Full Version: Melee House Rule Critque
This is a spin off from the monofilament sword thread. People are complaining that they miss the old rules where melee combat was an opposed roll with the winner being the one that hit the other.
Some people like it, but others dislike it because all it does is give the wired samurai who moves at 3IP, merely the ability to get pummelled three times as fast.
Proposed fix:
Go back to opposed rolls but use Reaction + Combat Skill instead of Agility + Combat skill. Now the wired reflexes / synaptic boosters have a significant effect, but can't make up for a complete lack of skill.
Comments? Thoughts? Abuse?
Not a bad idea. Another suggestion would be to have the Initiative modifier from wires/synaptic/drugs, etc also simply modify armed/unarmed combat.
Same basic result, that wired reflexes give an edge, but it doesn't change the linked attribute.
Not that Agility gets any shortage of love.
Same basic result, that wired reflexes give an edge, but it doesn't change the linked attribute.
Not that Agility gets any shortage of love.
As I said in that the other thread, if that cybersammy runs the risk of getting pummeled in melee, he mybe should stay out of pummeling-range...
Are you suggesting rolling rea+skill both for attack and defense? People may worry that this departs from a core mechanic (AFAIK all attacks safe for blind fire use agi).
I'd just keep it as it is:
Attacker rolls agi+skill. (he's attacking, so he has to be fast and swift to get that hit in)
Defender rolls rea+skill. (competent fighter or no, he is defending, so he has to be alert and keep that mofo off his back)
Then:
Compare hits.
The guy with less hits gets bludgeoned/stabbed.
Rinse and repeat unil desired effect (usually death of opponent sets in) sets in.
Are you suggesting rolling rea+skill both for attack and defense? People may worry that this departs from a core mechanic (AFAIK all attacks safe for blind fire use agi).
I'd just keep it as it is:
Attacker rolls agi+skill. (he's attacking, so he has to be fast and swift to get that hit in)
Defender rolls rea+skill. (competent fighter or no, he is defending, so he has to be alert and keep that mofo off his back)
Then:
Compare hits.
The guy with less hits gets bludgeoned/stabbed.
Rinse and repeat unil desired effect (usually death of opponent sets in) sets in.
This is complete garbage. Melee combat is already weak sauce because:
Given all of those weaknesses, throwing in an extra one in which even attempting to enter melee combat carries a non-trivial risk of you having your own head cut off on your own turn is bullshit. Seriously man, what the hell?
The counterattack rules were crap in every previous version of Shadowrun and made close combat a simple check to see who had more people on their side and whose entire team exploded. Bringing them back is a dumb idea that is really dumb.
Making a melee attack is already suboptimal compared to pulling a trigger. Increasing the costs of using actions to attack in melee is a really obviously shit idea.
-Frank
- It takes a complex action instead of a simple action.
- It allows targets a larger dicepool for their defense check.
- It only goes a few meters out from your body.
- It can't be used in burst fire or suppressive fire modes.
- It's very difficult to use from prone or other protected positions.
Given all of those weaknesses, throwing in an extra one in which even attempting to enter melee combat carries a non-trivial risk of you having your own head cut off on your own turn is bullshit. Seriously man, what the hell?
The counterattack rules were crap in every previous version of Shadowrun and made close combat a simple check to see who had more people on their side and whose entire team exploded. Bringing them back is a dumb idea that is really dumb.
Making a melee attack is already suboptimal compared to pulling a trigger. Increasing the costs of using actions to attack in melee is a really obviously shit idea.
-Frank
| QUOTE (Naysayer) |
| Are you suggesting rolling rea+skill both for attack and defense? People may worry that this departs from a core mechanic (AFAIK all attacks safe for blind fire use agi). |
I was. But this idea occured to me about fifteen minutes ago. I throw the floor open to other suggestions.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
This is complete garbage. Melee combat is already weak sauce because:
The counterattack rules were crap in every previous version of Shadowrun and made close combat a simple check to see who had more people on their side and whose entire team exploded. Bringing them back is a dumb idea that is really dumb. Making a melee attack is already suboptimal compared to pulling a trigger. Increasing the costs of using actions to attack in melee is a really obviously shit idea. -Frank |
You're entirely wrong about the old way being weak.
Entirely. You can call it weak all you want, but when you have a street samurai with 3 initiative passes getting 6 attacks with his dikote katana that does more damage than a sniper rifle, and is vs. impact, I dare you to call it weak.
As it stands, Melee needs help.
I was just talking to someone about doubling the damage of melee attacks before hits to make it more viable, but their are ways to make that freaking out of hand.
The other option I was throwing out was to make a melee attack a simple action instead of a complex. Melee would still have all those penalties Frank mentioned along with the character having to up his strength stat to be useful, points gun characters don't need to waste. Also, I believe there is a 2 dice dodge penalty if you are in melee and want to defend against gunfire....
Pretty rough road there.
I was just talking to someone about doubling the damage of melee attacks before hits to make it more viable, but their are ways to make that freaking out of hand.
The other option I was throwing out was to make a melee attack a simple action instead of a complex. Melee would still have all those penalties Frank mentioned along with the character having to up his strength stat to be useful, points gun characters don't need to waste. Also, I believe there is a 2 dice dodge penalty if you are in melee and want to defend against gunfire....
Pretty rough road there.
I may be in the minority, but I like the old rules - it gave a much better flow, in my opinion, to melee combat. This is entirely subjective, but in my game, it never caused problems, so I'll use this a reflection of the rules we had in place before.
I liked the old rules because hand to hand combat is not "my turn - your turn." I wouldn't say gunfights are necessarily so either, but they certainly have the potential to be which melee doesn't really. An opposed roll seems much more suitable to me.
The only thing that the opposed roll system lacks in terms of capturing fight options, is a way to model someone who is willing to take the blows in order to strike the other person. There should be a fairly simple way to model that though.
one thought that dawned on me was to allow a defender to burn a waiting action pass to take a counterattack. that way one gets away from both the mundane fu master that can counter people into submission no matter what they are fighting, while allow a limited risk in going into a melee and introducing some kind of fluidity to it all.
hmm, was there not some redone initative systems for sr3 that had similar properties?
hmm, was there not some redone initative systems for sr3 that had similar properties?
| QUOTE (knasser) |
| I liked the old rules because hand to hand combat is not "my turn - your turn." I wouldn't say gunfights are necessarily so either, but they certainly have the potential to be which melee doesn't really. An opposed roll seems much more suitable to me. The only thing that the opposed roll system lacks in terms of capturing fight options, is a way to model someone who is willing to take the blows in order to strike the other person. There should be a fairly simple way to model that though. |
OK. In a pure opposed roll system, attacking enemies essentially gives them extra attack actions. Therefore attacking enemies in melee is a sucker's gambit. Even if all you have is a knife, you should still throw it at your enemy rather than deign to make a melee attack. So that's pretty much off the table.
We could also have an opposed roll system in which the target has to rob his next action to get his counterattack in. That makes full defense sort of not happen and in any case is much like the position we are in now save that it doesn't allow for neither or both characters to get hit.
So what if we made it two opposed rolls and cost an action to counter attack? You know, first you'd have an opposed roll to see if your attack hit, followed by another opposed roll to see if you were hit in return. That would make a lot of sense: attacking in melee wouldn't be obviously stupid, yet it would still carry the very real risk of you getting struck by your opponent in return. You know what would make this run even smoother? Having each of the opposed rolls going off in order of initiative, so that the faster character would have the first chance to land a blow and the slower character would get their swing later on...
Oh wait, that's the normal system out of the basic book. The one which actually works and doesn't do anything retarded. My mistake.
-Frank
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| Oh wait, that's the normal system out of the basic book. The one which actually works and doesn't do anything retarded. My mistake. |
Frank, you're hilarious when you're an a-hole.
I still say leave it alone, and if you want hyper-speed initiative monsters to get a bonus in melee combat (not a bad idea, really), just give them bonus dice in melee combat for having initiative boosters.
Wired reflexes/synaptic boosters/adept powers/drugs/etc give +1 bonus dice per extra IP to melee attack and defense tests. Simple. Streamlined. Minimal change to core rules.
Hmmm, I might want to add this.
YMMV
| QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Jul 16 2007, 02:18 PM) |
| hmm, was there not some redone initative systems for sr3 that had similar properties? |
You might be thinking of the Cain/Stumps Initiative system. My search-fu is weak, but I did find a description of it in this thread in the post by Modesitt (third post overall).
I used it with much success but it did require some extra bookkeeping. My group has actually even thought of trying to run it in SR4 just for kicks, though we seem to like SR4's base initiative system as a group.
| QUOTE (Naysayer) |
| I see your concern, and I'm not trying to convert you or anything, but I still think that a well-versed martial artist should wipe the floor with semi-talented brawlers, cybered or not. |
he still can. even in SR4, unless i'm mistaken, the wizened old kung fu master gets to use his melee skill to defend himself, so the sammy's not going to get a hit in regardless--and when it's the kung fu master's turn, he'll lay the sammy out. but the master won't beat up the sammy faster than he'd beat up anyone else.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| It takes a complex action instead of a simple action. |
Undless of course the target tries to run away or past you - then it's a Free Action.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| It allows targets a larger dicepool for their defense check. |
Hm... now that's something to toy with: Reduce the defenders Dicepool to Reaction/Skill only (whatever is greater) - plus Dodge/Gymnastics if he's on full defense.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| It can't be used in burst fire or suppressive fire modes. |
Well, at least they get Knockdown and Subduing.
I find it hard to believe that more people don't think the old counterattack rules were a total cluster#$%&. Oh well.
Honestly, I'd just drop a melee attack from a complex to a simple action and call it a day. That'd double your damage potential per pass as well as allow people to sprint during a charge as opposed to merely running, increasing the melee characters effective move+attack range. It'd make rampaging cyber trolls with double digit athletics pools into mobile ginzu death machines. And yes, I'm perfectly fine with that.
Subduing would be pretty brutal though...
Honestly, I'd just drop a melee attack from a complex to a simple action and call it a day. That'd double your damage potential per pass as well as allow people to sprint during a charge as opposed to merely running, increasing the melee characters effective move+attack range. It'd make rampaging cyber trolls with double digit athletics pools into mobile ginzu death machines. And yes, I'm perfectly fine with that.
Subduing would be pretty brutal though...
My only complaints with melee combat is its agility based, and I hate the rules for attacking multiple targets. If you are dividing your pool you minds as well say, you can only attack multiple targets if your going on a rampage in a kindergarten class.
Also if I wanted to add a counterattack feature into the game I'd just make the physical adept counterattack ability a default rule. Your net successes from a block or parry give you extra dice in your next melee attack.
Also if I wanted to add a counterattack feature into the game I'd just make the physical adept counterattack ability a default rule. Your net successes from a block or parry give you extra dice in your next melee attack.
Knasser, I have a question. If you are house ruling melee attacks to include counterattacks like SR3, what will you do with the Combat Sense adept power, which currently increases your Reaction for defending agaiinst attacks? Adepts with high levels of combat sense could go from hard to hit, to suicidal to attack.
Also, I'm not sure how I feel about both sides using skill plus Reaction. Trolls have no penalty to reaction - an elf street sammie and a troll street sammie are equally likely to have a base Reaction of 5. Agility-wise, though, trolls have a penalty and elves have a bonus. But suddenly, that super-agile elf and that lumbering troll are on equal footing (actually, reach will give the troll a slight edge over the elf). And dwarves would get screwed over.
I dunno. Trying to graft SR3 rules onto SR4 doesn't work that well - the two systems are too fundamentally different, to me.
Also, I'm not sure how I feel about both sides using skill plus Reaction. Trolls have no penalty to reaction - an elf street sammie and a troll street sammie are equally likely to have a base Reaction of 5. Agility-wise, though, trolls have a penalty and elves have a bonus. But suddenly, that super-agile elf and that lumbering troll are on equal footing (actually, reach will give the troll a slight edge over the elf). And dwarves would get screwed over.
I dunno. Trying to graft SR3 rules onto SR4 doesn't work that well - the two systems are too fundamentally different, to me.
| QUOTE (Glyph) |
| Knasser, I have a question. If you are house ruling melee attacks to include counterattacks like SR3, what will you do with the Combat Sense adept power, which currently increases your Reaction for defending agaiinst attacks? Adepts with high levels of combat sense could go from hard to hit, to suicidal to attack. Also, I'm not sure how I feel about both sides using skill plus Reaction. Trolls have no penalty to reaction - an elf street sammie and a troll street sammie are equally likely to have a base Reaction of 5. Agility-wise, though, trolls have a penalty and elves have a bonus. But suddenly, that super-agile elf and that lumbering troll are on equal footing (actually, reach will give the troll a slight edge over the elf). And dwarves would get screwed over. I dunno. Trying to graft SR3 rules onto SR4 doesn't work that well - the two systems are too fundamentally different, to me. |
so its better when elves have an edge?
Trolls should have an edge in melee combat they should have a large edge over others. Instead elves have a bigger edge and trolls can really hurt people when there fighting suckers.
I accepted it when trolls were the melee kings in SR3, but it seemed a bit off to me. To me, they should be more like they are in SR4 - less likely to hit you, but capable of laughing off your hits, and when they do hit you, you really feel it. You can still make a tough troll bruiser in SR4, but you do it by going the strong tank route, not by having someone who magically wins dice contests. YMMV.
We have a house rule that goes something like this:
When a character is defending against a melee attack he can dodge/block/parry as normal or counter attack.
Counter Attack:
Attacker attacks. Roll Agility + skill, as per normal.
Defender counter attacks. Roll Agility +skill.
Compare hits.
If Defender has more hits than the attacker he lands an attack using net hits.
If Attacker has equal to or greater hits than defender then attacker lands an attack using all his hits, not net hits.
I always make the defender declare this action before any dice are rolled of course, that includes NPC's so that players don't whine.
When a character is defending against a melee attack he can dodge/block/parry as normal or counter attack.
Counter Attack:
Attacker attacks. Roll Agility + skill, as per normal.
Defender counter attacks. Roll Agility +skill.
Compare hits.
If Defender has more hits than the attacker he lands an attack using net hits.
If Attacker has equal to or greater hits than defender then attacker lands an attack using all his hits, not net hits.
I always make the defender declare this action before any dice are rolled of course, that includes NPC's so that players don't whine.
| QUOTE (Glyph) |
| I accepted it when trolls were the melee kings in SR3, but it seemed a bit off to me. To me, they should be more like they are in SR4 - less likely to hit you, but capable of laughing off your hits, and when they do hit you, you really feel it. You can still make a tough troll bruiser in SR4, but you do it by going the strong tank route, not by having someone who magically wins dice contests. YMMV. |
I kinda think that the 3rd ed was right in that trolls should be hitting someone more often, and hurting them more, than the other races. They have longer reach and are much stronger. When you see boxing that's why they always have a stat for reach and weight. If you're bigger and stronger than someone you'll hit them more and harder. Thats why there are weight classes, otherwise the little guy's would get creamed. It wouldn't be them dodging the blows and lasting a bunch of rounds the big guy would move in and land a couple of blows and the little guy would be done. Thats how the trolls should work. When they move in for melee, you don't dodge their blows because you can't. Being big doesn't make you slow.
indeed. in melee, speed and finesse are nice, but brute power is better if you can get it.
But you already have that brute power represented in the Body and Strength Attributes. The smaller, more agile guys don't generally have a problem hitting the big guys, they have a problem hurting them.
The elf uses his superior agility to land a hit with his katana, the troll says "Hurrrr, I soak more damage than that shavin'", then the troll misses a few swats with his bear-like hands before finally smacking the elf, who flies backward into the wall and makes a slight indentation in it.
I wouldn't compare trolls to boxing heavyweights, who are still lean and fast. They would be more like guys with giantism, or sumo wrestlers. Like one of the UFCs, before everyone was an MMA specialist and they still had things like sumo wrestlers and karate dans. They had a kempo guy facing a sumo wrestler. The kempo guy got in more hits, but when the sumo guy hit, he sent the kendo guy right through the octagon fence.
Now, the kempo guy actually won that particular fight (although he hurt his hand too badly to continue), but if you put two SR4 builds head-to-head, an elf with high agility and a troll tank, I would probably bet on the tank.
The elf uses his superior agility to land a hit with his katana, the troll says "Hurrrr, I soak more damage than that shavin'", then the troll misses a few swats with his bear-like hands before finally smacking the elf, who flies backward into the wall and makes a slight indentation in it.
I wouldn't compare trolls to boxing heavyweights, who are still lean and fast. They would be more like guys with giantism, or sumo wrestlers. Like one of the UFCs, before everyone was an MMA specialist and they still had things like sumo wrestlers and karate dans. They had a kempo guy facing a sumo wrestler. The kempo guy got in more hits, but when the sumo guy hit, he sent the kendo guy right through the octagon fence.
Now, the kempo guy actually won that particular fight (although he hurt his hand too badly to continue), but if you put two SR4 builds head-to-head, an elf with high agility and a troll tank, I would probably bet on the tank.
Frank: Chill out. It's a few house rules, not piss in your NERPS.
I don't understand why some people seem to hell-bent on making everyone but trolls completely worthless in melee.
I guess I see it as both a balance issue and a definition of strength and melee skills issue. So, I'm more for a melee skills belong under strength not reaciton type. Makes Dwarfs and orcs superior in close combat but they dont have heavy penalties outside of it, and it makes trolls fantastic at it and they do have heavy penalties at doing anything but melee combat.
On the balance side trolls are gimped in every single stat that other than strength and body. There balance is they suck at everything but melee combat, they will never be great hackers with there low logic, they will never be great mages with low logic, never great shamans with low charisma, heck they got low intuition. even. The only thing they have benefits for is taking hits and delivering hits in melee combat. By the rules though there are only mediocre melee combatants, hitting hard doesn't help you much if you don't hit. If you are going to design a race to be ultra specialized they should hands down be the best in that specialty, especially when they are the most expensive race in the game.
Also on the issue of stat balance strength is a fairly weak stat and agility is probably the best stat in the game. Making one area of combat not be focussed on one stat is a good thing IMO. Its way too easy to make the 12 agility elf build and be superior to absurd in every form of combat in the game.
Now on the definition side while I can see the arguments for agility it doesn't pan out in my mind. Strength basically is the ability to deliver force to a situation, melee combat skills are the trained ability to deliver force in combat. Your hand to hand combat skills are all about maximizing your use of strength.
On the balance side trolls are gimped in every single stat that other than strength and body. There balance is they suck at everything but melee combat, they will never be great hackers with there low logic, they will never be great mages with low logic, never great shamans with low charisma, heck they got low intuition. even. The only thing they have benefits for is taking hits and delivering hits in melee combat. By the rules though there are only mediocre melee combatants, hitting hard doesn't help you much if you don't hit. If you are going to design a race to be ultra specialized they should hands down be the best in that specialty, especially when they are the most expensive race in the game.
Also on the issue of stat balance strength is a fairly weak stat and agility is probably the best stat in the game. Making one area of combat not be focussed on one stat is a good thing IMO. Its way too easy to make the 12 agility elf build and be superior to absurd in every form of combat in the game.
Now on the definition side while I can see the arguments for agility it doesn't pan out in my mind. Strength basically is the ability to deliver force to a situation, melee combat skills are the trained ability to deliver force in combat. Your hand to hand combat skills are all about maximizing your use of strength.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| I don't understand why some people seem to hell-bent on making everyone but trolls completely worthless in melee. |
probably because they are penalized in every stat that applies to the use of any other character type.
| QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist) |
| Your hand to hand combat skills are all about maximizing your use of strength. |
Right -- and you do that by striking quickly and accurately. There's a reason Bob Sapp isn't the champion of, well, anything. Being a giant brawler will only get you so far.
I'll agree Strength could play a little larger role in melee combat, but it isn't the be-all end-all, even in real life (nevermind in a half-fantasy setting). I could see, at most, allowing characters to have the option of choosing to use either Strength or Agility, but that's as far as I'd take it.
Even as written, the skill ratings are all out of wack with practicality and probability. When the wizened old kung fu master (an overdone cliche, but a staple of several genres, say STR 1 and Unarmed 7) gets taken out in one melee pass by the big old Troll who's seen the inside of a boxing gym once or twice in his life (ridiculous STR, plus Reach, plus Unarmed 1), things get a little silly.
According to the rulebook, a guy with an Unarmed of 7 should be the most dangerous guy on the planet in unarmed combat. That's already silly and untrue, but forcing all the willowy elven knife fighters and lean catlike ninja-dudes to use STR (which is already important in melee, as the basis for the damage dealt) to hit, too, would just gimp them further...and take us farther away from the action/kung-fu movie homages, the fantastic setting, and even the quasi-realism of a mixture of strength and speed being the key to success.
I would think that the old kung fu master would be taken out by the troll who'd only been to the boxing ring a few times. The same old master would be taken out be a lion. The great cats have a body of 6 and str of 5, and that's the low end of the spectrum for a troll.
Any of the HK action flicks have all the training montages showing the guy's building their strength. I remember one where jackie chan was hanaging upside down and had a bucker of water below him and a bucket above him and he was lifting the water up one cup at a time. Thats about a whole lot of crunches.
Fencers will have massive forearms because it takes muscles to move the sword accurately.
Fighting is about strength plain and simple. Strength makes you move faster. Strength gives you power. Melee should be based on Strength.
Any of the HK action flicks have all the training montages showing the guy's building their strength. I remember one where jackie chan was hanaging upside down and had a bucker of water below him and a bucket above him and he was lifting the water up one cup at a time. Thats about a whole lot of crunches.
Fencers will have massive forearms because it takes muscles to move the sword accurately.
Fighting is about strength plain and simple. Strength makes you move faster. Strength gives you power. Melee should be based on Strength.
With the end result being there is no reason to play a troll, heck you should only play an elf or a human if your going for mr. lucky. But hey you can have your super ninjas so people can feel great about there 2 str characters demolishing trolls in fights. So trolls get to pay 40 points for the honor of sucking at everything in the game other than taking a punch, woo hoo thats going to draw in a lot of people to play the race.
And strength is the end all be all of fighting when you don't ultra narrow its definition while at the same time making agility cover every aspect of all things physical. And besides agility has nothing to do with speed thats what reaction is for.
It all comes down to how you want to define the attributes agility to me is more fine control, strength is more large scale control. You want to pick a pocket, shoot a gun its agility. You want to lift, shove, and deliver impacts its strength.
You may not understand why some people are hell bent on making trolls the best close combat specialists, I don't understand why people are hell bent on making elves the best at everything in the game. As the rules are written they have no penalties and have bonuses in the most important non combat attribute in the game and a bonus in basically the only combat attribute in the game.
Whenever someone wants a race to be better than a elf at anything other than being a lump of flesh that takes the bullets good the massive elf uprising occurs.
I understand where people come form with the agility thing. But its just a fundamental difference in definitions. When you see a marital artist move in and deliver a series of quick punches you see agility in action, I see strength in action. If strength isn't going to deliver close combat skill in the game they should just remove the stat since its worthless dead weight. Your I can carry crap stat can easily be put under body.
And strength is the end all be all of fighting when you don't ultra narrow its definition while at the same time making agility cover every aspect of all things physical. And besides agility has nothing to do with speed thats what reaction is for.
It all comes down to how you want to define the attributes agility to me is more fine control, strength is more large scale control. You want to pick a pocket, shoot a gun its agility. You want to lift, shove, and deliver impacts its strength. You may not understand why some people are hell bent on making trolls the best close combat specialists, I don't understand why people are hell bent on making elves the best at everything in the game. As the rules are written they have no penalties and have bonuses in the most important non combat attribute in the game and a bonus in basically the only combat attribute in the game.
Whenever someone wants a race to be better than a elf at anything other than being a lump of flesh that takes the bullets good the massive elf uprising occurs.
I understand where people come form with the agility thing. But its just a fundamental difference in definitions. When you see a marital artist move in and deliver a series of quick punches you see agility in action, I see strength in action. If strength isn't going to deliver close combat skill in the game they should just remove the stat since its worthless dead weight. Your I can carry crap stat can easily be put under body.
The importance of strength varies according to the mode of fighting. What some people have described is true of grappling, and part of the equation in boxing. But what about a knife fight or when the samurai pulls out the monosword? In these cases, you can't use your strength and resiliance to bulldoze through the opponents blocks. Doing do is the fast train to cutsville.
Big does not mean slow. This is a stereotype perpetuated by bad action movies because they can get a cheap laugh out of it. By the stats, there is no reason why a troll should be bad at hitting people. With their speed (trolls are the fastest thing on two legs, save for Kid Stealth), they should be able to close distance and back-pedal with the best of them.
And it doesn't take much agility to strike someone in a fight, unless you're doing fancy kicks. What you need, is to be fast, and that starts in the head (Reaction).
| QUOTE (eidolon) |
| Frank: Chill out. It's a few house rules, not piss in your NERPS. |
All of his venom was directed at my argument, not me personally. I can even take the "Seriously, what the Hell?" as a suggestion that I ought to know better.
I'm not offended or bothered. He has points worth considering.
| QUOTE (odinson @ Jul 17 2007, 02:06 AM) |
| I would think that the old kung fu master would be taken out by the troll who'd only been to the boxing ring a few times. |
When was the last time the wizened old kung fu master got taken out by a big dumb brawler, in any one of the fun, horrible, action flicks that are staples of the genre (and are what quite a few people, whether they'll admit to it later or not, continue to list as inspirations for Shadowrun games)? And if that's the case -- a guy with an unarmed skill of 7, supposedly one of the top fighters in the world -- then why is a skill of 7 constantly being advertised as making your shit smell like strawberries?
I guess I like the way it's set up right now because in order to do well in a fight, a fighter has to be strong AND fast. All the massive powerful swings in the world don't help if you can't connect (again, just youtube search for "Bob Sapp" sometime), and even the strongest jaw in boxing can get worn down if the guy you're fighting can hit consistently. You need the agility to hit, as written, but you also need the strength to back it up. Thanks to skill and attribute and die pool caps (which all cut down on the average number of leftover hits), all but the most specialized of adepts are going to need a good solid foundation of both attributes to do well in a fight.
Just like in real life. You've got to be strong and fast to do well, period. Whether you're talking about western boxing, MMA, Muy Thai fighters, whatever. It's always been a mixture of power and quickness that wins, not JUST one or the other. You've got to be tough, too, but no one's complaining about that right this second and there aren't really stamina rules for gassing out in the middle of a long fight, so I'm keeping my discussion pretty shallow in regards to what people really train for.
Dropping it to being strength-based, exclusively, takes away from that. It will just lead to Trolls being even more one-dimensional and stereotyped, even more worthless in anything but melee combat. I can't tell you the last Troll I gamed with that wasn't described as "huge, even for a troll!" within the first five seconds of running into them. How is fixing it so they'll for sure not need (or want!) any attributes but Strength and Body going to be any sort of fix for that?
As written, they're still plenty solid in melee compared to the other races. Their reach negates any agility difference, and their strength and body give them the edge (pun intended) they'll need in most fights. Take an average troll against an average ________ and my money's going to be on the trog in every fight (but then, I felt the same in SR3, and instead of ever bring an 'average' anything to that fight, a few people kept ranting about elves with superflash optics and tactical computers and a bunch of other non-average stuff, and it quickly deteriorated into a min/maxing contest between a trollish and elven character).
Just make a few guys with 2's down the board, or 3's down the board, apply racial stats, and drop them in a pit to duke it out -- and I think you'll see a troll winning the grand melee more often than not. Why slant it so that they'll win that dogpile (on average rolls) every time, and making anyone from any other metaspecies completely obsolete as any sort of melee fighter?
Funny... the entire first page of this post was about agile masters of something-fu having a edge in battle... than, on the second page it sudenly changed for immobile tank trolls having a edge on a fight. Please, decide yourselves, lol!
Somehow, all this discution remember me of Wolverine fighting hulk. Hulk tried many and many times, to no avail, to connect a hit on Logan, and Logan hitted Hulk many time without going through his "armored skin". Then Hulk just stoped, let Logan pack a hit on him, e just smashed Logan with all his might... Logan flyied far, far away.
Sorry all "STR must be the king of melee", but that just sounds to "that-game-that-shall-not-be-named" for me.
Somehow, all this discution remember me of Wolverine fighting hulk. Hulk tried many and many times, to no avail, to connect a hit on Logan, and Logan hitted Hulk many time without going through his "armored skin". Then Hulk just stoped, let Logan pack a hit on him, e just smashed Logan with all his might... Logan flyied far, far away.
Sorry all "STR must be the king of melee", but that just sounds to "that-game-that-shall-not-be-named" for me.
| QUOTE (raphabonelli) |
| Funny... the entire first page of this post was about agile masters of something-fu having a edge in battle... than, on the second page it sudenly changed for immobile tank trolls having a edge on a fight. Please, decide yourselves, lol! |
This is gonna shock the crap right outta ya, but -- holy poop! -- just because a few people on Dumpshock say and think something doesn't mean everyone else on Dumpshock says and thinks the same thing. We're not a hive mind. There's no group consensus here on the second page about strong guys winning fights, just like there was no group consensus on the first page about quick guys winning fights.
The fact two different groups of people believe different things just proves that both camp is partially correct -- IE, you have to be fast and strong to do well in a fight.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| The fact two different groups of people believe different things just proves that both camp is partially correct |
Heh. Let's apply that theory to other stuff - like Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. Or religion in general.
We house ruled a counter-attack that seems to work very well. It only punishes people when they make a really bad roll or when they have little or no melee skill and they attack a fu-master.
In our games if you attack in melee and the defender uses his unarmed or weapon skill instead of dodge to defend he lands a counter-attack if he gets over twice the number of hits his attacker did.
So if your reasonably skilled and only roll 2 hits when trying to stab the melee phys adept with combat sense and she rolls 6 hits on her defense then she deftly parries the thrust and you get an elbow to the throat. We take double the attackers hits off like an opposed roll, so her attack acts as though she made 2 net hits.
It dosen't happen that often, but it makes melee a bit more attractive. We also allow people to use melee defense rules when defending against ranged attacks made from melee range, which seems to me how it should have been anyway.
In our games if you attack in melee and the defender uses his unarmed or weapon skill instead of dodge to defend he lands a counter-attack if he gets over twice the number of hits his attacker did.
So if your reasonably skilled and only roll 2 hits when trying to stab the melee phys adept with combat sense and she rolls 6 hits on her defense then she deftly parries the thrust and you get an elbow to the throat. We take double the attackers hits off like an opposed roll, so her attack acts as though she made 2 net hits.
It dosen't happen that often, but it makes melee a bit more attractive. We also allow people to use melee defense rules when defending against ranged attacks made from melee range, which seems to me how it should have been anyway.
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
| Heh. Let's apply that theory to other stuff - like Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. Or religion in general. |
Except that being quick in combat and being powerful in combat aren't mutually exclusive ideas. If two people are arguing about whether or not someone is pregnant, there is no middle ground -- you either are or are not.
However, if two people are arguing whether it's better to be strong or fast in combat, a middle ground exists. You must be, in order to be a mobile human being capable of bearing and moving his own body weight, at least some small bit of both. No one is strong and not at least a little fast, and no one is fast that is not at least a little strong -- compromise has already been reached simply by the time the sentence is finished forming.
When you're not dealing in absolutes (like the extremists that get rabid over intelligent design and/or evolution are), the answer is almost always somewhere in the middle. Period.
| QUOTE (odinson) |
| We have a house rule that goes something like this: When a character is defending against a melee attack he can dodge/block/parry as normal or counter attack. Counter Attack: Attacker attacks. Roll Agility + skill, as per normal. Defender counter attacks. Roll Agility +skill. Compare hits. If Defender has more hits than the attacker he lands an attack using net hits. If Attacker has equal to or greater hits than defender then attacker lands an attack using all his hits, not net hits. I always make the defender declare this action before any dice are rolled of course, that includes NPC's so that players don't whine. |
I really like it ! Might even use it in my game
Melee combat should not become stronger than it is now. You should bring a gun to a gunfight, as guns kill better than hands.
Melee combat should be linked to reaction. Most close combat moves are not exactly hard to do, it´s just hard to do them at the right moment. Agility is overused anyway. A good way of implementing counterattacks is counting net successes on defense as dicepool bonus for the next close combat attack, or perhaps net successes -1.
(What would have been good IMO are different costs for strength and willpower. There is little point for most characters to increase those.)
Melee combat should be linked to reaction. Most close combat moves are not exactly hard to do, it´s just hard to do them at the right moment. Agility is overused anyway. A good way of implementing counterattacks is counting net successes on defense as dicepool bonus for the next close combat attack, or perhaps net successes -1.
(What would have been good IMO are different costs for strength and willpower. There is little point for most characters to increase those.)
For folks suggesting some implementation of the "I can damage you even on the defensive" mechanic, or even an "add net successes on defense as a bonus to the next melee attack" scenarios -- what happens to Adepts with the Counterattack power?
Do recall that trolls have a natural reach of 1 which helps in melee combat. And with there high strength they could subdue some rather large creatures.
A close combat trolls best option when fighting enemies with guns would be to use subduing as I doubt the target can shoot back while in that lock.
A counter attack rule does sound nice, but I'd but it at if you score more then four or more hits on your defense roll then required to dodge the attack.
Ie: if the attacker rolls 6 hits and your defense rolls 10 you get a counter attack. (but not when fighting on full defense)
Here's one melee bit that helps friends in melee. In my groups last run the Body 6 dwarf in full combat armor with helm, was nearly killed when several ghouls ganged up on him at once.
What should simply be is making it extremely hard to fire a gun in melee combat.
Say this you have a the gunman dodging blows of the Trolls mighty axe. Under the normal rules the gunman can parry with an unarmed skill while shooting at the same time.
Now first I'd say if he's holding a two handed weapon he can't parry with out using the club skill and the gun as the club. (which gives the enemy and easy shot as destroying your firearm).
But lets say he's using a pistol or submachine gun. Something he can go one handed on.
I'd then say he can't fire his gun and parry at the same time. So basically if you want to be engaged in melee and fire your gun at the same time you get only your reaction on your defense rolls just as if you had been shot at.
Secondly if you with draw from melee the attack gets a free attack and your not considered with drawn until your next IP pass.
A close combat trolls best option when fighting enemies with guns would be to use subduing as I doubt the target can shoot back while in that lock.
A counter attack rule does sound nice, but I'd but it at if you score more then four or more hits on your defense roll then required to dodge the attack.
Ie: if the attacker rolls 6 hits and your defense rolls 10 you get a counter attack. (but not when fighting on full defense)
Here's one melee bit that helps friends in melee. In my groups last run the Body 6 dwarf in full combat armor with helm, was nearly killed when several ghouls ganged up on him at once.
What should simply be is making it extremely hard to fire a gun in melee combat.
Say this you have a the gunman dodging blows of the Trolls mighty axe. Under the normal rules the gunman can parry with an unarmed skill while shooting at the same time.
Now first I'd say if he's holding a two handed weapon he can't parry with out using the club skill and the gun as the club. (which gives the enemy and easy shot as destroying your firearm).
But lets say he's using a pistol or submachine gun. Something he can go one handed on.
I'd then say he can't fire his gun and parry at the same time. So basically if you want to be engaged in melee and fire your gun at the same time you get only your reaction on your defense rolls just as if you had been shot at.
Secondly if you with draw from melee the attack gets a free attack and your not considered with drawn until your next IP pass.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| For folks suggesting some implementation of the "I can damage you even on the defensive" mechanic, or even an "add net successes on defense as a bonus to the next melee attack" scenarios -- what happens to Adepts with the Counterattack power? |
Yeah I posed the add dice thing in the connected thread. I wouldn't do it, but if someone is dead set on some kind of counterattack option its better than the old 1e-3e way. In the add dice method I'd probably either remove the phys add ability or knock it down to .25 dice and it just adds extra dice to your counter attack.
| QUOTE (Critias) | ||
This is gonna shock the crap right outta ya, but -- holy poop! -- just because a few people on Dumpshock say and think something doesn't mean everyone else on Dumpshock says and thinks the same thing. We're not a hive mind. There's no group consensus here on the second page about strong guys winning fights, just like there was no group consensus on the first page about quick guys winning fights. The fact two different groups of people believe different things just proves that both camp is partially correct -- IE, you have to be fast and strong to do well in a fight. |
Don't say that its more fun to argue the I'm right side of things.
Attributes in a game are abstract representations of a persons abilities, it snot exactly strange that people might have somewhat different ideas on what they represent especially with the fairly loose definitions given in the game.
| QUOTE (Ryu) |
| (What would have been good IMO are different costs for strength and willpower. There is little point for most characters to increase those.) |
Strength? My Troll Archer loves Strength (and the 13P bow he can wield)
Willpower? Mages love it.
All the best melee fighters I've seen, in the real world, are strong AND agile. If you want strength to play a bigger role in melee combat, I'd say add a derived stat that is the larger of Agility or (Strength + Agility) / 2. Call it Physical Prowess or something, and use that as the base stat for all melee combat. Doesn't penalize the elven battle dancer types, and makes trolls and orks somewhat more dangerous.
| QUOTE (Hyde) |
| Willpower? Mages love it. |
As does anyone that doesn't like Mages fucking with them.
| QUOTE (Ryu) |
| Melee combat should not become stronger than it is now. You should bring a gun to a gunfight, as guns kill better than hands. Melee combat should be linked to reaction. Most close combat moves are not exactly hard to do, it´s just hard to do them at the right moment. Agility is overused anyway. A good way of implementing counterattacks is counting net successes on defense as dicepool bonus for the next close combat attack, or perhaps net successes -1. (What would have been good IMO are different costs for strength and willpower. There is little point for most characters to increase those.) |
Melee combat is fairly weak right now so it could and probably should be stronger. It might not be realistic but its a game and some people want to melee and not be the suck character because of it.
I would rather have reaction be the stat than agility but I still prefer strength to that. Reaction is the speed attribute so I can see some physics argument over force which would imply reaction is the best attribute for it in the game.
But I'm against the idea of needing two attributes to be good at one skill. Especially a skill that is already sub par. When you make it something other than strength then you need to build up two attributes to do less than what a person does with one and a gun. It happens with other skills like throwing and archery so I'm not dead set against it, but melee combat is inherently weaker than ranged combat i that one its close combat and two they get more dice to defend against it.
So... why not fix the 'more dice to defend' part?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.