>Every setting where combat has a melee focus has either no guns or guns that are extremely terrible
>Most settings where combat has a ranged focus still have guns that kinda suck compared to melee
Why is this? People complain about caster/martial disparity but I feel the true issue is sword/gun
Martial/Caster is just Sword/Gun in fantasy games. Just with less plebs holding the power.
Stop playing D&D.
Both Shadowrun and Eclipse Phase have melee weapons but they're both kind of shit compared to guns. Eclipse Phase more than Shadowrun.
>that Ultimate Alliance super
>Both Shadowrun and Eclipse Phase have melee weapons but they're both kind of shit compared to guns. Eclipse Phase more than Shadowrun.
In EP, it takes absurd levels of optimization to make swording people effective except as an emergency option. The exact same level of optimization applied to guns tends to result in the gun guy blowing away entire rooms full of mooks with 10 perfectly-aimed burst fire shots. Melee is basically a trap option except for ambush and the odd octomorph stack-eater assassin.
You know, Capt America level of strength being the norm for fighters seems like a good way to go.
That said, I feel people ignore the idea that you're not always going to be armed with a gun or something in every scenario or that the perspective is taken purely from a military angle. Not everyone is going to be tacticooled up with machineguns and body armor and when you get down to it a knife suddenly doesn't kill any more just becuse guns exist.
If guns were as useful as they are in real life then the game would be completely unbalanced. There's a reason you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
>If guns were as useful as they are in real life then the game would be completely unbalanced.
Damn right. Characters empty their .45 and miss every shot because they limpwristed and they're freaking the fuck out because they never actually tried to shoot anyone before, and then the bullets would overpenetrate the walls and overpenetrate the cat. Or you'd fill a dude with a full mag of 9mm, he'd stab you to death, then bleed to death an hour later. You'd never hear the end of players bitching about how guns are useless.
But nobody complains about bows also being weaker than melee
guns just get lots of extra steps to fuck them over for no reason
The problem with guns is that they ignore a lot of Armor. You'd need to make special rules regarding armor thickness, or just say that the guns are really inaccurate in a Sword and Shotte era game.
Though that's a really shitty work-around.
>Why is this?
Because nerds want to play out their fantasies.
Those fantasies include being the bad ass swordsman who is so good that he can kill gunmen.
I don't think most game designers are aware of just how powerful modern firearms really are. I don't believe there is any personal armor in production today that can present any kind of barrier to .308 or higher. Shotguns, often depicted inaccurately in games, can tear people a part at close ranges.
Couldn't you have a balance if you were in the early history of firearms? Say flintlock or guns without rifling in them?
Where would be the ideal place in firearms development to place it?
The thing is, guns are a prominent weapon for a good reason.
Even someone with horrendous aim can still land a debilitating shot that easily allows for them to win the fight if the opponent doesn't have a firearm.
It's like how Shotguns are magically awful outside of 1-2 meter range, despite the fact that they're largely the most dangerous and easiest guns to use.
Guns are a lot less dangerous when you give enemies realistic levels of skill. For example, in GURPS, the average cop will miss you half the time if you're just three yards away, a distance anybody can close in a single turn.
Another thing that helps melee against guns is to not do combat in wide, open spaces. In close quarters (10~20 yards or less, depending on how cinematic you're going), melee should be able to quickly close in in a few turns.
Combine the two, and melee is usually on par with guns.
>Couldn't you have a balance if you were in the early history of firearms? Say flintlock or guns without rifling in them?
Smooth bore guns are portrayed as much less accurate than they actually were.
Another thing about firearms is speed. Tv shows and movies portray people as dodging bullets. Bullets travel. Bullets travel hundreds to over a thousand feet per second. The bullet hits you probably about the same time you hear it. No one can dodge a bullet, the thing just wasn't going to hit them to begin with.
So just shoot them when they're closer? Pistols are some of the most Innacurate weapons ever but will reliably hit someone within 30 yards
>wah wah I can't shoot anyone I'm so scared
>but I can stab like a ruthless ninja
You're a fucking retard who probably wanks off over knives and swords despite them being almost obsolete as weapons. I bet you carry a knife for """self defense"""
Did you miss the part about realistic skill levels? The cop's chance goes from 50% to 63%~ chance to hit at one to two yards, then dives down to 38%~ when you're in the same hex, due to bulk penalties. The pistol's inherent accuracy doesn't factor into this, because the cop's shooting unsighted, from the hip.
You can parry someone trying to shoot you if they're within reach of your melee weapon, such as a sword or baton. Your parry will definitely be higher than your dodge, so this is a good thing. And since you're parrying their arm, you get a free roll to attack their limb, which can mean the cop will drop his pistol, leaving him unarmed against you. You could also try to grapple them, which gives major penalties.
It's not going to be easy, but it's definitely possible for the average heroic (100~150) character.
Play GURPS you stupid fucking faggot. A knife deals something like 1 to 2d6 in an average person's hands (I forget exactly how imp damage works), a handgun is 2d6 and can be fired a couple of times per turn. A rifle deals 4d6 to 9d6. If you get hit with a rifle there's a good chance you'll die straight up and you'll certainly be making HT rolls to stay up each round.
If you haven't read the gun "rules" for Kill Puppies for Satan, go do so immediately; you'll enjoy the read.
The ORE-powered games with gunplay - Wild Talents and Nemesis - are actually pretty good about this. Relatively high lethality, location based damage, and you can't even attempt to dodge a bullet unless you have supernatural reflexes; if someone is shooting at you, your only real option is to try and dive for cover and hope you're faster than they can pull the trigger.
Hey, don't be talking shit about my octomorph stack-eater assassin.
Guys great. Likes pancakes. Cause they stack.
But that's wrong, cops aim.
Random gangbangers wouldn't and just get a +1 for all-out attack (determined).
I don't know, in pathfinder a double barrel shotgun is fucking insane
And taking a second to aim is a second that you aren't getting shot. While the follow-up shot is much more likely to force a defense roll, there's the possibility of you getting your hit in before the cop does. If you really want to favor melee, Tactical Shooting requires Aim to be followed by an All-out Attack. 90% chance to hit your armored torso, which should absorb most of the damage. You can AoA(D)+Telegraphic your way through that next turn and go for a killing blow.
I like the way WoD and Chronicles does it.
Guns are dangerous and hard to defend against, and someone skilled with a gun is more dangerous than someone skilled with a sword.
Normally in order to beat an opponent wielding a gun when you have a sword in these two settings is to get the drop on them or force yourself in close range before they can shoot you dead.
Or just be some kind of supernatural creature to whom bullets mean jack shit. Werewolves heal too fast to care about stuff like lethal damage and Vampires lack the internal organs that make guns lethal.
In 2nd edition Chronicles Vampires are even sturdier and everything damages them a little less unless it's fire or sunlight.
My experience with video games and TTRPGs is that any time someone justifies a mechanic/houserule as being more realistic/closer to lore, it's usually because they don't have any other selling points for that mechanic/house rule. It's very likely it will reduce how fun the game is.
Melee vs guns is one of those areas. A realistic approach will have guns dominating except in very specific scenarios. Making the weapons less realistic means more options for the players, and likely more fun if it's done well.
>The pistol's inherent accuracy doesn't factor into this, because the cop's shooting unsighted, from the hip.
This is actually pretty unrealistic. Even untrained shooters in a gun fight can hit accurately with point shooting (shooting without using sights at close range). I'll find the write up again but a cop analyzed a bunch of cop deaths via homicide with a firearm.
I'd like to see it. Hans did quite a lot of research for Tactical Shooting, so it'd be something of a shock to find his skill levels chart that's so regularly referenced inaccurate.
You faggots all know that this whole problem can be easily solved by not jerking off to "muh realusm" and retarded perceptions of it.
forcescience.org
Granted, this is for static targets on a range, one might expect lower hit rates in a stressful situation where both shooter and Target are moving.
I think you're thinking of this article: tierthreetactical.com
/k/ here
DOJ certified level IV is rated for multiple 7.62x39mm impacts OR 1 AP 30.06/7.62x54R.
>this is for static targets on a range
Yeah, range conditions get a huge slew of bonuses. No surprise there. Not applicable to combat situations.
I did give the wrong impression, though. Reviewing the table, cops are up to 11, not all of them are skill 11. They may be shooting at default, have Dabbler in pistols that reduces their default from -4 up to -1, or have a full point in pistols, with the "cream" of the police crop having two points for a full skill level of 11.
The data is interesting on the cop killers. I imagine there are factors lost in translation to GURPS, but these cop killers seem like they would have a skill level equivalent to a cop's. I don't think they're the typical criminal, though.
Right, it's important to keep in mind that these are people who successfully killed cops, presumably there are many who tried and failed.
It would be interesting to see an evaluation of violent criminals in general, but that would likely be difficult and resource intensive.
Play Savage Worlds or nWoD. It's far easier to plug a guy at range than fight him up close due to Defense/Parry, but a strong guy with a longsword can match or outdo an assault rifle's damage output.
but nWoD 2e is cancer user
Guns are powerful; but armor has undergone a revolution over the past 20 years.
Level IIa and IIIa [concealed soft armor; summarized as vs pistols and vs shotguns/heavy pistols/SMGs respectively] are half the weight and thickness they were in the 90s and sometimes has anti-stab capability by default.
Hard armor used to be limited to steel trauma plates and aluminum oxide ceramics - level 3, basically non-AP rifle protection that weighed 8-10 pounds per plate.
Now multi-hit level 4 boron carbide is the norm and it's 5lb a plate. People willing to give up AP protection can wear 3lb polyethylene plates.
IOW - armor used to be a thing only SWAT teams wore. Now it's light, cheaper, and has popular exposure from the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.
Today anyone and everyone expecting combat wears armor, even fat gun hobbyists have a plate carrier in their safe, because it's only a few hundred dollars.
>Strong guy with a longsword can match or outdo an assault rifle
Not at the same XP in nWoD.
Melee characters don't even have attacks of opportunity, you can literally take 5 steps away from them and their defenses don't apply, and riddle them with bullets, which I admit is not instantly lethal for someone untrained in nWoD but if its the same XP it takes to be good with longswords it sure as fuck will be no matter what non-magic protection they have.
I like the Dune solution to guns vs knives
"The slow blade penetrates the shield"
DONE
I'm sure that'll work well in modern games.
"The slow blade penetrates the armor. btw if you hit kevlar with a bullet, both the kevlar and your gun explode."
>ORE
Your options are:
>Hug Gaia and hope he misses.
>Dive for cover.
>Use something as a shield.
>Interfere and make the shots miss.
>Be TOUGH enough to tank bullets. (And then realise it has burst fire and either being THAT TOUGH or bite the dust.)
>Be fast enough to get out of the bullet's way.
>Take it to the chin.
>Be hard enough to not give a fuck.
>he hasnt played 40k RPGs.
Yeah, because every gun user is a sissy liberal transgender and every knife user is a fucking ninja raiden with nanomachines.
depends on the game. Most D&D firearm rules approach 'wild west' levels of lethality, hardly realistic. 1600s pistols took a good soldier about 20 seconds to reload in the field (Sealed Knot timing), meaning multiples were carried. The naval term of pistol shot was between 10 and 20 yards. Remember that even at 'point blank' ranges, actual hits are rare if both sides are shooting...and often when only one side is. A thug in NYC appeared on the landing above and opened fire on 7 officers, He was hit once in the leg as they emptied their service revolvers at a range of under 5 yards. 41/42 misses. New York's Finest.
This is part of why swords were still in vogue until rifling became common.