Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lord Twig" data-source="post: 6962448" data-attributes="member: 31754">I guess I fall somewhere in the middle on this issue. On the one hand I agree with re-instating the difficulty of using ranged weapons in combat, but on the other hand I don't have any problems forcing melee encounters on my players in logical ways.For example, it was mentioned that a scout would spring an ambush and then would lead the ambushers back to the waiting party. Why would the ambushers do that? My ambushers would kill the scout (or try to) and then retreat and set up another ambush in a new location. They absolutely would not rush after a retreating scout.Now of course the goal is not to kill the party, but to create a fun and challenging encounter for the party, even the melee characters. So while a barricade on a bridge might now be a big challenge for a higher level party, invading the keep that holds the Vault of the McGuffin should introduce plenty of melee combat. Honestly I don't know how any party would avoid melee combat most of the time.All that said I don't like the image of a character continuing to fire a bow in melee combat. Even Legolas pulled his knives when things got up close and personal. The main offender of this seems to be the Crossbow Expert feat. But as an optional rule, it is easy to exclude. Even if you do allow feats in general, there is no need to allow this feat in particular.In addition to the problem of getting Disadvantage when firing in melee I would include a rule to attack weapons. Bows are not very strong compared to swords or axes. And even just cutting the string renders it useless.So there you go. No Crossbow Expert feat and allow melee to attack held weapons. Done.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lord Twig, post: 6962448, member: 31754"] I guess I fall somewhere in the middle on this issue. On the one hand I agree with re-instating the difficulty of using ranged weapons in combat, but on the other hand I don't have any problems forcing melee encounters on my players in logical ways. For example, it was mentioned that a scout would spring an ambush and then would lead the ambushers back to the waiting party. Why would the ambushers do that? My ambushers would kill the scout (or try to) and then retreat and set up another ambush in a new location. They absolutely would not rush after a retreating scout. Now of course the goal is not to kill the party, but to create a fun and challenging encounter for the party, even the melee characters. So while a barricade on a bridge might now be a big challenge for a higher level party, invading the keep that holds the Vault of the McGuffin should introduce plenty of melee combat. Honestly I don't know how any party would avoid melee combat most of the time. All that said I don't like the image of a character continuing to fire a bow in melee combat. Even Legolas pulled his knives when things got up close and personal. The main offender of this seems to be the Crossbow Expert feat. But as an optional rule, it is easy to exclude. Even if you do allow feats in general, there is no need to allow this feat in particular. In addition to the problem of getting Disadvantage when firing in melee I would include a rule to attack weapons. Bows are not very strong compared to swords or axes. And even just cutting the string renders it useless. So there you go. No Crossbow Expert feat and allow melee to attack held weapons. Done. [/QUOTE]

Verification