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

[The Crimson Binome]

Just a quick question - you sure you don't mean 3rd edition? Pathfinder is not a WotC game.

For the purposes of market research and fan reactions/expectations, Pathfinder is very much an edition of D&D. Nobody is limited to learning from their own mistakes.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This is really a different topic, but as I see it cyclic initiative is the alternative to rolling new initiative each round.

That was something we just did back in time without questioning its value. Once we switched over to cyclic initiative, we never looked back: soo much faster and easier. And in games where a single attack seldom has a decisive effect (like D&D), it was strictly an improvement.

What you suggest is something I'd say can still be done with both systems.

Ergo, I would say cyclic initiative is (still) the a good thing about 5E and every other game that employs it

Your observation, however; that it's only the declaration phase that needs to be done in order, while the execution phase can be done concurrently, is certainly something I will take under consideration.

I don't read you to be saying we need to go back to non-cyclic initiative, where initiative is rerolled each round, with all that extra administration. Thank you

I abandoned cyclic initiative almost as soon as I started running my own 5E games; you don't need to roll initiative every round at all. You only need to roll initiative when something happens that puts the order of actions front and center, e.g. when two people have a Readied Action on the same trigger (Nox: "as soon as the lights turn on I'll cast Hold Person on the githyanki!"; Githyanki: "as soon as the lights turn on I'll run over and kill Nox!") or when their actions are mutually exclusive (Neogi Wizard: "I cast Fireball on Nox"; Nox: "I duck behind total cover").

In all other situations, initiative for the round is irrelevant and can be ignored, although some players like to roll it anyway and resolve things in initiative order instead of going around and resolving in table order (e.g. counterclockwise around the table). For large combats (eight or more combatants) I often have players roll initiative to keep it simpler, but for combats with only a few key players like the aforementioned gladiatorial combat against an ogre, you can totally ignore initiative unless there happens to be a round where both the ogre and the PC barbarian get in killing blows (which didn't happen), in which case you need to roll initiative to see who goes first.

Cyclic initiative (each player declares and then acts on his own turn during a fixed initiative cycle) is the wrong solution to the "too much rolling initiative" problem. The right solution is to just roll initiative as-needed instead of constantly.

[Again, the key problem with cyclic initiative is the way it forces 50-80% of the players into inactivity when it's not "their turn," though there are other problems too like how it confuses people when they run scenarios involving surprise or hidden combatants. But the main problem is that cyclic initiative creates a notion of "turn" which is distinct from "round" and then forces players not to participate in other peoples' turns.]

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That is a valid question, Seebs.

If you can come up with another source of great damage, or even a build where something else is more valuable than damage; I'm all ears, because we haven't (so far).

Wall of Fire + Quickened Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blast for d10+5d8+5 (33) per hit is pretty fun. That's waaaay better than d6+15(18) from Sharpshooter, and you don't suffer any -5 penalty to-hit either.

If you're on a cliff's edge against non-flying enemies it gets even better: d10+10d6 (or more) +5 (46) + battlefield removal, per hit. In one battle that I ran against dozens of Umber Hulks on a neogi deathspider, with 1d4 Umber Hulks appearing every round onto the deck of the deathspider and then trying to board the PCs' ship, the bardlock's ability to blow the Umber Hulks off the ship with Repelling Blast was key to the PCs surviving. A Sharpshooter might have killed an Umber Hulk every two or three rounds*, but being able to eliminate two or three of them per round was far more useful.

* The PCs were mostly somewhere around 9th-11th level. An 11th level Archery Sharpshooter with a +1 magic hand crossbow using Crossbow Expert cheese (as opposed to multiple crossbows) would have four attacks per round for +12 to hit for d6+6 (29.20 damage per round), or +7 to hit for d6+16 (39.70 damage per round). That's 2.35 rounds to kill each Umber Hulk on average.

BTW, that right there also illustrates why Sharpshooter is not, in fact, a "doubling" of damage. It's a significant boost to damage, +30% in this case, and it makes Fighters do more of what they're good at (inflict damage with weapons), but it's not responsible for ranged dominance in 5E. It's just partially responsible for Fighters being fun.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Whatever reasons the designers had to include GWM and SS, I really don't believe it was to compete with that.

Funny how your players must have found the Sorlock combo early (while mine didn't, instead finding the SS/CE combo), Hemlock.

My job as a DM is to run the game world, which includes being an expert on rules and thinking ahead about what is possible. Not all of the possibilities I mention in an online discussion are ones which have occurred at the table. I don't think I've ever seen a player use Quicken, Spell Sniper, Hex, and Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Spear all at the same time, any more than I've seen anyone use Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter together.

But as a DM I am aware of and prepared for both.

 

[Argyle King]

We've tried it. Unfortunately, while it does help with the low-level issue ("how the hull does a level 1 fighter do 25 damage with a single blow?!" the overall impact on build choices is minimal.

At level 11, where the Crossbow Expert fighter gets four attacks, the proficiency bonus is +4. Only two levels later, it brings back the exact same -5/+10 mechanic as in the original.

My conclusion is that this solution works only if you're running a predominantly low-level game, one that is likely to end at level ten, twelve or so.

For a more general solution, my only finding is to remove the mechanism entirely. For what it's worth, this has been discussed extensively elsewhere with the consensus being to replace the -5/+10 part with a straight and simple "+1 to Strength (max 20)".

For me, I've actually found that the other parts of the feat are the problem. You get bonus damage *and* you get to ignore the drawbacks of ranged combat.

If you were not able to ignore cover, I believe that -while the feat is still very good- the math works out in a way that is more similar to Great Weapon Fighting.

GWF is pretty good too, but the reason why Sharpshooter blows past even GWF is due to the ease in mitigating the ranged penalties. Archery style cuts down on the negatives and allows doing so from a distance.

What I would like to do is break down feats into smaller parts and have feat choices be more plentiful. What I struggle with is how to do that without essentially designing a different game. 5th Edition assumes a certain amount of ability score increases, and, supposedly, the feats are meant to be attractive choices even when compared to an ability score increase.

What I find is that I wish 5th Edition had borrowed the idea of 30 levels from 4th Edition. You could still have bounded accuracy and all of that stuff, but it would allow for more levels at which to gain things such as feats. In my head, this would allow feats and ability score increases to be broken down into smaller pieces. I'd also allow more opportunities for choice by having more levels where those smaller pieces could be chosen, and likely by having more feats. I do not believe I would want as many as 3rd Edition, but I would like more than what 5th edition has.

I think another thing which plays into the perception of something like Sharpshooter being so good is that I have limited choice, so picking something which looks obviously better than my other choices can feel more imperative.


edit: Thinking about it more, I also find that a lot of monsters seem too good to be rated at a particular level, but not quite good enough to be the next level. I've been tinkering around with learning monster creation a lot, and I often arrive at XP values which fall in between levels. I think having a little more granularity in how things break down could help me out there too.

 

[CapnZapp]

If the base game 'didn't work' it wouldn't be enjoying the sales and success that it is. You're premise is silly.

Sory, I'm done with your two-line "No, you're it" attempts at discussing.

Offer more reasoned arguments if you want me to respond.

 

[CapnZapp]

For the purposes of market research and fan reactions/expectations, Pathfinder is very much an edition of D&D. Nobody is limited to learning from their own mistakes.

But did you have anything specific to PF in mind?

To me it feels strange to reference PF if it is a basic d20 mechanism.

 

[CapnZapp]

I abandoned cyclic initiative almost as soon as I started running my own 5E games; you don't need to roll initiative every round at all. You only need to roll initiative when something happens that puts the order of actions front and center, e.g. when two people have a Readied Action on the same trigger (Nox: "as soon as the lights turn on I'll cast Hold Person on the githyanki!"; Githyanki: "as soon as the lights turn on I'll run over and kill Nox!") or when their actions are mutually exclusive (Neogi Wizard: "I cast Fireball on Nox"; Nox: "I duck behind total cover").

In all other situations, initiative for the round is irrelevant and can be ignored, although some players like to roll it anyway and resolve things in initiative order instead of going around and resolving in table order (e.g. counterclockwise around the table). For large combats (eight or more combatants) I often have players roll initiative to keep it simpler, but for combats with only a few key players like the aforementioned gladiatorial combat against an ogre, you can totally ignore initiative unless there happens to be a round where both the ogre and the PC barbarian get in killing blows (which didn't happen), in which case you need to roll initiative to see who goes first.

Cyclic initiative (each player declares and then acts on his own turn during a fixed initiative cycle) is the wrong solution to the "too much rolling initiative" problem. The right solution is to just roll initiative as-needed instead of constantly.

[Again, the key problem with cyclic initiative is the way it forces 50-80% of the players into inactivity when it's not "their turn," though there are other problems too like how it confuses people when they run scenarios involving surprise or hidden combatants. But the main problem is that cyclic initiative creates a notion of "turn" which is distinct from "round" and then forces players not to participate in other peoples' turns.]

Sorry, you've lost me.

Let's take a quick example. Four heroes on a cart are ambushed by half a dozen goblins hiding behind some bushes up the road. Let's not focus on the ambush rules for this. I just would like you to explain how you run the combat.

There are four PCs and six monsters. A very commonplace and ordinary combat, wouldn't you say?

I get that each player is asked to declare his action. But where does the time savings come in? Do you have each player resolve his action by himself, once you've determined that there are nothing stopping that action from happening?

And do you always assume a PC acts before the goblin (or goblins) that he's attacking and attacked by?

Or what?

(On second thought, perhaps it would be best if you replied in a new thread, but I leave that decision up to you)

 

[CapnZapp]

Wall of Fire + Quickened Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blast for d10+5d8+5 (33) per hit is pretty fun. That's waaaay better than d6+15(18) from Sharpshooter, and you don't suffer any -5 penalty to-hit either.

If you're on a cliff's edge against non-flying enemies it gets even better: d10+10d6 (or more) +5 (46) + battlefield removal, per hit. In one battle that I ran against dozens of Umber Hulks on a neogi deathspider, with 1d4 Umber Hulks appearing every round onto the deck of the deathspider and then trying to board the PCs' ship, the bardlock's ability to blow the Umber Hulks off the ship with Repelling Blast was key to the PCs surviving. A Sharpshooter might have killed an Umber Hulk every two or three rounds*, but being able to eliminate two or three of them per round was far more useful.

* The PCs were mostly somewhere around 9th-11th level. An 11th level Archery Sharpshooter with a +1 magic hand crossbow using Crossbow Expert cheese (as opposed to multiple crossbows) would have four attacks per round for +12 to hit for d6+6 (29.20 damage per round), or +7 to hit for d6+16 (39.70 damage per round). That's 2.35 rounds to kill each Umber Hulk on average.

BTW, that right there also illustrates why Sharpshooter is not, in fact, a "doubling" of damage. It's a significant boost to damage, +30% in this case, and it makes Fighters do more of what they're good at (inflict damage with weapons), but it's not responsible for ranged dominance in 5E. It's just partially responsible for Fighters being fun.

Sorry, but are you now bringing in (quite high level) spells into this?

And counting repellant blast as an auto-kill doesn't get us anywhere, I'm afraid. Sure its useful in that particular scenario, but going to the lengths where you say you'd rather have repellant blast for the off-chance of doing that over reliable damage?!

As for Sorlocks in general, the comparison can't ever become fair unless you consider the character's defense. After all, the basic attraction of the Crossbow Expert is that she is a fully fledged fighter, with all the sturdiness that comes with that chassi.

I think we will never get anywhere if we don't try to focus on a single case - a player desiring to create a character focussed on dealing damage through weapons. What options are there?

One more thing: I'm sure this isn't the first time where I ask y'all to not merely calculate -5/+10 as 25% less accuracy. That's exactly the simplistic analysis that probably made the WotC designer think the feat was alright in the first place.

Still, you say something I would like you to expand upon. You say SS "isn't responsible for ranged dominance in 5E". You mean there is something else that carries that responsibility? And I think you say you need -5/+10 to make fighters fun. Do you mean that fighters aren't fun in a game without feats, or what?

To me it's obvious -5/+10 must be taken away from archers in particular (because otherwise ranged is equal to melee and therefore superior) and fighters in general (because otherwise every other fighter build is left in the dust, and monster HP melt away far too quickly).

I'm repeating this, because I feel uncertain where you're going with the discussion, and wanted to ensure we're still talking about the same thing.

 

[CapnZapp]

My job as a DM is to run the game world, which includes being an expert on rules and thinking ahead about what is possible. Not all of the possibilities I mention in an online discussion are ones which have occurred at the table. I don't think I've ever seen a player use Quicken, Spell Sniper, Hex, and Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Spear all at the same time, any more than I've seen anyone use Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter together.

But as a DM I am aware of and prepared for both.

And I should say that I haven't yet seen an all Crossbow Expert party. But that might just be because our combined system master was much less back when we rolled up our current characters (which would be more than a year ago; characters are level 15 now).

I agree it is our job as DMs to be experts on rules and thinking ahead about what is possible.

One way of doing the latter is bringing up scenarios revolving Crossbow Experts on the forum and discussing it in threads like this.