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

[hawkeyefan]

I wouldn't expect it to trivialise every combat. It's particularly effective against low-hp melee combatants. Whether that is "too effective" is a matter of taste.

Yes, this is true, of course.

On another thread discussing some similar issues, @hawkeyefan said "My view is that the mechanics are there to simulate the fiction. They serve the fiction. My fiction does not serve the mechanics." This was elaborated as "I prefer for the fiction to matter more than the mechanics. Like in the example above, I don't care if the game mechanics would allow a group of 5 level 10 PCs to defeat 300 orcs. In such a case, the "reality" of the fictional world we are creating is more important to me than the mechanics, and I would have the PCs fail."

If I dislike the fiction of a 3rd level cleric spell giving OA-style capabilities, vs many low-hp enemies, that are on a par with being guarded by the best knights of the realm, why shouldn't I change the mechanics? Why should I instead have to change my fiction (eg turn my gnolls into archers)?

You don't, you can do whatever you want. But if you're going to discuss what you do, which constitutes testing if large mobs of enemies are effective against a group of PCs, and you remove most of the ranged capability of the enemies, and then draw the conclusion that they are weak opponents....expect some folks to point that out. The fiction is what the DM chooses it to be....the monsters behave how the DM chooses....the terrain is up to the DM....with all this points of influence, I think it's clear that the results of the encounter are largely due to DM choice rather than due to some inherent flaw in the game.

I didn't spell it out because I thought it was a given, but my mistake - the way the aura counts as difficult terrain means that someone charging the Cleric will (probably) not reach him in time to do an attack.

This means the attacker has to endure the damage twice: in the first round when entering the aura, in the second from starting in it. Before even getting the chance to make an attack, I mean. Obviously it's better if this damage doesn't reduce you to tatters.

This means Spirit Guardians make you practically immune to melee attacks from anyone that doesn't have the Hit Dice. This is why I want variants of humanoids with CRs up to at least 5, and why I'm disappointed by the MMs strong focus on CR 1/2 and CR 1 humanoids.

The moving forward bit is to inflict damage on anyone trying to stay at the edge of the aura. In practice it extends the danger zone by at least ten feat (assuming you will want to return to your original position at the end of your turn).

I honestly think you may have been playing Spirit Guardians a bit wrong. My understanding of the spell, both from how I read it and from rulings I've seen online, is that the spell does not damage anyone if the cleric moves and his movement is what places the enemy in the area of effect. It only affects a target when they first enter the area of effect, meaning they move into the aura not the aura moving to them, or when they start their turn there.

So depending on their starting points, many of the gnolls should have been able to reach the cleric before going down. If they started just outside the area of effect, on their turn they could enter and then attempt to save; even if they failed their save, they could still move 15' which would put them adjacent to the cleric after being subject to the spell only once.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think WoF is an interesting example. (And one that I overlooked and shouldn't have.)

The way WoF's damage works is not clear from the spell description - is the damage inflicted upon creation of the wall, upon entering that distance, periodically? And does a charging gnoll take damage for crossing the 20' then the 10' zone? It's a long time since I've run that spell, but my default instinct is not that the damage is "per round".

Assuming you're asking about the 5E version and not AD&D, since I don't care to discuss in this thread adjudications for a game I haven't run in decades:

You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range. You can make the wall up to 60 feet long, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick, or a ringed wall up to 20 feet in diameter, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick. The wall is opaque and lasts for the duration.

When the wall appears, each creature within its area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 5d8 fire damage, or half as much damage on a successful save.

One side of the wall, selected by you when you cast this spell, deals 5d8 fire damage to each creature that ends its turn within 10 feet of that side or inside the wall. A creature takes the same damage when it enters the wall for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there. The other side of the wall deals no damage.

If the caster goes for a 20' ring (since the gnolls are charging from all sides IIRC) and plants himself in the middle of the ring, then anyone who ends his turn 11' to 21' from the caster's center of gravity will take 5d8 (22.5) damage, killing 58% of all gnolls instantly, and then take another 5d8 from crossing the wall, killing approximately 100% of the rest. So the only winning strategy for getting through the wall is to end one turn 22'+ feet away, and then on the next turn charge through the wall and hope that there isn't an obstacle on the other side (like a PC, or a field of caltrops) that prevents you from actually passing through all the way to the safe side of the wall.

This kind of calibrated movement, designed to avoid damage while still attacking the enemy in melee as soon as possible, is exactly the same kind of thinking that would prevent you from taking double damage from Spirit Guardians before making your attack. Ergo, gnolls who take double damage from Spirit Guardians seem like good candidates for "someone dumb/brave enough to charge through a Wall of Fire", too.

But the other difference, to my mind, is that the Wall of Fire is clearly visible to the gnolls as a wall of ---- fire. They can tell that they may well char up if they run through it. Whereas the spirit guardians look like spectral angels. Who would expect them to be more dangerous OA-dealers than Conan, or a non-spectral angel?

Maybe anyone who's just seen them kill a dozen gnolls already? Leaving 58 gnolls to chuck spears or shoot arrows.

Again, I don't think mobs of humanoids are a bad encounter per se. Sometimes it's tremendously fun for the PCs to mow down enemy armies. As a player, I would love a scenario like this, especially because I have no sympathy for gnolls. Fighting 70 gnolls (with or without longbows) is 10x more fun for me than fighting an Iron Golem, maybe because I grew up on the Gold Box games.

But I do think it's bad science to run a scenario where mobs of melee humanoids who refuse to so much as chuck a spear or pause before charging into a fey spirit blender get mowed down by AoE effects, and then conclude that humanoid mobs in general are weak opponents in 5E. The flaw in the experiment is using weak and stupid humanoids in your experiment (customized berserk gnolls with only melee attacks), and then generalizing that result to smart and well-trained humanoids (drow, hobgoblins, or even a smarter group of gnolls using MM stats).

 

[happyhermit]

I didn't spell it out because I thought it was a given, but my mistake - the way the aura counts as difficult terrain means that someone charging the Cleric will (probably) not reach him in time to do an attack.

This means the attacker has to endure the damage twice: in the first round when entering the aura, in the second from starting in it. Before even getting the chance to make an attack, I mean. Obviously it's better if this damage doesn't reduce you to tatters.

Will they really "probably" not reach them in time to melee though? It depends on a huge number of circumstances. Most of the time, unless the caster is alone in their spell, the attacker will not have to travel 15ft to enter melee range, that is the absolute maximum. Even if they do, will not many enemies be on the edge of the radius at the start of their turn, particularly if the radius is being moved towards their masses between turns?

This means Spirit Guardians make you practically immune to melee attacks from anyone that doesn't have the Hit Dice.

This was already proven false though (Hemlock ran some numbers even), unless you now are moving away from the initial example of Gnolls and are using "Doesn't have the Hit Dice" to mean; "Doesn't have the HP to withstand even one round of Damage" which I don't think is what you are saying. If that were actually the case ie; none of the monsters could withstand one round of damage, then in that case Spirit Guardians could make the cast "practically immune to melee attacks". The examples given so far indicate the opposite.

This is why I want variants of humanoids with CRs up to at least 5, and why I'm disappointed by the MMs strong focus on CR 1/2 and CR 1 humanoids.

I don't see the reasoning of "This is why", but you want them and that's fine. I have certainly used some of the higher CR versions in numbers as well (ie; the numbers would look very different if you subbed in "Fangs of Y-whatever" in this example but little else would) It just isn't my player's preference most of the time. They complain about "Video game logic" if things scale much with level, which is about the only time I have heard my players complain in any ways seriously. It is one of the reasons some players give for not getting into RPGs after trying 3.x and 4e.

The moving forward bit is to inflict damage on anyone trying to stay at the edge of the aura. In practice it extends the danger zone by at least ten feat (assuming you will want to return to your original position at the end of your turn).

Return to your original position at the end of your turn? I don't see how this works.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Will they really "probably" not reach them in time to melee though? It depends on a huge number of circumstances. Most of the time, unless the caster is alone in their spell, the attacker will not have to travel 15ft to enter melee range, that is the absolute maximum. Even if they do, will not many enemies be on the edge of the radius at the start of their turn, particularly if the radius is being moved towards their masses between turns?

I would think 10' is actually the maximum. The spell extends 15' from the caster's center of gravity; the gnoll's goal is to get within 5' of the caster (or anyone else) so he can make melee attacks, so after hitting the spell, 10' is the maximum a gnoll needs to move if there are no other targets within the spell.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Will they really "probably" not reach them in time to melee though? It depends on a huge number of circumstances. Most of the time, unless the caster is alone in their spell, the attacker will not have to travel 15ft to enter melee range, that is the absolute maximum. Even if they do, will not many enemies be on the edge of the radius at the start of their turn, particularly if the radius is being moved towards their masses between turns?

This is true, too. The gnolls could gang up on the cleric's allies. And if they managed to take down one of the PCs, then one of them would be able to rampage, and then get close to the cleric and make a bite attack.

My guess thought, is that most of the PCs were behind the cleric's aura compared to the gnolls' entry points. They were likely making ranged attacks through the aura at the gnolls.

Return to your original position at the end of your turn? I don't see how this works.

I think this means that the cleric would move a bit in a round to try and force more gnolls into the aura and damage them, before moving back t ohis starting point. However, I think this tactic relies on a misinterpretation of the spell. I think that enemies are only affected when they enter the area of the spell, and not when it enters their area.

I'm not certain of that, but I think that's the way the spell is intended to work.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My guess thought, is that most of the PCs were behind the cleric's aura compared to the gnolls' entry points. They were likely making ranged attacks through the aura at the gnolls.

Thus proving the point of this thread once again:

(1) Don't bring a knife to a gunfight, gnolls.

(2) Ranged superiority in 5E has very little to do with feats.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Thus proving the point of this thread once again:

(1) Don't bring a knife to a gunfight, gnolls.

(2) Ranged superiority in 5E has very little to do with feats.

Perhaps, yes. But that was a guess on my part based on how CapnZapp has described his players and their tactics in the past, and my (admittedly minimal) understanding of the terrain in this scenario.

 

[happyhermit]

I think this means that the cleric would move a bit in a round to try and force more gnolls into the aura and damage them, before moving back t ohis starting point. However, I think this tactic relies on a misinterpretation of the spell. I think that enemies are only affected when they enter the area of the spell, and not when it enters their area.

I'm not certain of that, but I think that's the way the spell is intended to work.

Yeah, that is the only way the "end of turn" part makes sense AFAICT. If someone wants to rule the spell as working that way all the power to them, but it is going to exacerbate the problems the OP has been referring to and is not the way the spell is intended to run. You are correct on how the spell is intended to work;

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016

...
· spirit guardians

Reading the description of any of those spells, you might wonder whether a creature is considered to be entering the spell’s area of effect if the area is created on the creature’s space. And if the area of effect can be moved—as the beam of moonbeam can—does moving it into a creature’s space count as the creature entering the area? Our design intent for such spells is this: a creature enters the area of effect when the creature passes into it. Creating the area of effect on the creature or moving it onto the creature doesn’t count. If the creature is still in the area at the start of its turn, it is subjected to the area’s effect.

Entering such an area of effect needn’t be voluntary, unless a spell says otherwise. You can, therefore, hurl a creature into the area with a spell like thunderwave. We consider that clever play, not an imbalance, so hurl away! Keep in mind, however, that a creature is subjected to such an area of effect only the first time it enters the area on a turn. You can’t move a creature in and out of it to damage it over and over again on the same turn.

In summary, a spell like moonbeam affects a creature when the creature passes into the spell’s area of effect and when the creature starts its turn there. You’re essentially creating a hazard on the battlefield.

 

[Yunru]

Half the speed of anyone starting adjacent to a hostile. Makes it harder to escape melee, means it's more rewarding to engage in melee.

 

[pemerton]

Gnolls who end their turns outside the aura don't have to endure the damage twice before attacking, and if they have any sense at all they won't.

depending on their starting points, many of the gnolls should have been able to reach the cleric before going down. If they started just outside the area of effect, on their turn they could enter and then attempt to save; even if they failed their save, they could still move 15' which would put them adjacent to the cleric after being subject to the spell only once.

With this sort of stuff, where the gnolls' planning turns on the way the round structure works, we some odd consequence of turn-by-turn, "stop motion" resolution.

To bring the issue out, consider the following two scenarios:

(A) The gnolls approach slowly and cautiously, not using their full movement but stopping short of the spirit guardians - and then move through at a modest jog (30' move, halved to 15' for the spell effect) to get close enough to attack and (for the sake of analysis) break the spell (by killing the cleric or otherwise disrupting concentration). They take only one lot of damage. (When they enter on their 2nd turn.)

(B) Gnolls who charge through wildly (move + dash, to get adjacent to the cleric at the end of their turns), and then attack and break the aura, take two lots of damage (entering on turn 1, starting in the aura on turn 2).​

In the fiction, why do the second lot of gnolls get more badly hurt? - they've actually spent less time in the aura, because they moved through it at a greater pace!

My Rolemaster players used to call this sort of thing "initiative purge" - where you suffer not because of the logic of the fiction but purely from the workings of the combat round mechanics.

And, more generally, is it "munchkiny metagaming", or is it "good GMing", for the gnolls to time their actions not based on the logic of the fiction (how much time do I spend in the aura? how quickly do I want to get to its source, so I can end it?) but based on the logic of the mechanics (how can I pace my movement and actions so I hit the damage trigger only once rather than twice?)?