[Calvin_Moon]

If and when I start GM'ing again, there is one house rule I've been contemplating after one particular session of play with a new GM.

In the session, there was a melee focused character (adept I think, but it doesn't matter) who relied on her sword first, fists second. No biggy, nothing special there. A fight breaks out, and forwhatever reason, the character couldn't get to her sword. So out come the fists to deal with some knife wielding mook.

The GM, in his ruling, argued that for defense purposes we could not use Unarmed Combat as the skill for the defense pool. Bear in mind, everyone at this table is military (active or recently retired at that), so we're no strangers to combat. Since I was dead dog tired at this point, I wasn't about to start a rules discussion to slow things down.

Then I started thinking about it. In hand to hand combat, in terms of melee combat, the unarmed combatant is generally at the immediate disadvantage. Trying to parry a knife is far more dangerous than just getting the hell out of the way. catching a blade or a pipe on the forearm trying to parry the thing with my own anatomy is not going to account for a good time since with even the subtlest mistake, it will result in a cut up arm or broken bones. So while I agreed in the end with the general concept, I didn't agree with his execution.

So here is what I was thinking;
Instead of making Unarmed useless defensively, I had another idea. In terms of defense, the defender no longer wins ties when facing someone who is using a melee weapon. Given that unarmed has a ton of advantages (shock hands, always being 'armed', etc. etc.) it gives a minor one-up to blades (who really needs it) and clubs (who really doesn't need it, but logically fits the concept, since it doesn't take a genius or tremendous amounts of skill to be dangerous with a lead pipe). These are my thoughts, but I figured I'd submit it to the masses for critiques, comments, and suggestions.

I would do a Negative Mod to the unarmed skill maybe -4 or is that to harsh.

[RHat]

I would do a Negative Mod to the unarmed skill maybe -4 or is that to harsh.

I'm not so sure a penalty is needed - trying to parry any weapon while unarmed is dangerous, but that's why you don't do it.  You block the arm holding the weapon, something any character with a respectable Unarmed Combat skill should know.

[ZeConster]

I would do a Negative Mod to the unarmed skill maybe -4 or is that to harsh.

I'm not so sure a penalty is needed - trying to parry any weapon while unarmed is dangerous, but that's why you don't do it.  You block the arm holding the weapon, something any character with a respectable Unarmed Combat skill should know.

Which seems like it would be harder to do compared to a regular parry than "you lose ties" implies.

[Xenon]

Which seems like it would be harder to do compared to a regular parry than "you lose ties" implies.

But it already is harder to block with unarmed compared with a weapon.

Attacker has longer Reach:        -1 defense per point of net Reach
Defender has longer Reach:       +1 defense per point of net Reach

And it already is more dangerous to get hit with a melee weapon than to get hit by a melee attack.


since weapons generally do Physical damage instead of Stun damage, generally dealt more than strength as damage value instead of just strength as damage value and generally have armor penetration instead of not having armor penetration

[ZeConster]

But it already is harder to block with unarmed compared with a weapon.

Attacker has longer Reach:        -1 defense per point of net Reach
Defender has longer Reach:       +1 defense per point of net Reach

And it already is more dangerous to get hit with a melee weapon than to get hit by a melee attack.

That's very nice and all, but I thought this was solely about unarmed parry versus armed parry (which a 0-Reach knife or sap can do), so Reach doesn't matter, and neither does how dangerous it is if the enemy hits you with the weapon (which will be the same regardless of what you're using): it's solely about comparing an unarmed parry of a melee attack versus a melee-weapon parry of a melee attack (we'll not go into the fact that you can apparently parry an unarmed strike with a bladed weapon without injuring the opponent). Plus Block already works with your Unarmed Combat, so I'm not exactly sure why you'd need to add an Unarmed Parry action.

[Xenon]

I thought the issue was that his GM told him he could not add unarmed combat to his defense roll when attacked in melee.

He can. It is called Blocking. It cost 5 Initiative and blocking against a combat axe is hard. You get -2 dice (plus you introduce a [Physical] limit on your defense roll which might or might not even be worse than the -2 dice). Blocking against a knife is easier.

Using a knife to parry a combat axe is not really any easier than to blocking the forearm of the axe wielding person... so you get -2 dice if you use a knife to parry (plus that you introduce a limit on your defense roll).

Trying to dodge a combat axe is also not that easy. It is easier to dodge a knife or a fist.....



Unarmed parry make little to no sense. The combat axe will just chop your arm off. Unless maybe if you have metal pipes running along the forearms of your ninja-suit or something...

[ZeConster]

Wait, that's what this is all about? In that case, screw the GM, or tell him you got armored plating for your arms.

[Crazy Ivan]

I suppose I should have mentioned this was 4th edition, not 5th.

[RHat]

I would do a Negative Mod to the unarmed skill maybe -4 or is that to harsh.

I'm not so sure a penalty is needed - trying to parry any weapon while unarmed is dangerous, but that's why you don't do it.  You block the arm holding the weapon, something any character with a respectable Unarmed Combat skill should know.

Which seems like it would be harder to do compared to a regular parry than "you lose ties" implies.

That very much depends - it's not like you "parry" a fist, either, you block the arm (generally).  So for a short weapon like a knife, there's not a lot of change to the block other than that you aim to maintain control of the arm.  For a long weapon, it can be more difficult, but that's what Reach is for.

[ZeConster]

Like I said later, RHat, I misread the original post as saying Parry should work for Unarmed defense against melee weapons (plus apparently the original post is about SR4, not SR5), which is why I said that.

[Regeta]

People should be reminded how melee combat works in Shadowrun.
Melee is not seen in Shadowrun as "I strike you. You dodge me. Now it is my turn to strike you back."

In reality, if you used Parry + Sword to defend against Unarmed Combat, then you would be mostly reducing their chance to successfully hit by forcing them to not attack you very often at all.

Someone with a sword, defending against unarmed combat, is mostly on the offensive. The moments the Unarmed Combat person has, will be to either try to create a weakness to exploit (feign attacks) or dodge the offensive attacks of the sword user until able to counter.

Instead, Melee is 3 seconds of martial combat. Parrying an Unarmed Attack would mostly be sitting there doing nothing, as the Unarmed combatant only gets a few attacks of opportunity on you. Otherwise, the Unarmed combatant would be sliced to pieces trying to attack, while the swordsman parries.

So "Parry" can actually be, basically, offensive attacking. Just not enough, apparently, to do even a single box of damage.

[RHat]

So "Parry" can actually be, basically, offensive attacking. Just not enough, apparently, to do even a single box of damage.

From what I've heard (my knowledge of editions prior to SR4 being limited), earlier editions had melee combat where whoever won the roll dealt damage.  Counterattacks and such may become an element of SR5 again when the advanced combat options show up.

[WorkOver]

People should be reminded how melee combat works in Shadowrun.
Melee is not seen in Shadowrun as "I strike you. You dodge me. Now it is my turn to strike you back."

In reality, if you used Parry + Sword to defend against Unarmed Combat, then you would be mostly reducing their chance to successfully hit by forcing them to not attack you very often at all.

Someone with a sword, defending against unarmed combat, is mostly on the offensive. The moments the Unarmed Combat person has, will be to either try to create a weakness to exploit (feign attacks) or dodge the offensive attacks of the sword user until able to counter.

Instead, Melee is 3 seconds of martial combat. Parrying an Unarmed Attack would mostly be sitting there doing nothing, as the Unarmed combatant only gets a few attacks of opportunity on you. Otherwise, the Unarmed combatant would be sliced to pieces trying to attack, while the swordsman parries.

So "Parry" can actually be, basically, offensive attacking. Just not enough, apparently, to do even a single box of damage.

While I agree with this point, it seems it is now dubious in SR5. See the cyberarm rules.  If you have a cyberarm, it has it's own stats, and it is literally I punch you, I block you, I punch you.  If it was still abstract like the rest of the editions and rules apply, the cyber arm/legs rules would not work.

[JackVII]

From what I've heard (my knowledge of editions prior to SR4 being limited), earlier editions had melee combat where whoever won the roll dealt damage.  Counterattacks and such may become an element of SR5 again when the advanced combat options show up.

Yeah, that's how it used to work. Essentially an opposed test and whoever had the most hits did damage. It made going into melee with a melee focused adept an EXTREMELY bad idea.

[Michael Chandra]

Not my idea but I did think it'd make sense: Would it be possible to split this topic into separate SR4 and SR5 Houserule topics?