How to Encourage Melee Combat in a Sci-fi Setting? (5e)

[Tony Vargas]

So, as some of you may have seen from my other recent threads; I'm developing a sci-fantasy space opera setting for 5e. One of the more 'meta' issues I have rattling around my head is 'why would intergalactic, tech-advanced cultures, with access to all manner of guns, still produce a great number of combatants that rely on swords and other melee weapons?'.I love the way that Frank Herbert's Dune deals with this; personal shielding exists that is effective against ranged attacks, but not melee attacks. This would create a believable in setting reason as to why melee fighting is still common.

In addition to the Dune 'shields' you mention, there have been other rationalizations. Jedi can deflect ranged attacks and have supernatural skill in melee. In Traveler, powerful guns were avoided on board ship to reduce the risk of decompression. Tradition and laws can figure into it. An advanced culture might ban many sorts of weapons, but still openly carry and duel with some traditional weapon, with practitioners becoming so preternaturally skilled that they erase the advantage simple ranged weapons give to less well-trained combatants (Klingons using batleths in Star Trek for instance). Like the shields, the offense vs defense arms race can favor defense for a time, when it does, melee weapons may be the only technically viable offense. It doesn't have to be personal shields, it could be power armor, minovsky particles, teleportation technology making the range advantage obsolete, or environments - cramps ship interiors, twisting alien hives - in which you simply can't open up range.

Conversely, a star-spanning culture could be in technological decline from some peaceful pinnacle. They still have self-maintaining starships to tool around the galaxy, but can't make new ones or repair a ship that's too badly damaged, and ships were all designed in a time of peace, with defensive systems to stop meteorites and other dangers but no offensive weapons. So blowing up the other guy's ship is out of the question, instead, you board. Similarly, all weapons are improvised or made in the current, decadent period, so they're much lower-tech than the other trapping so the setting, maybe all the way down to hand-held blades, maybe high-tech tools misused and abused into weapons, maybe even-more-ancient-artifacts from the culture's violent periods. It's a convenient conceit because you can be fairly arbitrary about what sorts of artifacts were made self-sustaining, like the ships, or still have self-sustaining production facilities, and which are rare, lost, or never developed at that pinnacle.

So, in Spirit (the name of the setting) there is a new armour type called 'Fields', that can be worn at the same time as armour and a shield and doesn't require a free hand. To gain the benefit of a field a character must be proficient, though I'm unsure how to handle their use by characters that are not proficient.

If they're like Dune shields and require not just a melee attack, but a specific, unintuitive type of attack, the non-proficient user's Field could provide the same protection against all his attacks (ranged & melee) as it provides him vs ranged attacks, because he isn't trained to make the right /kind/ of melee attack to get out of his own shield, as well as through an enemy's.

I toyed with the idea of using the DR/type mechanic of 3.5, but I want the fields to be effective against all ranged and no melee damage rather than against certain damage types. I also felt that just giving a flat resistance to ranged damage would be too powerful and potentially unbalancing. I don't like the idea of fields being totally a reliable technology either.

The less reliable they are, the more likely people are to keep using ranged weapons and try to overcome the fields with a massed firepower, instead of relying on melee. As long as ranged damage rolls are fairly swingy (exploding d10's for instance, as opposed to multiple d6s), a fixed DR wouldn't be all that dependable, anyway.

At the moment I'm most fond of the idea of fields providing the character with a number of 'soak dice' dependant on the cost of the field, that can be rolled whenever hit by a ranged attack, if a certain number is rolled then the character gains resistance against that attack (on a 6 if I were to use d6's), this makes fields effective but unreliable. Though I'm unsure what die to use for soak (d4, d6 etc).

D&D tradition suggest a d6, with a 1:6 chance of the field failing. Alternately, you could roll 'soak dice' and total them, with that amount being your resistance against that attack. If you're rolling a lot of dice, d6s are convenient, because they're so readily available.

It may be the case that I'm being too complex and fields instead should just offer a flat damage reduction, let me know what you think, I'm open to any discussion/suggestion.

I think DR is fine. They could also 'deflect' ranged attacks giving a deflection bonus to AC or a miss chance or just disadvantage, making them more all-or-nothing. Lots of potential mechanics, really.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How often in the modern era do you generally see boarding actions in combat?

Depends on what you're doing- when the ship, its passengers, or its contents matter- in smuggling/drug interdiction, fugitive apprehension (or escape), hostage rescue (or taking) and piracy/anti-piracy- you will probably see a fair amount of armed, melee-trained boarding parties being used.

 

[nomotog]

Environment can be a factor. If you on a ship, melee is very good, and you can most combat in places that let you get close. If you want to do the fields idea, maybe they only work when the attack is far enough away that the field has time flicker on? That is less of a general pain to range and closer to what you what where people get close. You can also just go with most range weapons not having a very long range., your players might not notice or care. The first Idea I had was telaporting, It's not really realistic, but you said space opera. Heck you don't even have to explain it, if your not trying to be realistic.

 

[transcendantviewer]

A problem shouldn't be fixed with some silly little dohicky or McGuffin. That just starts to feel like lousy DMing and a bit of a copout. Also, unless you want this campaign setting to be all melee all the time, don't try to get fancy, it just makes the ranged fighters feel inadequate. Instead, just make most encounters in enclosed spaces and sometimes stretch things out into the long range. This way, the party Sharpshooter gets to have his fun every now and again as well, without making the melee fighters feel useless all the time or vise versa. Ranged combat is always going to be more favorable than melee. That's just how combat works. You want to put your opponents down before they ever get to even land a hit. That way, you don't get hurt, they're dealt with, and everybody goes home for a meal with the wife and kids.

 

[77IM]

The biggest problem I see is training. Learning to aim and fire a gun is substantially easier (especially with targeting software) than becoming a proficient fencer.

One simple option you might consider is to just make melee weapons generally more damaging than ranged weapons. This is how regular D&D balances them. In a sci-fi setting with advanced armor and "fields," maybe filling someone with plasma bolts just slows them down (1d8+Dex damage), and really killing them dead requires cleaving them in twain with your vibro-blade (2d6+Str damage, with GWF style reroll).

 

[darjr]

Honor. Ranged combat is looked down upon as low and anyone who uses it is stripped of all honor, titles, power and possessions.

Or

Artificial targeting. Shooting at range makes you a target for things that have perfect aim, your only chance is to close in and engage in melee.

Or

Limited resources, use that energy to fire lasers or land that ship.

 

[Fragsie]

Wow, so I had a week or so away from the boards, and come back to this thread having loads to read through! Thanks guys

There is a bit much for me to do individual quotes, but I will try to address all points made.

So the setting is a sci-fantasy space opera, there hasn't been a 'dark age of technology' so using that trope to make the ranged weaponry more rare isn't an option. The game is set a number of centuries into the future of our own universe (magic comes back at some point in the future), so technology has advanced from our current standing.
It's not that I want there to be a lack of advanced ranged weaponry, it's more that I don't want pure melee characters to feel like an unbalanced option.

One or two of you pointed out that in D&D there are already characters that can sling spells and such. While this is true, in D&D these individuals are rare (or at least uncommon), and they require a natural talent, a magical patron, or extensive training, research and study. In a world where guns not only exist but are readily available, arguably any villager npc could use the ranged fire-power usually reserved for specific heroic characters; it's this imbalance I'm trying to address.

Others have suggested that the imbalance could be mitigated by playing in cramped or inhibited environments, and while this is a cool option that I will definitely use, it is purely situational and specific to the campaign being played rather than the setting as a whole. I like the suggestion of the risk involved in using piercing ammunition aboard a ship or station. I could perhaps create a table to roll on if you miss with that type of weapon.

I'm not too keen on changing the damage output of melee weapons as they are already a part of the balance structure of the game, I should be measuring myself to that benchmark, not moving it; that would just lead to balance issues later down the road. From a damage point of view; i'm adding lots of potential extra ranged DPR to the game, i need to add a way to potentially counter that without messing too much with the framework that's already in place.

I'm pretty much set on using fields as a concept. After some points raised I'm thinking they should be effective against piercing damage only (which pretty much all non-energy ranged weapons deal). Energy based ranged weapons will be balanced with a charging mechanic of some description. This means that the fields would also be effective against piercing melee weapons, which isn't a bad thing thematically. There's no reason that fields couldn't be modified (i.e. magic items) to work against other damage types too.

So it's the actual rules-fu part of this i'm trying to get down on paper. So far a few different options have been suggested:

Fields grant disadvantage vs ranged attacks
This feels a bit much for me, a flat disadvantage on attacks against you seems pretty hench, especially for a piece of equipment. Expanding this a bit to say "... made at long range" could work, this would confer an added advantage to using Gauss weapons (guns that have no long range).

Fields grant a bonus to AC
In the vein of a deflection bonus from 3.5e; bonus to AC against attacks made from 10ft or more away. I don't think this fits thematically, the player would have to switch between 2 different ACs, which you don't see elsewhere in 5e, this becomes even more fiddly to track if it is vs only piercing damage.

Fields grant resistance to piercing damage
I like this because it won't completely counter damage, just reduce it. but as a flat bonus there is no room for scaling, it would be one piece of equipment that is as effective at 1st level as at 20th. Scaling could be achieved by using a mechanic to see if the field works or not, such as rolling a d6 and on a 1 or 2 the field fails. More advanced fields could allow more dice to be rolled, thus making them more reliable.

Fields grant 'dice roll' damage reduction against piercing damage
I like the randomness of this option, you are guaranteed a minimum DR, but could potentially completely soak a weak shot. Higher level options would give a higher number of soak dice. As suggested, if the field soaks maximum damage it could short or need to reset (read: short rest).

 

[Imaculata]

Space stations could very well have a ban on weapons. But a simple dagger or fighting stick could easily be smuggled into a bar (especially if its one of those awesome Minbari folding canes). Besides, not even the most advanced plasma rifle can defend you against some alien coming up behind you in a bar, and stabbing you in the neck.

Personal shields could definitely be a thing. You could even make a difference between energy shields (against energy weapons) and kinetic shields (against ballistic weapons). But if personal shields are a thing, then there is no reason why not every soldier and every combat droid would be equipped with one as well. The logical outcome of the existence of any such device, is that almost everyone would buy one.

This opens up the possibility that there are also weapons that specifically take out shields, or at least weaken them. Perhaps some energy weapons even have an adjustable setting between weakening shields, and just doing damage. Like in Judge Dredd, such weapon settings could be voice activated.

It is also not hard to imagine that in a future setting, people could have personal shields surgically implanted in their bodies (depending on how big and heavy they are).

So how would personal shields work?

Well, first of all I think a player would have to choose between an energy shield or a kinetic shield. Maybe a personal shield can do both, but would they both work at the same time? That could possibly cost a lot of energy. I presume this fictional device uses energy to soak up what ever energy is coming its way (be it kinetic energy, plasma, lasers or something else). So I think depending on the quality and size of the device, it simply soaks up damage, until it runs out. If the shields get hit every round, they have no opportunity to regenerate. But if the player takes cover, the shields can recover for a bit, and then the player can go back into combat. If you get caught in a crossfire, that shield could run out pretty fast (so it doesn't render you invulnerable).

You could also allow the player to choose the size of the shield. Much like the shields in Star Trek, they could be focused in one direction, or they could completely surround the user. This means that they can either block only the attacks coming from one direction (chosen by the player), or from all directions (but at the cost of more power).

Enemies could use mobile shield generators, which allow them to take cover, and stick their weapons through them to return fire. This allows them to slowly close in on their enemy during a fire fight. In order to take out such enemies, you would either have to take out the shields, or get into close combat with a melee weapon that bypasses the shields entirely. And that is I think what you (the OP) are thinking of.

 

[darjr]

Well they could be super expensive to run or require extremely rare substances or secret knowledge. Then you could have unscreened mooks.

 

[transcendantviewer]

Considering how easy it is to force Disadvantage in 5e, letting the shields grant Disadvantage wouldn't ruin any balance. And there's always the age-old tactic of ambush fighting. A good and stealthy combatant could eliminate a compound of hostiles, given enough time and resources. That aside, the problem that you're facing is merely the problem of realism. Ignore it, and it'll go away. Make weapons such as rifles, pistols, and shotguns expensive. Don't make them rare, just put a price tag on them, so the commonfolk can't just whip them out at the first sign of danger. The riff raff will still get a hold of black-market models or homemade variants, but that's to be expected. And finally, the last bit of advice I can recommend is just removing the aspect of melee combat all together. Combat even nowadays doesn't normally get close enough for the use of melee. It's always there, and the combatants are trained in it, but very few soldiers ever need to use their knife for anything other than opening a tin of beans.