Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7111969" data-attributes="member: 6778044">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.</blockquote>

Verification