close the distance again!
Same on the next two passes. So the shooty guy never gets out of melee, unless he switches to sprinting (and even then trolls are pretty quick!)
One last comment. It isn't explicitly stated in the rules. But shooting is assumed to be in your forward arc. So while in RAW if you had a swordy elf and a shooty human running down the street the human could just keep fireing while the elf only slowly gains due to sprint rolls. However while I would let that happen I'd also apply a blind fire modifier as the human isn't running backwards, but would instead be shooting behind himself roughly in the elves direction.
First when talking about the sword guy it seems some people are thinking about movies where the sword master is attacking nameless extra #27 and with one swing lops him in half with extra blood splurtage.
In an age of wearable armor you have to expect even a sec guard to get his jacket sleeve with it's kevlar weave + ceramic plates in the way of your incoming blade (why he is able to block a sword with a H2H skill).
The point being, especially against skilled opponents, you can't expect to finish it in one blow. Which is where you can get into trouble.
melee is best used as a backup or a sneaking skill (where they get no defense roll).
H2H is nice for when some ghoul is trying to bite you. I guess melee would also do if you had a knife out.
Next a RAW mechanical comment.
Remember you set your movement on your action and in melee take no penalty for walking. You also get to move on each pass, not just when you have your action.
So lets say a slow strong troll charges a wired shooty guy with 4 passes.
So the battle would go.
Shooty guy shoots, troll charges in and attacks
shooty guy moves back (provoking an intercept attack) but the troll also moves on that pass! So they'll close the distance again!
Same on the next two passes. So the shooty guy never gets out of melee, unless he switches to sprinting (and even then trolls are pretty quick!)
One last comment. It isn't explicitly stated in the rules. But shooting is assumed to be in your forward arc. So while in RAW if you had a swordy elf and a shooty human running down the street the human could just keep fireing while the elf only slowly gains due to sprint rolls. However while I would let that happen I'd also apply a blind fire modifier as the human isn't running backwards, but would instead be shooting behind himself roughly in the elves direction.
| QUOTE (knasser) |
| It's always been more of a Rock, Paper, Scissors game. For me, that leads to some of the edginess of it all. |
Agreed, but prefer to think of it as a game of Boot, Cockroach, A-Bomb.
if the melee character is within melee range of the gun guy, and the melee character's first action isn't to try and disarm the gun guy, the melee character deserves to get shot. as far as modifers go, i always have them apply for the full duration of a character's action. if you're taking a ranged penalty for being in melee at the beginning of your action, it applies even if you move out of melee range and then shoot. if you want to get behind cover, that cover will apply to your range attacks even if you move after you shoot (even if that means retroactively applying the modifiers for cover and movement to your roll, and recalculating or even rerolling the dice).
| QUOTE (Ravor) |
| As for police not letting someone armed close in with them, sure, but it isn't because the sword is mighter then the gun, its because they don't want to take the chance that sword/knife guy is going to get lucky. As for swords being more likely to get a one shot kill/disable, well, I'd have to see some real proof for that one. (However please note that I'm not really interested in partaking in such a debate because quite frankly I've seen similair debates about WOD vampires and I'm not impressed with the quality of the "proof" either side tries to spew.) |
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.
there are other considerations. Guns have a limited angle of usefullness (namely, a line directly from the barrel) where knives and swords present a wider arc of lethality. The speed in which a knife can be employed even casually is frightning.
As for swords being deadlier per hit: That's simple physics. The surface area of a sword edge is dozens of times larger than the surface area of a bullet, the mass behind the sword is hundreds of times larger. There was an interesting thread posted somewhere where a guy took swords to freshly slaughtered cows, the swords were capable of lopping off limbs. Cow limbs at that... think troll bone structure for comparison. This wasn't a weight lifter or a master swordsman, this was an ordinary guy with a hobby interest in mideval weaponry.
Guns, contrarily, do not generally lop off limbs.
*Waits for the next part of the debate where someone will claim that the last poster was completely wrong and talk about hydroshock and blowing through lead sheets or some such rot.*
Believe me Spike if you spend time on the WoD Vampire forums you will see this exact debate unfold virtually the same way every so often when the stars align just right (Or wrongly?), the pro-sword people point out the things that you've stated, and the pro-gun people point out their own version of the facts, but neither side has ever presented anything that I've been able to consider any real proof.
So that leaves me with looking at the real world and finding that for some strange reason when given a choice in the matter people will tend to use firearms when they wish to kill each other, never mind the fact that if I've been informed correctly the average gunfight takes place at what I thought was shockingly close ranges.
Believe me Spike if you spend time on the WoD Vampire forums you will see this exact debate unfold virtually the same way every so often when the stars align just right (Or wrongly?), the pro-sword people point out the things that you've stated, and the pro-gun people point out their own version of the facts, but neither side has ever presented anything that I've been able to consider any real proof.
So that leaves me with looking at the real world and finding that for some strange reason when given a choice in the matter people will tend to use firearms when they wish to kill each other, never mind the fact that if I've been informed correctly the average gunfight takes place at what I thought was shockingly close ranges.
| QUOTE (Ravor @ May 21 2007, 11:34 AM) |
| So that leaves me with looking at the real world and finding that for some strange reason when given a choice in the matter people will tend to use firearms when they wish to kill each other, never mind the fact that if I've been informed correctly the average gunfight takes place at what I thought was shockingly close ranges. |
I don't know exactly what proof you are waiting for. As for why firearms are used over, say, swords:
Guns are damn hard to defend against. You can't dodge bullets, no matter how much Neo does it. (note: you can make yourself a harder target... not quite the same thing), wheras a trained swordsman could parry or block.
Guns have outstanding penetrative power.
Most importantly they have reach. That is why guns have replaced the sword. Outside that '21 feet' guns are, without question, far more lethal tools. They are easier to train with to a high degree of proficency, and they are, at least in the modern era, damned convienent. Recall that only the advent of semi automatic and automatic weapons really supplanted the cavalry saber and the bayonet charge on the modern battlefield, and that modern soldiers still train baynet drills, police still train in hand to hand. Each has its place.
One failing of SR is that while a-3 penalty to firing is beliveable for pistol combat, someone with a rifle or, god forbid, a machine gun in melee range is better off trying to use it as a club. Not that SR is unique among games for failing to take this into account....
Lastly there is a psychology aspect: Guns make loud noises. Who doesn't like loud noises? They also lack that utility 'blah' that knives may have. Knives are common tools, there is nothing exciting about them. Guns, particularly in the city where most 'gunfights' occur are 'weapons' they are symbols. They aren't tools so much as status symbols. A man with a knife is deadly but mundane, a man with a gun is deadly and 'The Man'. Besides, have you ever heard of a drive by knifing?
EDIT::: Just to clarify, I am neither pro-sword or pro-gun. I am pro-killing people, however. I just like to have the right tool for the job at hand.
Going back to my original example, I think that the "balance" I was looking for in yesterday's session, was simply to use the interception rules. The melee guy would have gotten a FREE attack (not a free action attack, a FREE one) and if he did damage, the gunman would have not been able to move.
If he didn't do damage, then he moved out of melee range and gets to shoot with no penalty. I think the free attack given to the melee guy is enough balance for me, and ended up being something we all overlooked yesterday. I don't honestly think I need to go much further than that.
I certainly don't want to make melee "more equal" to firearms, just that without using interception, melee v. ranged really was throwaway! Now, I think it is not!
If he didn't do damage, then he moved out of melee range and gets to shoot with no penalty. I think the free attack given to the melee guy is enough balance for me, and ended up being something we all overlooked yesterday. I don't honestly think I need to go much further than that.
I certainly don't want to make melee "more equal" to firearms, just that without using interception, melee v. ranged really was throwaway! Now, I think it is not!
| QUOTE |
| Besides, have you ever heard of a drive by knifing? |
No, but a walk-by shanking is pretty deadly and can be remarkably discreet, especially on crowded streets.
been reading this thread from the beginning but ran out of time half way thru so forgive me if someone already mentioned this, but other than interception, it seems like SR4 gave an 'out' to melee vs. ranged combatants with the inclusion of 'subduing' as a form of specialization of unarmed combat. this implies that you can immobilize.
go gracie on their a$$es! a little bend of the elbow here, a touch of put his ankle behind his back and boom, you got you a (meta)human pretzel!
go gracie on their a$$es! a little bend of the elbow here, a touch of put his ankle behind his back and boom, you got you a (meta)human pretzel!
| QUOTE (HappyDaze) |
| No, but a walk-by shanking is pretty deadly and can be remarkably discreet, especially on crowded streets. |
The "wino" carrying the brown bag with a 10 inch long spike in it staggers past you on the subway. . .
| QUOTE (WhiskeyMac) |
| I think guns are better in most situations but you can't beat melee in tight quarters or surprise situations. |
...I like to think so. But yes, knowing gun fu as well gives the character a better chance at getting more done and coming out alive.
Of course, this is where taking the Ambidexterity quality pays off.
Blade in one hand, gun in the other, no penalty using either attack. At a distance, plug em. They move in close, slice em.
I have played one straight melee character and yes it is extremely difficult to get into position to take out the oppos. Most of the time while your sammie and mage buddies are lighting the place up with gunfire & spells, you're stealthing around trying to get your target from behind or blindside them. If your opponent has a gun (which they always seem to do) they usually get two shots to your one so, like my character Hannah, if you don't take your opponent down in one punch or swing, you better have a very good Gymnastic dodge pool.
I like Spike's idea of restricting the use of larger than pistol/SMG size weapons to using them as a club when the shooter is caught in melee.
I've done some martial arts training with knives. Lethal, utterly lethal.
Remarkably (and the 'remarkably' probably indicates some prejudice I should work on), the person I met who seemed to be the most confident and competent with a knife was a small girl from Sicily (sp?) I used to know. She said she'd been taught how to knife fight by her brothers and all I can say is that I wouldn't want to piss them off because their little sister was already quite dangerous enough for me.
Remarkably (and the 'remarkably' probably indicates some prejudice I should work on), the person I met who seemed to be the most confident and competent with a knife was a small girl from Sicily (sp?) I used to know. She said she'd been taught how to knife fight by her brothers and all I can say is that I wouldn't want to piss them off because their little sister was already quite dangerous enough for me.
| QUOTE (Turtleboy) |
| melee vs. ranged combatants with the inclusion of 'subduing' as a form of specialization of unarmed combat. this implies that you can immobilize. |
It's been implied, and I was just going to be more explicit. . .
However, I still think that having sword freak end up bleeding out on the floor every time he decides to charge someone holding an assault rifle isn't a bad thing.
| QUOTE (Spike) |
| I don't know exactly what proof you are waiting for. |
Something far more soild then what I've seen thus far.
Serious though, about the only thing even remotely new in your arguments is the assertion that it's "proven" within 20 ft someone can knife you before you can shoot him, and quite frankly, I'd have to know a hell of alot more about the studies (I'm assuming that there were more then one.) which "proved" that before I even considered taking it with a grain of salt that within 20 ft melee should trump firearms.
Everything else ranging from being able to chop off limbs from a dead animal (Pigs are usually used in the tales instead of cows though, and I've found that the stories tend to gloss over some important facts, such as whether and how the animal was braced, what type of motion was used to chop, ect...), ect is just a rehashing of the WoD threads on this subject. The pro-gun crowd will then spew their 'scientific fact' as to why bullets are more deadly and everything just goes round and round. (And to be fair, many of the tales that they use to prove their pro-gun stance also tend to have similair holes in them as the pro-sword stories.)
However I do agree with you in one reguard, melee skills and weapons do still have their uses and can indeed be very effective, that is why police/soldiers are still trained in them today, but not as primary skill sets to kill people.
Rav: you are seriously tempting me to go look up that dad-gum thread now?
This guy didn't gloss over anything. He pointed out how length of time as a carcass had a serious effect on tissue elasticity and more. The cows that had just been capped he could lop of limbs, the cows he got to later (an hour more or less) were harder, he used a dozen different swords, at least one spear and some axes.
Apparently it was some messy work. there were photos involved.
Less limited, what about those prison shankings we all know about, but thankfully are not (typically) exposed to daily? You got guys dying from a single stab with a home made knife made from a toothbrush! Blades are deadly.
Counter that with reports of the Miami police department shooting a guy 17 times before he surrendered? Or the FBI report that suggests a minimum of three 9mm parabellum bullets are required for a combatant to even feel it? You know, the one that prompted police departments to swap up to 40S&W?
As for the 21 feet, *EDIT::: Validated much better by KZT's link. See that for the hard science*
But that leads to an initiative discussion. In Game Terms, if the melee guy has the initiative, for any reason, he can gut you before you can shoot him by moving 21 feet and making his attack. If the Shooter has initiative he can obviously shoot first, and if outside 21 feet can 'hold action' to shoot if the melee dude comes at him. Less than that and it's time to make reasonalbly hard reaction checks. Less than 10 feet? Prepare to get shanked no matter what you want. If you ain't pulling the trigger before he moves, you're meat.
But, to satisfy your need for hard facts, maybe I'll look up a trauma surgeon or something. Actually, I know of at least one criminal forensic pathologist who is a gamer and posts (or posted...) on line. Maybe I can find him again...
This guy didn't gloss over anything. He pointed out how length of time as a carcass had a serious effect on tissue elasticity and more. The cows that had just been capped he could lop of limbs, the cows he got to later (an hour more or less) were harder, he used a dozen different swords, at least one spear and some axes.
Apparently it was some messy work. there were photos involved.
Less limited, what about those prison shankings we all know about, but thankfully are not (typically) exposed to daily? You got guys dying from a single stab with a home made knife made from a toothbrush! Blades are deadly.
Counter that with reports of the Miami police department shooting a guy 17 times before he surrendered? Or the FBI report that suggests a minimum of three 9mm parabellum bullets are required for a combatant to even feel it? You know, the one that prompted police departments to swap up to 40S&W?
As for the 21 feet, *EDIT::: Validated much better by KZT's link. See that for the hard science*
But that leads to an initiative discussion. In Game Terms, if the melee guy has the initiative, for any reason, he can gut you before you can shoot him by moving 21 feet and making his attack. If the Shooter has initiative he can obviously shoot first, and if outside 21 feet can 'hold action' to shoot if the melee dude comes at him. Less than that and it's time to make reasonalbly hard reaction checks. Less than 10 feet? Prepare to get shanked no matter what you want. If you ain't pulling the trigger before he moves, you're meat.
But, to satisfy your need for hard facts, maybe I'll look up a trauma surgeon or something. Actually, I know of at least one criminal forensic pathologist who is a gamer and posts (or posted...) on line. Maybe I can find him again...
| QUOTE (Ravor) |
| Serious though, about the only thing even remotely new in your arguments is the assertion that it's "proven" within 20 ft someone can knife you before you can shoot him, and quite frankly, I'd have to know a hell of alot more about the studies (I'm assuming that there were more then one.) which "proved" that before I even considered taking it with a grain of salt that within 20 ft melee should trump firearms. e. |
When I've done this in training it's drawing from a holster and stopping them before they reach the point where they can stab you. This includes the fact that most people consider being stabbed by the guy they shot at 4 feet not counting as win. The 21 foot rule doesn't mean they win, it means you are very likely to get cut or stabbed before you kill the guy with a knife inside 21 feet if you have a holstered pistol when he attacks.
If you are holding a 12 gauge in low-ready knife guy isn't going to be likely to get you even from 12 feet.
Anyhow, a more detailed discussion is here Edged Weapon Defense: Is or was the 21-foot rule valid?
We have had this trhead before. There is always someone who insists that knves/swords are more deadly than guns at (insert distance). No one is going to convince them that they are incorrect. A master swordsman might kill a novice gunmen, but "all things being equal" if two people are set to kill eachother, one has a sword/knife the other has a gun, bet on the gun.
I wish I could remember the thread where some guy claimed knowledge based on his airsoft experience, that was rich.
I wish I could remember the thread where some guy claimed knowledge based on his airsoft experience, that was rich.
i think the main problem people have is that when you say X is better than Y, they think that means that X beats Y every time. a guy with a knife within 21 feet of a guy with a gun has a chance to hurt the guy with the gun, if he's quick on his feet. that doesn't mean that the guy with the gun won't be quicker, it just means that the guy with a knife has a much better chance than if he were 30 feet away. the guy with the knife is not going to win every time. the guy with the gun is not going to win every time. it depends on a huge array of factors ranging from environmental to experience to personality and mindset. there is no such thing as "all else being equal", because all else is never equal.
21 feet is the distance at which, in a best-case scenario for the guy with the knife, the knife guy can close with the gun guy before the gun guy can get a shot off. in anything other than the best case for the knife guy, the gun guy has a really good chance of winning, maybe even without getting cut.
so why train as if 21 feet is some kind of magic win button for knife guys? because if you are the gun guy, you never know when it will be a best-case scenario for some guy with a knife. it's about risk mitigation. if you keep every knife guy you meet at least 22 feet away, you stand a much better chance of not getting knifed than if you let them within 21 feet.
21 feet is the distance at which, in a best-case scenario for the guy with the knife, the knife guy can close with the gun guy before the gun guy can get a shot off. in anything other than the best case for the knife guy, the gun guy has a really good chance of winning, maybe even without getting cut.
so why train as if 21 feet is some kind of magic win button for knife guys? because if you are the gun guy, you never know when it will be a best-case scenario for some guy with a knife. it's about risk mitigation. if you keep every knife guy you meet at least 22 feet away, you stand a much better chance of not getting knifed than if you let them within 21 feet.
Just to clarify mfb:
the article actually suggests that 30 is much smarter stand off wise than 21 feet.
Backed by the numbers the 'average' speed from dead stop to stabby death was 1.27 seconds at 21 feet. The 'average' speed for shooting from a holster was 1.5 seconds.
Yes, from a Holster. Gun out and pointed there is less 'clear cut' safety margin, with odds going to the gun man in all cases. I'd hedge and suggest that within ten feet the knifeman still has odds. Ten feet is nothing at all in a fight. I've seen a guy hit another guy from roughly ten feet so damn fast that 'we'.. being non-participants... were still getting used to the idea that he'd actually moved.
As always: The right tool for the job is the one that gets the job done. Don't forget we have people on this board that (rightly) suggest that the pistol is worthless as a combat firearm. But those same people are not, to my knowledge, suggesting that the police carry assualt rifles.
the article actually suggests that 30 is much smarter stand off wise than 21 feet.
Backed by the numbers the 'average' speed from dead stop to stabby death was 1.27 seconds at 21 feet. The 'average' speed for shooting from a holster was 1.5 seconds.
Yes, from a Holster. Gun out and pointed there is less 'clear cut' safety margin, with odds going to the gun man in all cases. I'd hedge and suggest that within ten feet the knifeman still has odds. Ten feet is nothing at all in a fight. I've seen a guy hit another guy from roughly ten feet so damn fast that 'we'.. being non-participants... were still getting used to the idea that he'd actually moved.
As always: The right tool for the job is the one that gets the job done. Don't forget we have people on this board that (rightly) suggest that the pistol is worthless as a combat firearm. But those same people are not, to my knowledge, suggesting that the police carry assualt rifles.
Interesting... I wonder why Doc Holiday never got knifed during a duel at high noon. Those guys were only standing about that far away. 
| QUOTE (Jagger) |
| Interesting... I wonder why Doc Holiday never got knifed during a duel at high noon. Those guys were only standing about that far away. |
Because those duals never happened in real life.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.