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

I am super confused now.

Some posters are saying ranged is not superior to melee because the GM should start all combat in melee range of the party and never have scenarios where enemies fight at range. I

Other posters are saying a group of enemies is stupid for not using the tactically advantageous option of shooting at the party from range.

I get that the gnoll scenario is somewhat of a tangent to the main topic of this thread, but I think the fact that posters are stating that the gnolls should be fighting from range only serves to give credence to the claim that ranged combatants are superior to melee ones in general. After all, the crossbow archer can fight these gnolls at 100% effectiveness whether the gnolls are shooting from range or charging into melee. The great weapon fighter cannot say the same.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Not to mention the ultra-fundamental issue of many players thinking inventory management super-boring.
Which is, presumably, why there's an option of ignoring ammo, and why the optional encumbrance system is optional.

But, counting arrows (and recovering arrows that missed) and tracking encumbrance down to the gp (1/10th lb) are part of that classic D&D feel, so 5e has 'em.

That is, even if encumbrance WAS an effective limitation on archers, it would still not do for groups that find counting arrows the eqivalent of pixel-bitching in adventure games.
Also something adventure games lifted from D&D. ;)

5e is very open to being played in very different ways. That prettymuch precludes it being balanced for every one of those different ways, which made balancing it, at all, in the first place, rather a moot exercise (an exercise, I'd argue, the designers wisely refrained from wasting much effort upon)...


I want the game with feats and MC to be as balanced and varied as the game without.
With or without either or both of those optional rules - or any other optional rules, or any other variants - the game will be as balanced as you, as DM, choose to make it (to the limits of your ability to impose balance vs your players' collective tendency to exacerbate imbalance).

You missed it entirely.

D&D has become combat, combat, combat rest to get abilities back, combat, combat, combat, need long rest so lets get out of the dungeon and come back with no repercussions.
There may be some non-combat things in there, too - traps, social encouners, etc...
It was never intended that way.
Aside from "rest to get abilities back" being broken out from "need long rest" and and from the implication that "no repercussions" is a certainty (the DM can certainly provide repercussions as easily as ever), that's always been a way to play D&D.

As to what's 'intended,' if you can dig up documentation of Gygax & Arneson both going on record with the way D&D was intended to be, great. ;)

(OTOH, Mr Mearls went on at length about what 5e was intended to be - and that was not something intended to be played only one way!)

It was designed as an immersive experience
D&D was originally designed as a wargame, said so right on the cover.



[MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION], your post doesn't make any sense to me.

(1) What does wanting to play as a hero rather than counting arrows and tracking encumbrance have to do with rules or no rules?
Heroic tales don't drown in detail?

That doesn't happen in D&D - does that mean D&D is only for munchkins who can't roleplay and should stick to video games?
Well, should stick to D&D and/or video games. ;P
 
Last edited:


*Moderator edit*

Please keep it civil (EN World rules link) - don't attack other users. (This post isn't okay, either.)

-Darkness,
EN World moderator

Don't worry about it, sir. It didn't make sense to me either, and was gonna reply to him some way like you did, but I realized I felt kinda sad for him that he's upset there are people who don't enjoy the exact same parts of the game he does.

(Man, I can be a sarcastic jerk)

Sorry I posted over you head, I will dumb it down for you. I thought you would see all previous posts on the topic in continuous form that it was a part of.



Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Your posts don't describe me or my group.

I play the same game you do, but I enjoy focusing on the broad strokes (the roleplaying) and would rather ignore the little details (the paperwork).

That's different then what you posted. It takes one minute anyway, and you don't RP, it's just combat as you described. That's ok, each his own.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app
 

I am super confused now.

Some posters are saying ranged is not superior to melee because the GM should start all combat in melee range of the party and never have scenarios where enemies fight at range. I

Other posters are saying a group of enemies is stupid for not using the tactically advantageous option of shooting at the party from range.

I get that the gnoll scenario is somewhat of a tangent to the main topic of this thread, but I think the fact that posters are stating that the gnolls should be fighting from range only serves to give credence to the claim that ranged combatants are superior to melee ones in general. After all, the crossbow archer can fight these gnolls at 100% effectiveness whether the gnolls are shooting from range or charging into melee. The great weapon fighter cannot say the same.

In the example provided, the gnoll has what most would consider a better melee attack because it has better to hit, can do more damage if it uses two hands, and if it drops an enemey, it can Rampage for a bonus move and a bite attack. However, due to the Spirit Guardians spell, it makes far more sense for the gnoll to use its inferior ranged attack so that it can avoid being affected by the spell, and on a hit it has a chance to break the cleric's concentration, which would drop the spell, and then allow its allies to close for melee.

The thing is that ranged superiority is not a binary situation. It's not either "ranged is better" or "ranged isn't better". As the thread has shown there are a variety of opinions about it, and a variety of factors that influence it. It's so situational, and varies from table to table.

I believe people who say that ranged combat is superior in their games. However, I also believe people who don't share that opinion about their own games. I actually fall into this category myself; I don't experience it in my games because my players don't necessarily care to focus on ranged combat, and the one or two PCs that do, while highly effective, don't radically outshine anyone else.

For folks who do find ranged combat to be superior, there are many ways that it can be addressed. Acting as if only altering the rules is a viable option is limiting. There are environmental factors that can be used (let's say a battle on a hilltop marked with old ruins where pillars of stone and crumbling walls block sight lines from afar), and there are tactics by the enemies (even if they are as simple as not charging into a damaging spell when a ranged attack that could end the spell is available, but there are also more complex options).

I would also say that you could try and shift the players' focus from DPR as the end-all-be-all. My guess is that is a really big factor in a lot of this. Maybe place some focus on other areas of the game than combat. Maybe have the decisions players make in social interaction matter just as much. Maybe explain to the players that no matter how much they min-max, the DM can still design encounters to threaten them.....so maybe min-max isn't the key to character design? This is probably the most difficult method that has been put forward because it relies on both the DM and the players shifting their thinking of the game and how they play it, but it would likely have the biggest impact.

Then there is of course the alteration of feats or other game mechanics that people can use to try and balance the ranged combat out. That is certainly an option as well. I think the point is that it is not the only option.
 
Last edited:

That's different then what you posted. It takes one minute anyway, and you don't RP, it's just combat as you described. That's ok, each his own.

This is what I said:
I said this:
Aye, but I prefer playing like an episode of Xena. She wanders through space and time with nothing but her armor and weapons, and can still set up camp, and pan fry the fish she catches. I'm glad the encumbrance rules are garbage.

It's not a videogame thing. It's a "I just want to play a hero doing hero stuff" thing.

And I have no complaints about balance, no.

(Nor do I think that the encumbrance variant rules are there to balance anything but some players' desire for encumbrance rules against those of us who don't want to be bothered.)


I didn't even say anything about fighting, yet you seemed to leap to the conclusion that I wanted nothing but fighting.

I said nothing about videogames, yet you seemed to leap to the conclusion I want my D&D to be like a videogame.

The only way I can see that you came to your judgement of me is by interpreting "doing Hero stuff" as "fighting fighting fighting."



(Oh wait, there is some implied combat in my posts - Xena had to fight that fish!)
 

...
Other posters are saying a group of enemies is stupid for not using the tactically advantageous option of shooting at the party from range.

Why you are "confused" is because you seem to be missing the point that in anything like an even reasonably realistic TTRPG, it will always be possible to set up situations where ranged is a more reasonable option. This, in and of itself has nothing to do with whether or not ranged/melee is balanced on the whole. It is akin to the fact that it isn't possible to "take someone out" with a ranged weapon in 5e. So, if someone brought up an example where non-fatal damage was required and thus "proved" that ranged weapon attacks were flawed, there would be the same reaction.

I get that the gnoll scenario is somewhat of a tangent to the main topic of this thread, but I think the fact that posters are stating that the gnolls should be fighting from range only serves to give credence to the claim that ranged combatants are superior to melee ones in general. After all, the crossbow archer can fight these gnolls at 100% effectiveness whether the gnolls are shooting from range or charging into melee. The great weapon fighter cannot say the same.

Think about it. The Gnolls are faced with a clearly visible spell of a small radius, they watch their brethren being "shredded" while accomplishing nothing. In this scenario, how far would you have to nerf ranged attacks to make them less attractive than ineffectual suicide? Maybe if it was only 1 or 2 HP of damage, but even then there is a chance (or extreme likelihood) of disrupting the concentrating caster, or taking them down entirely. And if you nerfed it so hard that suicide was a better option than tossing rocks in this particular situation, then the Gnolls should simply run.

The example simply shows that playing monsters with terrible tactics and strategy, (aside from against their stats and any inherent motivations) leads to weird outcomes. Now, if the Gnolls were under some sort of spell or stricken by a disease, then several tons of Gnoll corpses in a small circle around the party could be a very cool image, but it doesn't make ANY sense for RAW and RAI Gnolls.
 

His post was in response to a description of 70 gnolls being shredded by a Spirit Guardians spell. So in this case, the spell was already in place. Since it is centered on the caster, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who cast the spell. And since there are 70 gnolls, all of whom should likely be equipped with longbows, there's no reason to think that martial warriors can stop them all, or that the gnolls wouldn't simply fire arrows over the warriors at the cleric.

So it's far from a rubbish argument.

A caster with Spirit Guardians in place needs to get near the battle in order for the spell to be effective. And whether or not a caster lets anyone know he's a caster before the martials are engaged is going to vary by caster. However, I'd say that since it's a divine spell that we're talking about, and since clerics tend to be devout in their worship of their chosen deity, I don't know if I'd assume that their default stance would be to hide that fact. In fact, I'd say this kind of assumption is an example of players making decisions more about the game than their characters might make about the world.

Your assumptions about what kind of group anyone making these points must be a part of are totally unwarranted because again, this was in response to another poster, one who thinks that ranged combat is too great. So it's a specific example being discussed. There is no need for you to guess at how anyone else plays the game. Instead, discuss the 70 gnolls running to their death against a spell with a 15' radius centered on the caster.

This example isn't really about how smart the monsters are so much as how stupid they shouldn't be.
As the DM with the gnolls, I can tell you what the specifics were, so you don't have to guess (and especially not make guesses meant to strengthen your own discussion points).

The encounter was meant to trial the mob rules of the DMG, where the DM makes a single melee attack roll for, say, half a dozen enemies. The purpose was to see if characters approaching the end of tier II (I can't remember their exact level) are sturdy enough to withstand weak enemies numerous enough to justify the mob rules. Hence, I used regular Gnolls with their bites and spears but no longbows. Feel free to disagree with this, but please don't use it to make assumptions on the overall issue.

Another choice of mine was that any Gnoll that witnessed the death of an ally through the Spirit Guardian area would attempt to avoid entering it. But that these Gnolls would otherwise not know the aura's exact purpose. If they could attack somebody without a magical shimmer, they would.

Now, in order to get within their spear's short range, they must come awfully close to the area. This enables the Cleric to catch plenty of them by simply moving forward ten feet or so. So it's no surprise many were caught, either by charging into the field or by being too close.

Those who charged was slowed down by the spell's other effect, ensuring almost no gnoll survived to make melee attacks at all (since they need to survive two helpings of damage; an not inconsiderable amount of damage given that the Cleric cast the spell at his highest spell level; level 4 I believe)

At least one round there were probably two dozen ranged attacks at the Cleric. It wouldn't surprise me if he took 40 attacks in total. But with outstanding AC and actively dodging, very few were hits. And with optimized Concentration checks (proficiency and advantage) none came even close to disrupting his Spirit Guardians.

Had the Spirit Guardians failed, he could not have withstood all the incoming attacks himself. If he was super-unlucky the first Gnoll breaks his concentration; but more likely he would survive to bring back up the spell again. Of course, this would be noticeably weaker, since it would probably be cast at a lower level, and there would be no time to dodge. In all these cases, the rest of the party would have had to move in to help out.

As for the caster's position, this fight took place in semi-narrow underdark tunnels. (Either wide corridors or narrow rooms; the width and height varied mostly between 10 and 20 ft). Of course, I didn't have all Gnolls attack from a single direction, that would have made it too easy to stop them - I had placed four approach tunnels one of which came out in the chamber's ceiling.

The party had heard the gnolls yapping for a while, so they were not surprised. The Warlock felt it necessary to expend a Wall of Fire to stop the first squad of Gnolls, thereby giving everyone else a round to position.

The Cleric positioned himself so that no (or few) Gnolls could pass him by, if we include the 15 ft radius from the spell. He did so by moving right underneath the opening in the ceiling - making it rain dead and dying Gnolls all over the place.

---

In this case, I freely admit that given other terrain and effective ranged weapons, Spirit Guardians would have played a much diminished role.

But it certainly is an anti-test-the-mob-rules spell!

And it kind of nailed down my belief that there is an urgent need of humanoid stat blocks in the 30-50 hp range.

My other "swarm" encounter (that came soon after the Gnoll fight) worked much better, if by "better" we mean the characters were severely challenged and the players had to pull out every trick in their book to survive. Or in other words, the kind of encounter that make the game worth playing :)

It notably featured homemade Grimlocks where I blatantly ignore the impractical idea of bounded accuracy and instead make it work.

But instead of me guesstimating the CR of these monsters, how about I show the encounter to you, and you can judge for yourself :)

1 Fomorian (MM136, but large, not huge) riding on an Umber Hulk mount (MM292) crashing out from a wall while the party descends a vertical shaft (one with lots of cracks and passages). Behind it, a dozen Elite Grimlocks (MM175 plus below) spend their "surprise round" action to swarm out and down to make area spells difficult. The only actual attack on the first (surprise) round would be the Umber Hulk's gaze, IIRC.

Elite Grimlocks (three varieties, four each):
Grimlock Cannibal: 25 hp, Speed 40 ft; Bone Club +5 for 1d6+3 dmg, Grisly totem (+5 AC single-use; like a Shield spell); Blood Frenzy: bonus attack against wounded foe
Grimlock Brute: 40 hp, Two-handed Spiked Bone Greatclub +6 for 1d8+4 blunt dmg, on ⚃-⚅: nasty gash for 1d8+4 extra slashing dmg; Bloodied Fury: bonus attack when bloodied
Grimlock Warrior: 30 hp, dual-wielding two Spiked Bone Clubs: two attacks at +5 for 1d6+3 dmg, on ⚄-⚅: nasty gash for 1d6+3 slashing dmg

This is my kind of interesting monster variety. You'll note the terms "wounded" and "bloodied" - they mean "at less than max hp" and "at less than half max hp" respectively. All three varieties have their own way of generating twice as much damage (Cannibals making a second attack if foe is wounded; Brutes making a second attack when bloodied themselves; and Warriors always doing two attacks). Also, there's the use of variable damage (for the spiked clubs) to further increase the players' excitement.

And don't forget the "evil" synergy between how the master and his steed both having gaze attacks, and his servants all being blind and thus immune! Let me tell you, these stats combined with the fact the monsters achieved total surprise, made for a fight that was as memorable as it was difficult! The players were visibly shaken once they had vanquished their last foe. If I remember, three out of five characters were down to single-digit hp! Even better, it was reasonably fast - it didn't drag out into a stalemate or something. Just a desperate and very grisly deathmatch :]:D

All of these mechanics are shamelessly lifted from 4E, whose Monster Manual in my opinion is a vastly more interesting and useful D&D supplement than the 5E MM.

Now, what CR would you peg something like the Grimlock Cannibal...?
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top