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

[CapnZapp]

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.

It's not that you can't craft, it's just that there aren't codified rules for making magic items anymore.

Past editions crafting rules were seriously flawed, as much as I support player empowerment, they went far enough that players could bring things into the game that could potentially cause severe power upsets that the DM couldn't (or IMO shouldn't have to) deal with; and often with very little cost to the players.

Let me just add that I have never been interested in crafting. I fully acknowledge how unlimited "build your own weapons" are overpowered and almost impossible to balance.

But more importantly, I'm just not interested in downtime. And crafting is downtime.

If you actually read the published modules you'll realize they aren't about providing downtime. Sure you can handwave the timing issue, and say Tiamat or Strahd or whomever sits on their hands for months on end to allow the characters to spend months on downtime activities.

But to me, downtime is a lie, an illusion. Almost every published adventure module or path is set up on the asumption that there is little or no downtime.

And so I want a way to spend gold without any downtime. It's not enough to me to acknowledge players might not be interested in building churches or setting up armies. I want rules that actually provide an alternative that doesn't involve downtime at all.

That alternative is buying magic items for gold.

Since the DM is in full control over which items are available for sale, this isn't more unbalanced than the overall game. If you can give your PCs items through loot, you can give them the items through shops too.

That is why this isn't about crafting, primarily. You still need the framework for creating the items in order to set sane prices on the items, but that doesn't mean you need to allow free crafting.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well yeah...that was the second half of my post.

Personal preferences will vary of course, but I prefer not to alter mechanics unless necessary. The reason being that players have assumptions on how feats or abilities or other mechanical elements of the game function, and they select or use such options because of that. I'd rather not alter that. Players tend not to get upset when the sight lines in a given combat aren't perfect for them...but tell them that sharpshooter no longer removes cover penalties and the reaction will probably be a bit more harsh.

It's also less to keep track of or playtest/fine tune.

Perhaps we're having slightly different discussions here.

My point is that unless we tell people how destabilizing these feats and rules are, they won't notice the shift.

What I mean is, one player can keep happily playing a slow axe dwarf for years without any issues. This is for when the players take the next step in building optimal characters.

What I'm saying is that most of the time, sticking with the rules is a perfectly fine alternative to houseruling for the exact reasons you provide.

This time it's different. Once your players realize 5E has done away with all the safeguards to swat-style modern hide'n'sneak ranged combat, you will too realize that changing the rules is the only option.

I simply can't use 5th edition to run the kind of D&D game I want. The pain of changing the rules is simply lesser than not changing the rules (while we await WotC formally acknowledging the issue and errataing the game, which might well not happen until 6th edition).

 

[smbakeresq]

Let me just add that I have never been interested in crafting. I fully acknowledge how unlimited "build your own weapons" are overpowered and almost impossible to balance.

But more importantly, I'm just not interested in downtime. And crafting is downtime.

If you actually read the published modules you'll realize they aren't about providing downtime. Sure you can handwave the timing issue, and say Tiamat or Strahd or whomever sits on their hands for months on end to allow the characters to spend months on downtime activities.

But to me, downtime is a lie, an illusion. Almost every published adventure module or path is set up on the asumption that there is little or no downtime.

And so I want a way to spend gold without any downtime. It's not enough to me to acknowledge players might not be interested in building churches or setting up armies. I want rules that actually provide an alternative that doesn't involve downtime at all.

That alternative is buying magic items for gold.

Since the DM is in full control over which items are available for sale, this isn't more unbalanced than the overall game. If you can give your PCs items through loot, you can give them the items through shops too.

That is why this isn't about crafting, primarily. You still need the framework for creating the items in order to set sane prices on the items, but that doesn't mean you need to allow free crafting.

Crafting was never OP. The time and material and skill and spell cost was always a lot, you just got to choose your item as opposed to a random drop or item from a published module. For the random drops we used to roll openly, the group had fun with it. You customized your PC as opposed to ordering from the menu.

Before instant gratification and email and cell phones you always had time between the group getting togethers, so you always had character downtime. It also took you PC times to heal or recover the spells used to heal, you didn't hand wave that, you just had a days in between expeditions.

The economy was different. The magic item Walmart wasn't around, and you didn't get full GP conversion on items and gems and jewelry, the broker took a fee. The level of detail was there to fill up your time that existed before computer games.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[hawkeyefan]

Perhaps we're having slightly different discussions here.

My point is that unless we tell people how destabilizing these feats and rules are, they won't notice the shift.

If they don't notice the shift, I would think that they aren't experiencing any problem...so in such a case, there's nothing to fix.

I can understand the criticism. I can see how for some this may be a problem. However, I think we are discussing it in different ways, more than having a different discussion.

What I mean is, one player can keep happily playing a slow axe dwarf for years without any issues. This is for when the players take the next step in building optimal characters.

I think this is where our disconnect is. For my game, the idea of building optimal characters as you describe them would be a step backward. My players and I have been through the power-gaming/optimizing phase, and we've come out the other side....it's not as big a goal for us anymore.

That does not mean that they don't create effective characters. It just means that they approach it differently. My players aren't going to create a party where everyone has darkvision and everyone has dipped into fighter or warlock just for a couple of class abilities. They aren't all going to specialize in ranged combat. They don't seek to distill the game down to the most effective mechanical combination and then simply reproduce that every campaign.

I think this is probably true for more games than you seem to realize. Whether it's because the players are as mindful of the game or it's because they're new players who haven't yet learned to create such mechanical combinations yet.

What I'm saying is that most of the time, sticking with the rules is a perfectly fine alternative to houseruling for the exact reasons you provide.

This time it's different. Once your players realize 5E has done away with all the safeguards to swat-style modern hide'n'sneak ranged combat, you will too realize that changing the rules is the only option.

Well, no, it's not. For the reasons above, mainly....but also because there are other ways to address the issue, as I have expressed in prior posts. Limiting range, varying enemy types and numbers, terrain and other environmental factors....all of that stuff is a first step to controlling any imbalance between the two approaches to combat. Yes, I acknowledge that for some it may not be enough....but for many it will be.

I did also make one point that you never replied to; you said that absolutely nothing was lost when character uses ranged attacks rather than melee and I mentioned opportunity attacks. I'm curious for your take on that. Do you acknowledge that's an advantage of melee over ranged? Or do you not think that is an important role in the game?

I simply can't use 5th edition to run the kind of D&D game I want. The pain of changing the rules is simply lesser than not changing the rules (while we await WotC formally acknowledging the issue and errataing the game, which might well not happen until 6th edition).

Understood. My point is that this is simply your opinion of how things play out at your table. Others will share this opinion. For those who do, I agree that changes are in order. I think there are simple things that could be done to help the issue. However, if those do not work, then sure, more severe options should be considered.

I don't think this issue is widespread enough to demand the type of attention you think it deserves.

 

[Satyrn]

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.

I like that very much. It's a bonus for doing something extra.

 

[Sunseeker]

Let me just add that I have never been interested in crafting. I fully acknowledge how unlimited "build your own weapons" are overpowered and almost impossible to balance.

But more importantly, I'm just not interested in downtime. And crafting is downtime.

If you actually read the published modules you'll realize they aren't about providing downtime. Sure you can handwave the timing issue, and say Tiamat or Strahd or whomever sits on their hands for months on end to allow the characters to spend months on downtime activities.

But to me, downtime is a lie, an illusion. Almost every published adventure module or path is set up on the asumption that there is little or no downtime.

And so I want a way to spend gold without any downtime. It's not enough to me to acknowledge players might not be interested in building churches or setting up armies. I want rules that actually provide an alternative that doesn't involve downtime at all.

That alternative is buying magic items for gold.

Since the DM is in full control over which items are available for sale, this isn't more unbalanced than the overall game. If you can give your PCs items through loot, you can give them the items through shops too.

That is why this isn't about crafting, primarily. You still need the framework for creating the items in order to set sane prices on the items, but that doesn't mean you need to allow free crafting.

I think there's two kinds of "downtime". There's "downtime" where you're still doing things, you're just not out dungeoning, fighting dragons or whatnot. You're in town, solving puzzles, talking to NPCs and not every member of the party is good at that so while the Bard and the Rogue are off gathering information, the Fighter is making swords and the Cleric is reading books. This is IMO "good" downtime. Not a part of the game where nothing is happening, but a part of the game where the things that are happening aren't life-and-death.

Then there's "bad" downtime. Time between "now" and "that thing that is planned to happen" where there is just nothing and the players are expected to "figure out" what they want to do.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I did also make one point that you never replied to; you said that absolutely nothing was lost when character uses ranged attacks rather than melee and I mentioned opportunity attacks. I'm curious for your take on that. Do you acknowledge that's an advantage of melee over ranged? Or do you not think that is an important role in the game?

It's not lost. You can always make opportunity attacks with a knee or a fist; and of course you could draw a dagger or rapier using your object interaction after you fire all of your arrows for the turn, if you thought you were likely to need it.

 

[CapnZapp]

If they don't notice the shift, I would think that they aren't experiencing any problem...so in such a case, there's nothing to fix.

No, we're still talking past each other.

I have absolutely zero issues with players just happily playing the game.

It is people posting here without the insight and realization I'm talking about, since they perpetuate the old truth which only serves to obscure analysis and make it harder to discuss the necessary changes.

If people that doesn't notice the shift just play the game, there is no problem. But just take a look at the id's giving your post xp to see the forum sees several people known to contest every step of that analysis, and intrude upon every step of the change-related discussion.

We need to tell people of this (probably unintended) destabilization so we can arrive to a point where it is generally accepted as fact, so when we discuss solutions, we can actually focus on the solutions, instead of continously having to defend the decision to make any changes at all.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think this is where our disconnect is. For my game, the idea of building optimal characters as you describe them would be a step backward. My players and I have been through the power-gaming/optimizing phase, and we've come out the other side....it's not as big a goal for us anymore.

That does not mean that they don't create effective characters. It just means that they approach it differently. My players aren't going to create a party where everyone has darkvision and everyone has dipped into fighter or warlock just for a couple of class abilities. They aren't all going to specialize in ranged combat. They don't seek to distill the game down to the most effective mechanical combination and then simply reproduce that every campaign.

I think this is probably true for more games than you seem to realize. Whether it's because the players are as mindful of the game or it's because they're new players who haven't yet learned to create such mechanical combinations yet.

No...

Let me put it this way. The current rules pose no problems for you, but they pose problems for me.

A hypothetical edition without these changes would probably work just as well for you, but suddenly lift a major headache for you.

Now, I can certainly understand that, having no problems, you don't personally need a change. But you can't tell me that you would even notice the changes proposed - I mean, if your players are truly so unconcerned with minmaxing and charop, they probably wouldn't even realize something changed.

Everything you say about your players would probably still be just as true with these fixes implemented.

Saying "my players don't minmax" is a poor argument for not fixing the issues faced by those who do.

Feel free to say "I don't need any changes personally" but please don't stand in the way of change for those people for which change would truly matter.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A hypothetical edition without these changes would probably work just as well for you, but suddenly lift a major headache for you.

Now, I can certainly understand that, having no problems, you don't personally need a change. But you can't tell me that you would even notice the changes proposed - I mean, if your players are truly so unconcerned with minmaxing and charop, they probably wouldn't even realize something changed.

Everything you say about your players would probably still be just as true with these fixes implemented.

Saying "my players don't minmax" is a poor argument for not fixing the issues faced by those who do.

Feel free to say "I don't need any changes personally" but please don't stand in the way of change for those people for which change would truly matter.

The stakes on Enworld are not as high as you seem to think they are. There is no "standing in the way of change," unless by "change" you mean "winning an Internet argument."

Nothing that happens on Enworld threads affects hypothetical future versions of D&D from WotC (or any other publisher I know of).

If your goal is to impact the rules for WotC's next product, you'd have more impact flying to Seattle to buy Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford dinner at a nice restaurant while you share your opinions. At least then you'd be heard by your intended audience.