That was SR2. In SR3 there were only specializations, no concentrations, and they split the firearms up. You ended up having Pistols, or Pistols (Ruger Super Warhawk), but no Pistols (Revolvers).
~J
Full Version: Munchkin-Fu
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| If you'll reread the thread, the "munchkin" issue at hand is Unarmed Combat (Martial Arts), which reasonably applies to every use of unarmed combat. To a lesser extent Pistols (Semiautomatics), which applies to nearly all pistols and certainly the most commonly-used ones. ~J |
OK, thanks for the clarification. I was reading at work, so I had to be a little sneaky and missed that. I agree about the Unarmed (MA) , but I am not so sure of pistols (semiautomatics) being a problem. I guess I don't have enough experience with things that go bang.
I would be OK using a martial art as your skill, completely replacing the unarmed skill. specializing to subduing, offensive, etc as required.
I would prefer it if you just had a "close combat" skill, and then you could get "styles" for it like magicians get "spells" for their "spellcasting" skill.
So you would pay a flat fee to apply your close combat skill to swords, or stun batons, or monowhips. I don't think that people should have to start over as teh n008 every time they decide that they want a new weapon or martial arts style. It isn't realistic, and it encourages boring melee (I stab him with my trident, again, because it's the only weapon I'm good with!)
-Frank
So you would pay a flat fee to apply your close combat skill to swords, or stun batons, or monowhips. I don't think that people should have to start over as teh n008 every time they decide that they want a new weapon or martial arts style. It isn't realistic, and it encourages boring melee (I stab him with my trident, again, because it's the only weapon I'm good with!)
-Frank
I have no problem with Close Combat (Martial Arts). I would just rule that the specialization does not help any time any of the other listed specializations for the skill (ie. Grappling, Subduing, etc) would come into play.
This is exactly the meaning of specialization (and yes, a lot of people will have "Martial Arts" or "Semiautomatics" as specialization).
SYL
SYL
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| I have no problem with Close Combat (Martial Arts). I would just rule that the specialization does not help any time any of the other listed specializations for the skill (ie. Grappling, Subduing, etc) would come into play. |
A lot of single martial art help for almost any combat manoeuvre.
Having "martial artS" as a specialization of close combat makes no sense at all
- What kind of fighting are you specialized in ?
- Cappoeara, Kung fu wushu (hung gar shuan, tang lang shuan), Aikido, viet vodao, mue thai ...
'Martial Arts' seems to be SR4 code for 'Offensive'. 
It doesn't hurt to use the rules for Augmented Skill Ratings though - in fact, when using Skills as First Aid or the suggested rules for limiting Hits/rolls by Skil, this is beneficial.
It doesn't hurt to use the rules for Augmented Skill Ratings though - in fact, when using Skills as First Aid or the suggested rules for limiting Hits/rolls by Skil, this is beneficial.
How do people like the new toned down melee system? I liked the way in the previous system you could slip a blow on an opponent when he opened up to attack. This also seemed to compensate for the fact that you had to spend a complex which cut your actions in half. SR4 only allows the attacker to inflict damage with the possible effects of glitches.
| QUOTE (Arz) |
| How do people like the new toned down melee system? |
It's absolutely fantastic. Gone are the days when an adept kills his enemies faster when they have wired reflexes.
| QUOTE |
| I liked the way in the previous system you could slip a blow on an opponent when he opened up to attack. |
It was a cool idea, but the implementation meant that:
1. The best fighter never took any hits on him ever.
and
2. There was no meaningful advantage to attacking vs. being attacked.
Both of those effects were, frankly, pretty lame. That's all done away with. If all I have to give up is the possibility of people getting extra attacks because their enemies are super fast, that's a "sacrifice" I'm willing to make. Twice.
-Frank
Winning ties is a very meaningful advantage.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Sep 18 2005, 09:57 AM) |
| Winning ties is a very meaningful advantage. |
I don't consider that advantage to be all that great. In all my years of GMing Shadowrun, I can count on two hands (and still have fingers left over) the amount of times a tie came up in melee.
I'll run the probabilities more fully in the morning, but unless I did the math wrong it should happen, for example, over one in five times when two opponents with six dice and no other mods face off. I would not call that small.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| I'll run the probabilities more fully in the morning, but unless I did the math wrong it should happen, for example, over one in five times when two opponents with six dice and no other mods face off. I would not call that small. ~J |
22.5% in fact. Except that:
People actually use combat pool, have modifiers (including reach and wound penalties), and different levels of skill. For the same people using combat pool and thus rolling 12 dice each, it's only a 16% chance of a tie (before rerolls) - and every roll after that isn't going to be anywhere near even because one guy or the other will have injury penalties.
In reality, ties almost never happen. I have literally seen 3 ties ever in melee resolution. E-var. People who get into close combat on purpose either do so as part of large groups (such as Watcher based astral gank packs), or because they are super adept ninja masters. Ties were an extremely minor occurence. The actual question was "Are you hard core (or numerous) enough?" If the answer was "no", you didn't gain anything by swinging your crowbar, you inconvenienced your opponent more by just standing there yelling discouragement.
-Frank
Assuming a TN of 4, equal dice for both parties, the probability of a tie is:
1 die: 25.000%
2 dice: 31.250%
3 dice: 29.688%
4 dice: 26.953%
5 dice: 24.512%
6 dice: 22.534%
7 dice: 20.941%
8 dice: 19.637%
9 dice: 18.547%
10 dice: 17.620%
11 dice: 16.819%
12 dice: 16.118%
13 dice: 15.498%
14 dice: 14.945%
15 dice: 14.446%
16 dice: 13.995%
17 dice: 13.583%
18 dice: 13.206%
I'll start looking at unequal die quantities (and unequal TNs after that, both of which will make a larger difference than attacking first—as well they should!), but regardless of what your anecdotal evidence says, when all else is equal the winner-takes-ties rule is not only significant, it is decisive. We're not talking small probabilities here.
~J
1 die: 25.000%
2 dice: 31.250%
3 dice: 29.688%
4 dice: 26.953%
5 dice: 24.512%
6 dice: 22.534%
7 dice: 20.941%
8 dice: 19.637%
9 dice: 18.547%
10 dice: 17.620%
11 dice: 16.819%
12 dice: 16.118%
13 dice: 15.498%
14 dice: 14.945%
15 dice: 14.446%
16 dice: 13.995%
17 dice: 13.583%
18 dice: 13.206%
I'll start looking at unequal die quantities (and unequal TNs after that, both of which will make a larger difference than attacking first—as well they should!), but regardless of what your anecdotal evidence says, when all else is equal the winner-takes-ties rule is not only significant, it is decisive. We're not talking small probabilities here.
~J
Provided I did my code right:
As you can see, a less-skilled opponent can very significantly increase their chances of success by getting that first strike. Does it make up for the difference in overall probability of success due to skill difference? No, nor should it. Regardless, in even relatively large skill differences (10% at 2 dice vs 6 dice, just under 10% at 7 dice vs. 12 dice) ties happen a very significant amount of the time.
~J
[ Spoiler ]
As you can see, a less-skilled opponent can very significantly increase their chances of success by getting that first strike. Does it make up for the difference in overall probability of success due to skill difference? No, nor should it. Regardless, in even relatively large skill differences (10% at 2 dice vs 6 dice, just under 10% at 7 dice vs. 12 dice) ties happen a very significant amount of the time.
~J
Now with TNs from 2 to 10 on each side.
Some highlights:
4 dice at TN 6 vs 6 dice at TN 4: 6.82990933642%
12 dice at TN 6 vs 12 dice at TN 5: 11.9338171235%
12 dice at TN 6 vs 16 dice at TN 5: 6.05581435205%
It's a big swing even when both TN and die total are unfavourable.
(Full results below. Warning, it's long.)
Edit: the board truncated them. I've got them if anyone wants a copy.
~J
Some highlights:
4 dice at TN 6 vs 6 dice at TN 4: 6.82990933642%
12 dice at TN 6 vs 12 dice at TN 5: 11.9338171235%
12 dice at TN 6 vs 16 dice at TN 5: 6.05581435205%
It's a big swing even when both TN and die total are unfavourable.
(Full results below. Warning, it's long.)
Edit: the board truncated them. I've got them if anyone wants a copy.
~J
Interesting stuff...
I kinda like the idea in SR3 that you could enter a melee and when somebody engage you, you could get the better of him, even if you where defending yourself. What was very lame was the fact that you where actually gaining speed if somebody faster than you attack you (you became as quick as a wired sammy if you where on defense...)
I houserule it for SR4. I think i got the better of the two system...
You can always enter the melee and try to get the best of your opponent. I make it work just like the dodge skill. If you choose to have the possibility to hit the opponents that is or are attacking you, it take your next action(same mechanic as dodge) and you roll in an oppose test. On a tie, he beat you and deal damage. If you get the beat of him, you deal damage. If you're attacked again in the round an have no more action, you can always get into the contest again but with a -1 die penalty(as dodge mechanic) for each test after the first.
That houserule keep the realistic feeling to the melee and take up your next action. Now, i know that a fight between a wired-3 punk without brawl against an unwired old kung-fu master (7 in unarmed combat) will make the old geezer look a lot faster than usual, but at least it's an idea...
I think i would rather allow this rule only for 1 extra initiative pass, for realism sake. For example, the old kung-fu master attacked by two punks with wired reflex at 3 (and almost no unarmed skills) could have a decent chance to hit them in the first initiative pass(where he have an action) and also in the second initiative pass (where he use my house rule). On the subsequent rounds, he could only defend himself as stated under the regular SR4 rules. If the old master as wired reflex level-2, he could take them as long as he want (if he can get over the penalty).
So what do you think?
I kinda like the idea in SR3 that you could enter a melee and when somebody engage you, you could get the better of him, even if you where defending yourself. What was very lame was the fact that you where actually gaining speed if somebody faster than you attack you (you became as quick as a wired sammy if you where on defense...)
I houserule it for SR4. I think i got the better of the two system...
You can always enter the melee and try to get the best of your opponent. I make it work just like the dodge skill. If you choose to have the possibility to hit the opponents that is or are attacking you, it take your next action(same mechanic as dodge) and you roll in an oppose test. On a tie, he beat you and deal damage. If you get the beat of him, you deal damage. If you're attacked again in the round an have no more action, you can always get into the contest again but with a -1 die penalty(as dodge mechanic) for each test after the first.
That houserule keep the realistic feeling to the melee and take up your next action. Now, i know that a fight between a wired-3 punk without brawl against an unwired old kung-fu master (7 in unarmed combat) will make the old geezer look a lot faster than usual, but at least it's an idea...
I think i would rather allow this rule only for 1 extra initiative pass, for realism sake. For example, the old kung-fu master attacked by two punks with wired reflex at 3 (and almost no unarmed skills) could have a decent chance to hit them in the first initiative pass(where he have an action) and also in the second initiative pass (where he use my house rule). On the subsequent rounds, he could only defend himself as stated under the regular SR4 rules. If the old master as wired reflex level-2, he could take them as long as he want (if he can get over the penalty).
So what do you think?
Poor me,
I didn't intend to hijack this tread, but i thought my melee optional rule was going to stimulate this tread. 3 days later i must admit i'm a little disappointed by the general reaction.
Life is tough
-Spider
I didn't intend to hijack this tread, but i thought my melee optional rule was going to stimulate this tread. 3 days later i must admit i'm a little disappointed by the general reaction.
Life is tough
-Spider
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.