D&D 5E (2014) Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day

[MostlyDm]

No worries. [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] obviously doesn't need anyone to white knight for him (!), but some of the comments being made seem to me to be way off base.

I'm a great believer in actual play posts, rather than abstract speculation, generalisation or theory-crafting, and Celtavian has provided a pretty clear actual play post that explains how his group defeated this marilith + friends encounter pretty straightforwardly (with an admitted misreading of the Banishment spell - we don't know how much difference it would have made had the Concentration requirement been imposed).

I think we can infer from the extensive use of other concentration spells that it would have made a significant difference. I'm not saying they would have died or anything, but I think it would have been noticeable.

I think you're right about different viewpoints. Certainly, from the optimising point of view the suggestion to sunder the PC archer's bow is bad in so many ways, as Celtavian, Hemlock and others have pointed out.

I don't think my group is at Celtavian's degree of optimisation, but I've had other posters express surprise at the number of encounters (including but not limited to combat encounters) that my 4e party can get through without an extended rest. So I think, either in individual build or in synergistic play, my players are probably somewhere near the upper end of the spectrum.

We've been lucky, I think, that no super-obvious "win" options have emerged in our game (nothing analogous to the ranged attack dominance in 5e, or the darkvision shenanigans), and 4e provides good support for complex monsters, tricky tactics and interesting environments. (I know Celtavian hasn't played much 4e, but I think his group could enjoy it, by the sounds of things.)

Your prescription for 5e seems sensible. And Celtavian has said himself that he wants to dial back Sharpshooter, which seems to be one of the biggest issues. (Maybe also make Close Quarters and Archery either/or, rather than stacking?)

My experience with 4e optimization (using lots of splat books, themes, the whole nine yards) was actually a lot of fun. A ridiculously tanky fighter (he gained temp hp every round from his core ability, I forget the details) who had buffed his basic attack to ludicrous levels, coupled with a warlord and a bard to grant him a lot of extra attacks. Toss in a strength-heavy monk for crowd control and as a backup target of melee basic boosting, and they made a hash of almost every encounter despite lacking much ranged firepower. 4e had its moments, even though the fundamental meta game ran counter to everything I like most in an RPG.

Anyway, yeah, even with the un-optimized 5e parties I've been managing lately, I've noticed ranged dominance. It seems pretty wonky to me, in some respects. For example, the ranged fighting style is the only one to give an accuracy boost? Really? So shooting a guy with a bow is easier than whacking a guy right next to you?

Also, I'm not too familiar with UA, but from the bonus breakdown it sounds like CQC grants a +1 to hit? Seems like a terrible idea on the part of the designers if so.

 

[MostlyDm]

1) You still have to take Crossbow Expert to get away from the "disadvantage on ranged attack rolls when an enemy is within five feet of you" rule, though. I'm AFB but I don't remember any other way to nullify that. Celtavian didn't mention it, so I'm guessing he didn't park a demon next to that archer to put all those rolls at disadvantage. Anyway, taking Crossbow Expert means you didn't take something else. And besides that, there's no getting around some monsters being smart enough to walk around the corner or seek total cover. Or, heck, even falling prone until the party does engage in melee.

I haven't read the feat in question but it sounds like this may be addressed by Close Quarters Combat, a UA feat. I'm skeptical about this feat, though, since it sounds like it grants an accuracy boost as well.

Edit: looked it up online. It's a new fighting style, which makes more sense. No disadvantage for shooting in melee, +1 on ranged attacks, and sharpshooter cover denial but only on targets within 30 feet.

I get what Pemerton was saying now, about not letting it stack with the normal Ranged fighting style. I agree completely. Stacking accuracy boosts like this... No. Down that path lies only madness.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sure, I can see that. Not as quick-and-dirty as my suggestion, but certainly more systematic.

My own view is that, in fantasy RPGing, melee is more interesting than archery and so should be encouraged as a viable approach. That makes me sympathetic to the idea of nerfing Sharpshooter and its ilk.

I suspect that @Hemlock might disagree, but maybe I'm wrong on that.

Eh... I'm on the fence about this idea. "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight" definitely appeals to my sense of realism, and the fact that you can generally construct more interesting scenarios based around ranged combat appeals to my sense of challenge and fun. (For example, hobgoblins behind battlements who have flooded the terrain around their fortification with water: now each hobgoblin gets something like 20 rounds of attacks on any attacker as they struggle through the difficult terrain, and the hobgoblins are all AC 21 behind 3/4 cover (edit: what I mean is, AC 16 chain mail + 5 for 3/4 cover; I didn't mean AC 26), and at long range. That appeals to the side of me that likes tactical puzzles and David Weber books.) On the other hand, it kind of bothers me that melee is almost totally irrelevant in 5E, and so I was glad when the SCAG cantrips came out and did higher DPR than ranged attacks do.

Overall my preference is probably to buff melee rather than nerfing ranged--but you could probably make an argument that persuades me that it's downright goofy how effective a blind man with a bow is in 5E when shooting at another unarmored blind man at 600'.

I'm cautious about changing the idiom for games that have already been published, so that might be an item for 6E--but if an elegant mechanic can be found I would not be averse to adopting it. After all, I've only just found a way to adapt 2nd edition-style MR to the 5E idiom, after six months or more of searching.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

1) You still have to take Crossbow Expert to get away from the "disadvantage on ranged attack rolls when an enemy is within five feet of you" rule, though. I'm AFB but I don't remember any other way to nullify that.

You could just back off and eat the opportunity attack, for one. Or knock the enemy prone and shoot him when he's down. Off the top of my head that's it.

 

[matskralc]

I haven't read the feat in question but it sounds like this may be addressed by Close Quarters Combat, a UA feat. I'm skeptical about this feat, though, since it sounds like it grants an accuracy boost as well.

Edit: looked it up online. It's a new fighting style, which makes more sense. No disadvantage for shooting in melee, +1 on ranged attacks, and sharpshooter cover denial but only on targets within 30 feet.

I get what Pemerton was saying now, about not letting it stack with the normal Ranged fighting style. I agree completely. Stacking accuracy boosts like this... No. Down that path lies only madness.

Oh, hahaha, right. How could I forget about Unearthed Arcana, home of nearly countless maybe-playtested ways of breaking a game that has enough problems out-of-the-box!

 

[matskralc]

You could just back off and eat the opportunity attack, for one. Or knock the enemy prone and shoot him when he's down. Off the top of my head that's it.

As an aside, it is amazing how afraid of incurring an opportunity attack some players are. I know that optimizers have no problem incurring one if the EV is right, but the prospect of taking one leaves some players glued to a spot they really do need to get out of.

At any rate, there's no backing away from 474,000 (or however many there were) demons when you're surrounded (or grappled) and can't move. And if some of these optimized-for-ranged-combat PCs want to spend their attacks using their 8 (-1) Strengths trying to knock foes prone, I say "let 'em!"

 

[OB1]

Why do you think making a challenging environment is any different than redesigning a creature to be challenging in a neutral environment? What makes one a better idea than the other? Why would it be any more challenging fighting the death slaad in a demiplane of darkness than fighting a death slaad that can challenge a party in a stone room? Flamestrike makes a harsh environment to increase the challenge. I redesign the death slaad to be challenging against a party. I'm not sure why one is viewed as better than the other.

I don't believe one idea is better than the other when a DM does it. The idea that I like is that the base design of 5e is set for casual gamers. An experienced DM can user her skill and knowledge of the game to increase challenge appropriately for her party far easier than an inexperienced one can reduce challenge appropriately.

Because you can't have it both ways. If the guidelines are such that the Slaad challenges a group of experienced, optimized, hard core players, it will be overwhelming for a casual, non-optimized, new player. And frankly, I like the fact that I can experiment with PC design and let story and fun dictate my choices rather than having to be combat optimized at all times just to keep up with the baseline assumptions of the game.

That said, I'm all for an Advanced Players Handbook and Monster Manual that assumes a deeper skill set and that casual players might find too complex and/or challenging.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

At any rate, there's no backing away from 474,000 (or however many there were) demons when you're surrounded (or grappled) and can't move. And if some of these optimized-for-ranged-combat PCs want to spend their attacks using their 8 (-1) Strengths trying to knock foes prone, I say "let 'em!"

It works surprisingly well actually, due to the fact that it scales with Extra Attacks, and most monsters aren't proficient in Athletics. One of the things I like about 5E is that a wiry Str 10 or 12 Fighter who is primarily a ranged specialist can still do pretty well in melee, including these sorts of grapple + prone attacks, as long as he's at least proficient in Athletics. He won't be able to tackle top-end monsters like Fire Giants, even if he's Enlarged to a size where grappling a Fire Giant is even a theoretical possibility--but he'll be able to grapple Chuuls and Orc Chieftains and at high level even Pit Fiends with a reasonable amount of effectiveness, thanks to bounded accuracy and maybe an assist from a warlock with Hex.

Versatility in 5E is easy to achieve, and that's one of the things that I like about it.

 

[matskralc]

Yeah, but grappling and especially knocking somebody prone are suboptimal tactics for a party optimized for ranged combat to be using against a group of monsters optimized for melee combat. If the party I'm DMing spent all their ASIs and feats and fighting styles and spells known optimizing for ranged combat, then I am all in favor of them using their suboptimal attacks to either grapple monsters (thus remaining in melee) or knock monsters prone (thus putting every ranged attack [the ones they're good at and trying to set up] against them at disadvantage).

I have no doubt it can work. It's also not going to work nearly as well as what they're designed to do, which is all I was aiming for.

 

[pemerton]

You still have to take Crossbow Expert to get away from the "disadvantage on ranged attack rolls when an enemy is within five feet of you" rule, though. I'm AFB but I don't remember any other way to nullify that. Celtavian didn't mention it, so I'm guessing he didn't park a demon next to that archer to put all those rolls at disadvantage.

Close Quarters Shooter covers that, I believe.

EDIT: Ninja-ed multiple times upthread!