why to never blindly trust the Forums as a new DM or player

[Dr.Samurai]

Why would the players care about the CR.

The DM cares about CR. This is the ENTIRE POINT of this conversation.

You, as a player, making all of these claims about how to play the game are 100% irrelevant if someone's DM doesn't modify their campaign to allow for these tactics. In other words, forum advise has to be taken with a grain of salt because the inherent assumptions won't always be true.

Another way to put is that your assumptions as a player are less important for someone seeking advice than how their DM plans to run the game at the actual table.

And yes, it flies away and then comes back. Have you ever played Skyrim? Dragons just fly around and use their breath till you drop their health low enough and they don't have the strength to keep to the skies, so they land. If you don't have ranged options then you can't possibly win. Does it look out of place? Absolutely not. They are dragons, they burn stuff with their breath. Claws are for kittens. Alduin in the opening sequence just flies to a position, uses his breath, then moves somewhere else, uses it again on as many people as possible. He doesn't land in the middle and starts chasing peasants around. His objective is to destroy them, not to engage in melee and chase them around like headless chickens.

No, I don't play Skyrim. I play D&D, where a dragon's main attack is Multiattack. Where a dragon is expected to open up with a breath weapon attack and then lash out with claws, bites, tails, wings, etc. Where the dragon is in a lair and also using lair actions. ETC ETC ETC

Seriously, just google "5e would dragon ever land" or something and see what people think about it. I mean it's completely prepostorous to even think that the dragon won't engage in melee, but obviously all these people are playing the game wrong,

I don't need to google it. I am explaining to you that the game expects the dragon to land, because the majority of a dragon's attacks are melee attacks. If the dragon was not expected to use its melee attacks, its CR would be lower, because its damage output would be much lower, because it's only getting breath weapon every few rounds and then not dealing any damage between those rounds.

and the new player/dm coming here will get misinformed by me claiming that range > melee.

The problem is that I never, ever, ever, ever, ever made a claim that ranged was better or worse than melee, or that Strength was better than Dexterity, etc.

I said Strength is undervalued because the things that Strength provide are undervalued. Resisting forced movement/restraints is not considered when thinking of melee frontliners. Grappling is not considered.

When you said ranged characters don't have to worry about those things, I clarified that I was clearly talking about melee characters that use a stat other than Strength. You then made the very dubious claim that there is absolutely no reason to engage enemies in melee in D&D unless the DM forces it in some sort of arena situation.

Why the hell PWT is the whiteroom?

The idea that Pass Without Trace will always allow you to ambush your enemies and get a surprise round is what is whiteroom.

I never said that the party will be stealthing all the time. PWT is a 1h buff and it can literally be up for pretty much all the daily encounters. Which means that the caster becomes a supreme scout, easily beating passive perceptions. Additionally ranged parties have casters who have familiars. They have locate objects, invisibilities, etc. Scouting is not a white room tactic or a new concept. It has been around for decades. I'm not counting on getting surprise in every battle, but whenever the party has stategic advantage, it can really push the advantage with PWT. A level 5 GS at night is a supreme scout. Is engaging at night a white room tactic too?

Explaining a tactic is totally different from making blanket generalizations about how to play the game. Please be consistent and don't pretend I'm attacking things you haven't said.

If you're saying "attack at night when you're able, try to get a surprise round whenever possible, scouting ahead will help with this", that's fine.

But that is not what you've said or have been saying.

I also never said that you will never get into melee. I said that you use melee when forced to. Why is this so hard to understand?

Because the game will force you into melee more often than not. It comes across as either meaningless, or as representing that players can realistically play most of the game at a distance kiting enemies. But whenever I attack that second option, you pivot to "I'm just saying that there are advantages to ranged combat".

Yes, we know there are advantages. Yes, if you can avoid melee, try to avoid melee. D&D does not make that a realistic approach to the game.

White room also is thinking that your melee characters will never have to chase after kiters, never have to deal with difficult terrain and traps, and enemies will deliberately disregard their ranged capabilities to engage in melee.

LMAO, Strength characters can deal with difficult terrain better than others due to Jump. But I never represented that Strength characters have no limitations, so I don't need to engage here.

Good, and when I do, the enemies will have lost a good chunk of their health and some of them will be dead. I wonder, do you think that people who support the idea of range optimization haven't played DnD before or something?

You're not putting forth "range optimization". You're saying that melee shouldn't happen very often.

Optimization is always limited because of table parameters. It's why a lot of conversation on the forum is boring and eye-rolling, because "if your DM allows exactly every single thing I'm about to mention, you too can totally win at D&D in these easy steps" is completely uninteresting to me. Your description of kiting every enemy into oblivion strikes me as exactly that. It's so unrealistic for most games and anyone reading your comments should understand that.

Your DM has facilitated a style of gameplay and you and your party have adapted to it extremely well. That's great and I'm certain you all have a great time. But it's not representative of most tables, so talking about it like it's just the way to play D&D is not helpful.

[Corran]

It's also not a "table" thing. Is there anything anyone can do to force you into not using ranged attacks?

You dont have to force a player to enter melee (though I guess there are ways to even do that), though you can do things to make getting into melee the better option (I can expand if you are interested). Not the better option for any given pc, but the better option in general. How much the pc is built to take advantage of that is part of the optimization. I am not saying that I'd be right to be expecting melee specialist builds to make it into most scenarios we might be optimizing against, just that melee still has its function in the game and that it does not always end up as your backup option in practice by your own choices, even if in theory you would prefer to fight under different conditions; sometimes you just cannot. You may be able to retreat or choose not to engage, but the same could be said about a melee heavy group choosing not to deal with fliers. Optimization is also about being able to do well under different circumstances, and having the option to do well by getting into your opponents' faces (or when they manage to get into yours -the party's) is part of it.

RE on kiting: I think there is a very reasonable assumption to be made here, that at a lot of tables kiting is not a thing because players simply dont do it. But even if when you do it, you need to figure out what you'll be doing when it goes wrong (I can expand on this with examples, through which a good argument may arise or it may not). And if you are employing the whole party instead of, say, 2 or 3 characters who have a far easier time optimizing to be good at kiting than everyone else (who may still be good at kiting, but not as good as the aforementioned 2 or 3 characters), then melee becomes a much more widely applicable plan B (because every other alternative I can think of can easily be less reliable when kiting with more characters than it would be optimal for a better/safer kiting performance).

RE on STR vs DEX for melee builds with similar damage output: There are some situations I can think of (the already mentioned choke point included) where I would prefer a STR based paladin or EK to a DEX ones, simply because I would prefer a better chance at grappling/shoving and at being more likely to succeed against the same to the benefits a better dex comes with. But if I was going blindly in, I'd probably pick DEX too.

I don't need to google it. I am explaining to you that the game expects the dragon to land, because the majority of a dragon's attacks are melee attacks.

The CR assumes that because it has to calculate something. That does not mean it translates well to a DM's or player's expectations. As a DM I am not compelled to have the dragon land because the CR reads a certain number. I may do that because the dragon does not want to burn the shinnies that will add to their horde after it pressumably kills the pc's, or because there is (seemingly) a good opportunity to land and take down (or up in the air) someone, or because it does not like strangers touching its horde. Or anything else that I would not find it impossible to make sense from an in game world perpective. Additionally, I would not find it peruassive if a player told me that a dragon should land and fight on the ground because the CR assumes that's what happens. The dragon may respond to some challenge or insult and accomodate the pc's, or it may not.

CR is just a number that tries to approximate the difficulty when running the monster a certain way. Not a guideline or a recommendation on how you should run the monster. That's entirely up to the DM.

[animorte]

CR is just a number that tries to approximate the difficulty when running the monster a certain way. Not a guideline or a recommendation on how you should run the monster. That's entirely up to the DM.

That, and it's based on combating a 4-PC group. So, others complaining about it being too easy when they have seven PCs, or that it's too hard with 2-3 folks.

[Dr.Samurai]

The CR assumes that because it has to calculate something. That does not mean it translates well to a DM's or player's expectations. As a DM I am not compelled to have the dragon land because the CR reads a certain number. I may do that because the dragon does not want to burn the shinnies that will add to their horde after it pressumably kills the pc's, or because there is (seemingly) a good opportunity to land and take down (or up in the air) someone, or because it does not like strangers touching its horde. Or anything else that I would not find it impossible to make sense from an in game world perpective. Additionally, I would not find it peruassive if a player told me that a dragon should land and fight on the ground because the CR assumes that's what happens. The dragon may respond to some challenge or insult and accomodate the pc's, or it may not.

CR is just a number that tries to approximate the difficulty when running the monster a certain way. Not a guideline or a recommendation on how you should run the monster. That's entirely up to the DM.

I said the game was built around melee combat and I was told that assertion was bold. I think the fact that CR factors in damage dealt per round, and the vast majority of that damage is melee damage lends itself to my claim.

The game is in part storytelling so DMs will always have the discretion to play NPCs/Monsters as is appropriate to the context of the scene. But when determining CR (which can't really be dismissed in this case), the designers chose to give dragons an always-on melee attack routine, and a breath weapon attack that has a 33% chance to recharge. D&D dragons are not movie dragons that can just breath fire all the time and strafe the sky raining down infernos on everyone. The designers didn't give them at-will breath weapon attacks and a tail sweep that recharges on a 5 or 6. Legendary Actions and Lair Actions also suggest being in melee range.

So I would agree that DMs are free to run monsters however they see fit. I've already agreed that people can play "range-only" games; I'm not here to tell anyone you can't play a certain way. But to say that you're not expected to go into melee with a dragon, when 95% of its damage options require being in melee is not something I can really agree with. The dispute here is whether a frontline is necessary, with Gtdead saying it's only ever a last resort and it's idiotic to have frontliners, and me saying that the game assumes melee combat, so frontliners are a reality of the game.

[Bigmouth]

Interesting thread as posters unintentionally demonstrate the odd polarization effects of forum posters. Some posting from both directions that borders on "You're dumb if you don't agree". Some barbs. Some venom.

Oh, and for that poster on the first page of responses who has never seen anyone say there should be more classes. "There should be more classes!" I'm guessing you haven't noticed others say that because you don't agree. But as someone who thinks there is plenty of room for more classes in D&D, I definitely notice. Also, the statement about the thought that Rangers, Rogues, Barbarians, and Paladins should just be fighter subclasses being rare...for being rare, it seems to show up on every thread about Rangers. So, perhaps not a majority of GITP forum users, but enough that I see it on the threads I read. (Which is skewed towards rangers often)

Oh! And there should definitely be more classes! Not everything needs to be forced into subclasses!

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Maybe this is just me (and I don't think it is) but I try to DM in such a way that everyone's character gets chances to shine. Dependent on the location of course there are going to be biases, but putting as much variety into encounters as possible will do this. A high seas campaign is going to lean way more towards ranged than a dungeon; for example, when I was DMing GoS there just happened to be substantial fog or high seas occasionally so that every battle didn't result in the 2 archers playing by themselves for extended periods.

Additionally, 5e is balanced enough that an extra magic item or 2 will make up for shortcomings of the vast majority of 'weaker' builds. Then there are the issues of people effectively boosting many of the perceived stronger classes by running way fewer than recommended encounters / LR, and boosting some of the supposed OP reaction spells by rolling open (then complaining about them).

In short, when I read that this, that, or the other thing is either 'OP' or 'crap' my first thought is: what the heck is the DM doing?

[Dr.Samurai]

Maybe this is just me (and I don't think it is) but I try to DM in such a way that everyone's character gets chances to shine. Dependent on the location of course there are going to be biases, but putting as much variety into encounters as possible will do this. A high seas campaign is going to lean way more towards ranged than a dungeon; for example, when I was DMing GoS there just happened to be substantial fog or high seas occasionally so that every battle didn't result in the 2 archers playing by themselves for extended periods.

Additionally, 5e is balanced enough that an extra magic item or 2 will make up for shortcomings of the vast majority of 'weaker' builds. Then there are the issues of people effectively boosting many of the perceived stronger classes by running way fewer than recommended encounters / LR, and boosting some of the supposed OP reaction spells by rolling open (then complaining about them).

In short, when I read that this, that, or the other thing is either 'OP' or 'crap' my first thought is: what the heck is the DM doing?

Semi-related to the discussion but more that you reminded me of it, our most recent BG:DIA session had us fighting in a town square to defend a temple. The enemies came onto the map 300ft away from us so the Sharpshooter ranger, despite protest from the wizard, decided to attack and begin the encounter. We were all peeved as we sat there turn after turn waiting for the enemy to engage us in our fortified position while the ranger took shots at the advancing demons. BUT, just the previous session the situation was reversed. We entered the town 300ft away and encountered gnolls and a giant hyena. At the temple, a demon was trying to break down the doors to the temple (300ft away). Before we could cover the distance, the demon broke the doors down and went inside to attack the townsfolk. Because the ranger could shoot at that distance and ignore cover, he hit the demon with 2 Sharpsooter attacks, which caused the demon to rage and come rampaging toward us instead of attacking the townsfolk. It was awesome, and the ranger saved the day in a desperate situation.

In the second session, a marilith teleported next to the bladesinging wizard and he bemoaned his bad luck. I was stuffing chips in my mouth at the time so my mic was muted; I messaged him on the side and said "You're going to love this". The wizard has a Cloak of Displacement and his AC is pretty high when Bladesinging (I don't know the exact number). The marilith rolls a bunch of attacks against him, most miss, one hits. He pops Shield and avoids it. The marilith then crits, but our Grave Cleric turns it into a normal hit. So the wizard tanked all of the marilith's attacks and felt like a god lol. It was awesome!

I wholeheartedly agree with making characters shine. It always feels good when it happens

[Dalinar]

Apologies for not reading the whole thread. I have some thoughts I want to get out while they're still up in my brain.

I think people making very... categorical? Blunt? Statements that assume certain things won't be contradicted--is a pretty universal problem, not just a forum thing.

I think what works "on paper" (be it literally just in a vacuum, or versus the average of all monsters in official 5e content, or some subset of those, or homebrew critters) versus what's a good idea powerful and/or interesting character to run for a specific campaign with a specific DM is always going to leave a huge gap. For example, playing a paladin in Curse of Strahd might be a very different experience from playing one in Strixhaven versus playing one in an "invade the Upper Planes" campaign some random DM decided to run.

The number of encounters between rests is rather infamously a huge variable to consider as well. Typically more long rests leads to full caster dominance, while very few long rests with some short rests sprinkled in are good for warlocks and most martials.

I think new forum readers may want to adopt the attitude that any plan you make is likely not going to survive session zero, and so it's worth taking any character build with a grain of salt (even the incredibly talented people [and me] over in the Eclectic Collection thread). I say this as someone who absolutely loves coming up with character builds.

[OldTrees1]

I think people making very... categorical? Blunt? Statements that assume certain things won't be contradicted--is a pretty universal problem, not just a forum thing.

Yeah. It helps to assume anything someone says on a forum is their opinion (a fair assumption) and mentally add "in my opinion" to every sentence (including this quote). That helps blunt (soften) the blunt (unreserved) categorical statements.

[Rynjin]

Yeah. It helps to assume anything someone says on a forum is their opinion (a fair assumption) and mentally add "in my opinion" to every sentence (including this quote). That helps blunt (soften) the blunt (unreserved) categorical statements.

Be careful, some people in this thread have a vendetta against assumptions. I think one might have killed their dog once.

[Willowhelm]

Be careful, some people in this thread have a vendetta against assumptions. I think one might have killed their dog once.

As a side note, yes. I have had a dog killed thanks to an assumption. They were run over. It was incorrectly assumed that they were elsewhere and it was safe for the vehicle to reverse.

Just goes to show… you assumed that was a harmless joke and a bit of fun.

Turns out it was also a traumatic childhood memory for me (and probably others)

Maybe there’s something to the idea that assumptions can be problematic?