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

[Yunru]

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?

Because it's incorrect?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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

What [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] said about: "...The issue is that the characters without these feats are completely and utterly and irrevocably hosed". I think what he's talking about is PC's within the same group in the same campaign. I mean, if one person builds a fighter who is a good 'all around fighter' who took no feats at all...just the stat adjustments...and everyone in the group is, say 9th level. When the min/maxed power gamer fighter, barbarian, whatever, wades into battle...and the all-around fighter does the same right next to him. Well, if the DM had "beefed up" the opponents to counter the power gamer, then the non-optimized fighter is going to get the tar kicked out of him. He will be swinging, missing, hitting for (potentially) far less damage than his compatriot right next to him.

Should the non-optimized fighters player get an azz kicking all the time? No? Oh, so a normal encounter where he can not get his butt whomped is the answer you say? Not so fast! Now we have the opposite problem; the pro-optimized character is laughing and dropping his opponents left, right, and center. This as the same effect on the non-optimized fighters player; he feels 'useless'...even if his character is supposed to be a good, all around fighter.

Anyway...that was what I think Capnzapp was on about; that if EVERYONE is using Feats and optimizing it's not a problem. The problem shows up when one or more players don't choose Feats or choose non-optimal ones for character and other "fun" reasons.

As an aside, we (my group and I) have tried feats three times, in three mini-campaigns lasting a total of about a year and a half. We found Feats did nothing but force everyone to choose the 'optimal' Feats very, very often...for the reasons I listed above. All it took was for the Barbarian to say "I have GWM", and BLAMMO! Everyone had to now choose 'optimal' feats for their character or be left behind...or have the Barbarian player get bored out of his skull as each round was ho-hum to him, but a nail-bitter for everyone else. The disparity between power levels got 'silly' once the barbarian hit level 7 for some reason (could be the types of monsters vs his DPR/capabilities, maybe?). The end result for us: No Feats or Multiclassing for any of our future 5e games. Ever.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[CapnZapp]

Because it's not what I want?

Fixed that for you.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hiya!



What [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] said about: "...The issue is that the characters without these feats are completely and utterly and irrevocably hosed". I think what he's talking about is PC's within the same group in the same campaign. I mean, if one person builds a fighter who is a good 'all around fighter' who took no feats at all...just the stat adjustments...and everyone in the group is, say 9th level. When the min/maxed power gamer fighter, barbarian, whatever, wades into battle...and the all-around fighter does the same right next to him. Well, if the DM had "beefed up" the opponents to counter the power gamer, then the non-optimized fighter is going to get the tar kicked out of him. He will be swinging, missing, hitting for (potentially) far less damage than his compatriot right next to him.

Should the non-optimized fighters player get an azz kicking all the time? No? Oh, so a normal encounter where he can not get his butt whomped is the answer you say? Not so fast! Now we have the opposite problem; the pro-optimized character is laughing and dropping his opponents left, right, and center. This as the same effect on the non-optimized fighters player; he feels 'useless'...even if his character is supposed to be a good, all around fighter.

Anyway...that was what I think Capnzapp was on about; that if EVERYONE is using Feats and optimizing it's not a problem. The problem shows up when one or more players don't choose Feats or choose non-optimal ones for character and other "fun" reasons.

As an aside, we (my group and I) have tried feats three times, in three mini-campaigns lasting a total of about a year and a half. We found Feats did nothing but force everyone to choose the 'optimal' Feats very, very often...for the reasons I listed above. All it took was for the Barbarian to say "I have GWM", and BLAMMO! Everyone had to now choose 'optimal' feats for their character or be left behind...or have the Barbarian player get bored out of his skull as each round was ho-hum to him, but a nail-bitter for everyone else. The disparity between power levels got 'silly' once the barbarian hit level 7 for some reason (could be the types of monsters vs his DPR/capabilities, maybe?). The end result for us: No Feats or Multiclassing for any of our future 5e games. Ever.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Thanks Paul.

You're correct, but let me point out that the biggest issue (in practice, for me) isn't "one player doesn't end up with a kick-ass character".

The biggest issue is how having some feats be clearly better than others limits and narrows the game.

Put simply: if Bob can't double Joe's damage output by picking GWM feat, he doesn't feel compelled to choose that feat.

This is a great win, not (in my case) so much because of Joe (since none of my players is a Joe) but because the Bobs can now feel free to select from a much larger variety of character builds.

When "knife thrower" does a little less damage than a greataxe everything is cool. But nobody's going to pick that choice if you lose out on a truckload of damage.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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

I think of it not so much as "how easy is it to fire off or throw the weapon", as it is "how easy is it to fire off or throw the weapon...when I'm underground, with only flickering torchlight, wounded from 3rd degree acid burns, sporting a cracked jaw, surrounded by vicious monsters trying to eat my face, and judge the timing just right so that I hit the war-chief monster without hitting my two companions fighting him".

Standing 50' away from a stationary target with bright colours painted on it, in the middle of a field on a sunny day with a hushed crowd waiting to see how close to the bullseye I can get after taking careful aim for 15 seconds....well, kinda different I would imagine.

But 5e D&D isn't about minutia...the minutia the rules would have to have in order to account at least somewhat for such disparity between circumstances. Hence "You can take the Attack action", with "attack" being pretty freaking vague if you think about it. Fast and loose, baby, fast and loose! In this case "Shooting = 2/round ; Throwing = 1/round" keeps with that idea.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Yunru]

Fixed that for you.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

The biggest issue is how having some feats be clearly better than others limits and narrows the game.

Yup, that's been our experience too (in 3.5e and Pathfinder in particular). We found that allowing Feats basically meant that if you had a Barbarian, you took GWM, plain and simple. If you had a ranger, you took Sharpshooter and/or Crossbow Expert. If you had a Thief, you took Alert. There are other class/feat combo's that basically were auto-takes. If you didn't take them, and nobody else took their class/race primary 'auto-take-feats', it was fine; but as soon as even *one* character took one of the "good feats", that was it; arms race and everyone felt like they had to take on of the 'good feats' for their character as well...otherwise, as you said...knife fighter vs guy with 50lb warhammer.

In short, if someone played a barbarian...they took GWM. If someone played a fighter or cleric, it was that Armor one. Etc, etc, etc. Opening up Feats did the opposite of what they were intended for: to allow for more "diversified character concepts". In stead, every barbarian had GWM, every fighter/cleric had Armor Mastery (?), etc. FAAAAR less diverse characters.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Celtavian]

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.

The monsters aren't fine. This whole INT and WIS talk is garbage.

As I said, Smaug did not have to hide. He crushed an entire dwarven city. The heroes of the story had next to no hope beating Smaug in a straight up fight, some of them were the greatest dwarven heroes of their time with the greatest wizard of their era. Yet even Gandalf and these dwarf heroes could not stand against Smaug in straight up battle. The players had to use their INT and WIS because the monster was so formidable that they had no hope against him straight. Yet here are you and guys like Flamestrike[/i] telling me how to "play them smart" and other such trash when all you're doing is proving my point. By saying, "play the monster smart" you are in essence making the PCs in the Smaug and the monsters into the person that needs to be smart about fighting the PCs.

The same could be said of the Balor or Marilith. Really? That's what you picture as a great cinematic encounter? A balor being forced to play hide and seek in special terrain because if he shows his face the Sharpshooter Archer turns it into a living pincusshio with help from the smiting warlock and paladin that kill it so fast it was better off running? That's you're image of a great encounter?

This is why we'll never, ever see eye to eye and why folks like you and Flamestrike continue to prove my point that monsters as written are not a very good challenge for the PCs. They have to play "smart" and use their "INT and WIS" to challenge the PCs rather than the PCs having to play smart and use their INT and WIS to beat the fearsome, destructive demonic warlord or awe-inspiring dragon. If that sits well with you, then so be it. It doesn't sit well with me. I want the dragon and balor to force the PCs to use their INT and WIS to beat them if they're sitting in a room drinking tea with the door wide open waiting for the PCs to come in. In fact, I want the Balor to want the PCs to fight him straight up because he knows that's a losing battle for them or at least a very great situation for him.

I don't see why you anyone that plays this game because they love fantasy stories doesn't want the same thing. When I ask for dragons to be able to challenge the PCs without special environments or tons of minions, I don't see why that is asking too much. Why can't a dragon fly out of its lair, spot the PCs wandering about, and force them to run for cover rather than vice versa even at high level? Why can't a Balor throw itself into the middle of a group of PCs and challenge them without special help from terrain or minions and survive past a few rounds? I don't think that is asking too much, but I guess it is to some of you.

Regardless, I'm going to build what I want. For me the monsters in the Monster Manual are too weak. They don't accomplish my desires in the narrative. Given that is their job, they're not accomplishing their job. I want ancient dragons that can make lvl 15 or 20 characters flee and have to work their asses off to beat them. I want balors that PCs fear to engage because they know they're in a battle to death. I want mariliths that deflect arrows and spell beams while slicing and dicing any PCs that approach them. I want the PCs scared of my monsters. I want the PCs to have to use their INT and WIS to beat the monsters regardless of the terrain or environment. The monsters in the Monster Manual are not getting it done.

 

[cmad1977]

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.

I've never taken those feats and have never felt screwed or weak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hawkeyefan]

The monsters aren't fine. This whole INT and WIS talk is garbage.

As I said, Smaug did not have to hide. He crushed an entire dwarven city. The heroes of the story had next to no hope beating Smaug in a straight up fight, some of them were the greatest dwarven heroes of their time with the greatest wizard of their era. Yet even Gandalf and these dwarf heroes could not stand against Smaug in straight up battle. The players had to use their INT and WIS because the monster was so formidable that they had no hope against him straight. Yet here are you and guys like Flamestrike[/i] telling me how to "play them smart" and other such trash when all you're doing is proving my point. By saying, "play the monster smart" you are in essence making the PCs in the Smaug and the monsters into the person that needs to be smart about fighting the PCs.

The same could be said of the Balor or Marilith. Really? That's what you picture as a great cinematic encounter? A balor being forced to play hide and seek in special terrain because if he shows his face the Sharpshooter Archer turns it into a living pincusshio with help from the smiting warlock and paladin that kill it so fast it was better off running? That's you're image of a great encounter?

This is why we'll never, ever see eye to eye and why folks like you and Flamestrike continue to prove my point that monsters as written are not a very good challenge for the PCs. They have to play "smart" and use their "INT and WIS" to challenge the PCs rather than the PCs having to play smart and use their INT and WIS to beat the fearsome, destructive demonic warlord or awe-inspiring dragon. If that sits well with you, then so be it. It doesn't sit well with me. I want the dragon and balor to force the PCs to use their INT and WIS to beat them if they're sitting in a room drinking tea with the door wide open waiting for the PCs to come in. In fact, I want the Balor to want the PCs to fight him straight up because he knows that's a losing battle for them or at least a very great situation for him.

I don't see why you anyone that plays this game because they love fantasy stories doesn't want the same thing. When I ask for dragons to be able to challenge the PCs without special environments or tons of minions, I don't see why that is asking too much. Why can't a dragon fly out of its lair, spot the PCs wandering about, and force them to run for cover rather than vice versa even at high level? Why can't a Balor throw itself into the middle of a group of PCs and challenge them without special help from terrain or minions and survive past a few rounds? I don't think that is asking too much, but I guess it is to some of you.

Regardless, I'm going to build what I want. For me the monsters in the Monster Manual are too weak. They don't accomplish my desires in the narrative. Given that is their job, they're not accomplishing their job. I want ancient dragons that can make lvl 15 or 20 characters flee and have to work their asses off to beat them. I want balors that PCs fear to engage because they know they're in a battle to death. I want mariliths that deflect arrows and spell beams while slicing and dicing any PCs that approach them. I want the PCs scared of my monsters. I want the PCs to have to use their INT and WIS to beat the monsters regardless of the terrain or environment. The monsters in the Monster Manual are not getting it done.

Meh. Smaug got one-hit.