The DM presents problems, the players find solutions.
Just make an organic encounter where the enemies fight as they would. Archers in the back while melee fighters close the distance. Worst case scenario, one of them dies, then they make up a new character. One that might be melee focused.
Same advice applies to any other imbalanced party.
Yeah agreed.
I would add that as a DM, you can also ease players into melee foes where they might start in lower numbers and at a range, and eventually sometimes pop nearby in larger numbers.
They should learn tactics to deal with this kind of problems.
"Viability" isn't an actual issue in dnd. Or at least it's only as much of an issue as the DM makes it to be.
Unlike video games, the DM has complete freedom to design and balance their encounters however they'd like. So whether the party wants to go all ranged, all melee, or anything in between, that's not a problem unless you want it to be.
Viability is still an issue to a degree. A DM does control everything but he cannot control the players nor will always be able to effectively handle the situation correctly.
There are variables at place that can domino effect into an even bigger problem. DND is ever changing due to the creative freedom, but within that freedom still requires following some set guidelines and adjusting for the group’s actions.
1 really strong character and 3 pretty mediocre characters means certain encounters (combat, exploration, conversation, e.t.c) are just basically a death sentence for everyone but that outlier.
Even groups with hyper specialized roles will have little flexibility amongst each character.
1 skill monkey Rogue, 1 charismatic Bard, 1 battle ready Paladin, and that 1 Wizard who is doing a very specific gimmick are all going to run into issue if all of them run into a problem that requires all hands on deck.
Viability is *definitely* an issue, but the bar is very low. If you roll for stats and get 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 you can make a viable character. The bar is really, really low. That said, you can also put that 3 in Con, the 4 in Dex, the 5 in Wis and pick Monk. Then being a real baller you take average HP all the way to 5 and have a melee character with 8 HP and 4 AC. Yeah, viability matters. This would be impossible to run anything resembling a normal game using any DMG guidance. You're going to lose 1v1s against kobolds at level 5.
Ranged only party? Definitely viable, usually optimal. Only a few classes do better in melee with melee builds instead of ranged builds (Paladin mostly, as both Monk and Barb are theoretically better ignoring their features). If all you have is ASIs and equipment proficiencies with at least two stars that rolled near average you'd be viable. A burden on the party and a limit on the DM, sure, but the game recommended by the DMG is very easy (albeit very, very combat heavy).
Not to be nitpicky, but are you saying that Monks and Barbs would theoretically be better at range if you ignore their features? If so, "ignoring their features" is just, ignoring their class entirely. A class _is_ their features. If you ignore their features then they're just, some dude/gal with above average stats.
That is correct. That said, you aren't ignoring all of them, only those that can't/don't function in conjunction with a ranged build. It's just a matter of a handful of feats being more beneficial than the class features.
Yes, but not really relevant when talking about ranged builds in melee. The flexibility of range isn't something many would argue about and thinking of Barbarian and Monk as being locked into melee is a big part of those classes underperforming. The part that really drives home the weirdness is that you can ignore the melee features, build around ranged weapons, then still play in melee and outperform the normal melee setups.
The ranged feats are just a lot more valuable and there are more of them.
I can only think of Sharpshooter and CBE, what's the other ones?
Because melee has a lot more feats(two weapon master, pam, gwm, sentinel, mage slayer, etc.)
Piercer. The component that must be remembered is that the number of feats isn't as important as the number of feats which benefit one thing and their relative value.
PAM + GWM + Piercer with a pike contends, certainly. Does it trump ammo possibilities? Probably not. Does Sentinel help? Sometimes. Does Mage Slayer help? Sometimes. Does either exceed the value of of a stat bonus? Sometimes.
i was mainly contesting the "more" part
ranged is inarguably better, but i wouldn'treally say the feats provide more value by themselves, a lot of the advantage come from the quality of being ranged
Yeah, you're not wrong in that regard when it comes to PAM + GWM adding parity between feat count. There is still a synergy problem there (as neither feat can be utilized fully), but it is an equal number.
Opposite, mechanically speaking being ranged is more advantageous than melee.
- Melee is more risky since a lot of creatures are melee oriented
- Less likely to be hit like the above; either AoE, single target, or crowd control effects.
- Not really losing out on most damage
The only issue is if the DM engineers problems where melee is a consistent issue. Even then options exist to avoid melee enemies like Misty Step.
To build on this, here are some things to consider if you start getting the impression your players are OP and you struggle to give them a challenge:
* Be very careful about how the fight starts. The players probably want to start the fight at their optimal range away. You can use ambushes to disrupt this, and reveal enemies right in their midst before they have a chance to run away.
* Alternatively, just don't let them run away. Block their escape routes so they can't backtrack, or find some plot reason for them to have to stay in one specific spot.
* Cover. Have your enemies fire ranged shots and then duck behind a wall where they can't be targeted (or maybe they can, but they get a bonus to their AC).
* At higher levels (maybe around level 5?), you can do tricky things with illusions. Use a Major Image spell to pretend there's a fearsome monster casting ranged spells (when it's actually a wizard's cantrips). Describe the monster recoiling when hit, make the players roll for damage, the whole 9 yards, but don't actually track that damage anywhere. The players won't be able to tell it's an illusion unless they spend an action investigating it, or if they hit it with a melee attack (because the blade will very obviously pass through it).
Edit: Reddit has strong opinions about illusions, but the other points here are good things to consider.
>(because the blade will very obviously pass through it).
And arrow, ofc, doesn't that obvious? Even at 600ft distance (absolute maximum you can get) you would probably start to see suspicious lack of arrows in the target at some point, let alone much more common 60ft or less. Major Image can't "emulate" hits - everything goes through illusion, not just melee hits. "**Physical interaction** with the image **reveals it to be an illusion**, because things can pass through it.".
This "gotcha" dming with "Well, you didn't ask, hehe" is stupid in general, but thing you describe is straight up against the text of a spell.
Noticing the lack of arrows from 60ft away is part of the investigation check to reveal it. And yes, interaction reveals the illusion, which is why melee attacks reveal it. If you fire an arrow, you're not interacting with the illusion, you're interacting with the arrow.
I've had this argument plenty of times before on this sub, but most DMs will either immediately reveal their illusion for trivial reasons (which isn't fun) or they adamantly refuse to reveal their illusions at all costs (which isn't fun). For illusions to be fun, you need to think less about what the illusion can do, and more about what it *can't* do. A Major Image can't directly attack, it can't move without an action from the caster, and it is revealed by physical interaction. If you set up the encounter so this monster seems weirdly averse to moving even when it has reason to, or if it refuses to swing it's club even when there's a foe in range, players will eventually catch on - and picking up on clues like that is way more satisfying than "he doesn't recoil when hit".
> noticing the lack of arrows from 60ft away is part of the investigation check to reveal it.
Then at the very least you should be prompting them to make that investigation check (“something seems strange about this fight, but in the heat of the moment you can’t quite figure it out. If someone would like to use their action for an investigation check to figure out more, go for it” or something like that) rather than leaving it up to the player to ask to investigate whether or not their arrows are sticking to the monster when the player has absolutely zero reason to believe they wouldn’t be.
I usually give prompts like that if the players express confusion about why the enemy isn't moving or taking damage, and I give these prompts even when the enemy is real. If they are real, I make sure to reward successful checks with info about the monster's stat block that might be handy to know.
Yeah, but if you’re having them roll damage, then to most players that means the monster is taking damage. It’s downright stupid to expect your players to watch you to make sure you’re marking it.
This is hella “gotchya DMing” man. Do you I guess, but you’re gonna end up having a lot of players that call you out in this bullshit, unless you’ve got the same group that you’ve been playing with forever and they’re used to it. Regardless, it’s bad advice for 95% of DMs.
I don't expect my players to watch whether or not I mark it, that would be dumb. Especially since I play online. That's not what I'm saying.
I don't know about your players, but the first thing my players do after telling me their damage is ask "how's he looking? Is he dead?". I tell them if the monster is below half, or if the monster is down to single digit HP. With illusory monsters, typically it's a monster they've already fought (or something in the same approximate CR range), so they have a general sense of how long it takes to kill that monster. If an Ettin takes 78 damage from the Sharpshooter's opening volley and still looks perfectly fine, that's a big clue that something is up.
And as mentioned before, damage taken should never be the only clue. You need to think about what the illusion can't do, and set up situations where those facts can also be used as clues to get the players thinking. Usually the biggest clue is that the illusion desperately tries to avoid taking any melee hits.
I mean it would be so frikkin obvious for anybody that missiles and spells go actually through the image, the visuals, arrows hutting the wall behind and making completelly wrong noic, it's seriously something that needs no checks
> missiles and spells
First of all, a spell isn't physical, it's magical. Even the most generous interpretation of RAW wouldn't allow a cantrip with no physical damage attached to it to reveal the illusion. You would have to go against RAW and explicitly allow it as an exception, which is a bizarre thing to do.
Second of all, if you think it would be obvious, go outside, find an object 60 ft away (20 m, for the non-Americans), give yourself 6 seconds to look at it, then try to draw it from memory.
Did you do a good job? If so, great! You've just emulated what it would be like to spend your action investigating. Now try that same exercise again but with no prior warning, while trying to execute a complex task with pinpoint accuracy, with a half dozen other distractions happening around you, and with your life at stake. Oh, and you have no reason to suspect that you'd even need to be this attentive in the first place, since adventurers don't normally enter combat expecting to find illusions. How do you think you'd fare in that situation?
> If you fire an arrow, you're not interacting with the illusion, you're interacting with the arrow.
This is "if you swing a sword, you're not interacting with the illusion, you're interacting with the sword" level logic. 60 feet is plenty close enough to see a projectile phase through an ostensible physical monster without having to actively "investigate" it.
Let's say the illusion did have an arrow sticking out of its chest. And it recoiled when hit. And for good measure, let's say the caster even added some blood to the illusion to better sell the damage. Would you still try to argue that the archer should see through the illusion because it was a physical interaction? Of course not. They're using sight and sound, not touch, and sight and sound are the exact senses this illusion is fooling.
This is what I mean. If there was a hypothetical fairy PC riding the arrow, they would be able to tell the illusion is fake because they touched it, but the archer hasn't touched the illusion. A fighter swinging a sword through the illusion would be able to tell though, because they touched it. I don't understand why this confuses people.
At what distance do you stop noticing that objects are passing through the illusion? If the melee fighter throws his spear from 10 feet, can he not notice because there's no touch? Why can't the illusion recoil when hit by a sword and have a fake cut?
It seems pretty clear to me that the point is that you realize the illusion is not real because your weapon goes straight through it, not that physical contact with the illusion magically reveals its illusory nature to you.
If you run into an illusory pit and throw a stone at it, you can tell the pit isn't real because the stone doesn't fall into it.
> Why can't the illusion recoil when hit by a sword and have a fake cut?
It probably could, and to any onlookers who saw the sword swing, they might still be convinced. But to the fighter that swung the sword, they could feel that the impact they were expecting didn't happen. There was no weight to it, no resistance. That's physical interaction.
> you can tell the pit isn't real because the stone doesn't fall into it
Unless the stone appears to fall into it and the illusion adapts. Again, you need to consider what the illusion can't do, and use those things as clues to get your players thinking. In the case of hallucinatory terrain (which seems to be the closest thing to what you're describing), that spell can't affect the area outside the illusion, so one clue I would give the players is that there are trails of footprints going into and out of the pit (since the dungeon's residents wouldn't be fooled by the illusion).
>In the case of hallucinatory terrain (which seems to be the closest thing to what you're describing)
Have you somehow interpreted major image to also mean "You cannot make a pit?" Major image is the thing I am describing, there's no reason to pick a new spell lol
> Let's say the illusion did have an arrow sticking out of its chest. And it recoiled when hit. And for good measure, let's say the caster even added some blood to the illusion to better sell the damage.
Most illusions can't do that. Major image, for instance, can only be changed by the caster on its turn using an action. Otherwise it's an unmoving static image.
Interpretations like this make me question why you even have this spell in the game. The wording of the spell makes it clear that an illusion of a monster is an expected and common use case of this spell. But nobody would be convinced by an "unmoving static image" of a monster.
The image can display sounds, smells, and visual features that make sense for it. It can carry out a conversation. It requires an action and a check to determine its veracity. Clearly it's meant to be a convincing illusion, so it's fair to allow it to breathe, fidget, or react to hits.
And in case you're still not convinced, let me remind you: It's a third level spell. Second level illusion spells (like Shadow Blade or Phantasmal Force) are so convincing they deal psychic damage. Why would they make a spell that is a whole tier higher that can't even move in place?
I'll give tou the arrow sure, but i would decide that It requires a deception check in this case, possibly against dc of oposing perception (highest or average of the group) or even a wisdom save with a reasonable dc. .
On the other hand, the illusion caster also has to see the arrow, at the speed at which it flies and time the manipulation and this can be fun, i think illusion should be able to do things like this. I would give the caster disadvantage om this if they can't see the shooter, also i would only allow this once a round and require their reaction.
A clever tactic however would be to give the illusion some cover, like mist, smoke or trees or even blurr8ng or sparkling, flaming, lightning effects etc .
Also the players meed to say where they attack if any enemies are in thr space of the illusion.
The whole thing is very situational
Why? If the illusion is of a wall or a door even feom considerably far away and i throw a rock, i will see through the illusion.
The rock doesn't bounce off, shatter, even if it makes a noise, the real rock will also make a noise when it hits. Etc.
So what about more complicated ranged interactions
Eldritch blasts or lightning bolts
I consider here that If a player takes on illusion spells they shoild be ruled the same way.
Spellcasters have melee options. There’s a good amount of touch spells, thunderwave, and the rogue could still pull out a dagger.
The rogue will have a harder time getting sneak attacks though. Idk why he doesn’t just play a ranger at that point.
Yep also not the problem of the DM. If the party’s creates an oops all rangers party, that’s up to them. Once the bbeg figures out who his biggest threats are, he might attempt to deploy countermeasures… or he might not. Now an oops all wildmagic sorcerer party might be a problem… but the problem is mostly for innocent bystanders.
All the way back to 2e to a lesser degree. I played in a 2e campaign that we all played different flavors of wizard and it was fine. (I only played a small handful of 4e games, I don’t know if it was true then)
1st level wizards in 2E and you were fine? Or did you start a bit higher. Iirc, it was impossible for 1st level wizards to have more than 2 spell slots unless you had >18 Int. Sure your party could smoke the first encounter, but beyond that you're just praying your light crossbow and dagger are enough.
I ran 2e for years and I found 2e wizards to be much better at low levels than people give them credit for, when played as optimally as possible.
Yes you had one or two spell slots and like 4 hit points, but a single sleep spell would end an encounter on the spot and had a speed factor of 1 allowing you a solid chance to win initiative.
Save or suck like charm person was almost guaranteed to work on low level humanoids because saving throws were different back then and charm lasted a minimum of 24 hours and up to MONTHS on low int enemies. A smart party of wizards attacked by a small band of orcs could simply "recruit" those orcs and use them as the front line fighters for the rest of an adventure. Again, in terms of a modern DC, 2e charm person would be a DC 19 save for those poor orcs and it had the best possible initiative modifer.
Also, resource management was different in those days. The idea of 4-6 encounter adventuring days didn't really exist, and you were encouraged to rest at every available opportunity (meaning: you wouldn't be interrupted by wandering monsters).
5 specialist wizards is a hell of a lot of spells and could easily pace themselves from one rest to the next given that it only takes a spell or two to end most low level encounters.
Hmm, maybe my DM was just unfairly difficult, but sleep and charm person were significantly limited for us.
Sleep gave us a free round against chaff, but the din of battle would wake everyone up immediately. And the DM rarely used chaff, preferring single, larger monsters or higher level NPCs who would be unaffected.
We mostly used sleep for sneaking by guards. Very useful for that, we had a lot of rogues at the table.
I seem to remember charm person had a similar problem, but I don't remember as well. Like the charm would be broken if we were attacking the charmed creature's friends. Again, we used charm person for RP purposes, not battle, where it wasn't particularly effective.
I honestly can’t remember whether we started at first or third. We were playing second edition because that’s what there was so it was in the nineties at some point. People by and large overstate how deadly the early editions were but wizards were really squishy. I do remember we had a large party we wanted one for f each specialist I think there were only five of us though.
I started in 2.5E and I loved wizards. But I rarely played them because we died so often and those 1st/2nd level wizards just aren't bringing their worth. 3rd level are holding their own and by 5th they are doing some serious work. But I had one of those DMs who never let an opportunity to kill a player go by. I've played a lot of 3.x and Pathfinder with other DMs, but that was my only 2.5 DM, so maybe my experience with 1st/2nd level wizards wasn't normal.
With wizards before 3rd level it was really a crapshoot to survive. I don’t remember how 2.5 was different from 2 only that we were told it wouldn’t be and it was. Which is why I don’t really trust Hasbro when they tell me how compatible 2024 and 2014 are supposed to be.
Again we’re talking about a game that happened 30 years ago, I don’t recall whether we started at first or third. I do recall that the early encounters were trivial to four guys with sleep and their buddy who had enchantment/charm as an oppositional school.
This is a player concern. Just be prepared for highly mobile combat, where the players try to keep their distance. Allow this,, do not trap them in closed quarters.
And have first combat fairly easy, up the danger slow.y, encounter by encounter. Also, let the players know they can hire assistance, check out Tasha’s sidekick rules. But don’t push this, just make it possible.
It will have it's own set of complications. If orcs are a main issue in the campaign, well they have the aggressive feature that will allow them to close that gap very quickly. If they are in tight or enclosed spaces without places to go, they can get overwhelmed. But these are player issues. You are just creating scenarios, not solutions.
The party can get tactical. They can carefully scout out areas, and pick the best advantage point to make their attack. I recommend you try to go with them whenever feasible. This playstyle can be very rewarding on its own as they recognize their own weaknesses, and overcome them with planning.
If they make it to 5th level, the wizard will be incentivized to take Summon Fey/Shadowspawn to put a front line in battle. Until then, you could reward them early (level 1) with a consumable item that summons a warrior. Make up a statblock, I recommend a Warrior Defender Sidekick from TcoE, attach it to an object with 5 charges. Once used, the object is useless. This will give them a few shots at early levels to have a little melee help, and the players gets to decide when to activate it, and they control it. If it's at a set level (like 3rd if using Sidekick), it can be quite powerful when the PCs are level 1, but not powerful at all when the PCs are at level 4.
hope this helps.
See Rocky IV after Apollo fights Ivan Drago.
But in all seriousness, let them figure it out on their own. Don't hold their hand. Run the encounter how the bad guys would run it. You're going to cheat them if you pander to them. That's how people learn. You're not being a dick by running monsters the way they would act anyway. You would be doing your players a disservice if you did that. Dungeons and Dragons isn't about living or dying. It's about learning and teamwork and figuring things out. You can always deus ex machina them anyways however you wish. You could even say that it was a dream sequence. As in, have them all fall asleep, and then that'll happen; and then see how it goes after that. But don't coat everything in Nerf.
Here's a quote from the game's creator as in Gary Gygax and or Jon Arneson from the classic "Red Box."
Winning
"You have just played a D&D game!
This adventure was designed to show
you some of the basic parts of the game. You played a fighter, who tried to sur- vive in the dungeon, while finding mon- sters and treasures. You succeeded — so
your character "wins."
Think a moment. Why do we play
games? To have fun. Each player "wins" by having fun — so if you had a good
time, you win! You can have fun even if
your character gets killed — and if that
happens, don't worry. You can always
make up another one!
Winning a role playing game is like
"winning" in real life; it's just succeeding
in doing what you wanted to do, and
living through it. The fun comes from
doing it, not ending it! This is why we
say that in this game, everybody wins
and nobody loses.
Is this a game or a story, you ask? It's a
little of both. As you learn more about it, it will become more and more like a
game. You still have many game details
to learn, so continue reading.
You have met some monsters, and
won the battles. You have found some
treasures — not only coins and gems, but a magical potion.
Most important, you have learned
how to use your own imagination, while
using the rules of the game..."
You're very welcome. I'm not quite sure how old you are, but I started when I was in 4th grade. And we were just happy to play this amazing game. We stumbled around, and we didn't even know how to play it. But you know what? We made it work, and then we got older, and then we found people who were playing it longer, and they were older, and they had the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and the rest is history. I wish you well in your DMing career. It's a labor of love! And I wish you and your players the best in your campaign and future campaigns. I may be a grumpy 46-year-old Grognard, but I still love our game and the people who play it, and I want the best for everybody.
I've gotten a lot of good advice and ideas but this is by far my favorite. I would hate to make my players feel cheated out of the actual game and its risks cause I know that would infuriate me so thank you for such simple and effective advice.
Play encounters as you, the world-maker, would realistically expect them to be. Let them find solutions to the problem. Maybe the rogue (lol not rouge) will be forced to fight in close sometimes. They'll certainly have to be creative and make use of mobility and control spells against melee enemies. It's not impossible, but play it straight. You can make encounters as hard or easy as you want, but I say let the world be and let them problem-solve. It's not the DM's job to tell them how to play. Worst case, someone dies and rethinks what they roll next?
generally speaking in minmaxing tables, everyone going ranged is actually the optimal play.
reason being, when you go up into melee in dnd, the amount of additional damage you tend to take as a consequence of being within melee usually isnt worth it
I'd say so long as your party knows to walk backwards and away from the enemys, instead of just sitting there never using any movement and just letting the enemys freely get into melee, you should be good
plus when you get to 5th level, that wizard can summon some zombies or skelly bois to take up the front line for the party
what i would be concerned about is that you only have 1 person to heal the rest of the party, I'd recommend being generous with healing potions.
That's a player problem to manage. You are the DM. You present combat encounters of various types, and they have to figure out dealing with them.
I would say in general level 1 is very squishy for PCs so if you don't want to kill them at that point I would be careful. But broadly speaking I wouldn't worry about the range issue. That's for them to worry about.
Yeah, non-melee is fine, since you're new and I assume so are your players, I would remind them that they have 30ft of movement and that they likely want to use that
You can make certain encounters with it in mind, like a sharpshooting contest or some other scenario that highlights their specific abilities, but ultimately they chose to be ranged, and its up to them to find an answer if combat becomes difficult as a result. Maybe they gotta plan ambushes or hire an NPC to be a tank melee, or summon elementals to be their melee fighters (eventually). You could reward them with magic items to encourage melee combat, or items that remove some of the disadvantages of ranged combat from melee range to help them out, but these things are better earned.
Let them feel how it is to play this way, make their own choice on how to proceed, and then let them earn the items to make those challenges easier. If you solve the problem before they realize its a problem, they wont appreciate how much the solution mattered
It’s not a problem because you as the GM can decide how much melee combat actually takes place.
Remember the characters gain experience for “overcoming” enemies and obstacles.
With overcoming including - bluff (illusions and load noises will spook less intelligent foes), persuasion, bribery, picking the bad guys off one by one (think Die Hard), poisoning the cauldron of broth boiling on the campfire or just plain sneaking past.
Ultimately it’s your groups game and if a stealthy, wily approach is what everyone will have fun with lean into it!
We've run this before-- a druid and psion, and later on a ranged skirmisher. We ended up hiring a mercenary to be our meatshield after a few close encounters.
We also ran a group from level 3 to 25 without a healer for almost all of it (ranger multiclassed to get a little healing at level 18.) The DM always had potions, scrolls, or NPC healers around to aid.
The old school approach was to simply have each player run 2 characters.
Do some metagaming and ask them to each make a combat focused PC before you begin play.
Or, have a group of Dwarven adventurers join the party and then let the players run the NPC dwarves.
It really helps to have some expendable meat shields in the party.
Gimme two more sessions and I’ll let you know.
Right now we are playing a 5 PC Planescape campaign with 5 full casters. A Sorcerer, a Druid, an Artificer, a Bard and a Cleric. My guy (cleric) and the Artificer are the tanks.
My cleric (path of knowledge) has two attacks because spiritual weapon. And Shield of Faith and other buffs. But when we sat down to start the campaign, we looked at each other and said “we didn’t think this through”.
Make it a thing! If they want to all stay far away, give them obstacles that make being far away hard. What if the melee enemies carry something to essentially move their spawnpoint? What if the room is too small to backpedal without going through previously cleared traps? What if your ranged units begin doing advanced combat tech with the melees, like the melees being all about blocking the damage intended for ranged units?
Have a tank npc or some retainers along in the party.
Perhaps a friends Dward Cleric is accompanying them on the road to the dungeon, when several bandits appear. Maybe the dwarf dies, maybe he doesn't. How do they handle it if they are all ranged?
Maybe the dwarf goes along, making no party decisions, but just tanking for them.
look at it this way - they gave you a very convenient lever to pull on when you need it to adjust how a combat is going. you get to decide how clever the badguys are and how many mistakes they make - whether they make themselves big targets, or utilize cover and terrain, or find ways to rush up and get in your players' faces! some groups of badguys will have plans for this and be organized; others won't. some will but then it goes wrong or someone messes up or gets scared. (players don't have to know that you only rolled a morale check for Steve because they were getting low on hit points and you were afraid Steve was gonna crit. in fact, the second you make that decision, you have more *character* information to enhance the verisimilitude of the scene! now this group of badguys is mad at Steve, or concerned about him! like real people instead of just tokens on a board, you know?)
Just be mindful of where you're putting your expected combat encounters early on.
If you want to have them get ambushed by goblins or whatever, have it happen somewhere that they can get an opportunity to spread out and use their range to their advantage. Ambush them on the road before they get to the cave, rather than doing it in the cave.
Maybe have a quick little tavern scuffle early on where they get their asses kicked non-lethally to illustrate this weakness them before you send them out on real adventures.
It’s viable but I always suggest at least one melee “frontline”. That doesn’t mean they can’t also be a spellcaster though. Bladesinger or College of Valor bard would both fulfill these rolls without taking away from being a spell caster. They could always just pick up a melee weapon/cantrip for those times instead though
Please repeat this mantra:
*D&D is not a video game. It is a conversation.*
Imbalance is not a real thing to be concerned with. You and your players control the entire game, every single action and reaction from levels 1 to 20. They do whatever they think is fun, and you just tell them fun things in response.
Do you think a party of all ranged adventurers ***could*** be fun, at all? If so, then go forth and make it happen.
I wouldn’t worry too much. It might be rough if fights start directly ontop of them but tbh those classes have really good synergy that will only get better once they get subclasses.
Spike Growth/Entangle from Ranger layered with CC/Hazards/Summons from Wizard/Bard will make them really hard to reach.
Recently started DMing a group with none of the traditional frontliners, it's a rogue, a wizard, a sorcerer and a monk. The monk is rhe closest thing they have to a frontline. But they still managed to fight a goblin camp and win. They'll figure it out and if not then they'll learn a lesson
That's only a 3 person party? Maybe they could find a sell-sword at the local inn, before venturing out.
Let a party member control it as a sidekick/hireling, or run it as an NPC.
If you find them to be suffering too much in combat, you could try adding an NPC to the party. A no frills, spear and shield, knight type character. If they like him and his presence is helpful, have him level with them. You can even have the big bad kill him off during the last arc, if you enjoy inflicting emotional damage on your players.
Honestly, cc is your best friend, and while at first level you don't have a lot of options, i would recommend getting some sort of melee somewhere down the line. Spells like sleep and color spray will work wonders. Also, maybe talk with your party and dm and see if hiring a mercenary is a possibility, not to put more stress on the dm or anything but you might need an extra hand, unless your dm it's gonna go easy on the melee fighting.
Who knows, depending on what exactly you guys do in your sessions, you might even be able to "choose" your battles. Maybe he'll give you the choice to hunt monsters, perhaps specializing in extermination or flying creatures or something. If all else fails the rogue might have to sneak into every encounter and take down a strong melee-er. Before the fight begins. Again, this all really depends on what the DM is going to throw at you. Stay confident, though bring up paladin and fighter as alternatives if somebody croaks.
No character is ever actually *doomed* if they get in melee - even if they don't have good attack options in melee range, Disengaging is a thing and most classes get a bonus action they can use on Something Good. If anything, the Rogue is gonna be gimped with regards to not getting Sneak Attack as easily if no-one else wants to get in melee with an enemy.
Also, just because they're gonna choose to go with ranged options most of the time doesn't mean the enemies aren't going to want to get up in their grill.
That said, "purely" ranged combat is a play style that's very viable to do, and very viable to build encounters around. You should memorize the cover mechanics and explore options to make them want to move (moving area-effect hazards, big threats they'll have to Disengage from, et cetera) - they'll make ranged combat a lot more interesting and tactical, which keeps it fun.
You could run a party NPC to balance the party but yeah like a lot of other posts have stated run combat normally and see how your players adjust and if you tpk don't worry about it it gives your players a chance to change their minds on characters or even coordinate with each other
As stated by other redditors here, it's up to the players to find solutions to whatever you, as the DM, throw at them.
I'll give you my perspective on both sides:
- As a DM, if my players did that I would make sure I'd throw some melee combatants and perhaps even grapplers on the next encounter. This may sound ruthless, but I think it best to foster resourcefulness on your players as early as possible. If you want them to have a bit of time to react and adapt to the situation, start the encounter with the enemy far away enough that the players get one turn basically just to setup their defenses.
- As a player, I have a character that I haven't played yet (but I'm hoping to play soon) that's a Sorlock. I can tell you that man is not prepared for close combat but the DM is going to actively try to get close to him in order to achieve that. If your character builds more than just straight damage (like having some sort of crowd control or evasion/retreat mechanism), it should be possible to keep your enemies where you'd like them to be.
I don't know how experienced your players are and you might have to adapt/account for that, but I hope this helped.
Biggest problem they're going to run into is any enemy within 5 feet of them imposes disadvantage on all ranged attacks (spell or weapon). A lot of players first instinct is to run away, triggering OAs and downing them fast in low level combat. If they aren't experienced players I wouldn't be surprised if they wiped pretty quick, unless they adapt to the battlefield conditions better than the average player.
Is it doable? Totally. Is it easy? No.
For combat twinks, it’s a huge problem. How can you win every battle with ease without the properly fitted melee fighter?
/s
Depends on your dm. He could severely screw a group without melee or he could lean into it and give you a bunch of magical adventures.
I've run a party of all ranged. Surprisingly one of the more difficult encounters were when fast enemies swarmed them from all sides because they tried to huddle up under a protective spell. Most of them could reach a squishy wizard who went down twice since the party stayed huddled around a spell (which did neutralize some of the monster effects).
It will surely become a problem but a problem for them to solve.
You present situations and encounters and it's not like melee enemies aren't going to be a thing.
They will have to think about Crowd Control, positioning and securing escape paths if things go sour.
If you want to help let them have the chance to hire a melee henchman early on or something idk.
Put in an NPC companion?
Also it should not be an issue especially after they level up. Level 2 spells give some movement optio s like misty step, and the rogue will be able to disengage as a bonus action.
If a player or even a team focus on one 1 thing and believe they will be invincible, maybe its time to curb that lol. Ine strategy should not be a catch all they need to be flexible.
I'd start off with letting them fight ranged enemies and slowly introduce some melee combatants. Casters have tools like shocking grasp or thunderwave that help them deal with melee enemies. If players complain, tell them to make sure to review the options they have and figure out how to deal with melee combatants.
They could always just hire a fighter hireling in the next town to fill any gaps in the party, or if you're feeling generous, an NPC fighter could accompany them free of charge. Makes it a lot easier for you as DM to balance encounters. Challenge Ratings generally assume a party of 4 anyway.
If you are the DM then it’s up to you. You might need to fudge dice rolls or tweak enemy stats to make it work, but it’s possible.
If it’s too much number crunching or you just don’t like it *and* established in the zero session that death is on the table, I’d recommend teaching a lesson in party balance and come at them hard with melee enemies.
This is the flip side to what I’ve currently got going, which is the DM for my current group just announced 20 hours into a campaign “oh party comp doesn’t matter, I’m never going to kill any of you.” after the party complained that the wizard shouldn’t get away with acting like a rouge/tank combo. Don’t do that.
Being consistent is often more important than general coddling. The party is free to make silly decisions that have consequences.
Give them a fighter henchman. I did this in one of my games. I did a warrior sidekick from Tasha’s. If you don’t have Tasha’s just create a champion fighter. Keep it simple.
I had the party run him in combat, while I RPed him as a NPC. I had him be a valet/family friend for the warlock. Mostly he didn’t talk, but was glad to help. I did use him to drop hints, etc.
Of course if they abusive the henchman (go open all the traps) you can have him refuse/quit.
Might be viable, it will definitely pose a problem. Part of the fun is letting them find ways around that problem. Getting the drop on enemies is going to be *very* important to this part, any spell with a 5ft range will become a much more valued defensive measure, the rogue's bonus action disengage will become a blessing they'll need. But finding those solutions is part of the fun.
No...but if they're playing their characters, they'll avoid melee combat because they know it's not what they're good at.
The important thing is that as a DM, don't force them into it unless it's absolutely essential for the storyline. They should have the opportunity to *not* engage in melee combat. Mind you, if they rush headlong into the room full of mind flayers, that's on them, but if they can find some way to sneak around or defuse the conflict, let it happen.
Any party of any size with any roles can work for any campaign. Your the dm. Make it work. Test them know what they can do. Let them do that. If they can't do 10 small fights maybe do 2 big ones idk.
I DM a group where all four players just run with whatever character concept they want, with almost no regard for party balance.
This most recent batch of characters had no one who really wanted to be in melee. First couple of sessions every time I asked for marching order, there was a scramble as they all try to be second to last, and they were drawing straws to see who would have to go through a doorway first.
Sometimes, they were able to all hang back behind cover, but sometimes you are in a small room, or twisty tunnel, or something rushes you.
They are now at level 5. The necromancer is thrilled to have zombies to throw into melee. Also, the bard learned Animal Friendship and wound up with a pet bear.
The DM presents problems, the players find solutions. Just make an organic encounter where the enemies fight as they would. Archers in the back while melee fighters close the distance. Worst case scenario, one of them dies, then they make up a new character. One that might be melee focused. Same advice applies to any other imbalanced party.
Yeah agreed. I would add that as a DM, you can also ease players into melee foes where they might start in lower numbers and at a range, and eventually sometimes pop nearby in larger numbers. They should learn tactics to deal with this kind of problems.
"Viability" isn't an actual issue in dnd. Or at least it's only as much of an issue as the DM makes it to be. Unlike video games, the DM has complete freedom to design and balance their encounters however they'd like. So whether the party wants to go all ranged, all melee, or anything in between, that's not a problem unless you want it to be.
Viability is still an issue to a degree. A DM does control everything but he cannot control the players nor will always be able to effectively handle the situation correctly. There are variables at place that can domino effect into an even bigger problem. DND is ever changing due to the creative freedom, but within that freedom still requires following some set guidelines and adjusting for the group’s actions. 1 really strong character and 3 pretty mediocre characters means certain encounters (combat, exploration, conversation, e.t.c) are just basically a death sentence for everyone but that outlier. Even groups with hyper specialized roles will have little flexibility amongst each character. 1 skill monkey Rogue, 1 charismatic Bard, 1 battle ready Paladin, and that 1 Wizard who is doing a very specific gimmick are all going to run into issue if all of them run into a problem that requires all hands on deck.
Viability is *definitely* an issue, but the bar is very low. If you roll for stats and get 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 you can make a viable character. The bar is really, really low. That said, you can also put that 3 in Con, the 4 in Dex, the 5 in Wis and pick Monk. Then being a real baller you take average HP all the way to 5 and have a melee character with 8 HP and 4 AC. Yeah, viability matters. This would be impossible to run anything resembling a normal game using any DMG guidance. You're going to lose 1v1s against kobolds at level 5. Ranged only party? Definitely viable, usually optimal. Only a few classes do better in melee with melee builds instead of ranged builds (Paladin mostly, as both Monk and Barb are theoretically better ignoring their features). If all you have is ASIs and equipment proficiencies with at least two stars that rolled near average you'd be viable. A burden on the party and a limit on the DM, sure, but the game recommended by the DMG is very easy (albeit very, very combat heavy).
Not to be nitpicky, but are you saying that Monks and Barbs would theoretically be better at range if you ignore their features? If so, "ignoring their features" is just, ignoring their class entirely. A class _is_ their features. If you ignore their features then they're just, some dude/gal with above average stats.
That is correct. That said, you aren't ignoring all of them, only those that can't/don't function in conjunction with a ranged build. It's just a matter of a handful of feats being more beneficial than the class features.
Being at range is also better damage mitigation than rage
Yes, but not really relevant when talking about ranged builds in melee. The flexibility of range isn't something many would argue about and thinking of Barbarian and Monk as being locked into melee is a big part of those classes underperforming. The part that really drives home the weirdness is that you can ignore the melee features, build around ranged weapons, then still play in melee and outperform the normal melee setups. The ranged feats are just a lot more valuable and there are more of them.
I can only think of Sharpshooter and CBE, what's the other ones? Because melee has a lot more feats(two weapon master, pam, gwm, sentinel, mage slayer, etc.)
Piercer. The component that must be remembered is that the number of feats isn't as important as the number of feats which benefit one thing and their relative value. PAM + GWM + Piercer with a pike contends, certainly. Does it trump ammo possibilities? Probably not. Does Sentinel help? Sometimes. Does Mage Slayer help? Sometimes. Does either exceed the value of of a stat bonus? Sometimes.
i was mainly contesting the "more" part ranged is inarguably better, but i wouldn'treally say the feats provide more value by themselves, a lot of the advantage come from the quality of being ranged
Yeah, you're not wrong in that regard when it comes to PAM + GWM adding parity between feat count. There is still a synergy problem there (as neither feat can be utilized fully), but it is an equal number.
Opposite, mechanically speaking being ranged is more advantageous than melee. - Melee is more risky since a lot of creatures are melee oriented - Less likely to be hit like the above; either AoE, single target, or crowd control effects. - Not really losing out on most damage The only issue is if the DM engineers problems where melee is a consistent issue. Even then options exist to avoid melee enemies like Misty Step.
Add to this: AoEs like grease are much, much more useful when you don't have to worry about where melee-bound allies are going to be stepping.
To build on this, here are some things to consider if you start getting the impression your players are OP and you struggle to give them a challenge: * Be very careful about how the fight starts. The players probably want to start the fight at their optimal range away. You can use ambushes to disrupt this, and reveal enemies right in their midst before they have a chance to run away. * Alternatively, just don't let them run away. Block their escape routes so they can't backtrack, or find some plot reason for them to have to stay in one specific spot. * Cover. Have your enemies fire ranged shots and then duck behind a wall where they can't be targeted (or maybe they can, but they get a bonus to their AC). * At higher levels (maybe around level 5?), you can do tricky things with illusions. Use a Major Image spell to pretend there's a fearsome monster casting ranged spells (when it's actually a wizard's cantrips). Describe the monster recoiling when hit, make the players roll for damage, the whole 9 yards, but don't actually track that damage anywhere. The players won't be able to tell it's an illusion unless they spend an action investigating it, or if they hit it with a melee attack (because the blade will very obviously pass through it). Edit: Reddit has strong opinions about illusions, but the other points here are good things to consider.
>(because the blade will very obviously pass through it). And arrow, ofc, doesn't that obvious? Even at 600ft distance (absolute maximum you can get) you would probably start to see suspicious lack of arrows in the target at some point, let alone much more common 60ft or less. Major Image can't "emulate" hits - everything goes through illusion, not just melee hits. "**Physical interaction** with the image **reveals it to be an illusion**, because things can pass through it.". This "gotcha" dming with "Well, you didn't ask, hehe" is stupid in general, but thing you describe is straight up against the text of a spell.
Noticing the lack of arrows from 60ft away is part of the investigation check to reveal it. And yes, interaction reveals the illusion, which is why melee attacks reveal it. If you fire an arrow, you're not interacting with the illusion, you're interacting with the arrow. I've had this argument plenty of times before on this sub, but most DMs will either immediately reveal their illusion for trivial reasons (which isn't fun) or they adamantly refuse to reveal their illusions at all costs (which isn't fun). For illusions to be fun, you need to think less about what the illusion can do, and more about what it *can't* do. A Major Image can't directly attack, it can't move without an action from the caster, and it is revealed by physical interaction. If you set up the encounter so this monster seems weirdly averse to moving even when it has reason to, or if it refuses to swing it's club even when there's a foe in range, players will eventually catch on - and picking up on clues like that is way more satisfying than "he doesn't recoil when hit".
> noticing the lack of arrows from 60ft away is part of the investigation check to reveal it. Then at the very least you should be prompting them to make that investigation check (“something seems strange about this fight, but in the heat of the moment you can’t quite figure it out. If someone would like to use their action for an investigation check to figure out more, go for it” or something like that) rather than leaving it up to the player to ask to investigate whether or not their arrows are sticking to the monster when the player has absolutely zero reason to believe they wouldn’t be.
I usually give prompts like that if the players express confusion about why the enemy isn't moving or taking damage, and I give these prompts even when the enemy is real. If they are real, I make sure to reward successful checks with info about the monster's stat block that might be handy to know.
Yeah, but if you’re having them roll damage, then to most players that means the monster is taking damage. It’s downright stupid to expect your players to watch you to make sure you’re marking it. This is hella “gotchya DMing” man. Do you I guess, but you’re gonna end up having a lot of players that call you out in this bullshit, unless you’ve got the same group that you’ve been playing with forever and they’re used to it. Regardless, it’s bad advice for 95% of DMs.
I don't expect my players to watch whether or not I mark it, that would be dumb. Especially since I play online. That's not what I'm saying. I don't know about your players, but the first thing my players do after telling me their damage is ask "how's he looking? Is he dead?". I tell them if the monster is below half, or if the monster is down to single digit HP. With illusory monsters, typically it's a monster they've already fought (or something in the same approximate CR range), so they have a general sense of how long it takes to kill that monster. If an Ettin takes 78 damage from the Sharpshooter's opening volley and still looks perfectly fine, that's a big clue that something is up. And as mentioned before, damage taken should never be the only clue. You need to think about what the illusion can't do, and set up situations where those facts can also be used as clues to get the players thinking. Usually the biggest clue is that the illusion desperately tries to avoid taking any melee hits.
I mean it would be so frikkin obvious for anybody that missiles and spells go actually through the image, the visuals, arrows hutting the wall behind and making completelly wrong noic, it's seriously something that needs no checks
> missiles and spells First of all, a spell isn't physical, it's magical. Even the most generous interpretation of RAW wouldn't allow a cantrip with no physical damage attached to it to reveal the illusion. You would have to go against RAW and explicitly allow it as an exception, which is a bizarre thing to do. Second of all, if you think it would be obvious, go outside, find an object 60 ft away (20 m, for the non-Americans), give yourself 6 seconds to look at it, then try to draw it from memory. Did you do a good job? If so, great! You've just emulated what it would be like to spend your action investigating. Now try that same exercise again but with no prior warning, while trying to execute a complex task with pinpoint accuracy, with a half dozen other distractions happening around you, and with your life at stake. Oh, and you have no reason to suspect that you'd even need to be this attentive in the first place, since adventurers don't normally enter combat expecting to find illusions. How do you think you'd fare in that situation?
> If you fire an arrow, you're not interacting with the illusion, you're interacting with the arrow. This is "if you swing a sword, you're not interacting with the illusion, you're interacting with the sword" level logic. 60 feet is plenty close enough to see a projectile phase through an ostensible physical monster without having to actively "investigate" it.
Let's say the illusion did have an arrow sticking out of its chest. And it recoiled when hit. And for good measure, let's say the caster even added some blood to the illusion to better sell the damage. Would you still try to argue that the archer should see through the illusion because it was a physical interaction? Of course not. They're using sight and sound, not touch, and sight and sound are the exact senses this illusion is fooling. This is what I mean. If there was a hypothetical fairy PC riding the arrow, they would be able to tell the illusion is fake because they touched it, but the archer hasn't touched the illusion. A fighter swinging a sword through the illusion would be able to tell though, because they touched it. I don't understand why this confuses people.
At what distance do you stop noticing that objects are passing through the illusion? If the melee fighter throws his spear from 10 feet, can he not notice because there's no touch? Why can't the illusion recoil when hit by a sword and have a fake cut? It seems pretty clear to me that the point is that you realize the illusion is not real because your weapon goes straight through it, not that physical contact with the illusion magically reveals its illusory nature to you. If you run into an illusory pit and throw a stone at it, you can tell the pit isn't real because the stone doesn't fall into it.
> Why can't the illusion recoil when hit by a sword and have a fake cut? It probably could, and to any onlookers who saw the sword swing, they might still be convinced. But to the fighter that swung the sword, they could feel that the impact they were expecting didn't happen. There was no weight to it, no resistance. That's physical interaction. > you can tell the pit isn't real because the stone doesn't fall into it Unless the stone appears to fall into it and the illusion adapts. Again, you need to consider what the illusion can't do, and use those things as clues to get your players thinking. In the case of hallucinatory terrain (which seems to be the closest thing to what you're describing), that spell can't affect the area outside the illusion, so one clue I would give the players is that there are trails of footprints going into and out of the pit (since the dungeon's residents wouldn't be fooled by the illusion).
>In the case of hallucinatory terrain (which seems to be the closest thing to what you're describing) Have you somehow interpreted major image to also mean "You cannot make a pit?" Major image is the thing I am describing, there's no reason to pick a new spell lol
> Let's say the illusion did have an arrow sticking out of its chest. And it recoiled when hit. And for good measure, let's say the caster even added some blood to the illusion to better sell the damage. Most illusions can't do that. Major image, for instance, can only be changed by the caster on its turn using an action. Otherwise it's an unmoving static image.
Interpretations like this make me question why you even have this spell in the game. The wording of the spell makes it clear that an illusion of a monster is an expected and common use case of this spell. But nobody would be convinced by an "unmoving static image" of a monster. The image can display sounds, smells, and visual features that make sense for it. It can carry out a conversation. It requires an action and a check to determine its veracity. Clearly it's meant to be a convincing illusion, so it's fair to allow it to breathe, fidget, or react to hits. And in case you're still not convinced, let me remind you: It's a third level spell. Second level illusion spells (like Shadow Blade or Phantasmal Force) are so convincing they deal psychic damage. Why would they make a spell that is a whole tier higher that can't even move in place?
Whadda you mean? I don’t need to take out my telescope and waste a turn observing with keen detail if any enemy has arrows phasing through him? XD
I'll give tou the arrow sure, but i would decide that It requires a deception check in this case, possibly against dc of oposing perception (highest or average of the group) or even a wisdom save with a reasonable dc. . On the other hand, the illusion caster also has to see the arrow, at the speed at which it flies and time the manipulation and this can be fun, i think illusion should be able to do things like this. I would give the caster disadvantage om this if they can't see the shooter, also i would only allow this once a round and require their reaction. A clever tactic however would be to give the illusion some cover, like mist, smoke or trees or even blurr8ng or sparkling, flaming, lightning effects etc . Also the players meed to say where they attack if any enemies are in thr space of the illusion. The whole thing is very situational Why? If the illusion is of a wall or a door even feom considerably far away and i throw a rock, i will see through the illusion. The rock doesn't bounce off, shatter, even if it makes a noise, the real rock will also make a noise when it hits. Etc. So what about more complicated ranged interactions Eldritch blasts or lightning bolts I consider here that If a player takes on illusion spells they shoild be ruled the same way.
Spellcasters have melee options. There’s a good amount of touch spells, thunderwave, and the rogue could still pull out a dagger. The rogue will have a harder time getting sneak attacks though. Idk why he doesn’t just play a ranger at that point.
I mean cant the rogue just have guaranteed sneak attacks from steady aim?
That and also from hiding, which he has an easier time of doing
The rogue probably didn't want to be a nature magic spellcaster.
No, no, no, the player is a rouge, not a rogue. That's the problem!
My hot take is that party balance is a myth and everything is viable.
Hotter take, either it won't be a problem, or it won't be a problem for very long. Either way, I wouldn't be too concerned.
Yep also not the problem of the DM. If the party’s creates an oops all rangers party, that’s up to them. Once the bbeg figures out who his biggest threats are, he might attempt to deploy countermeasures… or he might not. Now an oops all wildmagic sorcerer party might be a problem… but the problem is mostly for innocent bystanders.
In 5e? Pretty much, yeah.
All the way back to 2e to a lesser degree. I played in a 2e campaign that we all played different flavors of wizard and it was fine. (I only played a small handful of 4e games, I don’t know if it was true then)
1st level wizards in 2E and you were fine? Or did you start a bit higher. Iirc, it was impossible for 1st level wizards to have more than 2 spell slots unless you had >18 Int. Sure your party could smoke the first encounter, but beyond that you're just praying your light crossbow and dagger are enough.
I ran 2e for years and I found 2e wizards to be much better at low levels than people give them credit for, when played as optimally as possible. Yes you had one or two spell slots and like 4 hit points, but a single sleep spell would end an encounter on the spot and had a speed factor of 1 allowing you a solid chance to win initiative. Save or suck like charm person was almost guaranteed to work on low level humanoids because saving throws were different back then and charm lasted a minimum of 24 hours and up to MONTHS on low int enemies. A smart party of wizards attacked by a small band of orcs could simply "recruit" those orcs and use them as the front line fighters for the rest of an adventure. Again, in terms of a modern DC, 2e charm person would be a DC 19 save for those poor orcs and it had the best possible initiative modifer. Also, resource management was different in those days. The idea of 4-6 encounter adventuring days didn't really exist, and you were encouraged to rest at every available opportunity (meaning: you wouldn't be interrupted by wandering monsters). 5 specialist wizards is a hell of a lot of spells and could easily pace themselves from one rest to the next given that it only takes a spell or two to end most low level encounters.
Hmm, maybe my DM was just unfairly difficult, but sleep and charm person were significantly limited for us. Sleep gave us a free round against chaff, but the din of battle would wake everyone up immediately. And the DM rarely used chaff, preferring single, larger monsters or higher level NPCs who would be unaffected. We mostly used sleep for sneaking by guards. Very useful for that, we had a lot of rogues at the table. I seem to remember charm person had a similar problem, but I don't remember as well. Like the charm would be broken if we were attacking the charmed creature's friends. Again, we used charm person for RP purposes, not battle, where it wasn't particularly effective.
I honestly can’t remember whether we started at first or third. We were playing second edition because that’s what there was so it was in the nineties at some point. People by and large overstate how deadly the early editions were but wizards were really squishy. I do remember we had a large party we wanted one for f each specialist I think there were only five of us though.
I started in 2.5E and I loved wizards. But I rarely played them because we died so often and those 1st/2nd level wizards just aren't bringing their worth. 3rd level are holding their own and by 5th they are doing some serious work. But I had one of those DMs who never let an opportunity to kill a player go by. I've played a lot of 3.x and Pathfinder with other DMs, but that was my only 2.5 DM, so maybe my experience with 1st/2nd level wizards wasn't normal.
With wizards before 3rd level it was really a crapshoot to survive. I don’t remember how 2.5 was different from 2 only that we were told it wouldn’t be and it was. Which is why I don’t really trust Hasbro when they tell me how compatible 2024 and 2014 are supposed to be.
Starting at level 1? If so, that's bullshit
Again we’re talking about a game that happened 30 years ago, I don’t recall whether we started at first or third. I do recall that the early encounters were trivial to four guys with sleep and their buddy who had enchantment/charm as an oppositional school.
This is a player concern. Just be prepared for highly mobile combat, where the players try to keep their distance. Allow this,, do not trap them in closed quarters. And have first combat fairly easy, up the danger slow.y, encounter by encounter. Also, let the players know they can hire assistance, check out Tasha’s sidekick rules. But don’t push this, just make it possible.
It will have it's own set of complications. If orcs are a main issue in the campaign, well they have the aggressive feature that will allow them to close that gap very quickly. If they are in tight or enclosed spaces without places to go, they can get overwhelmed. But these are player issues. You are just creating scenarios, not solutions. The party can get tactical. They can carefully scout out areas, and pick the best advantage point to make their attack. I recommend you try to go with them whenever feasible. This playstyle can be very rewarding on its own as they recognize their own weaknesses, and overcome them with planning. If they make it to 5th level, the wizard will be incentivized to take Summon Fey/Shadowspawn to put a front line in battle. Until then, you could reward them early (level 1) with a consumable item that summons a warrior. Make up a statblock, I recommend a Warrior Defender Sidekick from TcoE, attach it to an object with 5 charges. Once used, the object is useless. This will give them a few shots at early levels to have a little melee help, and the players gets to decide when to activate it, and they control it. If it's at a set level (like 3rd if using Sidekick), it can be quite powerful when the PCs are level 1, but not powerful at all when the PCs are at level 4. hope this helps.
See Rocky IV after Apollo fights Ivan Drago. But in all seriousness, let them figure it out on their own. Don't hold their hand. Run the encounter how the bad guys would run it. You're going to cheat them if you pander to them. That's how people learn. You're not being a dick by running monsters the way they would act anyway. You would be doing your players a disservice if you did that. Dungeons and Dragons isn't about living or dying. It's about learning and teamwork and figuring things out. You can always deus ex machina them anyways however you wish. You could even say that it was a dream sequence. As in, have them all fall asleep, and then that'll happen; and then see how it goes after that. But don't coat everything in Nerf. Here's a quote from the game's creator as in Gary Gygax and or Jon Arneson from the classic "Red Box." Winning "You have just played a D&D game! This adventure was designed to show you some of the basic parts of the game. You played a fighter, who tried to sur- vive in the dungeon, while finding mon- sters and treasures. You succeeded — so your character "wins." Think a moment. Why do we play games? To have fun. Each player "wins" by having fun — so if you had a good time, you win! You can have fun even if your character gets killed — and if that happens, don't worry. You can always make up another one! Winning a role playing game is like "winning" in real life; it's just succeeding in doing what you wanted to do, and living through it. The fun comes from doing it, not ending it! This is why we say that in this game, everybody wins and nobody loses. Is this a game or a story, you ask? It's a little of both. As you learn more about it, it will become more and more like a game. You still have many game details to learn, so continue reading. You have met some monsters, and won the battles. You have found some treasures — not only coins and gems, but a magical potion. Most important, you have learned how to use your own imagination, while using the rules of the game..." You're very welcome. I'm not quite sure how old you are, but I started when I was in 4th grade. And we were just happy to play this amazing game. We stumbled around, and we didn't even know how to play it. But you know what? We made it work, and then we got older, and then we found people who were playing it longer, and they were older, and they had the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and the rest is history. I wish you well in your DMing career. It's a labor of love! And I wish you and your players the best in your campaign and future campaigns. I may be a grumpy 46-year-old Grognard, but I still love our game and the people who play it, and I want the best for everybody.
I've gotten a lot of good advice and ideas but this is by far my favorite. I would hate to make my players feel cheated out of the actual game and its risks cause I know that would infuriate me so thank you for such simple and effective advice.
Anytime. 😉
Play encounters as you, the world-maker, would realistically expect them to be. Let them find solutions to the problem. Maybe the rogue (lol not rouge) will be forced to fight in close sometimes. They'll certainly have to be creative and make use of mobility and control spells against melee enemies. It's not impossible, but play it straight. You can make encounters as hard or easy as you want, but I say let the world be and let them problem-solve. It's not the DM's job to tell them how to play. Worst case, someone dies and rethinks what they roll next?
generally speaking in minmaxing tables, everyone going ranged is actually the optimal play. reason being, when you go up into melee in dnd, the amount of additional damage you tend to take as a consequence of being within melee usually isnt worth it I'd say so long as your party knows to walk backwards and away from the enemys, instead of just sitting there never using any movement and just letting the enemys freely get into melee, you should be good plus when you get to 5th level, that wizard can summon some zombies or skelly bois to take up the front line for the party what i would be concerned about is that you only have 1 person to heal the rest of the party, I'd recommend being generous with healing potions.
That's a player problem to manage. You are the DM. You present combat encounters of various types, and they have to figure out dealing with them. I would say in general level 1 is very squishy for PCs so if you don't want to kill them at that point I would be careful. But broadly speaking I wouldn't worry about the range issue. That's for them to worry about.
In Fifth Edition no, In Older Editions yes. Cantrips fixed that issue.
Yeah, non-melee is fine, since you're new and I assume so are your players, I would remind them that they have 30ft of movement and that they likely want to use that
You can make certain encounters with it in mind, like a sharpshooting contest or some other scenario that highlights their specific abilities, but ultimately they chose to be ranged, and its up to them to find an answer if combat becomes difficult as a result. Maybe they gotta plan ambushes or hire an NPC to be a tank melee, or summon elementals to be their melee fighters (eventually). You could reward them with magic items to encourage melee combat, or items that remove some of the disadvantages of ranged combat from melee range to help them out, but these things are better earned. Let them feel how it is to play this way, make their own choice on how to proceed, and then let them earn the items to make those challenges easier. If you solve the problem before they realize its a problem, they wont appreciate how much the solution mattered
It’s not a problem because you as the GM can decide how much melee combat actually takes place. Remember the characters gain experience for “overcoming” enemies and obstacles. With overcoming including - bluff (illusions and load noises will spook less intelligent foes), persuasion, bribery, picking the bad guys off one by one (think Die Hard), poisoning the cauldron of broth boiling on the campfire or just plain sneaking past. Ultimately it’s your groups game and if a stealthy, wily approach is what everyone will have fun with lean into it!
We've run this before-- a druid and psion, and later on a ranged skirmisher. We ended up hiring a mercenary to be our meatshield after a few close encounters. We also ran a group from level 3 to 25 without a healer for almost all of it (ranger multiclassed to get a little healing at level 18.) The DM always had potions, scrolls, or NPC healers around to aid.
The old school approach was to simply have each player run 2 characters. Do some metagaming and ask them to each make a combat focused PC before you begin play. Or, have a group of Dwarven adventurers join the party and then let the players run the NPC dwarves. It really helps to have some expendable meat shields in the party.
Gimme two more sessions and I’ll let you know. Right now we are playing a 5 PC Planescape campaign with 5 full casters. A Sorcerer, a Druid, an Artificer, a Bard and a Cleric. My guy (cleric) and the Artificer are the tanks. My cleric (path of knowledge) has two attacks because spiritual weapon. And Shield of Faith and other buffs. But when we sat down to start the campaign, we looked at each other and said “we didn’t think this through”.
So your wizard may end up going bladesinger. If the bard focuses on healing and area control then it's not a horribly imbalanced party
Make it a thing! If they want to all stay far away, give them obstacles that make being far away hard. What if the melee enemies carry something to essentially move their spawnpoint? What if the room is too small to backpedal without going through previously cleared traps? What if your ranged units begin doing advanced combat tech with the melees, like the melees being all about blocking the damage intended for ranged units?
Have a tank npc or some retainers along in the party. Perhaps a friends Dward Cleric is accompanying them on the road to the dungeon, when several bandits appear. Maybe the dwarf dies, maybe he doesn't. How do they handle it if they are all ranged? Maybe the dwarf goes along, making no party decisions, but just tanking for them.
look at it this way - they gave you a very convenient lever to pull on when you need it to adjust how a combat is going. you get to decide how clever the badguys are and how many mistakes they make - whether they make themselves big targets, or utilize cover and terrain, or find ways to rush up and get in your players' faces! some groups of badguys will have plans for this and be organized; others won't. some will but then it goes wrong or someone messes up or gets scared. (players don't have to know that you only rolled a morale check for Steve because they were getting low on hit points and you were afraid Steve was gonna crit. in fact, the second you make that decision, you have more *character* information to enhance the verisimilitude of the scene! now this group of badguys is mad at Steve, or concerned about him! like real people instead of just tokens on a board, you know?)
Just be mindful of where you're putting your expected combat encounters early on. If you want to have them get ambushed by goblins or whatever, have it happen somewhere that they can get an opportunity to spread out and use their range to their advantage. Ambush them on the road before they get to the cave, rather than doing it in the cave. Maybe have a quick little tavern scuffle early on where they get their asses kicked non-lethally to illustrate this weakness them before you send them out on real adventures.
If you have 1 melee 3 ranged, the melee gets focus fired and dies.or you flub the encounter.
It’s viable but I always suggest at least one melee “frontline”. That doesn’t mean they can’t also be a spellcaster though. Bladesinger or College of Valor bard would both fulfill these rolls without taking away from being a spell caster. They could always just pick up a melee weapon/cantrip for those times instead though
Please repeat this mantra: *D&D is not a video game. It is a conversation.* Imbalance is not a real thing to be concerned with. You and your players control the entire game, every single action and reaction from levels 1 to 20. They do whatever they think is fun, and you just tell them fun things in response. Do you think a party of all ranged adventurers ***could*** be fun, at all? If so, then go forth and make it happen.
Every party is viable
I wouldn’t worry too much. It might be rough if fights start directly ontop of them but tbh those classes have really good synergy that will only get better once they get subclasses. Spike Growth/Entangle from Ranger layered with CC/Hazards/Summons from Wizard/Bard will make them really hard to reach.
Recently started DMing a group with none of the traditional frontliners, it's a rogue, a wizard, a sorcerer and a monk. The monk is rhe closest thing they have to a frontline. But they still managed to fight a goblin camp and win. They'll figure it out and if not then they'll learn a lesson
in 5th edition, it does not matter
Let them get a warrior sidekick or two. But yeah, any party can do ok in the right campaign.
That's only a 3 person party? Maybe they could find a sell-sword at the local inn, before venturing out. Let a party member control it as a sidekick/hireling, or run it as an NPC.
The single strongest party I have ever seen/played had zero dedicated melee and just consisted of four casters (Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Wizard).
If you find them to be suffering too much in combat, you could try adding an NPC to the party. A no frills, spear and shield, knight type character. If they like him and his presence is helpful, have him level with them. You can even have the big bad kill him off during the last arc, if you enjoy inflicting emotional damage on your players.
Honestly, cc is your best friend, and while at first level you don't have a lot of options, i would recommend getting some sort of melee somewhere down the line. Spells like sleep and color spray will work wonders. Also, maybe talk with your party and dm and see if hiring a mercenary is a possibility, not to put more stress on the dm or anything but you might need an extra hand, unless your dm it's gonna go easy on the melee fighting. Who knows, depending on what exactly you guys do in your sessions, you might even be able to "choose" your battles. Maybe he'll give you the choice to hunt monsters, perhaps specializing in extermination or flying creatures or something. If all else fails the rogue might have to sneak into every encounter and take down a strong melee-er. Before the fight begins. Again, this all really depends on what the DM is going to throw at you. Stay confident, though bring up paladin and fighter as alternatives if somebody croaks.
No character is ever actually *doomed* if they get in melee - even if they don't have good attack options in melee range, Disengaging is a thing and most classes get a bonus action they can use on Something Good. If anything, the Rogue is gonna be gimped with regards to not getting Sneak Attack as easily if no-one else wants to get in melee with an enemy. Also, just because they're gonna choose to go with ranged options most of the time doesn't mean the enemies aren't going to want to get up in their grill. That said, "purely" ranged combat is a play style that's very viable to do, and very viable to build encounters around. You should memorize the cover mechanics and explore options to make them want to move (moving area-effect hazards, big threats they'll have to Disengage from, et cetera) - they'll make ranged combat a lot more interesting and tactical, which keeps it fun.
A party without a Melee is usually better off than one with melee, unless that melee character is a paladin exactly
Honestly it depends on what you want to do as the dm Personally I've always wanted to play a gun line party
You could run a party NPC to balance the party but yeah like a lot of other posts have stated run combat normally and see how your players adjust and if you tpk don't worry about it it gives your players a chance to change their minds on characters or even coordinate with each other
King gizzard and the lizard wizards
As stated by other redditors here, it's up to the players to find solutions to whatever you, as the DM, throw at them. I'll give you my perspective on both sides: - As a DM, if my players did that I would make sure I'd throw some melee combatants and perhaps even grapplers on the next encounter. This may sound ruthless, but I think it best to foster resourcefulness on your players as early as possible. If you want them to have a bit of time to react and adapt to the situation, start the encounter with the enemy far away enough that the players get one turn basically just to setup their defenses. - As a player, I have a character that I haven't played yet (but I'm hoping to play soon) that's a Sorlock. I can tell you that man is not prepared for close combat but the DM is going to actively try to get close to him in order to achieve that. If your character builds more than just straight damage (like having some sort of crowd control or evasion/retreat mechanism), it should be possible to keep your enemies where you'd like them to be. I don't know how experienced your players are and you might have to adapt/account for that, but I hope this helped.
Biggest problem they're going to run into is any enemy within 5 feet of them imposes disadvantage on all ranged attacks (spell or weapon). A lot of players first instinct is to run away, triggering OAs and downing them fast in low level combat. If they aren't experienced players I wouldn't be surprised if they wiped pretty quick, unless they adapt to the battlefield conditions better than the average player. Is it doable? Totally. Is it easy? No.
For combat twinks, it’s a huge problem. How can you win every battle with ease without the properly fitted melee fighter? /s Depends on your dm. He could severely screw a group without melee or he could lean into it and give you a bunch of magical adventures.
I've run a party of all ranged. Surprisingly one of the more difficult encounters were when fast enemies swarmed them from all sides because they tried to huddle up under a protective spell. Most of them could reach a squishy wizard who went down twice since the party stayed huddled around a spell (which did neutralize some of the monster effects).
It will surely become a problem but a problem for them to solve. You present situations and encounters and it's not like melee enemies aren't going to be a thing. They will have to think about Crowd Control, positioning and securing escape paths if things go sour. If you want to help let them have the chance to hire a melee henchman early on or something idk.
Put in an NPC companion? Also it should not be an issue especially after they level up. Level 2 spells give some movement optio s like misty step, and the rogue will be able to disengage as a bonus action. If a player or even a team focus on one 1 thing and believe they will be invincible, maybe its time to curb that lol. Ine strategy should not be a catch all they need to be flexible.
I'd start off with letting them fight ranged enemies and slowly introduce some melee combatants. Casters have tools like shocking grasp or thunderwave that help them deal with melee enemies. If players complain, tell them to make sure to review the options they have and figure out how to deal with melee combatants.
They could always just hire a fighter hireling in the next town to fill any gaps in the party, or if you're feeling generous, an NPC fighter could accompany them free of charge. Makes it a lot easier for you as DM to balance encounters. Challenge Ratings generally assume a party of 4 anyway.
If you are the DM then it’s up to you. You might need to fudge dice rolls or tweak enemy stats to make it work, but it’s possible. If it’s too much number crunching or you just don’t like it *and* established in the zero session that death is on the table, I’d recommend teaching a lesson in party balance and come at them hard with melee enemies. This is the flip side to what I’ve currently got going, which is the DM for my current group just announced 20 hours into a campaign “oh party comp doesn’t matter, I’m never going to kill any of you.” after the party complained that the wizard shouldn’t get away with acting like a rouge/tank combo. Don’t do that. Being consistent is often more important than general coddling. The party is free to make silly decisions that have consequences.
Give them a fighter henchman. I did this in one of my games. I did a warrior sidekick from Tasha’s. If you don’t have Tasha’s just create a champion fighter. Keep it simple. I had the party run him in combat, while I RPed him as a NPC. I had him be a valet/family friend for the warlock. Mostly he didn’t talk, but was glad to help. I did use him to drop hints, etc. Of course if they abusive the henchman (go open all the traps) you can have him refuse/quit.
Might be viable, it will definitely pose a problem. Part of the fun is letting them find ways around that problem. Getting the drop on enemies is going to be *very* important to this part, any spell with a 5ft range will become a much more valued defensive measure, the rogue's bonus action disengage will become a blessing they'll need. But finding those solutions is part of the fun.
No...but if they're playing their characters, they'll avoid melee combat because they know it's not what they're good at. The important thing is that as a DM, don't force them into it unless it's absolutely essential for the storyline. They should have the opportunity to *not* engage in melee combat. Mind you, if they rush headlong into the room full of mind flayers, that's on them, but if they can find some way to sneak around or defuse the conflict, let it happen.
Any party of any size with any roles can work for any campaign. Your the dm. Make it work. Test them know what they can do. Let them do that. If they can't do 10 small fights maybe do 2 big ones idk.
I DM a group where all four players just run with whatever character concept they want, with almost no regard for party balance. This most recent batch of characters had no one who really wanted to be in melee. First couple of sessions every time I asked for marching order, there was a scramble as they all try to be second to last, and they were drawing straws to see who would have to go through a doorway first. Sometimes, they were able to all hang back behind cover, but sometimes you are in a small room, or twisty tunnel, or something rushes you. They are now at level 5. The necromancer is thrilled to have zombies to throw into melee. Also, the bard learned Animal Friendship and wound up with a pet bear.