Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Tim Kerby <Drekhead@***.COM>
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 00:57:16 -0400
Maybe I'm dense, but I just don't get how melee combat works with multiple
opponents. I hope somebody can help me. For example, it seems to me that if
you are being assaulted by four opponents, you can attack all four opponents
with a complex action. Ok. But now I get confused. The rules continue, "Each
attack uses the base Combat Skill dice of the character, plus dice from the
Combat Pool, if desired." Does this mean you make four separate rolls,
getting Combat Pool on each, or Combat Pool for all four (to be divided)?

Continuing (please bear with me). For each additional attack, the TN is
increased by +2. So Target 1=Normal, Target 2=+2, Target 3=+4, etc. Correct?
In addition, are TN modifiers used for "friends in melee", in this case, +3
(three more than the attacker)?

I ask because I have a troll character with Bod 11, Str 11, and a CyberSpur
with Unarmed Combat/Cyber Implant/CyberSpur Skill of 8 that just mows thru
opponents, having been known to kill eight in a single round! (BTW, he has
Wired Reflexes too so usually gets two attacks). He rarely ever gets damaged,
usually doing damage to the opponents in their own counter attack. I usually
do not have to attack more than one or two at a time because of this; just
wait for their turn to strike at me, and I will usually damage them. Pretty
nasty, but then again I do not know if we are playing this correctly. Any
insight would be appreciated.
BTW, is the knockdown roll an additional roll to the Damage Resistance or is
the DR roll also used for knockdown? (this ? applies to ranged combat as
well)
Thanks.
Message no. 2
From: Mr Bob Sagittarian <habelmon@********.CS.ADELAIDE.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 15:34:13 +0930
I hate trolls.


--

Bob Sagittarian Odds & Ends
habelmon@********.cs.adelaide.edu.au
stimpy@****.student.adelaide.edu.au
Message no. 3
From: Tim Serpas <wretch@**.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 01:19:44 -0500
On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Mr Bob Sagittarian wrote:

> I hate trolls.
>
So did my char Leather. Didn't help him kill them any faster, so he
decided to stick to hating/killing gangers and people with stupid hats.

True story. On Silver Angel, this guy with a big sombrero thing with
tassles and all took a hostage. Well we wanted her, too. The hat
was the deciding factor: I blew his head off. It felt good, what can
I say? I remember Aaron (GM) saying, you know, if you miss, you'll
probably hit her.... I said I knew, but that's what a pain editor will
do to a guy! (IMO)

Tim Serpas :Geek Code v.2.1: GS d- H++>+++ s:- !g p1 auVW a- w+ v+ C+
BS Physics : U P? !L !3 E---- N++ K++ W M- !V -po+ Y+>++ t+ !5 j+>$
wretch@**.com: R+ G'' tv+>! b+>++ D+ B-- e++>-- u+ h- f+>* r++ n+ y+
Message no. 4
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 09:57:12 BST
> Maybe I'm dense, but I just don't get how melee combat works with multiple
> opponents. I hope somebody can help me. For example, it seems to me that if
> you are being assaulted by four opponents, you can attack all four opponents
> with a complex action. Ok. But now I get confused. The rules continue, "Each

It does appear that way from the rules, probably to allow for the typical
Bruce Lee combat where our hero kills everybody, or the Conan-the-barbarian/
Chewie "Heroic throw-off" (as we like to call it) where the hero is pinned
down by half a dozen guys and stillmanages to hurl them into the walls and
fight his way free...


> attack uses the base Combat Skill dice of the character, plus dice from the
> Combat Pool, if desired." Does this mean you make four separate rolls,
> getting Combat Pool on each, or Combat Pool for all four (to be divided)?

It's definitely 4 separate rolls, each of which _may_ have combat pool applied
to it, and you can only use each combat pool dice for one attack. If you see
what I mean (best way I could think of to put it...)


> Continuing (please bear with me). For each additional attack, the TN is
> increased by +2. So Target 1=Normal, Target 2=+2, Target 3=+4, etc. Correct?
> In addition, are TN modifiers used for "friends in melee", in this case,
+3
> (three more than the attacker)?
Friends in melee and Additional Attack do apply.


> I ask because I have a troll character with Bod 11, Str 11, and a CyberSpur
> with Unarmed Combat/Cyber Implant/CyberSpur Skill of 8 that just mows thru
> opponents, having been known to kill eight in a single round! (BTW, he has
> Wired Reflexes too so usually gets two attacks). He rarely ever gets damaged,
> usually doing damage to the opponents in their own counter attack. I usually
> do not have to attack more than one or two at a time because of this; just
> wait for their turn to strike at me, and I will usually damage them. Pretty
> nasty, but then again I do not know if we are playing this correctly. Any
> insight would be appreciated.

Waiting for the NPC to attack is the best policy when you have combat pool, and
the other guy has threat, after all, you delay your action, use your combat pool
to retaliate against his attack, and then use your action, your pool refreshes,
and you can hit him again at full strength.. or is this a gross misinterpretation
of the Delayed actions and pool refresh rules?

Perhaps we should modify them so that your pool refreshes on the phase you
are _supposed_ to get an action, rather than the phase you actually take it...


> BTW, is the knockdown roll an additional roll to the Damage Resistance or is
> the DR roll also used for knockdown? (this ? applies to ranged combat as
> well)

In addition, and only use it when you have to, it slows combat down, but it
can be a very effective way of rendering characters helpless (you have to
use a simple to get up, and it's a complex to attack, so they won't be able to,
although they wil be able to snap-draw a gun and shoot you ;-( )
I roll the knockback based on what damage level hit you, rather than what you
took, ie. what damage you still had to resist, _after_ you rolled dodge pool...
People fall over more often,. but sometimes on the ground is a good place to be
:-)

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 5
From: Menard Steve <menars@***.UMONTREAL.CA>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 10:19:29 -0400
On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Tim Kerby wrote:

> Maybe I'm dense, but I just don't get how melee combat works with multiple
> opponents. I hope somebody can help me. For example, it seems to me that if
> you are being assaulted by four opponents, you can attack all four opponents
> with a complex action. Ok. But now I get confused. The rules continue, "Each
> attack uses the base Combat Skill dice of the character, plus dice from the
> Combat Pool, if desired." Does this mean you make four separate rolls,
> getting Combat Pool on each, or Combat Pool for all four (to be divided)?
>
> Continuing (please bear with me). For each additional attack, the TN is
> increased by +2. So Target 1=Normal, Target 2=+2, Target 3=+4, etc. Correct?
> In addition, are TN modifiers used for "friends in melee", in this case,
+3
> (three more than the attacker)?

So far so good. I think that yes you still get the penalty because
you're outnumbered.

>
> I ask because I have a troll character with Bod 11, Str 11, and a CyberSpur
> with Unarmed Combat/Cyber Implant/CyberSpur Skill of 8 that just mows thru
> opponents, having been known to kill eight in a single round! (BTW, he has
> Wired Reflexes too so usually gets two attacks). He rarely ever gets damaged,
> usually doing damage to the opponents in their own counter attack. I usually
> do not have to attack more than one or two at a time because of this; just
> wait for their turn to strike at me, and I will usually damage them. Pretty
> nasty, but then again I do not know if we are playing this correctly. Any
> insight would be appreciated.
> BTW, is the knockdown roll an additional roll to the Damage Resistance or is
> the DR roll also used for knockdown? (this ? applies to ranged combat as
> well)
> Thanks.

Well, I think its been mentioned somewhere that trolls are almost
built specifically for melee combat, and I have to agree. I made a troll
decker, with ALL physical attributes below average, using a staff and
skill 6 with it. Man, get out of here. He kicks more but than the sam and
he's NOT wired!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- |\_/| Still The One and Only Wolfbane! ---
--- |o o| " Hey! Why ya lookin' at me so weird? Ain't ya 'ver seen a ---
--- \ / decker witha horn ?" --- Scy, Troll decker with a CC ---
--- 0 Steve Menard menars@***.UMontreal.Ca ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 6
From: Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.RIPCO.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 16:09:46 -0500
> Does this mean you make four separate rolls,
> getting Combat Pool on each, or Combat Pool for all four (to be divided)?
You most definately have to divide your combat pool; trolls have low combat
pools, generally, compared to other races
> Continuing (please bear with me). For each additional attack, the TN is
> increased by +2. So Target 1=Normal, Target 2=+2, Target 3=+4, etc. Correct?
> In addition, are TN modifiers used for "friends in melee", in this case,
+3
> (three more than the attacker)?
Well, some might argue that you must state how many people you want to attack,
and then aplly the penalty to every attack (after all, you are dividing your
attention). Otherwise, why ever just attack one person? (since there would be
no penalty on that fist person). Also, you could use this rule for multiple
attacks on the same target.

> I ask because I have a troll character with Bod 11, Str 11, and a CyberSpur
> with Unarmed Combat/Cyber Implant/CyberSpur Skill of 8 that just mows thru
> opponents, having been known to kill eight in a single round! (BTW, he has
> Wired Reflexes too so usually gets two attacks). He rarely ever gets damaged,
> usually doing damage to the opponents in their own counter attack. I usually
> do not have to attack more than one or two at a time because of this; just
> wait for their turn to strike at me, and I will usually damage them. Pretty
> nasty, but then again I do not know if we are playing this correctly. Any
> insight would be appreciated.

I think you are lucky- I played a similar character and just got shot at.
Nobody comes at a troll that big. I also don't see how you are killing anyone
when your targets are 6+ and thiers are 3 or 4. Against serious opposition,
you should not get away with this.

Mongoose
ex-enforcer for the elven ancients
AKA "dances with aztechnology elementals"
"you are slow, and that is a capitol crime"
Message no. 7
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 15:28:08 -0400
On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Tim Kerby wrote:

> Continuing (please bear with me). For each additional attack, the TN is
> increased by +2. So Target 1=Normal, Target 2=+2, Target 3=+4, etc. Correct?
> In addition, are TN modifiers used for "friends in melee", in this case,
+3
> (three more than the attacker)?

That's exactly what that means. So your target number to hit the
5th opponent (no more than the original + 4 friends can attack at once)
is 4*(+2) + (+4) = +12. Good freakin' luck hitting him. And his target
number modifier to hit you is a -4. Chances are, he'll score more successes.

> I ask because I have a troll character with Bod 11, Str 11, and a CyberSpur
> with Unarmed Combat/Cyber Implant/CyberSpur Skill of 8 that just mows thru
> opponents, having been known to kill eight in a single round! (BTW, he has
> Wired Reflexes too so usually gets two attacks). He rarely ever gets damaged,
> usually doing damage to the opponents in their own counter attack. I usually
> do not have to attack more than one or two at a time because of this; just
> wait for their turn to strike at me, and I will usually damage them. Pretty
> nasty, but then again I do not know if we are playing this correctly. Any
> insight would be appreciated.

Let's look closely at this. Say your troll is facing a total of
four opponents. Say they all have katanas, thus neither side has reach
advantage (I assume the troll is using his spurs). Say they have a
decent skill of 4 and a Threat rating of 2.
You wait for them to attack. They have the friends in combat
bonus, which screws you both ways the same way as reach does (Note that
the rules are a little ambiguous on this one, but for simplicity and
realism, I run it the same way as reach). So with the original and 3
"friends", the opponents have -3 and the troll has +3 to his target
numbers. Thus, your initial target number is 7 and theirs is 1 (2).
The first one attacks. Let's say that you have a respectable
Combat Pool of 8, that you want to divide up evenly between all the
attackers so as not to get hit. That means you roll a total of 10 dice,
target number 7. Statistically, you get just under two successes. They
get five. Guess what...you're hit! No surprise there. You are now
resisting STR+3(S) with one success behind it. Typical street punks have
a strength of say 5 (tough little buggers, gotta be to survive), so your
target number is 8. With an armor jacket, that drops to a 5. Rolling 11
dice in Body resistance, you would get 4 successes, statistically
speaking. In my game, this is still a Moderate wound, due to that
left-over success the attacker had. That has to be taken off with one
of yours before damage can be reduced.
Now the second one attacks. You see the error in your ways and
try to dump in as much combat pool as you can to offset the +2 wound mod
you now have. You roll 8 plus the 6 remaining Combat Pool dice. Your
target number is 9, and statistically, you get only a single success.
They still get 5. You're screwed.
You can see the long downward spiral here, yes? And if you were
to act and try to attack more than one, cahnces are they would get more
successes than you in a counterattack, which means that you would get hit
on *your* action. Sucks to be you.
In truth, combat against multiple opponents sucks. Your best bet
is to escape or get into a situation where you can take them one at a
time. Having Wired reflexes may help because you could act first, dump
your entire pool into the attack and try to take one out quickly, hoping
you go again before they do so that you're not caught without combat
pool. That's a chancy proposition, though.
From a martial arts perspective, I have trained in multiple
opponent combat, and it's mainly mind-games. Shock tactics, blinding
violence, psyching out the opponent, and possessing a good pair of running
legs are pretty much the standard. Cheating helps. But even with only
two opponents, things can get hairy.

> BTW, is the knockdown roll an additional roll to the Damage Resistance or is
> the DR roll also used for knockdown? (this ? applies to ranged combat as
> well)

I run this as two separate rolls. Adds a little extra time, but
it works fairly well.

Marc
Message no. 8
From: Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.RIPCO.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 16:30:00 -0500
> > > Continuing (please bear with me). For each additional attack, the TN is
> > increased by +2. So Target 1=Normal, Target 2=+2, Target 3=+4, etc. Correct?
> > In addition, are TN modifiers used for "friends in melee", in this
case, +3
> > (three more than the attacker)?
>
> That's exactly what that means. So your target number to hit the
> 5th opponent (no more than the original + 4 friends can attack at once)
> is 4*(+2) + (+4) = +12. Good freakin' luck hitting him. And his target
> number modifier to hit you is a -4. Chances are, he'll score more successes.

Does anybody else play it that you must decide how many people to attack and
then apply the full penalty to every attack? This makes more sense to me, and
I think the rules just say +2 per aditional attack. After all, every atack in
the series is going to be rushed, so why should the first atack have no
penalty whatever?
Message no. 9
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 12:29:09 +0930
Marc A Renouf wrote:
> Let's look closely at this. Say your troll is facing a total of
> four opponents. Say they all have katanas, thus neither side has reach
> advantage (I assume the troll is using his spurs). Say they have a
> decent skill of 4 and a Threat rating of 2.
> You wait for them to attack. They have the friends in combat
> bonus, which screws you both ways the same way as reach does (Note that
> the rules are a little ambiguous on this one, but for simplicity and
> realism, I run it the same way as reach). So with the original and 3
> "friends", the opponents have -3 and the troll has +3 to his target
> numbers. Thus, your initial target number is 7 and theirs is 1 (2).
> The first one attacks. Let's say that you have a respectable
> Combat Pool of 8, that you want to divide up evenly between all the
> attackers so as not to get hit. That means you roll a total of 10 dice,
> target number 7. Statistically, you get just under two successes. They
> get five. Guess what...you're hit! No surprise there.

Hmm... I wouldn't do it that way. I'll pump in about, well, all the CP I
can. Cause if I can take out the first guy, then the "friend's in melee"
bonus diminishes (though the numbers (being 2 and 6) don't actually
change).

I also wouldn't wait for them to attack. :) I'd kill one on my go, using as
little CP as I could. Better yet, I'd have two goes before theirs. :)

> You are now
> resisting STR+3(S) with one success behind it. Typical street punks have
> a strength of say 5 (tough little buggers, gotta be to survive), so your
> target number is 8. With an armor jacket, that drops to a 5. Rolling 11
> dice in Body resistance, you would get 4 successes, statistically
> speaking. In my game, this is still a Moderate wound, due to that
> left-over success the attacker had. That has to be taken off with one
> of yours before damage can be reduced.

What about the troll's natural dermal armour? Oops, drops to a 4. Rolling
11 dice in body resistance, you'd get 5 or 6 successes, statistically
speaking. :) So it's a light wound. Add orthoskin or a pain editor, and you
ignore it.

> In truth, combat against multiple opponents sucks. Your best bet
> is to escape or get into a situation where you can take them one at a
> time. Having Wired reflexes may help because you could act first, dump
> your entire pool into the attack and try to take one out quickly, hoping
> you go again before they do so that you're not caught without combat
> pool. That's a chancy proposition, though.

Like I said, I'd try and take out one, maybe two, in the first round,
ignoring the last couple as far as my Combat Pool goes. Sure, I'd probably
get wounded, but that'd be offset by the diminished "Friends in Combat"
bonus. The troll, played smart, would probably win. He'd hurt, oh yeah, but
he'd win.

> From a martial arts perspective, I have trained in multiple
> opponent combat, and it's mainly mind-games. Shock tactics, blinding
> violence, psyching out the opponent, and possessing a good pair of running
> legs are pretty much the standard. Cheating helps. But even with only
> two opponents, things can get hairy.

Possessing a good pair of running legs is always good. :) Also, unless the
opponents know each other's styles well enough, they'll probably interfere
with each other a bit.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 10
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 16:34:29 +0200
> Maybe I'm dense, but I just don't get how melee combat works with multiple
> opponents. I hope somebody can help me. For example, it seems to me that if
> you are being assaulted by four opponents, you can attack all four opponents
> with a complex action. Ok. But now I get confused. The rules continue, "Each
> attack uses the base Combat Skill dice of the character, plus dice from the
> Combat Pool, if desired." Does this mean you make four separate rolls,
> getting Combat Pool on each, or Combat Pool for all four (to be divided)?

You roll your normal skill dice for each target plus as many pool dice
as you wish from the pool. Just remember that the poll only replenishes
in your next action. So if you want to attack 3 guys in one complex action
you can use your base dice for each one and then say add 3 dice to the
first attack (from a total of 9) 4 dice to the second and 2 to the third.

> Continuing (please bear with me). For each additional attack, the TN is
> increased by +2. So Target 1=Normal, Target 2=+2, Target 3=+4, etc. Correct?
> In addition, are TN modifiers used for "friends in melee", in this case,
+3
> (three more than the attacker)?

You are attacking more than one targets in one complex action arent you?
This means that the +2 cimulative modifier goes for all the targets. If your
base TN is 3 and you want to attack 3 dudes in one action, you get a
base TN of 9 for all three. And then there is the friends in melee wich would
raise your TN to 12. But you must admit that attacking 3 people in half a
second or so is a feat worthy of Bruce Lee :)

--
GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++$S++L++$>++++ L++>+++ E--- N+ h*(+)
W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) f+ r- n!(-) y?

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)
Message no. 11
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 12:15:10 -0400
On Fri, 23 Jun 1995, Sebastian Wiers wrote:

> Does anybody else play it that you must decide how many people to attack and
> then apply the full penalty to every attack? This makes more sense to me, and
> I think the rules just say +2 per aditional attack. After all, every atack in
> the series is going to be rushed, so why should the first atack have no
> penalty whatever?

You are concentrating on the first one. He is your primary
target. He should be no harder to hit than if he were alone. It's when
you try to attack others that the problems come in. You are not devoting
as much energy towards them. They are targets of opportunity. The
difficulty results from the fact that when you try to attack them, your
target numbers are so high, they will probably hit you on the
counterattack. That's where attacking multiple opponents becomes really
challenging.

Marc
Message no. 12
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 12:25:44 -0400
On Sat, 24 Jun 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:

> Marc A Renouf wrote:
> > The first one attacks. Let's say that you have a respectable
> > Combat Pool of 8, that you want to divide up evenly between all the
> > attackers so as not to get hit. That means you roll a total of 10 dice,
> > target number 7. Statistically, you get just under two successes. They
> > get five. Guess what...you're hit! No surprise there.

> Hmm... I wouldn't do it that way. I'll pump in about, well, all the CP I
> can. Cause if I can take out the first guy, then the "friend's in melee"
> bonus diminishes (though the numbers (being 2 and 6) don't actually
> change).

Exactly. And when the second one attacked, you'd still get
hammered, because you have no combat pool left. And then you're toast.

> I also wouldn't wait for them to attack. :) I'd kill one on my go, using as
> little CP as I could. Better yet, I'd have two goes before theirs. :)

I'm not sure you could kill one using little or no combat pool.
In the example above, the troll gets hit when dumping 2 CP dice into his
counterattack. Even if you are the attacker, you still can't even tie
your opponent, which means that *he* hits *you* on your action. But yes,
ideally, you would want to act multiple times before they did. Speed has
its advantages.

> What about the troll's natural dermal armour? Oops, drops to a 4. Rolling
> 11 dice in body resistance, you'd get 5 or 6 successes, statistically
> speaking. :) So it's a light wound. Add orthoskin or a pain editor, and you
> ignore it.

Uhhhhh, no. Dermal armor adds a die. It does *not* act as
normal armor. You're thinking of Orthoskin, which is incompatible with
dermal armor, so you can't have both. It's still a moderate wound. And
even with no target modifiers, the troll is probably still screwed,
because they get more attacks than him, and his pool will eventually
either a) run out or b) have to divided in an ineffective manner just to
keep him alive.

> Like I said, I'd try and take out one, maybe two, in the first round,
> ignoring the last couple as far as my Combat Pool goes. Sure, I'd probably
> get wounded, but that'd be offset by the diminished "Friends in Combat"
> bonus. The troll, played smart, would probably win. He'd hurt, oh yeah, but
> he'd win.

In practice, the only way I've ever seen someone defeat multiple
opponents in melee was through the judicious use of karma. He was facing
three opponents of mediocre skill and still came out of it with a serious
wound and a karmic debt. If he hadn't burned the karma, he'd be dead.

Marc
Message no. 13
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 17:24:27 +0930
Marc A Renouf wrote:
>
> > What about the troll's natural dermal armour? Oops, drops to a 4. Rolling
> > 11 dice in body resistance, you'd get 5 or 6 successes, statistically
> > speaking. :) So it's a light wound. Add orthoskin or a pain editor, and you
> > ignore it.
>
> Uhhhhh, no. Dermal armor adds a die. It does *not* act as
> normal armor. You're thinking of Orthoskin, which is incompatible with
> dermal armor, so you can't have both. It's still a moderate wound. And
> even with no target modifiers, the troll is probably still screwed,
> because they get more attacks than him, and his pool will eventually
> either a) run out or b) have to divided in an ineffective manner just to
> keep him alive.

Hmm... yeah, you're right. I haven't used dermal armour since First
Edition.

However, I'd say that orthoskin would be compatable with a Troll's dermal
armour, as it is natural.

> > Like I said, I'd try and take out one, maybe two, in the first round,
> > ignoring the last couple as far as my Combat Pool goes. Sure, I'd probably
> > get wounded, but that'd be offset by the diminished "Friends in
Combat"
> > bonus. The troll, played smart, would probably win. He'd hurt, oh yeah, but
> > he'd win.
>
> In practice, the only way I've ever seen someone defeat multiple
> opponents in melee was through the judicious use of karma. He was facing
> three opponents of mediocre skill and still came out of it with a serious
> wound and a karmic debt. If he hadn't burned the karma, he'd be dead.

I can't see that, myself... Look at it:

Punks, with skill 4. Threat Rating 2. Six dice, all the time.
Troll. Skill 6. Combat pool 7, I think you said. Six dice all the time.
Dermal armour, massive body attribute. Probably wired, or otherwise
enhanced, so two go's to the punks' one. Four to one odds.

Attack on the first go. Kill the punk (if you leap to the attack, rather
than waiting for them to come to you, I'd say the others wouldn't yet be in
the melee). On your second go, attack a second, with half your combat pool.
Then sit back, block the other two, then kill them next round. If you don't
get two go's before their first... run. :)

Of course, the real mistake here is using spurs, instead of a sword.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 14
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 13:28:09 -0400
On Mon, 26 Jun 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:

> I can't see that, myself... Look at it:
>
> Punks, with skill 4. Threat Rating 2. Six dice, all the time.
> Troll. Skill 6. Combat pool 7, I think you said. Six dice all the time.
> Dermal armour, massive body attribute. Probably wired, or otherwise
> enhanced, so two go's to the punks' one. Four to one odds.

Actually, I think the original was skill 8 at spurs, and I gave
him the benefit of the doubt with a combat pool of 9. But I'm with you
so far.

> Attack on the first go. Kill the punk (if you leap to the attack, rather
> than waiting for them to come to you, I'd say the others wouldn't yet be in
> the melee).

This is where I disagree. If you managed to get surprise on
them, then yes, this might be the case. Otherwise, you're in trouble.

> On your second go, attack a second, with half your combat pool.

That means you roll 8+4 dice, target number 4 + 2 remaining
friends equals 6. Statistically, you get two successes. They are
rolling for 4 - 2 remaining friends equals 2. Statistically, they still
get five successes, which means they successfully counterattack, which
means you're hit. Roll your Body.

> Then sit back, block the other two, then kill them next round. If you don't
> get two go's before their first... run. :)

Yep. It sucks, doesn't it. But that's life. The addition of
Karma into the equation changes everything, though.

> Of course, the real mistake here is using spurs, instead of a sword.

Yes, but the same can be said of the opponents. Would *you*
attack a troll with anything less than a combat axe or a spear?

Marc
Message no. 15
From: "Lindblom Fredrik, Training" <fredrik.lindblom@*******.TELIA.SE>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 11:30:00 PDT
>> Attack on the first go. Kill the punk (if you leap to the attack, rather
>> than waiting for them to come to you, I'd say the others wouldn't yet be
in
>> the melee).

> This is where I disagree. If you managed to get surprise on
>them, then yes, this might be the case. Otherwise, you're in trouble.

Personally I don't add people that yet haven't had their first action in the
_first_ round as 'friends in melee', surprised or not. This means the
drek-fast cyberboys often manage to slice non-enhanced people into bits
before they even react.

Don't see why they shouldn't, since speed is everything (well, almost :-) in
SR.


MxM
Message no. 16
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 01:07:25 +0930
Lindblom Fredrik, Training wrote:
> Personally I don't add people that yet haven't had their first action in the
> _first_ round as 'friends in melee', surprised or not. This means the
> drek-fast cyberboys often manage to slice non-enhanced people into bits
> before they even react.
>
> Don't see why they shouldn't, since speed is everything (well, almost :-) in
> SR.

Yeah, but here's my rationale: Surprised people AREN'T reacting. They've
got no pool, no nothing. Totally flat-footed.

People who haven't had their turn yet ARE reacting. They just aren't
reacting as fast as you.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 17
From: Kevin Dean Knight <SwrdKnght@***.COM>
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 13:50:14 -0400
I've been thinking about Melee Combat in SR...

Okay here's the scenario. Joe Combat God with a 20 dice Katana attack, but
with a whopping 3 + 1D6 for initiative is attacked by Joe Street Sam with a 8
dice Katana attack but a 12 + 4D6 initiative. SS gets a 32 for his Init and
attacks CG. According to the SRII rules, SS is going to get diced up and
killed by CG on Init 32. So the benefit of getting a real high initiative is
that he gets to die faster... Is this how you all see it or am I missing
something?

Another question... Does a PhyAd's Killing Hands power count as a 'magical
weapon' when fighting creatures with the Immunity to Normal Weapons power,
like an Insect Queen?
Message no. 18
From: Dwayne MacKinnon <910252m@******.ACADIAU.CA>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 15:01:11 -0300
>
> I've been thinking about Melee Combat in SR...
>
> Okay here's the scenario. Joe Combat God with a 20 dice Katana attack, but
> with a whopping 3 + 1D6 for initiative is attacked by Joe Street Sam with a 8
> dice Katana attack but a 12 + 4D6 initiative. SS gets a 32 for his Init and
> attacks CG. According to the SRII rules, SS is going to get diced up and
> killed by CG on Init 32. So the benefit of getting a real high initiative is
> that he gets to die faster... Is this how you all see it or am I missing
> something?

iIn a word: yeah.
JCG has such a good katana rating that even if JSS pumps his entire
combat pool into it (a maximum 8 dice) he's gonna most likely get sliced.
I find it refreshing, personnally: a case where low-speed high skill
will most likely win over speed. Some would debate whether it's realistic
or not, but hey... I don't really care. :-)

> Another question... Does a PhyAd's Killing Hands power count as a 'magical
> weapon' when fighting creatures with the Immunity to Normal Weapons power,
> like an Insect Queen?
>


Yes, they do. If you GOTTA combat a spirit hand-to-hand, a Phys Ad is
quite often the best person for the job.

DMK

--
"I can't afford to make any exceptions. Once word gets out that a pirate
has gone soft people start to disobey him and it's nothing but work,
work, work all the time." - The Man in Black, from The Princess Bride

Dwayne MacKinnon My opinions are my own, never
910252m@******.acadiau.ca those of my employer.
Message no. 19
From: Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 11:03:29 -0700
>I've been thinking about Melee Combat in SR...
>Okay here's the scenario. Joe Combat God with a 20 dice Katana
>attack, but with a whopping 3 + 1D6 for initiative is attacked
>by Joe Street Sam with a 8 dice Katana attack but a 12 + 4D6
>initiative. SS gets a 32 for his Init and attacks CG. According
>to the SRII rules, SS is going to get diced up and killed by CG
>on Init 32. So the benefit of getting a real high initiative is
>that he gets to die faster... Is this how you all see it or am
>I missing something?

That is correct - Unfortunately Joe CG doesn't get to use his
combat pool till his turn but those 20 dice skill is prob enough
to do the job without combat dice. BUT, give Joe SS a decent
pistol,SMG or rifle and he has a decent chance of dropping Joe
CG before he even get's close. *at least hurt him enough so
that when Joe CG get's to go he has a +3 to his target #*

>Another question... Does a PhyAd's Killing Hands power count as
>a 'magical weapon' when fighting creatures with the Immunity to
>Normal Weapons power, like an Insect Queen?

Yep that's right Killing hands from a Physical adept does damage
and He also gets to use his unarmed combat skill instead of
willpower (at least in my game - because a Phy Adept is trained
to fight spirits (if he has killing hands or a weapon focus))

Hope this helps
Gary C.
Message no. 20
From: Samuel Jones <sjones1@***.UNICOMP.NET>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 14:12:41 CDT
>>I've been thinking about Melee Combat in SR...
>>Okay here's the scenario. Joe Combat God with a 20 dice Katana
>>attack, but with a whopping 3 + 1D6 for initiative is attacked
>>by Joe Street Sam with a 8 dice Katana attack but a 12 + 4D6
>>initiative. SS gets a 32 for his Init and attacks CG. According
>>to the SRII rules, SS is going to get diced up and killed by CG
>>on Init 32. So the benefit of getting a real high initiative is
>>that he gets to die faster... Is this how you all see it or am
>>I missing something?
>
>That is correct - Unfortunately Joe CG doesn't get to use his
>combat pool till his turn but those 20 dice skill is prob enough
>to do the job without combat dice. BUT, give Joe SS a decent
>pistol,SMG or rifle and he has a decent chance of dropping Joe
>CG before he even get's close. *at least hurt him enough so
>that when Joe CG get's to go he has a +3 to his target #*

Whoa, Time Out! I don't know about SR, but according to SR2, Joe SS gets to
attack in combat phases 32, 22, 12, and 2. Joe CG gets to attack(at the
most) on phase 9. Now, in melee combat that doesn't really matter since
both people pretty much have a chance to kill the other(in the same phase,
whoever gets the most successes hurts the other), but if Joe SS is smart,
he'll notice that Joe CG is pretty handy with a Katana and decide to go
after him with an Ares Predator. Even without Firearms(using the Skill
Web), he might not damage him THAT much, but he can sure damage him more
than if he goes hth! Come to think about it, I think running is considered
an action. Try 32: fires the gun 22: runs back 12: fires the gun 2: runs
back or fires the gun(depending on range and considering he can count on
being the first to go next round) By the way: according to the Errata for
SR2 the Rule of Six does NOT apply during initiative. That's why the most
CG could get would be a 9.
<other question snipped because it's been answered>
Message no. 21
From: Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 12:26:19 -0700
>>>I've been thinking about Melee Combat in SR...
>>>Okay here's the scenario. Joe Combat God with a 20 dice Katana
>>>attack, but with a whopping 3 + 1D6 for initiative is attacked
>>>by Joe Street Sam with a 8 dice Katana attack but a 12 + 4D6
>>>initiative. SS gets a 32 for his Init and attacks CG. According
>>>to the SRII rules, SS is going to get diced up and killed by CG
>>>on Init 32. So the benefit of getting a real high initiative is
>>>that he gets to die faster... Is this how you all see it or am
>>>I missing something?

>>Gary Replies:
>>That is correct - Unfortunately Joe CG doesn't get to use his
>>combat pool till his turn but those 20 dice skill is prob enough
>>to do the job without combat dice. BUT, give Joe SS a decent
>>pistol,SMG or rifle and he has a decent chance of dropping Joe
>>CG before he even get's close. *at least hurt him enough so
>>that when Joe CG get's to go he has a +3 to his target #*

>Samuel Follows:
>Whoa, Time Out! I don't know about SR, but according to SR2,
>Joe SS gets to attack in combat phases 32, 22, 12, and 2. Joe CG =

>gets to attack(at the most) on phase 9. Now, in melee combat =
that
>doesn't really matter ..., but if Joe SS is smart, he'll notice =
that
>Joe CG is pretty handy with a Katana and decide to go after him =

>with an Ares Predator. Even without Firearms(using the Skill =
Web)...
><other question snipped because it's been answered>

Isn't that basically what I said...

Thanks
Gary C.
Message no. 22
From: Dwayne MacKinnon <910252m@******.ACADIAU.CA>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 16:38:07 -0300
>
> >>I've been thinking about Melee Combat in SR...
> >>Okay here's the scenario. Joe Combat God with a 20 dice Katana
> >>attack, but with a whopping 3 + 1D6 for initiative is attacked
> >>by Joe Street Sam with a 8 dice Katana attack but a 12 + 4D6
> >>initiative. SS gets a 32 for his Init and attacks CG. According
> >>to the SRII rules, SS is going to get diced up and killed by CG
> >>on Init 32. So the benefit of getting a real high initiative is
> >>that he gets to die faster... Is this how you all see it or am
> >>I missing something?
> >
> >That is correct - Unfortunately Joe CG doesn't get to use his
> >combat pool till his turn but those 20 dice skill is prob enough
> >to do the job without combat dice. BUT, give Joe SS a decent
> >pistol,SMG or rifle and he has a decent chance of dropping Joe
> >CG before he even get's close. *at least hurt him enough so
> >that when Joe CG get's to go he has a +3 to his target #*
>
> Whoa, Time Out! I don't know about SR, but according to SR2, Joe SS gets to
> attack in combat phases 32, 22, 12, and 2. Joe CG gets to attack(at the
> most) on phase 9. Now, in melee combat that doesn't really matter since
> both people pretty much have a chance to kill the other(in the same phase,
> whoever gets the most successes hurts the other), but if Joe SS is smart,
> he'll notice that Joe CG is pretty handy with a Katana and decide to go
> after him with an Ares Predator. Even without Firearms(using the Skill
> Web), he might not damage him THAT much, but he can sure damage him more
> than if he goes hth! Come to think about it, I think running is considered
> an action. Try 32: fires the gun 22: runs back 12: fires the gun 2: runs
> back or fires the gun(depending on range and considering he can count on
> being the first to go next round) By the way: according to the Errata for
> SR2 the Rule of Six does NOT apply during initiative. That's why the most
> CG could get would be a 9.
> <other question snipped because it's been answered>
>

Yeah, but you're missing the point.
The questioner was wondering about MELEE combat. Forget about other forms
for now.
*IF* Joe SS closes in melee combat with Joe CG, he's gonna get his butt
handed to him, in all likelihood. Joe SS could throw in his entire combat
pool on each of his actions, and it probably wouldn't make any difference.
Sure, Joe SS could use firearms to blow JCG away. Anyone could. In
the words of Sean Connery in the Untouchables, "He pulls a knife, you
pull a gun." But there are gonna be occasions when Joe SS isn't going
to do that. When stealth might be key, and a quick thrust with the old
katana might be quieter. There's always that risk though... no matter how
fast you might be, you might run into someone who's so much better
than you that you'll get geeked. It's part of what's fun about melee.
Also, how would the guy notice that JCG is mighty handy with a
katana? Probably only by taking at least one swing at him... and then he'd
find out... to his everlasting sorrow. :-)

DMK

--
Dwayne MacKinnon My opinions are my own, never
910252m@******.acadiau.ca those of my employer.
Message no. 23
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 16:14:42 -0400
Dwayne MacKinnon says:

> *IF* Joe SS closes in melee combat with Joe CG, he's gonna get his butt
> handed to him, in all likelihood. Joe SS could throw in his entire combat
> pool on each of his actions, and it probably wouldn't make any difference.

This is the difference between Initiative and skill. Joe Street Sam's
reflexes are faster in terms of general movement and presence of mind -
he can MOVE and react faster than Joe Combat God, but that doesn't mean
he's going to move properly, or in the right direction. JCG may have lousy
reflexes in general, but he's got GREAT reflexes with his katana. To get
a Skill 20 he's probably breathed with it, slept with it, and performed
microsurgery on himself with it. (Okay, I'm exaggerating. But so's Skill
20.) With the katana, JCG is at least as fast, and more importantly, he's
better. As long as that sword is in his hand he doesn't _need_ Initiative,
or even conscious thought. It's just there, and so he fights.


> Also, how would the guy notice that JCG is mighty handy with a
> katana? Probably only by taking at least one swing at him... and then he'd
> find out... to his everlasting sorrow. :-)

Anyone with a Katana 20 probably has a rep for it bigger than planet Earth.
You usually want to find out who you're fighting _before_ you put metal
into him, right? >8->


Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu| "I'll make the command easy to
My opinions are my opinions. | remember, like CTRL-ALT-F4-DEL."
Please don't blame anyone else. | - Dilbert (by Scott Adams)
Message no. 24
From: Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.RIPCO.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 14:37:06 -0500
>
> I've been thinking about Melee Combat in SR...
>
> Okay here's the scenario. Joe Combat God with a 20 dice Katana attack, but
> with a whopping 3 + 1D6 for initiative is attacked by Joe Street Sam with a 8
> dice Katana attack but a 12 + 4D6 initiative. SS gets a 32 for his Init and
> attacks CG. According to the SRII rules, SS is going to get diced up and
> killed by CG on Init 32. So the benefit of getting a real high initiative is
> that he gets to die faster... Is this how you all see it or am I missing
> something?
>
> Another question... Does a PhyAd's Killing Hands power count as a 'magical
> weapon' when fighting creatures with the Immunity to Normal Weapons power,
> like an Insect Queen?
>
Second question: YES.
First question: No, the only thing your missing is weeks of bandwidth gobling,
near flame level discusion.
There was never any final good solution. Some people said that some TN
modifier should be allowed, to the benifit of the faster person and detrement
of the slower, in proprtion to the difference in speed.
Others fellt that the higher refresh on the faster combatants combat pool
made a big enough difference.
I propose a third method (came into my head after discusion passed). Why
not allow The faster caracter to sacrifice actions inorder to gain more dice
on later actions? Sort of like Aiming for melee combat. Say, 2 dice per
simple action, or dice = to combat skill per complex action. This would allow
for the fact that a fast caracter braced for deffense could easily "read" an
incoming attack. Or, speedy could draw, gain two dice, hold, then attack way
down at 17 with many more dice, since he spent time setting up the attack
(fakouts, attacks for the sole purpose of knocking away a parry).
Personally, I think this preserves the abstraction, is not to complex, and
not overly powerful. But not everyone wants fast caracters to kick all butt
in melee- somebody is sure to argue that skill is much more important, and
allows you to deal with fast oponents.
Maybe those die bonus's should be cut in half...
Sebastian
aka
Mongoose
Message no. 25
From: Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.RIPCO.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 00:31:57 -0500
> > Also, how would the guy notice that JCG is mighty handy with a
> > katana? Probably only by taking at least one swing at him... and then he'd
> > find out... to his everlasting sorrow. :-)
>
> Anyone with a Katana 20 probably has a rep for it bigger than planet Earth.
> You usually want to find out who you're fighting _before_ you put metal
> into him, right? >8->
>
Baring reputation and research, I'd aloww someone to use intellegence or
armed combat to try to determine some one elses armed combat skill. Most
trained combatants can tell if thier oponent has good or bad form- every fight
scene I've ever read had bits where the protaganist coments on hir opponents
form and style, strengths and weaknesses. Also, that very sharp, custum,
extremely expensive Katana would be a hint- maybe a false one; an unskilled
scmuck can use a great sword, but CG would be hinered by a poor blade, and
probably has the top of the line.
Sebastain
Aka
Mongoose
Message no. 26
From: Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.RIPCO.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 00:44:59 -0500
> > Another question... Does a PhyAd's Killing Hands power count as a 'magical
> > weapon' when fighting creatures with the Immunity to Normal Weapons power,
> > like an Insect Queen?
> >
>
>
> Yes, they do. If you GOTTA combat a spirit hand-to-hand, a Phys Ad is
> quite often the best person for the job.
>
> DMK

Actually, any scmuck with a good wilpower and a weapon with 2 reach is
pretty well set against manifest spirits in melee combat. The trick is to
keep the TN's in your favor. Another good way to do this is to have a mage
type send a bunch of watchers to pester the dual nature baddy, and get friends
in melee. The best person is often as many people as possible. But Killing
handsis darn nice as a smugalable weapon, or for finishing off
regenerating critters, god forbid.
Sebastian
Message no. 27
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 17:10:30 +0930
Kevin Dean Knight wrote:
>
> I've been thinking about Melee Combat in SR...
>
> Okay here's the scenario. Joe Combat God with a 20 dice Katana attack, but
> with a whopping 3 + 1D6 for initiative is attacked by Joe Street Sam with a 8
> dice Katana attack but a 12 + 4D6 initiative. SS gets a 32 for his Init and
> attacks CG. According to the SRII rules, SS is going to get diced up and
> killed by CG on Init 32. So the benefit of getting a real high initiative is
> that he gets to die faster... Is this how you all see it or am I missing
> something?

You got it in one... The REAL benefit of getting a real high initiative in
this situation goes like this:
Action one. Step back full walking movement.
Concurrent with Action One: draw big heavy gun.

Actions Two, Three, and possibly Four: Shoot 'im.

If you don't have the gun, use your feet... to run away.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 28
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 12:09:33 +0200
[example snipped]
>So the benefit of getting a real high initiative is
>that he gets to die faster... Is this how you all see it or am I missing
>something?

That's what it boils down to, yes. A possible solution is that you _do_ see
a melee attack as just one hit, and not allow defense to be used against it,
though I wouldn't recommend it.

>Another question... Does a PhyAd's Killing Hands power count as a 'magical
>weapon' when fighting creatures with the Immunity to Normal Weapons power,
>like an Insect Queen?

Yes.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Wish (n): something which doesn't come true
GC3.0: GS/AT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y
PGP- t(+) 5 X R+++>? tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial
Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 29
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 12:09:35 +0200
>That is correct - Unfortunately Joe CG doesn't get to use his
>combat pool till his turn but those 20 dice skill is prob enough
>to do the job without combat dice.

If it's the first turn, he does. All Pools refresh at the start of the first
turn :)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Wish (n): something which doesn't come true
GC3.0: GS/AT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y
PGP- t(+) 5 X R+++>? tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial
Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 30
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 12:09:40 +0200
>Anyone with a Katana 20 probably has a rep for it bigger than planet Earth.

Sort of like that guy I saw on tv, who was said to be one of the best
katana-fighters ever or something similar... That must have been the
stupidest martial arts performance I've ever seen in my life: the guy sits
on the ground, he suddenly pulls out a katana, and everybody applauds. He
sticks the thing back into the scabbard, and everybody again applauds. He
repeats this trick a few times, and then he stands up and leaves.
I know people will thwap me for saying this, but I failed to see the "huge
level of skill" (as the commentator put it) involved in this exercise...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Wish (n): something which doesn't come true
GC3.0: GS/AT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y
PGP- t(+) 5 X R+++>? tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial
Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 31
From: Stephanos Piperoglou <sneakabout@**********.HOL.GR>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 16:27:25 +0300
On Mon, 17 Jul 1995, Sebastian Wiers wrote:

> Others fellt that the higher refresh on the faster combatants combat pool
> made a big enough difference.

It does.

In actual gaming situations, there will NOT be a 12 die difference
between the two. At most, there will be a 4 die difference.

If JSS has a combat pool of 8 (which he most probably will), he will be
rolling 4 dice MORE than JCG. If he wounds JCG, JCg will also get Target
modifiers. JCG is dead meat.
_________________________ _____________________________________
____/ Stephanos J. Piperoglou \____/ sneakabout@**********.hol.gr \____
~~~~\(or just Steve for short)/~~~~\ http://www.hol.gr/people/sneakabout /~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Home Page not up yet - so why not visit my ever-changing .plan? Finger me NOW!
"Comparisons are odious" - Shakespeare
GC3.0: GCS/S/L/PA/M/P d s++:++ a16 C++++ UL++>++++ P+ L+++>++++ E+ W+++ N+ K
w--- O M+ !V PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5++ X+ R+++ tv b++ DI? D+ G++ e>++++ h! r y?

...QED
Message no. 32
From: Frank Steinhauer <steinhau@**********.UNI-FRANKFURT.DE>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 16:51:02 +0200
> being the first to go next round) By the way: according to the Errata for
> SR2 the Rule of Six does NOT apply during initiative. That's why the most
> CG could get would be a 9.

We manage it that way, you roll one natural dice plus dice (other color) for
any cyber/bioware. Only for the natural dice does the rul of six apply.

Frank


--

Frank Steinhauer -----> steinhau@***.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de -----> 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCS H s !g p? au- a26 v C+(++) UH>+ P? L 3 E->+ N my personal geek-code
K- W--- V-- -po+ t+(++)@ !5 !j R+ G+ tv !D B?
b++(+++) e+>+++ u**(++@) h+(!) f+ r- n(!n) y? using Geek2.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 33
From: Kevin Dean Knight <SwrdKnght@***.COM>
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:24:30 -0400
Okay, maybe i should have used the specific example instead of just a general
one...

In the game I GM, the ork SS was attacking a true form fly spirit. the ork
got a 27 for his init while the fly got a paltry 15. Knowing the utter
futility of SHOOTING the fly spirit the ork SS attacked using his not
inconsiderable Willpower 6 and spurs on 27. Said fly's reaction rating was 14
with a threat rating of 3 giving it 17 dice to Bubba's (the ork SS) 6 dice.
Bubba was almost toasted. The player whined that it was HIS attack, not the
fly's, why did it get to almost kill him on 27 when IT WASN'T EVEN ITS
TURN!!! I thought about that. It DID seem kind of unfair... So I came up with
this solution... The best a DEFENDER can do is cancel out the ATTACKER's
successes causing the attack to miss. In this situation, Bubba got 5
sucesses, the Fly Spirit 10. So instead of Bubba almost getting killed when
it was HIS turn to attack, his attack simply failed... What do you all think
of this?
Message no. 34
From: John Lambertson <john_lambertson@****.FWS.GOV>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 10:16:55 MST
The way my old GM handled this was to allow the defender to use an
action to defend before his first action, but only by forfeiting that
action. A defender could do this as many times as he had actions in
the round. So, the fly could defend up to two times: on the Ork's
inits of 27 and 17, but if the ork was still alive, the bug wouldn't
be able to defend again on init 7. After the first attack, the bug
would have to wait until init 5 to do anything but defend again.
I also like the idea of not being able to hurt the attacker. I
think delayed actions fit that role in defense a little better.

John

john_lambertson@****.fws.gov

My opinions are my own


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: 7/18/95 9:35 AM


Okay, maybe i should have used the specific example instead of just a general
one...

In the game I GM, the ork SS was attacking a true form fly spirit. the ork
got a 27 for his init while the fly got a paltry 15.

It DID seem kind of unfair... So I came up with this solution... The best a
DEFENDER can do is cancel out the ATTACKER's successes causing the attack to
miss.
Message no. 35
From: Stephanos Piperoglou <sneakabout@**********.HOL.GR>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 20:25:05 +0300
On Tue, 18 Jul 1995, Kevin Dean Knight wrote:

> In the game I GM, the ork SS was attacking a true form fly spirit. the ork
> got a 27 for his init while the fly got a paltry 15. Knowing the utter
> futility of SHOOTING the fly spirit the ork SS attacked using his not
> inconsiderable Willpower 6 and spurs on 27. Said fly's reaction rating was 14
> with a threat rating of 3 giving it 17 dice to Bubba's (the ork SS) 6 dice.
> Bubba was almost toasted. The player whined that it was HIS attack, not the
> fly's, why did it get to almost kill him on 27 when IT WASN'T EVEN ITS
> TURN!!! I thought about that. It DID seem kind of unfair... So I came up with
> this solution... The best a DEFENDER can do is cancel out the ATTACKER's
> successes causing the attack to miss. In this situation, Bubba got 5
> sucesses, the Fly Spirit 10. So instead of Bubba almost getting killed when
> it was HIS turn to attack, his attack simply failed... What do you all think
> of this?

I agree, and I'll state why:

The combat turn in SR is 3 seconds, more or less, thus the definition of
a Melee Complex Actions as a "flurry of strikes, parries, and dodges" (or
sth to that effect) does not stand. In three seconds, a Melle Action that
normally happens only one constitutes AN ATTACK of some kind.

If you're into complexity, have an "advantage gauge" so extra successes
for a defender mean the attcker is in a disadvantageous postition (say
each extra success is +1 on next Mellee atack, ONLY if it's the immediate
next action. Otherwise the situation is "reset").
_________________________ _____________________________________
____/ Stephanos J. Piperoglou \____/ sneakabout@**********.hol.gr \____
~~~~\(or just Steve for short)/~~~~\ http://www.hol.gr/people/sneakabout /~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Home Page not up yet - so why not visit my ever-changing .plan? Finger me NOW!
"Comparisons are odious" - Shakespeare
GC3.0: GCS/S/L/PA/M/P d s++:++ a16 C++++ UL++>++++ P+ L+++>++++ E+ W+++ N+ K
w--- O M+ !V PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5++ X+ R+++ tv b++ DI? D+ G++ e>++++ h! r y?

...QED
Message no. 36
From: Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.RIPCO.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 13:06:11 -0500
>
> On Mon, 17 Jul 1995, Sebastian Wiers wrote:
>
> > Others fellt that the higher refresh on the faster combatants combat pool
> > made a big enough difference.
>
> It does.
>
> In actual gaming situations, there will NOT be a 12 die difference
> between the two. At most, there will be a 4 die difference.
>
> If JSS has a combat pool of 8 (which he most probably will), he will be
> rolling 4 dice MORE than JCG. If he wounds JCG, JCg will also get Target
> modifiers. JCG is dead meat.

Actually, this sounds nice (for those rooting for JSS), but does not hold up.
First, the person with the better TN is most always the winner. Then, adding
in Karma rerolls makes a big difference.
But, more on topic, JCG will still win- He can just poor all his combat pool
into resisting the fist attack, and cut JSS down. Second, JSS, the PC, will
usually be fighting JCG, the critter or NPC, with a threat rating. Threat
ratings are generally less than could be pumped from a copmbat pool, but the
are always available, meaning that if JSS does survive his foolhardy attack,
he has not worn down JCG one bit.

I think you already have my opinon on how to fight powerful spirits (friends,
lots of em, even little wimpy watchers. Weapons with reach, unless your set
on using killing hands- which can give more dice, but might worsen your TN if
you don't have enough buddies).

Sebastian
aka
Mongoose
Message no. 37
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 17:19:27 GMT
> Okay here's the scenario. Joe Combat God with a 20 dice Katana attack, but
> with a whopping 3 + 1D6 for initiative is attacked by Joe Street Sam with a 8
> dice Katana attack but a 12 + 4D6 initiative. SS gets a 32 for his Init and
> attacks CG. According to the SRII rules, SS is going to get diced up and
> killed by CG on Init 32. So the benefit of getting a real high initiative is
> that he gets to die faster... Is this how you all see it or am I missing
> something?

Yes, you are. Joe Street Sam can rush in and get killed: on 32 he can
run away and turn and shoot Joe Combat God on 22 and 12: he can run and
keep running: he basically has a lot of choice. That's what your wires
get you: open options.

Otherwise, if wires let you beat such an awesome disparity in skill,
nobody would worry about actually *learning* to fight: you just get into
a reaction arms race.

Look at it from the other side: if you've put a *lot* of Karma into becoming
one of the finest swordsmen on earth, surely the fact that the ignorant
thug in front of you bought some second-hand wires shouldn't (from a game
balance point of view) make him a better swordsman than you.

A lot of the skill at that high level is anticipating your opponent
and attacking into weakness: and superfast reflexes don't make the katana
any lighter or faster. Commit to an attack and your guard is down, and
your kensai is going to carve you into mincemeat: you might see it coming
but even your cyberreflexes can't get your sword stopped and back where it
needs to be in time. At least that's the specious justification I use.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 38
From: TopCat <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Melee combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 18:18:16 -0500
Gawd, how I love this argument <G>

Ok, everyone talks about dice dice dice. CG has a 20 skill in katana,
correct? Assuming he had an 8 skill there at generation, that means he's
gotten a bare minimum of 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19
+ 20 karma... a total of *174 karma*. Now, if we assume that SS has similar
karma, and doesn't have such obscene expenditured to deal with, he can buy
successes up to the total of successes he had before. 8 + 8 combat pool
means (on average) 8 successes. 8 karma spent (a pittance) and he's up to
16 successes. Throw in karma pool. There's another 4 successes and another
4 he can buy. We're up to 24 successes. Now, CG isn't liking this so he
throws in his karma pool. He can throw 18 dice, pretty impressive. So
there's 36 dice and 18 successes (average). CG gets to resist (whatever the
samurai's strength is, and us sammy's like that stat) M damage (also
assuming it isn't dikoted, which is very popular) with 6 successes. Now, CG
has been spending all his karma building up that monstrous katana rating.
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he has 6 body. He has no
karma pool. He has a combat pool (assumed to be around 9 dice because I'm
feeling generous and the guy just may've put his points into those stats at
the start... if you really want him to use it, then he does in first round.
now he only has to resist 2 successes... work with the numbers and it looks
like CG takes a Light to Moderate wound). If he uses combat pool to resist,
we'll give him benefit of the doubt and he takes a Moderate to Serious
wound. Obviously, CG is in trouble. Next round. SS combat pool refreshes.
He rolls 16 dice, 8 successes, plus 8 more karma spent for 16 successes. CG
was smart and decided to throw his combat pool into the first roll. So he
has a light wound (again, I'm feeling generous) and will need to roll 5's on
his 20 dice attack. Which gives him 7 successes. OUCH! (str)M damage + 9
successes. Considering the wound he's already taken and the loss of all
pool dice, CG isn't gonna make it to see his first action.

If you're gonna compare two fighters, at least make it a similar comparison.
Giving one guy 174 free karma while the other has to fight stock is pretty
silly. Yes, the melee combat system is outrageously imbalanced in favor of
skill (has a feeling he'll have to break out some old posts that argued this
point to death). But it is not imbalanced totally. Combat pool gives the
fast guy a pretty significant edge. Also, isn't it a simple action to draw
a weapon? <EG> Lessee, that means SS gets 2 attacks where he has reach
advantage and CG is fighting using his (doubtlessly neglected) unarmed
combat skill. It'll be over before CG's katana tastes air.

-- TopCat
Last of the Mohicans...err Street Samurai
Well, I was at one time... (acknowledges fellow Samurai Paul J. Adam and
Eve Forward and the few others whose posts helped wage war on those pesky
magic folk)
Message no. 39
From: TopCat <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 18:28:28 -0500
Yet another interesting idea brought about by further study into this thread...

Allow aiming. The fast guy takes a round and sizes up his opponent. Drops
his target number by one. Produces a realistic effect and incorporates a
rule already in use under (albeit a different form thereof) the Shadowrun
combat system. Take two rounds and it drops by two. Effective, easy to
implement.


-- TopCat
Message no. 40
From: Andre' Selmer <031SEA@******.WITS.AC.ZA>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:10:26 +0200
:->Okay, maybe i should have used the specific example instead of just a general
:->one...
:->
:->In the game I GM, the ork SS was attacking a true form fly spirit. the ork
:->got a 27 for his init while the fly got a paltry 15. Knowing the utter
:->futility of SHOOTING the fly spirit the ork SS attacked using his not
:->inconsiderable Willpower 6 and spurs on 27. Said fly's reaction rating was 14
:->with a threat rating of 3 giving it 17 dice to Bubba's (the ork SS) 6 dice.
:->Bubba was almost toasted. The player whined that it was HIS attack, not the
:->fly's, why did it get to almost kill him on 27 when IT WASN'T EVEN ITS
:->TURN!!! I thought about that. It DID seem kind of unfair... So I came up with
:->this solution... The best a DEFENDER can do is cancel out the ATTACKER's
:->successes causing the attack to miss. In this situation, Bubba got 5
:->sucesses, the Fly Spirit 10. So instead of Bubba almost getting killed when
:->it was HIS turn to attack, his attack simply failed... What do you all think
:->of this?
:->

We changed the systems slightly (depending on your viewpoint). At the
beginning of the characters iniative all characters gain dice equal
to there melee (unarmed) skill and their combat pool. The character
can defend at any point in the round with the amount of dice equal to
his skill being used (with appropriate mods). The PC can only attack
on his iniative. For example
Limpit (a rather grumpy dwarf) has an unarmed skill of 7 and a
combat pool of 4 giving him 11 dice. When attacking one street punk
with Unarmed 3, Combat Pool 4 giving 7 dice, rolling his initative
(1d6+4) an gaining 7. Limpit being slightly faster (2d6+4) gains an
11.
On iniative 11 Limpit opts to attack with 6 dice retaining the last 5
for defence. Rolling the 6 dice vs the punks quickness(3) Limpit
gains 3 successes. The punk uses 4 dice for defence vs T#7 (Limpits
skill) etc etc etc

This systems works as you can do multiple defences and attacks

Andre'
Man is a teller of stories, he lives by and is surrounded by his
own stories and those of other people, he sees everythings that
happens to him in terms of these stories and thus has to live
enacting them
-Sarte

GARFIELD !
-Jon
Message no. 41
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 11:47:22 -0400
On Tue, 18 Jul 1995, Stephanos Piperoglou wrote:

> The combat turn in SR is 3 seconds, more or less, thus the definition of
> a Melee Complex Actions as a "flurry of strikes, parries, and dodges" (or
> sth to that effect) does not stand. In three seconds, a Melle Action that
> normally happens only one constitutes AN ATTACK of some kind.

If you only throw one attack every three seconds, you suck. In
most martial arts they teach you to never throw just one attack, but to
use simultaneous attacks and attacks in rapid succession to overwhelm
your opponent and find holes in his defenses. The "flurry of strikes,
parries, and dodges" is closer to the truth than you think.

Marc
Message no. 42
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 19:09:02 GMT
Bob Ooton, Almost But Not Quite The Last Of The Mohicans, wrote:
>Yet another interesting idea brought about by further study into this thread...
>
> Allow aiming. The fast guy takes a round and sizes up his opponent. Drops
> his target number by one. Produces a realistic effect and incorporates a
> rule already in use under (albeit a different form thereof) the Shadowrun
> combat system. Take two rounds and it drops by two. Effective, easy to
> implement.

Pretty much what we use, although you can only get a -1 to your TNo by
"aiming" for one Combat Action. I see it as holding up your defence and
making minor attacks for a second or two, either feinting an attack or
just finding a weakness, then slamming an attack into it. So defending
against an attack between aiming and attacking doesn't rob you of your
improved TNo.

Comes in right handy if you're fighting someone with a Reach advantage
or if you're wounded, as long as you have the time. Of course it can
give your opponent's friends time to get into the fight...

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 43
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 17:01:29 +0930
Gurth wrote:
>
> >Anyone with a Katana 20 probably has a rep for it bigger than planet Earth.
>
> Sort of like that guy I saw on tv, who was said to be one of the best
> katana-fighters ever or something similar... That must have been the
> stupidest martial arts performance I've ever seen in my life: the guy sits
> on the ground, he suddenly pulls out a katana, and everybody applauds. He
> sticks the thing back into the scabbard, and everybody again applauds. He
> repeats this trick a few times, and then he stands up and leaves.
> I know people will thwap me for saying this, but I failed to see the "huge
> level of skill" (as the commentator put it) involved in this exercise...

Sounds to me like he's practising 'iajutsu' (sp?)... the fast draw. :)

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 44
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 17:17:59 +0930
TopCat wrote:
>
> Yet another interesting idea brought about by further study into this thread...
>
> Allow aiming. The fast guy takes a round and sizes up his opponent. Drops
> his target number by one. Produces a realistic effect and incorporates a
> rule already in use under (albeit a different form thereof) the Shadowrun
> combat system. Take two rounds and it drops by two. Effective, easy to
> implement.

And, while a nice idea in combats where the difference is less, the smarter
thing to do in THIS situation is to shoot him.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 45
From: "Rick L. Vinyard" <rvinyard@****.Edu>
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:34:52 -0700 (MST)
Need a little clarification of the rules for anyone that's interested.
Maybe someone out there plays with a bit better variation too. My primary
question concerns melee combat with spirits, but also pertains to melee
combat in general.

#1: In the rules it says to use willpower instead of an applicable armed
or unarmed skill since "unshakeable will is more important than skill."
This is my question. Does someone with armed (1) and willpower (6) armed
with a katana suddenly become a samurai master in the face of a spirit in
manifest form, or should it somehow be written as such:
to use the lesser of willpower or the applicable skill. This
would allow the above case to remain at their skill of (1), but a samurai
master armed skill (9) willpower (2) would be reduced to a 2.
Am I way off base here?

#2: It seems unreasonable to me that someone who rolls an initiative of
say 23 (thus allowed attacks at 23, 13 and 3) would not gain some sort of
benefit in melee combat against someone rolling a 5. Sheer quickness
should count for something. Any suggestions?

#3: Full defense in melee combat. Example (Attacker is A, Defender D):
A's combat successes = 4. B's successes = 1. A's net successes = 3.
A stages the wound level from 5M to 5S from net successes.
D is wearing impact armor rating 3, so D's target # is now 2.
D's body roll is 1, 1, 1, 2.
D's combat pool dice roll is 2, 2, 3, 4.
Since D has four successes against 2S damage from combat pool dice the
strike is a clean miss? or is the TN for a clean miss on the combat pool
the base (modified) of 4 thus netting 1 success thus inflicting a light
wound?

Thanks for the help
---Rick
Message no. 46
From: "Larry White (WPG) (Exchange)" <Larryw@********.MICROSOFT.com>
Subject: RE: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:56:09 -0800
Let me try my first time at responding to one of these messages.

See comments ">>>" interspersed below.

Larry White
A Game Master who lives and works in Redmond (aka "the Barrens")

----------
From: Rick L. Vinyard[SMTP:rvinyard@****.Edu]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 1995 1:31 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Melee Combat

Need a little clarification of the rules for anyone that's interested.
Maybe someone out there plays with a bit better variation too. My primary
question concerns melee combat with spirits, but also pertains to melee
combat in general.

#1: In the rules it says to use willpower instead of an applicable armed
or unarmed skill since "unshakeable will is more important than skill."
This is my question. Does someone with armed (1) and willpower (6) armed
with a katana suddenly become a samurai master in the face of a spirit in
manifest form, or should it somehow be written as such:
to use the lesser of willpower or the applicable skill. This
would allow the above case to remain at their skill of (1), but a samurai
master armed skill (9) willpower (2) would be reduced to a 2.
Am I way off base here?

>>> Ranged combat (firearms, bows, and thrown items) use
>>> Willpower (and no combat pool) when attacking spirits.
>>> Hand-to-hand combat uses regular skill.
>>> Yes, this might make the mage using the Heavy Machine
>>> Gun the most offensive person in your group.

#2: It seems unreasonable to me that someone who rolls an initiative of
say 23 (thus allowed attacks at 23, 13 and 3) would not gain some sort of
benefit in melee combat against someone rolling a 5. Sheer quickness
should count for something. Any suggestions?

>>> If the attacking character guess the timing correctly, he is able to
>>> use the majority of his combat pool in the ATTACK on 23 and 3.
>>> On 13 he might reserve some or all of his pool for the counterattack
>>> he expects he'll do shortly (will happen on 5) or to assist his body
>>> roll if he's actually hit. This ability to allocate and use the combat
>>> pool is his major benefit.

#3: Full defense in melee combat. Example (Attacker is A, Defender D):
A's combat successes = 4. B's successes = 1. A's net successes = 3.
A stages the wound level from 5M to 5S from net successes.
D is wearing impact armor rating 3, so D's target # is now 2.
D's body roll is 1, 1, 1, 2.
D's combat pool dice roll is 2, 2, 3, 4.
Since D has four successes against 2S damage from combat pool dice the
strike is a clean miss? or is the TN for a clean miss on the combat pool
the base (modified) of 4 thus netting 1 success thus inflicting a light
wound?

>>> (a) In full defense mode the defender DOES NOT COUNTERSTRIKE,
>>> so your notation of "B's successes = 1" does not apply.
>>> So for purposes of this example, lets say A hit with 3 successes.
>>> (b) Do not determine staging, up or down, until the very end. Instead
>>> say "A hits potentially doing 5M damage with 3 successes."
>>> (c) Yes, in your example this would count as a clean miss. You would
>>> say "D twists and turns his body to take maximum advantage of his
>>> armor and THE BLOW GLANCES OFF (the crowd goes wild) !!!!"
>>>
>>> The most common place where I've seen Full Defensive Mode used is
>>> when a moving character wants to move past a number of opponents
>>> (within 1meter of each) who each want to take a "free swing" at the
>>> moving character. If the moving character counters the blow he has to
>>> stop there. If the moving character uses full defensive mode and is
hurt
>>> he has to stop there. If he uses full defensive mode and is unhurt
>>> he can keep moving.

Thanks for the help
---Rick
Message no. 47
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 11:15:49 +0000 (GMT)
On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Rick L. Vinyard spake thus:

> #1: In the rules it says to use willpower instead of an applicable armed
> or unarmed skill since "unshakeable will is more important than skill."
> This is my question. Does someone with armed (1) and willpower (6) armed
> with a katana suddenly become a samurai master in the face of a spirit in
> manifest form, or should it somehow be written as such:
> to use the lesser of willpower or the applicable skill. This
> would allow the above case to remain at their skill of (1), but a samurai
> master armed skill (9) willpower (2) would be reduced to a 2.
> Am I way off base here?
Per teh rules, Willpowre would be rolled no matter what teh skill, but I
do like your idea -very good. I guess you could explain FASA's rule by
saying that the spirit is not actually getting harmed by the weapon but
by the anger or determination of the attacker, thus it doesn't matter how
skilled he is with the weapon (well, as long as he's not likely to chop
his own hand off or something :). This is how I see it, and this is the
reason why I created the house rule that damage is (Willpower)M, not teh
damage of the weapon (I didn't see why a monowhip should hurt a Water or
fire elemental mmore than a fist (in fact I would have thought it would
hurt less as it displaces less if teh spirits manifestated being).

Note that these rules make a physad much more effective against spirits,
if they have killing hands. Even if they don't have killing hands I allow
physads to add their Improved Unarmed/Armed magical ability to their skill,
and allow them to add combat pool up to their magical ability.

> #2: It seems unreasonable to me that someone who rolls an initiative of
> say 23 (thus allowed attacks at 23, 13 and 3) would not gain some sort of
> benefit in melee combat against someone rolling a 5. Sheer quickness
> should count for something. Any suggestions?
Well, one benefit is that they get tehir Combat pool refreshed 3 times
compared to the other guy's once -thus the street sam is likely to be
able to add in about 4 more dice to his attacks than teh other guy
(assuming combat pools of 6). Also teh sam gets more attacks where ties
would go in his favour (not a big advantage I admit, but still something).

> #3: Full defense in melee combat. Example (Attacker is A, Defender D):
> A's combat successes = 4. B's successes = 1. A's net successes = 3.
> A stages the wound level from 5M to 5S from net successes.
> D is wearing impact armor rating 3, so D's target # is now 2.
> D's body roll is 1, 1, 1, 2.
> D's combat pool dice roll is 2, 2, 3, 4.
> Since D has four successes against 2S damage from combat pool dice the
> strike is a clean miss? or is the TN for a clean miss on the combat pool
> the base (modified) of 4 thus netting 1 success thus inflicting a light
> wound?
I believe (though I'm not sure, as I personally use a seperate dodge
roll) that teh TN is the power less any armour -this may not make
complete sense as teh more armour you have the easier it is to dodge, but
you could interpret as being teh more armour you have the easier it is to
get some part of that armour into teh way of the attack, adn deflect teh
attack.

> Thanks for the help
I hope I've helped anyway.

The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
Shadowrun WWW site at http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun
-------------------------------------------------------
"We're falling from ecstacy, like Changlings."
-Fields of the Nephilim, Psychonaut Lib 111.
Message no. 48
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 11:21:21 +0000 (GMT)
On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Larry White (WPG) (Exchange) wrote:

> >>> Ranged combat (firearms, bows, and thrown items) use
> >>> Willpower (and no combat pool) when attacking spirits.
I'mnot sure if teh above is correct, I personallly allow skill to be used
as there's disadvantage enough in that spirits get armour equivalent to
2xForce, against firearms (but not against bows and throwing weapons,
which I'm rather glad about having my elven street sam specialised in
throwing knives to 8 and now being placed in the Tir na nOg equivalent of
Bug City in Belfast (GM with artistic licence)).

> >>> Hand-to-hand combat uses regular skill.
I'm pretty sure it is Willpower, not skill, though I could be wrong :).


The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
Shadowrun WWW site at http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun
-------------------------------------------------------
"We're falling from ecstacy, like Changlings."
-Fields of the Nephilim, Psychonaut Lib 111.
Message no. 49
From: "A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 11:58:07 +0000 (GMT)
>
> Need a little clarification of the rules for anyone that's interested.
> Maybe someone out there plays with a bit better variation too. My primary
> question concerns melee combat with spirits, but also pertains to melee
> combat in general.

I'm more familiar with 1st Ed rules but.....

> #1: In the rules it says to use willpower instead of an applicable armed
> or unarmed skill since "unshakeable will is more important than skill."
> This is my question. Does someone with armed (1) and willpower (6) armed
> with a katana suddenly become a samurai master in the face of a spirit in
> manifest form, or should it somehow be written as such:
> to use the lesser of willpower or the applicable skill. This
> would allow the above case to remain at their skill of (1), but a samurai
> master armed skill (9) willpower (2) would be reduced to a 2.
> Am I way off base here?

Yes. Someone with a willpower of 6 and NO UNARMED SKILL would still use 6
Think of it as the willpower of the person forcing the spirit out of
existence. The sword is just a tool used by those who don't know better.
The best example of this is the mage. He uses his Willpower OR Sorcery skill
to combat the spirit, (whichever is higher!)

> #2: It seems unreasonable to me that someone who rolls an initiative of
> say 23 (thus allowed attacks at 23, 13 and 3) would not gain some sort of
> benefit in melee combat against someone rolling a 5. Sheer quickness
> should count for something. Any suggestions?

He has ONE HELL of an advantage. THINK.. The defender is on five, so the
attacker gets 2 attacks before the defenders combat pool has a chance to
refresh! That means that the attacker can use ALL his dice to attack the
defender twice, while the defender has only one pool of dice to protect
agains two attacks.
He's almost bound to get wounded and then he's at an even bigger
disadvantage!

> #3: Full defense in melee combat. Example (Attacker is A, Defender D):
> A's combat successes = 4. B's successes = 1. A's net successes = 3.
> A stages the wound level from 5M to 5S from net successes.
> D is wearing impact armor rating 3, so D's target # is now 2.
> D's body roll is 1, 1, 1, 2.
> D's combat pool dice roll is 2, 2, 3, 4.
> Since D has four successes against 2S damage from combat pool dice the
> strike is a clean miss? or is the TN for a clean miss on the combat pool
> the base (modified) of 4 thus netting 1 success thus inflicting a light
> wound?

I think you'll find that D takes a serious wound. He used the combat pool to
defend against the attack and attempt to stage it down, but only got one
success, and therefore failed. THEN he only succeded in getting one
success on his body roll. OUCH!

> Thanks for the help
> ---Rick
>

Hope this helped!
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crackin |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant bolder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal in:- |to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 50
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 12:59:10 +0100
Rick L. Vinyard said on 11 Dec 95...

> #1: In the rules it says to use willpower instead of an applicable armed
> or unarmed skill since "unshakeable will is more important than skill."
> This is my question. Does someone with armed (1) and willpower (6) armed
> with a katana suddenly become a samurai master in the face of a spirit in
> manifest form, or should it somehow be written as such:

You use Willpower in all cases, unless you're armed with a weapon focus
that you've bonded to yourself. The reason is that, even though my Armed
Combat skill is around -2, and I'm armed with Martin's
katana-replica-annex-hedge-trimming-device :) , I
_want_ to kill the spirit. That will is more important that how well I can
wield the "weapon" I'm holding. I make cuts and thrusts that wouldn't even
fool myself, but the _will_ to harm the spirit is what makes me hurt it.

> #2: It seems unreasonable to me that someone who rolls an initiative of
> say 23 (thus allowed attacks at 23, 13 and 3) would not gain some sort of
> benefit in melee combat against someone rolling a 5. Sheer quickness
> should count for something. Any suggestions?

Well, I once revised the melee combat rules to include various moves and
stuff, and also added bonuses for extra initiative dice and so on. -1 TN
per extra D6 initiative you have, I believe, in addition to a lot of other
modifiers for which you may or may not qualify depending on your active
magic and cyberware.

> #3: Full defense in melee combat. Example (Attacker is A, Defender D):
[example snipped]
> Since D has four successes against 2S damage from combat pool dice the
> strike is a clean miss? or is the TN for a clean miss on the combat pool
> the base (modified) of 4 thus netting 1 success thus inflicting a light
> wound?

It's a clean miss. Even though A originally hit, the successes on the
Combat Pool dice means history is changed and he missed :)
The TN for the Combat Pool dice is the same as that for the Body test,
namely the attacker's Power minus the defender's armor.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Quotes don't mean shit
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 51
From: Quicksilver <jhurley1@******.stevens-tech.edu>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 00:15:23 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Rick L. Vinyard wrote:

> Need a little clarification of the rules for anyone that's interested.
> Maybe someone out there plays with a bit better variation too. My primary
> question concerns melee combat with spirits, but also pertains to melee
> combat in general.
>
> #1: In the rules it says to use willpower instead of an applicable armed
> or unarmed skill since "unshakeable will is more important than skill."
> This is my question. Does someone with armed (1) and willpower (6) armed
> with a katana suddenly become a samurai master in the face of a spirit in
> manifest form, or should it somehow be written as such:
> to use the lesser of willpower or the applicable skill. This
> would allow the above case to remain at their skill of (1), but a samurai
> master armed skill (9) willpower (2) would be reduced to a 2.
> Am I way off base here?

I deal with it in the following fashion. Mundanes use willpower as the
skill to attack spirits, and MAY NOT USE combat pool. They do
(willpower)L damage, regardless of weapon. Spirit resists as normal,
using force + threat rating as combat skill, and force as body to resist
damage. Phys-Ads not using weapon foci follow the same procedure.

If the mundane knows sorcery, he uses that instead. (Given that I try to
make stats above racial average hard to get, this is an atvantage to
learning sorcery) If a Physad knows sorcery, he uses that and has
access to his combat pool. (In neither case is their damage changed)If the
physad has a weapon focus, he uses either armed combat or sorcery, and
does damage as a weapon focus in astral combat. A mage with access to
full sorcery uses sorcery+*MAGIC* pool to attack, and does willpower L
damage. Or he uses a weapon focus as a physad. A mage without access to
full sorcery may learn sorcery as a mundane would. If they bond a weapon
focus, then they may use that as a physad above.

>
> #2: It seems unreasonable to me that someone who rolls an initiative of
> say 23 (thus allowed attacks at 23, 13 and 3) would not gain some sort of
> benefit in melee combat against someone rolling a 5. Sheer quickness
> should count for something. Any suggestions?

The guy with 5 init is in a *LOT* of trouble. Especially if it is not
first turn of combat. He's is HtH without the benefit of combat pool for
1, maybe two comabt actions.

>
> #3: Full defense in melee combat. Example (Attacker is A, Defender D):
> A's combat successes = 4. B's successes = 1. A's net successes = 3.
> A stages the wound level from 5M to 5S from net successes.
> D is wearing impact armor rating 3, so D's target # is now 2.
> D's body roll is 1, 1, 1, 2.
> D's combat pool dice roll is 2, 2, 3, 4.
> Since D has four successes against 2S damage from combat pool dice the
> strike is a clean miss? or is the TN for a clean miss on the combat pool
> the base (modified) of 4 thus netting 1 success thus inflicting a light
> wound?

Sequence is as follows:
Attacker rolls armed combat+combat pool vs 4+modifiers
Defender rolls armed combat+combat pool (but since the defender declared
full defense, he may NOT add combat pool at this stage) vs 4+modifiers.

If the attacker wins (likely, as he is using combat pool, and D is not)
he stages by net successes.

The defender now makes a damage resistance test vs the adjusted power of
the weapon. (This is the real advantage of full defense, as damage
resistance rolls are never modified, and are often lower than 4, while
combat successes often are modified and 4 or higher!)

For every two successes the defender get, the damage is staged down one
level.

In your case, the combat pool dice go against the modified damage level
of 2, rather than the combat value of 4, so the defender is undamaged.
NOT missed. This is important for contact toxins and mono-whip rebounds.
>
> Thanks for the help
> ---Rick
>
Message no. 52
From: sedahdro@*****.com (Victor Rodriguez, Jr)
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 01:31 EST
>If the mundane knows sorcery, he uses that instead. (Given that I try to
>make stats above racial average hard to get, this is an atvantage to
>learning sorcery) If a Physad knows sorcery, he uses that and has
>access to his combat pool.
Why sorcery and not conjuring? Just curious. :)
---Sedah Drol
--
ATTN: Due to lack of interest, tomorrow has been canceled.
GC3.1
GO>CS d- s:--- a21 C++++>$ U--- P L-- E? W+>W+++ N o? K? w+>w++++ O--- M-- V
PS+++ PE Y+ PGP- t++ 5+ X++ R++>+++$ tv++ b- DI++ D+ G++ e* h r++ y++
Message no. 53
From: Quicksilver <jhurley1@******.stevens-tech.edu>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 02:24:45 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 13 Dec 1995 sedahdro@*****.com wrote:

> >If the mundane knows sorcery, he uses that instead. (Given that I try to
> >make stats above racial average hard to get, this is an atvantage to
> >learning sorcery) If a Physad knows sorcery, he uses that and has
> >access to his combat pool.
> Why sorcery and not conjuring? Just curious. :)
Thems the rules. Conjuring is a ritual kind of thing, sorcery is more
instant.
Message no. 54
From: Gallas William <gallas@**.ec-lyon.fr>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 10:56:58 MET
> Quicksilver:
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 1995 sedahdro@*****.com wrote:
>
> > >If the mundane knows sorcery, he uses that instead. (Given that I try to
> > >make stats above racial average hard to get, this is an atvantage to
> > >learning sorcery) If a Physad knows sorcery, he uses that and has
> > >access to his combat pool.
> > Why sorcery and not conjuring? Just curious. :)
> Thems the rules. Conjuring is a ritual kind of thing, sorcery is more
> instant.

Well, you seem to forget you can use conjuring to fight a spirit in astral...
Conjuring is not nessecarilly a ritual because it is used in the same time as
sorcery (shamans for exemple).

- Cobra.

_______
/ \
| _ )
\_/ \ /
/ ) /
/| / /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ / __
/ /______/ )
(___________/\|
Message no. 55
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 11:15:17 +0100
Quicksilver said on 13 Dec 95...

> > Why sorcery and not conjuring? Just curious. :)
> Thems the rules. Conjuring is a ritual kind of thing, sorcery is more
> instant.

And what if you're a shaman? They summon a nature spirit in on complex
action. Also, Conjuring skill can be used to withstand damage caused by a
spirit (in place of the normal Body or Willpower test) because it
"includes numerous traditional charms used over the centuries to turn away
the malice of such beings." (SRII p.143) I think Conjuring skill would be
better for fighting spirits in HtH combat than Sorcery.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Quotes don't mean shit
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 56
From: "A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 10:51:19 +0000 (GMT)
>
> >If the mundane knows sorcery, he uses that instead. (Given that I try to
> >make stats above racial average hard to get, this is an atvantage to
> >learning sorcery) If a Physad knows sorcery, he uses that and has
> >access to his combat pool.
> Why sorcery and not conjuring? Just curious. :)
> ---Sedah Drol

Look up conjuring and banishment in the rules! The sorcery skill can
damage a spirit, but only a mage can use conjuring against a spirit.
Banishment is RISKY!!! It doesn't affect your body, it affects your MAGIC
ATTRIBUTE.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crackin |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant bolder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal in:- |to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 57
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 11:51:26 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Gurth wrote:

> And what if you're a shaman? They summon a nature spirit in on complex
> action. Also, Conjuring skill can be used to withstand damage caused by a
> spirit (in place of the normal Body or Willpower test) because it
> "includes numerous traditional charms used over the centuries to turn away
> the malice of such beings." (SRII p.143) I think Conjuring skill would be
> better for fighting spirits in HtH combat than Sorcery.

Sorcery is the skill that involves changing the universe sheerly
through force of will. Conjuring is the skill that allows you to contact
and make pacts of service with astral entities. It becomes apparent that
if you are trying to damage the spirit by force of will, sorcery will
help you more than conjuring. If you were trying to banish the spirit,
then conjuring would be the way to go.

Marc
Message no. 58
From: "Larry White (WPG) (Exchange)" <Larryw@********.MICROSOFT.com>
Subject: RE: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 17:35:29 -0800
On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Larry White wrote many things which just weren't true.

Sorry for my screwups in being the first to respond to Rick L. Vinyard on
Melee Combat. My group attempts to follow the printed rules for Spirit
Combat, Full Defense Mode, and Determining Damage in melee combat, and erred
in all three. It has been enlightening seeing the responses and validating
their veracity.

Do any of you still use the terminology "Deadly Plus 1" and "Deadly Plus
2"
in determining damage in melee combat? If not, which of the following do
you do for steps 4 and 5 in Resolving Melee Combat (SRII p. 100):

a) When increasing the damage level of the attacker for every two full net
successes we ignore successes that would increase the damage level beyond
Deadly.
b) We make up extra staging levels beyond Deadly and call them X, Y, and Z.
c) After resisting damage (step 5) we ignore any staging still remaining
that is beyond Deadly.
d) After resisting damage (step 5) any staging beyond Deadly counts as
follows: XYZ
Message no. 59
From: Justin Thomas <Justin.C.Thomas-1@**.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 19:50:41 -0600
At 01:29 AM 12/13/95 -0500, you wrote:
>>If the mundane knows sorcery, he uses that instead. (Given that I try to
>>make stats above racial average hard to get, this is an atvantage to
>>learning sorcery) If a Physad knows sorcery, he uses that and has
>>access to his combat pool.
>Why sorcery and not conjuring? Just curious. :)
> ---Sedah Drol

yes I believe it even says something in there about using conjuring...

******************************
Justin Thomas
"Farr"
Email:
thom0767@****.tc.umn.edu
or if that doesn't work
Justin.C.Thomas-1@**.umn.edu
or
justin.thomas@*********.mn.org
Message no. 60
From: sedahdro@*****.com (Victor Rodriguez, Jr)
Subject: RE: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 00:25 EST
>Do any of you still use the terminology "Deadly Plus 1" and "Deadly
Plus 2"
>in determining damage in melee combat? If not, which of the following do
>you do for steps 4 and 5 in Resolving Melee Combat (SRII p. 100):
>
>a) When increasing the damage level of the attacker for every two full net
>successes we ignore successes that would increase the damage level beyond
>Deadly.
>b) We make up extra staging levels beyond Deadly and call them X, Y, and Z.
>c) After resisting damage (step 5) we ignore any staging still remaining
>that is beyond Deadly.
>d) After resisting damage (step 5) any staging beyond Deadly counts as
>follows: XYZ
e. none of the above. I usualy deduct one point of armor for every two
successes above deadly. This has same effect as APDS ammo. For example:
10D2 -2 armor if there were four successes past deadly.
---Sedah Drol
--
ATTN: Due to lack of interest, tomorrow has been canceled.
GC3.1
GO>CS d- s:--- a21 C++++>$ U--- P L-- E? W+>W+++ N o? K? w+>w++++ O--- M-- V
PS+++ PE Y+ PGP- t++ 5+ X++ R++>+++$ tv++ b- DI++ D+ G++ e* h r++ y++
Message no. 61
From: Quicksilver <jhurley1@******.stevens-tech.edu>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 01:21:36 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Gallas William wrote:

> > Quicksilver:
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 1995 sedahdro@*****.com wrote:
> >
> > > >If the mundane knows sorcery, he uses that instead. (Given that I try
to
> > > >make stats above racial average hard to get, this is an atvantage to
> > > >learning sorcery) If a Physad knows sorcery, he uses that and has
> > > >access to his combat pool.
> > > Why sorcery and not conjuring? Just curious. :)
> > Thems the rules. Conjuring is a ritual kind of thing, sorcery is more
> > instant.
>
> Well, you seem to forget you can use conjuring to fight a spirit in astral...
> Conjuring is not nessecarilly a ritual because it is used in the same time as
> sorcery (shamans for exemple).

Eh? Astral combat uses sorcery in my copy of SRII. And, yes, I know
shamans can use it in an "instant" sense.
Message no. 62
From: Quicksilver <jhurley1@******.stevens-tech.edu>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 01:24:28 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Gurth wrote:

> Quicksilver said on 13 Dec 95...
>
> > > Why sorcery and not conjuring? Just curious. :)
> > Thems the rules. Conjuring is a ritual kind of thing, sorcery is more
> > instant.
>
> And what if you're a shaman? They summon a nature spirit in on complex
> action. Also, Conjuring skill can be used to withstand damage caused by a
> spirit (in place of the normal Body or Willpower test) because it
> "includes numerous traditional charms used over the centuries to turn away
> the malice of such beings." (SRII p.143) I think Conjuring skill would be
> better for fighting spirits in HtH combat than Sorcery.
>

(I don't know if my first reply got through)

P 147, SRII softcover

"Even characters who cannot cast spells can use sorcery skill for astral
combat." I am applying the astral combat rules to any melee combat vs
spirits.

if firing a self bow vs spirits, BTW, use Projectile Weapons + combat
pool, but do damage as (Will)L

Smae with thrown weapons.
Message no. 63
From: "Chris McKinnon" <cmckinno@********.ca>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 02:01:45 -0005
X-Signature: Enigma

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Enigma "Good...Bad...I'm the guy with
Chris McKinnon the gun."
cmckinno@********.ca - Ash (Army of Darkness)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
..
Message no. 64
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 08:26:27 +0000 (GMT)
On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Quicksilver wrote:

> Sequence is as follows:
> Attacker rolls armed combat+combat pool vs 4+modifiers
> Defender rolls armed combat+combat pool (but since the defender declared
> full defense, he may NOT add combat pool at this stage) vs 4+modifiers.
>
> If the attacker wins (likely, as he is using combat pool, and D is not)
> he stages by net successes.
>
> The defender now makes a damage resistance test vs the adjusted power of
> the weapon. (This is the real advantage of full defense, as damage
> resistance rolls are never modified, and are often lower than 4, while
> combat successes often are modified and 4 or higher!)
>
> For every two successes the defender get, the damage is staged down one
> level.
>
> In your case, the combat pool dice go against the modified damage level
> of 2, rather than the combat value of 4, so the defender is undamaged.
> NOT missed. This is important for contact toxins and mono-whip rebounds.
I thought that if in full defence and if the combat pool dice alone EXCEEDED
the net attack successes then it was a clean miss -this was one of the
other big advantages to full defence.


The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
Shadowrun WWW site at http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun
-------------------------------------------------------
"We're falling from ecstacy, like Changlings."
-Fields of the Nephilim, Psychonaut Lib 111.
Message no. 65
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 08:29:37 +0000 (GMT)
On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Quicksilver wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Dec 1995 sedahdro@*****.com wrote:
>
> > >If the mundane knows sorcery, he uses that instead. (Given that I try to
> > >make stats above racial average hard to get, this is an atvantage to
> > >learning sorcery) If a Physad knows sorcery, he uses that and has
> > >access to his combat pool.
> > Why sorcery and not conjuring? Just curious. :)
> Thems the rules. Conjuring is a ritual kind of thing, sorcery is more
> instant.
I thought any appropriate skill could be used, I remember something about
mundanes using conjuring with the explanation being they had learnt
various warding off practices which helped -mind you I may be thinking of
astral combat as I also remember there being something like Sorcery
versus spells, enchanting versus magical items etc.

But the default skill for astral combat is either Unarmed Combat or Sorcery.


The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
Shadowrun WWW site at http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun
-------------------------------------------------------
"We're falling from ecstacy, like Changlings."
-Fields of the Nephilim, Psychonaut Lib 111.
Message no. 66
From: sedahdro@*****.com (Victor Rodriguez, Jr)
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 04:32 EST
>> And what if you're a shaman? They summon a nature spirit in on complex
>> action. Also, Conjuring skill can be used to withstand damage caused by a
>> spirit (in place of the normal Body or Willpower test) because it
>> "includes numerous traditional charms used over the centuries to turn away
>> the malice of such beings." (SRII p.143) I think Conjuring skill would be
>> better for fighting spirits in HtH combat than Sorcery.
>>
>
>(I don't know if my first reply got through)
>
>P 147, SRII softcover
>
>"Even characters who cannot cast spells can use sorcery skill for astral
>combat." I am applying the astral combat rules to any melee combat vs
>spirits.
I believe they are refering to the Banishing power of mages, which is a form
of astral combat. pg 143 SRII hardback.
---Sedah Drol
--
ATTN: Due to lack of interest, tomorrow has been canceled.
GC3.1
GO>CS d- s:--- a21 C++++>$ U--- P L-- E? W+>W+++ N o? K? w+>w++++ O--- M-- V
PS+++ PE Y+ PGP- t++ 5+ X++ R++>+++$ tv++ b- DI++ D+ G++ e* h r++ y++
Message no. 67
From: "A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:53:41 +0000 (GMT)
> e. none of the above. I usualy deduct one point of armor for every two
> successes above deadly. This has same effect as APDS ammo. For example:
> 10D2 -2 armor if there were four successes past deadly.
> ---Sedah Drol
I *think* that's the way it's meant to be in the rules. It's certainly the
way it worked in 1st Ed. For every damage level you staged it up above
deadly, remove 1 point of armour.

--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crackin |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant bolder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal in:- |to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 68
From: "Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:06:43 GMT
A Halliwell writes

> > e. none of the above. I usualy deduct one point of armor for every two
> > successes above deadly. This has same effect as APDS ammo. For example:
> > 10D2 -2 armor if there were four successes past deadly.
> > ---Sedah Drol
> I *think* that's the way it's meant to be in the rules. It's certainly the
> way it worked in 1st Ed. For every damage level you staged it up above
> deadly, remove 1 point of armour.
>
That is a house rule. Officailly in second edition extra bullets etc
can stage things to a maximum of 'D' nut no more (eg LMG 10 rnds is
17D not 17D + 2 stagings - i play the latter but its not offical,
though i think it might have been in 1st ed). Stagings from success
are calculated based on net. You compare attacker with total defense
(be they body, combat sense spells, combat pool, threat rating or
whatever) and stage the base damage code (after allowing for firearms
burst and full auto mods) with the net successes. Only VR2 is
different in 2nd edition. [in first ed attacker staged up then
defender staged down, loose successes that did not meet whole
stagings got lost, now they might offset defenders, so it is an
important difference at times]

hope that clears things up as some of these rules are really obsucre
to 'find as required' though they are in SR2 main book.

Mark
Message no. 69
From: "A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 14:13:19 +0000 (GMT)
>
> A Halliwell writes
> > I *think* that's the way it's meant to be in the rules. It's certainly the
> > way it worked in 1st Ed. For every damage level you staged it up above
> > deadly, remove 1 point of armour.
> >
> That is a house rule. Officailly in second edition extra bullets etc
> can stage things to a maximum of 'D' nut no more (eg LMG 10 rnds is
<SNIP>
>
>
No! It's not a house rule as far as I can remember (i'm not in a position to
check at the moment).
It is, as I said, a 1st Ed rule! (I've only GM'ed 2nd Ed once and never
played it 'cos 1st Ed is BETTER (IMHO)).

--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crackin |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant bolder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal in:- |to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 70
From: "Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:29:47 GMT
A Halliwell writes

> >
> > A Halliwell writes
> > > I *think* that's the way it's meant to be in the rules. It's certainly the
> > > way it worked in 1st Ed. For every damage level you staged it up above
> > > deadly, remove 1 point of armour.
> > >
> > That is a house rule. Officailly in second edition extra bullets etc
> > can stage things to a maximum of 'D' nut no more (eg LMG 10 rnds is
> <SNIP>
> >
> >
> No! It's not a house rule as far as I can remember (i'm not in a position to
> check at the moment).
> It is, as I said, a 1st Ed rule! (I've only GM'ed 2nd Ed once and never
> played it 'cos 1st Ed is BETTER (IMHO)).
>
Well some of us have only read 2nd ed. And your origonal comment is
certainly NOT in 2nd ed, note i did put the edition i was using as a
base in my first reply. Considering how i am told 1st ed armour
worked it would have been perfectly reasonable in 1st ed but is
rather 'botchy' in 2nd, they totally changer how armour affects
damage resistance tests so you cannot use rules from 1 edition with
the other 'just like that'. IMHO

Mark
Message no. 71
From: "A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:41:24 +0000 (GMT)
>
> A Halliwell writes
>
> > >
> > > A Halliwell writes
> > > > I *think* that's the way it's meant to be in the rules. It's certainly
the
> > > > way it worked in 1st Ed. For every damage level you staged it up above
> > > > deadly, remove 1 point of armour.
> > > >
> > > That is a house rule. Officailly in second edition extra bullets etc
> > > can stage things to a maximum of 'D' nut no more (eg LMG 10 rnds is
> > <SNIP>
> > >
> > >
> > No! It's not a house rule as far as I can remember (i'm not in a position to
> > check at the moment).
> > It is, as I said, a 1st Ed rule! (I've only GM'ed 2nd Ed once and never
> > played it 'cos 1st Ed is BETTER (IMHO)).
> >
> Well some of us have only read 2nd ed. And your origonal comment is
> certainly NOT in 2nd ed, note i did put the edition i was using as a
> base in my first reply. Considering how i am told 1st ed armour
> worked it would have been perfectly reasonable in 1st ed but is
> rather 'botchy' in 2nd, they totally changer how armour affects
> damage resistance tests so you cannot use rules from 1 edition with
> the other 'just like that'. IMHO
>
> Mark
>


--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crackin |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant bolder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal in:- |to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 72
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: RE: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 12:26:25 +0100
Larry White (WPG) (Exchange) said on 13 Dec 95...

> Do any of you still use the terminology "Deadly Plus 1" and "Deadly
Plus 2"
> in determining damage in melee combat?

Under the FASA-published rules there are no such things, I'm afraid. Once
you hit Deadly, you don't stage up any further.

The way we play it (note: this is probably a house rule!) is that, in
melee combat you first roll the attack test and defense test, and then a
Body test. Only then do we stage damage -- example: Kees rams his fist
into Henk's face. Kees gets 8 successes on his Unarmed Combat test, and
Henk only 1. That makes 7 for Kees; Henk now rolls his Body test, for 2
successes. Kees still has 5 successes in his advantage, so he causes a
Deadly Stun wound (Moderate, staged up twice).

For damage above Deadly, we start again at Light, then Moderate, and so
on. So if Henk, in the above example, had rolled no successes at all, he'd
have taken Deadly Stun plus Moderate physical.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Bombarded by superlatives.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 73
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 13:37:57 -0600 (MDT)
Yipee! No more mail bomb.

So I'm sitting here thinking about one of my biggest gripes about SRII
(melee combat) and I suddenly get an idea. And I think about it for awhile
and it seems to be a good idea. But, I think, I better let someone else
check it out.

Right now it's attack, defend, person who got hit resists damage.

The downside (IMHO) is that the defender can get a free attack out of the
deal no matter how slow he is.

New way: attack vs base TN of 4 modified by target's skill level (if
defending) and other regular modifiers. If target is hit he resists damage,
if not the attack fails (just like ranged combat).

If the target defends (by spending a free action), and he has a higher
skill level than the attacker, the difference in skill levels is added to
the TN.

If the target does not defend (by choice, attack occurs before his
initiative, allready spent his free action for that phase) then the
attacker gets a -1 to the TN.

And, if the attack occurs before the target's initiative maybe the attacker
gets an additional -1 to his TN.

Comments?

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 74
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 11:20:23 +0100
David Buehrer said on 8 Apr 96...

> Yipee! No more mail bomb.

You can say that again...

> If the target defends (by spending a free action), and he has a higher
> skill level than the attacker, the difference in skill levels is added to
> the TN.

How about letting the target make a Resistance Test using Unarmed Combat
in order to block, and subtract his successes from those of the attacker?
If the attacker has 0 or more net successes, he hits. If the defender has
any net successes, the attacker misses completely.

> If the target does not defend (by choice, attack occurs before his
> initiative, allready spent his free action for that phase) then the
> attacker gets a -1 to the TN.

This wouldn't really be necessary if the target cannot defend, as you make
it under these rules.

> And, if the attack occurs before the target's initiative maybe the attacker
> gets an additional -1 to his TN.

That would make it even easier to hit someone. Right now you have a 50/50
chance of hitting, if there are no special modifiers such as darkness,
friends in melee, extra reach, etc. This would make you roll against a TN
of _2_ for such attacks.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"We don't smoke the shit, we just sell it" --cigarette manufacturer
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 75
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 19:30:33 +1030
>New way: attack vs base TN of 4 modified by target's skill level (if
>defending) and other regular modifiers. If target is hit he resists damage,
>if not the attack fails (just like ranged combat).
>
>If the target defends (by spending a free action), and he has a higher
>skill level than the attacker, the difference in skill levels is added to
>the TN.
>
>If the target does not defend (by choice, attack occurs before his
>initiative, allready spent his free action for that phase) then the
>attacker gets a -1 to the TN.
>
>And, if the attack occurs before the target's initiative maybe the attacker
>gets an additional -1 to his TN.
>
>Comments?

One problem is that it makes the speed demon even more vicious than
before... Speed is nice, but skill should be important, too.

Here's the setup:

Joe with an initiative of 10 and a skill of 10 (with 10 combat pool,
natch), gets attacked by Schmoe, with an initiative of 20+ and a skill of
5. Schmoe wipes the floor with Joe, having two attacks, target number of
2, seeing as how Joe can't defend (no free actions yet, -1), and it's
before Joe's go (another -1). 5 dice, add 5 from pool each time, for 10
dice twice. Call it 8 successes (which seems right), and poor old Joe is
facing off 2 Deadly stuns. For all of his skill, he's no more effective
than Flo, his neighbour who trips tying up his shoelaces. Assuming he
somehow survives, if he doesn't paste Schmoe (with all those negatives),
Schmoe attacks (and probably fails) later that round, then gets to paste
Joe all over again next round. Bluntly, there's no way Joe can win.

As an alternative solution, and the one I'm toying with now, in order to
defend yourself in the event of an attack, rule that you must be prepared
for it. This can be achieved by either attacking in melee combat on your
last Complex action, or having not used your last Complex action (eg,
like delaying).

This allows surprise speed attacks to be effective, and helps stop the
syndrome of the gun/knife guy who shoots on his go, and carves on all the
others.

--
* *
/_\ "A friend is someone who likes the same TV programs you do" /_\
{~._.~} "Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen {~._.~}
( Y ) to be dressed for it." -- Woody Allen ( Y )
()~*~() Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au ()~*~()
(_)-(_) (_)-(_)
Message no. 76
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 06:55:43 -0600 (MDT)
Gurth wrote:
|
|David Buehrer said on 8 Apr 96...
|
|> If the target defends (by spending a free action), and he has a higher
|> skill level than the attacker, the difference in skill levels is added to
|> the TN.
|
|How about letting the target make a Resistance Test using Unarmed Combat
|in order to block, and subtract his successes from those of the attacker?
|If the attacker has 0 or more net successes, he hits. If the defender has
|any net successes, the attacker misses completely.

Would you believe that my players are complaining about too many dice
rolls? (The ungrateful sots want to roleplay ;). But that is a good option
that wouldn't require to much of a change.

|> If the target does not defend (by choice, attack occurs before his
|> initiative, allready spent his free action for that phase) then the
|> attacker gets a -1 to the TN.
|
|This wouldn't really be necessary if the target cannot defend, as you make
|it under these rules.

Good point.

|> And, if the attack occurs before the target's initiative maybe the attacker
|> gets an additional -1 to his TN.
|
|That would make it even easier to hit someone. Right now you have a 50/50
|chance of hitting, if there are no special modifiers such as darkness,
|friends in melee, extra reach, etc. This would make you roll against a TN
|of _2_ for such attacks.

Really good point. You're right, not being able to defend is bad enough. No
reason to compound it with modifiers that favor the attacker.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 77
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 07:16:56 -0600 (MDT)
Robert Watkins wrote:
|
|>New way: attack vs base TN of 4 modified by target's skill level (if
|>defending) and other regular modifiers. If target is hit he resists damage,
|>if not the attack fails (just like ranged combat).
|>
|>If the target defends (by spending a free action), and he has a higher
|>skill level than the attacker, the difference in skill levels is added to
|>the TN.
|>
|>If the target does not defend (by choice, attack occurs before his
|>initiative, allready spent his free action for that phase) then the
|>attacker gets a -1 to the TN.
|>
|>And, if the attack occurs before the target's initiative maybe the attacker
|>gets an additional -1 to his TN.
|>
|>Comments?
|
|One problem is that it makes the speed demon even more vicious than
|before... Speed is nice, but skill should be important, too.
|
|Here's the setup:
|
[snip] Description of guy with high skill getting fragged by guy with high
speed (using above modifiers).

I hadn't really thought the modifiers through. Thanks for pointing it out.

|As an alternative solution, and the one I'm toying with now, in order to
|defend yourself in the event of an attack, rule that you must be prepared
|for it. This can be achieved by either attacking in melee combat on your
|last Complex action, or having not used your last Complex action (eg,
|like delaying).

Yeah, but what do you do if the attacker's initiative is higher than the
target's (i.e. the attacker is going before the target has even done his
first action)?

My overall basic complaint with the SRII melee rules is that the target
can always defend, no matter what the difference in initiative is. My
other complaint is that there are different rules for ranged combat and
melee combat.

So the reasoning behind my rules alteration is to use a base TN for
melee combat so that it's similar to ranged combat. And to make it cost
something to defend (in this case a Free Action). If the attacker is
going before the target even knows what's going on then the target
shouldn't get to defend (or if the target is caught by suprise).

Speed Should be vicious (or at least have the opportunity).

Ok, I'm done whining (for now <grin>).

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 78
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:52:09 +0100
David Buehrer said on 9 Apr 96...

> Would you believe that my players are complaining about too many dice
> rolls? (The ungrateful sots want to roleplay ;). But that is a good option
> that wouldn't require to much of a change.

It woul mean you roll just as many dice as you do under the standard
rules, at least to make the actal attack, but the results are slightly
different. It does mean less dice rolling if the defender would have hit,
because the original attacker doesn't have to resist the damage.

> Really good point. You're right, not being able to defend is bad enough. No
> reason to compound it with modifiers that favor the attacker.

I like the having to spend a Free Action in order to defend, so I might
implement that. It won't make much of a difference, but if you're being
melee-attacked by two people you can only defend against one of them.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Can I use these condoms on the continent, or do I need a European adaptor?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 79
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 19:41:08 +1030
>|As an alternative solution, and the one I'm toying with now, in order to
>|defend yourself in the event of an attack, rule that you must be prepared
>|for it. This can be achieved by either attacking in melee combat on your
>|last Complex action, or having not used your last Complex action (eg,
>|like delaying).
>
>Yeah, but what do you do if the attacker's initiative is higher than the
>target's (i.e. the attacker is going before the target has even done his
>first action)?

First action, first round: you get creamed. You were caught with your
pants down (going into melee combat instantly counts, IMHO), so what do
you expect?
Before the first action, second round+... if the target is qualified to
defend based on their last action, they can.

>My overall basic complaint with the SRII melee rules is that the target
>can always defend, no matter what the difference in initiative is. My
>other complaint is that there are different rules for ranged combat and
>melee combat.

There is a rationale... when you make a melee attack, you leave yourself
open. When you shoot someone, you are no more or less open than before.


--
Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 80
From: "Damion Milliken" <dam01@***.edu.au>
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 02:10:32 +1000 (EST)
I asked a similar question to this some time ago, but anyway, here's my
latest query:

The rules on melee combat state that if an opponent passes within 1m of you
during a combat turn, then you may make an out of phase melee attack on him
(interception). My question is, does fleeing from melee combat once you're
already in it qualify for another combatant to intercept you (and thus get a
free attack)? A kind of "free attack at his back as he leaves combat" type
of thing.

I used to rule that it did, but I'm reconsidering. What do you all think?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a20 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E@ W(+)>++ N- o@ K- w(--) O@ M- !V PS+
PE Y+ PGP->++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI- D G+ e>++ h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 81
From: "Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 11:26:00 GMT
>From Damion Milliken

> The rules on melee combat state that if an opponent passes within 1m of you
> during a combat turn, then you may make an out of phase melee attack on him
> (interception). My question is, does fleeing from melee combat once you're
> already in it qualify for another combatant to intercept you (and thus get a
> free attack)? A kind of "free attack at his back as he leaves combat" type
> of thing.
This is another area where some of the experienced list members might
be able to help but. It is certainly going to depend on how the soul
'running away' does it. If the would be escaper has enough walking
speed they could make a fighting withdrawl, with quickness mods you
stand a good chance, even if he gets a go at you when you increas to
running speed next action at +4 (for running after you) and +2 (for
you running away) he'll be lucky to crease your armour (at least in
SR). If you just turn your back on someone trying to hit you hand to
hand well i suspect you get clobbered! Far too many people use the
seperate move and attack phases of many games to 'run accross the
corridor between bursts of gunfire' or 'leg it past the guy while he's
not got an action' etc. All the FASA games are fairly bad for this,
Battletech would be even slower though if you tried to solve it. I
also got very fed up of ED Horrors that were so tough they just ran
through lines of fighters and plain ignored them. It gets a little
different when you get up to rogue Elephants, sure you can have a
free hit, bounce, trample, oops..........

>
> I used to rule that it did, but I'm reconsidering. What do you all think?
>
This sort of ruling at least diswades people from doing silly things
like ignoring combatents that in reality should be able to intercept
them, and if ignored beat them senseless.

Same goes for madmen running down corridirs, just becasue the guy
with the full auto machine gun doesn't resolve his attack this action
does not mean the airs not full of lead.

well a ramble about the subject.

> Damion Milliken
>

Mark
Message no. 82
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.net.au>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 22:05:48 +1100
>The rules on melee combat state that if an opponent passes within 1m of you
>during a combat turn, then you may make an out of phase melee attack on him
>(interception). My question is, does fleeing from melee combat once you're
>already in it qualify for another combatant to intercept you (and thus get a
>free attack)? A kind of "free attack at his back as he leaves combat" type
>of thing.
>
>I used to rule that it did, but I'm reconsidering. What do you all think?

I like it, but no... It's when you're moving through the 1 meter area,
not when you move out of it, or when you move into it (otherwise, for
example, they could attack you when you move in to attack them). However,
a bystander, innocent or otherwise, could attack you as you leave.


--
* *
/_\ "A friend is someone who likes the same TV programs you do" /_\
{~._.~} "Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen {~._.~}
( Y ) to be dressed for it." -- Woody Allen ( Y )
()~*~() Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au ()~*~()
(_)-(_) (_)-(_)
Message no. 83
From: GRANITE <granite@**.net>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 02:30:28 -0700
> My question is, does fleeing from melee combat once you're
> already in it qualify for another combatant to intercept you (and thus get > a
free attack)?
> I would say if the character passes w/in 1m of character 2 then character
2 gets the chance to make
the out of phase attack...
Of course the first rule about melee combat was: If you are in melee
combat you have already made
your first mistake.
-------------------------------GRANITE

--
-------------------------------GRANITE
=================================================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serinity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serinity Prayer
Message no. 84
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:04:28 -0700
Here I go again :)

As most of the old timers know, I periodically propose
"house" changes to the rules. And, one of my pet peeves is
Melee Combat.

My basic gripe about Melee combat is that the defender gets
a free attack. Various proposals have been made ranging
from charging the defender a free action to charging him
his next complex action. And, there's been a couple of
other suggestions.

Anyhow, my new (I hope this is new :) idea is to run Melee
combat just like Ranged combat. The attacker makes his
attack role. If he gets an successes he hits. Then the
target resists the damage. It's clean, simple and doesn't
completely violate common sense.

Comments?

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 85
From: Tim Serpas <wretch@**.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:00:47 -0600
I think I speak for all the martial artists on this list when I say that
I'd be happy to help you field test this idea.

In other words: I think the current system works just fine.

Tim Serpas
wretch@**.com
II Dan Taekwon-do

On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, David Buehrer wrote:
> My basic gripe about Melee combat is that the defender gets
> a free attack. Various proposals have been made ranging
> from charging the defender a free action to charging him
> his next complex action. And, there's been a couple of
> other suggestions.
>
> Anyhow, my new (I hope this is new :) idea is to run Melee
> combat just like Ranged combat. The attacker makes his
> attack role. If he gets an successes he hits. Then the
> target resists the damage. It's clean, simple and doesn't
> completely violate common sense.
>
> Comments?
>
> -David
>
> /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
> "His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
> alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
> ~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
>
Message no. 86
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 17:07:27 -0500
>My basic gripe about Melee combat is that the defender gets
>a free attack. Various proposals have been made ranging
>from charging the defender a free action to charging him
>his next complex action. And, there's been a couple of
>other suggestions.
>
How about this. Roll as per normal rules. With the exception of the defender
doing nothing but trying to avoid the blow. IE A attacks B, B is defending
and rolls his dice if he gets more success or ties with the attack roll it
is blocked, avoided dodged whatever. The only mod is that ties work in favor
of the defender and he no longer attacks but merely defends.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

If you have to ask then it's probably classified.
Which means that I have to follow protocol.
But if you ask nicely I might forget that you asked.
Then again maybe not.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 87
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 18:30:13 -0500
>My basic gripe about Melee combat is that the defender gets
>a free attack. Various proposals have been made ranging
>from charging the defender a free action to charging him
>his next complex action. And, there's been a couple of
>other suggestions.
>
>Anyhow, my new (I hope this is new :) idea is to run Melee
>combat just like Ranged combat. The attacker makes his
>attack role. If he gets an successes he hits. Then the
>target resists the damage. It's clean, simple and doesn't
>completely violate common sense.
>
I agree with ya that Melee combat is broken. however, i don't think that
taking away the defender's ability to counterattack is the way to go. Doing
it that way, you're simply giving the sttacker a free shot, and the only
thing that a defender can do is, well... take the damage, or resist it, if
he's lucky.

The biggest problem with melee combat is taht it is unrealistic. To fix
this, I've modified the rules slightly giving teh defender a chance to
counterstrike, but not as good a chance.

First off, the defender no longer automaticall tries to counterattack when
he is attacked. If he just wants to block, parry, or dodge the blow, then
he simply rolls his armed/unarmed skil vs. his opponents. If the attacker
rolls more successes, he damages as normal. Should the defender roll more
successes, he simply managed to dodge/parry the blow, and isn't hit.

However, it is possible with most fighting styles to counterattack, and so I
still think the defender should have this option. However, this should be
harder to do than simply attacking. Thus, give the defender a +2 or +4
(depending on GM's preference) to the defender's target number to hit his
attacker.

The main reason for doing this is that in an even fight, there is a 50/50
chance of either combatant hitting the other during any turn. However,
stagger the skills just a couple of fights, and the player with teh higher
skill regularly hits the lower on both his atack,and the others. Thus, now
it is still possible to hit your oopponent on his turn, it is not as likely,
and gives someone with a slightly lower skill score a chance.

Of course, if there's a 5 or 6 point difference in teh skill scores, then
the guy with the higher skill will still pull off the hit more often.

EXAMPLE:

Sagat and Johnny are fighting. Both are equally skilled in martial arts
(Skill 6 each). Johnny gets the initiative. He attacks first, and Sagat
decides he wants to try and counterattack. Niether has a reach bonus, so
Johnny's target number is 4, while Sagat's is 8 (I prefer the +4 myself, but
I'm still experimenting with this rule). Johnny rolls and gets a 6, 5, 4,
2, 2, 1, for three succeses, while Sagat rolls a 10, 5, 4, 4, 2, 1, for only
one success. Johnny hits Sagat for 2 net successes.

But, if Sagat had opted to dodge/parry the blow, he would have had four
successes to Johnny's three, and would have successfully dodged.

Well, what do you think?

-Bull-the-rules-makin'-decker-turned-GM
Message no. 88
From: The Crucible <crucible@******.MUR.CSU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:09:20 +1100
>My basic gripe about Melee combat is that the defender gets
>a free attack. Various proposals have been made ranging
>from charging the defender a free action to charging him
>his next complex action. And, there's been a couple of
>other suggestions.
>
I actually like this rule... mainly cause my troll usually just gets more
attacks back as well as normal attacks... but I can see what you mean..
so it'd probably be better off using say something like the rule of
one... the defender doesnt get an attack... but something happens to the
attacker so that they are more vulnerable in the next attack phase....
say they arent prepared and cant defend as in a pary or something...
Maybe a modifier of -1 to hit for the attacker or something...

Crucible
Message no. 89
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 12:22:05 +0100
David Buehrer said on 13:04/ 7 Nov 96...

> Here I go again :)

Not MORE untested house rules, is it? *sigh* :) :)

> Anyhow, my new (I hope this is new :) idea is to run Melee combat just
> like Ranged combat. The attacker makes his attack role. If he gets an
> successes he hits. Then the target resists the damage. It's clean,
> simple and doesn't completely violate common sense.

Well, it does mean the defender doesn't get a free attack, but it is also
a bit strange in that this rule makes it appear like the defender is
standing there like a statue, and gets his ass kicked by the attacker
without being able to do a thing about it.

I think the best way to prevent free attacks, is to let the defender roll
an (Un)armed Combat skill test, and simply make the successes from that,
reduce the successes from the attacker's test. If the defender gets more
successes, he blocks and neither character takes damage. If you want,
charge a Free Action to perform this block.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Real things don't need PR.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 90
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:23:52 -0700
Gurth wrote:
|
|David Buehrer said on 13:04/ 7 Nov 96...
|
|> Here I go again :)
|
|Not MORE untested house rules, is it? *sigh* :) :)

Actually I'm being evil and taking advantage of the newbies innocence :) I
figured I'd post this and see what kind of new responses I'd get.

|> Anyhow, my new (I hope this is new :) idea is to run Melee combat just
|> like Ranged combat. The attacker makes his attack role. If he gets an
|> successes he hits. Then the target resists the damage. It's clean,
|> simple and doesn't completely violate common sense.

|I think the best way to prevent free attacks, is to let the defender roll
|an (Un)armed Combat skill test, and simply make the successes from that,
|reduce the successes from the attacker's test. If the defender gets more
|successes, he blocks and neither character takes damage. If you want,
|charge a Free Action to perform this block.

Yep, that's what I'm currently doing now. Like I said, I just wanted to
see what the fresh meat could come up with (aren't I a sneaky bastard? >)
Sorry you got caught in the net Gurth :) :)

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 91
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:49:58 -0700
Bull wrote:
|
|The biggest problem with melee combat is taht it is unrealistic. To fix
|this, I've modified the rules slightly giving teh defender a chance to
|counterstrike, but not as good a chance.
|
|First off, the defender no longer automaticall tries to counterattack when
|he is attacked. If he just wants to block, parry, or dodge the blow, then
|he simply rolls his armed/unarmed skil vs. his opponents. If the attacker
|rolls more successes, he damages as normal. Should the defender roll more
|successes, he simply managed to dodge/parry the blow, and isn't hit.

As you've read in Gurth's post this is the best option
(IMHO). Making the defender spend a Free Action also adds
some realism. And, if the defender is being attacked
before his initiative then he only gets Combat Pool dice to
dodge (speed kills :).

|However, it is possible with most fighting styles to counterattack, and so I
|still think the defender should have this option. However, this should be
|harder to do than simply attacking. Thus, give the defender a +2 or +4
|(depending on GM's preference) to the defender's target number to hit his
|attacker.

How about this? If the person with the highest initiative
delays his action, and is subject to a melee attack, he can
declare to attack his attacker. If he gets to go first
(higher Reaction (? or Quickness, can't remember off hand))
then he gets a -1 to his TN (cuz the other guy is caught
mid-swing and can't block) and the only thing the other guy
can use to defend is Combat Pool.

|EXAMPLE:
|
|Sagat and Johnny are fighting. Both are equally skilled in martial arts
|(Skill 6 each). Johnny gets the initiative. He attacks first, and Sagat
|decides he wants to try and counterattack. Niether has a reach bonus, so
|Johnny's target number is 4, while Sagat's is 8 (I prefer the +4 myself, but
|I'm still experimenting with this rule). Johnny rolls and gets a 6, 5, 4,
|2, 2, 1, for three succeses, while Sagat rolls a 10, 5, 4, 4, 2, 1, for only
|one success. Johnny hits Sagat for 2 net successes.
|
|But, if Sagat had opted to dodge/parry the blow, he would have had four
|successes to Johnny's three, and would have successfully dodged.
|
|Well, what do you think?
|
|-Bull-the-rules-makin'-decker-turned-GM

Hmmm, I gotta think about this. I have a problem with
Sagat getting to attack Johnny before his (Sagat's)
initiative.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 92
From: Kevin White <kevw@*****.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 16:03:30 -0600
Before I start I'd just like to say "Hello" to everyone since this is
my first post. I'd also like to qualify everything I say with the fact
that I haven't played Shadowrun for about 5 years and I haven't even
looked at the SRII rules (they're on order!)

Havin said that I will now humiliate myself with lack of knowledge!

> |> Anyhow, my new (I hope this is new :) idea is to run Melee combat just
...8<...
> Sorry you got caught in the net Gurth :) :)

I understand all the arguments about melee combat and so forth. If I
remember rightly when I was playing we used the attackers skill as the
defenders TN for any dodge, block etc. This ran on the idea that to hit
someone was fairly straight forward (fixed TN with modifiers) but to
block, dodge or counter attack was harder depending on the skill of your
opponent (believe me I've been enough fights to know this is at least
a sembelance of the truth).

The difficulties with this is that players can deetermine when they
are in deep drek when their amazing two 12's comes back with no
successes. Then again it is fairly obvious when fighting someone
of a greater skill than oneself anyway so even this may be appropriate.

Right, I'm going home now so I can check the rules and realise that
my memory is failing me and that this is how it's done or that this has
been tried!

Diamond
Message no. 93
From: Loki <loki@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 10:38:26 -0700
> >My basic gripe about Melee combat is that the defender gets
> >a free attack. Various proposals have been made ranging
> >from charging the defender a free action to charging him
> >his next complex action. And, there's been a couple of
> >other suggestions.
> >
> How about this. Roll as per normal rules. With the exception of the
defender
> doing nothing but trying to avoid the blow. IE A attacks B, B is
defending
> and rolls his dice if he gets more success or ties with the attack roll
it
> is blocked, avoided dodged whatever. The only mod is that ties work in
favor
> of the defender and he no longer attacks but merely defends.

Keep in mind, as anyone who's studied martial arts will tell you, alot of
attacks in trained hand-to-hand combat are the result of or contained
within a counter attack. A good majority of martial arts is on a defense
only basis. This means the system as it stands makes sense.

However, my group and I have expanded somewhat on the current unarmed
combat system, including blocks and other types of attacks. The rules are
posted in the S/R area of my web page.

@>-,--'--- Loki

CLARKE'S THIRD LAW:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

*********************************************
Poisoned Elves
http://www.netzone.com/~loki/
*********************************************
Message no. 94
From: Rookie <rookie@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 10:42:26 -0800
Loki do you ever work?


-Rookie

And when it comes the living will envy the Dead.

rookie@*******.com
55464@**.ev.maricopa.edu
http://www.netzone.com/~rookie
Message no. 95
From: Loki <loki@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 10:54:33 -0700
<SNIP>
> The biggest problem with melee combat is taht it is unrealistic. To fix
> this, I've modified the rules slightly giving teh defender a chance to
> counterstrike, but not as good a chance.
>
> First off, the defender no longer automaticall tries to counterattack
when
> he is attacked. If he just wants to block, parry, or dodge the blow,
then
> he simply rolls his armed/unarmed skil vs. his opponents. If the
attacker
> rolls more successes, he damages as normal. Should the defender roll
more
> successes, he simply managed to dodge/parry the blow, and isn't hit.
>
> However, it is possible with most fighting styles to counterattack, and
so I
> still think the defender should have this option. However, this should
be
> harder to do than simply attacking. Thus, give the defender a +2 or +4
> (depending on GM's preference) to the defender's target number to hit his
> attacker.

<SNIP EXAMPLE>

> Well, what do you think?

Again this is alot like the Unarmed Combat supplement we'd pulled from
somewherem then modifed and tweaked in our game. We made a block a T# of 3,
and if the defender got the net successes he simply blocked the attack
rather than doing damage in the counter-attack. Other attacks like a Kick
have a higher T# (do to difficulty) but do more stun damage and the
defender resists against a reach bonus. So if Johnny wanted to kick the
street sammy he was attacking, he'd roll at a T#5, the sammy would resist
against a +1 reach, and if Johnny connected he'd hit for a base of
(STR+1)M.

It's all in the Martial Arts supplement on my web page.

Also, keep in mind that when you're deciding to counterattack, you can only
add combat pool to the test if you're not going to try for a clean miss. If
you go full defense you're pool dice can only be added to the damage
resistance, this makes it a little harder to pull down more successes than
your attacker.

@>-,--'--- Loki

CLARKE'S THIRD LAW:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

*********************************************
Poisoned Elves
http://www.netzone.com/~loki/
*********************************************
Message no. 96
From: John Pederson <Canthros@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 21:53:15 -0500
In a message dated 96-11-08 11:14:26 EST, you write:

>Before I start I'd just like to say "Hello" to everyone since this is
>my first post. I'd also like to qualify everything I say with the fact
>that I haven't played Shadowrun for about 5 years and I haven't even
>looked at the SRII rules (they're on order!)
>
Oh, don't worry...I've played maybe, er, 12(?) games total, own absolutely
_no_ books for this game, and last I heard, not only did they appreciate _my_
opinion (I think:), but I'm currently GM for my group (or was last I'd heard)
>Havin said that I will now humiliate myself with lack of knowledge!
>
Don't worry, we'll correct you! :):) Oh, and welcome to the list:) Have fun
and avoid low-flying carp:):)
John Pederson
canthros@***.com
lobo1@****.com
http://members.gnn.com/lenoj/johns.htm
Message no. 97
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 13:50:44 +0100
David Buehrer said on 8:23/ 8 Nov 96...

> |Not MORE untested house rules, is it? *sigh* :) :)
>
> Actually I'm being evil and taking advantage of the newbies innocence :) I
> figured I'd post this and see what kind of new responses I'd get.
[snip]
> Yep, that's what I'm currently doing now. Like I said, I just wanted to
> see what the fresh meat could come up with (aren't I a sneaky bastard? >)
> Sorry you got caught in the net Gurth :) :)

So if I get this right, you didn't want any of us old-timers to respond...
Well you should have said so!! :) :)

Still, I guess not all's wasted, because now the same newbies you tried to
reach are also exposed to another way of handling melee combat (how many
have we had, anyway?).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Don't be stupid, Beavis. There's always been TV; there's just more
channels now.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 98
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 13:50:44 +0100
Kevin White said on 16:03/ 8 Nov 96...

> Before I start I'd just like to say "Hello" to everyone since this is
> my first post. I'd also like to qualify everything I say with the fact
> that I haven't played Shadowrun for about 5 years and I haven't even
> looked at the SRII rules (they're on order!)

Welcome :)

> I understand all the arguments about melee combat and so forth. If I
> remember rightly when I was playing we used the attackers skill as the
> defenders TN for any dodge, block etc. This ran on the idea that to hit
> someone was fairly straight forward (fixed TN with modifiers) but to
> block, dodge or counter attack was harder depending on the skill of your
> opponent (believe me I've been enough fights to know this is at least
> a sembelance of the truth).

The rules for melee combat got changed a little from SR1 to SR2. Not
much, but they _were_ tweaked a bit. The main gripes with the melee
combat rules, as I've heard them on the list here, are that the defender
in effect gets a free attack, and Reach is too powerful. A troll wielding
a sword against an unarmed human means the troll has a TN 2 while the
human faces a 6. It doesn't matter what the human does, whether he wants
to counter-attack or block. However, if you look at the rules, a
counter-attack is just about always the way to go, because of the free
attack you get.

> The difficulties with this is that players can deetermine when they
> are in deep drek when their amazing two 12's comes back with no
> successes. Then again it is fairly obvious when fighting someone
> of a greater skill than oneself anyway so even this may be appropriate.

If you roll two twelves and you get no successes in melee combat, I think
you'd better run fast and long :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Don't be stupid, Beavis. There's always been TV; there's just more
channels now.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 99
From: Georg Greve <greve@*******.HANSE.DE>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 13:52:42 GMT
Kevin White (kevw@*****.CO.UK) wrote:

: I understand all the arguments about melee combat and so forth. If I

Yup. Although it is pretty understandable that the counterattack does
damage to the attacker - it is even understandable that you
counterattack when being surprised because the reaction is pure
instinct. I have some experience on martial arts myself (Blue Belt in
Judo plus quite some experience with Taekwon-Do, Hapkido & Ju-Jutsu)
and I can tell you that sometimes it is hard NOT to counterattack when
being surprised (I once kicked my little brother pretty hard because
he though it was funny to hide somewhere and jump at me when I went
by... and believe me - I had no idea that he was there). I guess a
willpower/reaction test against 6 should be done when being attacked
and you do NOT want to counterattack if you can stop your reaction
fast enough.

: remember rightly when I was playing we used the attackers skill as the
: defenders TN for any dodge, block etc. This ran on the idea that to hit
: someone was fairly straight forward (fixed TN with modifiers) but to
: block, dodge or counter attack was harder depending on the skill of your
: opponent (believe me I've been enough fights to know this is at least
: a sembelance of the truth).

Actually I think this is a perfect way to handle things and I will ask
the others about introducing it because it seems a better way to
go than counterattacking against a fixed TN - range modifiers should
be applied to this test though.

Later,
Georg a.k.a Night Prowler

--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "The Clan's are marching 'gainst the law - |
| bagpipers play the tunes of war - death or glory I will find - |
| rebellion on my mind" |
| Grave Digger - "Rebellion" |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Georg Greve greve@*******.Hanse.DE |
| Tel.: +49-40-23809080 greve@*******.uni-hamburg.de |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 100
From: BulletShower <nmatausc@****.CIP.FAK14.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:18:49 +1000
On Fri, 8 Nov 1996 10:38:26 -070,
Loki <loki@*******.COM> wrote:

> Keep in mind, as anyone who's studied martial arts will tell you, alot of
> attacks in trained hand-to-hand combat are the result of or contained
> within a counter attack. A good majority of martial arts is on a defense
> only basis. This means the system as it stands makes sense.

Correct, though I think the SR melee rules favor these defense-only
systems too much. As everyone with realistic martial art experience
will tell you, the purely defensive styles aren't that effective
after all. Look at the systems used by military groups or bodyguards:
full-contact karate styles (lots of them), original thai boxing
(*very* different from what you see on TV) and wing chun kung fu.
These combat systems are considered to be most effective, and not one
of them is based on defensive actions only.
Of course, a fighter can become very effective (evasive?) in
defense-only styles, but, granted, it'll take years to achieve that.
In comparison, one or two years of full-contact training will turn
you into a considerable fighter.

:)
Bullet
______________________________________________________________________
"Gott wuerfelt nicht" (A. Einstein)
For More information on diceless roleplaying and own Shadowrun stuff,
jack into http://www.cip.fak14.uni-muenchen.de/~nmatausc
Message no. 101
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:58:26 -0700
Georg Greve wrote:
|
|it is even understandable that you
|counterattack when being surprised because the reaction is pure
|instinct. I have some experience on martial arts myself (Blue Belt in
|Judo plus quite some experience with Taekwon-Do, Hapkido & Ju-Jutsu)
|and I can tell you that sometimes it is hard NOT to counterattack when
|being surprised (I once kicked my little brother pretty hard because
|he though it was funny to hide somewhere and jump at me when I went
|by... and believe me - I had no idea that he was there).

I disagree. I have experience with martial arts also (Sho
To Kan Karate (sp?)). It has been my experience that I set
myself up so that when the other guy makes his move I time
a block/strike maneuver at the same time. If it works the
other guy is commited to his attack and can't defend
himself, and he gets nailed. But if he's faster than I am
then his strike makes it through before I can react.

To me this is the same thing as delaying an action, waiting
until he attacks, then declaring that I'm attacking at the
same time and withholding some combat pool dice to defend.
Then it boils down to Reaction to see who goes first. And
if I go first maybe I get some bonuses because he's not in
a position to defend himself, or maybe its easier for me
because he has combat pool dice commited to his attack.

I would judge your example as an attempt by your brother to
suprise you, you made your suprise test, you both rolled
initiative and you won (having a better quickness/reaction
due to training), and then you failed your perception test
and womped on your brother (which is what brothers are for
:)

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the reasoning that
"counter-attacking" is possible if the other guy is going
before you can. I feel that a counter-attack is an attempt
to wait for the other guy to attack, and then attack at the
same time.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 102
From: Kevin White <kevw@*****.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:15:38 -0600
David Buehrer wrote:
>
> Georg Greve wrote:
> |
> |it is even understandable that you
> |counterattack when being surprised because the reaction is
> purebig
...8<...
> "counter-attacking" is possible if the other guy is going
> before you can. I feel that a counter-attack is an attempt
> to wait for the other guy to attack, and then attack at the
> same time.

It seems to me that the idea being proposed here is that a
"counter-attack" is responding to someone attacking you by attacking
them. I have to say that in my experience it doesn't happpen this way.
If all a defender did when attacked was make his own attack he is more
than likely to be hit. What usually happens is that a defender counter-
attacking, in some way, evades the incoming attack (either by blocking
or by getting out of the way) and *then* makes his attack.

Looking at it this way it could be suggested that any form of counter-
attacking out of your action shouldn't be possible, especially
considering the speed that cobmat takes place in SR.


Diamond
Message no. 103
From: Georg Greve <greve@*******.HANSE.DE>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:35:21 GMT
David Buehrer (dbuehrer@****.ORG) wrote:
: Georg Greve wrote:
: |being surprised (I once kicked my little brother pretty hard because
: |he though it was funny to hide somewhere and jump at me when I went
: |by... and believe me - I had no idea that he was there).

: I disagree. I have experience with martial arts also (Sho
: To Kan Karate (sp?)). It has been my experience that I set
: ...
: Then it boils down to Reaction to see who goes first. And
: if I go first maybe I get some bonuses because he's not in
: a position to defend himself, or maybe its easier for me
: because he has combat pool dice commited to his attack.
: I would judge your example as an attempt by your brother to
: suprise you, you made your suprise test, you both rolled
: initiative and you won (having a better quickness/reaction
: due to training), and then you failed your perception test

Hmmm... I think it REALLY depends on the level of training - I acted
LONG before I realised I was being attacked. There was definitely no
perception test possible because I was absolutely surprised.
Your example would have been right if we were talking about gunfighting
here, but someone with a reasonable training in martial arts feels the
attack and reacts to it long before his brain even knows he's being
attacked. A martial arts attack is not a matter of pulling the trigger
and the bullet is there without any noticeable delay (in close
quarters that is) - it means getting close to the other and your whole
body definitely does not move as fast as a bullet does.

I definitely DO agree that you do not have a combat pool when being
surprised by a melee attack (because that is the conscious part you
described), but you always have your instinctive reaction and that
always allows you to counterattack.

: and womped on your brother (which is what brothers are for
: :)

*grin*

: I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the reasoning that
: "counter-attacking" is possible if the other guy is going
: before you can. I feel that a counter-attack is an attempt
: to wait for the other guy to attack, and then attack at the
: same time.

You have to recall that EVERY turn is 3s long... no matter if you got
an initiative of 48 or an initiative of 2 - it just means you move
faster and that is done by the refreshing of the pools for
instance. If you move much faster than the other guy you have a LOT
more dice to use because of your pool. That is the advantage speed
gives you in melee combat.

Personally I think the counterattack should be done against the range
modified skill of the attacker because it really IS harder to defend
than it is to attack.

Later,
Georg

--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "The Clan's are marching 'gainst the law - |
| bagpipers play the tunes of war - death or glory I will find - |
| rebellion on my mind" |
| Grave Digger - "Rebellion" |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Georg Greve greve@*******.Hanse.DE |
| Tel.: +49-40-23809080 greve@*******.uni-hamburg.de |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 104
From: Pete <Pete@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 01:59:29 +0000
>Looking at it this way it could be suggested that any form of counter-
>attacking out of your action shouldn't be possible, especially
>considering the speed that cobmat takes place in SR.

I have to agree with you, but combat in SR can take some time, people
like the John Wayne long drawn out gunfights...

Regarding Martial arts....

If anyone is interested, just watch pretty much any film with Steven
Siegal in it... The man is a martial artist who's professionalism is
beyond belief, he is also the first westerner to open and run a dojo in
Japan, and teach the Japanese martial arts, The attacks formulated in
the movies are from his own experience and training. Basically the
concept is, the other guy attacks, the defence occurs, and
counterstrike. Once the defence is successful, any half reasonable
martial artist will have the opponent off balance and open to
counterattack. Again, watch Sumo, this follows a very similar
principle, with both fighters manoeuvering for a position of success.
Invariably, amongst the experienced fighters, this is over very quickly.

A comment was made by the previous poster, regarding the fact that MA
will counterattack as the attack is coming in, reacting through
experience and training rather than observation. On this point I
disagree, only David Carradine in Kung Fu is capable of this, Yes MA
does appear very mystical in some of its capabilities, but that is down
to the person being able to analyse the situation and react to it at
speed, rather than some magical ingrained method. If you don't know the
nature of the attack, you cannot adequately defend against it, all you
can do is attempt to react to reduce the damage taken. Not even martial
artists are invincible, unless you work for Hollywood of course.

The main problem with Martial arts, is that the movies drag it out for
several minutes and have huge fisticuffs... It has been my experience
that any form of MA engagement is *extremely* fast, and is over very
quickly, I defy anyone to stand up to the punishment a trained person
can deal out for longer than a few seconds. Most competition combat is
over very quickly, and a point is scored, by striking the opponent, the
Bruce Lee, 35 minutes of duff up, simply is Hollywood. This is one of
the things that makes MA so difficult in SR, the fact that while weapons
combat can be dragged out, close in MA fights should be fast, vicious,
and over almost instantly. SR combat isn't really designed for MA
combat, but it can be done.
--
Pete Sims
Civilisation advances by extending the number of important operations which we
can perform without thinking about them.
Message no. 105
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 01:52:14 -0500
>If anyone is interested, just watch pretty much any film with Steven
>Siegal in it...

We've digressed to using Steven Seagal as a example. As for Carradine ummm
he isn't a very good example. He's a very poor fighter and doesn't know a
whole MA just what they taught him for tv I think it's called Kirk-Fu.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

If you have to ask then it's probably classified.
Which means that I have to follow protocol.
But if you ask nicely I might forget that you asked.
Then again maybe not.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 106
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 03:13:34 -0500
>>If anyone is interested, just watch pretty much any film with Steven
>>Siegal in it...
>
>We've digressed to using Steven Seagal as a example. As for Carradine ummm
>he isn't a very good example. He's a very poor fighter and doesn't know a
>whole MA just what they taught him for tv I think it's called Kirk-Fu.
>
please, tell me that was a joke, Nightlife... Otherwise, I'll be forced to
harm you...:)

The worst part of the whole Carradine/Kung-Fu thing (Other than the fact
that they've resurected the show a couple years ago), is that they ditched
Bruce Lee (WHo helped create the show) and choose Carridine instead...

Oh well...

-Bull-the-trivia-spouting-decker-turned-GM


=======================================================
= Bull, aka Chaos, aka Rak, aka Steven Ratkovich =
= =
= chaos@*****,com =
= =
= "Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?" =
=======================================================

"You could use a good Kiss!"
-Han Solo, "The Empire Strikes Back"
<a corrected once more quote>
Message no. 107
From: BulletShower <nmatausc@****.CIP.FAK14.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:08:53 +1000
Kevin White wrote:

> If all a defender did when attacked was make his own attack he is more
> than likely to be hit.

Nope, definitely not. Watch full-contact championships, leave out the
movies (no insult intented). If you face an experienced fighter and
rely on blocking, you'll find yourself in hospital the next day.
I'vb seen quite a few people panicking when I applied what I had
learned: march forwards, steadily, no stopping, no backward movement,
kicking, punching, kneeing, grabing. You *gotta* counterattack. ;)


> What usually happens is that a defender counter-
> attacking, in some way, evades the incoming attack (either by blocking
> or by getting out of the way) and *then* makes his attack.

Again, I haven't experienced this within my ten years of training.



:)
BulletShower
______________________________________________________________________
"Gott wuerfelt nicht" (A. Einstein)
For More information on diceless roleplaying and own Shadowrun stuff,
jack into http://www.cip.fak14.uni-muenchen.de/~nmatausc
Message no. 108
From: BulletShower <nmatausc@****.CIP.FAK14.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:20:07 +1000
Pete <Pete@********.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote:

> Regarding Martial arts....
>
> If anyone is interested, just watch pretty much any film with Steven
> Siegal in it... The man is a martial artist who's professionalism is
> beyond belief,

Whoa, seems as if this is my day today ... ;)
Steven Segal is *marketed* this way. In no way he is a good fighter
in RL. It's been repeatedly reported that he has been utterly beaten
up by a 60-year (!!) old stuntman whom he challenged while making
this "Red Alert" movie.


> he is also the first westerner to open and run a dojo in
> Japan, and teach the Japanese martial arts,

No, he ain't. Long before, some karate shihans and senseis (Shotokan, Goju Ryu and
Kyokushin) did that.


> Basically the concept is, the other guy attacks, the defence occurs, and
> counterstrike. Once the defence is successful, any half reasonable
> martial artist will have the opponent off balance and open to
> counterattack. Again, watch Sumo, this follows a very similar
> principle, with both fighters manoeuvering for a position of success.

Sumo works on the principle of counter-attacking. Look at the
chain-fist strikes they make, for instance.


> If you don't know the nature of the attack, you cannot adequately defend against it,
all you
> can do is attempt to react to reduce the damage taken.

No, this is not correct, also. There are a variety of universal
combat stances for realistic self-defense. Most of them boil down to
something like this: Boxer's stance, most of the body weight is
shifted onto your rear leg. As a result, your front leg carries
almost no weight, so you can kick very fast. The moment the opponent
moves - it doesn't matter what he does - you kick, and your hands
are in the so-called "waiting position", which is hard to describe.
If you want more information on this, contact any Wing Tsun or Wing
Chun or Ving Tsun or Ving Chun trainer.


> Not even martial artists are invincible, unless you work for Hollywood of course.

Righto. Remember Indiana Jones and his revolver :)


:)
BulletShower
______________________________________________________________________
"Gott wuerfelt nicht" (A. Einstein)
For More information on diceless roleplaying and own Shadowrun stuff,
jack into http://www.cip.fak14.uni-muenchen.de/~nmatausc
Message no. 109
From: Kevin White <kevw@*****.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:01:22 -0600
BulletShower wrote:
>
> Nope, definitely not. Watch full-contact championships, leave out the
> movies (no insult intented). If you face an experienced fighter and
> rely on blocking, you'll find yourself in hospital the next day.
> I'vb seen quite a few people panicking when I applied what I had
> learned: march forwards, steadily, no stopping, no backward movement,
> kicking, punching, kneeing, grabing. You *gotta* counterattack. ;)
>
As you point out this sort of technique works well. However, if you come
up against someone who doesn't panic and is adept at the moe receptive
forms of martial art (eg Aikido) h they will simply take all the energy
your are forcing forward and throw it right back at you... with some
added. I have seen this on a number of occasions and the results are
quite impressive.

Diamond
Message no. 110
From: Kevin White <kevw@*****.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:14:39 -0600
BulletShower wrote:
>
> Pete <Pete@********.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote:
>
> > Regarding Martial arts....
> >
> > If anyone is interested, just watch pretty much any film with Steven
> > Siegal in it... The man is a martial artist who's professionalism is
> > beyond belief,
>
> Whoa, seems as if this is my day today ... ;)
> Steven Segal is *marketed* this way. In no way he is a good fighter
> in RL. It's been repeatedly reported that he has been utterly beaten
> up by a 60-year (!!) old stuntman whom he challenged while making
> this "Red Alert" movie.
>
I have to agree with BulletShower on this point and also add that Steven
Siegal could be called a professional but only in reference to his
acting (and that's pushing it ;)).

> > he is also the first westerner to open and run a dojo in
> > Japan, and teach the Japanese martial arts,
>
> No, he ain't. Long before, some karate shihans and senseis (Shotokan, Goju Ryu and
> Kyokushin) did that.
>
Actually, he was the first westerner to be allowed to open an Aikido
dojo in Japan (but I have a funny feeling his brother was involved with
this more, I can't quite remember).

On a more general point about Shadowrun, MA and films. The way I like to
play MA in Shadowrun is with the Jackie Chan/Hong Kong film idea in
mind: long drawn out fights with lots of acrobatics and leaping about.
This method of play, like the films it is based on, in no way reflects
how real life is. Most MA films should not be viewed as being "real".

Diamond
Message no. 111
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 04:18:19 -0500
>please, tell me that was a joke, Nightlife... Otherwise, I'll be forced to
>harm you...:)
>
>The worst part of the whole Carradine/Kung-Fu thing (Other than the fact
>that they've resurected the show a couple years ago), is that they ditched
>Bruce Lee (WHo helped create the show) and choose Carridine instead...
>
>Oh well...

They teach Kirk-Fu at the The Shatner International School of Acting. They
also teach hair piece weaving 101. ;-)


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

If you have to ask then it's probably classified.
Which means that I have to follow protocol.
But if you ask nicely I might forget that you asked.
Then again maybe not.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 112
From: BulletShower <nmatausc@****.CIP.FAK14.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:17:45 +1000
Kevin White <kevw@*****.CO.UK> wrote:

[...] > if you come
> up against someone who doesn't panic and is adept at the moe receptive
> forms of martial art (eg Aikido) h they will simply take all the energy
> your are forcing forward and throw it right back at you...

Okay, let agree with you to some extent. But hear what self-defense
experts say. Ask anybody who's in touch with business. There are Aikido masters
who can defeat offensive style fighters, no question, but you have to
look at the majority of fighters. Purely defensive styles are known
to take years and years and years to be effective in combat. The
Aikido style that's taught nowadays by most teachers is this
unbearable I-will-move-out-of-his-way-thingie that just doesn't work
against stylists who know how to fight realisticly. It's no secret that
in case of two people fighting against each other (of same ability, one exercising
defensive-style, and the
other offensive-style), in over 95 percent of all cases the offensice
stylist will win.

It is also no secret that over 70 percent of all
street fights end up with both opponents on the ground (actually, I
don't remember the exact percentage, maybe it's even more).
There is definitely NO purely defensive style that's been designed for
ground combat! Most styles don't teach effective grappling combat.

I know a coupla guys who learn Aikido. They told me, it isn't really
exercised how to avoid or block kicks. And really, give 'em a hard
low-kick to the quadriceps or knee, they don't know how to get
around it.


:)
Bullet
______________________________________________________________________
"Gott wuerfelt nicht" (A. Einstein)
For More information on diceless roleplaying and own Shadowrun stuff,
jack into http://www.cip.fak14.uni-muenchen.de/~nmatausc
Message no. 113
From: Kevin White <kevw@*****.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:18:45 -0600
Pete wrote:
>
> A comment was made by the previous poster, regarding the fact that MA
> will counterattack as the attack is coming in, reacting through
> experience and training rather than observation. On this point I
> disagree, only David Carradine in Kung Fu is capable of this, Yes MA
> does appear very mystical in some of its capabilities, but that is down
> to the person being able to analyse the situation and react to it at
> speed, rather than some magical ingrained method. If you don't know the
> nature of the attack, you cannot adequately defend against it, all you
> can do is attempt to react to reduce the damage taken. Not even martial
> artists are invincible, unless you work for Hollywood of course.
>
What is being referred to here is a mind state called mushin. It is not
magical and I believe that it is real. Should you wish to know more
about what mushin is I would suggest studying a buddhist martial art.

Diamond
Message no. 114
From: Wes Nicholson <wes@********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 20:32:16 +1100
>>please, tell me that was a joke, Nightlife... Otherwise, I'll be forced to
>>harm you...:)
>>
>>The worst part of the whole Carradine/Kung-Fu thing (Other than the fact
>>that they've resurected the show a couple years ago), is that they ditched
>>Bruce Lee (WHo helped create the show) and choose Carridine instead...
>>
>>Oh well...
>
>They teach Kirk-Fu at the The Shatner International School of Acting. They
>also teach hair piece weaving 101. ;-)
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
If you want to see how well DC fights, watch him as the bad guy in (I
think) Lone Wolf McQuade, against Chuck Norris. Rumour has it that these
two hate each other and decided to use the fight scene to resolve their
emotions. Apart from the Hollywood rule that the good guy always wins,
Carradine was shown up as not quite the Kwai Chang Kane we were supposed to
believe.

Wes
Message no. 115
From: Kevin White <kevw@*****.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:59:26 -0600
BulletShower wrote:
> Purely defensive styles are known
> to take years and years and years to be effective in combat. The
> Aikido style that's taught nowadays by most teachers is this
> unbearable I-will-move-out-of-his-way-thingie that just doesn't work
> against stylists who know how to fight realisticly.
>
I agree. I would go on to say that the essense of what MA is has been
lost in the teaching of many other styles.

> It's no secret that
> in case of two people fighting against each other (of same ability, one exercising
defensive-style, and the
> other offensive-style), in over 95 percent of all cases the offensice
> stylist will win.
>
I would question these statistics (but that's only because I question
all statistics ;)), actually I would be more interested in where you
obtained these statistics (and the other ones you cited).

> It is also no secret that over 70 percent of all
...8<...
> ground combat! Most styles don't teach effective grappling combat.
>
I agree. The sort of fighting that happens and pubs and clubs around the
world is not really taught as a MA, neither do I think it should but
that is because I believe MA is not about fighting.

> I know a coupla guys who learn Aikido. They told me, it isn't really
...8<...
> around it.
>
They must have missed the first lesson then: the best way to avoid being
hit is to not be there (ie run away). Don't get me wrong, this is not a
response to all attacks and to an extent I agree, I was never really
taught any *specific* defence aganist lower leg attacks. Then again I
was taught the principles of how to avoid being hit (not necessarily
moving out of the way).

Anyway, I think this is getting a touch into the realms of whatever that
MA newsgroup is called. I would however be quite happy to talk at length
off the list if you want to mail me.

Diamond
Message no. 116
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:47:24 +0000
|
|>>If anyone is interested, just watch pretty much any film with Steven
|>>Siegal in it...
|>
|>We've digressed to using Steven Seagal as a example. As for Carradine ummm
|>he isn't a very good example. He's a very poor fighter and doesn't know a
|>whole MA just what they taught him for tv I think it's called Kirk-Fu.
|>
|please, tell me that was a joke, Nightlife... Otherwise, I'll be forced to
|harm you...:)
|
|The worst part of the whole Carradine/Kung-Fu thing (Other than the fact
|that they've resurected the show a couple years ago), is that they ditched
|Bruce Lee (WHo helped create the show) and choose Carridine instead...

Well, they couldn't have had...

*SHOCK*
*HORROR*
An oriental playing a primary role, now, could they....
(Yep, I saw the Bruce Lee story as well.....)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| |
|Andrew Halliwell | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
|Principal subjects in:- | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! >*SULK*<|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 117
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:33:55 -0500
> If you want to see how well DC fights, watch him as the bad guy in (I
>think) Lone Wolf McQuade, against Chuck Norris. Rumour has it that these
>two hate each other and decided to use the fight scene to resolve their
>emotions. Apart from the Hollywood rule that the good guy always wins,
>Carradine was shown up as not quite the Kwai Chang Kane we were supposed to
>believe.
>

Have you ever heard of fight choreography. I fence and stagefight. Believe
me the stagefighting looks a hell of a lot better than any of the bouts I've
been in. Quating movies is a bad example for MA in any game you wanna see
some realism watch some matches on the sports channels or better yet go
watch a live one.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

If you have to ask then it's probably classified.
Which means that I have to follow protocol.
But if you ask nicely I might forget that you asked.
Then again maybe not.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 118
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 07:20:49 -0700
Kevin White wrote:
|
|Anyway, I think this is getting a touch into the realms of whatever that
|MA newsgroup is called. I would however be quite happy to talk at length
|off the list if you want to mail me.

I am finding this to be very informative. As long as it
stays on topic (does counter-attacking require an action,
or is it automatic?), or applies to the game in some other
fashion, I would like hear it.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 119
From: "Steven A. Tinner" <bluewizard@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:03:43 -0800
Kevin White wrote:
>
> BulletShower wrote:
> >
> > Nope, definitely not. Watch full-contact championships, leave out the
> > movies (no insult intented). If you face an experienced fighter and
> > rely on blocking, you'll find yourself in hospital the next day.
> > I'vb seen quite a few people panicking when I applied what I had
> > learned: march forwards, steadily, no stopping, no backward movement,
> > kicking, punching, kneeing, grabing. You *gotta* counterattack. ;)
> >
> As you point out this sort of technique works well. However, if you come
> up against someone who doesn't panic and is adept at the moe receptive
> forms of martial art (eg Aikido) h they will simply take all the energy
> your are forcing forward and throw it right back at you... with some
> added. I have seen this on a number of occasions and the results are
> quite impressive.

Which is essentially a counter attack, right?

Steven A. Tinner
Message no. 120
From: Chris Brown <brownc@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:32:27 -0600
just adding on to the huge martial arts discussion here-

i am a student of Yoshokai Aikido, quite possibly one of the softest martial
arts known (no flames, please), and i've noticed that this school teaches
block/parry/counterattack as almost the same motion. It's true, the
aikidoka must be able to analyze the opponent's attack (is that a punch?
where's it headed? etc.) but once that has been done, the act of blocking
the attack is simultaneous with a conterstrike, usually a throw or pin. In
this light, i tend to agree with the "reactive parry" system in SR.
/>
/<
[\\\\\\(O):::<======================================-
\< Chris Brown, brownc@********.edu
\> "Putting the DOH! in Aikido"

"Relax, lad. Take life as it comes. Run when you
have to, fight when you must, rest when you can"
-Robert Jordan, _The_Eye_Of_The_World_
Message no. 121
From: RAY MACEY <r.macey@*******.QUT.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:45:35 +1000
On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, David Buehrer wrote:

> Here I go again :)
>
> As most of the old timers know, I periodically propose
> "house" changes to the rules. And, one of my pet peeves is
> Melee Combat.

[snip]

> Anyhow, my new (I hope this is new :) idea is to run Melee
> combat just like Ranged combat. The attacker makes his
> attack role. If he gets an successes he hits. Then the
> target resists the damage. It's clean, simple and doesn't
> completely violate common sense.
>
> Comments?

That's exactly how I run it in my campaign.

Ray.

_______________________________________________________________________
| 'The Universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be |
| missed.' |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: n1565842@*******.qut.edu.au or
r.macey@*******.qut.edu.au
Message no. 122
From: NORBERT MATAUSCH <NMATAUSC@****.CIP.FAK14.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:40:30 +1000
Kevin White <kevw@*****.CO.UK> wrote:

> > It's no secret that
> > in case of two people fighting against each other (of same ability, one
exercising defensive-style, and the
> > other offensive-style), in over 95 percent of all cases the offensice
> > stylist will win.

I'm not making them up, honestly. I try to get 'em in my hands again,
OK?

> > It is also no secret that over 70 percent of all

One of the most famous and acknoledged MA trainers, Jon Bluming,
told this to us (during a MA seminar).


> I agree. The sort of fighting that happens and pubs and clubs around the
> world is not really taught as a MA, neither do I think it should but
> that is because I believe MA is not about fighting.

No, I don't agree. IMHO, only esoteric "teachers" look at MA as the
"art of not fighting". Don't forget that the roots of every MA lies
in direct confrontation. All the "inner" stuff like meditation and so
on, was added much later. MA is the art of self-defense, or, more
exact, "art of war". If a MA style doesn't teach you how to fight
or how to threaten attackers in order to defend yourself, it's not
MA.


> They must have missed the first lesson then: the best way to avoid being
> hit is to not be there (ie run away).

Agreed. :)


> Anyway, I think this is getting a touch into the realms of whatever that
> MA newsgroup is called. I would however be quite happy to talk at length
> off the list if you want to mail me.

Oops ... just started answering your mail, and now I read your last
sentence [Blush Mode ON]. OK, let's do that. :)


:)
BulletSHower

______________________________________________________________________
"Gott wuerfelt nicht" (A. Einstein)
For More information on diceless roleplaying and own Shadowrun stuff,
jack into http://www.cip.fak14.uni-muenchen.de/~nmatausc
Message no. 123
From: Guido Hölker <guido@******.COM>
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 18:48:06 +0100
I think this topic has raised several times, but I don't know.
Can anyone shortly give me the state of discussion abou this strange
"counter-attack" in melee-combat and how to handle intiative in this?
Thanks a lot
Message no. 124
From: Dreamcatcher <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 16:14:58 -0700
At 06:48 PM 11/28/96 +0100, you wrote:
>I think this topic has raised several times, but I don't know.
>Can anyone shortly give me the state of discussion abou this strange
>"counter-attack" in melee-combat and how to handle intiative in this?
>Thanks a lot

Let me see if I can recap.

A. Use the rules the way they are. A lot of people experienced with
Martial Arts feel that Shadowrun's Melee rules are reasonable.

B. Characters can't counter-attack. They can, however, defend (skill vs
skill as per the rules, but if the defender gains more successes the attack
misses).

C. Counter-attacking and/or Defending costs a Free Action.

D. Combination of B and C.

E. If a character is attacked more than once before his action (whether by
multiple attackers or multiple attacks by one attacker) the attacker(s) gain
the friends in melee modifer and the target gets the enemies in combat
modifier.

F. Go to Paolo Marcucci's site (http://www.interware.it/shadowrun) and look
for the Digital Mage's and Linda Naughton's Martial Arts rules. Also, keep
an eye out for one of Loki's posts and follow the URL in his .sig for more
Martial Arts rules.

G. Go to my site (http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm)
and look at some unfinished Martial Arts rules for some ideas.

Did I miss anything?

-Dreamcatcher

"Ah to sleep, perchance to dream."
-Charles Emerson Winchester III

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/dbuehrer@****.org\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 125
From: Shawn Baumgartner <Breakdown@*****.NET>
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:51:43 -0500
Okay, it may seem inconsistant for the low initiative char. to be able
to do damage to the high init. dude in every attack, since that would
seem to defeat the advantage of high reflexes in a melee. BUT, the
damage is inflicted upon the winner of the opposed success test and TIE
GOES TO THE ATTACKER! Now, unless the two combatants are blatently
mismatched, in which case ol' quick and clumsy deserves his thumping,
the tie rule give the attacker a fair advantage, as many opposed tests
come up ties. As long as quickboy isn't fighting Bruce Lee, he should
have a good chance to do some damage.

Say what you will, how you will, when you will. Free speech is a right, not a privelege.
Message no. 126
From: Matt Lee <mattlee@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:25:10 -0600
Hi, I'm new to this list, been listening for a day or two, I got a buncho
SR books, only been playin a little while but anyways, I'm gonna respond to
this message now.

>Now, unless the two combatants are blatently
>mismatched, in which case ol' quick and clumsy deserves his thumping,
>the tie rule give the attacker a fair advantage, as many opposed tests
>come up ties. As long as quickboy isn't fighting Bruce Lee, he should
>have a good chance to do some damage.

I completely agree. If the slower guy has much better skill then he should
be able to smack the spam outta the first guy. If ever you doubt this, go
watch a Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee movie and observe how very often the
overzealous "Bad Dude" leaps or charges towards Bruce or Jackie and gets
knocked on his backside. Ok, so I didn't really prove anything but I wanted
to make sure to get my little analogy in there. Well..thanks fer
listenin'.(if you haven't already deleted this message). ;)


Matt
mattlee@******.com
http://www.execpc.com/~mattlee/
Message no. 127
From: Gavin Lewis <lewis@**.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:40:18 +0800
>Hi, I'm new to this list, been listening for a day or two, I got a buncho
>SR books, only been playin a little while but anyways, I'm gonna respond to
>this message now.

Welcome to this esteemed (sp?) list! :)

>I completely agree. If the slower guy has much better skill then he should
>be able to smack the spam outta the first guy. If ever you doubt this, go
>watch a Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee movie and observe how very often the
>overzealous "Bad Dude" leaps or charges towards Bruce or Jackie and gets
>knocked on his backside. Ok, so I didn't really prove anything but I wanted
>to make sure to get my little analogy in there. Well..thanks fer
>listenin'.(if you haven't already deleted this message). ;)

Your analagy is correct. The faster guy gets the real advantage if he gets
two turns before the slower guy reacts. "Pump all that combat pool into the
test". ;)

Gav
Message no. 128
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:30:45 +0100
Gavin Lewis said on 16:40/18 Feb 97...

> Your analagy is correct. The faster guy gets the real advantage if he gets
^^^^
LOL!

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Oh, paradise... on my TV...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 129
From: Shawn Baumgartner <Breakdown@*****.NET>
Subject: Melee combat
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 05:47:11 -0500
The true advantage the quickboy has is only in games that actually use
the Combat Pool. In those odd campaigns that don't, his only advantage
lies in the "tie goes to the attacker" rule, and that just wouldn't
justify the immense expense in cash and essence required for increasing
reflexes. My only experience in combat is in a few barfights in various
ports around the world, but if you jacked my speed three times what it
is now, I'd whip the hell out of a combat trained vet, simply because by
the time he finally had the chance to pop me one, I'd've already knocked
the crap outta him!

------------------------------------------------------

Say what you will, how you will, when you will. Free speech is a right, not a privelege.

-------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 130
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:47:43 +0000
|
|Okay, it may seem inconsistant for the low initiative char. to be able
|to do damage to the high init. dude in every attack, since that would
|seem to defeat the advantage of high reflexes in a melee. BUT, the
|damage is inflicted upon the winner of the opposed success test and TIE
|GOES TO THE ATTACKER!

The tie always goes to the defender... I think....
i.e. The defender always wins in a tie....

Now, unless the two combatants are blatently
|mismatched, in which case ol' quick and clumsy deserves his thumping,
|the tie rule give the attacker a fair advantage, as many opposed tests
|come up ties.

You're forgetting.... combat pool only refreshes on your action...

Mr Quickee might attack twice with a full pool before Mr Clumsy gets his
action. Mr clumsy might be able to protect himself against the first attack,
but what about the second? Or third?


As long as quickboy isn't fighting Bruce Lee, he should
|have a good chance to do some damage.
|
|Say what you will, how you will, when you will. Free speech is a right, not a privelege.

I think your .sig needs trimming....
It goes of the edge of the screen.....
(80 columns MAX please, preferrably about 72....)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 131
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee combat
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:11:59 +0000
|
|The true advantage the quickboy has is only in games that actually use
|the Combat Pool. In those odd campaigns that don't, his only advantage
|lies in the "tie goes to the attacker" rule, and that just wouldn't

Errrr....

Games that DON'T use the combat pool????

That would make is non-shadowrun.....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 132
From: Shawn Baumgartner <Breakdown@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Melee combat
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:50:48 -0500
Andrew Halliwell wrote,

Games that DON'T use a combat pool!?!?


Yes, they exist, strange as it may seem. Lord knows I'd deal myself out
of that mess, though.

Shawn

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Say what you will, how you will, when you
will. Free speech is a right,
not a privelege.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 133
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:32:22 -0700
Spike wrote:
|
| |Okay, it may seem inconsistant for the low initiative char. to be able
| |to do damage to the high init. dude in every attack, since that would
| |seem to defeat the advantage of high reflexes in a melee. BUT, the
| |damage is inflicted upon the winner of the opposed success test and TIE
| |GOES TO THE ATTACKER!
|
| The tie always goes to the defender... I think....
| i.e. The defender always wins in a tie....

Page 102, "Ties go to the attacker." Sorry Spike :)

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 134
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:35:11 +0000
|| The tie always goes to the defender... I think....
|| i.e. The defender always wins in a tie....
|
|Page 102, "Ties go to the attacker." Sorry Spike :)

Ahhh well.... At least all my other points were valid.....
(Can't be 100% right 100% of the time and all that.....)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 135
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:55:09 +0100
Spike said on 10:47/18 Feb 97...

> |damage is inflicted upon the winner of the opposed success test and TIE
> |GOES TO THE ATTACKER!
>
> The tie always goes to the defender... I think....
> i.e. The defender always wins in a tie....

Nope, the attacker wins in case of a tie in melee combat.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If you'll need me, I'll be nowhere.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 136
From: DaveM <a0021875@*******.NET>
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:09:11 -0800
Going off a comment someone else made here before I considered it and
was thinking of throwing in an idea of my own, let me know what ya
think.

Make Armed/Unarmed combat attacks like as normal, TN#4 etc.
Opponents/targets get an oppossed test at TN#4.
Heres where the idea comes in. The target can only roll to defend
his/herself using Armed/Unarmed during a phase that the get an action
in, and then if the target gets more successes then it cant hit back,
just defended enough to dodge, they get an attack anyway on their
action. This idea was because I thought that someone goin in the 40's
initiative with low skill attacking someone going on 14 with high
Armed/Unarmed would get hit alot on his/her own actions by a slow person
that shouldnt move until way later.

Its an abstract combat system as is and I though this might make a
little more sense.

What I refer to when I say a phase that the target gets an action in is
I break the turn up in to 10's ie, 50's,40's,30's, etc... if you have
an action in that section you can defend yourself, if you dont, ie your
way slower, the fast attacker can come in and attack you before you have
a chance to move to defend yourself, even then when he does attack and
you CAN defend, if you get more successes you dont get to hit, you get
your action normally. (This can be changed back to where if you do get
to use your skill, then you can hit if you have more successes on a
defense as stated normally, which is fine.) :) DM
Message no. 137
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:55:26 -0700
DaveM wrote:
/
/ Heres where the idea comes in. The target can only roll to defend
/ his/herself using Armed/Unarmed during a phase that the get an action
/ in, and then if the target gets more successes then it cant hit back,
/ just defended enough to dodge, they get an attack anyway on their
/ action. This idea was because I thought that someone goin in the 40's
/ initiative with low skill attacking someone going on 14 with high
/ Armed/Unarmed would get hit alot on his/her own actions by a slow person
/ that shouldnt move until way later.

That's more or less what I do, except that defending one's self in
melee combat requires a Free Action.

(BTW, disable/turn off your reply-to field on your mailer. It's
overriding the list :)

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes.
Art is knowing which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 138
From: DaveM <a0021875@*******.NET>
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:08:16 -0800
OH, one more thing I thought of after writing that last Melee Combat
entry. One option to use is that if a defending character has a low
initiative , instead of not being able to defend himself at all until
the initiative is close to where he can act on it, have him/her use half
his skill to defend, then full skill when he has a chance to act.
Message no. 139
From: dbuehrer@****.org dbuehrer@****.org
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:28:13 -0700
In melee combat, what do you think of using the opponent's Reaction as the
base target number (instead of a 4, per the rules)?

After taking martial arts for over a year in RL, I've noticed that how well
one does in sparring comes down to two things: skill and reaction. I've
seen low belts with good reaction unable to take advantage of that (I even
did it myself when I redirected a higher belt and had her back to me, but
stood there like a goof because I didn't know what to do next :). I've
also seen high belts make up for slower (marginally) reaction with skill
(that same higher belt didn't hesitate to launch a mule kick at me).

So, IMHO it makes sense to use opponent's Reaction as the target number.

An example: PC A (Reaction 4, Unarmed Combat 6) and PC B (Reaction 8,
Unarmed Combat 2). There are no other modifiers for this example. PC A
rolls six dice vs an 8. PC B rolls two dice vs a 4. Whichever rolls more
successes succeeds in striking the other. Target's successes are
subtracted from Attacker's successes and the damage is staged accordingly.
The target rolls a Damage Resistance test.

-Graht
--
"There is no wealth but life."
-John Ruskin
Message no. 140
From: Lee Decker deckerl@******.com
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:38:07 -0500
<SNIP>
>
> So, IMHO it makes sense to use opponent's Reaction as the
> target number.
>
> An example: PC A (Reaction 4, Unarmed Combat 6) and PC B (Reaction 8,
> Unarmed Combat 2). There are no other modifiers for this
> example. PC A
> rolls six dice vs an 8. PC B rolls two dice vs a 4.
> Whichever rolls more
> successes succeeds in striking the other. Target's successes are
> subtracted from Attacker's successes and the damage is staged
> accordingly.
> The target rolls a Damage Resistance test.
>

You must be in a house rules mode lately. :)
Your logic isn't bad, and I think at least better then fasa's in this area.
Hmm...a master with unarmed combat 8 reaction 4 (normal human) versus a
samurai
unarmed 5, reaction 8.
8 dice t# 8, 5 dice versus t#4.
The samurai will possibly clobber him. I would think someone with a skill of
8, would be able to
use the samurai's speed against them.....then again....let me think on this
one.
Message no. 141
From: 00DNA mcmanus@******.albany.edu
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 14:45:41 -0500
At 12:28 PM 11/9/99 -0700, dbuehrer@****.org wrote:
>In melee combat, what do you think of using the opponent's Reaction as the
>base target number (instead of a 4, per the rules)?
>
><snip real life example>
>An example: PC A (Reaction 4, Unarmed Combat 6) and PC B (Reaction 8,
>Unarmed Combat 2). There are no other modifiers for this example. PC A
>rolls six dice vs an 8. PC B rolls two dice vs a 4. Whichever rolls more
>successes succeeds in striking the other. Target's successes are
>subtracted from Attacker's successes and the damage is staged accordingly.
>The target rolls a Damage Resistance test.
>
>-Graht

That seems pretty good to me and I think I'm going to test this out and see
how it works.
Good thinking Graht.


--00DNA
"...user connection terminated."
Message no. 142
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:51:19 -0500 (EST)
dbuehrer@****.org writes:
> After taking martial arts for over a year in RL, I've noticed that how well
> one does in sparring comes down to two things: skill and reaction.

I noticed that the color of your belt is only marginally
related to your sparring skill. <shrug>

> So, IMHO it makes sense to use opponent's Reaction as the target number.

This sounds like overcompensation. I'm pretty sure you can
fight effectively even if your unmodified reaction is in the 2 range.

In my campaign, I allowed Unarmed Combat to be based off of
Quickness or Strength, for similar reasons. I guess unaugmented
Reaction would work just as well for a base attribute.

(Also in my campaign, the Partial Default rules from SRC1 are
in effect. I really liked that rule.)

Mark
Message no. 143
From: 00DNA mcmanus@******.albany.edu
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 15:21:29 -0500
At 12:28 PM 11/9/99 -0700, dbuehrer@****.org wrote:
>In melee combat, what do you think of using the opponent's Reaction as the
>base target number (instead of a 4, per the rules)?
>
>An example: PC A (Reaction 4, Unarmed Combat 6) and PC B (Reaction 8,
>Unarmed Combat 2). There are no other modifiers for this example. PC A
>rolls six dice vs an 8. PC B rolls two dice vs a 4. Whichever rolls more
>successes succeeds in striking the other. Target's successes are
>subtracted from Attacker's successes and the damage is staged accordingly.
>The target rolls a Damage Resistance test.

Hmm, well I liked it but I did some doodling and could see where PC's could
take advantage of this. Say you make a sammie with a Reaction of 10. You
won't even have to bother with taking Unarmed Combat at all then.
Sammie R: 10, Unarmed 0
NPC R: 5, Unarmed 5

Sammie can default off of Quickness (or is it strength?, doesn't matter),
so say he's rolling 5 dice, his TN is equal to 5 plus the 2 (or is it 3)
for defaulting...so it's 7 (or 8)
NPC rolls 5 dice but his TN is 10, way advantage Sammie even though he has
no unarmed combat training and the NPC is pretty darn good at it.
I like the initial idea but not sure if it will work. What using it like
the Reach bonus. Whoever has higher reaction gets a +1 TN on Defense or -1
TN on Offense, and say +2/-2 if it's more than double reaction...?


--00DNA
"...user connection terminated."
Message no. 144
From: dbuehrer@****.org dbuehrer@****.org
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 13:31:47 -0700
Mark A Shieh wrote:
\ dbuehrer@****.org writes:
\ > After taking martial arts for over a year in RL, I've noticed that how well
\ > one does in sparring comes down to two things: skill and reaction.
\
\ I noticed that the color of your belt is only marginally
\ related to your sparring skill. <shrug>

Well, yes.. Notice I wrote "skill" instead of "belt rank" :) ..but
then I
went on to use "belt rank" after that.. Sorry, replace all references to
"belt rank" with "skill" :-/

\ > So, IMHO it makes sense to use opponent's Reaction as the target number.
\
\ This sounds like overcompensation. I'm pretty sure you can
\ fight effectively even if your unmodified reaction is in the 2 range.

I'm not quite sure I understand where you're going.

IMO a Reaction of 2 equates with either a child, someone who is very out of
shape, or a person with a physical mobility disability. It would be hard
(but not impossible) for such a person to effectively attack/counter attack
against an equally skilled opponent of average reaction (3-4).

As it stands now the Street Sam with a Reaction of 6 has even odds verses
an equally skilled opponent with a Reaction of 2.

\ In my campaign, I allowed Unarmed Combat to be based off of
\ Quickness or Strength, for similar reasons. I guess unaugmented
\ Reaction would work just as well for a base attribute.

Why not augmented? IMHO the enhanced Street Sam with an augmented Reaction
of 10 should have a *distinct* advantage in melee combat. If attacked they
can *immediately* block/counter. While attacking and if blocked they can
*immediatly* follow with an appropriate attack.

...<ponders enhanced reflexes, light bulb goes on> geez, I am in house rule
mode. See my following post :)

\ (Also in my campaign, the Partial Default rules from SRC1 are
\ in effect. I really liked that rule.)

I'll be sure to check it out when I get home :)

-Graht
--
"Warm nights, good food, kindred spirits....great life!"
Message no. 145
From: Lars Ericson lericson@****.edu
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 14:33:11 -0600
dbuehrer@****.org wrote:
>
> In melee combat, what do you think of using the opponent's Reaction as the
> base target number (instead of a 4, per the rules)?

Shadowrun is a skill based game. Skills are used to accomplish tasks and
rarely involve the linked attribute except for as guidelines for how
difficult it is to develop said skill. So ingeneral, one should try and
avoid involving attributes in basic combat or skill tests. I suppose
Negotiations and such often involves CHA or WIL, so maybe I'm talking
out my ass, but in general that's the flavor of Shadowrun.

Remember that Unarmed Combat (or any active skill) is not simple
training and book learning. In fact it doesn't involve much of that at
all (that's what Knowledge skills are for), but is instead the natural
instinctual ability to perform unarmed combat. I would argue that the
reaction that you are describing is already part of being skilled in
unarmed combat. Knowing how to move to counter or take advantage of an
attack, as well as constantly evolving and adjusting defenses is exactly
what the stock Unarmed Combat skill is all about.

Don't change the rules, just change your physical interpretation of
them.


--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Lars Ericson: Professional Vagabond
Smalley Research Group, Rice University
E-Mail: lericson@****.edu
WWW: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/

Life is like a Wankel Engine. In between the emptiness of boredom and
despair, and the compression of stress in one's life, there's that one
spark of enjoyment that keeps you going.
Message no. 146
From: Lars Ericson lericson@****.edu
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 14:46:11 -0600
dbuehrer@****.org wrote:

> IMO a Reaction of 2 equates with either a child, someone who is very out of
> shape, or a person with a physical mobility disability. It would be hard
> (but not impossible) for such a person to effectively attack/counter attack
> against an equally skilled opponent of average reaction (3-4).
>
> As it stands now the Street Sam with a Reaction of 6 has even odds verses
> an equally skilled opponent with a Reaction of 2.

Not true. First off, it was easier for the street samurai to learn his
unarmed combat because of high linked attribute (in my game QUI and STR
are averaged for the linked attribute to Unarmed). Also, the street
samurai is going to be acting more often and will have the advantage in
those conflicts (ties go to the attacker). Finally, Reaction involves
INT and QUI, both of which go into Combat Pool. So, the street samurai
is going to have a higher Combat Pool and thus more dice to use. That's
three advantages the Reaction 6 samurai has over an equally skilled
opponent of low Reaction.

> Why not augmented? IMHO the enhanced Street Sam with an augmented Reaction
> of 10 should have a *distinct* advantage in melee combat. If attacked they
> can *immediately* block/counter. While attacking and if blocked they can
> *immediatly* follow with an appropriate attack.

Augmented is going to give a *HUGE* advantage to street samurai. One of
the leveling side effects of the Shadowrun melee rules is thatt is was
something you could be good at without being wired up. Now maybe that's
not entirely realistic, but the speed at which samurai move really isn't
either.


--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Lars Ericson: Professional Vagabond
Smalley Research Group, Rice University
E-Mail: lericson@****.edu
WWW: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/

Life is like a Wankel Engine. In between the emptiness of boredom and
despair, and the compression of stress in one's life, there's that one
spark of enjoyment that keeps you going.
Message no. 147
From: Scott W iscottw@*****.nb.ca
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 16:58:49 -0400
"And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Lars Ericson."
] > In melee combat, what do you think of using the opponent's Reaction as the
] > base target number (instead of a 4, per the rules)?
]
] Shadowrun is a skill based game. Skills are used to accomplish tasks and
] rarely involve the linked attribute except for as guidelines for how
] difficult it is to develop said skill. So ingeneral, one should try and
] avoid involving attributes in basic combat or skill tests. I suppose
] Negotiations and such often involves CHA or WIL, so maybe I'm talking
] out my ass, but in general that's the flavor of Shadowrun.
]
] Remember that Unarmed Combat (or any active skill) is not simple
] training and book learning. In fact it doesn't involve much of that at
] all (that's what Knowledge skills are for), but is instead the natural
] instinctual ability to perform unarmed combat. I would argue that the
] reaction that you are describing is already part of being skilled in
] unarmed combat. Knowing how to move to counter or take advantage of an
] attack, as well as constantly evolving and adjusting defenses is exactly
] what the stock Unarmed Combat skill is all about.
]
] Don't change the rules, just change your physical interpretation of
] them.

I second that. The opponent Graht was sparring with, who delivered a
mule kick when she got turned around, could do so because she had the
knowledge of what to do in that situation, and the training to
automatically deliver the kick. That's a reflection of skill.
Start messing with that rule, and Samurai's everywhere will be
joyously closing with the enemy post-haste, passing up their Skill
priority for some more Resources. Can you imagine the
oft-tossed-around diea of the Speed-Samurai in this situation? Target
number 21. 21!!!

A house rule I like (I forget the source) is one where is you have
multiple actions, and attack an opponent who does not have an action in
that Initiative Pass (due to low initiative), they get a +1 for every
action you've got them outclassed by.
Example:

Samurai A has Initiative 14, Ganger B has Initiative 7. At phases 14
and 7, everything's normal. At phase 4, in the next Pass, ganger B has
no action, and thus gets a +1 to her target number. Advantage Samurai.

Reaction is still a factor in the combat, but a less nutty one.

-Boondocker
Message no. 148
From: dbuehrer@****.org dbuehrer@****.org
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 14:05:40 -0700
\ From: 00DNA <mcmanus@******.albany.edu>
\
\ Hmm, well I liked it but I did some doodling and could see where PC's could
\ take advantage of this. Say you make a sammie with a Reaction of 10. You
\ won't even have to bother with taking Unarmed Combat at all then.
\ Sammie R: 10, Unarmed 0
\ NPC R: 5, Unarmed 5
\
\ Sammie can default off of Quickness (or is it strength?, doesn't matter),
\ so say he's rolling 5 dice, his TN is equal to 5 plus the 2 (or is it 3)

I thought it was 4. But then I haven't had to deal with defaulting in a
long time <shrug>.

\ for defaulting...so it's 7 (or 8)
\ NPC rolls 5 dice but his TN is 10, way advantage Sammie even though he has
\ no unarmed combat training and the NPC is pretty darn good at it.
\ I like the initial idea but not sure if it will work. What using it like
\ the Reach bonus. Whoever has higher reaction gets a +1 TN on Defense or -1
\ TN on Offense, and say +2/-2 if it's more than double reaction...?

\ From: Lars Ericson <lericson@****.edu>
\
\ Remember that Unarmed Combat (or any active skill) is not simple
\ training and book learning. In fact it doesn't involve much of that at
\ all (that's what Knowledge skills are for), but is instead the natural
\ instinctual ability to perform unarmed combat. I would argue that the
\ reaction that you are describing is already part of being skilled in
\ unarmed combat. Knowing how to move to counter or take advantage of an
\ attack, as well as constantly evolving and adjusting defenses is exactly
\ what the stock Unarmed Combat skill is all about.
\
\ Don't change the rules, just change your physical interpretation of
\ them.

\ From: Lars Ericson <lericson@****.edu>
\
\ > As it stands now the Street Sam with a Reaction of 6 has even odds verses
\ > an equally skilled opponent with a Reaction of 2.
\
\ Not true. First off, it was easier for the street samurai to learn his
\ unarmed combat because of high linked attribute (in my game QUI and STR
\ are averaged for the linked attribute to Unarmed). Also, the street
\ samurai is going to be acting more often and will have the advantage in
\ those conflicts (ties go to the attacker). Finally, Reaction involves
\ INT and QUI, both of which go into Combat Pool. So, the street samurai
\ is going to have a higher Combat Pool and thus more dice to use. That's
\ three advantages the Reaction 6 samurai has over an equally skilled
\ opponent of low Reaction.

And that's why I love this list. My poor house rule ideas are effectively
shot down before I can inflict them on my players :)

All points have been taken, and the idea has been striken. I'll keep my
original house rule of giving characters with enhanced reflexes an extra
melee combat die per extra initiative die.

Thank you,
-Graht
--
"Wisdom has two parts: having a lot to say, and not saying it."
Message no. 149
From: dbuehrer@****.org dbuehrer@****.org
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 14:09:03 -0700
Scott W wrote:
\
\ Reaction is still a factor in the combat, but a less nutty one.

"less nutty"? ...are you calling me "nutty"? I resemble that remark!

:)

-Graht
--
"Anything I have ever done that ultimately was worthwhile....
initially scared me to death."
-Betty Bender
Message no. 150
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:59:21 -0600
:In melee combat, what do you think of using the opponent's Reaction as the
:base target number (instead of a 4, per the rules)?

You do realize that some PC's have double digit reactions, yes? Heck,
just with SR3, you can get reactions of 16 (maybe higher). Technically,
that
TN could be so high that people in melee against them could not legally
default, since defaulting is not allowed (in SR3) if the TN is 8 before the
default.
This would place way to much emphasis on reaction in melee combat. It
would also likely result in very few successes on both sides, making melee
even less dangerous and effective than it already is.
Combat pool is influenced by intelligence and quickness, as is reaction,
so most folks with good reaction get good combat pool, which can affect
their melee tests. Its pretty indirect, and not reliable, but there it is.
If you want something more direct, you could maybe give folks a "melee
pool" equal to the amount by which their reaction exceeds their combat pool,
or something like that. This would give a noticeable boost to folks with
high reaction, but not produce the other (probably undesirable) changes that
using a new base TN would.

Mongoose
Message no. 151
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:43:06 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 dbuehrer@****.org wrote:

> In melee combat, what do you think of using the opponent's Reaction as the
> base target number (instead of a 4, per the rules)?

Bad idea. Lars Ericson has already pointed out the major bugsboos
with switching to a system like this, and I agree with his assessment.

> After taking martial arts for over a year in RL, I've noticed that how well
> one does in sparring comes down to two things: skill and reaction.

After taking martial arts for 16 years in RL, I have noticed that
how well one does in *COMBAT* comes down to two things: smarts and skill,
with the first being *much* more important. Reaction is nice, but I've
seen greying, feeble-looking, pot-bellied old men kick the shit out of
young, fast, strong guys and make it look easy. Being smart about getting
into combat and fighting such that your strengths are used directly
against your opponent's weaknesses makes all the difference in the world.
Recognizing these strengths and weaknesses comes with training, i.e. it is
a facet of skill.
Reaction has its place in SR3 melee combat, but don't make it too
strong an effect. Realize what you're doing statistically as well. The
difference between a target number of 4 and a target number of 6 is
immense. Your system will *totally* skew the odds in favor of someone
with a high Reaction and make taking the actual skill something of minor
or trivial importance.
Reaction already factors into how frequently you'll act, which
means you'll be the "attacker" more often. If you allow aiming in melee
combat, a high Reaction lets you hit more often (because dropping the
target number effectively means you can react to your opponent's strikes,
blocks, or evasions more quickly).
Don't tip the scales too much.

> An example: PC A (Reaction 4, Unarmed Combat 6) and PC B (Reaction 8,
> Unarmed Combat 2). There are no other modifiers for this example. PC A
> rolls six dice vs an 8. PC B rolls two dice vs a 4. Whichever rolls more
> successes succeeds in striking the other. Target's successes are
> subtracted from Attacker's successes and the damage is staged accordingly.
> The target rolls a Damage Resistance test.

To put the math to your example, PC A rolls 6 dice, target number
8. Neglecting Combat Pool, statistically speaking he will average roughly
0.83 successes. PC B on the other hand, rolls two dice, target number 4.
Statistically, he will always average a single success. So the guy with a
skill of two and the higher Reaction is (in the long haul) going to come
out on top.
This actually gets *worse* when you factor in Combat Pool. The
guy with the higher Reaction is probably going to have a higher Combat
Pool. Granted, he'll get to use less of it at a time, but he'll get more
actions so it balances out. PC A, however will get screwed. Low
Reaction, probably low Combat Pool. Worse yet, He'll quickly run into a
situation where his skill will be higher than his Combat Pool can double,
and thus his odds get even worse.
For instance, if both sides totally suck and have a Combat Pool of
4, PC A can only roll 10 dice, target number 8. Statistically, he's
looking at getting about 1.4 successes, whereas PC B (rolling only 4 dice,
target number 4) is going to average 2.0 successes. Further, in
subsequent actions, PC B will continue to be able to add Combat Pool dice
(because he could only use 2 of them), whereas PC A has already blown his
wad.
Now look at the difference in skill ratings. A skill of 2
reflects an amateur status, you've just gotten into something, and you're
starting to pick up the basics. You found a dojo near your doss and have
been taking weekend classes for the last few months. A skill of 6 means
you have professional rank. You could make a living *teaching* martial
arts, and may have a shot on the amateur "tough man" circuit. Further,
provided that they both have a high primary attribute (Strength?
Quickness? I forget what it is for Unarmed), one has paid 5 karma,
whereas the other has paid like 33. To have the "master" lose to the
"student" simply because the student has a higher Reaction is (IMHO) more
than a little lopsided.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.html.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.html.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@********.att.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 152
From: Bira ubiratan@**.homeshopping.com.br
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 19:59:18 -0200
On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:28:13 -0700
dbuehrer@****.org wrote:

> In melee combat, what do you think of using the opponent's Reaction as the
> base target number (instead of a 4, per the rules)?
>
> After taking martial arts for over a year in RL, I've noticed that how well
> one does in sparring comes down to two things: skill and reaction. I've
> seen low belts with good reaction unable to take advantage of that (I even
> did it myself when I redirected a higher belt and had her back to me, but
> stood there like a goof because I didn't know what to do next :). I've
> also seen high belts make up for slower (marginally) reaction with skill
> (that same higher belt didn't hesitate to launch a mule kick at me).
>
> So, IMHO it makes sense to use opponent's Reaction as the target number.
>
> An example: PC A (Reaction 4, Unarmed Combat 6) and PC B (Reaction 8,
> Unarmed Combat 2). There are no other modifiers for this example. PC A
> rolls six dice vs an 8. PC B rolls two dice vs a 4. Whichever rolls more
> successes succeeds in striking the other. Target's successes are
> subtracted from Attacker's successes and the damage is staged accordingly.
> The target rolls a Damage Resistance test.
>
> -Graht

First, I'd like to announce that for at least a little while,
I'll be back on the list (though you probably don't remember me :) ).

Now, it seems to me that the current rules (standard TN4)
replicate perfectly the situation you described. People with high
Reaction ratings and low Unarmed Combat may act first, but even so they
have a small chance of hitting a non-wired fighter who is much better
than them.
A higher skill rating would be equivalent to a higher belt in
martial arts so as ou said an experiences fighter can compensate for his
lack of wires with his skill. PC A from your example could be a white belt
with expensive cyber toys who has watched a lot of kung fu movies, and
PC B a seasoned veteran who could live confortably with the prizes he
earns in tourments. Even with PC A having a superhuman reaction time, PC
B can probably spot his many mistakes and take advantage of them.

Bira - SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://members.xoom.com/slbr
http://www.terravista.pt/Nazare/2729
ICQ# 4055455
Message no. 153
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:40:47 -0500 (EST)
dbuehrer@****.org writes:
> Mark A Shieh wrote:
> \ dbuehrer@****.org writes:
> \ > After taking martial arts for over a year in RL, I've noticed that how well
> \ > one does in sparring comes down to two things: skill and reaction.
> \
> \ I noticed that the color of your belt is only marginally
> \ related to your sparring skill. <shrug>
>
> Well, yes.. Notice I wrote "skill" instead of "belt rank" :)
..but then I
> went on to use "belt rank" after that.. Sorry, replace all references to
> "belt rank" with "skill" :-/

Yeah, I was agreeing with you there. :)

> \ > So, IMHO it makes sense to use opponent's Reaction as the target number.
> \
> \ This sounds like overcompensation. I'm pretty sure you can
> \ fight effectively even if your unmodified reaction is in the 2 range.
>
> I'm not quite sure I understand where you're going.

I'm trying to say that a couple points of reaction (rxn) shouldn't
completely dominate a combat, unless you blow a surprise test.

I've met some people who used to do martial arts, but don't
train hard any more and aren't in great shape. My primary instructor
fell into this category. Some of them were probably pretty bright,
which increases your Rxn in SR, but I don't think that their Rxn could
have been higher than 3. [Anecdotal evidence warning! :)]
Anyways, they're still skilled enough to hold their own. Your
reaction time doesn't have to be great in order to fight effectively.
You have to be able to read your opponent.

> IMO a Reaction of 2 equates with either a child, someone who is very out of
> shape, or a person with a physical mobility disability.

Quickness 2 and Intelligence 3 qualifies as "very out of
shape", regardless of their Strength and Body? Doesn't an
above-average troll have a Rxn of 2? (SR3 isn't with me. :( ) It
doesn't take much in this respect to be a decent fighter if they're
trained. Physical fitness in any attribute gives you an edge, but so
does higher skill.

> It would be hard
> (but not impossible) for such a person to effectively attack/counter attack
> against an equally skilled opponent of average reaction (3-4).

It's harder, but it's not enough of an edge to make things
totally lopsided. TN2 vs. TN6 is pretty rough on the Rxn 2 guy.
Having a sword or polearm doesn't even things out here! An exchange
between the two (at skill 6) with full combat pool results in 8 net
successes on the Rxn 6 guy. I fail to believe that a combatant of
that skill is going to be at an 8 success disadvantage just because
he's out of shape. That's worse than an untrained joe. (attributes
of 3s around)
Regardless of what the movies say, I'm convinced that a
mediocre fighter with a polearm should be able to at least last a
while against even an extremely good unarmed combatant with no magic.
I'm not counting disadvantages of fighting within minimum range of the
polearm here, since SR doesn't either. 2 points of reach should
nullify almost any advantage short of injury.

On the other hand, the extra 4 points of combat pool implied
by a Rxn 2 vs. Rxn 6 are significant, but not completely dominating.
This definitely feels better to me.

> As it stands now the Street Sam with a Reaction of 6 has even odds verses
> an equally skilled opponent with a Reaction of 2.

Yeah, I don't know what to say about a guy with a rxn 2
fighting his clone with Wired 2. The handwaving argument about the
unnaturalness of cyberware is the best I can do, which fails when the
guy becomes an adept.

> \ In my campaign, I allowed Unarmed Combat to be based off of
> \ Quickness or Strength, for similar reasons. I guess unaugmented
> \ Reaction would work just as well for a base attribute.
>
> Why not augmented?

It's not natural. It doesn't feel right. It's a bias against
how I feel skills should improve. I don't feel that cybernetic
improvements should feel natural enough to aid training to that
extent. Oh, and it's hypothetically for my campaign. YMMV and all
that.

I'm just offering my house rule as a less drastic alternative
to make it easier on people with a high degree of coordination but
aren't olympic lifters. IMHO, Strength is overrated. It should
affect how hard you hit, and how well you function while loaded. Of
course, I'm somewhat of a fast lightweight myself, but that would
never cloud my objective view of the situation.

> IMHO the enhanced Street Sam with an augmented Reaction
> of 10 should have a *distinct* advantage in melee combat. If attacked they
> can *immediately* block/counter. While attacking and if blocked they can
> *immediatly* follow with an appropriate attack.

The non-enhanced guy reacts in about 0.2 seconds, including
time to process the situation, if I'm pulling accurate numbers out of
thin air. (I think it's right, but can't be sure or go home for my
psych books). If you cut that down to 0.1 seconds, you're still not
going to walk all over a skilled combatant. Unless it's something
you're very good at doing, I'll still read you coming with more than
enough time to react. If you do manage to make me misread you, making
it happen 0.1 seconds earlier isn't going to make a huge difference.
The converse also holds up to my experiences. If you react to
me 0.1 seconds sooner, you're still going to have to react by
committing in a certain way, and that has a recovery time that isn't
all that related to your reflexes. Doing it sooner may or may not
help.

Most of my sparring style involved hiding the type of kick I
was planning as long as possible, and doing quick combinations to
force my opponent into a block that recovered more slowly than my
kick. You generally beat my style by knowing enough to read my moves,
not by reacting to them quickly enough.
Speed helps, but it doesn't mean I've seen Rxn 6 guys (I rate
myself at least a 5, but have an ego.) walk over black belts,
especially on a regular basis. What I have seen are the naturally
gifted guys advance through the ranks faster than the rest. The best
mechanic I could brainstorm for this phenomenon was allowing the
combat skills to default to other attributes than Strength.

> \ (Also in my campaign, the Partial Default rules from SRC1 are
> \ in effect. I really liked that rule.)
>
> I'll be sure to check it out when I get home :)

It's trivial to adapt to SR3. I recommend it.

Mark
Message no. 154
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:13:01 -0800
On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:28:13 -0700 dbuehrer@****.org writes:
> In melee combat, what do you think of using the opponent's Reaction as
the
> base target number (instead of a 4, per the rules)?
<SNIP>

Okay, what happens when Chrome-Man (Base Reaction 6, modified by cyber
and bio to 11) goes up against Ninja boy (Base Reaction 6 modified by
physad abilities to 13)? They will never hit each other!

Why not something like 4+Target's Reaction-Attacker's Reaction? (Min of
2)

Also, I'm thinking of making Combat Pool bigger and refreshing as per SR3
(currently we have it refresh as per SR2). Combat Pool would become
either, (Quickness+Intelligence+Willpower+Reaction)/2 or
(Reaction+Willpower)/2 ... I'm favoring the second but haven't really
decided how much bigger I want to make the Combat Pool.

--
D. Ghost
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Message no. 155
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 99 21:24:27 -0500
On 11/9/99 9:13 pm, dghost@****.com said:

>On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:28:13 -0700 dbuehrer@****.org writes:
>> In melee combat, what do you think of using the opponent's Reaction as
>the
>> base target number (instead of a 4, per the rules)?
><SNIP>
>
>Okay, what happens when Chrome-Man (Base Reaction 6, modified by cyber
>and bio to 11) goes up against Ninja boy (Base Reaction 6 modified by
>physad abilities to 13)? They will never hit each other!
>
>Why not something like 4+Target's Reaction-Attacker's Reaction? (Min of
>2)
>
>Also, I'm thinking of making Combat Pool bigger and refreshing as per SR3
>(currently we have it refresh as per SR2). Combat Pool would become
>either, (Quickness+Intelligence+Willpower+Reaction)/2 or
>(Reaction+Willpower)/2 ... I'm favoring the second but haven't really
>decided how much bigger I want to make the Combat Pool.
>


OK, Post 1 on this subject.

There is some merit to your idea but as has been pointed out it blows up
fairly quickly as the reactions go up. But in the original example you
posted it didn't argue for basing the TN on Reaction but Skill. As you
said, you got the jump on the higher skilled opponent but didn't know
what to do with it, wheras she knew exactly how to react to your mistake.
That argues that the TN should be based off skill and not Reaction. There
are also fewer problems with basing it off skill as by and large the
numbers are lower (how often do you see someone with a melee combat skill
above 10) and it does not encourage everybody to buy wired 3. If you were
to try a system like this why not make the base TN be your opponents
skill -2 or something like that (minimum of a 2). That should achieve the
effect you are looking for without creating any monsters.


Steve
Message no. 156
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 99 22:42:39 -0500
On 11/9/99 4:05 pm, dbuehrer@****.org said:

>
>And that's why I love this list. My poor house rule ideas are effectively
>shot down before I can inflict them on my players :)
>
>All points have been taken, and the idea has been striken. I'll keep my
>original house rule of giving characters with enhanced reflexes an extra
>melee combat die per extra initiative die.
>


Post 2 (this is the long winded one)

This all boils down to the old question of what is better in meele, skill
or speed. There have been several flame wars around here over that
question especially when Sr3 came out and the4 new initative and pool
refresh systems were introduced. In Sr2 Speed was everything, a skill 3
guy with 3 actions/turn would always beat a skill 8 guy with 1
action/turn. In Sr3 that was corrected (in most of our eyes) but now a
skill 8 guy with 3 actions has basically no advantage over a skill 8 guy
with one action.

I have suggested a melee combat system like the one detailed below to
correct this problem and also make melee combat more like other types of
actions in it's resolution several times here and it has gone largely
uncommented on. Maybe this time it will be different.



On your action you may attack using any of 4 attacks which are all
different specializations of each melee combat skill (armed or unarmed).
The types of attack are Attack, Disarm, Throw, and Grapple .

If you are the target of an attack you may respond in any of 3 ways again
each of which is a specialization of all melee combat skills. The
responses to an attack are Block/Parry, Dodge, and Counter Attack.

The specializations for weapon type and combat style are eliminated.

Types of attacks
In an attack you roll your skill in dice plus combat pool against a Tn of
4 with all standard modifiers applicable Damage is as listed in the rules
and staged nowmally.

In a Disarm you cause no damage but instead if successful cause your
target to drop whatever it is they are carrying (knife, gun, detonator,
candy bar, etc) The base Tn is 4 and all normal modifiers apply. If the
attacker achieves at least 1 net success then the combatants make an
opposed role using either Strength or quickness (each character chooses
which he will use) with the attacker getting a +1 modifier for every 2
successes achieved in the attack (the only other modifier that applies to
this test is wound modifiers). If the attacker gets 1 net success on this
opposed test them the target has dropped whatever it was that they were
holding and it scatters 1d6 meters.

In a Throw you always cause Str L (stun) Damage staged normally
regardless of the weapon or skill you are using and the goal is to knock
your opponent prone. The base Tn is 4 and all standard modifiers apply.
If the attacker achieves 1 net success then the defender is thrown to a
prone position, "scatters" 1d3 meters and must resist damage.

In a Grapple you are not attempting to cause damage to your opponent so
much as to restrain them in a hold. Damage is optional and the attacker
chooses wether he will apply it or not, he he does apply it then it is
always Str L (stun) staged normally regardless of the weapon or skill
being used. If the attacker achieves 1 net success then his opponent is
restrained in a hold of some sort and may need to resist damage at the
attackers discression. Also this hold may be sustained as a complex
action if the attacker wishes. If it is sustauned then the defender may
make no ranged or melee combat attacks and suffers a +4 Tn when defending
or attempting to dodge such attacks. On the defenders turn he may if he
wishes as a complex action attempt to break the hold, this is achieved by
an opposed strength or quickness (each characters choice which they will
use) test with only wound modifiers applying. On the attackers action
while he is maintaining the hold he may if he desires make an attack that
is automatically successful that causes Str L damage, is not modified by
any armour below security grade and cannot have combat pool applied to
the damage resistance test.

Types of Reaction
In a Block/Parry the character is attempting to disrupt the attack, the
base Target number is 4 all normal modifiers apply and if an unarmed
character attempts to use this reaction against an armed character then
they recieve a +2 modifier in addition to any other modifiers applicable.
Successes from this are compaired to the attackers successes to determine
staging. Also for any attacks which had any results other than damage
(Throw, Grapple, disarm) the attacker needs one more success than the
defender on this type of success to activate the effect (although damage
may still need to be resisted).

In a Dodge the you attempt to not be in the path of the attack, the base
Tn is 5 and all standard modifiers apply. If the defender achieves more
successes than the attacker then the attack is a clean miss and no damage
resistance test is necessary, if not then successes generated in this
test are added to successes generated in the damage resistance test.

In a counter attack you allow your opponent to hit you in to be able to
hit them back, you may use any of the attack types and all mechanics
remain the same except you may choose the specialization used (for
example if do a throw as a counterattack you may use either the throw or
counterattack specialization). Both characters make their attack tests
and apply damage as normal with only a damage resistance test to stage it
down.


I won't go into examples in this e-mail but I have run several and in all
cases a higher skill beats more speed but speed gives an advantage over a
character of equal skill, and will post some if people ask for them.
Message no. 157
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 99 23:09:11 -0500
On 11/9/99 10:42 pm, Steve Collins said:

>On 11/9/99 4:05 pm, dbuehrer@****.org said:
>
>>
>>And that's why I love this list. My poor house rule ideas are effectively
>>shot down before I can inflict them on my players :)
>>
>>All points have been taken, and the idea has been striken. I'll keep my
>>original house rule of giving characters with enhanced reflexes an extra
>>melee combat die per extra initiative die.
>>
>
>
>Post 2 (this is the long winded one)
>
>This all boils down to the old question of what is better in meele, skill
>or speed. There have been several flame wars around here over that
>question especially when Sr3 came out and the4 new initative and pool
>refresh systems were introduced. In Sr2 Speed was everything, a skill 3
>guy with 3 actions/turn would always beat a skill 8 guy with 1
>action/turn. In Sr3 that was corrected (in most of our eyes) but now a
>skill 8 guy with 3 actions has basically no advantage over a skill 8 guy
>with one action.
>
>I have suggested a melee combat system like the one detailed below to
>correct this problem and also make melee combat more like other types of
>actions in it's resolution several times here and it has gone largely
>uncommented on. Maybe this time it will be different.
>
>
>

Snip the rest of my stuff

Oh yeah before any of the martial arts students in the crowd asks how you
combine a defense and an attack into one manuever (something that is
obviously possible). It is simple, you hold your action and use it at the
same time as your opponent. That way you either dodge or block his attack
and attack with your action.
Message no. 158
From: MC23 mc23@**********.com
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 22:59:49 -0500
Once upon a time, Steve Collins wrote;

>This all boils down to the old question of what is better in meele, skill
>or speed. There have been several flame wars around here over that
>question especially when Sr3 came out and the4 new initative and pool
>refresh systems were introduced. In Sr2 Speed was everything, a skill 3
>guy with 3 actions/turn would always beat a skill 8 guy with 1
>action/turn. In Sr3 that was corrected (in most of our eyes) but now a
>skill 8 guy with 3 actions has basically no advantage over a skill 8 guy
>with one action.

I'm joining in late on this but I remember the last time I got
involved with this. Anyway In SR3 it's not a question of speed versus
skill but whether speed has any effect at all. The answer is that it does
have a marginal effect. Two combatants with the same skill and combat
pool will fight almost identical even if one has four actions and the
second has only one. The only thing separating the two is that the
combatant that initiates the attack (acts on his phase) will win ties.
That's barely the advantage such speed would indeed give (if your happy
with it fine but don't expect me to find it believable).
Now the house rule I now use that was extracted from the first
debate over this was that the combatant initiating an attack can take the
Superior Position modifier (-1) in the Initiative Passes where his
opponent does not have an action. This gives an advantage to faster
characters based on relative speed. This has worked fine for me (and far
less draconian that my original suggestion).

>On your action you may attack using any of 4 attacks which are all
>different specializations of each melee combat skill (armed or unarmed).
>The types of attack are Attack, Disarm, Throw, and Grapple .
>
>If you are the target of an attack you may respond in any of 3 ways again
>each of which is a specialization of all melee combat skills. The
>responses to an attack are Block/Parry, Dodge, and Counter Attack.
>
>The specializations for weapon type and combat style are eliminated.

I look over the mechanics when I get more time but I agree the
direction you are using. I agree that Combat Style is the most useless
specialization under current rules as it has no game mechanic used for it
(IOW you can get something cheaper without a reduction in applicability).
Weapon specialization OTOH does have a mechanical effect (you need the
weapon to use it) and is justifiable.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 159
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 99 08:57:03 -0500
On 11/9/99 10:59 pm, MC23 said:

>Once upon a time, Steve Collins wrote;
>
>>On your action you may attack using any of 4 attacks which are all
>>different specializations of each melee combat skill (armed or unarmed).
>>The types of attack are Attack, Disarm, Throw, and Grapple .
>>
>>If you are the target of an attack you may respond in any of 3 ways again
>>each of which is a specialization of all melee combat skills. The
>>responses to an attack are Block/Parry, Dodge, and Counter Attack.
>>
>>The specializations for weapon type and combat style are eliminated.
>
> I look over the mechanics when I get more time but I agree the
>direction you are using. I agree that Combat Style is the most useless
>specialization under current rules as it has no game mechanic used for it
>(IOW you can get something cheaper without a reduction in applicability).
>Weapon specialization OTOH does have a mechanical effect (you need the
>weapon to use it) and is justifiable.
>


What I have done to take care of this is to break the weapon skills down
even further than they currently are from Edged Weapons, Clubs, and Pole
Arm/Staff to Chain Weapon, Bludgeon Weapon, Great Sword, Knife, Long
Sword, Short Sword, Great Axe, Hand Axe, Polearm, Spear, and Staff. This
covers pretty much all of the different weapon types and reduces them to
the ones used in similar styles being one skill. This way a skill with a
Roman Gladius does not translate to a skill with a Sabre, they are very
different weapons, one is a thrusting weapon the other a slashing weapon.
Now the difference in weapon specialization becomes less important
because the differences in using a Naginata (Great Sword) and a Claymore
(Great Sword) are not all that large and Rapier is a different skill
entirely. These rules in a somewhat less mfinishes version are on a
website but I can't remember the URL right now, if this thread is still
going when I get home from work I'll send it.

Steve
Message no. 160
From: Fanguad fanguad@****.rit.edu
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:39:27 -0500
> What I have done to take care of this is to break the weapon skills down
> even further than they currently are from Edged Weapons, Clubs, and Pole
> Arm/Staff to Chain Weapon, Bludgeon Weapon, Great Sword, Knife, Long
> Sword, Short Sword, Great Axe, Hand Axe, Polearm, Spear, and Staff.

There are several problems with this. Once you start down this
track, who's to say you shouldn't break it down even more. I mean,
seriously, there are dozens of different 'Bludgeon Weapons', or
'Chain Weapons'. Then to get even more confusing, which do you
use for a Mace-and-Chain? These sub-divisions are what
specializations are for.

> because the differences in using a Naginata (Great Sword)

Except that a Naginata is a pole-arm...

-Fanguad
-------------------------
Modern programming is a race between programmers
striving to create bigger and better idiot-proof
programs, and the Universe trying to create bigger
and better idiots.

So far, the Universe is winning.
Message no. 161
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:11:05 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Fanguad wrote:

> > because the differences in using a Naginata (Great Sword)
>
> Except that a Naginata is a pole-arm...

Yup, I gotta back Fanguad up on this one. I think the original
poster was thinking of a no-dachi (which *is* a big-ass sword).

Marc
Message no. 162
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 99 19:47:47 -0500
On 11/10/99 1:11 pm, Marc Renouf said:

>
>
>On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Fanguad wrote:
>
>> > because the differences in using a Naginata (Great Sword)
>>
>> Except that a Naginata is a pole-arm...
>
> Yup, I gotta back Fanguad up on this one. I think the original
>poster was thinking of a no-dachi (which *is* a big-ass sword).
>
>Marc
>
>
>
>
You are probably correct, I study Western weapons more than Eastern but
the point remains the same. There may be further refinements possible in
the breakup of melee weapon skills but you do need to stop somewhere
otherwise you will end up with a 42" double edged Viking long sword
skill. The idea is to get all of the weapons which are used in a similar
manner to be grouped into one skill. Yes there are different things you
can do with a Flail and not with Nunchukas but the manner in which you
use them is simmilar. You grab a stick and hit your opponent with a
weight at the end os a chain which is very different from hitting someone
with a weight that is directly attached to the stick (as with a mace).
Message no. 163
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:39:14 +0100
According to Fanguad, at 9:39 on 10 Nov 99, the word on the street was...

> There are several problems with this. Once you start down this
> track, who's to say you shouldn't break it down even more. I mean,
> seriously, there are dozens of different 'Bludgeon Weapons', or
> 'Chain Weapons'. Then to get even more confusing, which do you
> use for a Mace-and-Chain?

Hey, why not have a separate skill for each and every weapon, and give a
different TN modifier for defaulting to weaponskills based on what kind of
character you're playing? +2 for street sams, +5 for magicians, and +3 for
other character types sounds about right... ;)

> These sub-divisions are what specializations are for.

Agreed.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Destiny is a state of mind
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 164
From: MC23 mc23@**********.com
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:19:33 -0500
Once upon a time, Gurth wrote;

>Hey, why not have a separate skill for each and every weapon, and give a
>different TN modifier for defaulting to weaponskills based on what kind of
>character you're playing? +2 for street sams, +5 for magicians, and +3 for
>other character types sounds about right... ;)

Gurth, you just did not suggest a D&D weapon non-proficiency
penalty? For shame.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 165
From: dbuehrer@****.org dbuehrer@****.org
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:32:06 -0700
MC23 wrote:
\
\ Now the house rule I now use that was extracted from the first
\ debate over this was that the combatant initiating an attack can take the
\ Superior Position modifier (-1) in the Initiative Passes where his
\ opponent does not have an action. This gives an advantage to faster
\ characters based on relative speed. This has worked fine for me (and far
\ less draconian that my original suggestion).

Nice one.

\ >On your action you may attack using any of 4 attacks which are all
\ >different specializations of each melee combat skill (armed or unarmed).
\ >The types of attack are Attack, Disarm, Throw, and Grapple .
\ >
\ >If you are the target of an attack you may respond in any of 3 ways again
\ >each of which is a specialization of all melee combat skills. The
\ >responses to an attack are Block/Parry, Dodge, and Counter Attack.
\ >
\ >The specializations for weapon type and combat style are eliminated.
\
\ I look over the mechanics when I get more time but I agree the
\ direction you are using. I agree that Combat Style is the most useless
\ specialization under current rules as it has no game mechanic used for it
\ (IOW you can get something cheaper without a reduction in applicability).
\ Weapon specialization OTOH does have a mechanical effect (you need the
\ weapon to use it) and is justifiable.

The only thing I can think of that might work would be creating
specializations similar to the different types of shamans: each style of
unarmed combat has various die modifiers, strengths and/or weaknesses.

-Graht
--
"Warm nights, good food, kindred spirits....great life!"
Message no. 166
From: dbuehrer@****.org dbuehrer@****.org
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:38:10 -0700
Steve Collins wrote:
\
\ Oh yeah before any of the martial arts students in the crowd asks how you
\ combine a defense and an attack into one manuever (something that is
\ obviously possible). It is simple, you hold your action and use it at the
\ same time as your opponent. That way you either dodge or block his attack
\ and attack with your action.

Actually, us martial artists don't have a problem with that concept :) My
instructor trains us to three-technique combinations. The ones that are
good can get off a combo in way less than 3 seconds.

However, before I started taking martial arts (over a year ago) I had a
hard time with the counter-attack part of SR Melee combat rules, no matter
how many times members with actual experience explained it to me :)


-Graht
--
"What you are doing at the moment must be exactly what
you are doing at the moment--and nothing else."
Message no. 167
From: dbuehrer@****.org dbuehrer@****.org
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:01:02 -0700
Steve Collins wrote:
\
\ I have suggested a melee combat system like the one detailed below to
\ correct this problem and also make melee combat more like other types of
\ actions in it's resolution several times here and it has gone largely
\ uncommented on. Maybe this time it will be different.

[snip]

I like it.

\ In a Throw you always cause Str L (stun) Damage staged normally

I would suggest changing this to damage as per a fall equal to 1m per extra
success the attacker rolls (attacker's successes - defender's successes virtual meters
fallen).

The ground is incredibly unforgiving. If I've learned one thing in Hapkido
its that the ground is a deadly weapon. I've failed to breakfall a couple
of times and even on a mat and in a controlled situation (working on
technique rather than trying to kill eachother) I ended up with bruises and
pulled muscles that took 1-2 weeks to heal (not to mention the number of
stars I saw when my head bounced off the ground).

Also, I know people who have tripped, fallen, and broken an arm.

Being thrown to the ground is physical damage, IMO.

I would also suggest making "scatter" an option for the thrower.

And, I don't think the "scatter" should be a random direction. If you
successfully throw someone they pretty much go where you want them to.

-Graht
--
"Wisdom has two parts: having a lot to say, and not saying it."
Message no. 168
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:37:22 +0100
According to MC23, at 9:19 on 11 Nov 99, the word on the street was...

> Gurth, you just did not suggest a D&D weapon non-proficiency
> penalty? For shame.

Ah, good, somebody got the joke (too bad it had to be MC23... ;)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Destiny is a state of mind
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 169
From: Bira ubiratan@**.homeshopping.com.br
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:42:28 -0200
On Wed, 10 Nov 99 08:57:03 -0500
Steve Collins <einan@*********.net> wrote:

> On 11/9/99 10:59 pm, MC23 said:
> because the differences in using a Naginata (Great Sword) and a Claymore
> (Great Sword) are not all that large and Rapier is a different skill
> entirely.

I know what you mean here, but the names are a bit off... A
Naginata is a polearm, so your Oriental Great Sword will be a Nodachi :)
.

Bira - SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://members.xoom.com/slbr
http://www.terravista.pt/Nazare/2729
ICQ# 4055455
Message no. 170
From: Bira ubiratan@**.homeshopping.com.br
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:42:25 -0200
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:13:01 -0800
dghost@****.com wrote:
> Also, I'm thinking of making Combat Pool bigger and refreshing as per SR3
> (currently we have it refresh as per SR2). Combat Pool would become
> either, (Quickness+Intelligence+Willpower+Reaction)/2 or
> (Reaction+Willpower)/2 ... I'm favoring the second but haven't really
> decided how much bigger I want to make the Combat Pool.

Up until now, the standard rules have worked just fine for my
group, and it's great to see a player desperate because he's run out of
Combat Pool and the enemy hit that shot :) . Even the affected player
had fun, though I'd say it was more like the kind of fun caused by fear
:) .


Bira - SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://members.xoom.com/slbr
http://www.terravista.pt/Nazare/2729
ICQ# 4055455
Message no. 171
From: Bira ubiratan@**.homeshopping.com.br
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 21:06:50 -0200
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:39:14 +0100
"Gurth" <gurth@******.nl> wrote:

> According to Fanguad, at 9:39 on 10 Nov 99, the word on the street was...
>
> > There are several problems with this. Once you start down this
> > track, who's to say you shouldn't break it down even more. I mean,
> > seriously, there are dozens of different 'Bludgeon Weapons', or
> > 'Chain Weapons'. Then to get even more confusing, which do you
> > use for a Mace-and-Chain?
>
> Hey, why not have a separate skill for each and every weapon, and give a
> different TN modifier for defaulting to weaponskills based on what kind of
> character you're playing? +2 for street sams, +5 for magicians, and +3 for
> other character types sounds about right... ;)

This does remind me immensely of AD&D character classes :) .

Bira - SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://members.xoom.com/slbr
http://www.terravista.pt/Nazare/2729
ICQ# 4055455
Message no. 172
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:16:00 -0800
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:37:22 +0100 "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl> writes:
> According to MC23, at 9:19 on 11 Nov 99, the word on the street
> was...
> > Gurth, you just did not suggest a D&D weapon non-proficiency
> > penalty? For shame.

> Ah, good, somebody got the joke (too bad it had to be MC23... ;)

MC wasn't the only one who got it ... the rest of us got it and
reflexively hit delete while groaning at the foul "humor". ;) It was a
survival mechanism ...

--
D. Ghost
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Message no. 173
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jane van Roekel)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue Jun 19 19:45:01 2001
Thanks everyone, for explaining SINs etc, I think I understand a bit better.

Now I am confused about something else, namely the melee combat rules in the
SR2 book. They say that the defender can either avoid or counterattack. If
they avoid don't they get to roll Dodge or Defense or anything. But they do
get their Impact Armour to help reduce damage. Have I read that right?

If they counterattack, then it is an opposed test, of one person's (Un)Armed
Combat vs. the other's. But if a second attacker turns up, then the defender
is suddenly using their Defense Pool instead of their (Un)Armed Combat. But
since their Defense Pool is equal to their (Un)Armed Combat anyway, could
you just say they were using their Defense Pool all along?

The one who gets the most successes, causes damage. For the purpose of
working out damage, do the loser's successes cancel out the winner's
successes? If Joe rolls 2 successes to punch Fred, and Fred rolls 1 success
to defend, does Joe do (STR)D1, or (STR)S1?

Does the loser of the melee get Armour? It just says they use their Body to
resist, and that they can't use their Dodge Pool.

Thanks for the help!

Jane
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Message no. 174
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Tue Jun 19 22:30:01 2001
>Now I am confused about something else, namely the melee combat rules in
the
>SR2 book.

<snip questions>

Those actually sound like some SR1 terms ("Defense Pool", etc), are you sure
its SR2?
I do recall a type of full defense in SR2, but I don't recall just how it
worked. I think it was very similar to SR3's.

>The one who gets the most successes, causes damage. For the purpose of
>working out damage, do the loser's successes cancel out the winner's
>successes? If Joe rolls 2 successes to punch Fred, and Fred rolls 1 success
>to defend, does Joe do (STR)D1, or (STR)S1?

Yep, definately SR1. Staging is a dead give away...

>Does the loser of the melee get Armour? It just says they use their Body to
>resist, and that they can't use their Dodge Pool.

I'm not even gonna guess, never played SR1. It seems mightly odd to me that
they would NOT get armor when hit, but hey, such are the mystries of the
ancient cults....

-Mongoose
Message no. 175
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Valeu John EMFA)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Wed Jun 20 05:20:01 2001
> >Now I am confused about something else, namely the melee combat
rules in the
> >SR2 book.

> <snip questions>

> Those actually sound like some SR1 terms ("Defense Pool", etc),
are you sure
> its SR2?
> I do recall a type of full defense in SR2, but I don't recall just
how it
> worked. I think it was very similar to SR3's.

> >The one who gets the most successes, causes damage. For the
purpose of
> >working out damage, do the loser's successes cancel out the
winner's
> >successes? If Joe rolls 2 successes to punch Fred, and Fred rolls
1 success
> >to defend, does Joe do (STR)D1, or (STR)S1?

> Yep, definately SR1. Staging is a dead give away...

> >Does the loser of the melee get Armour? It just says they use
their Body to
> >resist, and that they can't use their Dodge Pool.

> I'm not even gonna guess, never played SR1. It seems mightly odd
to me that
> they would NOT get armor when hit, but hey, such are the mystries
of the
> ancient cults....

[Valeu John EMFA]
Jane, not to harp on you, but do yourself a favor and get SR3. I've
talked to other roleplayers on my ship and they all agree that Shadowrun is
the only 3rd edition that doesn't suck and actually helps the system more
than hinders it.
Message no. 176
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jane van Roekel)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Wed Jun 20 05:25:01 2001
>
>
>Those actually sound like some SR1 terms ("Defense Pool", etc), are you
>sure
>its SR2?

Hey, yeah, you're right! The person who gave me the book said it was 2nd
edition, but I checked and it just says Shadowrun, doesn't say 2nd edition
anywhere.

Does anyone play SR1? IS it at all compatible with later stuff? I also got
given a Street Samurai catalog and a Grimoire, which I haven't looked at
yet. Guess they might be SR1, too.

Jane

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Message no. 177
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Wed Jun 20 06:15:00 2001
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Jane van Roekel wrote:

> Does anyone play SR1? IS it at all compatible with later stuff? I also got
> given a Street Samurai catalog and a Grimoire, which I haven't looked at
> yet. Guess they might be SR1, too.

When I cam back to shadowrun about 6 months ago, all I had was the SR1
stuff. I've since updated to SR3, and apart from the decking rules, which
are WAY more complex, its been a good change (if a bit expensive! but you
can get some good stuff of of ebay). the books you quote sound like sr1
Ok, certinaly the street samuira catalog is (I have a copy myself)

if you have the money sr3 is the recomendation, then again, a decent case
could be made for buying all the sr1 stuff from discount places, ebay etc
and playing that till you run out, then moving to sr3...

John

--
jconstable@*****.com
"Stupidity got us into this, why can't it get us out?" - John Valeu
Message no. 178
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Wed Jun 20 06:15:04 2001
According to Jane van Roekel, on Wed, 20 Jun 2001 the word on the street
was...

> Now I am confused about something else, namely the melee combat rules in the
> SR2 book. They say that the defender can either avoid or counterattack. If
> they avoid don't they get to roll Dodge or Defense or anything. But they do
> get their Impact Armour to help reduce damage. Have I read that right?

What happens (you're talking about _second_ edition here, right, not
third?) is that if you counterattack, you may roll Combat Pool (CP) dice
with your skill, but if you take ait you may _not_ roll CP dice on your
Body test.

OTOH, if you try and avoid the attack altogether, you cannot roll CP dice
on your skill test, but can on the Body test. Furthermore, if your CP
successes from that Body test alone exceed the successes rolled by the
attacker, you have avoided damage altogether.

It's something you need to get your mind around, but once you do it's pretty
simple (even my group understands it, so it can't be that hard ;)

> If they counterattack, then it is an opposed test, of one person's (Un)Armed
> Combat vs. the other's. But if a second attacker turns up, then the defender
> is suddenly using their Defense Pool instead of their (Un)Armed Combat. But
> since their Defense Pool is equal to their (Un)Armed Combat anyway, could
> you just say they were using their Defense Pool all along?

Erm... Defense Pool is a first edition concept that was replaced by Combat
Pool in SR2. As you were also referring to (Str)S1 damage, are you sure
you're not using SR1 rules, or at least some portions of them?

> Does the loser of the melee get Armour? It just says they use their Body to
> resist, and that they can't use their Dodge Pool.

Yes, armor always applies in these situations.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Conformity is our tragedy
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 179
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Wed Jun 20 06:15:10 2001
According to Jane van Roekel, on Wed, 20 Jun 2001 the word on the street was...

> Hey, yeah, you're right! The person who gave me the book said it was 2nd
> edition, but I checked and it just says Shadowrun, doesn't say 2nd edition
> anywhere.

It's easy enough to spot: if the cover of the book is dark blue, it's SR1;
if it's black, it's SR2. The copyright date also gives it away: 1989 is
SR1, 1992 is SR2.

> Does anyone play SR1?

Spike does... (<old joke bound to get his attention>Hey, Geri's brother!
You still around?</old joke bound to get his attention> ;)

More seriously, I don't think there are many groups that still play SR1,
but there's no real reason why you couldn't. You might run into some
problems if you buy newer sourcebooks, though:

> IS it at all compatible with later stuff?

The basic rules haven't changed, as in the way dice are rolled and how high
stats can go, but there has been so much tweaking of the rules that most of
the current sourcebooks can be fairly incompatible with the rules you own.
Page references will also be a problem, because they might point to
sections that are also in your SR1 rules, but figuring out which ones they
are can be difficult.

My advice would be to buy a third-edition main rulebook, because that will
be much more useful these days than the first-edition one.

> I also got given a Street Samurai catalog and a Grimoire, which I
> haven't looked at yet. Guess they might be SR1, too.

The copyright dates are again the easy answer: anything from before 1992 is
first edition. If you want a precise guide, take a look at
http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/shadowrun/

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Conformity is our tragedy
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 180
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Wed Jun 20 13:15:04 2001
According to John@*****.co.uk, on Wed, 20 Jun 2001 the word on the street
was...

> When I cam back to shadowrun about 6 months ago, all I had was the SR1
> stuff. I've since updated to SR3, and apart from the decking rules, which
> are WAY more complex, its been a good change (if a bit expensive! but you
> can get some good stuff of of ebay). the books you quote sound like sr1
> Ok, certinaly the street samuira catalog is (I have a copy myself)

There are second edition versions of both the SSC and Grimoire. The latter
is easily spotted because it has a different serial number (7903 instead of
7106) but both first- and second-edition SSCs are #7104. The cover is
different, though, as are the game stats. The best giveaway, though, is the
text stamped over four entries in the SR2 version...

> if you have the money sr3 is the recomendation, then again, a decent case
> could be made for buying all the sr1 stuff from discount places, ebay etc
> and playing that till you run out, then moving to sr3...

I'm not sure about that... Some SR1/SR2-era books come in handy, but IMHO
those are mostly going to be the ones with equipment pictures, so you can
see what something looks like. Straight rulebooks, like the Grimoire or
Virtual Realities (not 2.0) won't be much use when running an SR3 game.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Conformity is our tragedy
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 181
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Steven Ratkovich)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu Jun 21 09:30:01 2001
>>>>I'm not sure about that... Some SR1/SR2-era books come in handy, but IMHO
those are mostly going to be the ones with equipment pictures, so you can
see what something looks like. Straight rulebooks, like the Grimoire or
Virtual Realities (not 2.0) won't be much use when running an SR3 game.
<<<<<
I think he meant stick with playing/buying SR1 until they... umm, I'm not sure what he
meant by "Till you run out"... <shrug>

I'd suggest going straight to SR3, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, (or francs,
duetch marks, pounds, or that monopoly money they use in Canada, or whatever :]) But
then, I'm also a bit biased, but that doesn't matter... SR3 is very much an improvement
in most areas :]
((I'm stilla little leary of the Metahumans get Karma Pool half as fast bit...
<shrug> Should have lobbied to have that pulled a little harder during playtesting
:))


Bull

--
The Best Ork Decker You've Never Met!
http://bull.dumpshock.com
Message no. 182
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Thu Jun 21 09:50:02 2001
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Steven Ratkovich wrote:

> <<<<<
> I think he meant stick with playing/buying SR1 until they... umm, I'm not
> sure what he meant by "Till you run out"... <shrug>

what I meant was play that stuff you have, with the rules you have, buy
the (generally) cheaper sr1 era adventures via ebay. when you've finished
playing
those, upgrade to S3 and use all the nifty stuff available for that.
its cheap, and its what i was planning to do until I got SR3 main book,
then MiTS, then, oh, you get the idea :-)

>
> I'd suggest going straight to SR3, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, (or
francs, duetch marks, pounds, or that monopoly money they use in Canada, or whatever :])
But then, I'm also a bit biased, but that doesn't matter... SR3 is very much an
improvement in most areas :]
> ((I'm stilla little leary of the Metahumans get Karma Pool half as fast bit...
<shrug> Should have lobbied to have that pulled a little harder during playtesting
:))
>

Ok, so Sr3 = much better, and not a bad conversion path - quick
recalculation of the pools and weapon damages in the sr1 adventures I
have means I can run them fine, but I was trying to save the person money
initialy, then draw then in to the sr3 world with a cunning "first one's
free but after that you have to pay for it" drug dealer philosophy :-)

John (the "he" of the quote :-)
--
jconstable@*****.com
"Is making my peace with God, a simple or complex action?" - MOTO42 (forums)
Message no. 183
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Fri Jun 29 12:05:06 2001
From: "Jane van Roekel" <kadjari@*******.com>

I don't think anybody actually answered this, so I'll give it a shot. Forgive me
if it has been answerd alredy.

> Now I am confused about something else, namely the melee combat rules in the
> SR2 book. They say that the defender can either avoid or counterattack. If
> they avoid don't they get to roll Dodge or Defense or anything. But they do
> get their Impact Armour to help reduce damage. Have I read that right?

You are talking about SR1. Your refences to Defense Pool and the (STR)D1/S1
further down indicates this.

> If they counterattack, then it is an opposed test, of one person's (Un)Armed
> Combat vs. the other's. But if a second attacker turns up, then the defender
> is suddenly using their Defense Pool instead of their (Un)Armed Combat. But
> since their Defense Pool is equal to their (Un)Armed Combat anyway, could
> you just say they were using their Defense Pool all along?

Yes you could use Defense Pool all along, but since you, with only one opponent,
will likely do your best to counterattack him, you will use all of your Defense
Pool, it will be the same as using your (Un)Armed Combat skill.

Hope that makes sense!

> The one who gets the most successes, causes damage. For the purpose of
> working out damage, do the loser's successes cancel out the winner's
> successes?

Yes the successes cancels out, and only the net amount of successes matters.

> If Joe rolls 2 successes to punch Fred, and Fred rolls 1 success
> to defend, does Joe do (STR)D1, or (STR)S1?

That would be (STR)S1, but we always played with a house rule that for weapons
with a staging of 1, your didn't stage the damage up with the first success.
Thus with 1 net succes you only did (STR)M1. But that was striclty a house rule.

> Does the loser of the melee get Armour? It just says they use their Body to
> resist, and that they can't use their Dodge Pool.

Yes he gets Impact Armour. You are right about the text not specifying this, but
two paragraphs up, it specifically says that you reduces "Damage exactly as in
Fire Combat, using the Impact rating of any armor." (SR1 page 70). Also on page
67 it is stated that Impact armor is used against melee attacks.

Lars
--
Lars Wagner Hansen, Jagtvej 11, 4180 Sorø
l-hansen@*****.tele.dk http://home4.inet.tele.dk/l-hansen
Message no. 184
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jane van Roekel)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Fri Jun 29 19:40:01 2001
>From: "Lars Wagner Hansen" <l-hansen@*****.tele.dk>

>I don't think anybody actually answered this, so I'll give it a shot.
>Forgive me
>if it has been answerd alredy.
>
>

Thanks for the answers. I had pretty much given up on these questions,
because it seemed like nobody played SR1 any more.

Jane
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Message no. 185
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Melee Combat
Date: Sat Jun 30 06:05:23 2001
From: "Jane van Roekel" <kadjari@*******.com>
>
> Thanks for the answers. I had pretty much given up on these questions,
> because it seemed like nobody played SR1 any more.

Personally I don't know anybody that plays SR1 any longer, but I do remember
most of the rules. I must admit that I did have to look in the rulebook to
answer this one though.

Lars
--
Lars Wagner Hansen, Jagtvej 11, 4180 Sorø
l-hansen@*****.tele.dk http://home4.inet.tele.dk/l-hansen

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Melee Combat, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!