Sounds good, if you intend to redesign all weapons.

If you got some extra time, design a working hit location system as well.

Sorry, english is not my main language. I meant exactly this, just replace "the whip" with "the firearm". If someone wants to shoot me from ~1m, i will try to push his hand away.

and then redesign the armor system.
and make armor for feet.
and make armor for hands.
and make armor for eyes.
and make armor for mouths.
and make armor for ears.
and make armor for noses.
and make armor for necks.

spleens ! ... spleens need armour too

That stuff can still be left abstracted, for the moment. It works well enough as is.

Melee does not, however, currently work well enough. It does less damage than it should to be balanced or realistic.

~Umi

Incorrect Dakka... melee attacks have reach of 0... and qualify for two weapon.

They can be used as per the two-weapon fighting rules in arsenal. You cannot cite me anything to the contrary except to state your own opinion/bias that unarmed should not be able to. I'll repeat that... it's nothing except your bias stopping someone from doing a left cross... followed up by a kick as a second weapon.


The 'two-weapon' attack rules splitting dice pools are quite usable with unarmed attacks... though due to the nature of the rules.. the lack of extra 'situational modifier' dice like reach and the like... doing so unarmed is often far less effective than doing so with a weapon... especially weapon foci.

Two-weapon fighting requires two weapons. Body parts are not weapons unless detached and wielded. That is why brass knuckles work and bare fists don't.

I'm with Falconer on this.

You can use Unarmed to attack multiple enemies with the same Complex Action. The martial arts rules clearly show this to be the case. Mechanically this is identical to making two separate attacks on the same target. Why would one be allowed, but not the other, especially without strict RAW indicating such?

~Umi

I agree that this is the way it should be, but the rules say otherwise. There are no rules for attacking the same target without weapons (i.e. unarmed) more than once. Using weapons with the Unarmed Combat skill is a loop hole. I cannot say whether this is intentional.

@Stahlseele: By writing "a working Hit Location System" I thought all those would have to be included anyways.

Actually, Dakka, the rules do not say otherwise - they in fact merely fail to say so. Thus, you're arguing against RAI by citing a lack of RAW.

The rules we do have written out suggest to us pretty clearly how this is meant to be handled. Please don't obfuscate things without a solid reason.

~Umi

They say you need a weapon with reach 0 or 1. Parts of your body are not weapons.
If you want RAW:

Also by definition unarmed combat is combat without weapons.

You really want one? I've got it, but it's really outside the scope of this thread. I think you're just being facetious though.

A straight +2 or +3 to bladed weapons goes a long way towards redesigning them with little actual work.

I was.

This does nothing to the increased/decreased AP of the original suggestion.

But it does address the larger theme of a melee weapon being more dangerous than it is and more dangerous than a small caliber weapon (provided you get hit by it) without a complete redesign.

if you want melee weapons to be really dangerous, change the damage code from STR/2+x back to STR+x . . .

edit: if that's too much, change it so only bladed and blunt weapons get the boost, not whips and not unarmed weapons.

it would shift melee back into Troll, Ork, Dorf Territory a bit and away from the Dandelion Eaters and Breeders.

So then we get into the matter of what a "weapon" is, which becomes philosophical and argumentative, so I'm going to try to keep this grounded in the shallow end of things.

You argue that punching someone with a bare hand doesn't employ a "weapon", but punching them with a glove on that hand does employ a "weapon". That's clearly absurd. Whether the instrument you are attacking with is a part of your body or a foreign object manipulated as a tool is irrelevant. Any physical thing you attack someone with is a "weapon", be it a gun, a sword, a pencil, or your body.

The Unarmed Combat skill isn't defined by not employing a form of "weapon". It is defined by the usage of the human body as a weapon. Your fist is just as much a weapon as a sword is. It is a physical object used to inflict force. The only difference involved is that a sword is not a part of your own body, and that a sword offer increased leverage, sturdiness, and sharpness.

A tool doesn't have to be a foreign object to be a "weapon". A fist is a "weapon". So is an elbow, a knee, a foot, and even your teeth. These are "Natural Weapons", as they are called when employed by Critters. Similarly, implanted cyberweapons are also still "weapons", despite no longer being foreign objects, but rather a part of the body of the combatant.

~Umi

That's kind of what I was thinking. It means a troll with a combat axe or claymore and decent skill is frightening up close. And if you want to be a human, shell out for the STR boosters to match up or be quick enough to avoid getting cleaved in two.

Yeah, a troll with a giant two-handed axe looming over you should be much more horrifying than a scrawny elf with an Ares Predator IV aimed at you from across the room. Sadly, the elf is gonna deal 12P+ combined if he hits with two shots, while the troll needs a strength of 13+ to match that.

~Umi

edit: Never mind, missed the edit to your post.

I'm assuming you're referring to the current Str/2+x rather than the straight Str+x Stahl and I were talking about, yes?

My bad! I realized my error only after I posted.

~Umi

STR+X instead of STR/2+X leads to some pretty silly things, i'll admit . .
BUT COME ON!
It's what we fragging want out of SR anyway damn it <.<
Furthermore, it makes Melee-Weapons better than Unarmed Combat.
And it gives Samurai a Reason to go with Melee Weapons instead of unarmed combat.

If that glove is designed to inflict injuries, yes, a regular glove, no.

Just as absurd as most jurisdictions distinguish between assault with a weapon and regular assault.
Wikipedia at least seems to disagree with you.

No it isn't

That is your opinion.

This is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one.

Being separate from the user is part of the definition of tool. Weapons are a subset of tools.

I've yet to find a rule system that manages to avoid silly things in combat. Yeah, that troll will butcher pretty much anything other than other trolls in melee (and even then that other troll isn't happy)...but then the idea for anyone else who sees that is a) shoot it b) shoot it more c) EMPTY THE FRAGGIN' MAGAZINE INTO IT!

Or, if using SR4A, shoot them a few times with SnS rounds.

I'd hoped to avoid the nitty-gritty, but oh well, here we go.


Design and original intent has nothing to do with it. If you can inflict physical harm with an object, it is a physical weapon. Despite not being intended for usage as such, a toothbrush is a weapon in appropriate circumstances.


We're not talking legislation, we're talking common sense and, more importantly, the mechanics of SR. A physical weapon is anything you can physically harm someone with. If you can deal damage with it in SR, and it isn't a Magical effect or environmental effect, it is a weapon.

A wet and limp noodle, for example, isn't a weapon - you can't possibly inflict any sort of physical harm with it. No GM would allow you to deal damage with it. A pencil, however, is a weapon - although unwieldy, you can kill or wound a person with it. Most GMs would allow you to use it as an improvised weapon, albeit a flimsy one that is likely to impose negative modifiers, suffer a low DV, and probably break after the first strike.


It, doesn't actually. "In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary."

Thus, blackmail can be a "weapon". Knowledge can be a "weapon". This is how the English language works. The concept of a "weapon" is a thing that gives you an advantage over an adversary. That is what a weapon is.


The RAW you quote more closely supports my statement than yours. It specifically mentions the use of the human body in combat, and nowhere states that the human body itself is not a weapon.


Actually, it's logical fact based on accepted norms of language and concept.


Since you fail to indicate what exactly you mean by this, or what you define as "sufficient", or to expand in any meaningful or constructive way, I have no useful response to this blurb.


By this logic, implanted cyberweapons cease to be weapons, as they are no longer separate from the user - not just physically, but magically as well, as they take up Essence.

Also, to use your own point of reference, Wikipedia has this to say on tools:

"A tool is any physical item that can be used to achieve a goal, especially if the item is not consumed in the process." And before you start on further pedantry, Wiktionary lists "item" as "a distinct physical object", and in turn lists "object" as "a thing that has physical existence". :eyeroll:

Nothing in there about foreign objects, or about tools beind separate from the body. In fact, your body is itself an object, as are the various individual components of it. Again, this is how the English language works.

~Umi

Jesus, you two. I get that the entire purpose of this board is to split hairs into nanometer-fine slices, but can you just agree to disagree?

I just don't understand his mentality. He states that he supposedly thinks what he is arguing is stupid, that he doesn't believe it should operate the way he's arguing it does, and then the entire argument he is making in support of things working that way is based on specious nonsense and pedantry.

Why would someone DO that? What is the motivation for that sort of behavior?

~Umi

isn't there even something in nowadays laws that considers people like boxers or karate ka or judo ka or things like these armed with a lethal weapon in any kind of fight they get into?

Possibly, but again, legislation is one thing, common linguistic usage is another.

~Umi

I can't speak for Dakka, I'm not him/her. Sorry. As for why someone would do that? Well, just from my observation of this board it seems that people just like to debate (or argue, if you want to look at it that way). And like a lot of things people get involved in it becomes hard to let go of something once you get started, even if it's gone far beyond any useful discussion. *shrug* Not taking shots at anyone, just something I've noticed here.

And Stahl, you know better than to bring RL up here.

yes, yes, i know <.<;,
but seriously?
doesn't it outright tell us that hardliner gloves are weapons used with the unarmed skill thus changing the attack from unarmed combat to an armed attack?

Changes by jurisdiction, but laws pertaining to this kind of thing are not uncommon. If you put any serious time and energy into such training, it is a very wise thing to become acquainted with the particulars of the legislation in your jurisdiction.

As an interest gauge: I have some ideas for a set of houserules that would bring melee and ranged into parity, but I'd hate to take the time to properly think it through and write it up if there's no interest in it; this wouldn't exactly be a simple thing. Presuming that they worked in a way that people enjoyed and wasn't adding too much complexity, how many people using such houserules?

Whomever stole my topic hand it back this instant!! Haha

All the knockdown rules I was aware of.

Is there anyone who is using house rules to change/improve melee combat?

It also has to be a tool or at least an object that is separate from the user. You are claiming that parts of the user (hands feet, whatever) are weapons. I don't see that.


In the SR context where does it say that magical effects are not weapons?

If you can't think of a way to do harm with a wet noodle, you are not trying hard enough At least with a lasagna sheet you could suffocate someone. If you cram long enough spaghetti or even better tagliatelle down someone's throat to block the larynx, you could achieve the same thing. But again those items noodles, pencils etc. are separate from the user, they are tools. They are not the user himself.


This again does not say that a weapon can be integral part of the user.


IMHO that is not needed because in my understanding of plain English. It is even in the name itself. Unarmed combat means combat without arms (in the sense of weapons, not limbs obviously)

I meant that being able to deal damage is necessary for something to be classified as a weapon but not sufficient. Otherwise everything that deals damage is a weapon.


They are still separate objects. They only canot be targeted separtely by magic.

There you have it. Distinct. The tool must be distinct from the user. A hand is not.


@Stahlseele: Yes that's what the rules say. What it does not say is that hands and feet are weapons. Armed and unarmed melee attacks have been handled differently in SR for several editions. So there is nothing new.

[rules lawyering]The book suggests that limbs are not weapons:
If limbs (of a troll) were weapons they would be included among weapons. So at least those limbs are separate from weapons.

The other problem is that the rules in Arsenal call for weapons with reach 0 or 1. All weapons and unarmed attacks without a positive reach are given the property reach - . So by very strict reading unarmed attacks do not qualify.
[/rules lawyering]

But I guess we have to agree to disagree here. I'm out of that part of the discussion.

*hands Automaton the thread*

Hey thanks Dakka Dakka

Maybe if no has done any house rules on it I should just have my group try a couple of variations and see what happens..

Do you have access to the Martial arts rules in arsenal ?

they offer some flavour and are not *ALL* broken or OP. without just doubling up on the number of attacks and thus doubling potential DV.

alternatively, you could allow the splitting of dice pools for multiple attacks vs the same target ..
RAW allows versus multiple targets, but it's only a step further to allow against the same guy.

Irrelevant, considering facts presented, including real-world definitions and the RAW that YOU provided.
More importantly, it does not PRECLUDE or EXCLUDE integral parts of the user from being considered weapons. I'm with you on the noodle thing, though. Hell, make it a run for somebody to do that, because their Johnson's boss wants an ironic end to the mark.
Your opinion is superceded by both the dictionary definition, as well as rules as written. Unarmed combat is using the user's own body, not attacking without a weapon (RAW you provided). Restating, opinion is moot in the face of rules and definition provided.
I'll agree, dealing damage isn't sufficient. Dealing damage PURPOSEFULLY is, by provided definitions, and that, of course, would INCLUDE a person's own body as a possible weapon, as well as intangibles that don't even have physical form.

Many swordsmen would disagree, as would a few marksmen. The hand is the killer, the sword is but an echo.
previously disproven by both RAW and dictionary definition.
The rules in SR4 DO NOT SAY that hands and feet ARE NOT weapons. Damage value IS provided for standard unarmed AND augmented unarmed attacks. By your rationale, that would contradict your point. Not mentioning something is not the same as specifically excluding it. Unarmed attacks are at least mentioned by damage code.

This would preclude LISTED weapons from the CORE RULE BOOK from being weapons, which they obviously are: Forearm Snapblade, Knife, Survival Knife, Sap, and Shock Glove. (SR4.5 pg 315, listed on the bottom of the page)

HOWEVER, stress again HOWEVER,

According to Arsenal, it WOULD include Unarmed Attacks using the Kick special maneuver (adds +1 reach to an Unarmed Attack). Your rules lawyering would support unarmed attacks being considered weapons, while depriving separate implements, both well-known and obscure, of the classification.

Just as well.

@Rubic,
Seriously can we get this topic back to what I started it for instead of mega posts of unrelated discussions and opinions? Thanks.


@Mach_Ten,
I do have Arsenal yes. got the hardcover. The martial arts rules do offer some fun and useful options to add to your melee capabilities thats absolutely true. But it doesn't solve the "problem"

Allowing splitting up the dice pull on one target is a possibility, but it makes it a lot easier to dodge/block for the target. And melee is a lot easier to dodge then a bullet.

sorry. Back on topic.

If I was going to make a change (legit or house-ruled), I'd say that a firearm in melee is subject to parrying. I'd also provide rules for pistol-whipping or rifle-butting somebody, either Improvised or Clubs as the skill, or an Arsenal-style maneuver that allows the Firearm Skill to be used to make that attack.

For Firearms, I'd house rule:

Unaimed Shot (Simple action), -2 or -3 dice to your attack, due to firing without taking proper aim. Does not stack with Attacker in Melee or Burst Fire, though it does stack with other modifiers.

Normal Shot (Complex action, Special: Simple action), normal roll, having at least sighted the target before pulling the trigger. If the target doesn't move much (is hiding behind cover, falls prone, is unconscious, etc), you can make further attacks as simple actions. Sighting a new target, or following a moving target, makes it a complex action again.

I know, this might be cumbersome to read, but it means you have to actually TRY to keep somebody in your sights, and makes shooting from the hip as difficult as it should be.

well, with some other things like Riposte it looks nice

AGI 8 + Blades 4 + Specialize 2 + Personal Grip 1 for example 15 DP

if you split that you get 2 attacks @ 6/6 then add in the modifiers which goes to 9/9 or 11/9 on a charge (I'd personally only apply the +2 once for the first attack but up to you)

and not forgetting the defence is lowered by one for the second chop and they are at -1 to shoot you AND -3 to shoot at anyone else

AND then reach on top for + dice or minus defense ..

and if you do enough you can knock them down and have +3 for better ground etc.

so your one attck at 17 ish DP can go to 2 attacks at 16/14 !! depending on situation

there's a lot to consider

Thats actually pretty cool. Instead of messing with the melee rules, change the ranged rules. I'll show this the group to see what they think about it.
I like the idea of fast shooting from the hip being less acurate and a simple action, while actual aming and tracking of your target being a complex action. Thats quite true to real life too.

Thanks for the input!

I needed to read all that a couple times and look them upt.
You're right, you can get the dice up quite a bit like this, which makes splitting the dicepool a more effective possibility.

Or: Agility 8 + Blades 6 + Improved Ability 3 + Specialize 2 + Personal Grip 1 + Weapon Focus 4, for a total of 24. Or, if making multiple attacks, 17 split to 9/8, with modifiers bringing those up to 16/15. Or three attacks at 13/13/12. Or four attacks at 12/11/11/11.

yup and every slice lowers their defence against the next and any other guys that want to shoot at him ... you don't NEED to hit .. you just make him stand still while the guy with a big gun blows his head off !

actually thinking about it logically

you would not do four attacks at 12/11/11/11.

you would do 5 or 6 at 5/5/5/5/5/17

otherwuise notated : glance/glance glance/glance/glance/OVERHEADCHOPPYSMITEOFDOOM!

actually, all things considered there needs to be a limiting factor ... maybe you have 10 agility, but your logic or intuition only allows you to make a certain number of attacks per CT splitting this way, otherwise combat is going to be SLOW.

can only make a dice pool split to the lowest of your mental attributes (INT, LOG, WIL)

INT 3 is lowest can only split to 3 attacks

You can only split a melee dice pool to attack multiple targets, though - unless using two weapons, in which case you can get two attacks against one target. So there's already a limiter. There's also the limited amount of dice pool modifiers - Personalized Grip, Specialization, Reach, Weapon Focus, and the Attune Item metamagic.

Now, that does mean you can give a Troll 7 AGI, 6 Blades, Spec, Grip, Claymore Weapon Focus 4, Improved Ability, and total Reach 3. Pre-split pool is 15, modifiers come to 10. Can cleave through 5 people at 13 dice against each. Once he gets some serious progression (Initiate Grade 4, Attune Item, Magic 8, Weapon Focus , he gets modifiers totaling out to 16, so now those five attacks are at 19. At chargen, you can SURGE for Metagenetic Improvement and Elongated Limbs, letting you get the base pool up to 18 and the progressed modifiers up to 17.

Bigass troll with a Claymore? I suggest scatter.

yes in RAW but we are talking about a Houserule here to make melee simple for His game only

and theorestically you can split a ATT 8 + Skill 4 pool into 12 iterative attacks and then add situation mods to each

that would be ridiculously boring and long winded

or Maybe the number of skill points in the Melee being used could be the limit, blades 4 = only 4 separate attacks?

Firearms are limited in the same basic way, though - your simply action lets you attack once per weapon. May as well mirror the two.

Rhat:
You can't use item attunement on a weapon focus.

That trick is primarily used by gun adepts since weapon foci only work for melee combat. But item attunement works for either and non-combat as well. It's simply weaker until you get a very high initiate grade... and won't help you in astral combat like a weapon foci would.

Aha, must have missed that sentence. Thanks for pointing that out. Pretty minor different overall, though - only 2 dice per test coming off the progressed version.

Considering I gave the idea, I would also like to clarify:

If you have a Ranged Attacker in Melee penalty going on, you disregard "Unaimed Shot." The current rules pretty much take that situation into account, anyways. Sighting the target and maintaining the target are, essentially, taking up a simple action in this way.

Example:
Detective Sterling has tracked a dangerous criminal to a not-so-abandoned warehouse. There's no time for her to call in back up through the official channels. Fortunately, she knows some people who are quick to respond for a "reasonable fee." Her team quickly gathers in the area, while she takes the time to scout out the warehouse with a Lone Star Eyeball. Since it was late at night, only a janitor was around, and her mark has already killed the poor guy. A minute and a half later, her heavy support is standing at her side, and a few more drones give them a good tactical layout of the area.

They move into position, but not without alerting their target. Their target bursts out from a door, letting loose two blind shots from his Super Warhawk. With 5 Agi + 4 Firearms + 2 Smartlink +2 Personlized Grip, -2 for Running, -4 Target behind cover -2 for not lining up his shots = dice pool of 5, then 4 (recoil). One of his shots goes wild, the second manages to sink in to the Street Sam through some boxes, denting his cyberarm.

Detective Sterling lines up her Manhunter, and though she's no true markswoman, she squeezes off a single shot with 3 Agi, +2 Pistols +2 specialty +2 Smartlink -1 firing from Cover and a nice +3 from the TacNet the team is running = 11 dice. She lands a solid hit, which her mark soaks about half, and we'd bother calculating, except ShyGuy, their friend on a nearby building, has been tracking this scumbag since the TacNet went up.

With a 5 (7) Agi + 5 Longarms +2 specialty in Rifles +2 Skill Boost (adept) +2 Smartlink +2 Personalized Grip, +3 for Aiming before the guy left the building +3 for the TacNet for 26 dice easily from his sniper nest. The mark goes down hard, only barely alive after a good soak roll. ShyGuy doesn't personally like this sort of scum, and since the mark isn't moving anymore, he can double-tap for only the cumulative Recoil penalty, offset by his Recoil Compensation. No plea bargain for this organ donor.

They wipe their presence away and disappear into the night, knowing she'll keep her end of the bargain. The RRT shows up to chastise Sterling about chasing this guy alone. The chief will be upset that his would-be informant died "crossing into the wrong gang's turf." He'll rage about it for a few weeks and make everybody in the precinct uncomfortable. He'll also be too upset to pay attention to the evidence locker for a while, making payment that much easier for the good detective.

Not the best example, I know, but it does present the rules in a basic format. Then again, it might be considered excessive when you look at all of the OTHER negatives that show up in the combat section.

I just have two questions:

1: Why is Personalized Grip (a recoil compensator) being added as a dice pool bonus?
2: Why is it valued at 2?