Back in 3e, normal movement speed was 30' (same as current edition), but you could move up to 120' in a straight line by taking the Run action (which caused you to be flat-footed), or up to 60' while still making a melee attack (which gave a bonus to attack but a penalty to defense). This made it a lot more practical for melee combatants to close, which I've noticed being a major challenge in 5e. Should some variant of those be brought back? 120' in 6 seconds is 13.6 mph, which is hardly unreasonable for an adventurer.
I think about it in terms of a game, rather than in terms of a simulation.
I don't even use flanking, because I think it's too tactically fiddly for role playing game. This isn't a war game. The ability to tactically use a charge just isn't worth the extra rules complexity.
Also, the ability to move 60' and attack or 120' and be in melee range reduces the value of ranged fighters. After one round they're at disadvantage for ranged attacks and pinned down by opportunity attack. As a DM creating a battle map, you could compensate by just building a larger map. But my maps already get pretty huge. And areas 120' across in underground dungeons strain believability. I think the balance of the game between melee and ranged is just fine right now, with most melee fighters being able to cross the map and hit ranged fighters in two rounds, but not necessarily one.
There are some creatures with a charge ability, which players might have access to as wild shapes, polymorphs, and mounts. I think that's good enough if you want to introduce this mechanic, whereas most players can ignore it.
Also, the ability to move 60' and attack or 120' and be in melee range reduces the value of ranged fighters.
Yes, that's a feature. Given relative damage of ranged vs melee, and typical duration of encounters, 80-90% of combats should start at distances where time to close is zero. Reducing weapon and spell ranges dramatically would also solve the problem.
Also, the ability to move 60' and attack or 120' and be in melee range reduces the value of ranged fighters.
Yes, that's a feature. Given relative damage of ranged vs melee, and typical duration of encounters, 80-90% of combats should start at distances where time to close is zero. Reducing weapon and spell ranges dramatically would also solve the problem.
I don't see why time to close should be zero. Time to close should be 1 round, at least for some encounters. Occasionally more. Otherwise ranged is no different from melee (unless you have an unreachable position on a wall or something). Everybody can attack anybody on their first turn. I realize it sucks to be a melee fighter and have a turn where you make no attacks, but if it's only for one round, it's tolerable to make combat tactically interesting. And there's a good chance you will be able to attack someone, just maybe not your first choice of target.
I think it would be a cool idea for a feat, lIke an update to the Charger feat since that sucks. But as a general rule, too fidly for The 5e Disign Philosophy…ilosophy, …osophy….
I don't see why time to close should be zero. Time to close should be 1 round, at least for some encounters.
Yes, it should be one round for some encounters. Melee damage in 5e is something like 15% higher than ranged weapon damage, so melee combatants should have to lose a single round (due to being unable to close) every seven rounds or so. As the average combat lasts more like three rounds, and it's possible to be unable to close at times other than the start of combat, the majority of combats should start off at zero time to close.
Could also grossly reduce ranged damage. In 3.5e and earlier you didn't add dexterity bonus to damage, so melee weapon damage was a lot higher than ranged weapon damage.
Melee damage in 5e is something like 15% higher than ranged weapon damage, so melee combatants should have to lose a single round (due to being unable to close) every seven rounds or so.
Being in melee also allows for tactical pressure and potentially opportunity attacks, so I'd say this math leaves out a few factors.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't see why time to close should be zero. Time to close should be 1 round, at least for some encounters.
Yes, it should be one round for some encounters. Melee damage in 5e is something like 15% higher than ranged weapon damage, so melee combatants should have to lose a single round (due to being unable to close) every seven rounds or so. As the average combat lasts more like three rounds, and it's possible to be unable to close at times other than the start of combat, the majority of combats should start off at zero time to close.
Could also grossly reduce ranged damage. In 3.5e and earlier you didn't add dexterity bonus to damage, so melee weapon damage was a lot higher than ranged weapon damage.
I don't fundamentally disagree that most combats should have a closing time of zero. But it's easy to make that happen with the current rules. Dungeons are replete with rooms smaller than 30'. Whereas my physical battle mat is only 25 spaces across on the longest dimension, and my VTT has to zoom out to a point where it's difficult to use to take in the whole battlefield on large maps. Let my ranged guys get a free shot at 60' and leave some space on my map for them to retreat into.
Melee damage in 5e is something like 15% higher than ranged weapon damage, so melee combatants should have to lose a single round (due to being unable to close) every seven rounds or so.
Being in melee also allows for tactical pressure and potentially opportunity attacks, so I'd say this math leaves out a few factors.
Right. Those ranged fighters are at disadvantage 2-3 out of 3 rounds of combat if the melee fighters close in one round, and they keep using ranged.
I don't really think it's necessary to strike an exact balance. If melee fighters and ranged fighters in the party aren't equally powerful, it doesn't matter, since you're on the same team. And if the DM wants to charge a bunch of high-CR melee monsters across a field while the weaker party spends 3 rounds wearing them down, that can be a pretty exciting fight.
Regardless, there should be some encounters that start within movement speed of melee range and some that don't. The current rules allow that to happen just fine. Really the exact distances don't matter. As long as ranged attacks have a longer range than the farthest you can move and attack, the DM can choose the encounter distance that gives ranged fighters exactly the advantage or disadvantage they want. I don't strongly object to the idea of charging, but I don't think it's necessary and makes managing the battle map more difficult.
SInce this is in General, I won't bother with an explanation of my opinion with rules to back it, just my personal experiences. In the campaign I'm playing in I have two characters. One is a Battle Master and the other is a Grave cleric. My Fighter is the typical frontline Str/Dex/Con and my Cleric is Wis/Int/Con so, a bookworm caster. Yes, it sucks to have to spend actions charging. Yes, it sucks when targets have better mobility than you. It also sucks when strong melee attackers sit on you as a range unit. When you want to escape, it sucks when targets have better mobility than you. All in all, it seems to equal out. There are some fights where our party makeup has a distinct advantage because of range vs melee ratios, and sometimes not.
As far as suggestions go, I think all characters should consider having some competence in offense, defence and utility regardless of whatever their main purpose is. I prefer melee combat on my fighter but, I am decent with bows, some of my Battlemaster abilities work with range weapons. I have a couple magic items that can do AoE and hit at range, I generally use them on packs of chuckleheads that would gang me or another party member due to action economy. My Cleric is tough and can stand a few hits, I have melee spells that would encourage enemies to move away or die. I have Anti-life shell if I'm in trouble or if I just don't want to deal with you in my face. Works pretty well.
During one scenario, our group ran into a large force of enemy archers on a wall overlooking an entrance along a somewhat narrowed corridor. It was obviously a killzone. The enemy would pop up and take shots and hide behind full cover. I had my cleric and fighter stay targetable to draw fire while my allies coordinated readied actions to take out the archers. Before the archers realized that the AC I had was shutting down most of their damage, my group had taken them down(a few rounds).
Another fun fight was going through a horde of summoned constructs to get to the powerful caster. My cleric used Spirit Guardians melting enemies while my fighter guarded me like I was the QB, taking down anything that was still a threat near me. The caster even rolled a Cloudkill through us to try to stop our advance.
I don't see why time to close should be zero. Time to close should be 1 round, at least for some encounters.
Yes, it should be one round for some encounters. Melee damage in 5e is something like 15% higher than ranged weapon damage, so melee combatants should have to lose a single round (due to being unable to close) every seven rounds or so. As the average combat lasts more like three rounds, and it's possible to be unable to close at times other than the start of combat, the majority of combats should start off at zero time to close.
Could also grossly reduce ranged damage. In 3.5e and earlier you didn't add dexterity bonus to damage, so melee weapon damage was a lot higher than ranged weapon damage.
This is why instead of greataxe / greatsword being 1d12/2d6 I think it should be 3d4/2d8, and that stuff like Brutal Critical should use all dice, not just 1. Anything d10 can go up to 1d12/2d6, so make a Longsword at 2d4(2d6), and that makes room for stuff like an Arming Sword in at 1d10. Then leave every everything ranged, and everything melee d8 or lower just like it is it is to give a little extra to Str builds in terms of DPR.
I don't see why time to close should be zero. Time to close should be 1 round, at least for some encounters.
Yes, it should be one round for some encounters. Melee damage in 5e is something like 15% higher than ranged weapon damage, so melee combatants should have to lose a single round (due to being unable to close) every seven rounds or so. As the average combat lasts more like three rounds, and it's possible to be unable to close at times other than the start of combat, the majority of combats should start off at zero time to close.
Could also grossly reduce ranged damage. In 3.5e and earlier you didn't add dexterity bonus to damage, so melee weapon damage was a lot higher than ranged weapon damage.
This is why instead of greataxe / greatsword being 1d12/2d6 I think it should be 3d4/2d8, and that stuff like Brutal Critical should use all dice, not just 1. Anything d10 can go up to 1d12/2d6, so make a Longsword at 2d4(2d6), and that makes room for stuff like an Arming Sword in at 1d10. Then leave every everything ranged, and everything melee d8 or lower just like it is it is to give a little extra to Str builds in terms of DPR.
Honest question, do you really believe melee is underperforming vs ranged? In my experience the only part of combat where ranged truly excels is vs flying opponents IF the melee characters have no means of closing. Everything else seems pretty balanced, if not slightly in favour of melee over ranged. Don’t get me wrong, there are some excellent ranged combat builds possible - nothing that blows melee out the water though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Back in 3e, normal movement speed was 30' (same as current edition), but you could move up to 120' in a straight line by taking the Run action (which caused you to be flat-footed), or up to 60' while still making a melee attack (which gave a bonus to attack but a penalty to defense). This made it a lot more practical for melee combatants to close, which I've noticed being a major challenge in 5e. Should some variant of those be brought back? 120' in 6 seconds is 13.6 mph, which is hardly unreasonable for an adventurer.
Since Strength is an underpowered stat, I've been toying with the idea of letting high Strength characters have higher movement, and punishing low-Strength characters with slower movement. I haven't come up with a solution I consider satisfying yet, but my best so far does allow any sufficiently strong Rogue or Monk to go 120': convert racial walking speed to a modifier relative to 30 - so 25 is -5 and 35 is +5, for example - and then convert walking speed to 15 + 5*ceiling(Strength/5) + modifier. So Strength 6-10 is Speed 25 for most races, 11-15 is 30, and 16-20 is 35. 21-25 is 40, which is enough for 120 by Dashing twice and moving once.
Still a work in progress, but it seemed on-topic to share.
Back in 3e, normal movement speed was 30' (same as current edition), but you could move up to 120' in a straight line by taking the Run action (which caused you to be flat-footed), or up to 60' while still making a melee attack (which gave a bonus to attack but a penalty to defense). This made it a lot more practical for melee combatants to close, which I've noticed being a major challenge in 5e. Should some variant of those be brought back? 120' in 6 seconds is 13.6 mph, which is hardly unreasonable for an adventurer.
Since Strength is an underpowered stat, I've been toying with the idea of letting high Strength characters have higher movement, and punishing low-Strength characters with slower movement. I haven't come up with a solution I consider satisfying yet, but my best so far does allow any sufficiently strong Rogue or Monk to go 120': convert racial walking speed to a modifier relative to 30 - so 25 is -5 and 35 is +5, for example - and then convert walking speed to 15 + 5*ceiling(Strength/5) + modifier. So Strength 6-10 is Speed 25 for most races, 11-15 is 30, and 16-20 is 35. 21-25 is 40, which is enough for 120 by Dashing twice and moving once.
Still a work in progress, but it seemed on-topic to share.
I honestly like this, but I have this Tortle tank character that would be zipping around like nobody's business with this houserule. Any notions of armor having an impact on this?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
No and not in real life either. Unless you are charging your credit card for my lunch. :) Ok. There are enough classes which have increased movement. I have read only three adventures/modules where this much movement would been a factor to the success of the combat. And if you are not in combat, the movement rate does not really matter.
So, here are some other things that are missing that play into this as well:
- the full round attack. Anyone who wanted to hit more than once used to have to stand still. Technically they could move 5ft. A moving archer is a low damage archer.
- shooting a ranged attack provoked attacks of opportunity. So there was a lot of value in chasing down archers, even if it meant you couldn't attack on your turn.
I'm sure there's more. All of this combines to create a pretty tactically interesting, if cumbersome, system that justifies its having 5+ ways to go from point A to point B using your feet. (Five foot step, move, run, charge, full retreat, off the top of my head.)
And ultimately, I don't miss it. 5e combat puts the spotlight on more interesting and exciting things imo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Back in 3e, normal movement speed was 30' (same as current edition), but you could move up to 120' in a straight line by taking the Run action (which caused you to be flat-footed), or up to 60' while still making a melee attack (which gave a bonus to attack but a penalty to defense). This made it a lot more practical for melee combatants to close, which I've noticed being a major challenge in 5e. Should some variant of those be brought back? 120' in 6 seconds is 13.6 mph, which is hardly unreasonable for an adventurer.
Nope. 5e movement is fine imho.
I think about it in terms of a game, rather than in terms of a simulation.
I don't even use flanking, because I think it's too tactically fiddly for role playing game. This isn't a war game. The ability to tactically use a charge just isn't worth the extra rules complexity.
Also, the ability to move 60' and attack or 120' and be in melee range reduces the value of ranged fighters. After one round they're at disadvantage for ranged attacks and pinned down by opportunity attack. As a DM creating a battle map, you could compensate by just building a larger map. But my maps already get pretty huge. And areas 120' across in underground dungeons strain believability. I think the balance of the game between melee and ranged is just fine right now, with most melee fighters being able to cross the map and hit ranged fighters in two rounds, but not necessarily one.
There are some creatures with a charge ability, which players might have access to as wild shapes, polymorphs, and mounts. I think that's good enough if you want to introduce this mechanic, whereas most players can ignore it.
Dash is 60'. Run was 120'.
Yes, that's a feature. Given relative damage of ranged vs melee, and typical duration of encounters, 80-90% of combats should start at distances where time to close is zero. Reducing weapon and spell ranges dramatically would also solve the problem.
Yes, but in this edition, “running” is simulated with the dash action.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don't see why time to close should be zero. Time to close should be 1 round, at least for some encounters. Occasionally more. Otherwise ranged is no different from melee (unless you have an unreachable position on a wall or something). Everybody can attack anybody on their first turn. I realize it sucks to be a melee fighter and have a turn where you make no attacks, but if it's only for one round, it's tolerable to make combat tactically interesting. And there's a good chance you will be able to attack someone, just maybe not your first choice of target.
I think it would be a cool idea for a feat, lIke an update to the Charger feat since that sucks. But as a general rule, too fidly for The 5e Disign Philosophy …ilosophy, …osophy….
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, it should be one round for some encounters. Melee damage in 5e is something like 15% higher than ranged weapon damage, so melee combatants should have to lose a single round (due to being unable to close) every seven rounds or so. As the average combat lasts more like three rounds, and it's possible to be unable to close at times other than the start of combat, the majority of combats should start off at zero time to close.
Could also grossly reduce ranged damage. In 3.5e and earlier you didn't add dexterity bonus to damage, so melee weapon damage was a lot higher than ranged weapon damage.
It would really make it easier for people who try to build monks that break the sound barrier if you get to 4x your base speed.
I also like sposta’s idea about doing something with the charger feat to pull it off.
Being in melee also allows for tactical pressure and potentially opportunity attacks, so I'd say this math leaves out a few factors.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't fundamentally disagree that most combats should have a closing time of zero. But it's easy to make that happen with the current rules. Dungeons are replete with rooms smaller than 30'. Whereas my physical battle mat is only 25 spaces across on the longest dimension, and my VTT has to zoom out to a point where it's difficult to use to take in the whole battlefield on large maps. Let my ranged guys get a free shot at 60' and leave some space on my map for them to retreat into.
Slightly pedantic, but it's not taking out flanking. It's not putting in flanking. Flanking is an optional rule that isn't even mentioned in the PHB.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Right. Those ranged fighters are at disadvantage 2-3 out of 3 rounds of combat if the melee fighters close in one round, and they keep using ranged.
I don't really think it's necessary to strike an exact balance. If melee fighters and ranged fighters in the party aren't equally powerful, it doesn't matter, since you're on the same team. And if the DM wants to charge a bunch of high-CR melee monsters across a field while the weaker party spends 3 rounds wearing them down, that can be a pretty exciting fight.
Regardless, there should be some encounters that start within movement speed of melee range and some that don't. The current rules allow that to happen just fine. Really the exact distances don't matter. As long as ranged attacks have a longer range than the farthest you can move and attack, the DM can choose the encounter distance that gives ranged fighters exactly the advantage or disadvantage they want. I don't strongly object to the idea of charging, but I don't think it's necessary and makes managing the battle map more difficult.
SInce this is in General, I won't bother with an explanation of my opinion with rules to back it, just my personal experiences. In the campaign I'm playing in I have two characters. One is a Battle Master and the other is a Grave cleric. My Fighter is the typical frontline Str/Dex/Con and my Cleric is Wis/Int/Con so, a bookworm caster. Yes, it sucks to have to spend actions charging. Yes, it sucks when targets have better mobility than you. It also sucks when strong melee attackers sit on you as a range unit. When you want to escape, it sucks when targets have better mobility than you. All in all, it seems to equal out. There are some fights where our party makeup has a distinct advantage because of range vs melee ratios, and sometimes not.
As far as suggestions go, I think all characters should consider having some competence in offense, defence and utility regardless of whatever their main purpose is. I prefer melee combat on my fighter but, I am decent with bows, some of my Battlemaster abilities work with range weapons. I have a couple magic items that can do AoE and hit at range, I generally use them on packs of chuckleheads that would gang me or another party member due to action economy. My Cleric is tough and can stand a few hits, I have melee spells that would encourage enemies to move away or die. I have Anti-life shell if I'm in trouble or if I just don't want to deal with you in my face. Works pretty well.
During one scenario, our group ran into a large force of enemy archers on a wall overlooking an entrance along a somewhat narrowed corridor. It was obviously a killzone. The enemy would pop up and take shots and hide behind full cover. I had my cleric and fighter stay targetable to draw fire while my allies coordinated readied actions to take out the archers. Before the archers realized that the AC I had was shutting down most of their damage, my group had taken them down(a few rounds).
Another fun fight was going through a horde of summoned constructs to get to the powerful caster. My cleric used Spirit Guardians melting enemies while my fighter guarded me like I was the QB, taking down anything that was still a threat near me. The caster even rolled a Cloudkill through us to try to stop our advance.
TLDR: Don't be a one trick pony.
This is why instead of greataxe / greatsword being 1d12/2d6 I think it should be 3d4/2d8, and that stuff like Brutal Critical should use all dice, not just 1. Anything d10 can go up to 1d12/2d6, so make a Longsword at 2d4(2d6), and that makes room for stuff like an Arming Sword in at 1d10. Then leave every everything ranged, and everything melee d8 or lower just like it is it is to give a little extra to Str builds in terms of DPR.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Honest question, do you really believe melee is underperforming vs ranged? In my experience the only part of combat where ranged truly excels is vs flying opponents IF the melee characters have no means of closing. Everything else seems pretty balanced, if not slightly in favour of melee over ranged. Don’t get me wrong, there are some excellent ranged combat builds possible - nothing that blows melee out the water though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Since Strength is an underpowered stat, I've been toying with the idea of letting high Strength characters have higher movement, and punishing low-Strength characters with slower movement. I haven't come up with a solution I consider satisfying yet, but my best so far does allow any sufficiently strong Rogue or Monk to go 120': convert racial walking speed to a modifier relative to 30 - so 25 is -5 and 35 is +5, for example - and then convert walking speed to 15 + 5*ceiling(Strength/5) + modifier. So Strength 6-10 is Speed 25 for most races, 11-15 is 30, and 16-20 is 35. 21-25 is 40, which is enough for 120 by Dashing twice and moving once.
Still a work in progress, but it seemed on-topic to share.
I honestly like this, but I have this Tortle tank character that would be zipping around like nobody's business with this houserule. Any notions of armor having an impact on this?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
No and not in real life either. Unless you are charging your credit card for my lunch. :) Ok. There are enough classes which have increased movement. I have read only three adventures/modules where this much movement would been a factor to the success of the combat. And if you are not in combat, the movement rate does not really matter.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
So, here are some other things that are missing that play into this as well:
- the full round attack. Anyone who wanted to hit more than once used to have to stand still. Technically they could move 5ft. A moving archer is a low damage archer.
- shooting a ranged attack provoked attacks of opportunity. So there was a lot of value in chasing down archers, even if it meant you couldn't attack on your turn.
I'm sure there's more. All of this combines to create a pretty tactically interesting, if cumbersome, system that justifies its having 5+ ways to go from point A to point B using your feet. (Five foot step, move, run, charge, full retreat, off the top of my head.)
And ultimately, I don't miss it. 5e combat puts the spotlight on more interesting and exciting things imo.