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

[CapnZapp]

Stop speaking for me.

I'm not speaking for you.

As a rule of thumb, Yunru: when on the Internet, unless somebody specifically mentions you, assume they aren't speaking for you or even thinking about you.

This should spare you a lot of grief both here at ENWorld and elsewhere online.

 

[Yunru]

The rules simply do not support the kind of encounters we all want it to support.

You're right, instead you try to speak for everyone, ever. Stop it.

 

[CapnZapp]

You're right, instead you try to speak for everyone, ever. Stop it.

Your attempts at bullying won't work.

When I post, I don't need to use lawyer-speak to guard my every sentence. Assume that when I use pronouns, I don't speak for the entire world population, but for people that share my views.

Btw, this goes for everyone around here. You don't get to single me out.

Unless you can find something constructive to post about, where you talk about issues and arguments instead of persons, just don't post.

But I can be more clear if you need it: feel free to assume I am never ever speaking for you, Yunru.

M'kay?

 

[Yunru]

Your attempts at bullying won't work.

When I post, I don't need to use lawyer-speak to guard my every sentence. Assume that when I use pronouns, I don't speak for the entire world population, but for people that share my views.

Btw, this goes for everyone around here. You don't get to single me out.

Unless you can find something constructive to post about, where you talk about issues and arguments instead of persons, just don't post.

But I can be more clear if you need it: feel free to assume I am never ever speaking for you, Yunru.

M'kay?

You're attempts at passive aggressive bullying won't work. There's a large difference between guarding your words and deliberately including everyone. Using "we" is fine, but you deliberately use "we all" in an attempt to bully flamestrike into feeling outnumbered. So no, I won't assume that, and I will call you out on it. "M'kay?"

 

[pemerton]

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.

The Balor shouldn't need macguffins, it should have the tools right there in the stat block.

The dragon shouldn't need to cheat by made-up "networks of spies", it should have the tools right there in the statblock.

<snip>

for those DMs that do not want to play the game that way, this edition leaves them out in the cold, like 3E never did.

<snip>

The rules simply do not support the kind of encounters we all want it to support.

I don't know about 3E, but 4e did a reasonable job of this sort of thing, so maybe there are some ideas that could be borrowed from it?

 

[cmad1977]

I don't know about 3E, but 4e did a reasonable job of this sort of thing, so maybe there are some ideas that could be borrowed from it?

That would require a little bit of work. Some folk don't want that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cyrinishad]

I an attempt to prevent this thread from completely derailing, I'm dropping back in to say that I whole-heatedly agree with CapnZapp's wish that the Monster Manual was a stronger tool-box for building dynamic encounters. Specifically, it should have encounter examples that are designed to challenge the range of tactics presented in the PHB... Perhaps instead of a supplement written by Volo, we could be graced with a supplement written by Halaster where he could give advice on how he "designs encounters".

 

[Guest 6801718]

My current thinking is that Linguist & friends should be converted to backgrounds.

Essentially, the proposal is to add a single "trained background" where a player is allowed to pick a feat (from a list containing Keen Mind, Linguist etc) in return for spinning a tale as to how that character came to that type of specialized training. The feat would be the Feature of that background.

Actor on the other hand is borderline too-strong for this, since getting advantage on deception is close to a free pass on talking your way past guards and such, and can often replace even magic. (Actually, in my review, I gave Actor an overall grade of blue, so I'm definitely planning to let it stand as-is)

So the list definitely contains Keen Mind and Linguist, but that's about it. Observant would be on the list if not for the +5 passive perception (which is very strong, since in practice it means no monster or trap can ever surprise you again).

I think this idea with the backgrounds is really interesting. The backgrounds section does suggest that each background come with a few skill training options and some kind of special benefit. Perhaps if you did a custom background that swapped out the skill selection with a feat like Linguist or offered Linguist as the special benefit instead of something like Criminal Contact, the lesser used feats would find some good play. The "trained" background could find a special niche and offer something interesting to the PC. I'd have to look over the feats again to see which ones would fit something like this. Though I like the idea.

I've been thinking about the encounter problem you were talking about too, where monster stat blocks don't do the monster justice. When the PCs confront the Big Bad, the Big Bad can get stomped on. I doubt we'd ever seen any big adjustment to some of the more deadly feats or the monsters themselves. As mentioned, the game is based on kill monsters and get rewards. So by design, the monsters are only meant to last an encounter. Which can make the idea of a recurring villain or monster something of a pipe dream. The bad guys are designed to lose, so adding some real menace can be a bit of a problem. Especially if you don't have the prep time between sessions to come up with really complex encounters.

I was thinking about this when reading through a campaign world that is meant to be more harsh and dangerous. So I was thinking of how I could really drive home that idea of a more deadly D&D world. I think we both agree that adding in rules or doing some homebrewing can be a hassle. Though I was really tempted to try out the optional critical hits tables in the DMG. When a crit is rolled, you can consult one of the tables for some kind of more permanent or debilitating effect, like having an eye gouged out or a hand lopped off. Now, stuff like that can be pretty scary for a PC, particularly if they don't want their hero maimed like that. Though thanks to magical healing, some of this stuff can be taken care of fairly quickly. Which means that it could add a complication to an encounter that those optimized heroes have to deal with. When a GWM gets a hand torn off, what then? How about that archer taking a shot to the face and losing an eye? Magic can fix the problem later (should they live) but for that encounter they are suddenly working with a disadvantage. Now, the problem is that this is all random. You have to roll that crit and randomly determine the effect. Plus you have to keep that crit table handy for easy access. Though I guess you could print it out and clip it to your DM screen. So I'm not really sure how something like this actually plays out. Same thing with the madness tables. You can have sanity checks for the more bizarre or menacing creatures but it requires a sanity stat and save along with a chart. So it's an optional rule with a little bookkeeping hassle but it has the potential to slow down some optimized heroes. Have you ever played with any of these optional rules? I'd be curious to see how they actually work. Unfortunately, I won't be in the DM chair for a while. So I can't report on how they play out. I am curious to see what they actually add to the game. Plus they have the potential to be really deadly if multiple crits pop up against the party.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I an attempt to prevent this thread from completely derailing, I'm dropping back in to say that I whole-heatedly agree with CapnZapp's wish that the Monster Manual was a stronger tool-box for building dynamic encounters. Specifically, it should have encounter examples that are designed to challenge the range of tactics presented in the PHB... Perhaps instead of a supplement written by Volo, we could be graced with a supplement written by Halaster where he could give advice on how he "designs encounters".

I don't think complaints about the monsters are entirely without merit. I don't think the system needs a complete overhaul or anything that drastic. I think the system already has provided the tools needed. I've modified monsters in order to make them more challenging. For instance, I've made a Marilith able to use her reactive ability to parry arrows and I made teleport a move action for her. Pretty easy. Didn't need WotC to hold my hand for it. They can't write the rules with every game group in mind.

I think a big part of it is howcodified everything was in the predominant edition that folks have come to 5E from...the 3E/Pathfinder rules. There is a formula for almost everything. So I think people became very used to that. They want to be able to consult a table in a book that says "adding ability X to monster Y increases its CR by Z." In a way, I can understand that desire because that's what people have become used to.

However, given the approach that 5E is taking, I don't think that such a thing that anyone should expect any time soon. It just seems at odds with how they are approaching the game in this edition. Why spend all that time and effort to create rule components that will appeal to a handful of the audience...especially when the resolution for any problems that such components would add is already in the hands of the players?

My Marilith problem, for example. Played one encounter with one when she was well beyond the PCs actual ability. So she was still beyond their ability...I played it up as more of a sparring session where she was toying with them. But I saw a couple of areas that could be an issue for when she shows up later in the campaign and the PCs are more capable. So I switched her abilities a bit. Nothing drastic...nothing that I even need to write down. Problem solved.

We already have the tools to fix the problems ourselves. I would rather they spend time and effort on other matters than simply addressing one aspect of the game that a small percentage of the audience has an issue with.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't know about 3E, but 4e did a reasonable job of this sort of thing, so maybe there are some ideas that could be borrowed from it?

That would require a little bit of work. Some folk don't want that.

In my case I'm willing to do the work. I didn't like 4th edition however, so that edition's solution isn't for me.

In fact, when you say "a little bit of work" that is actually much closer to the truth than what many realize.

Just by analyzing the feats and agreeing on what (parts) to remove or redo we can get a long way

Not for nothing is my ideal an edition 5.1 which is pretty much what we already have, but with two things corrected:

a) the most egregious feats nerfed (that is, what's egregious is the minmax combos; the feats are just the cornerstone of the minmax strategys and thus the easiest part to address with a fix)

b) fixing the skill system which currently is heavily tilted in the PCs favor, and perhaps giving a selection of monsters a general toolbox to make them function even in isolation