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

[Saeviomagy]

Who in this thread has identified as part of the "World of Warcraft crowd"? No one that I recall.

I'm going to put my hand up to this... and note that while combat is a significant portion of the game, much of my playtime has been spent:

* Travelling from point A to point B, often on foot or horseback.
* Gathering ore, herbs, animal skins and other items.
* Crafting items.
* Taming pets.
* Playing fairground games
* Racing riding animals
* Collecting clothes.
* Hunting down written works
* Digging up archaeological artifacts
* Chatting with other players (admittedly not usually in character).
* Interacting with players from the opposite faction in manners that do not include fighting them (which is hard, since you can't actually speak to them at all)
* Managing bag space

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some 2/3rds of my playtime has been spent actively pursuing non-combat activities.

...and managing bag space or buying ammunition has never been fun or immersive.

 

[happyhermit]

I'm sorry pemerton, the way in which you have quoted me here seems designed to not only hinder discussion, but misrepresent much of what was said. I don't even see how you could pull out the lines you did without reading the rest. Still;

How do we know they won't all rush in? How do we know that the gnolls will shoot arrows over the warriors?

They won't fit. We don't know that they will shoot their bows, but they should, or throw their spears. If the GM chooses to nerf them it is not a problem either for the system or the GM.

Maybe they're berserker gnolls. Maybe they've all sworn a blood-oath to Yeenoghu to tear the defiler limb-from-limb, and so the first thing they do is charge the cleric, with sneering disregard for his/her petty spirit guardians.

Sure, but nobody is saying that Gnolls shouldn't be played like that. People are saying that 5e Gnolls weren't designed to behave like that, and they are saying that if you play Gnolls like that you they will be much less of a threat. For example I said the same things here;

On one hand, this sounds like a cool picture, if that's what you are going for, but it doesn't make any sense for MM Gnolls. This is not playing the game RAW or RAI.

and here;

The example simply shows that playing monsters with terrible tactics and strategy, (aside from against their stats and any inherent motivations) leads to weird outcomes. Now, if the Gnolls were under some sort of spell or stricken by a disease, then several tons of Gnoll corpses in a small circle around the party could be a very cool image, but it doesn't make ANY sense for RAW and RAI Gnolls.

And in any event, Spirit Guardians doesn't seem to render the caster immobile. Maybe in [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s scenario the cleric was using the spell as a mobile aura to cut down gnolls - that seems like a reasonable sort of tactic for an 8th level PC. It was other posters - eg [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION], [MENTION=6834463]happyhermit[/MENTION] - who seemed to assume that the shredding of 70 gnolls by the spell meant that the gnolls charged mindlessly into a stationary aura.

Actually, if you go back CapnZapp mentioned Gnolls getting hit by the aura twice without being able to attack, which means they charged into it (though there is still no way they shouldn't have been able to melee before getting hit the second time).

... And how do you know that they thought their brethren accomplished nothing - maybe dying in pursuit of a blood oath against the defiler cleric is the greatest glory a gnoll can accomplish?

Which again, isn't a problem. The problem comes in when one uses a situation like this as a "test" or an example of something, as though it is representative of what the game presents. It is only different in degree from saying; "I threw an archmage against the party, I took away his magic and gave him a stick and they shredded him. This is broken."

... And why will they almost always have "back row" options?

Serious question? Ok;
Because they can throw stuff.
Because they can use ranged weapons.
Because large groups cannot all get into melee.
Because in 5e the game, they almost always have them.

How do we know that Yeenoghu has not geased this group of gnolls to attack only with fang and claw, so that they can feel the enemy's flesh under their nails and taste the enemy's blood on their tongues?

Again? You ask the same question again? Nobody is saying the GM can't do this, they absolutely can modify the monsters in 5e it explicitly says so. It's just that if you do that it is no longer representative.

Strangely, some of the most on-topic points of my post you skipped such as;

...
In this scenario, how far would you have to nerf ranged attacks to make them less attractive than ineffectual suicide? Maybe if it was only 1 or 2 HP of damage, but even then there is a chance (or extreme likelihood) of disrupting the concentrating caster, or taking them down entirely. And if you nerfed it so hard that suicide was a better option than tossing rocks in this particular situation, then the Gnolls should simply run.

Frankly, the added details to the scenario raise more questions than answers, but CapnZapp doesn't seem to want to go into them so I won't pose more. I still don't know how this stuff worked;

Those who charged was slowed down by the spell's other effect, ensuring almost no gnoll survived to make melee attacks at all (since they need to survive two helpings of damage;

 

[Flamestrike]

As the DM with the gnolls, I can tell you what the specifics were, so you don't have to guess (and especially not make guesses meant to strengthen your own discussion points).

The encounter was meant to trial the mob rules of the DMG, where the DM makes a single melee attack roll for, say, half a dozen enemies. The purpose was to see if characters approaching the end of tier II (I can't remember their exact level) are sturdy enough to withstand weak enemies numerous enough to justify the mob rules. Hence, I used regular Gnolls with their bites and spears but no longbows. Feel free to disagree with this, but please don't use it to make assumptions on the overall issue.

Another choice of mine was that any Gnoll that witnessed the death of an ally through the Spirit Guardian area would attempt to avoid entering it. But that these Gnolls would otherwise not know the aura's exact purpose. If they could attack somebody without a magical shimmer, they would.

Now, in order to get within their spear's short range, they must come awfully close to the area. This enables the Cleric to catch plenty of them by simply moving forward ten feet or so. So it's no surprise many were caught, either by charging into the field or by being too close.

So... Lemming Gnolls who you stripped of their ranged weapons... got crumped by Spirit Guardians by racing up to it?

"You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down." - Captain Zap Brannigan, of the good ship Stormwalker.

 

[Satyrn]

The point is if it was positive for your PC it wouldn't be burden or too bothersome to track. But if it's any chance it's a negative for your PC it's too much trouble to bother with.

I should just say "fine, whatever you want to think," but instead I'm gonna describe another fiddly bit I find bothersome to track: Money

I ballpark my wealth much like I ballpark my encumbrance. If I've looted 124 gold, 76 silver and 300 copper, I'll just round it down to 100 gp and be done with it. If I buy something costing 8 gp, I'll pay 10. Etc. I just don't care to track it carefully.

Oh, and before you leap to the obvious conclusion, let me tell you now: That is easy Math for me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's the only way he knows how to be. Read his other posts.

Some of us no longer can.

 

[Satyrn]

Some of us no longer can.

I want the hugs rating again.

 

[hawkeyefan]

How do we know they won't all rush in? How do we know that the gnolls will shoot arrows over the warriors?

Maybe they're berserker gnolls. Maybe they've all sworn a blood-oath to Yeenoghu to tear the defiler limb-from-limb, and so the first thing they do is charge the cleric, with sneering disregard for his/her petty spirit guardians.

I think [MENTION=6834463]happyhermit[/MENTION] already addressed a lot of your points, but I wanted to comment on the above.

We didn't know anything of the scenario other than "70 gnolls were shredded by a spirit guardians spell." That could mean a lot of things. But based solely on that description, it seems a bit unlikely.

It certainly could be the case that there was a story element that would drive the gnolls to abandon any sense of tactics or self preservation and simply hurl themselves into the spell. That's all well and good. But if the DM decides that's how things play out, it'd be odd for him to complain about the way things worked out, no?

Now, once we have more details, we can certainly discuss further. Further details were provided, and from what I gather, Capn was using the scenario more as a gauge of the mob rules rather than as much of a challenge to his players. He removed most of their ranged capability, and had them all converging on a central point where the PC cleric had his spell set up to catch them all.

Now there's nothing at all wrong with that...but I think it's also clear that applying any kind of tactics would have made the monsters more of a threat.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I agree that hordes of well-played (range-equipped) creatures are murder on PCs.

But in general, I don't consider longbows fundamental to gnolls. Of course, my gnolls have been equipped and used the same basic tactics since AD&D, so just because the MM says they have longbows doesn't make it so.

Perhaps the gnolls in his world don't use longbows either?

Gnolls are one of several humanoid races in my world (including kobolds, troglodytes, and lizard folk) that are both bipedal and quadrupedal. Their armor and weapon design (which varies widely with the race's skill in mining and weapon smithing) is based on this feature. Javelins and spears are common.

I've always treated gnolls as a bit like barbarians, and the gnoll's rampage ability not only plays into that, but also indicates that a ranged weapon is not their favored tactic anyway. I like the Gnoll Flesh Gnawer's sudden rush ability in VGtM, and the general description is also how I would generally perceive a knoll in any event.

I also added pack tactics to my gnolls, because I model their tactics off of hyenas.

The last thing I think of with gnolls is a longbow.

It sounds like your gnoll stereotype predates the 5E gnoll, which is fine. I've always kind of ignored gnolls until 5E--I honestly couldn't tell you what weapons and tactics AD&D gnolls favored because I never, ever used them. I'm not even sure if they were hyena-men back then or something else.

But I still think it's fair to judge a monster's basic identity by the things in its stat block. Gnolls may have only Int 6, but the fact that every single gnoll carries a longbow indicates to me that it's a big part of their tactical doctrine, and I wouldn't feel at all shy about making gnolls shoot PCs as a result.

YMMV. You've obviously got a lot more established lore investment in gnolls than I do.

 

[pemerton]

I'm going to put my hand up to this

<snip>

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some 2/3rds of my playtime has been spent actively pursuing non-combat activities.

That's not the answer I was expecting! (Neither the respondent nor the content.)

But it adds another contradicting dimension - even the "World of Warcraft" crowd aren't doing (or failing to do) whatever it is that is being imputed to them!

 

[pemerton]

Those are also things that I (perhaps wrongly) equate to video games, where most games that call themselves RPGs equate RPG with being able to gain experience and improve your character with...more abilities.

Every version of D&D ever has had players being able to earn XP points so as to add new abilities to their PCs. I don't think that this is distinctive to video games.

The focusing on important scenes approach isn't always related to faster level advancement, or gaining more abilities. But those that like to level up quickly and gain abilities quickly tend to like that approach because they don't spend time either not moving forward to those goals, or using the abilities they've gained (which tend to focus on combat).

There is too much here to unpack in the context of this thread.

So I'll try coming at it orthogonally - have you played any RPG designed since 1990? The reason I ask is that you seem to be assuming very many things to be correlated, which don't have to be and (in many RPGs) are not. And I'm wondering on what sample base of games you're basing your assumption.