maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Mar 13, 2012 14:10:17 GMT -8
Is ranged and melee combat balanced? Should it be? Thinking of long bows and the battle at Agincourt, I'm thinking maybe they shouldn't? Not only are they not balanced - but they serve completely different purposes. Speaking of archers specifically - remember they are generally screwed in close combat with armoured, well-armed opponents. Also in Savage worlds once a melee combatant closes the distance they will likely have a distinct advantage skill-wise - and they get a free shot at them if the archer tries to disengage. Not to mention potential gang-up bonuses which ranged attacks do not get any benefit from. With the advent of fire-arms this starts to matter alot less.... a side-arm will kill you as easily as a rifle. But if you are in a modern setting - everyone has guns anyway
|
|
|
Post by savagedaddy on Oct 29, 2012 21:11:36 GMT -8
Although I'm extremely late to the party, here's my two cents.
The rules as written are fair, but not necessarily quote-unquote balanced. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Savage Worlds isn't Dungeons and Dragons (or any number of RPG systems to subscribe to its philosophy of combat mechanics).
I'll admit I had difficulty grokking Melee vs Ranged combat in Savage Worlds at first. The inconvenient truth is that they aren't the same. Not by a long shot (pardon the pun). Nor should they be. In fact, you could argue that despite the perceived gap between a 4 TN and target's Parry TN the odds are stacked in the target's favor when you consider modifiers for Range and Cover, and combat Edges like Danger Sense, Dodge, or Level Headed. Not to mention a character hit with an arrow can simply use a Benny to soak the damage.
Creating house rules to subvert checks and balances from a system is not generally the answer because the problem usually isn't the system; it's the players. Rant in 3...2...1
Combat is about escalation and tactics. Period. Ranged combat should trump melee. Magic should trump conventional weapons. A wizard throwing fireballs at a barbarian fighter from the safety of a castle's parapet wall isn't 'breaking a law'. It's not fair or balanced. But you shoot an arrow through his throat and stop bitching about it! You don't take your ball and go home!
Whew. I hope I didn't offend anyone.
I hate the urge we as gamers have to house-ruling a system because it doesn't work the way we think it should, or because players shout 'unfair'. It's like a TPK between PCs who insist on using slashing weapons against D&D Skeletons, and then complain that the system is totally unbalanced because it didn't occur to them to use a bludgeoning weapon.
I like to remind myself of one truth about Savage Worlds... Bennies are the ultimate equalizer.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Oct 31, 2012 11:31:52 GMT -8
I've actually abandoned this particular house rule for exactly the reasons you mention.
JiB
|
|
Kveld Ulf
Apprentice Douchebag
Warning : Just skilled enough to be dangerous
Posts: 56
Preferred Game Systems: Eclipse Phase, Feng Shui, Savage Worlds, Fate, and most anything else
Currently Playing: L5R
Currently Running: D&D 5th
Favorite Species of Monkey: Bonobo
|
Post by Kveld Ulf on Oct 31, 2012 12:52:54 GMT -8
In response to Hyvemynd's comments, the fact that your parry increases when your fighting skill does implies to me that Parry in SW does refer to the literal definition of "parry" as opposed to a total defense. While I understand this, I respectfully disagree the about the implication. I feel the level of abstraction in savage worlds, and in the skills themselves allows me to believe fighting skill modifying parry is akin to things such as trained combat experince and awareness, positioning, small movements on the battlefield.
|
|