D&D 5E "Why don't you just shoot it?"

[SkidAce]

They like sweet tea, no lemon.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Grown humanoids arguing about the self control of a fantasy creature in terms of intelligence on an internet forum?

Good stuff. I guess we all dumped Wisdom and hoped the cleric would pick up Insight!

OP: A bad adventurer blames their tools! And the cleric. Personally my champion is a bit miffed at having to wear pants but hey, that's the hard life of an adventurer.

Heh. Even old grognard dragons succumb to the dreaded Interwebs Troll.

 

[jasper]

They like sweet tea, no lemon.

And ONLY 1 cup of sugar per usa imperial gallon. Any more and they get a sour outlook on you.

 

[Warpiglet]

Wow. I have a different take.

I LIKE that not all things are equally effective at all times. Not all characters are equally capable at all times, either.

Sometimes people complain about the uselessness of weapon choices. Gee, spears are dumb! They're d6 and they suck!

Yes. And they are also perfect for having a weapon equipped and ready for either melee or ranged attacks particularly for brawny fighters who can throw hard. I dunno. I like thinking about other weapons besides longswords. Cool imagery.

So if your fighters in the front have spears, your wizard a cantrip and your whatever in back with a bow, sounds like a reasonable first round barrage is at the ready. What is wrong with a thrown weapon?

How many consecutive rounds of ranged combat are we expecting without the need for someone to hold the line? Really in the end, how many rounds are we going to exchange ranged attacks without being able to seek cover? Seems like a non-problem. Then again, the sharpshooter guy might be miffed that he is not as good at hand to hand...that is probably OK since he does so well at ranged.

Characters with niches are just fine too.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What is wrong with a thrown weapon?

Well, you don't have it anymore. ;P

Seriously, though, there's how object-interaction, er, interacts with Extra Attack. And, they're decidedly short range & low-damage compared to bows. And, minor point, they have no Combat Style nor feat support.

How many consecutive rounds of ranged combat are we expecting without the need for someone to hold the line?

IDK, are we in the traditional infinite flat, featureless plane? If so, well, (your range)/( (enemy's dash)-(your casually walking backwards) ) ...and how would you hold a line, anyway? If not, find a place to shoot from that isn't so easily approached.
And, there's a feat that lets you shoot in melee w/o disadvantage (there's already no AoO for it).

Really in the end, how many rounds are we going to exchange ranged attacks without being able to seek cover?

Works both ways. Ranged attackers can attack from cover.
Then there's that feat...

 

[Warpiglet]

Well, you don't have it anymore. ;P

Seriously, though, there's how object-interaction, er, interacts with Extra Attack. And, they're decidedly short range & low-damage compared to bows. And, minor point, they have no Combat Style nor feat support.


IDK, are we in the traditional infinite flat, featureless plane? If so, well, (your range)/( (enemy's dash)-(your casually walking backwards) ) ...and how would you hold a line, anyway? If not, find a place to shoot from that isn't so easily approached.
And, there's a feat that lets you shoot in melee w/o disadvantage (there's already no AoO for it).

Works both ways. Ranged attackers can attack from cover.
Then there's that feat...

All fair points. First you are correct, you won't have it. The question about how many rounds are needed is germane. If only two rounds until melee range, then you have been able to throw and do some damage--if brawny a thrown d6 is not bad compared to a bow with no bonus.

You are right! A featureless plain would be a pain...without a gattling cannon. I usually play in areas where there are passageways, hills, woods....something!

But in the end, it all boils down to: is it fair that some characters do better in melee than others? Is it fair that some are better in ranged combat? Is it better to do some of what you are less suited for vs. nothing?

I answer in the affirmative on all points. Just never have seen this as an issue. In 1e, the wizard has no more magic missiles. He can cry or throw darts. I pick darts--every time.

That said, are there other actions that might be valid besides attack? If so, they can be more heavily weighted if I cannot shoot for as much damage.

I know...it hurts not always doing MOAR damage...but I see it as less of a true problem and more a feature that differentiates abilities and competencies. How boring would it be if all characters were equal in all ways and abilities to one another?

To each his own. I would actually like more and not less resource management and planning. That said, if bows are the standard, how many arrows did you say you carry? How many are left after you just gatling-gunned through a few encounters?

I suspect you are primarily playing devil's advocate here and that is fine. But in decades of gaming, I cannot recall a single instance of being upset I had to use the tools at hand to persevere....laughing at the d2 damage from a dart to giant? Yes!

And one of the better moments in D&D or rather AD&D for me was when the wizard was rushed by the wounded Minotaur and survived with a couple of hit points after stabbing him with the dagger. His less than stellar melee ability made that a grand moment in gaming. He was the last one standing and party survived because of a 1-3 vs. LMG dagger.

I guess he could have complained he was not good at melee and soiled himself...but instead he elfed up and did the best he could!

In the end, we all need to elf up.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If only two rounds until melee range, then you have been able to throw and do some damage--if brawny a thrown d6 is not bad compared to a bow with no bonus.

For the record, I have nothing against a melee type walking around with a throwable weapon in hand, ready to toss that first round (or two) of combat while closing happens, I think it's obvious enough. Very flavorful. If it was good enough for the Roman Legions and the Franks it's good enough for your fighter.
It's also not really the case that gets people worked up. There's a variety effects that might prevent you from closing, either conditions imposed on your or circumstances of the encounter or abilities of the enemy. If it goes on for much of the combat, throwing weapons are very un-satisfying, and even impractical, solution.

But in the end, it all boils down to: is it fair that some characters do better in melee than others? Is it fair that some are better in ranged combat? Is it better to do some of what you are less suited for vs. nothing?

I don't think any of that is at issue. ...
The way it boils down in 5e, if you've got the right archery feat, you don't take disadvantage for firing in melee anymore, so you're not really any worse in melee than you are at range... So the whole 'is it fair ...' line of reasoning kinda goes out the window.

That said, are there other actions that might be valid besides attack?

One or two.

How boring would it be if all characters were equal in all ways and abilities to one another?

Less boring than when one character is superior in all ways and abilities over the others. More boring than when each character's abilities are more or less balanced with those of the others.

I would actually like more and not less resource management and planning.

Not hard to do.

That said, if bows are the standard, how many arrows did you say you carry?

20736

And one of the better moments in D&D or rather AD&D for me was when the wizard was rushed by the wounded Minotaur and survived with a couple of hit points after stabbing him with the dagger.

Wot? no Shocking Grasp? no Staff of Striking? no Tenser's Transformation? no new-fangled Thunderwave?

His less than stellar melee ability made that a grand moment in gaming. He was the last one standing and party survived because of a 1-3 vs. LMG dagger.

I suspect he did better than the fighter who had to cast a spell for some reason....

 

[Geeknamese]

I've played characters before where I've eschewed ranged weapons and would only use my signature melee weapons. I'd either fight in melee or figure out some other way to help the encounter by being creative.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[transtemporal]

Meh. Personally I think the best response to this question is "Cos that's not how I roll bro". You don't need to justify it!

 

[Warpiglet]

Wot? no Shocking Grasp? no Staff of Striking? no Tenser's Transformation? no new-fangled Thunderwave? I suspect he did better than the fighter who had to cast a spell for some reason....

Ha! Nope. He was out of spells in the pre limitless cantrip days. That is one thing I liked about that old system. The magic user sometimes had to fall back on crappy weapons with little (usually) no bonus to damage. It seemed desperate and rugged but we did what we could.

Full disclosure, it was a Minotaur that had him against the wall and the elf magic user had a +2 +3 vs. larger than man-sized dagger. So with his 19 or 20 Thaco, he did have a chance to hit. But the whole party hinged on him elfing up with a dagger.

There were many high fives and shouts of triumph from the whole party. My group has always had a group victory mentality. We did not complain and neither did the wizard. I think we enjoyed the drama but more to the point the drama was created by a poor AC, poor melee ability and depleted spells. We had more fun due to heterogeneity of character ability.

I realize though there were rounds where chucking darts were much less dramatic for that wizard...

Its just a different mentality. For me, having something to lose, not always being the best, having to protect the guy with a d4 attack can lead to a lot of fun if you are in the corresponding frame of mind.

But grousing about having to lose a round to change weapons? That is like having to worry about a light source or any other required activity! For me this is the very stuff of adventure. It is not cool when a wind blows out the torch but it can be exciting.

I agree on many of your points. I just think the OP can have more fun with a small change of perspective...