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?

[Zubatcarteira]

Yeah, over the years I've grown to not like bounded accuracy as much, advantage/disadvantage only gets you so far.

 

[Reef]

Yeah, over the years I've grown to not like bounded accuracy as much, advantage/disadvantage only gets you so far.

On the other hand, BA is a major selling point for my group. And we're so over adding up bonuses and penalties. But that's why we play this and not Pathfinder. Takes all kinds, of course.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That might work in Pathfinder, but won't in 5e unless they are going to chuck the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic for lots of modifiers.

But they already have: half cover gives a +2 AC bonus, and 3/4 cover grants a +5 AC bonus.

All you'd have to do is give similar bonuses at long ranges. (A +15 AC bonus for moving targets at 200 yards wouldn't be unrealistic for archers, but a smaller modifier would probably generate less pushback from players, since they're probably less concerned with getting shot than with shooting.)

 

[Reef]

But they already have: half cover gives a +2 AC bonus, and 3/4 cover grants a +5 AC bonus.

All you'd have to do is give similar bonuses at long ranges. (A +15 AC bonus for moving targets at 200 yards wouldn't be unrealistic for archers, but a smaller modifier would probably generate less pushback from players, since they're probably less concerned with getting shot than with shooting.)

Say you do that (which I'm not in favour of), and then you end up with a situation like they had in Pathfinder...where everyone spends 6 rounds rolling and accomplishing nothing. I can't see how that's any improvement at all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Say you do that (which I'm not in favour of), and then you end up with a situation like they had in Pathfinder...where everyone spends 6 rounds rolling and accomplishing nothing. I can't see how that's any improvement at all.

Or, people show some sense and either focus on closing up or retreating and not waste a bunch of time doing shots that are not liable to do anything. If they can't be sold on that being a better choice, you have players with a pathology (and its a pathology that does exist--PF2e GMs and players often have to do some work to convince people that for most characters you have better things to do with that third action than try a strike at -10 most of the time).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Say you do that (which I'm not in favour of), and then you end up with a situation like they had in Pathfinder...where everyone spends 6 rounds rolling and accomplishing nothing. I can't see how that's any improvement at all.

Most DMs on this thread seem to think such situations don't occur for them at all, so for them there's no change.

For the rest of us, as long as those 6 rounds only take a couple of minutes, I don't see the harm. I remember a certain slugging match between a 5E 1st level Barbarian and a 5E Ogre: it was a 12 round fight but it only took about 90 seconds. Each round he rolled, and I rolled, and sometimes someone took damage; and then we did it again until someone went unconscious. (It was an arena match, so only reputation was at stake, not death.)

If 6 rounds of missing each other at long range takes more than a few minutes to play out, your game system wastes too much time and needs to become faster.

 

[Reef]

Most DMs on this thread seem to think such situations don't occur for them at all, so for them there's no change.

For the rest of us, as long as those 6 rounds only take a couple of minutes, I don't see the harm. I remember a certain slugging match between a 5E 1st level Barbarian and a 5E Ogre: it was a 12 round fight but it only took about 90 seconds. Each round he rolled, and I rolled, and sometimes someone took damage; and then we did it again until someone went unconscious. (It was an arena match, so only reputation was at stake, not death.)

If 6 rounds of missing each other at long range takes more than a few minutes to play out, your game system wastes too much time and needs to become faster.

Well, now I’m totally confused…I thought the whole original complaint was that because of longbow ranges, extreme range fights ended up with 3 or 4 rounds or arrows before the melee people can get their turn. This was apparently a bad thing (which led to lots of suggestions on how to mitigate long range encounters or speed up those rounds).

And yet, you’re saying that 6 rounds of combat only takes a few minutes, so lots of range penalties are fine.

If those rounds are so quick as to only take a few minutes, why are we all having this discussion in the first place?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, now I’m totally confused…I thought the whole original complaint was that because of longbow ranges, extreme range fights ended up with 3 or 4 rounds or arrows before the melee people can get their turn. This was apparently a bad thing (which led to lots of suggestions on how to mitigate long range encounters or speed up those rounds).

And yet, you’re saying that 6 rounds of combat only takes a few minutes, so lots of range penalties are fine.

If those rounds are so quick as to only take a few minutes, why are we all having this discussion in the first place?

Maybe because I'm not the OP and have a different perspective?

I'm just here to make two points:

1.) 200 yards is not nearly as far away as Internet RPG forumites like to pretend. It's not even a whole city block length in many cities.

2.) Almost all RPGs make things easier on archers than reality does. 5E is more extreme about it than any other RPG I can think of though. Archers in 5E are extraordinarily powerful outdoors.

However, based on which posts the OP has liked, the OP seems to justifiably feel that 3 or 4 rounds of combat that wouldn't inflict much damage or take up much table time would be preferable to the status quo, and if so that seems reasonable to me. What about you?

 

[Hussar]

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.

You realize a Costco parking lot is larger than most Medieval and Renaissance cities right?

 

[Hussar]

Maybe because I'm not the OP and have a different perspective?

I'm just here to make two points:

1.) 200 yards is not nearly as far away as Internet RPG forumites like to pretend. It's not even a whole city block length in many cities.

2.) Almost all RPGs make things easier on archers than reality does. 5E is more extreme about it than any other RPG I can think of though. Archers in 5E are extraordinarily powerful outdoors.

However, based on which posts the OP has liked, the OP seems to justifiably feel that 3 or 4 rounds of combat that wouldn't inflict much damage or take up much table time would be preferable to the status quo, and if so that seems reasonable to me. What about you?

In many American cities maybe. Medieval or Renaissance cities? 200 yards is HUGE. Good grief, Rome was only a couple of miles across when it was one of the largest cities in the world. Most pre-Industrial battlefields could fit in a soccer field.

As an example, Paris in the 14th Century was the largest city in Europe. At 439 hectares, it covered about 4 square kilometers. As in just a smidgeon bigger than a square mile. And that was the largest city in Europe at the time.