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

[nswanson27]

Indeed. Anyway, have we pretty much covered it, here? I feel like maybe we have. 5e rewards melee and range, both are fun, both have pros and cons, and both are needed, and need eachother, in an actual game.

I think so. I haven't heard the designers mention this area as a major complaint they get like they do in other areas of the game. I would assume then for most players there's no issue here.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't see goalpost moving here. I see people making points and comments that steers the conversation from one specific subject matter to another related but different one. Kinda like how real life conversations flow.

Person 1: "I think the archer fighter is nearly just as durable"
Person 2: "I disagree. The melee fighter definitely does more damage in melee"

That the melee fighter does more damage in melee is an important consideration but it's not a response to whether he's significantly more durable than the archer fighter. Be honest. Concede that point. Then start talking about the importance of melee damage in melee and you'll have a much more productive discussion. Heck we will both even agree that the amount of melee damage done in melee is an important consideration. We may find discussion and disagreement in exactly how important though.

Don't just change subjects midstream because you don't want to admit to being wrong about the archer trying to melee being almost just as durable as the melee fighter.

 

[nswanson27]

Person 1: "I think the archer fighter is nearly just as durable"
Person 2: "I disagree. The melee fighter definitely does more damage in melee"

That the melee fighter does more damage in melee is an important consideration but it's not a response to whether he's significantly more durable than the archer fighter. Be honest. Concede that point. Then start talking about the importance of melee damage in melee and you'll have a much more productive discussion. Heck we will both even agree that the amount of melee damage done in melee is an important consideration. We may find discussion and disagreement in exactly how important though.

Don't just change subjects midstream because you don't want to admit to being wrong about the archer trying to melee being almost just as durable as the melee fighter.

Damage and durability are different, yes.

"I think the archer fighter is nearly just as durable"
"You do realize an archer fighter with a rapier is just 1 feat behind any other fighter with a rapier???" <rapier = weapon, which brings in damage into the conversation.>
"I disagree. The melee fighter definitely does more damage in melee"

 

[FrogReaver]

Damage and durability are different, yes.

"I think the archer fighter is nearly just as durable"
"You do realize an archer fighter with a rapier is just 1 feat behind any other fighter with a rapier???" <rapier = weapon, which brings in damage into the conversation.>
"I disagree. The melee fighter definitely does more damage in melee"

I see how you are reading that. It was meant solely in the context of the durability discussion and when it's taken in that context it's not about damage but about getting the closest apples to apples comparison we can. Without that context I definitely understand it being take. The way it was.

If I would have realized there was some side discussion of melee damage brewing I would have clarified in the post more clearly.

 

[nswanson27]

Person 1: "I think the archer fighter is nearly just as durable"
Person 2: "I disagree. The melee fighter definitely does more damage in melee"

That the melee fighter does more damage in melee is an important consideration but it's not a response to whether he's significantly more durable than the archer fighter. Be honest. Concede that point. Then start talking about the importance of melee damage in melee and you'll have a much more productive discussion. Heck we will both even agree that the amount of melee damage done in melee is an important consideration. We may find discussion and disagreement in exactly how important though.

Don't just change subjects midstream because you don't want to admit to being wrong about the archer trying to melee being almost just as durable as the melee fighter.

But anyways, if you want to talk about durability only - no, I do not think fighter archers are almost as durable as melee fighters. If you go non-plate, you're AC won't be nearly as good. If you go plate, then you have a pretty MAD build (dex, con, and 15 str needed for plate). Also you have can't use a shield.

 

[nswanson27]

I see how you are reading that. It was meant solely in the context of the durability discussion and when it's taken in that context it's not about damage but about getting the closest apples to apples comparison we can. Without that context I definitely understand it being take. The way it was.

If I would have realized there was some side discussion of melee damage brewing I would have clarified in the post more clearly.

No worries. Happy to switch gears based on this.

 

[FrogReaver]

But anyways, if you want to talk about durability only - no, I do not think fighter archers are almost as durable as melee fighters. If you go non-plate, you're AC won't be nearly as good. If you go plate, then you have a pretty MAD build (dex, con, and 15 str needed for plate). Also you have can't use a shield.

If I'm not mistaken the best medium armor with at least 14 dex gives 17 ac. That's only 1 ac behind plates 18.

I'm not sure where the can't use a shield is coming from?

 

[nswanson27]

If I'm not mistaken the best medium armor with at least 14 dex gives 17 ac. That's only 1 ac behind plates 18.

I'm not sure where the can't use a shield is coming from?

If you're going to try to be ranged + melee, you can't use a shield (well, you can, but it takes an action to don/doff the shield). You can't have a shield on and shoot a bow.
+1 ac to armor is at least a rare magic item. And note that you will still have disadvantage to stealth, so you aren't the scout of the party (but I guess that's separate from durability).
Not saying that you can't do what you're suggesting, but there is a trade off.

 

[Satyrn]

But anyways, if you want to talk about durability only - no, I do not think fighter archers are almost as durable as melee fighters. If you go non-plate, you're AC won't be nearly as good. If you go plate, then you have a pretty MAD build (dex, con, and 15 str needed for plate). Also you have can't use a shield.

You don't need the Strength if you're a dwarf.

. . . or if, like my gnome battlemaster just did, you procure a pair of boots of striding and springing. Now I just need enough gold to buy some platemail.


Which, by the way, brings up a small sideways point - not all melee fighters wear heavy armor. Especially those in a world dominated by rapiers, and an archer is going to be just as durable as them.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.


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.

That's where we disagree. It's never been an essential part of our fantasy gaming. Sure, there's an awful lot of sword fighting, but that's because it's hard to avoid in most combats. Any time one opponent has a significant advantage (ranged vs. non-ranged), then they either need to eliminate the advantage, or run away. I'm not interested in the rules "making something attractive" nor are we concerned with melee builds, or character builds in that sense whatsoever.

Combat is a means to an end in our games, and it's often not the means chosen.

On the other hand, I think that we arrive with somewhat compatible results.

Historically 60 to 90 yards was the most effective range for bows, crossbows, and early firearms. And while they were very effective, a charge against their position from that distance often meant that the archers would barely have time to drop their bow and draw a weapon before the charge arrived, barreling into them shield first with a significant advantage.

In game terms, you'd have your best shot from about 30 to 60 yards, and disadvantage from about 60 to 90 yards. But if you wait to take your shot against a charging target and didn't drop them, they would most likely have an advantage on their first melee attack against you.

The fact is, ranged attacks from inside about 60 yards are typically a one-shot deal. If the charging enemy had a thrown weapon, such as a hand axe, you'd be open for attack since you couldn't use a shield with your bow (although you could use a pavise, a shield that was mounted on a post stuck into the ground for cover, usually by crossbowmen).

So long-range archery should be much less effective than in the rules.

The second area that's lacking is the idea that you can shoot into melee and hit a specific target. Imagine being a safety in a football game with a bow and trying to hit a specific target on the line after the ball is snapped. Why is 30 yards sort of a magic number for hunting? Because when hunting you're aiming for about a 3" to maybe 6" target for a one-shot kill through the heart. You're concealed and waiting for the perfect moment. If you're targeting a deer, outside of about 30 yards, the sound of the bowstring can startle the target and they move enough to miss the kill shot. That is, it takes longer for the arrow to reach the target then the sound and their ability to react.

Now people don't have the reaction time of a deer. But in combat, everybody is in motion. You're attempting to guess who will be where and hit the target you want. The OP with an early firearm? The same problem, except exacerbated by moving so far out of range. Early firearms didn't have better ranges, nor did they have better aim (although an untrained individual could learn to aim acceptably quite quickly). It was penetrating power. Otherwise the same 60 yard range applies.

So, reduce the effectiveness of long range.
Reduce the ability to shoot into melee (in AD&D you just rolled for a random target). That places the effectiveness of ranged weapons in close combat to 30-90 yards, you get one shot off, and then they close for melee.

Also, shooting on the run - when you're running away, you aren't shooting. You stop to turn around and aim and you're right back to where you started, too close for a good shot without getting skewered immediately afterward.

Your solutions also work, and I don't have a problem with them for folks that want to go that route. But you can also be more historically accurate and also solve a lot of the problems you raise. For us it makes it a more interesting game in addition to reigning in the overpowered abilities.