"Separate Ranged Combat and Melee stats?" Topic

I'm working on a small, infantry focused skirmish game which needs to function as RPG and miniatures game.

All participants (except me) have almost no experience with anything miniatures related outside of board games. Touch of Evil, Last Night on Earth, and recently Imperial Assault.
So I don't want to go to complicated.

Having said that, should there be separate stats for Ranged Combat and Melee. Is it needed to represent different types of characters better, or is it unnecessary?

should there be separate stats for Ranged Combat and Melee

Yes.

Think of a hulking brute who is great at melee, but can't shoot worth a darn. Or vice-versa. Need separate stats, IMO.

Uncomplicated? Then I think a single generic 'Combat Ability' Stat works fine.

Tweak individual miniatures/characters/troop types with pertinent Gear and Abilities. I've found most folks understand and respect the 'big hulking brute' or other close assault types excel at melee rather than ranged combat.

Less bookkeeping and less stats to memorize/look up is always better IMO.

I've found most folks understand and respect the 'big hulking brute' or other close assault types excel at melee rather than ranged combat.

Are you suggesting that a givem figure has the specified combat rating for EITHER ranged combat OR melee and has no ability at all in the other?

A figure should be able to do both – but may be good at one or bad at another – or the same in both

My 13 year old picked up a game with separate stats like thst in all of 5 minutes.

"Are you suggesting that a givem figure has the specified combat rating for EITHER ranged combat OR melee and has no ability at all in the other?"

Of course not… Barring specific miniatures that have no ranged weapons/attack like Genestealers.

Like I said, you can tweak individual miniatures/troop types with specific Gear or Abilities, for example "they can't attack enemy models except in BtB or within 12".

The OP wanted 'uncomplicated'. A simple, single combat stat has worked for us for years.

If you intend to have both types of combat then I believe you should have separate stats. The two types of combat are just too different to use the same stat.

To play devil's advocate, Song of Blades and Heroes only has a single Combat stat, and its possibly the most successful indie there is. You can do it if you want. No right or wrong.

Keep it simple, especially for people just starting out. Combat skill, endurance. Umm, and that is really all you need. I would hope the interest in an RPG comes from the scenario and player interactions.

"Are you suggesting that a givem figure has the specified combat rating for EITHER ranged combat OR melee and has no ability at all in the other?"

Of course not… Barring specific miniatures that have no ranged weapons/attack like Genestealers.

So, if you only have one Combat stat, how do you differentiate the shooting ability from the close combat ability if you don't want them to be the same?

Again, this is for a simple, uncomplicated table top game, not a detailed RPG, right?

I figure troops are trained to a base level of proficiency. Combat ability rises with troop quality. (Conscript vs Line vs Veteran vs Elite) Differentiation is in the weapon stats and Abilities specific to that unit/model. An Elite soldier doesn't get less 'elite' when he has a K-Bar; he just can't engage hostiles at distance.

Melee-specialists have appropriate abilities/modifiers and are equipped with CQB weapons that have range limitations. Line troops may have assault rifles that have greater attack range but no bonuses when in melee.

Cheesesailor77 – Song of Blades and Heroes/Fistful of Kung Fu, Two Hour Wargames, Pulp Alley…

If you are already going to have different bonuses for ranged and melee combat, then you already have a mechanism to differentiate ranged and melee combat, so you don't need two stats.

RC Hit 10, +3
MC Hit 06, +5

equals

XX Hit 06; RC+7, MC+5

This will be more work for you in the design and statting out of your system and scenarios, but it seems like offloading more work to game design and implementation by taking it from play mechanics is the type of trade off you are looking for.

** DISCLAIMER ** It's my game ** DISCLAIMER **
You might want to look at Quick Intermediate Level Skirmish on Wargame Vault as a core combat system. It is skirmish combat focused, with the stats coded into the dice. It works well to support RPG progression by allowing you do add dice and pips progressively and support role playing by divorcing the combat from the other aspects of the game.

I guess it's a question of how simple you want it. Why even differentiate figure to figure if simple is what you are going for?

Again, this is for a simple, uncomplicated table top game, not a detailed RPG, right?

I figure troops are trained to a base level of proficiency.

Ah. I was assuming something a little less "military" than that. Not so much troops as characters who do not necessarily have military training. Perhaps the OP could enlighten us as to which assumptions are correct?

Wait a minute… why do you need a 'mechanism' to differentiate between ranged and melee combat when the distance makes it obvious? Either you're in BtB contact or you aren't.

And regarding game design, isn't the object to make it as smooth and fun for the player as possible? Then again, I'm a fan of minimal bookkeeping/charts/die rolls. Story over system.

MajorB – ahh, OK. Then sure, if your character is a bouncer with a decade of barroom brawls under his (black) belt who then picks up a shotgun or 9mm, (or 40W laser) then you need to accommodate for the lack of skill/experience.

I submit he has the same 'fighting instinct' and it would be simpler to note "-2 to Ranged Attacks" on his character sheet than to build a system with separate R & M stats for everyone. That's just me tho.

Initially, each player will be using 1-3 models in a Star Wars setting. I hope to eventually expand to a Star Wars RPG and maybe even Post Apoc. or Cyberpunk miniatures games.

If there's only a couple of figures on the board, i'd use distinct stats.

People will expect a character to be a good shot, good in a brawl, etc.

Distinct stats vs. one stat with special abilities. Either works, both have the same effect, I'd argue that Distinct Stats are almost always easier to work with and understand. Two numbers vs. one number and a word and an explanation… two numbers, please.

Not that special rules and abilities are inherently bad, but they shouldn't be used when they aren't actually special. So if your game features close combat as anywhere close to equivalent to ranged combat (mechanically or in frequency of occurrence) I'd go for distinct stats.

For instance, THW uses Rep for generic combat ability and morale, while it has some special "abilities" such as specific adjustments to particular tests, and as their CR rules feature melee as essentially a special circumstance test, it makes sense that melee modifiers are abilities and not stats as well.

Another approach is by weapon. In RPGs a character will be good with one or more weapons. Any others picked up at random will not have the same skill level as the weapons that the character is practiced with. This makes each character unique since the availability of weapons changes all the time. Weapons break or fail. Of course, your game might ignore this feature of RL….