PDA

View Full Version : Melee vs Ranged



Shinken
2014-04-03, 07:19 AM
Hey, guys.
I'm looking for RPG systems that use some mechanic to make ranged combat somewhat balanced compared to melee. d20 has attacks of opportunity - I'm wondering what other systems have done regarding this.
Thanks in advance.

Yora
2014-04-03, 07:25 AM
Balanced in what way? What makes them unbalanced in games you've played?

HammeredWharf
2014-04-03, 07:35 AM
Usually, ranged attacks deal less damage and/or miss more often.

Shinken
2014-04-03, 09:33 AM
Balanced in what way? What makes them unbalanced in games you've played?

You misunderstand. I'm not saying it is unbalanced in any game, I'm saying that ranged combat is by definition superior to melee combat (since it has range) and wondering how different games make them somewhat balanced.

Frozen_Feet
2014-04-03, 09:49 AM
Ranged combat only has advantage when there's enough visibility and open line of fire. As far as D&D goes, crawling in dungeons is a far bigger balancing factor than AoOs ever have been.

In 3.x D&D though, even bigger balancing factors is that Melee can be made to deal vastly greater amounts of damage. Also, hand-to-hand combatants can get god-damned fast, so you need to have a very big advantage in range for Ranged to be superior. As you might know, getting enough range and sensory perception in 3.x is a bitch. Combined with poor damage and obstructed battlegrounds, it means Ranged loses.

My opinion is that they shouldn't be balanced. Ranged should have a realistic advantage. It just shouldn't be enough of an advantage to completely obviate need for Melee. In real life, soldiers are still taught hand-to-hand combat and still carry knives, shovels etc., even though we have artillery, tanks and assault rifles. Because sometimes, weapons jam or run out of ammo, or the enemy gets a drop on you from a dead angle.

For similar reasons, I think all melee combatant should have skill in both weapon and unarmed combat. Different methods of attacking don't need to be balanced, as long as they are useful and incentive is given to use them from time to time.

Red Fel
2014-04-03, 10:05 AM
On the one hand, the advantage of range cannot be overemphasized. The ability to destroy an enemy before he can get close to you is invaluable. Similarly, at least in "realistic" settings, ranged weapons - particularly artillery, missiles, etc. - have vastly more destructive power than any melee weapon.

On the other hand, however, a ranged weapon basically has two functions - hit or miss. A melee weapon has many functions, including but not limited to hit, miss, block, parry, trip, feint, and so on. Thus, a melee combatant enjoys vastly more utility than one armed and trained with solely ranged weaponry.

Additionally, the advantages of a ranged weapon drop off dramatically once an opponent closes to melee range. Obviously, the advantage of range is gone. Many ranged weapons are also difficult to use in melee combat, with the exception of those which have been modified specifically for melee (such as rifles with bayonets or club-like attachments), and even those have a tendency to be unwieldy. Further, using a ranged weapon at close range often puts the wielder at risk, not only because it often takes more time to aim and fire than it does to take a swing at somebody, but also because - in the case of more destructive weapons - the risk of being caught in the resultant damage is substantially increased.

The result is unsurprising. At range, ranged combat wins (or should win, imperfect game mechanics notwithstanding). In melee, melee combat wins. There is a reason that, at least in more classical warfare, combat opened with volleys between the two sides, after which melee forces clashed - the opening rounds were designed to kill off as many opponents as possible, softening them up for a melee assault.

Melee : Ranged :: Infantry : Cavalry - the latter is preferable, but difficult to maintain in all circumstances, whereas the former is broadly applicable and fairly consistent, if less desirable in some situations.

As for specific game mechanics, I'd basically look for any game that permits an opening ranged volley to be outcome-determinative of the battle. I think (although it's been some time since I've played it) that Shadowrun might allow a team with good snipers to end combat before it starts. As I recall, the Ironclaw expansion The Book of Jade also has an entire school of combat dedicated to archery, and the core mechanics also allow for spells that basically function as reloadable ranged weapons with specialized effects.

The problem, gameplay-wise, is that a more "realistic" ranged combat system - i.e. one in which a few ranged volleys may end combat before it starts - can come across as stunningly anticlimactic. RPGs carry the baggage of being heavily melee-oriented, and a game in which a climactic duel of steel versus steel that lasts for hours can instead be resolved with a single well-placed head-shot can be somewhat deflating. Realism, after a point, cuts combat a bit too short to be enjoyable.

Mr. Mask
2014-04-03, 10:16 AM
My work here is done... by Red Fel. Good post.

CombatOwl
2014-04-03, 10:42 AM
Hey, guys.
I'm looking for RPG systems that use some mechanic to make ranged combat somewhat balanced compared to melee. d20 has attacks of opportunity - I'm wondering what other systems have done regarding this.
Thanks in advance.

Palladium gives melee weapons bonuses when thrown. In Palladium Fantasy, you do more damage throwing swords than you do firing bows. So, you keep throwing swords at the enemy while charging them. Once in melee range, stop throwing.

Kaun
2014-04-03, 06:39 PM
What are we arguing here?

Melee has the advantage of not running out of ammo.

Knaight
2014-04-03, 06:56 PM
You misunderstand. I'm not saying it is unbalanced in any game, I'm saying that ranged combat is by definition superior to melee combat (since it has range) and wondering how different games make them somewhat balanced.

Given the heavy employment of melee forces all over the world well into the gunpowder era, this seems dubious. It's less a matter of being by definition superior and more a matter of being contextually dependent on the technology involved and circumstances of employment.

CombatOwl
2014-04-03, 07:04 PM
Given the heavy employment of melee forces all over the world well into the gunpowder era, this seems dubious. It's less a matter of being by definition superior and more a matter of being contextually dependent on the technology involved and circumstances of employment.

Most importantly, the manufacturing technologies available and the economic systems that allocate the products of that manufacturing.

Rephath
2014-04-03, 08:13 PM
In modern times, melee isn't balanced. Though it's worth noting that modern body armor isn't designed to stop blades and melee attacks.

Ravens_cry
2014-04-03, 08:44 PM
In modern times, melee isn't balanced. Though it's worth noting that modern body armor isn't designed to stop blades and melee attacks.

There is such things as stab vests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab_vest), designed to stop blades (and also bullets, though to a lesser degree).