Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Melee Combat
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
GrinderTheTroll
One of the things I don't like about SR melee is the base TN of 4. Personally, I think melee combat should be an Opposed Test, where your TN should be the skill of your opponent. This would favor the more skilled fighter over the weaker one. I'd also eliminate the "tie goes to the attacker" and say net successes would be "no result" as can happen if you have 2 equally skilled fighters that can't get an opening on the other combatant. The results (net successes) would do more than just stage up the damage code, they would be used to "purchase" Techniques and Options.

Net successes can be ignored (no damage dealt) or they may be spent on atleast one Technique. Each Technique can only be choosen once while Options can be choosen multiple times. Options can only be choosen if atleast one Technique has been choosen. Remaining un-spent successes can be ignored. "Basic Strike" must be the first Techinique choosen (if any).

Options only apply to one damage code, so in the case of multiple damage codes, Options would need to be purchaed for each as desired.

For example:

Techniques:
------------------------
1 = *Basic Strike combination (STR)M Stun
2 ... = Parry/Evade/Position (no damage, but position either yourself, opponent or both (you+him) 1m from initial point of attack.)
2 ... Attack does Stun instead of Physical
3 ... = **Throw (Opponents Body)M Stun + Auto-Knockdown
--OR---
3 ... = **Throw (Oppenents Body)M Stun + Position Opponent (1m adjacent to inital attack)
3 ... = Attack does Physical instead of Stun
3 ... = Armor Bypass (ignore armor or perhaps 1/2 it's value)

Options:
--------------------
1 ... = +1 Power (choose attack)
1 ... = Stage-down wound level (choose attack)
2 ... = Stage-up wound level (choose attack)


* The damage code of the "Basic Stike" represents the base damage code of the weapon being used during melee combat.

** Regular Knockdown rules still apply.

Some example of how to handle 4 net-successes:

a) Basic Strike combo +3 Power = (STR+3)M Stun
b) Basic Strike combo + Physical intead of Stun = (STR)M
c) Throw + Knockdown +1 Power = (Opponent's Body+1)M Stun + Auto-Knockdown
d) Basic Strike combo + Parry +1 Power = (STR+1)M Stun + Position
e) Basic Strike combo + Armor Bypass = (STR)M Stun (ignore armor or 1/2)
f) Basic Stike combo + Throw + Auto-Knockdown = (STR)M + STR(M) + Auto-Knockdown.
g) ...etc.

Strikes that do Physical damage already (Killing hands, weapons, etc.) would only be allowed to use the "Armor Bypass" option instead of choosing to do Physical damage instead of Stun. Strikes that do Stun damage already would have to use the "Stage down the wound level" per the Option instead of the "do Stun instead of Physical" effect as the Technique dictates.

Not a final draft here, but it's something I've been considering to help direct melee combat in a direction I find more digestable.

Suggestions are welcome.
Crusher Bob
Opposed TN = skill is a very bad idea. The guy with the higher skill wins all the time. (I won't go ovwer the math, as it's been discussed on Dumpshock plenty of times before).
GrinderTheTroll
My goal was to model this after what its like dealing with two combatants with varied skill. I don't like that each person uses a generic TN=4 for performing melee combat, how well you can do should be pitted againt your opponent. If nothing else, perhaps an Open Test by each, but I like the idea of using an Opposed Test.
Deacon
The base TN of 4 is a system-wide mechanic. What you're proposing is to change that mechanic for the express purpose of melee combat. This is a bad idea; what it essentially does is change the basic system for one area of gameplay.

Besides, even with the base TN 4 system, the person with the higher skill still usually wins the test. However, in hand-to-hand combat, a person with less skill can still sometimes beat a person with much greater skill; even the newbie sometimes gets lucky. The system represents that already.

The concept of two combatants with varied skill is already inherent in the system. Remember that the person with the higher test wins the combat test, meaning that for a lesser opponent, closing to hand-to-hand is a foolish idea, since every Unarmed Test means they'll take damage.
Sahandrian
The main problem I see with using the skill of the opponent in a opposed roll is when you have two highly skilled fighters facing off. If two world-class swordsmen have Edged Weapons 12 each, then they'd have to hit 12s to ever harm each other. That's bad enough, but just imagining the duels between Harlequin and Ehran with the skill levels they're supposed to have...
toturi
QUOTE (Sahandrian)
The main problem I see with using the skill of the opponent in a opposed roll is when you have two highly skilled fighters facing off. If two world-class swordsmen have Edged Weapons 12 each, then they'd have to hit 12s to ever harm each other. That's bad enough, but just imagining the duels between Harlequin and Ehran with the skill levels they're supposed to have...

We'll probably fall asleep watching the Olympics fencing or boxing then.
Austere Emancipator
TN = 2 x (Opponent Melee Skill Rating)^0.5 ?
No, I'm not being serious. Such a system for increasing TNs would be nice in that it would allow those cinematic face-offs between 2 highly skilled opponents. Currently if 2 characters with Edged Weapons 12 and swords face off, the fight isn't going to last long, probably for 2 Initiative passes or so. However, the negative outweighs the positive in this case.
Crusher Bob
here's a quick table of AE's proposal:

skill tn
1____3
2____3
3____4
4____4
5____4
6____4
7____5
8____5
9____5
10___5
11___5
12___5
13___6
14___6
15___6
16___6
Austere Emancipator
Shouldn't it be 2 at Skill = 1? It actually looks pretty good when you put it like that, although it still makes skill a bit too important for my tastes.

[Edit]Which way is it that we should always round numbers?
CODE
Skill      TN
  1        2
  2        2.83
  3        3.46
  4        4
  5        4.47
  6        4.9
  7        5.29
  8        5.66
  ...
  12       6.93
  ...
  16       8
The numbers you used are far better, though. Fuck the math if you're going to use a table anyway.[/Edit]
Crusher Bob
Ah, there's the problem, I used 2 + sqrt(skill) rather than 2 x sqrt(skill)...
Austere Emancipator
Oh, OK. Yours is definitely much better.
GrinderTheTroll
So I see we all got hung-up on the Opposed-Test suggestion, so the rest is perfect eh? Aside from the obvious objections to this (use it as you wish) what about the other ideas presented here?

I don't like the "Manuevers" presented in CC reguarding martial arts. As opprotunities present themselves (in the form of net-successes) you should have more freedom to do as you wish.
Cain
One thing I don't like about the SR system is that there's no means for both combatants to be injured in a clash. I'd prefer a system where no net successes results in damage to both parties, with a slight downgrade in damage for the attacker.
Fortune
I actually prefer no net successes to mean no damage on either part.
SirKodiak
QUOTE
One thing I don't like about the SR system is that there's no means for both combatants to be injured in a clash. I'd prefer a system where no net successes results in damage to both parties, with a slight downgrade in damage for the attacker.


QUOTE
I actually prefer no net successes to mean no damage on either part.


I agree with the second decision, partly because simultaneous-hits are pretty rare in combat.

Anyways, if you want to allow for both just flip a coin, or something, after a draw on the test: heads is both got hurt, tails is neither.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012