TBH it's largely encounter design that is the issue here. If DM put enemies just standing in an open field waiting to be picked off by ranged character, then of course ranged characters will shine. However, it makes no sense for the enemies to do that. If you are being targeted exclusively by ranged opponent you should either duck behind full cover (e.g. a tree trunk, a boulder, a building) or lie prone.
Unless you have something like burrow movement, in an average situation it's not possible to close with ranged attackers without exposing yourself.
Which is why we will need to wait to see if enough was done to balance melee with ranged combat. Previously it either came close to equaling or beat melee combat even before the benefits of range came into play. Until the warrior UA comes out we wont know and until the mages and spell changes come out we wont know about the martial/caster divide.
In 5E, the highest damage is definitely with a hand crossbow, battlemaster fighter, sharpshooter and crossbow expert with archery fighting style. The Nova is just simply insane. Well at least the highest without some overly convoluted highly specialized multiclass that can once a day toss out 1K damage if the stars align and you manage to somehow get it to level 20, kinda build.
TBH it's largely encounter design that is the issue here. If DM put enemies just standing in an open field waiting to be picked off by ranged character, then of course ranged characters will shine. However, it makes no sense for the enemies to do that. If you are being targeted exclusively by ranged opponent you should either duck behind full cover (e.g. a tree trunk, a boulder, a building) or lie prone.
Unless you have something like burrow movement, in an average situation it's not possible to close with ranged attackers without exposing yourself.
Only if the encounter distance is long. How often is your DM making you start fights from 100’ away or even 50’ in an open field? And in that case, why don’t the enemies have bows as well?
TBH it's largely encounter design that is the issue here. If DM put enemies just standing in an open field waiting to be picked off by ranged character, then of course ranged characters will shine. However, it makes no sense for the enemies to do that. If you are being targeted exclusively by ranged opponent you should either duck behind full cover (e.g. a tree trunk, a boulder, a building) or lie prone.
Unless you have something like burrow movement, in an average situation it's not possible to close with ranged attackers without exposing yourself.
Only if the encounter distance is long. How often is your DM making you start fights from 100’ away or even 50’ in an open field? And in that case, why don’t the enemies have bows as well?
The player can back up, so every time they win initiative and its not a closed environment that doesn't allow movement.
Which is why we will need to wait to see if enough was done to balance melee with ranged combat. Previously it either came close to equaling or beat melee combat even before the benefits of range came into play. Until the warrior UA comes out we wont know and until the mages and spell changes come out we wont know about the martial/caster divide.
In 5E, the highest damage is definitely with a hand crossbow, battlemaster fighter, sharpshooter and crossbow expert with archery fighting style. The Nova is just simply insane. Well at least the highest without some overly convoluted highly specialized multiclass that can once a day toss out 1K damage if the stars align and you manage to somehow get it to level 20, kinda build.
Yup enough feats in and the hand crossbow reigned supreme, early game its closer to a tie depending on build. It might have to be really early game for variant humans etc as its only 2 feats in but other races add advantages that can't be duplicated by feats so its not so easy to say always go variant human.
Only if the encounter distance is long. How often is your DM making you start fights from 100’ away or even 50’ in an open field? And in that case, why don’t the enemies have bows as well?
50' is the length of a typical garden hose, it's a really short distance outdoors. And yes, PCs can kite.
TBH it's largely encounter design that is the issue here. If DM put enemies just standing in an open field waiting to be picked off by ranged character, then of course ranged characters will shine. However, it makes no sense for the enemies to do that. If you are being targeted exclusively by ranged opponent you should either duck behind full cover (e.g. a tree trunk, a boulder, a building) or lie prone.
Unless you have something like burrow movement, in an average situation it's not possible to close with ranged attackers without exposing yourself.
Why do the enemies want to close? Either the enemies are hunting the PCs in which case they should be ambushing the PCs not standing around in the middle of a field waiting to be killed. Or the enemies are there to do something themselves - guarding something, doing an evil ritual, have a camp where they have innocent prisoners - in which case the enemies should just hide and wait for the players to close with them.
Only if the encounter distance is long. How often is your DM making you start fights from 100’ away or even 50’ in an open field? And in that case, why don’t the enemies have bows as well?
It is fairly hard to justify a non-ambush encounter outdoors starting at less than 100'.
I would note that this is one of the (few) cases in D&D where more realism would actually make the game better -- reduce the accurate range of bows and other ranged attacks, increase the running speed of PCs.
It is fairly hard to justify a non-ambush encounter outdoors starting at less than 100'.
Actually, that's only true if the setting you're playing in consists of nothing but an empty, featureless plain.
In a realistically built world there's things like hills and forests and caves (that enemies can come out of into the outdoors) and a whole bunch of other things that add texture to the world and can easily justify the party not being aware of a group of hostiles (and vice versa) until they're closer than 100ft even without an ambush.
It is fairly hard to justify a non-ambush encounter outdoors starting at less than 100'.
Actually, that's only true if the setting you're playing in consists of nothing but an empty, featureless plain.
In a realistically built world there's things like hills and forests and caves (that enemies can come out of into the outdoors) and a whole bunch of other things that add texture to the world and can easily justify the party not being aware of a group of hostiles (and vice versa) until they're closer than 100ft even without an ambush.
Do you have any idea how short a distance 100' actually is? On an empty featureless plain detection distance is going to be a couple thousand feet, though other than very long range spells engagement distance will be less because you simply can't attack people that far away.
It is fairly hard to justify a non-ambush encounter outdoors starting at less than 100'.
Actually, that's only true if the setting you're playing in consists of nothing but an empty, featureless plain.
In a realistically built world there's things like hills and forests and caves (that enemies can come out of into the outdoors) and a whole bunch of other things that add texture to the world and can easily justify the party not being aware of a group of hostiles (and vice versa) until they're closer than 100ft even without an ambush.
Do you have any idea how short a distance 100' actually is? On an empty featureless plain detection distance is going to be a couple thousand feet, though other than very long range spells engagement distance will be less because you simply can't attack people that far away.
A person is nearly impossible to see at 1,000 ft, and it's very difficult to recognize someone from 250 ft. Sure in an empty featureless plain you might see a black dot or smudge at 1,000 ft away, but identifying that as a threat vs just an innocuous fauna? Probably no more than 500 ft.
Do you have any idea how short a distance 100' actually is?
I know roughly how short a distance it is in real life (But I'm European. I'm mentally converting to metric, so I don't know exactly how far it is, but I know it's about 30 meters)...
Which is both closer and farther than you'd think. It's the height of a 10 storey building. It's the distance at which people with 20/20 vision become unable to recognise facial expressions and the distance at which they begin to lose the ability to recognise faces at all. It's 5 meters more than the average pistol range (that is to say a range where you go to practice firing pistols, not the distance a pistol can fire). For those in the US, it's the same distance as the width of 11 parking spaces in the average parking lot. For Europeans it's closer to 15 parking spaces. Also, it's half the distance of visibility in a natural forest (not counting paths and clearings) outside of winter. In hilly terrain without heavy vegetation, it's a far enough distance that you might not be able to see what's there, with heavy vegetation, you're pretty much guaranteed not to be able to see that far.
But all that doesn't really matter, because in D&D it's a row of 20 5ft squares which is a respectable enough distance on the average battle map that it doesn't feel very close. 20 squares is certainly enough space to have terrain features that make the notion that the hostiles weren't visible earlier believable.
Plus, regular Darkvision only goes out to 60ft, as do the longest range non-directional light sources, both mundane and magical, so most night-time combat encounters are going to take place at 60ft max.
I'm not saying that every outdoor encounter should start at close ranges, but there are plenty of ways to explain not starting all of them at 100ft+ ranges. If ranged martials are overpowered in a campaign because the DM doesn't do that, that's a problem with the DM, not with the system.
It is fairly hard to justify a non-ambush encounter outdoors starting at less than 100'.
Actually, that's only true if the setting you're playing in consists of nothing but an empty, featureless plain.
In a realistically built world there's things like hills and forests and caves (that enemies can come out of into the outdoors) and a whole bunch of other things that add texture to the world and can easily justify the party not being aware of a group of hostiles (and vice versa) until they're closer than 100ft even without an ambush.
Sure that is what hide checks are for, but if a player has a high perception as something they built into and almost every party has at least one character like that saying hey you didn't spot these dudes who weren't actively hiding until you were atop of them because there was light foliage is going to be a hard sell.
It is fairly hard to justify a non-ambush encounter outdoors starting at less than 100'.
Actually, that's only true if the setting you're playing in consists of nothing but an empty, featureless plain.
In a realistically built world there's things like hills and forests and caves (that enemies can come out of into the outdoors) and a whole bunch of other things that add texture to the world and can easily justify the party not being aware of a group of hostiles (and vice versa) until they're closer than 100ft even without an ambush.
Sure that is what hide checks are for, but if a player has a high perception as something they built into and almost every party has at least one character like that saying hey you didn't spot these dudes who weren't actively hiding until you were atop of them because there was light foliage is going to be a hard sell.
And again players can kite.
What is the context here though? People don't just stand in a field doing nothing. Why would the party instantly attack some people standing in a field?
If my party was walking through a field and they make a high perception check and I tell them: "You see a group of 8 figures in the distance, about 500 ft away, they look humanoid, and are wearing typical travelling clothes. They are standing together in a group, and are standing in the open on top of a hill. But you can't make out much else at this distance." And their immediate response was : "I take out my bow and shoot them." I'd be very much WTF??? in my head....
There is a very big difference between being able to see that someone exists, and being able to tell if someone is a threat.
A person is nearly impossible to see at 1,000 ft, and it's very difficult to recognize someone from 250 ft. Sure in an empty featureless plain you might see a black dot or smudge at 1,000 ft away, but identifying that as a threat vs just an innocuous fauna? Probably no more than 500 ft.
Using a camera to make a point about human vision is -- kinda dishonest. Eyes aren't cameras. At a thousand feet it's fairly easy to identify a moving person as a person, though you won't know who they are unless they have a quite distinctive gait.
A person is nearly impossible to see at 1,000 ft, and it's very difficult to recognize someone from 250 ft. Sure in an empty featureless plain you might see a black dot or smudge at 1,000 ft away, but identifying that as a threat vs just an innocuous fauna? Probably no more than 500 ft.
Using a camera to make a point about human vision is -- kinda dishonest. Eyes aren't cameras. At a thousand feet it's fairly easy to identify a moving person as a person, though you won't know who they are unless they have a quite distinctive gait.
I must have missed this one originally, but yes. A normal person normally loses the ability to do facial recognition at about 150 foot away, however PCs are not normal people and they aren't even all human. You'd think a race like Aarakocra could see well over a mile given what they are. At 250 foot away, just over 75 meters away, you could tell if somebody were wearing say different colours on a surcoat still or in generally shift attire. 1,000 foot definitely a lot harder, just over 300 meters, but not impossible, a distance at which it might be fair to say that without a special feat or item like a spyglass then no.
An American football pitch is around 360 foot long, it is not impossible to read the numbers on people's jumpers at the other side of the pitch, difficult sure but not impossible but given the average Human NPC has a wisdom (and thus perception) of 10 (+0). Any character with 12+ wisdom should be able to see further than normal.
I would note that the threshold for "sorry, melee characters can't attack during turn 1" is only around 25' in difficult terrain, and outdoor terrain with short sight lines is pretty much always difficult terrain.
A person is nearly impossible to see at 1,000 ft, and it's very difficult to recognize someone from 250 ft. Sure in an empty featureless plain you might see a black dot or smudge at 1,000 ft away, but identifying that as a threat vs just an innocuous fauna? Probably no more than 500 ft.
Using a camera to make a point about human vision is -- kinda dishonest. Eyes aren't cameras. At a thousand feet it's fairly easy to identify a moving person as a person, though you won't know who they are unless they have a quite distinctive gait.
I must have missed this one originally, but yes. A normal person normally loses the ability to do facial recognition at about 150 foot away, however PCs are not normal people and they aren't even all human. You'd think a race like Aarakocra could see well over a mile given what they are. At 250 foot away, just over 75 meters away, you could tell if somebody were wearing say different colours on a surcoat still or in generally shift attire. 1,000 foot definitely a lot harder, just over 300 meters, but not impossible, a distance at which it might be fair to say that without a special feat or item like a spyglass then no.
An American football pitch is around 360 foot long, it is not impossible to read the numbers on people's jumpers at the other side of the pitch, difficult sure but not impossible but given the average Human NPC has a wisdom (and thus perception) of 10 (+0). Any character with 12+ wisdom should be able to see further than normal.
Considering the sports jerseys are deliberately designed to be read from a long distance I don't see how this really rebukes my argument. I mean just look at all the news stories about police mistaking mundane objects for guns at distances of far less that 100 ft. Do you really think an adventurer can tell the difference between some forest rangers or firaging peasants and a group of bandits from 300 ft?
Considering the sports jerseys are deliberately designed to be read from a long distance I don't see how this really rebukes my argument. I mean just look at all the news stories about police mistaking mundane objects for guns at distances of far less that 100 ft. Do you really think an adventurer can tell the difference between some forest rangers or firaging peasants and a group of bandits from 300 ft?
You will easily be able to say "Group of potential hostiles" at a distance of 300 ft. In any case, this seems to be arguing about a tangent, since my original point had to do with distances of less than 100 ft.
Only if the encounter distance is long. How often is your DM making you start fights from 100’ away or even 50’ in an open field? And in that case, why don’t the enemies have bows as well?
It is fairly hard to justify a non-ambush encounter outdoors starting at less than 100'.
I would note that this is one of the (few) cases in D&D where more realism would actually make the game better -- reduce the accurate range of bows and other ranged attacks, increase the running speed of PCs.
You're not answering the question.
How often is this actually happening? How many times are you playing and the ranged characters down all the enemies before the melee characters can engage?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Unless you have something like burrow movement, in an average situation it's not possible to close with ranged attackers without exposing yourself.
In 5E, the highest damage is definitely with a hand crossbow, battlemaster fighter, sharpshooter and crossbow expert with archery fighting style. The Nova is just simply insane. Well at least the highest without some overly convoluted highly specialized multiclass that can once a day toss out 1K damage if the stars align and you manage to somehow get it to level 20, kinda build.
Only if the encounter distance is long. How often is your DM making you start fights from 100’ away or even 50’ in an open field? And in that case, why don’t the enemies have bows as well?
The player can back up, so every time they win initiative and its not a closed environment that doesn't allow movement.
Yup enough feats in and the hand crossbow reigned supreme, early game its closer to a tie depending on build. It might have to be really early game for variant humans etc as its only 2 feats in but other races add advantages that can't be duplicated by feats so its not so easy to say always go variant human.
50' is the length of a typical garden hose, it's a really short distance outdoors. And yes, PCs can kite.
Why do the enemies want to close? Either the enemies are hunting the PCs in which case they should be ambushing the PCs not standing around in the middle of a field waiting to be killed. Or the enemies are there to do something themselves - guarding something, doing an evil ritual, have a camp where they have innocent prisoners - in which case the enemies should just hide and wait for the players to close with them.
It is fairly hard to justify a non-ambush encounter outdoors starting at less than 100'.
I would note that this is one of the (few) cases in D&D where more realism would actually make the game better -- reduce the accurate range of bows and other ranged attacks, increase the running speed of PCs.
Actually, that's only true if the setting you're playing in consists of nothing but an empty, featureless plain.
In a realistically built world there's things like hills and forests and caves (that enemies can come out of into the outdoors) and a whole bunch of other things that add texture to the world and can easily justify the party not being aware of a group of hostiles (and vice versa) until they're closer than 100ft even without an ambush.
Do you have any idea how short a distance 100' actually is? On an empty featureless plain detection distance is going to be a couple thousand feet, though other than very long range spells engagement distance will be less because you simply can't attack people that far away.
A person is nearly impossible to see at 1,000 ft, and it's very difficult to recognize someone from 250 ft. Sure in an empty featureless plain you might see a black dot or smudge at 1,000 ft away, but identifying that as a threat vs just an innocuous fauna? Probably no more than 500 ft.
See: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/zones/thousand_feet.html
I know roughly how short a distance it is in real life (But I'm European. I'm mentally converting to metric, so I don't know exactly how far it is, but I know it's about 30 meters)...
Which is both closer and farther than you'd think. It's the height of a 10 storey building. It's the distance at which people with 20/20 vision become unable to recognise facial expressions and the distance at which they begin to lose the ability to recognise faces at all. It's 5 meters more than the average pistol range (that is to say a range where you go to practice firing pistols, not the distance a pistol can fire). For those in the US, it's the same distance as the width of 11 parking spaces in the average parking lot. For Europeans it's closer to 15 parking spaces. Also, it's half the distance of visibility in a natural forest (not counting paths and clearings) outside of winter. In hilly terrain without heavy vegetation, it's a far enough distance that you might not be able to see what's there, with heavy vegetation, you're pretty much guaranteed not to be able to see that far.
But all that doesn't really matter, because in D&D it's a row of 20 5ft squares which is a respectable enough distance on the average battle map that it doesn't feel very close. 20 squares is certainly enough space to have terrain features that make the notion that the hostiles weren't visible earlier believable.
Plus, regular Darkvision only goes out to 60ft, as do the longest range non-directional light sources, both mundane and magical, so most night-time combat encounters are going to take place at 60ft max.
I'm not saying that every outdoor encounter should start at close ranges, but there are plenty of ways to explain not starting all of them at 100ft+ ranges. If ranged martials are overpowered in a campaign because the DM doesn't do that, that's a problem with the DM, not with the system.
Sure that is what hide checks are for, but if a player has a high perception as something they built into and almost every party has at least one character like that saying hey you didn't spot these dudes who weren't actively hiding until you were atop of them because there was light foliage is going to be a hard sell.
And again players can kite.
What is the context here though? People don't just stand in a field doing nothing. Why would the party instantly attack some people standing in a field?
If my party was walking through a field and they make a high perception check and I tell them:
"You see a group of 8 figures in the distance, about 500 ft away, they look humanoid, and are wearing typical travelling clothes. They are standing together in a group, and are standing in the open on top of a hill. But you can't make out much else at this distance."
And their immediate response was : "I take out my bow and shoot them."
I'd be very much WTF??? in my head....
There is a very big difference between being able to see that someone exists, and being able to tell if someone is a threat.
Using a camera to make a point about human vision is -- kinda dishonest. Eyes aren't cameras. At a thousand feet it's fairly easy to identify a moving person as a person, though you won't know who they are unless they have a quite distinctive gait.
I must have missed this one originally, but yes. A normal person normally loses the ability to do facial recognition at about 150 foot away, however PCs are not normal people and they aren't even all human. You'd think a race like Aarakocra could see well over a mile given what they are. At 250 foot away, just over 75 meters away, you could tell if somebody were wearing say different colours on a surcoat still or in generally shift attire. 1,000 foot definitely a lot harder, just over 300 meters, but not impossible, a distance at which it might be fair to say that without a special feat or item like a spyglass then no.
An American football pitch is around 360 foot long, it is not impossible to read the numbers on people's jumpers at the other side of the pitch, difficult sure but not impossible but given the average Human NPC has a wisdom (and thus perception) of 10 (+0). Any character with 12+ wisdom should be able to see further than normal.
I would note that the threshold for "sorry, melee characters can't attack during turn 1" is only around 25' in difficult terrain, and outdoor terrain with short sight lines is pretty much always difficult terrain.
Considering the sports jerseys are deliberately designed to be read from a long distance I don't see how this really rebukes my argument. I mean just look at all the news stories about police mistaking mundane objects for guns at distances of far less that 100 ft. Do you really think an adventurer can tell the difference between some forest rangers or firaging peasants and a group of bandits from 300 ft?
You will easily be able to say "Group of potential hostiles" at a distance of 300 ft. In any case, this seems to be arguing about a tangent, since my original point had to do with distances of less than 100 ft.
You're not answering the question.
How often is this actually happening? How many times are you playing and the ranged characters down all the enemies before the melee characters can engage?