So I have to ask, is a Melee build that much better overall than a Ranged build?
It depends on your GM, your strategic intuition and your characters build and archetype. For RT, melee appears the way to go. For DH, I've mostly seen it as ranged. However, melee focused characters usually do shine in the damage compartment in both systems, in my experience.
Ranged weapon handle crowd-control a lot better than melee, as well - thanks to autofire. Ranged weapons also tend to be superior for characters who don't intend to buy combat talents. Otherwise, as Nameless said, a lot depends on your GM.
If your enemies alway appear at pistol range or closer, like in
dungeon
Space Hulk crawls and similar and terrain rarely inhibits movement, then Melee will usually be better. If enemies appear on the far side of the field and you can make use of razor wire, rooftops and other movement inhibitors, than ranged is going to be superior.
The issue, I find, is over half of the carriers are pistol or melee oriented. Which means they tend to muck up the people who want to go long range, because GMs (rightfully) don't want to create a combat encounter where over half of the players can't participate.
Melee needs to be stronger than ranged in order to be a viable option in a world with lots of ranged attacks. It's one thing that trips up a lot of fantasy games, which tend to put comparable firepower into the hands of archers for the sake of historical authenticity without realizing that they've made melee useless (especially since some of them don't even add in penalties for using ranged attacks in melee, I forget if Rogue Trader does this).
In order for ranged weapons to really shine, a battle needs to take place at a distance where melee characters would have to spend at least one full round closing distance before attacking. Most GMs don't like to force their players to waste a turn, and don't usually realize that they're stealth-nerfing ranged attacks when they do.
don't like to force their players to waste a turn
This, I believe, is the crux of the problem. GMs don't want to start combats with half the party out of range. Melee Players don't want to do the intelligent thing of letting ranged players blast away until the charging enemy gets close, GMs don't want to spend a dozen rounds shooting the melee PC who's running across an open field. Gameplay gets in the way of realism. But unlike Lupa, I argue this is why Ranged needs to be equalized, because one has to compensate for bonus of range/extra turns of combat they're never going to get for gameplay reasons.
Just like adding a techpriest character means there are going to be technical challenges, adding a melee character (or three) means combats will all occur at short ranges.
Edited by QuicksilverPersonally I really dislike challenges that are custom-built for the skills the party has. It breaks immersion. That's just a personal preference, though.
Personally I really dislike challenges that are custom-built for the skills the party has. It breaks immersion. That's just a personal preference, though.
I agree. Give them challenges that are built for skills that the party doesn't have. They're much more fun to watch.
Scifi games are filled with ranged weapons. I think it was Star Wars that changed that (another silly gripe to lay at George's door).
Common misconception.
GURPS Martial Arts probably did the best job of explaining Star Wars - it's not a sci fi movie, it's the world's most famous Martial Arts movie. That it's skinned as a Sci Fi movie is secondary.
Don't get me wrong, I love Star Wars, huge fan and have been since I was a kid, but calling it sci fi is... like insisting that humans are black or white - while I assure you that by far the most of
any
human is likely to be red.
Tenebrae, you don't have to sell me on that. The first SW movie came out when I was in high school, and having come up on Asimov, Ellison, Bradbury, and Heinlein we all had a pretty good laugh at George's space opera...entertaining yes, but scifi? No.
But I don't see that you contradicted anything I said. Scifi is dominated by beams and rays that destroy and disintegrate at long distances. Even lower tech Traveller games using kinetic weapons are still dominated by those kinetic weapons, certainly not by monofilament knives and sonic gloves.
Heh. And let's leave GURPS out of it. Beautiful system except for one VERY BIG PROBLEM...1 second melee turns. It takes an hour to adjudicate less than 10 seconds of combat. We gave that kind of game up back in the early 70s with GHQ.
By looking at some people's post, I realized that some "Melee is bettah!" opinions are either
trollsorks or people that doesn't realize almost any respectable ranged weapon has a full-auto or burst mode. Including Lasguns, which btw have a neglectible upkeep.
But please, just don't say a whip is generally more combat effective than a lasgun.
Storm Bolter (Mars-Pattern) + laser sight
1d10+5X RoF:1/2/4 Storm Tearing
On full-auto (success on -10 for 4DoS): 8x 1d10+5 pen 4
A couple talents and you can shoot 2 at the same time.
If you like hereteking, you can shoot 2 twin-linked storm bolters. for 32x 1d10+5 pen 4 (at -20)
Keep in mind that [storm] cannot make a weapon exceed a weapon's RoF; a Storm Bolter can more easily reach 4 hits, but will only ever attain a maximum of 4 hits. Additionally, not only does Storm double ammo consumption, it also doubles the number of projectiles dodged as well. [Twin-Linked] then doubles ammo consumption again, its extra hit presumably not exceeding the RoF either. Ultimately, 4 potential hits from a Twin-Linked Storm Bolter use 16 rounds but can be fully evaded with just 2 DoS. While Storm appears to be a universal Damage-booster, it is actually counter-productive in certain situations.
Inching towards homebrew territory (in that the following weapon is not explicitly written anywhere), a Force Groxwhip can compete with some of the bigger guns Damage-wise. A properly built martial Psyker can have a (1d10+3+SB+PR R; 2+PR Pen) weapon with an opportunity for one (or more, by Rogue Trader-logic) d10s of E Damage that ignore Armour and Toughness Bonus. Someone who seriously invests in (Unnatural) Strength and PR might end up with a weapon that deals 1d10+20 R Damage before Armour and TB. And that Damage is compatible with Lightning Attack, with Force's additional 1d10s of straight E Damage sitting in the wings.
A weapon's Range is more of a "yes/no" condition in my mind; whether it's a gun or a sword, one will move to an advantageous position before attacking. While ranged weapons certainly have a larger "threat" radius, there are many more anti-gun measures than anti-melee measures. The simplest: line-of-sight. Smokescreens, darkness, or walls, ranged characters have more conditions that can affect their ability to fire properly. Even without environmental modifiers, characters need to look no father than [Hard Target] to apply a -20 BS penalty (while Charging, or -40 while Running) to those who would gun them down from range. In general, a serious melee character that is inside a ranged character's melee range has already declared "check".
Touching upon the ammunition/sustainability problem, ranged weapons can have an extended, but still finite, operational time depending on their class and upgrades. Low upkeep is upkeep all the same. Damage and ammo accessibility are typically inversely proportional, long-lived lasguns being the main exception. From a narrative standpoint, players may have long campaigns without access to refresh their SP, Bolt, Flamer, or Plasma stores. A melee weapon is theoretically "always" available in contrast. One of the weaker arguments for melee weapons, perhaps, but ammoless weapons are part of my ideal. If ammo is not a concern, I will eagerly jump ship to fully automatic grenade launchers or something.
Friendly-fire is a non-issue with the proper Talents or Gear. Off the top of my head, both DW's [Target Selection] and DH1 - Ascension's [spoor Targeter] fit the bill and are within Rogue Trader's age range. Even without resorting to those, players can just coordinate their tactics beforehand as [Quicksilver] mentioned.
My bottom line: the Range of mundane ranged weapons is not enough to overcome their limited number of uses and melee weapons' scalability and availability. Between a non-descript lasgun and a non-descript whip, I will almost always gravitate towards the whip. Ranged weapons have a high floor, but a low ceiling. A lasgun that hits for 1d10+3 up to three times can only ever accomplish that much. I would rather have a melee weapon that scales off of two Characteristics since the "leveling-up process" feels more organic (read: emotionally investing/rewarding) that way. Your mileage may vary.
Thunder hammer
2d10+4E Pen:8 (1 str multiplier)
Best Craftsmanship synthetic muscle grafts +1 Str (1 str multiplier)
Crushing blow talent (+2 melee damage)
50 base str.
2d10+24E pen:8
I think he was mostly interested in the ranged weapon calculations though.
To nitpick, you never multiply an additive modifier, so only your base Strength is multiplied. So in this case, the numbers look like this: Strength Bonus 16 (3*5 +1) + Crushing Blow 2 + Weapons Base Damage 4 = 22.
Still pretty impressive, though
Scifi games are filled with ranged weapons. I think it was Star Wars that changed that (another silly gripe to lay at George's door).
Common misconception.
GURPS Martial Arts probably did the best job of explaining Star Wars - it's not a sci fi movie, it's the world's most famous Martial Arts movie. That it's skinned as a Sci Fi movie is secondary.
Don't get me wrong, I love Star Wars, huge fan and have been since I was a kid, but calling it sci fi is... like insisting that humans are black or white - while I assure you that by far the most of any human is likely to be red.
Well, I wouldn't really call it a martial arts movie. A fantasy movie skinned as a sci fi movie (Space Opera, or Space Fantasy) certainly, but in the original trilogy they actually don't play the lightsaber fights up that much. They are important scenes in the films (they are usually important character moments), but they never have the "invincible Jedi" thing the prequel films do. You don't really get the impression that if Luke faced up to a squad of soldiers shooting at him that he would be able to just deflect them all with his lightsaber. Instead he uses his speed and aggression (in the combat sense, not the emotional sense) to keep the fight on the move and end them before people can focus their fire on him. Characters survive by moving, and keeping their enemies off balance, not by being "SUPA-AWESUM".
In the context of the 40k RPG, melee does have the advantage that you tend to buy up your defence and your offence at the same time, as they are both based of WS, while ranged combat has BS as the offence and Ag as the defence. Also, Melee does tend to be quite high in the single hit damage area, which against certain enemies can be quite important. Also the "drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword" mentality actually fits with the setting, so some people might just think it is cooler.
Truthfully in the games I played aside from very specific melee characters most were primarily ranged characters. The thing is that as it is easier to bonus hunt in ranged combat, as as most combats are relatively short ranged, ranged is much easier to "dip" into. Though as people have said, you are seriously negligent if you don't carry a backup weapon for close combat (monosword being the most common, moving to powersword later on).
Edited by borithanMelee is better because charging Avatar of Khain with broken spoon grants you better story to tell than using orbital bombardment to do the job.
Another little bit of it is that, in my experience with the table top game, grunts shoot guns, and heroes swing swords. Certainly, you can field enough Gaunts with claws, and Genestealers backing them up to prove me wrong, and make even a Guard army brown-pants their khaki pants, but the Guard, massed lines of shooters; the Tau, massed lines of shooters. Even the mighty Space Marines? Yep, Tactical Squads of shooters. Marneus Calgar? He's a melee powerhouse, who happens to still shoot. Abaddon the Despoiler? He swings an aircraft carrier, and CAN still shoot, but he's melee. Logan Grimnar? Azrael? Dante? Creed? No, but he'll hide behind Kell, who is a total melee goof. Yarrick? Powerklaw says melee. Even the shootiest army in the game, IMO, the Tau, have Cmdr. __________ who will probably shoot, but CAN pack power first, if you want, Cmdr. Shadowsun, who yes, will shoot, and then Cmdr. Farsight, who WILL assault, or why did you take him? (There are strategies, I know, but he's got a big sword!) Aun'Va? Aun'Shi? A little voice in my head HATES the idea of their combat all being melee, since they are fragile, Victory At All Costs rule, and such, but even they are melee; you just try not to have them fight, and buff your other forces. Guns are great, and you can do lots of really cool things with ranged attacks, but if you really want the feeling of being a 40k Hero Character, you're going to have a melee weapon, and use it, even if you maybe shouldn't, even if it will piss off all your friends, who would desperately like to SHOOT the guys you're assaulting, right then.
A lot of what people do in this game, and others, is about taking the rules, and maximizing the effectiveness they can get out of them, maybe even munchkin it up, and go overboard (see the ship building ideas on another thread, that can make a frigate a fleet-killer, or a transport earn more PF in three adventures than Winterscale HAS), but some is just for the feel, because they like the idea. It might not be good, it might not be practical, but since when has 40k ever been practical, and fun is the point, even if you see that it costs you advantage. My current RT project uses a power sword and an inferno pistol, a gun with such short range, it almost should go on the melee table with the sword, and his bodyguard team is frequently light power-armored assaulters with power katars, so shooting when it is appropriate, but rarely. Not saying anything people don't already know, of course, but yeah.
Melee is better because charging Avatar of Khain with broken spoon grants you better story to tell than using orbital bombardment to do the job.
Nothing stops you to bombard the F###er from orbit, and then, yarn a good tale about how you cleave an Avatar in half with a broken spoon. that's the reason why you have a good Seneschal as you Propaganda/P.R guy.
As for the melee/ range thing, I have a bunch of crazy players in each specialty, sometimes both at the same time.., I never got a real problem of one overshadowing the other really.The only things that can be bothersome are area of effects attacks, like grenades, missiles, or Lidless Stares... but it's not like that's the sort of tactical choices any roleplayer is used to face often.
Mordechai Von Razgriz: I'll stay in the camp of brokenspoonsman on bikes (in spaaace). Indeed you can do this propaganda thing, but that story will be a bit unwarhammer40kish to me - and also you won't see the bugger's body, so it's like 100% he/she/it'll come back later.
Don't get me wrong: I'm as far from teaching anyone how to play RT as it's possible, but to me 40k was always about unpractical displays of violence and making sure that Avatars of Khain are dead-dead when you killed them (even if you have to strangle them with your bare hands
).
Also, just as Venkelos pointed: all 40k heroes seems to prefer melee. In fact almost every action (and fantasy and horror) movie hero use melee weapons or switch to it to fight the big baddies and I guess that's now engraved in some people minds (including mine) that you need to chop the evil boss because bullets just don't do the job.
There was once a good discussion about this whole topic on Warseer, involving ritual combat and how all the melee-oriented xenos, Chaos and all this "look into the eyes of enemies of Emperor" stance affected combat doctrine. I'd throw a link to it - if I manage to find it.
I feel it's appropriate to link this (rather than
it in), but warnings of profanity usage. It is angry marines after all.
As a little extra blip, if you look into real history, and how it later carries down, a love of melee can be seen, or forced. Depending on what you read, you might see a Samurai warrior, wielding a priceless katana. This sword is hand-forged by one of the greatest smiths in feudal Japan, a family relic, passed down through the line of that samurai, and possibly even housing his soul; to lose it, or have it be broken, is a loss of honor almost no act can wash away. They'll storm into an area, hewing heads off, left and right, if need be, to get to that one enemy they seek, and then kick them out of bed, to give them a chance to arm themselves, and do this right. This is a popular image of Samurai I have seen throughout my own life. WWII Japan, itself, even had a resurgence in the popularity of "samurai swords" among their officers, during the later years of said war, even though the law of Japan, at times, had forbade non-samurai from bearing swords. However, if you read other stuff, it will lead you to believe that the "real" samurai were horsemen, and archers (the bows might be as expertly-made, by bow standards, but not so impressive, or by "renowned smiths"; Muramasa made swords, not bows). They preferred ranged combat, and mobility, and if they were "forced" to use their katana, it was often seen as a sign that they were actually a poor archer. Katanas are curved, I suppose, but my understanding is that a scimitar, or falchion-style weapon is curved specifically to be of use from horseback, where a straight blade would get knocked out of your hand at 20 mph, and I don't personally believe that a katana is quite so curved as to do this well. Still, the sword-wielding honor warrior is the image I, and I believe many of us, have, whether it's true, or not.
This history-babble aside, and I'll say here that I can't just cite all of what I just said; bits are my interpretation, and stuff I have read, but the Internet is not always a valid source of fact; there's just something about a one-on-one melee duel to decide everything, and that can bleed into the one guy carving up squads idea, too. When the player is tired of being part of a group, and wants to shine for their own merits and actions, melee can just seem the better way to go about it. They aren't hiding behind cover, cowering from bullets and blasts, but exposing themselves to mortal danger, and accepting the risk. That same guy running up to a gunner is just going to get dead.
Edited by venkelosMordechai Von Razgriz: I'll stay in the camp of brokenspoonsman on bikes (in spaaace). Indeed you can do this propaganda thing, but that story will be a bit unwarhammer40kish to me - and also you won't see the bugger's body, so it's like 100% he/she/it'll come back later.
Don't get me wrong: I'm as far from teaching anyone how to play RT as it's possible, but to me 40k was always about unpractical displays of violence and making sure that Avatars of Khain are dead-dead when you killed them (even if you have to strangle them with your bare hands
Also, just as Venkelos pointed: all 40k heroes seems to prefer melee. In fact almost every action (and fantasy and horror) movie hero use melee weapons or switch to it to fight the big baddies and I guess that's now engraved in some people minds (including mine) that you need to chop the evil boss because bullets just don't do the job.
There was once a good discussion about this whole topic on Warseer, involving ritual combat and how all the melee-oriented xenos, Chaos and all this "look into the eyes of enemies of Emperor" stance affected combat doctrine. I'd throw a link to it - if I manage to find it.
Using propaganda and lies and half truths in an universe so full of it that WE, players, can't agree on tidbits of fluff because we only gets said half truths, stories and legends, where the Imperium use the good old 1984 mottos, is not 40kish, really ?
Believe me, I'm not against brokenspoonsmen. After all, one of the nemesis I've thrown toward my players dynasty was one, in power armor, power lance, power sword, on an imperial moto-jet. And step 2 on a Halo Device.
The point is to manage to get everyone involved. And it's easy because Rogue Trader is about such large ventures that to succeed , your players have to juggle between different problems at the same time.
An example, if you wish, that can also be appropriate for "you know you're playing RT when...".
In my campaign, my players are trying to stop a rival dynasty which has gone to far away, being the backer of the Amaranthine Syndicate, allied with Slaughts and the Rak Gols, their warrant holder becoming a Yu'vath thanks to his Halo Device. Who also has recovered something that allows him to clone crews and starships whole. And there is also the slight problem of the return of a time-travelling, ubiquitous with beign spotted both in his frigate OR cruiser SPEAR OF DESTINY, Tyrant-Star unleashing, making the denizens of the warp lee in terror at his coming, Erasmus Haarlock.
Cue to the last major fight : my players ragtag fleet with their allies - Charlabelle, Blitz, Amerlan & Sun Lee- trying to flee Quppa Psi XII before Haarlock arrival, and intercepted by the rival dynasty fleet of 300 something vessels to crush them once and for all.
Longue range specialist characters ? many ships to destroy, aeronautica fights, boarding parties ! Close combat ones ? boarding parties as well, including two duels, one between a player Assassin and an ennemy counterpart in the Melodium, and the player RT against her rival...
On the hull of her ship. the augmenticist , flaming power sword and thunder hammer wielding RT and her cherubs on one side, who come her to dislodge three ennemies boarding torpedoes, and the rival, stade 2 on his Halo Device, in power armor, with power cutlass, power lance, on a moto-jet, and his lackeys. How does it ended ? when the arch-militant comes to man one of the ship turret to push out the rival into the plasma exhaust of the ship as her RT was overwhelmed.
TL;DR version: troubles to mix your players way of fighting ? Throw more ennemies, seperate them, so they have to face challenges that are appropriate to their style of fighting. Style, not difficulty, mind you. To become the biggest fish in the Expanse is a way full of predators bigger and scarier than you...
(...)
Using propaganda and lies and half truths in an universe so full of it that WE, players, can't agree on tidbits of fluff because we only gets said half truths, stories and legends, where the Imperium use the good old 1984 mottos, is not 40kish, really ?
Believe me, I'm not against brokenspoonsmen. After all, one of the nemesis I've thrown toward my players dynasty was one, in power armor, power lance, power sword, on an imperial moto-jet. And step 2 on a Halo Device.
The point is to manage to get everyone involved. And it's easy because Rogue Trader is about such large ventures that to succeed , your players have to juggle between different problems at the same time.
An example, if you wish, that can also be appropriate for "you know you're playing RT when...".
In my campaign, my players are trying to stop a rival dynasty which has gone to far away, being the backer of the Amaranthine Syndicate, allied with Slaughts and the Rak Gols, their warrant holder becoming a Yu'vath thanks to his Halo Device. Who also has recovered something that allows him to clone crews and starships whole. And there is also the slight problem of the return of a time-travelling, ubiquitous with beign spotted both in his frigate OR cruiser SPEAR OF DESTINY, Tyrant-Star unleashing, making the denizens of the warp lee in terror at his coming, Erasmus Haarlock.
Cue to the last major fight : my players ragtag fleet with their allies - Charlabelle, Blitz, Amerlan & Sun Lee- trying to flee Quppa Psi XII before Haarlock arrival, and intercepted by the rival dynasty fleet of 300 something vessels to crush them once and for all.
Longue range specialist characters ? many ships to destroy, aeronautica fights, boarding parties ! Close combat ones ? boarding parties as well, including two duels, one between a player Assassin and an ennemy counterpart in the Melodium, and the player RT against her rival...
On the hull of her ship. the augmenticist , flaming power sword and thunder hammer wielding RT and her cherubs on one side, who come her to dislodge three ennemies boarding torpedoes, and the rival, stade 2 on his Halo Device, in power armor, with power cutlass, power lance, on a moto-jet, and his lackeys. How does it ended ? when the arch-militant comes to man one of the ship turret to push out the rival into the plasma exhaust of the ship as her RT was overwhelmed.
TL;DR version: troubles to mix your players way of fighting ? Throw more ennemies, seperate them, so they have to face challenges that are appropriate to their style of fighting. Style, not difficulty, mind you. To become the biggest fish in the Expanse is a way full of predators bigger and scarier than you...
IMO using propagnda for
creating an image of melee-hero
= not 40kish as almost every 40k hero is more or less melee oriented (OR this's what imperial propaganda wants us to believe in
).
And I'm not against gun fights: in my group there's 1 melee specialist, 2 shooty guys and 1 kind of shooty navigator. Brokenspoonsmen are just my reply to the OP question. It can be easly rephrased into: IMHO most PC want to make melee characters because of fluff, crunch being irrelevant.
edit.
You definitely know when you're plaing RT
