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

[CapnZapp]

I would have done something similar, definitely. Juiblex is huge, and formless on top of it....no way would I let repelling blast affect him. These are common sense solutions to a problem...I don't think applying logic in this way is a problem at all. That's a mechanical solution to the problem.

I'd also probably place Juiblex in a cavern that had like a coral type rock structure. All kinds of odd structure and shapes to get in the PCs way but which Juiblex moves right around or through as needed. I'd make the party warlock and ranger work to get a clear shot at him, or force them to ready an action to shoot him, limiting the number of attacks. Such a place seems to make a lot more sense for a lair for him than simply a wide open space where a party can walk in and blast away at him before he can do anything. That's a tactical solution to the problem.

But can you understand the sentiment that it would have been helpful if the MM stat block said "Juiblex is immune to forced movement" or somesuch?

I mean, your reply is only one out of a multitude that doesn't adress the issue and instead move right on towards suggesting solutions.

But my question isn't about the actual solutions. I'm not some kind of newb that can't modify monsters. My question is about what's in the actual stat block. Or more specifically, my question is: how come there are this vocal group of posters that apologize for every WotC move, and see no drawbacks or problems in whatever they do, no matter how oversimplified the game becomes?

As for your coral cavern, again, beside the point.

The point is that all the features of your cavern isn't part of the MM stat block, and hence should not be taken into account when calculating the Challenge Rating.

It is possible your cavern makes Juiblex deserve his CR rating, but then the pertinent restrictions should have been incorporated into his "lair" description.

As is, I'd say his CR is significantly lower than the listed value. Your suggestions does not change this fundamental fact: that his CR is way too high, considering how easy he is to defeat using pretty trivial tactics.

In short: we're discussing what's in the book. You can't give the MM a good grade because of what's inside your mind, only because of what's inside the book.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure, but as soon as I start adding this trait or that feature I start diving back into "doing it all myself" which generally presents a more coherent result than tacking on a few features.

I can't be sure if this is what you're actually saying but the argument "it's best for the designers to not do their job, because it lets me do everything myself" is absurd.

There is a difference between getting a ready to go monster which you can change yourself, and getting only a naively designed first-draft monster which you need to add to yourself.

In the first case, the baseline is good enough for a run of the mill encounter. And that is what we're asking for.

The fact that you can always tweak and modify is not in question. But this fact should not be taken as an excuse for the default stat block not to meet a certain standard.

This standard should certainly exhibit signs of the designer knowing what a party of the appropriate level can do, and present the monster's unique capabilities into challenging such a party.

 

[CapnZapp]

So the question is(for the 100th time), why are you, the DM, allowing this tactic to work? Why is your monster so retarded that he is going to endlessly chase around someone that he obviously cannot catch until he is dead? I mean, this should work every once in a while on a especially low int monster(like <4) and even then it is not assurred, but why are you, as the DM, allowing this tactic to be the default and be successful? If YOU where being shot/repelling blasted by someone running away from you in real life, would you A, continue to run to them like a complete moron, or B, turn and find the nearest full cover to hide behind? find cover, retreat, yell out for reinforcements, whatever. For god's sakes, my dog is smarter than the monsters in your game and I have seen him eat his own crap!

The simple fact is that you play your monsters poorly, design encounters poorly, and create an environment where your players can use these types of tactics successfully every time. So why would they ever do anything else?

Just stop it.

If your argument boils down to dungeon masters doing it wrong, have you considered that the MM might not provide good enough support?

Take Juiblex for instance. I absolutely think he should mindlessly just follow you along, he should just be awesome enough to make that relentless mindless tactic work.

Again, no, I will not have every monster use clever SWAT tactics just because their stat blocks does not let them challenge the party otherwise.

Finding cover, calling for reinforcement, crikey - is that really your defense - that we need to do this over and over again just to cover for lacking monster design? How come you can't just admit the MM is the least sophisticated for many editions, and while this is fine for newbies and low-level parties, that this simply does not cut it high levels and for
veteran players?

 

[CapnZapp]

No, it is true in every game. The feats an archer takes do not up their damage way above that of a melee warrior. Melee warriors have feats that up their damage in very similar manners. There is no purely numerical argument which indicates that archers do more damage, have better AC, and are thus numerically superior to melee warriors. Anyone who claims otherwise hasn't sat down, built characters, and ran the math on those characters. All arguments in favor of archers require a value judgement about the impact of ranged attacks. Numerically, coming up with a melee build which does more average damage than an archer build (with no consideration for range) is trivial. Your archer has Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert? Great. My melee build has Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, and a suit of full-plate armor.

Why didn't the archer get full-plate armor...?

And why isn't range a consideration... when that's the whole basis of the argument?

Again, yes a 1d12 is bigger than a 1d6, but stopping there is an incomplete analysis.

One character can be far superior to another despite the "purely numerical argument" saying otherwise. At least if your "purely numerical argument" conveniently ignores some numerical arguments, including outright trivial ones:

When a foe is at 40 feet distance you simply can't deliver any melee attacks. Your DPR then is zero. How does your 1d12 help you then?

 

[CapnZapp]

Wall?!?!

What the hell is that???

Since I won't adress Corwin directly, let me just ask the rest of you: why did this ranged character attempt to back away?

A competently built ranged character is equally lethal in melee as at range.

(I say this not because I believe it to be good for the game, but because it is in the game)

 

[CapnZapp]

So aside from the fact that it is utterly stupid to toss a single Marilith

Ah, thanks.

Since your argument boils down to me thinking it is "utterly stupid" to use a marilith alone, then we have nothing further to discuss.

I am well aware everything works if you make sure the monsters have enough numbers, but I happen to believe a Marilith is supposed to bring those numbers all by herself.

She just has to be able to get within slicing and dicing range - that brings 6 attacks to the monster side.

Again, the complaint is sidestepped. I'm not complaining about numbers, I can give Mariliths' any number of guards thank you very much.

My complaint is about the 5E Marilith's inability to counter even trivial tricks emplyed by veteran gamers. My complaint is how naive the 5E Marilith design comes across.

 

[CapnZapp]

P.S. if the argument is that, on a bright white plane

Don't let me stop you from setting up nice strawmen for you to topple trivially.

Just don't expect us to take you seriously when you do.

 

[CapnZapp]

I do admit, however, that it would be nice to see a few anti-range based feats designed for melee characters.

Sure, but now we're not discussing the issue where player characters have trouble with ranged monster fire.

We're complaining about monsters not being able to get into melee, and how PCs can direct withering ranged fire without ever having to enter melee.

 

[CapnZapp]

@Cyber-Dave.

With feats at level 11 at level 11 the two best single class fighter damage builds are polearm master and hand crossbow fighter.

The melee warrior using a polearm has only 1 more AC than an archer. 3 attacks per round for 1d10+15 damage and a bonus action attack for 1d4+15 damage. Using the -5/+10 feats he will hit roughly 50% of the time for about 40 DPR.

The hand crossbow fighter has 3 attacks at 1d6+15 and one bonus action attack for 1d6 + 15. The crossbow archer also benefits from +2 accuracy over the melee warrior due to the archery fighting style. Since he hits enemies 60% of the time, his DPR is around 45.

The archer will also have +5 more to initiative as well as better proficiency bonuses to many skills. The crossbow archer can theoretically use a shield as well to increase his AC above that of the polearm warrior (though there is some disagreement about whether or both this is intended within the rules).

Whenever an enemy is over 35 ft away, the polearm warrior missed out on 4 potential attacks because enemies are out of range. The archer never suffers from this issue. Even if this only occurs once or twice a day, it leads to a massive damage drop for the melee warrior. The crossbow archer can fight at point blank range just as good as the polearm warrior so even if combat is within 35 feet all day long (highly unlikely) the crossbow warrior will still perform just as well as the melee warrior.

Thank you for attempting to engage Cyber-Dave into actual analysis of his claims, Ashkelon.

When you add tricks like advantage and Precision Attack battlemaster maneuver, you will see that the actual gameplay DPR figures will increase to even higher levels.

The scary part of WotC's design is that the claim "melee does higher DPR than ranged" is probably not correct even before taking range into account.

 

[CapnZapp]

The observation that ranged combat specialization is dominant in 5E is not predicated on everything taking place on bright white plains. It works just as well in cramped stone labyrinths with 2'-wide corridors. At the risk of belaboring the obvious: four ranged guys in a stone labyrinth can take turns tanking while the other three guys blow the enemy away. They're 95% as effective as three ranged guys and a melee tank, and they're 200-300% as effective as four melee guys.

The primary advantage of melee specialization is that it tends to come with more physical control options. A smaller, secondary advantage is that melee fighters tend to be somewhat better at turning physical control options into an attack advantage, whereas ranged fighters tend to lean more on lighting manipulation and/or hiding to gain their advantage.

Thank you.