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

[Greg Benage]

Funny thing is that even in the "real world" with modern weapons and ROE, combat distances are pretty short. I think this counts as "Combat as War."

Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only.

http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html

 

[Ashkelon]

Combat lasts about 4 rounds on average in 5e. Any combat that starts out at a range of 35 feet or more means the melee warriors miss out on 25% of their damage potential because they must spend a round dashing into melee range. If they decide to not dash and instead move only 30 feet and use their highly ineffective ranged attack (1 javelin or a few longbow shots for mediocre damage and poor accuracy), they are delaying their melee engagement by another round.

Now I can buy that many combats start within about 50 feet or so. I have a hard time believing even 75% of them take place within 30 feet though. Which means that a melee warrior effectively has a 25% damage penalty compared to the ranged weapon user.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Funny thing is that even in the "real world" with modern weapons and ROE, combat distances are pretty short. I think this counts as "Combat as War."

Sure, Iraq was mostly short-ranged urban combat, whereas in Afghanistan the median engagement distance is 300 meters. (" After-action reviews and comments from returning non-commissioned officers and officers reveal that about fifty percent of engagements occur past 300 meters.") The thesis of the paper is that improved training and better ammunition could push that back out to 500m or more, which would be advantageous because it deprives the enemy of the chance to catch US forces at a disadvantage by attacking from beyond the US forces' effective range.

Even the bit you quoted about Iraq makes it clear that soldiers are limited by equipment and accuracy ("not enough confidence in the optical gear") as much as detection range. That's not an issue for 5E characters: a Sharpshooter is as accurate at 180m as he is at 20m.

Edit: the post you quoted, especially the "recon by fire" bit, also makes it clear that from a D&D perspective, the "encounter" started for the U.S. troops long before the troops began their movement-to-contact. That post actually supports the opposite conclusion: 5E encounters should begin at long range. "[FONT=&quot]It bears recognizing also that the rules of engagement in Iraq were very restrictive and tended to suppress one of the principal uses of machine guns in previous conflicts: to conduct recon by fire. When units located a terrain feature that seemed useful for enemy defenders, they would hose it down with MG fire. If return fire came back, the battle was on (more likely, they would call for artillery and blow it away)... [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But infantry couldn't do recon by fire in Iraq, at least very much, because the potential for civilian deaths was too great. So Iraqi defenders retained the initiative of when to begin the firefight." If the PCs are deciding whether or not to conduct recon by fire on a potential hobgoblin strong point, then they're interacting with it--which means the encounter has already begun.[/FONT]

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Still lost. What's your point here, the players can see really far?

On the contrary: that 200'/60m isn't very far. "Perfectly flat grassy fields" are not required to notice a potential "encounter" before it's within melee range of you.

 

[Yunru]

Combat lasts about 4 rounds on average in 5e. Any combat that starts out at a range of 35 feet or more means the melee warriors miss out on 25% of their damage potential because they must spend a round dashing into melee range. If they decide to not dash and instead move only 30 feet and use their highly ineffective ranged attack (1 javelin or a few longbow shots for mediocre damage and poor accuracy), they are delaying their melee engagement by another round.

Now I can buy that many combats start within about 50 feet or so. I have a hard time believing even 75% of them take place within 30 feet though. Which means that a melee warrior effectively has a 25% damage penalty compared to the ranged weapon user.

And in what situation does that happen, a white plane?

Outdoors have variations in height that leads to cover vs ranged, indoors tends to be no larger than 40 feet, unless we're talking specialist spaces such as banquet halls, which have a variety of cover.

Sure, a Sharpshooter negates those penalties. And a Charger (somewhat) negates the distance penalty. As does the Tabaxi race, Cunning Action, and Action Surge. Paladins don't get anything, except for a summonable mount. Monks, well...

 

[Yunru]

On the contrary: that 200'/60m isn't very far. "Perfectly flat grassy fields" are not required to notice a potential "encounter" before it's within melee range of you.

Again, your point? Ranged suffers its own variety of disadvantages. The enemies spot you, either retreat or, spotting the bows, take xover and/or fall prone, not just shamble towards the archers hoping for the best. Well, unless they're zombies.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And in what situation does that happen, a white plane?

Iraq, as proven by Greg Benage's post. That post, especially the "recon by fire" bit, also makes it clear that from a D&D perspective, the "encounter" started for the U.S. troops long before the troops began their movement-to-contact. That post actually supports the opposite conclusion from yours: 5E encounters should begin at long range even in urban areas like Iraq. "It bears recognizing also that the rules of engagement in Iraq were very restrictive and tended to suppress one of the principal uses of machine guns in previous conflicts: to conduct recon by fire. When units located a terrain feature that seemed useful for enemy defenders, they would hose it down with MG fire. If return fire came back, the battle was on (more likely, they would call for artillery and blow it away)... But infantry couldn't do recon by fire in Iraq, at least very much, because the potential for civilian deaths was too great. So Iraqi defenders retained the initiative of when to begin the firefight." If the PCs are deciding whether or not to conduct recon by fire on a potential hobgoblin strong point, then they're interacting with it--which means the encounter has already begun.

In Afghanistan the combat ranges are even greater, with 300 meters (about 1000') the median range.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Again, your point? Ranged suffers its own variety of disadvantages. The enemies spot you, either retreat or, spotting the bows, take xover and/or fall prone, not just shamble towards the archers hoping for the best. Well, unless they're zombies.

What are you even talking about? You previously claimed that encounters should start in melee range on anything but a "perfectly flat grassy plain." That's wrong. Now you seem to be talking about how the encounters should play out. You're right that many enemies should do these things--but who ever said they shouldn't?

What precisely is your point?

 

[Yunru]

Iraq, as proven by Greg Benage's post. That post, especially the "recon by fire" bit, also makes it clear that from a D&D perspective, the "encounter" started for the U.S. troops long before the troops began their movement-to-contact. That post actually supports the opposite conclusion: 5E encounters should begin at long range. "It bears recognizing also that the rules of engagement in Iraq were very restrictive and tended to suppress one of the principal uses of machine guns in previous conflicts: to conduct recon by fire. When units located a terrain feature that seemed useful for enemy defenders, they would hose it down with MG fire. If return fire came back, the battle was on (more likely, they would call for artillery and blow it away)... But infantry couldn't do recon by fire in Iraq, at least very much, because the potential for civilian deaths was too great. So Iraqi defenders retained the initiative of when to begin the firefight." If the PCs are deciding whether or not to conduct recon by fire on a potential hobgoblin strong point, then they're interacting with it--which means the encounter has already begun.

In Afghanistan the combat ranges are even greater, with 300 meters (about 1000') the median range.

Iraq and Afghanistan also don't take place in dungeons and caves. It takes place in an environment where long range unobscured views could be obtained. Hardly the DnD world unless you have flyers, who are just as likely to get spotted as to spot.

 

[Yunru]

What are you even talking about? You previously claimed that encounters should start in melee range on anything but a "perfectly flat grassy plain." That's wrong. Now you seem to be talking about how the encounters should play out. You're right that many enemies should do these things--but who ever said they shouldn't?

What precisely is your point?

I thought that was obvious, it's in the title of the thread: help bridge the gap between ranged and melee. To do that:
(a) Start encounters at realistic distances.
(b) Play characters realistically.
Oh and
(c) Use your abilities to close the distance faster - each melee class has one.