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?

Thomas Shey

Legend
well yes, but I am not sure that this problem (whatever it is) is amenable to a mechanical solution. I am curiously as to what the OP would like to propose as a suitable mechanical solution.

Oh, it often is. Lining up mechanical processes with how you want a game to play is part of good part of mechanical design, so with a well designed game if you've picked a game that genuinely wants the same thing you do, it makes it easy.

Of course the problem with some games, and D&D is the poster child here, they want to be all things to all people, and that's a largely impossible task.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Legend
Some fliers are possible. But as I noted, all they need to do is get altitude above your range until they're ready to dive and then come in out of the sun. Good luck with that.

And, even then, broad daylight on a clear day? Really?

There are easier ways of committing suicide.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Fireball also has 500 ft. range in the game, but an appropriate scenario for that sort of range hasn't come up yet.

Well, honestly, that requires people to not only be far away in clear terrain but also clustered up--and open terrain is the last place you have to (or usually should) do that.
(I've often said that the dynamic of how you deal with D&D opponents is a lot more like dealing with modern militaries than older ones, since artillery has become the big mankiller).
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
And, even then, broad daylight on a clear day? Really?

There are easier ways of committing suicide.
Eh, honestly, unless they're seriously outclassed, it shouldn't be that big a deal. Shooting straight up into the Sun should be difficult. To the point that I'd expect in a lot of cases the diving creature would not even take a hit before it closed. Doing either of those (especially with a muscle-powered weapon) is hard, doing both together is hard as hell.

(Yes, yes, I know, its a D&D5 thread so we have to deal with the (to me) stupidity that is Advantage/Disadvantage, but that doesn't change my general point even if the system at hand has no way to handle it right).
 

Isn't that kind of a THEM problem? If they find that kind of action less satisfying, then they shouldn't do it. Does that need to be "fixed" for them by reducing long ranges for everybody?

[shrug] Beats me. I'm just making the point that starting encounters at close range doesn't avoid the issue.

Myself I'm pretty okay with this kind of tactic. I just try not to spend more table time on it than it deserves.
 

Or try to find an approach that doesn't involve charging across open field at you. Even in otherwise open terrain there are often things like gulleys or brush lines somewhere. And anything aggressive that operates primarily in arid plains or the like has solutions to these problems, or doesn't operate there.
Not to mention invisibility spells and teleportation.
 


Well, PCs in that situation often have a lot more resources than NPCs (let alone monsters) do.
Sometimes, yeah. But monsters like Oni and Nycalorths have invisibility built in. I'm not advocating specifically for PCs here, just agreeing and emphasizing that fantasy worlds make new approaches viable.

I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, but waiting until nightfall tends to be quite beneficial for most monsters against humans because they have darkvision and most humans don't; and yet darkvision is usually limited to 60' or so, so nightfall encourages melee over ranged, usually.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
The ranger in my Pathfinder 2E group has the Far Shot feat, which lets him shoot his crossbow from 240 feet before incurring a to hit penalty. When encounter distance isn't a given, I use the following BECMI-based chart to generate the distance. Outdoors, this means he'll sometimes get off a free shot or two.

View attachment 285304
Nice. For comparison, here's the full 5e chart:
1684372429518.png
 

Remove ads

Top