D&D 5E Are ranged attacks too good in 5e?

I believe that you stated that a 5 point difference in initiative didn't mean you would automatically win it. I pointed out that a 5 point difference in attack rolls didn't mean you would automatically hit either, yet people still think a higher attack bonus is better than a low one.

I still don't see what that has to do with my statement.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I am not sure you got my point.

1. No, going first is not always benefical, as you generally want the fireball thrower go first.

Winning initiative is ALWAYS beneficial, because it gives you an extra turn!

Say Felix and GotreK encounter a pair of goblin, and the fight lasts 3 rounds. Felix won intiative, then goblins, then Gotrek. The last round of a fight is almost always "incomplete", unless the person last on initiative does the last attack/spell/action that finishes the fight.

So if Felix kills the last goblin on round 3, Gotrek only had 2 rounds.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Yes, my statement is that intentionally depriving the party of food through no fault of their own and then saying "haha, suckers take disadvantage for the entire session because you didn't have a food conjuring spell prepared" was kind of obnoxious.
No fault of their own?

I know we kind of take food for granted these days, but if you go camping for a week in the deep wilderness and you didn't bring food, who's fault is that?
 

1. No, going first is not always benefical, as you generally want the fireball thrower go first.

No, it's always beneficial. In those (few?) circumstances where you want to wait for the fireball you can throw/shoot something, go stand in the doorway and take the Dodge action, drink a potion, etc. etc. etc. Just because you aren't going to rush in, beating monsters in the initiative order is always good.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
No, it's always beneficial. In those (few?) circumstances where you want to wait for the fireball you can throw/shoot something, go stand in the doorway and take the Dodge action, drink a potion, etc. etc. etc. Just because you aren't going to rush in, beating monsters in the initiative order is always good.
I think it can always be better to go before enemies (but the value of that round may not be the same as a full round of attacks). But it's not always better to go before certain allies. As a simple example, going before the cleric blesses you is worse than going after him as long as you both go before the enemies. The reason I said can be better instead of is better, is because characters aren't just completely blank tactical slates either. There's some roleplay involved and while it may be advantageous for the barbarian to wait till the wizard fireballs, if he goes before the wizard his roleplay may have him rage and charge in anyways.
 

No, it's always beneficial. In those (few?) circumstances where you want to wait for the fireball you can throw/shoot something, go stand in the doorway and take the Dodge action, drink a potion, etc. etc. etc. Just because you aren't going to rush in, beating monsters in the initiative order is always good.
I disagree.
 

Winning initiative is ALWAYS beneficial, because it gives you an extra turn!

Say Felix and GotreK encounter a pair of goblin, and the fight lasts 3 rounds. Felix won intiative, then goblins, then Gotrek. The last round of a fight is almost always "incomplete", unless the person last on initiative does the last attack/spell/action that finishes the fight.

So if Felix kills the last goblin on round 3, Gotrek only had 2 rounds.

It is not binary. Ideally you go after the wizard and before the enemies.

It is also not given that the round ends before Gortrek had a chance to do their last action.

We are only speaking about a +5 bonus, not a +20 bonus, so you are not automatically last.
I also don't say that good initiative is mostly benefical, but it is always the one bullet point that make dex superior to strength, which in my experience is more white room analysis than anything else.
 
Last edited:

I think it can always be better to go before enemies (but the value of that round may not be the same as a full round of attacks). But it's not always better to go before certain allies. As a simple example, going before the cleric blesses you is worse than going after him as long as you both go before the enemies. The reason I said can be better instead of is better, is because characters aren't just completely blank tactical slates either. There's some roleplay involved and while it may be advantageous for the barbarian to wait till the wizard fireballs, if he goes before the wizard his roleplay may have him rage and charge in anyways.

Yeah...I'm not sure I buy that as a valid argument. I'm fine with roleplaying arguments, and I'm fine with tactical arguments, but once we start blending the two basically any argument can be made.

Besides, if the barbarian's player wants to roleplay that way then I'd say getting fireballed for it only enhances the roleplay. :)

I thought you were going to argue that it's advantageous to roll lower than the cleric, because that way if the monsters drop you to zero the cleric just gets you right back up again. But a) personally I think that's cheesy, and b) since initiative order is circular I'm not sure it's even a valid argument: the cleric might end up at the end of the order, and thus still come right before you.
 

Don't want to go before the wizard? Or, don't want to go before the enemies? That's what the Ready action is for.

That said, going first is not always good. Suppose one of your party members decides to show hostility towards a group of monsters, so the DM calls for initiative. If that party member wins, well, you likely have a fight on your hands when they attack. If the "enemies" win, the party might discover that this particular group doesn't actually want to fight. At least it's maybe not their ideal first choice of resolving the encounter.

OP tie-in: Then perhaps some ranged stuff happens - and it's neither too powerful nor too weak.
 

It is not binary. Ideally you go after the wizard and before the enemies.

Assuming that's true, I don't think you can really game the system to increase the likelihood of that. You can make sure you have a lower bonus than the wizard, but that also increases your chances of going after the monsters, and that's worse than going before the wizard.
 

I disagree.

Re-reading what I wrote earlier, I'll backpedal. A little.

Yes, one can concoct specific circumstances where it would be better to have a lower initiative roll. But these are vastly, overwhelmingly outweighed by circumstances in which higher is better, and I believe this debate started as a discussion of whether having +5 bonus to Initiative is a good thing for melee combatants.

So I'll change "it's always better to roll high" to "it's better to always roll high".
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
No fault of their own?

I know we kind of take food for granted these days, but if you go camping for a week in the deep wilderness and you didn't bring food, who's fault is that?
This wasn't a case of people not having bought rations, the adventure itself deprived us of food and the enforced the rule turning session one into a mass of failed die rolls.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Winning initiative is ALWAYS beneficial, because it gives you an extra turn!

Say Felix and GotreK encounter a pair of goblin, and the fight lasts 3 rounds. Felix won intiative, then goblins, then Gotrek. The last round of a fight is almost always "incomplete", unless the person last on initiative does the last attack/spell/action that finishes the fight.

So if Felix kills the last goblin on round 3, Gotrek only had 2 rounds.
Say Felix was too far(40 feet) to move and attack. If he wins initiative he can move to the goblin and then his first turn is done. If he loses the goblin likely rushes him and his first round is useful, instead of relatively useless.

Winning initiative is not ALWAYS beneficial.
 

Winning initiative is not ALWAYS beneficial.

Like I just said upthread, it's easy to invent scenarios where you would have been better off rolling lower, but it reminds me of the guy who concluded that seatbelts are dangerous because of that time somebody was trapped in a burning car and their seatbelt was stuck....
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Like I just said upthread, it's easy to invent scenarios where you would have been better off rolling lower, but it reminds me of the guy who concluded that seatbelts are dangerous because of that time somebody was trapped in a burning car and their seatbelt was stuck....
Nah. These situations while uncommon, are not rare. They're worth considering.
 

ECMO3

Hero
No fault of their own?

I know we kind of take food for granted these days, but if you go camping for a week in the deep wilderness and you didn't bring food, who's fault is that?
You can take this further in D&D parlance - did not prepare spells to procure food, did not have backgrounds or skills that facilitate procuring food.
 

ECMO3

Hero
Say Felix was too far(40 feet) to move and attack. If he wins initiative he can move to the goblin and then his first turn is done. If he loses the goblin likely rushes him and his first round is useful, instead of relatively useless.

Winning initiative is not ALWAYS beneficial.
RAW Goblins have shortbows. If they won they would likely shoot him and either retreat (out of missile range or at long range) or take cover .... unless the DM playing them does not play smart.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
RAW Goblins have shortbows. If they won they would likely shoot him and either retreat (out of missile range or at long range) or take cover .... unless the DM playing them does not play smart.
Example goblins have short bows, not RAW goblins. There is no rule for how they are armed.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
You can take this further in D&D parlance - did not prepare spells to procure food, did not have backgrounds or skills that facilitate procuring food.
Why prepare a spell to conjure food if you have food on your character sheet? Come on now, lol. Nobody can prepare spells for every possible contingency. Now if the DM had said "in this adventure, you will need to survive in extreme conditions..." sure, you could say not being prepared is your fault.

The part that bothered me the most was the Wisdom Survival checks to gather food that all failed due to the disadvantage.
 

Say Felix was too far(40 feet) to move and attack. If he wins initiative he can move to the goblin and then his first turn is done. If he loses the goblin likely rushes him and his first round is useful, instead of relatively useless.

Also, I don't DM that way, and I don't appreciate it if the DM does, when I'm playing.

The goblins are smart enough to figure out the same thing the players are. They're not going to either move within easy range and just stand there, nor will they dash and then just stand there. Maybe move 30', then Hold Action (which the players won't know...).
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top