D&D 5E Ranged party member keeps running off the map

[corwyn77]

The campaign started with them shipwrecking on an unknown island with a massive jungle. They are in a new continent (after years of playing in the same continent) and know nothing. They have been attacked by dinosaurs, giant apes and beastmen berserkers. It is a very heavy and thick jungle area they are in right now. The last encounter was in a clearer area which was what the beastmen used for rituals.

I really don't see how this environment is that conducive to the problems you are citing. Last encounter aside, how exactly are they drawing 150 foot sight lines in a thick jungle?

 

[FrogReaver]

Keep adding monsters with bows and watch the Melee characters die very quickly or sit there doing nothing... hiding behind whatever cover they can find...

 

[CapnZapp]

Nah, still completely disagree. Many of 5e's monsters can get to you fairly easily if you kite, or even if you fly, and the game assumes a mix of creatures, including enemy casters. Many monsters can survive running at the ranged guy to bash him, which most ranged characters can't survive nearly as well as the dwarf paladin can.

Again the assumptions. You want it to be true, so it must be true.

There is *nothing* in 5e that makes the ranged = fragile assumption true. It's just an assumption that doesn't hold up when examined.

(Now, Paladins are a very strong class, så let's not compare oranges to apples.)

And your game can be played both ways:

Many of 5e's monsters can't get to you at all if you kite, or even if you fly, and published modules seldom include your theoretical "mix of creatures", including enemy casters.

Few monsters can win a battle by running at the ranged guy to bash him. Actually, if you think about it, if they could, the encounter would have been severely over-powered, and that simply almost never happens in this edition.

The game also assumes battle DM will adjust monster capabilities as needed, but that is another ball of twine.

Being slow has always been, and should be, a disadvantage in DnD. The dwarf fighter is valuable anyway, because abnormal DnD game doesn't take place in a featureless field, and feature enemies that the ranged guys can't survive without a tough guy team mate.

Being slow is a disadvantage, yes.

You're seeing my argument backwards. I'm not trying to tell you slow is some kind of benefit. It's not - I'm telling you I have concluded you aren't compensated nearly enough for choosing slow: in this edition, as opposed to every edition before it.

The "ranged guys" can be fighters, complete with exceptional killing ability (SS feat), incredible sturdiness (good enough AC and the same great feature set of any fighter), and still not be inconvenienced in the least when a monster does close to melee (CE feat).

There does not need to be a melee party member. And every ranged member can be the tough guy.

Look, in previous editions all of your assertions were true. We could simply take them for granted, trusting the ruleset to make it so.

I'm saying 5e forgot to make it happen. Try it - you will be surprised, and you will ask yourself why anybody (with cold analytical gaze) is still rolling up a melee fighter, a slow axe dwarf...!


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Keep adding monsters with bows and watch the Melee characters die very quickly or sit there doing nothing... hiding behind whatever cover they can find...

I don't get it.

The problem is that his campaign has too much ranged combat, and you suggest adding more...?

The crux of the issue is that the game is geared for, and expecting, melee combat to be the standard and norm.

So the question we should be asking ourselves is: how do we gently steer the players towards predominantly choosing melee builds and "slow axe dwarfs"?

Once the players have figured out that 5e doesn't really make you pay a cost to roll up gunsmiths and other assorted ranged characters, there really aren't much you can do, since that's not how the game is supposed to be played.

Adding ranged monsters might increase the challenge level, but it doesn't actually solve the problem, which is that the players are avoiding melee and short range combat.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't get it.

The problem is that his campaign has too much ranged combat, and you suggest adding more...?

The crux of the issue is that the game is geared for, and expecting, melee combat to be the standard and norm.

So the question we should be asking ourselves is: how do we gently steer the players towards predominantly choosing melee builds and "slow axe dwarfs"?

Once the players have figured out that 5e doesn't really make you pay a cost to roll up gunsmiths and other assorted ranged characters, there really aren't much you can do, since that's not how the game is supposed to be played.

Adding ranged monsters might increase the challenge level, but it doesn't actually solve the problem, which is that the players are avoiding melee and short range combat.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I didn't propose to add more monsters with bows. I made an observation about what happens when you do.

Keep adding monsters with bows and watch the Melee characters die very quickly or sit there doing nothing... hiding behind whatever cover they can find...

Maybe read more than the first 5 words of a post before replying?

 

[CheezyRamen]

Again the assumptions. You want it to be true, so it must be true.

There is *nothing* in 5e that makes the ranged = fragile assumption true. It's just an assumption that doesn't hold up when examined.

(Now, Paladins are a very strong class, så let's not compare oranges to apples.)

And your game can be played both ways:

Many of 5e's monsters can't get to you at all if you kite, or even if you fly, and published modules seldom include your theoretical "mix of creatures", including enemy casters.

Few monsters can win a battle by running at the ranged guy to bash him. Actually, if you think about it, if they could, the encounter would have been severely over-powered, and that simply almost never happens in this edition.


Being slow is a disadvantage, yes.

You're seeing my argument backwards. I'm not trying to tell you slow is some kind of benefit. It's not - I'm telling you I have concluded you aren't compensated nearly enough for choosing slow: in this edition, as opposed to every edition before it.

The "ranged guys" can be fighters, complete with exceptional killing ability (SS feat), incredible sturdiness (good enough AC and the same great feature set of any fighter), and still not be inconvenienced in the least when a monster does close to melee (CE feat).

There does not need to be a melee party member. And every ranged member can be the tough guy.

Look, in previous editions all of your assertions were true. We could simply take them for granted, trusting the ruleset to make it so.

I'm saying 5e forgot to make it happen. Try it - you will be surprised, and you will ask yourself why anybody (with cold analytical gaze) is still rolling up a melee fighter, a slow axe dwarf...!


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I may be wrong but doesn't armor hamper movement? Dwarves move 25 ft regardless of wearing full plate. Maybe early game it's. A bit of a set back but in my experience if your party line up is thought out then in a low level cave/dungeon what have you this isnt really a problem. Especially since fighters can still use ranged weapons, I agree its not optimized but say if they were to utilize thrown weapons then I actually don't see a downside. An axe dwarf wearing heavy armor with throwing axes as backup I think is VERY viable in 5e.

Completely agree though that you don't need it. But, that's a strong point to 5e I think. You really don't NEED anyone. Not even a cleric.

 

[CapnZapp]

I didn't propose to add more monsters with bows. I made an observation about what happens when you do.



Maybe read more than the first 5 words of a post before replying?

So your post was saying "don't add more monsters with bows"?

If so I apologize, I read you completely backwards. I entirely agree adding more monsters with bows isn't solving the problem.

 

[FrogReaver]

So your post was saying "don't add more monsters with bows"?

If so I apologize, I read you completely backwards. I entirely agree adding more monsters with bows isn't solving the problem.

No problem. I totally agree. Adding more longer ranged opponents with bows just makes melee even less desirable.

 

[CapnZapp]

I may be wrong but doesn't armor hamper movement?

No.

Completely agree though that you don't need it. But, that's a strong point to 5e I think. You really don't NEED anyone. Not even a cleric.

Well, that's taking the "having X be not required is always a good thing" argument too far.

The entire game, from monster design to spell design to published adventure design, are all predicated on an unwritten assumption - that at least one party member can't outrun the monsters and that at least one party member does not "outrange" the monsters (meaning that he or she needs to stay just as close as monsters do).

In my opinion this unwritten assumption must at least partially be reinforced by actual game mechanics.

 

[CapnZapp]

No problem. I totally agree. Adding more longer ranged opponents with bows just makes melee even less desirable.

...which make it a problem, not a solution, right?

By this I mean: if you add more ranged opponents to an already-ranged party, you only validate and reinforce their decision. When the real problem was them choosing range in the first place. In effect, you have accomplished exactly the opposite of a solution - you have validated exactly the decision you *don't* want them to take.

(If we are on the same wavelength, I don't need to tell you this FrogReaver - but there are more readers to the thread...)