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

[Satyrn]

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

Probably. But at all times (mostly anyway) Gimli is at the head of the battle holding the throngs of evil back from his friends and allies. That's the part I find fun.

 

[smbakeresq]

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.

This is true, in the desire to make the game more simple. In 4e it probably went to far the other way, too many feats and too many powers. It wasn't an issue for me, but it was hard to get new people in and without the online character builder it just took too long to get up and running.

However I particular liked how fighters and rangers advanced in 4e, with names for particular fighting moves. I liked the 3.5 BoNS stuff, I did think it was power leap for those classes but in the old editions clerics and mages just crushed it, the martial classes needed a boost.

I do think that there should be more but less powerful feats gained at more levels. The desire to balance the feats around a +2 ASI is absurd to me, a potentially fatal flaw. Feats like linguist could never compete with that.

The crafting feats and in fact crafting has been basically deleted from the game. That was the way you used to spend character downtime and gold.

It's just different, and the old days and old ways are over.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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

That's because Gimli's frustration face is more amusing than Legolas's would be. Pitched battles are target-rich environments; Gimli has no trouble finding orcs to fight.

 

[LapBandit]

Was there any resolution or communal understanding reached on how to keep melee combatants competitive? 44 pages deep and I'm hoping someone has context.

 

[Caliban]

Was there any resolution or communal understanding reached on how to keep melee combatants competitive? 44 pages deep and I'm hoping someone has context.

It's kinda devolved into two basic camps, with a few variations.

A) It's not a problem, learn how to DM you newb.

B) It's a problem, and to fix it you need to take away every single change that gives range any bonus at all.

There are rumors of a third camp that believes it is a problem, but you only need minor changes to fix it, but they don't know what they are talking about and their opinions don't count.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

Was there any resolution or communal understanding reached on how to keep melee combatants competitive? 44 pages deep and I'm hoping someone has context.

Nope. You are not likely to find one either. The opinions are too divided. It's like trying to engage in hyperpartisan politics. It's a practice in self-congratulation as opposed to thoughtful analysis. My suggestion to you is to play the game. Come up with your own opinion, based on actual gameplay at your table, whether a problem exists or not. If you decide it doesn't, don't change anything. If you decide it does, start by saying that, if you are not armed with a melee weapon, and you make a ranged attack against an opponent armed with a melee attack, you provoke an attack of opportunity from that target. See if that fixes things and go from there.

 

[LapBandit]

It's kinda devolved into two basic camps, with a few variations.

A) It's not a problem, learn how to DM you newb.

B) It's a problem, and to fix it you need to take away every single change that gives range any bonus at all.

There are rumors of a third camp that believes it is a problem, but you only need minor changes to fix it, but they don't know what they are talking about and their opinions don't count.

thank you and third camp unite!

 

[hawkeyefan]

(cont'd)

The reason I want to be so clear is because when I take the next step, that is to criticise this state of affairs and propose changes, we tend to see replies that question the very premise. Which results in the discussion never getting anywhere.

Opportunity attacks. Part of the point of melee is that you threaten enemies with opportunity attacks. There is a space that you threaten, and that threat can help prevent enemies from moving past you. Since you cannot make a ranged opportunity attack, there would be nothing at all preventing enemies from waltzing right past the crossbow expert to then attack casters or other more vulnerable party members.

I am sure not everyone places priority on that aspect of the fighter's role (or any other melee combatant),
but it is absolutely something that should be considered.

Was there any resolution or communal understanding reached on how to keep melee combatants competitive? 44 pages deep and I'm hoping someone has context.

Not really.

I personally don't experience a great imbalance in the two fighting styles, but I can see how it could be a problem for some folks. For those that do find it a problem, I would say to first try and correct it in how encounters are designed and played; vary up the range at which combat is initiated, vary up the types of enemies encountered; vary the terrain and line of sight; vary up the monsters' tactics. I'd do all of that before even considering altering the mechanics.

If none of that worked, then maybe a mechanical solution is in order. Having ranged attacks provoke an opportunity attack by adjacent enemies might be a good start. That may help to keep ranged combatants from being in the midst of melee. It'd give the advantage to melee folks who managed to close in on their ranged enemies.

If that doesn't solve the problem, then perhaps apply disadvantage to any shots into melee? This is more severe than I think would be necessary, but since there won't be a consensus on how big the problem is, there need to be degrees of solutions. I'd personally apply cover to anyone engaged in melee, but the Sharpshooter feat would render that moot.

The OP made a few other suggestions, and a couple of those may work. Some I think wouldn't help, or may actually make any disparity worse.

Ultimately, the solution is going to depend on how the group views the situation and how severe they think the problem might be.

 

[MostlyDm]

As a DM, I would ignore the object interaction rule and let you grab and throw as many javelins from the sling on your back as you have attacks you can make.


I'd also question my ruling when a player wonders what the point of setting those javelins in the ground if not to make them readily available, and I'd wonder if maybe I should impose the object interaction rule for javelins unless a character does that prep work. Then decide, nah, I'll just keep ignoring such a fiddly rule.


Go ahead and throw as many javelins as you have attacks (and javelins)

In general, for stuff like this, I'm inclined to create specific fun rules exceptions, if there is interest.


For example, in my main homebrew campaign (BX/3.5/5e mashup ruleset with Epic-6 variant sensibilities) I have traditional Longbowmen who can use a particular stance: stationary, with their arrows lined up in front of them. In this stance, they can't move, but they can shoot an extra time each round.


For anybody else, they can just draw arrows and shoot them and not worry about any fiddly crap.


It's sort of the houserule-for-fun version of Specific Beats General. Keep things simple and streamlined generally, and if someone wants to be fiddly and specific, then come up with some cool incentive/advantage for the specific instance.

 

[Caliban]

All kidding aside, I agree that ranged weapon combat is a little too good compared to melee right now. Personally, I find it boring so I focus on melee and warlock builds.

If I wanted to bring it more in line with melee, I'd probably make two changes and see how that affects things before doing anything else:

1) Archery style gives +2 damage instead of +2 on attack rolls.
2) Sharpshooter: Instead of ignoring cover you now have a +2 attack bonus vs. targets with half or partial cover.