Grappling and melee

[Bullet Magnet]

Originally Posted by Targan

Hmm. I'm well familiar with 1st ed, it's the others I was hazy on. 9mm not being able to kill average PCs with a headshot = poxy system. NPCs being innately easier to kill than PCs = poxy system. IMHO.

No game system is perfect, in my opinion.
Also, a 9mm could kill an average person in 1st edition, at least at closer ranges.
Head HP = CON score; average character would have a 10
9mmP damage = Base 1; plus 1d6 (at extreme range)
At close range, this figure is multiplies by four. So, at close range, a 9mm would inflict 4 + (4d6); the average damage for this ends up at 18 points. So, it is possible.

As for NPCs being easier to kill, yeah you got a point there. I always thought that seemed a bit too hollywood.

[Legbreaker]

V1 damage was pretty nasty, almost as nasty (and realistic) as the healing times. Get wounded beyond slight in V1 and you might as well roll up a new PC - the wait on healing could be months!

[Badbru]

Originally Posted by B.T.

You're right! That's one of the reasons, why I'm not happy with the melee damages. The majority of PCs and detailed NPCs did not spent points to increase "Unarmed Melee". So the most PCs do a damage of "1". That's a bit weak. Maybe something like 1d6 / 2 or 1d3 damage, reducing the "Unarmed Combat Damage" and apply as a bonus?
I mean, an experienced martial artist can (under certain circumstances) break an opponents arm!

How do you handle this, Leg? (Now, off course, if anyone else want's to give his 2 cents, you're welcome!)

I don't mess with the damage system. Once you change one part of it, melee, bullets, you then need to change explosions etc etc...

Just reduce hit points.

Instead of head being Con x2 I have it as just Con.
Instead of chest being Str + Con x3 I have it as just x2
Instead of all other areas being Str + Con x2, just Str + Con.

Everything just becomes a little more lethal, including poisions and infections, diseases... etc etc.
Simple.

And, maybe I got it wrong back in the day but I allways played melee as being +1d6. The melee damage is points, not dice, so the +1d6 was the randomiser. Maybe I have it wrong but that allways worked ok for us.

[Legbreaker]

As I was sort of indicating before, melee combat is rarely used in my games as there's far better methods of dealing with the enemy. If silence is required, crossbows, hunting bows, silencers and the like all have their place. If it's absolutely NECESSARY to lay actual hands on an enemy to ensure their silence, the fight is already lost unless absolute surprise is gained. In that case the damage is probably irrelevant and the result should be up to a straight skill roll and GM judgement.

[Targan]

Really? I find that incredibly sad. A hard fought, close in melee or martial arts fight can be a highpoint of any T2K session. The more realistic the rules for that, the better. Again, IMHO.

[Legbreaker]

Why take a knife to a gun fight? For that matter, why go unarmed at all?
Hit 'em hard, hit 'em fast with the biggest, nastiest weapon you can lay your hands on I say. There's nothing great about a fair fight when your life is on the line.
The best result is red mist.

[Targan]

I'm not suggesting that you go in unarmed. There have been many times that I can think of in games I've run where people have got into melee and martial arts fights while armed with firearms. Face to face negotiations during a trade could go horribly wrong, for instance. And in one mini-campaign I ran in which the PCs were French Foreign Legionnaires on a mission near the Iran-Iraq border the game culminated in a vicious fight among the thorn bushes with a bunch of Spetznaz, a couple of the PCs got down to one magazine left each and then fixed bayonets and charged in to meet their ends in ways befitting of real men

[Legbreaker]

I'm all for going medieval on their arses when it's needed. Nothing like the fear of a bit of cold steal up 'em to sort the men from the boys!

That's another issue again though. How to adequately model the fear somebody swinging a big chunk of sharp metal at close range will instil on the intended recipient. I know from experience that even in an exercise it tends to make grown men go white and think twice about holding their ground when it's forcefully presented.

[leonpoi]

An option could be porting over a melee system from a melee-oriented game that has similar dice d20 or say d100 brought back to d20. The most obvious choice for me would be flashing blades because it's d20 with roughly similar hit chances. Grapple isn't crash hot but otherwise the combat is an improvement over tw2k with only a little bit of work. It takes into account weapon length and I think it would end up as a pretty good melee mini game sub for the base rules (which are massively deficient and flawed).

[weswood]

My first T2K game waaayyyy back in '86, my character started out as a POW of the Russians in Alaska, where the rest of the PCs were operating. My character, a helicopter pilot with some mad skills in unarmed combat was being escorted by a single guard when the main PCs attack the facility. My character kicked the guard, one hell of a good roll, broke the guard's neck in a single kick. He got the handcuff keys off the guard and uncuffed himself, and armed with the guard's AK surprise attacked the Russians.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by B.T.

@ James:
I think, this is an interesting way to go. Maybe I'll try this in my group.

The thing, that I think is really not that good in the T2k rules (I'm playing Ver2.2!), is the damage. I think, the damage should be increased, but I'm uncertain. Maybe:
Every punch, etc makes 1d6 damage, the "Unarmed Combat Damage" is a bonus. I'm to lazy, to go for my rules right now, but IIRC, the damage of a punch or a kick (Not a leaping kick!) is the same. If that's true, the damage of a kick should be higher than the damage of a punch.

Hm ...

Please try it and let me know. If it works I'll write it up as an article. Kicks are harder to do than a punch so maybe -1 skill but +1 effective skill for figuring the damage? Depends how much detail you want.

Maybe we should also figure the armed melee combat into a similar system.
Thoughts from everyone before I start work?

[DigTw0Grav3s]

Honestly, kicks are more of a range modifier to me, not a damage difference.

Shadowrun had a pretty good reach system for melee. If your melee implement (including kicks) had a longer effective range than your opponent's, you could leverage that standoff distance as an offensive or defensive modifier.

If you combine some kind of system like that with a constriction factor, I think you would have a really solid basis for the basic striking system. A sword is great in the middle of a field, but if you're in a narrow hallway, a knife will probably be more practical.

Start there, then you can potentially start adding to the grappling system.

[leonpoi]

Originally Posted by weswood

My first T2K game waaayyyy back in '86, my character started out as a POW of the Russians in Alaska, where the rest of the PCs were operating. My character, a helicopter pilot with some mad skills in unarmed combat was being escorted by a single guard when the main PCs attack the facility. My character kicked the guard, one hell of a good roll, broke the guard's neck in a single kick. He got the handcuff keys off the guard and uncuffed himself, and armed with the guard's AK surprise attacked the Russians.

In 2.2 that couldn't happen; kicks hit on location as d6+4, so can't hit location 1 the head.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by leonpoi

In 2.2 that couldn't happen; kicks hit on location as d6+4, so can't hit location 1 the head.

When I write up I will probably introduce a system that varies the hit location die by skill level. Quick thought (probably to be changed later):

Skill level 1-4: kick 1D6+4, punch 1D6
Skill level 5-8: kick 1D10 punch 1D10
SKill level 9+ any choose either 1D6+4 or 1D10 or 1D6

[B.T.]

Originally Posted by James Langham

When I write up I will probably introduce a system that varies the hit location die by skill level. Quick thought (probably to be changed later):

Skill level 1-4: kick 1D6+4, punch 1D6
Skill level 5-8: kick 1D10 punch 1D10
SKill level 9+ any choose either 1D6+4 or 1D10 or 1D6

It definately makes sense to me, to increase the damage, if the skill is higher.
My first RPG was "Midgard", a German (Fantasy!) RPG, that was never translated into English. The damage for an unarmed melee attack was something like 1d6 - 4. In comparison: A dagger has a damage of 1d6 - 1.
Depending on strength and agility, (N)PCs can have a bonus (from +1 to +4) to the damage. This bonus is added to all handheld weapons (and unarmed melee), not to ranged weapons (crossbows, slings, bows, etc.!).
If a character increases his skill in unarmed meleee, his damage gets higher. IIRC, the highest damage would be 1d6 - 2 (+ bonus, if the character is strong/agile enough.)

I think, basing the actual damage of an attack with naked fists on the skill level makes sense!

[weswood]

Originally Posted by leonpoi

In 2.2 that couldn't happen; kicks hit on location as d6+4, so can't hit location 1 the head.

V1 rules. I don't remember the skill levels, but I remember the character being able to do 2 things really, really well- Martial Arts and flying helicopters. Pretty useless otherwise.

[James Langham]

First attempt at adding some chrome. Please feel free to comment as ever.

[B.T.]

I allways imagined Bobby Lee being black haired

Looks good to me, I will definately give those rules a test run in my next FtF game.

[weswood]

Originally Posted by James Langham

First attempt at adding some chrome. Please feel free to comment as ever.

You should call them Rangerettes vice Rangeresses. Rolls off the toungue easier. Good work.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by B.T.

I allways imagined Bobby Lee being black haired

Looks good to me, I will definately give those rules a test run in my next FtF game.

there was always the debate which character she was in the cover of the boxed set, does anyone have a definitive answer?

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by weswood

You should call them Rangerettes vice Rangeresses. Rolls off the toungue easier. Good work.

Thanks, I thought that made them sound too much like cheerleaders. Anyone else have any thoughts? I perhaps need a note that the official term is "Ranger."

Interesting that the first two comments are about the background detail and Bobbi Lee in particular... :-)

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by James Langham

there was always the debate which character she was in the cover of the boxed set, does anyone have a definitive answer?

Not definitive, but I always presumed she was the blonde haired one on the extreme right (as you look at the picture). The other woman looks like she's responsible for firing the Humvee's weapon and has what looks like a combat vehicle crewman's helmet on, which suggests to me her background is mech infantry or armoured?

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by James Langham

Thanks, I thought that made them sound too much like cheerleaders. Anyone else have any thoughts? I perhaps need a note that the official term is "Ranger."

Interesting that the first two comments are about the background detail and Bobbi Lee in particular... :-)

Amazons?

American Amazons?

Women Lead The Way?

Valkyries?

American Valkyries?

GI Jane? (Film of same name wasn't released until August 1997, so your TV series might have first dibs on it)

Xena, Ranger Princess? OK, maybe not...

[weswood]

I've always thought Bobbi Lee was the blond.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by weswood

I've always thought Bobbi Lee was the blond.

No way! Bobbi Lee is definitely a brunette, almost black in hair color.

[weswood]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

No way! Bobbi Lee is definitely a brunette, almost black in hair color.

You just stay out of my fantasies!

[James Langham]

Updated version with as few clarifications and a few extra art forms.

And Bobbi Lee stays blonde pending a definitive answer (I even checked our archives, it appears that this debate has gone on for some time...)

[weswood]

I love the quote from the General "Some people have called them Rangerettes or Rangeresses. Makes them sound like cheerleaders".

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by James Langham

And Bobbi Lee stays blonde pending a definitive answer (I even checked our archives, it appears that this debate has gone on for some time...)

OK, but you have agree that brunettes are hotter!

[weswood]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

OK, but you have agree that brunettes are hotter!

This proves it. You are insane!