Admin-Rob
|
Melee combatIn comparisson to UAC, melee combat is, according to some, underpowered.
It has far fewer dedicated feats, and strikes to Vitality, not Body (UAC goes straight to Body).
It does have the advantage of Reach however.
I've seen some ranged feats used with melee, most prominently 'Marksman' in the Iaijutsu duel. I seem to recall that this was an exception for the situation as there wasn't anthing else useful to hand.
|
Melenky
|
Yep, definitley an exception.
|
Admin-Rob
|
Thus highlighting the need for a couple of melee feats?
(thanks for the clarification)
|
comedyofhate
|
Yeah melee is certainly worth looking at. as at the moment it is not so much underpowered as very uninteresting for characters or NPC's who specialize in it.
There are of course ideas which can be implemented for it, but as long as any new amendments do not end up overpowering exisitng combat skills there should not be a problem.
Oh and of course simplicity IMO should be a key element. Remember critical hit can be used with a melee weapon, but disarm cannot be. choke can be used, but there is no equivalent for a character using a black jack.
I also think that killing blow, if it can be rephrased correctly might have a melee equivalent to represent somebody sneaking up and silently killing them etc.
These are just a few ideas, anyone got anymore?
|
Broz
|
| comedyofhate wrote: |
I also think that killing blow, if it can be rephrased correctly might have a melee equivalent to represent somebody sneaking up and silently killing them etc.
|
How about "Shiv" ?
|
Fenric
|
If someone suggests throat slit as the name for Killing Blow for melee I may actually cry (Kehoe will be aware of the REALM arguments that Throat Slit caused)
|
Olivia Chase
|
Throat slit is too narrowing in it's description anyway, and backstab has it's own problems too.
I quite like 'shiv', reminds me of Dog Soldiers. Gets away from the fantasy stuff quite nicely.
|
Fenric
|
I think shiv is good as well...
Speaking of Dog Soldiers- there is a sequel coming out with americans 
|
comedyofhate
|
| Fenric wrote: | I think shiv is good as well...
Speaking of Dog Soldiers- there is a sequel coming out with americans |
Heh, they could be Albanian as long as as there are funny one liners. But I liked the "Tremors" series.
|
Esther
|
Re: Melee combat | admin wrote: | In comparisson to UAC, melee combat is, according to some, underpowered.
It has far fewer dedicated feats, and strikes to Vitality, not Body (UAC goes straight to Body).
. |
I hadn't remembered that melee came off vitality in which case on the mothership I was in much better shape than i though i was.. I've always seen vitality as dodge in a way, the bullets etc just missing me so when i get physically hit in the leg I assume that comes off body.. that's the realsitic player in me.. just as I would take a bullet if someone shot me from behind and I had no idea it was coming cos how could I dodge it?
|
The Kibble
|
having been one of the more active users of melee recently I feel I ought to comment.
Generally crew if taken from surprise from behind drop with being knifed u. This imho is good and though feats help with this I would not like to take away the cinematic you get close enough and shiv someone they die whether with a knife or a gun.
My real issue is if I have the strike feat with unarmed and I hit you I do 3 damage straight to body so that is basically bye bye to most characters. Otherwise unarmed does no damage but can incapacitate someone. So will unarmed it is far easier to kill someone as you can pin them and then use killing blow.
Now I understand with guns vitality dodges as we are not using a system where by we can see bullets hitting or not (as per airsoft)
So back to melee/armed. Now if I swing a sword at you you can parry or dodge it. If on top of this you can use vitality this seems a little excesive you can see and feel when I hit you so why does vitality protect?
Also without feats to supplement armed I have to hit someone alot to drop them where as an unarmed person only need to hit you once and then use a feat which is permanent. (strike 3 x 3 per mission to body)
Personally I think all melee damage goes straight to body (armed and unarmed) as it is simpler.
that we need to look at some feats possibly for armed though possibly just toning down strike for unarmed would be better.
I asked to take strike at the weekend with armed and got told no (though admittedly that wasn't to dave) If I could use strike with a knife then that would alleviate as well but tbh I think strike is far to grim 3 damage x3 a mission to body is just grim. Especially as only way to do damage with unarmed
|
Fenric
|
Because Melee has reach it shouldn't go straight to body as that would be as you said with the strike example a bit gross - i.e. two sword hits gets any non bodybuilder below zero. Vitality is the cinematic dodging and melee shouldn't buypass that ability.
|
The Kibble
|
except you can dodge it in reality.
Can you then dodge unarmed attacks like throw and similar with vitliaty to represent them being unable to grab you?
|
Fenric
|
This was a large discussion we had at the beginning - and there were discussions with UA being able to be dodged by vitality as well - I still believe that everything should be dodgable by vitality.
|
Esther
|
| Fenric wrote: | | This was a large discussion we had at the beginning - and there were discussions with UA being able to be dodged by vitality as well - I still believe that everything should be dodgable by vitality. |
From a personal view poitn i'd prefer if you don't dodge a physical blow you don't dodge it but i can live with being able to use vitality as it represents my character beign nimbler than me.. however I toatlly agree it should be the same across the board. I see no reason to have weapons come of vitality but not a hit from a hand.
On the other hand I would expect someone like Ross who crewed, (thin wiry, long red hair.. did the duel) never to need vitality in a hand to hand or melle fight cos I'd never physically get to close on him.. he is too bloddy slippery for a slow aged person like me  That's the thing with LIVE roleplay your naural abilities do effect things.
|
The Kibble
|
I have less of a problem if it is decided vitality can be used to dodge it all as you can then give people feats to make things go straight to body such as strike (just tone strike down or make it more like critical hit i.e temp feat which becomes perm)
Especially if people go for if surprised can't use vitality (which is where jammy dodgers come in )
|
Fenric
|
| Keser/Keresh wrote: | | From a personal view poitn i'd prefer if you don't dodge a physical blow you don't dodge it but i can live with being able to use vitality as it represents my character beign nimbler than me.. . |
Agreed - my character is much fitter than I am - also older, and also better looking...
|
The Kibble
|
My character fitness is the same as me it is just he is far smarter and less sociable than me
|
comedyofhate
|
Hmm,
how about this,
Unarmed
nobody tends to use the throw skill, so turn the throw skill into three strikes. T
The strike feat still adds three additional strikes unarmed strikes that still go through vitality. Thus the only way to do unarmed damage is still based on a limited supply of strikes. To knock an opponent down to -1 is still going to require the use of a feat.
Melee
Melee is underpowered to everything else.
To put it on par my suggestion is, any melee weapon that does one point of damage does 1 point of damage through vitality.
Any weapon that does more damage one point of damage does 1 point of body damage and the rest is removed from vitality.
Example:
an evil monkey with a sword under the current rules attacks a new player character whom is wearing no body armour, it would take six blows to knock through the vitality and then three blows to knock em to -1. A total of ten blows.
With what I suggest it would take four blows to take an opponent down to -1 body while leaving them on 2 vitality.
It is a bit of compromise suggestion, as anything that becomes exceptionally deadly for npc's also becomes deadly for pc's, and the game is supposed to be quite heroic.
This way melee weapons become scary again, while vitality still provides an element of protection to represent the characters heroicly rolling with the blow etc.
|
Fenric
|
| The Kibble wrote: | | My character fitness is the same as me it is just he is far smarter and less sociable than me |
Kincaid finds Kibble Sociable - just.. well.. distracted at times... well most of the time
|
Esther
|
| comedyofhate wrote: | Hmm,
how about this,
Unarmed
nobody tends to use the throw skill, so turn the throw skill into three strikes. T
The strike feat still adds three additional strikes unarmed strikes that still go through vitality. Thus the only way to do unarmed damage is still based on a limited supply of strikes. To knock an opponent down to -1 is still going to require the use of a feat.
|
You may not be able to knock an apponet to -1 in one blow .. with strick you take most characters to below -1 in two blows which can be done in quick succession.
I find an unarmed blow being able to do 3 points of damage sick to be honest.. Unarmed seems to be all or nothing at the moment. It;s either gapples and the like which i have no problem with or stricks and killing blows which are uber.. there is no smaller levels of damage.
While I am willing to believe throw is not used much I dont' think replacing it with something that does more damage is the way to go.
The melee suggestion I want to think about a bit but at first glance is a posisble. I think they should be comparable... if you can roll with the blow on that though why not use the same mecanisum for strick.. why can't I go with the blow then and take less real damage?
|
Fenric
|
I tried to use Throw at the last event... but it failed to move the Tok'ra Thing off me
|
Esther
|
| Fenric wrote: | | I tried to use Throw at the last event... but it failed to move the Tok'ra Thing off me |
That would be cos the Tok'Ra thing was stronger that you 
|
Fenric
|
I need Kibble's Symbiot Strike Feat
|
Esther
|
| Fenric wrote: | | I need Kibble's Symbiot Strike Feat |
watch it you. 
|
The Kibble
|
| comedyofhate wrote: | Hmm,
how about this,
Unarmed
nobody tends to use the throw skill, so turn the throw skill into three strikes. T
The strike feat still adds three additional strikes unarmed strikes that still go through vitality. Thus the only way to do unarmed damage is still based on a limited supply of strikes. To knock an opponent down to -1 is still going to require the use of a feat.
Melee
Melee is underpowered to everything else.
To put it on par my suggestion is, any melee weapon that does one point of damage does 1 point of damage through vitality.
Any weapon that does more damage one point of damage does 1 point of body damage and the rest is removed from vitality.
Example:
an evil monkey with a sword under the current rules attacks a new player character whom is wearing no body armour, it would take six blows to knock through the vitality and then three blows to knock em to -1. A total of ten blows.
With what I suggest it would take four blows to take an opponent down to -1 body while leaving them on 2 vitality.
It is a bit of compromise suggestion, as anything that becomes exceptionally deadly for npc's also becomes deadly for pc's, and the game is supposed to be quite heroic.
This way melee weapons become scary again, while vitality still provides an element of protection to represent the characters heroicly rolling with the blow etc. |
This sounds to complicated to me. already Vitality and body are complicated and confusing of what does and doesn't do damage to it.
I would suggest
Unarmed.
Keep as it is currently though remove damage to body rule.
i.e
A character with this skill is trained in fighting without weapons.
AT NO TIME MUST A PLAYER STRIKE, CHOKE, FORCIBLY RESTRAIN OR THROW ANOTHER PLAYER, a gentle tap to indicate the player is within range of the target should suffice.
Unarmed combat allows for the following calls to be made whilst in touching distance of the
opposing character. TRIP, GRAPPLE, THROW, BREAKHOLD. The player touches the target and calls Trip, Grapple, or Throw. Both hands must be empty for Grapple or Throw to work.
Trip may be used without limit and its effect is to force the target onto their hands and knees.
Grapple may be used three times per mission and it allows the character to hold the target for ten seconds.
Throw may be used three times per mission. It enables the character to throw the target to the ground, inflicting two points of damage. The target must portray being thrown away from the character.
If the character is themselves grappled, they may, three times per mission, call Break Hold. The opponent must release the character, what the character does with their moment of freedom is up to them.
Concerns with this is the 2 damage on a throw (as I would forget it) and no way to counter throw I personally think the damage aspect of it should be removed as well (or can i use vitality to dodge a throw?)
Melee.
Stays as is allows weapons to be used to do damage to vitality.
Then we have feats you can use with them.
Strike - Allows an unarmed person to attack with their bare hands and do 1 damage for a scene . Temporary feat 5 times to get permanent.
critical hit - can be used if you have strike feat with unarmed or with a weapon
Killing blow - - can be used if you have strike feat with unarmed or with a weapon. (note this is the grim one I have unarmed by the strike feat and this. If I can place a hand on you I can pin and kill you in one move)
I am not convinced they need anything more than that tbh it is more that Unarmed plus old strike and ignore body is grim as a very grim thing.
There also ought to be feats to counter all the unarmed attacks.
I can also think of more mtartial art feats for both armed and unarmed (and some which may need both as a prereq)
|
comedyofhate
|
| Keser/Keresh wrote: |
While I am willing to believe throw is not used much I dont' think replacing it with something that does more damage is the way to go.
The melee suggestion I want to think about a bit but at first glance is a posisble. I think they should be comparable... if you can roll with the blow on that though why not use the same mecanisum for strick.. why can't I go with the blow then and take less real damage? |
Heh, you know your right. I would say knock strike down to 1 or 2 damage and give it the same damage roll with the blow effects I am suggesting, or upgrade damage on melee weapons to a similiar level.
In my own ignorance I forgot strike actually does 3 points of body damage per blow, as per 1. Your right it is a bit grim.
|
Olivia Chase
|
Agreed - my character is much fitter than I am - also older, and also better looking... [/quote]
Is that a hint?
|
Fenric
|
It wasn't - but if it annoys Steve Daniels - then yes
|
Fenric
|
I think the whole thing here is to find something which makes sense but fits in with everything else.
I suppose the question is - is there anything actually wrong with Melee - or is there something wrong with UA which is the thing which doesn't fit in with the rest of the rules.
|
The Kibble
|
basically I think there is something wrong with Unarmed not something especially wrong with melee.
I think it would be nice for melee to ignore vitality but that can be done with feats.
|
Fenric
|
I understand the original concept about why it ignored vitality (due to the limited times per day it can be used, compared to guns which can be used pretty much unlimited)*
*ammo dependant
|
The Kibble
|
| Fenric wrote: | I understand the original concept about why it ignored vitality (due to the limited times per day it can be used, compared to guns which can be used pretty much unlimited)*
*ammo dependant |
Except that isn't really a good argument as it does lots of other hoopey stuff.
You can buy the feat multiple times as it is a straight permanent so you could be doing say 15 3 points to body in a fight more than enough to drop most things you can get close enough to.
The feat is just grim when it is straight to body and a permanent feat
|
Fenric
|
I'm saying what the original reasoning is - now that people have a larger number of feats - then yes, I am in agreement that UA can be really really really sick.
|
The Kibble
|
even before there was alot of feats if I had unarmed I would have taken 1 or 2 strikes an event early on and if I was using them get another as it is basically a drop 3 people feat. It is basically 3 critical hits with unarmed (ok takes to 0 not -1) against most opponents and permanent not temporary it is just grim :p
|
Fenric
|
Not arguing - I just want something that allows me "kick to groin" (and i'm not joking) as my style is street fighting rather than martial arts
|
Moridin
|
roseambole you.
|
Freeman
|
What everyone is missing with UAC is that while it's killer upclose, you have to get up close to do it.
Not always easilly done.
Yes, it allowed me to down a Jaffa fairly quickly, but the jaffa in question was swarmed by gun toting maniacs and didn't notice the suicidal one behind him.
As best I can figure it, the strike feat equates to a martial artist trained to hit vital areas of the body in rapid succession. The theory being, if you can hit a guy once, you will hit him forever.
That's not necassarily the case with melee, there's a lot more cut thrust and parry when using weapons that when you're down to fisticuffs.
Having said that, two exponents will be able to duck and weave as they scrap (jammy bastard / lucky bastard / just a scratch etc...)
Wheras for the untrained to avoid a blow from, say, a staff weapon it's a lot easier than to avoid punches from a martial artist or similar.
|
The Kibble
|
in realistic terms as we have guns you have to get just as close with armed as unarmed.
I don't have the problem that you do damage with bare hands in UAC I have a problem it does it through vitality when I don't with a knife which is just as up close and personnel and that it does more damage than a sword and there is now way to replicate this with melee attacks.
|
Paul_Howe
|
I think it's important to decide what you think is more important.
If game balance is more important than realism that Unarmed ought to be bloody effective because it's really dangerous and players will need an incentive to take a skill which inevitably exposes them to extreme risk.
If realism is more important we need to be asking questions about why Kibble can do more damage barehand than a trained professional with an assault rifle.
|
Esther
|
| Paul_Howe wrote: | I think it's important to decide what you think is more important.
If game balance is more important than realism that Unarmed ought to be bloody effective because it's really dangerous and players will need an incentive to take a skill which inevitably exposes them to extreme risk.. |
Actually that is only true if the person you are against has unarmed they can't do a thing to you if they don't and you can kill them real quick. Combats are often quite up close even using guns and so forth and anyway that argument only holds true for guns against unarmed not kinves vis unarmed where you have to get just as close but can't do the same damage.
|
The Kibble
|
we are comparing unarmed to armed I believe which both involve you getting in close.
with armed when you get close you hit and do damage while the person you are hitting can physically move out the way and shoot you which all seems fair enough to me. A knife does 1 same as a gun a sword does 2 less than a 3 round burst so is no grosser than a gun and is fact a lot less.
unarmed currently you get close enough and unless your opponent has unarmed you can take them out the fight by pinning them. This does have limited uses though. You can't do damage without a use of feat. But as with unarmed the damage goes straight to body and the feat does 3 damage this is quite grim as well.
If getting close is the issue surely the skills ought to be comparable in how they do damage i.e to body or not.
|
comedyofhate
|
The game mechanics were set up not to reflect realistic combat but to reflect heroic combat. With players being heroes. With that in mind balance the key issue.
Any damage rules for melee or unarmed decided on will also be reflected by hand to hand beasties. At the end of day, the amount of those beasties are limited by the referee's imagination, while their is a finite amount of pc's.
Essentially if melee or unarmed is too deadly, player characters suffer. 3 hit kills are all well and good but three hit kills will also effect player characters. If people are happy to expose their heroic characters to that level of vunerability in the game all is well and good.
|
Esther
|
| comedyofhate wrote: |
Essentially if melee or unarmed is too deadly, player characters suffer. 3 hit kills are all well and good but three hit kills will also effect player characters. If people are happy to expose their heroic characters to that level of vunerability in the game all is well and good. |
The 3 hit thing has aways been there in unarmed with the strike feat. I dont' think anyone is suggesting making unarmed or even melee nessecaraly more deadly in general the argument is unarmed is to deadly and to diparat to melee.
there are two different things here
1) is Strike too harsh damage wise.
2) Should unarmed and melee be more comparable as they are both up close and personal. Currently unarmed damage goes straight to body and melee doesn't.
|
comedyofhate
|
| Keser/Keresh wrote: | | comedyofhate wrote: |
Essentially if melee or unarmed is too deadly, player characters suffer. 3 hit kills are all well and good but three hit kills will also effect player characters. If people are happy to expose their heroic characters to that level of vunerability in the game all is well and good. |
The 3 hit thing has aways been there in unarmed with the strike feat. I dont' think anyone is suggesting making unarmed or even melee nessecaraly more deadly in general the argument is unarmed is to deadly and to diparat to melee.
there are two different things here
1) is Strike too harsh damage wise.
2) Should unarmed and melee be more comparable as they are both up close and personal. Currently unarmed damage goes straight to body and melee doesn't. |
IMO
1) Yes
2) Yes
I think you have managed to some up the entire thing in one go dude.
|
The Kibble
|
damn there I was walking to work wanting to say that oh well.
My 2 points were going to be
1) should melee and unarmed damage be comparable (which I think is yes)
2) should it go straight to body?
I originally was going to say no let them use vitality against it but actually if you engage someone in hand to hand (meeting melee or unarmed) it is relatively easy for them to back off shooting you so you can't hit them and you have to close again.
I like the fact damage is to body (and yes it means gribblies do it to us as well) as people can actually dodge it and can pull away and carry on shooting maybe we should look at setting up poles for some of these sort of things.
|
Fenric
|
I disagree that anything should go straight to body - I think the first idea about lowering the vitality of monsters would be better - which deals with the heroic nature of the players rather than worrying about stuff that can basically kill in a couple of blows.
Also as pointed out earlier, it would involve the player dodging and the player may not be wonderfully dextrous.
|
The Kibble
|
but even if not wonderously dextrous it is still pssible to back up and if you are plus vitality they become even more than useless.
(tbh I am not overly convinced by the whole vitality body system but that is a discussion for a different thread)
|
Paul_Howe
|
| Keser/Keresh wrote: | | Paul_Howe wrote: | I think it's important to decide what you think is more important.
If game balance is more important than realism that Unarmed ought to be bloody effective because it's really dangerous and players will need an incentive to take a skill which inevitably exposes them to extreme risk.. |
Actually that is only true if the person you are against has unarmed they can't do a thing to you if they don't and you can kill them real quick. Combats are often quite up close even using guns and so forth and anyway that argument only holds true for guns against unarmed not kinves vis unarmed where you have to get just as close but can't do the same damage. |
Yes but you've still got to cover the intervening distance and not die and hope that they don't just run away and shoot you some more.
Personally I think that there should be nothing that goes straight to body without first rendering the opponent incapable of soaking with vitality. It's just a matter of good tactics really because if you call grapple you can still strike directly to body unless they have a breakhold. In ranged combat you can shower the bad guys with grenades then pick them off. All of these things simply work better when done as a team. Therefore except for making strike soakable with vitality and making unarmed capable of calling 1 barehand no changes are required
|
The Kibble
|
| Paul_Howe wrote: | | making unarmed capable of calling 1 barehand no changes are required |
Hmm not sure about this. as it is then about the same as melee plus has the special moves. Though having said that depends if you make someone use spontaneous ambi dex to use a weapon a melee weapon in each hand. Currently it reads as follows
'Once, a character may perform a task with both hands, or two small weapons, one in each hand. This allows the person to call “2 by 1” when shooting pistols indicating doing 2 bullets worth of doing 1 damage. Also, Strike/Choke/Throw Unarmed Combat moves can be done with both hands at once.'
I was lead to believe before I could wield 2 pistols without it and alternate firing them and likewise use a blade in each hand without it. This may want clarifying/correcting.
but back to unarmed I think unarmed people should be able to do damage with their bare hands but remember this becomes an unremoveable weapon so needs to be balanced somehow.
Limited number of times per mission?
Feat to do it?
what do people think?
|
Theo
|
For the 'spirit' of the game i am wary of seeing hand-to-hand stuff become too prominent or strong, folks use guns for a reason after all and seeings a combat squad decked out with swords and shields would be...odd. For me hand-to-hand is more the realm of the monster.
But hey, i'll go with owt me, as a ref i'm not being hit in the face so i don't really mind
|
The Kibble
|
| Theo wrote: | For the 'spirit' of the game i am wary of seeing hand-to-hand stuff become too prominent or strong, folks use guns for a reason after all and seeings a combat squad decked out with swords and shields would be...odd. For me hand-to-hand is more the realm of the monster.
But hey, i'll go with owt me, as a ref i'm not being hit in the face so i don't really mind |
I agree guns should be paramount in the system my main concern was the discrepency beetween armed and unarmed.
Having said that in all sci fi shows especially stargate fighting without guns is also important and various points
|
Paul_Howe
|
I think the "unremovable weapon" is one of the best reasons for taking unarmed. If it wasn't for the currently wildly unbalanced nature of it's capabilities I don't think this would be a problem
|
|
|
