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

[Cyrinishad]

One question I have is - do you keep track of arrow breakage? Encumbrance? If you house-ruled that stuff away, then that is a side-effect and part of the problem. I've played in both kinds of campaigns, and when archers can be absolutely assured they have infinite ammunition, that gives them a significant power boost.

When they have to be a little careful with ammo, then they will not become one-trick wonders. I've seen that from both sides of the table. You don't want to starve them just to be punitive, but if Wizards run out of Magic Missiles occasionally, Archers can run out of arrows too.

It also means when they're getting low on ammo, it's easy to have them encounter foes with bows and arrows that can be looted (that maybe use the same tactics hehe) - or even finding a dead body with a partial quiver.

Great point, and one that cannot be stated enough when it comes to game balance. Enforcing encumbrance and ammunition is an important aspect to ensure the Ranged builds aren't being advantaged disproportionately.

I'll also throw +1 toward the folks that mentioned using Mounted Enemies in outdoor combats... Cavalry is an essential tool for medieval combats.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Great point, and one that cannot be stated enough when it comes to game balance. Enforcing encumbrance and ammunition is an important aspect to ensure the Ranged builds aren't being advantaged disproportionately.

I'll also throw +1 toward the folks that mentioned using Mounted Enemies in outdoor combats... Cavalry is an essential tool for medieval combats.

Yes. In general, having mounted and ranged opponents is a big thing. They were huge advantages historically. And I also agree with the ammunition aspect. D&D's basic 1/2 of your ammunition is damaged in each combat works really well. But it also takes time to gather ammunition. Time they don't always have...

Another occasional challenge that will alter those ranged attacks outdoors - fog.

 

[randrak]

UPDATE

I talked to the ranged fighters (Artificer Gunsmith and Ranger/Rogue) and they claim that their characters are supposed to be "Ranged fighters" so they will keep doing it as long as enemies keep getting close.

Then we had a session... (first for the rogue/ranger, third fight with the gunsmith and the barbarian)

They fought a large group of berserkers (10 warriors and 1 caster). The two ranged fighters got over 150 feet away from the enemy and the party's tank. They took little damage, but the tank got taken down and they were too far away to stabilize the tank in time... resulting in the tank's death.

 

[Waterbizkit]

UPDATE

I talked to the ranged fighters (Artificer Gunsmith and Ranger/Rogue) and they claim that their characters are supposed to be "Ranged fighters" so they will keep doing it as long as enemies keep getting close.

Then we had a session... (first for the rogue/ranger, third fight with the gunsmith and the barbarian)

They fought a large group of berserkers (10 warriors and 1 caster). The two ranged fighters got over 150 feet away from the enemy and the party's tank. They took little damage, but the tank got taken down and they were too far away to stabilize the tank in time... resulting in the tank's death.

So to come at this from a slightly different angle, what can you tell us about the nature of your campaign? Is there a reason so many of your combat encounters allow for this sort of scenario? Others have made several suggestions that could help with the issue, though like many I'm also against fabricating an encounter specifically to prevent these tactics.

Basically, if the way the encounters are "naturally" occurring allow for this tactic it's fairly valid for them to use it. But if the encounters organically pop up in an environment where they can't get this sort of distance that's fine too. In the end it depends on how things are playing out in story of your campaign and how these encounters are being... er... encountered.

As a quick final note, if their allies keep getting diced because they're doing this then perhaps the characters (not the players to make this especially clear) are going to have trouble finding new party members. How many characters are going to want to team up with the duo who have developed a reputation for letting their fellows get slaughtered while they watch from a safe distance?

 

[randrak]

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 brought the tank back as a revenant, because she is the character with the deepest and most elaborate history (against the others which are new characters). She also has plot reasons that make the return as a revenant completely possible and makes sense. However, the player has already said that if this keeps up that he will just reroll a ranged character and let them handle themselves.

 

[billd91]

UPDATE

I talked to the ranged fighters (Artificer Gunsmith and Ranger/Rogue) and they claim that their characters are supposed to be "Ranged fighters" so they will keep doing it as long as enemies keep getting close.

Then we had a session... (first for the rogue/ranger, third fight with the gunsmith and the barbarian)

They fought a large group of berserkers (10 warriors and 1 caster). The two ranged fighters got over 150 feet away from the enemy and the party's tank. They took little damage, but the tank got taken down and they were too far away to stabilize the tank in time... resulting in the tank's death.

Is it just the three players?
I'm not going to tell the ranged players they need to hitch their hit points to the up-close pool, but you might tell them that the party's too small for two ranged specialists if it also includes guys who stand in place. They all need to coordinate better.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As for the general topic, D&D is and has always been geared for the classic party, where noone is ever more than 60 ft away from the action.

The problem with 5e is that it has forgotten that in order to keep it that way, short-range builds and especially slow melee types must be heavily incentivized.

The only reason fantasy features slow Dwarves with axes is because they deal brutal damage and have incredible staying power.

And more to the point - that no fast ranged build can come close to that sort of combat lethality.

Once you realize this, it's immediately apparent D&D has forgotten its roots in its attempt to please the crowd that wants it all, to be able to play virtuous fighters that use speed and range as their weapons.

But you can't have both. In a game where speed and range doesn't unrealistically lower your combat awesomeness below what the slow melee builds can achieve...

...nobody will play slow and short, to put it bluntly.

The only reason you play a Gimli despite the serious handicaps of slow speed and no range is when the game turns those things from a liability into a virtue!

D&D used to do this, but 5e forgot to.

With due respect, I think this idea is...a wild overstatement, at least.

Melee characters are vital to a party in 5e, first of all. A Gimli character isn't handicapped, they just fill a different role than the Legolas.

And 5e gets it quite right in making both lethal and valuable, and fill different roles. i would hate to face a group of enemies of mixed range with 5 archers. It's not like 5e allows suppressive fire.

 

[Satyrn]

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 brought the tank back as a revenant, because she is the character with the deepest and most elaborate history (against the others which are new characters). She also has plot reasons that make the return as a revenant completely possible and makes sense. However, the player has already said that if this keeps up that he will just reroll a ranged character and let them handle themselves.

Yeah, I'd be making a ranged character at that point, too. Probably a paladin so that I can heal myself, and a halfling so I can hide behind my allies.

 

[CapnZapp]

With due respect, I think this idea is...a wild overstatement, at least.

Melee characters are vital to a party in 5e, first of all. A Gimli character isn't handicapped, they just fill a different role than the Legolas.

And 5e gets it quite right in making both lethal and valuable, and fill different roles. i would hate to face a group of enemies of mixed range with 5 archers. It's not like 5e allows suppressive fire.

Yeah, people keep saying that, but I think it's a mixture of old habits, a wishlist, and nostalgia.

Have you truly taken a step back and objectively considered the pros and cons of the slow axe dwarf?

That is, looking at the build with no preconceived notion of what would be cool and what makes sense in the campaign. Only looking at it with cold calculating eyes?

The advantages of staying a melee builds are extremely small. The restrictions on ranged are essentially non existent, once you take SS and CE into account. At the same time, Monster Manual entries simply assume the same old melee-centric game; most monsters are hopelessly outmatched if you deny them melee.

5th edition is doing much less to ensure a melee-centric game than any previous edition I know of.

Welcome to this realization!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, people keep saying that, but I think it's a mixture of old habits, a wishlist, and nostalgia.

Have you truly taken a step back and objectively considered the pros and cons of the slow axe dwarf?

That is, looking at the build with no preconceived notion of what would be cool and what makes sense in the campaign. Only looking at it with cold calculating eyes?

The advantages of staying a melee builds are extremely small. The restrictions on ranged are essentially non existent, once you take SS and CE into account. At the same time, Monster Manual entries simply assume the same old melee-centric game; most monsters are hopelessly outmatched if you deny them melee.

5th edition is doing much less to ensure a melee-centric game than any previous edition I know of.

Welcome to this realization!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

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.

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.

 

[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...)