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

[hejtmane]

I have a feeling that the folk who have an issue with ranged weapons in their game are the same ones who insist that the CR guidelines are broken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think way to many people overthink this stuff; here is the issues I seen they want reality (some claim) then when reality is used they get mad because while the sword guy is not dominant the ranged attacks are opps. Then we get into the whole stealth and attack distance a monster will attack blah blah blah. This is a fantasy game for heaven's sake we have people throwing fireballs around like miniature nukes; bending the weather. We gone around and around no there is a second thread for real conversation but it is no different then this one in a lot of ways. The simple solutions are there but from what I read they want to nerf one thing and change entire mechanics instead of changing monster getting to attack at 20 ft vs 100 makes my head spin

 

[knasser]

I'm more interested in the "why" of it (I mean this is a discussion board, right?

It is. And a discussion can be had on why encounters might begin at 120' away. Start a thread and I will happily participate. But this is a specific thread which began explicitly looking to discuss solutions for people who had this issue in their games and asking not to turn this into a small group of posters stridently arguing people are wrong to have the problem.

So why is there this push back against actual discussion of the claim?).

Because it was anticipated, predicatable and will not lead to anything productive and we would like to focus on what we actually see in our games rather than have yet another abstract argument where we have to defend the way we play the game against people who are determined to prove we are playing it wrong. Because such constant attacks on whether or not the thread should exist prevent it actually being useful to the people who created it. Nobody is shutting out you discussing it, they're asking you not to derail the thread. If it is really and truly that mistifying that people should commonly see encounters that start a round's movement apart, then start a thread asking why and I'm certain some of us will explain why.

If it comes up pretty often it shouldn't be a hard question to answer and gives much more insight into a solution than just stating it happens.

It's already been answered. In a game where players or NPCs can act dynamically and the campaign isn't taking place in a series of corridors and rooms, it's both logical and easy for encounters to occur in a wide variety of places and circumstances. No big mystery. If that answer boggles you, PLEASE start a thread asking how such a thing can be and I'm sure you'll be furnished with examples.

 

[RangerWickett]

If the issue is that dwarvish axemen cannot close the distance with elvish archers, how about simply saying

"If you make any ranged attacks, you speed is halved; and you cannot make ranged attacks if you have already moved more than half your speed this turn."

Does darkness reduce your speed in 5e like it did in 3e? Because basically you're focused on aiming, not moving, right? Maybe it should be, if you move more than half your speed in the same turn you make a ranged attack, make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (DC 10) or fall prone.

I mean, in this scene you don't see people running full speed while firing arrows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd0pmvGEumM

(Spoilers for Game of Thrones' latest season.)

Also I'd allow anyone who takes the Dodge action to automatically evade one ranged attack that they're aware of, though they have to choose before the attack roll is made.

 

[Imaro]

It is. And a discussion can be had on why encounters might begin at 120' away. Start a thread and I will happily participate. But this is a specific thread which began explicitly looking to discuss solutions for people who had this issue in their games and asking not to turn this into a small group of posters stridently arguing people are wrong to have the problem.

Nothing in the OP states dissenting opinion should not be voiced... again if you make a statement on a discussion forum, expect all aspects of said statement to be discussed...

Because it was anticipated, predicatable and will not lead to anything productive and we would like to focus on what we actually see in our games rather than have yet another abstract argument where we have to defend the way we play the game against people who are determined to prove we are playing it wrong. Because such constant attacks on whether or not the thread should exist prevent it actually being useful to the people who created it. Nobody is shutting out you discussing it, they're asking you not to derail the thread. If it is really and truly that mistifying that people should commonly see encounters that start a round's movement apart, then start a thread asking why and I'm certain some of us will explain why.

Wait it was predictable and even anticipated that not everyone would agree with the statements in the OP... color me shocked, and yet nowhere in the OP does it state only those who agree with my premise can post here. You want that maybe you should go start a thread for that and make it clear in the first post only those of like-mind are allowed to post in it.

Also... what characters (without some type of special ability around movement) can cover 120ft to 100ft in a round? If they could it shouldn't be a problem since then melee wepaon wielders could close on ranged characters. See when you make statements like this, it causes me to wonder if maybe the issue isn't the game.

It's already been answered. In a game where players or NPCs can act dynamically and the campaign isn't taking place in a series of corridors and rooms, it's both logical and easy for encounters to occur in a wide variety of places and circumstances. No big mystery. If that answer boggles you, PLEASE start a thread asking how such a thing can be and I'm sure you'll be furnished with examples.

Wrong that's not an answer, since everyone who runs dynamic, campaigns that don't take place in a series of corridors and rooms isn't experiencing the same issues. That means there have to be other factors, what are they? You would think that since they occur in a wide variety of places and circumstances that unless they are 100% controlled by the players (which is an issue in and of itself) there would be some that favor ranged and some that favor melee... why is that not happening in your game, that's how my dynamic campaign that doesn't take place in a series of corridors and rooms plays out? Perhaps if you were more forthcoming with details I could identify your problem(s) and perhaps help you in building better encounters or better DM in-game play with opponents that would alleviate said issues you are experiencing or maybe there's something else that's the answer... instead you've blocked off a path that may have the answers to your issues because... well I'm not exactly sure why... maybe because you've already determined (right or wrong) what you believe the problem to be??

 

[CapnZapp]

I want to know how/why that's the range you're having the foes spring their ambush at as that's a pretty ineffective range. Especially for melee types. If that's truly the representative range your ambushing the party at with melee monsters, then it's no wonder they get mowed down.

And no, if I have creatures lying in ambush (especially melee ones), I have zero problems with them appearing within 20'. That's why it's an ambush afterall.... They wait for prey & spring out of concealed positions.

Because most times I've tried to have my monsters ambush the player characters, they're spotted as soon as I start rolling. They simply can't reliably beat the passive Perception of the monk and cleric.

I will not simply allow monsters to automatically succeed at their hide checks well within regular vision. I hate it when monsters suddenly appear out of "nowhere" without my character having a chance to do anything about it.

Besides, all that would do is slow the game down. The warlock would have his invisible flying familiar scout ahead. If the monsters notice it, sure, it's toast, but so is the element of surprise.

Assuming the ambushers are in plural, chances are not good they will all beat the Imps (fairly non-exceptional) passive perception.

Follow the link. There I suggest possible fixes:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?505967-Sneakity-Sneak

Of course, you should only do so if you have my issue (now that I have hopefully explained it). Otherwise I wish you goodluck with your game.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Ranged is superior to melee. That's why the English Longbowman decimated the French.

Except they didn't. The english longbowman in concert with equal amounts of melee troops trashed french forces of equal size while still taking melee losses. Longbowmen disrupted formations and spread chaos, but they didn't annihilate the enemy.

I'm confused. The penalty for ranged combat with an adjacent foe is disadvantage, which really lowers the impact of your Attack action. How is that too-light?

At low levels you lose a fraction of the damage of a single attack in exchange for avoiding one whole attack.

At higher levels, few monsters ramp the number of their attacks, so you're still trading a fraction of the damage of your attack routine in order to avoid a much bigger single attack. Only now you've ramped up your hit chance, so disadvantage is mattering much less.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am asking how your players are able to consistently create a situation in which your encounters are regulated to starting 120ft to 100ft away...

You must have misunderstood - the players aren't creating anything.

They're simply walking down a underdark passage.

The rules does the rest.

Okay, so I guess you can say the players make this happen. But they're not doing anything special. They just make sure one or two characters have exceptional Perception, or they use a disposable scout.

Man, I wish monsters would be capable of getting to within 20 ft before springing their ambush. In fact, that's all what my other thread is about.

Now it doesn't seem you have my problem. Perhaps your players simply accept being ambushed repeatedly without doing much about it. Then congrats: you get to run a much tighter ship, where monsters work right out the box.

 

[Caliban]

I've usually had the opposite problem - encounters starting with the enemies right on top of my group. Or my group being mainly melee characters and the bad guys being 120+ feet away with ranged weapons.

I play a lot of Adventure League, where the encounters (and encounter distances) are pre-determined in most cases, so that probably has a large impact on it.


I will say - I think monsters can take the Dodge action and use cover as they close the distance, just like PC's can.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm more interested in the "why" of it (I mean this is a discussion board, right? So why is there this push back against actual discussion of the claim?). If it comes up pretty often it shouldn't be a hard question to answer and gives much more insight into a solution than just stating it happens.

I think knasser just wants to avoid discussing with people not really interested in accepting other people's issues with the game as legit.

Assuming you aren't one of those, you're completely right: you can't fix something if you don't know what is wrong.

 

[knasser]

Nothing in the OP states dissenting opinion should not be voiced... again if you make a statement on a discussion forum, expect all aspects of said statement to be discussed...



Wait it was predictable and even anticipated that not everyone would agree with the statements in the OP... color me shocked, and yet nowhere in the OP does it state only those who agree with my premise can post here. You want that maybe you should go start a thread for that and make it clear in the first post only those of like-mind are allowed to post in it.

Also... what characters (without some type of special ability around movement) can cover 120ft to 100ft in a round? If they could it shouldn't be a problem since then melee wepaon wielders could close on ranged characters. See when you make statements like this, it causes me to wonder if maybe the issue isn't the game.



Wrong that's not an answer, since everyone who runs dynamic, campaigns that don't take place in a series of corridors and rooms isn't experiencing the same issues. That means there have to be other factors, what are they? You would think that since they occur in a wide variety of places and circumstances that unless they are 100% controlled by the players (which is an issue in and of itself) there would be some that favor ranged and some that favor melee... why is that not happening in your game, that's how my dynamic campaign that doesn't take place in a series of corridors and rooms plays out? Perhaps if you were more forthcoming with details I could identify your problem(s) and perhaps help you in building better encounters or better DM in-game play with opponents that would alleviate said issues you are experiencing or maybe there's something else that's the answer... instead you've blocked off a path that may have the answers to your issues because... well I'm not exactly sure why... maybe because you've already determined (right or wrong) what you believe the problem to be??

If you're genuinely interested in me answering anything, start a thread on the new topic. As the opening post said, this thread is to constructively solve the issue for people who do have the problem, not to have to repeatedly defend that we do. If your questions are actually put to me because you want answers, start a new thread and I'll happily engage. However, on the multiple occasions you have been answered in this thread, you have immediately refused to accept those answers and attempted to spin it off into people arguing with you about whether the thread is valid or not. So - new thread or nothing. Because what you want to discuss is not the topic of this one.

I think knasser just wants to avoid discussing with people not really interested in accepting other people's issues with the game as legit.

In fact, I'll even happily discuss it. Just not with someone who refuses to recognize that repeatedly attacking the premise of a thread intereferes with people discussing the thread's goals. Or maybe they do. If they genuinely want to challenge the premise - which is 'encounters can commonly start at a distance' - then they will start a new thread on that. If their goal is otherwise, they'll continue to post in the thread that is explicitly 'what do you do if encounters commonly start at a distance', attempting to shift the topic.