D&D 5E Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day

[CapnZapp]

. Too many DMs run their monsters like they're all on suicide missions.

Yeah, blame the DM, that's a constructive approach that's always worked...

</sarcasm>

 

[CapnZapp]

Anyway, yeah, even with the un-optimized 5e parties I've been managing lately, I've noticed ranged dominance. It seems pretty wonky to me, in some respects. For example, the ranged fighting style is the only one to give an accuracy boost? Really? So shooting a guy with a bow is easier than whacking a guy right next to you?

Also, I'm not too familiar with UA, but from the bonus breakdown it sounds like CQC grants a +1 to hit? Seems like a terrible idea on the part of the designers if so.

Ranged is inherently superior to melee for several reasons that are all obvious, I hope.

Any game that calls itself fantasy must create rules that CHANGE this.

Heroic Conan-style swordfighting on top of piles of Orcs doesn't come by itself. The rules must make it happen.

The 5E designers has forgotten about this, I think.

Having a ranged Thief skulk about in the shadows is a cool image to be sure. But it depends on the others in the party being slow plate tanks with weak ranged attacks!

If it's easy to create mobile ranged characters that brings huge advantages - and I'm afraid my conclusion is that this insight somehow got lost during 5e development.

Everybody just ASSUMED every party would contain a slow strength fighter, without actually making sure that really happens.

This is not a single bad decision, remember! It's more like...

Wouldn't it be cool if Dex characters could improve other stats than Strength? Let's drop Strength for damage!

Archery style needs another boost than the melee styles, let's add accuracy.

If there's a way to make melee power attacks, shouldn't there be a ranged one too? The lone archer needs some love too!

While we're at it, wouldn't it be cool to allow Legolas to shoot arrows even when surrounded by Orcs?

And why not let hand crossbow users spend a feat on removing restrictions; she'll be in melee often enough anyway.

...

...

Taken individually each idea sounds reasonable. But nobody stopped to ask "but are we still handing out enough goodies to the slow strength guy?"

5e is the first edition to use all these ideas. The results are devastating to the fundamental assumption of the fantasy genre.

Unfortunately, there is probably no simple fix.

I mean, errataing damage to always use Strength (no matter what other rules say) would probably help, but that's a bitter pill to swallow.

 

[Flamestrike]

Ranged is inherently superior to melee for several reasons that are all obvious, I hope.

Any game that calls itself fantasy must create rules that CHANGE this.

Heroic Conan-style swordfighting on top of piles of Orcs doesn't come by itself. The rules must make it happen.

The 5E designers has forgotten about this, I think.

Having a ranged Thief skulk about in the shadows is a cool image to be sure. But it depends on the others in the party being slow plate tanks with weak ranged attacks!

If it's easy to create mobile ranged characters that brings huge advantages - and I'm afraid my conclusion is that this insight somehow got lost during 5e development.

Everybody just ASSUMED every party would contain a slow strength fighter, without actually making sure that really happens.

This is not a single bad decision, remember! It's more like...

Wouldn't it be cool if Dex characters could improve other stats than Strength? Let's drop Strength for damage!

Archery style needs another boost than the melee styles, let's add accuracy.

If there's a way to make melee power attacks, shouldn't there be a ranged one too? The lone archer needs some love too!

While we're at it, wouldn't it be cool to allow Legolas to shoot arrows even when surrounded by Orcs?

And why not let hand crossbow users spend a feat on removing restrictions; she'll be in melee often enough anyway.

...

...

Taken individually each idea sounds reasonable. But nobody stopped to ask "but are we still handing out enough goodies to the slow strength guy?"

5e is the first edition to use all these ideas. The results are devastating to the fundamental assumption of the fantasy genre.

Unfortunately, there is probably no simple fix.

I mean, errataing damage to always use Strength (no matter what other rules say) would probably help, but that's a bitter pill to swallow.

Its all fixed pretty simply by how the DM runs his encounters.

If he routinely places his encounters 250' away and with little to no cover, archers rule. If he places them 40' away in tight or cramped quarters, then melee rules the roost. Same deal with frequency of encounters - more encounters per AD pushes the players choice of class, tactics and resource management one way - less encounters per AD pushes them another.

Adjust monster selection and placement and encounter design accordingly.

 

[CapnZapp]

Its all fixed pretty simply by how the DM runs his encounters.

If he routinely places his encounters 250' away and with little to no cover, archers rule. If he places them 40' away in tight or cramped quarters, then melee rules the roost. Same deal with frequency of encounters - more encounters per AD pushes the players choice of class, tactics and resource management one way - less encounters per AD pushes them another.

Adjust monster selection and placement and encounter design accordingly.

Instead of beginning from square one, I'll simply say you're now ignoring all the evidence provided that a decent minmaxer need sacrifice little to no offense or defense to have mobility and range, while magic makes it trivial to stop monsters from costlessly closing to melee or indeed even to achieve the situation you describe in the first place.

You CAN have the game work as it used to.

But sooner or later even you will go "wait a minute, why am I creating a slow melee fighter? The rules assume I will, but they actually doesn't prevent me from creating a mobile ranged version that still does comparable damage without compromised defense"

You're not there, Flamestrike, that much is sure. Not yet.

But when you do, I'll be the first to welcome you.

 

[dave2008]

Unfortunately, there is probably no simple fix.

I mean, errataing damage to always use Strength (no matter what other rules say) would probably help, but that's a bitter pill to swallow.

Couldn't you just eliminate one or more of the options you listed? That seems pretty simple. If not eliminate outright, you could modify them, which is still pretty simple.

 

[Radaceus]

Ranged is inherently superior to melee for several reasons that are all obvious, I hope.

Any game that calls itself fantasy must create rules that CHANGE this.

Heroic Conan-style swordfighting on top of piles of Orcs doesn't come by itself. The rules must make it happen.

The 5E designers has forgotten about this, I think.

Having a ranged Thief skulk about in the shadows is a cool image to be sure. But it depends on the others in the party being slow plate tanks with weak ranged attacks!

If it's easy to create mobile ranged characters that brings huge advantages - and I'm afraid my conclusion is that this insight somehow got lost during 5e development.

Everybody just ASSUMED every party would contain a slow strength fighter, without actually making sure that really happens.

This is not a single bad decision, remember! It's more like...

Wouldn't it be cool if Dex characters could improve other stats than Strength? Let's drop Strength for damage!

Archery style needs another boost than the melee styles, let's add accuracy.

If there's a way to make melee power attacks, shouldn't there be a ranged one too? The lone archer needs some love too!

While we're at it, wouldn't it be cool to allow Legolas to shoot arrows even when surrounded by Orcs?

And why not let hand crossbow users spend a feat on removing restrictions; she'll be in melee often enough anyway.

...

...

Taken individually each idea sounds reasonable. But nobody stopped to ask "but are we still handing out enough goodies to the slow strength guy?"

5e is the first edition to use all these ideas. The results are devastating to the fundamental assumption of the fantasy genre.

Unfortunately, there is probably no simple fix.

I mean, errataing damage to always use Strength (no matter what other rules say) would probably help, but that's a bitter pill to swallow.

I think the above is looking at the system with rose colored glasses.

A few points:

- if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander. There is no restriction from using ranged against the party, in fact if a DM hasn't figured this out by say level 5, that's unfortunate. You can only hold a persons hand for so long before you strip the training wheels

-Feats are optional, if they are creating an overly easy environment, most likely due to the latter half of the first point mentioned above, remove them from the campaign.

-Terrain...I dont know how often I have to suggest this, but I feel like many must be so used to runnign encounters on a graphed minimap that the forget about all the LoS blockages, pitfalls, not to mention height variations... terrain can be difficult...use it! Terrain is the bane of all ranged. This is not some suggested fix, this is of historical accuracy. Also in this vein- Weather, it's not always sunny!

-Outdoors, use of mounted combatants to close the distance where ranged IS in it's element. I dont see enough said about mounted combat in any of the 5E books, but it is a very useful element to outdoor encounter design

-indoors, if you are using linear dungeons, that go from point to point, with no alternative passages, I refer you to the latter half of the first point above. Better to have this example: party enters foyer, alerts guards, guards alert more, guards come out the woodwork from side passages... Likewise to this, secret passageways that circumvent intrusion to come around a group.

-Traps, they dont always go off at the front of the party...

- plenty of spells to eliminate ranged combat without allowing a save, a few good ones besides the most obvious Fog Cloud; Plant Growth/Entangle combo( true, it allows a save...but its a STR save...suck on that ranged attacker while you try to move out of the heavily overgrown area at 1/4 movement! an oh BTW here's a flaming sphere from our mage that you cant get away from!); Animate objects (120'... try combining this with any form of suggestion for the archer to drop his quiver...); Wall of anything; PC's like to wear armor while ranging...Heat Metal!...hell give them a mithral bowstring and Heat metal anyways! (I have added warpwood as a spell scroll in my campaign but the PCs never found it ;p); Sleet Storm; Darkness...But I digress,

Many ways to skin the cat within the framework of the current 5E rule systems, with out house ruling anything

But if the group is having fun, and the DM is having fun...that is ultimately the most important thing.

 

[Radaceus]

{double post}

 

[iserith]

Yeah, blame the DM, that's a constructive approach that's always worked...

I think many problems in the game do start with the DM. He or she controls 2/3 of the basic conversation of the game, plus all the prep. It's the first place I look when something goes awry in my game. Adjusting how he or she runs the game is also the easiest thing for the DM to fix in my view. So long as the DM doesn't want to crawl under the cozy, warm blanket of playstyle and hide there...

 

[CapnZapp]

Couldn't you just eliminate one or more of the options you listed? That seems pretty simple. If not eliminate outright, you could modify them, which is still pretty simple.

The first thing is to establish that to gain range you need to sacrifice offense. To gain mobility you should have to sacrifice defense.

Assuming those as givens; the options that come to mind are (in no particular) order:
1) The highest AC should require heavy armor
- Heavy armor should not be easy to move quickly in. Not saying we must return to 3E speeds; but as a suggestion:
- lets start heavy armor at -10 ft Speed; if you're proficient and meet the Strength demands, his penalty is halved. Result: halfling plate 20 ft; dwarf and human plate 25 ft.
- "any increase to speed is halved in heavy armor". This needs to include high-level magicks! Meaning a magic item that adds +20 ft speed only adds +10 to the plate guy. A magic carpet that otherwise zips along at 90' can't move more than 60' if anyone is wearing heavy armor. Note not "if it carries more than N pounds" since a powergamer would immediately think of "gnomes in plate" if it did. Weight means nothing. AC means everything.
- In return; there should be a hefty AC advantage to heavy armor; let me suggest a minimum of 3 points of AC. If AC 20 is the baseline for heavy armor plus shield; the monks and thieves and barbarians should struggle to reach more than AC 17. Even in the charop threads. Giving easy access to the Shield spell to somebody with a base AC of more than 15 and more than a d6 hit die is probably not a good idea.

2) Restrict the -5/+10 mechanic to melee only. Make it expensive to counter the -5. The fact is: power attack is balanced if but only if you actually suffer the full -5. Say "you cannot enjoy advantage while power attacking full stop". Rephrase bless and similar cheap/low-level bonuses (basically anything that doesn't cost at least a level two spell slot or similar) to not work on power attacks. I don't have any immediate rules language, but I'm leaning towards making power attack a thing of its own - the default is that none of the bonuses that apply to attacks work on power attacks. That way, we can identify a couple of high-maintenance buffs and specifically say "works with power attack", secure in the knowledge we haven't forgotten about some pesky cheap boon somewhere.

4) Don't have Archery style give a massive +2 to hit bonus! Just don't. Whatever the reason was to give it out, rework that benefit into something else than an AC-trivializer and a power-attack-better-than-melee enabler! I can't think of anything right now, but I'm sure previous editions can offer plenty of ideas.

3) roll back at least one of the ranged friendly changes of 5th edition. Suggestions:
First off, scrap the Crossbow Expert feat entirely. Just delete it. Completely. You could re-enable two-weapon fighting for thrown (but not ammo-using) weapons, I guess.

Then, delete the Sharpshooter feat too. There is design space for a ranged-boosting feat, but let's start from scratch, since all three parts of the existing feat need to go. The power attack part should require manly melee. The ignore cover part is strange and doesn't add anything to the game (in fact, it subtracts from it). I guess the "no disad at range" party will seldom actually break anything, but it still feels intensely unrealistic.

Let's start with "you effectively double the range of any weapon you use" as a start. Now, you can use a hand crossbow at 60 feet effectively, but you still get disadvantage when shooting at longer distances. Maybe, just maybe we can add back the archer style benefit here... Hmm: what about "if you spend an action aiming, you gain +2 to your next single shot". Yes, that works for the "sharpshooter" theme without actually boosting DPR ; since it would only apply to the start of combats (and not-combats, such as apple-on-head contests)

This way we don't have to return to str-based ranged damage. I acknowledge how "dex-damage" enables a variety of char builds that otherwise would not appeal to the damage-conscious gamer.


Zapp


PS. I would love to continue on this topic, but perhaps not right here?

(The issue is the way ENWorld shunts off threads that consist of too much homebrew into forums nobody reads; so I'm reluctant to start a new thread that focuses on this very interesting issue)

 

[Azurewraith]

Im running the variant speed initiative from the dmg I find taking a -5 for using ranged weapons brings them down a notch