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

[Ilbranteloth]

Man, I don't have the time to read 99 pages, so I don't know if this has been said before...

But my suggestion should be "Make shields better".

If you have a shield, there could be a "Take Cover" maneuver that grants 3/4 cover. +5 AC/Dex Saves, but Disadvantage on melee attacks. Good for use while Dashing to close the distance.

If you're in a group of people with shields, maybe there's a "Form Shield Wall" that has the same effect as "Take Cover" and further imposes Disadvantage on ranged attacks against you.

Shields just provide some amount of cover in my campaign, depending on the shield type.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I could see making those usable as a bonus action, and the effect lasts until the beginning of your next turn. You just have to take the bonus action every round to maintain the effect. Make it only available to people proficient with a shield.

Or for something simpler, just have shields give +2 AC vs ranged weapon attacks (or all ranged attacks if you want to include spells).

On an unrelated note - I've also considered making shields give a greater AC bonus to lightly armored individuals. Using the premise that if you are wearing heavy armor, a lot of the protection a shield grants is rendered redundant because you are covered in heavy armor. If you are lightly armored you have more unprotected areas that the shield can protect.

It’s not redundant though. A shield is more effective than armor because of the air gap between you and the shield. If something penetrates the shield you’re still likely OK, or hit in the arm, but when something penetrates your armor you’re usually in trouble. Also, if something penetrates a shield it usually won’t have enough force left to get through your armor.

 

[Caliban]

It’s not redundant though. A shield is more effective than armor because of the air gap between you and the shield. If something penetrates the shield you’re still likely OK, or hit in the arm, but when something penetrates your armor you’re usually in trouble. Also, if something penetrates a shield it usually won’t have enough force left to get through your armor.

You misunderstand. I didn't say it was completely redundant. Which is why it still gives +2 AC for heavy armor. I just think it the amount of relative protection it gives would (in theory) be even greater if you didn't have a lot of armor on. A lot of blows that are completely stopped by the shield would have also been stopped by your armor, if you were wearing heavy armor (i.e. the shield was redundant in those cases). But if you are lightly armored (or not armored at all), it's just the shield stopping them, so it's not redundant.

If you don't agree, it's OK. This isn't actually a rule. You don't need to get up in arms about it.

I also don't know where you get attacks that "penetrate the shield" in D&D. That would mean the shield is taking damage, and that doesn't happen in D&D. You don't throw your shield away after a couple of fights.

 

[Mistwell]

Oh, totally. As ironic as spoons when I need a knife, or rain on my wedding day. Just chock full.

If you're going to stretch thread copping from saying that the thread isn't necessary to anyone poking a bit of fun at anyone else, well, officer, guilty as charged. Thread jail is over there, yeah?

So you're saying you know where thread jail is at? Gosh, I wonder why you'd know that. Surely I don't.

 

[5ekyu]

Melee oriented characters taking more damage than ranged characters is a feature and not a bug of the game. Its the reason that in the 20th century no one gets into hand to hand combat unless they CANNOT avoid it by any means. Ranged weapons should in fact do MORE damage than they currently do in a D&D game as piercing attacks are much more effective at armor penetration than slashing or bludgeoning attacks. You sign up for being a melee class EXPECTING to take more damage than a ranged character. Its the reason you are in heavier armor and tend to use a shield because you are protecting friends and its YOUR JOB to absorb, deflect or sustain the damage that your weaker companions cannot. If you don't like that then sit in the back and cast spells or use a ranged weapon.

Additionally attackers who fight at melee range have a wider array of effect and influence including blocking progress, grapple, shove, trip and OA.

No bowman from 90 feet away is going to influence the flow of battle like a melee combatent can in most circumstances.

That is why taking one facet or two out of the whole and looking at them in isolation is a bad process.

Its more than numbers.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ovinomancer]

So you're saying you know where thread jail is at? Gosh, I wonder why you'd know that. Surely I don't.

You aren't foolin' me, copper, I know you can lie in interrogations. I want my thread lawyer.

 

[Satyrn]

You aren't foolin' me, copper, I know you can lie in interrogations. I want my thread lawyer.

Sure, I'll represent you.

Uh, you can pay in gold and vorpal weapons, right?

 

[guachi]

8 Totally unnecessary and completely unrealistic. Also, a run feat would just allow archers to run off the board. Won't solve anything

I've implemented this (if you take Dash as your Action you can take Dash as your Bonus Action as long as you move more-or-less in a straight line) in my game.

It won't let archers move off the board and still shoot as they will have used their Action to Dash. It's not unrealistic as 3x movement, something a Rogue can already do, is only 10.2 mph. That's... really not that fast at all for a short distance. What, exactly, is "completely unrealistic" about running 10.2 mph?

 

[Lhynn]

You misunderstand. I didn't say it was completely redundant. Which is why it still gives +2 AC for heavy armor. I just think it the amount of relative protection it gives would (in theory) be even greater if you didn't have a lot of armor on. A lot of blows that are completely stopped by the shield would have also been stopped by your armor, if you were wearing heavy armor (i.e. the shield was redundant in those cases). But if you are lightly armored (or not armored at all), it's just the shield stopping them, so it's not redundant.

If you don't agree, it's OK. This isn't actually a rule. You don't need to get up in arms about it.

I also don't know where you get attacks that "penetrate the shield" in D&D. That would mean the shield is taking damage, and that doesn't happen in D&D. You don't throw your shield away after a couple of fights.

This is poorly thought out. If it gives even 1 point of extra AC if you arent wearing heavy armor, then Dex becomes the obvious better choice by giving the same amount of protection than a full plate + shield does. Also theres no reason why a shield would give a better boost when you arent wearing an armor.

Also been tempted to give heavy armors a small damage reductor against all physical and most elemental attacks.

 

[Lost Soul]

I've implemented this (if you take Dash as your Action you can take Dash as your Bonus Action as long as you move more-or-less in a straight line) in my game.

It won't let archers move off the board and still shoot as they will have used their Action to Dash. It's not unrealistic as 3x movement, something a Rogue can already do, is only 10.2 mph. That's... really not that fast at all for a short distance. What, exactly, is "completely unrealistic" about running 10.2 mph?

It is unrealistic because you are not factoring in fatigue. If you included the exhaustion mechanic with rules for one level of exhaustion for the run in light or medium armor and 2 for heavy armor then I would be fine with the run option.