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

[Horwath]

Solution #2 (make creatures faster by allowing them to dash as a bonus action as well as an action if moving in a straight line or some variation thereof) is one I like as it gives more realistic movement speeds.

Triple base movement, or 90 feet per round for humans, gives a speed of 10.2 mph. That's a speed most adventurer types could maintain for a short period of time if modestly encumbered. It just has the added benefit of enabling people to close the gap to melee faster.

I added the run bonus action:
If you take the Dash action and you move whole movement in straight line on non difficult terrain, you can take Run bonus action to continue to move in straight line equal to your move speed.


Sent from my HummerLE using EN World mobile app

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] you've gone well past my tolerance for condescending knowitallism, so I'm done discussing this with you. I played no games, nor did I base anything on assumptions.

If you're seeing a lot of archer fighters that are just as tough as the average full plate melee fighter, your game is unusual. The classes that are built to be fast ranged guys are less durable than the fighter, paladin, and Barbarian. Oddball builds don't change that.

You have a hang up and some confirmation bias.

<shrug> have fun wth that.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

This is exactly why fantasy games does everything in their power to reduce and nerf those advantages.

Weak ranged attacks and slow combat movement are not coincidental rules of most fantasy rpgs.

These rules were invented for a reason, and that reason is fantasy games don't want historical combat - fantasy games idolize Conanesque combat where brawn and courage is paramount and where smarts and reflexes does you little good.

The same with hit points. The main reason for hit points is to reduce the importance of hitting first. And, pointedly, range is the most helpful trait if you need to hit first.

In essence, every combat rule in fantasy is engineered to work against the old adage "don't bring a sword to a gun fight". In the most extreme fantasy depictions, it's almost the reverse "don't bring a gun to a sword fight".

Huh? Wasn't your earlier complaint that ranged attacks are too strong? Oh wait, went through some old posts. You're hard to follow sometimes...

Regardless, your points about the actual effectiveness of ranged weapons in 5e is considerably higher than in the past is totally correct: A creature with a longbow can take 10 shots before an average creature (using Dash) can close for melee. With the sharpshooter feat, that's not even at a disadvantage.

Ranged weapons are much better in 5e than they originally were in AD&D. Then, you could move 120 feet (yards outdoors), with a charge bonus of 33-1/3% (160 yards total) outside, or double inside (240 feet total), and you had two attacks/round with a longbow. Long range was 210 feet (yards outside) which was also specified as the maximum range. Medium and long range carried penalties to hit on top of the various penalties against specific armor types. So indoors you'd get two attacks, outdoors up to 4 against a charging (running/dashing) creature. Furthermore, AD&D had rules for shooting into melee (you basically rolled a random target).

So in 5e a longbow is more than double the number of attacks as 1e against a creature closing for melee that starts at maximum range, and there are fewer penalties. And sharpshooter improves ranged attacks even more.

If the rules work as written, even with disadvantage on their attacks, 6 hobgoblin archers outdoors could conceivably shoot 60 arrows before your party closes for melee. And they could be behind cover, foiling all but your sharpshooter for that period. And you don't think that they would take advantage of that? Then consider 6 5th-leve fighters that could double that rate of fire. Or a single 20th level fighter than can shoot 18 arrows in a single round by using Action surge, and then another 27 arrows for the remaining 9 rounds for a total of 45 by himself, without magical assistance. All before a melee opponent gets to attack.

More realistically, ranged weapons are deadly, but with certain weapons (bows/crossbows), their effectiveness are reduced considerably as you get to longer ranges. Even the concept of large volleys of arrows at long range has been questioned historically. They were most effective at shorter ranges, and in groups. Early guns weren't all that much better. Their main advantage initially was their armor penetrating capabilities (vs bow/crossbow) combined with requiring little training, like crossbows. Modern games are totally different because modern guns completely change the equation.

My goal is much like AD&D at the time - to model combat relatively realistically with a relatively abstract system. I'm not concerned with enabling melee combat and my rules reflect the pros and cons of brawn and smarts. My expectation is that the PCs will make use of cover and ranged weapons first whenever possible. And then find a way to close for melee to eliminate any advantage the opponent has due to cover and ranged weapons.

While I agree with most of what you propose for reducing the excessive effectiveness of ranged weapons, I'm not interested in making them less effective than they were historically either. They had a niche in medieval warfare and combat, and can serve the same niche in D&D.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I assume you're joking since it seems like a sucky character - no Smite with your primary weapon, no Archery style...

The various Smite spells work with ranged weapons.

I think if you are going for an archer Paladin then a dip or two in Fighter is great, to get things like Archery Fighting Style.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, it ain't a great damage dealer, true. But the Defense style would work. And those slots can still be used for something other than smiting. So it would be a more utility focused character than pumping out damage.

There is at least one Smite spell that doesn't require melee. A vengeance Paladin using Hunter's Mark, and occasionally casting that Smite Spell, will be fine.

Now if only you could multi-class out of Paladin with a 10 strength...

 

[corwyn77]

There is at least one Smite spell that doesn't require melee. A vengeance Paladin using Hunter's Mark, and occasionally casting that Smite Spell, will be fine.

Now if only you could multi-class out of Paladin with a 10 strength...

I'm not sure what you mean by Smite Spells, but both Smite and Improved Smite class features require a melee weapon to use.

I agree that stat requirements for both/all MC classes is kinda lame.

 

[Satyrn]

I'm not sure what you mean by Smite Spells, but both Smite and Improved Smite class features require a melee weapon to use.

I agree that stat requirements for both/all MC classes is kinda lame.

He means the various spells with smite in the name.

 

[corwyn77]

He means the various spells with smite in the name.

Sorry, I forgot about those; still, AFAICT, there are only 2 that aren't melee, and one of theme is 5th level and Branding Smite is very circumstantial. I'm pretty sure I'd rather go fighter or Rogue.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, I forgot about those; still, AFAICT, there are only 2 that aren't melee, and one of theme is 5th level and Branding Smite is very circumstantial. I'm pretty sure I'd rather go fighter or Rogue.

That's great for you. Has nothing to do with the proposed Paladin Archer, though.

I've seen a few Paladins as it is who never use the Smite class features, bc they would rather cast spells with those slots.

 

[CapnZapp]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] you've gone well past my tolerance for condescending knowitallism, so I'm done discussing this with you. I played no games, nor did I base anything on assumptions.

If you're seeing a lot of archer fighters that are just as tough as the average full plate melee fighter, your game is unusual. The classes that are built to be fast ranged guys are less durable than the fighter, paladin, and Barbarian. Oddball builds don't change that.

You have a hang up and some confirmation bias.

have fun wth that.

Since this is our last exchange on the matter, allow me to be direct and allow me to be blunt:

You don't see it yet, because your characters are not sufficiently optimized.

If you consider well-built characters "oddballs" there really is not much else to say.

I have never claimed ranged characters can match the superior AC of a minmaxed tank. But I do say you're paying an awful lot of offense to get so high AC - it simply isn't worth it.

The secret is getting *good enough* defense, and then focus everything else on offense.

Including ways to get your gun to bear. The end analysis is that range provides a superior solution.

Another way of saying this is: the quality of "range" itself is undercosted in 5e. It simply doesn't cost you enough (in weaker abilities elsewhere) to gain
a) the capability to make attacks at foes further away than your move
b) the equally important ability to deny monsters their melee attacks.

Try a variant human Battlemaster Fighter that picks Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert feats, and the Precision Attack maneuver, before you denounce my findings as "oddball".

You will find that this character remains a sturdy Fighter, with all the hit points, AC and abilities that come with that class. Perhaps not as sturdy as the battleaxe+shield dwarf, but sturdy *enough*, and much sturdier than most other "Strikers".

This character is equally adept in combat at 5 ft range (melee) as 95 ft range. He never loses an attack because he can't reach the next monster.

He dual-wields better than any two-weapon fighter. He gains the most important ability of the Greatweapon wielder. He can wear Half or Full Plate, and when absolutely surrounded, can whip out a Shield and start dodging.

There is absolutely no merit to the idea that as a "striker" or "lurker" he needs to be considerably weaker just because he didn't pick a melee weapon.

All of that is just "oldedition-itis". It simply is old expectations that are no longer true, once you examine the rules for what they really are.

Have a nice day.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app