Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6985113" data-attributes="member: 12731">[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION]: I'm getting the feeling we're getting derailed here.I come into this with the assumptions that D&D is a game where creating a melee build is a perfectly viable choice (from an effectiveness POV). Finding out 5E isn't like that is a bug in my book. I want to fix that bug. What would be a minimal set of changes that would restore melee builds to their former place?But first, I need to understand your own list:(1) Flexible movement. Guessing you're talking about the way everyone can do a "full attack" and still move here. But how does this encourage ranged over melee? That you can "withdraw" while you still keep up your rate of fire?(1b) Mounted movement. While I see your point, I simply consider mounts a special case of the general adage "don't give your party a flying carpet or ground-based encounters will become trivial". I guess I'm featuring enough city/sewer/dungeon/underdark encounters for this to never become a factor in my game, but I'll give you that if it is, it is very hard to shut down. But mostly, I consider "flexible movement" a huge win for 5E. Movement is fun. Movement is good for the game. I would very much like to solve the ranged issue without messing with movement.(2) "elimination of "requires +2 or better to hit" You mean how older editions made monsters immune to ranged fire (unless magical ammunition)? Yeah, well, this hasn't been a huge issue to me. I'll have to take your word for it. I'll admit it's hard to swallow because the solution feels so much like an outright prohibition on ranged. I'll far prefer to make melee competetive to ranged than to outlaw ranged. (2a) I completely agree 5E style cantrips are a problem, for many reasons. While I understand they're there to free spellcasters from using bows badly, I have fundamental issues with allowing a character with, say, Firebolt, to essentially turn his finger into a welding torch. Builds that turn cantrips into competetive ranged options can't be allowed to remain if SS is removed.(3) Sorry but you'll have to walk me through your reasoning here. How does Dodge mean ranged is better than melee?(4) I agree that killing Medusas is too simple if you stay out of 30 ft range. This is indicative of the larger issue; that monsters are designed with the assumptions melee will be joined, when in reality it is much better to simply not use melee. Despite me disliking the "DMs can fix everything" argument, I'll have to say this is such a special case I'm more than happy to fix this particular issue on a case by case basis. Just as long as we make melee more viable in general, I can handle any Medusas...(5) Summoning spells break the game, no doubt about it. But I don't see how I can constructively fix this in the context of ranged vs melee. Sure summoning spells needs to be nerfed, but that is IMO best handled as a separate discussion. Summoning is in this regard special case, somewhat like mounted.6) You mean that you gain advantage every time you shoot without being seen. I guess this will start to sound like a broken record, but I've given up on 5E Stealth as incomprehensible. Sure ranged fire is very good any time you can shoot out of the shadows, as it were. Not sure this is particular to 5E, though, other than the specifics of the bonus gained. I mean, is this fixable? Do we even want to fix this? (My solution is to acknowledge that advantage at ranged isn't hard to come by and therefore not so valuable that it can't be handed out by a feat - see my future proposed Sharpshooter)7) Well, in general, chokepoints have been a hugely effective tactic in every fantasy game. You're not wrong, I'm just not sure how this affects 5E more than other games or editions. What you could do is say you gain disadvantage both from being in melee yourself and from your target being in melee (with somebody you prefer not to hit). Problem is: that latter rule is actively unfun for archers, so I kind of understand a game that doesn't enforce this.But here we agree - allowing a build to completely negate effects of range and cover (and proximity to melee, both archer and target) is probably not a good idea if you want your game to prominently feature melee...8) Not sure what "cheap equipment" means? Caltrops?As for Mold Earth, if your experience is it gives parties battlefield control without resource expenditure, I'll keep an eye out when and if it ever enters play in my campaigns. 9) I completely agree the +2 to hit sticks out, not only because it effectively means that while GWM is -5/+10 SS is only -3/+10.So it's not that I don't see your points. But after having gone through the list I still feel these points only explain some of it. Meaning that even if all of them were somehow "fixed" (in a way favoring melee or disfavoring ranged) the crux of the issue would still remain:Z1) ranged can dump Strength with few ill effects. Melee can't dump Dexterity as easily.Z2) the +10 damage part.While you might have a point in saying "you can't remove the +10 dmg part or every fighter will be surpassed by sorlocks or paladins or whatever", I can't see how removing the +10 dmg part from ranged builds can have this effect (unless, of course, you have already written off melee builds altogether).Besides, keeping +10, even if only for GWM still leaves the issue of what about the other builds unresolved. The knife throwers, drizzts, zorros, swords'n'boards.My current thinking is to sacrifice unlimited cantrips for various reasons. What you're telling me is that this might be good for yet another reason, namely to prevent all the minmaxers from simply abandoning the ranged fighter for the eldritch blast instead.I am aware this still doesn't help with the paladin comparison, whose nova capability remains scary. But at least it's a melee build. I'll guess one step at a time. The problem with allowing +10 to remain is that any damage-dealing build needs it, thereby making weapons other than greatweapons and hand crossbows non-factors. And it certainly doesn't help us run MM monsters as is if players can create builds that slice through them twice as fast than other builds. So, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just not convinced -5/+10 is such a small issue, or that leaving it in is a good thing.</blockquote>

Verification