D&D (2024) Why is wotc still aiming for PCs with 10 *real word* feet of range? W/o vision range penalty/limit rules for the GM?

[MarkB]

That leads into a bigger problem; the game was made for dungeon exploring, and so it doesn't really want people seeing clearly beyond a certain point, even with darkvision, you're typically at disadvantage to see things out to 60'. But on a clear day, you can see very far if there's nothing in particular blocking your vision. I live in a Midwestern state, and within 5 minutes I can drive out of town and be confronted by empty fields of nothing for miles around.

Reading this thread, outside of a dungeon, I get the impression everything needs to be forest primeval or full of big rocks to hide behind for melee combat to even exist. Nobody would dare travel down a road that is anywhere near straight, for fear of being mowed down by arrows, lol.

Every monster and enemy must have a piece of terrain they can spring out of to ambush the player characters, or be sniped down!

Oh and flying enemies apparently are impossible to ever encounter during the daytime, since you'd be able to see them coming long before they could ever get into melee. Might as well take all of them out of the Monster Manual!

It is an issue that there's no real penalty to perception checks based purely upon distance. Sure, you can see a really long way in clear terrain, but there's the issue of actually identifying what you're seeing.

Is that small band of humanoids bandits or pilgrims? Is that winged silhouette floating on the thermals a distant hawk or a much more distant roc?

It's tougher to justify opening up on someone 600 feet away if you're not sure who or what they are.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Have you lived near or driven past farmland before? Most non-grain crops are relatively short compared to an average human & around knee height or less. F/ex Tomatoes, cotton, potatoes, lettuce, cabbage, cucumber, onion, brussel sprouts, carrots, pumpkin, etc are all examples of these short crops. It's not until you start getting into grains (wheat/corn/etc) where the crops start getting much above knee or maybe waist high, Even then wheat is only going to be about 2-4 feet tall (oats too). Farmers like being able to see across a field to make sure herbivorous animals like deer are not eating the crop, not every crop can be expected to grow several feet tall like corn.

Yes, my wife actually grew up on a midwestern farm, thanks. I was responding to what was said, which was that there were fields of nothing. Fwiw, if we're going to discuss the intricacies of plant height, remember to include flax/linseed in the discussion.

Well it depends on the season. I was speaking about right now, where there's not much visible on the fields. By August, however, sure, there's corn everywhere. But after harvest, it'll be right back to empty fields where an enemy would stand out like a sore thumb, and let's not even get into winter, where a non-white thing moving on a white background stands out even worse.

*Unless we're saying every enemy encountered during winter is a Snow Ninja, of course.

emphasis added.
Honestly, what are we saying? What's the actual point being argued? Where I'm picking up is halfways between absurdism and snark and I can't tell exactly what you're trying to argue except that flat places exist (to which no one is disputing) and that there are scenarios where ranged weapons clearly are the appropriate response (also not in dispute).

 

[Hussar]

Apparently we need to adjust the rules to shorten ranger weapon distances because of scenarios that no one seems willing to explain why the dm is using, in order to … we’ll … I have to admit I’m not entirely sure what the end goal is.

 

[Irlo]

Apparently we need to adjust the rules to shorten ranger weapon distances because of scenarios that no one seems willing to explain why the dm is using, in order to … we’ll … I have to admit I’m not entirely sure what the end goal is.

As I understand it, we need to shorten ranged weapon distances to shield DMs from criticism when they use terrain, foliage, visibility, and weather conditions to prevent players from attacking effectively at long range.

 

[Hriston]

This is not worth addressing if you can't express why those extreme ranges belong in the system. Stop praising a table from 2e (at least) that got added to the 5e gm screen as space filler absent the rules it worked with and justify the excessive ranges that it limits and justify those ranges.

I’m not familiar with 2E so can’t judge the veracity of your claim that this table, appearing in an official 5E publication, originates from a 2E source. The idea that it could be earlier doesn’t seem correct. I’m unaware of anything like it appearing in either OD&D or AD&D 1E. OD&D uses distances of 40-240 (4d6 x 10) yards for outdoor encounters where surprise and similar circumstances are not a factor, and 1E uses 50-100 ((1d6+4) x 10) yards for the same. Neither modifies the distance based on terrain type.

In any event, your claim seems to be directed at suggesting the table is unsuitable for 5E play. This seems odd given it does the exact thing you seem to want the rules to empower the DM to do. I.e. limit encounter distances to something reasonable for party-based skirmishes.

You say the table is “space filler”. What basis do you have for making this statement about the designers’ intent?

You say the table “worked” with rules you say are absent from 5E. What rules? And why are they “absent” from 5E?

You ask why the long ranges of the longbow and other character abilities are in the game. That’s easy. They’re included so a character can have the ability to hit a target from those distances in the event it’s possible and desired. When those conditions are met, it’s that character’s time to do their thing.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Again, I'm really not sure why this is actually an issue. The only terrains where it would come up are open water and plains. Every other terrain, it doesn't make much sense to have 600 foot sight lines for combat. You're not going to have 300 unobstructed lines in a forest, or hills, or urban environment, typically.

On the contrary, even a Costco parking lot is bigger than 200 yards across. In a fantasy urban environment, climbing the roof of a building can and should give you visuals out to at least 200 yards along the nearest street; in any other environment besides dense forest you should be able to see to 200 yards in multiple directions or even all directions.

It's a mere 8th of a mile, not very far at all. People routinely respond to visual stimuli at greater distances than that. If you don't see a freeway exit coming at twice that distance you're probably going to miss it, and that's not a matter of life and death the way a monster encounter is. A tarrasque on the move will be visible from MILES away, except in dense forest where you'll hear the breaking trees instead.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This is an issue in all combat related games. For centuries Artillery was king. No one wants to charge artillery, bows, guns. It sucks in any tactical situation. The only way to fix it in the rules is to use magic to protect yourself or pull a paizo and make rules that make no sense.

A third way is to fix it with rules that do make sense. GURPS is overly generous to archers, but not as overgenerous as AD&D is and much less overgenerous than 5E.

Scenario: starting from 200 yards, a hobgoblin mook tries to hold the range open against a barbarian charging them at full speed, two-handed axe held high.

D&D 5E: hobgoblin gets one shot for every 50' of distance closed. (Barbarian Dashes 80', hobgoblin reclaims 30'.) That's nine shots at +3 with disadvantage against AC 16ish, plus three more shots without disadvantage. About 2.5 arrows will hit the barbarian (per hobgoblin). BTW this is perfectly fair and gameable in 5E, and a good way to make use of small numbers of mooks. (Even better if they shoot at wizards instead of barbarians.)

In Dungeon Fantasy RPG, that hobgoblin has a bow skill of 12ish, +3 for accuracy if he takes an extra turn to aim each shot. But he's got a -12 penalty to hit from 200 yards away! His chances of hitting are essentially zero until the barbarian closes to about 20 yards, reducing the penalty to -6. Unlike a 5E archer, he can't really move backwards while shooting, just a single 1 yard step per turn whereas the barb sprints 7 yards forward, and it takes four turns to reload, aim, and fire, so the barbarian gains 24 yards per shot (4 x (7-1) = 24). Essentially the bowman gets one shot at a 9 or lower on 3d6 (37% success rate) and maybe another at point blank range (close to 100% success rate before counting active defenses like dodging, which play roughly the same role that HP do in D&D so I'll ignore them here).

GURPS/DFRPG is overgenerous to archers, but it's still very difficult for non-superhuman archers to make use of their full maximum range (200-500 yards) because the penalties are so harsh. As a result, charging archers is not suicidal in DFRPG, even without magic. Unless they are superhuman, Legolas-class archers.

5.5E could impose high penalties as well as disadvantage on long-range aimed fire, and that would discourage it the same way, especially if kiting is made more difficult than in 5E.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And, really, it's not like it has to happen all the time that long range combat is blocked. It's perfectly plausible that you won't have 600 foot LOS in every single encounter. Right? We can all agree there?

So, brass tacks here, how often are we ACTUALLY talking about this happening? AFAIC, there are very few terrains where this is an issue:

1. Spelljammer.
2. Naval engagements (note, though, while these ranges are certainly possible, it's not guaranteed - lighting, weather, even waves are going to reduce sight lines.
3. Salt plains. - not exactly the most common adventuring environment.

That's about it. Anything else and you have too many things that can block sight. Even short grass plains aren't flat enough. There's a VERY good reason that militaries don't engage beyond about 300 meters and that's with rifles.

Emphasis mine.

That reason is because their weapons don't work well further than that, not because they can't see their enemies. Some people view this as a problem:

"Operations in Afghanistan frequently require United States ground forces to engage and destroy the enemy at ranges beyond 300 meters. These operations occur in rugged terrain and in situations where traditional supporting fires are limited due to range or risk of collateral damage. With these limitations, the infantry in Afghanistan require a precise, lethal fire capability that exists only in a properly trained and equipped infantryman. While the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine, and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate."

-Increasing small arms lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the Infantry Half-Kilometer (MAJ Thomas P. Ehrhart, School of Advanced Military Studies, 2009)

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I've recently had an encounter starting at 900 feet away in Pathfinder 2e, a gunslinger shooting a drake as it approached, and the Ranger & Investigator joining in when it got within 300 feet.

They had six rounds worth of bullets flying at the drake, plus some 2 rounds of arrows, but every single shot missed due to the range penalties, so it got to the party unscathed.

 

[Reef]

I've recently had an encounter starting at 900 feet away in Pathfinder 2e, a gunslinger shooting a drake as it approached, and the Ranger & Investigator joining in when it got within 300 feet.

They had six rounds worth of bullets flying at the drake, plus some 2 rounds of arrows, but every single shot missed due to the range penalties, so it got to the party unscathed.

That might work in Pathfinder, but won't in 5e unless they are going to chuck the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic for lots of modifiers. Which I highly doubt they'll do, as it's one of the big selling points for 5e over something more granular like Pathfinder.

And I seriously doubt this issue is big enough to make them rewrite one of the cornerstones of their design philosophies.