[Supers] What's the point of making Mêlée-oriented characters?

Anthony · 11-19-2010, 11:56 AM

Ignoring the whole business about ST, let's look at balance for innate attack (melee) vs innate attack (ranged), and that we want to be able to hit on 16-, with a DX of 10, and that we're using crushing attacks. Here's what we need to be able to do so every turn:

10-yard ranged attacker [36]: skill 20 [36]; net +0 on IA
10-yard melee attacker[160]: skill 16 [20], basic move 13[40], flight [40], enhanced move 2 (x4; cosmic, no acceleration) [60]; net -20% on IA.
Breakeven point: ranged is 5/die, melee is 4/die, breakeven 124d
100-yard ranged attacker [60]: skill 26 [60]; enhanced 1/2d x3; net +15% on IA
100-yard melee attacker[255]: skill 16 [20], basic move 11[30], flight [40], enhanced move 5.5 (x48; cosmic, no acceleration) [165]; net -20% on IA.
Breakeven point: ranged is 5.75/die, melee is 4/die, breakeven 111d
1000-yard ranged attacker [84]: skill 32 [84]; enhanced 1/2d x3; enhanced range x3; net +45% on IA
1000-yard melee attacker[355]: skill 16 [20], basic move 10[25], flight [40], enhanced move 9 (x512; cosmic, no acceleration) [270]; net -20% on IA.
Breakeven point: ranged is 7.25/die, melee is 4/die, breakeven 83d

Huh. So somewhere in the range of 500 base points, melee just beats out ranged because it's cheaper to fly up and punch than to boost your skill and range. Of course, this ignores any other utility of super-high skill or super-fast flight. It also ignores the fact that you can rapid attack with melee -- it takes +6 skill (24 points) to reliably rapid attack, while it takes +2 skill (8 points) and a 40% advantage (200 points on our 500p attack) to hit twice with rapid fire; counting things like that, I'd say that melee on IA is reasonably valued for attacks in the 20-40d range.

11-19-2010, 11:56 AM	#26
Anthony Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Berkeley, CA	Re: [Supers] What's the point of making Mêlée-oriented characters? Ignoring the whole business about ST, let's look at balance for innate attack (melee) vs innate attack (ranged), and that we want to be able to hit on 16-, with a DX of 10, and that we're using crushing attacks. Here's what we need to be able to do so every turn: 10-yard ranged attacker [36]: skill 20 [36]; net +0 on IA 10-yard melee attacker[160]: skill 16 [20], basic move 13[40], flight [40], enhanced move 2 (x4; cosmic, no acceleration) [60]; net -20% on IA. Breakeven point: ranged is 5/die, melee is 4/die, breakeven 124d 100-yard ranged attacker [60]: skill 26 [60]; enhanced 1/2d x3; net +15% on IA 100-yard melee attacker[255]: skill 16 [20], basic move 11[30], flight [40], enhanced move 5.5 (x48; cosmic, no acceleration) [165]; net -20% on IA. Breakeven point: ranged is 5.75/die, melee is 4/die, breakeven 111d 1000-yard ranged attacker [84]: skill 32 [84]; enhanced 1/2d x3; enhanced range x3; net +45% on IA 1000-yard melee attacker[355]: skill 16 [20], basic move 10[25], flight [40], enhanced move 9 (x512; cosmic, no acceleration) [270]; net -20% on IA. Breakeven point: ranged is 7.25/die, melee is 4/die, breakeven 83d Huh. So somewhere in the range of 500 base points, melee just beats out ranged because it's cheaper to fly up and punch than to boost your skill and range. Of course, this ignores any other utility of super-high skill or super-fast flight. It also ignores the fact that you can rapid attack with melee -- it takes +6 skill (24 points) to reliably rapid attack, while it takes +2 skill (8 points) and a 40% advantage (200 points on our 500p attack) to hit twice with rapid fire; counting things like that, I'd say that melee on IA is reasonably valued for attacks in the 20-40d range.