The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Melee combat against Stormtroopers
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Gamemasters -> Melee combat against Stormtroopers Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2356

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zarn wrote:
John Wick and John Wick 2 both showcase the use of pistols while brawling - and did so quite proficiently.

https://youtu.be/w-HSoOFdJ3s?t=193 is an example from the first of the two John Wick movies (Warning: quite violent)


Yes. This is the kind of thing that I think would be covered under the brawling skill. For an on-the-fly ruling, I'd probably have John Wick roll brawling at a penalty, and then, if he hits, he rolls blaster damage instead of his brawling damage.

Additionally, I have rules for "double tap," as well: it's a single action (no additional MAP), but the difficulty is increased by +5, you burn one additional shot of ammo, and if you hit, you get a +1D bonus to damage. The RAW can't account for a double tap, but I think that such a thing should be allowed as a means to use blasters more effectively (burn through your ammo twice as fast, but get +1D damage seems like a decent fair and balanced trade-off to me... I also limit ammo significantly compared to RAW).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3605
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
Depending on whose turn it is,trying to shoot against someone engaging you in melee should require a brawling roll and if successful, you deal blaster damage instead of brawling daamage.
Difficulty for brawling attacks is Very Easy (the same as a point-blank blaster shot), so this rule wouldn't increase the difficulty to shoot someone during melee (though it would shift which skill is required). But it would easily explain how parrying a blaster in melee would work, i.e. exactly like parrying any other brawling attack.

I think I like this rule.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11444
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
Naaman wrote:
Depending on whose turn it is,trying to shoot against someone engaging you in melee should require a brawling roll and if successful, you deal blaster damage instead of brawling daamage.
Difficulty for brawling attacks is Very Easy (the same as a point-blank blaster shot), so this rule wouldn't increase the difficulty to shoot someone during melee (though it would shift which skill is required). But it would easily explain how parrying a blaster in melee would work, i.e. exactly like parrying any other brawling attack.

I think I like this rule.

I tend to agree. My only objection is that, strictly by skill definition, Melee Combat would be the more appropriate skill. However, using Brawling allows it to be subject to the Brawling vs. Melee penalties described in the Reaction Skill section.

It's a quandary...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2356

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, wait.... are you saying that when two people are grapping for a weapon, the attacker only needs to roll very easy to hit, regardless of the defender's brawling parry result?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11444
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
Okay, wait.... are you saying that when two people are grapping for a weapon, the attacker only needs to roll very easy to hit, regardless of the defender's brawling parry result?

I thought he was just talking about the Base Difficulty.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3605
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As CRM said, Very Easy is the base or default difficulty to hit a person with Brawling. If they make a reaction parry then that roll becomes the difficulty.

Also, a Melee parry vs. a Brawling attack the Melee parry gets a +5 modifier to their Melee parry and a Brawling parry vs. Melee Combat the attacker gets a +10 modifier to their Melee Combat attack roll. So if treat shooting a blaster in combat as a brawling attack (with damage per the blaster) then parrying the attack with a weapon gets a +5 modifier to the Melee parry.

Naaman wrote:
Okay, wait.... are you saying that when two people are grapping for a weapon, the attacker only needs to roll very easy to hit, regardless of the defender's brawling parry result?

I was not talking about two people fighting over who has control of the gun or who has the gun. That could be considered grappling, which has a +10 difficulty for the attacker. (So Very Easy +10 difficulty.)

2E R&E p58 wrote:
Characters may grapple with their opponents rather than
simply slugging them. When grappling, a character is trying
to subdue his foe by wrestling him to the ground, pinning his
arms so he cannot fight back, or stop him in some other way.
When a character attempts to grapple, increase the difficulty
of his attack by +10 — if the attacker achieves a stun result
or better, the opponent is at a disadvantage: pinned, in a
headlock, or a similar situation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2356

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes: I realize that the reaction skil replaces the base difficulty, which is why I was amazed that the base difficulty was even mentioned.

In any case, I would put the blaster skill as off limits when in brawling range and require a brawling skill roll at a penalty in order to fire at someone in that range. The reason for the penalty is that (at least with firearms, and I would presume with blasters, but for wholly different reasons) there are things one must know in order for the weapon to even fire when the trigger is pulled.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11883
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Then why would most blasters list such a 'close in' point blank range, if one couldn't fire in melee/brawl range?
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11444
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Then why would most blasters list such a 'close in' point blank range, if one couldn't fire in melee/brawl range?

No one is saying they can't. The point is, rather, that they are far easier to counter at Point Blank Range, because at that point, they are close enough to be countered by Brawling or Melee Parry, and likely at a penalty.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2356

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, so, I said I'd post yesterday, but couldn't because I had to spend that time figuring out that the brake pads I ordered were not packed right and had to track down a solution, which is still pending... Anyway, on with the fun things:

So, regarding my idea for a solution to using melee against blaster wielding opponents, here is what I can offer:

In military police training (less so in military/infantry training), we train for weapon retention as part of both room clearing and suspect apprehension.

There are several ways to keep your rifle under control, but primarily, we work to prevent access to the rifle in the first place. The priority is to stay out of arm's reach of any bad guys.

There are some caveats here: the "muzzle thump" is a very effective tool for intimidating your target/enemy if for whatever reason you aren't going to shoot him. It is an "improvised" melee attack with the muzzle of the rifle using a shoving/stabbing motion without ever dismounting it from the shoulder. The weapon is "ready to fire" and on target even during the muzzle thump. This won't really work on an aggressive target. It hurts like a sun-of-a-gun, but it's not ultimately debilitating to a determined assailant/enemy. Also, it only really works if the shooter has the initiative: someone who has already engaged the shooter in melee will be fighting for control of the muzzle (or, if not has a sufficiently deadly weapon to just "kill" the guy with the gun).

That said, I would consider a muzzle thump to be an effective means of creating just enough space to shoot the target (if necessary) as part of the "same action" as the thump itself (impose a penalty, in D6 terms, in order to represent the added complexity of a two-part attack).

I would also reason that the character attempting to use this technique should reasonably have training or experience which would have allowed him to "know" about it's application (having the appropriate background story, or else having Tactics: CQB or some other relevant skill).

The buttstroke is a time honored tradition of military combat. The solid stocks of the M16A1 and earlier weapons are no joke. One good hit with a buttstock and it's a high chance of lights out for the target. The newer collapsible/adjustable stocks are not as rugged or robust, and so may not offer as much of a wallop on impact (never tried it, myself, but it seems apparent, at least to me). I would say, again, for someone trained and familiar with using a rifle that way, go ahead and make a normal (no penalty) melee combat roll. For someone who is truly improvising and is not versed in warfare, perhaps an improvisation penalty of -1D on the attack roll.

A bayonet seems rather self explanatory, and would cancel out any penalty the shooter would have against a person using a melee attack against him (of course, he would use the bayonet's damage, rather than the blaster's).

Pistols are far more handy and much easier to protect within arm's reach. For someone who has that risk in mind (that an attacker could get a hold of the gun or contest control of the muzzle's direction) there is almost no chance of the brawler being successful: simply pulling your pistol in toward your torso, while keeping it pointed forward forces the brawler into grappling distance if he is trying to contest control. At this point, you just shoot him even if his hands are on the weapon (this would be a brawling roll using the blaster's damage, IMO, but I could see it being the blaster skill at a penalty, as well). This is not "fool proof," of course: the brawler could be off to the side or else manipulate the wrists or whatever to make it harder to use the blaster against him.

Again, use of a technique like this should be reserved for folks who think in advance about these kinds of things (this somewhat folds into the discussion I was having with Bren on tactics: tactics goes beyond the battle plan, and is built into the very movements--even walking--that troops make: the techniques used for movement and weapons and overwatch, etc, are all based on what could happen--expect the unexpected, so to speak).

In any case, for a character who is proficient with weapons retention (a warrior as opposed to a hunter or sportsman or common thug, for example), then these things should be "free to use." For someone not versed in combat marksmanship (such as that thug), then these techniques would have to be demonstrated or taught (there is a little bit more to it than just "telling someone how" to do it--there can be certain technical aspects of the weapon that must be considered, for example).

So, since we lack the "attack of opportunity" mechanic for better or worse, here is my take:

You can use the grappling rules quoted by Bren earlier in the thread in order to force the shooter to "stay" in melee combat. During this time, if your grapple was successful, he cannot shoot you with the blaster. Instead, he must beat you at a grapple check to "escape" the grapple. If successful, he may shoot with his blaster. At brawling range, I would say there is a penalty with a long gun (my preference, others may feel differently), but not with a pistol for making such an attack. However, since you are at brawling range, I would allow a character to roll melee parry (at +10) or brawling parry (at +5) to "dodge" the shot.

So, for the reasons given above, my solution would look like this:

At brawling/melee range, with a shooter making attacks:
Rifle: -1D for a combat marksman or -2D for anyone else (or more, depending on the kind of rifle; less for something like an SBR);
Pistol: No penalty for a combat marksman or -1D for anyone else on the attack roll.
In addition to any penalties suffered by the attacker, the defender gets a bonus of +10 (melee parry) or +5 (brawling parry) to "dodge" the attack.

At brawling/melee range, with a brawler attacking a shooter:
Melee weapon: +5 on the attack roll (if the shooter does not have a melee weapon--such as a bayonet--to parry with).
Brawling: No modifier.
The shooter must roll brawling parry to avoid the attack (unless he has a bayonet or similar... the buttstock would not count as a melee weapon for these purposes).

If the brawler declares it as his "attack" then he may contest control of the blaster instead of dealing brawling damage. Once control is contested, both parties roll opposed brawling skills (no brawling parry) in order to retain/regain control of the blaster. The person who has a "firing grip" on the blaster gets a +5 bonus.

Whichever character rolls at least 10 over his opponent's roll gets to make a brawling attack using the blaster's damage. If the difference is less than 10, then no damage is rolled that round.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11444
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Much to grok...
Naaman wrote:
In military police training (less so in military/infantry training), we train for weapon retention as part of both room clearing and suspect apprehension.

So, since there is a Martial Arts technique for Disarming an opponent, would this be treated as a Reaction to Disarm attempts? What would it be called? Retain, maybe? Perhaps retention straps like shoulder harnesses for rifles providing a bonus to prevent a Disarm?

Quote:
That said, I would consider a muzzle thump to be an effective means of creating just enough space to shoot the target (if necessary) as part of the "same action" as the thump itself (impose a penalty, in D6 terms, in order to represent the added complexity of a two-part attack).

The buttstroke is a time honored tradition of military combat. The solid stocks of the M16A1 and earlier weapons are no joke.

Maybe there should be some sub-stats for rifles and such if you use them as an improvised Melee weapon. There isn't really a rules scenario for requiring a character to be trained in using a rifle as a melee weapon; I'd suggest treating it as a Str+1D Stun weapon with Moderate Difficulty. At that Difficulty level, a person would need at least 3D in Melee Combat to have a reasonable chance of using it successfully to muzzle thump or butt stroke someone.

In fact, I'd argue that the training you describe would be incorporated into a 1D-2D bump in the appropriate skill levels, with Difficulty levels scaled accordingly.

Quote:
A bayonet seems rather self explanatory, and would cancel out any penalty the shooter would have against a person using a melee attack against him (of course, he would use the bayonet's damage, rather than the blaster's).

High-Tech version of the Bayonet, which allows a rifle to be used as a Force Pike.

Quote:
So, for the reasons given above, my solution would look like this:

At brawling/melee range, with a shooter making attacks:
Rifle: -1D for a combat marksman or -2D for anyone else (or more, depending on the kind of rifle; less for something like an SBR);
Pistol: No penalty for a combat marksman or -1D for anyone else on the attack roll.
In addition to any penalties suffered by the attacker, the defender gets a bonus of +10 (melee parry) or +5 (brawling parry) to "dodge" the attack.

At brawling/melee range, with a brawler attacking a shooter:
Melee weapon: +5 on the attack roll (if the shooter does not have a melee weapon--such as a bayonet--to parry with).
Brawling: No modifier.
The shooter must roll brawling parry to avoid the attack (unless he has a bayonet or similar... the buttstock would not count as a melee weapon for these purposes).

IMO, we need to define what Brawling/Melee Range is for the purposes of combat and movement. When I redid the Blaster Stats, I gave Pistols a +1D bonus at Point Blank Range, while giving some of the larger rifles (repeaters and precision weapons) a -1D penalty due to size/length/bulk. For pretty much every weapon (apart from a few massive crew-served beasts), Point Blank goes out to 3 meters. I would suggest that "Brawling/Melee Range" be considered 3 meters or less.

As I mentioned above, I would also suggest that, rather than using "Untrained" vs. "Combat Marksman", simply assign either a Difficulty or a Modifier, then let the character's relative skill level be the deciding factor. For example, an untrained character with a 2D Dex will find it much more difficult to perform a Moderate task than would a combat marksman with 2D Dex and 4D in Blaster or Melee Combat.

Quote:
If the brawler declares it as his "attack" then he may contest control of the blaster instead of dealing brawling damage. Once control is contested, both parties roll opposed brawling skills (no brawling parry) in order to retain/regain control of the blaster. The person who has a "firing grip" on the blaster gets a +5 bonus.

Whichever character rolls at least 10 over his opponent's roll gets to make a brawling attack using the blaster's damage. If the difference is less than 10, then no damage is rolled that round.

This works.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11883
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
So, since there is a Martial Arts technique for Disarming an opponent, would this be treated as a Reaction to Disarm attempts? What would it be called? Retain, maybe? Perhaps retention straps like shoulder harnesses for rifles providing a bonus to prevent a Disarm?


I'd say yes. Someone trained like that should get a reaction to avoid being disarmed..

CRMcNeill wrote:
Maybe there should be some sub-stats for rifles and such if you use them as an improvised Melee weapon. There isn't really a rules scenario for requiring a character to be trained in using a rifle as a melee weapon; I'd suggest treating it as a Str+1D Stun weapon with Moderate Difficulty. At that Difficulty level, a person would need at least 3D in Melee Combat to have a reasonable chance of using it successfully to muzzle thump or butt stroke someone.


In Naval training, we were not just shown how to shoot, but how to use them in melee (butt stroking etc). And like was said earlier, fixed stocks imo should be more damaging than folding ones, like E-11 stormie blaster rifles have..

CRMcNeill wrote:
IMO, we need to define what Brawling/Melee Range is for the purposes of combat and movement. When I redid the Blaster Stats, I gave Pistols a +1D bonus at Point Blank Range, while giving some of the larger rifles (repeaters and precision weapons) a -1D penalty due to size/length/bulk. For pretty much every weapon (apart from a few massive crew-served beasts), Point Blank goes out to 3 meters. I would suggest that "Brawling/Melee Range" be considered 3 meters or less.


Shouldn't that depend on arm 'wing span' for brawling and weapon length for melee??
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11444
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
In Naval training, we were not just shown how to shoot, but how to use them in melee (butt stroking etc). And like was said earlier, fixed stocks imo should be more damaging than folding ones, like E-11 stormie blaster rifles have..

Agreed, which is why I suggested different rules for different weapons; some will be better suited for use in Melee Combat than others. Even if it were as simple as one rule for pistols and one for rifles, that would be simple enough for gaming purposes.

Quote:
Shouldn't that depend on arm 'wing span' for brawling and weapon length for melee??

I don't think it needs that degree of granularity. Even vibro-poleaxes and force pikes aren't going to have a combat reach of more than three meters. Anything long enough to reach beyond that, like a sarisa or a bullwhip, just treat it as a ranged weapon, with a Short Range of 3-6 meters (or whatever), then penalize it at Point Blank range as a Ranged Weapon (since its length makes it unsuitable for close-up combat). Of course, in a sci-fi setting, you could also have reach weapons that can retract down to a usable length if the enemy gets inside your reach. The variable blade lightsaber comes to mind...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2411

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
garhkal wrote:
Then why would most blasters list such a 'close in' point blank range, if one couldn't fire in melee/brawl range?

No one is saying they can't. The point is, rather, that they are far easier to counter at Point Blank Range, because at that point, they are close enough to be countered by Brawling or Melee Parry, and likely at a penalty.


Also, it is possible that two blaster wielding combatants are trying to shoot each other at point blank without any of the trying to grapple for the gun..
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2356

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZzaphodD, this is true. I would allow such characters to do that, no problem

Concerning CRM's post, I would need to think about the level complexity desired. For now, I feel confident that there is a LOT of really competent "shooters" who would never resort to a buttstroke or muzzle thump simply because it's not part of their "tacticool" training.

I suppose that your reference to martial arts allowing special moves presents a case for specialized training with blasters allowing special moves.

As for the disarming/retention thing, I was mainly referring to the contest for control of the muzzle. I might use the grappling rules, and the winner gets the gun. The unarmed person needs to roll 10 over the opponemt to take the weapon in lieu of doing damage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Gamemasters All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0