NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="happyhermit" data-source="post: 6992077" data-attributes="member: 6834463">Ok, saying I said things I didn't and refusing to acknowledge it, good to know.(i) So, they enter the aura and take damage, then they attack. Why is two rounds of damage necessary? (ii) This is not how the spell is intended to work. If that is the case then it is likely a big source of difficulties and confusion. Running the game that way is fine, but it is going to make the spell more powerful, while doing the opposite of the OT "making melee combat more competitive with ranged".Even with both of these, I still don't see how they weren't able to get off a single melee attack. Are you even talking about the same example? The one which talked about Gnolls with spears getting into their short range? The one where apparently the Cleric took maybe 40 attacks, none of them melee?But the mechanics don't actually produce those results. The Gnolls are not going to be one-shot, or even necessarily two-shot AFAICT. They can move 15 feet in and melee, which is the farthest they could have to go, they can throw their spears at close range as the OP mentioned, or they can throw their spears from long range. Not to whom, to what. Situations where ranged has an advantage over melee.The rest is pretty much nothing to do with the question, which was not whether mechanics can change the degree to which ranged is situationaly better than melee, which was never in dispute. It was simply whether or not it is possible in pretty much any TTRPG that somewhat approximates reality (ie; any form of D&D) for GMs to construct situations where ranged is better.</blockquote>

Verification