why is RT so !"§§%$ unbalanced?

i´m a video pc gamer and i also play magic the gathering. this game seems to me really unbalanced! like the full automatic weapons.

a lvl 1 arch-militant could buy a bolt gun and could deal up to 400%+ more damage(with tearing and +2dmg of the special talent of the AM) while using full automatic. compared to a melee weapon player like the missionary with his chain sword, he can do max 100% dmg and he have to move to the target.

i dont get it... why should a char with a full auto weapon be up to 400%+ better then any melee specified class. i mean off course its more logic to get more degree off suXess and do more dmg wile but its still a game and not a simulation. the hole book seems to me beta... like the weapons, they are not balanced.

sure the game is not only fight but its a very big part of it and a fight with weapons witch are usable with lvl 1 and have soo much more dmg or degree of hit are just not fair. i would say ok there are hundreds of weapons but its nooot...

it feels like they have never played balanced game.

is there any reasonable way to describe why specially full auto weapons are so much better?

is there a balance mod already? if not we would start one cause its necessary.

and sorry for my bad english

I´ll be happy about every opinion

have a nice day

so long xantos

xantos said:

Balance is typically far less a concern in pen-and-paper RPGs than in video games or CCGs - there is, afterall, no winner or loser, and the GM and players aren't pitted against one another, but rather cooperating in the name of crafting an exciting and interesting story. Even where it is considered, it's a different kind of balance - a matter of ensuring that no one character hogs the stage, so to speak. This isn't necessarily a matter of hard numbers, and even characters of wildly varying abilities can be given an appropriate share of the spotlight by a moderately skilled GM.

That all in mind, it often matters less how 'balanced' a given element is, both in regards to players against NPCs and in regards to players compared to other players.

Beyond that, the consideration of cover typically works towards evening out the differences between melee and ranged characters - cover (and forcefields - these are covered in The Inquisitor's Handbook for Dark Heresy ; a game in the same setting using essentially the same system, but focussing on different kinds of character) provides additional protection against ranged attacks (and can often render worthless a decent burst of fire from a non-heavy automatic weapon), but provides no protection against melee attacks.

There really isn't anything in the way of melee or ranged specific classes in this or DH. A character can specialize in one or the other, but it's generally better to get both.

Also, a Storm Bolter hits a max of four times, so it's not actually going to come out ahead of a Power Fist used with any multiple attack option.

"Game balance' isn't as important in a pen and paper rpg as it is in an MMO or competitive play game. In an rpg, it's strictly cooperative play where one character doesn't have to equal or beat anouther character. The story and the events of the story are more important. It's also harder to enforce an artificial balance because in an rpg the stats don't exist in a vacuum but are dependant on the story being told. As the story being told is solely up to the GM and players, what ever kind of balance that can be achieved is up to them. As long as there's no glaring imbalance issues (character type A will be able to do everything and hog all the game time while character B never dose anything that they were intended to do) then there's really not much of an issue. The GM can decide to give more "screen time" to character B even if he's statistically inferior if the GM wishes wich would ultimately lead to character B having a more enjoyable experience no matter the stat-lines and, in the end, be "better' then character A.

The bottom line, in a pen and paper rpg, each group makes their own balance based on the stories they wish to tell and that's all that's really needed. Internal mechanical balance isn't really needed and, if taken to the extremes of video games and other competitive gaming mediums, comes off as terribly artificial.

As far as a machinegun being better then a sword in game, well, to be honest, a machinegun is better then a sword. That's pretty much why we don't arm our boys in green (or tan as the case may be) with swords anymore. That being the case, the game as already taken ludicrous steps to make melee a viable option, but, in the end, no two choices will ever be statistically equal. It's a game, but it as to have at least a modarcum of believability ;-)

Hodgepodge said:

the only problem is that you need to be lvl 7 to gain your first multiple meele attack option.

It kind of suprises me that never ever someone before tried to "reballance" the whole game...Its possible that our group is to much looking at the mechanics and less to the role play part...but still the game doesnt really look "ballanced" at all in my eyes...really disapointing in my eyes. Since Combat is allway a important part in our games.

But allways telling "The GM should..." is kind of a cheap excuse in my eyes...

Levyten

xantos said:

You might as well ask: "Why would a profesional soldier armed with a fully automatic assault rifle have a much more effective lethal capacity than a religious zealot armed with a chainsaw?"

What can I say? Guns are lethal as hell...

One difference is the intangibles. Guns run out of ammunition, might not be allowed in areas where melee weapons would be allowed. True RPGs bring up situations that computer RPGs don't have a problem with. Where a CRPG lets you go into a formal ball with full battle armor on, powered armor is generally frowned in a table top game.

At range the stormbolter is better than a chainsword.

In melee the chainsword is better than the stormbolter, as the chainsword gives a parry at +10 and you cannot use the stormbolter.

Levyten said:

Actually, Rogue Traders get Duel Wield (melee) at rank 2 and Swift Attack at rank 4...

Varnias Tybalt said:

Well, put like that it seems obvious to me why the Arch-Militant with the bolter does more damage.

Not to throw fuel on the fire but... hehe

Arch militant with a heavy bolter (bolter spec of course). Add on a motion predictor and suspensors (lets hear it for full auto as a half action)...

Lets you walk into point blank range and full auto..

On the other hand I am a firm believer that guns > swords. As far as I am concerned the game already bends over backwards (forwards and sideways as well) to let people have swords and still be effective.

llsoth said:

That's so true it's almost ridiculous sometimes.

For instance, it is somehow easier to dodge gunfire in both Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader than it is to dodge multiple sword swings. This because dodging of gunfire (even full auto fire) is done with ONE test based on degrees of success, but with sword swipes (or other forms of multiple melee attacks) you have to take one dodge test for every attack made. To add further insult to injury, it is impossible to be able to dodge close combat attacks more than twice per round (Dodge + Step Aside and then you're out of reactions), but melee oriented characters can very well dish out up to four melee attacks or even more with the use of specific talents per round.

Is it just me or is something seriously wrong when dodging bullets like you are some kind of matrix hero is extremely common, but you can still get pretty owned in melee by a manic swashbuckler, regardless of how skilled you are at dodging?

So, like you say, melee oriented players have no right to complain about the game system as it is. If the GM felt like being in "ultra realism" mode, all the chainsword fanatics wouldn't stand a chance even against lowly mooks armed with autoguns.

In the real world, guns are ALWAYS a lot more deadly and efficient in what they do than any kind of melee weapon. Even a pansy ass .22 pistol can kill a human being a lot faster than even the biggest claymore sword or giant two headed axe and with a lot less effort. This is something that melee fans should keep in mind before complaining about a game system that already bends over to actually make melee attacks a lot more efficient than they would ever be in the real world.

Like the addage goes: You don't bring a knife to a gunfight...

Fideru said:

I think it would to most people. If it seems obvious to the OP however, that remains to be seen.

I also noticed that the OP brought up the PC's levels in this matter. I don't find it wierd at all that a level 1 character with a firearm is way more lethal than another level 1 character with a melee weapon. Firearms, for as long as they have existed have always had the advantage of being easy to use. Training yourself to become a disciplined and expert swordsman however can take years and even decades. In fact some practicioners of swordsmanship would even claim that you will NEVER reach an "end of the line" in training with swords or other forms of melee combat, and that it is a lifelong commitment trying to master such martial arts.

With this in mind, it makes perfect sense that a rookie character with a gun is able to dish out more lethal damage than the same rookie character armed with a knife/sword/club/fists/spear etc. etc.

Personally, If I was the GM, I would keep close combat, be it melee and/or firearms, at a minimum. The section is pretty large in the book but it is not what Rogue Trader is about. Ship-to-ship combat will be more common.

xantos said:

Varnias Tybalt said:

That makes a fair bit of sense, though - you don't (can't) dodge bullets, you get out of the way before the burst is fired (that guy is pointing a gun at me, better move before he pulls the trigger). You're evading the whole attack. Melee attacks are distinct entities, at least compared to a burst of automatic fire, so you dodge and parry those separately.

Here is the Inequality governing combat effectiveness in the real world.

Fists < Swords < A bullet < Many bullets < Many, Many Bullets < High explosives

I don't see the confusion. I don't think "balance" is the word your looking for. I think its 'Common sense.' As in: no-one with common sense would bring a knife to a gun-fight. This isn't Dungeons and Dragons, brother. The realtive combat strengths of the various classes are not meant to be 'balanced' against eachother, any more than all of the classes are supposed to be equally good a piloting a warship or negotiating a trade agreement.

There's also the small matter of the Missionary being able to start with a seriously nasty flamer that can turn a passageway into an horrific inferno of death. The Missionary is dangerous at range, lethal up close, and socially powerful. It's not a weak or unbalanced class by any standard and that's before we get to the Faith powers.

Don't forget that tabletop RPGs are both harder to balance (ever found out that a warlock in WoW becomes overpowered when he simply lets his succubus seduce enemies and sneaks past them towards the boss monsters? Yeah, me neither.) and less playtested (because it's a smaller market, so smaller budgets are involved in the development) than computer RPGs.

Thus, they need to rely on their redeeming feature (an environment portrayed by a hopefully intelligent human) more often.

I think the premise of the OP is flawed in that, as others have said, Pen and paper RPGs don't require balance. The concept doesn't really have any meaning in an RPG.

Now, there should certainly be an effort to make sure that one player doesn't get to hog the limelight all the time, but this has less to do with balance and more to do with the players and GM roleplaying.

My current group (still Dark Heresy) consists of an absolutely badass heavy weapon wielding guardsman, the others can't really hold a candle to him in combat. But the guy is thick as two short planks, has no real social skills. Presented with a situation that cannot be "Stubbed" (his terminology) he simply settles back and starts trying to engage servitors in conversation leaving our Adept, Scum and Arbitrator to do the social, intellectual, non-combat stuff. Is he overbalanced, not at all. Everyone gets their go in combat, its just that he specialises. Since my games are frequently quite detective-y, this means the adept gets to be smart, the scum gets to schmooze, and the arbiter is pretty much a jack of all trades.

Finally, do not underestimate the sheer killing power of a power weapon armed close combat specialist. In a previous game i ran a GMPC assassin with a powersword who was pretty much a focused close combat machine and her damage potential was horrific.

Well power weapons are bad ass, they are supposed to be ^^, I cannot even begin to comprehend what will happen when my groups psyker discovers force weapons...

Nullius said:

Nullius said:

This is spartaa! Sorry, what i want to say that this is 40K! since there are many topics that deal with the not logical things that the 40k universe produces... e.g. being capable of flying through space but still require 50 people to manually open the canon gates of the spacecraft...

An other example: If (logically, from our point of view) firearms are way more leathal than meele weapons on a normal battlefield conditions, then why the heck do space marines use meele weapons soo offten in every media(DaW intro, BL books...)?

Because this is 40K, it does not have to make sence, its a sick Sfi-fy setting, and cutting someone in two pieces with a chainsword is sooooooo much cooler and bloodier than just using a "booring" firearm.

In my point of view, the RT/DH (combat fighting) rules dont represent the 40K universe as it is shown in books and "movies". This is a very strong argument, please dont feel insulted or anything like that I just realised my point of view now writing this post

I have not yet read the space combat rules, but i hope tat they are awesome

Levyten

Levyten said:

I'd ave to disagree. The system goes a long way to make melee a viable option and it truly is. The fact that a fella armed with a fully auto weapon has the capacity to dish out more damage points (not always) doesn't matter as wit the right talents and melee weapon, you can still go cuisineart on the enemies of man kind and as long as you can do that, you're in line with the 40k universe.

In all the various media (not games) concerning the 40k universe, you don't see the numbers behind the slaughter -all you see is the slaughter. So, you wouldn't know that the marine with the chainsword isn't overkilling his foes quite as much as the one wit the bolter. They still end up dead, it come off as freakin' cool, and that's that.

In the end, tough, barring heavy weapons, melee weapons in the ands of a character wit the right talents and a good SB will dish out more damage on average then a ranged weapon. That seems to be inline with the 40k universe to me. Of course, I could ave missed something. What part of the combat system doesn't seem to represent the universe for you and why?

Others have already explained many good reasons why, in general, guns > melee. I will point out 2 things:

1) Arch-militant (focusing on melee) is > most other classes using a full-auto weapon. It's a matter more of the Arch-militant being the premier fighter, with their bonus to hit and damage.

2) Level 1 Rogue Trader characters aren't really "level 1" characters. First, unlike many games, PCs in RT only have a total of 8 levels, so each level is fairly significant. (imagine WoW compressing their level cap down to only 8 ... I think they're up to 80 now, so that's like 10 levels per RT level). Second, a 1st level RT character is equal to a 5th level DH character (5000xp). So, basically RT characters are levels 5-13 in the W40kRPG multi-verse. So, yes, they start as relatively powerful "level 1" characters.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I disagree, mainly because you are allowed to do Dodge tests as reactions even against firearms. It's sort of like this:

Guy tries to shoot me, he hit's, I dodge.

If we're talking realism here this scenario would be impossible. You can't "get out of the way" once the shots have been fired, we're talking milliseconds here for the bullets to travel to your present location, there is NO WAY to get out of the way of that. Oh and if we're talking las shots it gets even worse since laser beams travel at the speed of light.

So if we wanted to make some sense of it, characters being shot at should first have to make a successful perception roll to realize that someone is aiming a gun at them and intends to fire, then the character should have to roll his or her dodge test BEFORE the shooter rolls the Ballistic Skill test (regardless of whether the shooter would actuaslly hit or not), emulating the fact that the only way to "dodge" a bullet is getting out of the way before the shooter has fired his or her shots.

But this is not the case in Dark Heresy or Rogue Trader. Here, everyone will have sufficient time to decide whether they'd like to dodge bullets or even laser beams if they want to or not, in matrix style.

Hence, it should be a lot easier to dodge close combat strikes, not harder...