D&D 5E Ranged party member keeps running off the map

[Ilbranteloth]

Sure, but now you're looking to fix the rulebook's generosity by tweaking monsters. I much prefer to fix the core issue once and for all, and then I can use the monster stat blocks as-is just fine.

Besides, it's is a losing strategy to enter an arms race. "The PCs are too strong at a distance. So add range to the monsters." And then the PCs do this (use cover, for instance), and you need to counter that.

In the end, you have lost the core idea of a fantasy game that is based around manly and bravely walking up to the foe to axe it to death.

Much better to fix the core issue, and that is how 5e forgot to make melee suitably better than ranged.

Well, in my game I did - ranged weapons work quite differently in my world. That doesn't necessarily make them less deadly, just different. But that's not an option for everybody.

But adding a bow to a goblin or orc isn't tweaking. The fact is, in a world where this type (or really any type) of combat is common, there will be a natural arms race. Thing is, in the game you have the ability to cap the arms race - these are the weapons available to everybody.

Gnolls are listed with a longbow, goblins with shortbows, hobgoblins with longbows, etc. No tweaking needed anyway.

Why? Because it just makes sense. Any race that is in regular combat will look for every advantage they can get. Numbers, ranged weapons, higher ground, cover, surrounding their opponents, not to mention tactics, such as locking them in disadvantageous positions with their ranged weapons...from both sides...from higher ground...with cover. Battles can turn very, very quickly with solid tactics when one side can get the upper hand.

If your monstrous humanoids aren't taking advantage of these sorts of things, even without feats like sharpshooter, then you're not really thinking like a monstrous humanoid as far as I'm concerned. These are races that live for war, and their entire lives are conflict and strife. It's not even a matter of singling out the player that's running off the map. They should be a sizable threat for the party as a whole.

Don't forget, if that character is that far away when he is dropped by orcish arrows, he's also too far away to be stabilized by his allies.

I'm not interested in an arms race with the players, you're 100% correct there. Nor a tactical race with the players. But the orcs have been having an arms and tactical race with humans for thousands of years. They should be played that way.

And I fail to see how a game that gives spellcasting to more classes than it doesn't, and various other abilities to be one that's based around "manly and bravely walking up to the foe to axe it to death." The game was actually based on war games. And war games were based on actually military tactics for the period they simulate. And ranged weapons has always been a big part of that as it's a normal and expected tactic for any creature that can take advantage of it.

Nor do I agree that 5e "forgot to make melee suitably better than ranged." I do agree that ranged attacks are unrealistically effective. When shooting a bow long range, you target a space, not a moving target. Because you'll always miss a moving target. It's most effective en masse, when you have a bunch of archers. Having said that, any attempt to attack a position of ranged enemies is always dangerous and usually deadly. Being open to being hit without being able to hit them in return is always the best tactic.

The only "core issue" I consistently see is that DMs don't consider the tactics that intelligent creatures would use in combats of this nature. Ranged weapons have dominated the battlefield since ancient times. In nearly every culture.

 

[was]

...Maybe a couple of fights in mountainous terrain? Where off the map might mean off the side of a cliff?

 

[CheezyRamen]

Step 1, become flat earther. Step 2, they fall off the map and the last thing they see is a giant turtles maw close around them.

 

[Flamestrike]

As for the general topic, D&D is and has always been geared for the classic party, where noone is ever more than 60 ft away from the action.

Generally speaking the default theater of war for DnD has been the 'dungeon' (says so right on the tin). From this default, comes the assumption that combat is generally close range engagements of 60 odd feet or closer.

The problem with 5e is that it has forgotten that in order to keep it that way, short-range builds and especially slow melee types must be heavily incentivized.

Its not just the rules that incentivize builds, but also the environment and the opponents (the latter of which is dictated by the DM).

The only reason you play a Gimli despite the serious handicaps of slow speed and no range is when the game turns those things from a liability into a virtue!

Wasnt Gimli always lagging beind Legolas in his kill count?

You know... the guy with the bow?

 

[Hussar]

Heck just adding in weather makes a big difference too. Windy day grants disadvantage. Fog. Rain. Snow. Etc.

Random tables are your friend here.

 

[Schmoe]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. From a logistical perspective, you can keep track of the relative position of the PC by placing the figure at the edge of the map that is closest to a straight line direction to the PC, and writing a number on the map next to the figure to track how many feet away he is. At this point you can generally just treat off-map interactions with the PC as "theater of the mind". If more precise positioning becomes important, such as if the PC is ambushed, then you can carve out a small area of the map for that PC's immediate surroundings.

As far as the impact on the game, I also wouldn't stress out. In the situations where it is effective, the party can have a reliable sniper out of harm's way, and they can use it to their advantage. There will also be a lot of situations where it's not effective, such as inclement weather, rough terrain, ground cover, indoors, etc. And then there will also be situations where it actually becomes a liability, such as when the PC is isolated from the group and becomes the target of the enemies. This can happen for a lot of reasons that make perfect in-game sense. Pack predators will typically single out one prey from the herd and then focus on the solitary victim. It works for wolves, packs of griffons, etc. Smart tactical opponents will often dispatch skirmishers to deal with snipers, if the sniper is having a significant impact on a battle.

I'm not saying you should go out of your way to discourage the tactic. On the contrary, embrace it, think about ways to make it painless to deal with from a DM'ing perspective, and be happy for the players when it works. But remember to think about how the situation can prevent the tactic, and remember also all the ways that the advantage can become a vulnerability.

 

[CapnZapp]

Generally speaking the default theater of war for DnD has been the 'dungeon' (says so right on the tin). From this default, comes the assumption that combat is generally close range engagements of 60 odd feet or closer.

If you say so as a clarification of what I meant, we are in agreement.

Its not just the rules that incentivize builds, but also the environment and the opponents (the latter of which is dictated by the DM).

DM... or supplement, you forgot to add. The way you learn how the designers meant the game to be played is obviously by picking up an official supplement to study.

Wasnt Gimli always lagging beind Legolas in his kill count?

You know... the guy with the bow?

Nope, they drew, fifty kills each.

Which is a hugely important point. If you expect D&D to support this notion, which is entirely reasonable, be prepared to be shocked in 5th edition, which has almost entirely forgotten that this does not happen by itself.

A fantasy ruleset needs to actively buff melee and nerf ranged to maintain the "classical" balance, where it makes sense to bring along slow axe dwarfs.

 

[Horwath]

Well, in my game I did - ranged weapons work quite differently in my world. That doesn't necessarily make them less deadly, just different. But that's not an option for everybody.

But adding a bow to a goblin or orc isn't tweaking. The fact is, in a world where this type (or really any type) of combat is common, there will be a natural arms race. Thing is, in the game you have the ability to cap the arms race - these are the weapons available to everybody.

Gnolls are listed with a longbow, goblins with shortbows, hobgoblins with longbows, etc. No tweaking needed anyway.

Why? Because it just makes sense. Any race that is in regular combat will look for every advantage they can get. Numbers, ranged weapons, higher ground, cover, surrounding their opponents, not to mention tactics, such as locking them in disadvantageous positions with their ranged weapons...from both sides...from higher ground...with cover. Battles can turn very, very quickly with solid tactics when one side can get the upper hand.

If your monstrous humanoids aren't taking advantage of these sorts of things, even without feats like sharpshooter, then you're not really thinking like a monstrous humanoid as far as I'm concerned. These are races that live for war, and their entire lives are conflict and strife. It's not even a matter of singling out the player that's running off the map. They should be a sizable threat for the party as a whole.

Don't forget, if that character is that far away when he is dropped by orcish arrows, he's also too far away to be stabilized by his allies.

I'm not interested in an arms race with the players, you're 100% correct there. Nor a tactical race with the players. But the orcs have been having an arms and tactical race with humans for thousands of years. They should be played that way.

And I fail to see how a game that gives spellcasting to more classes than it doesn't, and various other abilities to be one that's based around "manly and bravely walking up to the foe to axe it to death." The game was actually based on war games. And war games were based on actually military tactics for the period they simulate. And ranged weapons has always been a big part of that as it's a normal and expected tactic for any creature that can take advantage of it.

Nor do I agree that 5e "forgot to make melee suitably better than ranged." I do agree that ranged attacks are unrealistically effective. When shooting a bow long range, you target a space, not a moving target. Because you'll always miss a moving target. It's most effective en masse, when you have a bunch of archers. Having said that, any attempt to attack a position of ranged enemies is always dangerous and usually deadly. Being open to being hit without being able to hit them in return is always the best tactic.

The only "core issue" I consistently see is that DMs don't consider the tactics that intelligent creatures would use in combats of this nature. Ranged weapons have dominated the battlefield since ancient times. In nearly every culture.

This!

Do not play all foes and mindless beasts.

If the monster has int 6+ and/or wis 8+ it will use any advantage that is available.

Also ranged combat is somewhat weaker in DPR.

Sharpshooting ranger could get ignored as he is 300ft away, because his friend wizard is throwing fireballs at 20+ foes at a time or they have to deal with raging-greatweaponmaster-polearmmaster-barbarian that is cleaving them left and right.

From tactical position foes have to determine who is greater threat and who is whitin reach, if it takes 4 rounds to reach the ranger that is 4 rounds that the barbarian is left unchecked(or atleast partially engaged only).

 

[schnee]

I've found this sort of thing is situational, and it's OK for a certain character to dominate in some situations, as long as they only do that in some and not most.

Other people have brought up great points on environmental challenges, different opponents, indoor vs. outdoor, etcetera.

One question I have is - do you keep track of arrow breakage? Encumbrance? If you house-ruled that stuff away, then that is a side-effect and part of the problem. I've played in both kinds of campaigns, and when archers can be absolutely assured they have infinite ammunition, that gives them a significant power boost.

When they have to be a little careful with ammo, then they will not become one-trick wonders. I've seen that from both sides of the table. You don't want to starve them just to be punitive, but if Wizards run out of Magic Missiles occasionally, Archers can run out of arrows too.

It also means when they're getting low on ammo, it's easy to have them encounter foes with bows and arrows that can be looted (that maybe use the same tactics hehe) - or even finding a dead body with a partial quiver. I'll totally cop to being 'game-ist' like that so one character isn't gimped.

It's also good to encourage that character away from min-maxing too much. I've seen players have a bit too much success with one tactic then go all in, and then be poorly rounded for other challenges.

 

[Arnwolf666]

This is why I love and will always use 1E/2E rules for ranged weapons, specifically firing into melee.