Suppose you're holding a gun, and someone charges you with a sword. You're lucky enough to survive the ensuing exchange with no damage, and it's now your initiative - what are you allowed to do?
I know there's a +2 modifier for shooting while engaged in melee, but can you just walk to place yourself more than 2 meters away, and shoot the sword-wielder twice at the normal +1 penalty for walking?
Full Version: Firing weapons in melee combat
If you walk away the melee gets a free unopposed attack on you. I can't quote a page as all my books are boxed for my move next week 
This is one of those things weve had to agree on a house ruling about, because we *couldnt* find that reference BB, or any other one. As far as we were able to determine, if someone jumps you in melee, you get a +2 tn penalty to shoot them or anyone else. Thats it. So if anyones got the reference to whatever rule theyve been using or presume is there, please please post it.
Well, like I said my books are packed, but IIRC it was in a really wierd spot, not where you think it would be... imagine that in a SR book 
My interpretation of the rule for using a firearm while in melee may be a little different from most people who post on dumpshock. Here's the rule in question:
| QUOTE (SR3 p. 112) |
| Attacker in Melee Combat If the attacker is attempting to conduct a ranged attack while engaged in melee combat with another opponent ... that attack suffers a +2 modifier per opponent. |
Here's my interpretation of this rule: If you're facing only one opponent and that's who you are shooting at, then there is not "another opponent" who would cause this modifier to go into effect. Read this rule with the notion of a man with a pistol facing one opponent with a sword and see if you agree with me.
It seems however, that most GMs do apply a +2 modifier for every opponent in the melee.
I don't know of any rule that gives a free attack against a character attempting to back out of melee. The closest I've seen to this in the rules is a free melee attack against a character attempting to pass an opponent. See "Interception" on p. 108 of SR3. Many GMs do provide such an attack, however, either as a house rule or an extension of the Interception rule.
It seems however, that most GMs do apply a +2 modifier for every opponent in the melee.
I don't know of any rule that gives a free attack against a character attempting to back out of melee. The closest I've seen to this in the rules is a free melee attack against a character attempting to pass an opponent. See "Interception" on p. 108 of SR3. Many GMs do provide such an attack, however, either as a house rule or an extension of the Interception rule.
| QUOTE (OurTeam) |
| Here's my interpretation of this rule: If you're facing only one opponent and that's who you are shooting at, then there is not "another opponent" who would cause this modifier to go into effect. Read this rule with the notion of a man with a pistol facing one opponent with a sword and see if you agree with me. |
I don't
I've had to explain this modifier a few times to my players. I tell someone next to me to make a gun with their hand and shoot me. As they do that, I smack their hand. Want to shoot someone in such a way that you don't get your hand smacked? Presto, +2 TN.
Zazen's got it. At melee ranges, if your opponent knows what he or she is doing, a gun that isn't already aimed is practically useless.
~J
~J
Pistol whip them for stun.
Well, all I can say is... "Dodge this."
Zazen: Can you smack their hand before they say "Bang, you're dead?" If not, I don't think the -2 mod applies. If you can, I don't know what your players are doing.
Zazen: Can you smack their hand before they say "Bang, you're dead?" If not, I don't think the -2 mod applies. If you can, I don't know what your players are doing.
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| Well, all I can say is... "Dodge this." Zazen: Can you smack their hand before they say "Bang, you're dead?" If not, I don't think the -2 mod applies. If you can, I don't know what your players are doing. |
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| a gun that isn't already aimed is practically useless. |
If they've already got you perfectly in their sights, no, it wouldn't apply. In most cases, it would. More often than not I can slap your hand out of the way before you adjust. It's even worse if you're using a longgun of some variety.
~J
Actually, a normal, uncybered person close enough to punch you can smack the gun away before you have enough time to react to the movement and pull the trigger. This was demonstrated a number of times in my Tang Soo Do class, where all the gun-toting assailant had to do was make a fingergun and drop their thumb and say bang as soon as they saw the other person move.
Now... wired reflexes (and other reflex enhancers) make this a little different. I would say that it would be reasonable to reduce the TN penalty by 1 for every full 10 points the shooter's initiative is above the melee combatant's.
Oh. As for that matrix quote, that agent could (and should) easily have dodged the gunshot, considering how much time Trinity took to actually say "dodge this." It was a dramatic scene, but one (of many) stupid ones. (Disclaimer: I did, of course, enjoy the movie... but I hardly think its something one should cite when speaking about realism)
Now... wired reflexes (and other reflex enhancers) make this a little different. I would say that it would be reasonable to reduce the TN penalty by 1 for every full 10 points the shooter's initiative is above the melee combatant's.
Oh. As for that matrix quote, that agent could (and should) easily have dodged the gunshot, considering how much time Trinity took to actually say "dodge this." It was a dramatic scene, but one (of many) stupid ones. (Disclaimer: I did, of course, enjoy the movie... but I hardly think its something one should cite when speaking about realism)
SR3 page 108, under Interception. it's basically an attack of opportunity, like in D&D.
That was some discussion on another thread about penalties based on weapon size as well, but insofar as I am aware, it isn't a canon ruling.
A single-action handgun has a delicate trigger pull and if someone makes me nervous enough to require me to have a weapon pointed at them, I'm likely to twitch and yank the trigger if the target so much as twitched.
An unabashed shoot first, ask questions later policy.
As to whether that holds true in real scenarios, I can't say. It also depends on the person holding the gun -- some people aren't willing to pull the trigger, regardless of the consequences.
-Siege
A single-action handgun has a delicate trigger pull and if someone makes me nervous enough to require me to have a weapon pointed at them, I'm likely to twitch and yank the trigger if the target so much as twitched.
An unabashed shoot first, ask questions later policy.
As to whether that holds true in real scenarios, I can't say. It also depends on the person holding the gun -- some people aren't willing to pull the trigger, regardless of the consequences.
-Siege
My unarmed combat instructer attempted to show that trick once. We used a water gun for that. He ended up wet. The guy he wanted to punch ramed the water pistol into his stomach and fired, just as he was going to punch him. Okay, the instructer did land the punch, but not before he got wet. A thrid guy shouted go.
In close combat, it is almost impossible to miss someone.
In close combat, it is almost impossible to miss someone.
Thats completely false. The number one rule taught to cops at the academy is never get within arms reach of someone when you have your gun drawn because there is a statistically significant chance that they can act before you can fire. This is why police always use one cop to cover a suspect from 3 yardsd away or so while the other does handcuffing.
Exactly, "act before you can fire". I said it is nearly impossible to miss, I did not say anything about acting.
Initiative has nothing to do with how difficult a shot is, hence the modifier. It still comes down to who goes first.
a) Just the 2 of you. One with gun, the other without. No penalty.
b) You are shooting someone else down range, but there is this asshole that keeps trying to punch you. Penalty.
c) You are trying to shoot at one guy in melee with you while his buddy is also trying to punch your head in. Penalty + Friends in melee, good luck.
Initiative has nothing to do with how difficult a shot is, hence the modifier. It still comes down to who goes first.
a) Just the 2 of you. One with gun, the other without. No penalty.
b) You are shooting someone else down range, but there is this asshole that keeps trying to punch you. Penalty.
c) You are trying to shoot at one guy in melee with you while his buddy is also trying to punch your head in. Penalty + Friends in melee, good luck.
| QUOTE |
| a) Just the 2 of you. One with gun, the other without. No penalty. |
Not really. When a gun is involved on either side the gun becomes the focal point of the combat instead of the way it is normally resolved. If a person has not fired or aimed attempted to use his gun I would give him no penalties.
If he has atempted to use his gun I would give him a penalty until he has had a chance to go again because his attention is directed at the use fo the gun, not melee combat, which are two entirely different things. Unless, of course, you allow Tetragrammaton Clerics in your game, but that's an entirely different issue.
If he has atempted to use his gun I would give him a penalty until he has had a chance to go again because his attention is directed at the use fo the gun, not melee combat, which are two entirely different things. Unless, of course, you allow Tetragrammaton Clerics in your game, but that's an entirely different issue.
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| My unarmed combat instructer attempted to show that trick once. We used a water gun for that. He ended up wet. The guy he wanted to punch ramed the water pistol into his stomach and fired, just as he was going to punch him |
Obviously, the guy with the water pistol succeeded, despite the +2 TN penalty. That, or your instructor tried to punch him WITHOUT first deflecting the gun, indicating some level of incompetence (he *does* have two arms, afterall)
The 2 guys were about 1 m apart. The gun with the gun did not hold it at arm's length, rather he held it loose at his hip. The instructer moved, the "dummy" moved, the instructer got wet.
And that "dummy"? He's the only guy in my platoon who didn't pass his range on the first try. Hell, he didn't pass until his 4th attempt (and we cheated to help him pass too.)
And that "dummy"? He's the only guy in my platoon who didn't pass his range on the first try. Hell, he didn't pass until his 4th attempt (and we cheated to help him pass too.)
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||||
If they've already got you perfectly in their sights, no, it wouldn't apply. In most cases, it would. More often than not I can slap your hand out of the way before you adjust. It's even worse if you're using a longgun of some variety. |
Regarding the "Dodge this!" scenario. One could argue that Trinity wasn't engaged in melee when that happened, since the agent was focussing on Neo at the time. I rule that a gunman is not engaged in melee until he's, you know, engaged in melee by an opponent. If the agent had turned around then the +2 would've applied since she would've been enganged in melee.
| QUOTE |
| Regarding the "Dodge this!" scenario. One could argue that Trinity wasn't engaged in melee when that happened, since the agent was focussing on Neo at the time. I rule that a gunman is not engaged in melee until he's, you know, engaged in melee by an opponent. If the agent had turned around then the +2 would've applied since she would've been enganged in melee. |
I agree Trinity was not im melee in this scenario. There is a difference betweeen being point blank and being in melee. The agent made no action twards her whatsoever. That's just standing next to each other, not in melee.
Additionally, in the "instructor gets wet" scenario I don't believe they were in melee either, in SR terms it was an opposed surprise scenario with the gun wielder winning and the instructor losing. That scenario also threw a huge advantage to the gun wielder because they were BOTH attempting to move from a go command, wheras in real life the shooter has no cue that the other person is going to move until they do. The difference is that if the shooter had to rely on the victim's movement before he was allowed to pull the trigger, and he didn't know when the victim was going to move, that makes his job FAR FAR harder.
Additionally, in the "instructor gets wet" scenario I don't believe they were in melee either, in SR terms it was an opposed surprise scenario with the gun wielder winning and the instructor losing. That scenario also threw a huge advantage to the gun wielder because they were BOTH attempting to move from a go command, wheras in real life the shooter has no cue that the other person is going to move until they do. The difference is that if the shooter had to rely on the victim's movement before he was allowed to pull the trigger, and he didn't know when the victim was going to move, that makes his job FAR FAR harder.
| QUOTE (BitBasher @ Feb 15 2004, 05:12 AM) |
| Thats completely false. The number one rule taught to cops at the academy is never get within arms reach of someone when you have your gun drawn because there is a statistically significant chance that they can act before you can fire. This is why police always use one cop to cover a suspect from 3 yardsd away or so while the other does handcuffing. |
The problem with that example is the police officer is waiting for the suspect to try something before he fires. If you're firing at someone you're in melee combat with, you're not delaying your actions at all, you're just shooting the guy, before he has a chance to react.
IMO the modifier applies to shooting another person who is at a distance, while you're currently in melee combat with another individual. The modifier represents the difficulty in making the shot in the confusion of close combat. Granted, it should probably be higher, but there you go.
Also, I'm mostly thinking of a pistol being used in this scenario. There definitely should be a modifier for using a SMG sized weapon (or larger) to shoot an opponent whom you are in melee combat with.
| QUOTE |
| The 2 guys were about 1 m apart. The gun with the gun did not hold it at arm's length, rather he held it loose at his hip. The instructer moved, the "dummy" moved, the instructer got wet. |
The only problem with this scenario is that the action was initiated by a 3rd party. It also assumes that the gun wielder just wants to shoot the unarmed fella in the first place and isn't interested in gaining any sort of compliance.
| QUOTE |
| If you're firing at someone you're in melee combat with, you're not delaying your actions at all, you're just shooting the guy, before he has a chance to react. |
Which is a good point. Maybe there's something to be said for requiring a regular melee combat test, only with the base damage being that of the gun instead of (Str)M Stun.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.