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

[hawkeyefan]

This is the issue. It does seem that their is a lot of content out there from the developers and it is being parceled out in portions so as not to give too much.

I think they are clearly attempting to keep the game as streamlined as possible. One of their primary goals seems to be to obtain new players (which makes total sense from a longevity standpoint) and to do that they need to keep things accessible.

So while it is understandable to want something along the lines of an "Advanced Options Handbook" or something, which would be aimed at the very proficient players and DMs, I don't know how likely it would be. this is for a couple of reasons....the first is that by design, such a book immediately limits its audience from the base audience they are seeking to build. So they have to compare this with the sales they can achieve with a more general release book like those they've been making, whether it's an adventure book or a setting guide or what have you. The second reason is that of the highly proficient players the book woudl be aimed at....some may not want more options. Some may not think that any of the issues that are brought up....high level monsters or ranged combat being the superior option....as being problems. Of if they are, they may not be problems that require any strong correction.

I just don't see it happening....and if it was at the cost of another product, I personally would prefer it not happen.

As far as repelling blast I have changed it based on size. The force required to push a huge creature away would be so immense that a creature of medium size would be obliterated. We play with it a large size only. I know its a logic construct in a magical game, but to me its a little over the top without a limitation.

I would have done something similar, definitely. Juiblex is huge, and formless on top of it....no way would I let repelling blast affect him. These are common sense solutions to a problem...I don't think applying logic in this way is a problem at all. That's a mechanical solution to the problem.

I'd also probably place Juiblex in a cavern that had like a coral type rock structure. All kinds of odd structure and shapes to get in the PCs way but which Juiblex moves right around or through as needed. I'd make the party warlock and ranger work to get a clear shot at him, or force them to ready an action to shoot him, limiting the number of attacks. Such a place seems to make a lot more sense for a lair for him than simply a wide open space where a party can walk in and blast away at him before he can do anything. That's a tactical solution to the problem.

 

[Sunseeker]

Legendary monsters seem to fill the Solo/Elite secondary role. Any monster being used that way should probably be fleshed out a little, too. Given a few more tricks, some action-preservation traits or the like.

Sure, but as soon as I start adding this trait or that feature I start diving back into "doing it all myself" which generally presents a more coherent result than tacking on a few features.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure, but as soon as I start adding this trait or that feature I start diving back into "doing it all myself" which generally presents a more coherent result than tacking on a few features.

We could almost call that "doing it right."

"Adjust it to suit"? "Baseline"? Implying what?

That 5e presents us with rules to use as a starting point.

And other systems have even more? Okay. I'm still not sure I get the point of the comparisons?

5e is trying to evoke the classic game. In the classic game, using a bow or casting a spell in melee (or even firing into melee) was more heavy-penalized than it is in 5e. So, some of us approach 5e with the classic expectation that casters and archers will be adverse to melee, or switch to melee options when they find themselves there. 5e might not bear out that expectation (it also might, if everyone at the table just acted like it did, for instance, because they /all share the expectation/ and never test it) - which is fine, it's only a starting point - it's just legitimate to want to get there and to talk about how.

Make ranged attacking a terrible idea if you like. Go bonkers. We won't notice what you've done at our table.

Wouldn't guess that from your apparent investment in the discussion.

Oh, and minor nit to pick: in 5e they are OAs (Opportunity Attacks), not AoOs (Attacks of Opportunity). That's what they were called in a previous edition. Understandable error, given.

An intentional callback. (In this case. I slip editions all the effing time, danger of playing for so long.)

 

[Corwin]

Wouldn't guess that from your apparent investment in the discussion.

You have me confused for someone else. I'm not the one chicken littling here. Or edition warring. I'm saying, like many in this thread, that things seem to work just fine.

(In this case. I slip editions all the effing time, danger of playing for so long.)

I've been playing at least as long. I don't have that problem. Maybe its more about your constantly looking backwards? Just a guess.

 

[mpwylie]

This is about kiting tactic - repelling blast effectively reduces the monster's movement (towards you) by 20 ft, which makes it trivial to keep your distance.

The end result is a monster that you easily kill without it ever being able to make a single melee attack.

So the question is(for the 100th time), why are you, the DM, allowing this tactic to work? Why is your monster so retarded that he is going to endlessly chase around someone that he obviously cannot catch until he is dead? I mean, this should work every once in a while on a especially low int monster(like <4) and even then it is not assurred, but why are you, as the DM, allowing this tactic to be the default and be successful? If YOU where being shot/repelling blasted by someone running away from you in real life, would you A, continue to run to them like a complete moron, or B, turn and find the nearest full cover to hide behind? find cover, retreat, yell out for reinforcements, whatever. For god's sakes, my dog is smarter than the monsters in your game and I have seen him eat his own crap!

The simple fact is that you play your monsters poorly, design encounters poorly, and create an environment where your players can use these types of tactics successfully every time. So why would they ever do anything else?

 

[Corwin]

So the question is(for the 100th time), why are you, the DM, allowing this tactic to work? Why is your monster so retarded that he is going to endlessly chase around someone that he obviously cannot catch until he is dead? I mean, this should work every once in a while on a especially low int monster(like <4) and even then it is not assurred, but why are you, as the DM, allowing this tactic to be the default and be successful? If YOU where being shot/repelling blasted by someone running away from you in real life, would you A, continue to run to them like a complete moron, or B, turn and find the nearest full cover to hide behind? find cover, retreat, yell out for reinforcements, whatever. For god's sakes, my dog is smarter than the monsters in your game and I have seen him eat his own crap!

The simple fact is that you play your monsters poorly, design encounters poorly, and create an environment where your players can use these types of tactics successfully every time. So why would they ever do anything else?

Yeah. My uncle thought his wood elf archer was going to kite the lizardman last night. He had the 5' extra movement after all. Shoot while keeping his distance. Until the lizardman pinned him up against the wall my uncle's character kept backing up towards. Then, the next round, that extra 5' didn't even get him far enough away since the lizardman only had to move 30' to re-engage from the side. It got its two full rounds worth of attacks in before going down. It did its job.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

[MENTION=82132]Cyber-Dave[/MENTION]: what you say is only really true in a game without feats. The feats an archer would want to take being their damage up way above that of a melee warrior while simultaneously removing any penalties for fighting at point blank range.

No, it is true in every game. The feats an archer takes do not up their damage way above that of a melee warrior. Melee warriors have feats that up their damage in very similar manners. There is no purely numerical argument which indicates that archers do more damage, have better AC, and are thus numerically superior to melee warriors. Anyone who claims otherwise hasn't sat down, built characters, and ran the math on those characters. All arguments in favor of archers require a value judgement about the impact of ranged attacks. Numerically, coming up with a melee build which does more average damage than an archer build (with no consideration for range) is trivial. Your archer has Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert? Great. My melee build has Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, and a suit of full-plate armor. Yes, there are optimal feat combinations, but they exist on both sides of the fence. A character with Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert are not more optimal, in melee, than a character with Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master (let alone one who adds Sentinel on top of that). Likewise, arguments about the numbers of monsters in the MM which have range are somewhat disingenuous, as they ignore the fact that the DM can use whatever monsters he wants (or make his own).

One can reasonably complain about certain feat combinations. Crossbow users and polearm users have a disproportionate number of feats which synergize with each other. One can reasonably complain about some specific melee builds which don't receive much, if any, support. I see no reason to play a longsword user who doesn't hold a shield in his off-hand. Maybe those are problems. Maybe they are not. They are, however, worth a discussion. This topic, however, hinges entirely on a subjective evaluation of the tactical value of range, as numerically speaking the melee warrior is already a superior adversary (in melee). The only real question is this: is it better to be a superior warrior in melee or have ranged capabilities? The answer to that question depends on the tactical qualities of the encounters a group regularly faces. If the DM is doing nothing to design encounters in such a way that melee has a real place at the table, the DM is doing something wrong. Yes, obviously, on a bright white plane with no cover or terrain features, range is drastically superior. It should be! That is an ideal arena for a ranged combat. Why, however, is a group facing encounters disproportionately weighted to the tactical reality of that white plane? They shouldn't be! Those are my 2 cents.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah. My uncle thought his wood elf archer was going to kite the lizardman last night. He had the 5' extra movement after all. Shoot while keeping his distance. Until the lizardman pinned him up against the wall my uncle's character kept backing up towards. Then, the next round, that extra 5' didn't even get him far enough away since the lizardman only had to move 30' to re-engage from the side. It got its two full rounds worth of attacks in before going down. It did its job.

Wall?!?!

What the hell is that???

 

[mpwylie]

Yep.

Which brings us back to the Marilith.

If you throw a dozen Marilith at a party they will have their hands full, regardless of level.

But that's not the complaint.

The complaint is "how does a SINGLE marilith live up to the grand description" and the sad answer is her stat block sadly does not even come close.

So aside from the fact that it is utterly stupid to toss a single Marilith at a party of powerful heroes and expect it to survive without altering it, the MM says this..."These demons possess keen minds and a finely honed sense of tactics, and they are able to lead and unite other demons in common cause. Mariliths are often encountered as captains at the head of a demonic horde,". So you, the person whining about how the Monster Manual write ups don't tell you enough about how to play monsters, tells you that this monster are often encountered with hordes of lesser demons and that they are very tactical, yet you continue to toss them solo at fully rested over powered parties and play them like they are retarded. Gee, wonder why that ain't workin for ya?!?!

 

[Cyber-Dave]

P.S. if the argument is that, on a bright white plane, a character who starts out attacking from range and a character who waits for the melee engagement and then starts fighting in melee should be roughly equal in power/should (over the course of the entire encounter) do roughly equal damage, then I reject the premise of the argument. That is just silly. That isn't an argument for parity. That is an argument for the complete invalidation of ranged combatants. In that scenario, every time an encounter doesn't adhere to the tactical realities of a white plane, the archer has no reason to exist. When the two combatants find themselves on the analog of that white plane, the archer is merely equal to the melee based character.

I do admit, however, that it would be nice to see a few anti-range based feats designed for melee characters. Something like this:

Counter-Archer (The name is lame, but I am not feeling creative right now)
You are skilled in combat tactics designed to protect you from ranged attackers.
* On your turn, if you are wielding a shield or have cover, you may spend a bonus action to position yourself against ranged attacks. Until the start of your next turn, ranged attacks made against you take disadvantage to their attack roll.
* If you are hit with a ranged attack and you are holding a shield or have cover, as a reaction you may add +5 to your AC against that attack and any other ranged attacks made against you on that turn.
* You have advantage on melee attacks made against any targets armed with nothing but a ranged weapon.

P.P.S. I also would have no issue with a house rule that states: attacking a melee opponent when you are armed with nothing but a ranged weapon provokes an opportunity attack from the target you attacked. I don't think it is strictly necessary, but I don't think it would hurt the game at all either. It might add some interesting tactical considerations.