Breaking Up Melee Combat

[CRMcNeill]

Seeing as how Melee Combat covers such a broad range of weapons, some of which require much different techniques, I have long considered breaking up Melee Combat into multiple skills, each covering a broad catagory of Melee Weapons that use similar techniques. I haven't really organized it in great detail yet, but the basic catagories are...

Stabbing Weapons (Knives and Short Swords)
Slashing Weapons (Swords, axes, as well as most blunt weapons, which are usually swung in an arc).
Whip / Chain (Covers any flexible weapon)

I'm also considering differentiating between close range and reach weapons (spears and pole arms), as well as a separate catagory for shields.

After all, if we have differing catagories for Blasters and Firearms based solely on what they are firing, why not differing skills here when the techniques are so different?

Thoughts?
_________________
"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

[cheshire]

Though this may work well for your game, I'm not sure that it's something that I would incorporate in mine. It seems as though it needlessly complicates the mechanics of the weapons. If you want to break this down to how things function in real life, then there could be dozens of melee skills just for swords. Though there are noticeable points of overlap, the practice for even a katana is remarkably different from a rapier. Though they are both visually very similar, the art of using even a broad sword is in many ways different from a longsword.

I'm not sure I see what advantage it would gain my players to break up the melee skills, particularly when melee weapons aren't a primary focus in the game. Triplicating the skill for the types of weapons seems that the next logical step is triplicating the melee parry skill as well. I can tell you from personal experience that deflecting a longsword is a completely different ballgame from deflecting a rapier. Even using your delineating criteria of stabbing and long arcs, parrying one is not the same as parrying the other. Granted there is the precedent of distinguishing firearms and blasters, though it's one of the reasons I seldom mix the two in a game anyway. I don't see the mechanical benefit of splitting them.

Perhaps I'm not seeing what mechanical or "realism' factor this is contributing to the game. Would you mind elaborating why this mechanic would be advantageous?
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.

[ZepDek]

Well I for one usually do the opposite and lump skills together rather than making separate skills for each type of weapon (Barring really weird or strange ones), but as a question where would a 'weapon' such a chainsaw fit in? And I assume you'd add more such as staves and other kinds of types? I can't see using it myself as it may over complicate things a bit to much but if you use it, let us know how it goes.

[CRMcNeill]

The Blaster / Firearms distinction was a major factor, in that if two skills so closely related had to have separate skills, why wasn't the same true for Melee Weapons when it covers such a broad range of skills.

An alternate possibility that I have considered is leaving Melee Weapons unchanged and adding an Exotic Weapons designation, in that some weapons are sufficiently outside the scope of the "normal" Melee Weapon skill set that a character must specialize in them to be able to use them...
_________________
"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

[garhkal]

[aegisflashfire]

If you were to do this you have to dump "parry" as a skill. No one trains in a weapon or martial art ONLY on offense or ONLY on defense.

[CRMcNeill]

[CRMcNeill]

[Leon The Lion]

Here is a break-down of melee skills I toyed with some time ago:

Skill - Example Weapons Covered
Melee: Bash - Axe, Bat, Mace, Hammer, Club, Tonfa, Chair, Bottle, Pan, Spade
Melee: Defensive - Shield, Sai/Jitte, Parrying Dagger, Cloak
Melee: Flexible - Whip, Lash, Chain, Morningstar, Nunchaku
Melee: Lightsaber - Long, Short, Double-Ended, Whip
Melee: Pole - Halberd, Staff, Sledge, Naginata, Brand, Pike, Spear, Trident, Bayonet, Shovel
Melee: Slash/Stab - Knife, Sword, Rapier, Saber, Claw, Broken Bottle

That's as far as I would consider taking it, which is still plenty detailed. But for now I decided to stay with the single Melee skill. Except for Lightsabers, melee is simply not important enough in my game to bother with this level of detail.

I did break-down melee for my Secret of Zir'An D6 game - because of the setting specifics, melee combat is about equal to shooting there - but even there I went with a single "Standard" skill covering both the "Bash" and "Slash/Stab" of the above cathegories in adition to the "Defensive", "Flexible" and "Pole" ones.

Aside: If I went for house-ruling the weapon skills, I would also consider changing the ranged weapon break-down, doing away with the energy / ballistic divide, and instead went with a pistol / rifle division.
_________________
Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer

[Tupteq]

I'm using one Melee Combat skill (covering both attack and defense), but
I added "proficiency" requirement to some exotic weapons. Lack of proficiency causes a penalty to weapon use (-1D, -2D or -3D, depending on weapon). A character may learn how to use a weapon and gain a proficiency, which costs 5CP per each -1D. So, using something without appropriate proficiency effects in lower dice pools (and worse critical failures).
For sake of simplicity I don't allow buying-off penalty in parts (-1D at a time), full proficiency has to be bought (e.g. -3D costs 15CP). Of course, training and/or teacher is usually required.

Actually, I'm using this mechanics for many other things: swoop is a -2D proficiency of vehicle operation skill, double-bladed lightsaber is a -2D proficiency of lightsaber skill, disguise is -1D proficiency of Con etc.

This works well for me, adds some (cinematic) realism without adding new skills and without too much trouble in mechanics. Actually, it greatly reduces number of skills (e.g. tensor rifle is a proficiency of blaster, not a separate skill as in RAW).

[garhkal]

I could go for a 3 tier break for melee (if one does away with the parry and mashes it into the attack skill, to make a general melee for each group).

Slashing
Piercing and
Exotic.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Fallon Kell]

[CRMcNeill]

[Leon The Lion]

[cheshire]

I wouldn't be too quick to use the firearms/blaster separation as a precedent without having an solid understanding of why the designers chose to separate them. Yes, you can split them into two skills. But I'm not entirely convinced that it was the right decision. But, as I said, firearms are used seldom enough that it doesn't have much of an impact on game mechanics. Following a decision that we don't understand with a decision that has (as of yet) little measurable benefit doesn't seem to make sense to me.

The melee weapons, though not the primary means of combat, are frequent enough that it creates more of a CP burden on the characters, doesn't serve a tactical function, and doesn't necessarily bring a balance to a broken part of combat.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what missing element of the game mechanics, balance, or fun does this house rule fix?
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.