Generally, a point blank shot is considered an easy one to make, not more difficult, but D&D's rules say the opposite. It feels weird. From a story perspective, having an archer fighting a swordsman with a bow at melee range feels awkward, and the current rule does try to solve that, but the solution seems weird. From a simulationist viewpoint, I've seen it explained as a shooter's aim being thrown off due to the difficulty of defending themselves while trying to take aim... but if it's about defending being difficult, then it seems like the shot should be normal difficulty, and the melee attacker(s) should get advantage. So it still doesn't make a lot of sense.
Is there anything I'm overlooking from a purely mathematical game perspective? Obviously a mobbed archer is in much more trouble, if you were to flip the disadvantage for point blank ranged attacks into an advantage for melee attackers, but that makes sense to me. For the budding Legolas, swapping the benefit of the Point Blank feat to eliminate that defensive penalty would make the character building mechanics work more or less the same. Is there any other mechanical issue I might be overlooking? Why does the RAW make more sense than its opposite?
Well, unless you've caught your opponent by surprise, they're trying to defend themself. Defending against a bow usually means getting out of the way, but when you're within reach, you can also slap the archer's arm to the side anytime they try to draw the bow.
The rules for Ranged Attacks in Close Combat only say a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you without providing further justification.
Ranged Attacks in Close Combat
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack roll with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have Disadvantage on the roll if you are within 5 feet of an enemy who can see you and doesn’t have the Incapacitated condition (see the Rules Glossary).
A different way to do it (that they surely considered and didn't adopt, for balance reasons) is to have ranged attacks within melee trigger opportunity attacks.
Also it can be harder to effectively track a target that's close to you; while the turn-based nature of D&D means enemies seem to be standing in place on a map, theoretically characters are still in motion throughout combat and so would keep moving out of your line of fire.
You can think of it in similar fashion to how an ally can Help assist an attack roll. An enemy momentarily distract you when you make a ranged attack roll regardless if it's the target of such attack or not even in the trajectory being opposite side for example, as long as its close while it can see and act. It could be interfering via movement or sound for example, as you don't even need to see it for it can be Invisible and still impose Disadvantage on the roll.
Sure, they move, but they keep getting bigger and bigger as targets. On a hex map maybe it looks like they suddenly move from directly in front of you to three feet to your left, but in reality, they're filling up the middle third of your field of view and moving to the left third of your field of view. They're still a far easier target to hit and all you have to do is turn a few degrees. That's way easier than trying to fractionally adjust for their predicted position at fifty feet away, taking into account that they're still moving erratically while your arrow takes time to cross the intervening distance.
Meanwhile, you're casually parrying their axe with sliver of wood bound by string?
Defending against a bow usually means getting out of the way, but when you're within reach, you can also slap the archer's arm to the side anytime they try to draw the bow.
But swords are in that same situation, where they can be batted to the side whenever their opponent is within reach, and yet we don't give disadvantage to swords attacking in melee.
Conversely, a ranged attacker does try to steady themselves and aim their shot, so they're less agile, and ranged weapons are typically not great for parrying with.
But all of that is, again, the simulationist explanation, which I've already considered and I think is a losing argument for the chosen approach. I'm looking for a gameplay explanation... why does the math work? Or does it just not?
Why does the math work is from the foe interfering with you aiming, hence why it rely on it being within 5 feet while it can see you and doesn’t have the Incapacitated condition. Its not just ranged attack with a weapon, but spell and any other means.
On the other hand, melee attack made with a reach farther than normal don't have such penalty when a foe is close. So it could feel a little arbitrary limit against ranged attack vs melee to balance the fact that they can otherwise safely attack from distance.
Past editions had ranged attacks with a weapon provoke Opportunity Attack or not get ability modifier to damage roll but 5E made away with this but still has Ranged Attacks in Close Combat affected.
Narratively the edge melee attacks have is that especially with long weapons you'd be sweeping the weapon through the space, so you don't run into the same issues of tracking the target or being jostled at the wrong moment you have lining up a shot.
I've always interpreted it as it being REALLY hard to draw and aim a bow while sometimes trying to whack you and your bow with a sword. Drawing a bow takes time. During that time, any reasonably combatant is going to try to push the bow to screw up your aim.
Narratively the edge melee attacks have is that especially with long weapons you'd be sweeping the weapon through the space, so you don't run into the same issues of tracking the target or being jostled at the wrong moment you have lining up a shot.
Sure, but this isn't just the rule for edged weapons, and so again, you have the same problem with a rapier. It's a tiny point that has to be held outwards and thrust forward into an opponent. Same with a spear, it's just a bit longer and sturdier.
Contrast that to a magic wand as a spell focus for Chill Touch. The wand wielder just needs to point and say a word, he can do it from the full five feet away, or from up close, doesn't have to lunge in, like a rapier-wielder does, but otherwise it's the same... aim the pointy bit at the other guy. So why doesn't the rapier wielder, who has the added burden of physically closing the distance, have disadvantage? Plus, he's got a longer profile, meaning there's a bigger area of his profile that can be jostled to throw off his thrust.
And that's with a long pointy thing. Say you've got a stiletto. Now (other than the magic word) you've not only got to do the exact same thing the wand-wielder does, but you've got to get way, WAY closer to your opponent to do it.
This is why I think the simulationist argument for the disadvantage on attack just feels like a loser to me. It doesn't add up. If it did, you'd have modern day cops charging gun-wielding bank robbers with their billyclubs... but a pistol is every bit as deadly point-blank, and being closer to it makes you a bigger target.
Story-wise, though, you don't have sword and sorcery if the sword is a largely ineffective choice.
Gameplay-wise, if you want swords to be viable, they need a utility beyond what you get with a bow. Or a wand.
Back to your simulationist approach, it seems to me that one advantage of a swinging around a melee weapon is that it's far more effective to defend yourself with a metal bar or giant stick than it is with a smaller stick. Swinging a larger object in a big arc forces opponents to stand clear or interpose a defense, and thus the act of swinging (or thrusting) a large object provides both attack and defense in a way that pointing forward a wand, bow, or Glock just doesn't. Even with a stiletto, where the concept is admittedly weakest, an attacker has to be careful not to impale themselves upon it, whereas they're very unlikely to accidentally trigger the defender's wand.
Those factors weighed, it still makes more logical sense to me to give melee attackers advantage against ranged, rather than ranged attackers disadvantage.
But I'm not a math guy. I'd love to hear from some of the number crunchers on this. Does it just alter strategy a bit, or would it have some further unbalancing consequence?
A different way to do it (that they surely considered and didn't adopt, for balance reasons) is to have ranged attacks within melee trigger opportunity attacks.
This was the way it was in 3.x so it is more accurate to say that they deliberately changed it to the current implementation. Lots of things provoked attacks of opportunities without feats or class features in 3.x, including movement, casting, making range attacks, making unarmed strikes, and lighting a torch. There was a table for what did and didn't provoke one.
Narratively the edge melee attacks have is that especially with long weapons you'd be sweeping the weapon through the space, so you don't run into the same issues of tracking the target or being jostled at the wrong moment you have lining up a shot.
Sure, but this isn't just the rule for edged weapons, and so again, you have the same problem with a rapier. It's a tiny point that has to be held outwards and thrust forward into an opponent. Same with a spear, it's just a bit longer and sturdier.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: having a bunch of special mechanics for different weapons is one of those crunchy bits they wanted to move away from in 5e. Ergo, piercing weapons don't have their own subset of rules for targeting because that would likely just make them strictly worse than the alternatives and never be used. Additionally, you retain control of the trajectory mid-motion with a melee weapon, allowing you to compensate for last second movements. And if you're getting simulationist, anything people would actually use for combat would have a cutting edge as well, even if the ideal strike is a thrust.
The above POV is the biggest issue. This game is nowhere near a simulation. The math will break down constantly if you try to apply a simulationist POV. Two weapon fighting and multiple attacks also can throw that POV out of whack.
I think it has less to do with any kind of attempt at simulation and more with game balance. If you can use a ranged weapon freely in melee, then what’s the point of a melee weapon? Just get good at your longbow or heavy xbow and only use that no matter where the enemy is. Yes, you can do that if you invest in a feat, but that’s a big investment, as feats are quite limited.
Also, fwiw, I think removing the OA was to speed up play. Fewer rolls off turn.
The above POV is the biggest issue. This game is nowhere near a simulation. The math will break down constantly if you try to apply a simulationist POV. Two weapon fighting and multiple attacks also can throw that POV out of whack.
**Edited -- with apologies, since apparently my metaphor was used elsewhere, so I'm substituting the word Oblets to satiate the grognards.**
D&D's design is founded upon three thematic oblets -- storytelling, gameplay, and simulation. Any time you're considering the rules, you have to consider how alterations change each of these oblets. If you neglect storytelling, the rule makes no narrative sense, even if it's realistic or makes the dice rolling more sensible. If you neglect Gameplay, it becomes clunky or totally unbalanced, and it makes the game less fun, even if it fits the story or provides realism. If you neglect simulation, then you lose suspension of disbelief, and it all just feels arbitrary, even if it suits the story and works mechanically.
D&D works because it balances all three considerations. Other games will lean more heavily into one or another, but they're not D&D. Which is fine, other games don't need to be D&D... but D&D absolutely does need to be D&D.
So any new or altered rule needs to be analyzed from all three oblets. Story-wise, you want swords and sorcery, so the sword needs to be useful, and the current rule helps solidify that. Gameplay-wise, I will trust to playtesters that mechanically the current rule works. But in terms of suspension of disbelief, it feels clunky to me. It feels backwards.
My proposal still gives melee a counterbalance to range, which meets the requirement of the Storytelling pillar. Simulation-wise, it makes much more logical sense to penalize defense than attack (which is probably why the earlier editions penalized defense by granting an Attack of Opportunity), so that meets the requirement of the Simulationist pillar. That leaves Gameplay.
The Barbarian's Reckless Attack provides a similar penalty, so it doesn't seem like granting melee attackers advantage against ranged opponents is an unworkable solution. But there are a lot of rules, and altering that setup might trigger unforeseen consequences... so I'm hoping people will suggest potential unforeseen consequences so that I can either address those, or abandon the idea.
three thematic pillars -- storytelling, gameplay, and simulation.
Are you sure about that? Do we have a different definition of "simulation"? like I said, there are a lot of combat rules that will not pass a simulation test.
A question for those more versed in the math...
Generally, a point blank shot is considered an easy one to make, not more difficult, but D&D's rules say the opposite. It feels weird. From a story perspective, having an archer fighting a swordsman with a bow at melee range feels awkward, and the current rule does try to solve that, but the solution seems weird. From a simulationist viewpoint, I've seen it explained as a shooter's aim being thrown off due to the difficulty of defending themselves while trying to take aim... but if it's about defending being difficult, then it seems like the shot should be normal difficulty, and the melee attacker(s) should get advantage. So it still doesn't make a lot of sense.
Is there anything I'm overlooking from a purely mathematical game perspective? Obviously a mobbed archer is in much more trouble, if you were to flip the disadvantage for point blank ranged attacks into an advantage for melee attackers, but that makes sense to me. For the budding Legolas, swapping the benefit of the Point Blank feat to eliminate that defensive penalty would make the character building mechanics work more or less the same. Is there any other mechanical issue I might be overlooking? Why does the RAW make more sense than its opposite?
Well, unless you've caught your opponent by surprise, they're trying to defend themself. Defending against a bow usually means getting out of the way, but when you're within reach, you can also slap the archer's arm to the side anytime they try to draw the bow.
The rules for Ranged Attacks in Close Combat only say a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you without providing further justification.
A different way to do it (that they surely considered and didn't adopt, for balance reasons) is to have ranged attacks within melee trigger opportunity attacks.
Also it can be harder to effectively track a target that's close to you; while the turn-based nature of D&D means enemies seem to be standing in place on a map, theoretically characters are still in motion throughout combat and so would keep moving out of your line of fire.
You can think of it in similar fashion to how an ally can Help assist an attack roll. An enemy momentarily distract you when you make a ranged attack roll regardless if it's the target of such attack or not even in the trajectory being opposite side for example, as long as its close while it can see and act. It could be interfering via movement or sound for example, as you don't even need to see it for it can be Invisible and still impose Disadvantage on the roll.
Sure, they move, but they keep getting bigger and bigger as targets. On a hex map maybe it looks like they suddenly move from directly in front of you to three feet to your left, but in reality, they're filling up the middle third of your field of view and moving to the left third of your field of view. They're still a far easier target to hit and all you have to do is turn a few degrees. That's way easier than trying to fractionally adjust for their predicted position at fifty feet away, taking into account that they're still moving erratically while your arrow takes time to cross the intervening distance.
Meanwhile, you're casually parrying their axe with sliver of wood bound by string?
But swords are in that same situation, where they can be batted to the side whenever their opponent is within reach, and yet we don't give disadvantage to swords attacking in melee.
Conversely, a ranged attacker does try to steady themselves and aim their shot, so they're less agile, and ranged weapons are typically not great for parrying with.
But all of that is, again, the simulationist explanation, which I've already considered and I think is a losing argument for the chosen approach. I'm looking for a gameplay explanation... why does the math work? Or does it just not?
Why does the math work is from the foe interfering with you aiming, hence why it rely on it being within 5 feet while it can see you and doesn’t have the Incapacitated condition. Its not just ranged attack with a weapon, but spell and any other means.
On the other hand, melee attack made with a reach farther than normal don't have such penalty when a foe is close. So it could feel a little arbitrary limit against ranged attack vs melee to balance the fact that they can otherwise safely attack from distance.
Past editions had ranged attacks with a weapon provoke Opportunity Attack or not get ability modifier to damage roll but 5E made away with this but still has Ranged Attacks in Close Combat affected.
Narratively the edge melee attacks have is that especially with long weapons you'd be sweeping the weapon through the space, so you don't run into the same issues of tracking the target or being jostled at the wrong moment you have lining up a shot.
I've always interpreted it as it being REALLY hard to draw and aim a bow while sometimes trying to whack you and your bow with a sword. Drawing a bow takes time. During that time, any reasonably combatant is going to try to push the bow to screw up your aim.
Sure, but this isn't just the rule for edged weapons, and so again, you have the same problem with a rapier. It's a tiny point that has to be held outwards and thrust forward into an opponent. Same with a spear, it's just a bit longer and sturdier.
Contrast that to a magic wand as a spell focus for Chill Touch. The wand wielder just needs to point and say a word, he can do it from the full five feet away, or from up close, doesn't have to lunge in, like a rapier-wielder does, but otherwise it's the same... aim the pointy bit at the other guy. So why doesn't the rapier wielder, who has the added burden of physically closing the distance, have disadvantage? Plus, he's got a longer profile, meaning there's a bigger area of his profile that can be jostled to throw off his thrust.
And that's with a long pointy thing. Say you've got a stiletto. Now (other than the magic word) you've not only got to do the exact same thing the wand-wielder does, but you've got to get way, WAY closer to your opponent to do it.
This is why I think the simulationist argument for the disadvantage on attack just feels like a loser to me. It doesn't add up. If it did, you'd have modern day cops charging gun-wielding bank robbers with their billyclubs... but a pistol is every bit as deadly point-blank, and being closer to it makes you a bigger target.
Story-wise, though, you don't have sword and sorcery if the sword is a largely ineffective choice.
Gameplay-wise, if you want swords to be viable, they need a utility beyond what you get with a bow. Or a wand.
Back to your simulationist approach, it seems to me that one advantage of a swinging around a melee weapon is that it's far more effective to defend yourself with a metal bar or giant stick than it is with a smaller stick. Swinging a larger object in a big arc forces opponents to stand clear or interpose a defense, and thus the act of swinging (or thrusting) a large object provides both attack and defense in a way that pointing forward a wand, bow, or Glock just doesn't. Even with a stiletto, where the concept is admittedly weakest, an attacker has to be careful not to impale themselves upon it, whereas they're very unlikely to accidentally trigger the defender's wand.
Those factors weighed, it still makes more logical sense to me to give melee attackers advantage against ranged, rather than ranged attackers disadvantage.
But I'm not a math guy. I'd love to hear from some of the number crunchers on this. Does it just alter strategy a bit, or would it have some further unbalancing consequence?
This was the way it was in 3.x so it is more accurate to say that they deliberately changed it to the current implementation. Lots of things provoked attacks of opportunities without feats or class features in 3.x, including movement, casting, making range attacks, making unarmed strikes, and lighting a torch. There was a table for what did and didn't provoke one.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: having a bunch of special mechanics for different weapons is one of those crunchy bits they wanted to move away from in 5e. Ergo, piercing weapons don't have their own subset of rules for targeting because that would likely just make them strictly worse than the alternatives and never be used. Additionally, you retain control of the trajectory mid-motion with a melee weapon, allowing you to compensate for last second movements. And if you're getting simulationist, anything people would actually use for combat would have a cutting edge as well, even if the ideal strike is a thrust.
The above POV is the biggest issue. This game is nowhere near a simulation. The math will break down constantly if you try to apply a simulationist POV. Two weapon fighting and multiple attacks also can throw that POV out of whack.
I think it has less to do with any kind of attempt at simulation and more with game balance. If you can use a ranged weapon freely in melee, then what’s the point of a melee weapon? Just get good at your longbow or heavy xbow and only use that no matter where the enemy is. Yes, you can do that if you invest in a feat, but that’s a big investment, as feats are quite limited.
Also, fwiw, I think removing the OA was to speed up play. Fewer rolls off turn.
**Edited -- with apologies, since apparently my metaphor was used elsewhere, so I'm substituting the word Oblets to satiate the grognards.**
D&D's design is founded upon three thematic oblets -- storytelling, gameplay, and simulation. Any time you're considering the rules, you have to consider how alterations change each of these oblets. If you neglect storytelling, the rule makes no narrative sense, even if it's realistic or makes the dice rolling more sensible. If you neglect Gameplay, it becomes clunky or totally unbalanced, and it makes the game less fun, even if it fits the story or provides realism. If you neglect simulation, then you lose suspension of disbelief, and it all just feels arbitrary, even if it suits the story and works mechanically.
D&D works because it balances all three considerations. Other games will lean more heavily into one or another, but they're not D&D. Which is fine, other games don't need to be D&D... but D&D absolutely does need to be D&D.
So any new or altered rule needs to be analyzed from all three oblets. Story-wise, you want swords and sorcery, so the sword needs to be useful, and the current rule helps solidify that. Gameplay-wise, I will trust to playtesters that mechanically the current rule works. But in terms of suspension of disbelief, it feels clunky to me. It feels backwards.
My proposal still gives melee a counterbalance to range, which meets the requirement of the Storytelling pillar. Simulation-wise, it makes much more logical sense to penalize defense than attack (which is probably why the earlier editions penalized defense by granting an Attack of Opportunity), so that meets the requirement of the Simulationist pillar. That leaves Gameplay.
The Barbarian's Reckless Attack provides a similar penalty, so it doesn't seem like granting melee attackers advantage against ranged opponents is an unworkable solution. But there are a lot of rules, and altering that setup might trigger unforeseen consequences... so I'm hoping people will suggest potential unforeseen consequences so that I can either address those, or abandon the idea.
Are you sure about that? Do we have a different definition of "simulation"? like I said, there are a lot of combat rules that will not pass a simulation test.
The three main pillars of D&D play are social interaction, exploration, and combat.