D&D 5E Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.

[Guest 6801718]

Agreed.


Exactly. To my mind, being able to fight with ranged weapons unhindered in melee is such a major flaw.


If I had shared that sentiment I wouldn't have felt the need to mess with the rules.

But I don't. My players are simply to good at finding/exploiting loopholes and building characters for best-in-class DPR.

I simply can't let things like Great Weapon Master stand, since it means nobody would consider playing a character that can't benefit from it. The damage increase potential is simply too great.

I mean, talking about the mid levels (level 12 for example), if a greatsword wielder does, say, 10-15 points more damage per round than a sword-and-board character, that would be totally fine, and probably a reasonable tradeoff compared to the extra AC and perhaps Shield Master ability.

And that's what a quick look at the game tells you.

But in real play, it simply isn't the case.

In practical play, the sword-n-board guy might do 3d8+15 or 28 damage. But the greatsword gal will do 3d12+45 damage or 64 damage.

That difference is so enormously staggeringly huge it isn't funny. It is completely unreasonable to ask a character to forego frikkin' double damage just to gain a few points of AC or similar.

Killing monsters at twice the speed simply can't be beat. You take much less damage if only half as many monsters get to attack you, than what any AC bonus could ever help you with.

And, to round off by bringing us back on topic, if in practical play there's a third guy using a hand crossbow that deals 4d6+60 damage (that's even more than the greatweapon wielder!) both in melee and from up to 120 feet away, then there can only be one conclusion:

There IS a major flaw, and patching the rules needs to happen. Even though keeping track of the changes IS a hassle.

Not only does these feats disable every other character build, they completely outclass the monsters too.

Since I would like to avoid rewriting the entire MM in the Dave 2008 style, I feel that taking away the possibility for runaway amounts of damage is the more painless way to go.

Of course, the best solution would be for WotC to errata the GWM, SS and CE feats officially.

If you're looking at things in a vacuum, then sure feats like GWM, SS and CE easily outclass monsters. In a straight up, by the numbers comparison the PCs always come out ahead. I do agree that some of the feats need to be toned down a bit. Though really, there are a variety of monster abilities, spells, terrain and tactics that should always be considered in encounters. What's required for a ranged attack, for example? You need your range weapon and ammo, to be in range, and line of sight. Things like walls that are illusions, invisibility, cover, range penalties and enemies who are capable of firing back all mess with ranged PCs. Or just outnumber the PCs more. Tired of that GWM fighter slaughtering monsters left and right? Have enemies with evasion abilities who slip in and out of melee range. Have enemy archers pepper him with arrows from atop a wall or inside a tower or even up a tree. A GWM fighter who doesn't have anything he can reach does 0 damage. A range PC who can't see their target does 0 damage. It makes things more interesting, mixes up encounters and keeps PCs on their toes. You can also throw things into an encounter that PCs can't fight, like traps or terrain obstacles. Plus you have monsters with resistances. Put those solidly built PCs in a locked room fighting oozes while the ceiling presses down on them in an elaborate trap. Now you have PCs trying to stop the trap and open the door plus a monster with some nasty resistances. The ooze doesn't care if the ceiling presses into the floor. They'll just slip through the cracks and be fine. The PCs will get crushed to death though, if they don't stop that ceiling. Even if that rogue is crazy good at spotting and disarming traps, it still takes time and takes them out of the fight. That puts pressure on any build to survive no matter how good. My point being there is a lot more that goes into challenging a party than just propping monster up in front of them. I have a pretty good group of optimizers myself. They can build some nasty characters. I've made them afraid on many occasions and taken them down a few times. I did it by using all the encounter tools the game offers you. I never re-wrote a monster, stat block, trap or anything. There are more tools in the DM toolbox besides monsters. Some monsters do have low ACs, which makes things like GWM more dangerous. Though there are situations where monsters have a high AC and that GWM is a lot less likely to take that -5 penalty if it means they'll miss more and do no damage. The core of the game that the rules are built around is that players kill monsters to get rewards (either xp or treasure). So naturally PCs are good at killing stuff. It's what every class in the game is built around. You can keep it easy and let the group slaughter their way through a game if you like. You can also make it more difficult by adding things into an encounter that are hindrances to the group. Neither one is wrong. It's just what you want from a game. Even if you run a tougher game, there is nothing wrong with the party being able to trash an encounter here and there. Sometimes a solid victory is a good reward when the group has gone through tough fights. This still doesn't strike me as a rules problem or a build problem or a range vs melee problem. It strikes me as an encounter problem, which is a lot easier to fix than changing feats or monster stats.

 

[guachi]

To beat the Crossbow Expert horse once more:

I've never played 4e, so I don't know how the rules are worded but 5e, despite being written in "natural language", has some rules terminology they use repeatedly.

It wasn't exactly obvious on first reading but things referring to "actions" invariably refer to a specific rule identified action (Attack, bonus, cast a spell, etc) and not just the general usage of the word "action"

Similarly, there are specific definitions what "attack", "weapon", "ranged", "ranged weapon", "melee weapon", and "melee weapon attack" mean.

A few examples:
Attack - Attacks use attack rolls. No attack roll, not an attack. Magic missile - not an attack. Fireball - not an attack. Grapple - not an attack despite using the Attack action.
Ranged attack - The first part of Crossbow Expert refers to "ranged attack" which means, contrary to what many said, that it applies to ranged spell attack. It should also (IIRC, I'm not at my books) apply to melee weapons that you throw as it would now qualify as a ranged attack.
Melee Weapon Attack - An unarmed strike qualifies as a melee weapon attack despite not actually being a melee weapon (per errata)

in other words, it's best to read what the rules say, not what you think they say or think they should say or what you think the developers actually meant to say. Yes, it's possible you'll end up with results that seemingly make no sense like Dwarves being proficient in non-existent throwing hammers. But absent that, don't substitute your judgement for that of the developers. If they wrote it, they meant to write it that way.

So for Crossbow Expert - when they wrote "ranged attack" for the first feature assume they meant it (and they did. It's intentional). When they wrote "one-handed weapon" for the third feature, assume they meant it. To do otherwise you'd need to believe: 1) they meant to write "one-handed melee weapon" the first time but just made an error. 2) They meant to write "one-handed melee weapon" in the errata and just forgot 3) Jeremy Crawford failed to say and forgot yet again, when directly asked, that the RAI for the feature should only apply to "one-handed melee weapons"

It turns out, when Crawford did a Sage Advice answer about the Crossbow Expert feat 19 months ago, that his answer hinged on the same logic (and I think fairly clear logic) as my answer did. To whit:
A hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon, so it can, indeed, be used for both attacks, assuming you have a hand free to load the hand crossbow between the two attacks.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

TL;DR thread
[MENTION=6801299]Horwath[/MENTION]

...or...

9. Shot Missile Weapons (Bows, Crossbows, Slings, etc) are limited to a maximum of 2 Attacks per round. Thrown Missile Weapons (daggers, darts, spears, etc) are limited to a maximum of but 1 Attack per round.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Satyrn]

9. . . . darts . . . are limited to a maximum of but 1 Attack per round.

Man, my 2e fighter has some choice words for you.

 

[CapnZapp]

If you're looking at things in a vacuum, then sure feats like GWM, SS and CE easily outclass monsters. In a straight up, by the numbers comparison the PCs always come out ahead. I do agree that some of the feats need to be toned down a bit. Though really, there are a variety of monster abilities, spells, terrain and tactics that should always be considered in encounters. What's required for a ranged attack, for example? You need your range weapon and ammo, to be in range, and line of sight. Things like walls that are illusions, invisibility, cover, range penalties and enemies who are capable of firing back all mess with ranged PCs. Or just outnumber the PCs more. Tired of that GWM fighter slaughtering monsters left and right? Have enemies with evasion abilities who slip in and out of melee range. Have enemy archers pepper him with arrows from atop a wall or inside a tower or even up a tree. A GWM fighter who doesn't have anything he can reach does 0 damage. A range PC who can't see their target does 0 damage. It makes things more interesting, mixes up encounters and keeps PCs on their toes. You can also throw things into an encounter that PCs can't fight, like traps or terrain obstacles. Plus you have monsters with resistances. Put those solidly built PCs in a locked room fighting oozes while the ceiling presses down on them in an elaborate trap. Now you have PCs trying to stop the trap and open the door plus a monster with some nasty resistances. The ooze doesn't care if the ceiling presses into the floor. They'll just slip through the cracks and be fine. The PCs will get crushed to death though, if they don't stop that ceiling. Even if that rogue is crazy good at spotting and disarming traps, it still takes time and takes them out of the fight. That puts pressure on any build to survive no matter how good. My point being there is a lot more that goes into challenging a party than just propping monster up in front of them. I have a pretty good group of optimizers myself. They can build some nasty characters. I've made them afraid on many occasions and taken them down a few times. I did it by using all the encounter tools the game offers you. I never re-wrote a monster, stat block, trap or anything. There are more tools in the DM toolbox besides monsters. Some monsters do have low ACs, which makes things like GWM more dangerous. Though there are situations where monsters have a high AC and that GWM is a lot less likely to take that -5 penalty if it means they'll miss more and do no damage. The core of the game that the rules are built around is that players kill monsters to get rewards (either xp or treasure). So naturally PCs are good at killing stuff. It's what every class in the game is built around. You can keep it easy and let the group slaughter their way through a game if you like. You can also make it more difficult by adding things into an encounter that are hindrances to the group. Neither one is wrong. It's just what you want from a game. Even if you run a tougher game, there is nothing wrong with the party being able to trash an encounter here and there. Sometimes a solid victory is a good reward when the group has gone through tough fights. This still doesn't strike me as a rules problem or a build problem or a range vs melee problem. It strikes me as an encounter problem, which is a lot easier to fix than changing feats or monster stats.

The issue isn't "oh my gosh my players destroy my monsters what am I gonna do?"

The issue isn't even players choosing characters with the OMG, WTF and BBQ feats.

The issue is that the characters without these feats are completely and utterly and irrevocably hosed.

None of the things you say are wrong. However, none of the things you say are relevant either.

The solution simply isn't to double up on your mad DM skillz like you describe.

The solution is to not offer a few feats that enable that much more damage than the other ones.

 

[Satyrn]

The issue is that the characters without these feats are completely and utterly and irrevocably hosed.

I just don't even.

 

[Yunru]

The issue isn't "oh my gosh my players destroy my monsters what am I gonna do?"

The issue isn't even players choosing characters with the OMG, WTF and BBQ feats.

The issue is that the characters without these feats are completely and utterly and irrevocably hosed.

None of the things you say are wrong. However, none of the things you say are relevant either.

The solution simply isn't to double up on your mad DM skillz like you describe.

The solution is to not offer a few feats that enable that much more damage than the other ones.

So you keep saying. And yet there are plenty of tables using the feats (with others not) that aren't suffering such problems.

 

[Guest 6801718]

The issue isn't "oh my gosh my players destroy my monsters what am I gonna do?"

The issue isn't even players choosing characters with the OMG, WTF and BBQ feats.

The issue is that the characters without these feats are completely and utterly and irrevocably hosed.

None of the things you say are wrong. However, none of the things you say are relevant either.

The solution simply isn't to double up on your mad DM skillz like you describe.

The solution is to not offer a few feats that enable that much more damage than the other ones.

How are they hosed? If you don't allow feats, so be it. I'm sure they'll get along just fine. Feats are optional after all. If they party is demolishing monsters because of these feats, then wouldn't it just be a bit closer of a match-up in an encounter without them? If players want to power game by only choosing optimized feats and niche builds, that's what they will do regardless of what's available to them. They'll optimize with whatever resources are available. If you take a way feats because of these builds then what next? Take way Haste and Foresight? Take away certain cleric domains? Start taking away other options because they are just so good with whatever build they come up with? Once again, the problem isn't the feats. It's what they see as important to "winning" the game. How important are those feats when you aren't in combat? How important will those feats be if you change up your tactics? You're the one designing the campaign and the encounters. So you're teaching the players what's important to succeed in your game. I've seen dozens of characters who don't have a single feat of the big offenders listed that play just fine and make it through encounters. One feat is not the be all end all of surviving an encounter. There are plenty of characters you can make that will thrive in any game without those feats.

 

[smbakeresq]

I do not mind the same tactics over and over again. It is how I play and enjoy playing. That was never my gripe. We play the way we do because we enjoy it, including myself.

My gripes are as follows:
1. Monster Manual monsters are often too weak as written to challenge PCs. They lack essential skills and saves to make them challenging leaving them open to players able to use a wide array of abilities that target creature weaknesses like the lack of the Perception skill or a lack of good save. You have a group of diverse adventurers with lots of spellcasting power and special abilities, yet you have monsters that are one or two trick ponies trying to challenge the party. It takes more than that to be a serious challenge, especially for powerful creatures like balors and dragons. This is not new for 5E as this has been fairly constant in every edition of D&D.

2. Modules are not designed well to challenge parties. They do not force the six to eight encounter day. Encounters are often weak and below the necessary level to challenge parties. End game encounters lack the power to challenge parties without serious rewriting.

3. This is purely optional since feats are optional. Certain feats are far more valuable than others and provide too much of an advantage for a single feat. At this point Sharpshooter is probably the only feat I put in this category. Maybe Heavy Amor Master at lower level, but it becomes a non-factor at higher level. GWM I considered balanced because melee is far more risky than ranged. At this point only Sharpshooter is a pain in the behind. Feats are optional, so can't complain too much about this as I can remove it.

I was hoping 5E would play better at higher level out of the box. It's about like past editions. Good for first the 5 to 9 levels, then getting clunky as the players gain too much power and have too many powerful options. I've been rewriting monsters for so many years that I'm tired of doing it. It's disappointing when a balor and marilith are big bags of hit points easily blown up in combat. Goes against my imagination of what they should be like along with dragons.

1. MM creatures are fine, but most of them have trait that most DM do not use, Intelligence and Wisdom score. Lets take Orcs. Orcs have average wisdom, so they are sufficiently cunning to only fall for the same trick once. They will usually be led by a War Chief or Orogs or both. Those creatures have enough INT and WIS and battle experience to set early warning systems, adapt to tactics they have seen before, and overcome situations on the fly. They can communicate a fluid situation to their followers, orcs, and orcs have sufficient INT and experience to listen and follow directions. This means that when the OROG closes to combat range with lesser Orcs accompanying it the order will be given for one Orc to take the help action to give the Orog advantage on that first great axe attack.

Expanding on this, Hobgoblins have this trait right in the MM:

"Strategic Thinkers. Hobgoblins have a strong grasp
of tactics and discipline, and can carry out sophisticated
battle plans under the direction of a strategically
minded leader. However, they hate elves and attack
them first in battle over any other opponents, even if
doing so would be a tactical error."

That seems to me they will have a grasp of tactics at least as good standing field armies of the whatever kingdoms you adventure in. They will sentry everything, will fortify their camp every night while traveling, will conduct aggressive patrols on schedule, so they players will have a random encounter with a patrol unless they take steps to avoid one and cover their presence. If a patrol goes missing it will noticed, and measures will escalate. To me that means also that passive perception is out the window, the creatures will be making active perception rolls as they are patrolling.


Some creatures have low INT but reasonable to great WIS score, a Hydra (INT 2 WIS 10) wont have a thought out battle plan but is cunning enough to see who its greatest threat is. A Minotaur (INT6 WIS 16) is very cunning enough to retreat, track, ambush groups.

Creatures that lack both like Oozes are straight forward, however they are often controlled by others.

When you start getting more advanced creatures, like Giants, remember their group structure, and realize there is always a voice behind the throne type of advisor.

Really advanced creatures like Dragons don't get old and powerful by being dumb. They have been around for years, and have encountered many groups before that came to kill them. They will have rehearsed plans and courses of action that are effective. Things like doppelgangers will be disguised as something else and will have read your parties thoughts so they will almost never be surprised by any tactic used against them.


Another thing is to remember the characters are LEGENDARY, they are heroes! Word of their exploits will get around, so an intelligent creature will hear about them and be prepared. A super intelligent being with unlimited time and resources on their hands will know almost everything about the characters that is knowable. A lich or a vampire has nothing but time on their hands and cast multiple divination rituals repeatedly, they have little to fear from a Contact Other Plane spell also.




2. Correct, they need a lot of work between encounters. Those short rests need to have random encounter checks rolled, and no way you get a long rest in an organized creatures dungeon, they will send out search parties and conduct room by room patrols. I hope the players got that rope trick spell going. The BBEG implies a party that has been worn down some, make sure to wear them down.


3. First make sure you know the feat. Players getting on you with Sharpshooter abuse? It doesn't help them with total cover, and with movement and attacks freely interspersed no reasonably intelligent creature would stand in the open, they would move from total cover, shoot, and then move back into total cover. The feat also has no effect on concealment, so a Fog Cloud would completely shut down a PC archer, as would a smoky fire upwind of them, allowing the creatures to close the range. Hope the ranger brought spike growth. Lightly obscured areas would require a perception check to even be able to see the creature to shoot at it, although if a spell caster lit them up with Fairie Fire I would waive the check as that's it purpose.

Also, feats go both ways. A creature with class levels gets feats also, a quick way to add something is to add levels to a monster they have encountered before. Its perfectly legit to have the Exceptional Hobgoblin Captain with 4 levels of fighter using the Sharpshooter feat to shoot a bow into combat while other hobgoblins use the help action to give him advantage for an attack at -5 to hit (but with advantage) and d8 + 10 + 3d6 (martial advantage.) That's how the Orcs got Boromir remember?

 

[CapnZapp]

So you keep saying. And yet there are plenty of tables using the feats (with others not) that aren't suffering such problems.

I didn't say there weren't. And these tables doesn't need to change anything.

However, these tables would likely have had no problems with better improved fixed feats either.

So why resist admitting the obvious - the feats are easily abusable and should not have been there?