Is Ranged really better than Melee?

FrogReaver said:

I think most of us here have jumped aboard to ranged is superior to melee in 5e bandwagon and for good reason. Good ranged characters typically have:
#1 Higher Initiative
#2 Better ability to focus fire on enemies
#3 Nearly the same damage output as melee builds
#4 Ability to kite enemies / kill them before they get into their effective ranges

Click to expand...

#5 Much rarer to lose an action because no foe in range.
#6 Better fighting style for applying damage.
#7 Similar/better feats then melee (depending on weapon choice)
#8 Better able to target foes with Concentration to force checks.

FrogReaver said:

#1 More melee characters better spreads damage around. Spreading damage around saves lives. This is accomplished both by proximity and the threat of opportunity attacks.
#2 Opportunity attacks can cause significantly more damage if enemies choose to take them.
#3 Typically higher AC or other damage reduction abilities so even if they are being attacked they tend to last longer than their ranged brethren
#4 Slightly higher damage

Click to expand...

#1 This assumes that foes aren't trying to focus fire and dogpile one, and aren't willing to accept an OA in order to do so.

And that the foe doesn't have ranged combatants, whom as you mentioned have an easier time focus firing.

#3 This just isn't true. A character attacked 3 times with a 40% chance to be hit and resistance will still take more damage then a character attacked one with a 50% chance to be hit and no resistance. Without Resistance or HAM it's even more different.

And this ignores characters like rogue or monk or are relatively squishy.

Mind you, I think front line combatants are an important role -- one I frequently play. But not because melee is "superior", but exactly as you say it's a team game. Front liners are needed for tactics to work, for the team to be able to function at high efficiency. A mixed group of front-liners and ranged with do better then a group of only one type - and that's before bringing in casters to be protected.

Blue said:

#5 Much rarer to lose an action because no foe in range.
#6 Better fighting style for applying damage.
#7 Similar/better feats then melee (depending on weapon choice)
#8 Better able to target foes with Concentration to force checks.



#1 This assumes that foes aren't trying to focus fire and dogpile one, and aren't willing to accept an OA in order to do so.

And that the foe doesn't have ranged combatants, whom as you mentioned have an easier time focus firing.

#3 This just isn't true. A character attacked 3 times with a 40% chance to be hit and resistance will still take more damage then a character attacked one with a 50% chance to be hit and no resistance. Without Resistance or HAM it's even more different.

And this ignores characters like rogue or monk or are relatively squishy.

Mind you, I think front line combatants are an important role -- one I frequently play. But not because melee is "superior", but exactly as you say it's a team game. Front liners are needed for tactics to work, for the team to be able to function at high efficiency. A mixed group of front-liners and ranged with do better then a group of only one type - and that's before bringing in casters to be protected.

Click to expand...

I’ll respond more in depth later but what tactics do a mix of melee and range allow if not the ones i’ve been talking about?

clearstream said:

An efficiency advantage can be gained, however.

Say some opponents expect to deal 10 damage a turn, to a party HP pool of 100. While the party deals 10 damage a turn, to those opponent's HP pool of 100. Initiative will decide the outcome in this case, in the tenth turn.

If through one member dodging, the party reduces their damage by 3, while reducing their opponent's damage by 4? Those opponents will now take 17 turns to deplete the party HP pool. The party will take 15 turns to deplete their opponent's pool.

The numbers above are not representative, but the principle is: an efficiency gain can be achieved by dodging, that leads to a more likely victory. Additionally, any healing benefits from the same sort of efficiency, thereby freeing up resources for other things.

Some analysts, in ignoring defences, fail to appreciate the idea of efficiency, but that could be down to differences in how the game is run at their table. Key sensitivities are combat length and adventuring day: if a group's days are one encounter long, and their encounters are usually shorter than five rounds, all-out attack may be better.

Click to expand...

What happens if Dodge has no effect, which it wont in some cases? I will start a separate thread on this.

Blue said:

#5 Much rarer to lose an action because no foe in range.

Click to expand...

And less likely to pull an AoO when switching targets.

#8 Better able to target foes with Concentration to force checks.

Click to expand...

And in general better able to target high value targets (casters/commanders)

The question shouldn't be "are melee or ranged more important" but "Once you've got your tanks and your healers, does it make sense to go ranged or melee." I think the answer is too obviously ranged, and it should be a harder choice.

Blue said:

#5 Much rarer to lose an action because no foe in range.
#6 Better fighting style for applying damage.
#7 Similar/better feats then melee (depending on weapon choice)
#8 Better able to target foes with Concentration to force checks.

Click to expand...

Yep, by no means were the lists I provided exhaustive.

#1 This assumes that foes aren't trying to focus fire and dogpile one, and aren't willing to accept an OA in order to do so.

Click to expand...

If foes start taking OA's then melee greatly increases the amount of damage they are dealing. Thus melee is now doing significantly more damage than their ranged allies in this scenario.

And that the foe doesn't have ranged combatants, whom as you mentioned have an easier time focus firing.

Click to expand...

Ranged can always focus fire at least till a melee gets up to them. Then they typically start having to take an OA to do so after that which starts working in the melee characters favor at that point. Either that or they pull out a melee weapon and start melee attacking the melee PC. Either way the melee PC caused either A) more damage via OA's or B) the damage to be spread out more.

So please try to understand that my claim relies on a catch 22. The enemies get to make the decision but that decision always results in melee characters either causing the damage to be spread around more or dealing significantly more damage than ranged PC's because the OA's the enemy team starts taking to try and focus fire.

#3 This just isn't true. A character attacked 3 times with a 40% chance to be hit and resistance will still take more damage then a character attacked one with a 50% chance to be hit and no resistance. Without Resistance or HAM it's even more different.

Click to expand...

But that's not such a fair comparison is it. 1 attack being taken vs 3. Shouldn't it be looking at 3 attacks being taken in both situations?

And this ignores characters like rogue or monk or are relatively squishy.

Click to expand...

Rogues are a bit squishy. But they also have the easiest ability to run away. IMO. The best goal with a rogue is to start the fight with up close till you take a hit then run away.

Monks with any decent amount of KI can be some of the tankiest characters in the game while still dealing damage. Bonus action dodge is amazing.

Mind you, I think front line combatants are an important role -- one I frequently play. But not because melee is "superior", but exactly as you say it's a team game. Front liners are needed for tactics to work, for the team to be able to function at high efficiency. A mixed group of front-liners and ranged with do better then a group of only one type - and that's before bringing in casters to be protected.

Click to expand...

The most important tactical advantage that melee offers is the ability for the party to have damage spread out better. That's why it's better to have a mixed group. Otherwise it really would be better to have an all ranged group.

FrogReaver said:

So please try to understand that my claim relies on a catch 22. The enemies get to make the decision but that decision always results in melee characters either causing the damage to be spread around more or dealing significantly more damage than ranged PC's because the OA's the enemy team starts taking to try and focus fire.

Click to expand...

It seems like you are saying that melee party members will either be able to spread damage taken or deal significantly more damage than their ranged comrades because those will be provoking OAs and somehow stop them focus-firing. Is that right?

To paraphrase Yoda, there is no "try and focus fire": there is only "focus fire". Taking OAs might end up with the ranged character out of the fight, but it won't have any impact on their target selection. I think a ranged character normally should be prepared to take an OA in order to return their full round of fire.

The bigger problem for ranged is being dog-piled when several melee foes get close enough. This depends greatly on relative speeds and space available to kite in.

The game is more fun if you have both types of combatants on both sides of the screen.

Also, when my group found out that if they only use ranged attacks they are not taking damage, suddenly everyone was front line...
And there was no one able to defend the important person who was lying on the ground soon to be stabbed.

clearstream said:

It seems like you are saying that melee party members will either be able to spread damage taken or deal significantly more damage than their ranged comrades because those will be provoking OAs and somehow stop them focus-firing. Is that right?

To paraphrase Yoda, there is no "try and focus fire": there is only "focus fire". Taking OAs might end up with the ranged character out of the fight, but it won't have any impact on their target selection. I think a ranged character normally should be prepared to take an OA in order to return their full round of fire.

The bigger problem for ranged is being dog-piled when several melee foes get close enough. This depends greatly on relative speeds and space available to kite in.

Click to expand...

Not what I was saying. We were discussing enemies focus firing the party. The only real way that gets accomplished is if the enemies take OA’s. This increases melee character damage significantly. If the enemies don’t take OA’s to get in the position to focus fire then damage gets spread around. It’s a catch 22 for the enemy team.

UngeheuerLich said:

The game is more fun if you have both types of combatants on both sides of the screen.

Also, when my group found out that if they only use ranged attacks they are not taking damage, suddenly everyone was front line...
And there was no one able to defend the important person who was lying on the ground soon to be stabbed.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It is more fun. But it is not only more fun but also a better strategy.

You seem to be relying heavily (almost exclusively) on this "spread the damage around" argument, but that ignores:
1) The players usually can't control where the damage goes (if players can focus fire, so can intelligent enemies)
2) In many cases it's not a matter of "spreading it around" it's "everybody takes AoE damage"