D&D 5E there aren't enough slow Dwarves with Axes! ;)

[guachi]

I like this. It does what I propose but in a manner consistent with the rules as presented.

It's an additional rule adding a new use of the reaction without being a modification of existing rules.

 

[knasser]

Could you point me to this explicit statement by the OP...

Not hard to find - first post in the thread:

(And please do remember: let's make this a thread where we buy into the premise and offer constructive criticism. If you don't see the problems I'm having, or you're convinced I'm playing the game badwrongfun, feel free to post elsewhere but not in this thread. This thread is for people that recognize my problems in their games)

I.e. Please just accept that some of us have this problem and want to discuss it without forcing us to defend the premise of the thread constantly.

After that please tell me how you not liking certain answers to the said questions equates to them being an attack on the thread...

A number of us agree we have this scenario in our games. We know we do - they're our games. We have explicitly said our interest is in finding ways to make the game work for how we play it. Constantly leaping in to post how we're playing the game wrong and should change how we play it is destructive, a derailment and foreseen. An attempt was made to politely ask people not to do that and if they didn't have the problem showing up in their games, happy for them but please don't turn this thread into yet another where it's just people telling others how to play the game. Again.

So there you go - the explicit statement you asked for and a pretty clear and easy explanation how how these posts are destructive. Please stop.

 

[Zaran]

I'm not understanding the issue. Let the players make the characters they want to make. Its possible that players don't want to play dwarves. Do you feel like your players are min/maxers who feel dwarves are sub-optimal? Or do they just want to play dex-monkeys? I play a dual longsword wielding fighter with a Dex 2 points less than Strength. I am not finding the character inadequate. Can someone make an archer who can outdamage him? Sure but I am not trying to be DPS. I'm just playing a dude who likes swords.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I see:

- Experienced players
- Feats (optional rules)
- Variant human (optional rules)

vs

- Standard Out-of-the-box Monsters

On that basis alone it doesn't seem fair to me. Poor 'ole monsters. So I propose we run:

- Experienced Players
- Feats (optional)
- Variant human (optional)

vs

- Standard Out-the-box Monsters
- Who have feats. Probably just the one.

With all these bad ass adventurer types running around, it seems natural that only the sneakiest (Skulker), fastest (Mobile), cunning (Actor) and accurate (Crossbow Expert) of the monster munch would have survived this brave, missile-peppered world.

 

[Celebrim]

In every single version of D&D I'm aware of, missile fire is vastly more effective than melee weapons. It's not a 5e specific problem. It's just 5e gives you fewer tools to deal with it than some other versions, and you really have to work to make melee weapons stay relevant when designing a system. I'm guessing 5e paid little attention to that, given that D&D never has.

You've always needed at most one 'tank' in the D&D party to provide a high AC non-squishy distraction for the monster and deal with occasional lurkers of various sorts that manage to infiltrate the party and threaten the ranged attackers. It's always been the case that a party that goes heavy missile fire melts most opponents before they are seriously threatened, and it's always been the case that most D&D monsters are restricted to melee attacks or greatly favor melee attacks or lack mobility and so are poorly equipped to handle this strategy. The 'formidable' Tarrasque is an excellent example of a seemingly powerful monster that goes down easily in real game conditions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So I propose we run:

- Experienced Players
- Feats (optional)
- Variant human (optional)

vs

- Standard Out-the-box Monsters
- Who have feats.

Personally, I had so much fun running 3e that way that I just never want to do it again.

 

[CapnZapp]

(I miss the Basic Attack concept, it made life alot easier.)

Most monsters still have something akin to this.

The thing they do repeatedly in a multiattack can be called their basic attack, whether it's a longsword whack or a claw swipe.

A few ideas, other than giving everything a reskinned ranged attack.

Thanks. One point though: handing out ranged attacks does mean monsters can do something at range, which indeed is one thing I've discussed.

But more generally, it still leads to a ranged shootout. My most fundamental point is that the genre of D&D is kind of based on melee combat. So the problem most core to this discussion is "how do you make experienced mathematically-savvy players pick melee builds (without exceptional speed)?"

My answer is: "by making melee sufficiently more powerful than ranged". Since this wasn't nearly as much of a thing (IIRC) in d20, I'm asking myself "what has 5E changed from 3E".

And the answer is: lots. In almost every area imaginable, 5E lets archers off the hook, removes barriers, and outright improves.

So while making monsters do ranged combat definitely is something, the overarching question remains "do you want your game of D&D to involve a lot of ranged combat?".

 

[CapnZapp]

30 ft/round is 3.4 mph. This is a reasonable walk speed.

A dash is 60 ft/round. This is 6.8 mph. This is a medium jog. This is not a reasonable dash speed over a short distance.

A dash of 90 ft/round is 10.2 mph. This is far more reasonable, especially over uneven terrain or if you are even lightly burdened (where it would be hard to go faster in both cases).

If you are unburdened a dash of 120 ft/round or 13.6 mph is certainly doable in good conditions, but unlikely for most humanoids. Though an unburdened animal should have little trouble with a dash of 4x base movement.

In other words, taking the dash action for 3x base movement is completely realistic. I'd even add disadvantage to a bow shot if someone did this. And I'd make shields +4 vs. ranged as shields are just fantastic vs. missile weapons. Also, I'd probably limit the Rogue bonus action dash to its current movement benefit and not grant him the extra movement I'm proposing for dash.

Well, slow movement has been a staple in fantasy games forever. Likely to avoid people running off the graph paper

Also, movement is in many games not lowered just because you carry a lot (your tent, or a chest of gold etc), so if you assume you're heavily laden down, the speeds make more sense visavi the real world.


(This is not a defense or excuse, merely an observation)

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not understanding the issue. Let the players make the characters they want to make. Its possible that players don't want to play dwarves. Do you feel like your players are min/maxers who feel dwarves are sub-optimal? Or do they just want to play dex-monkeys? I play a dual longsword wielding fighter with a Dex 2 points less than Strength. I am not finding the character inadequate. Can someone make an archer who can outdamage him? Sure but I am not trying to be DPS. I'm just playing a dude who likes swords.

And you probably aren't someone having my problem

Good luck with your game

 

[CapnZapp]

In every single version of D&D I'm aware of, missile fire is vastly more effective than melee weapons. It's not a 5e specific problem. It's just 5e gives you fewer tools to deal with it than some other versions, and you really have to work to make melee weapons stay relevant when designing a system. I'm guessing 5e paid little attention to that, given that D&D never has.

Well...

There are at least half a dozen rules in D&D changed between 5E and previous editions, all in favor of ranged combat.

So while you might be correct about the 5e haven't paid attention and previous editions haven't either, there still is a difference.

Previous editions didn't have to. 5e probably should have.

Zapp

PS. I guess it boils down to the fact how many players look no further than their immediate numbers.

Even if a bow would in practice still be more effective over the long run, the small fact that the immediate number (say 1d10+2) is noticeably lower than the melee weapon (1d12+4 say) meant ranged builds never played such a prominent part. Example assuming strength-based damage or composite bows, where the archer has a 14 in his secondary Strength ability, whereas the greatweapon user has an 18 in her primary Strength ability.

What I'm saying is that you can still be right. It still doesn't mean changing the numbers is pointless.