Ranged Options for All Classes

[LordEntrails]

The problem is that if your PC is dex based, you can be good at both melee and ranged thanks to rapiers. Care more about damage than defense? Dual wield rapiers and get within a point or two of damage per round of two-handed weapons.

I still don't see a problem. Their are choices, and consequences to those choices. And not every choice has an equal impact on each aspect of the game.

Sounds like a good system to me.

 

[Oofta]

I still don't see a problem. Their are choices, and consequences to those choices. And not every choice has an equal impact on each aspect of the game.

Sounds like a good system to me.

When two builds fulfill basically the same combat role but one is close to on-par with the other for melee (with other significant benefits) but is far, far better at ranged I see it as an issue.

Add in that many people won't realize it's an issue that cannot be resolved until mid-to-high levels makes it even worse.

It's an easy fix so I tweak the rules in a way that brings back some balance and gets a little closer to reality and myth.

 

[5ekyu]

The problem is that if your PC is dex based, you can be good at both melee and ranged thanks to rapiers. Care more about damage than defense? Dual wield rapiers and get within a point or two of damage per round of two-handed weapons.

Again with rapiers.

Shortsword are my goto if i just dont ssy screw it and go for dagger for style.

Imo the light property more than outweighs the benefits of d8 over d6.

Even if light is irrelevant d8 vs d6 is tiny compared to damage levels in dps builds.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So, did anyone ever address the point made a few time by various people earlier in this thread that choices have consequences and that's a good thing? That not every class can or should be competant at every aspect of the game? And in this case; both ranged and melee?

At least as far as D&D is concerned, combat isn't an optional activity. Everyone needs to participate, or else they might as well leave the table for an hour and go play Mario Kart.

If your character build options are to either build for Dexterity, in which case you get to play the game; or build for Strength, in which case you get to sit out for an hour because you can't contribute; then that's a trap option. That choice shouldn't be in the game. That's poor game design.

 

[Yunru]

A strength build can always do damage. At worst loose rocks are 1d4+Str mod.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

At least as far as D&D is concerned, combat isn't an optional activity. Everyone needs to participate, or else they might as well leave the table for an hour and go play Mario Kart.

If your character build options are to either build for Dexterity, in which case you get to play the game; or build for Strength, in which case you get to sit out for an hour because you can't contribute; then that's a trap option. That choice shouldn't be in the game. That's poor game design.

I'd argue the game design is just fine. What you describe is poor adventure design AND/OR a jerk DM mindset - the adventure/DM should allow for the party to at least attempt to use its collective creative resources to overcome the obstacle presented.

OR maybe, just maybe, if combat seems inevitable, once in a blue moon the party may need to retreat and come up with another plan other than "Leeroy Jenkins!". Just because a situation is presented that could end up in combat, doesn't mean it has to end up in combat right there and then. A lot of that has to do with the DM telegraphing that the situation is fraught and not just letting the party blunder into a massacre because the barbarian and paladin can't get into melee at that particular moment with that particular room setup.

 

[Oofta]

I'd argue the game design is just fine. What you describe is poor adventure design AND/OR a jerk DM mindset - the adventure/DM should allow for the party to at least attempt to use its collective creative resources to overcome the obstacle presented.

OR maybe, just maybe, if combat seems inevitable, once in a blue moon the party may need to retreat and come up with another plan other than "Leeroy Jenkins!". Just because a situation is presented that could end up in combat, doesn't mean it has to end up in combat right there and then. A lot of that has to do with the DM telegraphing that the situation is fraught and not just letting the party blunder into a massacre because the barbarian and paladin can't get into melee at that particular moment with that particular room setup.

So ... if I have a setup where dragons are attacking, I should always run the dragons stupid? Lower the challenge rating because I know my melee PCs are going to be ineffective?

I run NPCs and monsters the best I can given their intelligence and goals. A dragon will almost never land to go toe-to-toe (there are exceptions to all rules of course). Why should they lower themselves to the level of earth bound worms? These are intelligent, evil opponents, many of whom have been around for centuries. They fight dirty. Breath fire, pick up boulders and drop them on the PCs, swoop down and grab the pesky ranged guy and drop them from half a mile up (being careful not to get in melee range). That's how dragons fight.

 

[Yunru]

So ... if I have a setup where dragons are attacking, I should always run the dragons stupid? Lower the challenge rating because I know my melee PCs are going to be ineffective?

I run NPCs and monsters the best I can given their intelligence and goals. A dragon will almost never land to go toe-to-toe (there are exceptions to all rules of course). Why should they lower themselves to the level of earth bound worms? These are intelligent, evil opponents, many of whom have been around for centuries. They fight dirty. Breath fire, pick up boulders and drop them on the PCs, swoop down and grab the pesky ranged guy and drop them from half a mile up (being careful not to get in melee range). That's how dragons fight.

Sure, but unless they just ninja out of the void, there should be some warning signs.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'd argue the game design is just fine. What you describe is poor adventure design AND/OR a jerk DM mindset - the adventure/DM should allow for the party to at least attempt to use its collective creative resources to overcome the obstacle presented.

Whether or not the DM should use fiat powers to contrive opportunities for the party is another topic entirely. For now, let it suffice to say that eigen-plots are controversial, and just because a DM can work around a problem does not mean the problem isn't real.

Remember, the scenario at-hand is a BBEG who can fly. Role-playing that character to the best of their ability is the primary job of the DM. Good ideas should usually work, whether those ideas come from the PCs or an NPC. Arbitrarily negating the villain's advantage of flight is no more justified than arbitrarily negating the PC's advantage of flight, when the tables are turned.

OR maybe, just maybe, if combat seems inevitable, once in a blue moon the party may need to retreat and come up with another plan other than "Leeroy Jenkins!". Just because a situation is presented that could end up in combat, doesn't mean it has to end up in combat right there and then.

The game is 5E. The party is never in any danger. The party, as a whole, will still overcome the villain, regardless of whether or not the barbarian participates.

The only question is whether this is a good time to meta-game, on the grounds that one of the players will be bored to death. As a general rule, meta-gaming should be avoided. A game which forces you into that position is a bad game.

 

[LordEntrails]

So, say I chose to play a character like Raistlin. A great magic user with absolutely no business being anyway near melee.

And now the adventure calls for the PCs to be attacked in their room by ghosts, or rats, or whatever the situation is that forces all the PCs into melee with no room to escape.

Now suddenly the adventure sucks because it was designed poorly? Or the game is bad because the 6 Con & Str wizard is in a situation he can't do any damage in?

Sorry, but people are just whining and moaning because RAW doesn't handle things they want it to. The game, as written, has choices and consequences for those choices. Don't like that? Then houserule it. I mean heck, while you're at it, why not just says that every class can do both ranged and melee combat of 1d10xlevel? It scales, it's balanced, and it then character creation choices are meaningless.