D&D 5E there aren't enough slow Dwarves with Axes! ;)

[CapnZapp]

In any case, it's off-topic for this thread which is for people who do find it a problem and want to work on solutions, rather than the thread become a deluge of "you're playing it wrong" posts.

Thank you Knasser

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem I see you trying to address is that there aren't enough slow dwarves; not that you must turn everyone into one. The archer is also a staple of D&D. Your problem is the whole or most of the party going that way rendering melee monsters helpless. So long as it's just one or sometimes two PCs hanging back, I think success has been achieved.

Exactly. You have read me just the way I intended. Thx

 

[Sunseeker]

Yet the game offers none of that out of the box.

I certainly will not revert to the 3e way of creating NPCs, so I will proudly and emphatically denounce your "monsters can have pc levels" claim. No they won't, not unless you're willing to do the work I want to pay WotC to do for me.

You're suggesting massive houseruling of the way archery works, but giving an Orc class levels is too much work?

 

[Sunseeker]

Now you are talking about real life.

D&D is different, has always been different and should in my opinion remain different.

Cheers

So do you want contrived or non-contrived? You're being very inconsistent here. Your problem isn't archery anyway, it's this:

None of my experienced gamers choose to play a “regular” fighter, as typified by the slow but strong Dwarf with his trusty battleaxe.

You have powergamers. They powergamed. You can't throw good old brute monsters at powergames (regardless of if they're archers or hotdog purveyors) and expect them to be successful.

 

[CapnZapp]

You're suggesting massive houseruling of the way archery works, but giving an Orc class levels is too much work?

This is actually quite an important question, since if you the reader don't know the answer to Shidaku's question I can't expect you to understand.

The answer is:

I want to make a change once. That makes for a level playing field where everything is out in the open, already before players create characters.

What I don't want to do is to change Orcs. And then change Goblins. And then change Grimlocks. And then change Owlbears. And then change Veterans. And then change Spectres. And then change Vampires. And then change Drow Elite Warriors. And then change Fire Elemental Myrmidons. And then change Juiblex. And then change...

So hell yes is my reply to Shidaku's question

 

[CapnZapp]

You have powergamers. They powergamed. You can't throw good old brute monsters at powergames (regardless of if they're archers or hotdog purveyors) and expect them to be successful.

What's your point here Shidaku.

If you expect me to accept how 5E fails to keep the level of quality given to us in 3E and 4E by serving up platitudes, you have failed.

I'm quite capable of tweaking encounters to match my heroes' capabilities. That's not what I am discussing.

I am identifying a fundamental rift between the characters the game enables and the characters the game expects. I am telling you this rift is wider than possibly ever before. I am saying this isn't because some fundamental design decisions that can't be easily mended without rewriting the core rules engine (like in, say, d20).

Instead, I am identifying the specific rules changes that collectively make this happen. Rolling back one or more of them is comparatively minor and easy and with great possible benefits in the ways you no longer need to reengineer half the entire MM.

Now, if you have an opinion on that, or any other constructive criticism, I'm happy to hear it.

 

[Sunseeker]

This is actually quite an important question, since if you the reader don't know the answer to Shidaku's question I can't expect you to understand.

The answer is:

I want to make a change once. That makes for a level playing field where everything is out in the open, already before players create characters.

What I don't want to do is to change Orcs. And then change Goblins. And then change Grimlocks. And then change Owlbears. And then change Veterans. And then change Spectres. And then change Vampires. And then change Drow Elite Warriors. And then change Fire Elemental Myrmidons. And then change Juiblex. And then change...

So hell yes is my reply to Shidaku's question

*shrug* I have far more trouble getting players to understand new rules than I do making some generic soldiers, wizards and rogues and slapping them on Orc bodies. It's even easier now with a base model from Volo.

 

[knasser]

Well said. I guess it strongly depends on "combat as a sport" vs "combat as war" view of the game. Slow axe dwarves are already inherently disadvantaged in "combat as war"... I still am very, very surprised that dex applies to damage.

I've never heard the phrasing "combat as sport vs combat as war" views on the game, but now that you highlight it to me, I think it really is a fundamental dichotomy for many players or DMs. For me and my group, combat is always a means to an end. If you can find a way to win it more easily, avoid it, change the conditions of it - that's something you do because you're at war and ends justify the means. But if you're a group that views combat as the end itself, that it's a sport to be enjoyed as is - then doing such things are cheating or spoiling the game or breaking it. Such people WANT it to be like that and thus for them, complaining about how the system breaks or doesn't work makes no sense. It's like people turning up to a football match and then not playing football. They don't see the point. But to us, the football match is a means to an end. We don't want to fight the evil necromancer, we want the evil necromancer to be stopped.

Story focused games, realism-focused games - these are naturally inclined to the "combat as war" approach because your goal is not combat, it's whatever the goals of the story or character are. Fascinating way to put it. Combat as War vs. Combat as Sport. I will remember that!

If you can't tell, my group has always been very much the first one.

 

[Imaro]

This is actually quite an important question, since if you the reader don't know the answer to Shidaku's question I can't expect you to understand.

The answer is:

I want to make a change once. That makes for a level playing field where everything is out in the open, already before players create characters.

What I don't want to do is to change Orcs. And then change Goblins. And then change Grimlocks. And then change Owlbears. And then change Veterans. And then change Spectres. And then change Vampires. And then change Drow Elite Warriors. And then change Fire Elemental Myrmidons. And then change Juiblex. And then change...

So hell yes is my reply to Shidaku's question

Switching Weapons
If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, you can replace that weapon with a different one. For example, you could replace a hobgoblin's longsword with a halberd. Don't forget to change the damage and the attack's reach where appropriate...

That should solve your problem with any monsters or NPC's who lack ranged weapons. For others who don't use weapons I would say add a special trait to them and call it a day. Note both of these solutions to your problems are actually a part of the rules and thus 5e does actually address this.

Now if you are allowing feats well it's a given that you need to up your XP budget to account for them since they are optional rules... Personally I would suggest shifting the columns so that an easy encounter uses medium amount, medium uses the hard amount and so on... The other thing is to give the monsters magical weapons that effectively mimic feat abilities... and thus really aren't that useful if your players have the feats already (though personally I don't think that's necessary)

 

[ccs]

I am glad this fix works for you.

It does not for me. Magically placing the foes that close without explaining how they weren't spotted or heard ruins the verisimilitude for us.

In my OotA campaign, perhaps 1 in 6 encounters start that close. Neutral monsters that suddenly attack. Enemies bursting through a door. Undead sailing in from walls and through the floor.

On the other hand, only perhaps 1 in 6 encounters start as far away as 200 ft away.

A more representative range would be that the monsters ambush the heroes from 100-120 ft away. They get one round (the surprise round) before initiative is rolled.

Why (how) would your monsters be routinely ambushing from 100-120 feet away?
( I assume mostly melee monsters here as that's what your complaining about.... )
Dumb beasts know to let prey come within reach before launching an attack.
Thinking things know to let things come within reach/optimal range.