Melee Combat, Missile Combat, & Asymmetry

[Catullus64]

I think it's generally a good thing in games that feature combat to have very strong distinctions between melee and missile combat, even if they use similar resolution mechanics, such that they fulfill different roles, feel different, have very different resolution mechanics, and no group/team can rely exclusively on one or the other.

I thought I'd start this thread to catalogue and explore different ways RPGs and other combat-based tabletop games differentiate their ranged and melee combat. I think that if this is not done, games will often bias heavily towards ranged combat, which is generally safer to perform. In many ways, this list is 'ways to incentivize melee combat in a game system'. I'm going to draw my examples from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, both because it's the non-D&D system I play the most, and because I think it's the gold standard when it comes to making its melee and missile combat equally, but differently valuable.

Action Economy. This is the big thing that makes melee valuable as well as necessary in WFRP: its action economy, and therefore its damage potential, is much higher than for shooting. Part of this is because missile weapons have fixed damage rather than strength-scaling melee damage. But reloading is the key reason for this; all missile weapons by default have an action cost to reload. This cost ranges from a half-action for bows and slings, a full action for crossbows and the like, and multiple full actions for firearms. There are talents to mitigate this, but that still only goes so far. Reload times mean that even characters capable of multiple attacks in one turn can't make them unless they have the Rapid Reload talent (for bows and slings) or maybe something like multiple pistols + the Quick Draw talent. But that latter set-up is unlikely, because...

Missile Combat is Expensive. Missile weapons and their ammunition tend to be very expensive. A pistol costs 200 gold crowns in a game where you might be lucky to make 20 from a given job. Powder will be 3 silver per shot. By contrast, everybody starts out with a free Hand Weapon (the catch-all category for one-handed swords, axes, clubs, warhammers), and the humble Hand Weapon can serve you well through the whole game.

Melee is inevitable. Because shooting combat can't compete with melee combat in its damage, it means that melee combat will happen when your arrows and bullets fail to stop the incoming foes, meaning that even ranged-specialists need to be prepared to get stuck in.

Defenses. Lest you think from the foregoing statements that missile combat is useless, it does have one big advantage that both keeps it relevant, and makes it feel different. In melee, you have active defenses: once the enemy hits you, you can attempt an active parry once per round if you have the right weapons or adopt a parrying stance. If you're a character specialized for combat, you probably have the Dodge Blow skill, which has even fewer requirements. Missile combat allows no such active mitigation; if the shooter hits you, you're hit, and only your passive defenses (armor and the to-hit penalty imposed by shields) will help protect you. Besides that, the only ways to defend against a missile attacker are to get out of their line of sight, or to get into melee with either the shooter or anybody else. Which brings us to...

Mobility. The existence of the Charge action is key; it means that moving and attacking on the same turn is much more viable for melee attackers than ranged ones, feeding into that 'melee is inevitable' point. Since movement is tied to actions, the superior action economy of melee generally also contributes to its mobility.

Bonuses. In WFRP, base success rates are dismal. An expert in a given skill may still only have a base 50% rate, and very few PCs will ever get above 70% in anything. Smart gameplay is all about stacking as many bonuses as possible. Both melee and missile attacks can benefit from the Aim action, but melee has more options: Charging grants a hit bonus, the All-Out-Attack option does the same at the cost of defense, the Guarded Attack does the reverse, the Feint action can bypass active defense. And of course, melee benefits from the all-important Ganging Up bonus, because superior numbers are the greatest asset to victory in this game.

Deadliness. But of course, this is WFRP, and the greater damage potential of melee quite literally cuts both ways. Characters are fragile, with 10-15 HP on average at any level, and most weapons doing around 1d10+3 (though Armor and Toughness do mitigate said damage). Missile combat is safer, and if the stars of character build, environment, & resources line up to let you engage an enemy entirely at range, you should usually do that.

I would love to hear about how other niche systems make their shooting and melee combats not only both rewarding, but differently rewarding.

[Khedrac]

RuneQuest comnes in with a difference level similar to that of WHFRP from what you have said.

RQ is a Percentage skill-based system where skills can (and do) go over 100%, with criticals (5% of hits) and "specials" (20% of hits).
Specials are things like impale for piercing weapons where the weapon gets stuck in the wound (can be a real pain for a rapier wielder).

Now the RQ combat round is divided up into strike ranks (10 in AH 3rd Ed, 12 in the new RQG). All characters have a Dex stirke rank and a size strike rank, and their wepaons have a strike rank as well.

Concentrating on AH RQ3 (because I know it better):
For melee you attack on the sum of you size sr, dex sr and weapon sr (usually about 7) and attacks can be blocked by parrying or dodging. You can attempt two of these per round, but you cannot use; iirc the second attack is 3 sr later so you could run out of time).the same weapon for two attacks or parries (unless you have skill over 100% when, if fast enough, you can split your skill and make two attacks etc at half the chance.
Missile fire however you attack on your Dex sr. Then for fast weapons like bows you can attack again 3 + dex SR later (so someone with a dex SR of 1 could attack on 1, 5 and 9 with a bow)
For slower weapons that take longer to reload (slings and crossbows) its once per round (or worse for really slow weapons like guns).
And now for the fun bit - missile attacks cannot be parried. A shield an be used to cover some parts of the body (number depends on shield size) so that a missile attack that hits that part of the body automaically hits the shield instead (though if it does enough damage it can still go through into the target).
Missile attacks can be dodged, but only if you give up all other actions for the round!

Also, if you keep impaling the target's shield, at some point it will become too heavy to wield properly from the unbalancing weight of all those arrows stuck in it...

[Anonymouswizard]

Burning Wheel gives ranged weapons large reloading times to the point that ranged combat (Range and Cover) is technically a different subsystem to close combat (Fight!).

There are two other things that help to limit ranged combat in many games: ammunition and legality. The first is often ignored even in settings where it's supposed to be hard to make, but how often will PCs be carrying around spare ammunition even if they do have a ranged weapon? In some games all the time, but in a surprising number they likely wouldn't if you're aiming for realism. This extends to a lot of modern games, but it can even extend to instances such as 40k Guardsmen (and especially anybody who uses a backpack power supply or the like, such as 40k Stormtroopers). If you get into a fight and have a revolver you might only have six shots.

Then there's the question of if you're allowed to have or carry ranged weapons, and if the potential consequences are worth it. This is why I've had a grand total of one character in a modern game who ever carried a gun, we used to use London as a setting and nobody wanted to add the complication of owning an illegal firearm. The one character who was legally allowed was armed whenever on the job, and and in that game I think there was only one character among the entire cast who bothered with melee. Although admittedly this is more of a setting thing than a system one.

[Pauly]

Why should ranged and melee be equal at all?

It depends on lethality, armor, average engagement range, terrain and rate if fire relative to target speed. In some settings ranged should be massively more effective than melee and vice versa.

Saying they ‘should’ be equal is putting the cart before the horse.

[Catullus64]

Why should ranged and melee be equal at all?

It depends on lethality, armor, average engagement range, terrain and rate if fire relative to target speed. In some settings ranged should be massively more effective than melee and vice versa.

Saying they ‘should’ be equal is putting the cart before the horse.

I don't believe I said anything about making ranged and melee 'equal'. I said that the goal was to differentiate them and help them feel distinct from one another. My cart and horse are very much in order, thank you.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd argue that character mobility is an important part of the equation. Ranged-verses-melee has an effect on playstyle in a system like D&D, where movement is (at least in theory) tactical and limited. On the other hand, there's very little practical difference in a system like Mutants and Masterminds, where superhuman movement is a matter of course and opportunity attacks don't exist.

[Yora]

One thing about hand to hand combat compared to ranged combat is that humans seem to have a very strong instinctive preference for the later. Getting shot at is not fun, but the possibility of getting stabbed almost always seems like the clearly much worse alternative to most people.
There are reports from the 19th century about soldiers fighting inside buildings by repeatedly reloading their muskets to shoot at each other point blank and neither side willing to use their bayonets. And before repeating rifles, bayonet charges were often very effective. Soldiers would fire their one shot and then run instead of letting themselves be pulled into bayonet combat. In tribal warfare of stone age cultures, it was typical to shot some arrows from a distance with modest chances of getting a lethal hit and then one side retreating when the other made attempts to close in. (Which is why these tribal feuds got many time bloodier with access to modern guns. Traditional tactics based on intimidation with relatively low lethality turn into slaughters with increased range, rate of fire, and severity of wounds.)
Also very important is that when you get shot, and you have friends with you, you can often drop back behind cover and stay there until the fight is over. If you get stabbed and go to the floor, you're right next to an enemy who can just keep stabbing you there and then. But that's something you don't really see in RPGs because GMs are very heaitant to have NPCs kill disabled PCs. But that's huge for the difference between guns and blades.

Something that various RPGs do include freequently is that it's relatively "easy" to keep a gun barrel pointing away from you compared to keeping a hand with a blade fully restrained. Snd you're just not going to draw a bow when your enemy can actually grab your bow.

[Catullus64]

One thing about hand to hand combat compared to ranged combat is that humans seem to have a very strong instinctive preference for the later. Getting shot at is not fun, but the possibility of getting stabbed almost always seems like the clearly much worse alternative to most people.
There are reports from the 19th century about soldiers fighting inside buildings by repeatedly reloading their muskets to shoot at each other point blank and neither side willing to use their bayonets. And before repeating rifles, bayonet charges were often very effective. Soldiers would fire their one shot and then run instead of letting themselves be pulled into bayonet combat. In tribal warfare of stone age cultures, it was typical to shot some arrows from a distance with modest chances of getting a lethal hit and then one side retreating when the other made attempts to close in.

A very good point. RPGs that include some kind of morale system would do well to weight them more significantly towards close combat vs. missiles.

[Satinavian]

Also very important is that when you get shot, and you have friends with you, you can often drop back behind cover and stay there until the fight is over. If you get stabbed and go to the floor, you're right next to an enemy who can just keep stabbing you there and then. But that's something you don't really see in RPGs because GMs are very heaitant to have NPCs kill disabled PCs. But that's huge for the difference between guns and blades.
That is not the GM being hesitant. Players don't do that either. Why waste actions on someone who is already out of the combat ? You can still do that after you win. And if you are going to lose, you still want to take your action for something more useful like preparing your retreat. That is only much different in games with strong in-combat-healing.
Most fights have other goals than killing just for the sake of killing.

It is however true that if you lose a fight in melee range, you generally have to abandon most of your injured to became prisoners or worse. It is also generally harder to retreat without routing from close combat.

--------

On Topic :

In various editions of SR, guns seem to be superior(range, rate of fire, regular damage in the hand of a normal person). Which is likely intended as they are supposed to be the default. But melee weapons can, by scaling their damage with attributes, achieveridiculously high numbers in the hand of properly specialized and augmented wielders. Numbers you don't really get with firearms without going borderline artillery, which has its own problems with prize, size and legality. Additionally melee weapons work better with magic, easier to enchant, better against spirits etc.

TDE not only has regular loading times, but also enforces the time needed to string a bow. Together that makes it relatively useless for any kind of surprise combat.

[Yora]

A very good point. RPGs that include some kind of morale system would do well to weight them more significantly towards close combat vs. missiles.

"Being attacked in melee" could be a morale check condition for ranged enemies.

[Anonymouswizard]

In various editions of SR, guns seem to be superior(range, rate of fire, regular damage in the hand of a normal person). Which is likely intended as they are supposed to be the default. But melee weapons can, by scaling their damage with attributes, achieveridiculously high numbers in the hand of properly specialized and augmented wielders. Numbers you don't really get with firearms without going borderline artillery, which has its own problems with prize, size and legality. Additionally melee weapons work better with magic, easier to enchant, better against spirits etc.

Shadowrun scaling is weird, but in a very good way.

Like a minmaxed unaugmented unarmoured troll can survive having a light pistol pushed against their skull and fired. And while it's been a while since I ran the numbers I think with a bit of luck they can survive two shots. Which does makes a kind of sense, you're a giant troll with biceps bigger than most character's arms after all.

Plus in earlier editions melee had the twist of the winner always dealing damage, so with enough skill you were potentially able to deal more damage.


TDE not only has regular loading times, but also enforces the time needed to string a bow. Together that makes it relatively useless for any kind of surprise combat.

It's German, it probably has rules for cleaning and sharpening your sword :smalltongue: (like, I know 4e has rules for wanting to make a boat but only having the carpentry skill and not boatbuilding, but 5e seems more on par with D&D 3.5 in terms of complexity.)

[Satinavian]

It's German, it probably has rules for cleaning and sharpening your sword :smalltongue: Heh.
It actually had in some editions. Nowadays that is omitted as it doesn't really generate play and other regular maintenance is not detailed in rules either

[Xervous]

In a custom fantasy system mostly ripped from SR4e framework...

Ranged weapons determine cover unfavorably, melee weapons are much harder to get cover against.

Melee weapons get accuracy/damage bonuses that other melee weapons and shields tend to cancel out. Shields of course function against ranged weaponry. Tack on brutal opportunity attack rules for ranged use in melee and you end up with ranged as extended engagements from cover, and melee as a swift conclusion.

Ranged weapons notably out range spells, and most characters can use ranged or melee with decent competency.

Claustrophobic areas have the ranged specialists concerned, and open fields have the players asking about available cover.

[Catullus64]

Melee weapons get accuracy/damage bonuses that other melee weapons and shields tend to cancel out. Shields of course function against ranged weaponry. Tack on brutal opportunity attack rules for ranged use in melee and you end up with ranged as extended engagements from cover, and melee as a swift conclusion.

I'm particularly interested in the rules on breaking from melee and opportunity attacks for ranged, if you'd care to elaborate.

[Xervous]

I'm particularly interested in the rules on breaking from melee and opportunity attacks for ranged, if you'd care to elaborate.

It’s all tied together in the round structure so bear with me.

Initiative is rolled per round and spent on various actions, abilities, and must be spent to take a turn when your position in the turn order comes up. At our current level of play (high BP) we’re looking at 3d6+(3-7 or so) for most player initiatives, but generally you see something more like 2d6+(2-5). You can spend any single amount even if it takes you into the negatives. Some common costs are

10 - take a turn
5 - Activate a defense, this lets you roll your full dicepool on that defense for the round. Done as an interrupt
10 - activate all defense, interrupt speed
1 - make an opportunity attack

Quite simply making a ranged attack when threatened provokes, and moving while threatened provokes. The trick for the threatened archer is to move (or use your entire turn to ready a move for) when the threatening melee is out of initiative. Alternatively if you can force the melee to spend all their initiative on defenses the archer can walk away on their turn. Given player characters typically have a higher BP budget than their opposition it’s possible a PC can risk the opportunity attack with an active defense.

Certain ability groups have options for movement that doesn’t provoke, but they’re either limited use and/or only apply over a short distance.

A melee that goes first and gets to charge an archer is in a very happy spot, assuming he’s not going to get dog piled by opposing melee. The archer probably wants to defend, because melee weapons are more accurate (and damaging because accuracy yields higher degrees of success). The archer can only dodge, which has a smaller dicepool than block (the best, requires a shield), or parry (requires a melee weapon, preferably a long one). The melee can choose between going for damage, disarm and lesser damage (disarming ranged weapons is unsurprisingly easy), prone and lesser damage, or grapple and lesser damage. Damage + Damage OA is often enough to take out lesser threats (high lethality) while the other are tempo plays more likely to neutralize the archer. Barring exceptions, the archer loses a turn to draw a sizable weapon (not a dagger).

In summary
- OAs are action economy advantage
- Archer needs to further sacrifice actions for safer retreat
- lacking a melee weapon or a shield in melee is a big downside, especially when defending against baseline melee options that aren’t just straight up damage.

Understand this is a simplification, abilities GREATLY complicate the interaction. Like Headsman turning a successful prone into a near guaranteed kill (in this circumstance), fear riders possibly robbing the archer of a second turn through defense pressuring (though the dream is fear the archer into fleeing and provoking), or grapple maneuvers that can only be blocked or parried.

[KorvinStarmast]

Melee Combat, Missile Combat, & Asymmetry
The Battle of Cerignola stands out as an important pivot point.
(Mind you, the use of the bayonet did emerge to enable a hybrid of styles to be somewhat viable).

I would love to hear about how other niche systems make their shooting and melee combats not only both rewarding, but differently rewarding. Boot Hill had the redeeming feature of nicely presenting "the Quick and the Dead" problem associated with being a gunfighter. :smallbiggrin:
As an old pistol instructor told me: speed is fine, but accuracy is final.

[Pauly]

I don't believe I said anything about making ranged and melee 'equal'. I said that the goal was to differentiate them and help them feel distinct from one another. My cart and horse are very much in order, thank you.

You had quoted Warhammer RPG which is derived off a points based competitive wargame where one of the goals of the designers is to make melee and missile balanced.

There are broadly speaking 6 major categories of missile weapons and each has significantly different interactions with melee, and I haven’t seen any ruleset adequately mix more than 2 or 3 different missile types.
The categories are:
1) Hand thrown weapons. Rocks, darts, javelins, throwing sticks et al.
2) User powered machines. Bows, crossbows, slings, staff slings.
3) Muzzle loading black powder
4) breech loading black powder
5) repeating smokeless powder
6) Automatic weapons including semi-auto.

Until you know what type of missile weapons you’re dealing with you cannot begin to write proper interactions.

[Catullus64]

You had quoted Warhammer RPG which is derived off a points based competitive wargame where one of the goals of the designers is to make melee and missile balanced.


WFRP may share the IP with Warhammer Fantasy Battle, but mechanically they're completely different beasts, with about as much shared mechanical territory as D&D and a D&D-themed Magic: The Gathering set. The priorities of competitive balance from the wargame don't really make themselves felt in the RPG, I think. But since you bring WFB up, it's worth a brief bullet point analysis of shooting in the wargame, just to add to the overall number of examples in the thread:


Ranged combat tends to suffer more negative modifiers (cover, long distance, moving and shooting in the same turn, etc), and as such its hit rate tends to come out worse than melee.
Mutual exclusivity between ranged and melee, meaning a unit in CC can't be shot at, period.
Points cost tends to make missile units more expensive.
The turn-order system puts missile combat ahead of close combat in resolution.
Combat Resolution generally shakes out such that you can break enemies in close combat much more efficiently than you can break them by shooting alone.



As I pointed out, it's not that shooting and melee are equal, per se, in either system. It's that they feel very different and provide value in very different ways, and are thus asymmetrical. And I stand by the initial claim in my original post that tangible asymmetry between the two is generally more fun.



Until you know what type of missile weapons you’re dealing with you cannot begin to write proper interactions.

Hence why an express part of my original post was courting specific examples of how different games handle these things. Would you like to start contributing some?