D&D 5E Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.

[Ilbranteloth]

So there was a bit more info throughout that thread, but there is of course Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(warfare) "run at their best speed"

Even better is the description of the Highland charge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_charge

Indicating that they closed so quickly that their opponents would have time to fire a musket volley once they were in musket range (which will give us a starting distance beyond that range), but they closed quickly enough that the musketeers found it difficult to attach their bayonets and raise them in defense before the charge arrived.

Also from Wikipedia: The Brown Bess musket: "The effective range is often quoted as 175 yards (160 m), but the Brown Bess was often fired en masse at 50 yards (46 m) to inflict the greatest damage upon the enemy."

So 50 to 60 yards in less time than they could ready their bayonets. Perhaps the same amount of time for the kicking team to reach the receiver on a kickoff in football? I'm guessing that's on the order of 6 to 10 seconds for them to run the 50 yards or so?

 

[pemerton]

I no longer know what the point is

The point is very simple: the division between rounds is a mechanical artifice, not something that happens in the fiction.

So the only difference between "[do whatever], Move, end turn; move into aura, attack" and "move, move into aura; end turn; attack, [do whatever]" is that the metronome of the round mechanics happened to fall at a different place in the two examples. Yet in the first example the creature will take the damage once, but in the second will take it twice.

Yes, we can make up a reason if we want: eg in the first example, they were running faster and so had to stop for a breather inside the aura. But that is clearly not forced on us by the fiction, where both can be seen to move at the same pace (and if the second people are running faster and their attack is part of that charge, than they spend less time in the aura and so should be hurt less, not more).

But why should we have to? Why should the metronomic mechanics be forcing us to make up stories in which everyone acts in discrete 6 second, stop-motion blocks? It's silly.

 

[pemerton]

I'm guessing that's on the order of 6 to 10 seconds for them to run the 50 yards or so?

5 yards per second is 18000 yards per hour, or about 10 mph, or over 15kph. That's better than a jogging pace. Something of that general order seems plausible if the ground is not too uneven. (I'm guessing that, in practice, some of those who charged would trip over unseen stones, holes, etc.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

The point is very simple: the division between rounds is a mechanical artifice, not something that happens in the fiction.

So the only difference between "[do whatever], Move, end turn; move into aura, attack" and "move, move into aura; end turn; attack, [do whatever]" is that the metronome of the round mechanics happened to fall at a different place in the two examples. Yet in the first example the creature will take the damage once, but in the second will take it twice.

Yes, we can make up a reason if we want: eg in the first example, they were running faster and so had to stop for a breather inside the aura. But that is clearly not forced on us by the fiction, where both can be seen to move at the same pace (and if the second people are running faster and their attack is part of that charge, than they spend less time in the aura and so should be hurt less, not more).

But why should we have to? Why should the metronomic mechanics be forcing us to make up stories in which everyone acts in discrete 6 second, stop-motion blocks? It's silly.

No one is forced into anything.

I wasn't saying that I didn't understand your point. Rather, it was such a minor aspect of the gnoll horse scenario, and I don't even think it significantly impacts that scenario.

And if this happened at a table and you as DM took issue with it, would you bother doing all these calculations and researching bayonet charging? Or wound you simply say "I don't like how this spell interacts with the gnolls dashing....I'm going to waive the first round of damage"? I don't see an issue with that.

And if you were a player at my table, and I ran the scenario as I've described it, with the dashing gnolls taking two rounds of damage, would you really stop the game and point all this out? Or would you simply allow it to play uninterrupted because really there is no issue?

The level of scrutiny is a bit much. And I don't mean solely on your part...I debated this far longer than I should have, as well.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

How much experience do you have of running at approx 7 mph (= approx 10 kph).? It's not that fast.

A Google of "charge speed" turned up this:

This instruction from the Manual and Platoon Exercise explains how British bayonet charges were supposed to progress:

"It is to be understood, that whenever a battalion or line charges with bayonets, the whole are in the first instance to porte their arms and advance at a firm quick step, or at a steady run, if the circumstances render it necessary, but in the most perfect order possible, until they reach the enemy: It is at that instant that the front rank are necessarily to bring their firelocks down to the charging position, and the whole to press forward with the utmost energy."​

In a 5e world, if the targets of the British bayonet charge were to shroud themselves in a harm-inflicting aura the British might take the damage twice if their "pressing forward with the utmost energy" happened to mean that they reached the enemy at the end of a round, and had to actually resolve their attack at the start of the next round.

And even more importantly--in a 5E world, it's impossible for the whole rank to advance as a rank at a steady run. The closest you can possibly come is for them all to Ready a move on the same signal, but if they do that then they can't Dash, they can only do a regular move.

 

[pemerton]

The level of scrutiny is a bit much.

And even more importantly--in a 5E world, it's impossible for the whole rank to advance as a rank at a steady run. The closest you can possibly come is for them all to Ready a move on the same signal, but if they do that then they can't Dash, they can only do a regular move.

I recognise that no one actually assumes that it is impossible for a 5e army to advance in ranks at a steady run.

But I don't really understand where some D&Ders/posters draw these boundaries. Once it's acknowledged that there are cases - and not especially bizarre cases - that the mechanics don't handle well, I'm not sure why there is such frequent hostility to people posting about issues the mechanics have caused in their games.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I recognise that no one actually assumes that it is impossible for a 5e army to advance in ranks at a steady run.

But I don't really understand where some D&Ders/posters draw these boundaries. Once it's acknowledged that there are cases - and not especially bizarre cases - that the mechanics don't handle well, I'm not sure why there is such frequent hostility to people posting about issues the mechanics have caused in their games.

I assume it's just the usual problem with the Internet: low communication bandwidth thanks to text-only; asynchronous communication makes it hard to ask clarifying questions in time; and people aren't really all that good at listening (vs. talking) so they ("we") jump to conclusions about the point you're trying to make and respond to that imagined point, instead of addressing the point you actually meant to make.

In any case, I don't know for sure why it happens either, and my condolences for the frustration. Apologies if I've ever caused anyone on this thread similar frustration.

 

[pemerton]

Apologies if I've ever caused anyone on this thread similar frustration.

Seems unlikely to me!

 

[CapnZapp]

Im still trying to understand how, with all the errors in the "experiment" brought to light (and still not addressed by [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] ), this actually proves anything.

Everything from the mob rules to the usage of the spell was run incorrectly, yet its the rules to blame for the ineffectiveness of the gnoll mob? And this is before we get into the modifying of the gnolls to have no ranged weapons and their ineffective (some would say suicidal... I guess gnolls lack a self preservation instinct) tactics. I'd love to discuss an actual example of the mob rules with lower CR (even with no ranged weapons) humanoids but as of this post we've yet to be given one... so why are some still assuming the gnolls would be l, if run with the actual mob rules (as well as correct pell rules) as ineffectual as the OP claims?

Not sure why you mentined me, Imaro?

I'm not the OP. He doesn't even discuss the mob rules in is OP. I'm not saying the mob rules doesn't work (heck, I didn't even get to try them out) - I'm saying the game needs higher-levelled variants for common (and uncommon) humanoids.

Other than that, I really have nothing to add. If you'd rather convince yourself I ran "everything from the mob rules to the usage of the spell" incorrectly rather than have to acknowledge there are wobbly aspects of the edition, I will certainly not waste my time.

 

[CapnZapp]

The real value of this thread is in identifying rules changes and rules interpretations that can support different sorts of encounters (and hence different sorts of fiction). [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has contributed to that.

I really have to ask: is there any reason why I'm summoned to all of these posts?

(You don't seem to have a question for me, I mean)