Ranged combat in AoD

Click here and disable ads!

Well, spears are polearms. right?

In game terms, no. Unless you want to see a spear swung around like so:

That's what Wikipedia says, at least. But maybe you know better. I always figured a polearm was just a very long weapon.

I meant things like halberds, bardiches, glaives, etc. You are right though.

Well, bardishe is more of a hafted then polearm... or blunt if talking in Bethedish terms, cause it's more of a giant axe .
It's nitpicking, though.

Just my two cents:

Well, I understand the desire to balance weapons, but I always hated "shoot freely in the face" mechanics of ranged weapon, especially in fantasy settings. This is so utterly unrealistic. There is nothing wrong with bows becoming useless in close quarters - just like there is nothing wrong with knuckles being useless for ranged combat.

I cannot imagine how someone could reload a crossbow while engaged in melee fight - of course, in turn based system you theoretically can, but should not be able to do so (just like you should not be able to change your armor). You analogy to "bows" and "rifles" supports my view. Neither bow nor rifle is a good choice for combat at very close distance - this is because of the fact that enemy can grab the barrel of your weapon. Short-barreled pistols are the best choice for self-defense.

And? The list of unrealistic things in RPGs is miles long, what's one more? RPGs, like chess, are about abstract concepts, are they not?

There is. It fucks the ranged guy and forces him/her to get another skill or to start the boring game of moving away & shooting once.

Can you imagine how someone can survive a direct hit from a two handed sword? Me neither.

I don't agree that the chess analogy is a good one (I'm sure I remember saying this before ). If chess ever was an abstraction of a real battle, then it isn't anymore.

Chess is just an abstract game. RPGs are abstraction of something - in this case combat. If you're calling it combat, then the abstraction should ideally make sense on its own level of detail.

Thus it's fine to have a hit from a two handed sword not be deadly, since on the game's level of abstraction that is merely "a hit" - that can simply be interpreted as a glancing blow / flesh wound etc. if it doesn't do much damage.

There is no similar interpretation (that I can think of) for being able to reload consistently successfully in melee. Such a system is not a direct abstraction of combat in this regard, since it is not consistent with a lower level possible state - it's an abstract game like chess. That's less than ideal in an RPG, since it shouldn't feel like chess.

I agree with your other points. Putting gameplay above realism/consistent abstraction of a realistic situation, is sensible. However, I think it makes sense to acknowledge that the fact that reloading in melee is nonsense (on any level of abstraction), makes it less than ideal.

If there were a way to combine coherent abstraction with good gameplay, then that would be great - it's at least something to aim for. Perhaps it can't be achieved here. [bear in mind though that a player who keeps thinking "that's nonsense" is unlikely to be enjoying things as much as he could be - coherence does contribute to gameplay too]

I just think it's best to see your design decision as the trade-off that it is. You're losing a bit of coherence in exchange for more enjoyable combat. I think that's probably worth it, but I'd hope that you're aiming to get both where possible.

What is chess then, if not two armies met on a battlefield?

Similarly, chess is an abstraction of strategic & tactical combat.

I believe there are two issues here. First, the logical one - "It's impossible to use a ranged weapon in close combat. I know because I'm an expert!", and second, the conceptual one - "how does using a ranged weapon fits into the overall concept of your system?".

Let's deal with the nonsence first. Since it's ok to get hit by a big-ass sword and continue fighting without penalties, it should be more than ok to reload your crossbow, if the time is being accounted for, no?

Now, let's talk about the concept. First, we all agree that a "ranger" should be allowed to use a ranged weapon as his *primary* weapon. Second, how shall we solve the close-combat issue? I see 3 options:

1. The DnD 5-foot step, which works in DnD because there are no APs, so both attackers and defenders can move a bit without reducing their offensive capabilities. It wouldn't work as well in an AP-based system.

2. You can't use a ranged weapon up close and personal, period. You are forced to take a few steps back and attack from there. That would result in a lame cat-n-mouse game where you chase a ranger all over the map, which is the situation that you, galsiah, argued against if my memory serves me right.

3. We can allow close ranged combat and assume that the reload time is the only penalty a ranger should have, and that spending 3-4 points to reload a crossbow is long enough to account for doing it in the heat of the battle. (average attack is 4-5 points)

That's how I see it.

IMO this moving away and shooting (maybe not once) is what playing a ranged character is about. If he's just as good at close quarters, then you just made another melee type character that has the added adavantage of being able to get a few shots off before starting the real fight. I see nothing wrong with a ranged guy getting fucked for not putting enough points into whatever att. gives you more AP and not being able to get away from better armored but slow melee fighters.OTOH, if he's got enough AP to move and shoot without getting touched, I don't see this as unbalanced either, since he's always taking the risk of being caught up with and killed in two hits.

I like option 3 (btw, is this how you implemented it?), but the game should make the ranger want to get into this chase game, as long as it doesn't take the better prepared melee type a year to catch up with a crappy ranger.

First, let me say again: I agree with your decisions.
However, I don't quite agree with the thinking behind them.

That's its origin. Now it's a completely abstract game without any connection to combat / a battle. You can imagine chess as a battle, but it's in no sense part of the game. I don't think it would even cross a professional's / highly skilled amatuer's mind to think of it as a battle. It certainly never crosses mine (out of the current context ).

That's just not true. An abstraction of something can hide the details, but it needs to be consistent with some detailed interpretation. Chess is not consistent with any notion of a real battle. It's an abstract game related to the idea of combat. That's not the same thing as a direct abstraction of a particular combat situation - i.e. a combat in an RPG.

No, because as I said above, there is a reasonable low level interpretation for the sword hit: it was a glancing blow / flesh wound.
Reloading a crossbow in melee is reasonable. Reloading a crossbow while retaining the same defensive capability as a similar character holding a sword (and say attacking once, rather than reloading), is silly. Any system which is coherent in this situation would need to impose large defensive penalties for reloading in melee.

A system which doesn't do this really isn't coherent. That might not matter so much as enjoyable gameplay, but it's still true.

No argument there. From a gameplay perspective I agree with you 100%, and overall I think you're making the right decision (unless there's some ideal solution no-one has thought of). I just think it makes sense to conceed that you are losing a degree of coherence - with good reason.

Yes.

There are obvious advantages, so the choice is yours.

Well, a fast character with a lot of APs will always outrun a slower melee guy, restricted by heavy armor. That's just common sense. Use nets.

Good to hear.

If all the fast char. do is run then of course. But if he's also taking some shots, the slower character will gain ground, and if the ranger is not careful, once his at close range he should suffer heavy penalties.
Sorry I had forgotten about nets, I think that could add another fun side to the combat if implemented well.

Edit: More bitching, sorry

Sorry for not being clear, but what I mean is there at least one character build were running and shooting is the best way to fight? Like some builds are made specifically for melee, and some for diplomacy. Im just worried that by trying to prevent the cat and mouse game you have gimped ranged combat (not ranged weapons) so that if any type of ranger wants to survive against an evenly prepared opponent he, at some point in the fight,is going to have to get close and shoot his ranged weapons at close range.
[/i]

What is it then? A wet t-shirt contest?

I respectively disagree. RPG combat is as inconsistent with "any notion of a real battle" as chess is. The only differences are the rules, the scale, and the visual representation of combat (RPGs tend to mimic it visually these days).

What about retaining the same defensive capability while attacking an opponent with a sword in a 1-against-3 fight?

To answer your question, you can't use a shield while reloading, obviously, and you can't block, so you can only rely on dodging, which is kinda reasonable. I don't think there is a huge difference between dodging a blow while holding a crossbow and dodging a blow while reloading one.

I can't see how this would apply in general. Clearly shooting from distance is always going to be preferable against a melee character, since it means there is no way for him to respond immediately. VD's approach just makes it so that a ranged character can do ok in melee (though not amazingly) - it's never (presumably) going to be preferable to get into melee.

I guess it's likely that terrain will play a role in many hit-and-run situations, so that a ranged character might get backed into a corner. That's where the point blank firing will be some help. Ordinarily, it's fairly clear that shooting-without-being-hit beats shooting-and-being hit.

The only time I'd guess that a purely ranged character would preferentially get into melee (or rather not bother to retreat), is if he know's he's much more powerful than his opponent. This would just be to get things over relatively quickly, rather than having to retreat five times merely to achieve an inevitable result. I think this is a good thing.

A *fast* ranger is lightly armored, so he will go down easily. That's another, more natural penalty.

I think so. High Dex (which means high APs), Throwing (low AP cost), Critical Strike for that extra damage.

Well, to survive you must kill, so running around with more AP-expensive weapons will ensure your opponent's good health. The ranger can rely on Dodge and special traits of his weapons (knockdown and sniping) to prevent or at least delay enemies from getting too close.

An interesting take on things.
It's just chess - nothing more. It's an abstract game played with pieces that happen to have names. The rules are what makes it chess, not the pieces / names etc.

I respectfully disagree too - though I take your 1 vs 3 point below. RPG combat is clearly a direct model/abstraction of a particular combat situation. Chess is not. I admit that RPG combat isn't always completely reasonable / consistent with the situation it models, but the further it strays from it, the less credible it seems - and the more players will tend to dislike it.

There is a distinct difference between an approximate abstraction of a real combat situation, and a Tetris minigame. If you're willing for RPG combat to be arbitrarily inconsistent, there's no reason not to use a Tetris minigame (or more exciting equivalent). Clearly that's not reasonable, so I'd say that some level of consistency is required.

Good point. Though again, the 2nd and 3rd attackers really ought to get significant bonuses if you were going for consistency. (have you considered giving multiple attackers bonuses? I guess it'd be a bad thing gameplay wise, but it's worth a thought).
Holding a sword still ought to be preferable defensively over holding a crossbow.

Do you mean that holding a melee weapon gives you a chance to block? How often does this make a difference?
If so, that's good. I guess that it wouldn't make quite as much difference as it ought to (coherence wise), but it's pretty good.

I guess my quest for coherence is somewhat doomed (in general, not just with AoD ), but I still think direct comparisons between chess and AoD combat aren't too helpful. Chess really could represent a wet t-shirt contest [after redesigning the look and names of the pieces], and it'd still be chess. AoD combat could not. (I hope)

@Galsiah,
If ranged weapons are about par with melee weapons at close range, and they suffer no harsh penalties,I could build a high HP character with heavy armor and just get my 2 or 3 shots off before my opp. reaches me, and then just stay put, take the damage and fire my xbow, and if im facing and evenly matched opp. I should win. Not that this is bad, I was just afraid that was the only reasonable way to play a ranged char., but after reading VD's post my fears are gone.

It's the sequel to "Chess for Girls" -"Chess for Frat Boys".

I've seen very few RPG games that are anywhere near as abstract as chess, and all have been terribly dull - e.g. both players roll d6 and add their strength, the player with the lowest total loses the difference in hp. repeat until someone is dead. AoD is far more grounded in the mechanics of very small skirmishes using medievel equipment than chess. Although it's obviously not a total realism simulator or anything. You're fitting a combat engine into the rp game you want, not vice versa.

Because of this compromise, you will end up with absurdities (hell, just about every non-FPS with ranged combat is full of absurdities). Being able to reload your bow in melee combat is an absurdity. Being able to kite a melee character with your bow is an absurdity. The reason they are absurd is because they are not abstractions, but rather interactions that conflict with intuition and reality. A polished horse-head that can move 2-1 or 1-2 is goofy, but since we don't have preconceived notiongs on what a horse-head does it's not so bad. We know what a bow does, and what a sword does, so it's a lot harder to swallow that a guy with a bow can reach into his quiver pull out an arrow, and draw the bow back while dodging somes guys sword, and do it all in the same amount of time and with the same skill as if the guy was 20 yards away.

Basically, my ideal developer response would be "Yeah, we know it doesn't make sense. But we wanted ranged-weapon expert to be a viable path through the game. This bit of absurdity makes it balanced and fun to play. So quit your nerdy whining and go practice your Klingon."

P.S. My favorite part of the pseudo-game Fable was the way combat went with a bow. I'd find someone to shoot, shoot them and 10 people would rush me and kill me while I struggled to draw an arrow and aim. I was a bit sad I wasn't twitchy enough to use a bow in the game, but it felt right.

In my mind, different chess pieces can approximate different elements of an army. The pawns are a type of foot soldier, the knights are a type of short-range skirmisher, the bishops are more long-range snipers, and the rooks act like heavily-armed cavalry (or mechanized cavalry, like fast-moving tanks). The queen seems like a super commando type, a lá Rambo. Still, I don't think the strategy necessarily revolves around these conceits.

So does AoD discourage having a secondary weapons proficiency for melee, or will it be more straightforward to rely solely on one's archer skill?

Some systems are more realistic than others. There is also a tradeoff between simplicity / technical requirements and realism. The fact that element A is unrealistic is not an excuse that element B must be unrealistic either.

No, RPGs are not about abstract concepts. You are confusing means with ends.

It does not fuck the ranged guy, unless the overall design makes close quarters combat unavoidable. The ranged guy should simply rely on killing the opponents before they reach him - it can be achieved in many ways, for example, by adjusting accuracy and damage of ranged weapons. If you assume that ranged guy should perform well at close quarters, to be consistent, you should also assume that melee guy should perform well in distant combat. You should make knuckles a decen ranged weapon - even if it looks bizarre, RPGs are about abstract concepts, anyway

This analogy simply does not hold. Galsiah gave you the answer - it is easy to interpret a hit as a glancing blow. It is not that easy with reloading crossbow. What is more - it is well documented that soldier can ignore very severe wounds because of "battle frenzy". You can also find descriptions of people who survived seemingly deadly wounds such as crowbar coming trough someone's head (e.g. famous case of Phieneas Gage). There are no stories about guys who consistently reloaded weapons during melee.

Probably, there is a way to make ranged combat at close quarters more realistic and balanced while keeping the accuracy intact. For example: you could apply heavy defense penalty to an archer. You could make possible to disarm / destroy a bow/crossbow by a successful melee attack etc.

Now, what an odd discussion. It's almost like VD would argue in favour of Oblivion's persuasion minigame.

Personally, I would prefer not being able to use ranged weapons at melee range - and in regard to the common game mechanics inconsistent with realism, I'd say two wrongs don't make one right.

Also, I do believe many RPGs and wargames do have rules for combat against multiple opponents, be it bonuses for the attackers or penalties for the defender; I believe even a single block chance and auto-hits for all attackers but the first are used.

I do however see the rationale for allowing a character use a ranged weapon in melee to prevent a trivial exercise in taking a step away just to be able to shoot. I am certain there will better reasons to move, this just eliminates the absolute need to do so.

Tell me your "ideal" ranged mechanics then and I'll gladly consider them.

I'm not using a precedent here to prove that my decision isn't wrong. I *believe* that realism has got nothing to do with RPGs, and thus, shouldn't be used as an argument.

Perhaps. Enlighten me then.

In other words, let's make ranged weapons uber, so you can kill people before they reach you. Ok. Now let's turn it around a bit. Now you are a melee guy fighting a ranged guy. You try to reach the bastard but die before you can strike him even once. Sounds like a frustrating reload fiesta, followed by uninstall and a conclusion that TB games are lame as fuck.

Uh, no. I assume that melee guy will eventually close the distance. The question is what happens next. I outlined the options above.

Glancing blow? Ok, fair enough. You have 40 HPs, you were hit for 24 points of damage. Is it a glancing blow?

It's not a history channel, son.

That would result in the exciting "catch a ranger" mini game. I'm sure that people would love it.

It's an option. There are good reasons to have two proficiencies, and there are good reasons to stick with one.