Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: frontendchaos@**********.com (Jim Montgomery)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:30:26 -0500
I am unclear about the dynamic between the defender's roll in unarmed
combat and actions during the turn. If a character wins initiative and
fires a pistol twice at an unarmed thug, and doesn't kill him, does he
still get to roll Unarmed Combat against the thug as a defense roll?
The thug uses a complex action to initiate the attack, but it isn't
clear that the defense is a complex action as well. (Or I'm missing
the obvious.)

Jim
Message no. 2
From: me@******.net (Hexren)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:07:39 +0100
JM> I am unclear about the dynamic between the defender's roll in unarmed
JM> combat and actions during the turn. If a character wins initiative and
JM> fires a pistol twice at an unarmed thug, and doesn't kill him, does he
JM> still get to roll Unarmed Combat against the thug as a defense roll?
JM> The thug uses a complex action to initiate the attack, but it isn't
JM> clear that the defense is a complex action as well. (Or I'm missing
JM> the obvious.)

JM> Jim

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

the system actually favors the guy with the ranged weapon as he still
gets to roll his unarmed combat as defense and if he wins he will hurt
the thug again. I saw some optional rule somewehre that described a
solution to this (in my eys) unrealistic behavior. But I cant remember
wheer :(

Greetz
Hexren
Message no. 3
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:35:38 +0100
On Wednesday, Nov 5, 2003, at 21:07 Europe/Paris, Hexren wrote:

> JM> I am unclear about the dynamic between the defender's roll in
> unarmed
> JM> combat and actions during the turn. If a character wins initiative
> and
> JM> fires a pistol twice at an unarmed thug, and doesn't kill him,
> does he
> JM> still get to roll Unarmed Combat against the thug as a defense
> roll?
> JM> The thug uses a complex action to initiate the attack, but it isn't
> JM> clear that the defense is a complex action as well. (Or I'm missing
> JM> the obvious.)
>
> JM> Jim
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> the system actually favors the guy with the ranged weapon as he still
> gets to roll his unarmed combat as defense and if he wins he will hurt
> the thug again. I saw some optional rule somewehre that described a
> solution to this (in my eys) unrealistic behavior. But I cant remember
> wheer :(
>
>
Yes, I always found it quite ironic in SR2 when the super fast
character who went on 32, 22, 12 and 2 could engage in melee combat a
slow character who goes on 7, and the slow character would be able to
defend at 32, 22, and 12 prior to being allowed an action. And the
slow character could damage the faster on each of those attacks. And
supposedly if the slow character won the first combat, the faster one
would not be allowed to disengage the slower one until he won the
combat. SR3 does not seem to change those rules except for the way the
initiative system works.

--
Scott Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
Message no. 4
From: davidb@****.imcprint.com (Graht)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:19:53 -0700
At 12:30 PM 11/5/2003, Jim Montgomery wrote:
>I am unclear about the dynamic between the defender's roll in unarmed
>combat and actions during the turn. If a character wins initiative and
>fires a pistol twice at an unarmed thug, and doesn't kill him, does he
>still get to roll Unarmed Combat against the thug as a defense roll? The
>thug uses a complex action to initiate the attack, but it isn't clear that
>the defense is a complex action as well. (Or I'm missing the obvious.)

Ah, it's nice to see an old debate make a comeback :)

Per the rules, a character can defend against any number of melee attacks
(provided of course that he survives them). Defending against a melee
attack does not cost an action. So ye could shoot at someone and still be
able to defend himself against an unarmed/armed attack.

Most players with experience in martial arts will back this up. The reason
is that a person with armed/unarmed combat skill should be trained to
defend themselves to the point that defense become autonomic (like
maintaining your balance while you stand/walk/run/ride a bike). A person
trained in unarmed/armed combat doesn't really have to think (spend an
action) to defend themselves. And even an untrained person will usually
flinch, raise an arm, or try to protect themselves from an attack.

However, in the situation you mentioned I would apply a little house rule:
any/all of a character's actions in a round prior to being attacked in
melee count as opponents against that character. I.e., if he's performed
any actions it's harder for him to defend himself. So, in the example you
stated I would count the character's action (firing his pistol) as a
"friend in melee" for the thug and apply all modifiers appropriately.

--
To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
http://www.graht.com
Message no. 5
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:26:52 +0100
Graht wrote:

> Per the rules, a character can defend against any number of melee
> attacks (provided of course that he survives them). Defending against
> a melee attack does not cost an action. So ye could shoot at someone
> and still be able to defend himself against an unarmed/armed attack.

Something I don't like about the Shadowrun melee combat system though,
is that it doesn't cover the following situation: Character A decides
to attack Character B with a melee weapon or his bare hands. Character
B, whose knowledge of martial arts doesn't go far beyond the "kung-fu
movie sound effects" active skill, decides to defend himself by
sticking his Ares Predator's muzzle between Character A's ribs and
pulling the trigger (optional: lather, rinse, repeat).
Which is a real pain because that situation has a really high
probability of occurrence.

I've tried to house rule this several times. However I wasn't GMing at
any of those times, and thus always got this answer: "No way. That'd
make melee combat useless.". Usually followed by my character getting
his ass kicked. :)

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr@*****.fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 6
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 08:59:13 +1100
> From:
> Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr>
> Date:
> Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:26:52 +0100
>
> Something I don't like about the Shadowrun melee combat system
> though, is that it doesn't cover the following situation: Character A
> decides to attack Character B with a melee weapon or his bare hands.
> Character B, whose knowledge of martial arts doesn't go far beyond the
> "kung-fu movie sound effects" active skill, decides to defend himself by
> sticking his Ares Predator's muzzle between Character A's ribs and
> pulling the trigger (optional: lather, rinse, repeat).
> Which is a real pain because that situation has a really high
> probability of occurrence.
>

They already let you do this. You suck back a +2 penalty for having an
opponent within 2 metres of you, then you blow his head off because all
he gets to do is dodge and soak, instead of counterattacking.

> I've tried to house rule this several times. However I wasn't GMing
> at any of those times, and thus always got this answer: "No way. That'd
> make melee combat useless.". Usually followed by my character getting
> his ass kicked. :)
>

So what you're trying to persuade the GM to do is let you use your
pistols skill instead of your melee skill to defend yourself? I'd tell
you to get lost as well. You can already kill your opponent with a gun -
why should you get to defend yourself from attacks with it as well?

IMHO, the main problem with the SR melee system is that if you're a fast
character fighting a slow character, then your best bet is to stand back
and shoot the guy, almost no matter how good at melee you are. If you're
any sort of character against an effective martial artist, then your
best bet is to stand back and shoot the guy, and if you're a slow
character who's good at martial arts, your best bet is to charge the
fastest character present, and make him tie up all his actions with
either a +2 to target numbers, or throwing himself bodily against your
fists.

In our campaign, we simply had the rule:
Counterattacking uses your next available complex action.
Defending (per CC - same as counterattack, but you can dodge after the
melee roll, and you can't do damage) uses no action.

Which means that the faster guy in a hand-to-hand situation gets a minor
benefit, and can't be killed by his opponent before his opponent has had
his action.
Message no. 7
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:15:21 +0100
> So what you're trying to persuade the GM to do is let you use your
> pistols skill instead of your melee skill to defend yourself? I'd tell
> you to get lost as well. You can already kill your opponent with a gun
> - why should you get to defend yourself from attacks with it as well?

Nope, what my GM said was, once you're engaged in melee combat, you
can not use your guns. At all. Meaning that I have a heavy pistol in
each hand, with which I'm perfectly competent, but the best I can do is
to pistol-whip my opponent. With a TN of 8 + reach and wound modifiers.

> IMHO, the main problem with the SR melee system is that if you're a
> fast character fighting a slow character, then your best bet is to
> stand back and shoot the guy, almost no matter how good at melee you
> are. If you're any sort of character against an effective martial
> artist, then your best bet is to stand back and shoot the guy, and if
> you're a slow character who's good at martial arts, your best bet is
> to charge the fastest character present, and make him tie up all his
> actions with either a +2 to target numbers, or throwing himself bodily
> against your fists.

Unfortunately you can't. The interception rules (can't remember the
page, it's in the BBB) prevent that. Basically, the way I understand
them, if you try to disengage from a melee fight, your opponent gets a
free attack against you, which will usually be enough to finish you
off.
Now, the best melee weapon I've found so far is the stunbolt spell.
The elf mage with a Body of 2 mimicks a punch to the face of the huge
troll's face... And knocks him out. Hilarity ensues.

> In our campaign, we simply had the rule:
> Counterattacking uses your next available complex action.
> Defending (per CC - same as counterattack, but you can dodge after the
> melee roll, and you can't do damage) uses no action.

That's Full Defense, isn't it? Wasn't it in the BBB?

> Which means that the faster guy in a hand-to-hand situation gets a
> minor benefit, and can't be killed by his opponent before his opponent
> has had his action.

He still can. The opponent just has to counterattack. However, Fast
Guy can't be killed *after* his opponent has had his action.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr@*****.fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 8
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:05:10 +0100
According to James Niall Zealey, on Thursday 06 November 2003 22:59 the
word on the street was...

> So what you're trying to persuade the GM to do is let you use your
> pistols skill instead of your melee skill to defend yourself? I'd tell
> you to get lost as well. You can already kill your opponent with a gun -
> why should you get to defend yourself from attacks with it as well?

IMHO a good way to handle this is to only allow firearms to be used if the
character wielding them is the attacker in melee combat, but to also let
the target defend against the attack with a HTH combat skill, to represent
that it's possible to knock the weapon away. The attacker should get a TN
penalty based on the weapon size, as it's much easier to use a pistol like
this than a GPMG; something like:

Pistol: +2
SMG: +3
Rifle/LMG: +4
MMG: +6
HMG: +8

(Already including the +2 for using a firearm with an opponent nearby.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Don't you know you know what's right?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 9
From: uptoic@***********.net (Aethelwulf)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:00:43 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
> [mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com]On Behalf Of Gurth
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:05 AM
> To: Shadowrun Discussion
> Subject: Re: mixing range and close combat
>
>
> According to James Niall Zealey, on Thursday 06 November 2003 22:59 the
> word on the street was...
>
> > So what you're trying to persuade the GM to do is let you use your
> > pistols skill instead of your melee skill to defend yourself? I'd tell
> > you to get lost as well. You can already kill your opponent with a gun -
> > why should you get to defend yourself from attacks with it as well?
>
> IMHO a good way to handle this is to only allow firearms to be
> used if the
> character wielding them is the attacker in melee combat, but to also let
> the target defend against the attack with a HTH combat skill, to
> represent
> that it's possible to knock the weapon away. The attacker should get a TN
> penalty based on the weapon size, as it's much easier to use a
> pistol like
> this than a GPMG; something like:
>
> Pistol: +2
> SMG: +3
> Rifle/LMG: +4
> MMG: +6
> HMG: +8

not only that but the character with the gun almost always has time to shoot
on the melee'er who has to get close to you :P

Aethelwulf
Message no. 10
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:04:55 +1100
> Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr>
> Date:
> Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:15:21 +0100
>
> Nope, what my GM said was, once you're engaged in melee combat, you
> can not use your guns. At all. Meaning that I have a heavy pistol in
> each hand, with which I'm perfectly competent, but the best I can do is
> to pistol-whip my opponent. With a TN of 8 + reach and wound modifiers.
>

Then ask him why there's an entry on the ranged combat table for
"opponent within 2 metres" if you can't fire a gun when someone is that
close?. There is absolutely no problem firing a gun
from close combat. There's certainly no rules which say "guns in melee
have a base target number of 8, and work via normal melee rules". Your
GM is making stuff up, not following the rules, and totally screwing
anyone who's not a melee specialist.

>
> Unfortunately you can't. The interception rules (can't remember the
> page, it's in the BBB) prevent that. Basically, the way I understand
> them, if you try to disengage from a melee fight, your opponent gets a
> free attack against you, which will usually be enough to finish you off.

Snuh? What I said has nothing to do with the interception rules. If
you're a slowpoke, tie up the fastest character in melee.

If you're playing in your campaign, do it doubly.

>> In our campaign, we simply had the rule:
>> Counterattacking uses your next available complex action.
>> Defending (per CC - same as counterattack, but you can dodge after the
>> melee roll, and you can't do damage) uses no action.
>
>
> That's Full Defense, isn't it? Wasn't it in the BBB?
>

Yup, sure was.

>> Which means that the faster guy in a hand-to-hand situation gets a
>> minor benefit, and can't be killed by his opponent before his opponent
>> has had his action.
>
>
> He still can. The opponent just has to counterattack. However, Fast
> Guy can't be killed *after* his opponent has had his action.
>

Oops. Confusing the effects of the melee rules with the compounded
effects of our melee rules and our surprise rules.

Anyway, it DOES stop you from dying without your opponent losing an
action to kill you.
Message no. 11
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:12:06 +0100
According to James Niall Zealey, on Sunday 09 November 2003 23:04 the word
on the street was...

> Then ask him why there's an entry on the ranged combat table for
> "opponent within 2 metres" if you can't fire a gun when someone is that
> close?.

There is no such modifier; however:

> There is absolutely no problem firing a gun from close combat.

There is a +2 modifier for "Attacker in melee combat", which most
definitely indicates SR's designers considered the use of firearms in
melee combat -- unlike in some other systems, which have the ludicrous
rule that you CANNOT shoot a ranged weapon if an opponent is within a
certain number of meters/yards/feet/hectares of you.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Don't you know you know what's right?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 12
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:12:43 +1100
> From:
> Gurth <gurth@******.nl>
> Date:
> Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:12:06 +0100
> There is no such modifier; however:
>
> There is a +2 modifier for "Attacker in melee combat", which most
> definitely indicates SR's designers considered the use of firearms in
> melee combat -- unlike in some other systems, which have the ludicrous
> rule that you CANNOT shoot a ranged weapon if an opponent is within a
> certain number of meters/yards/feet/hectares of you.
>

That's what not having the books with you does. I wasn't sure that SR
specifically stated "attacker in melee combat" - but I think the
mechanics are that if you're within 2m of a melee, you suffer the
modifier - am I right?
Message no. 13
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:20:08 +0100
According to James Niall Zealey, on Monday 10 November 2003 23:12 the word
on the street was...

> That's what not having the books with you does. I wasn't sure that SR
> specifically stated "attacker in melee combat" - but I think the
> mechanics are that if you're within 2m of a melee, you suffer the
> modifier - am I right?

The modifier applies, according to p. 112, SR3, if the character is either
engaged in melee combat with "another opponent"[1] or is aware of someone
trying to block him within two meters. That last thing is a bit strange --
it would mean that if you don't _know_ someone is trying to block you, you
don't suffer the modifier...?

[1] Leading to the conclusion that you can't shoot the person you're
actually fighting, only a third party.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Don't you know you know what's right?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 14
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:59:24 +0100
On Tuesday, Nov 11, 2003, at 11:20 Europe/Paris, Gurth wrote:

> According to James Niall Zealey, on Monday 10 November 2003 23:12 the
> word
> on the street was...
>
>> That's what not having the books with you does. I wasn't sure that SR
>> specifically stated "attacker in melee combat" - but I think the
>> mechanics are that if you're within 2m of a melee, you suffer the
>> modifier - am I right?
>
> The modifier applies, according to p. 112, SR3, if the character is
> either
> engaged in melee combat with "another opponent"[1] or is aware of
> someone
> trying to block him within two meters. That last thing is a bit
> strange --
> it would mean that if you don't _know_ someone is trying to block you,
> you
> don't suffer the modifier...?
>
> [1] Leading to the conclusion that you can't shoot the person you're
> actually fighting, only a third party.
>
>
Basically doesn't all this mean that if victim A has her Predator out
and assailant B engages victim A in melee combat, victim A can choose
to defend herself with melee skills such as unarmed combat or pistol
whip or something similar, BUT not shooting. When it is next victim
A's turn to act, she can shoot the assailant B who is engaged with her,
but she suffers the +2 TN mod for being engaged in melee combat (which
seems reasonable since her weapon may not be in the proper position to
fire, etc.).

--
Scott Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
Message no. 15
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A)
Subject: mixing range and close combat
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:37:38 -0800
> -----Original Message-----
> From: scott@**********.com [mailto:scott@**********.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 6:59 AM
>
> Basically doesn't all this mean that if victim A has
> her Predator out
> and assailant B engages victim A in melee combat, victim A can choose
> to defend herself with melee skills such as unarmed combat or pistol
> whip or something similar, BUT not shooting. When it is next victim
> A's turn to act, she can shoot the assailant B who is engaged
> with her,
> but she suffers the +2 TN mod for being engaged in melee
> combat (which
> seems reasonable since her weapon may not be in the proper
> position to
> fire, etc.).

That is exactly the way we interpret it. On someone else's action,
*they* decide what's happening (e.g. if they make an unarmed attack, you
must either respond with an unarmed defense or attempt to dodge). When it
gets to *your* action, *you* decide what to do. This can include shooting
the opponent with whom you are in melee combat, but doing so imposes a +2
target number to your shots.
As both a martial artist and a shooter myself, I can tell you with
no doubt that it's really not easy to shoot somebody who's in your face and
swinging at you (or gods forbid grabbing you). There are wholly different
stances, techniques, and concepts used for close-quarters shooting.
Emphasis shifts away from sight picture and accuracy to balance maintenance
and weapon retention. Remember that the unarmed opponent doesn't have to
stay out of the line of fire - keeping the shooter from being able to bring
his weapon to bear is sufficient, and this can be accomplished in any number
of ways (blocking, checking, unbalancing, moving with the shooter, etc).
Range officers tend to go ape-shit when I'm practicing CQS drills because
they're typically considered "unsafe" shooting styles from the standpoint of
basic (ranged) shooting.
And IMHO, the +2 modifier is not enough for long arms. I'd probably
give the shooter a further penalty equal to the "effective reach" of the
weapon (i.e. what the reach would be if you tried to slug somebody with it
instead of shooting with it). So a rifle might have a +1 reach, so the
penalty to shoot while engaged in melee would be TN + 2 (melee penalty) + 1
(reach penalty) = TN+3. Something truly huge like a PAC or MMG might confer
a +2 reach penalty while firing in close combat, for a total penalty of +4.
There's a reason that dynamic entry teams tend to use short weapons like
pistols and MP5's.

Marc

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about mixing range and close 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!