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

[Tony Vargas]

It's amazing how many people seem to forget that we pay money for books designed by game designers, so DMs DON'T have to do so much stuff to make the game challenging.

5e just isn't selling on that. 5e is like a classic car, working on it all the time is part of the fun.

(3) If the way 5E object interactions work is getting in your way, we can discuss mitigations. They certainly are wonky and I'm not in the least married to the rules as written. It's quite silly that grabbing and nocking an arrow is "free" even if you've already spent your object interaction opening a door, and so is grabbing a newt's eye from inside a spell component pouch and putting it back afterward, but drawing a dagger costs your one and only action for that round. Up till now I haven't bothered, but we can write new rules if you like.

In 3e you'd've taken the Quickdraw feat and whipped out as many weapons to throw as you needed each round. In 4e thrown magical weapons returned to your hand in the same turn, allowing you to throw the same weapon repeatedly when entitled to multiple attacks. Either could be easily adopted into 5e if you wanted to give thrown weapons a boost.

From another perspective, the 'problem' with thrown weapons and object interaction is just a symptom of the deeper problems with multi-attacking/extra-attack as the most significant mechanism for high DPR weapon-using classes. That can also be solved, it's just not as simple an undertaking.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What part of "if she's caught out in the open" is ambiguous? Clearly I thought you were asking how I'd run the the situation where she's caught out in the open. Obviously if cover is available then she can use it, e.g. go indoors and wait for the archers to go away.

There's no part that's ambiguous. However, I think her teleport easily outdistances almost all examples of flight in the MM. Add to that her move action after teleporting, and she can escape just about anyone. So depending on how far away a suitable position of cover or safety presents itself, she can simply just run across the infinite openness or choose a spot and stand her ground.

But that just brings us back to the scenario of "Mariliths rule as long as they don't go anywhere with flying archers," which doesn't serve the desired aesthetic of making Mariliths awesome.

Sure, and I agree with that. It seems a vulnerability to a simple tactic that shouldn't exist in a creature that is intended to be so powerful. My point is not that the stat blocks are perfect. My point is that they're easily fixed. Sling a bow (or two or three!) across her back and that's half the battle right there.

My point was more that her not living up to her rep is only worsened by people choosing to allow her to stand and die in such a situation. Yes, the stats are limited in some ways. However, the issue can be mitigated somewhat by treating the Marilith as a thinking being instead of simply an obstacle in the game.

Whether teleport can help her escape in time depends on relative movement speeds and the number and effective range of enemy archers. You didn't supply those numbers, so again I assumed a sufficient number of demonic enemies to get the job done as part of "caught out in the open". But more importantly, if you improve Teleport, then now instead of talking about whether the Marilith can escape you're now talking about that time when the Marilith teleported on top of the flying monkey, grabbed it out of the air with her tail, and cut it to shreds with her scimitars on the way down to the ground! Far more awesome.

Sure. That's certainly what I would try to have it do. I came up with that exact image in my mind. Boiling it down to game mechanics is a bit tricky with the Marilith as is....it would require a lot of DM judgment. If you change the teleport action to a move or bonus action, then it is easily achieved.

Personally, I made teleport a move action, and gave the Marilith the ability to block ranged attacks as well as melee. Two simple changes that remove a lot of the issues. In a perfect world, that woudl have been done by the designers before the MM came out....but it wasn't.

Even just giving her a bow would go a long way towards at least keeping her alive. Dave2008's version has a bow and it's a big improvement. You say yourself that you'd have her pick up a bow and come back for revenge--that's a tacit acknowledgement that without modifying the MM stats she cannot compete.

Sure. I don't really know if giving her a bow is quite the same as adding an ability, or modifying an existing one. Certainly Mariliths have access to ranged weapons. It's not the same degree of change.

Again, I am not saying that changes aren't in order. My point is that they're not always necessary, and even when they are, they're usually pretty minor and aren't that tough to come up with.

 

[Satyrn]

An honest question that occured to me. Holding and wielding are two different things. So, assuming I was left handed, could I hold two javelins in my right hand (at the ready as it were), and have one in my left to throw? Then just grab one from the right hand, throw, etc.


I realize the vagueness of "holding" (hey DM can I have 10 javelins point down in the ground in front of me and ready?) but the scenario you described caused me to wonder how the forum interprets this.

As a DM, I would ignore the object interaction rule and let you grab and throw as many javelins from the sling on your back as you have attacks you can make.

I'd also question my ruling when a player wonders what the point of setting those javelins in the ground if not to make them readily available, and I'd wonder if maybe I should impose the object interaction rule for javelins unless a character does that prep work. Then decide, nah, I'll just keep ignoring such a fiddly rule.

Go ahead and throw as many javelins as you have attacks (and javelins)

 

[CapnZapp]

That's not what I was saying.

I was saying it's easier to create a monster that plays in a manner that makes sense when I design it from the ground up, rather than attempting to add features I feel its lacking.

Ok, fair enough.

Hope you aren't putting forth this as an argument why we should be content with mediocre MM stat blocks, though

Regards

 

[CapnZapp]

I wouldn't allow hand crossbows to be reloaded while you're fending off an enemy with your shield in the other hand. YMMV.

Me neither.

If I gave you the impression you can combine Crossbow Expert with a shield, please ignore.

 

[Sunseeker]

Ok, fair enough.

Hope you aren't putting forth this as an argument why we should be content with mediocre MM stat blocks, though

Regards

No. But those stat blocks cannot be changed, so regardless, we must make do. We can of course, choose not to purchase the products until monsters get designed in a manner that appeals to us, but that is somewhat beside the point.

I bought the MM largely for inspiration because I expected very standard low-key monsters, as is somewhat the goal of 5E. I was disappointed because it was simply boring, the same monsters we've seen in the same ways over and over again. It's a nice paperweight though.

 

[mpwylie]

Just stop it.

If your argument boils down to dungeon masters doing it wrong, have you considered that the MM might not provide good enough support?

Take Juiblex for instance. I absolutely think he should mindlessly just follow you along, he should just be awesome enough to make that relentless mindless tactic work.

Again, no, I will not have every monster use clever SWAT tactics just because their stat blocks does not let them challenge the party otherwise.

Finding cover, calling for reinforcement, crikey - is that really your defense - that we need to do this over and over again just to cover for lacking monster design? How come you can't just admit the MM is the least sophisticated for many editions, and while this is fine for newbies and low-level parties, that this simply does not cut it high levels and for
veteran players? View attachment 79366

Have you considered that 5e, and more specifically DMing may not be the right fit for you? There is no rewriting of the rules that is going to make plopping down a brainless sack of hit points in the middle of a vast white room challenging. If fact, i can't think of any RPG out there that doing that would work. I feel for ya, you want 5e to hold your hand and spell out everything for you and it's just never gonna do that. Nor would most of us want it to. But again, even if they detailed every ability and tactic, would it even matter? You can't even read and follow what they have given you, so what is writing more words going to accomplish?

You are right, the MM is not sophisticated precisely so it does work fine for newbs and low level parties. I think the assumption (seemingly faulty in your case) is that if you have a veteran party, they would likely have a veteran DM. Or if it is a low level group, as they level, the DM will gain knowledge and experience. Then in either case that DM would have the ability and imagination to fit the game to their specific party without writing out every last detail. At the very least they would have the sense to not do what you do.

You can call me an apologist all day long, the simple fact is that my games, whether it's a group of low level newbs or the high level veterans, works perfectly fine with what they have given me to work with.

 

[Flamestrike]

The observation that ranged combat specialization is dominant in 5E is not predicated on everything taking place on bright white plains. It works just as well in cramped stone labyrinths with 2'-wide corridors. At the risk of belaboring the obvious: four ranged guys in a stone labyrinth can take turns tanking while the other three guys blow the enemy away. They're 95% as effective as three ranged guys and a melee tank, and they're 200-300% as effective as four melee guys.

The primary advantage of melee specialization is that it tends to come with more physical control options. A smaller, secondary advantage is that melee fighters tend to be somewhat better at turning physical control options into an attack advantage, whereas ranged fighters tend to lean more on lighting manipulation and/or hiding to gain their advantage.

Ranged PCs arent providing an important function they've always held. That of meat sheild.

Assuming the DM is going to place monsters (at least from time to time) in melee range, those monster attacks are going to be targetting something. You need a guy who can take those hits and tank it up, if for nothing else than to stop the monsters wailing on the mages.

 

[Krachek]

Personaly, I think that melee combat is lagging a bit behind ranged combat. But not by much.

Here is few suggestions to help it along.


1. Raise the damage die of non-finesse melee weapons by one die. 1d4->1d6,1d6->1d8,1d8->1d10,1d10->2d6,1d12/2d6->2d8.

2. Making ranged attack provokes Attack of Opportunity(AoO) in addition of suffering disadvantage ot attack roll.

3. AoO does not use reaction. Reaction should be used of special class abilities not a simple swing. You have a number of AoOs per round equal to your proficiency bonus.

4. Ready action can be used to make every attack as normal Attack action. That way when archer peek around corner to shoot you can make your "full attack" on him.

5. Count the damn ammunition and check for load. Archers cannot pass whole campaign with starting 30 arrows and they sure can't carry 500 arrows around without magic quivers/bags of holding.

6. Add charge action: Action, add half your speed to your movement this round, but all movement must be in a straight line. If you move atleast 20ft make one melee attack as bonus action.

7. Add new feat: combat reflexes: +1 to str, dex or con. You have advantage on AoO attack roll, and deal max damage with AoO.

8. Add Run action: After you use your action to Dash, you can use bonus action to Run. Add your base move speed to your total speed for this round(with Dash, total of 3× speed). You can only move in a straight line.

Remove completely the sharp shooter feat.
Then apply the rules for cover, shooting while engaged, and count arrow.

 

[smbakeresq]

For me the Maralith has 7 arms, that means 3 bows to me, so 3 shots per round, or 7 Javelins per round.

The sharpshooter stuff I just track arrows or bolts, its amazing how fast they run out. Track encumbrance also, and speed.

I have been playing for 40 years, I have seen many adventures with Caves, Caverns, Dungeons, Pits etc in title. I don't recall any with "Endless fields as far as a eye can see" or "complete open, well lit cavern with open sight lines." Maybe its just me.

I do think SS is little OP, but that's ok. The bigger issue to me is the loading of crossbows, the feat shouldn't take away the load property as its mechanical issue. A crossbow is easy to use, anyone can be taught to use it in a few minutes, that's why they caught on and were used. They should be simple weapons. Crossbows also provided much stronger pull than a normal person could manage. A heavy crossbow to me should be a d12, and a light d10, the pull is much stronger than a bow, but only if you enforce the load property. A bow takes an expert and a very strong person, archers were always specialists and elite troops, and expensive. Bow usage was essentially a cultural thing, and cultures that didn't have bow culture used crossbows or hired archers. Bring back the crossbow of speed! It used to a be prime weapon to get.

Bows can and are shot much faster, but with less power in general.

IMO, and how we play it, is the crossbows are simple weapons usable by anyone, but your ROF is always 1 unless you have the crossbow of speed. They do more damage than a bow, but a skilled bow user will out shoot you as they obtain expertise.