Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Robert Blackberg Robert.Blackberg@***.fiserv.com
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:47:23 -0500
So my question is this:

Character A has an initiative score of 27
NPC B has an initiative score of 20

On 27 A attacks B in melee combat and B counter-attacks.

Does this mean that B loses his actions on 20?

If B only used full defense would he lose his actions on 20?

We're using SR3 and the rules do not clearly state what happens in
this situation.

Any input would be appreciated.

Robert (no cool tagline, just a plain line______________)
Message no. 2
From: Guru gburus@***.univ.szczecin.pl
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:57:23 +0100 (MET)
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Robert Blackberg wrote:

> So my question is this:
>
> Character A has an initiative score of 27
> NPC B has an initiative score of 20
>
> On 27 A attacks B in melee combat and B counter-attacks.
>
> Does this mean that B loses his actions on 20?

IMHO, not. Always you are attacked you get to counterattack. This may
sound silly, and is, but those are the rules.
Look, cybered-to-the-teeth ninja-super-assasin with Initiative Total of
40 attacks physad with no initiative increases. Ninja would be beaten
probably if adept is melee apt, even when physad has initiative total of
7 and just counterattacks ;)))))

> If B only used full defense would he lose his actions on 20?

No.

> We're using SR3 and the rules do not clearly state what happens in
> this situation.
>
> Any input would be appreciated.
>
> Robert (no cool tagline, just a plain line______________)

--
Best regards
Guru

This site is about Shadowrun RPG
http://www.stuco.uni-oldenburg.de/~james
Message no. 3
From: HHackerH@***.com HHackerH@***.com
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:46:16 EST
In a message dated 3/13/00 9:48:37 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
Robert.Blackberg@***.fiserv.com writes:

> Character A has an initiative score of 27
> NPC B has an initiative score of 20
>
> On 27 A attacks B in melee combat and B counter-attacks.
>
> Does this mean that B loses his actions on 20?

No, it does not. But if s/he uses any Combat Pool at this point, it is not
available for their own action.

> If B only used full defense would he lose his actions on 20?

Full Defense is a measure that the character must initiate his/her actions
with. As s/he did not start the conflict on "action #27", they do not have
the option of "Full Defense" at this time. At least, as far as I can
tell/recall.

> We're using SR3 and the rules do not clearly state what happens in
> this situation.
> Any input would be appreciated.

Have patience, answers are really coming ...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-K
-"Just a Bastard"
-Hoosier Hacker House
"Children of the Kernel"
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
Message no. 4
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:30:53 +0100
According to Robert Blackberg, at 9:47 on 13 Mar 00, the word on the
street was...

> So my question is this:
>
> Character A has an initiative score of 27
> NPC B has an initiative score of 20
>
> On 27 A attacks B in melee combat and B counter-attacks.
>
> Does this mean that B loses his actions on 20?

No. B can counterattack on 27 (and hit A) and still take an action on 20.

> If B only used full defense would he lose his actions on 20?

Again, no.

If you want to limit characters counter-attacking with impunity, you may
institute a house rule that you can only counter-attack if you have a held
action, for example.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
What a pretty life you have...
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

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. 5
From: Robert Blackberg Robert.Blackberg@***.fiserv.com
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:33:17 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> According to Robert Blackberg, at 9:47 on 13 Mar 00, the word on
the
> street was...
>
> > Does this mean that B loses his actions on 20?
>
> No. B can counterattack on 27 (and hit A) and still take an action
on 20.
>
> > If B only used full defense would he lose his actions on 20?
>
> Again, no.
>
> If you want to limit characters counter-attacking with impunity,
you may
> institute a house rule that you can only counter-attack if you have
a held
> action, for example.


Ok, so three people have come back with the same answer. I don't
have a problem with the answer itself. Counter-attacking without
losing your next action is fine with me. But I'm curious how everyone
came to the same conclusion. The rules don't seem very clear to me.
Did I miss an official explanation somewhere?

Just curious.

Robert (no cool tagline, just a plain line______________)
Message no. 6
From: Glenn Sprott wasntka44@*********.net
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:33:15 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BF8D44.813B4160
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>Ok, so three people have come back with the same >answer. I don't
>have a problem with the answer itself. Counter-attacking >without
>losing your next action is fine with me. But I'm curious how >everyone
>came to the same conclusion. The rules don't seem very >clear to me.
>Did I miss an official explanation somewhere?
>
>Just curious.

I think the rules are very clear. The problem is the use of the word,
"counter-attack." Nowhere in the rules, in the melee combat section of the SR3
rules (pg. 120), is this word mentioned (in that form... ). I think this is the problem.
Melee combat is a simple resisted test with the winner being the one who actually causes
damage.

As stated in the rules section, melee combat is "...several seconds of feints, jabs,
punches, counters, attacks, defends, kicks, and bites by both combatants at the same
time." The key part of that sentence is "at the same time." It isn't
trading punches... melee combat is not necessarily about who attacks first, but rather
about who's better. Martial Arts masters today will prove that point to you over and
over.

A super fast samuri with average training in hand-to-hand combat is not going to stand
long against a Shaolin monk, no matter how fast he attacks (in fact, the samuri will
actually fall FASTER than he would without the reflexes!). If the monk is not acting,
he's reacting, turning your own punch back against you... grabbing your fist and arm, and
wrenching it loose. He's not "counter-attacking," but reacting to an attack
made against him, not only dodging the attack, but also causing damage to his attacker. I
know that some will say, "but that is the very definition of counter-attacking!"
I can't argue this, however sometimes the words used to describe situations can sometimes
cloud the actual point of the topic. IMO

Full defense is simply doing your best to dodge or resist the attack... so it would not
require any action that isn't already being taken according to the definition of melee
combat in SR3.

I hope this helped clear the confusion.

Wasntka (Wolf)

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BF8D44.813B4160
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"
http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2><EM>&gt;Ok, so three people have come back
with the same
&gt;answer.&nbsp; I don't<BR>&gt;have a problem with the answer
itself.&nbsp;
Counter-attacking &gt;without<BR>&gt;losing your next action is fine with
me.&nbsp; But I'm curious how &gt;everyone<BR>&gt;came to the same
conclusion.&nbsp; The rules don't seem very &gt;clear to me. <BR>&gt;Did
I miss
an official explanation
somewhere?<BR></EM>&gt;<BR><EM>&gt;Just
curious.<BR><BR></EM>I think the rules are very clear.&nbsp; The
problem is the
use of the word, "counter-attack."&nbsp; Nowhere in the rules, in the melee
combat section of the SR3 rules (pg. 120), is this word mentioned (in that
form... ).&nbsp; I think this is the problem.&nbsp; Melee combat is a simple
resisted test with the winner being the one who actually causes damage.&nbsp;
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>As stated in the rules section,&nbsp; melee combat
is
"...several seconds of feints, jabs, punches, counters, attacks, defends, kicks,
and bites by both combatants at the same time."&nbsp; The key part of that
sentence is "at the same time."&nbsp; It isn't trading punches...&nbsp;
melee
combat is not necessarily about who attacks first, but rather about who's
better.&nbsp; Martial Arts masters today will prove that point to you over and
over.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>A super fast samuri with average training in
hand-to-hand
combat is not going to stand long against a Shaolin monk, no matter how fast he
attacks (in fact, the samuri will actually fall FASTER than he would without the
reflexes!).&nbsp; If the monk is not acting, he's reacting, turning your own
punch back against you...&nbsp; grabbing your fist and arm, and wrenching it
loose.&nbsp; He's not "counter-attacking," but reacting to an attack made
against him, not only dodging the attack, but also causing damage to his
attacker.&nbsp; I know that some will say, "but that is the very definition of
counter-attacking!"&nbsp; I can't argue this, however sometimes the words used
to describe situations can sometimes cloud the actual point of the topic.&nbsp;
IMO</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Full defense is simply doing your best to dodge or
resist the
attack... so it would not require any action that isn't already being taken
according to the definition of melee combat in SR3.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I hope this helped clear the
confusion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Wasntka
(Wolf)</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BF8D44.813B4160--
Message no. 7
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:15:56 +0100
According to Robert Blackberg, at 14:33 on 13 Mar 00, the word on the
street was...

> Ok, so three people have come back with the same answer. I don't
> have a problem with the answer itself. Counter-attacking without
> losing your next action is fine with me. But I'm curious how everyone
> came to the same conclusion. The rules don't seem very clear to me.
> Did I miss an official explanation somewhere?

It comes from playing SR for ages, and seeing this in all three editions
of the main rules :)

It is true that it's not relly specifically said that you can
counterattack without losing an action or anything, but if you read the
rules on pages 122-123 of SR3, they keep talking about how the defender
rolls a skill test, and there is no mention at all of losing actions. That
is usually a good indication that it simply doesn't happen.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
What a pretty life you have...
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

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. 8
From: Varsanyi Zoltan s7486var@****.bme.hu
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:40:20 +0100 (MET)
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Glenn Sprott wrote:

> I think the rules are very clear. The problem is the use of the word,
> "counter-attack."

Yes.
The BIG PROBLEM is:

A is trying to hit C in 40
B is trying anything(!) in 20
C can act only in 8 ( btw wants to hit A )

If A is attacking C in 40, C is acting(countering) FASTER than B,
that's not realistic !
B is "a bit faster" than C (Initiative 20 vs. 8), but if A comes in play
the whole thing changes ? Hmmm... :-(
If A were not there, B could act twice (in 20 and in 10) BEFORE C...

Yes, "acting" here is only counter-attacking, but:

"If C _can_ kill A in 40, then why can't he do the same if
A rolled only an init. 5 ?"

Why can act C faster if A attacks him in 40 ?!!




IMHO counter-attacking can be done (IRL the same) if you are faster
than your enemy, but you didn't attacked first -> you have delayed your
action for countering !

During a "few year" training of martial arts, I really learned a
lot about that...


BTW, I use a house rule for this. Everything goes like Ranged Combat...

If someone is attacking he is hitting (rolls more net successes) or
missing (the defender rolls more), but he can not get hit by this
way/at this time. That can happen only if anybody else attacks him
(and rolls more) or the defending person delayed and action (so rolled
more on the Initiative) - maybe for this action. In this case (and only
then) can he "counter-attack" as in the rule book.


> A super fast samuri with average training in hand-to-hand combat is not
> going to stand long against a Shaolin monk, no matter how fast he
> attacks (in fact, the samuri will actually fall FASTER than he would
> without the reflexes!).
This is unreal !!!
Why is acting the monk faster if I attack him with reflexes ??
Why ?
The only way if he is even more faster and delayed his action (and didn't
attacked me because he is only defending himself).

Have you ever tried to fight against someone faster than you? You CAN'T
hit him first, you can only block the attack or move backwards...
And then, after he tried to hit you, only then can you do something !


> If the monk is not acting, he's reacting, turning your own punch back
> against you...
Yes ! That's right !
But only if he's faster than me !

> I hope this helped clear the confusion.
I don't think so... :-)

>
> Wasntka (Wolf)
>
Bye;
Varshi
Message no. 9
From: HHackerH@***.com HHackerH@***.com
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 06:55:17 EST
In a message dated 3/14/00 6:41:01 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
s7486var@****.bme.hu writes:

<snip> > I hope this helped clear the confusion.
> I don't think so... :-)
>
> Varshi

Don't take this wrong, but I truly believe you are trying to interpret the
rules a bit too much here. In your examples, IMO, you are using the wrong
term to explain yourself. They are not *ACTING* faster, they are merely
*REACTING* to a response.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-K
-"Just a Bastard"
-Hoosier Hacker House
"Children of the Kernel"
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
Message no. 10
From: Varsanyi Zoltan s7486var@****.bme.hu
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:49:29 +0100 (MET)
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 HHackerH@***.com wrote:

I dunno...
Yes, I can be wrong, but:


> They are not *ACTING* faster, they are merely *REACTING* to a response.

Acting and reacting are both movements of your body (parts).
If you are fast enough you can do something ( acting or reacting), but if
you are not you are able only to make defendsive actions.

Your body (legs to step forward or kick, fists to punch, all to
defend yourself...) can not act or react faster than a "response time".
You can act if your init pass comes.
You can't do the same as reacting in an earlier time. There is "something"
when someone is faster than you, hmm ?
IMHO :-)

If your muscles are not fast enough to move your legs quick, you
_can't_ do anything in "init. pass 40" (-reacting is also an action that
depends on your quickness) !

I understand what you mentioned but I think it doesn't make a
difference...


Everything I say is only that if I am not fast enough I can only defend
myself (block) and can not hit/kick the attacker. Is it not right ? :-)


> -K
> -"Just a Bastard"
> -Hoosier Hacker House
> "Children of the Kernel"
> [http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]

- Varshi
Message no. 11
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:17:49 -0500
At 11:33 PM 3/13/00, Glenn Sprott wrote:

<snip>

>A super fast samuri with average training in hand-to-hand combat is not
>going to stand long against a Shaolin monk, no matter how fast he attacks
>(in fact, the samuri will actually fall FASTER than he would without the
>reflexes!). If the monk is not acting, he's reacting, turning your own
>punch back against you... grabbing your fist and arm, and wrenching it
>loose. He's not "counter-attacking," but reacting to an attack made
>against him, not only dodging the attack, but also causing damage to his
>attacker. I know that some will say, "but that is the very definition of
>counter-attacking!" I can't argue this, however sometimes the words used
>to describe situations can sometimes cloud the actual point of the topic. IMO

We use a house rule, imported from Marc Renouf's campaign, that allows you
to spend simple actions to aim for melee combat. You have to choose whether
to aim for attack, counter attack or dodge, and are limited to half of your
skill as usual. If you are interrupted in any way (dodging a ranged attack,
counterattacking when you were aiming to attack, etc) you lose the bonus.

So in the sammy vs adept arguement, the sammy with skill 4 spends his 2
simple actions on 27 to aim for counterattack. The adept goes on 9 and
attacks with his 8 dice, He has TN 4, sam has TN 2. With combat pool, the
adept probably wins. Now the sam has actions on 17 and 7, and the adept
doesn't, so the sam aims for attack on 17 and makes his attack at -2TN on
7. He also throws in the rest of the combat pool since he'll probably
refresh first.

Generally the adept will still win, but the sam does get more of an edge
because of his speed.

Sommers
Aerospace engineers build weapon systems. Civil engineers build targets.
Message no. 12
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:23:50 -0500
At 07:49 AM 3/14/00, Varsanyi Zoltan wrote:

<snip>


>If your muscles are not fast enough to move your legs quick, you
>_can't_ do anything in "init. pass 40" (-reacting is also an action that
>depends on your quickness) !

Remember that Reaction is a measure of your quickness and your
intelligence. The intelligence part tells you what is going on and what you
should do about it. The quickness part is yor body doing what your head
just said to do. If you're not fast enough to attack, you aren't thinking
fast enough to come up with a course of action and follow through on it.
However, when someone attacks you, the instinctual responses drummed into
during practice (or getting beat up a lot...) come into play and your body
automatically counterattacks.

>I understand what you mentioned but I think it doesn't make a
>difference...
>
>Everything I say is only that if I am not fast enough I can only defend
>myself (block) and can not hit/kick the attacker. Is it not right ? :-)

Yes, but sometimes those blocks can cause damage. And most of the time, the
body is fast enough to get in a quick counterattack. Watch a Jackie Chan
movie and see how fast they exchange punches WITHOUT wired reflexes. ;)


Sommers
Aerospace engineers build weapon systems. Civil engineers build targets.
Message no. 13
From: Varsanyi Zoltan s7486var@****.bme.hu
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:46:23 +0100 (MET)
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Sommers wrote:

Yes, Intelligence is also a part of your reaction, but only maximum 2-4
point of that nasty 40... :-/
At lower numbers (average stats of 3), only 2 points of Int adds 1 point
of Reaction to the usual 3+1d6 init (and goes up to 4+1d6). That's only
1/5-1/10 (10...20 %, say 15%). Not too much...

> >Everything I say is only that if I am not fast enough I can only defend
> >myself (block) and can not hit/kick the attacker. Is it not right ? :-)
>
> Yes, but sometimes those blocks can cause damage. And most of the time, the
> body is fast enough to get in a quick counterattack. Watch a Jackie Chan
> movie and see how fast they exchange punches WITHOUT wired reflexes. ;)

Yes, but movie is not reality. You know it too... (BTW: those movies are
played at a higher speed than recorded (+5-10% ?); so they are not SOOOO
fast. :-)

I tried it (blocking, countering, fighting) for years and I say:
Only then can I cause a lot of damage with my dodge when I am fast enough.
Elbow to the incoming leg :->, for example...
(Fast enough -> higher init.)

Yes, you are right, even simple dodges can do (not too much) damage, but
the SR rules doesn't handle that resolution (of the h2h combat). :-(


> Sommers

- Varshi
Message no. 14
From: Andrew Norman andrew_norman@******.com
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:39:03 +0000
Varsanyi Zoltan wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 HHackerH@***.com wrote:
> > They are not *ACTING* faster, they are merely *REACTING* to a response.

> Acting and reacting are both movements of your body (parts).
> If you are fast enough you can do something ( acting or reacting), but if
> you are not you are able only to make defendsive actions.

> Your body (legs to step forward or kick, fists to punch, all to
> defend yourself...) can not act or react faster than a "response time".
> You can act if your init pass comes.
> You can't do the same as reacting in an earlier time. There is "something"
> when someone is faster than you, hmm ?
> IMHO :-)

> If your muscles are not fast enough to move your legs quick, you
> _can't_ do anything in "init. pass 40" (-reacting is also an action that
> depends on your quickness) !

> I understand what you mentioned but I think it doesn't make a
> difference...

> Everything I say is only that if I am not fast enough I can only defend
> myself (block) and can not hit/kick the attacker. Is it not right ? :-)

I tend to agree with this. In my TKD classes I could block all but the
fastest black belts but I couldn't hit them. I had a fast block but a
slow attack. I was told by my instructor that this is normally the way
things are arranged. It's mainly due to the relative range of movements,
ie I need to move my block slightly to deflect a punch that has to
travel
from his body to mine.

IMHO blocking is easy ... counter-attacking is hard. Also again IMHO
it is very difficult to block fast and do considerable damage at the
same
time. Then again when I am fighting black belts (I'm blue) I tend to be
more worried about stopping damage than inflicting it.

Just my 0.02 Nuyen
-Andrew
--
"Even for an alien, this one is pretty alien."
- Dr. Kyle (B5)
"These are my opinions and not those of my employer"
Message no. 15
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:19:22 -0700
I too used to read Shadowrun's melee combat rules and think, "There's no
way a person with a low initiative should be able to beat a person with a
high initiative in melee combat."

Almost two years ago I started taking Hapkido, a very practical form of
martial arts, and have come to understand that a lot can happen in melee
combat in a very small amount of time. It is very possible for a slow
defender of high skill to beat a fast attacker of low skill.

It comes down to timing. My instructor is in his late 40s, early 50s
(we're not sure). All of his students are much younger than him, and much
faster. He can easily defend himself against any of his students, because
he has experience and can time a counter-attack to an attack.

Let's say you throw a punch at someone. You're hand has to move quite a
distance. If they are looking at you they have quite a bit of warning. To
avoid the punch they only have to move a short distance. If they avoid the
punch, your fist is sitting out there for a split second. If they attack
your fist while avoiding it, they only have to move their hand a short
distance. Meanwhile you're concentrating on the punch, not defending your
fist. An experienced fighter can time this. Next thing you know your fist
is caught and a kick is coming at your ribs. You can see it, but you can't
move. Worse yet, if your target twists your fist just a bit your mind will
focus on your fist and you won't see that kick coming with your conscious
mind. If you're an experienced fighter your subconscious mind may be able
to deal with that kick...

I cannot count the number of times my instructor has said, "Throw a punch
at me," only to find myself in a very compromising position (my attacking
hand pointing a direction it's not supposed to point, my arm wrapped up and
me on my knees, me on my back, me on my face, etc).

Think of an experienced/trained fighter as a constantly running whisper
chipper. If someone sticks their hand in the whisper chipper, they
shouldn't be surprised if it gets chewed up. Same thing with attacking an
experienced/trained fighter. They know how to *defend* themselves. If you
attack them, you are entering their defense zone, and it will go off.

Having said that, I will add that I have a house rule to reflect the
blinding speed of a character with increased initiative.

I do give characters in my game who have additional initiative dice a bit
of an advantage. Characters get an extra die that they add to all melee
combat tests for every additional initiative die they have. A character
with an initiative of 8+3d6 would get +2d6 for all melee combat tests.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Warm nights, good food, kindred spirits....great life!"
Message no. 16
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:30:10 -0500 (EST)
Excerpts from ShadowRN: 14-Mar-100 Re: Melee Combat Rules Ques.. by
Varsanyi Zoltan@****.bme
> This is unreal !!!
> Why is acting the monk faster if I attack him with reflexes ??
> Why ?

When you attack him, your guard is more likely to be down. If he
doesn't respond by counter-attacking, he's likely to get hurt. Blocking
is the least effective way of absorbing a blow, unless you count taking
the blow in a vital area. This is much more clearly observed with armed
combat, but I'm not as experienced there.

> The only way if he is even more faster and delayed his action (and didn't
> attacked me because he is only defending himself).
>
> Have you ever tried to fight against someone faster than you?

Actually, no. :) I've fought several that can keep up, though, and
I've slowed down since I was 18. I have, however, experienced
personally and repeatedly the methods and techniques used to defeat a
faster opponent. ;)

> You CAN'T
> hit him first, you can only block the attack or move backwards...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No! Don't fight in a line! What do you think this is, fencing or kendo?

> And then, after he tried to hit you, only then can you do something !

This is a problem that is very style and instructor dependent.
Also, I've noticed a tendency for a lower belt to switch to the RL
equivalent of SR's "Full Defense" the instant a higher belt pulls out
the offense. This is actually somewhat justified, because the higher
belt will almost always connect if the lower belt opens up his defense
at this point. Another tendency is for most people to speak from a
striking style that hasn't taught the full range of moves available to
the style. TKD is a prime offender of this, as it appears that some
instructors focus too much on the strikes. IMHO, TKD (generalizing
here) is the style that suffers the most from mediocre instructors, and
an over-reliance on learning to spar, not fight. It's very
tournament-driven.

In Tang Soo Do (my style), the best way to block a punch is by doing
a chop to the wrist. This has the two primary effects of moving his
punch to a place where it won't hit you, and hopefully damaging the
wrist. In sparring, you don't want to do this too much because of the
danger of injury, and because less experienced practitioners (like me)
are unlikely to successfully connect with this chop.
In a style like Judo, it's unlikely that you would have successfully
prevented the attack from hitting without successfully performing a
throw or toss of some sort. The act of avoiding a blow will usually
result in an offense of your own.
Other styles might rely on a wrist lock in order to not get hit by
an attacker throwing a punch. I don't like this method because it
doesn't work against odds worse than 1:1, and because I can't do a wrist
lock worth a damn, but successful avoidance of damage usually involves
the attacker laying on the ground unable to effectively move.

I've found that the counter-attack mechanism is best observed when
watching a couple of the highest belts go at it, especially if their
physical edges don't come from speed like me. A point will either be
over in the first 1/2 second of sparring, or it will involve several
seconds of analysis and feints. The usual goal is to make the other guy
perform a move that leaves his guard open enough to actually connect.
The reason the counter-attack is so crucial here is that a talented
higher belt can usually avoid damage for extended periods of time if
he's not opening himself up by attacking, so neither one wants to throw
the first attack.

Mark

Disclaimer: I've only had a couple years of intense training. I
reached the point where I could keep up with the higher belts
strategically and tactically, but couldn't actually *do* some of the
things... :) I was terrible with the holds and locks...
Message no. 17
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:33:50 -0700
Andrew Norman wrote:
>In my TKD classes I could block all but the
>fastest black belts but I couldn't hit them. I had a fast block but a
>slow attack. I was told by my instructor that this is normally the way
>things are arranged. It's mainly due to the relative range of movements,
>ie I need to move my block slightly to deflect a punch that has to
>travel
>from his body to mine.
>
>IMHO blocking is easy ... counter-attacking is hard. Also again IMHO
>it is very difficult to block fast and do considerable damage at the
>same
>time.

Counter-attacking is easy *because* blocking is easy (well, relatively easy ;).

Like I said in an earlier post it's timing.

They attack, you block and follow your block with an attack to take
advantage of their now open body.

They attack, you block and catch and attack.

They attack, you block and catch and using joint locks put them where you
want them, then attack at your leisure.

Here's a simple block/attack example: They throw a front snap kick with
their forward leg. You sweep the kick to their inside. Because you're
experienced you know that this will turn their back to you. *Imediately*
after sweeping their kick, before they can get their foot back on the
ground and change their position, you throw a roundhouse from your back leg
at their back.

Block/catch/attack example: They throw a front snap kick. You block and
catch with an X block. You throw a front snap kick to their groin.

Block/catch/control/attack example: They throw a front snap kick. You
block and catch with an X block. You transfer your grip to their foot and
rotate it 180 degrees while stepping back and pulling up. They come down
on their face. You step in, still maintaining control of their foot, and
attack whatever you want.

The same thing can be done with any attack, whether it's a kick, punch,
grapple, or weapon attack.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"All things are at all times, in motion. Take the time to watch the dance."
-John Caeser Leafston
Message no. 18
From: Daniel Sauve ahsdreamwalker@****.com
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:29:46 -0500
> I do give characters in my game who have additional initiative dice a bit
> of an advantage. Characters get an extra die that they add to all melee
> combat tests for every additional initiative die they have. A character
> with an initiative of 8+3d6 would get +2d6 for all melee combat tests.
Personally, though I can and do use SR's combat rules often, in my
campaigns we usually use an adapted Earthdawn system.

---------I am Sigfreud, the Living Sig!
Transformers:D'OH!!
Cyclonus: "Bravo, Galvatron. The Autobots' destruction is assured."
Galvatron: "Assured is not enough. I told you I want their heads,
Cyclonus!"
[a short while later...]
Cyclonus: "Mighty Galvatron... where are the Autobots' heads?!"
Galvatron: [whacks him] "What does it matter... Their destruction is
assured!"
("Five Faces of Darkness" II)
-----------------------Who-My-Master-is
Daniel S., aka Kristling Shadowraven Dreamwalker,
ICQ # 53874855 / ahsdreamwalker@****.com
In The Dreaming
Message no. 19
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:54:49 -0700
Mark A Shieh wrote:
>Excerpts from ShadowRN: 14-Mar-100 Re: Melee Combat Rules Ques.. by
>Varsanyi Zoltan@****.bme
> > This is unreal !!!
> > Why is acting the monk faster if I attack him with reflexes ??
> > Why ?
>
> When you attack him, your guard is more likely to be down. If he
>doesn't respond by counter-attacking, he's likely to get hurt.

Also, don't think of it as one blow. Shadowrun's melee combat system is
simple one die roll abstract representation of the flow of melee combat.

> > You CAN'T
> > hit him first, you can only block the attack or move backwards...
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> No! Don't fight in a line! What do you think this is, fencing or kendo?

Yep. You can move back, back and to the left, back and to the right, to
the left, to the right, forward and to the left, forward and to the right,
or forward. And you can end up with your right foot forward or your left
foot forward.

> > And then, after he tried to hit you, only then can you do something !
>
> This is a problem that is very style and instructor dependent.

Ditto that.

> Also, I've noticed a tendency for a lower belt to switch to the RL
>equivalent of SR's "Full Defense" the instant a higher belt pulls out
>the offense.

Ditto that :)

> I've found that the counter-attack mechanism is best observed when
>watching a couple of the highest belts go at it, especially if their
>physical edges don't come from speed like me. A point will either be
>over in the first 1/2 second of sparring, or it will involve several
>seconds of analysis and feints. The usual goal is to make the other guy
>perform a move that leaves his guard open enough to actually connect.
>The reason the counter-attack is so crucial here is that a talented
>higher belt can usually avoid damage for extended periods of time if
>he's not opening himself up by attacking, so neither one wants to throw
>the first attack.

I watched a tournament Karate match between two black belts and the one
that lost was the one that attacked. The other one never attacked, only
feinting to draw the other one out.

And tournaments are far removed from real life. Also, to the untrained eye
an attacking kick that scores a point looks like an attacking kick. From
the target's point of view it was a concealed kick. The target saw a hand
come up, then a knee, and *then* the foot came lashing out. This is a good
example of a highly skilled fast attack against a less skilled/experienced
defender.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"What you are doing at the moment must be exactly what
you are doing at the moment--and nothing else."
Message no. 20
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:56:21 -0700
Daniel Sauve wrote:
> > I do give characters in my game who have additional initiative dice a bit
> > of an advantage. Characters get an extra die that they add to all melee
> > combat tests for every additional initiative die they have. A character
> > with an initiative of 8+3d6 would get +2d6 for all melee combat tests.
>Personally, though I can and do use SR's combat rules often, in my
>campaigns we usually use an adapted Earthdawn system.

And that system would be...? :)

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Wisdom has two parts: having a lot to say, and not saying it."
Message no. 21
From: Daniel Sauve ahsdreamwalker@****.com
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:16:34 -0500
>
> And that system would be...? :)
Oh, God. Some one send me some sort of representation of the "real" ED
combat system and I'll get it written down, otherwise, it'll take a year
for me to answer Graht... 8)


---------I am Sigfreud, the Living Sig!
Transformers: Starscream... Tyrant of the Firmament, or just stupid?
"Decepticons! Feast your eyes on your new leader!"
("Starscream's Brigade")
-----------------------Who-My-Master-is
Daniel S., aka Kristling Speaks-with-Spirits Dreamwalker,
ICQ # 53874855 / ahsdreamwalker@****.com
there goes a tenner
Message no. 22
From: HHackerH@***.com HHackerH@***.com
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:17:34 EST
In a message dated 3/14/00 7:50:32 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
s7486var@****.bme.hu writes:

>
> I understand what you mentioned but I think it doesn't make a
> difference...

I snipped literally everything else, and I did so for a reason. Your reply
tells me two things personally.

A) You are *REALLY* trying to put more into this than the game mechanics
will support consistently and safely. This isn't necessarily a bad thing or
a good thing, it is merely something that extends the boundaries of
abstractions such as game mechanics. If you enjoy figuring this out, more
power to you. But please, I'm low on Advil and Aleve both ... could you
please keep the noise down... ;-P <Foghorn Voice>That was a joke
son</Foghorn Voice>

B) Knowing and being able to tell the difference between Acting and Reacting
makes all the difference. Your descriptions indicate that you don't have the
fine line defined, again at least in my opinion. BUT, that is also a
distinction that the game mechanics do not easily support, and I don't really
want to go into the concepts and consequences of Anatomy, Physiology, or
Advanced Biology on this list.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-K (who admits he really liked that cartoon reference when LadyJ made it, so
he borrowed it)
-"Just a Bastard"
-Hoosier Hacker House
"Children of the Kernel"
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
Message no. 23
From: Xerxes a.j.denhollander@*******.utwente.nl
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:49:56 +0100
>
> I do give characters in my game who have additional initiative dice a bit
> of an advantage. Characters get an extra die that they add to all melee
> combat tests for every additional initiative die they have. A character
> with an initiative of 8+3d6 would get +2d6 for all melee combat tests.

Nice rule, should work. We usually let people add their skill to their
initiative in melee and make counterattacking cost 10-skill initiative,
this gives people with a higher skill a definitive advantage which i
thing reflects the real situation quite well.

Xerxes

Atheist number 1685, Jehova witness ID 005-45883. Luke, I am
your father. Head of Agony and forever a member of the KoH.
"True immortality lies in dieing for a cause"
Message no. 24
From: Glenn Sprott wasntka44@*********.net
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:35:25 -0500
This all seems a little redundant now, as most of you have already
responded and answered this question, but I want to add a few more things.

I think that most of us who have any melee combat training (eastern or
western styles) understand my earlier point about the difference between
speed and skill. However, I still think that people are not understanding
that melee combat is not just a "you hit me, now I hit you" kind of thing.
As soon as combat begins, whether it be at 40 or at 4, the two combatants
are already moving, feinting, blocking, kicking, punching, etc... Who ever
attacks first does not necessarily control the fight.

The other problem I see is not with the combat, but rather with the
initiative part of the combat... more to the point, the wired reflexes
angle. Just because your character goes at 40, does not mean his is
better. The reason the reflex trigger was created was to explain the
problem with reflex enhancement: "acting too fast without thinking is bad."

"Joe samuri, going at a whopping 45 initiative, attacks the phys adept with
blinding speed. The phys adept, not seeing the blurred fist approaching
him, is killed instantly as the spurs penetrate his skull..."

The problem with this scenario is that the samuri's fist is NOT coming at
the adept with blinding speed. Reaction and initiative represent how fast
you START your attack. Your fist is not coming any faster... So, the
adept, seeing the clumsy attack coming, steps under the punch, moving
within the samuri's defenses, and strikes. Now, the adept, with all of his
years of training and expertise, did not think about what he was going to
do, but rather instinctually reacted. The attack (one the adept
undoubtedly had seen a thousand times before from his years of training)
was rendered ineffectual by skill and experience, and not necessarily
speed.

I think the other big problem with this whole discussion is that not
everyone in the world has martial arts training, and so it is harder to
understand what is possible and what isn't. I've seen a brown belt Bushido
artist compete against and win over two seperate 1st and 2nd degree black
belt artists (also Bushido). He didn't win with speed, but rather by
watching his opponent and reacting to his attacks. Outmatched in both
speed and skill, and he still won. This started me thinking... How
accurate is the belt system? Were the black belts really "better" than the
brown belt? Did I assume too much about the combatants? Did the
combatants assume too much about each other?

I guess my point is this: Don't assume that because someone goes first in
the round that he will have the advantage in melee combat, because this
just isn't the case.

Also, the system was designed for gameplay and not necessarily for realism.
Even though I feel they have done an excellent job with keeping the system
very close to reality, they cannot mimic actual combat. Everyone has to
understand that. Using house rules is fine, but I think that it starts to
take away from what was (and is) a very well balanced and easy-to-use
system. As a few of you have already stated, people are looking too deep
into this, and in part, losing sight of what really matters... Does the
system work? Yes, I think it does. We could give each other examples all
day long, but that won't solve anything. Each game, as with each person,
should rely on what works best for the players and the mechanics itself.

Just my opinion....

Wasntka (Wolf)
Message no. 25
From: K. Suderman suderman@*****.ocean.fsu.edu
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:57:57 -0500
Disclaimer: I have zero martial arts training and extremely limited
fighting experience (a guy roughed me up in junior high...). So be it...
I do have some experience in experimental design...

One of the questions being asked (I think) is: How deadly
(useful, important) is speed in hand-to-hand combat?
The answer seems to be that a slow, skilled fighter will beat a
fast, unskilled fighter (most of the time, all else being equal, etc.).
But I think the comparison we want (if I'm correct about the
question) is a fast, skilled fighter v. a slow, skilled fighter.
In game terms, we could pit an adept with skill 6, init 6+1D6
against a sam with skill 6, init 14+3D6 (all else equal). Does the sam
have the advantage? Does the adept?
In plain vanilla SR3, they are evenly matched. If the two could
exist in real life, I would put my money on the sam, but like I pointed
out, my martial arts training is non-existent.
Any insights?

Keith

>"Joe samuri, going at a whopping 45 initiative, attacks the phys adept with
>blinding speed. The phys adept, not seeing the blurred fist approaching
>him, is killed instantly as the spurs penetrate his skull..."
>
>The problem with this scenario is that the samuri's fist is NOT coming at
>the adept with blinding speed. Reaction and initiative represent how fast
>you START your attack. Your fist is not coming any faster... So, the
>adept, seeing the clumsy attack coming, steps under the punch, moving
>within the samuri's defenses, and strikes. Now, the adept, with all of his
>years of training and expertise, did not think about what he was going to
>do, but rather instinctually reacted. The attack (one the adept
>undoubtedly had seen a thousand times before from his years of training)
>was rendered ineffectual by skill and experience, and not necessarily
>speed.
Message no. 26
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:07:54 -0500 (EST)
Excerpts from ShadowRN: 14-Mar-100 Melee Combat Rules Question by "Glenn
Sprott"@*********
> I think the other big problem with this whole discussion is that not
> everyone in the world has martial arts training, and so it is harder to
> understand what is possible and what isn't. I've seen a brown belt Bushido
> artist compete against and win over two seperate 1st and 2nd degree black
> belt artists (also Bushido). He didn't win with speed, but rather by
> watching his opponent and reacting to his attacks. Outmatched in both
> speed and skill, and he still won. This started me thinking... How
> accurate is the belt system? Were the black belts really "better" than the
> brown belt? Did I assume too much about the combatants? Did the
> combatants assume too much about each other?

It's been mentioned more than once that the belt system represents
time spent training, not skill in the style. I would suggest that the
brown belt was, in fact, not outmatched in skill.

Mark
Message no. 27
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:12:34 -0500 (EST)
Excerpts from ShadowRN: 14-Mar-100 Re: Melee Combat Rules Ques.. by "K.
Suderman"@*****.ocea
> But I think the comparison we want (if I'm correct about the
> question) is a fast, skilled fighter v. a slow, skilled fighter.
> In game terms, we could pit an adept with skill 6, init 6+1D6
> against a sam with skill 6, init 14+3D6 (all else equal). Does the sam
> have the advantage? Does the adept?
> In plain vanilla SR3, they are evenly matched. If the two could
> exist in real life, I would put my money on the sam, but like I pointed
> out, my martial arts training is non-existent.
> Any insights?

Natural speed clearly helps by vanilla rules. Each point of natural
reaction is also providing a point of combat pool. As far as Wired
Reflexes go, points can be made supporting the view that they don't make
a difference, such as the unnaturalness of the speed and the
unfamiliarity of the sammie to his reflexes, but IMHO it's justification
for a rule based on simplicity.
Personally, I think it's close enough that Reaction and Initiative
enhancers don't provide bonuses to melee, but I'd definitely give my
support to the house rule that each additional initiative die also
provides an additional die to melee. (On a side note, would Reaction
Enhancers 6 (+6 Reaction) not provide any bonus under this house rule?)

Mark
Message no. 28
From: Glenn Sprott wasntka44@*********.net
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:41:15 -0500
> I think the other big problem with this whole discussion is that not
> everyone in the world has martial arts training, and so it is harder to
> understand what is possible and what isn't. I've seen a brown belt
Bushido
> artist compete against and win over two seperate 1st and 2nd degree black
> belt artists (also Bushido). He didn't win with speed, but rather by
> watching his opponent and reacting to his attacks. Outmatched in both
> speed and skill, and he still won. This started me thinking... How
> accurate is the belt system? Were the black belts really "better" than
the
> brown belt? Did I assume too much about the combatants? Did the
> combatants assume too much about each other?

It's been mentioned more than once that the belt system represents
time spent training, not skill in the style. I would suggest that the
brown belt was, in fact, not outmatched in skill.


The brown belt is a friend of mine, and he will tell you that he was NOT
more skilled than the other two. What he will tell you is that they both
fell for the same move. He third opponent did NOT fall for that move, and
my friend was beaten.

If the belt system represents time spent training, and not skill, then how
do people gain higher belts faster than others? When I was in Karate and
again when I was in Kung Fu, my friends acheived higher belts (and sashes
in the case of Wing Chung) faster than I did, and trained just as much as I
did... They simply passed the tests for each belt sooner than I did... No
one thinks this is a representation of skill? Don't skill and time spent
training kind of go hand-in-hand? You don't feel there is a direct
correlation?

Wasntka (Wolf)
Message no. 29
From: Glenn Sprott wasntka44@*********.net
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:12:22 -0500
Natural speed clearly helps by vanilla rules. Each point of natural
reaction is also providing a point of combat pool. As far as Wired
Reflexes go, points can be made supporting the view that they don't make
a difference, such as the unnaturalness of the speed and the
unfamiliarity of the sammie to his reflexes, but IMHO it's justification
for a rule based on simplicity.
Personally, I think it's close enough that Reaction and Initiative
enhancers don't provide bonuses to melee, but I'd definitely give my
support to the house rule that each additional initiative die also
provides an additional die to melee. (On a side note, would Reaction
Enhancers 6 (+6 Reaction) not provide any bonus under this house rule?)

I can't go with this house rule. Again, simply because someone has amazing
reflexes does not mean that he is any better at fighting than someone
without. By using this rule, a person with wired reflexes Lv. 2 and a
skill of 1 in unarmed combat, can fight at a Proficient level (if I've done
my math right and understood exactly how this rule works) according to SR3
page 98.

I feel that reaction acting as a modifier for melee combat not only goes
against realism (IMO), but it also goes against the whole defaulting
process on the skill web. Unarmed combat defaults to Strength. Even
though I may not necessarily agree with this (a stronger person can fight
better than a weak person?), this is how the rules are set up. When a GM
tries to change a rule, he/she usually has no idea how many other rules are
being affected.

The bottom line is Reaction is not Melee training and vice versa... IMO

Wasntka (Wolf)
Message no. 30
From: Glenn Sprott wasntka44@*********.net
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:38:25 -0500
>>>"But I think the comparison we want (if I'm correct about the question)
is a fast, skilled fighter v. a slow, skilled fighter. In game terms, we
could pit an adept with skill 6, init 6+1D6 against a sam with skill 6,
init 14+3D6 (all else equal). Does the sam have the advantage? Does the
adept? In plain vanilla SR3, they are evenly matched. If the two could
exist in real life, I would put my money on the sam, but like I pointed
out, my martial arts training is non-existent. Any insights?" <<<


This is really hard to make an "all things being equal" kind of
situation... The adept would have his adept powers. This hardly makes it
equal. And to say that the adept has no powers, takes away what makes him
an adept. A normal Joe with no magic against a samuri would lose. That
much I can agree on. However, once you realize that the adept has
increased skill dice, boosted attributes, pain resistance, astral vision,
and killing hands, ( not to mention the possibility of a weapon focus), the
fight would probably go in the adept's favor... until the samuri pulls out
his Uzi III.

Again... Just my opinion...

Wastnka (Wolf)
Message no. 31
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:56:18 -0500 (EST)
Glenn, please use ">" when quoting other people's stuff. I can only
make out what is yours easily because I wrote the other half.

To reply to your other post, that's not how things worked when I
trained. There were belt tests about 4 times a year, and it was rare
for someone not to be able to make a belt in that time, and even rarer
for someone to test twice during that period.
In addition, some people were able to spar rather well, but were
held back because their non-sparring aspects of their training weren't
progressing quite as quickly.
After hearing your more detailed description, it sounds more like
your friend got lucky once, and doesn't think he'd manage to pull it off
again. Luck happens in SR, too. Also, knowing a sneaky trick that
works pretty often counts as additional skill in Unarmed Combat in my
book.

Excerpts from ShadowRN: 14-Mar-100 Melee Combat Rules Question by "Glenn
Sprott"@*********
> I can't go with this house rule. Again, simply because someone has amazing
> reflexes does not mean that he is any better at fighting than someone
> without. By using this rule, a person with wired reflexes Lv. 2 and a
> skill of 1 in unarmed combat, can fight at a Proficient level (if I've done
> my math right and understood exactly how this rule works) according to SR3
> page 98.

Well, sure, but this person is going to botch his roll 1-(5/6)^3
(over a third) of the time, and can throw in a total of one point of
combat pool into any test, raising his chances of botching to over half
the time.

> The bottom line is Reaction is not Melee training and vice versa... IMO

Never said it was, or that you should adopt the house rule.
Additional dice are most useful if you already have a decent skill
rating. As with everything else though, raw speed is an edge that a
combatant can use to their advantage IRL. At the very least, it
increases the range of moves you can do.

Mark
Message no. 32
From: Daniel Sauve ahsdreamwalker@****.com
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:39:58 -0500
> fight would probably go in the adept's favor... until the samuri pulls
out
> his Uzi III.
>
> Again... Just my opinion...
AHHHH! Adept vs. Sammy thread! Adept vs. Sammy thread! CARP IT! For the
love of Mike (M.) CARP IT!

---------I am Sigfreud, the Living Sig!
Tranformers: Gyarahh!! (Things We Wish They Hadn't Said)
[cheesy whistle] "This must be the junk capital of the universe."
--Daniel, the Movie
-----------------------Who-My-Master-is
Daniel S., aka Kristling Metaphor Dreamwalker,
ICQ # 53874855 / ahsdreamwalker@****.com
Games-Without-Frontiers
Message no. 33
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:03:45 +0100
According to Daniel Sauve, at 15:16 on 14 Mar 00, the word on the street
was...

> > And that system would be...? :)
> Oh, God. Some one send me some sort of representation of the "real" ED
> combat system and I'll get it written down, otherwise, it'll take a year
> for me to answer Graht... 8)

The basics of it are that you roll your talent or skill dice against the
opponent's Physical Defense rating. There are some complications, but
they're mainly those you add yourself (like for giving round, charging,
and so on).

I am wondering how you adapted this to SR, though... Rolling a combat
skill against the opponent's Reaction, and the opponent not getting a dice
roll at all, maybe?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
What a pretty life you have...
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

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. 34
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:51:12 -0700
Glenn Sprott wrote:

>I feel that reaction acting as a modifier for melee combat not only goes
>against realism (IMO), but it also goes against the whole defaulting
>process on the skill web. Unarmed combat defaults to Strength. Even
>though I may not necessarily agree with this (a stronger person can fight
>better than a weak person?), this is how the rules are set up.

Yes, but doesn't mean that the rules as written are the best way of doing
things. It doesn't mean that the rules are bad either. The rules can mean
anything that you want them to.

>When a GM
>tries to change a rule, he/she usually has no idea how many other rules are
>being affected.

Thus, playtesting. I've playtested my house rule for applying initiative
dice to melee combat for over a year now. It's worked very well for me and
my players.

BTW, I've also playtested a number of house rules that bombed miserably
:) It's amazing how the majority of the rules interlock and weave through
eachother.

>The bottom line is Reaction is not Melee training and vice versa... IMO

Agreed. But my house rule has turned out to be very balanced. If they
don't have the melee skill to begin with, they have to default. They still
get the bonus die, but they have a pretty high target number. The extra
dice do not affect the target number.

Extra initiative dice are not cheap. For those PCs that have extra
initiative dice, it's usually only +1 or +2 dice. The ones with +3
initiative dice have paid for it, either with a considerable amount of cash
and essence, or with quite a few power points.

Anyway, it works for me and my group. It may work for you and yours. If
not, nothing lost, nothing gained :)




To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday ... and all is well."
Message no. 35
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:53:41 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Mark A Shieh wrote:

> It's been mentioned more than once that the belt system represents
> time spent training, not skill in the style. I would suggest that the
> brown belt was, in fact, not outmatched in skill.

This is something that's *highly* dependent on the art. Some arts
reward seniority, others don't. I know guys that have stayed the same
rank for a really long time while people who have been training for a
shorter amount of time (but are more skilled) are promoted over them.
In other words, be careful about making blanket statements.

Marc
Message no. 36
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:56:21 -0700
Mark A Shieh wrote:
> Natural speed clearly helps by vanilla rules. Each point of natural
>reaction is also providing a point of combat pool. As far as Wired
>Reflexes go, points can be made supporting the view that they don't make
>a difference, such as the unnaturalness of the speed and the
>unfamiliarity of the sammie to his reflexes, but IMHO it's justification
>for a rule based on simplicity.
> Personally, I think it's close enough that Reaction and Initiative
>enhancers don't provide bonuses to melee, but I'd definitely give my
>support to the house rule that each additional initiative die also
>provides an additional die to melee. (On a side note, would Reaction
>Enhancers 6 (+6 Reaction) not provide any bonus under this house rule?)

...gah. You just had to bring that up didn't you ;p

I'm leaning towards a "no", if for nothing else then the fact that I want
to keep house rules to a minimum. The extra initiative dice equals extra
melee combat dice has worked great so far and I don't want to add any kinks
to it.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Warm nights, good food, kindred spirits....great life!"
Message no. 37
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:03:51 -0700
Glenn Sprott wrote:

>I guess my point is this: Don't assume that because someone goes first in
>the round that he will have the advantage in melee combat, because this
>just isn't the case.

Agreed.

Don't think of the initiative rules as: The guy with high initiative acts a
second before everyone else. It's more like: the guy with high initiative
acts a split second before everyone else.

>Also, the system was designed for gameplay and not necessarily for realism.
>Even though I feel they have done an excellent job with keeping the system
>very close to reality, they cannot mimic actual combat. Everyone has to
>understand that. Using house rules is fine, but I think that it starts to
>take away from what was (and is) a very well balanced and easy-to-use
>system.

I just want to point out something I forgot to mention. The real purpose
of my house rule is to change the flavor of melee combat in SR. I want
those characters with extra initiative dice to have an edge.

As you've pointed out, the vanilla rules work just fine and are very close
to reality. I'm not advocating that they be changed, just presenting a fun
and playable option.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"What you are doing at the moment must be exactly what
you are doing at the moment--and nothing else."
Message no. 38
From: K. Suderman suderman@*****.ocean.fsu.edu
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:19:36 -0500
>>Also, the system was designed for gameplay and not necessarily for realism.
>>Even though I feel they have done an excellent job with keeping the system
>>very close to reality, they cannot mimic actual combat. Everyone has to
>>understand that. Using house rules is fine, but I think that it starts to
>>take away from what was (and is) a very well balanced and easy-to-use
>>system.
>
>I just want to point out something I forgot to mention. The real purpose
>of my house rule is to change the flavor of melee combat in SR. I want
>those characters with extra initiative dice to have an edge.
>
>As you've pointed out, the vanilla rules work just fine and are very close
>to reality. I'm not advocating that they be changed, just presenting a
>fun and playable option.
>
>To Life,
>-Graht

I think I'm going to adopt your rule- it fits my perceptions of the genre
(which is the goal, isn't it?). Thanks to everyone for helping a
non-combatant (i.e. prey :)
Keith

Keith Suderman
Florida State University
Department of Oceanography
850-980-3218
Message no. 39
From: TabaisDrg@***.com TabaisDrg@***.com
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:28:53 EST
The biggest problem I've had with Melee combat in Shadowrun isn't the counter
attack thing. It's Reach. I noticed that in SR3 they addressed it some, but
I don't think it still was accurate enough. With my game, the solution my
players and I agreed on was that when you have Reach, it only adds extra
dice, and doesn't change the target number at all. That way a person who has
a monofiliment whip and barely knows how to use it, won't beat on an fully
skilled unarmed combat man. Any other ideas or suggestions?

Rob
Message no. 40
From: Cybertroll cybertroll@******.crosswinds.net
Subject: Melee Combat Rules Question
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:07:41 +0200
TabaisDrg@***.com wrote:
>
> The biggest problem I've had with Melee combat in Shadowrun isn't the counter
> attack thing. It's Reach. I noticed that in SR3 they addressed it some, but
> I don't think it still was accurate enough. With my game, the solution my
> players and I agreed on was that when you have Reach, it only adds extra
> dice, and doesn't change the target number at all. That way a person who has
> a monofiliment whip and barely knows how to use it, won't beat on an fully
> skilled unarmed combat man. Any other ideas or suggestions?
>
> Rob

I find the rules in SR3 quite accurate. The reason u get to modify the
TN with the reach instead of giving you more dice to roll is this:
Let's say A is using a Polearm (Reach +2) and B is using a knife (O
reach). A has 2 choices.
1) He uses the longer weapon in such a way that it is easier for him to
hit B from normal distance (face to face - thus adding the reach bonus
to his TN)
2) He uses the longer weapon in such a way that he doesn't have to get
close to B which means that B has a bigger problem to come closer to him
and hit him (thus he gets the Reach penalty in the TN).
That's the way I see it imho.

Cybertroll

--
E-Mail : cybertroll@********.gr / cybertroll@********.org
ICQ# : 7483400 but u have to beg to get my authorization!! :-)))
Homepage: http://www.crosswinds.net/~cybertroll - WOA Photo Album
>=======<The official Blind Guardian IRC channel>===========<
Do u really want to talk with me?? Come to #tavern in Othernet!
http://tavern.home.pages.de/ (#tavern's homepage made by Soth)
>=======<o--t--h--e--r--OtherNET.Org--n--e--t--!>===========<
Server: irc.othernet.org on port 6667
http://www.othernet.org - http://www.othernet.org/servers
IRCop on SanJose.CA.US.Othernet.org
Channel Services (X) Administrator
Nick Services (NS) Administrator

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Melee Combat Rules Question, 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!