I'm typing this up from work, so I don't have my BBB in front of me, so forgive me if my rule numbers are a bit off.
We were playing last night, and we're still a fairly new group, and we ran into the "Ranged attack firing into melee" for the first time.
As a GM I was pretty proud of this actually... I wanted to introduce the team to Adepts. I put them up against a melee adept and a ranged attack adept, both with almost identical builds. Then I threw in a Rigger with some Doberman drones to make things even more interesting.
Anyways, the melee adept engaged the team's twin-SMG wielding lead thrower and really kicked the snot out of him. Everyone in the group started firing at the Adept to try and save him.
However, what I noticed is that the game seems to penalize the TARGET for being engaged in a melee, and there's no penalty for the attacker, and no chance to hit your friends in combat.
So I had players firing wide bursts at the Adept. The Adept got -2 dice to dodge because of the wide burst, another -3 dice for being engaged in melee combat. The players had no -dice to fire at a target in melee, and from what I could tell, there was no chance that the wide burst would hit the other player engaged in melee.
Is this the way it is supposed to work, or am I missing something?
An Edge roll against my melee adept finally killed her. She went from 0 to dead in one long narrow burst.
Full Version: Ranged Attack into Melee question
If you think the melee combat should penalize the attacked, i'd rule that the other guy grants the melee-er partial or good cover, causing a -2 to -4 penalty for the attacker for overall feel goodness.
Alternately have the person use a called shot for -2 to -4 to not hit their friend.
Also, I'd rule on a glitch, they hit both characters, while on a critical glitch, they only hit their friend.
Alternately have the person use a called shot for -2 to -4 to not hit their friend.
Also, I'd rule on a glitch, they hit both characters, while on a critical glitch, they only hit their friend.
QUOTE (Murrdox @ Sep 17 2008, 04:21 PM) 
I'm typing this up from work, so I don't have my BBB in front of me, so forgive me if my rule numbers are a bit off.
We were playing last night, and we're still a fairly new group, and we ran into the "Ranged attack firing into melee" for the first time.
As a GM I was pretty proud of this actually... I wanted to introduce the team to Adepts. I put them up against a melee adept and a ranged attack adept, both with almost identical builds. Then I threw in a Rigger with some Doberman drones to make things even more interesting.
Anyways, the melee adept engaged the team's twin-SMG wielding lead thrower and really kicked the snot out of him. Everyone in the group started firing at the Adept to try and save him.
However, what I noticed is that the game seems to penalize the TARGET for being engaged in a melee, and there's no penalty for the attacker, and no chance to hit your friends in combat.
So I had players firing wide bursts at the Adept. The Adept got -2 dice to dodge because of the wide burst, another -3 dice for being engaged in melee combat. The players had no -dice to fire at a target in melee, and from what I could tell, there was no chance that the wide burst would hit the other player engaged in melee.
Is this the way it is supposed to work, or am I missing something?
An Edge roll against my melee adept finally killed her. She went from 0 to dead in one long narrow burst.
We were playing last night, and we're still a fairly new group, and we ran into the "Ranged attack firing into melee" for the first time.
As a GM I was pretty proud of this actually... I wanted to introduce the team to Adepts. I put them up against a melee adept and a ranged attack adept, both with almost identical builds. Then I threw in a Rigger with some Doberman drones to make things even more interesting.
Anyways, the melee adept engaged the team's twin-SMG wielding lead thrower and really kicked the snot out of him. Everyone in the group started firing at the Adept to try and save him.
However, what I noticed is that the game seems to penalize the TARGET for being engaged in a melee, and there's no penalty for the attacker, and no chance to hit your friends in combat.
So I had players firing wide bursts at the Adept. The Adept got -2 dice to dodge because of the wide burst, another -3 dice for being engaged in melee combat. The players had no -dice to fire at a target in melee, and from what I could tell, there was no chance that the wide burst would hit the other player engaged in melee.
Is this the way it is supposed to work, or am I missing something?
An Edge roll against my melee adept finally killed her. She went from 0 to dead in one long narrow burst.
The adept could/should have at least partial (if not good) cover from hiding behind the 'SMG wielding lead'. Visibility mod's my not be out of place also, especially if the next melee adept drops some therm-smoke to obscure their battle.
But, yeah, from what I can tell, you are not likely to hit your friend when firing into melee... but heaven forbid if you glitch or crit-glitch.
I think that's the point, to be honest. Real-life rules don't always carry over to games as well, as it tends to kick Fun around a bit. If there were real-life firearms rules in a game...ouch. I mean, guns already are very toned-down from their real-life counterparts...on the other hand, long bursts to very nasty things to people. Which they should. Edge+Long Burst=Swiss Cheese.
The chance of a glitch(I'd rule both are hit then also), or a critical glitch alone, IMO, is enough. Of course there is visibility modifiers, but I actually wouldn't count the other person as cover-they are moving far too much for that. If I DID count it, I would give it no more than a -1 or -2 because of that, unless the defender was a troll-tank and actually told me ''I'm standing there in one spot soaking the hits while the adept is pecking away in front of me.''
Now, the penalty for firing a gun WHILE in melee should count. That can be difficult. But at least that penalty can be alleviated with things like Firefight/Krav Maga(bonuses to those arts can cut down, and finally negate, that penalty, showing you've trained). (The SMG guy should have been unloading in that adept before they even got close so they didn't take that melee penalty, IMO. I play a lot of melee based characters, and it's a real pain in the rear to close that distance...especially with anything with longer range with a heavy pistol), unless, of course, the melee opponents had gotten the surprise or the fight broke OUT at close range, after a botched negotiation, for example. If THAT had been the case, I would have booked it in the other direction up to my max distance allowed and still attack, turned, and turned said adept into swiss cheese. In playing a lot of melee characters, you also learn how to DEAL with them, I find.
But honestly, I like the rules as they are. Thermal smoke and the like can help(I can't remember if thermal smoke also affects normal vision though. It IS smoke, and I don't think it's invisible smoke. The melee person doing that could well shoot themselves in the foot, and as long as the opponents have some sort of vision other than thermo, as well they should, I wouldn't say it's a total tactic. Perhaps more of a getaway tactic.)
The chance of a glitch(I'd rule both are hit then also), or a critical glitch alone, IMO, is enough. Of course there is visibility modifiers, but I actually wouldn't count the other person as cover-they are moving far too much for that. If I DID count it, I would give it no more than a -1 or -2 because of that, unless the defender was a troll-tank and actually told me ''I'm standing there in one spot soaking the hits while the adept is pecking away in front of me.''
Now, the penalty for firing a gun WHILE in melee should count. That can be difficult. But at least that penalty can be alleviated with things like Firefight/Krav Maga(bonuses to those arts can cut down, and finally negate, that penalty, showing you've trained). (The SMG guy should have been unloading in that adept before they even got close so they didn't take that melee penalty, IMO. I play a lot of melee based characters, and it's a real pain in the rear to close that distance...especially with anything with longer range with a heavy pistol), unless, of course, the melee opponents had gotten the surprise or the fight broke OUT at close range, after a botched negotiation, for example. If THAT had been the case, I would have booked it in the other direction up to my max distance allowed and still attack, turned, and turned said adept into swiss cheese. In playing a lot of melee characters, you also learn how to DEAL with them, I find.
But honestly, I like the rules as they are. Thermal smoke and the like can help(I can't remember if thermal smoke also affects normal vision though. It IS smoke, and I don't think it's invisible smoke. The melee person doing that could well shoot themselves in the foot, and as long as the opponents have some sort of vision other than thermo, as well they should, I wouldn't say it's a total tactic. Perhaps more of a getaway tactic.)
QUOTE (ElFenrir @ Sep 17 2008, 05:55 PM)
I actually wouldn't count the other person as cover-they are moving far too much for that. If I DID count it, I would give it no more than a -1 or -2 because of that, unless the defender was a troll-tank and actually told me ''I'm standing there in one spot soaking the hits while the adept is pecking away in front of me.''
Why couldn't the adept say 'I am keeping my opponent between me and his friends?
Well, they could try...but then the defender would(i hope, unless they were the aformentioned ubertrolltankwall) probably be trying to counteract this at the same time. I mean, the defender well could say ''I'm keeping myself behind the adept so they can shoot them easier'', making it sort of...well, even.
That is true... though, personally, I would image the one with the highest melee skill would be the one 'directing combat placement'. A simple backpedal (or even 'step back') would be enough to keep the opponent between the guns instead of the adept.
But, I agree, a troll should definitely provide more cover then say... a dwarf.
But, I agree, a troll should definitely provide more cover then say... a dwarf.
Yeah, with human vs. human, unless you started recording ''Ok. So the expert adept is a Yakuza guy who is exactly 5 feet tall and wearing a white suit, and he's 'about to do something cool.' The other guy is roughly...5'11''. Soo...how much cover is that?'' It's a bit tough, there. Now, extreme sizes? Sure.
But when you think about it, I'm almost guessing that's why they don't do it, even though it makes sense. The party could essentially send their dwarven boxer into melee with anyone at that point and the rest of the group can shoot away with no danger of hitting them(except for a glitch/critical glitch) but sending in a human-sized enemy, or even a troll, puts them at risk(even though the little dwarf might well be just as good, if not better, than the bigger folks at melee.) It's probably easier, and more sane, just to leave it at ''glitch/critical glitch'', to prevent stuff like that(though I think we might see an influx of melee boxing dwarves.)
As for the melee thing...I'm still sorta in the boat of ''both people are moving around a lot'', and I guess if you wanted to be VERY technical, you could offer some sort of opposed tactics roll(Intuition + something) on each side to see if they could get the bonus or penalty or whatever. But then that just adds more rolls to combat that are unneeded.
Or, what I might consider, is allow for the ''positioning'', but make it use up their attack. This way, they can indeed do their maneuvering and careful placement, putting the opponent in the line of fire so the shooter gets minuses...but they don't get to attack that round. The other person, of course, can choose to move out of the way-but they could save their tail for one round, at least.
(Keep in mind, I LOVE playing melee characters, and I'm here sticking up for ''the other guy'' essentially. YMMV, of course...but we try to keep the modifiers in our games down to the sort of nitty-gritty-visual, smoke, things like that...hard cover, trying to shoot a gun engaged in melee without the proper Firefight bonus, range mods, etc.) Basically, the list of mods in the book, we use...but that's already a healthy list, and adding more I fear can slow things down. But, for a more realistic type of game, I don't suppose it's wrong to add or anything.
But when you think about it, I'm almost guessing that's why they don't do it, even though it makes sense. The party could essentially send their dwarven boxer into melee with anyone at that point and the rest of the group can shoot away with no danger of hitting them(except for a glitch/critical glitch) but sending in a human-sized enemy, or even a troll, puts them at risk(even though the little dwarf might well be just as good, if not better, than the bigger folks at melee.) It's probably easier, and more sane, just to leave it at ''glitch/critical glitch'', to prevent stuff like that(though I think we might see an influx of melee boxing dwarves.
)As for the melee thing...I'm still sorta in the boat of ''both people are moving around a lot'', and I guess if you wanted to be VERY technical, you could offer some sort of opposed tactics roll(Intuition + something) on each side to see if they could get the bonus or penalty or whatever. But then that just adds more rolls to combat that are unneeded.
Or, what I might consider, is allow for the ''positioning'', but make it use up their attack. This way, they can indeed do their maneuvering and careful placement, putting the opponent in the line of fire so the shooter gets minuses...but they don't get to attack that round. The other person, of course, can choose to move out of the way-but they could save their tail for one round, at least.
(Keep in mind, I LOVE playing melee characters, and I'm here sticking up for ''the other guy'' essentially. YMMV, of course...but we try to keep the modifiers in our games down to the sort of nitty-gritty-visual, smoke, things like that...hard cover, trying to shoot a gun engaged in melee without the proper Firefight bonus, range mods, etc.) Basically, the list of mods in the book, we use...but that's already a healthy list, and adding more I fear can slow things down. But, for a more realistic type of game, I don't suppose it's wrong to add or anything.
I think the maneuvering around your opponent and such is sufficiently covered with maneuvers from arse.
Watchful Guard comes to mind. That's the one where you start taking minuses against the third person that attacks you, rather than the second. it's very helpful for a melee character, I find.
Cool - I'm new with melee rules so I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
So when you're in melee and someone is firing at you, you have a penalty to dodge the attack.
If you're engaged in melee and you're trying to shoot, you have a penalty to attack.
However, you don't have a penalty to shoot someone engaged in melee (assuming there are other character in melee you don't want to hit).
And you have no chance to hit a friend on a burst attack (with the exception of a glitch, which I think is a good idea)
So when you're in melee and someone is firing at you, you have a penalty to dodge the attack.
If you're engaged in melee and you're trying to shoot, you have a penalty to attack.
However, you don't have a penalty to shoot someone engaged in melee (assuming there are other character in melee you don't want to hit).
And you have no chance to hit a friend on a burst attack (with the exception of a glitch, which I think is a good idea)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.