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?

[Raiztt]

"So basically, any encounter I run, I have to make sure the guy with a bow doesn't murder everything before the melee can do anything? Like every fight has to have cover, wind, concealment, and anti-ranged magic?"

So, if GMs/DMs feel this way and run their games this way... it's just a 'skill issue' on their part.

Combats should always have creatures/NPCs with a variety of different abilities as well as a variety of terrain to make it interesting. 5 of the exact same type of enemy is not an interesting combat, and dealing with it efficiently by raining down arrows seems like the best thing to do.

I know this isn't the D&D advice forum, but if you can't make your combat interesting and engaging, then just don't have that combat.

 

[Incenjucar]

Allowing long range to be a serious risk ensures players need to make decisions based on it, whether that means everyone carries an extreme-range weapon, everyone uses a mount, someone brings tools or spells that negate the risk, or the group avoids open terrain.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

do you all never do overland encounters? Party encounters wild creatures or bandits on the plains, they will easily see them hundreds of feet away, and will have rounds and rounds of bow attacks before the creatures get close.

Realistically any encounter that happens in a grassland or plains terrain should be using ranges of this length, as there is no reason you wouldn't see the enemy that far away unless their is fog or something.

I can say that the last game I had a warlock wit the 300 foot eldtrich blast invocation, they looked at every oppurtunity they could to snipe and blast people from that range....because why wouldn't they? If I can get in like 5 rounds of blasts before the enemy even gets near me, I've won!

In my book seen does not imply and encounter. If some one is spotted at hundreds of meters then the party has the option to not engage. Furthermore if the party is spotted the NPCs may disengage.
Secondly even if engagement is desired theatre of the mind is sufficient until tactical ranges are achieved. Then I might whip out a map.

 

[Willie the Duck]

do you all never do overland encounters? Party encounters wild creatures or bandits on the plains, they will easily see them hundreds of feet away, and will have rounds and rounds of bow attacks before the creatures get close.

Realistically any encounter that happens in a grassland or plains terrain should be using ranges of this length, as there is no reason you wouldn't see the enemy that far away unless their is fog or something.

It's going to depend on how you (/ your DM) envisions the wilds/overland, and how close one hews to IRL situations. Most medieval travel would be via roadways along farm fields and similar (since that's where the roads existed, and they took you to the IRL interesting places), but lots of fantasy travel might be across this relatively untraveled stretch to an abandoned temple or the like, and in that situation you might be traipsing over unkept grass (which could be waist or chest level), and up and down the topography that even plains have. It's possible that one could readily duck down and be hard to pinpoint, making melee much more tempting (of course this also would make moving to get to melee a lot harder, so it could be a wash).

That said, this is generally right, and people have the right of it. Ranged weapons have some serious advantages; with a lot of the disadvantages -- have to be strung/unstrung, are vulnerable in melee, hard to go cross country or in forests with bows, bowstrings have problems in the rain, harder than just increased encumbrance to carry large amounts of arrows, there were lots of times in the arms-armor race when armor was in ascendance and melee weapons had the solution instead of bows, harder to train someone to be a great archer than other martial roles -- things that are past the granularity of a game system or that are unfun to play. Mind you, in real life like TTRPGs, there's a lot of situations where hostilities commence well within ranged weapons zone of clear superiority; and the situations where they are (such as battlefields), there are strategies like advancing behind shield walls or mantlets specifically because charging through many seconds of arrow volleys is such a problem.

 

[Incenjucar]

In a fantasy world, the open plains and open water should already be absolutely terrifying, especially for those with darkvision who are used to being able to see everything all the time.

 

[Raiztt]

do you all never do overland encounters?

No, not really. They're exceedingly rare.

Party encounters wild creatures or bandits on the plains, they will easily see them hundreds of feet away, and will have rounds and rounds of bow attacks before the creatures get close.

Bandits usually also have ranged weapons and a wild animal isn't going to attack someone just because they perceive them hundreds of feet away. If PCs want to gun/arrow down a bear from 200ft away they're welcome to do so, but i certainly wouldn't grant them experience for it.

Realistically any encounter that happens in a grassland or plains terrain should be using ranges of this length, as there is no reason you wouldn't see the enemy that far away unless their is fog or something.

Again, humanoid enemies would also have ranged weapons - all the tactics available to PCs are available to NPCs.

BUT ALSO, who are these PCs just shooting at random people they see on the plains?? Unprovoked?

 

[Stalker0]

It's going to depend on how you (/ your DM) envisions the wilds/overland, and how close one hews to IRL situations. Most medieval travel would be via roadways along farm fields and similar (since that's where the roads existed, and they took you to the IRL interesting places), but lots of fantasy travel might be across this relatively untraveled stretch to an abandoned temple or the like, and in that situation you might be traipsing over unkept grass (which could be waist or chest level), and up and down the topography that even plains have. It's possible that one could readily duck down and be hard to pinpoint, making melee much more tempting (of course this also would make moving to get to melee a lot harder, so it could be a wash).

Which comes back down to the original point, if most people are envisioning encounters that are much closer than 600 feet, and the few times you actually do go that distance often leads to very imbalanced encounters, AND IRL archery is no where near accurate enough to be able to hit moving targets at those ranges..... then why have those ranges?

 

[Stalker0]

Again, humanoid enemies would also have ranged weapons - all the tactics available to PCs are available to NPCs.

Sure, and the bow PC can trade blows with the enemy at 600 feet while everyone else twittles their thumbs or pulls out their spare bow that is super sub-optimal but they at least try.

The worst thing you can ever do with dnd combat is bore your players and give them nothing to do. In an ambush situation where things start close, the archers can still fire, or maybe they do it with disadvantage and decide whether to take that, pull back and take an OA, or switch to a rapier....aka an interesting decision.

Long range combat on the other hand is an absolute slog for most parties, generally 1 PC just fires round after round while everyone just sits there waiting their turn. Its not interesting or exciting, and again the ranges that are allowed really shouldn't exist based on even the most generous allowance for real life archery against real targets.

The solution just seems so damn simple....lower the ranges.

 

[Raiztt]

Long range combat on the other hand is an absolute slog for most parties, generally 1 PC just fires round after round while everyone just sits there waiting their turn. Its not interesting or exciting, and again the ranges that are allowed really shouldn't exist based on even the most generous allowance for real life archery against real targets.

Don't put your parties in that situation. I solved the problem. That's why I said it was a DM skill issue.

 

[Incenjucar]

Long range when you only have melee means "hide behind a rock and have a snack until the enemy runs low on arrows".