D&D 5E there aren't enough slow Dwarves with Axes! ;)

[CapnZapp]

Somebody added a post, so instead of editing, let me just add that Lucky isn't just great in general, it is a significant boost to the way you (ab)use Sharpshooter together with Bardic Inspiration, Guidance or perhaps Precision Attack. Why?

Because if you need to roll 5, say for the sake of example, to hit, you're missing on the following rolls:
1
2
3
4

Getting to freely reroll 1's doesn't mean a 5% (1 out of 20) boost, it means a 25% (1 out of 4) boost.

And (of course) my player (playing a version of the above character) chose Stout Halfling for race. The reduced speed is negated by the 120 ft "reach", the poison resistance is a cornerstone of poison use (but I haven't included that in the calculations, since it is obviously OP and not default), and of course: Lucky.

 

[CapnZapp]

Reply to Opening Post.

historically speaking, ranged weapons are superior to melee weapons.

Yes, but that is bad when you want to play the kind of fantasy that D&D has emulated for forty years.

but if it bothers you that much, just give the monsters some kind of magically-induced resistance against ranged weapons.

Or, you know, you could revert any one of the many many loosened restrictions on ranged fire that 5E has introduced

I mean, it's not as if we don't know why this is happening.

D&D used to have many checks and balanced placed on ranged fire. Players complained because they (rightly) thought those mechanisms reduced their ability to play a great variety of ranged effective characters.

The only way to end up with awesome melee heroes is to make ranged unrealistically ineffective.

But you should be careful what you wish for... or you end up with 5E, where people keep playing slow Dwarves with Axes mostly because their eyes haven't yet opened up to what 5E actually allows.

 

[Gimul]

I believe you still think of archers as lightly armored mobile skirmishers.

In previous editions you'd be right.

In 5E, however, you're looking at full fighters, with the complete array of sturdiness abilities and features.

Try building the following character and see for yourself. No, really, far too many players downplay the ways ranged fire have lost all penalties in 5E simply because they do not realize this guy is possible. I'm going to display the character at a fairly high level so you know what to aim for.

Race: Variant human
Class: Fighter 6, then Ranger 4, then Fighter 6 for a 16th level character
Ability Score Increases/Feats: 6 (at levels F1, F4, F6, R4, F8 and F12) - Dex 18, Dex 20, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, and two "free".
Fighting Styles: Archery and Defense

This character is no less sturdy than any other fighter. He will easily have AC 19 (and probably more unless you run a low magic campaign) and 120 hp (if not more). He makes four 1d6+15 attacks against every enemy with less than AC 18ish*, not counting the Horde Breaker extra attack, easily being our party's top DPR king (commonly hovering around ~70 dpr unless he rolls exceptionally badly, when he "only" reaches ~50). And I haven't even added poison or nova abilities (like action surge) into this. His range is 120 ft (though his darkvision is only 60 ft I believe), he never gets any penalties from cover, range. He can shoot at foes in melee, he can shoot at foes while in melee himself.

*) it's quite common for monsters to get disabled one way or the other; from Monk Stunning Fist or spells or whatever. His attack bonus is +12 I believe (+5 ability +5 proficiency +1 magic +1 sorry can't really remember outright), which is okay when you have advantage (+7 vs AC 18 means rolling 11+, which translates to a 75% hit chance), especially considering how easy it is to "top up" near misses, most notably with Precision Attack battlemaster maneuver. So way more than merely "okay" really.

When you say "monsters will be on them in no time" I have found that to be simply untrue. It's not just that the monster's speed is effectively reduced by 30 feet per round (since the characters can backpedal 30 feet to keep their distance), there are also plenty of cheap ways to hamper monsters: low-level spells that trap foes or turn the ground into difficult terrain, abilities that lower the Speed of monsters etc.

You really need to have your monsters literally jump the heroes from the shadows to give them a chance of swamping them, and with two characters with darkvision and passive perceptions above 20 that simply becomes impossible even for foes that are supposedly good at sneaking and hiding (unless of course the monster is special, such with a ghost).

And Ralf, remember: all of this is taken only from the PHB.

All this said, I should say that I am fully aware you can become even sturdier if you focus on protection and defense. It's just that I don't see how that can compensate for slow speed at 5 ft reach.

All that's needed is that Regdar the Axedwarf chops down his last goblin and can't reach the next one with his last attack for his DPR to tank. Having a d12 damage die doesn't help you if you can't reliably deliver all your attacks all the rounds.

Where 5E differs from every edition before it is in the following areas that make a difference for the above character:

The smaller damage die of ranged fire is irrelevant. (The -5/+10 mechanism of Sharpshooter)
You add your attack Ability to damage. (Before you had to have a great Strength in addition to Dexterity)
You have effectively unlimited range, even with a weapon listed as 30 feet range. You never suffer cover penalties. You aren't penalized for being in melee yourself.

I could add more: magic bonuses from your bow stacks with magic bonuses from your ammunition. You never risk attacking an ally when shooting into melee. Crossbows don't have reduced loading times: this character can fire 3x2+1+1=8 bolts in a single round.

Any one of these isn't broken. It's when an edition allows all of them you have enough straws to break the camel.

Shield + shove (bonus action) = prone since he dumped str = roflstomped with advantage (19 ac is against anything level appropriate that has advantage) = alas poor archer I knew him well.

The problem you are describing isn't with 5e. It isn't about melee/ranged balance. It's about the DM serving up softballs. "Monsters" don't have to be stupid; "monsters" can have pc levels and feats. "Monsters" can use crossbows and break line of sight.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[CapnZapp]

Also - stop being a slave to stablocks and add ranged weapons to monsters who could fire them (opposable thumbs anyone?), and run your monsters like they have at least half a brain...

It's good to see a fellow poster agree Monster Manual statblocks are insufficient

 

[Horwath]

Well said. I guess it strongly depends on "combat as a sport" vs "combat as war" view of the game. Slow axe dwarves are already inherently disadvantaged in "combat as war"... I still am very, very surprised that dex applies to damage.

Dex to damage is simulation of precision. Same as strength.

It's realation of your attack atribute to your damage output.

If attack roll and damage roll would be in the same roll then there would not be any question about it(like in World of darkness games)

 

[Rod Staffwand]

It's good to see a fellow poster agree Monster Manual statblocks are insufficient

Yes! Any monster's statblock can be immeasurably improved by giving it laser eyes.

 

[CapnZapp]

"Monsters" don't have to be stupid; "monsters" can have pc levels and feats. "Monsters" can use crossbows and break line of sight.

Yet the game offers none of that out of the box.

I certainly will not revert to the 3e way of creating NPCs, so I will proudly and emphatically denounce your "monsters can have pc levels" claim. No they won't, not unless you're willing to do the work I want to pay WotC to do for me.

Many monsters are stupid. I'm quite open to you pointing out strategies in published modules however. Just as long as you don't mean that for the game to even work, I need to make all the work giving them tactics myself. I simply don't have the time, prepping takes enough hours already, I need and expect monsters to work right out of the box. And they do, provided we create slow axe dwarfs. But the problem is, the rules forgot to make that the optimal choice.

Very few monsters have crossbows. But sure, point taken. Only problem is: if your monsters have cover, so will probably my heroes. And I am quite sure that's a range duel my players will win against perhaps 90% of MM entries.

Look. Nothing you say is wrong.

It's only when and if you say it to excuse why things aren't working better out the box you're taking a wrong turn.

Having smart and tactical enemies should be a spice you add when you have the time and inclination to make something special. It shouldn't be an obligatory prep requirement for the monsters not to be roflstomped. That's one opinion I will never budge on.

Why? Because it would have been possible for WotC to create competitive monsters. And it would have been possible for WotC to rein the ways you can dominate the battlefield using ranged fire.

After all, this is the fifth edition. For all the great things about 5E, I expected more from WotC in the areas of actually building on past experience instead of walking into traps you'd see from a 1st edition of a game.

 

[Blue]

1. An archer never bothers to get out of melee, because the penalty for doing so (an AoO) is by default less than the penalty for shooting in melee. So step 1: make the penalty for shooting while in melee at least as bad as the penalty for leaving melee. Provoke an AoO.

I'm confused. The penalty for ranged combat with an adjacent foe is disadvantage, which really lowers the impact of your Attack action. How is that too-light?

 

[CapnZapp]

Inconceivable. Mike Mearls's extensive research at conventions (or at least the one anecdote he related to us) clearly showed that D&Ders want to hit orcs, with axes. The inability to do so necessitated the Essentials Slayer, and, when that didn't result in widespread enough hitting of orcs by axes, we got 5e.

5e is the hit the orc with my ax edition. It's its raisin debtor or whatever that French idiom is. ;P

All over the world, millions, well tens of th- well, some players are gleefully hitting orcs with their fighters' axes, reveling in their freedom from the complexity-paralysis of choosing which of two 'stances' they're in while they do it.

It's a heart-warming* thought. Were it not for the common mainstream misconception that a game of hitting orcs with axes is somehow inherently 'violent,' there'd be a Nobel Peace Prize in it for Mr Mearls.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 3 characters.

 

[sim-h]

Just don't use feats. They are an optional rule, if using Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert is causing imbalance - don't allow them.

I took a break from D&D between about 1985 and 2015. Feats to me are an alien powergaming concept, to be frowned upon and tutted at .

Also in environments where ranged weapons are superior (i.e. outside) then the monsters should also have them, surely?