• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.

smbakeresq

Explorer
Ranged PCs arent providing an important function they've always held. That of meat sheild.

Assuming the DM is going to place monsters (at least from time to time) in melee range, those monster attacks are going to be targetting something. You need a guy who can take those hits and tank it up, if for nothing else than to stop the monsters wailing on the mages.

This happens all the time in some games I have seen in shops. 4-6 players but no one wants to be front line, so the group gets pounded. Sometimes there is one barbarian who the groups thinks his resistance can stand all the monster attacks. Once he goes down the group follows. Our regular group always has a front liner, usually me. If you are always the front liner tanking for the group any DM with his salt will make sure you get the choicest items but not stuff that makes your AC so high he cant hit you with his monsters. Instead the frost halberd or stuff like that a few levels early.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Horwath

Legend
Remove completely the sharp shooter feat.
Then apply the rules for cover, shooting while engaged, and count arrow.

No.

Sharpshooter feat is a description of the rules that someone is a sharpshooter or master archer.

Same as great weapon master. Or linguist or observant. Feat describes your area of expertise.

Those feats must be in the game as they diverse the characters from each other in mechanical sense not just narrative or role play difference.

Only problem is how much you need to get from a feat to make a feat worth the +2 ability sacrifice but not overpowered in the end.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Ranged PCs arent providing an important function they've always held. That of meat sheild.

Assuming the DM is going to place monsters (at least from time to time) in melee range, those monster attacks are going to be targetting something. You need a guy who can take those hits and tank it up, if for nothing else than to stop the monsters wailing on the mages.
Fighters with SS and CE can be meat shields just fine. They fight in melee just fine.

They just fight using their hand crossbow regardless of the enemy being in-my-face or a hundred feet away.

This is clearly broken. If your players are fine playing w/o feats, problem solved. If your players aren't bothered by some build being better than others, problem solved. If your players aren't interested in creating combat monsters, problem solved.

For the rest of us, we want and desire system complexity. Playing without feats is not an option - 5th edition is simplistic enough as it is.

The only recourse for me is to accept that the WotC designers failed to provide a wide variety of roughly equal build choices, and then do something about it.

What to do is easy. Just dial back the few feats that are the cornerstone of the run-away DPR bulds, and all the other builds regain some measure of attractiveness.





But the first step, and really the only one we're discussing here, is to accept and acknowledge how a minmaxer can break the system in ways clearly not anticipated by WotC.

That is all.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
No.

Sharpshooter feat is a description of the rules that someone is a sharpshooter or master archer.

Same as great weapon master. Or linguist or observant. Feat describes your area of expertise.

Those feats must be in the game as they diverse the characters from each other in mechanical sense not just narrative or role play difference.

Only problem is how much you need to get from a feat to make a feat worth the +2 ability sacrifice but not overpowered in the end.
If you mean that you rather change the feats than remove them completely, I'm with you.

However, I can't blame Krachek for taking the quick route here. Modifying a feat is not simple, and it can be quite complex.

While you or I might feel we are up to the task, I won't berate any DM that rather just want to get on with his game.

Regards,
 

Ranged PCs arent providing an important function they've always held. That of meat sheild.

Meat shields are easy to create in 5E. As mentioned previously, a range-specialized PC who puts away his bow and spends his action donning his shield becomes a meat shield. After that he can either draw his rapier and attack, or draw his rapier, Dodge, and threaten opportunity attacks. It depends on the terrain. Other options for meat shields include conjured animals, hirelings, armored zombies or skeletons, and elementals. A ranged party can generate meat shields when necessary, but a melee-heavy party cannot generate ranged firepower nearly so easily when it is needed.

Assuming the DM is going to place monsters (at least from time to time) in melee range, those monster attacks are going to be targetting something. You need a guy who can take those hits and tank it up, if for nothing else than to stop the monsters wailing on the mages.

This in bold is the core difference between our games. You run a hack-and-slash game where the DM plops down monsters in front of the PCs, makes Balors appear in the PCs' midst, etc. The DM's hand seems to feature very heavily in your scenarios, and apparently the players are 100% okay with it because they're really just looking to roll some dice and have lots of fights every day.

I run a combat-light game where combat, when it happens, is intended to be an emotionally significant event. I don't "place monsters in melee range"--the monsters either enter melee range somehow, or the PCs enter the monsters' melee range, but both the monsters and the PCs exist before conflict occurs and may still exist after it. (Conflict may or may not lead to combat, and combat may or may not lead to death.)

If the PCs have someone (a Mobile Alert Shadow Monk, a Rogue, a Druid, a Sprite familiar) on point scouting ahead, and are exercising reasonable care in the main party's movement, they'll know about most threats long before the main party enters melee range; and many of the threats they don't know about won't ever learn about them either. There may be cases where e.g. an Ankheg or Black Pudding or Intellect Devourer detects the Shadow Monk with Blindsense or Tremorsense or psychic senses, but in that case the Shadow Monk just has to break contact, which is fairly simple for someone with +18 to Stealth, +9 to initiative, immunity to surprise, and virtual immunity to opportunity attacks. Against normal foes like giants, demons, dragons, a party with a point man will always have some warning. My games are designed to reward realistic intelligent tactics and create an immersive fantasy world which is sometimes more dangerous than the PCs are: Combat As War.

My impression is that if someone tried that in your game it would turn out to be futile, and the party would often find itself ambushed at close range by monsters anyway. From what you've described previously about yourself I think this is because your players expect a Combat As Sport experience: lots of fights, all tilted in the PCs' favor, supplied by the DM.
 
Last edited:

BTW, let's not get into an argument here about the Shadow Monk's tactics. Yes, there are still risks to scouting ahead alone. (Or in pairs actually--the Lore Bard is often with her.) But my post is about DMing style, not player style.
 

Caliban

Rules Monkey
Have you tried telling the melee players to just try harder and quit whining?

Perhaps have the cleric give them a sermon. Nothing gets people back in the game like a good old fashioned pep talk from an authority figure, liberally sprinkled with casual racism and insinuations about their own lack of moral fiber.
 
Last edited:

Prism

Explorer
BTW, let's not get into an argument here about the Shadow Monk's tactics. Yes, there are still risks to scouting ahead alone. (Or in pairs actually--the Lore Bard is often with her.) But my post is about DMing style, not player style.

We have a fairly big emphasis on dungeons and humanoid lairs, especially when it comes to combat. Doors are the biggest problem in the way of scouting ahead, which is why humanoid lairs and the like would often have them. We tend to have rather close quarter combats.

Outdoor combats for us are either traveling encounters (sometimes random) or enemy encampments of some sort. With that last type of encounter you can certainly surprise the initial guards but not usually the second and third waves. A scenario might well involve sneaking through the enemy to get to the boss, by which point if things go wrong then the party is surrounded and swiftly in melee.

At higher levels, a significant encounter might well involve a balor and his buddies teleporting unannounced directly into melee
 

We have a fairly big emphasis on dungeons and humanoid lairs, especially when it comes to combat. Doors are the biggest problem in the way of scouting ahead, which is why humanoid lairs and the like would often have them. We tend to have rather close quarter combats.

How do doors invalidate recon? It's fairly simple for the scout to open a door. Are you saying all the doors are trapped with magical traps or something and need the rest of the party to dispel them?

It's one thing if the door is a one-way teleportation device, but a regular door shouldn't block recon at all.

Recon is still useful in planning a close-quarters combat. It's useful to know, for example, where and how many potential combatants are within a building/cave/structure and where to scatter caltrops to inconvenience them and where the best chokepoints are. As has been pointed out several times, ranged PCs are more useful than melee PCs for holding a chokepoint.

Outdoor combats for us are either traveling encounters (sometimes random) or enemy encampments of some sort. With that last type of encounter you can certainly surprise the initial guards but not usually the second and third waves. A scenario might well involve sneaking through the enemy to get to the boss, by which point if things go wrong then the party is surrounded and swiftly in melee.

At higher levels, a significant encounter might well involve a balor and his buddies teleporting unannounced directly into melee

A (MM) Balor who teleports directly into melee must necessarily have been within 120' before his teleport occurred. It's one thing for the DM to rule that the Balor wasn't detected because the PCs didn't have detection measures in place; it's another thing for the DM to just fiat the Balor into existence in melee range because his battlegrid is only 30 squares wide and he likes melee combat.

Of course, if the Balor has already been re-statted to be more impressive (Teleport Without Error at will, more HP, better attacks, some nifty spells, maybe some scrying capability, etc.) then the 120' limitation ceases to be a factor. If the Balor knows what he's doing, he will ideally Teleport on top of the party not merely in melee range of the party as a whole, but in melee range of the party wizard at the end of the day when his Mage Armor has expired and he has no Foresight up and he's alone because he's going to the bathroom. (The wizard may or may not have his arcane focus on hand depending on what it is and how paranoid he is.)
 

Satyrn

First Post
How do doors invalidate recon? It's fairly simple for the scout to open a door. Are you saying all the doors are trapped with magical traps or something and need the rest of the party to dispel them?
I'm guessing he's picturing some of the foe in the vicinity of a shut door who will notice when it's opened.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top