That, and I would get rid of the Dodge double dip.
in CQC if you don't have any CQC skills, just dodge, you're in trouble.

cqc defense is reaction+melee/unarmed
cqc full defense is reaction+melee/unarmed+dodge
No double dipping dodge.

You're have to completely remodel the combat system to remove full defense. As it is, it's a way to sacrifice offense to amp up your own defense. You would either have to strip defense for both melee and ranged as just Reaction and full defense allowing you to add a defense stat, or you need to provide some sort of flat bonus or a penalty to the attacker. Additionally, the system is setup to make defense against ranged attacks harder (Reaction only vs Reaction + defense skill) so how would you preserve that?

None of that has changed.

Current System:
Ranged Attacks vs Reaction
Full Defense Ranged Attacks vs Reaction+Dodge
Melee Attacks vs Reaction+Melee skill or Dodge
Full Defense Melee Attacks vs Reaction+Melee, unarmed or dodge + Dodge

What I proposed was
1) take away "or Dodge" of the melee defense, so that basically you only apply dodge if you full defense, otherwise its' Reaction+Melee/Unarmed (or Reaction+nothing) if you don't have a CQC skill
2) when defending against Ranged attacks /inside/ melee range use Melee Defense, instead of Ranged Defense.

Why do you have to rework anything?

Because your system suggests that the act of dodging an attack, rather than blocking or parrying it, is much harder to pull off and thus requires the full defense action. Your suggestion fails because dodge does need to be part of the standard defense unless you can come up with a good reason why it shouldn't. You're addressing the portion of the equation that is completely fine and doesn't need to be adjusted. The problem is not the 'or dodge' but the '+ dodge'.

What?
If you don't know how to fight, then you shouldn't know how to defend yourself short of going Full Defense.

the normal Reaction+melee shows your ability to defend yourself while still being able to act offensively.

If you're dodging melee attacks, you can't do that unless your trained.

The problem /is/ the or dodge.

+dodge makes perfect sense. You're going full defense. That's what Dodge is for.

Dodge is a skill. Skills represent training. If you have Dodge, you are trained.

I think what the game really needs is a fricken Lightsabre. Allow people to use Reaction +blades (Lightsabre), yes, only WITH specialisation, against ranged attacks as normal defence, and +dodge in full def.

Alternatively you can do that with a katana, and you'll be even cooler doing it. Has the added advantage of splitting hairs... eh, bullets. OR a chainsaw. That's the coolest.

Of course these things are limited to Lightsabres and Katanas, and chainsaws. Melee can't have everything...

Yes your trained at avoiding getting hit.
not at block/parry/counter strike

It's /dodge/ its.. get the hell out of the way full defense.

You should not get to add your dodge skill to any action unless you go full defense.

So... you're saying that you cannot dodge anything unless you do nothing but dodge? What.

No, I think he is saying dodge represents getting out the way. We all agree with that. But dodging is not the same as parrying, counter attacking, and other what nots.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. That would be the reason the Melee Combat Summary table on p. 157 of SR4A lists three distinct options for melee defense (not including full defense):

The defender picks one of the three (again, assuming he doesn't opt for full defense) and makes the appropriate roll. I completely fail to see how Dodge + Reaction as a defensive option breaks melee combat.

i think his problem is that, if you go on full defense, you can do reaction + dodge + dodge

exactly

Your problem is that full defense is more effective than regular defense? I reiterate: What.

No, his problem is that close combat defense is more effective than ranged defense.

Hmmm... but there is no problem with ranged attack being better than melee attack. Hmmm...

No, the problem is that you're getting to add one skill, to the equation, twice. Basically, you're creating a situation where unless you're weapon skill > dodge, you're better off, defensively, not having a unarmed/melee skill at all.

So what? Dodge is strictly defensive; you can't dodge somebody to death. I'll say it again: Full dodge does not break melee combat.

are you intentionally obtuse?

The problem is not full dodge

the problem is that you get to add dodge for free when someone takes a swing at you, without having to go full dodge.

You can add blades/clubs/stuff for free instead if you feel like blocking/parrying. Guess what though, those skills allow you to kill things. Dodge doesn't.

Some of the snarkiness going on here seems a touch theatrical given that the rules tweak sabs is talking about is basically just making Dodge more or less work like Gymnastics Dodge already does. It's not really a change that is intended to seriously impact potential dice pool sizes so much as it is intended to make Close Combat better one shop stopping melee defense than either Dodge or Gymnastics on its own would be. It's a nerf that is intended to act as a relative buff, in other words. With that said, I've never liked it much because Gymnastics is a pretty broad skill whereas Dodge is a pretty dang narrow one. Plus, corebook mooks and critters tend to have both Unarmed AND Dodge anyway, so it's not like you'll really be running up against opponents with smaller defensive pools just because you now need a couple of skills as opposed to just Dodge. The extra cost would mostly impact players and maybe prime runners.

But with that said, I also think that melee is generally poor enough at killing people that the house rule isn't really that horrible of an idea either-- I mean, let's face it, many sheets don't take melee skills at all because they have other, more effective forms of offense available to them for one reason or another. That's why I've considered just dropping the Dodge skill from the game entirely before but never really bothered to implement it. That would clean things up a bit but ultimately a lot of people don't really like the flavor of gymnastics so I've never bothered going through with it.

Yes, because when someone takes a swing at you the natural response is to... wait for it... DODGE! You have yet to explain how or why you think RAW is broken on this point. Unless you want a game where punches are just as hard to avoid as bullets, dropping Dodge from melee defense makes no damn sense.

Considering my blatant rip of of black widow for Iron Man 2 has an unarmed base damage of 13P, i would say thats just as deadly as a gun bunny when she's in melee range.

…flinch and raise your hands. Anything else needs melee training.

Dropping Dodge entirely as a skill is pretty much the only sensible option. It is a completely artificial skill with no reference whatsoever that magically allows you to defend yourself really well under all circumstances.

You want to be able to get your ass out of fire and also get a chance to get away in melee? Train athletics.
You want to be able to defend yourself well in melee? Train melee.
Underwater combat? Better train diving.
Vehicle combat? Learn to drive.

Actually, it's to defend yourself. That can be a lot of things, from covering your face to running away. Fluff wise that house rule doesn't require you to stand around eating punches. You always have at least Reaction in shadowrun unless surprised.



It patently doesn't do what you're saying it does. You can reach melee defense pools that are just as high as you could achieve prior to the house rule. You just need to be trained in some form of close combat ability in order to double dip on skill dice. You can never, ever double dip against guns. The change really just affects how you go about double dipping, with the the end result being that having a complete defense against melee AND ranged attacks is more expensive than it used to be since you'll need two skills to achieve both goals.



Getting a good damage code isn't really the problem a lot of people make it out to be (aside from the sheer expense, anyway). It's a matter of hitting your target at all. Reach and Charge can help, and in your character's case one good swing should inflict the damage necessary to at least inflict some serious wound penalties (and likely a knockdown) so as long as you hit on that first swing before losing charge you should be pretty OK. But when it comes to hitting someone with a high defense pool they're not a good replacement for denying skill dice (or at least the double dip) and/or tossing out some wide bursts. And if the guy's you're shooting at are not skilled? Then you can trade in the wide bursts for narrow bursts and more damage. It's pretty easy to build a troll that can roundhouse a mall cop's head off. But if you run into a Prime Runner PhysAd? Break out the guns.

Hmmm... Well if we did remove the dodge skill, maybe...

Defense against ranged=Reaction
Full Defense DP=Reaction+Intuition OR reaction+gymnastics

Defense Against Melee=Reaction+Melee Skill
Full Block/Parry/Dodge=Reaction+Melee Skill+Melee Skill OR Intuition OR Gymnastics (Gymnastics is dodge only)

I involve intuition here, considering that half the issue of defending yourself involves knowing where your enemy will attack. Gymnastics is handy for full defense, but you still have to choose if you're using it for melee or ranged defense when you use it.
The main issue with this revision is that it eliminates an easy "full defense option". A PC can't just say "I'm going full defense" and use Reaction+dodge+(dodge in melee) to cover any attack made against them.

So instead of double dipping dodge, you double dip your combat skill.

double dipping melee skill seems equally bad.
double dipping any skill seems bad.

Imagine being able to double dip gymnastics. You could easily end up with +20 to your defense pool.

Double Dipping on melee defense only happens because you sacrifice your entire complex action focusing on parrying/blocking. You're using the dice you'd normally use to attack on defense instead. (And you lose some of those dice because you don't get to double dip on your spec/personalized grip/etc)

Except that by spending 7BP:s in chargen to get Two Weapon Style maneuver you can go to full-defence and still attack normally in melee, letteting you douple did for defence without sacrificing anythink.

Avoiding double dipping isn't going to make TWS any less broken. 17 BP and being restricted to one-handed weapons is not going to make up for +6 or so dice on all your melee defense rolls. If you, say, moved the melee skill dice in the attacking side into your defending side (so your attack would be agility+modifiers and defense would be reaction+melee skill*2). That might work.

So? That's hardly game-breaking. It makes you significantly more powerful in melee and harder to hit in general combat, yes, but I think you guys are looking at this out of context with the rest of the rules. Combat is not the be-all end-all of the game.

What does that really have to do with anything? As far as I can tell, the biggest advantage close combat has when it comes to the "big picture" is that Unarmed doesn't really require Palming or permits to get your "weapons" past a guard and that it's a source of defense dice as well as offensive dice. The problem is that you either need to spend a good deal of points on having a decent damage code or start using Shock Hands, and in the case of the latter you're right back to needing to get things past security again since such things are really no more legal than a standard taser gun would be. For the same points you spent on jacking up your damage code you could likely pick up Palming or some social skills to sleaze a gun into places or just you know, avoid a fight entirely. Those skills are useful for things other than punching dudes right in the face, after all, so it doesn't get much more big picture than that. That's why I've seen plenty of Gunslinger Faces or Infiltrator/Samurai while offensively oriented melee characters* are usually just good at punching and are fairly mediocre at everything else. As for the defense pool thing, that's a nice bonus, but guns are the great equalizer and your Unarmed won't help you avoid getting shot, so carrying a gun means you can still achieve some semblance of parity even with someone who's invested heavily in Close Combat skills.

*This is an important distinction. If you want to be good enough at melee that you can avoid a charge or potentially even punk someone foolish enough to specialize in melee, that is a fine and respectable goal and it is actually fairly cheap with taser weapons and the Disarm or Throw maneuvers. It's investing heavily in melee and then trying to close the distance against people with guns that gets ugly. One of my favorite characters was an Aikido troll that would throw people who charged him and then would promptly shoot them. I don't even really remember what his punching damage code was because frankly, that wasn't the point.

The Hero System and Shattered Empires RPGs have an interesting take on "faster vs slower" characters.

Both games have a "clock" that controls actions in combat. Faster characters have fewer clock "ticks" between their actions. So character A with an Initiative result of 4 will go every four "ticks", whereas a character with an initiative result of 7 will go every seven "ticks". Obviously a smaller Initiative rating is better.

It would be interesting to adapt this idea for Shadowrun. You'd have to merge the Initiative rating and the Initiative passes somehow. Perhaps roll Initiative, count the hits, and IPs get added as automatic hits. Then subtract the total hits from 12. The result is the number of ticks between each of your actions. Characters going on the same "tick" have their actions considered resolved simultaneously.

Characters would get anywhere from 3 to 10 total hits, with most being in the 5 to 8 range. So most folks would get an action every 4 to 7 ticks.

Thoughts?



-k

I don't know with 215BP:s i can build a character who has 4 IP:s and using edge rolls 21 dice with rule of six for iniative, giving him at least 7 hits pretty much every time.
That give 11 total hits, meaning he would go in every single tick
Okey using edge for every iniative roll uses it up "fast", but most combats wont last for more then one turn whit him acting 12 times a turn.

Bullets are harder to dodge than blows. Is everyone with me so far?

A melee specialist in a world with full-auto weapons must spend lots and lots of energy to be effective in melee, and must spend time studying Martial Arts. Still with me?

Okay, why?

Well, there are a few melee builds out there that make a guy extremely powerful.

1) Punches-Like-a-Mortar the Unarmed Adept can readily get 12P base on unarmed strikes as well as fun things like -6 AP or elemental options that can halve or completely negate armor. Limited application, sure, but useful. Lots of little things add benefit here, from Bone Density augmentations to Smashing Blow for punching holes in brick walls.

2) Bastard William, the blades man, has his own little trick. While he can't necessarily end an enemy in a single stab, he's learned to poison his blades. So now, every successful attack is also a chemical attack. One attack per IP just became two hits, and a nice Weapon Foci makes sure that the hits get through.

3) Bats McGee, as described earlier is a whirlwind of death. Clubbing with zappers and/or shooting people, he is an expert in area denial tactics. Also, he doesn't need to be a geek, er, I mean Adept, to be good at what he does.

In a world where you WANT them to be... or rather, they wouldn't have to be, if you wanted otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with that. It just seems that you either get very little, or very much with melee, the prime un-equalizer being that you only get to hit once per turn. It always used to be that way, but in SR3, for instance, a guy with a sword often had a chance of killing an enemy each IP, just like the gun-bunny, because he was closer, and hence fewer modifiers applied.

Example:

GunnyMcGunbunny shoots his AR against a guy in good cover.
SR3: +4 to TN, defends with pool only
SR4: +4 to defence, defends with rea or full def.
Vision mods go in fully in SR3 and SR4.

So basically Gunny is looking at TN of 6-8, which is already harder to hit in SR3, while in SR4, gunny uses his humongous pool to simply get more successes, or wide-bursts to deprive the target of his dice advantage from cover. This means in SR3 gunny actually often misses, unless he is very sure of himself and uses lots of pool to attack - which deprives him of his own defence, later. In SR3, this is a real motivation to go to melee.

StabbyMcSTabinster now jumps on top of the guy's cover and stabs him with is sword:
SR3: no more cover, dodges with pool or defends with melee, with a tN bonus of 1 for Stabby; vision mods are halved in melee; Stabby does good power and damage, because he has Dikote and a decent Str, let's say 12-14S. With his bonus to TNs, he gets more successes, and often manages to cut people in half.
SR4: no more cover, target still defends with a larger pool, Stabby just gets +1 die for reach. While damage doesn't seem so low, let's say, 7P/-1 or so, in comparison that's not enough, because his dice pool advantage is negated by the targets bonus to defence. I'm not sure about vision mods. The target often survives - even with just a few boxes left.

So really, in the past it wasn't always like this. SR4 made a conscious design decision to disadvantage melee. Now to be clear - with a melee skill, the mook could also always defend without using pool in SR3, so the advantage to melee defence was also present. It just wasn't so critical.

So the point is: Gunny and Stabby could well be the same person in both games. In SR3 there was a real reason to sometimes bring out the blades and go into melee. In SR4 there often isn't, under the same circumstances, because the obstacles to ranged combat are either minor enough, or the gains of going to melee are too small. In that respect SR3 was a better, more varied, game, IMHO.

Okay, so the numbers could be adjusted.

Then again 4 IPs and 21 dice is not the norm for most games. I think in all the time I've played I've seen maybe a half dozen actual played characters with 4 IPs and Init dice pools around 20*.

Average I've seen is 2-3 IPs and dice pools of 9 to 14.

Technically, in this system there's no real "turns", there's just a continuous count with everyone going at different rates.




-k

* - one of those guys had a 20 regular dice pool and wouldn't roll init, he just bought hits at the standard 4:1 rate. He still generally always went first.

So you only need to roll initiative once per combat?
That makes using edge for it much more economical.

Yeah, 21 dice definedly isn't norm, even that build only has 14 iniative the extra 7 gome from edge