Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Sir_Prometheus on <07-24-14/1430:47>
-
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.
-
[...]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.
-
[...]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........
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
@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?
-
I'd make Reckless Melee Attack (SImple Action) have a -3DV to match the +3DV Drain of Reckless Spellcasting (Simple Action).
-
@Sir_Prometheus
Yeah, I get what you are saying and you are absolutely correct. Just saying that if you didn't think -DV was enough of a penalty for getting to do a melee attack in a simple action, this would be perfectly acceptable logic behind the penalty to def.
What I'm ACTUALLY saying is "Imagine that you are using a smaller brush, but you are hurrying so you're sorta "flailing" it around" Which would make it somewhat more difficult to paint detail ;)
If you compare it to Called shots:Vitals where you lose 4d6 to do +2DV, then I don't think -2DV is enough considering the advantage performing a simple action could be. -3DV like Martin suggested might be enough, not sure.
-
I can completely understand why some people balk at the idea of having melee attacks be a simple action. The primary argument usually used is that "it is a series of attacks and counterattacks" etc, which is how the book describes the action fluff wise. The problem there is that you/they/people are using a "fluff" argument to counter a "mechanics" argument. That argument is totally valid and 100% correct. The issue here is that the argument doesn't in any way actually counter the argument for melee being a simple action any more now that 5e has come out. Let me explain why.
Let us be clear: the arena we are arguing in is that of mechanics. We are debating whether or not melee attacks need to be a complex action or a simple action. We are not debating about how a melee action should be described to players in the course of a game. I think we can all agree that the description will vary from GM to GM, from game to game, from combat to combat, and from action to action. How to describe stuff happening is "fluff". What action we use is "mechanics". Regardless of which action is used, a GM is going to describe it however is appropriate for that particular combat situation.
In other words, a description can be altered simply by the way the GM or players choose to describe the action taking place. Just because an action is described a certain way in no way changes the in-game mechanics behind the action. Whether I describe it as a series of actions, or one straightforward action, you still have to roll the same dice and it's resisted the same way. So we need to instead view this fluff argument as a mechanical argument for any headway to be made in either direction for this debate. So, that being said...
The reason why melee attacks originally needed to be complex rather than simple was to prevent people from making more than one melee attack in a single combat round (without needing to split pools or whatever). This was due to the fact that you could only have 1 complex action in a round, but you could have 2 simple actions in a round. Firing a gun took only one simple action, but you could get 2 of those in a round. Yes, it makes logical sense that you should be able to shoot multiple bullets in the time that it took to be in a fist fight with someone (moving a finger vs throwing a punch), and it also makes logical sense that your "other" action should be far more limited if you're in the middle of melee combat vs. just pulling the trigger a single time; but that wasn't the real reason why this ruling was made. It was for mechanical game balance reasons. The description about it being a series of moves came after the fact as a means of explaining away the need for the mechanics.
Now, in 5e (as opposed to all previous versions) we have a new limitation: You can only make one attack action per combat pass. This is regardless of the "type" of action (Complex or Simple). This fundamentally changes the balance of the mechanics of the system. We no longer need to use action type as the inherent (and only) limiting factor for melee vs ranged. You can use the new "Multiple Attacks" Free action with either ranged or melee attacks.
In fact, there is no free action that you can combine with a ranged attack that you can't also combine with a melee attack (other than ejecting a clip I suppose). Furthermore: realistically speaking, there aren't any simple actions that a person in melee combat couldn't do just about as easily (or with as much difficulty) as a person firing a gun at people. For the purposes of determining what "other" (simple) actions could realistically be accomplished by a person in combat, melee and ranged attacks are effectively identical.
The argument then becomes basically about this:
For the purposes of game balance (and not descriptive reasons), should a person engaged in melee combat be prevented from doing the following actions?:
Activate Focus: This is a thought, so no.
Call/Command/Dismiss Spirit: Also a thought - no.
Change device mode: We have a free version for linked weapons, but so do guns, so to make things even - no.*
Observe in Detail: probably should be prevented from this, although I would argue that someone shooting should be also, so to make things even - no.*
Pick up/Put down object: drop object is a free, so presumably this is doing something more "gently", picking up things in the middle of melee though isn't impossible at all - no.
Ready Weapon: This is done often, and is not an attack like quick draw (or iajutsu), so - no.
Shift Perception: thought - no
Stand up: - often done, but debatable I suppose - I would rule no.
Take Aim: why would you? but this could be an interesting thing to combine with a melee attack. I like the concept, and don't see why not, so - no.
Take Cover: easy to do actually, assuming you're close enough to do it. Worst case scenario your attacker/defender comes with you. - no.*
Use Simple Device: if you can do it in the middle of a firefight, then I think you can while in melee. Realism is stretched equally for both melee and ranged in this case, so - no.*
*A number of these stretch the imagination as to how (or why) someone would do one of these things in melee combat, but the imagination is equally stretched as to how someone in the middle of a firefight would be able to do it as well.
The bottom line is this: There is nothing that would unbalancing (or any more unrealistic) about letting melee attacks be simple actions instead of complex actions given the new 5e limit of only being able to take one attack action per combat pass. So - There is no reason why we can't have melee actions described as a "series of" actions and (under the new 5e rules) be a simple action as well.
I personally feel that melee attacks should be a simple action without any additional penalties. Period.
However, given people's feelings about melee being a task that requires more concentration or whatever, I could see there being some sort of trade off where you would still keep "regular" melee attacks as complex actions, but get a simple version where you would get a penalty to either defense or attack dice pools (or both) when making a melee attack as a simple action.
-
Actually, I think the -3DV is a good overall system. Or you could even consider doing something to cap Accuracy... that may be overcomplicating it actually. I'd just stick with a simple flat penalty of some sort. -DV makes sense to me, and the [3] makes sense as it matches the [3] for rushing spellcasting's penalty.
-
I agree with basically everything voyangel said.
Which by that logic, there shouldn't be any penalty. Melee actions should just be simple actions.
Anyway, - 3 DV is too much. -3 DV is not equivalent to the +3 Drain, they can't be related like that. Partly because spellcasting is definitely more powerful than melee (but it does cost you), partly because the mage might or might not take any drain at all, mostly because it's apples and oranges.
So yeah, that;'s my new proposal. Melee actions should just be simple actions. Which is really going to have no effect on anything, most of the time, except that it lets a melee character perform all the same actions a gun guy can, and they totally should be able to do that. There's just no reason to have melee penalized over firearms, at all.
-
Except the fluff as currently written.
Let us know how the rule works out for you. Suggestions and proposals are all well and good; playtest results are better.
-
Yeah... I'm gonna disagree that melee actions should be simple actions. There are penalties for anyone shooting into or out of melee combat for a reason - melee combat is frantic.
-
Please post on how this works out in playtesting.
@ voydangel: Great post that helped me understand this issue. Thanks!
One question about the topic: how would making it a simple action speed things up? Either way, a character only gets one action. I see combat taking the same amount of IRL Table Time either way.
-
There's a penalty to shoot out of combat, because it gives some situational control, SOME benefit to using melee. Firearms usually have much higher dmg or or are harder to defend against (various forms of burst fire).
Yeah, I'll share playtests, though I have to convince my group to use alternative rules, first, this is part of that. (cuz I'll link it here in our forums)
-
One question about the topic: how would making it a simple action speed things up? Either way, a character only gets one action. I see combat taking the same amount of IRL Table Time either way.
It really wouldn't. It would make almost zero mechanical differences at all and wouldn't change much (if anything) regarding speed/complexity of OOC/table play.
Realistically speaking the only difference this change would make under the current (5e) rules is that it would put melee (close combat) based characters on a closer-to-equal footing with characters who are ranged-based by giving melee-based characters a bit more flexibility in what they could do in a combat round other than simply attacking,
Additionally, it might help to fix a few issues that unarmed melee characters currently have under 5e rules that make them slightly less powerful than armed (blades/clubs) melee characters.
But, as noted, this is just me theorycrafting based on my knowledge of the game system and some game design, game balance, and playtesting that I've done in the past. As confidant as I am that my theorycrafting would be proven correct, I too would like to hear/see some actual playtesting reports on this subject.
-
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.
It's the only comparison for "make something that's normally a Complex Action a Simple Action instead" that we have, and I was correcting your misconceptions about +3 Drain not being a big deal.
Also, Reyjin's argument is that making a Simple Action melee attack instead of a Complex Action melee attack isn't a matter of using a light jab instead of a heavy punch, it's a matter of only taking half as much time to try and spot an opening. Which is why his focus has been on the word rush, not on the word jab.
-
Yes, I understood Reyjin's argument.
-
If I can pull out my pistol, draw a bead on a dwarf sitting behind cover, aim for a specific body part, and nail him, I can punch a guy in the face in the same time frame. If each "shot" action is literally one shot, why is each melee action a full frenzied, well, melee? I mean, isn't each round a few seconds?
There is literally never a reason to go melee in the game instead of using a gun, at least mechanically. The samurai and the adept have been thoroughly destroyed in SR4 and 5, and with it went a little bit more of Shadowrun's flavor.
The only reason melee is a complex has nothing to do with "realism" or "VERISIMILITUDE" or any of that. There's only one reason (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw). Except it's not even that because one of the biggies of melee combat in older editions - that you can't attack back without being punished for it - is now gone.
Just make it a simple. It's no more or less realistic then all the other things you can do as a simple action, and giving a penalty to it is at least in my opinion just plain dumb. It's going "Ok we want to correct this mistake...but not correct it ALL the way."
-
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.
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 tgat you can are complex.
So I'm proposing that melee be a simple action, BUT if you want to split an attack it becomes complex.
-
I'd make Reckless Melee Attack (SImple Action) have a -3DV to match the +3DV Drain of Reckless Spellcasting (Simple Action).
Actually, I think the -3DV is a good overall system. Or you could even consider doing something to cap Accuracy... that may be overcomplicating it actually. I'd just stick with a simple flat penalty of some sort. -DV makes sense to me, and the [3] makes sense as it matches the [3] for rushing spellcasting's penalty.
I like these better than the -3 dice idea, and I think I might have been the one to suggest the -3 dice idea.
That said, I feel these would penalize a weak character overly much.
Instead, I'm thinking of a different option, looking at it from a reverse engineering point..... I think.
Follow me for a minute here....
In theory, Reckless Spellcasting allows us to do 2 Spells in the time we could normally do one.
So you can cast Stun Ball & Heal. They can't both be attacks but they cut time in half.
So basically 2 Simple Actions = 1 Complex action
We also have splitting fire with allows you to do 2 Attacks at 1/2 the Dice Pool each.
2 Attacks = 1/2 Dice & 2 Actions = 1 Complex Action.
So from that we could say 1/2 a Complex Action = 1/2 Dice.
So instead of a -3 DV, instead to "Rushed Strike" someone means doing so at 1/2 your Dicepool.
I'll let you decide if that is too large a penalty, but it seemed like it might be an alternate idea.
-
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?
-
Looks good to me, and with a fix to how damage works for melee this might be how I want melee to work.
-
@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.
-
@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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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."
-
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,.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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
-
I think various upsides melee have, -dice to fire while in melee, the fact you can run and melee with a bonus, are all really balanced out by the fact guns, y'know, can shoot at range. Range matters. If you're stuck in a closet with someone, though, melee should have a lot of use, and it does. The dmg values are typically much higher for firearms, unless you're often mentioned cybered troll. I don't think any of that has much to do with whether it's a simple or complex action.
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.
OK, I can get behind that, it's basically a more formalized version of what I said, with addition to a small advantage for having two weapons, which is good, cuz there isn't any currently. (maybe there's something with R&G martial arts techniques, not really important).
-
<snip>
thanks, Ive got some reading/refreshing ahead of me =)
-
Offensive posts have been removed and users have been banned for inappropriate condut. Please play nice, kiddies.