Hello everyone,

My first post on this forum. I'm usually on the shadowrun4 forum but I figured I'd give it a shot overhere.

Anyway,we have been playing SR for a while now and my group found the melee rules to be a bit underwelming when compared to the ranged rules.
No their question is "Why cant we just make the melee attacks simple actions to instead of complex just like the firearms?"

No I fully understand melee movement to be more complex then firing a gun, and so its a complex action.
And perhaps melee is less "powerful" in purpose in this way for realism purposes.

But what I really want to know is, does turning melee into simple actions break the game? Does it unbalance things?
I'm not entirely sure if it does or not. I can see some problems with some martialarts specializations though.

Is it simply dont bring a knife(sword) to a gun fight? or is there more to it?

Seeing how you can get your damage up way high in close combat, be it through terch or even more through magic, yes, there is a danger of breaking it . .

But doesnt that count for ranged attacks too?

To an extent, yes.
But it's harder to get impact armor up than it is to get ballistic armor up.

Could you give me some examples of how melee damage can go up so high?

Adept powers like Killing Fist
Adept powers like Elemental Strike
Cyber like Titanium Bones
Martial arts qualities like Krav Maga (grants +1 DV to unarmed attacks, takable up to 3 times)

Combining those, you get unarmed warriors who are doing things like Str/2 + 8.

Average Joe: Strength 3 (Muscle Replacement or Augmentation 4) = 7, base damage of 4S. Add in Bone Density Augmentation or Bone Lacing, and it can easily go up to 8P. THEN add one or more martial arts and you have an average human with a base DV of 9-10P.
That's still not really bad, but now imagine a troll. An adept, with martial arts, maybe, with Str 9, Critical Strike 6, Penetrating Strike 3, Killing Hands, maybe even an elemental attack.
12P, -3 AP without attribute boost, right there. At +1 Reach

None of these high DVs really make a lot of difference in comparison to a decent gun, though. Close combat is not necessarily underpowered, but a lot less powered than ranged combat. As it should be, IMO. Unfortunately, close combat with weapons is usually worse than unarmed, and to really make it worthwhile, you have to dump a lot of statpoints and building points and even qualities into being effective at it. Which is, at a closer look, also how it should be. You have to invest a lot of time to learn a martial art, whereas it is much easier to learn how to shoot.

Close combat Missions style just plain sucks, though. Wouldn't touch a melee oriented character with a ten foot pole there.

Okay, so basically you're saying as it is melee can do the damage in one attack (complex action) that ranged can do in two ranged attacks (simple actions) ?

I've seen some massive damage being delt out through ranged attacks.

right, so firearms are more powerful then melee then... I mean thats logical too in my opinion, but a street sam with a katana should be at least a bit scary instead of "meh I've got a gun" ?

Usually as the result of the dice, not the base DV.

Remember, the highest base DV any gun has is about 8 (without getting into the higher powered sniper rifles). You can add to that using burst fire, but at a loss in dice (and that damage isn't used in the modified DV when comparing to armor; you might be doing 18DV with that full burst, but it's still stun!).

The reason for massive damage taken in ranged combat is usually an easier staging mechanism:

a) You roll less dice to evade the attack (usually just reaction, with full defense reaction+dodge)
b) Narrow bursts give an easily achievable higher base damage
c) Ammunition will do something similar

However, it is, as Stahlseele pointed out, easier to stack up ballistic armor than impact armor, so it is usually also easier to stage it down.

Making a close combat attack a simple action could make it very high powered. I'm not sure about breaking the system, though.
There are a ton of martial arts maneuvers that use your next attack and that could end up making some fights really really short

I'd suggest to just try it and see how it goes. Preferably with a maxed out martial arts adept, with high DV and probably stuff like combat sense, counterstrike, elemental attack and the works.



Well. Depends on the gun, and the distance. If the samurai is in 8m distance and I have only a pistol, I wouldn't see my chances too high.
If he's in a killzone, I have an MG and he's 50m down the line ... well, then it's exactly "Meh, I've got a gun"

Well a street sam with a katana usually is scary. For a street sam not optimized for melee combat but with a little effort devoted to probably has strength 6, agi 7, and 2 skills with a specialization in swords (or equivalent from skill wires). They're going to do 6P -1AP base and a 12 dice pool for their attack. Maybe not one strike kill territory like something optimized for melee, but if a street sam has managed to close to melee range with you, you're going to be dead on their next pass.

I don't think your change will break the game however, because the limit on melee has always been the need to get close enough to use it while people are shooting at you. Letting them kill people a little better once they get there isn't a big deal.

I might instead though, just up the base damage of all melee weapons since they usually have less net hits to pump the damage up with and penalties for calling a shot are a bigger detriment to their pools. It also makes unarmed less of an obviously superior option. If a combat axe was str/2+6P and a katana was str/2+5P, the street sam with a melee weapon is much closer to being in that seriously threatening range and you didn't have to add a second attack. And stun batons stop being much more dangerous than swords.

I know we've covered this recently but, in reality this comment stands up, but in SR it does not

a SAM with a sword up close and personal is no more scary than if he was a tiny speck in the sniper sights. he SHOULD be .. but RAW does not support this view.

12 dice vs. a guard with REA 5 and bod 4 and armour say 5 as well

so say SAM does well and gets 4 hits, guard gets 2 and has to resist maybe 8P ? rolls average and takes a slice for 3 boxes (another -1 to his actions)

vs.

2 shots from a holdout with SnS or even just EX_EX .. at a total of -1 to his DP

-2 from electric shock, chance to be unconscious, or just plain dead, SAM cannot deflect the arm or the gun barrel unless he wastes an IP on full defense to DODGE
cannot parry the gun, cannot block the gun

and the guard though can stick his hand out and catch the Katana between 2 fingers and completely deflect a monofilament sword as if it were paper while doing it.

I'm starting to sound bitter again, I know sorry ... but melee weapons are utterly underwhelming unless the opponent is sleeping or "unaware"

and as soon as combat starts, unaware goes out the window.

Thanks for all the replies everyone! it really helps a lot.

Raising the base damage of melee weapons isn't a bad idea and solution, and something I like better then turning the complex into a simple action.

Depends on the shooter. And the target.


If that is how you interpret a block, then that is your prerogative ... and problem. The rules allow it, people do it, and it can mean everything from 'swatting aside the blade without touching the edge' to 'kicking the opponent in the shins so he misses the swing' due to the abstract nature of close combat.
There is no hard rule and fact


In Missions, yes.
My adept does just fine, both unarmed and with his rating 4 weapon focus, thank you very much
As does my bone density augmented face/sam.

*nods*
melee, especially with weapons, was way more impressive under SR3 rules . .
STR+4D with 3 Reach in a Troll with 16 STR and 14 Body?
I don't care if there's a car between me and him, i'll cleave him in half!


The biggest change to the close combat system was that in SR3, no matter who initiated the attack, it was an opposed test and whoever had more hits did his damage to the other one.

So if you'd change the melee system to improve on it, what would you do? turn the attacks into simple ones, raise the base damage value on weapons? both?

Sorry for hijacking mate, I'd have liked to see it as simples vs complex too, but that is only one side of a double edged sword, making big choppy choppy is not Everything involved in melee weapons



But I don't want to have to go to such extremes, or be able to cleave cars in half although that would be fun

I'm talking about a peak of metaa-human capability or cybered up to the eyeballs (STR =8 AGI = 8 ) with top training (Blades 4 or 5) and a top of the line personalised grip katana or vibrosword or other piece of sharp pointy ! Should be fairly competent at defending as well as attacking.

@Bannockburn : I agree with you in the other post I made about using melee skill in defense .. really good "HouseRule" and it goes a long way to what I think a melee SAM should be capable of, but it's not in a missions class toon. without added cheese.

I don't want to play a TROLL to optimise the bejeebus out of it, (well I do, but not in my current games) I like having a downside to to the character, it's just the downside is so steep it's almost cliff like.

You all seem t ohave a view that a SAM with a melee weapon once he closes is absolutely deadly, but I can't see a single reason or example how ?
defender is at -1 to fire into melee but can literally dance circles around you to defend while you cannot defend against them at all

***Edited for clarity***

Technically, to optimze it, you need to play an Elf.
Because SOMEBODY decided that Attribute for all combat is suddenly agility.
And more dice is more important than doing more raw damage, because you get more damage with hits from dice anyway.

If you want the melee system to be better raise the malus for using guns in melee so people actually can be forced into melee for defense.

What houserule would that be, exactly?


Uhm. Yes, roughly 3 dice to 1 raw damage. How are dice better after being able to defeat the opposing roll?

yeah, or Ork... considering the amount of damage you need to soak to get into combat first and to do some damage after


think you said you allow your players to use their melee skill in their defense rather than just dodge.

I might have misread.. ** EDIT** I think I have completely mis-attributed a comment to you.
Still agree with what you have said, but I'm not going to rant in this thread any longer as there's no RAW that lets Blades benefit unless you can get access to martial arts.

Ah okay, I was a bit puzzled Thanks for clarifying and yes, I agree.

A good start is to fiat that opponents never are within 1m of one another unless one is unaware of the other. Net -1 for shooting in melee? come on!

I don't think Unarmed melee is underpowered, but armed melee is pretty lack luster. Except boosting a skill, buying a weapon and learning some martial arts, there is not much you can do. If you want to make it more powerful, maybe introduce new adept powers that work like the traditional adept powers but apply to melee attacks with one of the other melee skills (in addition to killing hands there is killing blades/clubs; critical strike (blades/clubs), elemental strike (blades/clubs) etc.).

That's just RAW. You can always choose to use your weapon skill + reaction to defend against a melee attack rather than dodge, if you have a weapon. It's called parrying.

If we use your numbers from earlier and assume that said guard has a dodge of 3 and he even has an extra initiative pass. So he defends against a melee attack with 8 dice.

He's charged by the street sam who isn't optimized for melee combat. First round, the street sam charges, he's now rolling 14 dice instead of 12 against the defenders 8. The sam on average will get about 2 net hits and hits the majority of the time, so the guard is rolling to soak 8P with 8 dice. On an average roll he's taking 5P. He's at a penalty of -1 and has had about half his boxes filled. And since that 5P exceeded his body score, he's knocked down.

The guard then tries to shoot the street sam, but he's in melee combat with the street sam so he's taking -3 to shoot the street sam and depending on how you rule it, if the street sam has reach on him the guard doesn't have the advantage of firing at point blank range. So when the guard is trying to return fire he's doing so at -4 to his shot (-3 melee, -1 wound) and the street sam gets a +2 to their defense because they were running on their previous action. So the guard doesn't have much chance of hitting the street sam on this pass unless he's got a pretty high pool to begin with.

On the next pass. The street sam is attacking the guard with a pool of 12 vs. 7 if he didn't manage to knock him down and 15 vs. 5 if he did. The street sam will hit the guard again, this time for another 7 or 8P. The defender will again soak 3 of that. At which point the defender is looking a -3 from wound penalties. The guard can try to retaliate but they're taking a -6 to their shots because they're still in melee. On the next pass they're dead.

Sure the street sam could have taken the guard out in five other ways, some faster and more effective, but the above scenario is hardly one that's just "meh, he's just got a sword". Once you're in melee with a street sam, because of the melee penalties and their bonuses when they first close with you, you don't have much chance of surviving. And full defense is pretty useless against a street sam, because they have more passes than you, so they can wait you out.

I misread or misremembered .. about using a melee weapon vs a firearm in melee .. different discussion sorry

as for the remainder, if guard gets +2 for point blank it's not specified in the book at what "reach" or situation you do or do not get the bonus.
I would say it only applies to unaware or characters unwilling or unable to provide defense (Ran out of dice pool or are subdued)
but that's my own opinion .. not RAW.

but ... where's Knockdown rules ? cause that is EXACTLY what i need to look up!

if that is in core rules in melee then I need to be using it .. Alot !

Not sure what you're talking about guard gets +2 for point blank. If you mean the +2 bonus that ranged attackers get for attacking targets within 1 meter, it is pretty explicit. But yes, what melee reach lets you stay out of that meter range isn't defined. We went over that in the other thread, and it's based on situation. For instance, a person wielding a longspear might be able to keep someone further away than someone with a whip (both reach 2). And shorter weapons require you to get in closer, giving that bonus because you have to be within a meter of them to be able to hit. If it only applied to those unable to defend, then the -3 for engaged in melee wouldn't apply (and wouldn't be specifically referenced).

Now for Knockdown... it is on page 161 of the SR4A, Other Factors in Combat section. It is also where it talks about making a Subduing attack, which is also something only melee can do.

Attacking to Knock down doesn't deal any damage, if your Strength + net hits on the attack exceeds the opponent's Body, then you successfully knock them down. You can choose to go down with them, but if you glitch you fall no matter what (worse with a crit glitch, you fall, they don't). Based on the wording, you might be able to aoid falling if you glitch but fail to successfully knock them over. But expect something else bad to happen.

no, it's horribly implicit. the text says within 1m but doesn't include or exclude any situational text (i.e. defender unaware etc.)
and reach doesn't include any clarification if you are within 1M when fighting

as a human, I hold a sword for example about 15 -20cm from my body and the blade is about what ? 70 -90 CM .. and it's not permanently against my opponents chest, it is at striking distance

there's no way I am ever within 1M of my enemy unless the point is somewhere tickling his kidneys !!

hang on, the -3 for being in melee does NOT mention any range .. it just says engaged in melee not within 1M ...

anyway I digress, yes the +2 point blank in all it's ridiculousness.


does that specicy unarmed Melee ? or include armed .. and if so, has Thorya missed that an attack to knock down is a specific action that Does NO damage

which would be crappy as I had gotten my hopes up there of some sort of bonus for wielding a bladed weapon

It's only unarmed melee, unfortunately, just as subdual combat is.
Yeah, weapons are very meh.

But at least they look cool!

So there are two ways to knock someone down, both are on 161.

First, any time a character takes damage, there is a chance that they fall down. If a character takes damage equal to or above their body they are knocked down. No roll to resist at all. In ranged combat this is actually a pain since people should be falling over all the time and most people ignore it, because if a defender is prone for a ranged attack it only matters within 5 meters. But for melee it makes a huge difference, because it adds to the attack (pg 157 +3 for opponent prone) and it subtracts from the defense (pg 159, -2 for defending while prone).

The second is just to knock them down and that is what Kiirnodel is referring to. It is a separate action that is explicitly to knockdown.

BOOM!

that right there is pure genius ! +1 karma to infinity, to Thorya . for reinstating my faith in the SR universe.

thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou

Hu? You weren't aware of automatic knockdown?

To add to this: It isn't only when you take damage that's equal or higher than your Bod stat (no matter if S or P, btw), it's also automatic if you take 10 boxes of damage, so no cop out for trolls with Bod 11

newp, only started playing SR4 when I joined here a few weeks back and joined in some PbP's ... trying to catchup as rapidly as possible, so I'm not a perma-n00b

so .. be aware I'll be bothering y'all for more rules advice .... well ... ALL the time !

It's not so fun on the flipside, either
Getting up in that situation requires a not quite that easy test, too.

That is plain wrong. The only two things you cannot do with armed subdual is improving your grip and defending against a subdual technique. There is no rule against initiating the grapple with an armed melee attack roll and later improving it with unarmed combat, nor are there rules against using unarmed combat when one or more hands are equipped with weapons.

Attacking to knockdown has no restriction for weapons whatsoever.

@Automatic Knockdown: Just to clarify, for an automatic knockdown you need to mark BOD or more boxes (or 10 boxes) on the opponent's condition monitor. Just inflicting DV 10 is not always enough. A troll with BOD 11 is highly unlikely to leave 10 boxes after soak.

You're right, sorry. I hadn't bothered to look it up, and I remembered the test as Unarmed Combat. Actually it's 'melee attack as normal'


Yes, the damage TAKEN must be equal or higher or 10. Not the damage before the soaking roll.

Right, it's reach that is vague, not point blank. It's a flat +2 if target is within 1 meter. It's kind of hard to miss... There aren't any situational modifiers because those are other modifiers. If the target is aware and abe to fight back, that is why it mentions "Note that this may be offset by the Attacker in Melee Combat modifier." Otherwise it's a one sentence statement, not much to confuse. Like I said, explicit.


Not sure what kind of sword you're using, most katanas have a blade 60-75 cm in length, you might be thinking with the handle. Add those numbers up and more than a meter away and you're swinging at air.


This was mentioned in the previous thread, you don't hold or fight with a katana pointed straight away from you, you strike with the blade, not the point. And yes, the goal would be for the outstretched katan to pass completely through your target (point past his kidneys).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and both of my other points were ninja'd above...



Far as I can tell, the knockdown attack (melee only) does not specify a weapon. My guess you could use a blade to knock down an opponent by using the flat (or something) so you can apply more kinetic force. Or hook their foot or something, it's a vague maneuver, not a set form of attack.

Subduing however doesn't mention Unarmed Combat until the third paragraph when it specifies how a defender tries to escape. Before that it only says "resolve melee combat normally". At the end of the second paragraph it does say that success means that you start grappling, which would imply Unarmed Combat, but it is kind of vague. I could see arguments that you can start a subdue (grapple) using a weapon and then switch to Unarmed Combat to get a better grip once you've got hold. Think using a staff or club to get a choke hold on somebody...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Also remember, it is damage boxes taken, so, after you resist. If you manage to resist the damage it also helps you stay up.

cheers Kiirnodel, still learning

A simple houserule would be to allow to defend against a ranged attack with REA+Skill (like defending against melee) if the attacker is in melee with the defender (if i can deflect a monowhip attack with my hand, i should be able to deflect a hand with a pistol too)

Or dragons.

Knocking down a dragon is simply an "explosion"* type spell. At Force 5 or 6, it becomes neigh impossible to not be knocked down. At Force 10, it's automatic, even if you resist the spell completely.

*I think it's the explosion type. There's one that "force of the spell adds to boxes taken for knockdown tests."

What you mean is the Blast type effect (Street Magic p. 165) and it says 'add the Force to the damage inflicted when comparing to the defender's Body'.
As you only compare damage inflicted to body when there is actual damage inflicted, it still requires the dragon to take damage. So no, no free knockdown unless you damage him.

Blast Element, yes. It has the clause: "add the Force to the damage inflicted when comparing to the defender’s Body". One could argue that it only applies to "when comparing to the defender's Body" and not the automatic at 10 boxes part, but without good reason I see no reason why a Force 10 Blast spell wouldn't knock somebody down, no matter what.

EDIT: ninja by bannockburn again

Pre'much.

I could go either way, but my preferred direction is "that way" towards where such shenanigans don't happen (i.e. I'm fine with elemental variations, some of them though are just retarded).

While I agree making melee a 'simple' action is a bit broke and smacks of a DnD'ism... (melee uber alles!). Sorry there's a reason bayonets are rarely used on the battlefield....


I do think there's a good case to be made for making melee into a simple action akin to a long burst... long bursts... you can only make one per initiative pass even though it is a simple action.

That would allow the 'buckaroo' swashbuckler with the sword and pistol... swings over the deck... pops off a shot into one pud... then casually stabs another....

It would also allow for things like readying a melee weapon and attacking with it in the same turn without things like martial powers.

I like this suggestion, sounds very cinematic

on the other hand it opens up the way to first shooting somebody then stabbing them, or the other way around..
no clue on the math, but that also has the potential to be a game breaker.

A stylish game breaker, at least!

point.

Stahl...
As opposed to just shooting the guy twice like you do now?!

I hardly find that any more game breaking at that point.


The biggest problem with that one though... is the multi-attack split dice pool problem. If I'm attacking multiple's or multi-attacking with melee weapons probably best to keep it a complex action and split the pools.

As the real problem with the whole idea is if you allowed a second attack with an off-hand as an extra simple action... especially for the unarmed types this is a real terror. left cross... right cross... knock-out...

If you are unarmed and the opponent has a gun, the first thing to do should be to get the gun, or at least remove it from him. So go first (possibly with Edge) and disarm make a called shot to remove the firearm from his grasp. The disarm maneuver from Arsenal unfortunately does not work against an attack with a ranged weapon.

As has been pointed out before, you are not deflecting the monowhip with your hand, you are moving in such a way that the monowhip does less or no damage to you. That could be blocking the arm and ducking under the whip and all sort of other movements. It most likely will not be positioning your hand in the trajectory of the whip (unless it's a critical glitch)

@Falconer: You cannot make more than one attack per Action phase against a single opponent with Unarmed combat unless you use one of the melee weapons that use the Unarmed Combat skill.

The one thing that really bugs me about this argument is that people keep getting the real-world comparison of lethality and damage of melee weapons versus firearms wrong.

Melee weapons are in fact BRUTAL. I'd much rather be shot twice than take a katana to the chest or a hammer to the head, particularly if the person wielding the weapon is 2.75m tall and weighs 225kg. The amount of force behind even just a punch is simply staggering compared to the amount of force possessed by most bullets. Add in the mechanical advantage of a weapon acting as a lever, as well as the focusing of the energy into the edge or point of a blade, or into the head of blunt weapon, and you've got a recipe for pain.

Why are bullets more effective in modern warfare? Because of tactics and logistics. When you can deliver smaller packets of force to a target from a greater range and at a greater rate, it doesn't matter so much that each individual "attack" is weak - you overwhelm with numbers and with speed. But when it comes to a direct comparison of power, blow for blow? Melee wins every time.

This is already reflected in the mechanics of SR. If you're 50m away from a foe, he can shoot you numerous times before you ever get close enough to make an attack. But if you somehow manage to close the distance and start trading blows? Every one of your melee strikes should be FAR more damaging than any single bullet.

I will readily concede that bullets do have one other benefit - they pierce. Against unarmored foes, bullets are nasty because they can strike deeply and damage internal organs. Indeed, most casualties of firearms die from organ failure of one form or another. But once armor enters into the equation, bullets lose a lot of their lethality. They still hurt, but you're gonna end up with cracked ribs and deep tissue bruises, not perforated lungs and a shredded heart.

In my view, the best way to model this in SR would be to increase the base damage values of melee weapons, but at the same time reduce their armor penetration. The DV should be roughly representative of the amount of force a blow is able to inflict, while the AP should be representative of how easily the blow penetrates. Ballistic weapons should inflict low damage with high penetration. Blunt weapons should inflict high damage with low penetration. And bladed weapons should fall somewhere inbetween, with a sliding scale between slashing weapons and piercing weapons.

~Umi