CapnZapp
Legend
Yeah, blame the DM, that's a constructive approach that's always worked.... Too many DMs run their monsters like they're all on suicide missions.
</sarcasm>
Yeah, blame the DM, that's a constructive approach that's always worked.... Too many DMs run their monsters like they're all on suicide missions.
Ranged is inherently superior to melee for several reasons that are all obvious, I hope.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.
Ranged is inherently superior to melee for several reasons that are all obvious, I hope.
Any game that calls itself fantasy must create rules that CHANGE this.
Heroic Conan-style swordfighting on top of piles of Orcs doesn't come by itself. The rules must make it happen.
The 5E designers has forgotten about this, I think.
Having a ranged Thief skulk about in the shadows is a cool image to be sure. But it depends on the others in the party being slow plate tanks with weak ranged attacks!
If it's easy to create mobile ranged characters that brings huge advantages - and I'm afraid my conclusion is that this insight somehow got lost during 5e development.
Everybody just ASSUMED every party would contain a slow strength fighter, without actually making sure that really happens.
This is not a single bad decision, remember! It's more like...
Wouldn't it be cool if Dex characters could improve other stats than Strength? Let's drop Strength for damage!
Archery style needs another boost than the melee styles, let's add accuracy.
If there's a way to make melee power attacks, shouldn't there be a ranged one too? The lone archer needs some love too!
While we're at it, wouldn't it be cool to allow Legolas to shoot arrows even when surrounded by Orcs?
And why not let hand crossbow users spend a feat on removing restrictions; she'll be in melee often enough anyway.
...
...
Taken individually each idea sounds reasonable. But nobody stopped to ask "but are we still handing out enough goodies to the slow strength guy?"
5e is the first edition to use all these ideas. The results are devastating to the fundamental assumption of the fantasy genre.
Unfortunately, there is probably no simple fix.
I mean, errataing damage to always use Strength (no matter what other rules say) would probably help, but that's a bitter pill to swallow.
Instead of beginning from square one, I'll simply say you're now ignoring all the evidence provided that a decent minmaxer need sacrifice little to no offense or defense to have mobility and range, while magic makes it trivial to stop monsters from costlessly closing to melee or indeed even to achieve the situation you describe in the first place.Its all fixed pretty simply by how the DM runs his encounters.
If he routinely places his encounters 250' away and with little to no cover, archers rule. If he places them 40' away in tight or cramped quarters, then melee rules the roost. Same deal with frequency of encounters - more encounters per AD pushes the players choice of class, tactics and resource management one way - less encounters per AD pushes them another.
Adjust monster selection and placement and encounter design accordingly.
Unfortunately, there is probably no simple fix.
I mean, errataing damage to always use Strength (no matter what other rules say) would probably help, but that's a bitter pill to swallow.
Ranged is inherently superior to melee for several reasons that are all obvious, I hope.
Any game that calls itself fantasy must create rules that CHANGE this.
Heroic Conan-style swordfighting on top of piles of Orcs doesn't come by itself. The rules must make it happen.
The 5E designers has forgotten about this, I think.
Having a ranged Thief skulk about in the shadows is a cool image to be sure. But it depends on the others in the party being slow plate tanks with weak ranged attacks!
If it's easy to create mobile ranged characters that brings huge advantages - and I'm afraid my conclusion is that this insight somehow got lost during 5e development.
Everybody just ASSUMED every party would contain a slow strength fighter, without actually making sure that really happens.
This is not a single bad decision, remember! It's more like...
Wouldn't it be cool if Dex characters could improve other stats than Strength? Let's drop Strength for damage!
Archery style needs another boost than the melee styles, let's add accuracy.
If there's a way to make melee power attacks, shouldn't there be a ranged one too? The lone archer needs some love too!
While we're at it, wouldn't it be cool to allow Legolas to shoot arrows even when surrounded by Orcs?
And why not let hand crossbow users spend a feat on removing restrictions; she'll be in melee often enough anyway.
...
...
Taken individually each idea sounds reasonable. But nobody stopped to ask "but are we still handing out enough goodies to the slow strength guy?"
5e is the first edition to use all these ideas. The results are devastating to the fundamental assumption of the fantasy genre.
Unfortunately, there is probably no simple fix.
I mean, errataing damage to always use Strength (no matter what other rules say) would probably help, but that's a bitter pill to swallow.
Yeah, blame the DM, that's a constructive approach that's always worked...
The first thing is to establish that to gain range you need to sacrifice offense. To gain mobility you should have to sacrifice defense.Couldn't you just eliminate one or more of the options you listed? That seems pretty simple. If not eliminate outright, you could modify them, which is still pretty simple.