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?

[Willie the Duck]

The solution just seems so damn simple....lower the ranges.

Solution implies problem, so I think we're back at the point where we discuss whether there is a problem. It sounds like a lot of people don't have this issue come up in their games, and that tracks with my notion that it's just a legacy range going back to 1974 filtered through a change in battlemat sizing (1":10yd =>1":5') and no one having enough vested interest to change anything.

 

[Stalker0]

Solution implies problem, so I think we're back at the point where we discuss whether there is a problem.

Since the general answer to my notes about range 600 combats (which I have noted as a problem) has been "well I don't have fights at those ranges", it seems there is absolutely a problem. But what's great is....the solution will not even hurt the vast majority of players.

If you have had 600 ft combats and hate it, then nerfing the range will be great for you. And if you never have fights at those ranges, you won't even notice. Seems like a complete win/win to me.

 

[MarkB]

do you all never do overland encounters? Party encounters wild creatures or bandits on the plains, they will easily see them hundreds of feet away, and will have rounds and rounds of bow attacks before the creatures get close.

Realistically any encounter that happens in a grassland or plains terrain should be using ranges of this length, as there is no reason you wouldn't see the enemy that far away unless their is fog or something.

I can say that the last game I had a warlock wit the 300 foot eldtrich blast invocation, they looked at every oppurtunity they could to snipe and blast people from that range....because why wouldn't they? If I can get in like 5 rounds of blasts before the enemy even gets near me, I've won!

Any bandit that stands out of cover in the middle of an open plain is an idiot. Bandits attack from ambush, and place their camps in secluded locations. And if you see someone wandering around 600 feet away on an open road, how do you know they're a bandit?

Likewise, anyone who deliberately starts shooting at a predator 600 feet away when it most likely hasn't even scented them yet, let alone decided whether they're a tasty meal, is similarly an idiot. You don't engage wild animals at that range, you go around them, and only break out the bows and arrows if they start taking an unhealthy interest.

 

[Reef]

Since the general answer to my notes about range 600 combats (which I have noted as a problem) has been "well I don't have fights at those ranges", it seems there is absolutely a problem. But what's great is....the solution will not even hurt the vast majority of players.

If you have had 600 ft combats and hate it, then nerfing the range will be great for you. And if you never have fights at those ranges, you won't even notice. Seems like a complete win/win to me.

Why not nerf the range if most combats don’t happen that far? Because then you have people complaining that it’s not realistic. And you also remove the option to have fights that do need those ranges…for example Mass skirmishes.

Say for whatever reason you do have a scenario with two larger groups in a mass battle situation, and the players are around to at least witness it. It’s make sense for archers to lead off with volleys while the rest charge. But if you nerfed the ranges, suddenly some bright-eyed player is asking how come the battle started so far away? Why aren’t the bows limited to 100 feet like they are for them?

By keeping the ranges, you allow for situations where it makes sense to engage at that range. And as lots of people mentioned above (including me), it’s not hard to justify not having pc-sized groups fight there (unless your players seriously start blindly shooting at anything that enters their vision cone).

 

[Stalker0]

Why not nerf the range if most combats don’t happen that far? Because then you have people complaining that it’s not realistic. And you also remove the option to have fights that do need those ranges…for example Mass skirmishes.

Say for whatever reason you do have a scenario with two larger groups in a mass battle situation, and the players are around to at least witness it. It’s make sense for archers to lead off with volleys while the rest charge. But if you nerfed the ranges, suddenly some bright-eyed player is asking how come the battle started so far away? Why aren’t the bows limited to 100 feet like they are for them?

By keeping the ranges, you allow for situations where it makes sense to engage at that range. And as lots of people mentioned above (including me), it’s not hard to justify not having pc-sized groups fight there (unless your players seriously start blindly shooting at anything that enters their vision cone).

The current ranges are what's not realistic. Its not realistic to shoot a bow and hit a moving target at 600 feet, not even close. And I noted the solution above, but now I'll type it out in a bit more depth.


Longbow: 50/200 range

Sniping (Action): You can use the sniping action to hit a target that is not aware of you. You cannot move before or after this action. You make a single ranged attack at three times the normal range.

Archer Army
Volley Fire (Action): The army fires a mass of arrows at maximum range. +4 to hit, 3d8 damage, range 150/600.

 

[Reef]

The current ranges are what's not realistic. Its not realistic to shoot a bow and hit a moving target at 600 feet, not even close. And I noted the solution above, but now I'll type it out in a bit more depth.


Longbow: 50/200 range

Sniping (Action): You can use the sniping action to hit a target that is not aware of you. You cannot move before or after this action. You make a single ranged attack at three times the normal range.

Archer Army
Volley Fire (Action): The army fires a mass of arrows at maximum range. +4 to hit, 3d8 damage, range 150/600.

Obviously it’s your call. But to me that seems like adding extra complications to solve a problem that I’ve never run into. Or at least, I’ve already unknowingly solved by just having opponents act rationally.

Edited to add: what I mean, is that if you are making rules changes, and then having to add extra rules to correct situations your new rules created, it might be worth stepping back and seeing if the cure is worse than the disease.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Which comes back down to the original point, if most people are envisioning encounters that are much closer than 600 feet, and the few times you actually do go that distance often leads to very imbalanced encounters, AND IRL archery is no where near accurate enough to be able to hit moving targets at those ranges..... then why have those ranges?

Legacy, Pretty much the same reason we have the price of string and a bag of ball bearings in the PHB.
I do not care whether they have or do not have those ranges. But I guarantee you that if you remove them there will be screaming about it.

 

[tetrasodium]

I truly do not understand the problem, which would not normally warrant commenting just for the sake of it... but the OP seems EXTREMELY vehement about this.
Can I get a 'real game' example of the problem OP is having? Like what is the situation he doesn't like and what does he want to be different?

There have been several examples throughout the thread with the types of situations that lead to thrusting the design clash. Here are several published by wotc &still more about 45 minutes before you posted here in post 56. Then there's the point that has come up a few times that got succinctly phrased in post 19 "The game isn’t balanced if the archer gets four rounds of combat before everyone else does. The DM doesn’t want to do that to the other players and the other players most likely don’t want it either. We know how some players react to any GM fiat that isn’t to their immediate benefit."

You and a number of others have flatly declared that "It's a GM skill issue". I absolutely agree there is a skill issue demonstrated through this thread that might track back to some GMs, but it's not the one you are suggesting. The tools currently available to the GM are

• A: Thre GM pilots the PCs into a reasonable range like puppets
• B: The GM teleports the opponents into a reasonable range
• C: The GM builds a world of warp points where you teleport straight from questgiver to the dungeon like some video games do.
• D: The GM invokes fiat to simply declare yea I don't care, you can't use that ability at this distance until the opponents are at a reasonable range
• E: The GM builds the entire surface world as a megadungeon with rooms & hallways. made of terrain structures & fog/dust/etc.

None of those are reasonable to the GM unless player facing rulebooks take the heat by making it clear to players that they are the expected norm. They aren't fair to the GM because we know how some players react to any GM fiat that isn’t to their immediate benefit.... unless of course the GM in question lacks the skill & experience to know how players react to fiat that isn't to their immediate benefit. 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 other way around with fiat to restrict the range of an ability with unreasonable range won't be smooth at all.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Any bandit that stands out of cover in the middle of an open plain is an idiot. Bandits attack from ambush, and place their camps in secluded locations. And if you see someone wandering around 600 feet away on an open road, how do you know they're a bandit?

Likewise, anyone who deliberately starts shooting at a predator 600 feet away when it most likely hasn't even scented them yet, let alone decided whether they're a tasty meal, is similarly an idiot. You don't engage wild animals at that range, you go around them, and only break out the bows and arrows if they start taking an unhealthy interest.

Or if the party is taking an unhealthy interest.

 

[Reef]

There have been several examples throughout the thread with the types of situations that lead to thrusting the design clash. Here are several published by wotc &still more about 45 minutes before you posted here in post 56. Then there's the point that has come up a few times that got succinctly phrased in post 19 "The game isn’t balanced if the archer gets four rounds of combat before everyone else does. The DM doesn’t want to do that to the other players and the other players most likely don’t want it either. We know how some players react to any GM fiat that isn’t to their immediate benefit."

You and a number of others have flatly declared that "It's a GM skill issue". I absolutely agree there is a skill issue demonstrated through this thread that might track back to some GMs, but it's not the one you are suggesting. The tools currently available to the GM are

• A: Thre GM pilots the PCs into a reasonable range like puppets
• B: The GM teleports the opponents into a reasonable range
• C: The GM builds a world of warp points where you teleport straight from questgiver to the dungeon like some video games do.
• D: The GM invokes fiat to simply declare yea I don't care, you can't use that ability at this distance until the opponents are at a reasonable range
• E: The GM builds the entire surface world as a megadungeon with rooms & hallways. made of terrain structures & fog/dust/etc.

None of those are reasonable to the GM unless player facing rulebooks take the heat by making it clear to players that they are the expected norm. They aren't fair to the GM because we know how some players react to any GM fiat that isn’t to their immediate benefit.... unless of course the GM in question lacks the skill & experience to know how players react to fiat that isn't to their immediate benefit. 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 other way around with fiat to restrict the range of an ability with unreasonable range won't be smooth at all.

No one is suggesting any sort of teleport or shenanigans. There are a lot of people saying that combat wouldn’t normally happen at those ranges. No intelligent creature is going to charge at bow using players at those ranges. And no player can force engagement at those ranges without the adversary fleeing.

(Barring weird specific instances, like, um, zombies, or something equally mindless)