[voydangel]

Anyway, yeah, I think it's clear melee as a complex action is just a hold over.
HOWEVER, it is one of the few attacks that can be split, most of the others that you can are complex.

I hadn't thought of this. It's a good point. I amend my previous assertion that it should simply be a simple action. It really is a more complex debate than that.

However, the simple action for firing a gun ("Fire Semi-Auto, Single-Shot, Burst Fire or Full-Auto") actually does allow you to attack multiple targets so long as you have a weapon in each hand but then, obviously, you take the off-hand penalty. You can not use this (simple) action to attack twice with the same weapon. I personally think that melee should function in a similar fashion, if for no other reason than consistency.

But anyone using a 1-handed weapon could strike with their fist as an 'off-handed attack', or even, regardless of weapon type, a kick - theoretically. This brings up lots of nuance, and gets around the "must have 2 weapons" bit employed by the firearms actions. Although you could still easily stick off-hand modifiers in there. It's a fairly complex issue, as my previous post in this thread (the one trying to define the scope of the debate) will attest to.

Note that the only way a melee character would ever not be able to announce that his off-hand is a weapon is if he is carrying something in it, or if his main weapon is 2-handed (like a katana). So, we need to take that into consideration, especially since many people, both in game and in real life, will do moves like elbowing, kicking, or punching an opponent with their free hand, even in a sword fight. For the purposes of keeping this as simple as possible however, I am going to say that elbowing someone while wielding a 2-handed weapon needs to be relegated to the realm of description and fluff for reasons of mechanical simplicity and balance.

So, that being said, here's my proposal:

Melee Attack (Simple Action)
A character may make a melee attack by taking a Simple Action (see Melee Combat, p. 184) but may not take any other attack actions in the same Action Phase. If a character has one weapon in each hand, he may attack once with each weapon by adding a Multiple Attacks Free Action (see Multiple Attacks, p. 196). Off-hand modifier always applies to this use of multiple attacks (see Attacker Using Off-Hand Weapon, p. 178). If the two weapons are not of the same skill type (e.g.: a club and a blade, or a blade and a fist) then the lower of the two skills is used to determine the attack's dice pool for both attacks. When making multiple attacks in this way, you must split the number of strikes performed with each weapon as evenly as possible with any odd/extra attacks being made by the main hand (i.e.: if you make 2 attacks, one will be with the main hand weapon and one with the off, if you make 3 attacks, 2 will be with the main weapon, and 1 with the off, 4 attacks = 2 main / 2 off, 5 attacks = 3 main / 2 off, etc.).

Melee Attack (Complex Action)
A character may make a melee attack by taking a Complex Action (see Melee Combat, p. 184) but may not take any other attack actions in the same Action Phase. A character may attack multiple targets within melee range by adding a Multiple Attacks Free Action (see Multiple Attacks, p. 196). If a character has one weapon in each hand, he may choose to strike twice with the same weapon, or once with each. Off-hand modifier may apply (see Attacker Using Off-Hand Weapon, p. 178). If striking once with each weapon, and the two weapons are not of the same skill type (e.g.: a club and a blade, or a blade and a fist) then the lower of the two skills is used to determine the attack's dice pool.

Note that the real difference between the two options is that the complex version allows you the flexibility of attacking multiple targets even if you are not dual wielding, as well as giving you the flexibility of picking exactly which weapon or weapons you strike with when you are dual wielding. Whereas the simple action gives you the benefit of it only being a simple action, but effectively limits you to a single attack at a single target unless you are dual wielding, in which case you are more limited in how you can spread/split your attacks.

How does this feel to people?

[Shinobi Killfist]

Looks good to me, and with a fix to how damage works for melee this might be how I want melee to work. 

[rednblack]

@Sir_Prometheus, I'm making my reply only reading the first page, so if this has been covered excuse me. I need to run, and this point needs to be addressed. If you are rushing an attack you lower your defenses. Period. If you have ANY fencing experience you know this. A rushed simple attack is more open to a party riposte than a well-timed and executed attack, and it would be impossible to execute a disengage or counter riposte in the tempos of a simple action. The reason melee attacks take a complex action, over aiming and pullin a trigger, is because of the tempos involved with your opponent.

Boxing and other unarmed combat will be very similar to this. If you're making a quick strike and rushing yourself you run the risk of falling into a trap, getting your distance wrong, or attacking a well-defended guard.

[reyjinn]

@Sir_Prometheus, I'm making my reply only reading the first page, so if this has been covered excuse me. I need to run, and this point needs to be addressed. If you are rushing an attack you lower your defenses. Period. If you have ANY fencing experience you know this. A rushed simple attack is more open to a party riposte than a well-timed and executed attack, and it would be impossible to execute a disengage or counter riposte in the tempos of a simple action. The reason melee attacks take a complex action, over aiming and pullin a trigger, is because of the tempos involved with your opponent.

Boxing and other unarmed combat will be very similar to this. If you're making a quick strike and rushing yourself you run the risk of falling into a trap, getting your distance wrong, or attacking a well-defended guard.

It was indeed addressed and laid to rest, with all parties quite satisfied I think

[voydangel]

I agree that if any penalty should be imposed upon a melee attacker using a simple action to attack that it should indeed be a penalty to their defense.

In my opinion this would be best implemented by simply imposing a -1 penalty to the characters melee defense pool (not ranged) per simple melee attack he has made in the current combat round prior to the current defense roll. Given this "in the current combat round" wording, it would be implied that the cumulative penalty is reset at the start of each new combat round. This makes the rule very similar to the 'getting attacked multiple times in a row' penalty as well as similar to (but sort of opposite of) the friends in melee bonus.

Alternatively, this cumulative 'simple melee attack penalty' could reset only when the character makes either a) a complex melee attack action, or b) spends one full initiative pass without making any melee attack actions. If implemented, this would make the 'simple melee attack penalty' a parallel to the current 5e progressive recoil rules.

I quite like the similarities of these implementations to already existing rules because it adds both a parity to the rules systems and makes them all easier to understand due to none of them being "odd balls out" so to speak. Internal consistency in/across a game's rules systems make them easier to understand and therefore easier to play.

Of course if I were writing the book, the "melee recoil rules" presented in this post would most likely be in a sidebar as an optional rule. But hey, whatever works.

Looks good to me, and with a fix to how damage works for melee this might be how I want melee to work.

I'm curious what you would want to change about melee damage and why.

[Namikaze]

Hey-- he didn't call a person dumb, he called an idea dumb, which in my opinion is perfectly fine. And now you're picking a fight over it. Please don't.

First off, Martin didn't accuse Cirno of calling anyone dumb.

Calling other people's opinions dumb isn't going to win any arguments...

Second, there's no attempt to start a fight.

Until then, have a nice day.

Third, all of us just got off of bans of varying lengths for just this kind of thing.  I think we should consider letting sleeping dogs lie.

[ProfessorCirno]

Calling other people's opinions dumb isn't going to win any arguments...

Let us know once you've playtested the options instead of spouting off, Cirno, and I might take you seriously again. Until then, have a nice day.

It's been a houserule for most our games since SR4 and it's sincerely never once made melee character "overpowered," or even "more powerful then ranged dudes."  For the most part it simply equates them.

[Xenon]

You are all missing key differences between melee and ranged.

1) Melee have a 5p interrupt action to intercept any target that moves closer than reach + 1 meters without attacking with melee, leave or just wish to pass through your reach. This can be done several times in the same initiative pass and without splitting the pool and even if you already spend your free and complex action. In the worst case you create a powerful area of denial and if someone move anyway it have potential to be super effective.
2) Ranged attackers have to spend a simple action on Take Cover to be harder to hit,  melee attackers only need to spend a fee action to be harder to hit (and to get a positive dice pool modifier). Ranged attackers also need to spend actions economy to reload...
3) Ranged attacks don't debuff your opponents (except suppressive fire). Melee attacker make it harder for his ranged attacker(s) to hit his friends and the target(s) he attack is easier to hit for his ranged friends.
4) As long as you have a Free Action to spare you can always do a Multiple Attacks (which will debuff all targets you lock in melee). With ranged weapons you need to dual wield two firearms at once, use a complex SA-Burst or a complex Long Burst (watch out for progressive recoil).

The only thing missing is the technique to draw and attack with a Katana in the same action phase (but this was introduced in Run &Gun I think, so all is good).


Melee simply never been as strong as it is in this edition. If you really feel a need to make it stronger then I argue that you are maybe just not applying existing rules correctly (melee related rules are after all scattered all over the book).

[ProfessorCirno]

1) Intercept doesn't do damage.  You aren't denying anything because it's not as if you make free attacks and guys.  What's more likely is the person in question moves a bit, you throw away 5 points of initiative, then they laugh and just shoot you in the face anyways.

2) Melee attackers need to spend their action running into you in order to be harder to hit.  It also, perhaps paradoxically, punishes success.  When you kill your enemy, you lose your bonus.

3) Melee attacks also debuff your own team.  The dude you're trying to hit with your axe is now harder for your teammates to hit, too!

4) Multiple Attack are almost always a losing game because you are splitting your dice pool.  Giving up a full round of damage in order to give some enemies a puny -2 to their dice pool - and all your ALLIES a penalty to hit them - is beyond not worth it that you'd be better off sitting behind cover and just throwing your axe at them.  And you don't use a free action to do this - you use a free action AND your complex.  The ranged guy only uses his complex!  You're actually BEHIND them in actions in your own example!

But you know what?  Even if none of this was true, it doesn't matter if "Melee has never had it better."  Because you can "never have had it better" and still not be "good."

[Shinobi Killfist]

Looks good to me, and with a fix to how damage works for melee this might be how I want melee to work.

I'm curious what you would want to change about melee damage and why.

By changing it to pure strength I think they screwed it up too much.  It is one of those unintended consequences things.  Yes, making trolls hit harder is a good goal.  I like that.  But because they went this route they then made rulings like critical strike only has one level because maxed troll monsters will get too out of control(like 20DV attacks wasn't already) This has changed melee combat so that unless you are some mutant monster of strength you will kind of suck, weapon users get out okay but unarmed combat is too focused on strength. 

Now personally if I had been designing 5e melee combat skills would be based on the strength attribute, not agility.  It really always should have been IMO.  Agility is more hand eye coordination, balance etc.  Strength is the explosive action get my fist to your face now stat.  I would have based the damage on body(I would have made lifting things more body based as well) as its the mass component of your force equation.  But it would be something like Body/2+2or+3.  all melee weapons would get a boost as well. So a 4 body martial arts might still hit for 4, but 10 body guy would hit for 7, 14 body super troll hits for 9.  Now the katana might be +5 damage though so 4 body guy hits for 7DV still and 10 body troll hits for 10DV.  Its a bit big of a change for a house rule so my first step would be to just change the damage to str/2+2.  The goal is too keep the stat valuable without making it scale so quickly and too such a high level that it becomes too valuable for its niche.  We have spun up super strength guys in 5e at our table and they are game breaking in how much damage they do.  Though I got it admit it was cool when the Troll jumped from the roof of our van to the roof of the Knight Errant city master chasing us and punched his way in.  Still, even though we play a pretty pink mohawk table its kind of out of control. 

 Now I'd allow multiple levels for critical strike so adepts actually look decent in their area of specialty, I'm considering dropping the cost for unarmed combat down to .25 again.  It might have been a bit too cheap in 4e, but .5 feels a bit too expensive.  With weapons already providing a substantial damage boost I'd keep them at .5.  So the damage might eventually get just as out of control it will require a bit more effort and focus than just being strong and picking up bone lacing,. 

[Xenon]

@ProfessorCirno, not sure if trolling or actually serious....

1) Intercept doesn't do damage. 

Wrong.
Intercept let you deal full damage. Out of turn. With a full dice pool. Even if you already attacked in the initiative pass.

2) When you kill your enemy, you lose your bonus.

Wrong.
You are considered running for the entire combat turn.
(...and depending on your reading your target might or might not still be considered to be behind cover if you run around the cover to attack him with a charged melee attack )

3) Melee attacks also debuff your own team.  The dude you're trying to hit with your axe is now harder for your teammates to hit, too!

Wrong.
There is no negative dice pool modifier (p. 176) for ranged attackers to hit defenders that are in melee combat...


There is a negative dice pool modifier for ranged attacker when in melee combat (p. 176; Attacker in melee combat).
- If you are melee attacking a ranged target, your raged target have a negative dice pool modifier to hit you and your friends with his ranged weapon.

There is a negative dice pool modifier for ranged defender when in melee combat (p. 189; Defender in melee targeted by ranged attack).
- If you are melee attacking a ranged target, your raged target have a negative dice pool modifier to avoid getting hit by ranged attacks from your ranged friends.

4) Multiple Attack are almost always...

...except when you successfully sneak up behind a patrol and take them all out with one attack action while they are unaware that they are attacked (p. 189 Defender unaware of attack). Or in an ambush situation where you have multiple targets that are Surprised. Or if you are skilled and fight multiple mooks with low defense pools. Or....

...and you can also use Multiple Attacks to lock multiple targets into melee combat so they all have a harder time to use their ranged weapons against you and your team and your ranged team mates get an easier time to hit them... and if anyone of them tries to get out of melee range to get rid of the negative dice pool modifiers you intercept them (and this attack use a full dice pool) for the cost of half an action phase.

[reyjinn]

2) When you kill your enemy, you lose your bonus.

Wrong.
You are considered running for the entire combat turn.
(...but depending on your reading your target might or might not be considered to be behind cover if you run around the cover to attack him with a charged melee attack )

I'm gonna take the risk of interjecting in this debate, but *I* understood the professor to mean that if you kill your opponent you lose the 'lock in melee' bonus. Might be wrong of course.

[Xenon]

The bonuses i am talking about are the effects of being considered running (1) negative dice pool modifier for attackers with ranged weapons to hit you, 2) you get a positive dice pool bonus when defending against attacks and 3) all your melee attacks while you are considered running are now charging attacks which give you a positive dice pool modifier to land the attack).

[voydangel]

You are all missing key differences between melee and ranged.

1) Melee have a 5p interrupt action to intercept any target that moves closer than reach + 1 meters without attacking with melee, leave or just wish to pass through your reach. This can be done several times in the same initiative pass and without splitting the pool and even if you already spend your free and complex action. In the worst case you create a powerful area of denial and if someone move anyway it have potential to be super effective.
2) Ranged attackers have to spend a simple action on Take Cover to be harder to hit,  melee attackers only need to spend a fee action to be harder to hit (and to get a positive dice pool modifier). Ranged attackers also need to spend actions economy to reload...
3) Ranged attacks don't debuff your opponents (except suppressive fire). Melee attacker make it harder for his ranged attacker(s) to hit his friends and the target(s) he attack is easier to hit for his ranged friends.
4) As long as you have a Free Action to spare you can always do a Multiple Attacks (which will debuff all targets you lock in melee). With ranged weapons you need to dual wield two firearms at once, use a complex SA-Burst or a complex Long Burst (watch out for progressive recoil).

The only thing missing is the technique to draw and attack with a Katana in the same action phase (but this was introduced in Run &Gun I think, so all is good).

Could you please provide all relevant page numbers for each of these claims. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to look into it in more detail.

Melee simply never been as strong as it is in this edition. If you really feel a need to make it stronger then I argue that you are maybe just not applying existing rules correctly (melee related rules are after all scattered all over the book).

I honestly don't think that making melee attack a simple action makes melee any more powerful, only a little more flexible.

[Xenon]

Could you please provide all relevant page numbers for each of these claims. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to look into it in more detail.

1)
Interrupt Actions SR5 p. 167
Intercept SR5 p. 168
Interception SR5 p. 194


2)
Take Cover simple action SR5 p. 166
Partial & Good Cover modifiers (require Take Cover action) SR5 p. 190
Defender Running (+2 dice on defense) SR5 p. 186 + 190
Attacking a running defender (-2 dice on ranged attack) SR5 p. 162 (running modifiers)
Attacker Making Charged Attack (net +2 dice on melee attack if running) SR5 p. 162 + 186 + 187

Ejecting clip free action, Firearms SR5 p. 424
Eject Smartgun Clip free action SR5 p. 164
Insert Clip simple action SR5 p. 165
Remove Clip simple action SR5 p. 166
Load and Fire Bow complex action SR5 p. 167
Reload Firearm complex action SR5 p. 167


3)
Attacker in melee combat (-3 dice on all ranged attacks) SR5 p. 176 + 177
Defender in melee targeted by ranged attack (-3 dice on defense) SR5 p. 189 + 190
Defender Running (+2 dice on defense) SR5 p. 186 + 190
Attacking a running defender (-2 dice on ranged attack) SR5 p. 162 (running modifiers)
Attacker Making Charged Attack (net +2 dice on melee attack if running) SR5 p. 162 + 186 + 187


4)
Attack actions that let you take the Multiple Attacks free action (without dual wielding two firearms):
Throw Weapon complex action SR5 p. 166 (require multiple readied throwing weapons)
Melee Attack complex action SR5 p. 167
Fire Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst complex action SR5 p. 167 (not beyond medium range)
Reckless Spellcasting simple action p. 164 + 165
Cast Spell complex action p. 164 + 167

Attack actions that let you take the multiple attacks action while dual wielding two firearms include:
Fire Semi-Auto, Single-Shot, Burst Fire or Full-Auto simple action SR5 p. 165
Fire Full-Auto Weapon complex action SR5 p. 167
Fire Long Burst or Semi-Auto Burst complex action SR5 p. 167

Progressive Recoil SR5 p. 175 + 176, SR5 Errata p. 2