[Sir_Prometheus]

This idea has come up a bunch of different times, most recently in adept centering.

Basically, melee as a complex action used to represent a complex back and forth --- this was all the way back to when if the defender got higher on his defense test, he got to attack the attacker with the difference (i.e counterstrike was automatic).  But things have changed....you can only make one attack per initiative pass, anyway, and it feels like fewer attacks are complex actions now, anyway.  (really just Full Auto, Melee, and spells)

Even spells got an option to "fast cast" with Reckless Spellcasting, where you can cast as a simple action, but get +3 drain.  I'm not sure the reasons why the designers felt that option was needed, but it seems likely whatever reasons there were would apply to Melee attacks too, but melee got left in the wayside (which isn't surprising, we all know the core rulebook had a few different revisions and came out a little.....disjointed).

Anyway the fact that melee attacks must be a complex action leads to whole bunch of complications for melee characters that gun bunnys just don't have to deal with.  From the simple fact that there's no way to draw a sword and attack first initiative pass (Well, there is now, through a martial arts technique in Run & Gun helps with this, but martial arts are expensive, but a pistol guy and draw in the same simple action, leaving his second simple action for.....whatever), to difficulty with doing an attack and two free actions (called shots and centering came to mind, but there are probably others, gun guys can just a use a simple action as a free action to do this), to what I think is the worst case is that a whole bunch of adept powers (mostly unnecessarily, I think) require a simple action to activate, which isn't a big deal if you're firing a gun (and can draw and fire in the same simple action, no less) but just wrecks your first initiative pass if you're melee guy.


The Solution:

Is really simple.  I wasn't the only guy to think of this, a number of people mentioned it at different times on different threads, I think it's just a natural thought.  Just let people do a melee attack as a simple action at a -3 dice pool.  Call it a "jab" or "snap kick".  I think this is the closest analogy to Reckless Casting you can get.  I would additionally not allow the attack to be divided as you usually can with melee attacks. 

I appreciate your input....maybe it should be -4 dice?  Maybe there should be a following defense penalty.  Though I'll be honest, I'm not sure it doesn't just make sense for melee attacks to be simple actions, period, now, as the original justification of "an exchange of attacks" is largely gone.

Some people also don't see all that big a deal in a melee character being forced to miss the first initiative pass with whatever "prep time" activities they have to do while firearms folks don't......I just don't understand that line of thinking, at all, honestly, so I'd rather not entertain it here.  If you think it's not that big a deal, this probably isn't the thread for you. 

[RHat]

[...]as the original justification of "an exchange of attacks" is largely gone.

How do you figure that, exactly?

And on another note, Reckless Spellcasting is +3 Drain, which is a hell of a bigger penalty than -3 dice.

[Sir_Prometheus]

[...]as the original justification of "an exchange of attacks" is largely gone.

How do you figure that, exactly?

Well, I mean, it just isn't anymore.  It used to be this exchange, and the defender could dmg the attacker, and there was a lot contained in that one complex action.  Now it's just an attack...a single attack.  A thrust of a sword, a punch, a kick.  Which is even further supported by a bunch of actions in Run & Gun to represent those different things.  It may still say somewhere that's it's representing a bunch of flurry of attacks, but it doesn't, actually.  It's one attack.

And on another note, Reckless Spellcasting is +3 Drain, which is a hell of a bigger penalty than -3 dice.

Yes, I know, I said that.  I don't know that +3 drain is so much bigger a penalty, though, most mages seem to have drain really pretty well in hand.  I guess it really depends upon base drain of the spell you're casting, versus how good a drain resistance pool you have, so it's hard to relate.  Anyway, you can't really apply drain to making a punch, so........

[Namikaze]

I would actually apply the penalty as a defensive penalty, rather than a penalty to attack.  Maybe even both, with a -2 to attack and a -2 to your next Initiative Pass' defense test.  That gives it more risk-reward I think than making it a glorified called shot.

[Sir_Prometheus]

OK.  I don't have any problem with that game-balance wise, but I'm not sure it makes logical sense.  Think of a "jab", which is what I think we're talking about, really -- do you you open yourself up more when jab that when you make a normal, full on attack?  Quite the opposite, actually, I think.

I guess you just have translate it from fluff logic to game rules for me -- why does the jab make it hard to defend right after?  With things like Full Offense from R&G, the connection from fluff to rules is pretty clear. 

[reyjinn]

Maybe [you] should think of it more as rushing the punch/kick/whatever so you let your guard down for a moment?

::edited for derp

[RHat]

Well, I mean, it just isn't anymore.  It used to be this exchange, and the defender could dmg the attacker, and there was a lot contained in that one complex action.  Now it's just an attack...a single attack.  A thrust of a sword, a punch, a kick.

Except that that's not the case - it remained an exchange in SR4, where the option for the defender to deal damage instead also didn't exist.

Yes, I know, I said that.  I don't know that +3 drain is so much bigger a penalty, though, most mages seem to have drain really pretty well in hand.  I guess it really depends upon base drain of the spell you're casting, versus how good a drain resistance pool you have, so it's hard to relate.  Anyway, you can't really apply drain to making a punch, so........

...  +3 Drain is like losing 9 dice from your Drain resistance.  Kinda big, plus its exactly enough to impose a wound penalty on everything else you do.  It's pretty substantial.

And while you can't apply Drain to a punch, you can do things like reduce the damage.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Maybe [you] should think of it more as rushing the punch/kick/whatever so you let your guard down for a moment?

I mean, same thing I said to Namikaze, you have to explain that to me in way that makes sense from fighting logic.  Throwing a jab just doesn't leave you open, it's actually the opposite, you're less open.  It is less hard hitting, though, which makes Rhat's reduced dmg idea make sense, see below. 

Well, I mean, it just isn't anymore.  It used to be this exchange, and the defender could dmg the attacker, and there was a lot contained in that one complex action.  Now it's just an attack...a single attack.  A thrust of a sword, a punch, a kick.

Except that that's not the case - it remained an exchange in SR4, where the option for the defender to deal damage instead also didn't exist.

I don't really know how to argue this with you.....it probably shouldn't have been a complex action in 4th either, but at least spells were only complex then, and I think more multi-fire options were complex.  You were still allowed to make two simple attacks per IP in 4th, so switching melee from complex to simple would have effectively doubled the melee dmg output, which was presumably part the balance in the dmg codes (not going to claim everything was perfectly balanced, of course).  That's not true now.

Anyway, it once indicated a complex exchange, it just doesn't now, regardless of whether some copy&paste fluff text still says so.  Again, I'll point you to all the R&G variant actions that are describing one single attack. 

The more I think about this more I think there shouldn't be any penalty at all.....melee actions should just be simple, their being complex is just vestigial. 

Yes, I know, I said that.  I don't know that +3 drain is so much bigger a penalty, though, most mages seem to have drain really pretty well in hand.  I guess it really depends upon base drain of the spell you're casting, versus how good a drain resistance pool you have, so it's hard to relate.  Anyway, you can't really apply drain to making a punch, so........

...  +3 Drain is like losing 9 dice from your Drain resistance.  Kinda big, plus its exactly enough to impose a wound penalty on everything else you do.  It's pretty substantial.

And while you can't apply Drain to a punch, you can do things like reduce the damage.

Again, I don't think you can really translate the drain to anything very directly at all.  On subject of dmg, if you want to quick cast the spell you can always do it at a lesser force to keep the drain the same, which will of course make it hit much less hard. 

I like the idea of reducing the dmg....a jab, a snap kick, anything else that is quick simply gives you less time to put rotational momentum from your whole body in there, therefore doing less dmg.  (it also makes it harder to defend against, because there's much less "tell", it's like the opposite of the R&G haymaker, which represents a heavy roundhouse of some kind)  Everyone knows a jab is lighter punch, it's like the light, medium, heavy buttons from street fighter. 

I'd think something like -2 DV would be appropriate.  But again, like I said, the more I think about it, I think melee attacks should just be Simple, natch.  But I know not everyone thinks like that, including in my own group, so I'm trying to make compromise rules construct people can agree on. 

Maybe it should be an alternate action, similar to various actions from R&G (but I don't think it should be a technique....they really made too many basic things, like haymakers, MA techniques).  -2 DV, but also say -1 def (mostly for flavor, jabs are harder to defend against, that's why they're used in boxing)

[Namikaze]

If you're wanting to break melee combat down into a move-by-move type thing, then sure.  A jab, or a standard kick, or what have you isn't going to open yourself up to counterattacks.  But that would probably be too much paperwork for most tables.  I like the idea of a hasty melee attack though, but I wouldn't judge it to just be a single maneuver.

[reyjinn]

Maybe [you] should think of it more as rushing the punch/kick/whatever so you let your guard down for a moment?

I mean, same thing I said to Namikaze, you have to explain that to me in way that makes sense from fighting logic.  Throwing a jab just doesn't leave you open, it's actually the opposite, you're less open.  It is less hard hitting, though, which makes Rhat's reduced dmg idea make sense, see below. 

Ah, I believed I just did.
What I meant was that if you rush your jab/kick/whatever you don't keep good form and drop your defense for a moment. Throwing a jab is not necessarily the same as throwing a jab with perfect form, keeping your guard up while doing so etc.
So reduced DV and neg def mod until your turn comes up next seems fair to me. Question for me is, how much value should be added to each factor.

[ZeConster]

If we assume 14 Drain Resist dice (a typical human mage with 6+5 from attributes, and 3 from Centering), we find that the effect of +3 pre-soak Drain stops being "well in hand" quite fast:

• 2 --> 5: 0.03 --> 0.87 = +0.84 average
• 3 --> 6: 0.14 --> 1.56 = +1.42 average
• 4 --> 7: 0.40 --> 2.41 = +2.01 average
• 5 --> 8: 0.87 --> 3.36 = +2.49 average

As you can see, it doesn't take massive amounts of Drain for that +3 Drain to turn into +2 or more unsoaked Drain on average. Being able to lessen the Force isn't actually a counterargument to this, as you're then weakening your spell.

[Sir_Prometheus]

ZeCOnster, I just don't think there's a good way to translate the drain change....except yeah, dropping the Force, which lessens the dmg, which is part of what were talking about.  But I don't think the comparison is very useful, generally.

Maybe [you] should think of it more as rushing the punch/kick/whatever so you let your guard down for a moment?

I mean, same thing I said to Namikaze, you have to explain that to me in way that makes sense from fighting logic.  Throwing a jab just doesn't leave you open, it's actually the opposite, you're less open.  It is less hard hitting, though, which makes Rhat's reduced dmg idea make sense, see below. 

Ah, I believed I just did.
What I meant was that if you rush your jab/kick/whatever you don't keep good form and drop your defense for a moment. Throwing a jab is not necessarily the same as throwing a jab with perfect form, keeping your guard up while doing so etc.
So reduced DV and neg def mod until your turn comes up next seems fair to me. Question for me is, how much value should be added to each factor.

That's just not how it works.  A jab inherently leaves you less exposed (which means higher def) than a stronger attack.  You're sorta saying "imagine it works this way...." Well, ok, but it doesn't.  It is plausible to say it does less dmg, though, cuz they do. 

If you're wanting to break melee combat down into a move-by-move type thing, then sure.  A jab, or a standard kick, or what have you isn't going to open yourself up to counterattacks.  But that would probably be too much paperwork for most tables.  I like the idea of a hasty melee attack though, but I wouldn't judge it to just be a single maneuver.

Yeah, well, I like how R&G gave you 20,000 different alternative actions.  I didn't really like how 60% of them required special training, even basic moves (and I REALLY didn't like how they'd reference each other and you had to flip back and forth for every one of them).  Also, again, why did all the melee action wind up behind this "Martial Arts paywall", when everything that the ranged guys can do (special called shots, mainly) they can do for free? 

It sorta like the designers feel melee and martial arts is special and awesome and you should pay a heavy tax to be good at it......which is cinematic and all but doesn't make any sense from a game-balance standpoint. 

[Namikaze]

That's just not how it works.  A jab inherently leaves you less exposed (which means higher def) than a stronger attack.  You're sorta saying "imagine it works this way...." Well, ok, but it doesn't.  It is plausible to say it does less dmg, though, cuz they do.

It sounds like you're describing a defensive-focused offensive action.  From a game-balance standpoint, this would be an attack that does less damage, but allows you greater defense.

It sorta like the designers feel melee and martial arts is special and awesome and you should pay a heavy tax to be good at it......which is cinematic and all but doesn't make any sense from a game-balance standpoint.

From a gaming standpoint, you are suggesting adding a new action that allows you to make your attack faster.  That's fine - but it should have some cost associated with this kind of reckless attack.  And that's where the penalty to defense comes into play.

Alternatively (or in addition to), what about an attack that allows you to bolster your chance to hit while making it easier for your opponents to hit you in return?

[reyjinn]

Maybe [you] should think of it more as rushing the punch/kick/whatever so you let your guard down for a moment?

I mean, same thing I said to Namikaze, you have to explain that to me in way that makes sense from fighting logic.  Throwing a jab just doesn't leave you open, it's actually the opposite, you're less open.  It is less hard hitting, though, which makes Rhat's reduced dmg idea make sense, see below. 

Ah, I believed I just did.
What I meant was that if you rush your jab/kick/whatever you don't keep good form and drop your defense for a moment. Throwing a jab is not necessarily the same as throwing a jab with perfect form, keeping your guard up while doing so etc.
So reduced DV and neg def mod until your turn comes up next seems fair to me. Question for me is, how much value should be added to each factor.

That's just not how it works.  A jab inherently leaves you less exposed (which means higher def) than a stronger attack.  You're sorta saying "imagine it works this way...." Well, ok, but it doesn't.  It is plausible to say it does less dmg, though, cuz they do.   

In both of my posts I used the word "rush".
I understand what a jab is, you were asking for Real Life logic to explain why changing a complex action in the game into a simple one would affect you with some negative mods (whether that is to DV, future defense DP or attack DP).
RUSHING your jab, instead of maintaining correct technique which indeed would leave you less exposed is a perfectly good in game explanation for why you could do what is normally a complex action as a simple one by opening yourself up to negative effects. Maybe you drop your right hand, giving your opponent an opening. Maybe you take a step in, leaving you unbalanced.
A jab is not a binary thing, on a 1 it does not always go perfectly, exactly where you want it.
That's just not how it works.

Also we are not solely speaking about jabs here, we are talking about how to do Unarmed attacks as a simply action instead of a complex one. The thinking needs to include a wider variety of actions than just jabs. I do not understand why you are focusing strictly on jabs in your counter arguments.

It sounds like you're describing a defensive-focused offensive action.

It does indeed seem to me that you have started to talk about something else than the original post was about. Something that would perhaps be better fitting to being houseruled as a called shot/special move/whatever.

[Sir_Prometheus]

@Reyjin, I'm just using "jab" cuz it's an easy label, all the same logic applies to snap kicks, quick sword slashes, etc.  A quick attack has less force, because you don't put as much of your body into it, but it also has much less tell (because you're not putting as much of your body into it) so it's actually harder to defend against, and because you're not moving as much of your body out of alignment it's easier to keep defensive.  This is real boxing and to a lesser extent fencing experience talking. 

It's sorta like you said "imagine you're using a smaller paint brush, and that makes it harder to paint detail".  Well, I'm having trouble imagining that, because a smaller paint brush makes it easier to paint detail.

@Namikaze:  I'm not trying to describe a defensive based action, other people brought up a defense penalty, and I thought "actually, it's quite the opposite" and my logic went from there.

You're both right in that the defense thing is confusing things, if someone wants to make a "deffensive jab" action, that'd make perfect sense, and it might even make sense a martial art technique under boxing and the like, but that should be a topic for a different thread.

My only goal is that people should be able to attack melee as a simple action.  Like I've said a few times, I'm starting to think melee should just be a simple action, period, having it be a complex action is an unfair penalty that no longer makes sense in the game, but I doubt most people would go for that.

So here's my revised proposal:  You may "light attack" for -2DV penalty, but as a simple action.  This action may not be split. 

OK?