D&D 5E Range/Move Redux

[FrogReaver]

Anyone firing a two-handed ranged weapon on his turn has his movement reduced in half or his attacks are made at disadvantage.

Combine that with my other suggestion that for some number of turns per short rest (Con mod + 1, for example) all creatures may Dash as a bonus action if they also take Dash as an action and ranged characters won't be able to fire and flee pursuing creatures.

A human can now run 90 feet a turn and the kiting bowman can only move 15 feet a turn. The distance is closed 75 feet per round instead of 30 feet per round.

Not a bad idea but I guess my biggest question is how many rounds should it take for a melee character to get beside the archer and how many rounds before he should get to attack him. Keep in mind the typical 5e combat lasts 4 rounds. Keep in mind that initiative will change the number of ranged attacks the archer has a chance to get off. So 0-1 rounds before melee opponenet becomes adjacent or 1-2 or 2-3 or 3-4.

I think for the archer 2-3 is the sweet spot. I should be able to do my thing at least half of the typical combat IMO. However, giving the archer 2-3 turns before something gets adjacent is probably too good if the archer is still doing nearly the same damage as melee fighters.

Fixing the archer is going to require more than just a range and move speed adjustment. Essentially we need a range, movespeed and damage nerf while enemies get movement buffs.

 

[Corwin]

It's not much of a game if all the enemies run from you and hole up at first sight...

Its almost no fun when someone makes your argument for you...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

4e tried this, limiting longbows to 20/40 (or 100 to 200 feet). The problem was, historically English longbows could easily hit 100 to 200 yards, so it was a pretty hefty reduction of "realism" for the sake of game balance and making other tropes viable. It was nerfing Legolas so Gimli would be "balanced".

Bear in mind though, that those sort of ranges were achieved in mass combat rather than in the individual combat of typical adventurers.
Its one thing to loft a shaft into a formation of troops, but quite another to be able to hit an individual person able to move around at that sort of range. The sheer travel time becomes an issue.
Also bear in mind that these were high-poundage warbows, not something usable by someone with the muscle tone of an elastic band - such as a Str-dumped D&D archer.

Adding an "aim" action might be one way to have balance. Slashing bow range when firing-on-the-run.
So you can make a snapshot at a close target at point blank range (within 60 feet) and then move. But if the target is farther away you need to stop an aim, which prevents movement (let's say within 200 feet). And any farther away and aiming is an action, as the arrow takes time to fly and you need to adjust for their movement during that time.

It is definitely harder to hit a target at reasonable range if you're trying to move. Even a sprint-stop-shoot-sprint isn't as effective as actually having time to draw and aim. I'd have suggested Disadvantage, but that wouldn't stack with the range penalties currently.

 

[Jester David]

Bear in mind though, that those sort of ranges were achieved in mass combat rather than in the individual combat of typical adventurers.
Its one thing to loft a shaft into a formation of troops, but quite another to be able to hit an individual person able to move around at that sort of range. The sheer travel time becomes an issue.
Also bear in mind that these were high-poundage warbows, not something usable by someone with the muscle tone of an elastic band - such as a Str-dumped D&D archer.


It is definitely harder to hit a target at reasonable range if you're trying to move. Even a sprint-stop-shoot-sprint isn't as effective as actually having time to draw and aim. I'd have suggested Disadvantage, but that wouldn't stack with the range penalties currently.

Maybe you can't add your proficiency bonus to attacks unless you stop to aim?

 

[Leatherhead]

Axe dwarves belong in the dungeon. If an axe dwarf is in an open field, they are screwed, which is why they always live underground in tunnels.

In order to make the axe dwarf "viable" in any situation outside of the dungeon, you would have to make ranged non-viable. And I mean that literally, there is no other solution. A bow using elf and an axe using dwarf cannot both exist as separate viable options in an open plain.

You can

• Totally gut ranged damage to the point where it is pointless to fire a bow, in order to give melee time to get in striking range. (which only works if there is limited range to the encounter mind you)
• Bring back tower shields, granting total cover to melee units until they are within strike distance.
• Give ranged units paper thin defenses that will crumple whenever anything hurts them, and they will eventually be hurt because such a measure doesn't count if they can't bleed.

In a game where players controlled more than one unit, there are ways to tweak the numbers. But in a game like D&D, where one player controls one character, you are stuck with a paradox. To make the Axe Dwarf live, you must kill the Bow Elf.






Or you can avoid the problem by using dungeons.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thank you all. After a bit of vacation I've reached the conclusion I can't/won't/shouldn't remove Dex damage from ranged weapons (or funnel it through Fighting Styles) - it simply hoses a number of secondary-fighter builds.

The dash and bonus dash idea I've seen proposed earlier, and it's a good one. Restricting movement OTOH is something I'm wary of, since I remember the bad old days of d20 and saw the joy that was the continously changing battlefields of 4e combat. Trying to nerf kiting is commendable, but making some characters (=archers) inflexible and static is probably not a good idea.

I will have to keep looking at the things 5e removed from 3e and try to figure out a new combination. I'll get back to you.

 

[CapnZapp]

In order to make the axe dwarf "viable" in any situation outside of the dungeon, you would have to make ranged non-viable. And I mean that literally, there is no other solution. A bow using elf and an axe using dwarf cannot both exist as separate viable options in an open plain.

This post entirely ignores the existence of d20. What's more, it basically says "D&D no longer supports the most archetypical party of all - the Fellowship of the Ring - and that's okay". In other words, I will disregard it completely.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This post entirely ignores the existence of d20. What's more, it basically says "D&D no longer supports the most archetypical party of all - the Fellowship of the Ring - and that's okay". In other words, I will disregard it completely.

How exactly is the axe dwarf viable at 100 yards in d20? It has been a while since I played that system but if I recall, it was even worse for the poor little guy. In addition to having to close the distance the poor dwarf only gets one attack on the round that he gets there. The full attack routine required standing still and hacking.

 

[CapnZapp]

How exactly is the axe dwarf viable at 100 yards in d20? It has been a while since I played that system but if I recall, it was even worse for the poor little guy. In addition to having to close the distance the poor dwarf only gets one attack on the round that he gets there. The full attack routine required standing still and hacking.

5e has shifted the melee balance towards ranged in almost a dozen ways. While you are correct you couldn't move/charge and do a full round attack, that also meant archers couldn't "peekaboo":

In 5e, archers can stay in total cover when it's not their turn, move forward into the open, fire all attacks with no penalties, and then retreat back into safety. It may be cheesy, but it's completely by the book.

So it's not as if removing that rule exactly benefitted melee over ranged...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[ccs]

I think you are right and the problem is the ranges. 300ft means the average enemy will take 5/6 turns to get to the archer. In a game where 4/5 turns is all the fights usually last that's a problem. If the archer is in the position to kite back as he fires then that 5/6 turns becomes 10-12 turns.

Even an archer 100ft away will cause an average monster to use 2 of its 4 turns just to get beside him (still not attacking him yet). If he kites back 30ft the monster will take 3 turns to get beside him but will be able to attack him on its 3rd turn.

When fights last 4 or 5 rounds having the archer be half the fight away is to much. (and that's just at 100ft away).

The world I envision is one where the archer typically has 1 turn to fire before monsters are upon him. And they attack him the second round. I don't think 5e rules allow this to happen and I think it would be very hard to get them to allow this to happen. I also think it needs to be easier to switch from a bow to a melee weapon.

The issue is that in 5e terms there is no range where an archer can be gotten to and attack on turn 2 that he could not be reached on turn 1. At least when considering enemies with movement equal to his.

Start him 60 ft away and the enemy wins initative its on top him. Start him 65 ft away and the archer wins initiative and shots then kits back 30 ft he's now 95 ft away. The enemy runs towards him 60ft. 35 ft away. The archer shoots and kites back again and is 65 ft away. The enemy still can't reach him and its been 2 full turns...

Similarly if they are 65 ft away and the enemy wins iniative then the enemy can get just outside melee range. The archer then moves back 30 ft and shoots. The enemy then runs up beside the archer and does nothing. In other words there's no point that the archer is guaranteed to get 1 shot off but is likewise guaranteed to still be hit on the 2nd turn. It can happen depending on initiative.

Maybe we just need archers to not be able to move and shoot and have shorter max ranges. Nothing over 150 ft. Maybe nothing over 90 ft.

Sounds like you need to run your combats on something other than an empty endless plain.