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

[pemerton]

We don't know that they will shoot their bows, but they should, or throw their spears. If the GM chooses to nerf them it is not a problem either for the system or the GM.

<snip>

nobody is saying that Gnolls shouldn't be played like that. People are saying that 5e Gnolls weren't designed to behave like that, and they are saying that if you play Gnolls like that you they will be much less of a threat.

<snip>

Because they can throw stuff.
Because they can use ranged weapons.
Because large groups cannot all get into melee.
Because in 5e the game, they almost always have them.

Page 34 of Volos - which was one of the previews - says this about gnolls: "Strength, hunger and fear are the three concepts that every gnoll extols. Strength allows a gnoll to overwhelm, kill, and devour a foe. . . . Gnolls might seem to throw themelves into battle mindlessly, driven only by fury and hunger, but they do possess a rudimentary form of cunning"; and it has a picture of 4 gnolls launching an assault, none of whom has a longbow.

So when you say that "5e gnolls weren't designed to behave like that" - as berserkers, who seek "to tear the defiler limb-from-limb", and "charge the cleric, with sneering disregard for his/her petty spirit guardians", I ask - what is your authority?

And when you say that they should shoot their bows, or throw their spears (thereby disarming themselves?), and that they will always have a "back row" - what is the nature of that should? Because I'm not feeling its force.

We didn't know anything of the scenario other than "70 gnolls were shredded by a spirit guardians spell." That could mean a lot of things. But based solely on that description, it seems a bit unlikely.

It certainly could be the case that there was a story element that would drive the gnolls to abandon any sense of tactics or self preservation and simply hurl themselves into the spell. That's all well and good. But if the DM decides that's how things play out, it'd be odd for him to complain about the way things worked out, no?

First, I didn't read [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] as complaining about anything. He was explaining why he doesn't want to use masses of low-hp "minions".

Second, you might absolutely decide to have a bunch of berserkers attack and be surprised by how it works out. Being surprised by how things work out is a natural consequence of integrating many granular resolution elements and letting the consequence emerge. I've certainly read plenty of posts about GMs being surprised by how particular encounters worked out. (That's part of why 4e adopts various non-agglomerative solutions, like swarms - they make it less likely that the participants will be surprised by the outcomes the mechanical processes yield.)

In one of these current threads, you said something along the lines of the following: that in your game you'd regard a group of mid-level PCs vs 80 orcs as touch-and-go, because you find the fiction in which the PCs beat up on those orcs too absurd/gonzo/over-the-top (I'm paraphrasing, but I think not too loosely). Would that apply even if the orcs berserkly charged the PCs? And what about if one of the PCs had Spirit Guardians memorised? Suppose you decided to resolve it via the mechanics, rather than to stipulate an outcome, and then the PCs ended up butchering the orcs by taking advantage of Spirit Guardians as a mobile aura, would you be surprised by that outcome?

This seems to me to be one of those cases where the mechanics of the game yield an outcome that is not necessarily to be expected a priori. I seem to have been the only commentator in respect of it, for instance, who predicted without needing to be told that Shield Guardians was being used as a mobile damage-dealing aura. (And not in a very optimised fashion. Combine that with some sort of teleportation ability, or rapid flight, and it gets noticeably stronger.)

I think it's also clear that applying any kind of tactics would have made the monsters more of a threat.

That's not in dispute. I mean, it's almost tautological - better tactics will almost always increase the degree of threat.

What I am questioning is the apparently automatic inference from "the gnolls used poor tactics" to "the GM was doing a poor job." When none of the posters drawing that inference was at the table, or has any knowledge of the table circumstances, or the fiction surrounding the encounter. This seems particularly odd in a thread in which CapnZapp (and others) are being lectured about being videogamey, and not caring about the fiction. If one cares about the fiction of gnolls - or even just looks at their 6 INT, CE alignment, and rampage feature - why would one assume they use anything even approximating effective tactics?

Relating this back to the topic of the thread: [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has made it clear that he prefers D&D in which melee is dominant over ranged. That is a reasonable preference, in my view. In any event, it's one I share.

If one way that preference is vitiated is because when hordes of mooks seek to melee the heroes they get cut down by auto-damage auras, then that is something that people who have that preference have to deal with. And telling them to play a game in which the savage berserkers instead use hit-and-run ranged skirmish tactics is no help.

This particular problem is mechanical, and doesn't arise from the fiction - for instance, with auto-damage there is no way that one gnoll can take the hit for another, or shield him/her; whereas if an attack roll was required then it would be different (eg one gnoll could provide cover to another while dodging itself). When I used these sorts of massed humanoids in 4e I often statted them as swarms, which helped deal with this particular issue - auto damage against a swarm doesn't kill all its members in one round, thereby taking it off the board.

CapnZapp has expressed a preference for a different sort of solution, namely, increasing the humanoid hp so the auto damage is not as close to an auto-kill. That's probably not how I'd do it myself - I prefer the swarm approach - but obviously it's one approach to solving the issue.

But the bottom line is - the point of the rules is to generate the fiction that the table wants. There is nothing remotely absurd, in the fantasy context, about 70 charging, slavering gnolls posing a threat to a group of mid-level PCs. The fact that the Spirit Guardians can so easily cut them all down is an artefact of the auto-damage rules. Deciding to change something to avoid that sort of outcome in the future strikes me as extremely sensible GMing, not bad GMing.



EDIT: Read this post, also seemed to belong here:

I still think it's fair to judge a monster's basic identity by the things in its stat block. Gnolls may have only Int 6, but the fact that every single gnoll carries a longbow indicates to me that it's a big part of their tactical doctrine, and I wouldn't feel at all shy about making gnolls shoot PCs as a result.

But what, then, about the picture in Volo's of gnolls without bows?

Or - suppose the gnolls are returning from some other skirmish, and are out of arrows?

Or - suppose instead of gnolls the GM had used orcs, which are also CR 1/2, have fewer hp and so are even more vulnerable to the autodamage, and whose ranged attack is javelins? If they throw one javelin and miss, they have to close. (And they have a feature - aggressive - which, like a gnoll's rampage - makes me think that on the whole they prefer close combat.)

And even if the orcs, or gnolls, or whatever, see the Spirit Guardians, how are they to know that they will die to them? At a base 3rd level casting the aura does 3d8 auto-damage, WIS save for half. Suppose that, for a 5th level cleric, the DC is 15. That means a gnoll or orc with +0 to save takes an expected damage (when it enters, and when it starts its turn) of .7*13.5 + .3*6.75 = 9.45 + 2.025 = 11.475.

Suppose we imagine gnolls or orcs engaged in combat with one another (presumably a not-infrequent occurrence). The former are AC 15, with +4 to hit and doing 5 damage. That's DPR, gnoll vs gnoll, of 2.5. For orcs, with AC 13 and +5 to hit for 9 damage, it's DPR of 5.85 per round, orc vs orc.

So for the gnolls, just entering the Spirit Guardians is like spending 6 seconds fighting of 4 or 5 of your fellows. For the orc, it's like having to fight of 2 of them for 6 seconds.

Or, here's another way of looking at it: moving through the Spirit Guardians is like trying to move past a 20th level swordsman with a magic sword. An OA from this character has +12 to hit (+5 STR, +6 prof, +1 magic) which is close to auto-hit. and does expected 10.5 damage (4.5 for longsword wielded two-handed, +1 for magic, +5 for STR).

How is the orc or gnoll - who has survived so many skirmishes in the past, and never yet been cut down - meant to infer how dangerous a Spirit Guardian is just by visual inspection - that just passing through a spirit guardian is as dangerous as trying to run past Conan? Even if a couple of friends start falling, mightn't an angry gnoll think that the spirit guardians just got lucky?

In my view this is a case where the hp mechanic, and damage scaling, stop supporting a "naturalistic" fiction if left to their own devices. This is why, in a different iteration of D&D that has a similar approach to damage scaling (4e), I used a mechanical solution to deal with the issue, namely, the swarm approach.

 

[happyhermit]

<snip>
and that they will always have a "back row"
<snip>

Please don't mis-represent my posts, I never said there will always be a back row. If you can't acknowledge the difference between that and something almost always having back row options, then we can't have a meaningful discussion. They have those options for all the reasons I mentioned. Perhaps you could acknowledge your error here to indicate you aren't intentionally acting in bad faith because I honestly can't tell from your posts.

But the bottom line is - the point of the rules is to generate the fiction that the table wants. There is nothing remotely absurd, in the fantasy context, about 70 charging, slavering gnolls posing a threat to a group of mid-level PCs. The fact that the Spirit Guardians can so easily cut them all down is an artefact of the auto-damage rules. Deciding to change something to avoid that sort of outcome in the future strikes me as extremely sensible GMing, not bad GMing.

Of course, you won't explain this artifact of the auto-damage rules that allows this scenario (where Gnolls are unable to attack because they are hit by two rounds of damage) to me. It doesn't make sense AFAICT.

Nor will you explain how far ranged weapons would have to be nerfed in this particular example. Or whether you acknowledge that in pretty much any system that simulates reality to some degree, it is possible for the GM to make situations where ranged has an advantage ie; difficult to reach place.

 

[pemerton]

Please don't mis-represent my posts, I never said there will always be a back row. If you can't acknowledge the difference between that and something almost always having back row options, then we can't have a meaningful discussion.

I didn't think very much turned on it. But if it's important to you, then I'm happy to deny that everyone will always have back row options. For instance, if they're committed to rending you limb from limb then - unless they've got Mr Tickle arms - they don't have back row options. (That is, favouring the picture and the flavour text I quoted, over the default stats offered.)

Which is my main point - what counts as an option, and hence what might generate a should, is relative to goals, expectations etc. And I don't see how it is in any way contrary to the presentation of gnolls to play them as not having back row options.

you won't explain this artifact of the auto-damage rules that allows this scenario (where Gnolls are unable to attack because they are hit by two rounds of damage) to me

Well, I wasn't there, but I thought it was because (i) they take damage when they enter the aura, and (ii) they take damage when they start their turn. I don't know whether CapnZapp also applies the damage when the cleric moves the aura over them, though on a natural language reading that might count as entering the aura.

Nor will you explain how far ranged weapons would have to be nerfed in this particular example.

I don't understand this. Why would range have to be nerfed in that example? The example didn't involve any ranged combat.

I've explained what I think generates the mismatch between fiction-driven expectation - a horde of slavering gnolls descends on the PCs - and the upshot - the gnolls are dashed to pieces on the reef of Spirit Guardians. And that is the auto-damage rules in combination with spell damage scaling, which make Spirit Guardians as good as having a whole platoon of Conans to deliver OAs for you. Which is purely an artefact of mechanics, not of fiction.

Or whether you acknowledge that in pretty much any system that simulates reality to some degree, it is possible for the GM to make situations where ranged has an advantage ie; difficult to reach place.

Advantage to whom?

Pretty much by definition, being behind a parapet or in a tower or up a tree favours ranged over melee combat. You are deliberately keeping yourself out of the fray, so as to be able to pick off your targets from behind cover.

As to whether such enemies must be easier to attack via ranged rather than melee, that is a matter of mechanics, eg how much does cover impede ranged attacks? what is the archer's rater of fire vs the melee attacker's movement rate?

In AD&D the cover of an arrow-slit grants +10 to AC, and to saves, and allows no (rather than half) damage on a save. Whereas in 5e it grants +5 to AC and no bonus to saves, nor damage reduction.

Moving to the second question - assuming a base grade archer and a melee combatant who is closing at base rate outdoors, an AD&D character can close 120 yards while having to risk two enemy shots (12" movement, with archery RoF of 2 per round); whereas a 5e character can close only 120 feet (two rounds of move + dash) in that time.

Consider further that, in AD&D, the archer probably has +0 to hit if a basic mercenary, or maybe +2 to hit if an orc, vs AC of (say) 6 for a PC in leather with 16 DEX - meaning a hit on a roll of 15 or better for the mercenary, or 13 or better for the orc; whereas a 5e orc has +5 to hit, which vs AC 14 (leather + 16 DEX) will hit on a 9 or better - a 50% boost in success rate.

Suppose the need to close 100 yards to get behind the archer's mantlet. The AD&D character can do that in one round; the expected number of hits from the archer, in that time, is 4/5; and the bonus of clearing the cover is an effective +10 to hit.

Whereas the 5e character will take 5 rounds to do the same, with an expected number of hits taken being 3. And the bonus of clearing the cover is an effective +5 to hit.

Did reality change between AD&D and 5e? No - just the mechanics.

Which is more realistic - that the best way to defeat an archer behind a mantlet is to shoot through the slit, or to advance across the open ground and go behind it? This is a long way from my fields of expertise, but to the best of my knowledge, when archers behind mantlets were defeated (in combat, as opposed to by capitulation) it wasn't genrally because other archers shot them through their slits, but because hand-to-hand combatants managed to close with them and defeat them hand-to-hand. I think the same thing was generally true in WWI (but with machine-gunners in emplacements rather than archers behind mantlets).

 

[happyhermit]

I didn't think very much turned on it. But if it's important to you, then I'm happy to deny that everyone will always have back row options.

Ok, saying I said things I didn't and refusing to acknowledge it, good to know.

...
Well, I wasn't there, but I thought it was because (i) they take damage when they enter the aura, and (ii) they take damage when they start their turn. I don't know whether CapnZapp also applies the damage when the cleric moves the aura over them, though on a natural language reading that might count as entering the aura.

(i) So, they enter the aura and take damage, then they attack. Why is two rounds of damage necessary?
(ii) This is not how the spell is intended to work. If that is the case then it is likely a big source of difficulties and confusion. Running the game that way is fine, but it is going to make the spell more powerful, while doing the opposite of the OT "making melee combat more competitive with ranged".

Even with both of these, I still don't see how they weren't able to get off a single melee attack.

I don't understand this. Why would range have to be nerfed in that example? The example didn't involve any ranged combat.

Are you even talking about the same example? The one which talked about Gnolls with spears getting into their short range? The one where apparently the Cleric took maybe 40 attacks, none of them melee?

I've explained what I think generates the mismatch between fiction-driven expectation - a horde of slavering gnolls descends on the PCs - and the upshot - the gnolls are dashed to pieces on the reef of Spirit Guardians. And that is the auto-damage rules in combination with spell damage scaling, which make Spirit Guardians as good as having a whole platoon of Conans to deliver OAs for you. Which is purely an artefact of mechanics, not of fiction.

But the mechanics don't actually produce those results. The Gnolls are not going to be one-shot, or even necessarily two-shot AFAICT. They can move 15 feet in and melee, which is the farthest they could have to go, they can throw their spears at close range as the OP mentioned, or they can throw their spears from long range.

Advantage to whom?

Not to whom, to what. Situations where ranged has an advantage over melee.

Pretty much by definition, being behind a parapet or in a tower or up a tree favours ranged over melee combat. You are deliberately keeping yourself out of the fray, so as to be able to pick off your targets from behind cover.
...

The rest is pretty much nothing to do with the question, which was not whether mechanics can change the degree to which ranged is situationaly better than melee, which was never in dispute. It was simply whether or not it is possible in pretty much any TTRPG that somewhat approximates reality (ie; any form of D&D) for GMs to construct situations where ranged is better.

 

[pemerton]

It was simply whether or not it is possible in pretty much any TTRPG that somewhat approximates reality (ie; any form of D&D) for GMs to construct situations where ranged is better.

Do you mean better for the attacker, or for the defender? Or do you mean on an open plain that two sides are contesting? What scenario do you have in mind?

I mean, here's a scenario where ranged has the advantage over melee: three stone giants with rocks a standing at the top of a mountain pass while 3 1st level PCs try to ascend it. But what does the possibility of that scenario tell us about the mechanical balance of the game?

The rest is pretty much nothing to do with the question, which was not whether mechanics can change the degree to which ranged is situationaly better than melee

As I understand it, those sorts of mechanical differences, which change the balance between ranged and melee strategies, are precisely the subject matter of this thread.

they enter the aura and take damage, then they attack. Why is two rounds of damage necessary?

As I said, I wasn't there. Maybe they had to move and dash. Maybe they had to climb down through the hole in the ceiling, and so couldn't attack until regaining their footing (in round 2). I don't think that this is the biggest issue - make them orcs rather than gnolls, and a single instance of damage from a 4th level Spirit Guardians will be sufficient to take many of them down (I make it 15.3 average damage with DC 15 and +0 to save). The issue that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is concerned about is the ability of auto-damage to eliminate mooks. This is not a new issue. It was widely noted and discussed in the 4e era. One legitimate solution - not uncommon in that era - is to raise the hp of mooks (eg many people used 2-hit minions).

EDIT: I'm having trouble with your strangely aggressive tone. You chimed in to tell [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] what a bad GM he was for running his gnoll scenario. It turned out that the gnoll scenario wasn't quite as you apparently had envisaged it (eg it involved a cleric defending a choke point using Spirit Guardians as a mobile damaging aura). And in any event there is nothing inherently bad about running a scenario in which slavering hoards attempt to tear their enemies apart with their bare hands - it hardly breaks genre, either in general or for gnolls (I think I found another Volo's picture in which gnolls have no bows - p 38).

I don't share your concern with the minutiae of the example - I don't think that's its real point. Nor do I share your concern to come up with scenarios in which ranged attacks can dominate. This thread is about the general or typical case. The basic import of the thread seems perfectly clear to me. (And the concern is not with thrown spears, which - under [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s proposed rules changes don't change at all, still getting STR bonus to hit and damage; and which suffer from a reduced rate of attack relative to archery, due to the object handling rules. CapnZapp can correct me if I've got that wrong, but it seems fairly clear to me.)

 

[happyhermit]

I am ready to give up having any sort of meaningful conversation with you, but I will try just a little more.

... make them orcs rather than gnolls, and a single instance of damage from a 4th level Spirit Guardians will be sufficient to take many of them down (I make it 15.3 average damage with DC 15 and +0 to save).

Sure, if you pick much weaker humanoids and have them also mindlessly march to their deaths, the spirit guardians will be able to take some or many of them down. I can see how the rules could produce those results, but even they would get melee attacks in.

The issue that @CapnZapp is concerned about is the ability of auto-damage to eliminate mooks...

Then the fact that they might have been interpreting the spell in a way that exacerbated their concerns seems significant. If someone was unhappy with such a thing in 4e and were unaware that a rule they were using incorrectly was contributing to the problem, would you not point that out?

EDIT: I'm having trouble with your strangely aggressive tone.

Really!?! You have continuously misrepresented what I have said over and over, and you are having trouble with my "strangely aggressive tone". Then you go on to do it over and over again here;

You chimed in to tell @CapnZapp what a bad GM he was for running his gnoll scenario. It turned out that the gnoll scenario wasn't quite as you apparently had envisaged it (eg it involved a cleric defending a choke point using Spirit Guardians as a mobile damaging aura). And in any event there is nothing inherently bad about running a scenario ...

This level of untruth is simply appalling. First of all, I quoted CapnZapp and asked specific questions about the example provided, in an attempt at understanding. Perhaps my word choice was not the best, but it was you that started this exchange by mentioning me and mis-representing my comments in a post. Over and over I stated that there was nothing wrong with the encounter CapnZapp ran, if that is what they wanted, even saying that it could be a cool image, etc. For you to come back and misrepresent that again... I have no polite words for this.

And the concern is not with thrown spears, which - under @CapnZapp's proposed rules changes don't change at all, still getting STR bonus to hit and damage; and which suffer from a reduced rate of attack relative to archery, due to the object handling rules. CapnZapp can correct me if I've got that wrong, but it seems fairly clear to me.)

Oh, so you were talking about the same example, not the one without any ranged attacks you mentioned previously.

It is difficult to be civil with someone who continues to say you said things you never did, refuses to acknowledge their errors, and then acts surprised when you take offense to it.

Let's just drop this here, or just put me on ignore if you prefer.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It sounds like your gnoll stereotype predates the 5E gnoll, which is fine. I've always kind of ignored gnolls until 5E--I honestly couldn't tell you what weapons and tactics AD&D gnolls favored because I never, ever used them. I'm not even sure if they were hyena-men back then or something else.

But I still think it's fair to judge a monster's basic identity by the things in its stat block. Gnolls may have only Int 6, but the fact that every single gnoll carries a longbow indicates to me that it's a big part of their tactical doctrine, and I wouldn't feel at all shy about making gnolls shoot PCs as a result.

YMMV. You've obviously got a lot more established lore investment in gnolls than I do.

It does, and it definitely goes beyond the original descriptions (just because I get bored with every humanoid having an upright stance that wears armor that somehow fits a human (and usually an elf, dwarf, etc.), and all collect coins. For example, bipedal creatures with a tail will more closely resemble a dinosaur in stance, because that's how a tail naturally positions the body of a bipedal creature when their legs are below their hip. Lizardfolk are a bit different, if they are really more lizard-like, then their legs will splay to the side, and they will usually run on all fours with the trademark serpentine flexing of the body. Again, different armor and different tactics arise out of it. Most lizard folk in my campaigns have stone-age technology. Steel weapons are stolen.

I approach it from the other direction, can these creatures even make their own weapons and armor? That requires mining capabilities, knowledge in metallurgy, forging, smithing, things that require not only intelligence but industry and some sort of civilization. While many of them stole these capabilities from other races, I would think that steel, weapons, and armor (that would need to be modified), are more valuable to them than coins.

As for the stat blocks, I agree - but gnolls have a specific special ability (rampage) that ties only with a melee attack. They have both a melee and a ranged attack, so which is more commonly used? I think closing for a melee attack is their preferred attack form, with the longbows used to soften up the target. Intelligent characters would work to use the long

Note that I also make firing into melee very difficult in my campaign, if you've ever tried archery you'll know that at short range it's deadly, but imagine trying to fire an arrow into a football or rugby game, when a runner is trying to squeeze through the line of scrimmage, and then try to target the runner with an arrow. The chances you'll hit the target you're aiming for is virtually none. Not to mention there's probably about a 50-50 chance that you'll hit one of your allies.

Now the gnolls might not care if they hit their allies, but if they are modeled after hyenas (which they were/are), and have an attack that is melee specific, then I think their general strategies would reflect that: Soften up and weaken the target with a few arrows, and then finish them off with a rampage. There would be a conundrum to the none-too-intelligent creatures - after the kill then they'll be fighting amongst themselves for the spoils. So the more aggressive ones will close sooner than the others.

RAW the game doesn't provide an opportunity for weakening a foe. But if they hit one a few times to the degree that they think they can kill them, they'll close. And the rampage ability is really killer. Imagine this scenario:

4 gnolls against 4 PCs. They start by firing arrows, perhaps 2 at who they perceive as the weakest, and 1 at two other targets to soften them up. The PCs will probably focus their fire and might take out one of the gnolls. Since they are hyena-like, whenever possible they will surround the group, so AoE spells are less effective (by luck, not intelligence). Round two the three remaining gnolls descend on the target they attacked with two arrows. All three gnolls attack, and if that character is dropped to 0, the killing gnoll, and the other one(s) that haven't attacked yet and still have a move then attack the next closest target they hit. If a gnoll struck the first target and didn't drop it to 0 it wouldn't benefit from its rage.

One of the reasons I really like this tactic, is that they target what they perceive is the weakest target, not the strongest or more dangerous as other intelligent monsters might. So at least the first time they are attacked it often takes the players by surprise. I would use a combination of the characters size, Strength, and max hit points as a rough guide for who looks weakest. But if somebody is separated from the party they will always be a target.

I also think they are somewhat cowardly. So if they are damaged to any significant amount (50% of max hit points), they'll run. Once a couple have run, the others will too. At that point, they'll continue to track their quarry, staying out of range where possible, and using their longbows to harass and soften them up, until a good opportunity presents itself to further the attack. I also think that they are noisy, with a loud, yelping and barking call that will attract more gnolls that can hear them. So when the party doesn't dispatch them early on, they can expect another attack, with more gnolls.

Their demonic origin accentuates these traits. They are cruel, and relentless. They may be cowards and retreat when needed, but they won't give up.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Every version of D&D ever has had players being able to earn XP points so as to add new abilities to their PCs. I don't think that this is distinctive to video games.

There is too much here to unpack in the context of this thread.

So I'll try coming at it orthogonally - have you played any RPG designed since 1990? The reason I ask is that you seem to be assuming very many things to be correlated, which don't have to be and (in many RPGs) are not. And I'm wondering on what sample base of games you're basing your assumption.

Just because something is distinctive (or not) to a given subject doesn't mean it can't be defining.

Yes, D&D always had XP to add levels, although only a few classes gained abilities. But that wasn't necessarily the defining feature.

Early in RPG video game design, the part that was latched onto as what defined an RPG was experience and level advancement. Exploration was there a bit, but with the graphics of the day it was mostly just in the form of a maze of sorts, to get from one level to the next, killing monsters on the way. Video games have built on that foundation.

While D&D had level advancement, and it's always been a part of the published game, it wasn't the original building block, nor the primary one. Initially, the innovation that was seen as revolutionary is that you stepped into the part of a single character. This came from wargaming, where people were used to battalions and groups, not an individual character. And while the concept of role-playing was in its infancy (and didn't typically equate to the acting style some used later on), the idea that I could be a wizard, or a fighter, is the defining feature. Some early video games stuck very close to the D&D mold (Wizardry, for example), but it never really felt like you were that character. There's a different interaction with the video game, where you don't seem as invested in the character.

I think the main difference is that with a TTRPG, you not only get to say you are a wizard, but there are several other people at the table that agree you are a wizard, and interact with you, the wizard.

And I wasn't referring to other RPGs in my comment. I have played and run many other RPGs, though to about 2000ish, but most of them once or twice. And most of them I don't recall much because they didn't make much of an impact on me personally, my groups preferred D&D (as do I). My perspective is admittedly skewed very heavily on D&D, particularly 2e and earlier. I know that D&D has influenced a lot of games in and out of the RPG (duh), and that others have had an influence on D&D. And my commentary was solely on the way that 5e seems to have evolved, been presented, and is played by a lot of people.

Really, I'm just acknowledging that I don't fully understand how other people play the game in a certain way. I've read some of the articles on character builds, or those by people that declare certain spells, magic items, monsters, class abilities, or whatever as great, or a trap, or what have you. Or the threads about what to multi-class, and when:

Some common threads seem to be (more generalizations):
They are looking at the rules to find ways to maximize their choices. They don't want to be stuck making (or being perceived as making) "a bad choice."
They tend to focus on the long term - this is where I plan for my character to be at 3rd level, 5th level, 9th level, etc.
The focus is usually leaning toward combat, if something is useful outside of combat that's great, but if it's useful outside of combat, but not within, then no.
They tend to have the same format and feel (to me) as a Video Game guide, or a MtG Deck Building guide, and the general tone of them is that of "winning." That is, this is the "best" character of this type.

When it comes right down to it, I don't really get this at all. Sure, I understand from a logical standpoint that people want to have more power, and stuff like that, but it's just not the way my brain works. It doesn't excite or interest me. And from my perspective, they remind me of all of the things that I tend not to like when I check out a video game RPG. It's also what pretty much killed MtG for my daughter and I as well. It's far too competitive. It was fine when we buy some balanced decks to play against each other, and wasn't too bad if we made some decks out of those we bought. As soon as we tried to play against anybody at the local shop? We were slaughtered. Every time. It just wasn't fun. D&D has always been fun to me because it has never been a competitive game to me. For some people it is, or at least has that tone. That's all.

I've played the game for a long time, and sure there are some choices that might be "better" from raw numbers, but our games rarely seem to be about raw numbers. The characters seem to take on a life of their own, and what seems right for them when the time comes I generally can't predict when creating one.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I love the approach of rolling stats first (we don't swap them around), and seeing what comes from that. There's a story that starts right with that unexpected, random roll, that starts to build a history and eventually a race and class. I have no idea what I'll be trying to attempt at 5th level, much less know whether this character will still be alive. We treat our characters like people, and the majority of people do their best to avoid deadly combat where possible. It was usually relegated to the military and criminals, because it's, well, deadly. It's the lure of easy treasure that's usually the catalyst, but a lot of times it's because of things that happen in the world around the characters that starts them on their way.

When I run public games, I get a wide variety of play styles. I like that because I use them specifically to challenge my DMing ability and grow. And the Min/Maxers seem to fit in fine. Sometimes I get the sense that they are gloating over their ability to get one over on me (really, it happens), and I still don't get it. OK, so you "rolled" nothing lower than a 15 on 3d6, re-roll ones (once). Whatever. If that's what you have to do to have fun, then so be it. Somehow they never seem to have much more of an advantage once we're playing.

So maybe I'm mis-assigning the influences. It's the way I see it based on the gamers I meet and play with, and the changes I've seen in the rules over the years. The source isn't really relevant to me compared to my recognition about what the differences are that I like and don't like, since that helps me tailor the game to my (and my players') preferences.

I'm not really responding to prove my case, just explain a bit of what I was thinking. It was a generalization, which was probably a poor decision to start with.

 

[guachi]

The module B10 has a large gnoll warband in it and, aside from the demonic ancestry part, this is more or less how I tried to run them to differentiate them from a module full of goblins and a few hobgoblins.

I tried to play up that gnolls are not to be trifled with because they have lots of HP (compared to a goblin), can't be reasoned with, and are relentless, if cowardly, in pursuit. If gnolls attack it's because they are almost assured of victory and likely have (or think they have) overwhelming odds.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Page 34 of Volos - which was one of the previews - says this about gnolls: "Strength, hunger and fear are the three concepts that every gnoll extols. Strength allows a gnoll to overwhelm, kill, and devour a foe. . . . Gnolls might seem to throw themelves into battle mindlessly, driven only by fury and hunger, but they do possess a rudimentary form of cunning"; and it has a picture of 4 gnolls launching an assault, none of whom has a longbow.

So when you say that "5e gnolls weren't designed to behave like that" - as berserkers, who seek "to tear the defiler limb-from-limb", and "charge the cleric, with sneering disregard for his/her petty spirit guardians", I ask - what is your authority?

And when you say that they should shoot their bows, or throw their spears (thereby disarming themselves?), and that they will always have a "back row" - what is the nature of that should? Because I'm not feeling its force.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I wanted to reply to this anyway.

"Should" = to make the encounter interesting/threatening/matter

Especially since, as CapnZapp later explained, he was testing the alternate rules for Mobs from the DMG. If one wants such a test to be meaningful, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to limit the monsters in such ways.

So...you are correct that gnolls can be played as a rampaging horde that rushes to certain doom out of a lack of care....that's a fine interpretation. You can also play them as cunning and as capable of using basic tactics which are more than hinted at based on their stats and plenty of lore. You can play it either way....however it best suits your game.

Now, given these two equally valid takes....one lends itself to a simpler encounter and one to a more threatening one. Especially given that this discussion started as an examination of efficacy of ranged attacks versus melee attacks. So if you are of the opinion that ranged combat is inherently superior, then taking away the ranged capability of enemies would seem to be a deliberate choice to make the enemies weaker than they should be.

Which is fine if that's what you want. But it seems a poor reason to criticize such enemies.

First, I didn't read [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] as complaining about anything. He was explaining why he doesn't want to use masses of low-hp "minions".

Let's ignore my use of the word complaint, then, and instead examine what I think is pretty clearly my point. If the reason that Capn doesn't use masses of low-hp minions is the way that this scenario played out, then I would certainly think how he chose for it to play out is a factor.

"I don't like to use low HP mobs because they got slaughtered because of how I ran them". Do you see the conflict in this?

Ultimately, he is of course free to do what he likes....and I can understand some of the points he has made over the course of this thread....but I see factors within his control that seem to exacerbate his concerns.

Second, you might absolutely decide to have a bunch of berserkers attack and be surprised by how it works out. Being surprised by how things work out is a natural consequence of integrating many granular resolution elements and letting the consequence emerge. I've certainly read plenty of posts about GMs being surprised by how particular encounters worked out. (That's part of why 4e adopts various non-agglomerative solutions, like swarms - they make it less likely that the participants will be surprised by the outcomes the mechanical processes yield.)

Sure, surprises are certainly possible. That point is not mutually exclusive with the fact that we can reasonably predict outcomes based on the many factors that may shape an encounter. Sometimes we may be wrong, but very often we will be right.

In one of these current threads, you said something along the lines of the following: that in your game you'd regard a group of mid-level PCs vs 80 orcs as touch-and-go, because you find the fiction in which the PCs beat up on those orcs too absurd/gonzo/over-the-top (I'm paraphrasing, but I think not too loosely). Would that apply even if the orcs berserkly charged the PCs? And what about if one of the PCs had Spirit Guardians memorised? Suppose you decided to resolve it via the mechanics, rather than to stipulate an outcome, and then the PCs ended up butchering the orcs by taking advantage of Spirit Guardians as a mobile aura, would you be surprised by that outcome?

It's hard to say for certain because there are so many variables. I likely wouldn't throw a horde of enemies against my PCs with the expectation that they fight them head on as in this scenario. But let's just say for argument's sake that this scenario was one I was running at my table...>I'd likely do things a bit different.

I don't think that rampaging creatures would consider the Spirit Guardians spell as weak or inferior in any way....not for long anyway. Once it was clear that there were gnolls dropping like flies, I'd have them acknowledge that and then act accordingly. Throwing a spear or shooting a bow isn't some kind of genius level tactic. Staying away from a visible effect that is clearly harmful is not either. The closest comparison to the spell effect is fire. Thinking creatures don't run into flames without incredibly extenuating circumstances. That is in effect what these gnolls were doing. Running into flames and dying by the dozen, without any of them even reaching the cleric (which sounds like it may have been an error in rule application, but either way).

This seems to me to be one of those cases where the mechanics of the game yield an outcome that is not necessarily to be expected a priori. I seem to have been the only commentator in respect of it, for instance, who predicted without needing to be told that Shield Guardians was being used as a mobile damage-dealing aura. (And not in a very optimised fashion. Combine that with some sort of teleportation ability, or rapid flight, and it gets noticeably stronger.)

Was it being used that way? Capn said that the cleric was in a central point that allowed him to affect "all or most" of the incoming gnolls. I think perhaps you misread that. It is certain that the cleric likely moved a bit, but I don't think he was what I would consider "mobile".

That's not in dispute. I mean, it's almost tautological - better tactics will almost always increase the degree of threat.

It seems to be in dispute at times, because that is all that I am really saying.

What I am questioning is the apparently automatic inference from "the gnolls used poor tactics" to "the GM was doing a poor job." When none of the posters drawing that inference was at the table, or has any knowledge of the table circumstances, or the fiction surrounding the encounter. This seems particularly odd in a thread in which CapnZapp (and others) are being lectured about being videogamey, and not caring about the fiction. If one cares about the fiction of gnolls - or even just looks at their 6 INT, CE alignment, and rampage feature - why would one assume they use anything even approximating effective tactics?

I don't think that anyone said the DM was doing a poor job. Instead, people are commenting on the admittedly limited understanding that we have of the scenario.

The use of tactics is a choice made by the DM. He can have them be cunning demonic hunters, or he can have them be mindless, rampaging beasts....as I said above, either approach is fine.

But the choice is going to affect the outcome. Choosing to not have the gnolls use tactics will mean that they will not be as effective as if you chose otherwise.

Relating this back to the topic of the thread: [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has made it clear that he prefers D&D in which melee is dominant over ranged. That is a reasonable preference, in my view. In any event, it's one I share.

If one way that preference is vitiated is because when hordes of mooks seek to melee the heroes they get cut down by auto-damage auras, then that is something that people who have that preference have to deal with. And telling them to play a game in which the savage berserkers instead use hit-and-run ranged skirmish tactics is no help.

Actually, it could be a help. If it's the aura that is weakening melee presence on the part of the PCs, then perhaps having the enemies stay outside the aura would mean that the melee PCs would have to close with them in order to attack.

This particular problem is mechanical, and doesn't arise from the fiction - for instance, with auto-damage there is no way that one gnoll can take the hit for another, or shield him/her; whereas if an attack roll was required then it would be different (eg one gnoll could provide cover to another while dodging itself). When I used these sorts of massed humanoids in 4e I often statted them as swarms, which helped deal with this particular issue - auto damage against a swarm doesn't kill all its members in one round, thereby taking it off the board.

CapnZapp has expressed a preference for a different sort of solution, namely, increasing the humanoid hp so the auto damage is not as close to an auto-kill. That's probably not how I'd do it myself - I prefer the swarm approach - but obviously it's one approach to solving the issue.

So you're allowed to mention your swarm approach to the topic, and that's fine, but when I or others say a tactical approach might work, we're commenting on Capn's ability to GM?

There are many ways to approach this issue. CapnZapp is free to use any he likes, and we are all free to discuss any we like. Because I suggested tactics in the encounter in question doesn't comment on his ability to DM effectively anymore than your choice to use swarms does.

But the bottom line is - the point of the rules is to generate the fiction that the table wants. There is nothing remotely absurd, in the fantasy context, about 70 charging, slavering gnolls posing a threat to a group of mid-level PCs. The fact that the Spirit Guardians can so easily cut them all down is an artefact of the auto-damage rules. Deciding to change something to avoid that sort of outcome in the future strikes me as extremely sensible GMing, not bad GMing.

Sure. Maybe don't have all the entry points to the PC location funnel into the area of effect of such spells. Perhaps arm the gnolls with their standard equipment and allow them to threaten the cleric from outside the area of effect. Those would help accomplish what you just described.

There could be other solutions, as well. But I think that if what is desired is for enemies to be a threat, then the first step is to have them behave in a way that makes them a threat. Or at the very least, to not behave in a way that makes them not threatening.