Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 8170149" data-attributes="member: 7026594"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":ROFLMAO:" title="ROFL&nbsp; &nbsp; :ROFLMAO:"&nbsp; data-smilie="18"data-shortname=":ROFLMAO:" /> They are categorically different. As is apparent to anyone who's wielded them or watched people do so. ¯\(ツ)/¯Someone with no eyes clearly can't see, but someone with the game ability &quot;Blindsight&quot; can &quot;see&quot; for combative purposes.I concur that if you want to be more heavily simulationist than 5E assumes, you could certainly say that slow-moving Oozes don't threaten the area around them the way other creatures do, and thus perhaps rule that they don't impose disadvantage on Ranged attackers adjacent to them or make opportunity attacks.&nbsp; On the other hand, you could equally easily just envision oozes as having quick-lashing pseudopods to justify them having the same rules for those things as other creatures under the RAW.Intended not as a suggestion but just as an example of an alternative rule to simulate the vulnerability of ranged fighters engaged with melee fighters, and the unsuitability of ranged weapons for defending from same.&nbsp; The one used in 3.x.Right; here you accurately identify that folks are talking about (at least) three different reasons to retain the 5E limitation on use of Ranged attacks in melee.&nbsp; One is based on game balance, another on fiction emulation, a third on simulating real world dynamics of missile combatants vs. melee combatants.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mannahnin, post: 8170149, member: 7026594"] :ROFLMAO: They are categorically different. As is apparent to anyone who's wielded them or watched people do so. ¯\[I](ツ)[/I]/¯ Someone with no eyes clearly can't see, but someone with the game ability "Blindsight" can "see" for combative purposes. I concur that if you want to be more heavily simulationist than 5E assumes, you could certainly say that slow-moving Oozes don't threaten the area around them the way other creatures do, and thus perhaps rule that they don't impose disadvantage on Ranged attackers adjacent to them or make opportunity attacks. On the other hand, you could equally easily just envision oozes as having quick-lashing pseudopods to justify them having the same rules for those things as other creatures under the RAW. Intended not as a suggestion but just as an example of an alternative rule to simulate the vulnerability of ranged fighters engaged with melee fighters, and the unsuitability of ranged weapons for defending from same. The one used in 3.x. Right; here you accurately identify that folks are talking about (at least) three different reasons to retain the 5E limitation on use of Ranged attacks in melee. One is based on game balance, another on fiction emulation, a third on simulating real world dynamics of missile combatants vs. melee combatants. [/QUOTE]

Verification