[kirk]

I have a question, what would be the rules if I mixed shock gloves and knockout spell together for an attack, seeing as they are both just touch and I wouldn't be doing any punching.

You would be doing two Complex Actions (#1 Spellcasting  #2 Melee Attack ) at the same Time
and thats not possible

with an impossible Dance
Medicineman

What do you mean "not possible"?

Some spells, particularly health spells, require the caster to touch
the intended target in order for the spell to work. To touch an unwilling
target, the caster must make a normal unarmed attack as part of
the Complex Action of spellcasting (see Melee Combat, p. 156). A tie
on the Opposed Melee Test is sufficient for the caster to touch the
target (p. 63).

Now, I know about this;

Touch-Only Attack
If a character is merely seeking to touch an opponent, rather than
damage him (in order to cast a touch-only spell, for example), then
the attacker receives a +2 dice pool modifier.

But look again at the core statement. It is still a "normal unarmed attack."

My interpretation, the one I use as GM is that a mage has two options:
a) A normal unarmed combat attack, which will do normal unarmed damage AND the spell if  the attack is successful; or
b) An unarmed combat attack at +2, which will only do the spell.

I'm aware some GMs choose only the second option, but please don't say it's "impossible".

[Xzylvador]

^ I agree.
If touch spells required a complex to cast and another complex to do the touch attack, they'd be impossible to use. So it should be one action.

Adding Shock Gloves or Frills into the mix... that doesn't seem like a half bad idea actually. It helps offset the imbalance that the spells ranged counterparts don't require any attack roll at all but simply auto-hit if they overcome spell resistance.

Could Shock Gloves and Shock frills be combined in one attack? (Disregard touch spells for this questions.)

[Shudnawz]

Could Shock Gloves and Shock frills be combined in one attack? (Disregard touch spells for this questions.)

In what circumstance would this be applicable? In my mind, shock frills is used as a defence, if someone is trying to grab you they get a nasty shock.
I can see that you would apply both if you hug someone and then grab them by the neck with shock hands/gloves, but that's pushing it I'd say. But if you really wanted to, I suppose it would play out something like this: First, you need a grapple-roll to get hold of the person, in order to get them close enough for the frills to make contact. And then you get one roll for resolving the shock frills, then one for the touch attack at the neck, and one for the damage of the hands/gloves. Normal modifyers still apply, such as the target wearing nonconductive clothing and so on.

As Medicineman suggested, it would require extensive rolling to resolve such a complex attack, and/or a weapon with multiple types of damage (as pointed out, a sword with shock or poison). BUT(!) I don't think that you should be limited to a single type of damage for an attack, if it is plausible that you could do both. For one, if you poisoned a sword, you don't go around patting people on the cheek with it to apply the poison; it is secondary to the major effect of having a piece of metal hurled though your flesh. That effect don't magically go away just because you poisoned the blade (unless you actually folded 300 leaves of a poison ivy around it...).
In the same manner, I would see the shock effect as secondary to a punch to the face if my primary goal is to inflict damage to the maximum extent. Because of this, the shocking effect in this case is limited to the success of my inital punch.
If the shock itself is the primary concern (for subduing purposes) I would focus on getting skin contact and as such, touch attack is the logical way to go.

We are going to use the rules as I described earlier as a house rule, and will be getting back to you on the usage and effects of it in-game. =)

[Medicineman]

What do you mean "not possible"?


Well....
Its not possible to do two different complex actions in one Initiative Phase
But I allready wrote that

Hough!
Medicineman

[Phi6891]

Thanks guys I think I know what to do now. 
With my GM I think I am going to be able to work both the shock gloves and Knockout spell together as one complex action.

I wouldn't even be thinking this if I didn't have to be the Street Samurai for the party while playing as the Mage.

[Phylos Fett]

What do you mean "not possible"?

Some spells, particularly health spells, require the caster to touch
the intended target in order for the spell to work. To touch an unwilling
target, the caster must make a normal unarmed attack as part of
the Complex Action of spellcasting (see Melee Combat, p. 156). A tie
on the Opposed Melee Test is sufficient for the caster to touch the
target (p. 63).

Now, I know about this;

Touch-Only Attack
If a character is merely seeking to touch an opponent, rather than
damage him (in order to cast a touch-only spell, for example), then
the attacker receives a +2 dice pool modifier.

But look again at the core statement. It is still a "normal unarmed attack."

My interpretation, the one I use as GM is that a mage has two options:
a) A normal unarmed combat attack, which will do normal unarmed damage AND the spell if  the attack is successful; or
b) An unarmed combat attack at +2, which will only do the spell.

I'm aware some GMs choose only the second option, but please don't say it's "impossible".

I wonder if any players have tried to use this interpretation to get a +2 dice pool modifier to Shock Glove attacks...

[Shudnawz]

I wonder if any players have tried to use this interpretation to get a +2 dice pool modifier to Shock Glove attacks...

I'd guess so, that's my interpretation of the rules. A touch attack is designed to make skin contact with the target, not with any force, and not in any particular area, and for that reason weapons or spells that only need brief skin contact (shock gloves, for example) would make use of that rule. However, you will ofcourse not make any extra damage using this approach.
It's also stated that at GM's discretion, ties (glancing blows) could be ruled to make contact and deliver the effect of the intended attack.

My interpretation of these rules is another reason for my extended punch/shock glove-attack-rules-of-doom on page 2. I seriously feel that the rules just can't ignore effects that would be impossible to ignore in the real world, and causes the event to have a significantly altered outcome. Also, as noted earlier...melee needs all the help it can get. =)

Punch away!

[bigity]

I don't think so.  I like guns being better than hand weapons.  It is, after all, why we no longer run around with swords and chainmail in a battle.

[Chaemera]

I don't think so.  I like guns being better than hand weapons.  It is, after all, why we no longer run around with swords and chainmail in a battle.

As most police and soldiers will tell you, a gun is only better than a hand weapon if the gunman is more than 20 feet from the guy with the hand weapon. And inside of five feet, smart money is on the knife over the gun.

But, in SR, the knife will (on average) be less lethal than a pop-gun. Not very life-like at all. If I had to choose between a guy with a .22 and another guy with a knife, I'd rather fight the guy with the .22.

As to Shudnawz' argument for his rules on the basis of empowering melee combat to make it more viable & realistic, we already take many short-cuts that would offend reality to keep rules simple and the rules presented on page 2 of this thread would grind games to a halt every time a punch was thrown. My team would avoid melee even more than they do now, just to keep things moving.

[bigity]

Except SR doesn't detail guns down to caliber, so I'm not sure what you are basing that comparison on. 

Would you rather fight a guy with a knife or one with a light pistol is a better question.  IMO, that comes down to a question of are you better at dodging or parrying.

Most uses of a pistol are way shorter range than a typical SR firefight as well.  I practice for short ranges with my pistol more than I see how far out it/I can be accurate.  If I ever have to use it most likely I'm pointing it center-mass at some guy 10 feet away or less.

[Chaemera]

A .22 would be about the same as a hold-out or a light pistol. Which, at 4P is more dangerous than the average (2 to 3) person with a knife (STR/2+1)P.

Since you can only dodge a bullet with full defense, the answer in SR4 terms is you'd always rather face the guy with a knife. And while firefights in SR4 may take place at longer range, that doesn't mean that the mechanics should inherently make melee significantly weaker than ranged combat. If anything, it should make melee stronger in order to justify anyone ever making the made dash to close into melee range.

As it stands, if I'm shooting you from 1 meter away (simple action), I get +2 for shooting "point blank", and you avoid the attack with flat Reaction unless you spend a complex action (as an interrupt) to add your dodge skill to the pool. Base damage of 4P (assume a light pistol). Then, I get to shoot you again (at a -1 for recoil, assuming no recoil compensation), and you dodge with flat Reaction -1 (unless you already spent or choose to spend a complex action as above for Full Defense).

Reverse the situation. You're attacking me with your knife (a complex action). You get no bonus for Reach, in spite of the fact that I'm not wielding a melee weapon. I, without spending any actions, get to dodge with Reaction + Dodge (or Gymnastics, or Parry with Unarmed, whatever I happen to be best at). Since it was a complex action to stab at me, you don't get to stab at me again.

In Shadowrun, I'll always choose to face the guy with a knife, all else being equal.

[bigity]

In Shadowrun, I'll always choose to face the guy with a knife, all else being equal.

Which neatly proves my point, guns trump knives.

[Shudnawz]

In Shadowrun, I'll always choose to face the guy with a knife, all else being equal.

Which neatly proves my point, guns trump knives.

No, it merely "proves" that guns trump knives in ShadowRun. As proven countless times; SR != Reality.
For those unfamiliar with expressions of that kind, it means "not equal to".

Question is, should guns trump knives in close combat? My response would be no.

[bigity]

I'm not going to debate knives vs guns, as that seems pretty silly, and I can't say I have much knife wielding or gun fight experience to base any views off of one way or the other.  However, I'd have to say that seeing how knives are typically used only when guns can't or would make too much noise, that indicates a general preference of guns over blades, regardless if within a certain ranged a blade might be better.

All weapons have a purpose, sure, I'm not arguing that., but I don't know of any combat troops that go into a fight with knives out and guns slung, barring some ridiculous combination of unique circumstances.

[Zilfer]

I'm not going to debate knives vs guns, as that seems pretty silly, and I can't say I have much knife wielding or gun fight experience to base any views off of one way or the other.  However, I'd have to say that seeing how knives are typically used only when guns can't or would make too much noise, that indicates a general preference of guns over blades, regardless if within a certain ranged a blade might be better.

All weapons have a purpose, sure, I'm not arguing that., but I don't know of any combat troops that go into a fight with knives out and guns slung, barring some ridiculous combination of unique circumstances.

Mostly because they are at long ranges not close up. When they are close up they most definately have their knives ready and at hand. (Just my 2 cents)