NEWS

Melee weapons, tripping and knocking people down with them

  • 20 Replies
  • 5594 Views

DigitalZombie

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 744
« on: <11-20-19/1446:02> »
Sooo melee weapons... (again.)

Is it correctly understood that if a runner wanted to trip a corp guard he would be better of using his cyberjaw, than a whip?

And its easier to knock someone out with a mono whip than a sap?

More in detail: trip is a major action. If you hit your opponent with an Attribute+skill vs reaction+ intuition test. The opponent must make an agility+ athletics test and beat a special treshold, or gain the prone status.

The treshold is weapon DV-2 + net hits on the original attack roll. Page 42

This means a whip (dv1) is alot easier to resist than a cyberjaw (dv5)- that seems very odd to me. (The whip has a higher AR than the jaw, and grants the user a bonus minor action though). I personally dont think DV should be part of the test at all.

Knockout blow (page 47) cost 2 edge
If the target suffers more dmg, of any type, than his willpower, then he is knocked out.
This means that a monowhip (DV6) is alot better than a sap (dv2).

That also seems very odd to me.

Oddly enough only blades can benefit of the shank edge action (page 48).
So there is a precedens for some weapon groups having some special rules that others dont.


I think trip maybe would be better of with a treshold of 1 + net hits (technically the same as a dv 3 weapon).

Knock out blow:
First of all blades and odd stuff like mono whips shouldnt be able to knock people out ( you could use the pommel of the blade like an improvised club though).
And maybe give stuff like the sap an extra bonus. Like reduce edge cost to 1, or count targets willpower x number lower.

What do you think?
About the melee weapon action in general and suggested rulings.


« Last Edit: <11-20-19/1455:26> by DigitalZombie »

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #1 on: <11-20-19/1551:51> »
Ok, noone's surprised that 6we doesn't address every interaction between various rules.  It's my view that whether you call it the "Oberoni Fallacy" or a "this is a Strong GM rules system instead of a Weak GM rules system", it's all the same thing: the rules are deliberately punting to the GM to figure out when rules conflict or pose odd outcomes.

So, sure it doesn't say that a MFW should be bad at subduing someone nonlethally, or that trying to bite someone in the ankle is about the least efficient way to go about trying to trip them. Barring potential errata, it comes down to the GM to apply the deliberately open ended rules.  Maybe a GM will say you simply can't even attempt a knockout blow with a MFW.  Maybe a GM will say that trying to literally anklebite someone in real combat is such an awkward attack that the defender automatically gets the circumstantial edge.  Etc.
« Last Edit: <11-20-19/1553:40> by Stainless Steel Devil Rat »
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

DigitalZombie

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 744
« Reply #2 on: <11-21-19/1441:36> »
Ok, noone's surprised that 6we doesn't address every interaction between various rules.  It's my view that whether you call it the "Oberoni Fallacy" or a "this is a Strong GM rules system instead of a Weak GM rules system", it's all the same thing: the rules are deliberately punting to the GM to figure out when rules conflict or pose odd outcomes.


Im not sure I follow.  The rules are pretty clear here. I know other sections have some wriggle room for intetpretation, like the matrix. But not the trip/knock out actions.

Haha and I hope errata team members dont make use of the oberoni fallacy :)

I mean its not just mono whip thats a special case here. The top 3 best melee weapon most likely to succeed tripping* an opponent are monowhip, combat axe and cyber jaw. The worst of all weapons are the bullwhip.

I mean that cant have been the design goal?
If you just changed the "DV-2" to the easier "1" then the bullwhip suddenly became the best tripping weapon.


It just feels weird to me that there are special rules for blades. And at the same time no special rules for clubs and the like. It seems like a missed opportunity here. Have blades be good at precision attacks and have clubs be good at clubbing people.
Currently the only weapon worse at knocking people out than a sap is the bullwhip.  :P



*Tripping without damaging the opponent. So the whip doesnt even need to cut a limb to 2 to have the opponent trip.

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6468
« Reply #3 on: <11-21-19/1521:30> »
It seem as if the of Trip(I) on p. 42 would cover the case where you use brute force and heavy momentum to cause unbalance and with that forcefully strike someone down to the ground.

It does not seem to cover a British gentlemen using an umbrella (would that classify as Bartitsu?) -or a cowboy using a bullwhip for that matter- to lock and pull your leg in order to trip you


Similar goes for the Tackle action (after you create a grapple) on p. 111. It seem to cover the case where the offender would apply raw strength and huge body mass to forcefully bring the target down to the ground.

It does not seem to cover a judo master that don't have to be Hulk or anything in order to bring a [potentially much larger] target down to the ground by using the target's own momentum, strength and body mass against him.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #4 on: <11-21-19/1952:08> »
Ok, noone's surprised that 6we doesn't address every interaction between various rules.  It's my view that whether you call it the "Oberoni Fallacy" or a "this is a Strong GM rules system instead of a Weak GM rules system", it's all the same thing: the rules are deliberately punting to the GM to figure out when rules conflict or pose odd outcomes.


Im not sure I follow.  The rules are pretty clear here. I know other sections have some wriggle room for intetpretation, like the matrix. But not the trip/knock out actions.

Haha and I hope errata team members dont make use of the oberoni fallacy :)

I mean its not just mono whip thats a special case here. The top 3 best melee weapon most likely to succeed tripping* an opponent are monowhip, combat axe and cyber jaw. The worst of all weapons are the bullwhip.

I mean that cant have been the design goal?
If you just changed the "DV-2" to the easier "1" then the bullwhip suddenly became the best tripping weapon.


It just feels weird to me that there are special rules for blades. And at the same time no special rules for clubs and the like. It seems like a missed opportunity here. Have blades be good at precision attacks and have clubs be good at clubbing people.
Currently the only weapon worse at knocking people out than a sap is the bullwhip.  :P



*Tripping without damaging the opponent. So the whip doesnt even need to cut a limb to 2 to have the opponent trip.

Ok, we both agree that bullwhips should be good at tripping, yes? But you're headscratching at why combat axes and cyberjaws do it better?

Despite some vehement claims to the contrary, this isn't a board game.  It requires a GM.  In this version of Shadowrun, the GM doesn't just apply the rules as written in the rulebook.  The rulebook is assuming the GM will apply their version of common sense, rather than trying to legislate every little thing.  So, what a GM is expected to do in the case of you wanting to trip someone with a bullwhip, is consider giving you circumstantial edge because the weapon is so appropriate to the task.  Or perhaps instead discounting the edge action. Or maybe disallowing the target from spending edge to on the opposed roll.  Or impose some other penalty, such as a threshold or dice pool reduction, to the opposed test.  Etc.  The rulebook doesn't spell how how to represent a bullwhip's advantage in tripping people because it's assumed to be better to let the GM decide if such an advantage should even apply in the first place, and if so what form it would take.  The problem with codifying edge is you cause an endless string of "well, what if..." followon questions.  Saying "GM will handle it" is not just elegant, it keeps the rulebook from being 1000 pages.
« Last Edit: <11-21-19/1953:41> by Stainless Steel Devil Rat »
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Leith

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 107
« Reply #5 on: <11-21-19/2026:41> »
Why is damage involved in tripping at all? Using.a weapon to trip seems like it would be a strength thing, even with a whip. But str and melee weapon DV aren't connected in 6e.

Follow up: the rules say reduce the DV by 2P. Does that mean stun weapons use their full DV? I'm asking for a friend. I already voted yes.

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3078
« Reply #6 on: <11-21-19/2109:24> »
Just sayin' you hit someone in the ankles with an Axe, they're gonna fall down.

Pretty sure you hit someone anywhere in the lower leg area with a Monowhip they'll fall down as well.  Having your leg chopped off will do that.

A regular whip should probably just have an Edge Action for tripping that is better than regular tripping.

Leith

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 107
« Reply #7 on: <11-21-19/2121:00> »
Just sayin' you hit someone in the ankles with an Axe, they're gonna fall down.

Pretty sure you hit someone anywhere in the lower leg area with a Monowhip they'll fall down as well.  Having your leg chopped off will do that.

A regular whip should probably just have an Edge Action for tripping that is better than regular tripping.

Good point

DigitalZombie

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 744
« Reply #8 on: <11-22-19/1611:25> »

Ok, we both agree that bullwhips should be good at tripping, yes? But you're headscratching at why combat axes and cyberjaws do it better?

Yes. We are in agreement. To expand it a bit- currently the bullwhip is the weapon LEAST likely to succeed out of All weapons in the CRB. Furthermore the bull whip is the only weapon with special rules regarding tripping.


Quote
Despite some vehement claims to the contrary, this isn't a board game.  It requires a GM.  In this version of Shadowrun, the GM doesn't just apply the rules as written in the rulebook.  The rulebook is assuming the GM will apply their version of common sense, rather than trying to legislate every little thing
Agree and No, Im not one of those people claiming its a board game :)

Quote
So, what a GM is expected to do in the case of you wanting to trip someone with a bullwhip, is consider giving you circumstantial edge because the weapon is so appropriate to the task.  Or perhaps instead discounting the edge action. Or maybe disallowing the target from spending edge to on the opposed roll.  Or impose some other penalty, such as a threshold or dice pool reduction, to the opposed test.  Etc.  The rulebook doesn't spell how how to represent a bullwhip's advantage in tripping people because it's assumed to be better to let the GM decide if such an advantage should even apply in the first place, and if so what form it would take.  The problem with codifying edge is you cause an endless string of "well, what if..." followon questions.  Saying "GM will handle it" is not just elegant, it keeps the rulebook from being 1000 pages.

Hhmm maybe we have a misunderstanding here.
The bull whip has a special rule when using the trip action- so the CRB already spells out the advantage of using a bull whip (you gain a minor action). And its only the bullwhip that had This advantage- sadly as its the weapon least likely to succeed (except unarmed characters with STR 1 or 2) the bonus minor action  isnt super attractive.

And regarding Edge. I think you might be thinking on the Edge tumble action(page 48) and not the trip action (non-edge action page 42).
The tumble action is actually Also relevant to This discussion. I just forgot to include it- if I had that then my post might have been a bit more clear.

I fear that as the whip already has the "well, what if.." rule printed, then the GM would be less inclined to make something Up himself, because the CRB already used word Counts of Spelling out the bullwhip special rule when doing a non-edge trip action.

I believe ( but not willing to put money on it) that I could create a Better rule, both representing the bullwhips advantage, but also doing away with wierd stuff as cyberjaws and monowhips advantages, and less math, without using higher word Counts.

It seem as if the of Trip(I) on p. 42 would cover the case where you use brute force and heavy momentum to cause unbalance and with that forcefully strike someone down to the ground.

It does not seem to cover a British gentlemen using an umbrella (would that classify as Bartitsu?) -or a cowboy using a bullwhip for that matter- to lock and pull your leg in order to trip you


Similar goes for the Tackle action (after you create a grapple) on p. 111. It seem to cover the case where the offender would apply raw strength and huge body mass to forcefully bring the target down to the ground.

It does not seem to cover a judo master that don't have to be Hulk or anything in order to bring a [potentially much larger] target down to the ground by using the target's own momentum, strength and body mass against him.

Yes, and that is a shame. Especially because we already have a melee action that represents Strong opponents, and big nasty weapons. The tumble action on page 48.
I Hope (and believe) that the judo dude Will gain some Better tripping options in a splatbook. But in the current state he would be Better of by cheating a bit and using a shock glove to the gonads to the ork he is going to trip.

Just sayin' you hit someone in the ankles with an Axe, they're gonna fall down.

Pretty sure you hit someone anywhere in the lower leg area with a Monowhip they'll fall down as well.  Having your leg chopped off will do that.

A regular whip should probably just have an Edge Action for tripping that is better than regular tripping.


The top 3 best melee weapon most likely to succeed tripping* an opponent are monowhip, combat axe and cyber jaw.

*Tripping without damaging the opponent. So the whip doesnt even need to cut a limb to 2 to have the opponent trip.

Remember the trip action doesnt cause any dmg to the opponent. So chopping of a limb is not part of the trip action. BUT you could definetely use the tumble action (if the dmg is more than their body score. Then they gain the Prone status).
« Last Edit: <11-22-19/1634:25> by DigitalZombie »

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3078
« Reply #9 on: <11-22-19/1630:16> »

I fear that as the whip already has the "well, what if.." rule printed, then the GM would be less inclined to make something Up himself, because the CRB already used word Counts of Spelling out the bullwhip special rule when doing a non-edge trip action.



Shadowrunners with Bullwhips are kinda uncommon, if a Player wants to make a whip specialist odds are they're using a Monowhip.  But yes, the specific Bullwhip tripping rule should provide a more meaningful bonus.  Maybe the combat option book will bring back the Cowboy Way Martial Arts style and give a few more Bullwhip options.

I don't know that the entire tripping action needs to be re-done.  The high skill/agility sort of trip is reflected in the initial opposed test.  The fancy Martial Arts guy should get a fist full of net hits making a trip more likely.  The angry trog ex-girlfriend with a Stop sign may whiff a few times but when she connects you're getting flipped on your hoop.  (and you know you deserved it...)

It's inverse of the Oberoni fallacy.  Yes the RAW could be better, but most RAW could be better in any game as Perfection just isn't a common thing.  If the rule is "good enough" is going to be subjective.

GuardDuty

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 94
« Reply #10 on: <11-22-19/1643:27> »

Is it correctly understood that if a runner wanted to trip a corp guard he would be better of using his cyberjaw, than a whip?


Player: I trip him with my cyberjaw.
GM: Describe how you attempt such an action.
Player: I attempt a trip action, using my cyberjaw.
GM: That's a load of drek.  No.

Alternately

GM: Ok, that's an extremely awkward and disadvantageous action.  Here is a massive threshold for you, your opponent gains a point of edge, and you are prone adjacent to him until your next turn.

Problem solved.

As for this...
Quote
Remember the trip action doesnt cause any dmg to the opponent. So chopping of a limb is not part of the trip action. BUT you could definetely use the tumble action (if the dmg is more than their body score. Then they gain the Prone status).

A monowhip would not trip someone, it would take their leg off.  It doesn't matter that there is a trip action, it is the nature of the weapon itself.
« Last Edit: <11-22-19/1653:22> by GuardDuty »

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3078
« Reply #11 on: <11-22-19/1651:11> »
...or

Player: I lunge at the guard and get a mouthful of boot and stand up to yank him off his feet!

GM:  Okay, roll some dice!

 ;D

It's okay to have fun, it's a game. 

Leith

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 107
« Reply #12 on: <11-22-19/1708:50> »
]
Remember the trip action doesnt cause any dmg to the opponent. So chopping of a limb is not part of the trip action. BUT you could definetely use the tumble action (if the dmg is more than their body score. Then they gain the Prone status).

Actually... yes the trip action does damage. It's an attack, and nowhere does it doesn't do damage. Less damage though...

DigitalZombie

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 744
« Reply #13 on: <11-22-19/1731:31> »
@Leith
Whoops you are correct. I falsely presumed you took your target down without causing him any dmg with the trip action.
This changes some stuff, but not neccesarily to the better. Now we have 2 different actions, tumble and trip that both sends opponents Prone while damaging them. And none that trips an opponent without causing him dmg (except maybe to his pride).
In that regard even if it functions as intended, then the "-2P" would be in need of an errata. As I presume you could Also trip a person with a weapon that dealt stun dmg, like unarmed or a staff. So maybe have it be -2 DV instead?
« Last Edit: <11-22-19/1757:52> by DigitalZombie »

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3078
« Reply #14 on: <11-22-19/1738:39> »
I hate it when I stub my toe on the stun baton...

What page is the -2P referenced?  Asking for a friend, 'cause you're correct that would need to be Errata'd for Stun weapons.  Don't have the book handy.