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

[Sunseeker]

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.

That's not what I was saying.

I was saying it's easier to create a monster that plays in a manner that makes sense when I design it from the ground up, rather than attempting to add features I feel its lacking.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Assuming the winged demons are playing it smart (e.g. not getting within teleport range), then if she's caught out in the open, I narrate the end of the combat and move on. "Deirdre the Marilith dies like a many-armed pincushion, shrieking curses upon her murderers."

If the demons (are they PCs or NPCs?) think to check the body, they may realize that she's actually only feigning death (Deception check) but actually has 40-50 HP left. This isn't true of course if they kept on shooting her "corpse" to bits after her "death". If they do keep shooting her, then after three or four hits (when she's down to 20-30 HP) she switches to (almost-certainly-futile) maledictions, bluffs, and threats. "By the Threefold Flame I curse thee! Slay me now and thy flesh shall rot from off thy very bones within the fortnight, and my shade consume thy soul to rise again!" Etc.

But of course I wouldn't put myself in that situation as a DM, because I foresee it soon enough to revamp Mariliths before it occurs, e.g. by actually giving them a death curse and/or improved movement capabilities or at the very least a magical item or two. Something that would allow them to actually dominate other demons effectively.

So you don't think her teleport ability would be able to allow her to escape? Or get to terrain that would be more likely to allow her to effectively combat the flying archer demons? She absolutely has to stand her ground and die?

Again, I am not saying that some monsters don't need some tweaking. I personally have tweaked Mariliths in my campaign. My point is more about the fact that there are also usually more than one solution to the problem. Actually altering the MM entry may be necessary from time to time, but I think other steps should be tried first. In the example above, have the Marilith escape and THEN equip herself with some bows and then hunt the archer demons down and destroy them. I wouldn't allow her to die needlessly. Why would she do that?

Beings described as master tacticians don't fight battles they have no chance of winning. So if the criticism is that the stat blocks don't support the idea that a Marilith is a tactical genius because she doesn't have mechanical abilities to support that....the answer is not to make things even worse by having her behave like a moron.

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?

No, I have acknowledged the issue. I think your complaint is valid. Please remember this, and then we can proceed with the discussion in that light. I absolutely understand the sentiment. I agree that Juiblex should have been given some immunity to forced movement. What I don't agree with is that this is such a devastating design flaw as to require a "complete overhaul" of the MM as you suggested.

My point is not that your complaint is without merit. Instead, it's that it is within our power to solve the problem. Wanting WotC to fix the game as you see fit? Okay, fine. Expecting it? Yeah....good luck with that. Not everyone agrees about this design flaw....and that likely includes the designers. So I am not apologizing for them. I don't think the game is flawless. However, its flaws don't cause me that much trouble.

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.

No. I absolutely reject this sentiment. It's so wrong for so many reasons.

First, I'll judge the game however I want. I'm not beholden to you to adhere to your views. In a discussion, all that I need to do is explain my view so that we are actually attempting to communicate.

Second, my stance is that I must judge the game based on what's in my mind....the game relies upon imagination. Why would I remove that factor from any discussion of the game? I mean, the football rulebook contains the rules....not tactics or plays or offensive formations. Those things have all come from the minds of people who play the game. Would you divorce such areas from a discussion of football?

As for the CR....I don't care. Honestly, it's a guideline. There is no way to determine exactly how challenging a monster will be for a given group. It's determined with a general group in mind. However, I play with a specific group....so when I decide what to put in front of them, I think of them, and not a general group.

So yes, Juiblex's CR rating may be low. Who cares? What matters is how he actually fares against your party. If he does not fare well, then something needs to be done. If he fares well, then everything's fine. Worrying about his CR is the tail wagging the dog. What I did was create an encounter that would be representative of the threat level I wanted Juiblex to have. That's what CR is supposed to be, right? So by ignoring the CR and actually thinking about how things would play out, I created an encounter that would be what I hoped.

I didn't rely on a digit in a book to tell me what would work. I used my imagination. It's far more effective than CR.

Keying off Hawkeyefan's post...:

I can't know for sure, but I feel some posters would simply have her cheat, and magically appear in the demons' midst, achieving surprise, and then shish-kebabing them all before they can even act once.

My point isn't that is is wrong or bad. In fact, I hate it when people put the blame on DMs. There's nothing wrong with this style of dming!

My point is that you can't do that and then come here and dismiss complaints that the Marilith stat block is lacking.

You made her great. You did the work we want WotC to do.

Our complain isn't that we can't do what you just did, but that we pretty much have to, since WotC didn't do their homework.

Not necessary to have her "cheat". If I found myself in such a situation where a Marilith was going to be attacked by a group of flying archers, and I wasn't able to simply narrate it (which would be how I'd tend to handle it) and I needed to maintain the idea that Mariliths are dangerous, the last thing I'd do is have her simply sit there and yell curses as the archers slaughtered her off. I'd have her retreat, prepare, and then hunt them down and destroy them.

As I mentioned above in my reply to @Hemlock, having the Marilith sit there and die only makes the situation worse.

 

[dco]

Is the inherent problem a ranged vs melee problem, a str vs dex problem or an unbalanced feat problem. I'm leaning towards the latter to be honest.

Both, STR vs DEX is the culprit, but feats bring their own problems because they can change the balance of the standard game. The classes that can get more feats have an advantage, if feats give bonus attacks the classes that have bonus attacks as a feature are at a disadvantage, some weapons with +10 damage are suddenly far better than others (in this case ranged weapons and two handed weapons), OAs with magic can be as different dealing 1d6+5 or 4d10+20 with a cantrip...

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Yesterday I was going to reply to the latest posts, but figured I wasn't in much of a great mood and would probably say some rather harsh/richard'ish things...so I didn't.

Today, after a decent nights sleep (only woke up about 4 times! ...pretty dang good for me, it's usually every hour). Anyway, I read some of the latest, latest posts. I think I've come to a conclusion: 5e is a pretty damn well written RPG.

Let me 'splain...

I think the amount of 'rules' and the amount of 'explanations' that are given in all the three core books is really really close to the "sweet spot". At least for me and at least a few others (I suspect, most, actually). If you look back at the first 'major revision' of D&D (I'm talking about the Frank Mentzer 'Red Box' Basic D&D set put out in 1983), it had the same sort of writing amount. It gave enough information that a DM could easily grasp it, but it didn't give too much information that a DM was constantly referring to the books to make sure he was doing everything right.

And here we have 5e. This thread is a perfect example of why this writing 'style', if we can call it that, is a GREAT thing. You have one person saying A, then you have someone saying B, and another saying C. The funny thing is...each person is correct. The fact that people are still arguing/debating/commenting on this proves that. If it was as, er, "easy" as pointing to the book and saying "Here: Section 14, Heading "Short Distances", subsection 7, subparagraph 3, points 14.7.3.1a through 14.7.3.1d shows exactly what she will do", then we would only have arguments from people who do it differently...but those peoples arguments would be "wrong" in the course of RAW; they could still do it, but the rules wouldn't support them. Luckily for us, 5e isn't written like that.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm grateful that the WotC crew decided to go the whole "Lets give the DM more control, and lets makes sure we stick to 'Less is More' as a general principle" (thats my interpretation of how the rules probably ended up as they are now).

So, to all you arguing that "The designers aren't doing their jobs": Yes, they are. It's just that your idea of what and how they should have designed it is different. And to all you arguing that "The designers did their jobs" : No, they didn't. It's just that there are people out there who want/need more specifics to feel comfortable.

That leaves us all in a perfect situation. If we take both "sides" of the argument we can look at what the 5e rules actually are, and what they actually have in them (in regards to the amount of information on any given subject), we can see that WotC was the "moderator" of both camps of thought. On one hand, the "We need specifics because that's what we are paying for" and the "We need it fast and loose with minimal rules because that's what makes a great RPG"...and what we have are 5e rules that "Are specific enough to run D&D, but not so specific as to tie the hands of a DM". In writing the rules this way, WotC has ended up a winner. Why? Well, as any negotiator will tell you, when both parties compromise and walk away unhappy...you've made a good deal.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[SkidAce]

Stopped reading at post #260 (end of page).

If I want a marilith (admittedly not a solo versus a CR appropriate party) to be a horrifically terrible deadly beast...I send it against a level 1 party.


Okay, I exaggerate for effect. But I usually look at a monsters deadliness and lore through the eyes of the common world. A marilith is a deadly foe in such situations.

Its early, I have no coffee, I guess what I am trying to say is that I recognize that a CR appropriate monsters is not also a solo. In order to be a deadly solo, I introduce it earlier.

 

[SkidAce]

You misunderstand. Javelins are rate-limited by your object interactions. You can no more draw three javelins in a single turn than you can draw three swords. The rules for ammunition prevent this hampering ranged weapons ("Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack") but javelins are thrown weapons, not ammunition.

You could throw one javelin and then make two shield bashes on an adjacent target, but you cannot throw three javelins unless you're starting with one javelin in each hand and then draw the third as your object interaction.

An honest question that occured to me. Holding and wielding are two different things. So, assuming I was left handed, could I hold two javelins in my right hand (at the ready as it were), and have one in my left to throw? Then just grab one from the right hand, throw, etc.


I realize the vagueness of "holding" (hey DM can I have 10 javelins point down in the ground in front of me and ready?) but the scenario you described caused me to wonder how the forum interprets this.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So, I am interested to know if its still the case that ranged beats melee when we remove feats. So no ranged attacks in melee (though a couple of rogue levels solves the problem typically), more problems with cover, no bonus action attacks, no damage increases vs typical ACs.

Is the inherent problem a ranged vs melee problem, a str vs dex problem or an unbalanced feat problem. I'm leaning towards the latter to be honest.

It's intrinsic. Has more to do with 5E's movement rules than with feats, although feats exacerbate the problem somewhat by removing some potential mitigations. E.g. without feats, melee DPR would be clearly better than ranged DPR, so we'd be arguing over encounter starting distances and whether mounts can be used instead of just being able to say, "Look, they do the same damage and AT RANGE!" But the problem would still exist--it would just be harder to demonstrate as a textual argument.

One reasonable house rule for those who want a niche for melee could be to allow anyone (or at least, any biped) taking ranged fire to drop prone as a reaction. That imposes disadvantage on ranged fire, but of course it gives advantage to melee attackers (or rather, anyone within 5' of the target--a halberd-wielder is still at disadvantage if attacking from 10' away, for some reason), rewarding a combined-arms approach which pins the enemy in place with ranged fire and finishes them off with melee attacks. In such a case you can expect to see melee DPR 2x to 3x that of the ranged combatants' DPR, unless the enemies choose NOT to drop prone and to fight upright. (E.g. big dumb or arrogant monsters, or monsters which assess the melee attackers as more deadly.)

A couple more things you could do include revoking the rule which says that arrows fired from a magical bow count as magical weapon attacks (so golem-killing now has to be done up close and personal, especially if you make golems immune to magic as they were classically), and using a wider range of creature movement speeds. If birds fly at real-life sustained speeds equivalent to 500' or more, there's no reason not to have 5E dragons that can move at speeds of 300', and Dash 600' in a round. Even a grizzly bear can run at speeds equivalent to 150' (e.g. 300' when Dashing, 56 km/hr, at least according to this web site: http://www.speedofanimals.com/animals/horse). Wouldn't be unreasonable to give bears a speed of 80'. Humans are slow compared to quadrupeds, and it's a bit ridiculous that so many 5E monsters are apparently designed to be not much faster than humans.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And they don't need even rapiers they can just continue to shoot people with their hand crossbow...

I wouldn't allow hand crossbows to be reloaded while you're fending off an enemy with your shield in the other hand. YMMV.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Assuming the winged demons are playing it smart (e.g. not getting within teleport range), then if she's caught out in the open, I narrate the end of the combat and move on.

So you don't think her teleport ability would be able to allow her to escape? Or get to terrain that would be more likely to allow her to effectively combat the flying archer demons? She absolutely has to stand her ground and die?

What part of "if she's caught out in the open" is ambiguous? Clearly I thought you were asking how I'd run the the situation where she's caught out in the open. Obviously if cover is available then she can use it, e.g. go indoors and wait for the archers to go away. But that just brings us back to the scenario of "Mariliths rule as long as they don't go anywhere with flying archers," which doesn't serve the desired aesthetic of making Mariliths awesome.

Whether teleport can help her escape in time depends on relative movement speeds and the number and effective range of enemy archers. You didn't supply those numbers, so again I assumed a sufficient number of demonic enemies to get the job done as part of "caught out in the open". But more importantly, if you improve Teleport, then now instead of talking about whether the Marilith can escape you're now talking about that time when the Marilith teleported on top of the flying monkey, grabbed it out of the air with her tail, and cut it to shreds with her scimitars on the way down to the ground! Far more awesome.

Even just giving her a bow would go a long way towards at least keeping her alive. Dave2008's version has a bow and it's a big improvement. You say yourself that you'd have her pick up a bow and come back for revenge--that's a tacit acknowledgement that without modifying the MM stats she cannot compete.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

An honest question that occured to me. Holding and wielding are two different things. So, assuming I was left handed, could I hold two javelins in my right hand (at the ready as it were), and have one in my left to throw? Then just grab one from the right hand, throw, etc.

I realize the vagueness of "holding" (hey DM can I have 10 javelins point down in the ground in front of me and ready?) but the scenario you described caused me to wonder how the forum interprets this.

My answer as a DM:

(1) Yes, you can do what you described. I might look askance at trying to hold more than two javelins in your hand at once unless you have really huge hands, but two is clearly manageable.

(2) I don't see how it benefits you. You're still throwing a total of three javelins that round at the cost of one object interaction. (Throw from left, grab new one with left using object interaction, throw from left, throw remaining javelin from right.)

(3) If the way 5E object interactions work is getting in your way, we can discuss mitigations. They certainly are wonky and I'm not in the least married to the rules as written. It's quite silly that grabbing and nocking an arrow is "free" even if you've already spent your object interaction opening a door, and so is grabbing a newt's eye from inside a spell component pouch and putting it back afterward, but drawing a dagger costs your one and only action for that round. Up till now I haven't bothered, but we can write new rules if you like.