Lantzer-I like that too. A small advantage, and one that tips the scale in the case of a near-tie, but not something to ever let a speedy moron beat a slow master.

I saw the point. Ignoring ties is one reason that you have a problem with the melee system.

No, I'm dissatisifed with the way Reflexes are handled in melee combat. I also don't care for the ties-go-to-one-side-or-the-other rule (which specifically only applies to melee combat and a rare few other instances in the game -- so it was quite deliberate). Those are 1) two seperate things and 2) hardly the sum of how melee combat is handled.

But if either of you feel like arguing the point for why it makes sense and why NO chance -- none, zip, zilch, nadda -- for a tie should exist in melee, feel free to offer it up.

Well, ties going to the attacker is a benefit to those who go initiate an attack = those that go first = those with higher initiative. Then again, that reasoning breaks down since everyone gets a chance to attack, but higher initiative means more attacks. If you meant some reason that had anything to do with the way fighting "works" in the real world; I don't have one.

I like the idea of limiting counter attacks, but I don't know if I like one Simple Action for one counter attack. A Complex Action allows an infinite number of attacks in one turn (with added difficulty), and the difficulty of countering multiple enemies is built into Friends-in-Melee. Perhaps the spent Simple Action lasts until the next turn for the defender. When a character is out of turns, they still lose the ability to counter attack.

edit. Clarifying. I don't propose you change the rules in your game, but I'm curious about your opinion on my little revision.

I'm cool with just allowing one counterattack per available attack. We just enjoy the Simple Action aspect of it in our games. It demonstrates that an aggressive attacker can keep the opponent off balance (just enough to cause a counterattack, but not initiate a full attack themselves), while still giving the defender some options if and when his turn comes up, even if one of those isn't the ability to initiate an attack themselves. For instance, if he's facing multiple opponents he can "pass" his turn and use the remaining Simple Action to make another counterattack. Or he can use it to disengage and try to find cover. Or pull away and shoot a pistol. Or etc.

I am just going to give my option without reading any posts ... so excuse me if I repeat what someone else said.

My in house rule for this is simple.
1) Attacker tn is 4 plus any modifiers
2) Defender can counter attack with a tn equal to the SKILL of the attacker or 4, which ever is higher. Normal modifiers apply.

For example an Attacker as a skill of 6 and Defender has a skill of 4. Even if the defender has more actions then the attacker, the defender is at a disadvantage.

This resolves all problems any of my SR groups have ever had with melee combat. The advantage clearly goes to the attacker, assuming they have any real skill and if the attacker doesn't have skill ... why are they doing melee attack?

As a black belt, this rule makes perfect sense. My discipline focuses on self-defense and it isn't easy. Defense is much easier when you are the aggressor. If you are reacting or 'responding' to a attack, you are at a significant disadvantage. Only with enough training can you effectively defend yourself from an attacker or group of attackers.

If nothing more, it's a balance issue. It would make augmented reflexes too powerful and would be wholly unfair all around. It also falls in line with a similar rule from ranged combat that's found in the Cannon Companion, namely the optional Athletics and Dodging rule on page 97. At least philosophically.

Since you both seem to admit that the blocking thing is not realistic but still a desirable part of the game, I submit that some people find counterattacking the same way. It's just personal preference.

Anyway, that's how it is with me. I happen to like the way counterattacking works, and its minor silliness has never been so extreme as to jerk me out of the game with feelings of disbelief. I find it a desirable part of the game.

I totally understand that and realize it really does come down to a personal preference. I'm just saying that as it stands, it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

In Shadowurn, boxing has got to be really boring, especially since it would almost never last more than a round (two minutes, or approximately 40 Combat Turns). With ties being ties, one can almost accept that it might be possible to last several minutes between two equally competent opponents. But as it stands... that's just not gonna happen.

Assume that average boxers are Body 6 and Strength 6. Their punches deliver 6M Stun on a tie. With Body 6 and even Combat Pool 6, that's not enough to reliably reduce each and every blow away to nothing, so they're going to be taking at least a Light wound every phase. And even for unaugmented boxers scoring only an Initiative of 9 or lower, 40 Turns is a loooong time. And that's just for one round.

A very long time. Of course (thinking back to plebe year) it _is_ a very tiring few seconds.

The sport in SR rules has a little hope due to the combat turns spent dancing around
and jockeying for position. Boxing is one of the many sports that consists of:

Begin!
wait
wait
wait
flurry of action
wait
wait
flurry of action
wait
flurry of action
DING!

Begin!...

Even if you call ties full blocks the fight only lasts a few rounds. It's only remotely concievable that it lasts more than a minute.


And I'm glad that my point came across. If we're going to be unrealistic about melee lets do it in the way that we like the best.

Boxing gloves are padded to reduce damage, so they shouldn't do the full (Str)M barehanded damage. Might be 4M or 6L.

On the other hand, because TN modifiers are so overwhelmingly significant, the first guy who takes even an L Stun is almost guaranteed to lose every single pass after that, by increasingly large margins, and will probably go down within three passes.

HELL yes. Once you start losing in melee combat, odds are, you're going to keep losing. (Just try hand-to-hand with a Fenrir Wolf when you already have a medium. But i digress...) Which is why i like this rule, being both speedy AND almost exlusively melee (and souped up with lots of pain resistance).

Actually I think Lantzer, despite his somewhat condescending attitude, is on to something... bonus dice do provide an edge without being as completely overpowering as TN mods.

I propose a simplification: every bonus die granted by reflex augmentation also counts as a bonus die in melee tests. As such, your unaugmented grand master martial artist with skill 8-9 will generally not lose to your wired III speed demon with a skill of 4-5... but when that speed demon starts getting into martial arts skill of 6-7 mr grandmaster is going to start feeling the hurting.

It might not be *as much* of a bonus as some people would like (limiting number of possible defense actions provides a much more powerful edge to augmented characters), but its certainly easy to calculate, that calculation stays as long as the character's initiative dice remain unchanged, and it provides a consistent edge that is more meaningful against low skilled opponents than highly skilled ones. I like it.

In my totally uninformed opinion, I suggest limiting the number of bonus dice to the applicable skill rating. Something doesn't seem right about a character with Unarmed Combat 1, but Boosted Reflexes 3 and Synaptic Accelerator 2 getting an effective melee combat skill of 6. If only using pure "reaction dice" it should probably also count as defaulting to an attribute. Do you think these dice should be allowed to add on to defaulting to Strength?

I'd say more that you should just limit the bonus to skill or half skill, assuming you want to go this route. Personally, I still dislike making speed and skill mechanical equivalents.

Oh, I forgot to ask; Do magical increases to Initiative dice count too? Does it stack with the adept's Improved Ability? All things to consider.

My problem with allowing a major reflex difference provide some kind of solid bonus is that it winds up making augmented reflexes a "must have" in melee situations. I really do like the idea of an unaugmented combatant being able to hold his own in a fight, but by giving some kind of Reach or die bonus, that kind of melts the concept right away.

It's not a must have, but it helps. Ranged attacks are pretty much one-sided; you shoot, they die. You're not vulnerable to a direct attack, let alone counterattack, due to your direct actions at any time during that exchange. Sure, the other guy(s) can shoot at you, but that's an independant action all its own.

Plus, as mentioned, reflexes are already pretty gosh-darn desireable even as they stand in melee situations now where they don't really mean much of anything. If you make it a must-have in melee, you make melee way too dependant on reflexes... at least for my personal tastes.

Entropy Kid: I would say yes on both. As a note, I personally use a houseruled version of the Improved Reflexes spell, so you might want to consider it more carefully. There are no compatability problems with improved ability because the bonus dice function as a pool.

ACL: I see your point, but I personally have no problem saying: sure, unaugmented characters can hold their own. They just have to be more skilled, or grant themselves some sort of personal edge (such as a weapon with reach) to do so. [Edit: Misread your first post, formulated different reply.]

Arethusa: While I do understand your reluctance to a certain degree, I also figure that the dice bonus is *very* similar to that granted by a reflex recorder or enhanced articulation. Those are clear canon examples of speed and precision of movement functioning as skill dice. Have you houseruled those?

To be fair, I've calculated the speed advantage at equal skill to be roughly 60/40 in favor of the attacker. To me, that's a sufficient edge. YMMV, of course.

However, one other house rule that I've been toying with is that both combatants have to soak melee damage when attacking. You both dish out your base damage to one another, and you use your successes to soak down the damage you take or stage up the damage you do. I also am toying with saying that you're on Full Defense until your action comes up; then you stay in whatever mode you selected until your next action.

Oh-- almost forgot, the person who's attacking is the one who does base damage. The other guy is dealing Base -1 Level; so the "attacker" in melee does Str M stun, while his opponent deals a base Str L stun. I really don't find it realistic at all that two equally-skilled combatants can't hurt each other in a clash.

What do you think? I never really tested this rule, so I don't know how it'll play.

True enough; but we're discussing skilled opponents. If an attacker only has a skill of 1, we all agree that he should be paste against a trained opponent, regardless of speed.

I'm more interested in what people think of the house rule I developed. I think it's more realistic, and it also solves what people see as a problem. Yes, the "attacker" can get hurt, regardless of how fast he moves; but he can also hurt the "defender" in the process.

I think this is your main problem, Cain. You keep assuming either two highly skilled opponents or one inferior one taking on one highly trained one.

Assume everyone has a Skill of 1 from this point forward.

That doesn't really help much either. Give them some nice reach 2 whips and the combat is a woeful 85/15 split in favor of the attacker. Go speed racer.


The lesson? Throw statistics out the window and only address what we see to be broken in actual gameplay

I'm not referring to stats. I'm referring to concepts. He wants to keep seeing a master somewhere in the equation. I'm asking him to see it as two or more Skill 1 opponents facing off.

A thought occured to me in the shower this morning.
The turn based combat system is in no way realistic, so most of the fixes we're trying to attach to it are just clumsy or bulky or both.
Try this.

Melee attacks are handled as always. Both guys roll against a TN of 4, plus or minus modifiers.
If the attacker wins, he damages his opponent, staged up with extra successes. If the defender wins, he doesn't take damage. If the defender DOUBLES the attackers successes, he makes a successful counterattack, doing damage, and staged up by extra successes.
This gives the attacker a much bigger advantage, while still meaning that if you are outclassed, you are outclassed. This mostly fixes the speed issue without a lot of complicated rules.

Ex:
Bill the Samurai, Katana 9
Jim the security guard, Club 4

Jim attacks, gets 3 successes.
Bill defends, gets 7 successes.
Bill does Str +3 M

Bill attacks, gets 3 successes.
Jim defends gets 4 successes.
No one gets hurt.

At skill one, The defender has a 1 in 4 chance of winning, while the attacker has a 50% chance of winning. Assuming TN4 we get:

<just rolls his eyes> It's amazing what little clue you have.

I couldn't care less about numbers or averages in this discussion. I'm discussing the actual logic used therein. Cain likes to argue along the lines of "it makes perfect sense that a slow grandmaster can whip around and destroy four superfast newbies who are attack him!!!" but that argument holds no water whatsoever if they're all newbies... even though the same exact effect is still possible. Skill level has NO place in this discussion as far as I'm concerned, it's a completely seperate aspect of the problem despite your preference to say it isn't.

So in a nutshell you want to argue the effectiveness of people who don't know what the heck they're doing?

Nope. I'm arguing about the stupidity of this particular rule despite skill level. It doesn't matter how skilled or how unskilled they are, in all cases they're gaining superhuman reflexes above and beyond mere mortal capabilities. Hell, they're even gaining reflexes up to four times or more (the penalties for multiple opponents is limited to +4/-4, not the actual number of them).

Some newb who just barely has Whirling comes under attack by 16 Force 1 ally spirits sustaining Increase Reflexes 3D6 on themselves somehow just transfered the equivalence of 64D6 dice and 16 or higher Reaction to that newb. Not only does he have a +1 TN bonus on his attackers, easily swaying the "ties go to the attacker" stupidity, but he's at FULL effectiveness against ALL 16 of those attackers, moving at blinding speeds beyond the comprehension of even immortal elves and great dragons. All thanks to his crappy skill of 1. He's attacking from every angle, at blinding speeds, with perfect accuracy and no worries about not being able to keep up. None whatsoever.

With stupid rules like that in question, stupid examples are just as valid.

I see your point, but in reality, outside of a completely fabricated example like the one above, I have never, ever had that happen in a SR game. I don't think I've ever seen more than 3 consecutive melee tests in a row before the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Since it has never come up, and I don't see it coming up in the future unless someone goes out of their way to try, I don't see a problem with it.

I can completely agree things get stupid when you deliberately try to make them stupid, but in game I have never even had close to that problem.

So Lime, what do you think of my idea. It seems some what to fix the problem that was origonally brought up, mostly, doesn't it?

Is your argument seriously that broken rules don't need fixing because they don't come up much?

I was just using a stupid example to demonstrate the problem as clearly as I could. Sure, it rarely comes up, but that is the part that people (myself at least) find dissatisfying about it.

Your rules have a lot of potential, Bearclaw, or at the very least goes a long way to avoiding some of the biggest problem with it. However, I don't have a problem with a standard counterattack. I don't think it should be any more difficult than it currently is most of the time. My beef is with the number of counterattacks available under the current rules.

It wouldn't be so mad if one part of it wasn't such an easy thing to fix (limiting the number of counterattacks a character could make) or that the other wasn't a deliberate move outside established rules (ties going to the attacker).

All they have to say is something like "ties are ties" and "characters are limited to one counterstrike (or maybe one-half their skill level in counterstrikes) per phase."

Two little changes like that would go a long way to making it more believable all around.