Full Version: Dodging in melee?
Quick basic question: Can one use combat pool dice to perform a dodge test in melee?
only if you're using the Full Defense option, which allows you to use as many cp as you like for dodging. otherwise, you're counterattacking, which means cp use is limited to your melee skill.
Yes, check the rules for full defense on pages 123-124, SR3.
*blinks* aren't dodge tests made up entirely of CP dice?
You have 3 ways of not getting hurt, the passive methods are dodging and your armor ratings. dodge has no dice other than what you put in from CP dice (that's how I remember it). armor ratings use your body dice + CP you add to it.
full defense only lets you roll your melee as normal, but use the results to subtract rom yoru opponents attack. You 'might' be able to add CP dice to that, but I don't believe so. The reason to use full defense is that it allows you to make it even easier to dodge and absorb the beating (since it subtracts from your opponents result).
if dodge or full defense take away all successes, then the attack was avoided or stopped respectively. damage resistance simply lets you tone down what's left to the point where you might not take damage anyway (glancing blow).
Did I somehow mistake melee combat greatly???
You have 3 ways of not getting hurt, the passive methods are dodging and your armor ratings. dodge has no dice other than what you put in from CP dice (that's how I remember it). armor ratings use your body dice + CP you add to it.
full defense only lets you roll your melee as normal, but use the results to subtract rom yoru opponents attack. You 'might' be able to add CP dice to that, but I don't believe so. The reason to use full defense is that it allows you to make it even easier to dodge and absorb the beating (since it subtracts from your opponents result).
if dodge or full defense take away all successes, then the attack was avoided or stopped respectively. damage resistance simply lets you tone down what's left to the point where you might not take damage anyway (glancing blow).
Did I somehow mistake melee combat greatly???
you need to re-read the Full Defense section, pgs 123-124. it says specifically that you can make a Dodge test, once the melee tests are resolved.
*nods* I know that, but I don't recall you not being able to dodge if you did some things. I recall you do opposed checks, and the one with more successes strikes (unless they used Full defense) You could then opted to try and dodge the results using only your CP dice, and then uses body resistance regardless of if you did or not.
if you used dodge and countered the rest of the successes, then you didn't strike, but you managed not to get hit yourself.
used but didn't counter it fully, then you have don't have as many successes to absorb with resistance.
you can choose not to dodge at all, and dedicate CP dice to resistancing.
but when I get my book back, I'll re-read myself. (a friend is borrowing it).
if you used dodge and countered the rest of the successes, then you didn't strike, but you managed not to get hit yourself.
used but didn't counter it fully, then you have don't have as many successes to absorb with resistance.
you can choose not to dodge at all, and dedicate CP dice to resistancing.
but when I get my book back, I'll re-read myself. (a friend is borrowing it).
if you're not doing Full Defense, you can't dodge. you can use cp to supplement your melee skill, though.
| QUOTE |
| You could then opted to try and dodge the results using only your CP dice, and then uses body resistance regardless of if you did or not. |
As mfb said, here is where you are mistaken. The Dodge test only happens if you are using full defense.
Without Full Defense, you do the opposed test, with Combat Pool if you want, and then move right on to damage resistance. Full Defense removes the Combat Pool option from the initial opposed test, but adds the Dodge test.
Evasion maneuver = Good Thing ™.
Ok, thanks - another question - can one end melee combat voluntarily? (Ie. an unarmed character "O" finds himself up against a shotgun carrying ganger. O wins initiative and engages in melee combat. If ganger doesn't want to have a penalty to fire, can he just choose to Walk and move out of combat?)
The way I have been handling it is using the Intercept rules where if he tries to move out, the other combatant gets a free melee attack. Are there rules anywhere for that?
The way I have been handling it is using the Intercept rules where if he tries to move out, the other combatant gets a free melee attack. Are there rules anywhere for that?
So long as the ganger isn't moving past the attacking character, there does not appear to be a rule which lets O attack him. Which is why melee is only for those who can finish it quickly or have their foe cornered.
| QUOTE |
| If ganger doesn't want to have a penalty to fire, can he just choose to Walk and move out of combat? |
The ganger can start to move out of melee range, but remember that movement doesn't happen immediately; it's spread out over the entirety of the round.
| QUOTE (TheScamp) | ||
The ganger can start to move out of melee range, but remember that movement doesn't happen immediately; it's spread out over the entirety of the round. |
But if he has a quickness of the number of initiative passes in this combat or greater (which seems likely, 2-3 required ordinarily, 4 or 5 if there's some insanely wired member of the combat), then he will be 1 meter away this combat phase, and therefore will be able to fire without the modifier.
| QUOTE |
| Interception If movement takes a character within one meter of an opponent, and the character attempts to pass by without attacking the opponent, that opponent can make a free melee attack. |
That situation seems to follow the rules well enough. I know that the phrase "pass by" is what is in question, but unless the "opponent"'s movement was restricted in some way (he's in a doorway, he has orders not to step out into the street, he's paranoid of getting ambushed, he's a dwarf, etc.) then I would apply the rule, personally. The individual doesn't have to completely pass your profile to be "pass"ing "by".
| QUOTE |
| ut if he has a quickness of the number of initiative passes in this combat or greater (which seems likely, 2-3 required ordinarily, 4 or 5 if there's some insanely wired member of the combat), then he will be 1 meter away this combat phase, and therefore will be able to fire without the modifier. |
It's divided across Passes, not Phases. There's a huge difference. He would be 1 meter away by the end of the Pass, or at the point in the following Pass corresponding to where he decided to initiate his movement, depending on how you want to work it.
There's a modifier to firing at someone in melee with you? The "attacker in melee" modifer is explicitly for when you're shooting at someone while someone else is in melee with you. It'd apply if you were in melee with two people, but only at +2.
| QUOTE |
| The "attacker in melee" modifer is explicitly for when you're shooting at someone while someone else is in melee with you. |
No, it's for when "the attacker is attempting to conduct a ranged attack while engaged in melee combat with another opponent, or if he is aware of another character trying to block the attack within two meters of him..." (SR3, p112)
If you're in melee combat and trying to shoot, you get a +2 per opponent no matter who you're aiming at.
If you're shooting the guy in melee with you, he obviously isn't covered by the first clause, and I don't think the secnod clause applies, either. If he intercepts the attack, he's like going to be hit by it.
So, you're saying that the person that the character is in combat with wouldn't qualify as somemeone within 2 meters trying to block that attack?
Depends on what your definition of "block the attack" is. Since you're trying to point the weapon at them, much of what they could do would only assist that (in the case of grappling this is obviously not true, but in the case of most melee involving reach weapons, it would be). Either way, the person standing at 0 meters from the person with the gun is going to get hosed.
| QUOTE |
| Since you're trying to point the weapon at them, much of what they could do would only assist that (in the case of grappling this is obviously not true, but in the case of most melee involving reach weapons, it would be). |
I'm not sure I agree with that, seeing as most of the effort would be to knock the gun off target with whatever was available, but interpret what you like.
| QUOTE |
| Either way, the person standing at 0 meters from the person with the gun is going to get hosed. |
Which is the opposite from how it actually is; the resisting unarmed/melee person has the best chance of being not hosed at 0 meters. It's the 5+ meter range which is the real problem.
I'd much, much rather be 0 meters away from someone with a gun than 5 meters away, if it's me s/he wants to shoot. So would, I am sure, any human being who doesn't want to die. If the letter of the rule in question would not give any penalties when shooting someone who has engaged you in melee, then the rule is stupid and it makes sense for GMs to simply erase "with another opponent" from his mind.
[Edit]I'm slow.[/Edit]
[Edit]I'm slow.[/Edit]
The person engaging in melee doesn't have to take a penalty to his melee attack roll to represent his attempt not to get shot by the person with the gun (one would think this would make it at least somewhat harder to hit someone and deal a lot of damage) so why does the person with the gun take a penalty because of this?
I'm all for introducing a mechanic to deal with it, but as it stand now, it doesn't seem to be quite sensical. Yes, it's harder to shoot someone standing right on top of you trying to punch you, but it's also a lot harder to punch someone if you're spending a good portion of your effort avoiding getting shot.
This is generally a moot point since those who engage in melee often do not generally leave their opponent standing to shoot back.
I'm all for introducing a mechanic to deal with it, but as it stand now, it doesn't seem to be quite sensical. Yes, it's harder to shoot someone standing right on top of you trying to punch you, but it's also a lot harder to punch someone if you're spending a good portion of your effort avoiding getting shot.
This is generally a moot point since those who engage in melee often do not generally leave their opponent standing to shoot back.
Fighting barehanded against someone with a firearm is just a slightly exaggerated version of what happens when you're fighting a guy with a knife barehanded, let alone something like a monoknife or other hitech weapons that only need to touch you to cut right into you. As it is, there's no inherent penalty in fighting barehanded against a dangerous weapon in melee, so it wouldn't make a lot of sense to introduce one for fighting against someone with a gun.
Reach doesn't work as a mechanic for this, because a monoknife doesn't have reach and has to be avoided just as much. Indeed it might be harder to effectively fight barehanded against someone with a monoknife than against someone with a monosword.
Reach doesn't work as a mechanic for this, because a monoknife doesn't have reach and has to be avoided just as much. Indeed it might be harder to effectively fight barehanded against someone with a monoknife than against someone with a monosword.
I see you already have the answere.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Fighting barehanded against someone with a firearm is just a slightly exaggerated version of what happens when you're fighting a guy with a knife barehanded, let alone something like a monoknife or other hitech weapons that only need to touch you to cut right into you. As it is, there's no inherent penalty in fighting barehanded against a dangerous weapon in melee, so it wouldn't make a lot of sense to introduce one for fighting against someone with a gun. |
The difference is that you're talking about two similar (but not the same) mechanics. The effort involved in avoiding the knife is already part of the melee combat test. The effort in avoiding the gun does not appear to be a part of that test, because the skill of the person holding the gun doesn't come into play. If you wanted to allow the guy with the gun to roll his pistols (or whatever) skill in place of unarmed combat, then I can see this working out well enough.
In any case, the way TheScamp previously defined movement (ie, you can start to back away but not gain the effect from it till the end of the pass) made me realize something. How does this definition of the timing of movement jive with melee. Do you require that someone start their pass inside melee range before they can make a melee attack?
Also, if you allow someone being shot at to "intercept" within 2 meters, how do you handle a combatant with a reach of 3? Do they not affect the shooter since they're farther away?
| QUOTE (TinkerGnome) |
| The effort in avoiding the gun does not appear to be a part of that test, because the skill of the person holding the gun doesn't come into play. |
You can get around this by allowing people to "Dodge" and counter-attack with their melee combat skill when someone tries to fire a gun at them within melee range.
I have my own rules concerning initiating and breaking off melee, so the question about movement to make a melee attack don't really count for me.
Reguardless of how you work it, I feel that melee with people holding guns should be left to the experts who can get the job done in a hurry (generally adepts). Anyone rolling fewer than 6 dice before CP should probably learn the lesson of their ways in a body bag.
Which is why my gun focused characters generally just take enough martial arts to get evasion and do a full dodge when they get assaulted. Then they've got a good chance to solve the problem with a firearm... I pitty the non-adept who would jump a guy holding an assault rifle with the skills and cyber to use it propelry. Even with the +2 TN, most melee folk would have a hard time surviving that one.
Which is why my gun focused characters generally just take enough martial arts to get evasion and do a full dodge when they get assaulted. Then they've got a good chance to solve the problem with a firearm... I pitty the non-adept who would jump a guy holding an assault rifle with the skills and cyber to use it propelry. Even with the +2 TN, most melee folk would have a hard time surviving that one.
| QUOTE (TinkerGnome) |
| Reguardless of how you work it, I feel that melee with people holding guns should be left to the experts who can get the job done in a hurry (generally adepts). |
That's a bit backwards when it is a fact in real life that even the most incompetent person is far better of in melee combat with an armed person than they are 5 meters downrange from said armed person.
| QUOTE |
| Which is why my gun focused characters generally just take enough martial arts to get evasion and do a full dodge when they get assaulted. |
That's how I build most of the gunbunnies for my games. That's not at all a bad idea when you've got any semi-reasonable way of handling guns in melee and melee in general.
| QUOTE |
| Even with the +2 TN, most melee folk would have a hard time surviving that one. |
By canon, that may be true. IRL, however, an assault rifle is only a hazard in melee combat. It's almost impossible to get a longarm to point anywhere near the enemy when he's attacking you barehanded -- respectively, a longarm should have far heftier penalties when fired from melee combat.
By all rights, it should be a rare occasion that the melee person gets close enough to the person with the gun to attack them in melee combat without surprise. And in a surprise situation, where the gun character is not going to get to use cp, the melee character should kill him and quickly.
Take the good old example of someone trying to pull a gun when an unarmed person is charging him. No surprise, and it's possible, if not likely, that neither has great unarmed combat skills. It might end in a long wrestling match.
5 meters away from someone with a pistol drawn who wants to kill you, your chances of survival are really fucking slim. If you managed to rush into melee with him, you might have 25-40% chance of coming out alive. That's good enough for most people to try. The fact remains that when that happens IRL, the advantage of the guy with the gun diminishes and almost becomes insignificant.
When two equally skilled people are in that situation, one with a gun and one without, neither capable of neutralizing the other quickly in unarmed combat, the rules should still reflect the fact that it is extremely smart for the unarmed person to try and engage the armed person in melee combat through any possible means.
5 meters away from someone with a pistol drawn who wants to kill you, your chances of survival are really fucking slim. If you managed to rush into melee with him, you might have 25-40% chance of coming out alive. That's good enough for most people to try. The fact remains that when that happens IRL, the advantage of the guy with the gun diminishes and almost becomes insignificant.
When two equally skilled people are in that situation, one with a gun and one without, neither capable of neutralizing the other quickly in unarmed combat, the rules should still reflect the fact that it is extremely smart for the unarmed person to try and engage the armed person in melee combat through any possible means.
| QUOTE |
| The person engaging in melee doesn't have to take a penalty to his melee attack roll to represent his attempt not to get shot by the person with the gun (one would think this would make it at least somewhat harder to hit someone and deal a lot of damage) so why does the person with the gun take a penalty because of this? |
Because a gun only has one method of doing damage. If the barrel isn't pointed at the other guy, you can't shoot him and hit him. If the other guy's got a knife or a sword, he's got a ton of surface area that can make you bleed. If he's got a gun, it only works for a very small area.
If you're unarmed and charging someone with a gun, you can either deal with the person holding the weapon (ie, hitting them hard which is what normal melee combat results are meant to simulate) or deal with the weapon via grappling or disarming (the CC subduing combat and disarming actions). If those two options which very thoroughly deal with weapons weren't available, I'd be much more prone to go with having someone you're fighting count as someone attempting to intercept the attack.
The problem is that the rules cover a wide variety of situations. Take a troll with a polearm vs. a sammie with a pistol built into his cyberhand and then take a guard with an assault rifle vs. a ganger with his bare fists. The rules make it equally hard for the sammy in the first example and the guard to shoot (the lethality of the foe is already paid for in blood, likely). If I were to want to impose a penalty on the guy with the guy, I'd probably want to make a table out of it.
Something like a base TN modifier of +2 plus:
Defender's reach -reach (max -2)
Attacker's weapon is:
Conceal 6 or greater or cybernetic +0
Conceal 4-5 +2
Conceal less than 4 +4
Saving that, if you're running up against a guy with a gun... disarm him or subdue him. Don't rely on your 1337 |\|i|\|jA 5ki11z to save your hoop if you can't knock your foe into next week in short order.
The problem is that the rules cover a wide variety of situations. Take a troll with a polearm vs. a sammie with a pistol built into his cyberhand and then take a guard with an assault rifle vs. a ganger with his bare fists. The rules make it equally hard for the sammy in the first example and the guard to shoot (the lethality of the foe is already paid for in blood, likely). If I were to want to impose a penalty on the guy with the guy, I'd probably want to make a table out of it.
Something like a base TN modifier of +2 plus:
Defender's reach -reach (max -2)
Attacker's weapon is:
Conceal 6 or greater or cybernetic +0
Conceal 4-5 +2
Conceal less than 4 +4
Saving that, if you're running up against a guy with a gun... disarm him or subdue him. Don't rely on your 1337 |\|i|\|jA 5ki11z to save your hoop if you can't knock your foe into next week in short order.
Alright, I'm sure that I am about to make a fool of myself, but could someone please explain to me what 1337 translates to?
l337 or l33t = elite among certain gamer groups. It's stupid, I know, and I use it in a negative fashion 
Thanks for all the ideas and clarifcations - I think I like that table you've got there TG. Anyways, the situation occured last night in a low-power SR game I'm running (BeCKs 225 points) where a PC was caught unarmed by some gangers in a store. He ambushed a one of them who happened to be carrying a StreetSweeper. I gave a +2 TN but kept thinking that it should be a little harder because of the size of it. Anyways, his Karma Pool saved his butt on a failed roll from the gun.
I described it as the ganger trying to wrestle the shotgun to a position where he could fire it as the PC tried to keep him from doing that and hit him instead.
I described it as the ganger trying to wrestle the shotgun to a position where he could fire it as the PC tried to keep him from doing that and hit him instead.
| QUOTE |
| It's stupid, I know, and I use it in a negative fashion |
I figured as much.
| QUOTE (TinkerGnome @ Apr 25 2004, 07:24 PM) |
| l337 or l33t = elite among certain gamer groups. It's stupid, I know, and I use it in a negative fashion |
j0, j00 |)1551|\|' 7|-|3 13375|*34|<? (0/\/\/\/\|_||\|1(4710|\| 15 |=0|2 411 70 |-|4\/3; 5|-|4|23 7|-|3 14|\|6|_|463!
*Ahem*
~J
The fact that you pulled that off raises questions that I would have prefered not to ask, Kagetenshi.
You gotta be shittin' me...
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| j0, j00 |)1551|\|' 7|-|3 13375|*34|<? (0/\/\/\/\|_||\|1(4710|\| 15 |=0|2 411 70 |-|4\/3; 5|-|4|23 7|-|3 14|\|6|_|463! |
Want to see scary?
| QUOTE (translation) |
| Yo, you dissin' the elitespeak? Communication is for all to have; share the language! |
First of all, thank you for the much needed translation, second of all...wow. I'm impressed.
*tips cap*
*tips cap*
| QUOTE (moosegod) |
| The fact that you pulled that off raises questions that I would have prefered not to ask, Kagetenshi. |
What questions?
~J
What's to stop your firearm user to just take a step back and out of melee range and take a shot without penalty? Or would he get the attacker walking penalty +2 so it's pointless?
While we're at it, do movement penalties effect Melee combat? Such as a charging (running) character getting +4?
While we're at it, do movement penalties effect Melee combat? Such as a charging (running) character getting +4?
Yes, movement penalties affect melee combat. See the description of Movement in the section that describes the Combat Turn. Movement penalties affect all success tests.
P.S. However, I personally don't apply the running penalty to the Athletics Test to increase Running speed.
P.S. However, I personally don't apply the running penalty to the Athletics Test to increase Running speed.
i don't use movement penalties for melee, because they're not on the melee chart. they are on the ranged combat chart, which makes its absence from the melee modifier list conspicuous. movement modifiers are also not noted in the rules for charging attacks, in CC; a minimum +1 modifier in melee is extremely important--it makes charging useless, as a matter of fact, as +1 power isn't anywhere near worth a +1 TN. if it applied, it would be mentioned here. it also seems off, to me--i've never seen a fight where those involved just stand in place and throw punches.
| QUOTE (20thCenturyFox @ Apr 26 2004, 02:14 AM) |
| What's to stop your firearm user to just take a step back and out of melee range and take a shot without penalty? |
Well, there were two reasons this got taken out of the discussion. #1 was the idea that movement was only complete at the end of the phase (which I disagree with, unless you pull the same thing on the melee guy as the guy with the gun) and #2 is that in a round with 3+ passes, not everyone gets to move the requisite 2m a pass to get out of the 2m range if you're accepting the guy you're shooting as someone attempting to interfere.
Personally, I believe that melee is for the very skilled or the desperate. If you're desperate and you're punching to knock the guy with the gun out, you're making a mistake because you should be subduing or disarming him instead (ie, dealing with the gun directly). I feel that if you're concentrating on punching/stabbing your foe in the head, you are either confident that you can take care of him (a pretty realistic estimation for most melee characters) in one shot or wound him badly enough that he'll miss, or you've got him cornered (ie, he can't retreat without getting hit more).
If you allow allow a character to back out of melee and fire at the guy attacking him with no penalty (aside from the likely wound modifiers he's taken and movement penalties). If you do the above and he can't get out of melee combat (ie, cornered), I'd impose the penalty (or expand the penalty to account for the reach of the combatants and/or the size of the gun).
If you don't allow the person to leave melee until the end of the phase, then I'd not allow a melee attack until the phase after the person arrives in melee range... it's only fair.
eh, no sane person would try subduing combat in SR.
I did say desperate. I'd also rule that if you've grasp (grasped?) your opponent, they're not able to move away or use ranged weapons, as well.
yeah, but the roll to escape only requires one success. gaaayyyy...
To even grasp the enemy takes a lot of luck or one hell of an advantage in skill. +2 TN on the initial melee test? No thanks.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.