Booklord's House Rules for Melee Combat
I've GM'd a while now. And I've always found that some parts of Shadowrun simply don't work as well as I'd like. In particular is melee combat. Some of these house rules were decided on my own. Some like the "ignoring an opponent" rule came up during the game when a player attempted something the rules didn't really allow, but made sense.
TARGET MODIFIERS
Reach always raises the target number of the character with the lower reach. It
NEVER lowers the target number of the character with the higher reach.
Having friends in melee does not lower your target number. Your opponent having friends in melee combat does raise your target number.
Character's do not lower there target numbers for having a superior position of if the enemy is prone. Instead their opponent raises their target numbers for Inferior Position or Being Prone.
EXPLANATION
I just don't think target numbers for melee combat should fall below 4 ever. In particular the double effect of Friends in Melee is just too unbalancing. Sometimes I wonder if the writers of Shadowrun ever realize the effects of target modifiers run amok.
USING TWO CYBER SPURS OR RAZORS AT ONCE
Rules for using two weapons at once follow the rules found in Cannon Companion not those in the Shadowrun book ( which raise the power level of the attack ). Only one change. Because of the greater ease in using two cyber-implant weapons as opposed to two swords, the skills cyber-implant weaponry and off-hand cyber-implant weaponry are considered linked. ( Meaning characters without off-hand cyber-implant weaponry can default to the cyber-implant weaponry skill (+2 Modifier) rather then their quickness(+4 Modifier).
COUNTER ATTACKING
Each combat turn takes only a few seconds. So to anyone watching it always looks like the defender is counter-attacking. In game terms the effects are that the defender can NEVER hit the attacker during a melee attack he can only defend ( ala Full defense) Yes, it makes using mono-whips more dangerous, but for some reason that doesn't bother me.
The counter-strike ability of adepts is altered as follows. To use the extra-counter attack dice while attacking in an initiative pass the opponent must either have attacked first or the adept must delay his attack in order to let the opponent attack first. Then the adept may "counter-strike" using the extra dice his power provides.
EXPLANATION
It bugs me that characters with low initiative fighting a high initiative character could get a ridiculous number of attacks in a single turn. It also bugs me when that under the standard rules melee combat almost always ends in after a few attacks.
IGNORING AN OPPONENT
There are instances where a character may want to ignore an opponent. For example an armored troll surrounded by 4 human gangers with baseball bats may choose to ignore 3 of his opponents and concentrate his attack on the 4th. The advantage is that the troll gets to ignore the Opponent has friends in melee target modifier. The disadvantage is that the troll cannot use melee skill dice to defend himself from the ignored gangers' attacks. ( only combat pool dice )
This can also be used when running past someone without attacking him. For example a magician with a bodyguard standing in front of him. The magician absolutely has to be taken out now so the character ignores the bodyguard and runs past him. The bodyguard gets a free interception attack and the character can't use melee skill dice to defend himself. However if the character isn't knocked down or unconscious he'll be able get past the bodyguard regardless of the bodyguard's successes and perform a charging attack on the magician.
WEAPON MANUEVERS
This is more of a different reading of the manuevers then others have had. When I first read the rules on combining martial arts manuevers with weapons, I read it like ---> If a character has three manuevers then takes the "weapon" manuever then he may perform any of the previously learned manuevers with that weapon type. Others use a (single manuever-single weapon) manuever system which in retrospect I believe is probably correct. However I liked the way I'm doing it now so.....(exercise GM powers) ..... that's the way it works.
------------------------------
Any comments? snide remarks? criticisms? ideas? I'm curious what you think.
Full Version: House Rules For Melee Combats
| QUOTE (booklord) |
| Booklord's House Rules for Melee Combat COUNTER ATTACKING Each combat turn takes only a few seconds. So to anyone watching it always looks like the defender is counter-attacking. In game terms the effects are that the defender can NEVER hit the attacker during a melee attack he can only defend ( ala Full defense) Yes, it makes using mono-whips more dangerous, but for some reason that doesn't bother me. The counter-strike ability of adepts is altered as follows. To use the extra-counter attack dice while attacking in an initiative pass the opponent must either have attacked first or the adept must delay his attack in order to let the opponent attack first. Then the adept may "counter-strike" using the extra dice his power provides. EXPLANATION It bugs me that characters with low initiative fighting a high initiative character could get a ridiculous number of attacks in a single turn. It also bugs me when that under the standard rules melee combat almost always ends in after a few attacks. |
I can feel with you on that one. My personal take is to simply extract the Counterattack maneuver from normal melee, and slap it on a few martial arts as additional learnable maneuver. Combatants who want to be able to counterattack have to learn it the normal way, otherwise they are stuck with defending. And who says you can't try to dodge a successful counterattack with CP dice?
I don't see what the deal is everyone has with counterattack. Sure it's annoying, but it makes perfectly good sense. It's why the guy in the wheel-chair who happens to be a blackbelt could still kick your ass, and why the old man meditating in the garden might be able to take you down if you attack him. I've always looked at attacking as engaging in melee, which implies a complex series of actions and maneuvers on both sides of the battle, and the person who is better skilled should and would come out as the better of the two. Honestly I don't think they should ave called it "counter-attack" because it gives people the wrong idea. They should have jsut worded it that player 1 engages in melee with player 2, and the one with the best rolls wins that engagement.
I will however agree with you that being much faster should give you some sort of advantage in that confrontation, in fact I would go so far as to call that advantage "reach" and possibly gve a point or maybe even two to someone who is really, really fast versus someone who is slow. I think this would make sense in situations such as cyberninja versus ganger troll. The troll has long arms, but the ninja is much faster than the troll, and as such the two modifiers cancel each other out. Should be an interesting fight.
I will however agree with you that being much faster should give you some sort of advantage in that confrontation, in fact I would go so far as to call that advantage "reach" and possibly gve a point or maybe even two to someone who is really, really fast versus someone who is slow. I think this would make sense in situations such as cyberninja versus ganger troll. The troll has long arms, but the ninja is much faster than the troll, and as such the two modifiers cancel each other out. Should be an interesting fight.
| QUOTE |
| I don't see what the deal is everyone has with counterattack. Sure it's annoying, but it makes perfectly good sense. |
Problem #1: High Initiative characters get no benefit
Problem #2: Melee Combat over too quickly.
Problem #3: It gives extra actions to characters. ( Under the rules being engaged in melee combat by another effectively gives a character a free action )
| QUOTE |
| It's why the guy in the wheel-chair who happens to be a blackbelt could still kick your ass, and why the old man meditating in the garden might be able to take you down if you attack him. |
Which can still easily happen in my games. Particularly when you see how initiative passes have changed things from Shadowrun 2 to Shadowrun 3.
Example: Old man versus super fast cyber junkie
High skill old man gets 1 action. low skill Cyber-junkie gets 4.
Pass #1 : Cyber junkie engages in melee and misses.
Pass #1 : Old Man hits cyber-junkie doing light wound
Pass #2 : Cyber junkie engages in melee and misses.
Pass #3 : Cyber junkie engages in melee and misses.
Pass #4 : Cyber junkie engages in melee and misses.
Yes, the cyber-junkie might get lucky, but the odds are against him. Personally I think the old man could easily mop the floor with him.
| QUOTE |
| I've always looked at attacking as engaging in melee, which implies a complex series of actions and maneuvers on both sides of the battle, and the person who is better skilled should and would come out as the better of the two. |
I agree completely with this sentiment. However an Initiative pass is aproximately how long it takes to fire two bullets from a handgun. That's hardly enough time to equate to a complex series of actions and manuevers. The system I use stretches it out a little.
| QUOTE |
| I will however agree with you that being much faster should give you some sort of advantage in that confrontation, in fact I would go so far as to call that advantage "reach" and possibly gve a point or maybe even two to someone who is really, really fast versus someone who is slow. |
I've always been a believer that target modifiers are the most unbalancing part of the game. ( I banned the aptitude edge )
One thing I did was too make it so that ties do not go to the attacker in melee combat. I mean, why can't there just be a "draw" where niether oponent is able to hit the other? Anyone who's done any fencing (especially epee, but definately NOT sabre) knows that it is the rule, not the exception, for there to be multiple-minute-long stretches of time where both combatants are hitting each others' weapons, but unable to get past any of each other's defenses.
For counterattacking, I use a house rule whereby the defender can only counterattack if he has actions left in the turn. Otherwise he has to use full defence. This seems to give the higher-initiative guys enough of an advantage.
From what I can see on a players perspective, some of the rules we use. Ties are ties, you don't do any damage to each other. We've never had an issue with counterattack as presented in the book, works just fine for us.
The only issue that we've had come up is melee vs firearms combat.
The only issue that we've had come up is melee vs firearms combat.
I brought this up a while back.
The guy with speed (18+4d6 Ini, Skill 4) should at least stand a chance vs 86 year old Mr Wo (3+1d6 Ini, Skill 12).
But thats all i'm saying cos i was shouted down.
The guy with speed (18+4d6 Ini, Skill 4) should at least stand a chance vs 86 year old Mr Wo (3+1d6 Ini, Skill 12).
But thats all i'm saying cos i was shouted down.
I house-rule it so that Defenders in a melee can counterattack if they take a +1 to their TN while doing so. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of dodge-and-parrying. This still puts the advantage squarely on the attacker, but it means that Bruce Fucking Lee will still mess you up good if you swing at him.
The few times I've used it (it's been a while since I GMed anything), the players have all been fine with it. The really hardcore melee Adept guy still kicked plenty of ass, and it cut down on the "I'm scared to hit him!" reflex that can swiftly build up in Shadowrun for characters with a skill of "only" 4-5.
The few times I've used it (it's been a while since I GMed anything), the players have all been fine with it. The really hardcore melee Adept guy still kicked plenty of ass, and it cut down on the "I'm scared to hit him!" reflex that can swiftly build up in Shadowrun for characters with a skill of "only" 4-5.
Virtual Dogma's (my) Melee combat
This needs to be updater with some things we smoothed over, and levels of things that were adjusted, but it's primarily intact.
We feel it works FAR better than the pointless and stupid techniques listed in the book, while keeping the abstractness of SR's other combat intact. Essentially it fits better with the game world.
This needs to be updater with some things we smoothed over, and levels of things that were adjusted, but it's primarily intact.
We feel it works FAR better than the pointless and stupid techniques listed in the book, while keeping the abstractness of SR's other combat intact. Essentially it fits better with the game world.
I just made one quick rule, to add some variety to the combat. It's partially based in the augmentats in Leyend of the Five Rings. It'd be something like:
If you rise your TN in 1, you rise your power in 1 (from 4S, to 5S, for example).
If you rise your TN in 3, you rise your code in 1 (from 4S to 4D, for example.
It's easy, quick, and adds a little spice to melee combat.
If you rise your TN in 1, you rise your power in 1 (from 4S, to 5S, for example).
If you rise your TN in 3, you rise your code in 1 (from 4S to 4D, for example.
It's easy, quick, and adds a little spice to melee combat.
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| For counterattacking, I use a house rule whereby the defender can only counterattack if he has actions left in the turn. Otherwise he has to use full defence. This seems to give the higher-initiative guys enough of an advantage. |
This is what I did, its a solution that avoids the problem with saying that a defender can never counter - the problem being that the attacker feels assured that he cannot be hit back and so is comfortable not putting any Combat Pool into the attack.
The logic being - well if I hit, great, if not then no harm done, either way I have lots of CP left to defend against my opponent or dodge other attacks.
With this solution there is a chance the guy may counter if he hasn't already acted that Initiative Pass, so an attacker is a little more cautious, or delays until the opponent has attacked and then sneaks in an attack (more tactical as they look for an opportunity to attack).
| QUOTE |
| This is what I did, its a solution that avoids the problem with saying that a defender can never counter - the problem being that the attacker feels assured that he cannot be hit back and so is comfortable not putting any Combat Pool into the attack. The logic being - well if I hit, great, if not then no harm done, either way I have lots of CP left to defend against my opponent or dodge other attacks. With this solution there is a chance the guy may counter if he hasn't already acted that Initiative Pass, so an attacker is a little more cautious, or delays until the opponent has attacked and then sneaks in an attack (more tactical as they look for an opportunity to attack). |
So the attacker who attempts to hit his opponent but holds back ( doesn't use his combat dice ) in case he should miss or his attack does no damage then he will still be able to avoid his opponent's attack. ( which under my system would be on his opponent's action )
I don't see anything inheritantly wrong with that. It makes sense.
A lot of melee fights, particularly between skilled fighters, could be described that way as two opponents circling each other looking for an opportunity. ( using combat pool dice defensively ) When one sees an opening he attacks with all he has. ( uses his combat pool dice for attack ) But should he over-commit and miss then he's left himself wide open for a counter-attack.
The possibility of a counter attack prevents characters who would in reality be too damn scared to try to attack an opponent due to him being significantly less skilled, from making an attack.
Without the possibility of a counterattack you may get the following situation:
Adam has Unarmed Combat 2 and 4 Combat Pool, he is facing an opponent Blaze who has Edged Weapons 6, Improved Edged Weapons 6, Combat Pool 8 and wielding a katana.
Adam's player thinks "Heck, I may as well make an attack as I know I won't get hurt, there is nothing else I can do (I can't even run away due to Blaze blocking the only way out), and if by some fluke I manage to hit, well then great!"
In reality, even if my only way out of a situation was past a katana wielding maniac, I would still be reluctant to attack him unless he is severely distracted (i.e. has just acted). The possibility of a counter attack, gives a reason for that reluctance to be transfered into the game.
Without the possibility of a counterattack you may get the following situation:
Adam has Unarmed Combat 2 and 4 Combat Pool, he is facing an opponent Blaze who has Edged Weapons 6, Improved Edged Weapons 6, Combat Pool 8 and wielding a katana.
Adam's player thinks "Heck, I may as well make an attack as I know I won't get hurt, there is nothing else I can do (I can't even run away due to Blaze blocking the only way out), and if by some fluke I manage to hit, well then great!"
In reality, even if my only way out of a situation was past a katana wielding maniac, I would still be reluctant to attack him unless he is severely distracted (i.e. has just acted). The possibility of a counter attack, gives a reason for that reluctance to be transfered into the game.
| QUOTE |
| Without the possibility of a counterattack you may get the following situation: Adam has Unarmed Combat 2 and 4 Combat Pool, he is facing an opponent Blaze who has Edged Weapons 6, Improved Edged Weapons 6, Combat Pool 8 and wielding a katana. Adam's player thinks "Heck, I may as well make an attack as I know I won't get hurt, there is nothing else I can do (I can't even run away due to Blaze blocking the only way out), and if by some fluke I manage to hit, well then great!" In reality, even if my only way out of a situation was past a katana wielding maniac, I would still be reluctant to attack him unless he is severely distracted (i.e. has just acted). The possibility of a counter attack, gives a reason for that reluctance to be transfered into the game. |
Good example!
Here's how it would work under the way it would go down under my system where everybody uses the Full Defense option. For purposes of this example lets assume that Blaze is demanding that Adam surrender and has delayed his action to see Adam's response. Adam who has nothing to lose tries to hit Blaze.
--Adam engages Blaze in melee combat attacking with 6 dice ( all the combat pool ) against a TN of 5. ( due to reach )
-- Blaze defends rolling 12 skill and improved ability dice against a TN of 4.
-- If by some miracle (or excessive burning of his karma pool) Adam manages to get more successes then Blaze then Blaze under the full defense rules can use however many combat pool dice he wants to avoid Adam's attack. ( TN 4)
Adam's chance of hitting Blaze is insignificant.
--Blaze takes his delayed action. He decides to remove the gnat that is Adam. He engages in melee combat (effectively counter-attacking) Using his skill dice, improved ability dice, and all his combat pool dice he has left. ( probably 20 dice unless Adam was very lucky on his attack ) against a TN of 4.
--Adam defends using his skill dice of 2 against a TN of 5.
--Adam has already used his combat pool dice.
Barring a miracle or the invokation of the hand of god rule. Adam is dead.
The main difference between the standard system and my system is that combat was resolved in 2 actions ( first Adam's attack then Blaze's counter-attack ) instead of 1 action ( Adam's attack ). The end result is the same.
| QUOTE (booklord) |
| Adam engages Blaze in melee combat attacking with 6 dice ( all the combat pool ) |
So you don't use the canon rule that states a character can't use more Pool Dice than Skill Dice?
| QUOTE (booklord) |
| --Adam engages Blaze in melee combat attacking with 6 dice ( all the combat pool ) <snip> --Adam defends using his skill dice of 2 against a TN of 5. --Adam has already used his combat pool dice. |
<nitpick>Adam could only use 2 Combat Pool in his attack for 4 dice as he only has a skill of 2, which would mean he woudl have some left for his defense</nitpick>
Other than that I see how that works. Like I said that is valid, but doesn't simulate the fact the Adam would probably not dare to attack Blaze for fear of getting hacked to pieces.
If Adam could have moved away, he could have attacked Blaze and then run off, and if his movement was greater than Blaze's he would have outdistanced him and prevented Blaze being able to get his attack in.
In the end it is what works best for your group, I personally now run things exactly by the book, using neither house rule
| QUOTE |
| If Adam could have moved away, he could have attacked Blaze and then run off, and if his movement was greater than Blaze's he would have outdistanced him and prevented Blaze being able to get his attack in. |
One of the rules I do follow is the rules about running past someone. And that person therefore getting a free attack. If the attack succeeds then not only has the opponent been hit, but their attempt to move away from the attacker fails.
On another note I'd apply at probably a +2 TN Modifier to attempting to run-away and engage in Melee in the same action.
Oops! you're completely right about the combat pool.
| QUOTE (booklord) | ||
One of the rules I do follow is the rules about running past someone. And that person therefore getting a free attack. If the attack succeeds then not only has the opponent been hit, but their attempt to move away from the attacker fails. On another note I'd apply at probably a +2 TN Modifier to attempting to run-away and engage in Melee in the same action. Oops! you're completely right about the combat pool. |
Sorry, I meant if Adam could run away without going past Blaze (as in the original example), i.e. he could just turn tail and run.
The +2 TN modifier that you would apply to engaging and melee and running away still wouldn't discourage Adam from at least trying to attack.
Anyway, each to his own!
Why not simply restrict the number of times a person can couterattack per round? Something like QCK/2 or QCK/3, so even a beefed up PhysAd with QCK 10 would be able to counter at most 3-5 times in one round.
Alternately, increase the TN by 1-2 for each additional counterstrike after the first? This would give some edge to the faster character (by wearing the defender down).
Alternately, increase the TN by 1-2 for each additional counterstrike after the first? This would give some edge to the faster character (by wearing the defender down).
| QUOTE |
| Why not simply restrict the number of times a person can couterattack per round? Something like QCK/2 or QCK/3, so even a beefed up PhysAd with QCK 10 would be able to counter at most 3-5 times in one round. Alternately, increase the TN by 1-2 for each additional counterstrike after the first? This would give some edge to the faster character (by wearing the defender down). |
Because...........( and this is entirely my opinion
)1) Because I consider a counter-attack to be an action. And the number of actions in a turn should be determined by reaction not quickness.
2) Being able to counter-strike during an attacker's action and getting another action of your own during the same initiative pass effectively gives a character two actions in a single initiative pass.
3) Having a higher reaction should not give the attacker much of an advantage during the first initiative pass. ( where everyone has an action ) In later initiative passes (during the same combat turn) where the attacker has an action and the defender doesn't then it should. ( In which cases the low initiative character can only defend )
4) This also gives a player the option of doing something else on his action rather than attack his opponent. For example throwing his axe at his opponent's mage friend who is about to cast a spell that will hurt a lot more then anything his opponent is about to do to him.
5) Modifier penalties can be incredibly unbalancing.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.