D&D 5E Range/Move Redux

[Jester David]

It's time to discuss the elephant in the room, the way 5th edition forgets that for players to choose slow short-range (melee) characters, the game rules actually need to encourage that.

Now, I can certainly see myself rolling up a grumpy Dwarf character that never touches abow or crossbow, but that's not what I'm talking about here. The game can't rely only on gamers preference to adhere to fantasy archetypes, the game must actually offer real crunchy benefit, or over time, these archetypes will become abandoned.

In short: the reason people have been playing grumpy Axe Dwarves all these years isn't (entirely) because of Tolkien and other fantasy role models. It is because D&D has always made sure to give you benefits when you create such a character!

I disagree.
Not everyone makes characters based on optimisation reasons. Honestly, I think the majority of players do make characters they want because they adhere to a character archetype, being the type or character or trope they want to play.

Sure, some players make their characters based on subtle encouragement by the rules. But I don't think that's "the norm". Some players might pick a character based on an absence in the party, opt to make a PC based on a fictional character (be it books or movies), pick a combination they haven't done before, or even - like I'm currently doing - base their character on a cool mini they've never had a chance to use at the table.

After all, if *everyone* made their character based entirely on optimisation, they wouldn't have nearly been as many Drizzt clones in 2e/3e.

 

[FrogReaver]

Also, "Ranged is clearly superior, so I'm playing an archer so I can hang back," might make perfect sense. Until the rest of the players follow suit and all decide to join you in making ranged focused characters, too. Then you have no meat shields to hold the monsters at bay while you pluck away from a safe distance.

Not a problem! Just have a really fast scout You all stay way back from him and when he sees the monsters he starts running back

 

[CapnZapp]

I disagree.
Not everyone makes characters based on optimisation reasons. Honestly, I think the majority of players do make characters they want because they adhere to a character archetype, being the type or character or trope they want to play.

Sure, some players make their characters based on subtle encouragement by the rules. But I don't think that's "the norm". Some players might pick a character based on an absence in the party, opt to make a PC based on a fictional character (be it books or movies), pick a combination they haven't done before, or even - like I'm currently doing - base their character on a cool mini they've never had a chance to use at the table.

After all, if *everyone* made their character based entirely on optimisation, they wouldn't have nearly been as many Drizzt clones in 2e/3e.

I don't disagree. I am well aware not everyone makes characters based on optimisation reasons.

But that's not the topic here

 

[Corwin]

Not a problem! Just have a really fast scout You all stay way back from him and when he sees the monsters he starts running back

If the goal is, "Avoid fighting as much as possible," then yeah. Totally. And that's a great setting/playstyle for some. IMO, D&D has never been geared for that approach though. To me it sort of welcomes and encourages doing battle with enemies. But like I said, there are other ways to play it. If that's your bag, more power to you, I guess.

 

[CapnZapp]

Also, "Ranged is clearly superior, so I'm playing an archer so I can hang back," might make perfect sense. Until the rest of the players follow suit and all decide to join you in making ranged focused characters, too. Then you have no meat shields to hold the monsters at bay while you pluck away from a safe distance.

Not a problem! Just have a really fast scout You all stay way back from him and when he sees the monsters he starts running back

Actually, ranged is at its most superior when the rest of the players follow suit and too create ranged characters.

Again, an assumption that used to be true but no longer is: the assumption that just because you build a ranged character you can't be a meatshield.

(If all the party "meatshields" have bows, and rapier & shield, any given one of the "archers hanging back" can instantly transform herself into a "meatshield" and everyone is sturdy enough that no "safe distance" is needed. If all the party meatshields have hand crossbows with CE, they don't even have to switch over to melee weapons.)

 

[FrogReaver]

If the goal is, "Avoid fighting as much as possible," then yeah. Totally. And that's a great setting/playstyle for some. IMO, D&D has never been geared for that approach though. To me it sort of welcomes and encourages doing battle with enemies. But like I said, there are other ways to play it. If that's your bag, more power to you, I guess.

No one said anything about avoiding fighting. The scout is the spotter so the enemies don't get close. Once he spots enemies he lets the archers know and they keep their distance and lines of sight open. If the scout gets ambushed then hes fast enough to outrun the enemies...

And here you were thinking a tank to stand in front of the enemies would be better phhhh

If any single archer does happen to get engaged he uses the dodge action and calls for help. The other archers focus on the enemies near him...

 

[CapnZapp]

Some ideas:
1. Lower the chance to hit when attacking further than 30 or 60 ft away. maybe by -2 or -3 and I think your problem would mostly be solved even with no other changes.

I agree. Much of the problem is if I want to stay true to the 5e simplicity ethos.

I'll have to think about this. Removing the +2 bonus from Archery as well as adding a -2 penalty from 31 ft onwards would go a considerable way of subtly encouraging melee and short-range builds.

I was thinking of doing this, and tying the range that the -2 kicks in to STR, like for every point of STR they have they get 5' range without penalty. At STR 12 that is a respectable 60'. This might end up being a little too fussy, although I would really love to have STR matter with range.

Edited to Add: STR doesn't matter for spellcasting, so it would probably be better to have a fixed range that the penalty kicked in at because of spell attacks.

A fixed range would probably be best overall, yes.

(If you look at the range of Strength-dependant weapons, you'll realize that it's more like 2 ft per point of Strength. And and that point it's simpler to just go "30 feet")

 

[Jester David]

I don't disagree. I am well aware not everyone makes characters based on optimisation reasons.

But that's not the topic here

Okay, the topic is kinda about "fixing" melee versus range. That's great, but the set-up for that discussion was preceded by a topic that wholly distracted me and prompted an initial response.
You buried the lead.

Okay, ranged versus melee.
This isn't a 5e issue. Archers are really strong in both 3e/PF and 4e. The ranger was the king of damage in 4e. (And likely earlier, with 2e, but my memories of strong tactics in that game are far, far fuzzier.)
The ability to attack at a distance and let the enemy approach you is always going to be stronger than potentially spending a turn or two getting into range. Being able to attack first and reduce the number of combatants is always going to be a winning strategy.
This has come up in the very similar thread about combatants running off the battlemap.


How do you fix this?


Dropping archer AC or the ability to negate the firing in melee penalty aren't fixes. Because if the archer is even in melee they've failed. Negating the bonus to damage doesn't help either, because the strongest part of Sharpshooter is negating cover and the range penalty.

Reducing range weapon damage one dice step is a possibility. As would reducing ranged weapon ranges across the board. Make long distance accuracy tricky.
Bringing back the Charge action as a default action and adding bonus damage would encourage people to rush into melee.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree. Much of the problem is if I want to stay true to the 5e simplicity ethos.

I'll have to think about this. Removing the +2 bonus from Archery as well as adding a -2 penalty from 31 ft onwards would go a considerable way of subtly encouraging melee and short-range builds.


A fixed range would probably be best overall, yes.

(If you look at the range of Strength-dependant weapons, you'll realize that it's more like 2 ft per point of Strength. And and that point it's simpler to just go "30 feet")

Cover essentially does what you are saying. -2 or -5 to hit. I don't think adding in an additional -2 to hit over 30 or 60 ft away would be any "more complex" than what they did with cover.

I don't wanna see everything give some piddly plus or minus bonus. But having a few more of them than 5e wouldn't be detrimental IMO

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm just crotchety old man, but I don't really subscribe to "building" a dedicated ranged or melee fighter to exclusion of one or the other. In my view, a fighter is someone who is competent at fighting in a variety of situations. Weapons are tools used to do a job and a well rounded fighter should be competent with all of them.

What does a melee only fighter do when confronted by flying opponents with ranged attacks? Does he/she sit down and cry because the bad guys aren't respecting the archetype?

What does a dedicated archer do when surrounded in close quarters? Does he/she pull that sword and go to work or just stand there and bleed?

Adventurers face a variety of challenges and situations. The bounded accuracy of 5E allows you to be well prepared for all of them. Unlike the last couple editions, you don't have to dedicate every last resource to being a one trick pony in order to be deemed competent. Sometimes you do need to engage at range and sometimes the environment doesn't allow for it.

The battle master fighter can be both a good ranged and melee combatant. Some of the coolest maneuvers can be used with both ranged and close combat such as trip, and menacing strike.