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

[CapnZapp]

I think that you need to look more carefully as to your stated objectives and the measures you are thinking of implementing when it comes to cantrips.
For example, my wizard tends to spend around 50% of his combat rounds throwing a 2d8+nothing chill touch cantrip. Is this really something that threatens your intentions to limit PC damage?
Is your issue with the eldritch blast thrower with every beam getting +charisma damage giving at-will damage as good as a longbow?
Or is it with the aforesaid eldritch blast with +Cha damage thrower multiclassed with another class that alows spending resources to do this twice per round?

Nail down what your actual problems with the rules are before changing the rules. That way you can be surer of limiting the collateral damage and unintended side effects of the changes you make.

Thank you. Yes, this subject is definitely worthy of a thread of its own. Let's see what I can do.

 

[CapnZapp]

Found you problems right here. Of course your archers are dominant. You've encouraged it. They can carry around unlimited ammo. And they never really have to worry about overkill. On the second point, I think its interesting that you admit you don't like the fundamental, conscious direction in which they took 5e. Based on all these threads and posts you make regarding your unhappiness with 5e, I have to wonder if you wouldn't be happier playing a system better suited to your playstyle and proclivities? And there's nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of awesome TTRPGs out there. Or even prior editions of this one.

Overkill would have been a worry if I hadn't tried lots of weak mobs only to see them absolutely shredded by a single Spirit Guardians spell. (I think it was 70 Gnolls vs level 8-ish characters)

I ran that encounter with the express purpose of giving the DMG mob attacks (if that's what they're called) a test whirl.

Not even once did I get to make a group melee attack against the players. Not even once.

After that, I have simply given up on the idea that 1 CR humanoids have a role to play in tier III and tier IV play. The game desperately needs more CR 5 versions of common humanoids to account for "elite" versions (of goblins, grimlocks or whatever) so I don't have to reuse NPC stat blocks like Veteran all the time.

As for other games, I remain confident 5E is by far the best edition of D&D out there. 4E didn't work for us at all. 3E is very fun as a player but completely unworkable for a DM (at least me). 5E provides by far the best overall balance, the best answer to linear fighters quadratic wizards, the best answer to old D&D stupidisms like alignment and detection spells, the best MC rules, the easiest monster/NPC generation, etc etc.

So you will have to get used to me sticking around, Corwin, discussing ways to tweak 5th edition to make it more robust for "advanced" play (or at least my kind of play), I'm afraid.

 

[CapnZapp]

Based on your descriptions of the game and the issues you are having with it, I would think that not only would removing feats address some of the damage imbalance you are talking about, I think it may actually add to the complexity your players would see in the game. Or perhaps not complexity, but at least variety.

Adding to variety/complexity is exactly the biggest win I'm trying to achieve

If a minmaxing analysis can't determine that using, say, a fauchard-glaive-guisarme is significantly more deadly than a belt of triple throwing-Cleavers, that is a huge win for the game, since now my players are free to choose what they like and what makes for a cool character concept!

Of course, using a two-handed weapon always needs to outdamage a one-handed weapon, because the one-handed weapon provides addition utility (everything from holding a shield to casting a spell).

I mean, if there are certain feats and combos that are so potent and your players are so optimization-minded that they always take them....then removing those feats will actually make them build characters differently. You'd probably start to see different types of character builds, with many focusing on melee, which seems to be something you want.

Reestabilishing the supremacy of melee over ranged is a win in itself in my book.

It is actually a separate subject from having some weapons be superior to others, even if the efforts are intertwined.

Thinking of a feat like Sharpshooter based on the way you're approaching it in this thread....I don't really know if that feat adds as much to your game as it takes away. And yes, it adds a bit of complexity in that there is a bit of additional math for the extra damage....but it doesn't necessarily add complexity to player choice at character creation or in tactics during play.

I'm sure your players would balk at the idea of simply removing feats, but I really think it actually might address every concern you are expressing in this thread. Given the limited understanding of your game that I have from only your posts, of course.

Not aiming for actually removing feats, but to reengineer them if at all possible. But yes.

 

[CapnZapp]

Seems a little heavy handed, no? Fix something that isn't broken?

What makes you think the devs failed to "notice" whatever it is you *think* is a problem? They just didn't consider it an actual problem. But rather design as intended. Many of us find no fault with what it is you are currently railing against here. So how can it be universally seen as a "problem"? Clearly it is not. So why should the devs have needed to fix something they, and many others, don't find fault with?

Ah, the good old argument is back, not just content to leave this well alone but actually actively argue against allowing us to fix our issues.

None of us has an agenda to ruin your game Corwin. We just like our games to work too.

Just because some don't percieve it as a problem and just because it isn't an "universally seen" issue does not make for a good argument not to fix things.

I am confident "many of us" would not have had any problems if 5E was shipped with the most egregious balance issued fixed. In fact, your entire line of reasoning, that you don't notice imbalances, highly suggest you would be included in the group not experiencing any difference.

If the choice is between a game that only works for you, and a game that works for both of us, my choice is clear.

Your dogged insistence that just because things aren't broken for YOU or EVERYONE that we should just swallow our issues is most unpleasant and unconstructive, Corwin.

Had you EVEN ONCE suggested one of the changes we proposed would actively counter your fun, it would have been another matter. Had you been content to simply think "I don't have any issues so I'm fine with the game as currently published" and thus not posted here, it would have been completely fine.

But nooo, we should not be so lucky.

 

[CapnZapp]

So, clearly, optional or basic, encumbrance is not a meaningful issue 'balancing' archers. The archer can carry everything he needs, including scores of arrows, without being slowed down.

Not to mention the ultra-fundamental issue of many players thinking inventory management super-boring.

That is, even if encumbrance WAS an effective limitation on archers, it would still not do for groups that find counting arrows the eqivalent of pixel-bitching in adventure games.

For those of you that enjoy or endure inventory management, fine. But please don't try to force the rest of us into using it.

It would be far preferable if the rules recognized this and offered an alternative way to rein in archers. This y'all should be able to agree to, even if you're using arrow inventory successfully in your game.

 

[CapnZapp]

You are mistaken in this. The default game is no feats, no multiclassing, with simple encumbrance rules. If you want feats, there are rules to add them. If you want multiclassing, there are rules to add it. If you want encumbrance to be more detailed, there are rules to add complexity.

If you're not sure that you want one or more of those things, then your response should be to not change anything. If you change something without fully understanding it, or if you know that it's broken but you add it anyway, then you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

No.

I want the game with feats and MC to be as balanced and varied as the game without.

I consider this expectation a completely reasonable and natural thing; you trying to twist it into something unreasonable nowithstanding.

 

[CapnZapp]

Long and short: I clearly see that ranged CAN be very destablizing to a game. Telling people who have this complaint that they should just change the way they play to accomodate the way the ruleset allows this is a bit annoying. Pointing out "hinderances" that really aren't is also a bit annoying.

Thank you.

Don't get me started on the borkedness of sorlocks (a violently broken combination -- xd10+x*5+x*d6+10 ft pushback @ 600 feet range for the cost of 5 levels of Warlock and the spellsniper feat (either pushback OR 600ft range for 2 levels), up to twice a round AND synergizing with other area spells like wall of fire? Nope, not a cool combination.

And minions are right out.

But those two existing and be more egregious than the martial ranged vs melee disparity doesn't mean the ranged disparity doesn't exist or can't be an issue for some tables. All of them are rules failures.

Again, thank you.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just curious - have you ever run a table without any melee PCs? In the games I've been apart of without them (and crowd control as well), the PCs get rushed and things are get more dicey for winning fights, even with good dpr.

The core complaint is that you are never without "melee PCs".

A Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter functions at 100% even when both himself and his target is adjacent to enemies and fully engaged in melee.

This is not merely a theoretical construct. This is patently absurd, and completely overturns the very foundations of the genre D&D is based on.

If WotC wants to change D&D into a game of modern-feeling tactics with a focus on range and mobility and total cover, they should have to answer for it. As is, they've snuck it in surreptiously.

(And that's the generous interpretation, the one that assumes WotC know what they're doing. Myself I remain convinced it's all a terrible mistake by not-experienced-enough editors and that the combo will be errataed away in the end)

 

[CapnZapp]

Fine. You have a multitude of interacting reasons for running the game the way you want it. That's precisely why tweaking the game is left up to individual DMs like yourself--it's very difficult to even articulate all the requirements you have, and every time I try to respond to the ones you've articulated, it turns out there are other requirements you haven't articulated which cause you to prefer a different solution. That's fine. Every DM's game is idiosyncratic.

No.

It's fine for you to conclude your preferences are different from mine.

But please try to abstain from claiming you have done a complete job of justifying your stance while I haven't, insinuating I'm presenting an ever-shifting target.

What I am saying is that I don't see your chosen tack, to bring every fighting style up to the level of the best ones, as inherently better, easier or more workable than my chosen tack, to bring the "overperforming" builds back down to some kind of baseline.

When I explain my reasons, you invalidate those points but not the reasons.

For instance, if I explain one reason is to make the Monster Manual viable, you present several misgivings about that product. But that only explains why you might not make my choices, it does not invalidate my reason.

If I explain one reason is to make currently underserved builds viable, you can't simply dismiss that by "everybody knows dualwielding is useless IRL and in the game", and you can't deny the discussion by a simple "the sorlock is better so why bother". Not if you're genuinely trying to make constructive input.

It would be much more useful for my aims if you actually responded to my discussion issues, rather than coming up with various ways of why I shouldn't have them in the first place.

Under no circumstances do I consider it okay for you to accuse me of presenting a shifting target. It is you who continously introduce more variables. While this might be constructive and educational, it also does naturally mean I need to increase my scope without that necessarily indicating me trying to shift the goalposts.

Best Regards,
Zapp

 

[CapnZapp]

Anyone have any examples of ways they've fixed this problem, or has that taken a backseat to arguing whether there is a problem?

Yes and yes