Interest Check -- No range weapons/spell use in 5e

Just wondering how well it would work with the 5e system. There are of course both fantasy and science fiction worlds where post-apocalyptic societies ban range weapons (Fred Saberhagen wrote some I think?) or are technologically less effective (Dune). But my question is whether spell using characters in 5e would still be effective if all spells were no range?

What kind of Gish might you play to compete with the fighters, barbarians, rogues, and moon druids out there?

Well, first a little more clarification. Shocking Grasp has a "range" of 'touch'. Thunderwave starts at a corner of your square and only goes 15 feet. Also, Booming Blade can be used with a reach weapon effectively giving it a range as well. Poison Spray goes 10 feet, effectively the same as standard reach weapons. Let's add Dragon's Breath to that list while we are at it. Or even Dragonorn and other dragons breath weapons. Do thrown weapons work? Can a wizard cast Firebolt and simply target the enemy in an adjacent square? Would they still be at risk for casting a ranged spell in melee?

So the question is, what exactly is range in this scenario?

Greel has some pretty solid questions.

The premise sounds interesting, and I do enjoy a good gish, but I think we need a little more elaboration on the details.

Does throwing weapons count as "ranged"?

Spells without or severly limited range, would flip the spelllist on their heads opening up for other spells being perferentials


Spells with range "touch" or "self" could work

badbaron, Placing nothing at range in 5e would flip the game on its head. Both spell and physical combat would be radically changed. Might be an interesting thing to try. LOL.

My first thought would be a Paladin / Sorcerer multiclass build. Without getting into too many specifics, as we're not quite clear on some of the limitations others have mentioned, this build would let you smite your way to victory from behind full plate and shield, fuelling your divine smites with your ample supply of Sorcerer spell slots. You could stack the action economy with quicken spell, using spells like enlarge/reduce, invisibility, polymorph, and tenser's transformation.

You might cast shield to boost your AC, use Lay on Hands to recover lost HP, misty step away from a bad situation, use your familiar to get advantage, or even raise some undead to tip the action economy further in your favour. Also, if you take enough levels in Paladin, your saves will be second to none!

Misty step has range spell :p

In my mind, all this is localised to your person only or within your aura or somesuch.
But why don't ranged weapons work?

But yes, 5e top Gish is properly the Paladin/Sorceror and the Warlock(Hexblade)/Sorceror also has its merits,

I think the usual suspects for gish builds would all work. Those already mentioned, blade singer and some bard builds. Even heavy armor cleric builds still work.

Straight wizard and sorc would probably become unviable unless you are going full support maybe from middle of battle field.

badbaron. You have plans for this?

Not that they don't work, more that they aren't used. I'm thinking post-apocalyptic war scenario where both law and custom enforce a strong ban against any "ranged" attacks. Touch spells are certainly allowed. I would say that a breath weapon or poison spray would probably be frowned upon like necromancy but not banned. I was wondering about a ground zero fireball for an evocation wizard who excludes himself (and friends) and haven't made up my mind as well as summoning spells like guardian spirits or summon animals (animate dead can be touch). That's why I threw it out here for feedback.

I'm in the early stages of thinking about it, but I have run strange limits on campaigns before to try to give different feels to the game.

Last 5e I developed was Conquistadors landing. The Conquistadors used early 16th century technology including primitive weaponry but had an absolute religious ban against magic (secret magic like EKs or Arcane Tricksters exist but don't let themselves be seen for fear of being declared anathema. On the other side, the Aztecs, Tolteks, and Mayas used magic but were stone age technology. May try that again some day.

I find spellcasters do tend to dominate most 5e runs that last a while and like changing things up. I'm not worried about virtually eliminating straight caster classes, that is intended. I'm wondering if a gish or armored caster like a cleric will hold up with this limitation against the Figher/Barbarian/Rogue/Monk types. My gish types have always mixed melee with normal spell casting.

LOL

Oof, good point 😂

I feel that martial characters have gotten a lift with the 2024 weapon mastery ability. Enough to off set the spellcasters I don't know

Nowhere near enough.

Disagree, when it comes to matters of game balance.

To be honest, I am not a student of the game. I mostly enjoy playing mages because those abilities seem less straightforward to me and let me be more creative in their application. I do think magic should be powerful and mysterious so I am not for any rule change that makes it less so.

That said, I have a friend that doesn't play mages and is always doing amazing things and his turns seem to go on and on and on so it is hard for me to sympathize if your class is just as cool but in a different way. It is play style that makes me prefer one over the other and not raw power.

I think I just diverted this thread down a rabbit hole of another topic entirely. Sorry. Please continue with the original concept of playing without range.

It's been mentioned, but I think how it would work is essentially, complicated. There's a lot of stuff that could be argued is or is not melee, depending on how exactly you define it. If you keep the rules fairly broad it would probably work, but still there like would be some confusion, with stuff like reach, ranged attacks in melee or aoe abilities.

I've recently play a bladesinging wizard and on a purpose did not use any combat spells with range other than self/melee. With incredible AC and shadowblade damage output better than any barbarian I totally dominated the battlefield until enemy spell casters started to throw ranged spells at me... it was so OP that I decided to not play that PC any more
Is that the problem you are trying to fix? It the range an issue? Do you also want to nerf Arcane Archer, Rangers and Rogues using longbows?
I suggest to search internet for alternatives suggestion of balancing if you are not ready to drop 6-8 encounters between LR.

Not a problem, just like putting a different spin on powers in the game while still keeping familiar rules. At the low levels that most campaigns stick at, casters are probably less powerful than a well made warrior type though they certainly take over to a large degree as you get higher in level.

In a 5e game, that would cripple certain classes/builds. There's a lot of balance considerations in D&D.

If I want to change the feel that much, I'll just play a different system that does what I want by design.

Balance considerations?

*Laughs in martial/caster disparity post mid-game*

100% valid. D&D has always been broken for mid to high levels.

I guess my point was more "why alter those rules so much it could change/break the game or at least certain classes within it, when there's almost definitely a ruleset out there specifically designed to do what you want?"

Is there a fantasy adventure game with no ranged combat? A cursory look found nothing.

Meanwhile, 5e is pretty modular. I once ran a game with only martial classes, and no magic subclasses. It was great. You can rip a lot out to support your game's theme and it still usually works - just look at Shadowdark.

Would a game where you can only use melee-ranged attacks and spells break the game? Maybe. But it might be fun to try, and at worst you will end up casting some spells you never bothered to cast before.

Good luck!

The easiest way to balance martial vs caster disparity:

Double the hit points of every monster. Watch your wizards weep. Drink their tears.

I actually don’t think that would change much. The most effective wizard spells are all about control and so hit points are not as much of an issue as it might seem at first

It will actually bother the martials more as the casters should control, buff or debuff.
If you want to make casters feel useless and unappealing to play, increase monsters saves

If it is just balance, I have found that the optional flanking rules make melee relatively more attractive; no more people saying "the best melee weapon is a hand crossbow."

I find it difficult to believe that 5e's combat is engaging enough to make this interesting. Positioning is already a bit of a nothing with spells in play, aside from your decision where to put your fireball. The resources that melee classes have to change their circumstances on the battlefield are already so sparse when they can carry a crossbow.

Just imagine a combat going for 5 rounds looks like, just on a technical level. How boiled down it is to rolling attack and damage and incrementing down HP. Combat was already like that, and you're interested in removing all the tools players have to inject the scene with any sense of space, place, or dynamism.

The Melee Combat As Function of Setting angle certainly has legs, as Dune proved years ago, but I think a lot of your gameplay and balance issues might be well answered by using a different system. You say you want to use familiar rules, but unfortunately, those rules are doing you a deep, deep disservice. Don't fall victim to the sunk cost fallacy.