D&D 5E CRs and what is going on?

[KarinsDad]

I only rolled that list of an example of how the expectations of magic items gained are often different than what we place in our campaigns, and therefore CR and combat in general kind be harder to balance by using a formula. I'm sure many DMs hand out more useful combat focused items to the characters, as has always been traditional in D&D but also shouldn't be surprised if combat becomes easier and the CR system doesn't work as well

Ok, I missed that.

Are you saying picking locks is a rarely used ability? I don't know of a rogue that would love to have these gloves

Love? Yes (mostly because they do not require attunement). Find useful and use on a daily adventuring basis? Probably not.

Granted, my experience on this is only my own, but go take a look at HotDQ or other official 5E adventure modules. There are not a lot of "locked doors" to get through or "locked chests" to break into. And in fact, open locks is not even really a skill anymore. It's a kit/check. Any PC with the proper background can use it, but the proficiency is not even needed. A Dex check is used, so any PC can pick a lock with the kit, regardless of the additional proficiency. Add in proficiency and the gloves and a first level PC can be +10 (+16 at level 17). That's just silly in a bounded accuracy system. The gloves should add proficiency, they should not add a blanket +5. IMO. Open locks is almost an afterthought in 5E and there are many different ways to get past locked doors (knock spell, PCs not proficient using thieves tools, bashing them in, etc.) that Rogues picking a lock is almost an anachronism anymore.

 

[Kalshane]

Ok, I missed that.



Love? Yes (mostly because they do not require attunement). Find useful and use on a daily adventuring basis? Probably not.

Granted, my experience on this is only my own, but go take a look at HotDQ or other official 5E adventure modules. There are not a lot of "locked doors" to get through or "locked chests" to break into. And in fact, open locks is not even really a skill anymore. It's a kit/check. Any PC with the proper background can use it, but the proficiency is not even needed. A Dex check is used, so any PC can pick a lock with the kit, regardless of the additional proficiency. Add in proficiency and the gloves and a first level PC can be +10 (+16 at level 17). That's just silly in a bounded accuracy system. The gloves should add proficiency, they should not add a blanket +5. IMO. Open locks is almost an afterthought in 5E and there are many different ways to get past locked doors (knock spell, PCs not proficient using thieves tools, bashing them in, etc.) that Rogues picking a lock is almost an anachronism anymore.

That's actually an interesting idea that I think I'm going to steal for my game: "These gloves grant Proficiency in the Sleight of Hand skill and Thieves' Tools. If you are already proficient, you are treated as if you have Expertise in Sleight of Hand and Thieves' Tools."

 

[Flamestrike]

I start many overland encounters a mile away

Wow.

As an ex Army man, I can tell you that the average range of most contacts with the enemy (from WW2 onwards through Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) are under 30 m (60 odd foot).

In very open and mountainous terrain (i.e. where you are on higher ground, and there is no terrain or cover for your enemy to hide behind, such as Afghanistan) engagement distance can be pushed out to half a mile or so (around 800m) away but that is generally very rare indeed.

This bears out in my practical experience as well.

Seriously. Walk outside and tell me if you can see a mile (1600 meters) in any one direction. Try it again when you are next out in urban, woods, forest, scrub, hills, swamp etc etc.... basically anywhere outside. Its next to impossible.

In anything less than a situation where you are on top of some high terrain and looking down into a valley (or looking over a large lake, dead flat desert, or out at sea) you are not going to bump into anyone until you're (within less than a hundred foot) or so. In close country (forest, scrub, jungle) you're looking at averages much less than 100'.

Seriously; people [even trained scouts and SF soldiers] don't generally look at what's a mile in front of them. Humans only generally scan 100' and closer, with a focus on objects that are within the closest 20 or so feet.

Just a heads up from practical experience man.

 

[Celtavian]

Wow.

As an ex Army man, I can tell you that the average range of most contacts with the enemy (from WW2 onwards through Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) are under 30 m (60 odd foot).

In very open and mountainous terrain (i.e. where you are on higher ground, and there is no terrain or cover for your enemy to hide behind, such as Afghanistan) engagement distance can be pushed out to half a mile or so (around 800m) away but that is generally very rare indeed.

This bears out in my practical experience as well.

Seriously. Walk outside and tell me if you can see a mile (1600 meters) in any one direction. Try it again when you are next out in urban, woods, forest, scrub, hills, swamp etc etc.... basically anywhere outside. Its next to impossible.

In anything less than a situation where you are on top of some high terrain and looking down into a valley (or looking over a large lake, dead flat desert, or out at sea) you are not going to bump into anyone until you're (within less than a hundred foot) or so. In close country (forest, scrub, jungle) you're looking at averages much less than 100'.

Seriously; people [even trained scouts and SF soldiers] don't generally look at what's a mile in front of them. Humans only generally scan 100' and closer, with a focus on objects that are within the closest 20 or so feet.

Just a heads up from practical experience man.

Finally, some real talk. It's not about whether you can see a speck in the distance. Combat engagement that isn't something like massed artillery, sniping, or massed arrow fire requires you to aim at a part of the body that will hurt if you hit it. Shooting from a mille or 600 feet away may in game terms not take into account your ability to pick a vital, unarmored part at that range. In reality to hit an accurate, moving target you would need to be quite a bit closer.

If you're talking preparing for each other or taking cover, I can see starting a mile away giving each side the chance to do something like buff or run for cover. As far as actual combat distance, a mile away is way too far.

 

[Hussar]

What do you mean finally? I said the exact same thing pages ago. Virtually word for word. :/

 

[Celtavian]

What do you mean finally? I said the exact same thing pages ago. Virtually word for word. :/

Sorry, the thread was so long.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Wow.

As an ex Army man, I can tell you that the average range of most contacts with the enemy (from WW2 onwards through Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) are under 30 m (60 odd foot).

Forgive my skepticism, but my understanding from reading Army papers on engagement ranges in Afghanistan is that the typical firefight in Afghanistan occurs at ranges of about a kilometer (due to range limitations on weaponry). Urban fights in Iraq were much closer, on the order of 100m, but if you're claiming that Afghanistan fights average 30m then I just don't believe you know better than the Army does. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your claim.

BTW, you seem a bit confused on the ratio between meters and feet. 30 meters is 100 odd feet, not 60.

In very open and mountainous terrain (i.e. where you are on higher ground, and there is no terrain or cover for your enemy to hide behind, such as Afghanistan) engagement distance can be pushed out to half a mile or so (around 800m) away but that is generally very rare indeed.

This bears out in my practical experience as well.

Seriously. Walk outside and tell me if you can see a mile (1600 meters) in any one direction.

Here in Washington it's hilly enough that I often can only see half a mile. Sometimes I can see a mile or more, along roads, when it's either flat or elevated terrain. And that's without even deliberately trying to gain elevation, like I would if I were, say, a PC who is actively expecting life-and-death struggles and has a vested interest in knowing who or what is around to kill him. There's a reason the DMG gives standard visibility range as 1-2 miles.

Try it again when you are next out in urban, woods, forest, scrub, hills, swamp etc etc.... basically anywhere outside. Its next to impossible.

In anything less than a situation where you are on top of some high terrain and looking down into a valley (or looking over a large lake, dead flat desert, or out at sea) you are not going to bump into anyone until you're (within less than a hundred foot) or so. *snip* Seriously; people [even trained scouts and SF soldiers] don't generally look at what's a mile in front of them. Humans only generally scan 100' and closer, with a focus on objects that are within the closest 20 or so feet.

I don't know about you, but I scan at least 500' ahead of me even when I'm just casually driving, not even fighting for my life. You keep talking as if PCs spend all their time in thickets and undergrowth; I'll agree that 1 mile is not a realistic encounter distance for forested terrain, but when I said that I start many or most encounters at distances of 1 mile (absent Stealth) you can then infer that my campaign doesn't happen in a thick forest. Furthermore, when PCs are travelling, they generally travel through open terrain instead of through thick forest because it is faster. The same factors that lead to faster travel also support higher visibility.

When one or both parties try to employ Stealth, engagement ranges at my table shrink considerably, so combat won't occur until someone fails Stealth, even if the encounter "started" further out. Each successful Stealth roll gets you half the remaining distance to the enemy without being spotted. Potentially they might never notice each other at all.

And I just flat out don't share your apparent belief that an SF scout or veteran PC won't generally notice a large body of non-stealthy enemy troops until they get within 100' of him. That is shorter than my driveway!

 

[aramis erak]

That's about right. And, very in keeping with other editions of D&D, excepting 4e. Combat rarely lasted much more than 4 rounds in any other edition.

Combat routinely ran to 5-6 rounds, and sometimes ran into the 15 round range, in Cyclopedia when using the encounter balance guidelines in Cyclopedia.
Many of my AD&D 2E combats ran 10 rounds... because of constrained spaces and/or hard-to-hit monsters.
3e, tended to, for me, run 5-10 rounds.
I can't speak to 4E - didn't play enough to judge.

I've had 5E encounters that lasted 1 round (bunch of crits vs an easy encounter) to 15 rounds (Beholder versus party of 6, levels F5, D5, Ro5, Wa5, Mo5, Ro4, constrained space. Not even to deadly level. CR 13 = 10,000 XP, with DXP being halved for Solo vs large party, vs a deadly threshold of 6000 Difficulty XP - and I killed the fighter with a luck roll. Death ray.).

 

[aramis erak]

Forgive my skepticism, but my understanding from reading Army papers on engagement ranges in Afghanistan is that the typical firefight in Afghanistan occurs at ranges of about a kilometer (due to range limitations on weaponry). Urban fights in Iraq were much closer, on the order of 100m, but if you're claiming that Afghanistan fights average 30m then I just don't believe you know better than the Army does. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your claim.

BTW, you seem a bit confused on the ratio between meters and feet. 30 meters is 100 odd feet, not 60.

I've heard the distribution is long tailed - a majority could still be under 30, but the occasional long range (km or so) drags the average up. I've seen the average urban fight stated as under 30m.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Visual range vs. weapon range

I've heard the distribution is long tailed - a majority could still be under 30, but the occasional long range (km or so) drags the average up. I've seen the average urban fight stated as under 30m.

I misremembered. Engagement range in Afghanistan averages 300m, not 1 km. Ehrhart recommends changes to weaponry to bring effective range for infantry up to 500m, which he wouldn't do unless there were a good chance of spotting enemies at 500m.

Paper: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA512331

Comments from returning non-commissioned officers and officers reveal that about fifty percent of engagements occur past 300 meters. The enemy tactics are to engage United States forces from high ground with medium and heavy weapons, often including mortars, knowing that we are restricted by our equipment limitations and the inability of our overburdened soldiers to maneuver at elevations exceeding 6000 feet. Current equipment, training, and doctrine are optimized for engagements under 300 meters and on level terrain.

There are several ways to extend the lethality of the infantry. A more effective 5.56-mm bullet can be designed which provides enhanced terminal performance out to 500 meters. A better option to increase incapacitation is to adopt a larger caliber cartridge, which will function using components of the M16/M4. The 2006 study by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics – Integrated Product Team discovered that the ideal caliber seems to be between 6.5 and 7-mm. This was also the general conclusion of all military ballistics studies since the end of World War I.

The point I have argued and will continue to advocate is that a 600' range on a longbow really isn't that far, compared to visual range, and that a monster with no capability to engage at long range is critically hampered unless it has stealth or mobility to compensate. E.g. a bulette or purple worm can close to melee range even in open terrain--but a Balor as written cannot, and therefore is restricted w/rt under what conditions it can operate against the PCs. It has to fight defensively, which isn't really how I want Balors to be.

Edit: hmmm, come to think of it, one way to deal with this would be realistic or semi-realistic rules for how elevation affects weapon range. E.g. if each foot of elevation change cost 2 feet of weapon range, then a longbow could only shoot a maximum of 200 feet straight up, which seems reasonable. Then Balors could simply dive-bomb you out of the sky, taking only one round of fire in the process. However, it's not clear whether or that same range limit should apply to spells like Eldritch Spear. The idea needs more work.