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

[CapnZapp]

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.

Well, it's not about "enough", it's more that this type of advice boils down to "5E has made changes that you can live with if you change the way you run your entire game".

I'm all like "but why not identify a minimal set of rollbacks, so we don't have to do all that?"

I mean, it's not as if I'm not having varied encounters already. Breezily saying "Limiting range, varying enemy types and numbers, terrain and other environmental factors" disingenously makes it sounds so natural and so easy, when in fact it's anything but.

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?

Yes, absolutely. Getting to use your reaction to make an additional attack is definitely valuable.

However, I haven't seen it come into play THAT often. For it to happen, the monsters will need to leave the reach of the melee fighter.

Perhaps we're not playing with enough 2 ft wide corridors. Our fights seldom feature the "tanking" where a melee character actively tries to prevent monsters from reaching the casters. The monsters die quickly enough even without this. Besides, there are other more reliable ways to put your reaction in play, and my players prefer to have control over when and where the reaction is used.

They use their reaction for Shield spells and other defensive measures. Another example is feats like Polearm where the reaction is all but guaranteed to be put to use.

Let's not forget - all you can do with your reaction (without feats etc*) is make one stab at one enemy. That is simply not enough of a tactical advantage, apparently, for my players to focus on it.

*) I am, of course, aware you can create a build based on Sentinel etc. We haven't seen that kind of build yet, probably because my players were so fast in identifying ranged and highly mobile builds to be generally preferable to slow and steady builds.

Perhaps in my next campaign, with a minimal set of houserules (no negativing disadvantage from melee; strength-based ranged fire) we will see more melee builds in general and a sentinel build in particular

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

I understand that, but this only serves to illustrate the first step to changing this perception is awareness. The more people that realize the balance between melee and ranged may be severely damaged this edition, the better.

I myself didn't fully understand and accept it until just a few months myself. I simply couldn't believe they didn't catch this in playtest. So believe me when I say I understand you.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Well, we certainly have puzzle-solving and social encounters with NPCs.

The idea that the fighter and wizard should not want to be there to experience them, however, is completely alien to me and most of the players I know.

Not to mention the "never split the party" adage...

Chasing clues, doing library research, wooing princesses, it's certainly "good". It's just that we don't call that "downtime", we call that "playing the game"

I'm sure you can find examples in the official modules where the adventure says "a month has passed", but it certainly will be the exception and not the rule.

There simply isn't any notion of downtime built into most D&D adventures. If each adventure only brings you two or three levels, it's one thing (since the DM can space them out to create downtime).

But I question the very idea. Many people simply don't want to have downtime.

I would have preferred it if the rules provided at least one alternative to spend gold that didn't involve downtime.

I would have preferred it if the rules provided magic item and creation guidelines based on utility.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

That too.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Thank you.

This is as far as we can bring this matter, for the exact reasons you mention.

 

[Ashkelon]

What is reasonably balanced though?

Because even with terrain, varied encounters, and good use of player tactics, there have been plenty of rounds of combat where my greatsword wielding fighter had to dash just to engage an enemy. In our last game for example, out of ~16 rounds of combat, I spent 3 of them with no enemy within melee range. During these rounds, the ranged PCs were all still able to make attacks.

There are a number of occasions where a melee fighter simply will not be able to contribute meaningfully in combat. This is undeniable fact. Some fights will start at more than 30 ft away. Sometimes enemies will spread out to surround the party or avoid AoE. Sometimes there will be squads of enemy ranged troops who prefer to fight at a distance. Sometimes there will be flying enemies that face the party. Sometimes enemies try to flee and need to be stopped. The ranged fighter suffers no loss in efficiency in these scenarios.

Over the course of an adventuring day, you tend to have a number situations that arise where the melee warrior is unable to contribute to combat at full efficiency. The archery fighter on the other hand rarely faces such an issue. Any round the melee fighter can contribute to combat in a meaningful way, the archery fighter will also be able to do so.

That by itself isn't all that much of a problem however. The benefit of ranged weapons is that they are able fight enemies at range. The problem that arises is that ranged weapons do around the same damage as the best melee builds (actually they often exceed them) while suffering no real drawbacks. Anytime you choose to play a melee fighter, you would be better off having chosen a ranged one. A melee weapon should clearly be the superior choice in melee combat, but the crossbow archer can shoot enemies at point blank range for higher damage than the melee warriors.

IMHO the best solution to making weapons more equal in terms of power is this:

a) change the -5/+10 part of GWM and sharpshooter to impose disadvantage on your attack for + 1W damage (this ability can't be used if you already have disadvantage on your attack).

b) You provoke opportunity attacks when you cast a spell or make a ranged attack. Also, don't allow feats or fighting styles that prevent this OA.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Let's not forget - all you can do with your reaction (without feats etc*) is make one stab at one enemy. That is simply not enough of a tactical advantage, apparently, for my players to focus on it.

An interesting rules variant would be if an opportunity attack was a full Attack action. That would also keep opportunity attacks relevant for high-level fighters, instead of having them diminish gradually from +100% to +25% to your DPR.

Of course, that's about the eleventy-billionth rules variant proposed so far in this thread. Obviously you'd never use them all in the same game.

 

[Sunseeker]

The idea that the fighter and wizard should not want to be there to experience them, however, is completely alien to me and most of the players I know.

I never said they shouldn't be there. Only that, unlike a combat encounter, they're not required.

Not to mention the "never split the party" adage...

I never minded splitting the party, for a short time, for short and simple things. If Joe wants to go talk to the Guard Captain, I don't care if the party doesn't want to go with him, all it means to me is that Joe will learn something everyone else won't, and it's up to Joe to transfer that information to the rest of the party....if he so chooses.

Chasing clues, doing library research, wooing princesses, it's certainly "good". It's just that we don't call that "downtime", we call that "playing the game"

A lot of people will call "downtime" playing the game too. This is a silly assertions and frankly a little offensive since you're essentially defining what is or isn't the game in a manner that makes contrary opinions seem like they're wrong...when in reality yours and everyone else's are just that, opinions.

But I question the very idea. Many people simply don't want to have downtime.

So don't have it. I personally don't mind it. As long as something useful comes out of it, or as long as it's clear that the players have opportunities to make something useful out of it. If they choose not to and prefer me to say "a month passes" then fine. Just because the players aren't doing anything doesn't mean the world stops turning around them.

I would have preferred it if the rules provided at least one alternative to spend gold that didn't involve downtime.

Honestly, I can't think of any. Buying supplies for adventuring? But think about your real life. Are you spending money while on the job? D&D is no different, "adventuring" is your job, it's where you earn money. When you're off the clock, that's when you buy food, games, beer, "company" and other things, these are all "downtime" activities. But D&D doesn't have money sinks like an MMO does, though I suppose you could include such things? Training for riding better/faster mounts, buying better/faster/more useful mounts but that's still really a downtime activity.

I would have preferred it if the rules provided magic item and creation guidelines based on utility.

I honestly don't think WOTC is capable of making good item creation rules. Item creation should be variable based on the needs of the game, sometimes magic weapons are hard to get, sometimes they're not. You just can't make rules (which are by nature, inflexible) for a game as flexible as 5E. 4E? Sure, 4E could have had some great magic item creation rules, because everything was very clear-cut and mathematically balanced. Firm Gather X, Pay Y, Spend Z time rules would have worked great there (I actually don't recall, did 4E have magic item creation rules??) but not in 5E.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Isn't there already a separate thread for talking about gold and downtime? How did that topic infect this thread? I thought this thread was for interminable wrangling over whether Sharpshooter is overpowered!

Honestly, I can't think of any. Buying supplies for adventuring? But think about your real life. Are you spending money while on the job? D&D is no different, "adventuring" is your job, it's where you earn money. When you're off the clock, that's when you buy food, games, beer, "company" and other things, these are all "downtime" activities. But D&D doesn't have money sinks like an MMO does, though I suppose you could include such things? Training for riding better/faster mounts, buying better/faster/more useful mounts but that's still really a downtime activity.

Revivify costs money (300gp) and is useful exclusively while "on the job," since it only revives someone who died within the past minute.

Also, bribing guards and monsters to help you, or at least leave you alone.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Whoa whoa...take it easy. It's not the Redcoats coming.

I think that it's a question of degree. Some tables will need no change, others will need to make minor changes, still others will find drastic changes are in order. I acknowledge that you feel change is necessary for you to enjoy the game as you want to. I understand that. I've even offered opinions on what changes may help or hurt.

However, I think that perhaps the opposition you face is due to your (seeming) insistence that these changes must be made. I think any such revisions should fall to those who find them desirable. I'd rather the design team work on other things rather than fixing a part of the game that I don't find all that broken.

I think the problem has been suitably pointed out. Talk of solutions is where I think the discussion should continue.

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.

I'm not in the way at all. I thought your proposition to changing the wording regarding single handed weapons versus finesse weapons would work fine.

I've offered other options. I'm not trying to prevent anyone from finding solutions. But there are many paths folks can take to do so.

Is this not a discussion?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I mean, it's not as if I'm not having varied encounters already. Breezily saying "Limiting range, varying enemy types and numbers, terrain and other environmental factors" disingenously makes it sounds so natural and so easy, when in fact it's anything but.

I find it pretty easy. I'll admit that it likely helps that I don't have players who design their characters purely for function as a combat unit, though. I mean...don't most dungeons pretty much come with range limitations? I know not all adventures or encounters must take place in dungeons, but I'd expect a good amount to. Don't bad guys drop tothe ground when shot at? Or take cover? Cover whose existence is pretty much up to the DM?

Again....I think that a lot of this perceived disparity can be addressed at that level. Not all of it, but probably many cases except for games finding an extreme imbalance.

Yes, absolutely. Getting to use your reaction to make an additional attack is definitely valuable.

However, I haven't seen it come into play THAT often. For it to happen, the monsters will need to leave the reach of the melee fighter.

It comes up quite often in our game. Now, this likely is partially due to the fact that I don't have five archers who are also casters blasting every possible enemy from 100 feet away. But I think I don't have to deal with that problem partially because I don't allow ranged combat to dominate tothe same extent that some other games do.

However, the threat of opportunity attacks is pretty big in our game. And I would argue that it is not necessarily limited to the one use of your reaction. If during one round of combat, two orcs decide not to try and dart past the fighter to get at the wizard, that's two enemies affected. They likely will attack the fighter instead, which is part of his job. And with HP so easily recoverable in this edition, that's not necessarily bad.

So it isn't only the opportunity attack itself that must be considered, but also the possibility of one. Very often I or one of my players will not take a move of some sort forfear of taking another hit.

Perhaps we're not playing with enough 2 ft wide corridors.

Come now. A 15 foot wide corridor can be pretty effectively guarded by one melee combatant.

Our fights seldom feature the "tanking" where a melee character actively tries to prevent monsters from reaching the casters. The monsters die quickly enough even without this. Besides, there are other more reliable ways to put your reaction in play, and my players prefer to have control over when and where the reaction is used.

They use their reaction for Shield spells and other defensive measures. Another example is feats like Polearm where the reaction is all but guaranteed to be put to use.

Let's not forget - all you can do with your reaction (without feats etc*) is make one stab at one enemy. That is simply not enough of a tactical advantage, apparently, for my players to focus on it.

Another way of looking at it is that you have not made opportunity attacks to be tactically viable option for them. This is where I would say more monsters and other battle conditions could be a huge factor. If the monsters die too swiftly to reach the party's back line, then send more than they can quickly put down. Use archers on the bad guys side who have access to cover. Force the PCs to ready an action to take shots at the enemy archers who pop out of cover. Have the bad guys do what they can to slow down your PCs' rates of attack.

Now, you may not think this is feasible for every encounter...and that's true, you can't always throw a horde of monsters at the PCs and so on. But again...these are the kinds of things I think of when this disparity is brought up. We can also talk mechanical solutions...no Dex bonus to damage from ranged weapons or no -5/+10 feats or what have you. Sure, those are options.

There are other tools at a DM's disposal however. I think that the more that is done at the encounter design level, the less extreme or frequent the issue will likely be.