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

[pemerton]

Remember the days of an arrow being shot from a magic bow was not a magic weapon for overcoming magic resistance?

Page 168 of Gygax's DMG says "The various items listed generally have their bonus applied to both "to hit" and damage dice". Arrows aren't mentioned as any sort of exception, and the entry for Bow +1 says that it "gives + 1 "to hit" and + 1 damage potential to arrows fired from it. If magic arrows are used, the bonus is the total of the bow's and the arrows'."

In other words, magic arrows are stronger than normal magic weapons because they can be stacked. They're not weaker.

Page B48 of Moldvay Basic says "When a magic weapon is used, the user adds the magical adjustment to both "to hit" and damage rolls." Arrows aren't called out as any sort of departure from this rule.

This was part of the game many editions ago, in the pen and paper days. Encumbrance wasn't optional, so you tracked everything.

<snip>

It just became a habit for the older players.

The first heading on page B20 of Moldvay Basic is "Encubrance (Optional)".

So for plenty of "older" players, it was optional.

 

[pemerton]

back then the notion of kiting wouldn't have occurred to me.

I was re-reading Dragon 95 (March 1985) the other day for its article on non-combat experience awards. But I also came across an article on outdoor combat tactics, which mentions "kiting" (though not under that label). From p 57:

Firepower and superior mobility make a powerful combination. Airborne archers can sail over an enemy, picking out targets behind rocks and trees that would otherwise be unassailable. . . . the range of a bow is several times greater than an enemy'&#146;s movement rate, for all but the fastest of creatures. A force with good firepower can win a battle without crossing swords, simply by staying away from face-to-face contact with the enemy and shooting at him.​

The same page also encourages focus-fire:

Whatever target your missilemen choose, have each of them concentrate on a single target at one time; because wounded opponents can still strike back, it&#146;s usually important to reduce the enemy&#146;s numbers in order to reduce his ability to counterattack.​

It's a pretty fundamental aspect in the design of RPG combat mechanics whether you want it to make these sorts of tactical propositions true or not.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's a pretty fundamental aspect in the design of RPG combat mechanics whether you want it to make these sorts of tactical propositions true or not.

Yes, I know it is, but I was younger and dumber back then.

I learned kiting (not by that name) in the late 90's or early 2000's from playing Master of Magic on the PC. That was after I'd stopped playing D&D.

 

[CapnZapp]

That seems like a good thing to me. It's what Legolas looked like in the movies.

And I say that as a someone who'd far prefer to play Gimli.

Sure.

Just don't expect any efficiency minded player to create a Gimli.

Personally I consider the cost too high. I want my fantasy game to encourage characters like Gimli, thankyouverymuch.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, I know it is

My take is (I think) different from yours. I prefer a RPG system that makes the effectiveness of those tactics more contingent on the PC build than on the "objective" features of the ingame situation.

I think you would classify that as "combat as sport", though the CaS/CaW dichotomy isn't one that I personally find all that useful.

 

[smbakeresq]

Page 168 of Gygax's DMG says "The various items listed generally have their bonus applied to both "to hit" and damage dice". Arrows aren't mentioned as any sort of exception, and the entry for Bow +1 says that it "gives + 1 "to hit" and + 1 damage potential to arrows fired from it. If magic arrows are used, the bonus is the total of the bow's and the arrows'."

In other words, magic arrows are stronger than normal magic weapons because they can be stacked. They're not weaker.

Pg 183 of DMG


"Ranged Weapons and Ammunition:
...
the enhancement bonuses of magic ranged weapons and magic ammunition stack for attack and damage purposes.
...
However, for purposes of damage reduction, the enhancement bonuses of a magic ranged weapon and magic ammunition do not stack. Only the ammunition's enhancement bonus is applied against the damage reduction, since it is the only part of the weapon actually striking the creature."

So non magical arrows didnt overcome any damage reduction.

This was what I was referring too. This rule has been altered in almost every edition also.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[SkidAce]

I was re-reading Dragon 95 (March 1985) the other day for its article on non-combat experience awards. But I also came across an article on outdoor combat tactics, which mentions "kiting" (though not under that label). From p 57:

Firepower and superior mobility make a powerful combination. Airborne archers can sail over an enemy, picking out targets behind rocks and trees that would otherwise be unassailable. . . . the range of a bow is several times greater than an enemy'’s movement rate, for all but the fastest of creatures. A force with good firepower can win a battle without crossing swords, simply by staying away from face-to-face contact with the enemy and shooting at him.​

The same page also encourages focus-fire:

Whatever target your missilemen choose, have each of them concentrate on a single target at one time; because wounded opponents can still strike back, it’s usually important to reduce the enemy’s numbers in order to reduce his ability to counterattack.​

It's a pretty fundamental aspect in the design of RPG combat mechanics whether you want it to make these sorts of tactical propositions true or not.

Its a pretty fundamental aspect of reality, and if it was changed, my military friends would raise the "dreaded eyebrow of scorn."

It really boils down to how each table plays and what they want out the game. We (my table) can't deviate to far from common historical truisms, but for other folks its no problem.

Neither is right or wrong.

 

[CapnZapp]

Nobody is trying to change fundamental aspects of reality, that focus-fire and mobility are sound tactics to use.

This is about bringing it out in the open how 5th edition has undone many MANY rules that have been in place in many editions of D&D, for the very worthwhile reason that melee builds like Conan or Gimli needs them to remain viable.

If you want your fantasy game to have a sizeable element of melee combat, you need to use a ruleset that actually makes it so.

To most people, this is completely invisible. This thread is about pointing to each and every change 5E has made "under the radar", and to discuss whether the edition has gone too far.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My take is (I think) different from yours. I prefer a RPG system that makes the effectiveness of those tactics more contingent on the PC build than on the "objective" features of the ingame situation.

I think you would classify that as "combat as sport", though the CaS/CaW dichotomy isn't one that I personally find all that useful.

I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're saying you like a rich character generation with lots of pre-defined capabilities and some metagame guarantees attached, a la "if you play a dwarven Barbarian, you will have plenty of chances to dwarven-barbarian-dismantle big bruiser monsters at close range in melee combat." Am I in the right ballpark?

From reading your posts, I feel that the major difference between our tables is that you're inclined towards narrativism and I'm inclined towards sandboxy simulationism. I know we're both believers in letting player choice (vs. DM intent) shape the story, but if the player characters were faced with the task of sealing a dimensional rift that was burping out demons, I would expect them to deal with it essentially like a solving a puzzle: by applying known laws against it. They could take a week to research a spell and clean up the demons afterward, or they could take an hour to use Mold Earth to cause an avalanche that would bury it, or they could find the dimension-closing Planar Seal I've planted in a dungeon, or they could think of something I haven't thought of like a Sage using his background feature to get a lead on how rifts are created and destroyed. My sense is that you'd approach it differently, as you say, in a character/build-oriented way: the 17th-level Sorcerer can say, "I'm going into the rift to try to blend my magic inherent with it to destabilize it, because I'm a 17th level sorcerer blessed by Odin", and instead of going, "What? That's not a thing," you'd be more like, "17th level is really high and should be capable of impressive things. Okay, make an Arcana check."

If so it's no wonder that the CaW/CaS distinction isn't useful to you. They're both not your playstyle.

 

[Rhenny]

Doesn't Legolas' kill count exceed Gimli's? Just a thought. The movies do a good job showing Gimli's competitive frustration.