Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: James Nichols <mindcrime@***.campus.mci.net>
Subject: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 17:12:34 -0400 (EDT)
>Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 05:20:59
>To: shadowrun
>From: James Nichols <mindcrime@***.campus.mci.net>
>Subject: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
>
>About Phys Ads
> It just seemed to me that FASA has made boosting Phys Ads stats
>(including Reaction and intitiative) unreasonably hard to improve compared to
>the cybered/bioware-ed equivalents.
>
>A few cases:
> 1. Starting off with Reaction and initiave : a PhysAd (PA from
now on) with Quick and Int of Six would take 12 FRAGGING point
of magic to get a +3 Reaction and +3 intiative dice boost as
compared to
> 5 essence points for a Sam to get Wired 3 which still has an extra
> 3 points of Reaction boost. Now to settle any potential "Yes,
> but a PA can keep initiating . . . "arguments, in the time it
> would take a PA to initate 7 times at the exclusion of all else
> I would think a Sam would be able to have found alpha and beta
> level cyber shops. Thank Goodness my GM uses a combo of Version
> One and Two Phys Ad Rules on some things.
>
> 2. Improving Attributes: A Sam can boost Str and Qui with Muscle Aug
> up to 4 points. If the initial stat was below Racial max it can
> be still be raised for the natural cost (i.e. not the cybered stat
> level). Also the cost for the cyber is based the level purchased
> not the new stat level. A PA on the other hand can only go up to
> 1.5*Racial Max, using a human (the generic average) with a stat
> to be improved of 6 would have to pay 4.5 magic points to go to
> a level of 9. And for regular Karma improvement say the stat was
> 3 and boosted to 5 (2points of Magic) it costs 6 points of Karma
> as compared to a Same having to pay 4 points all levels being the
> same.
>
>Whew glad to get that off my chest. If any of the above was erroneous please
>correct me. Thanx!
>
> 3. Boosting Int.: It seems I remember reading somewhere (but very
> unsure) that most things that cyber can boost that aren't
> inherently technical (i.e. commo gear, data jacks, etc.) could in
> some fashion be done magically. Ignoring Encaphalons, why can't
> the equivalent to the Bioware intel. boost be allowed.
>
> 4. Last Rant (about PA's and aren't you glad ;) ) Deadly wounds,
> essence loss, and magic loss. A Sam gets a deadly wound. Lives
> but has damaged cyberware. Well that blows but providing he has
> the funds can get a replacement or repair. A PA might lose a
> point of Magic and while the wound may not have caused any
essence
> loss; if, now that he doesn't work as well as before decides to
> put in some small cyber (less than a point of essence) he still
> loses another point of magic.
>
>Looking at all of this, other than for the sheer "neato" factor playing a PA
>just doesn't seem like a wise thing to do. (But I MUST have a high "neato"
>factor! and thus my enjoyment of PA's)
>
>It seems that FASA, having seen that PA's were (admittedly) too powerful in
some
>respects (autosuccesses, etc) went too far in the other direction in Version
>2 rules.
>
>And now for something completely different: (but first I need to refill my cup
>of coffee)
>
>the Unarmed and armed melee skills:
>
>
>(Note, all the following applies to JUST Unarmed and Armed Melee and not
>Concentrating in other combat skills.)
>
>without getting into the various combat systems I've seen people work up (which
>I did like some of them but yeesh, that starts getting complicated) as a rough
>idea I don't think it would be unreasonable to give some type of bonus to
>someone who has just the General Skill as compared to someone who has Concen-
>trated into specific styles.
>
>I would like to think of general skill as street fighting, someone who has
>learned the hard way or maybe picked up bits and pieces of a lot of styles to
>suit his style of "duking it out".
>
>A person who has Concentrated, recieving or having recieved formal training,
>in a style would get better faster (less karma required)
>
>But in a fight between two people with 6's in Unarmed and a Concentration of
>Unarmed the General skill guy is probably a little more unpredictable and
>able to anticipate the unexpected better than the other guy.
>
>Does a TN# modifier in favor of the Generalist seem out of order, EITHER adding
>one to the Concentrated fighter's TN# OR subtracting one from the Generalist.
>
>Thoughts? Comments? Without getting into technical debates over various
>martial arts styles, please.
>
>
>I may lurk for a long time, but dammit, when I post, I POST.
>(and being on my 5th cup of joe doesn't hurt either, heh)
>
>James Nichols
>
Message no. 2
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 09:18:01 -0500
>About Phys Ads
>It just seemed to me that FASA has made boosting Phys Ads stats
>(including Reaction and intitiative) unreasonably hard to improve
>compared to the cybered/bioware-ed equivalents.

Oh man, does this kind of argument get me feeling evil...

>[snipped the whine "physads have to spend 1 more point to get as fast as a
samurai with wired 3, and still come up 3 reaction short"]

Ok, physads spend priority B on magic and should get the appropriate
bonuses. They do. If a samurai takes priority B in resources, then he
can't get wired 3. Best he can get is wired 2. Which means the PA will be
faster. If you want A priority from a B priority, you're munchkin...get help.

Did I mention that PA's can use 'ware too? Or that PA powers don't show up
on cyberware scanners? Or that you don't accidentally shoot people with
pumped-up PA reaction and initiative?

>[snipped the whine "but with muscle aug sams can have 4 extra str and qui"]

PA's can have this too (go figure).

Muscle aug is nice to have, but still costs a lot of money, 180,000 for
level 4. Which means having less of other toys, which I find infinitely
more useful in many cases.

>>Whew glad to get that off my chest. If any of the above was erroneous please
>>correct me. Thanx!

All of it...

>{snipped "Where's the bioware int enhancer"]

Cerebral Booster...

>[snipped "I don't wanna lose magic"]

Sorry, but that's how the game works. Has to be the same for all
magic-types, even PA's. If it wasn't, it would be unbalanced. And a system
with more loopholes than British law needs all the balance it can get. I
can just imagine the argument "PA's don't lose magic to deadly wounds, why
should my sorcerer adept?"

>Looking at all of this, other than for the sheer "neato" factor playing a PA
>just doesn't seem like a wise thing to do. (But I MUST have a high "neato"
>factor! and thus my enjoyment of PA's)

PA's can get dozens of powers that samurai cannot duplicate with 'ware.
They can start out with superior skills, don't get nailed by 'ware
detectors, and don't have to worry about nasty healing mods. If you really
think ware is must-have, then get A resources for your PA and load him up.
You'll quickly realize that he's not as good as he was before
(numbers-wise). If you want A priority results out of a physad character,
then play a physmag.

>It seems that FASA, having seen that PA's were (admittedly) too
>powerful in some respects (autosuccesses, etc) went too far in
>the other direction in Version 2 rules.

FASA knew exactly what they were doing and balanced PA's abilities very well
with the costs they paid for them. First ed. was sickly unbalanced for
physads. Second ed. is balanced all around. If you played a first ed. PA,
then you're going to feel weaker as a second ed. PA. But going from godlike
to equal (for the price) is not underpowered. It's fair.

--------------------------------------------------------
* Bob Ooton -- <topcat@******.net> *
* Golden Tiger Association -- Submission Fighting Team *
--------------------------------------------------------
* The problem with this country today is that we're *
* getting almost as much government as we pay for. *
--------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 3
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 09:18:07 -0500
>[snipped problems with melee combat in SR]

The only thing worse than Shadowrun's lack of variety in weapons is it's
lack of sense in melee combat. The rules are terrible and need to be redone
(hopefully that new companion book will clear this up, but I think I hope
too much).

Concentrations are more powerful than general skills. Snails can
counterattack opponents with MBW4 as fast as they can be attacked. Range is
absolutely devastating (my problem with this is that there is no provision
for closing that distance and making a long weapon useless, never bring a
pike to a swordfight...).

Consider this a plea to FASA, I know someone'll see it. PLEASE MAKE A NEW
MELEE SYSTEM!!! I'll buy three copies of it as long as it makes some sense.
Guaranteed. So hear my plea and the tapping of my credit card on the table
and produce something that makes sense.

--------------------------------------------------------
* Bob Ooton -- <topcat@******.net> *
* Golden Tiger Association -- Submission Fighting Team *
--------------------------------------------------------
* The problem with this country today is that we're *
* getting almost as much government as we pay for. *
--------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 4
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:57:30 -0600 (MDT)
TopCat wrote:
|
|>[snipped problems with melee combat in SR]
|
|The only thing worse than Shadowrun's lack of variety in weapons is it's
|lack of sense in melee combat. The rules are terrible and need to be redone
|(hopefully that new companion book will clear this up, but I think I hope
|too much).
|
|Concentrations are more powerful than general skills.

Don't allow PCs to concentrate or specialize in unarmed or armed combat
skills.

|Snails can
|counterattack opponents with MBW4 as fast as they can be attacked.

Allow targets to defend, not counter attack (if they get more successes
then the attacker, then the attack fails). Also, don't allow targets to
defend if an attack happens before their initiative.

|Range is
|absolutely devastating (my problem with this is that there is no provision
|for closing that distance and making a long weapon useless, never bring a
|pike to a swordfight...).

Hmmm...uh...crap. Anybody else got an answer to this one?

|Consider this a plea to FASA, I know someone'll see it. PLEASE MAKE A NEW
|MELEE SYSTEM!!! I'll buy three copies of it as long as it makes some sense.
|Guaranteed. So hear my plea and the tapping of my credit card on the table
|and produce something that makes sense.

Ditto.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 5
From: Paul@********.demon.co.uk (Paul Jonathan Adam)
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:39:38 GMT
> |Range is
> |absolutely devastating (my problem with this is that there is no provision
> |for closing that distance and making a long weapon useless, never bring a
> |pike to a swordfight...).
>
> Hmmm...uh...crap. Anybody else got an answer to this one?

Superior reach (by however much) equals a -1 TNo. Inferior reach is a
+1 if you're attacking, no penalty if you forgo the chance to damage
your target if you beat his dice. This is our take on "getting past
the pike" in melee.

--
"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." R. A. Lafferty

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 6
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:58:27 +0100
David Buehrer <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said on 14:57/28 Apr 96...

> |Snails can
> |counterattack opponents with MBW4 as fast as they can be attacked.
>
> Allow targets to defend, not counter attack (if they get more successes
> then the attacker, then the attack fails). Also, don't allow targets to
> defend if an attack happens before their initiative.

Require a free action of them to defend. That way they can defend only
once per Combat Phase, and also cannot defend before their first action in
any given turn.

> |Range is
> |absolutely devastating (my problem with this is that there is no provision
> |for closing that distance and making a long weapon useless, never bring a
> |pike to a swordfight...).
>
> Hmmm...uh...crap. Anybody else got an answer to this one?

How about: instead of applying Reach as a modifier, use it as the optimum
range for an attack. Every meter the target is beyond or below it adds +1
to the TN. The character with the most successes gets the opponent at
optimum range for his weapon at the start of the next combat between the
two.

For example, Joe holds a 17th century pike (5 meters long, so a Reach of
5) and is attacked by Bill, who has a sword (Reach 1). We'll assume Bill
is coming toward Joe, so Joe gets the benefit of his pike's Reach (he
naturally waits until Bill is about 5 meters away from him before he tries
to skewer him :) which means that Joe does not get any modifiers to his
TN, while Bill gets a +4 (he is 5 meters away from Joe, but his weapon's
Reach is only 1).
Joe's TN is 4, Bill's is 8. Joe rolls 1,2,3,6, while Bill gets 1,2,10,11.
Bill has more successes, menaing that he avoids Joe's pike, hits Joe with
his one remaining success, and at the start of the next turn, Bill is one
meter away from Joe. As a result, Bill has a +0 to his TN in the action,
while Joe has +4.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
but it meant everything to me
-> 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. 7
From: "Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 14:06:11 GMT
Gurth writes

> David Buehrer <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said on 14:57/28 Apr 96...
>
> > |Snails can
> > |counterattack opponents with MBW4 as fast as they can be attacked.
> >

> Require a free action of them to defend. That way they can defend only
> once per Combat Phase, and also cannot defend before their first action in
> any given turn.

but can still defend several times between actions, ok actually
assuming you give folks one defend before their first action (but
only one) to stop the 'just won initative = dead opponent' and means
ganging up by delaying actions works even better than just taking
turns (forced blindside)
>
> > |Range is
> > |absolutely devastating (my problem with this is that there is no provision

Agreed, one of the principal reasons why folks complain about phsads
in 2nded as killing hands if virtually useless vs folks with reachy
weapons even if they are nearly unskilled and the pa is insanely good.

Nothing to add to improvement comments they looked ok.

Mark
Message no. 8
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:22:33 -0600 (MDT)
Gurth wrote:
|
|David Buehrer <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said on 14:57/28 Apr 96...
|
|> |Snails can
|> |counterattack opponents with MBW4 as fast as they can be attacked.
|>
|> Allow targets to defend, not counter attack (if they get more successes
|> then the attacker, then the attack fails). Also, don't allow targets to
|> defend if an attack happens before their initiative.
|
|Require a free action of them to defend. That way they can defend only
|once per Combat Phase, and also cannot defend before their first action in
|any given turn.

Or, how about:

Targets must spend a free action to defend, if the attack takes place
on, or after, their initiative.

If the attack takes place before the target's initiative, or the target
has allready spent their free action, then the target may spend their
next complex action to defend.

Example: Two characters. A rolls an initiative of 28, B rolls an 8. A
attacks B on 28, B sacrifices his next complex action (on 8) to defend.
A goes again on 18, B can't defend and is wailed on. A attacks on 8, B
spends his free action to defend (if he's still alive at this point).

Example 2: Two characters. C rolls an initiative of 27, D rolls a 15. C
attacks D on 27, D sacrifices his next complex action (on 15) to defend. C
attacks on 17, D can't defend. D gets to start using free actions on 15. C
attacks on 7, D spends a free action to defend. D attacts on 5, C spends a
free action to defend.

A note on counter-attacking. I like the idea, but the rules just don't
work for me. I cannot live with allowing a person to counter-attack
with out cost. If someone has figured out a way to resolve this, I
would love to hear it.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 9
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 14:20:14 -0600 (MDT)
Gurth wrote:
|
|David Buehrer <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said on 14:57/28 Apr 96...
|
|> |Range is
|> |absolutely devastating (my problem with this is that there is no provision
|> |for closing that distance and making a long weapon useless, never bring a
|> |pike to a swordfight...).
|>
|> Hmmm...uh...crap. Anybody else got an answer to this one?
|
|How about: instead of applying Reach as a modifier, use it as the optimum
|range for an attack. Every meter the target is beyond or below it adds +1
|to the TN. The character with the most successes gets the opponent at
|optimum range for his weapon at the start of the next combat between the
|two.
|
|For example, Joe holds a 17th century pike (5 meters long, so a Reach of
|5) and is attacked by Bill, who has a sword (Reach 1). We'll assume Bill
|is coming toward Joe, so Joe gets the benefit of his pike's Reach (he
|naturally waits until Bill is about 5 meters away from him before he tries
|to skewer him :) which means that Joe does not get any modifiers to his
|TN, while Bill gets a +4 (he is 5 meters away from Joe, but his weapon's
|Reach is only 1).
|Joe's TN is 4, Bill's is 8. Joe rolls 1,2,3,6, while Bill gets 1,2,10,11.
|Bill has more successes, menaing that he avoids Joe's pike, hits Joe with
|his one remaining success, and at the start of the next turn, Bill is one
|meter away from Joe. As a result, Bill has a +0 to his TN in the action,
|while Joe has +4.

And then the munchkin says "Joe switches to a two handed grip at the
center of the pike and uses it like a quarter staff. He now has the
equivalent of two weapons (both ends of the pike) with a usable length
of 2 meters," and goes on to argue the merit of quarter staves over
swords to counter the bonus gained by the sword. The GM then shoots the
munchkin dead and spends the rest of his life in prison GMing for
cons. And we all now what it's like to GM for a con (CON) <grin>.

Well, maybe it doesn't go that far. But, there are some loopholes. The
fewer number of target number modifications, the fewer the loopholes.
So, with that in mind, I say don't even bother with the reach rules. Or
become a minimalist and say that the guy with the worst reach ends up
with a negative modifier equal to the difference in reach (pike user
(reach 2) fighting a sword user (reach 1), sword user has a +1 to his
TN). And reach is only applied when a target is defending. That way it
is easier for the guy with the greater reach to affect the outcome of
the battle.


-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 10
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 20:08:01 -0500
One of the things that has worked quite well in our melee combats is the
fact that, if you're fast and the opponent isn't, they will either have to
drop a firearm and/or draw a weapon in most cases. Which means (if you're
armed) bigtime reach advantage and the accompanying TN mods. This helps heaps.

I tried to lobby for "no defense until you'd acted" but was stonewalled by
slower members who used arts like Aikido as examples (while I still know
that a slow Aikido practitioner is as good as toast in a fight against a
faster opponent, they didn't like to believe so). Also, it does unbalance
the game against the speed-impaired (which is realistic, but not much fun
for them). So that didn't take, nor did the "defense only" bit.

Another of the things we tried while attempting to create a valid martial
arts system was implementing the four ranges of hth combat (grappling,
trapping, punching, kicking). Combatants would use a positioning test
(unarmed skill) and whoever won could move further out or closer in range by
one step or could stay put.

Martial art styles for the game would cost more in various ways (nobody ever
really agreed on this part, some felt concentrations were valid because they
were in the book, others wanted a system like multiple weapon melee from
FoF) and would represent their ranges in combat. TaeKwonDo is a kicking
range art. Jui-Jitsu is a grappling range art. Boxing is a punching range
art. And so on. Each art got a -1 TN modifier in their prime range, while
taking a +1 modifier in a range that compromises their art. This would've
worked well but there are quite a few arts out there without range
limitations and there was a co-creator of the game who wanted to add
hundreds of different manuevers to the system (more on this later).

The problems with this became trolls and armed combat. What is the exact
best range for any given weapon and is something ever really "inside" a
troll's grappling range? We tried to make it so that reach was added to the
optimum ranges, which made it possible to get inside weapons (which worked
wonderfully against some weapons, not so well for others). It also made it
posible to get inside a troll's grappling range, which should be impossible.
Possible suggestions were giving trolls a fifth range (normal grappling).

The system might've worked if we'd had the time to get it off the ground,
but one player moved, another had a baby, and soon the group was left
without two of the creators. Leaving me. And I banned concentrations in
unarmed for martial arts (I still allowed cyberweapon concentrations
though). I also set up unarmed combat as a martial arts skill. If you
didn't have melee skills at all, then you were flailing based on stats. If
you had them, then you knew how to fight. Whether it was Kali or TaiChi or
Judo or barroom brawling, your melee skills represented the art/arts that
you had learned. I dropped the ranges because we were getting away from
dice at the time (thankfully we still use them only when absolutely needed)
and to add positioning tests would have overcomplicated (and dragged out)
combat (we had many fledgling players then and they didn't react to changes
well).

Bonuses from my system include a fast and loose sort of play. Everyone gets
their martial arts and manuevers, and combat flows like normal. The way the
dice fall defines how well you did with your manuever (lots of successes and
you landed that axe kick on top of his head, few successes and it glanced
off his shoulder). The disadvatage is that there's always someone who wants
more numbers, dice, and calculations and they usually aren't sated when
things like this happen. So take it as you will.

--------------------------------------------------------
* Bob Ooton -- <topcat@******.net> *
* Golden Tiger Association -- Submission Fighting Team *
--------------------------------------------------------
* All you need to start up an insane asylum is *
* an empty room and the right kind of people *
--------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 11
From: "Nichols (Jason/Christy)" <nicholch@*****.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 09:10:49 -0400
At 02:06 PM 4/29/96 GMT, Mark Steedman wrote:

>>
>> > |Range is
>> > |absolutely devastating (my problem with this is that there is no provision
>
>Agreed, one of the principal reasons why folks complain about phsads
>in 2nded as killing hands if virtually useless vs folks with reachy
>weapons even if they are nearly unskilled and the pa is insanely good.

Suggestion : Break their weapon with your first attack. Then kick their butt.

The weapon has to be in your face to work, so there's no reach penalty to
attack it. If the wielder has any skill, you could still get hurt, but
we're not
talking about that sit..

It's something that's worked well for me.


Jason
Message no. 12
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 96 22:44:59 +1030
>And then the munchkin says "Joe switches to a two handed grip at the
>center of the pike and uses it like a quarter staff. He now has the
>equivalent of two weapons (both ends of the pike) with a usable length
>of 2 meters," and goes on to argue the merit of quarter staves over
>swords to counter the bonus gained by the sword. The GM then shoots the
>munchkin dead and spends the rest of his life in prison GMing for
>cons. And we all now what it's like to GM for a con (CON) <grin>.

Naw.... the GM goes to point out that the favourite weapon of the medival
time was the sword because to use the quarterstaff properly took
extensive training, which the PC doesn't have, and anyway, that blade on
the end stuffs up (a) the balance, and (b) the techniques you use. Also,
as a pike can be anywhere up to _4_ meters in length, and a quarterstaff
would be lucky to be two, the munchkin is just being silly.


--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realized that a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent in finding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/
Message no. 13
From: Jeffrey Riordan <JRIORDAN@***.gov>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat -Reply
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:28:54 -0400
>>> Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
04/30/96 08:14am >>>
<snip>
be lucky to be two, the munchkin is just being silly.
<<<<<<<<<

I thought that was the definition of a munchkin?
Message no. 14
From: Lady Jestyr <s421539@*******.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 00:38:54 +1000 (EST)
> >[snipped "I don't wanna lose magic"]
>
> Sorry, but that's how the game works. Has to be the same for all
> magic-types, even PA's. If it wasn't, it would be unbalanced. And a system
> with more loopholes than British law needs all the balance it can get. I
> can just imagine the argument "PA's don't lose magic to deadly wounds, why
> should my sorcerer adept?"

Anyway, you don't wanna lose magic? Simple. Get yourself Wired Reflexes
and subtract the magic points from your phys-ad reflex boosts. That
decreases your Magic attribute (and thus your chances of losing Magic to
a deadly) while leaving you with roughly the same abilities. (NO
nitpicking here, I said ROUGHLY.)

Just pity the poor Phys Ad in our group... Initiate 6. and a LOW body.
Boy, does he cower sometimes. :)


Lady Jestyr

------------------------------------------------------
I don't have enemies, it's just that my best friends
are trying to kill me.
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s421539@*****.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503/
------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed are my own, unless you don't
agree with them, in which case they are my evil twin
sister's opinions.
Message no. 15
From: "Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:37:33 GMT
Nichols writes

> >Agreed, one of the principal reasons why folks complain about phsads
> >in 2nded as killing hands if virtually useless vs folks with reachy
> >weapons even if they are nearly unskilled and the pa is insanely good.
>
> Suggestion : Break their weapon with your first attack.
> Then kick their butt.
>
Fine suggestion but the rules don't cover it. And before you say
write them i don't know enough about such things (i manage what i
have done by game balance, ie you pay for the game mechanics you get)
I also cannot see most folks being able to break an incomming sword
[though in SR the quaterstaff for +2 reach works best, and you can
certainly grab the thing while they try to use it (badly) in real
life] with thier hands, ok some arts might teach a valid disarm but
you need to know which.

> The weapon has to be in your face to work, so there's no reach penalty to
> attack it. If the wielder has any skill, you could still get hurt, but
> we're not
> talking about that sit..
>
> It's something that's worked well for me.
>
Fine
>
> Jason
>
>

Mark
Message no. 16
From: "Nichols (Jason/Christy)" <nicholch@*****.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 12:13:27 -0400
At 04:37 PM 4/30/96 GMT, Mark Steedman wrote:
[snip]
>I also cannot see most folks being able to break an incomming sword
>[though in SR the quaterstaff for +2 reach works best, and you can
>certainly grab the thing while they try to use it (badly) in real
>life] with thier hands, ok some arts might teach a valid disarm but
>you need to know which.

I agree. Most folks couldn't. But we're talking Phys-Ads. Think killing
hands. We're talking about the people who should have a chance.

I have rules for it in my game - if anyone is interested let me know and
I'll send 'em to you.



Jason
nicholch@*****.msu.edu
Message no. 17
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 19:13:04 -0500
>Just pity the poor Phys Ad in our group... Initiate 6. and a LOW body.
>Boy, does he cower sometimes. :)

Yeah, but I bet the guy has a mammoth combat pool to take the brunt of that :)

--------------------------------------------------------
* Bob Ooton -- <topcat@******.net> *
* Golden Tiger Association -- Submission Fighting Team *
--------------------------------------------------------
* All you need to start up an insane asylum is *
* an empty room and the right kind of people *
--------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 18
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 11:29:09 +0100
Nichols (Jason/Christy) <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said on 12:13/30
Apr 96...

> I have rules for it in my game - if anyone is interested let me know and
> I'll send 'em to you.

Post them on the list if you don't mind. That way everybody can pick them
apart :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It really makes you stop and think.
-> 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. 19
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat -Reply
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 11:29:09 +0100
Jeffrey Riordan <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said on 10:28/30 Apr 96...

> > be lucky to be two, the munchkin is just being silly.
>
> I thought that was the definition of a munchkin?

I thought it was someone trying to get every possible advantage the rules
allow and/or don't expressly forbid...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It really makes you stop and think.
-> 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. 20
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Wed, 1 May 96 19:42:02 +1030
>The weapon has to be in your face to work, so there's no reach penalty to
>attack it. If the wielder has any skill, you could still get hurt, but

If the weapon is in your face, breaking it isn't likely to do you any
good. The same goes if it's in your chest or abdomen (two other favourite
targets of polearms).

Further more, it's not any easy thing to break.


--
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. 21
From: Jeffrey Riordan <JRIORDAN@***.gov>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat -Reply -Reply
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 08:59:19 -0400
>>> Gurth <gurth@******.nl> 05/01/96 06:29am >>>
Jeffrey Riordan <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said
on 10:28/30 Apr 96...

> > be lucky to be two, the munchkin is just being
silly.
> > I thought that was the definition of a munchkin?

I thought it was someone trying to get every possible
advantage the rules allow and/or don't expressly
forbid...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Exactly what I meant.... Being Silly.... :) (should
have put the smilie on the first post... oh well.)
Message no. 22
From: Benjamin <benjamin@*****.com>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 11:06:23 PDT
> A note on counter-attacking. I like the idea, but the rules just don't
> work for me. I cannot live with allowing a person to counter-attack
> with out cost. If someone has figured out a way to resolve this, I
> would love to hear it.
>

How about you can defend OR counter-attack, but not both at once.
(unless you're using two weapons, and then you get a hefty penalty
(Hey, new PhysAd power!))

> -David
>
> /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
> ~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 23
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 12:32:40 -0600 (MDT)
Benjamin wrote:
|
|I wrote:
|> A note on counter-attacking. I like the idea, but the rules just don't
|> work for me. I cannot live with allowing a person to counter-attack
|> with out cost. If someone has figured out a way to resolve this, I
|> would love to hear it.
|>
|
|How about you can defend OR counter-attack, but not both at once.
|(unless you're using two weapons, and then you get a hefty penalty
|(Hey, new PhysAd power!))

So, you can defend, in which case if you get more successes than the attack
fails. Or, you can counter-attack, in which case the attacker gets a free
shot at you, but you get a chance to hit him in return. I LIKE IT!

And a new PhysAd power could be Counter-Defend, which would allow them to
counter-attack while defending for the cost of a free action. Again, I LIKE
IT!

For those of you who like this, what would be a reasonable cost for this
power? (I'm not very familiar with PAs and balancing their powers :(

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 24
From: "Nichols (Jason/Christy)" <nicholch@*****.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 16:28:41 -0400
Hello all,

I've recieved several requests from people who want to see
my house rules on breaking weapons. I don't have time this
week to get them written down, I'll post them early next week
to the list. Just wanted to let you all know I wasn't ignoring
you. :)


Jason
Troll say, "Me gott'm pike ... staff ... club ... ouch."
Message no. 25
From: gilean@****.muscanet.com (Kurt Montgomery)
Subject: Re: Phys Ads and Melee Combat
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 16:34:28 -0500
>I tried to lobby for "no defense until you'd acted" but was stonewalled by
>slower members who used arts like Aikido as examples (while I still know
>that a slow Aikido practitioner is as good as toast in a fight against a
>faster opponent, they didn't like to believe so). Also, it does unbalance
>the game against the speed-impaired (which is realistic, but not much fun
>for them). So that didn't take, nor did the "defense only" bit.
>
Point out to them that Aikido has no strike attack, tell them that if they
want to use Akido, they may declare that that when it is their turn to act,
no defenses until they have the option to move.
------------------------------------------------
"Where a rat can go, two Kender will be." -Human Proverb
(Rat, Two, Kender, Will, and Human are all regestered
trademarks of T$R incorperated)

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMU/CS d- s++:+ a--- C++++ W++ N++ K+ w--- M-- PS+ PE- Y+>++
t++ 5- X- R* tv+ b++ Dl+ D++ G+ e* h-- !r z-
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Phys Ads and 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!