D&D 5E D&D 5e Basic Set: Things that make you go "what?!"

[evilbob]

I thought of one more funny one. "Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you." That's actually the exact opposite of true. Think about it: if you're pointing a gun (or bow or whatever) at someone, is it easier to hit them when they are a) 5 feet away or b) 10 feet away? What about a) 5 feet away or b) 30 feet away? Apparently in the D&D universe targets get magically smaller and harder to hit the moment they are next to you?

Yeah, that's just silly.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I thought of one more funny one. "Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you." That's actually the exact opposite of true. Think about it: if you're pointing a gun (or bow or whatever) at someone, is it easier to hit them when they are a) 5 feet away or b) 10 feet away? What about a) 5 feet away or b) 30 feet away? Apparently in the D&D universe targets get magically smaller and harder to hit the moment they are next to you?

Yeah, that's just silly.

I think it's supposed to simulate "Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult with a sword in your face".

If you're aiming at the wizard 30' away, his undead guard in your face makes adjusting for wind a touch more complex.

Thaumaturge.

 

[evilbob]

Ah, you're right - I agree that in your example it's more difficult. But attacking the undead guard itself is much, much easier. Even with a sword in your face - since you have an arrow in their face (or a bow you're swinging around, or whatever). The only time that ranged attacks suffer due to range-to-target is if the enemy is actually on top of you.

Maybe the rule should be as written, but with the caveat that it doesn't suffer disadvantage if your target is the only hostile creature within 5 feet.

 

[Umbran]

Think about it: if you're pointing a gun (or bow or whatever) at someone, is it easier to hit them when they are a) 5 feet away or b) 10 feet away? What about a) 5 feet away or b) 30 feet away?

Actually, there's an interesting effect here.

No, the target doesn't get smaller. But, when the target isn't standing stock still, the closer they are, the more their motion means. When they are 30 feet away, their taking one step to the left is a minor adjustment to aim. When they are five feet away, it is a very large adjustment. At larger distances, the apparent size is the larger issue. At small distances, the motion can be.

Basically, you have a sword in your face *and* they aren't sitting still waiting for you to fire.

 

[Johris]

Ah, you're right - I agree that in your example it's more difficult. But attacking the undead guard itself is much, much easier. Even with a sword in your face - since you have an arrow in their face (or a bow you're swinging around, or whatever). The only time that ranged attacks suffer due to range-to-target is if the enemy is actually on top of you.

Maybe the rule should be as written, but with the caveat that it doesn't suffer disadvantage if your target is the only hostile creature within 5 feet.

I can see a this in a "Point Blank Shot" type feat, or maybe "Archery Mastery" that includes this and other things, maybe as a bonus action you can use two arrows( Many shot ) and defending with the bow becomes similar to a quarterstaff instead of an improvised weapon.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think it's supposed to simulate "Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult with a sword in your face".

If you're aiming at the wizard 30' away, his undead guard in your face makes adjusting for wind a touch more complex.

Thaumaturge.

Indeed. I think if D&D had pistols (and SMGs etc. - perhaps also hand xbows) in it, one might exempt them from these rules IF shooting the guy next to you, assuming you were proficient with them, but pretty much everything else this makes enough sense for (including throwing weapons, which tend to require fairly serious body movements).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Actually, there's an interesting effect here.

No, the target doesn't get smaller. But, when the target isn't standing stock still, the closer they are, the more their motion means. When they are 30 feet away, their taking one step to the left is a minor adjustment to aim. When they are five feet away, it is a very large adjustment. At larger distances, the apparent size is the larger issue. At small distances, the motion can be.

Basically, you have a sword in your face *and* they aren't sitting still waiting for you to fire.

This is very true and something the GURPS system handles well.

Also, if you have been running combat with minis for years, many things seem silly because the minis are sitting so nice and orderly in their squares. During a 6 second combat round there is quite a bit of movement going on and the positions of combatants are only approximate at best.

This is also why the precise flanking rules of prior editions always felt so silly to me- as if a skilled fighter would just let 2 opponents get on either side of him/her and just stay there.

 

[Obryn]

HP thresholds in general are disappointing; I guess if you include sleep there are only 3 spells that have them? They just don't seem necessary.

They were all over the place in 1e.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Not to mention that any sane opponent facing a bow in their face would likely swat at the bow (possibly with a sword - most bows will not win that fight). You'd be spending a lot of your aiming effort keeping your bow from getting knocked away (possibly destroyed).

"Get that bow outta my face." WACK.

 

[evilbob]

I remember in the original Vampire game, you got to add what was basically your Dex bonus to AC against point-blank ranged attacks, and you didn't otherwise. That made sense, but there's still the issue that hitting a target from anything outside of melee range is just straight-up harder, period.

I also think the fact that at point blank range you almost don't even have to try to aim is worth any sort of "sword in the face" distraction. But ultimately it's simpler to use the rules as written.