Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Bradd on <09-13-10/2319:46>
-
Suppose that you're attacked with a sword, then a pistol. How do you handle Full Defense?
1. Full Defense is an action; use the best kind of Full Defense versus each attack.
- Enemy #1 attacks with a sword.
- I interrupt with Full Defense, and defend with a Full Parry.
- Enemy #2 attacks with a pistol.
- I continue my Full Defense, and defend with a Full Dodge.
2. Full Dodge, Full Parry, and Gymnastic Dodge are different actions.
- Enemy #1 attacks with a sword.
- I interrupt with Full Parry and defend.
- Enemy #2 attacks with a pistol.
- I'm screwed, because Full Parry doesn't work against ranged attacks.
In my game, I went with the first ruling. Otherwise, it seems to me that Full Parry is almost always a bad idea: When can you be sure that there are no gunmen around?! That meant the option never got used, and so in the few cases where it actually was useful, everyone forgot about it. Full Parry ended up being useless extra bookkeeping.
I also think a careful reading of the RAW supports the first interpretation, but I'm not totally sure. Can anyone back it up or offer a strong argument against?
-
Hmmm.... Well, A full defense takes an action. Actually, by RAW, you should not be able to take two Full Defense actions unless you have more than one Initiative pass. That being said, I would have to go with ruling number two. If Full Defense uses an action if it is used as an interrupt, then you have to have two actions to do so, and you give up two actions.
Full Defense is not a continuation at all.
As for quotes from RAW:
"A character may invoke full defense against an attack at any point in
a Combat Turn, so long as the character is not surprised (see p. 165).
This means a character does not necessarily need to declare a full defense
and take a Complex Action in advance—he can instead declare
a full defense when attacked, even if it is not yet his Action Phase in
the turn. Going on full defense as an interrupt, however, uses up the
character’s next available action."
Bold font mine. Note that teh RAW also state that Full Defense is a complex action. This means that it cost you your whole action if you declare this on your turn. Also note that full defense is just a declaration. How you use that full defense is dependent on the next attack against you. That means that if you declare that you are using Full Defense on your action, if you are shot at you will use Reaction + Dodge or Reaction + Gymnastics.
If you are attacked with melee then you can use Reaction + Dodge + Dodge or Melee skill * 2 or Gymnastics + Dodge.
Note that Gymnastics can be used against Ranged or melee but has no multiplier like Dodge or Parry in full defense.
-
Note that the Full Defense action applies to all attacks until your next phase. SR4A, p. 160:
Characters who are expecting to be attacked can spend a Complex
Action and go on full defense until their next Action Phase.
Characters who choose this option focus all of their energy on dodging,
weaving, ducking, and blocking incoming attacks.
The rule you cited allows players to invoke Full Defense as an interrupt, but it doesn't otherwise change the way Full Defense works. It should still last until your next action phase (at which time you pay for it with a complex action).
My question is what happens when there's more than one attack during Full Defense. Do you choose the best defense for each attack separately, or do you choose one defense and apply it to all attacks? I prefer the former, but I'm not sure it's the intended reading.
-
I'd say you choose one defense and apply it to all attacks. Switching from Parrying a melee weapon to Dodging gunfire is two separate types of actions and mutually exclusive.
-
In my game, I went with the first ruling. Otherwise, it seems to me that Full Parry is almost always a bad idea
I have to disagree with this, as with the two weapon style maneuver you can full parry with one weapon and still attack your enemy with your other weapon.
-
My question is what happens when there's more than one attack during Full Defense. Do you choose the best defense for each attack separately, or do you choose one defense and apply it to all attacks? I prefer the former, but I'm not sure it's the intended reading.
I have to disagree with FastJack, I think you can switch as you wish from one defense style to another, it's more fairplay for players who may have improved the three skills, and more cinematic fun.
But don't forget the modifier for multiple defenses.
About the first question, "which is the best", it depends a lot on how your character is built. Generally, there's one of the three options which fits better with your character, because it's redundant with a skill he already has. Dodge is probably the most versatile of the three options, since it's the only use of this skill, but it may not be usefull if you already have one of the two others skills. I have an ork ass-kicker and an elf shaman-face. My ork is built with a great firepower in melee, good athletic skills, with high body and armure scores. No dodge for him, because he's made to endure, go quickly to contact, and can already dodge with gymnastic. On the other hand, my elf is bad in melee, low constituion, and he's not really athletic : so full dodge, ftw.
-
I don't know the ruling but to me the FULL in full defense means you are applying all your atention to the act of defending. So if you are attcked by a sword wielding Troll FIRST then that is getting all your attention (And rightly so Yikes!) so the Elf with the SMG has to deal only with your armor & luck. Both attacks though broke down as seperate actions can (and often do) happen simo (Troll swings as the elf burps off some rapid fire doom). As a GM I'd let the player decide which damage he's full defending against and let fate deside if it was the right choice.
-
Full defense means you are applying all your atention to the act of defending, that's true, but it does not mean all your atention is applied to ONE attack. Anyway, full defense or not, unless you fail a surprise test, you always have a defense test, you "only" get a much better pool with the full defense option.
-
I can understand that, I was just giving my spin on how it could be ruled. I have a good bit of GM/DM experience and gave my general idea. It is how I'd rule it, but I won't argue anothers concept. ;D
-
No problem, but ruling it like this, you'd weaken a lot low body characters, since they couldn't defend themselve from more than one attack, and so enforce those with heavy armor stacking. Knowing that armor stacking already is a bit overpowered, I think it would unbalance too much these options. My two cents, if you ever rule it.
-
Good point. I don't know the mechanics of this game yet. But Characters die, & a 'wimp' in a situation like I suggested IS proably going to expire under the way I see it. But that 'wimp' is also the character that I normally defend as a PC. You know a meat shield!
-
Yay, the wimp should die. Flash Gordon shouldn't ;D
-
In my game, I went with the first ruling. Otherwise, it seems to me that Full Parry is almost always a bad idea
I have to disagree with this, as with the two weapon style maneuver you can full parry with one weapon and still attack your enemy with your other weapon.
That touches on another issue we've had in our game, and part of the reason I think you select "Full Defense" as your action and not "Full Parry" etc. The rules for two weapon style actually say that you get Full Defense for free when fighting with two weapon. I interpret this to mean that you can use Full Parry against your melee foes but also Full Dodge against ranged attackers. It sounds weird at first, but I figure it just reflects that you only need part of your attention for the attacks, leaving you free to focus more on defense. (I personally visualize this as using the weapons to help deflect ranged attacks. There's a perfect example of this in Wanted, and of course The Phantom Menace.)
Anyway, I meant that Full Parry was a often poor choice compared to Full Dodge, if you have to choose one or the other for the full duration of your Full Defense action. You get great defense against melee attackers, but your ranged defense is (Reaction-3), which is a good way to get killed if there are any gunmen around.
-
That touches on another issue we've had in our game, and part of the reason I think you select "Full Defense" as your action and not "Full Parry" etc. The rules for two weapon style actually say that you get Full Defense for free when fighting with two weapon. I interpret this to mean that you can use Full Parry against your melee foes but also Full Dodge against ranged attackers. It sounds weird at first
At secondth too. As far as I know, only adepts can do things like deflecting a projectile, and they do need an adept power. RAI, as I interpret them - but I may be wrong - simply means the character uses his second weapon to full parry in melee, or there is no reason for it to be limited to two weapons fighting style.
-
Yeah, we also handle it like that. You choose to go Full Defense and get both melee and ranged defense, whichever applies.
-
@anotherJack: We have plenty of legends of real humans deflecting and catching bullets, so I don't think you need Awakening to imagine it. :) It's just flavor text.
However, mechanically the Two Weapon Style rule gives you Full Defense, not Full Parry. That way, you can use Full Dodge if your (Reaction + Dodge + weapon) is better than your (Reaction + weapon x 2). Also, also consider that one of the premier two-weapon styles, kenjutsu with the dai-sho, emphasizes dodging over parrying because of the brittleness of Japanese blades. I think it makes good sense to allow all forms of Full Defense with Two Weapon Style. And if you can Full Dodge all of your melee attackers, why not all of your attackers?
-
So then, why use two melee weapons ? just handle a melee weapon in a hand, you don't even need to use it, and bingo ! you can full dodge for free against ranged attack ! but if you can ful dodge for free without even parrying, since you dodge, so you can full dodge for free without even the second weapon ?
Nonsense.
-
Don't you split your dice pool for using two weapons in combat? Doesn't that apply to defense as well?
-
@anotherJack: I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The Two Weapon Style rules say that you can attack and use Full Defense at the same time, if you use two weapons. You must use both weapons, presumably so that you have enough of a tactical advantage over your opponent that you can still devote your attention to defense.
How is it not parrying if you use Full Dodge (Reaction + Dodge + weapon)? For that matter, where does Two Weapon Style say that you need to parry at all? You must "use" the second weapon, but in Shadowrun that includes dodging and blocking and gymnastics, not just parrying.
Also, if they only meant to allow parries, then why doesn't the rule just say that?
@The_Gun_Nut: You split the pool for multiple attacks, but that's something different.
-
@ Gun Nut : the character splits only if he makes two attacks at the same time with his two weapons. If he doesn't then he makes only one attack and choose the weapon he attacks with. And yes, you split if you make multiple attacks, as usual.
@Bradd : it would mean that with 7 BP, you buy "firefight" 5BP, plus the maneuver for two weapons, 2BP, and yes, your character is always in full dodge for free, may he have a knife or a gun in the other hand, may he use it or not. Really, nonsense, totally unbalanced, and so.
If you use full dodge, you use reaction + dodge, which works against ranged attacks, OR reaction + skill + dodge / reaction + dodge + dodge, those two work only against melee attacks. So if you dodge against ranged attacks, it means you use dodge + reaction, so you juste don't need the second weapon, so this interpretation leads to a nonsense.
(sorry if it isn't clear, I try to check what I write as much as I can, but I can't really pick up my mistakes in english)
Why the rule says that ? four options :
a) they never thought somebody would think to apply this to ranged combat.
b) they just did a mistake, it's waiting for an errata.
c) they say "full defense" because the full dodge can involve the wepaon skill, but only against melee attacks, as seen above. So "full defense" is correct, but it does not mean any type of full dodge, only the melee one.
d) they did want to allow any character to be in permanent full defense without spending actions for 7 BP.
Pick up which you want.
EDIT : thanks Gun Nut, fixed !
-
Dodge is only added once for ranged attacks, and only if the Full Defense option is chosen. Otherwise it is just reaction.
-
Full Dodge (SR4a, p160):
Full Dodge: Character on full defense may add their Dodge skill to their dice pool when defending against incoming attacks. So a character on full defense against a ranged attack rolls Dodge + Reaction, whereas a character on full defense against a melee attack could roll Dodge + Dodge + Reaction, or melee combat skill + Dodge + Reaction. Full dodge may be used against both ranged and melee attacks.
-
@anotherJack: Two Weapon Style only works with two melee weapons (Reach 0-1), and only if you attack with one of them. You can't do it with a gun, and you can't do anything besides a melee attack and Full Defense. That is definitely not free Full Defense all the time: It doesn't work with firearms, it doesn't work with magic, it doesn't work with hacking, etc. It's is very similar to the way Quickdraw works: You only get to draw the weapon for free if you're also attacking with it.
You can use a weapon in defense without necessarily using the weapon skill dice. That happens all the time with normal melee defense, if you choose (Reaction + Dodge) or (Reaction + Unarmed Combat) instead of (Reaction + weapon). Therefore, I don't agree with the insistence that Two Weapon Style only works for parrying.
I don't really see how it's totally unbalancing, either. Unless you also buy Ambidexterity or Off-Hand Training, there's a -2 penalty to the Full Defense (or the attack, if you prefer), and you'll often have another -3 penalty for melee defender versus ranged attack. You need Dodge 5 just to break even with a gunman's normal defense. Yes, it sounds awesome if you describe it as "Full Defense all the time!" but it really isn't much of an advantage, compared to what you'd get by using a gun from across the room.
(By the way, our group's gun bunny had a similar reaction to multiple attacks with melee weapons, and how unbalanced they are if you have a bunch of dice pool modifiers, because those don't get split. I pointed out that he gets two bursts every pass without needing to split his dice pool. When considering whether a melee benefit is unbalanced, first consider how many handicaps they have relative to guns. The ranged guys have all kinds of defensive advantages that they don't need to pay any BPs for.)
-
@anotherJack: Two Weapon Style only works with two melee weapons (Reach 0-1), and only if you attack with one of them. You can't do it with a gun, and you can't do anything besides a melee attack and Full Defense. That is definitely not free Full Defense all the time: It doesn't work with firearms, it doesn't work with magic, it doesn't work with hacking, etc. It's is very similar to the way Quickdraw works: You only get to draw the weapon for free if you're also attacking with it.
You can do it with a gun and the martial art Firefight. And you can use a gun as improvised melee weapon.
You can use a weapon in defense without necessarily using the weapon skill dice. That happens all the time with normal melee defense, if you choose (Reaction + Dodge) or (Reaction + Unarmed Combat) instead of (Reaction + weapon). Therefore, I don't agree with the insistence that Two Weapon Style only works for parrying.
Then, if you don't have to use the weapon, you don't need to use it against ranged attacks, so you don't need an second weapon against ranged attacks to use the full dodge for free. And even if you do need, imagine this :
Joe runner has no weapon, somebody shoots him : if he makes a full dodge, it will take his next action.
Joe runner has a gun, somebody shoots him : if he makes a full dodge, it will take his nex action.
Joe runner has a gun and a knife, somebody shoots him : now Joe runner can make a full dodge without spending any action.
Joe runner has two guns, somebody shoots him : still Joe runner can make a full dodge without spending any action.
Now find the logic.
Why having his two hands full makes Joe a better dodger ? he uses the weapon in his second hand to deflect bullets ? assuming he can without seeing his weapon breaks or explode, which I do not think because it means he's good enough to have perception in real time of the bullet's way through space, then why can't he do this with only one weapon in his second hand ? and then why couldn't he do this with a weapon in his good hand ? or better, with bare hands ? after all, a cyberlimb is quite as hard than a gun, so if he can do this with a gun, he must be able to do this with his cyberlimb, which can be as resistant, and on which he has even better control. Now, Joe runner with a cyberlimb can full dodge ranged attacks, deflecting bullets with bare hands, and it's only" logic" and "rule interpretation". Where do you think it will end ?
I don't really see how it's totally unbalancing, either. Unless you also buy Ambidexterity or Off-Hand Training, there's a -2 penalty to the Full Defense (or the attack, if you prefer), and you'll often have another -3 penalty for melee defender versus ranged attack. You need Dodge 5 just to break even with a gunman's normal defense. Yes, it sounds awesome if you describe it as "Full Defense all the time!" but it really isn't much of an advantage, compared to what you'd get by using a gun from across the room.
It's unbalanced because you don't have to take any action, and you just always get reaction + dodge against a ranged attack instead of reaction. The opponents roll agility + fire arme, but range fight modifier are mainly negative for the one who attacks.
You can check it, you gain quickly much more negative modifiers on a ranged attack than in melee.
About melee and ranged fight compared powers and handicaps, there's a recent thread on martial arts which shows what can be done with the good options in melee. It's … interesting ::)
-
@anotherJack: Two Weapon Style only works with two melee weapons (Reach 0-1), and only if you attack with one of them. You can't do it with a gun, and you can't do anything besides a melee attack and Full Defense. That is definitely not free Full Defense all the time: It doesn't work with firearms, it doesn't work with magic, it doesn't work with hacking, etc. It's is very similar to the way Quickdraw works: You only get to draw the weapon for free if you're also attacking with it.
You can do it with a gun and the martial art Firefight. And you can use a gun as improvised melee weapon.
I still don't understand what you mean by this. You only get Full Defense if you attack with a melee weapon (a complex action). You cannot use Two Weapon Style if you fire a gun. If you're not firing a gun, what is the point of Firefight?
You can use a weapon in defense without necessarily using the weapon skill dice. That happens all the time with normal melee defense, if you choose (Reaction + Dodge) or (Reaction + Unarmed Combat) instead of (Reaction + weapon). Therefore, I don't agree with the insistence that Two Weapon Style only works for parrying.
Then, if you don't have to use the weapon, you don't need to use it against ranged attacks, so you don't need an second weapon against ranged attacks to use the full dodge for free.
That doesn't follow. You do use the second weapon, it just isn't reflected directly in the dice pool. Just like you still use your sword when you roll (Reaction + Dodge) in a normal defense, even though you don't roll Blades.
And even if you do need, imagine this :
Joe runner has no weapon, somebody shoots him : if he makes a full dodge, it will take his next action.
Joe runner has a gun, somebody shoots him : if he makes a full dodge, it will take his nex action.
Joe runner has a gun and a knife, somebody shoots him : now Joe runner can make a full dodge without spending any action.
Joe runner has two guns, somebody shoots him : still Joe runner can make a full dodge without spending any action.
There's the problem, that last claim is incorrect. To use Two Weapon Style, you must make a melee attack, which is a complex action. And he's making a melee attack with a gun, which is probably not a great idea.
Now find the logic.
Why having his two hands full makes Joe a better dodger ? he uses the weapon in his second hand to deflect bullets ?
It doesn't make him a better dodger. Two-weapon fighting makes you a better attacker. Note that if you use both melee weapons to attack, your opponent gets -1 defense against the first and -2 against the second. This maneuver just lets you shift that advantage to your own defense instead. By overwhelming the guy you attack, you can focus more on defending against him and everyone else.
It's unbalanced because you don't have to take any action, and you just always get reaction + dodge against a ranged attack instead of reaction. The opponents roll agility + fire arme, but range fight modifier are mainly negative for the one who attacks.
You can check it, you gain quickly much more negative modifiers on a ranged attack than in melee.
Please note that Two Weapon Style requires a complex action, just as Quickdraw requires a simple action. You do not get the Full Defense free and clear. For example, you do not get Full Defense if you use two simple actions to draw your two weapons. You do not get it if you're just walking around. You do not get it if you cast a spell. You only get it when you make a melee attack with two melee weapons.
And I don't agree that something is unbalanced just because it requires no action. It's only balanced or not in context with other, similar things. In this case, the similar things are gunbunny defenses (which are generally better) and two-weapon attack bonuses (which are about +3 net dice). Compared to those things, is this worth 7-9bp?
-
Okay, I think I see why you didn't find it unbalanced as I do. You think you have to make a melee attack to gain the free use of full defense. But when I read and re-read the text, I don't find anything that says the character has to make an attack.
The text :
The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action)
As I understand it, it says the character uses one of his weapons in full defense, and can attack as normal with the other, not that he must attack to gain the free full dodge. But I'm french, I may not understand english subtleties as you do, so I may doubt.
Now, some points :
- a character can attack in melee with a gun, since it's an improvised melee weapon. He uses his clubs skill.
- even if he had to attack to get the free full defense, which I don't think, let's use the same way of thinking you used, let's extend it to ranged attacks : nothing says the character has to make a melee attack. Since they are melee improvised weapon, since they are used in melee by the firefight martial art, a character wielding two guns fits the conditions for two melee style. And since nothing is said about the attack type, he can simply shoot with a gun to gain the free full defense. It's a melee weapon, it's an attack, it's okay with the rules.
- But imho, if adepts need to develop a special power in order to have the ability to catch projectiles - and slow ones, not bullets - a mundane really can't just use a basic maneuver to deflect bullets with his weapon.
To resume : if the character really needs an attack to gain his free full defense, I find it less unbalanced, but
- I don't see where it's written.
- I still don't agree about extending it to ranged attacks, but if you apply it, by the rules, you must extend it too to the attack type, and then a shooter with two guns gets full defense for free, since a) they're valid melee weapon, and b) there's no more specification about the attack type than about the fact that the full defense applies or not to ranged attacks. There's no reason you extend the interpretation of a vague word to ranged attack and you don't do the same for another vague word.
- I'd say the free full defense does not need really the character to attack, but it applies only to full defense against melee attacks.
And I don't agree that something is unbalanced just because it requires no action. It's only balanced or not in context with other, similar things. In this case, the similar things are gunbunny defenses (which are generally better) and two-weapon attack bonuses (which are about +3 net dice). Compared to those things, is this worth 7-9bp?
Is it worth 7BP ?
If this is not a mistake, that you can have free defense against ranged attacks while wielding two weapons, and the devs say so, do you find that a free bonus of 7 dices (5 in dodge, spec. ranged attacks) on all my defense test are worth 7BP or not, knowing that increasing the reaction of one point costs 10 BP ? I'd say yess, totally. And I want to rebuild my characters.
-
I'm certain that the attack is an integral part of the maneuver. Hm, how to explain this? The "attacking with the other weapon as normal" is a participial phrase that modifies the subject of the sentence, "character." It's independent of the rest of the sentence, which is why it's set off with a comma. Yes, this could be phrased better, and I can see how it'd be murky for a non-native speaker!
So yes, you do need to attack with one of the melee weapons, and you cannot make a ranged attack with a melee weapon. Yes, a gun is both ranged and (improvised) melee, but in context it must be used as a melee weapon, and that means a melee attack. This one isn't a subtlety of English, but rather a convention of RPGs, and I'd be very surprised if it weren't true here.
As for defending against ranged attacks, I thought of a clever argument in favor of that: A character can definitely use a weapon in Full Dodge, using Reaction + Dodge + weapon skill. But if you're actively dodging in melee, you're surely harder to hit at range too! ;)
-
I have to trust you for the meaning, so I do.
But when it comes to RPG conventions, there's a convention in the shadowrun universe which is a melee weapon can't help against ranged attacks, or it already would with only one melee weapon, and it does not. There's no modifier between a character making a full dodge against a ranged attack unarmed and a character making a full dodge against a ranged attack wielding a melee weapon. Were we in Feng shui universe, I'd probably agree you can deflect bullets with your blade, but we're not. The only way to make somethin approaching is to be an adept with the right power, and it does not work on bullets, only on slow projectiles. The rule says the character use Full defense using one of these weapons, attacking with the other, so, I trust you the character must make an attack, but then, you have two choices :
- or you apply "RPG convention", and then, full defense using one of these weapon does not apply to ranged attacks, since melee weapon does not help against ranged attacks.
- or you apply RAW, exploiting the lack of precision to extend the word "full defense" to ranged attacks, and then you must do the same about the word "attack", extended to ranged attack, allowing to benefit the free full defense when using two guns.
But if on one hand you apply RAW, screwing the RPG convention, and on the other hand you apply the RPG's convention, screwing RAW, there's something very wrong.
And about using weapon in full dodge, yes you can, but the [reaction + dodge + weapon skill] full dodge definitely only works against melee attacks, as it is written.
-
Melee weapon skill does not apply to ranged weapon attacks, but Full Dodge certainly does. I don't agree that the "RPG convention" applies there. You cannot fire a gun as a melee weapon, but you can certainly dodge ranged attacks while parrying with a sword. The sword doesn't help, but you can do it just the same.
-
Then there is something very wrong. You can't just apply RPG convention in one case to justify your interpretation, and ignore it when you want. There are 3 types of full dodges, ranged full dodge, which doesn't use a melee weapon, and two melee full dodges, of which one only uses a melee weapon. The rule says you use Full dodge using one of the two melee weapons, so it's the third Full dodge type. A melee weapon can't help against ranged attacks, you can't use these weapon to full dodge the ranged attack, so the rule does not apply to ranged attacks, you can't take the benefit of it, so, you have two tactical choices :
- Or you take the free full defense, then you must make an attack as you told me, and you can use the third full dodge type by using melee weapon, if it applies to the attack type, and it does not apply to ranged attacks, against ranged attacks your only option is the classic [reaction] test,
- Or you take the classic full defense, and then, yes, as you said, you can both full parry/dodge melee attacks and full dodge ranged attacks, any of the three types you want, but it isn't free, it costs a complex action.
But you can't have, in french we say "le beurre et l'argent du beurre", it means all advantages without any disavantadge.
-
Wow, this triggered some kind of big shiny red button deep in my soul, I just spent like 30 minutes looking all this up and typing this up.... I sure hope it helps.. lol
For reference, the full text in the book:
Two Weapon Style
A character using this maneuver has trained to wield a second melee weapon in his off hand. In order to use two weapons, each weapon must have a Reach of 0 or 1.
The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action). The defense or attack action with the off-hand weapon suffers the standard –2 off-hand weapon modifier.
Ok, so first, it specifically states in the first sentence that the weapon held in the off hand is melee. Also, it implies, by way of stating "second melee weapon" that the other weapon (in the main hand) is a melee weapon as well. Otherwise it would have stated "...to wield a melee weapon in his off hand." So I feel that we can safely forgo any further references to guns being held in either hand, unless we automatically assume they are out of ammo and are being used as melee weapons. So in this case, Bradd is correct. However, the sentence "The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action)." actually does not imply that you must attack in order to receive the defensive bonus. I can't speak to the intent of the dev's, but I can say without a doubt that this sentence, as written, means that you get a free full defense, and you can attack if you want to, not that you are required to do so in order to receive the "free" full defense action. So in this case anotherJack is correct. So, basically what this boils down to is that if a character were wielding 2 (melee) weapons, and were shot at, spit at, stabbed at, or bludgeoned at etc., he would then be able to choose to make a full defense action without losing any actions as per the normal rules for going on full defense. From that point on, for the rest of the entire combat turn, he would be considered to be using full defense, and this would apply to all incoming attacking from any source.
Now for some more big block quotes from the book for reference (italics added by me):
Full Defense
Characters who are expecting to be attacked can spend a Complex Action and go on full defense until their next Action Phase.
Characters who choose this option focus all of their energy on dodging, weaving, ducking, and blocking incoming attacks. Characters on full defense may still walk or run, and in fact may be better off moving towards cover. Full defense can be taken as a full dodge, full parry, or gymnastics dodge.
Full Dodge: Character on full defense may add their Dodge skill to their dice pool when defending against incoming attacks. So a character on full defense against a ranged attack rolls Dodge + Reaction, whereas a character on full defense against a melee attack could roll Dodge + Dodge + Reaction, or melee combat skill + Dodge + Reaction. Full dodge may be used against both ranged and melee attacks.
Full Parry: Characters who go on full parry roll (melee combat skill x 2) + Reaction against any and all melee attacks made against them. Full parry may not be used against ranged attacks.
Gymnastics Dodge: Characters skilled in Gymnastics can spend their action flipping, rolling, cartwheeling, etc. out of danger, and may add Gymnastics skill to their dice pool against either ranged or melee attacks.
So:
• if you choose to use "Full Dodge" as your Full Defense option, you would then be stuck using that option until the end of the round, rolling either ((Dodge x2) + Reaction), or (melee combat skill + Dodge + Reaction) as appropriate for the type of incoming attack (ranged or melee, respectively).
• if you choose to use "Full Parry" as your Full Defense option, you would then be stuck using that option until the end of the round, rolling either ((melee combat skill x 2) + Reaction) for incoming melee attacks, or straight Reaction for incoming ranged attacks.
• if you choose to use "Gymnastics Dodge" as your Full Defense option, you would then be stuck using that option until the end of the round, rolling either (Reaction + Gymnastics) for incoming ranged attacks. Against incoming melee attacks, you would roll either (Reaction + Dodge + Gymnastics) or (Reaction + melee skill + Gymnastics) as appropriate for whether you are dodging or parrying the incoming attack.
Given that you get no extra bonus at all against incoming ranged attacks - and just use the standard default Reaction roll against ranged attacks when using the "Full Parry" option, it would definitely be prudent to make sure you're not being shot at before choosing this option. However, if you assume you're not going to get shot at, it often will be the best choice for melee combatants because they usually have a much higher melee combat skill than dodge skill and therefore gain many more dice with that option that either of the other options. The trade of being that if someone does whip out a gun, they don't get a bonus. On the flip side, there's no rule stating that once you have chosen "Full Parry" you cant then choose to use up your attack that round to declare an additional full defense action in order to change to either Full Dodge, or Full Gymnastics Dodge. Also bear in mind that the "penalty" of having chosen Full Parry only lasts for the rest of that round, and in the next round (on the new initiative) you can choose to make your "free" Full Defense option a Full Dodge or Full Gymnastics Dodge.
Ok, so now that all the RAW is out of the way (and I hope I didn't miss anything)... my opinion:
Yes, this maneuver does fly in the face a little bit of logic, and is overpowered as written. It basically states that you are better at dodging just because you have a second weapon in your hand. However, for all intents and purposes, a fist is a melee weapon. So, realistically, two weapon style is not about whats in your hand, but instead is about the training. You have trained to be able to be aware of your surroundings, aware of incoming attacks from multiple sources, and to effectively utilize both hands (and ostensibly both feet) in combat, giving you an advantage that most people don't possess: the ability to attack as normal without sacrificing your defense. When viewed in this light, it pretty much forces the realization that you no longer have to have something in your hands to gain the benefit. That alone makes it overpowered, even if you completely ignore the logic that you could invoke this ability just as easily with a gun in your hand as well, since having a pistol in your hand wouldn't really be any different that having a Bagwa needle held in it, which is unarguably a melee weapon.
All in all, I think the only real thing we can do here is to house rule on it's usage. Forcing someone to have to make an attack that round in order to get the free defense would be one option, and a very good and balancing option at that, but I feel that there is a better option for me personally...
I just assumed that the description has a typo, and I read it as "The character may choose to apply the Full Parry Defense option using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action). The defense or attack action with the off-hand weapon suffers the standard –2 off-hand weapon modifier." I think this makes the maneuver very well rounded and balanced. Perhaps we'll see if this is what they intended if they ever update the errata for Arsenal.
-
Here's how I parse the TWS rule: "The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option using only one of these weapons, [when he is] attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action [according to the normal interrupt action rules])." The participial phrase modifies "character," making it a character who is attacking. That also makes more sense in that you are giving up the usual offensive benefits of two-weapon attacks (an extra attack and defense penalties for your target) in exchange for a defensive benefit.
And I'm still not sure whether you choose "Full Defense" as an action or "Full Dodge," etc. The RAW hint at both, and because there isn't a clear balance or realism issue, have no idea what the RAI are supposed to be. I personally have gone with "Full Defense is an action, Full Dodge etc. is how you respond to each attack," because it lets characters do cooler stuff, and it has a little less bookkeeping involved.
I do agree with you, however, that TWS reflects extra training and situational awareness. I think it also reflects the idea that when you have a serious offensive advantage (like two-weapon use), you can turn it into a defensive advantage.
EDIT: A couple more thoughts.
Given that the rules aren't very precise with language, it's probably a bad idea to base an argument on grammatical analysis. :) So consider this instead: When you use TWS, it only makes one exception to the usual interrupt action rules. You can attack without sacrificing an action, but that's the only thing you can do besides Full Defense.
And as for dodging, consider the fighting styles that typically use two weapons, in real life and fiction. I'd say the two most prominent inspirations for TWS are kenjutsu (katana + shoto) and Western fencing (sword + dagger). Kenjutsu is not a parrying art, because the blades are poorly suited for it. Fencers rely more heavily on parrying, but even so their image in pop culture is that of dodgy swashbuckler types.
By the way, for a fine example of Shadowrun-style combat (including paired katana), I recommend Resident Evil: Afterlife. The middle of the movie is survival horror, but the beginning and end is pure Shadowrun!
-
I just assumed that the description has a typo, and I read it as "The character may choose to apply the Full Parry Defense option using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action). The defense or attack action with the off-hand weapon suffers the standard –2 off-hand weapon modifier." I think this makes the maneuver very well rounded and balanced.
Same interpretation, but I would allow too the Full Dodge with [reaction + weapon skill + dodge] and the Gymnastics dodge with [reaction + weapon skill + gymnastic], it may explain why they wrote "Full defense" instead of "Full parry", it fits with the mention "using one of these weapons", and both options still only applies to melee attacks.
-
I figure that's exactly why it's Full Defense and not Full Parry. While many martial artists will specialize in a weapon, I can easily see somebody building a generalist melee character with Close Combat Group 4 and Dodge 4 (Melee +2), in which case Full Dodge is their best option.
Where I disagree is that Full Dodge should only apply to melee attacks. If that's what they meant, it should explicitly say so, because if you're dodging then you should be able to dodge everything and not just melee attacks. Ignoring TWS for a moment: You can use a weapon for Full Defense normally, including Full Dodge. Using the weapon does not preclude you from dodging ranged attacks! You simply don't add the weapon dice to the ranged defense tests. Without an explicit rule, I don't see why this should change because there's a weapon in your other hand.
(By the way, in English we have an idiom similar to your French one: "to have your cake and eat it too.")
-
...
And I'm still not sure whether you choose "Full Defense" as an action or "Full Dodge," etc. The RAW hint at both, and because there isn't a clear balance or realism issue, have no idea what the RAI are supposed to be. I personally have gone with "Full Defense is an action, Full Dodge etc. is how you respond to each attack," because it lets characters do cooler stuff, and it has a little less bookkeeping involved.
...
I personally always assumed that the "Full Dodge", "Full Parry" and "Gymnastics Dodge" were the actual actions, and you had to pick one of them to apply for the round. However, I do really like the idea of being able to change your defensive 'strategy' mid stream. It does open up more cool moves for the characters, but I think it might also make it a bit too buff, especially when used with the TWS maneuver (based on my interpretations). However, the RAW seem to back you up on this idea as well since "full defense" is listed as one of the complex actions in the combat section, although its only implied and not explicitly laid out as such (pg.148 SR4A). Definitely food for thought. =)
... but I would allow too the Full Dodge with [reaction + weapon skill + dodge] and the Gymnastics dodge with [reaction + weapon skill + gymnastic], it may explain why they wrote "Full defense" instead of "Full parry", it fits with the mention "using one of these weapons", and both options still only applies to melee attacks.
True, by allowing only the "melee versions" of the dodge/gymnastics dodge defenses, it adds some variety to the mix, while still keeping with the (melee based) spirit of the maneuver.
***
I think I will actually use both of these things in my games from now on. That is:
• When using full defense as a complex action as normal, you can use whichever "version" of full defense you want to against any incoming attack as you see fit, changing at will from attack to attack.
• When using full defense as a free action from Two Weapon Style, you can still choose to change "versions" at will based on incoming attacks, but you only get said benefits when defending against melee attacks. Bear in mind that the character actually receives and extra +1 to his full parry defense because he is dual wielding (pg 163 Arsenal). However, if someone shoots at him, he only gets to roll Reaction as normal. (Also, you are not required to make an attack that round in order to receive/use the free full defense action.)
While this solution may not put the discussion to bed over what the RAW were supposed to mean, I feel this is a very balanced and fair ruling.
-
Given that the rules aren't very precise with language, it's probably a bad idea to base an argument on grammatical analysis. :)
I completely agree with the grammatical analysis bit, I'm sure the writers didn't think that much about it.. lol
When you use TWS, it only makes one exception to the usual interrupt action rules. You can attack without sacrificing an action, but that's the only thing you can do besides Full Defense.
I completely understand where you are coming from with this, but, the English language is a funny funny thing... see, cause my interpretation would be: "You can defend without sacrificing an action, but it takes so much attention, that the only other thing you could possibly do would be to (counter)attack one of your aggressors."
It seems this may be one of those tootsie pop questions... the world may never know. lol
-
If I'm understanding you correctly, that's actually a little closer to how I read the rule. Normally, when you do something in addition to Full Defense, you need to sacrifice your next complex action (interrupt rules). TWS makes an exception, but only for attacking with one of your melee weapons.
In any case, I think it's the same end result as what I was proposing as the RAI: You can use Full Defense normally as a complex action, you can melee attack normally as a complex action, and with TWS you can additionally do both together as a single complex action (no interrupt sacrifice necessary). However, it doesn't let you combine just any action with Full Defense; you couldn't cast a spell or draw your weapons, for example.
-
Where I disagree is that Full Dodge should only apply to melee attacks. If that's what they meant, it should explicitly say so, because if you're dodging then you should be able to dodge everything and not just melee attacks. Ignoring TWS for a moment: You can use a weapon for Full Defense normally, including Full Dodge. Using the weapon does not preclude you from dodging ranged attacks ! You simply don't add the weapon dice to the ranged defense tests.
So you don't use the weapon to make this dodge, you just carry it while you dodge, so there is absolutely no gain from TWS or from any weapon that would apply, he would have done exactly the same dodge if he was unarmed, or if he handled a gun, or two, or anything else.
As the gun you handle does not interfer in ranged full dodge, the melee weapon does not interfer in ranged full dodge, you just make a classic full dodge by spending a complex action.
The text is really clear about this : "The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option using only one of these weapons". It does mean the character uses actively a weapon for defense, not that he just carry it and shazam ! he suddenly can full dodge ranged attacks for free !
For me, the RAI is very clear : you have two weapons. One is dedicated to attack, the other is dedicated to defense. But a weapon dedicated to defense can't be used against melee attacks, or it already would apply with only one weapon - and it doesn't - so there's no gain from this technique against ranged attacks.
No need to call for kenjutsu or fencing, put a bushi in front of Indiana Jones, unless Indy's gun is empty the bushi's gonna be shot, no matter how many swords he has (oh yes, shiva arms… cry baby, cry).
I was just surprised when you extended the rule to ranged attacks, because it's for me obviously a nonsense, and I'm afraid it clearly sounds like munchkinning to my ears.
-
Somehow, TWS seems to only make sense to me if errata was published to make it so that you can choose the Full Parry full defense option. That's the advantage of having two melee weapons: you can attack with one and parry with the other.
-
Full Dodge and Gymnastic Dodge both make sense too, since they both have parrying options.
I understand why people expect a melee maneuver to improve parrying and nothing else. However, skill in one area can easily improve skill in another area, especially if you're learning to eliminate hindrances or distractions – or if you're learning to coordinate two different things.
For example, have you ever tried to sing while you're playing a musical instrument? It's very hard, and you'll miss notes or words or lose rhythm, or more likely all three. Without practice, you can only concentrate on one or the other. However, if you get really good at the instrument, you'll sing better too. Does that mean that guitar practice makes you better at singing? No, it just means that your guitar doesn't distract you from the singing so much anymore. Of course, you do even better if you practice coordinating the two.
In exactly the same way, improving your melee ability can improve your overall combat ability. It's not that melee skills make you better at dodging bullets, it's that they don't distract you from it anymore, just like the guitar stops detracting from your singing ability when you get better and practice them together.
@anotherJack: Ignore TWS for the sake of argument. Consider the way Full Dodge works normally. Somebody attacks you with a knife, you use Full Dodge (Reaction + Dodge + Blades) to parry with your sword. Clearly you are using your weapon for Full Defense! You are not just carrying it, and it's helping with your defense. Before your next phase, somebody else shoots at you. Now you roll (Reaction + Dodge) to defend. Are you now just carrying your sword? Did it stop helping with your defense? No, of course not, because if a third foe punches you, the sword is still there to defend. You are still using and defending with your sword, and dodging bullets.
Do you disagree with any of that? If not, what is materially different about TWS? Why can you normally dodge bullets while defending with a sword, but not while you're carrying a knife too? At exactly which point are you no longer allowed to dodge ranged attacks?
-
@anotherJack: Ignore TWS for the sake of argument. Consider the way Full Dodge works normally. Somebody attacks you with a knife, you use Full Dodge (Reaction + Dodge + Blades) to parry with your sword. Clearly you are using your weapon for Full Defense! You are not just carrying it, and it's helping with your defense. Before your next phase, somebody else shoots at you. Now you roll (Reaction + Dodge) to defend. Are you now just carrying your sword? Did it stop helping with your defense? No, of course not, because if a third foe punches you, the sword is still there to defend. You are still using and defending with your sword, and dodging bullets.
Do you disagree with any of that? If not, what is materially different about TWS? Why can you normally dodge bullets while defending with a sword, but not while you're carrying a knife too? At exactly which point are you no longer allowed to dodge ranged attacks?
But you CAN dodge ranged attacks, how many times will I have to say it ?
You have a sword and you want to make a full dodge against ranged attacks, no problem, you just spend a complex action or make an interrupt action, and you make your full dodge, it's the core rulebook rule, and I do agree with it, actually whether you have a sword or not does not involve in this.
But now, you have a sword and you want to use actively it in your full defense, then you only have three options, including some of the full dodge options, the three options available involve the melee skill, but the three can't do anything against a ranged attack, that's core rulebook, again.
SO you CAN'T use the TWS maneuver to gain a free full dodge against ranged attacks : the gain of the TWS comes from the fact that' you dedicate one of your two weapons to defense, it is obviously said in the text, and a melee weapon never helps against rangeds attacks.
It DOESN't mean you can't make a full dodge against ranged attacks, but then it's no more the TWS maneuver, it's a basic, classic full defense, you spend your complex action, you make your full dodge.
Isn't it obvious enough ?
For example, have you ever tried to sing while you're playing a musical instrument? It's very hard, and you'll miss notes or words or lose rhythm, or more likely all three. Without practice, you can only concentrate on one or the other. However, if you get really good at the instrument, you'll sing better too. Does that mean that guitar practice makes you better at singing? No, it just means that your guitar doesn't distract you from the singing so much anymore. Of course, you do even better if you practice coordinating the two.
Yay, that's why the two wielding allows you to make a full defense for free using this weapon.
But it's not because you have the technique to sing and play at the same time that it allows you to cook and drive a car too while you play and sing.
You're just trying to extend the rule to an area of application where it obviously can't apply.
What's the next ? you can use the full defense option in the matrix, will you too apply the TWS maneuver to cyberfight, justifying it by "yeah, you practiced with two sword, in fact it just trained you to be less easily distracted, so it does apply in cyberfight" ?
The rule isn't about being less distracted, or about a guitar hero, or about western fence and kenjutsu, the rule is about dedicating one weapon to the attack, and the other to the defense, and that's all.
-
You're just trying to extend the rule to an area of application where it obviously can't apply.
I strongly disagree, because parrying is compatible with ranged dodging, according to the normal rules for this kind of thing. I don't accept that using a weapon limits you to just the parrying forms of defense, because clearly it isn't normally true. Unless you have something more to support your conclusion, it doesn't hold up.
What's the next ? you can use the full defense option in the matrix, will you too apply the TWS maneuver to cyberfight, justifying it by "yeah, you practiced with two sword, in fact it just trained you to be less easily distracted, so it does apply in cyberfight" ?
I'm not proposing any of these things. I'm just proposing that you can use the normal rules for physical combat, while in physical combat. It really isn't helpful to keep throwing out these exaggerations, claims I'm not making. They just heat up the argument and obscure the main point.
I get the feeling that you're envisioning this kind of defense differently than I am. You interpret it to mean that you can still parry, even though you're attacking. That is not how I visualize it. My understanding of TWS is that you become so good with two weapons that you can take Full Defense and still make an attack with one weapon. Perhaps that will help you see where I'm coming from? You aren't using one weapon specially to parry, you're using one weapon specially to attack.
-
Um guys... Have either of you tried to Parry a ranged attack? If not let me give my experience on the subject. Using foam throwing stars to practice with, If you are not distracted at all you can parry them, sometimes. If you are distracted you can parry them occasionally, however that occasionally is not as often as you are going to bleed to death.
I'm not sure what the rules say about "full actions" yet. But from personal XP parrying attacks from A leaves you wide open to attacks from B. cause you cannot split your attention and get the full benefit of defense.
-
Bradd, or you're kidding me, or you just strongly disagree because you're searching for an extra bit of power for your character.
Re-read the rule, compare it, word by word, with what you "visualize", it just doesn't fit.
I re-quote the full rule for you :
A character using this maneuver has trained to wield a second melee weapon in his off hand. In order to use two weapons, each weapon must have a Reach of 0 or 1.
The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action). The defense or attack action with the offhand weapon suff ers the standard –2 offhand weapon modifier.
1) Do you have to fit the conditions of the TWS maneuver rule to get the benefits of the TWS maneuver rule ?
- Yes, obviously
2) Does it say you use a weapon fort attack ?
- Yes (The rule above)
3) Does it say you use a weapon for Full defense ?
- Yes (The rule above)
4) Does it say that the defense action with the offhand suffers a modifier ?
- Yes (The rule above)
5) Do the answers to the questions 2), 3) and 4) mean that, in order to fit the conditions of the TWS maneuver rule, you must make both the attack and the defense action with the weapons in your hands ?
- Yes
6) So do you need to use a weapon for Full defense to fit the conditions of the TWS maneuver rule ?
- Yes (The rule above)
7) Can you use the [Full dodge against ranged attacks] option by using a weapon ?
- No (The core rulebook)
8 ) So, knowing the answer to the question 5), do you fit the conditions of the rule when you make a Full dodge against a ranged attack ?
- No
9) So can you take the benefit of the TWS maneuver rule if you make a Full dodge against a ranged attack ?
- No
10) Is there any full defense option against ranged attacks that involve the using of a weapon ?
- No (The core rulebook)
11) Does it mean you just can't use a weapon in the full defense options against ranged attacks ?
- Yes (The core rulebook)
12) Then do you fit the TWS maneuver rule conditions when you make a full defense against a ranged attack ?
- No
13) Then can you take the benefits of the TWS maneuver rule when you make a full defense against rangeds attacks ?
- No
14) Then can you make a full defense for free against rangeds attacks by using the TWS maneuver rule ?
- No
15) Then do you have to spend a complex action if you want make a full defense against a ranged attack, even if you use the TWS maneuver ?
- Yes
16) Then, can you dodge a ranged attack when using the TWS maneuver rule ?
- Yes, but only with the standard reaction test, not with a full defense option (The core rulebook)
17) Does it fit with a visual interpretation ?
- Yes. the character use one weapon in melee to attack, the other melee weapon for defense, it allows him to attack and parry melee attacks in nearly the same time.
18) So, does this interpretation fit with both the rule as written and the RPG conventions ?
- Yes
19) Does an interpretation which says you can use the TWS maneuver rule to get free full defense againts ranged attacks fit with both the rule as written and the RPG conventions ?
- No, it doesn't fit with the rule, and barely with the shadowrun universe conventions.
20) Can a player use the interpretation which says you can use the TWS maneuver rule to get free full defense againts ranged attack ?
- Yes, of course, if his GM allows him to. But it's not the normal rule, it's a house rule.
-
Bradd, or you're kidding me, or you just strongly disagree because you're searching for an extra bit of power for your character.
I am not kidding you, I am a GM, and I don't appreciate the incredulity and personal attacks.
7) Can you use the [Full dodge against ranged attacks] option by using a weapon ?
- No (The core rulebook)
The Full Defense rule allows you to dodge ranged attacks just fine while defending with a weapon, so I disagree with you. Since your entire argument rests on this, and you haven't offered any other reason why we should rule against it, other than insulting slippery slopes, I simply don't find your argument compelling. Unless you have something different to add, I'm done with this.
-
The Full Defense rule allows you to dodge ranged attacks just fine while defending with a weapon, so I disagree with you..
Yes it does. But not by using a weapon, you do not use a weapon to dodge a ranged attack, like you do not use a gun to dodge a ranged attack even if you were using it a second ago. You make your dodge, whatever is in your hands doesn't change anything.
You just "dodged" the word "using" and replaced it by "while defending with", it's not the same meaning, you can't disagree with an argument by changing its meaning, you disagree with the modified argument, not with the original one.
May I have made a mistake in formulation, I would reformulate this in :
"7) Can you use a weapon to make a full dodge against rangeds attacks ?"
But I think the previous formulation has the same meaning, so the answer to the 7) is correct too, you can't use a weapon to make a full dodge against a ranged attack, and the rest of the argument also, unless you find another lack, but not by changing words and meanings.
But take care : some points are essential to the argument, others are just here to enforce it : examples : 2) and 4) aren't essential, they just enforce 3), and 7), 8 ), 9) and 10), 11), 12), 13) are redundant.
-
"Using a weapon" is relevant only in that it tells you which weapon skill to apply for the parrying forms of Full Defense, and whether to apply the off-hand penalty. It doesn't limit your Full Defense any more than using a weapon does normally. I still disagree with you on this key point of your argument, and simply repeating it isn't helping.
I understand how it's intuitive for "using a weapon" to mean "parrying only," but that simply isn't how defense works in Shadowrun. You always have a choice of several defenses. TWS doesn't take anything away, it only adds the ability to attack at the same time without sacrificing an interrupt action.
I think the RAW supports my interpretation well enough, I think it's a fair ruling, I think it makes characters cooler, and I think it supports the source material better. That makes it good on most of the levels I care about. Most of the objections I see to this ruling are on aesthetic grounds (objecting to the idea of melee skill helping you against ranged attacks) or for balance reasons (because it allows a free attack/defense). But I personally have no problem with better melee skill making you better at combat all around, and I think the extra action is balanced well enough against similar options. These things are a matter of taste, and if that's the crux of the argument, we simply aren't going to agree.
If you think there's something else to discuss, or if there's some compelling reason I should change my mind on those matters of taste, cool. But otherwise, we're just rehashing what's already been said, and that's not productive.
-
"Using a weapon" is relevant only in that it tells you which weapon skill to apply for the parrying forms of Full Defense, and whether to apply the off-hand penalty. It doesn't limit your Full Defense any more than using a weapon does normally.
Yes, but then, it means you're using a full defense option which does not fit the the TWS maneuver rule condition, so you can't take benefit of the TWS maneuver rule by using this Full defense option.
Again, see the TWS maneuver rule conditions.
I still disagree with you on this key point of your argument, and simply repeating it isn't helping.
You force me to, by twisting the meanings of my arguments and regularly ignoring points of it. See the answer I had to make just above on the previous quote, the demonstration has already been made. You just ignored it.
I understand how it's intuitive for "using a weapon" to mean "parrying only," but that simply isn't how defense works in Shadowrun. You always have a choice of several defenses. TWS doesn't take anything away, it only adds the ability to attack at the same time without sacrificing an interrupt action.
Wrong. TWS maneuver allows you to take benefit of it only if you fit the conditions of the TWS maneuver rule, as for any rule.
You don't fit the conditions of a rule, you can't apply it.
You don't fit the conditions of the TWS maneuver rule if you make a full defense without an explicit use of one of your two weapons, so you can't apply it.
I think the RAW supports my interpretation well enough, I think it's a fair ruling, I think it makes characters cooler, and I think it supports the source material better. That makes it good on most of the levels I care about. Most of the objections I see to this ruling are on aesthetic grounds (objecting to the idea of melee skill helping you against ranged attacks) or for balance reasons (because it allows a free attack/defense). But I personally have no problem with better melee skill making you better at combat all around, and I think the extra action is balanced well enough against similar options. These things are a matter of taste, and if that's the crux of the argument, we simply aren't going to agree.
Okay, but if you push your interpretation to its limits, then you get characters that can take benefits of the TWS maneuver even when wielding a gun. It's just logic, and applying the same way of thinking you just applied to TWS. Do you want me to write the argument in the same way I've done before ? it's easy, but it'll take a little time and a lot of quotes of your previous posts. If you want me to, and you don't mind, I could make it this week-end.
If you think there's something else to discuss, or if there's some compelling reason I should change my mind on those matters of taste, cool. But otherwise, we're just rehashing what's already been said, and that's not productive.
It's true, it's not productive.
Please, stop ignoring already told arguments from post to post, take care of the whole argument, it'll end fast.
Continue ignoring it, and it can last for years, forcing me to repeat endlessly the arguments you ignore in your latest post.
-
I think the root of the argument here is that many people (including you) interpret TWS to mean that you can only use defensive options that directly use the defensive weapon – parrying – but I read it differently. I think they're just telling you to assign one weapon to offense and one to defense so you know which numbers to use when you do parry (and so you don't use the same weapon for both).
Perhaps this phrasing makes my reading clear? "The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option [as though he were] using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an [interrupt] action). [Any] defense or attack action with the off-hand weapon suffers the standard –2 off-hand weapon modifier."
This doesn't tell you how you may defend, but only what values to use when you do use the weapons.
-
It's a nonsense to me, since the rule applies to a technique called the Two Weapon Style, and obviously means that it's by using two weapons that you gain a specific bonus. I don't see why you should assign a weapon to defense if you don't have to use it. It would mean you can just make classic fulls dodges against both ranged and melee attacks without using this weapon at all. Then it would obviously mean you could use this maneuver with only one weapon. Nonsense.
But I can't argue if words haven't the same meaning for you and me.
Anyway, I'll just warn you : I've got a melee based character (he just can't use any gun). It's a little bit more complicated to handle in classic fights than a gunslinger, but it is really, really powerfull if well handled, and he's even not as powerfull as some characters I've seen described on this forum.
For me, allowing a melee character to use such a powerfull option and be in permanent Full defense against both melee and ranged attacks is clearly unbalancing both this maneuver, which becomes much more powerfull than others maneuvers, and the melee character's power.
But as a GM, you do what you want, if you find it fine, no problem.
-
The character does use both weapons, yes. He uses one to attack. He can use the other one for a second attack (normal two-weapon fighting) or to give himself a defensive advantage (Two Weapon Style maneuver). In the latter case, I don't take it to mean that he is strictly parrying, but just using the weapon to improve his defensive posture in general. Sometimes that might simply mean that he has an easier time fending off his target, so that he can focus more on his overall defense. More generally: Without the second weapon you don't dominate your target enough to fully defend against everyone else.
So yes, you do use the second weapon, even if it's not directly reflected in the defense rolls. There is no slippery slope leading to people doing full defenses all the time while shooting guns and whatnot. The maneuver only works because two weapon use gives you a huge combat advantage, either an overwhelming offense or an excellent defense.
And I've seen plenty of melee, I know how it works, and the gunbunnies have nothing to complain about. At least melee isn't as pathetic as it was in SR2.
-
The character does use both weapons, yes. He uses one to attack. He can use the other one for a second attack (normal two-weapon fighting) or to give himself a defensive advantage (Two Weapon Style maneuver). In the latter case, I don't take it to mean that he is strictly parrying, but just using the weapon to improve his defensive posture in general. Sometimes that might simply mean that he has an easier time fending off his target, so that he can focus more on his overall defense. More generally: Without the second weapon you don't dominate your target enough to fully defend against everyone else.
Nothing in this rule talks about dominating your target and overwhelming it. By the rule, you only dominate your target if you successfully beat it on the attack test, or force it to spend all its actions into full dodges so it can't take an action to place an attack, otherwise you don't dominate it at all.
But, according to the rule interpreted as you do, in both case whether you dominate it or not, you don't have to spend a complex action to use the full defense with your other weapon, so the bonus you get is obviously not about dominating your opponent or not.
Besides, would it be just about dominating your opponent and not about using actively your second weapon for defense, then a character with only one weapon could use it : he also could dominate his opponent with one weapon, exactly as the TWS user do, and would then be able to concentrate more on his defense, again exactly as the TWS user do.
And if overwhelming a melee opponent grants you free full defense against all others opponents, including those who shot you from distance, who are obviously not overwhelmed by your attack since you don't attack them, then this would allow you to have a free full defense against all opponents even if you don't attack anybody in melee.
Then, since making an attack with a gun is a lot more simple and takes you less time, both in the shadowrun RPG conventions and in the shadowrun ruleset, a character who's able to concentrate on its defense while attacking with a melee weapon should obviously be able to concentrate on its defense even while using a gun.
It's straight logic : your interpretation leads straight to extending this maneuver's effects to ranged fight.
And can be extended to all kind of actions which aren't more complex than a melee attack.
I don't remember if there were any major changes between the SR2 and SR3 melee ruleset, but in SR3, melee was just overkill. You just had to take a weapon with the best reach you could, a good strength, and you blasted all. A troll with a +2 reach weapon, it was clear overkill.
I find melee in SR4 still very powerfull, but much more balanced.
-
You read these rules far more literally than I do or would want to. I don't need them to tell me literally that two weapons let you dominate a foe; it's obvious from the effects of two-weapon attacks. I don't assume that "using a weapon" specifically means parrying, and so on. Given this difference in interpretation style, I doubt that we're likely to reach any kind of agreement here. I have trouble even following your arguments because they're so buried in assumptions and details that I simply don't hold or agree with. It's not worth the effort to me to sort it out, sorry.
-
I just use straight logic, both applied to the rules' meaning and your interpretation of them.
If you just want to ignore logic and both where it leads the rule, and where it leads your interpretation of the rule, you can do so, no problem, since you're the GM.
But it isn't logic, it's a romantic/poetic interpretation, full of nonsense, that you can only patch by using the "I'm the GM, I decide so" answer.
If you assume it, and it doesn't affect the main issue, which is you and your PC have fun, and I trust you about it, no problem.
And I don't try to reach any kind of agreement with you on this subject, though we may agree on a lot of others, I just try to force people to use their logic, whatever the forum on which I am is, I think it's very very important in the world we live in to use logic to contest thingsn whether they are game rules, public informations, politic arguments and so. Yeah, it probably sounds a bit fanatic, but I don't think it's useless.
So if I read an illogic argument, I can't help but just contest it.
-
Logic is only as good as your premises. ;) Mine differ!
-
Yep, but when applied to your premises, then logic leads to applying this rule to any action which is not more complex than a melee attack, as seen above.
So you may have different premises, no problem, your interpretation of the rule still isn't logic if you don't extend the rule to all actions which fit the description above. And shooting with a gun fits the description above.
-
It only leads to absurd results if you assume things that I have not claimed and in many cases have refuted. Please, this is annoying, I'm done with it.
-
It only leads to absurd results if you assume things that I have not claimed and in some cases have explicitly denied.
Quote pliz. With logic argument, without ignoring previous arguments of mine, without changing words.
-
You keep going from "not rolling to parry dice" to "not using the weapon" to "don't need the weapon" to "kick puppies for satan." I've said repeatedly how the first and second links in that chain of reasoning are not true, you keep ignoring it, I'm sick of it, I'm done with the argument. Please let it lie.
-
You keep going from "not rolling to parry dice" to "not using the weapon"
Obviously. Since you can do full dodges againts rangeds attacks or even against melee attack without involving the weapon in it, and handling a weapon or not doesn't affect these full dodges options, a character does not use the weapon when he makes a full dodge, his weapon has strictly no utility in these full dodges, or it would affect him in a way on another. Straight logic.
It would be exactly the same thing if he had a commlink or a vanilla ice cream in his hand, it does not involve or change anything (except that the ice cream will probably fall on the floor) in two of the three options of the full dodge, including the only full dodge option which works against rangeds attacks.
"not using the weapon" to "don't need the weapon"
Obviously again. If you don't need to use the weapon in these two full dodge options, as seen just above, then you can do strictly the same thing without the weapon. Logic again.
to "kick puppies for satan."
Sorry, I don't understand this expression. Could you please explain it to me, or reformulate it, so that I can see if it is true or not, and answer to you ?
I've said repeatedly how the first and second links in that chain of reasoning are not true,
I've just shown you once again they are true.
you keep ignoring it,
I'm not ignoring it, I argue clearly (…well, as clearly as I can in english) to show how these links are true from a logical point of view which assumes your premises.
I'm sick of it, I'm done with the argument. Please let it lie.
Then why don't you let it lie ? :)
I'm not sick of it, I'm used to this kind of discussions.
It's a common forum rule, when two posters are arguing against each others, none of the two can really stop and let it lie if he doesn't have the last word.
And you can see here an illustration of this principle since you keep answering to me even if you pretend to be bored with it.
-
Chummer, Jack. Both of your arguements are giving me a headache! How can someone "fully defend" against 2 seperate attackers at 2 different ranges?Either you fully defend against My Sword attack OR you fully defend (ie dodge?) against My Teammate's ranged weapons fire. Each attack is exclusive of the other when it comes to Fully defending.
I realize I'm a newb to the run, but not combat. Explain to me how (without dice rolls) one can fully defend versus a swordsman in his face while being shot at from behind? You either face the sword and pay full attention to it or you face the gun and pay full attention to that? No matter what they counter any intent to fully defend.
So both of you please explain your understandings so I can understand the rule.
-
How can someone "fully defend" against 2 seperate attackers at 2 different ranges?
That's just how Full Dodge normally works. You get improved defense against everyone who attacks you until the start of your next action phase. However, there are some penalties involved, which may address your objection. When you're in melee, you suffer -3 to defense versus ranged attacks, and when you're attacked multiple times, you're -1 for ever attacker after the first. Therefore, if you do try to parry and dodge at the same time, you'll be at -1/-3 or -0/-4 depending on which order they attack you in. If your Dodge skill is less than 4, your ranged "full" defense in melee is still worse than your full defense outside of melee. Make sense?
-
This by no means take simo attacks into account but then again this is rules from the same folk who brought us super sonic balls of metal that stop being able to do damage at 660 meters! Two attack maybe but most runners only have two arms/legs and can be attacked by up to 4 or more attack at once. I do assume that dice pools are split against the number of attackers right?
-
No, you don't split dice pools, you just get a -1 (cumulative) penalty for each defense after the first. That happens regardless of whether it's ranged, melee, multiple directions, whatever. Then there are additional defense penalties for things like being shot at while you're in melee, or attacked from behind.
-
Well, you see Bradd, on the Full defense basic rule we can agree ^^
Usda, taking the classic Full defense means you actively work to avoid any attack you're conscious of. For somebody which is not augmented, it means he makes nothing else, so yes, he can defend from many attacks. If he doesn't take the full defense option, he defends as normal, with very limited dice pools, and most of the time it'll simply avoid him 1-2 damages, and the modifier for multiples attacks still applies.
You get improved defense against everyone who attacks you until the start of your next action phase.
If I'm not wrong, it's until your next action, which is not exactly the same. I have to check this.
-
I was caught off guard by the "next action phase" as well, always thought it was until next initiative, but I checked, it is only until next action phase... hmmm, that makes a bit of a difference.
-
SR4A, p. 65: "The point during each Combat Turn when a specific character can act is called an Action Phase." Colloquially we call this your "action" or your "turn." If you take Full Defense on your turn, it lasts until your next turn. If you take it between your turns (an interrupt action), then it lasts until your next turn, at which time you sacrifice your complex action to pay for it. That means if you want to use it again, you'll need to interrupt again.
-
The question I have is how many interupts can you have in a single initiative pass?
-
Thread Necromancer :P
You can only use one future action to interrupt with, so once an IP. Once you pay off that interrupt by losing your complex action for the turn you can interrupt again using your next complex action from your next IP. Since Full Dodge lasts until your next action you can always be on full defense if you continue to sacrifice actions for it.
-
Suppose that you're attacked with a sword, then a pistol. How do you handle Full Defense?
1. Full Defense is an action; use the best kind of Full Defense versus each attack.
...
2. Full Dodge, Full Parry, and Gymnastic Dodge are different actions.
...
In my game, I went with the first ruling. Otherwise, it seems to me that Full Parry is almost always a bad idea: When can you be sure that there are no gunmen around?! That meant the option never got used, and so in the few cases where it actually was useful, everyone forgot about it. Full Parry ended up being useless extra bookkeeping.
I also think a careful reading of the RAW supports the first interpretation, but I'm not totally sure. Can anyone back it up or offer a strong argument against?
In my groups we use your option #1. I'm not 100% certain it is RAW, but it makes the game more cinematic for us, and as you said, it makes Full parry not completely useless. As for supporting my choice, just remember to use the "defender has already been attacked this round" modifier rather strictly and it will balance it out.
There's actually a whole other thread on how this should be interpreted based on the usage of the martial arts maneuver "Two weapon style", but if you want to see that debate, i would recommend reading the other thread. ;) Inn the long run, I would say that this is a greay area of the RAW and should be interpreted however it works best in your group.
-
"Two Weapon Style
A character using this maneuver has trained to wield a second melee weapon in his off hand. In order to use two weapons, each weapon must have a Reach of 0 or 1.
The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action). The defense or attack action with the off-hand weapon suffers the standard –2 off-hand weapon modifier."
You can only use weapon in melee defense, so you should use your sword, club, pistol (in Firefight) to full defense (or full parry) against the thug with a knife, while using your second weapon as usualy for the atack. that means cut, slash, thrust etc with your melee weapon and SHOT if you have a pistol or SMG (Firefight). You can`t use your melee weapon for defense against ranged attack. That does make sense, doesnt`it?
-
All of these points were beat to death earlier in the discussion. The rule is full of ambiguities, and ultimately we couldn't even agree on which readings are reasonable, let alone which is the rule as intended. Why resurrect a controversial thread that's been cold since September?
I've seen a lot of thread necromancy lately. I know it's easy to do here because the archives are shallow, and you don't have to dig too deep to find a discussion from last year. But please, don't reignite controversies unless you have something definitive to add. Don't just repeat things that have already been said. (For that matter, don't just repeat things in current threads either if you can avoid it, although I know that we all get caught up in it sometimes.)
-
All of these points were beat to death earlier in the discussion. The rule is full of ambiguities, and ultimately we couldn't even agree on which readings are reasonable, let alone which is the rule as intended. Why resurrect a controversial thread that's been cold since September?
I've seen a lot of thread necromancy lately. I know it's easy to do here because the archives are shallow, and you don't have to dig too deep to find a discussion from last year. But please, don't reignite controversies unless you have something definitive to add. Don't just repeat things that have already been said. (For that matter, don't just repeat things in current threads either if you can avoid it, although I know that we all get caught up in it sometimes.)
Thread necromancy is a bit of a Catch-22. Some people don't want old threads reopened, others don't want people starting new threads when the argument's already been discussed. Sometimes, new information comes to light (e.g. errata or official rulings) and it hasn't been publicized. Sometimes, it helps to shed new light on old problems and maybe spark an official ruling. Other times, it's just beating a dead horse. Those dead horses won't beat themselves, you know!
FWIW, here are my two cents (reasonable minds can differ)...
I tend toward the benefit of the defending player in my rulings. So if you choose full defense, you get full defense to everything coming in. You're eating negative modifiers from multiple attackers and giving up your own offensive efforts for any given pass. Those are pretty big losses, so I don't feel bad giving a corresponding benefit (in this case, enhanced die pools for more than just one incoming attack). Plus, it's a bit more theatrical. Dodge the adept's glowing fist, slap aside the spurs of the nearby samurai, then twist just enough that the sharpshooter's bullet goes by your ear. That's good stuff! Here are the options, as I see them...
1. Full defense, full dodge: ranged = Dodge + Reaction, melee = (Dodge + Dodge + Reaction) or (Dodge + Melee Skill + Reaction)
2. Full defense, gymnastic dodge: ranged = Gymnastics + Reaction, melee = (Gymnastics + Dodge + Reaction) or (Gymnastics + Melee Skill + Reaction)
3. Full defense, full parry: ranged = Reaction, melee = (Melee Skill + Melee Skill + Reaction)
You have to choose one full dodge, gymnastic dodge, or full parry) when you select Full Defense. When you pick one, you exclude the option to use the others. However, within each, you choose the die pool appropriate to the type of attack you're facing. So a character who chooses full dodge and who faces one ranged attack and two melee attacks must use Dodge + Reaction against the ranged attack, but could choose between Dodge + Dodge + Reaction or Dodge + Melee Skill + Reaction for each melee attack. They could choose Dodge + Dodge + Reaction for one melee attack and Dodge + Melee Skill + Reaction for the other melee attack, or stick with one of the possible die pools for both.
So why would anyone choose Full Parry if they're essentially going commando against ranged? If they have a huge melee skill and are facing multiple melee attackers, with a goal of survival over winning. Maybe to maximize a specialization. It's a very focused choice that makes sense in focused situations, not so much sense outside of them. Still, it's nice to have options!
-
huh srry BRADD, I didnt note that the corpse is already cold :) just been linked here from another forum (dedicated to Martial arts or Firefight i think), so I drop by my opinion...no...thats not my opinion...grrr thats RAW :D