Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Flamestrike" data-source="post: 6958427" data-attributes="member: 6788736">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.</blockquote>

Verification