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

If, on the other hand, you travel the underdark as you do when playing Out of the Abyss, there are plenty of instances where the terrain is essentially a long tube. A jacked frazzled tube with lots of cracks and fissures, sure, but still essentially a tube.


Shadowdweller00 addressed this one nicely (not that you will listen or take anything away from it) so I will leave it at that.


All I'm saying is that those of you that simply plop down enemies right within pouncing distance (so that initiative decides who gets jumped), that's okay, but that's not what the rules lead to, and more importantly, I hate that kind of gameplay as a player, so I tend to not overuse it as a DM.

Who said they were plopping enemies down in pouncing range? I have had many outdoor encounters where my PCs, either through just seeing in the distance or scouting with a familiar, have seen the enemy at a very far range. I just used a spare 3 brain cells and designed it in a way that my party couldn’t sit back from 200ft and destroy them. I built cover to hide behind and played the monsters like…oh I don’t know… in a way that wasn’t pants on head retarded. I chose the monsters with abilities that would mitigate the ranged battle. More or less, everything that you do NOT do.

I don't want my players to spend time on precautions and being overly cautious, so I don't bend the rules to invalidate their standard procedure (either the imp or the monk going on point; the monk stands a very good chance of gliding out of any ambush and instead leading the monsters back into the rest of the party's warm welcome)


There is no reason to invalidate it. Characters often have skills or abilities specifically for things like this and there is no reason to nerf a character’s ability. Let them find the monsters at range, let them strategize and come up with a plan, let them enact the plan. Just make sure you correctly designed the encounter to make them have a plan that is not “stand at range and kill everything with sniper fire”.

How do you tweak the rules to make players build more slow Dwarves with Axes!?
clip_image001.png
(While still remaining as fun as possible to everyone)

And I think Dorian_Grey answered this one. If you continually design encounters that favor ranged to the exclusion of everything else, there is nothing you can do that will make your players want to play slow melee. Nothing! Why would anyone in their right mind want to play a slow melee in your game? You build your game like a shooting gallery and wonder why people are shooting….maybe you aren’t just trolling….
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Who said they were plopping enemies down in pouncing range? I have had many outdoor encounters where my PCs, either through just seeing in the distance or scouting with a familiar, have seen the enemy at a very far range. I just used a spare 3 brain cells and designed it in a way that my party couldn’t sit back from 200ft and destroy them. I built cover to hide behind and played the monsters like…oh I don’t know… in a way that wasn’t pants on head retarded. I chose the monsters with abilities that would mitigate the ranged battle. More or less, everything that you do NOT do.
Yeah, that's another good point I didn't elaborate on as well as I should have. Just because the enemy is seen and/or recognized doesn't necessarily mean that combat begins immediately. Nor that sniping is an option.

Example: Kobold pokes its head out of long grass from far away, gets seen by the PCs, quickly drops back down where it can't be seen. I don't personally have the players roll initiative at that point because there's not necessarily an instant flurry of attacks and counterattacks. But the PCs definitely know there's an enemy (or potential enemy) out there; and can make appropriate preparations or responses.
 

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.

Im not 'trolling' you dude. You asked for ways to stop 'ranged encounters being king' and to highlight melee characters.

The obvious answer is to use less open encounter areas (i.e. avoid wide open plains, and use dungeons, dense forest, jungles, caves, catacombs, hills, badlands, misty swamps etc) and to set your encounters up accordingly. As the DM you have this express power (you decide what the encounters are, where they happen, who the players fight in them, and all the other relevant variables). You design and run them remember.

Of course, my personal view is you dont actually want any advice on the topic, and just created this thread to whinge about 5E not working when a DM insists on running it contrary to its underlying assumptions. Its kind of your modus operandi.

I mean; yes - if you as DM start the lions share of your encounters 120+ feet away from the PCs, then I expect ranged PCs to have a feild day and the game to feature a ton of ranged specialist PCs as a consequence. The obvious solution is stop doing it. The game is designed to mainly happen in dungeons and close quarters (hence the name of the game). Youre running the game contrary to underlying expectations and the game is functioning differently.

Or you could keep doing it, and invent a complex series of house-rules to nerf the crap out of ranged combat. If you insist on doing so, here is my 5 cents:

1) Grant every-one a permanent and always on +5AC vs ranged spell and melee attacks (because its much easier to sidestep or dodge a ranged attack at range than a melee one), and

2) A creature who uses its action to Dash may dash again as a bonus action on the same turn (in effect, a triple move).

Actually, I really like rule 2 as a general rule. I may implement it in my own games.
 
Last edited:

Im not 'trolling' you dude. You asked for ways to stop 'ranged encounters being king' and to highlight melee characters.

The obvious answer is to use less open encounter areas (i.e. avoid wide open plains, and use dungeons, dense forest, jungles, caves, catacombs, hills, badlands, misty swamps etc) and to set your encounters up accordingly. As the DM you have this express power (you decide what the encounters are, where they happen, who the players fight in them, and all the other relevant variables). You design and run them remember.

Of course, my personal view is you dont actually want any advice on the topic, and just created this thread to whinge about 5E not working when a DM insists on running it contrary to its underlying assumptions. Its kind of your modus operandi.

I mean; yes - if you as DM start the lions share of your encounters 120+ feet away from the PCs, then I expect ranged PCs to have a feild day and the game to feature a ton of ranged specialist PCs as a consequence. The obvious solution is stop doing it. The game is designed to mainly happen in dungeons and close quarters (hence the name of the game). Youre running the game contrary to underlying expectations and the game is functioning differently.

Or you could keep doing it, and invent a complex series of house-rules to nerf the crap out of ranged combat. If you insist on doing so, here is my 5 cents:

1) Grant every-one a permanent and always on +5AC vs ranged spell and melee attacks (because its much easier to sidestep or dodge a ranged attack at range than a melee one), and

2) A creature who uses its action to Dash may dash again as a bonus action on the same turn (in effect, a triple move).

Actually, I really like rule 2 as a general rule. I may implement it in my own games.

I'd make them make a con save to avoid a level of exhaustion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


2) A creature who uses its action to Dash may dash again as a bonus action on the same turn (in effect, a triple move).

Actually, I really like rule 2 as a general rule. I may implement it in my own games.
Yeah - for the record, ranges and movement speeds in 5e are a bit borked because combat is intended to be played on a tabletop with squares of about 1-inch size or so. For the sake of reference:

A stately human walk is about 3.1 miles per hour - or about 27 feet per 6-second "round".
The average human jogging speed is something like 5 mph (highly variable per individual) - or about 44 feet per round.
The average human sprinting speed (the thing you'd do if you were charging an individual trying to pepper you with arrows) is 15 mph - or 131 feet per round.
A horse gallops at 25-30 mph - or 240 feet per round.
A cheetah pounces (so no action wasted while spending a turn to "sprint") at 70 mph - or 612 feet per round.
A peregrine falcon dives down at prey at 200 mph - or 1750 feet per round.
 
Last edited:

I like the "dash as a reaction (or bonus action) if you've dashed as your action" so much I've already implemented it into my campaign that started a few days ago.

Your think athletics (Con) check is the way to go? I was thinking X times per short rest and then a check for a level of exhaustion (that goes away with a short rest).

And if you had athletics you'd not need a check as 3x movement is 10.2 mph and someone in shape enough to have the athletics skill could do that for longer than any day's combat would last.

Though at that point it isn't really an Athletics check, it's just a Con ability check.
 


As a rule, ranged fire always deals Strength-based damage, never Dexterity-based damage.​

Thrown finesse weapons remain unchanged (they still allow you to use Dexterity for both attack and damage).
I have a houserule similar to yours: I allow either Str or Dex to be used for attack and damage with bows. Technically this actually advantages ranged combat more, but I've found that it doesn't tend to actually play that way. While it gives the Str-based characters an effective ranged option in those few situations where melee isn't an option (such as against flying creatures) the group as a whole still prefer melee or short range combat.

Crossbows present an issue, since it is hard to justify basing their damage on Strength. I'd suggest either increase their base dice or adding proficiency bonus if you wanted to swap out the Dex component.

2a. Lets cap the Dexterity bonus of *any* AC calculation to +2.​
Doesn't seem to fit, either thematically or mechanically. You'd probably be better off just giving light armours a Dex cap. Monks and Barbarians are a special case, but bear in mind to approach armoured ACs, let alone surpass them, they are having to max out two different stats. This comes with the commensurate cost in ASIs as opposed to feats. At higher levels this allows a monk to the same AC that a heavy-armoured fighter can. Barbs can go higher, but at the cost of having to put those ASIs into secondary abilities.

Where these are an issue however, is where rolled abilities are used, and one person gets multiple, very high rolls. - But that is a balance issue already.

Perhaps a houserule limiting unarmoured AC bonuses to max of proficiency bonus? While I personally wouldn't apply this to any Dex bonus to AC, you might find that is best.

Heavy Armor prevents you from benefiting from a Speed increase, whether magical or otherwise. A Speed increase can still negate a Speed penalty but that's it.
I'd suggest limiting heavy armour's speed by reducing the movement the Dash action grants by half in heavy armour. This seems to fit better with the idea that a trained fighter can move just fine at a reasonable rate while in plate, but it does limit her ability to put on bursts of speed. I'd also suggest some armours grant disadvantage in Str or Con (Athletics) checks for chases if you want to further represent that aspect.

Cantrips are no longer unlimited. Instead spellcasters gain four cantrip slots when they first learn to cast cantrips. They gain one additional cantrip slot at character levels 4 and 10, respectively. Cantrip slots recharge after a short rest for all casters.
I personally would find this a problem: Certainly my current wizard spends over half of his combat rounds using Chill Touch. (Although almost certainly an edge case.) :-)

I think that the issue you're having probably lies more with a specific case; (a Warlock with that particular combination of cantrip and invocation). I'd suggest addressing that problem more directly rather than an indiscriminate approach.
Simply changing the invocation so that the additional damage is based on the proficiency bonus of the warlock rather than Charisma bonus should smooth out the damage effectively.

You're unlikely to be able to burn through a stone wall with firebolt faster than you could break though it with a pick or hammer. Cantrips generally do less damage than the equivalent physical attacks: their advantage is their other effects.

You might consider the most common and effective protection against missile fire outside of being the other side of a wall: the shield. As a (Bonus action? Reaction?) allow someone proficient in a shield to apply an AC bonus equal to their (Str bonus? Proficiency bonus?) against ranged attacks (from further than 30ft? All ranged attacks?) with it. I'm suggesting a flat AC bonus rather than disadvantage to hit to allow stacking with the Dodge action.
 

here is my 5 cents:

1) Grant every-one a permanent and always on +5AC vs ranged spell and melee attacks (because its much easier to sidestep or dodge a ranged attack at range than a melee one), and

2) A creature who uses its action to Dash may dash again as a bonus action on the same turn (in effect, a triple move).

Actually, I really like rule 2 as a general rule. I may implement it in my own games.
Thank you
 

Remove ads

Top