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

[CapnZapp]

I thought I'd addressed Drizzt and Zorro already, in this post:

But that's just your houserules...?

And how is adding a boost to each and every fighting style easier to create, balance and analyse than my approach? (I mean, you say it like your approach is obviously easier and better.)

Once you're done with Drizzt and Zorro, how about all the other kinds of weapon-usages... To me, the list of overpowered feats is much smaller than the list of weapon styles you need to boost. It isn't six of one, half a dozen of the other. To me it's three (3) feats: GWM, SS and CE.

RE: MM, there are definite issues with the MM but they're not really related to monster HP totals.

You list a lot of worthy points.

But I note none of them would make the MM worse by nerfing PC damage just a wee bit.

Meaning: I don't see how your issues with the MM makes for an argument against my proposed fixes.

Remember, I do it for more reasons that just the MM.

It's like you pick one of my points at a time, and then only argue against that point.

Yes, had "fixing the MM" been my sole priority, I would have bought your objection "there's so much else to fix first".

And yes, had "helping underserved weapon styles" been my sole priority, I might have considered buffing them instead of nerfing the top ones.

But I'm doing this for a multitude of reasons, that also include feat balance (buffing other weapon feats to do more damage only widens the gap to non-combat feats and my players are already more interested in combat than non-combat), archetype support (Crossbow Expert actually is the worst, since it doesn't support the archetypes it should while supporting only the fully automatic crossbow Sage Advice specifically said it doesn't), along with the other issues we've already discussed (melee vs ranged, martial vs cantrip) etc.

Saying this only to explain why I'm not convinced your strategy is better. That doesn't mean your strategy is wrong for somebody else.

 

[CapnZapp]

Then don't allow the problematic feats, and add in your own feats to cover their conceptual space (and more). Adding your own feats is another solution that the game has specifically designated for exactly the problem you are facing, and it allows you to customize the game to any amount of crunch you want.

But that's exactly what I've been trying to do these last months...

 

[pemerton]

Hemlock's #1 is minions. I have never denied that summoning spells are outright broken (=more effective than most anything else).

Now, this isn't such a big issue in my games, presumably because my players dislike having NPCs do the hard work for them. It probably feels more heroic to kill the monsters yourself.

I am not slagging this playstyle. I am merely explaining why I haven't focused on this kind of build.

minions. I will simply leave that to be addressed another day and assume my players won't play Conjurors or Necromancers etc

I think minions/summoning is the sort of issue that is most easily dealt with by being ignored, or reaching a "gentlemen's agreement" that no one will play a minion-summoner. It's somewhat autonomous from the rest of the D&D system. Whereas basic combat builds aren't.

Those goals can be satisfied by just improving other fighting styles.

Didn't some other poster suggest the same thing a page or three upthread . . . ? (Admittedly, without any helpful suggestions as to details.)

What did that tell me that I wouldn't have assumed anyway from watching Lord of the Rings?

<snip>

The MM is not evocative, and not inspiring.

If you want to participate in a debate about this at tedious length (in which I would be on your side, but many other posters would not), come and join in the "Do you care about setting canon" thread!

 

[CapnZapp]

I think minions/summoning is the sort of issue that is most easily dealt with by being ignored, or reaching a "gentlemen's agreement" that no one will play a minion-summoner. It's somewhat autonomous from the rest of the D&D system. Whereas basic combat builds aren't.

Exactly. It's somewhat similar to a Beastmaster's animal companion.

Trying to "balance" an animal companion, as in integrating it into the basic option space (making it not "autonomous") defeats the purpose. An animal companion needs to be its separate entity with actions of its own. Yes, this makes it inherently overpowered and it gives the player a larger share of the spotlight. But that's why anyone would want an animal companion in the first place!

So just like a Beastmaster build is best classified as something the playing group needs to agree on including before actually making it available, the same goes for Summoning builds. Nerfing a summoning spell until it is balanced carries a significant risk of completely removing the entire reason for playing such a character in the first place. (That does not mean I can't see ways to at least rein in a summoner's power; just that I'm not sure a summoner build balanced to not provide extra offense or defense will be any fun to play)

TL;DR - I agree

 

[smbakeresq]

Rambling since I haven't been on in a while...


I used to love summoning builds but now they are just boring. When you could summon many different (but less powerful) things it had more oomph. But summoning shows how delicate balance can be, with he help action being more powerful than the aid another action used to be summoning almost had to be changed.

I do think alot of this would be mitigated by removing DEX to damage except with light weapons. That always made sense to me since DEX does improve accuracy of ranged weapons whereas the damage component would be set by pull or draw or weight of weapon. Making the PC take special steps to get the STR to damage component is also an added "get" on the adventure table. I know that's IRL thinking, but I am also a guy who made a Roman shield by hand, and a pilum also, just to do it.

Maybe the root of the problem is that there are less feats and the feats are less situation (always on) but more powerful. I loved my Goliath archer build with a large, composite bow and penetrating shot. It took a few levels to get going but then I was always trying to set up that situation tactically. It was fun.

I do think the solution lies in more but less powerful (or more situational) feats that are more accessible. However this will require delicate balance in many situations. For example the old Power Attack, greatly misunderstood by most players as you needed to know how much to power attack for to maximize damage, I made a chart for it so I would know. Great fun that feat was because there was always a sink or swim element to it. However the balance issue is monsters getting to use it, at all levels. Dragons shifting their whole attack bonus into multiple attacks just shredded people, even lower level creature could ramp up damage greatly as many of them used 2 handed weapons for double the bonus (giants.)
I think if monsters had feat access it would be much more deadly, even unbalanced possibly.

If this is done then ABI need to be thought out. I understand the bounded accuracy argument making ability scores "less" important, but still +1 to everything you do over many rolls adds up. I do think the archer fighting style with its + 2 bonus was poorly thought out, that's very powerful in a bounded accuracy environment, especially since they also put the -5/+10 for ranges in there. It's a rare situation in a bounded accuracy environment not to just turn it on all the time at -3/+10.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

c) removing at-will cantrips. Every character with at least one cantrip gets 3 cantrip slots (that recharge every short rest), and if you want to cast more you'll have to spend levelled spell slots. This number increases to 4 at 4th level and to 5 at 10th level. (I'm toying with changing the "Cantrips Known" column of spellcasting classes into "Cantrips Prepared/Memorized" as consolation. That is, you know all cantrips on your list; you just need to select which ones you can cast any given day. But that's off-topic in this context)

I think that you need to look more carefully as to your stated objectives and the measures you are thinking of implementing when it comes to cantrips.
For example, my wizard tends to spend around 50% of his combat rounds throwing a 2d8+nothing chill touch cantrip. Is this really something that threatens your intentions to limit PC damage?
Is your issue with the eldritch blast thrower with every beam getting +charisma damage giving at-will damage as good as a longbow?
Or is it with the aforesaid eldritch blast with +Cha damage thrower multiclassed with another class that alows spending resources to do this twice per round?

Nail down what your actual problems with the rules are before changing the rules. That way you can be surer of limiting the collateral damage and unintended side effects of the changes you make.

 

[Corwin]

I'm not using encumbrance myself, and while it's fun to have many monsters on occasion, I don't like how 5E is much better at supporting "many weak monsters" than "few strong monsters".

Found you problems right here. Of course your archers are dominant. You've encouraged it. They can carry around unlimited ammo. And they never really have to worry about overkill. On the second point, I think its interesting that you admit you don't like the fundamental, conscious direction in which they took 5e. Based on all these threads and posts you make regarding your unhappiness with 5e, I have to wonder if you wouldn't be happier playing a system better suited to your playstyle and proclivities? And there's nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of awesome TTRPGs out there. Or even prior editions of this one.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Take away feats and multiclassing and 5E becomes a too simple game for some players.

Based on your descriptions of the game and the issues you are having with it, I would think that not only would removing feats address some of the damage imbalance you are talking about, I think it may actually add to the complexity your players would see in the game. Or perhaps not complexity, but at least variety.

I mean, if there are certain feats and combos that are so potent and your players are so optimization-minded that they always take them....then removing those feats will actually make them build characters differently. You'd probably start to see different types of character builds, with many focusing on melee, which seems to be something you want.

Thinking of a feat like Sharpshooter based on the way you're approaching it in this thread....I don't really know if that feat adds as much to your game as it takes away. And yes, it adds a bit of complexity in that there is a bit of additional math for the extra damage....but it doesn't necessarily add complexity to player choice at character creation or in tactics during play.

I'm sure your players would balk at the idea of simply removing feats, but I really think it actually might address every concern you are expressing in this thread. Given the limited understanding of your game that I have from only your posts, of course.

 

[Corwin]

Based on your descriptions of the game and the issues you are having with it, I would think that not only would removing feats address some of the damage imbalance you are talking about, I think it may actually add to the complexity your players would see in the game. Or perhaps not complexity, but at least variety.

I mean, if there are certain feats and combos that are so potent and your players are so optimization-minded that they always take them....then removing those feats will actually make them build characters differently. You'd probably start to see different types of character builds, with many focusing on melee, which seems to be something you want.

Thinking of a feat like Sharpshooter based on the way you're approaching it in this thread....I don't really know if that feat adds as much to your game as it takes away. And yes, it adds a bit of complexity in that there is a bit of additional math for the extra damage....but it doesn't necessarily add complexity to player choice at character creation or in tactics during play.

I'm sure your players would balk at the idea of simply removing feats, but I really think it actually might address every concern you are expressing in this thread. Given the limited understanding of your game that I have from only your posts, of course.

Not just an XP, but a firm BRAVO! Sounder advice I have not seen in a while. Well thought out and considered. Kudos to you, sir!

 

[smbakeresq]

From the responses I see here I have to ask: How many people play without feats, multi-classing, encumbrance, etc. We have played with everything on all the time. Sure, you don't count every ounce, but you also cant carry 2000 lbs of treasure out of dungeon. I come from the days when 10 gp was one pound. Encumbrance due to armor is a consideration when choosing, but the dwarfs like it because it doesn't slow them down. Not using encumbrance hurts races like dwarfs, goliaths, etc and helps the slighter "archer" races like elves etc. Not using it also kind of makes mithral and other lightweight armors, bags of holding, and the everyone's favorite portable hole moot. Keeping inventory means you get to use those little boxes for ammunition that are on character sheets.

Feats are never really optional, everyone wants to use them for fun, and who hasn't had a MC character? You gain levels through XP, with bonuses for plot rewards, this will move you slower through published adventures, allowing you integrate more stuff. In every game I have ever played in, players love feats and most other options, even when they are used against them. Want to have fun with your PC's, change the Deck of Many Things death card to where the players fight their own mirror image and use their character against them; they will love it.

I understand its all optional, but its all there to add depth, why hurry? Go for the full experience of the game.