The Gaming Den

There's been some mention that in TNE, the acknowledged limitations of melee tactics will be offset by advantages. What might those advantages be?

Thoughts:
• Greater Baseline Effectiveness: if a non-melee attacker's base to-hit is 12+, melee should be recalculated from a 6+ or something.
• Disruption: Once you are based by a melee guy, it's difficult and painful to do anything but melee back (including withdraw).
• Wound Choice: Melee attacks have a better ability to inflict the specific wound of the attacker's choice on the enemy, so a guy with a flaming sword can inflict On Fire, Hamstrung, etc. as he sees fit.
• ECM Hierarchy: Abilities that screw with ranged attacks are cheaper and easier than ones that screw with melee attacks.
• Swords Don't Run Out of Ammo: Melee attacks use a more advantageous system for accessing their limited-use abilities than non-melee attacks do.

Any? All? Other?

I'm a big advocate of melee-range disruption.

I don't want to screw ranged attacks too much - at least on their lethality. I'd like 1 but I don't think that matches we with 4. And haven't we tried to get away from the ammo concept?

-Crissa

The title's just a Snow Crash reference. I meant that whatever power-up/cool-down system winds up being used to make certain effect less available, melee stuff might have a less restrictive version. Like a power-up melee attack which has a similar effect to a power-up ranged attack would require one less round of delay, or one less step of set-up, than that ranged attack does.

Any effect that requires melee range needs to have a faster cycle-up than a ranged, most definitely.

The time you spend in close range will always be smaller than that you spend at range.

-Crissa

My solution is always thusly: If you can't bring the enemy to the close-combat warrior, bring the warrior to the enemy.

Like Cloud in the Final Fantasy movie, there's nothing like a half-mile jump into the sky, or bouncing off of floating mid-air spare swords, that makes a melee weapon always effective against remote targets.

Teleporting, wall-walking, phasing through objects, super-speed, all these strategies make melee valid in many situations. Even against casters.
Well, OK, maybe not in D&D, since some goober is always splatting out yet another Immediate Action Shit In Your Face Ranged S.O.D., but I mean in a generic RPG/video game/fantasy sense.

That's all well and good, but basic melee advantage has to exist at all levels of the game, including before the like of super-speed and teleporting are available. There is a direct synergy between melee attacks and ability to engage (just as there is a direct synergy between ranged attacks and the ability to disengage), but the fact that melee requires a supplemental engagement effect to even be used means that an enemy swinging a sword at you has to be straight up more threatening than an enemy drawing down on you with a bow. The question I'm asking is, what should that extra threat be?

The closer terrain is defined as standard, the less the melee bulge has to be. In an Aliens or Space Hulk game, for example, ranged combat need only have a modest penalty at point blank range for their to be a serious tradeoff between chainsaws and assault rifles. If you are expected to fight zombies in a grave yard, melee has to be seriously bad ass or you won't even do it. If you are fighting zombies in a narrow catacomb, you'll want the fire axe even if it provides a measly +1.

Personally I think I'm looking for a standard defined something along the lines of a castle siege. That is that there are areas of combat where close combat is essentially impossible (ex.: courtyard to wall) and areas of combat where ranged combat is essentially impossible (ex.: spiral staircase in tower). At which point the standard should be that characters should to one degree or another have access to ranged and close combat options regardless of where their focus actually lies.

And that being said, I think that probably the best advantage melee needs to compete is to virtually incapacitate ranged attacks once it has closed to point blank range.

-Username17

I'm rather with Frank. In a built up environment melee is close to ranged depending on the exact terrain. In a wide open space melee sucks without serious speed boosts and eventually flight. I think thats a reasonable compromise between making melee good and realism*.


*Its an opening, gogo PL.

It's a choice between Offense Melee (closing the distance to make melee worthwhile) or Defense Melee (negating ranged threats until melee is valid)

FrankTrollman wrote:I think that probably the best advantage melee needs to compete is to virtually incapacitate ranged attacks once it has closed to point blank range.

What mechanism do we want to use for this? Something like attacks of opportunity? I think Stances were mentioned as providing a character's reactive effects. Also, whatever the mechanism is should probably also penalize/punish disengagement effects, or else the old back-up-and-shoot play returns.

Its an opening, gogo PL.

Unfortunately though my favourite zone mechanic stuff can offer a partial solution it is as much an illusion made out of fluff as anything else.

If you have a map with lots of zones between you and your opponent its just like any other long range. So you basically just have the same range vs melee issues with smaller numbers and larger (fluffy) increments.

Perhaps you might exploit the abstract nature of the set up to create a situation where close quarters may actually have more zones and longer ranges and open areas less and shorter (or not) but that's just fluff, as long as the area with more zones exists there is a range vs melee issue.

It IS better since there is more direct control and smaller numbers, but really the basic problem isn't really eliminated at all unless the ranged attacks are smaller than the granularity of the zones, I wouldn't have bothered to mention it if you hadn't placed that que.

How about: When within the threat range of a melee weapon you may not reload a ranged weapon?

No feat, no AoO, just 'no.'

-Crissa

Maybe allow melee sunder attempts against wielded ranged weapons without penalty (or with bonus)? Or perchance a noticeable penalty to defense in melee when you wield a ranged weapon?

Minimum ranges?

Minimum Range: Shoot the other guy, then.
Sunder: Wait, so they get penalized for the rest of the adventure?

That's just what I saw, though.

-Crissa

I'm just saying what comes up in my mind. I like the reduced melee defense option myself, especially since the system is intending there not to be a large variation within a certain level, so having any penalty is probably going to be noticeable and painful.

I was actually referring to the word realism, PL

I like an attack penalty and/or a defense penalty if you're trying to use a ranged weapon in melee. There should also be something to stop the 5ft step and shoot thing. Obviously this is talking about 5ft squares.

Oh, my OTHER unending crusade, the one against stupidity.

Yeah. Quit using that stupid word. Grrr, argh, etc...