Search results

I am uncertain that I can be convinced given the context of this discussion, partly because the pro-Ranged position in this thread has revolved around the presumptions that melee characters taking any amount of damage and/or lack of party co-operation as major factors in the "Ranged>Melee"...

It doesn't seem like extra book-keeping to me, but it just seemed like extra book-keeping to the players (even though it isn't any more complicated than tracking HP, and they do that just fine without complaint). I would say that it was primarily a false perception by the players, simply because...

I still haven't seen a cogent position that unequivocally displays that "Ranged>Melee". So far all arguments that postulate this have presumed optimized Ranged builds versus sub-optimal Melee builds and/or sub-optimal monster tactics. I remain unconvinced.

Ok, I now see that part of my confusion lies in that I was presuming that the "melee" character was a straight fighter. Sorry about that... Anyway, I agree that a Paladin has sub-optimal ranged attack options. But, now your position seems like a way to rationalize making Paladins do more damage...

... But if you're a finesse character, your finesse weapons are still keyed off of Dexterity even when thrown. So, you're still good-to-go.

I don't have books in front of me at the moment. But, are Disarm, Grapple, and Trip still tactical options? Also, can a Ranged characters Quiver be targeted and destroyed by a melee attack, thereby eliminating someones ability to make ranged attacks?

This is why I said that a "melee" character should be utilizing thrown weapons, which are keyed off of Strength. If someone is making a character that has zero function outside of making melee-only attacks, then they are deliberately handicapping themselves by making a sub-optimal character...

I don't think a melee character is sacrificing efficacy by staying out of melee for as long as possible by guarding the ranged character. If the ranged character can stay out of melee and avoid taking damage so can the melee character, and they can use a readied action to attack an adversary...

If the enemy is at standard encounter distances, then the melee character is not at any more of a disadvantage in terms of taking damage than the ranged character, because both characters will be in melee in the second round of combat. Unless there is something forcing enemies to attack the...

Perhaps I am mis-remembering something, but if someone is running things straight out of the book... aren't the encounter distances in the DMG so close that Ranged vs. Melee is the difference of maybe one round of attacks?

I guess my next question would be: "Isn't what's good for the goose, good for the gander?" Essentially: If Ranged Attackers are "superior" why aren't they being targeted by similarly "superior" Ranged Attack adversaries? I would say that the thing to offset this would be encounters that are...

I have found that my games end up being similar to MonkeyWrench's sessions... 4-5 hours, and 2-3 combats. Not all of those combats necessarily take place on the same day in-game, but there is a wide variation on this that is very circumstantial and dependent on the story and/or player's actions...

If we presume that is the case, doesn't that just mean that the DM is setting up the encounters to make Ranged Combat too effective? Ultimately, Ranged v. Melee efficacy is dependent on the circumstances presented by the DM. I think both Melee & Ranged combat work just fine, and it is incumbent...

I've run games using Spell Points instead of the standard casting in D&D, because I like the flexibility for casters in theory. (And I voted for the Spell Points option in the Poll). However, my practical experience is that the players never took advantage of the flexibility... Things just ended...

I haven't read or mastered all of the info either... Quite frankly I don't think anyone has even if they presume to believe that they have done so. An important part of the Realms "canon" is that it is merely the prevailing assumptions made by imperfect narrators. Players that equate "canon" to...

I acknowledge all of the 4e material, however I don't think the 3e FRCG is a functional substitute in lieu of a 5e FRCG because of the time difference between 3e & 5e, not because of a time difference between 4e & 5e. The notable NPCs from 4e can certainly be presumed to carry-over unless...

Even though he's making a joke, Mirtek's point is important as to why a 5e FRCG is essential. Having bits of lore parced through various APs & SCAG still leaves too much up in the air for people that want to run their Realms game anywhere beyond the Sword Coast... or attempt to tie previous...

I voted Yes, not only because I play almost exclusively in the Realms, but also because I am anticipating that through the APs, slowly but surely all of the D&D settings will be subsumed by the Forgotten Realms... I think this is a good thing, since I have been operating as if the Realms is the...