D&D (2024) Why is wotc still aiming for PCs with 10 *real word* feet of range? W/o vision range penalty/limit rules for the GM?

[MarkB]

Do you really need to ask what kinds of information gets lost when moving from grid to ToTM in a thread where people are throwing around accusations of GM skill problems? If you don't have the experience to know the answer here's a few just off the top of my head.... precise positioning needed for flanking based abilities sneak attack & pack tactics, positioning needed for judging the impact & need of AOEs Control abilities etc, anything that requires line of sight, etc.

None of which are happening 600 feet away.

If it's "positioning isn't going to be relevant at those ranges" it seems like you are endorsing one of two different problems... Either the entire encounter ends before the melee & shorter range PCs can close, which is obviously a problem for those players -OR- the fight closes to a range allowing those players where it switches back from ToTM to tactical grid to participate and those players immediately begin grousing about how they would have done this or that differently if they had seen X or how the positioning should be different because of these other reasons. Neither of those is a problem reasonable for the system to the to create for the GM by providing players with abilities far outranging anything reasonable

Neither of these is a problem period in my experience. It's a very rare situation where you're dealing with precise tactical positioning in melee and simultaneously dealing with other combatants being a huge distance away, and in those rare circumstances it's even rarer for the precise positioning of those distant combatants to matter sufficiently that a simple distance marker showing how far they are from the rest of the combat is insufficient. Basically you're claiming that a situation that's vanishingly rare and easily managed is commonplace and terribly problematic.

Again this is a problem that has been explained in posts 1 33 & 88, when you start using a VTT it goes from a hack trying to fit unreasonable ability ranges to the realities of gameplay to "I could show you that, but I won't" the second a player wants to do something that impacts anything in thay cutout.

Repeating your previous statements verbatim while simultaneously linking back to them doesn't actually build your case any further.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The olympic record for javelin throwing is 321 ft, yet the max range in 5e is "only" 120.

I mean if we are going to set the "realistic" range of a bow to its absolute maximum, might as well do it for everything right?

Why not, I do not have an issue with and to be honest I do not think there really is an issue with it. The OP issues are not with the range but
"...people are throwing around accusations of GM skill problems...." I do not really believe that there is a population of gamers out there that are being actively confused but the existence of 600 ft. long bow ranges.
There may well be legitimate reasons to engage with theatre of the mind play concerning an observation of something at the hundreds of yards to several miles ranges but there is no need to grid them out and play it on a battlemap.
But this back and forth is going nowhere and if you want to let WoTC know that they should get rid of all ranges beyond 100 feet go ahead.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I think for visibility ranges, there's also a context element to it. Unless you're out on some war patrol or hunting a group, there's a range where you can see people, and a range where you realize they're heading to your area and a range where you know you need to go full-alert.

I guess it's like driving. There's a range far off where you can see there's a car on the highway, a range where you recognize you probably need to be mindful of your speed, a range where you get concerned because they're swervy, and a range where you just hang on for dear life.

 

[tetrasodium]

Because sometimes those ranges make sense. Maybe not for every fight. (See my comments on large scale combat earlier). Maybe not because of fights in general. Maybe it’s so your Sharpshooter has a chance to be awesome and snipe the guard on top of the cliff. Just as an example.

It’s like asking “Only one of my characters can swim! What happens when I sink their boat? Why even have swimming rules if I can’t do that?”

This kind of thing was literally addressed earlier.... Using fiat to let a PC use a reasonably ranged ability beyond it's range limit will be smooth sailing for the GM almost every time the... The other way around with fiat to restrict the range of an ability with unreasonable range won't be smooth at all even if players don't speak up at the time someone feels they are being denied the RAW ability to be "awesome".

These ranges failing to balance scale & playability aren't needed for those times a GM decides the situation justifies using fiat to let a player be "awesome." They aren't needed simply because there is generally zero pushback & some grins in those scenarios. The excessive ability ranges only make sense if the design goal is to make it more difficult for the GM to say it doesn't make sense this time while trying to limit the battlefield to the 100-150 foot or so number that keeps getting tossed around.

@tetrasodium, what are you asking exactly? That the rules arbitrarily limit character vision to something that will fit on a reasonable sized battlemap? I can hear the players screaming from here: “what do you mean I can only see 200’? It’s a featureless plain!”

I don’t see why you can’t just change the grid scale. I seem to recall SKT did that for the giant’s holds. Instead of 5’, each square was 20’.

I'm aware of those SKT maps & don't know anyone who didn't just convert them to the 5 foot square maps they have for combat after they ran into trouble with 5 foot this 15 foot that or 30/45/50 ft these other things the first time. They did that because Changing the scale doesn't fix much of anything ofter than fitting a map on a printed page in the books. That nonfix remains up until until you start creating problems. 5e is built expecting 5ft increments for an awful lot of things. You need to shift to something like battletch's 30ft squares where you have literally every PC moving one square (or less) per round & even abilities like AOEs that only impact a single square. Even the people saying they don't see s problem because they never have fights starting more than 100-150ft awat (20-30 five foot squares) show why switching from 120 five foot squares to 60 ten foot squares doesn't solve anything..

---

Things get complicated & you won't get the easy answer wanted by some of the folks who refuse that a problem is even capable of existing due to this disconnect in range scale & playability. I want to not need to deal with an obvious headache the rules as written create for the GM for no reason other than to create friction when they have to deal with it. There are a lot of ways to address the problems caused by these abilities with excessive ranges raised throughout the thread but the optimal solution requires deciding on a particular problem. Here are a few people have suggested.

• Blame the GM's skills? -> players need to be told clearly in the PHB that the GM is expected to say they don't care when they limit or workaround those long range abilities because that's exactly what the design intent is for them to do.
• Provide tools to the GM that limit effective ranges without friction? -> Sure there are lots of ways those could be made & some editions like 2e & 3.x even had various mechanics raised earlier that a rerelevant to doing so.
• Reduce ranges to cap out at the 100-150ft ranges that keep getting thrown around as the proper range to start a fight? -> Sure, to hear it told it wouldn't even hurt anyone because apparently encounters never occur beyond those ranges.

There are a lot of holes in the still being built or just unknown to us in what will ultimately be the oned&d ruleset that could provide serious help or hinderance for any particular tool though. Because of this it's more useful to talk about a problem than offer a specific solution to a problem that is assumed.

None of which are happening 600 feet away.

Neither of these is a problem period in my experience. It's a very rare situation where you're dealing with precise tactical positioning in melee and simultaneously dealing with other combatants being a huge distance away, and in those rare circumstances it's even rarer for the precise positioning of those distant combatants to matter sufficiently that a simple distance marker showing how far they are from the rest of the combat is insufficient. Basically you're claiming that a situation that's vanishingly rare and easily managed is commonplace and terribly problematic.

Repeating your previous statements verbatim while simultaneously linking back to them doesn't actually build your case any further.

Really did you forget the new packet additions already? Level 2 & up sorcerers or 7 & up wizards wanting to cast a 600foot web 600 foot wall of [fire/ice/force/stone], 600foot hypnotic pattern or whatever aren't going to want to see any of that. Those casters will never justifiably feel like their spell was wasted if the results were not as expected if they feel that the precision of a grid would have shown them exactly what they needed to cast the spell differently or cast a completely different spell?

 

[Hussar]

After a few days of travel across the plains, you notice a group approaching you from the south. It looks like they have been following you, and are starting to gain ground. You (making a good perception check) note the symbol of the dark triad on their clothing, an evil cult you all have pissed off before. They are about a 1000 feet off, what do you do?

Sharpshooter Archer: I wait till they get within 600 feet, and then I start taking them out!

The cultists also pull out their bows and begin firing at you archer. What do the rest of you do?

Melee Barbarian: I will pull out my bow, but start moving 40 feet a round to get closer.

DM: Alright, looks like the cultists are also moving and shooting to get closer, so should take about ~9 rounds to close to melee.

Melee Barbarian: Well....I have a +2 ranged attack at disadvantage....um here goes.

Wizard: Yeah....I'm not proficient in a longbow so....I'll guess I'll keep moving until I get to 320 feet with my shortbow.


The combat lasts for round after round with the barbarian missing every turn and the wizard just double moving, the archer decimating cultists but also taking a lot of damage in the process. Its....not the most exciting fight.

Then why run it?

Also, on what planet do you have 600 feet of clear sight lines? And, if you actually DO have 600 feet of clear sight lines, then there is zero reason to put it on a battlemap since there is no cover, no line of sight issues, not even a tree. So, again, zero need for a battlemap or grid.

Lastly, this is the most contrived, ridiculous scenario I've ever heard of. What's the point of this encounter? The baddies are waving flags saying "Shoot me, I'm a baddy"? Seriously? A symbol on their chest is visible from two football field lengths away? Oh, and a perfectly clear day, in broad daylight?

Shocking that this was a boring fight.

/edit to add

I do agree that we could easily simply drop the Long range increment and move on. Seems rather a simple solution. Drop spell ranges to max out at about 200 feet and everyone's golden. Poof done.

However, since this almost never actually comes up, and I highly, highly doubt that anyone reading this has ever had a player complain about not being able to shot things far away, this is a solution that's just looking for a problem.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This kind of thing was literally addressed earlier.... Using fiat to let a PC use a reasonably ranged ability beyond it's range limit will be smooth sailing for the GM almost every time the... The other way around with fiat to restrict the range of an ability with unreasonable range won't be smooth at all even if players don't speak up at the time someone feels they are being denied the RAW ability to be "awesome".

These ranges failing to balance scale & playability aren't needed for those times a GM decides the situation justifies using fiat to let a player be "awesome." They aren't needed simply because there is generally zero pushback & some grins in those scenarios. The excessive ability ranges only make sense if the design goal is to make it more difficult for the GM to say it doesn't make sense this time while trying to limit the battlefield to the 100-150 foot or so number that keeps getting tossed around.


I'm aware of those SKT maps & don't know anyone who didn't just convert them to the 5 foot square maps they have for combat after they ran into trouble with 5 foot this 15 foot that or 30/45/50 ft these other things the first time. They did that because Changing the scale doesn't fix much of anything ofter than fitting a map on a printed page in the books. That nonfix remains up until until you start creating problems. 5e is built expecting 5ft increments for an awful lot of things. You need to shift to something like battletch's 30ft squares where you have literally every PC moving one square (or less) per round & even abilities like AOEs that only impact a single square. Even the people saying they don't see s problem because they never have fights starting more than 100-150ft awat (20-30 five foot squares) show why switching from 120 five foot squares to 60 ten foot squares doesn't solve anything..

---

Things get complicated & you won't get the easy answer wanted by some of the folks who refuse that a problem is even capable of existing due to this disconnect in range scale & playability. I want to not need to deal with an obvious headache the rules as written create for the GM for no reason other than to create friction when they have to deal with it. There are a lot of ways to address the problems caused by these abilities with excessive ranges raised throughout the thread but the optimal solution requires deciding on a particular problem. Here are a few people have suggested.

• Blame the GM's skills? -> players need to be told clearly in the PHB that the GM is expected to say they don't care when they limit or workaround those long range abilities because that's exactly what the design intent is for them to do.
• Provide tools to the GM that limit effective ranges without friction? -> Sure there are lots of ways those could be made & some editions like 2e & 3.x even had various mechanics raised earlier that a rerelevant to doing so.
• Reduce ranges to cap out at the 100-150ft ranges that keep getting thrown around as the proper range to start a fight? -> Sure, to hear it told it wouldn't even hurt anyone because apparently encounters never occur beyond those ranges.

There are a lot of holes in the still being built or just unknown to us in what will ultimately be the oned&d ruleset that could provide serious help or hinderance for any particular tool though. Because of this it's more useful to talk about a problem than offer a specific solution to a problem that is assumed.


Really did you forget the new packet additions already? Level 2 & up sorcerers or 7 & up wizards wanting to cast a 600foot web 600 foot wall of [fire/ice/force/stone], 600foot hypnotic pattern or whatever aren't going to want to see any of that. Those casters will never justifiably feel like their spell was wasted if the results were not as expected if they feel that the precision of a grid would have shown them exactly what they needed to cast the spell differently or cast a completely different spell?

That is a lot of words, that tell us little more than we had already. I recommend that you write simpler sentences.
Nothing there convinces me that these rules are necessary.
What is in there is complex enough that I could be misunderstanding you.
How about you write these rules you feel the need for and perhaps your point would be clearer.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

That is a lot of words, that tell us little more than we had already. I recommend that you write simpler sentences.
Nothing there convinces me that these rules are necessary.
What is in there is complex enough that I could be misunderstanding you.
How about you write these rules you feel the need for and perhaps your point would be clearer.

Agreed. I can barely understand their point right now.

 

[Reef]

If I recall correctly from other threads, @tetrasodium runs a lot of AL games for random groups of players (and I’m sorry if I’m misremembering that). If so, that might explain the massive trust issues between DM and players that they seem to be dealing with.

Although now that I think about it, I’m surprised if in person AL games used VTT, so that whole tangent should be moot. Do a lot of in person gameshop games use VTTs? I never thought about it before, I guess I generally assumed they were mostly for us geographically-challenged groups.

 

[Azzy]

The problem starts squarely with the longbow. 600 feet of range (aka 200 yards or 2 football fields) IS INSANE.

Now can a longbow actually shoot that far....eh if you have a good bow and your nice and strong it can. But can you hit a target from that distance, no. Can you hit a target in a way that will actually do real damage...hell no. Can you hit a target in a way that will do damage while they have actual protection on....oh HELL no. Can you hit a target in a that will do damage while they have actual protection AND they are moving in anyway..... ha ha ha, oh lordy no. And can you do all that while also having to avoid damage yourself?..... nnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooo..

The longbow should have like a 200 foot max range, and then you can include some special sniper rules that are "ok if you are able to hold position for a minute and the target is unmoving and unware of you and your not in danger, etc etc your range is doubled (or tripled if you really want that fantasy).

That and a full volley fire where the bowman doesn't actually try to hit anything and your just using the weight of mass fire to hurt things....only then should we be discussing 600 foot ranges.

So you start there and then adjust other ranges appropriately.

All editions of D&D seem to share this "insanity" of longbow having a 200 yd (or more) range. I have no idea why it would suddenly be a problem now.

 

[tetrasodium]

If I recall correctly from other threads, @tetrasodium runs a lot of AL games for random groups of players (and I’m sorry if I’m misremembering that). If so, that would explain the massive trust issues between DM and players that they seem to be dealing with.

Although now that I think about it, I’m surprised if in person AL games used VTT, so that whole tangent should be moot. Do a lot of in person gameshop games use VTTs? I never thought about it before, I guess I generally assumed they were mostly for us geographically-challenged groups.

Anyone can opt to skip the standard roll up grid mat & minis in favor of using a display hooked to a vtt like

Spoiler: these

You are correct about your remembering. It doesn't take some kind of huge trust issue for these ranges to cause friction that had no reason to exist though


Answering your flgs question, I don't believe I've ever heard of a game shop with space for gaming that lacks electrical outlets to power things like a laptop & small display since those are pretty standard in the walls of commercial buildings suitable for a game shop.

Others have given examples of in person friction caused by these excessive ranges & I've tried to focus on published encounters I've seen these excessive ranges impact to avoid the gm blame loop. It's very easy for players to say "no we want to back up before we get that close and..." or proactively plan their approach to a quest area in a way that allows them to to express a plan that makes use of these ranges in ways that do not run into "the battle mat is not that big.."