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

[Ashkelon]

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.

Seems a little heavy handed, no? Remove all feats because of a few bad apples?

The ideal solution was for the 5e designers to have noticed these issues (which were pointed out to them in the playtest alpha material) and not allowed such feats to have been created in the first place. The ideal solution would be to have more parity between various feat options so that the other options are more enticing. That would be a much better way to encrourage diversity of character builds than to remove feats entirely. Sadly, the designers didn't do a balance pass for feats and they remain more or less unchanged from the alpha playtest material.

Also, if you remove feats, you once again enter the 3e era of caster supremacy. Feats increase martial damage by upwards of 30%, so a game with no feats, the martial characters are noticeably less powerful while spellcasters remain relatively unchanged. Some changes would definitely need to be made to either eldritch blast with a 2 level warlock dip, or to bonus action spellcasting meta magic. Also, in a game with no feats multiclassing becomes even more enticing as delaying an ASI is less burdensome than delaying a key feat in a build.

Side note: Interestingly enough, if the bonus action spellcasting rule was changed so that you cannot cast two cantrips, you would actually reduce caster potential and bring it more in line with their martial counterparts.

 

[Ashkelon]

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. Encumbrance due to armor is a consideration when choosing, but the dwarfs like it because it doesn't slow them down. Feats are never really optional, 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.

I understand its all optional, but its all there to add depth, why hurry?

Also in every game I have ever played in, players love feats, 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.

Most games I have played with use feats, encumberance, and multiclassing. The encumberance rules are generous enough that it has never been an issue expect for the grappler build who wanted to drag his enemies around. I guess we just never get enough treasure to really be burdened by encumberance.

Of the 10 or so DMs I have had in various 5e games, only one has tracked arrows, but even if they all did, it never would have been an issue as any archer player at the table would have many quivers full. Even a 12 Strength archer can carry 180 lbs of gear.

 

[Corwin]

The ideal solution was for the 5e designers to have noticed these issues...

Seems a little heavy handed, no? Fix something that isn't broken?

What makes you think the devs failed to "notice" whatever it is you *think* is a problem? They just didn't consider it an actual problem. But rather design as intended. Many of us find no fault with what it is you are currently railing against here. So how can it be universally seen as a "problem"? Clearly it is not. So why should the devs have needed to fix something they, and many others, don't find fault with?

 

[smbakeresq]

Most games I have played with use feats, encumberance, and multiclassing. The encumberance rules are generous enough that it has never been an issue expect for the grappler build who wanted to drag his enemies around. I guess we just never get enough treasure to really be burdened by encumberance.

Of the 10 or so DMs I have had in various 5e games, only one has tracked arrows, but even if they all did, it never would have been an issue as any archer player at the table would have many quivers full. Even a 12 Strength archer can carry 180 lbs of gear.

At 12 strength you speed drops 10ft at 60lbs, which archer type character wouldn't stand for. Studded leather, longbow and 40 arrows is 20lbs, the ubiquitous Adventurers Pack with Backpack, rope, water skin and belt pouch is 15 more, so you are 35 already. 25 lbs left over for melee weapons and whatever else you want to bring before the speed slows down, and you haven't even gotten to carrying the treasure out of the dungeon. This rule is what make the Quiver of Ehlonna a good thing to get. If you want to carry 2 quivers sure, that's 40 arrows. More than that I would ask you how. Even Legolas ran out of arrows.

How many even play with speed rates for armor? There is a reason why in the adventures they have treasure like "tapestry worth 10,000 gp, but it weighs 100 lbs." When you hand waive stuff then you let things happen.

Now I see why these things haven't really been an issue in my games.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Seems a little heavy handed, no? Remove all feats because of a few bad apples?

No, not really. It's a suggestion to a specific person to address the specific issues they are having with the game. I personally don't restrict feats, but I am not having these issues with my game, so there is no need for me to do that. Same thing with anyone else who doesn't have the same problems.
[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has spent a lot of time trying to balance feats. I've seen his feat review threads and plenty of other threads where this subject comes up. Now I don't blame him for having the criticism of the game, that's fine, and he's of course free to seek any resolution to the issue that he can find.

But, in the context of this thread, the way that the game favors ranged combat is the issue in question. The usefulness of feats related to ranged combat make them nearly essential in his game, and the similarly designed melee feats are seen as required simply to remain even close to equal to ranged.

So, given the stated goals and the fact that only certain feats seem to be chosen all that often anyway, why not simply remove them all? No more ranged superiority....no more free ranged attacks in melee, no more predetermined feat selections based solely on DPR.

So then, the archer character has to actually try and stay at range. If he does not, then he has to choose to risk a shot at disadvantage, or switch to a lesser weapon. Tactics. The role of melee focused fighters would increase...their role as a wall is more important when ranged warriors are at risk from melee along with the casters, and their opportunity attacks become a bigger deal. His players would likely have to start considering a bit more in their tactics rather than simply engaging from range, focusing fire, and eliminating all threats easily.

To me, it seems like a totally viable suggestion. If I were him, I'd at least give it a try. Although I expect his players may think it's the craziest thing ever. And I think that given the amount of attention [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has paid to this issue and in his examination and redesign of feats, it may not be something he wants to consider. Which I would understand. But if my game were going the way he describes his, it's the first thing I would try. Redesigning the whole feat system seems a bit more heavy handed than defaulting to the expected level of play.

 

[Corwin]

Of the 10 or so DMs I have had in various 5e games, only one has tracked arrows, but even if they all did, it never would have been an issue as any archer player at the table would have many quivers full. Even a 12 Strength archer can carry 180 lbs of gear.

You find many archers putting a 12 in Strength? Interesting.

Also, there's an optional rule, right in the PHB itself, that quite a few tables use when they feel the default encumbrance is a bit overmuch. Now your same 12 strength archer can only manage 60 pounds. Gear weights in the PHB add up fast. Heck, studded leather alone is going to take up over 20% of that. Good luck toting around virtually unlimited ammo now. Just don't forget to add up the dozen daggers and rapiers you need to draw-n-drop around the battlefield every round, for those OAs!

 

[smbakeresq]

Another thing, limited arrows carried means when your archer goes on that extended tour of the wilds with those guaranteed random encounters they will run out. That means they can put that bowyer kit to use, like the elf archer in Hawk the Slayer.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Ashkelon]

At 12 strength you speed drops 10ft at 60lbs, which archer type character wouldn't stand for. Studded leather, longbow and 40 arrows is 20lbs, the ubiquitous Adventurers Pack with Backpack, rope, water skin and belt pouch is 15 more, so you are 35 already. 25 lbs left over for melee weapons and whatever else you want to bring before the speed slows down, and you haven't even gotten to carrying the treasure out of the dungeon. This rule is what make the Quiver of Ehlonna a good thing to get. If you want to carry 2 quivers sure, that's 40 arrows. More than that I would ask you how. Even Legolas ran out of arrows.

How many even play with speed rates for armor? There is a reason why in the adventures they have treasure like "tapestry worth 10,000 gp, but it weighs 100 lbs." When you hand waive stuff then you let things happen.

Now I see why these things haven't really been an issue in my games.

The basic encumberance rules are 15 lbs X strength score. So an archer with 12 strength carries 180 lbs without any problem. The 20 strength bear totem Barbarian carries 600 lbs without penalty. Again, the only time encumberance has been an issue for any party I have ever played in was when a player wanted to drag a large sized enemy around after grapple/shoving it.

Note: I have never been in a group that uses the optional encumberance rules.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The ideal solution was for the 5e designers to have noticed these issues (which were pointed out to them in the playtest alpha material) and not allowed such feats to have been created in the first place. The ideal solution would be to have more parity between various feat options so that the other options are more enticing. That would be a much better way to encrourage diversity of character builds than to remove feats entirely. Sadly, the designers didn't do a balance pass for feats and they remain more or less unchanged from the alpha playtest material.

It actually does have pretty good parity between feats. There are a lot of really enticing feats. Off the top of my head: Lucky, Sharpshooter, Mobile, Inspiring Leader, Resilient, Warcaster, Alert are all top-drawer. GWM, Polearm Master, Heavy Armor Master, Sentinel, Defensive Duelist, Healer, Shield Master, Skulker, Crossbow Expert, Spell Sniper are only slightly below that. Moderately Armored, Dungeon Delver, Tough, Tavern Brawler, Mage Slayer, Dual Wielder, Actor, Observant are situational but sometimes excellent. (Athlete, Charger, Weapon Master, Savage Attacker are outright weak though.)

Those ratings are subjective, just like everything else that gets posted on Enworld, but the point is that with my powergamer hat on I still don't see any dominant choices and I always want more feats than I can possibly afford. The only "obvious" feat choice from my perspective is that an archer with Archery fighting style and three or more attacks will always want Sharpshooter as soon as he can get it; but that doesn't crowd out other choices because it's only one feat. For other kinds of archers (e.g. Mobile Shadow Monks tasked as primary scout and recon-in-force unit) Sharpshooter is nice to have, but less attractive than other options (e.g. Lucky, Alert, +2 Dex, +2 Wis) that can help you do your primary job.

Feats have pretty good parity. Fighting styles do not. Even in a featless game, an Archery fighter in a tough fight is always going to be much more impressed with his fighting style than a Great Weapon Fighting fighter is (at least, if he can do math--vs. AC 18 hobgoblins, that 3rd level archer will be doing +7/d10+3 for 4.53 DPR (up 23% from 3.68 without the fighting style), but the 3rd level GWF fighter will be doing +5/reroll1s(2d6)+3 for 4.95 DPR (up 13% from 4.35 without the fighting style)). Defense is also much better than Protection, and TWF is... well, it's a flat and very situational +1 to +5 damage per round as part of a bonus action attack. At low levels it looks attractive but it's really just kind of bad compared to Dueling.

One easy way to equalize combat styles would be to say that you pick a style (archery, 2-weapon fighting, two-handed fighting, one-handed fighting) and a benefit (+2 to hit, reroll 1s and 2s, +2 to damage) independently of each other. They're all equal now. Works for both featful and featless games.

 

[Corwin]

The basic encumberance rules are 15 lbs X strength score. So an archer with 12 strength carries 180 lbs without any problem. The 20 strength bear totem Barbarian carries 600 lbs without penalty. Again, the only time encumberance has been an issue for any party I have ever played in was when a player wanted to drag a large sized enemy around after grapple/shoving it.

When you find you are having a problem with the rules, but the rules provide you with a way to help mitigate that "problem" baked right into them, who's fault is it really? I mean, really?

Note: I have never been in a group that uses the optional encumberance rules.

I'm picking up a faint impression that you are, for whatever reason, oddly allergic to the idea of applying the optional encumbrance variant. Yet clearly optional rules are okay with you since you use feats and multiclassing. And who knows what else.