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

[Flamestrike]

FlameStrike. I'm simply not going to engage in off-topic discussion in this thread. Were you genuinely interested in discussing it, you would show some respect to the topic and start a new thread rather than keep attacking a thread that is explicitly 'find constructive solutions for people who have this problem' rather than insisting over and over that they shouldn't have the problem and that they're playing it wrong.

Your posts are unhelpful here and you wont listen to answers or accept other playstyles. So you can quote me if you want but unless you move it to another thread I'm not going to engage and help drown out discussion in this thread.

Wut? How is 'start your encounters at a closer distance, which you can do because you're the DM, and these are the reasons why it's better to do so' not constructive advice?

Its what I do when I DM, and I dont have this problem. At encounter distances of around 30-60 feet or so, it creates a good level of tactical variation and game-play (ranged PCs get to move + engage, keeping distance, while melee guys get to close to melee on round one). Abilities like [bonus action dash] get highlighted. Everyone has a choice on round 1, and no one type of combat (ranged or melee or magical) is superior to any others. Turn order becomes important.

Its also the standard engagement distances in most encounters in pretty much every adventure ever published (in dungeons and woods). If you're setting your encounters up at distances of 120' or more then of course ranged combat is king. Considering every creature can [full ranged attack] and move, it means even a creature double moving into melee takes several rounds to get there (as the ranged creature fires and backs off). Clearly this encounter set-up favors ranged combat.

How the DM chooses to set up his encounters is vital. There is no need to provide some complex series of houserules with unexpected effects that weaken ranged combat in other ways compared to magical and melee attacks, when all you need to do is start your encounters at closer range.

If its down to some kind of choice between a complex series of houserules to weaken ranged combat to allow for several turns of ranged attacks plinking off the creature running into combat (and having the effect of making ranged attacks a waste of time when you dont have half a dozen free rounds to gun down your enemies), or simply setting your encounter distances a bit closer, I know which way I go every single time.

 

[Flamestrike]

By the way, not that its 'badwrongfun' to set the occasional encounter up at longer distances (just like its not wrong to set the occasional one up at closer distances) to mix it up and inject variety into your game and to highlight different builds and forms of combat.

But clearly if 120'+ is the standard encounter distance in your games, your DM is encouraging ranged builds. If your PCs spend a lot of time bumping creatures in wide open plains, who are too stupid to stick to creek lines, forested areas, dead ground, hills, long grass or any other natural feature, more luck to them.

Stupid creatures gonna stupid.

 

[CapnZapp]

Range has always been a strong tactical choice.
Ranged strikers were great in 4e. Ranged was good in 3e but held back due to the feat taxes, but became very strong in endgame.

Melee is balanced by the assumed game style: dungeons. Blocking terrain, cover, and rooms where archers begin almost at melee range.

That is why I am discussing rules changes that allow melee characters to not feel stupid even when outside dungeons

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry to break it to you, but the DM 'magically places' all foes where he wants.

100-120' away in any 'dungeon' is ridiculous

That doesnt align with any published module I can recall, and it doesnt align with my own experience in over 30 years of roleplaying. You might get one round to lob in ranged attacks in the open, but the monsters are on you after that first volley.

I certainly dont have that problem in my campaign, generally using encounter distances of 30-60 feet. This allows ranged PCs who win initiaitve to [fire] and fall back, keeping distance, or melee PCs to engage on round one. Everyone gets something useful to do, and everyone gets to play to their strengths.

It would be boring as batshit otherwise.

You are crossing the line from "I don't have this problem" to "You are playing the game wrong".

I certainly don't need you telling me how I should play the game. I want the game to work for my playstyle, and you're effectively trolling that subject. In this thread, as in countless others, I might add.

Take it elsewhere, Flamestrike. Start your own threads, and stop replying to mine unless you share my issues and thus have constructive commentary on solutions.

 

[CapnZapp]

How is, "Then don't start encounters 120 feet away" not constructive advice for the problem?

Have you been listening at all?

The problem is: how do you change D&D rules to encourage melee builds even though the campaign isn't all 40x40 dungeon rooms?

 

[ScaleyBob]

I ran into similar problems in both 3/3.5 and 4. The PCs were quite capable of either annihilating anything at range (mostly in my 3/3.5 days) or threw out so many lockdown/control effects(4E) that any melee monster often wouldn't get to do anything.

My solution in 4e was to give any monster some sort of ranged attack. Often just their melee basic attack reskinned to work at ranged, so to save me work. (I miss the Basic Attack concept, it made life alot easier.) There were some silly examples, especially when up against monster that logically wouldn't have a ranged attack, but it meant that monsters could do something even when immobilized, or dazed, or slowed and pushed miles away.

In 3/3.5 dealing with a group of Magical Blasters meant a lot of ambushes, or close starting fights. Even that didn't work a lot of the time. Mostly all it really did was give me a longstanding dislike of 3/3.5, and unregulated spellslingers.

I haven't run into this problem yet in 5E, although I am playing a Crossbow fighter in one game who does annoy the GM a bit. (He's fairly easily annoyed, though. - I haven't even taken Sharpshooter yet. I'm saving that for 8th level.) I do have a couple of ranged characters in my current group, so I suspect this problem will raise it's ugly head sooner rather than later.

I don't really have a problem with Ranged being as good as Melee, it's a problem when it's better, or when it makes fights dull.

A few ideas, other than giving everything a reskinned ranged attack. - If damage is too good, scrap any damage modifiers on Ranged Weapon Attacks. Runequest used to do this - you could add half damage bonus to Thrown Weapons, but none to Bows or Crossbows, as the weapons generally didn't care how strong or dexterous you were.
Make getting Advantage on Ranged Weapons really difficult, while being generous with it in melee. Heck,even make that all melee attacks against a Ranged Weapon wielder always have Advantage. It's very difficult to parry with a bow.
Have Opponents drop prone. It may slow them down on the next turn, but it gives disadvantage on ranged attacks, and if there is cover to drop behind, then that makes them totally obscured or, completely out of line of sight. It also encourages PCs to engage in Melee, so to get Advantage.

Once my group hits a higher level, I'm going to be interested to see how bad it'll be.

 

[Flamestrike]

You are crossing the line from "I don't have this problem" to "You are playing the game wrong".

I certainly don't need you telling me how I should play the game. I want the game to work for my playstyle, and you're effectively trolling that subject. In this thread, as in countless others, I might add.

Take it elsewhere, Flamestrike. Start your own threads, and stop replying to mine unless you share my issues and thus have constructive commentary on solutions.

As amusing as I find your salty tears mate, I'm not going away just because you tell me to.

And I'm giving you constructive ideas. You're just not listening.

 

[knasser]

How is, "Then don't start encounters 120 feet away" not constructive advice for the problem? Who made you thread police anyway?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

It's not constructive because from the very first post it was asked specifically that people not turn this into yet another thread where people trying to make the game work better for them get beset with posts telling them that their problem is a result of them playing the game wrong. The request explicitly is to accept the premise and work on solving that problem and if you don't have that problem then happy gaming but please don't bury us in posts telling us we're not supposed to have that problem because we do. That is how it is not constructive - it derails the thread from discussing solutions to having to defend our even looking for solutions. Over and over. Is that not apparent?

 

[knasser]

As amusing as I find your salty tears mate, I'm not going away just because you tell me to.

And I'm giving you constructive ideas. You're just not listening.

You're not giving "constructive ideas". You're just telling people to avoid certain encounter scenarios when the thread from the very start is about what to do if you DO want those encounter scenarios. That isn't remotely helpful. You may find it amusing to you to keep telling people what is and isn't acceptable to have in an encounter, but it's irritating as Hell to people that this thread is turning into yet another argument over how the game should be played. The idea is to find solutions for playing the game the way we want to play it. For us, that includes encounters that start at 120'. That's all of the encounters in my game so far.

 

[Horwath]

Have you been listening at all?

The problem is: how do you change D&D rules to encourage melee builds even though the campaign isn't all 40x40 dungeon rooms?

get a horse.

you can close 120ft in one round mounted.

You cannot expect that on a terrain that is made perfect for archery, archery does no blow every other combat style out of the water.

If you are under heavy ranged fire, get cover. Try to force them to shoot you inside cover(+5 AC).

Important! They will run out of arrows. usually a quiver is 20-30 arrows. If you are going on longer campaign you might have extra 30 or so in backpack or on a horse.


As for rules, as I stated earlier, buff up AoO, make them not use reaction.