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.
Or they approach cautiously and keep them at a distance until they figure out if they are a threat. Things like find familiar making it pretty easy.
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?
Completely wiped out now is the goal post. That probably rarely happens as a melee character will be charging ahead. Though with a team built for it, it gets pretty easy though boring. But do enough before the they engage that they easily outshine the melee people, very often. 50+ feet in outdoor settings is the norm imo, do the enemies have bows sure, but they are usually not as dangerous at range as in melee so its still a bit win for the party.
The threshold for "melee characters feel ineffective" is "no effective attacks during round 1 (of a 3 round combat)". That doesn't require a terribly long starting range, typically anything 35' or further.
If thrown weapons were less cruddy (say, make returning weapon a standard feature of magic weapons) the range would increase to around 60'. Same for actions like charge. A 60' starting range still isn't very far, but it does at least cover most dungeon encounters.
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?
Completely wiped out now is the goal post. That probably rarely happens as a melee character will be charging ahead. Though with a team built for it, it gets pretty easy though boring. But do enough before the they engage that they easily outshine the melee people, very often. 50+ feet in outdoor settings is the norm imo, do the enemies have bows sure, but they are usually not as dangerous at range as in melee so its still a bit win for the party.
I hadn't intended to make that the goal post, but you are correct that is what I wrote. My mistake. Thank you for pointing it out. Let me try and move them back in.
But, I'm still at the heart of the question. How often does it happen in your games? Have you played, or played with, melee characters who run into this problem? I'm sure it will come up sometimes, no question. What I'm getting at is, how often is it happening? Because as I've said, I personally play almost exclusively melee characters (in the length of 5e, I've had one who wasn't), and it's not been an issue for me.
The threshold for "melee characters feel ineffective" is "no effective attacks during round 1 (of a 3 round combat)". That doesn't require a terribly long starting range, typically anything 35' or further.
If thrown weapons were less cruddy (say, make returning weapon a standard feature of magic weapons) the range would increase to around 60'. Same for actions like charge. A 60' starting range still isn't very far, but it does at least cover most dungeon encounters.
Again, you appear to play in very different styles of campaigns than the rest of us. For one, melee characters typically have some ranged attacks that they can use when they are charging at an opponent. Secondly, you apparently have a number of your encounters in open fields with zero terrain, where the enemies just spend a round or two charging at the characters and waving melee weapons.
This is poor encounter design, because terrain and other obstacles are necessary for making things interesting. Additionally, the typical adventuring space is a dungeon, which is incredibly unfriendly to ranged characters. Thirdly, when the monsters meet the party and are traversing open and dangerous fields, it seems nonsensical that they would refuse to equip themselves with a bow and arrow, since these weapons are easily acquired and allow for some fighting from distances when there are no other alternatives.
Agilemind does also raise a good point about recognition: If I see four people on an open field 1000+ feet away (still in the disadvantage reach of some ranged weapons), then why would I just start shooting at them randomly if I can't fully see and understand who they are, and whether or not they are hostile, friendly, or indifferent to me.
That being said, why would a character attack with finesse weapons when they get trapped in the melee if they have proficiency with more powerful weapons?
The rapier is a martial weapon, and entirely respectable damage output.
Yes, but it's a lot weaker than Greataxes or Greatswords. Melee weapons hurt substantial amount more than ranged weapons do, especially if you look at the damage outputs comparatively.
Sadly no that's not true, when fighting styles and feats are taken into account.
You're assuming that every ranged character is a Fighter, and that they're optimized and have taken all the best feats for their fighting style, instead of any ability score improvements or other useful feats and abilities. Most characters aren't optimized, so we should be looking at the vast majority of situations, not the exceptions.
Also, I have no idea what half the acronyms you're giving stand for. A clearer explanation would be very helpful, please.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Again, you appear to play in very different styles of campaigns than the rest of us. For one, melee characters typically have some ranged attacks that they can use when they are charging at an opponent. Secondly, you apparently have a number of your encounters in open fields with zero terrain, where the enemies just spend a round or two charging at the characters and waving melee weapons.
Adding difficult terrain to the map does not help make melee feel effective, and all strength based ranged weapons are rather cruddy (if you're just solving the problem by shooting a bow...you aren't solving the problem, you're just accepting that you should always play a ranged character).
But, I'm still at the heart of the question. How often does it happen in your games? Have you played, or played with, melee characters who run into this problem? I'm sure it will come up sometimes, no question. What I'm getting at is, how often is it happening? Because as I've said, I personally play almost exclusively melee characters (in the length of 5e, I've had one who wasn't), and it's not been an issue for me.
I've rarely come across the 100ft gap situations in my games as being posited as a standard in this thread. Firstly, outside fights aren't the majority. Of the ones that are outside, it's often in a forest or urban environment where 100ft engagements aren't feasible. Even in environments where they could occur...unless you're playing a murder-hobo (or similar) style game, most engagements should start off close to melee combat range anyway because you need to be able to identify what's actually happening, who your enemies are and often get through the negotiation phase. None of that is happening at hundreds of feet.
I think once in my time playing I've had an engagement start at a hundred feet or more, and it involved aerial combat (Wyverns were attacking a convoy we had to protect) so by the time the ranged characters had brought them to ground so the melee characters could work their magic, the melee characters were at hand anyway. That might not by completely typical, but I'm in agreement with you that it seems only in niche circumstances that ranged characters really shine so dominantly over melee. Even then, as mentioned, melee fighters shouldn't be completely without ranged options.
It's also worth pointing out roles. Ranged are meant to be DPR. That's their thing, sticking people so full of arrows that they die, and die quickly. If they get caught up in melee, they should be in trouble. If they get hit, they should be Melee on the other hand are generally not DPR. They're essentially trying to distract the foes, blocking them and taking the hits. Increasing their DPR to be on a par with ranged pretty much wipes out the point of having ranged - they'll only be useful for if you're in an open field, the enemy are fleeing and you want them all dead. Saying that melee has lower DPR and therefore it's unfair is missing the point that they already have stuff going for them. As a Wizard, I'd much rather have melee fighters with me than ranged (most of the time, at any rate).
The problem as I see it is the AC and armour system doesn't provide enough distinction between different types of armour. Ranged generally are more squishy than melee...but not by much. Maybe a point or two of AC. I'm not sure how to fix that though, unless we change the paradigm so that being unarmoured and and having lighter armour results in much higher hit rates. I'm not experienced enough in game to know how viable that really is - an archer that goes down the instant an Orc glances at them won't be fun either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Again, you appear to play in very different styles of campaigns than the rest of us. For one, melee characters typically have some ranged attacks that they can use when they are charging at an opponent. Secondly, you apparently have a number of your encounters in open fields with zero terrain, where the enemies just spend a round or two charging at the characters and waving melee weapons.
Adding difficult terrain to the map does not help make melee feel effective, and all strength based ranged weapons are rather cruddy (if you're just solving the problem by shooting a bow...you aren't solving the problem, you're just accepting that you should always play a ranged character).
Nah, you're saying that characters shouldn't be one-dimensional one-trick-ponies. Melees should have some ranged capability but excel at melee while a ranged should have some melee capability but excel at ranges combat. If someone invests purely in one niche, then of course they'll have problems when that niche is unavailable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
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?
Completely wiped out now is the goal post. That probably rarely happens as a melee character will be charging ahead. Though with a team built for it, it gets pretty easy though boring. But do enough before the they engage that they easily outshine the melee people, very often. 50+ feet in outdoor settings is the norm imo, do the enemies have bows sure, but they are usually not as dangerous at range as in melee so its still a bit win for the party.
I hadn't intended to make that the goal post, but you are correct that is what I wrote. My mistake. Thank you for pointing it out. Let me try and move them back in.
But, I'm still at the heart of the question. How often does it happen in your games? Have you played, or played with, melee characters who run into this problem? I'm sure it will come up sometimes, no question. What I'm getting at is, how often is it happening? Because as I've said, I personally play almost exclusively melee characters (in the length of 5e, I've had one who wasn't), and it's not been an issue for me.
For us virtually every outdoor encounter starts 50+ feet if it was not a successful ambush. I'd say every few games a encounter 100+ feet, frequently out of wizard normal firebolt range even(most out locks take spell sniper so for them its 240 which I've only seen further than that once or twice a campaign). Add in maybe a couple opponents being close and skirmishers being in the back creating a ranged situation after the 1st round or two of combat also happens, its fairly frequent overall outdoors. Mixing both indoor and outdoor I'd say a melee character loses a round or two of combat about 1/3rd of the time, yes they can throw a weapon but its so ineffective its usually better to dash unless they are trying to keep rage going. Ranged characters pretty much never loses damage or rounds once they have crossbow expert as they don't even need to swap to the rapier and are at 100% effectiveness in melee. Currently ranged equals or exceeds melee in damage at any range and given that their are ranges where the same is not true for melee I think there is a issue.
Just keep in mind that if melee gets boosted to make melee PCs 'equal' to ranged PCs, the same will happen for monsters and NPCs.
The boosts can be with the things melee should be better at which is holding the line. Like Improve attacks of opportunity, how they work, what you can do with them, when they trigger etc.
Just keep in mind that if melee gets boosted to make melee PCs 'equal' to ranged PCs, the same will happen for monsters and NPCs.
What's bad about that? Melee monsters are significantly less dangerous than ranged, though in the case of monsters a lot of it is that they ranged don't have to bunch up and thus area spells aren't very effective against them.
Again, you appear to play in very different styles of campaigns than the rest of us. For one, melee characters typically have some ranged attacks that they can use when they are charging at an opponent. Secondly, you apparently have a number of your encounters in open fields with zero terrain, where the enemies just spend a round or two charging at the characters and waving melee weapons.
Adding difficult terrain to the map does not help make melee feel effective, and all strength based ranged weapons are rather cruddy (if you're just solving the problem by shooting a bow...you aren't solving the problem, you're just accepting that you should always play a ranged character).
Actually, terrain and enclosed spaces are an excellent way to make it so that ranged isn't overpowered. Also, while some ranged weapons that work for melee combatants aren't very good, A) Some aren't depending on the proficiencies/bonuses your character and B) The fact that these characters have the option to make a decent attack at range in round 1 disproves the fact that they can't do any damage then.
Also, we appear to have had wildly different experiences in game. When I am both a player and Dungeon Master, there are only very, very rarely fights that are on an open field where the enemies start hundreds of feet away.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Actually, terrain and enclosed spaces are an excellent way to make it so that ranged isn't overpowered. Also, while some ranged weapons that work for melee combatants aren't very good, A) Some aren't depending on the proficiencies/bonuses your character and B) The fact that these characters have the option to make a decent attack at range in round 1 disproves the fact that they can't do any damage then.
Also, we appear to have had wildly different experiences in game. When I am both a player and Dungeon Master, there are only very, very rarely fights that are on an open field where the enemies start hundreds of feet away.
Difficult terrain means it takes even longer for melee to engage, because it increases the time required to reach melee distance.
A significant amount of this is really "Strength has a problem". A dex-based character will generally have perfectly adequate ranged attacks whether or not they're focused on melee, because every martial class can at worst use a shortbow. The best strength-based ranged weapon is the javelin -- with the same damage as a shortbow, 3/8 the range, 40x the weight per shot, and cannot benefit from a magical launcher.
As for hundreds of feet apart, I agree it's uncommon (though not that uncommon in my experience), but fights that start at 50-100' are not.
For us virtually every outdoor encounter starts 50+ feet if it was not a successful ambush. I'd say every few games a encounter 100+ feet, frequently out of wizard normal firebolt range even(most out locks take spell sniper so for them its 240 which I've only seen further than that once or twice a campaign). Add in maybe a couple opponents being close and skirmishers being in the back creating a ranged situation after the 1st round or two of combat also happens, its fairly frequent overall outdoors. Mixing both indoor and outdoor I'd say a melee character loses a round or two of combat about 1/3rd of the time, yes they can throw a weapon but its so ineffective its usually better to dash unless they are trying to keep rage going. Ranged characters pretty much never loses damage or rounds once they have crossbow expert as they don't even need to swap to the rapier and are at 100% effectiveness in melee. Currently ranged equals or exceeds melee in damage at any range and given that their are ranges where the same is not true for melee I think there is a issue.
Interesting perspective. I almost never have fights at that distance. Though I also recently was thinking, we use dwarven forge in my campaigns, so that might be why the maps are smaller, just for practical reasons in not having to spend a lot of time laying out the tiles.
As I think about it, while I can't think of any at 100 feet, there's fight that start at 50ish feet pretty often. But I, playing a melee character, see that as a tactical choice that makes the combat more interesting. I can run up 30 feet and throw something, or ready a melee attack, or I can dash and be next to the enemy, knowing I can't attack, but also knowing they can't get much closer to my allies. Or I can hope for a low initiative score, so I can let the enemy come to me, and now I have different options. (Which actually brings up an important factor. The enemies are running toward you while you are running toward them. It's not going to be up to the melee folks to cover the whole distance on their own.) The archer, meanwhile, is just shooting no matter what -- so boring.
In your campaign, the players of the melee characters, do they complain about this?
Actually, terrain and enclosed spaces are an excellent way to make it so that ranged isn't overpowered. Also, while some ranged weapons that work for melee combatants aren't very good, A) Some aren't depending on the proficiencies/bonuses your character and B) The fact that these characters have the option to make a decent attack at range in round 1 disproves the fact that they can't do any damage then.
Also, we appear to have had wildly different experiences in game. When I am both a player and Dungeon Master, there are only very, very rarely fights that are on an open field where the enemies start hundreds of feet away.
Difficult terrain means it takes even longer for melee to engage, because it increases the time required to reach melee distance.
A significant amount of this is really "Strength has a problem". A dex-based character will generally have perfectly adequate ranged attacks whether or not they're focused on melee, because every martial class can at worst use a shortbow. The best strength-based ranged weapon is the javelin -- with the same damage as a shortbow, 3/8 the range, 40x the weight per shot, and cannot benefit from a magical launcher.
As for hundreds of feet apart, I agree it's uncommon (though not that uncommon in my experience), but fights that start at 50-100' are not.
Bard didn't say anything about difficult terrain. They just said terrain. A tree or wall to hide behind as they approach, for example.
But absolutely, I agree with str needing some help, and/or dex being taken down a peg. I do wonder if some of the reason str is so underpowered is because people mostly ignore encumbrance rules. As I said above, make archers start tracking how many arrows they have, and how much they weigh, and it really helps reign them in.
But absolutely, I agree with str needing some help, and/or dex being taken down a peg. I do wonder if some of the reason str is so underpowered is because people mostly ignore encumbrance rules. As I said above, make archers start tracking how many arrows they have, and how much they weigh, and it really helps reign them in.
It turns out that using the encumbrance rules is actually worse for strength builds, because heavy armor is so much heavier than light armor.
If you use the encumbrance rules (max carry without penalty = strength*5), a dex fighter might carry studded leather, 2 shortswords, a longbow, and 100 arrows, with a total weight of 24 lb. With strength 8, that leaves 16 pounds for other gear. A strength fighter might carry plate, a halberd, and 4 javelins, with a total weight of 79 lb. With strength 18, that leaves 11 pounds for other gear.
Actually, terrain and enclosed spaces are an excellent way to make it so that ranged isn't overpowered. Also, while some ranged weapons that work for melee combatants aren't very good, A) Some aren't depending on the proficiencies/bonuses your character and B) The fact that these characters have the option to make a decent attack at range in round 1 disproves the fact that they can't do any damage then.
Also, we appear to have had wildly different experiences in game. When I am both a player and Dungeon Master, there are only very, very rarely fights that are on an open field where the enemies start hundreds of feet away.
Difficult terrain means it takes even longer for melee to engage, because it increases the time required to reach melee distance.
A significant amount of this is really "Strength has a problem". A dex-based character will generally have perfectly adequate ranged attacks whether or not they're focused on melee, because every martial class can at worst use a shortbow. The best strength-based ranged weapon is the javelin -- with the same damage as a shortbow, 3/8 the range, 40x the weight per shot, and cannot benefit from a magical launcher.
As for hundreds of feet apart, I agree it's uncommon (though not that uncommon in my experience), but fights that start at 50-100' are not.
Not difficult terrain. They mean obstacles. It's very rare it find an area of land that is has 50' open areas that are completely devoid of obstacles: trees, rocks, hills, old walls, carts, buildings, fences, ditches, gullies, etc... All can provide various degrees of cover to either side from ranged attacks. Enemies should have full cover from ranged attacks just as often as they start 50'+ feet away from the party.
The main things that need to be fixed in One D&D are obscurement, e.g. if an enemy is hiding in tall reeds so that they are heavily obscured. It should be harder for a ranged attacker to hit them than a melee attacker to hit them. And Sharpshooter - negating cover takes all the strategy out of ranged combat.
Would splitting up the Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert feats, so that the no-disadvantage-if-target-within-5ft feature is a separate feat from the other aspects help here somewhat?
Actually, terrain and enclosed spaces are an excellent way to make it so that ranged isn't overpowered. Also, while some ranged weapons that work for melee combatants aren't very good, A) Some aren't depending on the proficiencies/bonuses your character and B) The fact that these characters have the option to make a decent attack at range in round 1 disproves the fact that they can't do any damage then.
Also, we appear to have had wildly different experiences in game. When I am both a player and Dungeon Master, there are only very, very rarely fights that are on an open field where the enemies start hundreds of feet away.
Difficult terrain means it takes even longer for melee to engage, because it increases the time required to reach melee distance.
A significant amount of this is really "Strength has a problem". A dex-based character will generally have perfectly adequate ranged attacks whether or not they're focused on melee, because every martial class can at worst use a shortbow. The best strength-based ranged weapon is the javelin -- with the same damage as a shortbow, 3/8 the range, 40x the weight per shot, and cannot benefit from a magical launcher.
As for hundreds of feet apart, I agree it's uncommon (though not that uncommon in my experience), but fights that start at 50-100' are not.
Not difficult terrain. They mean obstacles. It's very rare it find an area of land that is has 50' open areas that are completely devoid of obstacles: trees, rocks, hills, old walls, carts, buildings, fences, ditches, gullies, etc... All can provide various degrees of cover to either side from ranged attacks. Enemies should have full cover from ranged attacks just as often as they start 50'+ feet away from the party.
The main things that need to be fixed in One D&D are obscurement, e.g. if an enemy is hiding in tall reeds so that they are heavily obscured. It should be harder for a ranged attacker to hit them than a melee attacker to hit them. And Sharpshooter - negating cover takes all the strategy out of ranged combat.
Okay the melee found full cover. What is the ranged opponent doing with that opportunity. In my experience that only favors the ranged guy in a open field. If the ranged guys are somehow pinned down to a spot like guarding an entrance sure it helps the melee.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Or they approach cautiously and keep them at a distance until they figure out if they are a threat. Things like find familiar making it pretty easy.
Completely wiped out now is the goal post. That probably rarely happens as a melee character will be charging ahead. Though with a team built for it, it gets pretty easy though boring. But do enough before the they engage that they easily outshine the melee people, very often. 50+ feet in outdoor settings is the norm imo, do the enemies have bows sure, but they are usually not as dangerous at range as in melee so its still a bit win for the party.
The threshold for "melee characters feel ineffective" is "no effective attacks during round 1 (of a 3 round combat)". That doesn't require a terribly long starting range, typically anything 35' or further.
If thrown weapons were less cruddy (say, make returning weapon a standard feature of magic weapons) the range would increase to around 60'. Same for actions like charge. A 60' starting range still isn't very far, but it does at least cover most dungeon encounters.
I hadn't intended to make that the goal post, but you are correct that is what I wrote. My mistake. Thank you for pointing it out. Let me try and move them back in.
But, I'm still at the heart of the question. How often does it happen in your games? Have you played, or played with, melee characters who run into this problem? I'm sure it will come up sometimes, no question. What I'm getting at is, how often is it happening? Because as I've said, I personally play almost exclusively melee characters (in the length of 5e, I've had one who wasn't), and it's not been an issue for me.
Again, you appear to play in very different styles of campaigns than the rest of us. For one, melee characters typically have some ranged attacks that they can use when they are charging at an opponent. Secondly, you apparently have a number of your encounters in open fields with zero terrain, where the enemies just spend a round or two charging at the characters and waving melee weapons.
This is poor encounter design, because terrain and other obstacles are necessary for making things interesting. Additionally, the typical adventuring space is a dungeon, which is incredibly unfriendly to ranged characters. Thirdly, when the monsters meet the party and are traversing open and dangerous fields, it seems nonsensical that they would refuse to equip themselves with a bow and arrow, since these weapons are easily acquired and allow for some fighting from distances when there are no other alternatives.
Agilemind does also raise a good point about recognition: If I see four people on an open field 1000+ feet away (still in the disadvantage reach of some ranged weapons), then why would I just start shooting at them randomly if I can't fully see and understand who they are, and whether or not they are hostile, friendly, or indifferent to me.
You're assuming that every ranged character is a Fighter, and that they're optimized and have taken all the best feats for their fighting style, instead of any ability score improvements or other useful feats and abilities. Most characters aren't optimized, so we should be looking at the vast majority of situations, not the exceptions.
Also, I have no idea what half the acronyms you're giving stand for. A clearer explanation would be very helpful, please.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Adding difficult terrain to the map does not help make melee feel effective, and all strength based ranged weapons are rather cruddy (if you're just solving the problem by shooting a bow...you aren't solving the problem, you're just accepting that you should always play a ranged character).
I've rarely come across the 100ft gap situations in my games as being posited as a standard in this thread. Firstly, outside fights aren't the majority. Of the ones that are outside, it's often in a forest or urban environment where 100ft engagements aren't feasible. Even in environments where they could occur...unless you're playing a murder-hobo (or similar) style game, most engagements should start off close to melee combat range anyway because you need to be able to identify what's actually happening, who your enemies are and often get through the negotiation phase. None of that is happening at hundreds of feet.
I think once in my time playing I've had an engagement start at a hundred feet or more, and it involved aerial combat (Wyverns were attacking a convoy we had to protect) so by the time the ranged characters had brought them to ground so the melee characters could work their magic, the melee characters were at hand anyway. That might not by completely typical, but I'm in agreement with you that it seems only in niche circumstances that ranged characters really shine so dominantly over melee. Even then, as mentioned, melee fighters shouldn't be completely without ranged options.
It's also worth pointing out roles. Ranged are meant to be DPR. That's their thing, sticking people so full of arrows that they die, and die quickly. If they get caught up in melee, they should be in trouble. If they get hit, they should be Melee on the other hand are generally not DPR. They're essentially trying to distract the foes, blocking them and taking the hits. Increasing their DPR to be on a par with ranged pretty much wipes out the point of having ranged - they'll only be useful for if you're in an open field, the enemy are fleeing and you want them all dead. Saying that melee has lower DPR and therefore it's unfair is missing the point that they already have stuff going for them. As a Wizard, I'd much rather have melee fighters with me than ranged (most of the time, at any rate).
The problem as I see it is the AC and armour system doesn't provide enough distinction between different types of armour. Ranged generally are more squishy than melee...but not by much. Maybe a point or two of AC. I'm not sure how to fix that though, unless we change the paradigm so that being unarmoured and and having lighter armour results in much higher hit rates. I'm not experienced enough in game to know how viable that really is - an archer that goes down the instant an Orc glances at them won't be fun either.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Nah, you're saying that characters shouldn't be one-dimensional one-trick-ponies. Melees should have some ranged capability but excel at melee while a ranged should have some melee capability but excel at ranges combat. If someone invests purely in one niche, then of course they'll have problems when that niche is unavailable.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
For us virtually every outdoor encounter starts 50+ feet if it was not a successful ambush. I'd say every few games a encounter 100+ feet, frequently out of wizard normal firebolt range even(most out locks take spell sniper so for them its 240 which I've only seen further than that once or twice a campaign). Add in maybe a couple opponents being close and skirmishers being in the back creating a ranged situation after the 1st round or two of combat also happens, its fairly frequent overall outdoors. Mixing both indoor and outdoor I'd say a melee character loses a round or two of combat about 1/3rd of the time, yes they can throw a weapon but its so ineffective its usually better to dash unless they are trying to keep rage going. Ranged characters pretty much never loses damage or rounds once they have crossbow expert as they don't even need to swap to the rapier and are at 100% effectiveness in melee. Currently ranged equals or exceeds melee in damage at any range and given that their are ranges where the same is not true for melee I think there is a issue.
Just keep in mind that if melee gets boosted to make melee PCs 'equal' to ranged PCs, the same will happen for monsters and NPCs.
The boosts can be with the things melee should be better at which is holding the line. Like Improve attacks of opportunity, how they work, what you can do with them, when they trigger etc.
What's bad about that? Melee monsters are significantly less dangerous than ranged, though in the case of monsters a lot of it is that they ranged don't have to bunch up and thus area spells aren't very effective against them.
Actually, terrain and enclosed spaces are an excellent way to make it so that ranged isn't overpowered. Also, while some ranged weapons that work for melee combatants aren't very good, A) Some aren't depending on the proficiencies/bonuses your character and B) The fact that these characters have the option to make a decent attack at range in round 1 disproves the fact that they can't do any damage then.
Also, we appear to have had wildly different experiences in game. When I am both a player and Dungeon Master, there are only very, very rarely fights that are on an open field where the enemies start hundreds of feet away.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Difficult terrain means it takes even longer for melee to engage, because it increases the time required to reach melee distance.
A significant amount of this is really "Strength has a problem". A dex-based character will generally have perfectly adequate ranged attacks whether or not they're focused on melee, because every martial class can at worst use a shortbow. The best strength-based ranged weapon is the javelin -- with the same damage as a shortbow, 3/8 the range, 40x the weight per shot, and cannot benefit from a magical launcher.
As for hundreds of feet apart, I agree it's uncommon (though not that uncommon in my experience), but fights that start at 50-100' are not.
Interesting perspective. I almost never have fights at that distance. Though I also recently was thinking, we use dwarven forge in my campaigns, so that might be why the maps are smaller, just for practical reasons in not having to spend a lot of time laying out the tiles.
As I think about it, while I can't think of any at 100 feet, there's fight that start at 50ish feet pretty often. But I, playing a melee character, see that as a tactical choice that makes the combat more interesting. I can run up 30 feet and throw something, or ready a melee attack, or I can dash and be next to the enemy, knowing I can't attack, but also knowing they can't get much closer to my allies. Or I can hope for a low initiative score, so I can let the enemy come to me, and now I have different options. (Which actually brings up an important factor. The enemies are running toward you while you are running toward them. It's not going to be up to the melee folks to cover the whole distance on their own.) The archer, meanwhile, is just shooting no matter what -- so boring.
In your campaign, the players of the melee characters, do they complain about this?
Bard didn't say anything about difficult terrain. They just said terrain. A tree or wall to hide behind as they approach, for example.
But absolutely, I agree with str needing some help, and/or dex being taken down a peg. I do wonder if some of the reason str is so underpowered is because people mostly ignore encumbrance rules. As I said above, make archers start tracking how many arrows they have, and how much they weigh, and it really helps reign them in.
It turns out that using the encumbrance rules is actually worse for strength builds, because heavy armor is so much heavier than light armor.
If you use the encumbrance rules (max carry without penalty = strength*5), a dex fighter might carry studded leather, 2 shortswords, a longbow, and 100 arrows, with a total weight of 24 lb. With strength 8, that leaves 16 pounds for other gear. A strength fighter might carry plate, a halberd, and 4 javelins, with a total weight of 79 lb. With strength 18, that leaves 11 pounds for other gear.
Not difficult terrain. They mean obstacles. It's very rare it find an area of land that is has 50' open areas that are completely devoid of obstacles: trees, rocks, hills, old walls, carts, buildings, fences, ditches, gullies, etc... All can provide various degrees of cover to either side from ranged attacks. Enemies should have full cover from ranged attacks just as often as they start 50'+ feet away from the party.
The main things that need to be fixed in One D&D are obscurement, e.g. if an enemy is hiding in tall reeds so that they are heavily obscured. It should be harder for a ranged attacker to hit them than a melee attacker to hit them. And Sharpshooter - negating cover takes all the strategy out of ranged combat.
Would splitting up the Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert feats, so that the no-disadvantage-if-target-within-5ft feature is a separate feat from the other aspects help here somewhat?
Okay the melee found full cover. What is the ranged opponent doing with that opportunity. In my experience that only favors the ranged guy in a open field. If the ranged guys are somehow pinned down to a spot like guarding an entrance sure it helps the melee.