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?

[tetrasodium]

My point in posting that chart is that the "vision range limit rules for the GM" that you seem to be saying are missing have actually been provided. The idea with encounter distance is that there is no awareness of the encountered creature(s) due to intervening terrain, topography, etc. beyond the given rolled distances which average well under the 600' maximum range for a longbow and the maximum of which (in mountainous terrain) is 400'. Chessex does in fact produce a "Mondomat" size battle mat at 54" x 102" which is more than enough space to accommodate the maximum distance in the unlikely event it is rolled.

As for "vision range penalty rules", I'm not sure why disadvantage on the attack roll beyond normal range isn't sufficient, but maybe you have some other kind of penalty in mind.

They are missing, which is why every edition that saw fit to publish the encounter distance table as more than GM screen space filler also included concealment rules to extend hard cover from single obstructions to potentially additive visual concealment. Disadvantage in a system that gives players so many was to ignore it even before considering that any single source of advantage cancels out any number of disadvantage.is obviously going to have many ways of making it insufficient

@tetrasodium Concealment isn't absent from 5e, it's simply known by a different term - Obscured.

Almost, obscurement has some problems though. Firstly obscured only hits wisdom perception &doesn't impact attacks like conceal did. It's also worth remembering that any single form of advantage overrides any number of disadvantage sources no matter the number of disadvantaging factors..
Alice helping bob keep watch or bob's familiar helping bob keep watch grants advantage on the disadvantaged perception check imposed by lightly obscured. Even if you do individual perception checks no group of players is going to continue on with one player seeing something the rest can't without taking the time to all see it.

If you use obscured like concealment using "there's a forest between you" lightly obscured gets ignored and heavily obscured imposes blindness which grants... advantage so players still feel justified in seizing the fail secure shield against fiat.

 

[Hriston]

They are missing, which is why every edition that saw fit to publish the encounter distance table as more than GM screen space filler also included concealment rules to extend hard cover from single obstructions to potentially additive visual concealment.

What exactly are missing? I don't know what you mean by "extend hard cover from single obstructions to potentially additive visual concealment". Why does it matter what other editions include? What's wrong with 5E's concealment rules?

Disadvantage in a system that gives players so many was to ignore it even before considering that any single source of advantage cancels out any number of disadvantage.is obviously going to have many ways of making it insufficient

Why is this a problem? Insufficient for what purpose?

 

[James Gasik]

What exactly are missing? I don't know what you mean by "extend hard cover from single obstructions to potentially additive visual concealment". Why does it matter what other editions include? What's wrong with 5E's concealment rules?


Why is this a problem? Insufficient for what purpose?

It seems to me they want the rules to have hard limits baked in. So heavy obscurement just says either "no" or "penalties that cannot be obviated" as opposed to the current state of the game, where the rules say "well it's disadvantage but you can obviate that" or "the DM can just say no".

Which the DM can, of course, always say no, but sadly, sometimes a group finds it hard to trust a DM who looks at a rule that says "maybe" and turns it into a hard no. Are they truly ruling in a way that makes the game more fun? Are they denying players abilities the game intends them to have?

It's the classic debate- DM power trip or entitled players? Some people feel that "hard" rules do more to clear this sort of thing up than more loose, pliable rules, and dubious "clarification" from developer tweets.

 

[gorice]

From the Dungeon Master's Screen (2015):

ENCOUNTER DISTANCE​

​

Terrain	Encounter Distance
Arctic, desert, farmland, or grassland	6d6 x 10 feet
Forest, swamp, or woodland	2d8 x 10 feet
Hills or wastelands	2d10 x 10 feet
Jungle	2d6 x 10 feet
Mountains	4d10 x 10 feet

This is the kind of thing that would have been really useful in the DMG. All of those operational-level rules for giving combats context were excised from 5e after the playtests, though yes, some of the DM screens still have bits and pieces. They might as well have put it in a toilet, behind a sign saying 'beware of the leopard'.

@tetrasodium has a unique posting style, and is getting a lot of pushback, but they have a strong point. If combat encounters are meant to include the sorts of weapon ranges listed, the rules are clearly unworkable. The scale is unmanageable, advantage/disadvantage is far too crude, concealment is too weak, and some character abilities (like sharpshooter) become boring I-win buttons.

If, OTOH, tactical combats are not supposed to extend to those ranges... Where is this stated? Where are the rules for encounter distance, or long-range skirmishing outside of initiative, or scouting and ambushes?

The whole thing is an inadequate mess. Replies saying 'just wing it' are unhelpful.

That said, @tetrasodium , if you care about this kind of play, I think you're going to have to commit to either doing some heavy homebrewing, or shifting to a different system.

 

[Hriston]

It seems to me they want the rules to have hard limits baked in. So heavy obscurement just says either "no" or "penalties that cannot be obviated" as opposed to the current state of the game, where the rules say "well it's disadvantage but you can obviate that" or "the DM can just say no".

Which the DM can, of course, always say no, but sadly, sometimes a group finds it hard to trust a DM who looks at a rule that says "maybe" and turns it into a hard no. Are they truly ruling in a way that makes the game more fun? Are they denying players abilities the game intends them to have?

It's the classic debate- DM power trip or entitled players? Some people feel that "hard" rules do more to clear this sort of thing up than more loose, pliable rules, and dubious "clarification" from developer tweets.

So it's about the Vision rules? I don't know, but "blocks vision entirely" seems like a hard limit to me. Can someone articulate the actual problem they're having?

 

[Hussar]

If you have the blind condition you can only target squares, not targets. Good luck playing Battleship for several rounds until things are in reasonably close ranges.

So moving through tall grass means you cannot actually target. Maybe from the air I suppose. Which is actually more plausible. But still we’re talking about really, really corner cases here.

 

[James Gasik]

If you have the blind condition you can only target squares, not targets. Good luck playing Battleship for several rounds until things are in reasonably close ranges.

So moving through tall grass means you cannot actually target. Maybe from the air I suppose. Which is actually more plausible. But still we’re talking about really, really corner cases here.

Which you would think would be enough, but I'm sure tetrasodium knows this, and is still worried about overcoming disadvantage. So perhaps in actual play their group is good at playing Battleship?

 

[MarkB]

Almost, obscurement has some problems though. Firstly obscured only hits wisdom perception &doesn't impact attacks like conceal did. It's also worth remembering that any single form of advantage overrides any number of disadvantage sources no matter the number of disadvantaging factors..
Alice helping bob keep watch or bob's familiar helping bob keep watch grants advantage on the disadvantaged perception check imposed by lightly obscured. Even if you do individual perception checks no group of players is going to continue on with one player seeing something the rest can't without taking the time to all see it.

Which is still a penalty, since without the obscurement, they would still be helping each other and gaining advantage on their perception checks.

If you use obscured like concealment using "there's a forest between you" lightly obscured gets ignored and heavily obscured imposes blindness which grants... advantage so players still feel justified in seizing the fail secure shield against fiat.

Heavily obscured causes characters trying to see through it to be considered blinded. And the blinded condition doesn't just impose disadvantage on perception - perception checks based upon vision just flat-out fail.

So if there's enough obscuring terrain between you and a target that they become heavily obscured, you just plain don't know where they are, regardless how god-like your perception score.

 

[Hussar]

And, even in a flat plain, I would assume that there is at least grass. Meaning that going prone makes you completely obscured, and then a 5 foot movement after going prone would mean that the players would have a 1 in 9 chance of being able to guess your square. Might slow down the advance, but, armies have been doing pepper potting for a VERY long time.

 

[Stalker0]

And, even in a flat plain, I would assume that there is at least grass. Meaning that going prone makes you completely obscured, and then a 5 foot movement after going prone would mean that the players would have a 1 in 9 chance of being able to guess your square. Might slow down the advance, but, armies have been doing pepper potting for a VERY long time.

For context, the short grass prairies of the American Midwest had heights of only .5-1 ft at most. Areas of Buffalo grass could be even shorter.

The long grass prairies had 6-8 ft tall grasses.

So yes there are praries you could absolutely hide in, and ones were it would be quite difficult. Both are plausible depending on the terrain the dm has envisioned.