D&D 5E Ranged party member keeps running off the map

[CapnZapp]

Huh? Wasn't your earlier complaint that ranged attacks are too strong? Oh wait, went through some old posts. You're hard to follow sometimes...

Now I am talking about fantasy gaming in general.

When I talk about ranged attacks being weakened, I am talking about the early evolution of D&D and fantasy rpgs in general, and contrast it to "realistic" or "historical" results.

When I talk about ranged attacks being "too strong", I am comparing 5e to previous editions of D&D, notably d20 (3rd edition, Pathfinder).

5e does away with no less than ten (10) restrictions, limitations or weak aspects of 3e archery. While it is entirely possible to argue ranged fire was underpowered in 3e, taking away no less than ten (10) of the drawbacks and disadvantages is going WAY too far.

Regardless, your points about the actual effectiveness of ranged weapons in 5e is considerably higher than in the past is totally correct: A creature with a longbow can take 10 shots before an average creature (using Dash) can close for melee.

No, that is a whole different ballgame, and I don't even want to start talking about that.

I am talking about regular close-distance combats. Relative to 3rd edition, ranged fire is superior to melee combat even if most of your fights never give you any "free attacks" at distance.

As long as battlefields are bigger than what you can cover in a single move (=ca 30 ft) you will sometimes down your foe with attacks remaining, but realize your remaining movement (up to ca 30 ft) is not enough to get you in melee with the next foe. This alone is a big win for ranged combat.

And even when combat starts only 30 ft away, if you win initiative, you can back away while doing great damage with ranged attacks, as opposed to charging ahead and doing damage. The first option is clearly superior, since monsters will have to spend their entire round just to catch up to you (no attacks), not to mention second-rank monsters that would have been able to reach you if you charged forward, but now waste their entire round. Essentially, you force monsters to choose between piddly ranged attacks and not getting closer to you, or doing nothing but running ahead as fast as they can to try to catch up to you, or abort the ambush. All three options are clearly superior to the scenario where one or more heroes charge boldly forward in melee.

Or to bring back my point - charging boldly forward is an essential part of fantasy gaming. The game needs to make it sufficiently attractive and numerically rewarding, so even rational players can pick melee builds without feeling stupid and unoptimal.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] your obsessive focus on optimization, as if hyperoptimization is the norm, is, in fact, obscuring your sense of the game as it really is.

But, since you seem to literally be incapable of discussing anything without being condescending, or even outright rude, I'm probably just gonna have to block you.

 

[cmad1977]

I think this issue has less to do with the rule set and more to do with those in command of the rule set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[S'mon]

I think fantasy literature & movies tend to massively overrate archery, more even than the 5e ruleset. It's not the effectiveness of bows in terms of lethality that is a problem, it's the ability to backpedal while firing. In an open terrain situation this can give ridiculous results as per the OP. I've never seen a problem myself, not even in my 4e game which had somewhat similar rules and lots of archer Rangers. I think everyone in my group accepted that the combat rules are intended for battlemat-scale situations, not "off mat" stuff. Failure to grok that is probably why some groups seem to have issues with retreat & evasion also.

I do like the idea of "Bonus Action: Sprint" to double the speed of a straight-line Dash, if kiting ever does becomes an issue IMC I'll likely use that. As it stands, IMCs combat normally begins at ca 30'-60' range with line of sight around the 60' (forest) or 30' or less (dungeon). In theory dungeon archers might be able to shoot then run round the corner, but I don't see a lot of that in practice, except from Rogues maybe, and they deserve some breaks. Worse case for a melee monster is it has to double move to reach the archer on its turn, the archer then has to suck an opp att if it wants to get away.

BTW I find melee IMCs is dominated by Barbarian PCs, who absolutely have to be melee characters. They are over twice as tough as archer Fighters. Melee Fighter does seem pretty suboptimal.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think fantasy literature & movies tend to massively overrate archery, more even than the 5e ruleset.

BTW I find melee IMCs is dominated by Barbarian PCs, who absolutely have to be melee characters. They are over twice as tough as archer Fighters. Melee Fighter does seem pretty suboptimal.

I agree with both of these points. Also, I'd say that the standard Paladin is much harder to kill than any of the classes that focus on range and/or dex, with no loss of efficacy as a cost for that.

The fast/ranged guys try to avoid being the target of attacks, while the strong guys rush in and trade blows. Works just fine. An archer fighter that has high enough str to not lose speed in heavy armor, high enough dex to not miss significantly more than a dex lightly armored archer, halfway decent HP, and any bonus in any stats other than str, Con, and dex to be useful outside of combat, can only happen by rolling really well. You cannot get there with point buy or standard array, or even just a fairly average set of rolls.

To be optimally effective, the melee fighter just needs good Str and Con, and heavy armor. Everything else can go to being useful outside of combat. And he doesn't need to boost Str as much as the lightly armored archer does Dex, because bounded accuracy means that you dont' have to max stats or religiously boost them. A 15-16 starting Strength is fine, and leaves room for using feats that give +1 Str and do something other than combat efficacy.

The lightly armored archer has more incentive to increase their "main" stat, because it is also their AC modifier. If they boost Str to wear heavy armor without penalty, their other stats suffer. Probably including Con. If they don't but wear heavy armor anyway, they lose a lot of the advantage of range, by being easy to catch and pin down.

The two options are equal in 5e, as long as your game doesn't take place in an open field with no features, with combat the only thing worth considering.

Frankly, if something is only broken when 2/3 of the game are ignored, it isn't broken.

 

[Satyrn]

Melee Fighter does seem pretty suboptimal.

I don't know. My gnome battlemaster is killing it.

By it, I mean everything.

Although it's really just because my d20 has been on fire lately, while the paladin is missing everything.

 

[nswanson27]

I agree with both of these points. Also, I'd say that the standard Paladin is much harder to kill than any of the classes that focus on range and/or dex, with no loss of efficacy as a cost for that.

The fast/ranged guys try to avoid being the target of attacks, while the strong guys rush in and trade blows. Works just fine. An archer fighter that has high enough str to not lose speed in heavy armor, high enough dex to not miss significantly more than a dex lightly armored archer, halfway decent HP, and any bonus in any stats other than str, Con, and dex to be useful outside of combat, can only happen by rolling really well. You cannot get there with point buy or standard array, or even just a fairly average set of rolls.

To be optimally effective, the melee fighter just needs good Str and Con, and heavy armor. Everything else can go to being useful outside of combat. And he doesn't need to boost Str as much as the lightly armored archer does Dex, because bounded accuracy means that you dont' have to max stats or religiously boost them. A 15-16 starting Strength is fine, and leaves room for using feats that give +1 Str and do something other than combat efficacy.

The lightly armored archer has more incentive to increase their "main" stat, because it is also their AC modifier. If they boost Str to wear heavy armor without penalty, their other stats suffer. Probably including Con. If they don't but wear heavy armor anyway, they lose a lot of the advantage of range, by being easy to catch and pin down.

The two options are equal in 5e, as long as your game doesn't take place in an open field with no features, with combat the only thing worth considering.

Frankly, if something is only broken when 2/3 of the game are ignored, it isn't broken.

Indeed.
Consider entering a small enclosed dungeon room with the door slamming shut behind them and then the boss appears. Now how is that party of archers feeling?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Indeed.
Consider entering a small enclosed dungeon room with the door slamming shut behind them and then the boss appears. Now how is that party of archers feeling?

Unless they've got decent melee gear, too, or have invested feats into being melee archers, or if they outnumber the enemies, or something, they are gonna get wrecked. They need some melee guys who can stand in the physical way of enemies. Who have sunk class resources, ASIs, feats, and gear selection into being hard to kill, and stabbing back hard.

Now, if we wanna talk about how Dex melee guys are better than Str melee guys, maybe. Other than the Barbarian.

But archers are the equals of melees, as they should be, in 5e, in anything other than an endless white room.

 

[FrogReaver]

Unless they've got decent melee gear, too, or have invested feats into being melee archers, or if they outnumber the enemies, or something, they are gonna get wrecked. They need some melee guys who can stand in the physical way of enemies. Who have sunk class resources, ASIs, feats, and gear selection into being hard to kill, and stabbing back hard.

Now, if we wanna talk about how Dex melee guys are better than Str melee guys, maybe. Other than the Barbarian.

But archers are the equals of melees, as they should be, in 5e, in anything other than an endless white room.

You do realize an archer fighter with a rapier is just 1 feat behind any other fighter with a rapier???

 

[nswanson27]

You do realize an archer fighter with a rapier is just 1 feat behind any other fighter with a rapier???

But well behind a fighter with a greatsword, if we're talking melee.