[0B]

With a knife, they'd have to be really close to each other. Make it a sword and I probably would.

A character can attack more than one opponent,
assuming ammunition, reach, and enemy
placement allow.

You would not be allowed to Anticipate that, though, since it's not a Ranged Attack.

Ah, gotcha, so you'd have to throw the knives. Do thrown weapons use a firing mode? I haven't been able to find any. My instinct says "single shot," but if you can't multi attack using SS, then that contradicts the example given with shuriken.

[Shinobi Killfist]

hopefully they will come out with a melee version of anticipation.


edit to add for normal multiple attacks me as a GM if the person has the minor to move I'd let them attack/move/attack and split their dice pool.

1. its cool, 2 I don't see a balance issue, 3. you are a cyborg ninja go for it.

[0B]

If they do, I would still want it to have a cap on number of attacks. As a GM, if a player said "I split my pool into two melee attacks on the same target," I'd be like "sure, that matches my interpretation of RAW." It'd be a poor decision against a powerful opponent, but not a bad idea against a weaker one.

If the same player said "I split my pool into one hundred attacks on the same target, using anticipation," I would tell them to go pound sand.

If thrown weapons are the odd exception that allow you to make multiple attacks with SS/no firing mode involved, at least you have the limitation of "no, you can't reasonably fit 100 shruikens into your hand to throw."

[Xenon]

As I read it;

• If you have one throwing weapon then you can only throw it at one target.
• If you have two throwing weapons then you can throw them both at the same target or at two different targets by adding the multiple attack action and splitting your pool.
• If your agility is high enough you can even ready three throwing weapons and throw them all in one major action by adding a multiple attack minor action and splitting your pool evenly.

• If you have one firearm in single shot mode then you can only ever fire it once per major action
• If you have two firearms then you can fire both of them at the same target or at two different targets by adding the multiple attack action and splitting your pool
• If you have two firearm and take anticipation then you can fire both of them at two different targets without splitting the pool

Following this reasoning gives;

• If you have one melee weapon then you can only attack with it once per major action
• If you wield a melee weapon in each hand then you can attack with both of them at the same target or at two different targets by adding the multiple attack action and splitting your pool
• If you wield a melee weapon in one hand and a firearm in the other then you can attack with both of them at the same target or at two different targets by adding the multiple attack action and splitting your pool

This seem very consistent. And also not game breaking.
And it give dual wielding (and the ambidextrous quality) a clear purpose.
In my book that is what I would call a "Win - Win"

If they do, I would still want it to have a cap on number of attacks.

As I read it, the point of dual wielding two weapons is that you get to attack twice in one major action (with no option to use edge on your offhand attack -unless you are ambidextrous).

If you allow attacking twice in a single major action with a single weapon then what is the point of dual wielding? Or the ambidextrous quality for that matter...?

If thrown weapons are the odd exception that allow you to make multiple attacks with SS/no firing mode involved, at least you have the limitation of "no, you can't reasonably fit 100 shruikens into your hand to throw."

SR6 p. 251 Throwing Knives/Shuriken
Up to (Agility/2) of these weapons can be readied for throwing with a Ready Weapon action.

[0B]

• If you have one firearm in single shot mode then you can only ever fire it once per major action
• If you have two firearms then you can fire both of them at the same target or at two different targets by adding the multiple attack action and splitting your pool
• If you have two firearm and take anticipation then you can fire both of them at two different targets without splitting the pool

Following this reasoning gives;

• If you have one melee weapon then you can only attack with it once per major action
• If you wield a melee weapon in each hand then you can attack with both of them at the same target or at two different targets by adding the multiple attack action and splitting your pool
• If you wield a melee weapon in one hand and a firearm in the other then you can attack with both of them at the same target or at two different targets by adding the multiple attack action and splitting your pool

Once again: nothing in the rules states that you can only attack with a weapon once per major action. SS and SA do not mention actions, or even attacks. BF mentions "You can fire four rounds in an attack." An attack is not the same as an action, though an attack can be an action (And you can have multiple attacks, through the multiple attack action). FA allows you to do multiple attacks explicitly without the multiple attack action (And is the only firing mode that mentions multiple attack). Nothing in the rules states that melee weapons can be used once per attack.

BF explicitly avoids the term "action" when it says "attack." This means that the firing mode is associated with an attack, not with an action.

If you're using an interpretation of the rules where if it doesn't explicitly restrict or permit something, then it is restricted, so be it. That is not how I interpret the rule.

Multiple attack explicitly lists what the restrictions are (Ammo, reach, enemy placement). It does not list "the number of weapons you have" as a restriction on how many attacks you can make. It does not list "ranks in your combat skill" as a restriction on how many attacks you can make. It does not list "current wound modifier" as a restriction on how many attacks you can make. You could make an argument that all three of these could be restrictions (Presence of Ambidextrous quality, skill being a restriction in previous editions, exhaustion having an effect on your speed, etc.), but why would they?

If the number of weapons you have is a restriction on how many attacks you can make, why is this not listed in the rules? My stance is that if a rule isn't in a rule book, then it isn't a rule for that rule book.

If it would make more sense for a rule to be in a rule book, that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that the rule isn't in that rule book. Using the non-existent rule would be either a house rule or a ruling.

If they do, I would still want it to have a cap on number of attacks.

As I read it, the point of dual wielding two weapons is that you get to attack twice in one major action (with no option to use edge on your offhand attack -unless you are ambidextrous).

If you allow attacking twice in a single major action with a single weapon then what is the point of dual wielding? Or the ambidextrous quality for that matter...?

Who says you have to dual-wield two swords? Practically speaking, using a sword and a ranged weapon will keep your options open, and allow you to make either a melee or ranged attack without having to ready an action. There's nothing wrong with the aesthetic of dual-wielding, either.

5E explicitly mentioned attacking multiple times with a single weapon, and that edition still had dual wielding. But personally, it shouldn't matter what rules 5e had for firing modes or multiple attack, the rules for 6e CRB must stand on their own. They cannot involve hypothetical rules from splat books that do not exist, either.

If thrown weapons are the odd exception that allow you to make multiple attacks with SS/no firing mode involved, at least you have the limitation of "no, you can't reasonably fit 100 shruikens into your hand to throw."

SR6 p. 251 Throwing Knives/Shuriken
Up to (Agility/2) of these weapons can be readied for throwing with a Ready Weapon action.

"Small weapons such as throwing knives and shuriken can be readied in bunches, with a total number equal to the character’s Agility attribute pulled into the character’s off-hand with a single Ready Weapon action." (p. 44)

Hey, we found another rule with two different definitions! Let's say I have 3 minor actions and 1 major action. Is there anything stopping me from doing two minor actions to ready either Agility or Agility*2  weapons, and then doing a multi-attack with all of them using the minor+major I have left?

The p. 44 implies this with the use of "single" Ready Weapon action. To say that a single Ready Weapon action pulls AGI weapons into off-hand implies that non-single Ready Weapon actions, or "multiple" would do something different. You pull AGI weapons into your off-hand in a single ready weapon action. I take another single ready weapon action, and pull another AGI weapons.

The p. 251 definition doesn't explicitly say "single." This one, I would rule the other way. It doesn't explicitly say "single," and the condition is "Up to (Agility/2) of these weapons can be readied for throwing." The Ready Action is the condition for you to throw weapons.

In the other case, a single Ready Action is the condition for pulling a certain amount of weapons into your off-hand, with each bunch readied for throwing. It says nothing about how many bunches you can throw at a time, or indeed how many weapons you can throw at a time.

It's like this: If I say "I like houses," then it means I like houses. If I say, "I like red houses," then it means I like red houses. I might like blue houses, or I might dislike blue houses. There is no information one way or the other.

The p. 251 definition is more clear, and I would make a ruling that you should go off of that one, but who's to say which one is the intended rule? Even if we say that the "single" is meaningless under p. 44, the amount of weapons is still contradictory.

[Xenon]

Once again: nothing in the rules states that you can only attack with a weapon once per major action.

There are unfortunately a lot of things that the rules don't explicitly state in this edition.
But most of the alternative readings are silly, crazy or down-right game breaking so...

That is not how I interpret the rule.

I wish I could find a clear explicit rule that prevent you from you from firing that single shot weapon 8 times in a single major action, but I can't. So if you wish to rule it like that. then you are free to do that.

But honestly now, do that reading make sense to you...?

An attack is not the same as an action, though an attack can be an action

It take one Major Attack Action to align the weapon on your target and perform one Narrow Burst Attack.

SR5 p. 42 Major Actions - Attack
A character may perform one of a variety of forms of attack with this Major Action.

If you wish to align your gun for second Narrow Burst Attack then you take a second Major Attack Action. Your first Major Action ended once you released the trigger of that first attack.

If you are wielding two firearms (one in each hand) then you can align both of them at the same time and then perform an attack with each of them at the same time, in the same Major Attack Action. This, however, require that you also take a Minor Multiple Attack Action and split the pool between your two attacks.

Once you let go of the trigger of your both weapons the Major Action is considered to be over.

FA allows you to do multiple attacks explicitly without the multiple attack action

Precisely. A regular Full Auto attack include the option to attack multiple targets or the same target more than once. This is within the limit of what you can do with your regular Major Attack Action. Full Auto act as an exception and it let you attack multiple times with a single firearm. But at a cost of 6 AR.


Ruling that you can also do the exact same thing with a single shot weapon, but without a cost of 6 AR, makes no sense at all(!) That is crazy talk! What would then the purpose of Full Auto be?!

Yes, since there are no explicit rule that describe this you are free to interpret it like that, but I highly doubt that this is how the rule is intended to be read.

If it would make more sense for a rule to be in a rule book, that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that the rule isn't in that rule book. Using the non-existent rule would be either a house rule or a ruling.

For other editions I would 100% agree with you and if you followed me for the last 10 years or so you would know that I often used the same arguments you are using... but since they cut so many clarifying (or 'redundant' as they probably saw it) rules and examples you end up with a rule structure in 6e that is far from as strict as it used to be (I wish this wasn't the case, but it is).

In this edition it is not only OK, it is required, to use common sense (in a much broader sense than in previous editions).

Who says you have to dual-wield two swords?

SR6 p. 111 Multiple Attacks
...or using a sword in each hand...

(ask yourself why they would even mention "a sword in each hand" if the intention really was that you could just as easy do the same amount of attacks while wielding just one sword in one hand, and without off-hand penalties to boot?)

It is common practice in TTRPGs that you get access to more attacks if you wield two weapons compared to if you wield one weapon.

It is also common practice in TTRPGs that your off-hand attack is generally weaker than your main hand attack (unless you are ambidextrous).


All of the above is supported with the reading I am presenting to you.

None of the above is supported if you rule that you can also just do two attacks with the sword you have in your main hand (without off-hand penalties).


You swing your your melee weapon once, and then your Major Attack Action is over.

If you wish to swing your melee weapon a second time you better have enough Minor Actions to trade in for a second Major Attack Action.

If you wield two swords (one in each hand) then you can swing both of them at the same time in the same Major Attack Action (by adding a Minor Multiple Attack Action). Once you swinged your both swords the Major Attack Action is over.

Very streamlined with how firearms attacks would have been resolved. I like this a lot ;-)

Is there anything stopping me from doing two minor actions to ready either Agility or Agility*2  weapons, and then doing a multi-attack with all of them using the minor+major I have left?

Well, Ready Weapon is typically considered a Major Action, but besides that? Nope. You go ahead and rule it like that. No limit. Why should there be, right? Just spend a few turns to ready 200 throwing weapons. And then you anticipate the shit out of all of them. Yes. This seem to be the intended way to resolve this ;-)

Even though it does not explicitly say so it is clearly intended that Agility / 2 act as the limit on the amount of shurikens / throwing knives you are allowed to Ready at the same time and are allowed to throw in one Major Attack Action.

Again. Apply some common sense is not forbidden.
I think you might have a very difficult time playing 6e if you don't start to embrace this mindset when reading the rules.... :-/

[Finstersang]

You swing your your melee weapon once, and then your Major Attack Action is over.

If you wish to swing your melee weapon a second time you better have enough Minor Actions to trade in for a second Major Attack Action.

If you wield two swords (one in each hand) then you can swing both of them at the same time in the same Major Attack Action (by adding a Minor Multiple Attack Action). Once you swinged your both swords the Major Attack Action is over.

Very streamlined with how firearms attacks would have been resolved. I like this a lot ;-)

Problem is: Melee attack Actions are not supposed to be always just one strike or stab, they can also be a flurry of attacks. And multiple strikes and stabs could be directed at multiple targets, just like the multiple Bullets of BF or FA attacks.

I think it makes sense to treat multiple Attacks in melee slightly differently here: It´s absolutely reasonable that a skilled knife fighter can try to stab 2-3 people in one aggressive, flurry of Attack (or that some drugged-up punk just aimlessly tries to step everyone around her...) without dual wielding. In fact, that´s not even that different from ranged combat, as BF/FA weapons and knife throws also allow this to a certain degree.

It´s also hardly a game- or immersion-breaker, even with Anticipation: The range for possible melee targets is limited anyways. If you try to gang up on a Katana-wielding Samurai who had the time to prepare for a show-off counterattack, you risk that the whole gang gets sliced up. TBH, that´s the least problematic use of Anticipation, compared to all the other broken stuff you can do with it. That´s just the rule of cool in action.

This begs just one question: What´s points use of Dual-Wielding when you can do multiple Attacks without it?

How about allowing multiple Attacks against the same target? That´s a different thing. If the Samurai wields two Katanas, he could still attack multiple targets with them by using the multiple Attack option, but also go for a double Attack against one mook, with the potential for more damage. Same for a Gunslinger with two SS/SA Pistols.

I think that this is supposed to the RAI here, it´s just fragged up and obfuscated as usual. I even remember some little additional blurb in the (german?) rulebook/forums/errata/whatever that further supports this reading, but try finding shit in this mess  I might be mistaken here, though. Either way, if not RAI, it´s a reasonable houserule:

When performing Multiple Attacks, only one Attack per weapon can be directed at one single target.

That is not how I interpret the rule.

I wish I could find a clear explicit rule that prevent you from you from firing that single shot weapon 8 times in a single major action, but I can't. So if you wish to rule it like that. then you are free to do that.

But honestly now, do that reading make sense to you...?

Yup, that one´s bonkers.

However, there might be some instances where you could perform multiple attacks even with a SS/SA weapon:   

A character can attack more than one opponent, assuming ammunition, reach, and enemy
placement allow it.

Rule of cool strikes again: If the targets are positioned in a nice line, you might shoot through them with just one bullet. Classic Action Movie shit. I´d say it´s GM`s call if and when you are allowed to this, though 

[Michael Chandra]

Note that the examples of multiple attacks do not list using the same melee weapon against the same enemy twice. With FA explicitly allowing you to target the same person with the same weapon, I see no reason to allow you a double-slash on the same target without double-wielding.

As for readying throwing weapons: Since they're held in the offhand and pulled from there, yeah you could reasonably ready multiple times, to a reasonable constraint.

[penllawen]

I think it makes sense to treat multiple Attacks in melee slightly differently here: It´s absolutely reasonable that a skilled knife fighter can try to stab 2-3 people in one aggressive, flurry of Attack (or that some drugged-up punk just aimlessly tries to step everyone around her...) without dual wielding. In fact, that´s not even that different from ranged combat, as BF/FA weapons and knife throws also allow this to a certain degree.

It´s also hardly a game- or immersion-breaker, even with Anticipation: The range for possible melee targets is limited anyways. If you try to gang up on a Katana-wielding Samurai who had the time to prepare for a show-off counterattack, you risk that the whole gang gets sliced up. TBH, that´s the least problematic use of Anticipation, compared to all the other broken stuff you can do with it. That´s just the rule of cool in action.

I agree 100%.

I'd further add: I think melee characters are relatively underpowered compared to ranged ones (although it does depend on GM fiat on fight layouts / movement ranges / tactical positioning), and don't think some gentle buffs to them are a bad idea.

This begs just one question: What´s points use of Dual-Wielding when you can do multiple Attacks without it?

Something Shadowrun has always wrestled with, tbf. I don't think any edition's action economy has ever had a good answer to this.

How about allowing multiple Attacks against the same target? That´s a different thing. If the Samurai wields two Katanas, he could still attack multiple targets with them by using the multiple Attack option, but also go for a double Attack against one mook, with the potential for more damage. Same for a Gunslinger with two SS/SA Pistols.

Oooooh. I think you're on to something here...! It's just a little gamey/artificial, would be my only (minor) objection, but I can dig it.

[Xenon]

Melee attack Actions are not supposed to be always just one strike or stab, they can also be a flurry of attacks. And multiple strikes and stabs could be directed at multiple targets, just like the multiple Bullets of BF or FA attacks.

A flurry of attacks against a single target with a single weapon will probably still always be resolved as a single attack action (not as several individual attacks). Just like firing 4 bullets at a single target with a single firearm is resolved as one single narrow burst attack action (not as several single shot attacks).

Having said that, I fully expect that future supplements will introduce advanced attack options for melee...

How about allowing multiple Attacks against the same target?

I fully think this is intended, yes (and I wrote that above as well).

Attacking the same target once if you have one weapon
Attacking the same target twice if you have two weapons

But if we also allow you to attack multiple targets with one melee weapon (which I am not against, sweeping attacks or cleave attacks is very much a "thing" when it comes to melee attacks in games like this) then we also need to introduce a limit.

Either you will hit all targets (friend or foe) in a frontal cone (similar to a melee version of suppressive fire from previous edition). Or the number of targets you can make with a single melee weapon is limited in some way (perhaps to weapon skill / 2 like it was in previous edition).

[penllawen]

Or the number of targets you can make with a single melee weapon is limited in some way (perhaps to weapon skill / 2 like it was in previous edition).

Wouldn't movement distance be the most elegant way of handling that? You can't attack more people than you can move between in the single turn. 10m cap restricts you quite naturally to only a few targets.

[0B]

Again. Apply some common sense is not forbidden.
I think you might have a very difficult time playing 6e if you don't start to embrace this mindset when reading the rules.... :-/

I think perhaps this is where the breakdown is happening. I see a difference between Rulings and Rules. Rules are what the text explicitly states, Rulings are how you interpret that text. And no, I don't play any game intending to stick strictly to RAW. At the same time, I don't expect anyone to conform to my Rulings. This is the dictionary difference, and the Old-School Primer is where I draw my definition from in the context of TTRPGs.

I would probably houserule in the 5e method for handling multiple attacks, personally, but that doesn't mean it's a rule. You would draw upon systems in other RPGs where you get one attack per weapon. I don't think that's the wrong decision, but it's not the one I like.

I dislike this houserule/ruling because it doesn't make sense with the kinesics. When you stab someone, you do not just extend your arm, you are moving your whole body with it. If there are two people on either side of you, both within range, it takes just as much work to multi-attack both of them with two weapons as it is to multiattack with one weapon.

With two weapons, you would lean and thrust into one of them with one weapon, then lean and thrust into the other one with your other weapon. (Or slash. Or stab. Doesn't matter.) With one weapon, you would lean and thrust into one of them with your only weapon, and then lean and thrust into the other one with the same weapon. The only time two weapons would be quicker is if they are close together: you thrust into both of them at the same time. But in that same situation, you could make a powerful two-handed slash against both of them with one motion of the blade.

HOWEVER. Simulationism isn't king, and there are times where you disregard realism to make a simpler rule.

Note that the examples of multiple attacks do not list using the same melee weapon against the same enemy twice. With FA explicitly allowing you to target the same person with the same weapon, I see no reason to allow you a double-slash on the same target without double-wielding.

As for readying throwing weapons: Since they're held in the offhand and pulled from there, yeah you could reasonably ready multiple times, to a reasonable constraint.

Yeah, I'd hope that any GM would stop the nonsense after the fourth or fifth ready action to put knives in hand...

The rules specifically say you may make multiple attacks against the same target:

Whether it’s shooting a bunch of bullets at multiple people, throwing shuriken at a marauding group, or using a sword in each hand, there may be times you want to deliver multiple attacks at once. This can be against multiple targets, or you
could attempt two attacks against the same target.

They don't say anything about being able to multi-attack with throwing knives, or multi-attacking with bows, or dual wielding clubs or knives, either. If we say that the examples are the only situations where multi-attack can occur, I think we limit what we can do.

From a realism standpoint, I feel like it'd be easier for someone to make two attacks against the same target then it would be to make two attacks against two different targets. This is regardless of whether it's melee or ranged: with melee, you have to shift your whole body. With ranged, you have to switch back to "scanning the horizon" vision, then switch to "focus" on the new target. You also have to adjust where your weapon is pointing, and possibly your entire firing stance if they are in a different direction than your last target.

Maybe this is hard to describe. The best way is this: Space yourself out between two walls so that you need to lean towards a wall in order to hit it with your hand (gently with your palm). Use a corner wall if you have to. Consider how long it takes to hit one wall twice with the same hand, to hit both walls with the same hand, to hit one wall twice using both hands, and to hit two walls using two hands. If you're on a corner wall, you can also experiment with being closer and farther from the corner.

This is substantially harder when the wall is trying to hit you. This is my order of speed from fastest to slowest:

1. Hit one wall with both hands at the same time
2. Hit one wall twice with one hand, or with two hands to simulate that you may not have an opening for both weapons at the same time
3. Hit two walls with two hands (If you can do this at the same time, the walls are too close for this experiment)
4. Hit two walls using one hand

To me, speed here doesn't change much if it's melee or shooting with a weapon. If you want to simulate how long it takes to adjust aim, simply look down the "sights" of your finger gun and say "bang" instead of tapping the wall and flick your wrist to simulate recoil.

You might arguably say that you can shoot two weapons quicker if you're not looking at where one of them is aiming, but that is a horrifying concept to me. Still, SR tend towards superheroic moreso than realistic.

[Sir Ludwig]

Xenon,

Thanks for the new link!

Best,
SL

So, Mission FAQ is up.

Edit. No it isn't.

Edit2. Yes, now it is again. New link.


It state/clarify that multiple attacks with firearms is only when you attack with 2 different firearms and Anticipation is only used when attacking two different targets with 2 different guns while at the same time having the ambidextrous quality.

Thoughts?

[Michael Chandra]

I've stated my opinion on Anticipation in SRM elsewhere: It's not how I parse the rules, but it's a balanced restriction that works well within the context of SRM.

[MercilessMing]

wow!  anticipation again.
I was a little disappointed but not surprised that SRM painted anticipation into a little corner where only a gadget character was going to use it.  But it's not going to break the game just because no one's going to use it.  It doesn't contradict any rules, and that's about as good as you can get without making house rules.

Personally, I think all Anticipation needs to be a powerful, but not uber edge boost without making a ton of rules is a reasonable max #attacks limit for each firing mode, and no doubling up attacks when using it.  4-6 seem good to me for FA.  None of this skill/2 or other math.  Just make it static, that works for SR6.