Is Ranged really better than Melee?

FrogReaver said:

Ignoring accuracy as you try to always do is a fools errand.

Click to expand...

Almost as much as including an unknown to hit vs and unknown AC. lol I do agree if your not looking for max possible damage and your looing for average damage not including accuracy means your results are not accurate. *ta da chi*

...But I would also understand posting at 100% hit since you get stuck in Range vs opponent X and Melee vs opponent y then you get in consistent answers in the same agreement over and over again that does actually add anything but "player and GM choices make comparing damage shifting sand." Which is also true.

That means you and [MENTION=71699]clearstream[/MENTION] are both wrong and both right at the same time but you will not know how it plays until you get to a table. If you want to make a table of all the tiers vs AC10-30 in a table I am sure clearstream would not mind though.

Elfcrusher said:

Sharpshooter + Archery style is better than GWM + GWF style, in my opinion, because the +2 helps counteract the -5.

Anyway, my impression is that the damage is in the same approximate range, and (I can't speak for others) my beef is that archery is just too easy: you get to largely ignore defense, with no real downside. With a long bow and sharpshooter you stay REALLY FAR AWAY and suffer no penalties whatsoever, neither in accuracy nor rate of fire. Not against a moving target engaged in melee with your buddies. It's just silly.

Archery should largely be reserved for attacking enemies at range, before they close. Once enemies are in melee combat with your friends its utility should drop way, way, way down. (Maybe not against really big targets.)

Maybe the rule should support "You can shoot fast, shoot far, or shoot accurately. Pick two."

Click to expand...

So I think this and a few other posts are shifting from "is ranged better" to "ok, so maybe range is better but should it be and if not how should we fix it?"

I like the triangle Fast, Far, and accurate but I would also point out that if we are going to correct ranged vs melee their is a problem that blocking a an arrow with a greatsword is not a feat for the faint of heart but blocking a sword with a greatsword is pretty standard. So perhaps their are limitations that should be on ranged that are not but also bonuses that ranged should have that it doesn't. I mean … ranged includes firebolt right? so your sword is not stopping that... does that mean ranged spells get different rules from archery? The intent of 5e was to simplify rules to focus on gaming an not on the rules. So do we want to step into a more complicated system because ranged has an advantage over melee? For me the answer is no, because despite players at my table excepting ranged and foundationally superior we always have at least 2 melee in the group. I was for my last two characters and I knew it. It's simple a matter that most people I have played with don't care when they pick because the game is still fun as long as the group works together.

Vexacia said:

No it doesn't.

Click to expand...

From https://5thsrd.org/combat/cover/ I can't see why cover wouldn't apply to melee attacks.

ClaytonCross said:

Almost as much as including an unknown to hit vs and unknown AC. lol I do agree if your not looking for max possible damage and your looing for average damage not including accuracy means your results are not accurate. *ta da chi*

...But I would also understand posting at 100% hit since you get stuck in Range vs opponent X and Melee vs opponent y then you get in consistent answers in the same agreement over and over again that does actually add anything but "player and GM choices make comparing damage shifting sand." Which is also true.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Posting up values already produces a wall of text, and it is sometimes difficult to know where to strike the balance of what to include.

First the characters are points buy, in order to compare like to like. Level required thought. People sometimes "prove" that something is okay (or not okay) by choosing an arbitrary level where the numbers stack up the way they want them (due to access to relevant features). I use the following = Tier 1 is 4th, Tier 2 is 8th, Tier 3 is 12th. My first concern was to choose levels that represent what people might realistically play. The chosen levels span the main arc of play for most campaigns in my experience, and according to the designers. I distribute ASIs to stat, then key feat, then stat again. A character could go earlier into the key feat, but accuracy and survivability concerns justify waiting (for instance, the power-attacks rely on a threshold of accuracy to be effective). Finally, I give all T3 characters two basic magic items relevant to their class. Usually a +1 weapon and a +1 defence or stat buff.

Then for foes, I use the DMG guidelines for encounters and monster scaling, so that -

Level 4 = 375xp = CR 1 or 2 = AC 13
Level 8 = 1400xp = CR 4 or 5 = AC 14 or 15
Level 12 = 3000xp = CR 7 or 8 = AC 15 or 16

That then suggests the ACs / saves -

T1 AC 13 +3 save
T2 AC 14 +4 save
T3 AC 15 +5 save

The result is that accuracy slightly out scales foe defenses (mirroring what I have seen in play at the table). So that Barbarian is T1= 0.7 T2 = 0.7 T3 = 0.8, then always Reckless, therefore the power-attack is T2 = 0.7 and T3 = 0.8. The maths is straightforward e.g. for T2 (0.7-0.25)=0.45 and 1-(1-0.45)^2 = 0.7... surprisingly good, but achieved only with persistent advantage.

There are some other factors to consider. For instance, in my experience it is very common for melee to lose one or two turns a fight closing or repositioning. Ranged lose a turn every few fights to kiting. Any character with insufficiently good defences, who is in the path of trouble, loses a few turns every few fights to dying. Thus for an assumed three encounters per day, five rounds per encounter, I factor melee as 12 effective rounds and ranged as 15. That is why it is so important to see the "maximum average" which removes such factoring in case some group's experiences are quite at odds with that assumption.

ClaytonCross said:

So I think this and a few other posts are shifting from "is ranged better" to "ok, so maybe range is better but should it be and if not how should we fix it?"

I like the triangle Fast, Far, and accurate but I would also point out that if we are going to correct ranged vs melee their is a problem that blocking a an arrow with a greatsword is not a feat for the faint of heart but blocking a sword with a greatsword is pretty standard. So perhaps their are limitations that should be on ranged that are not but also bonuses that ranged should have that it doesn't. I mean … ranged includes firebolt right? so your sword is not stopping that... does that mean ranged spells get different rules from archery? The intent of 5e was to simplify rules to focus on gaming an not on the rules. So do we want to step into a more complicated system because ranged has an advantage over melee? For me the answer is no, because despite players at my table excepting ranged and foundationally superior we always have at least 2 melee in the group. I was for my last two characters and I knew it. It's simple a matter that most people I have played with don't care when they pick because the game is still fun as long as the group works together.

Click to expand...

Using the same assumptions I posted above, these are the values for CEx SS. I didn't post them before because I tend to politely ignore that character option.

Battlemaster with Archery, Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter, Precision, Hand Crossbow
Tier 1
Maximum average/round = 20
Maximum average/day = 300 assuming about 3 encounters of about 3 rounds each
Likely average/round = 11 at Tier 1, I haven't taken SS CEx yet...
Likely average/day = 161

Tier 2
Maximum average/round = 63
Maximum average/day = 945
Likely average/round = 50 Barbie, it's probably best you look away
Likely average/day = 745

Tier 3
Maximum average/round = 88
Maximum average/day = 1320
Likely average/round = 88
Likely average/day = 1169

Precision is applied to misses by 1-4 on the d20, giving about a 50/50 of converting the miss into a hit. On top of Archery, this results in extremely high accuracy on the power-attack, pushing the likely damage very close to the maximum possible. Additionally, the fighter has a solid AC and excellent HP while doing this.

If feats aren't used, sanity is restored... but life is less interesting. The fix is easy - "Once per turn" on Sharpshooter. With that done, I currently think that 5th edition ranged attacks are on the whole sufficiently less damaging than melee to keep melee viable.

clearstream said:

Using the same assumptions I posted above, these are the values for CEx SS. I didn't post them before because I tend to politely ignore that character option.

Battlemaster with Archery, Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter, Precision, Hand Crossbow
Tier 1
Maximum average/round = 20
Maximum average/day = 300 assuming about 3 encounters of about 3 rounds each
Likely average/round = 11 at Tier 1, I haven't taken SS CEx yet...
Likely average/day = 161

Tier 2
Maximum average/round = 63
Maximum average/day = 945
Likely average/round = 50 Barbie, it's probably best you look away
Likely average/day = 745

Tier 3
Maximum average/round = 88
Maximum average/day = 1320
Likely average/round = 88
Likely average/day = 1169

Precision is applied to misses by 1-4 on the d20, giving about a 50/50 of converting the miss into a hit. On top of Archery, this results in extremely high accuracy on the power-attack, pushing the likely damage very close to the maximum possible. Additionally, the fighter has a solid AC and excellent HP while doing this.

If feats aren't used, sanity is restored... but life is less interesting. The fix is easy - "Once per turn" on Sharpshooter. With that done, I currently think that 5th edition ranged attacks are on the whole sufficiently less damaging than melee to keep melee viable.

Click to expand...

CE + SS + Precision definitely counts as an exception to the general discussion. It can function as a defacto melee character with just slightly lower AC than most pure melee characters. It loses out on OA's as well but does enough damage that nothing should want to ignore him that can reach him and you can place yourself in a position where a few enemies can reach you but not all. He can play as a long range kiting character or play just close enough to draw 1-2 enemies to him and spread the damage around as a melee character one. It's basically like he is the best of both worlds and you can choose how to play him.

But most importantly, CE + SS + Precision is not a "typical" ranged build when compared with others in the game. So I'm really not sure what kind of importance it's existence really has on the discussion about melee vs ranged.

ClaytonCross said:

So I think this and a few other posts are shifting from "is ranged better" to "ok, so maybe range is better but should it be and if not how should we fix it?"

I like the triangle Fast, Far, and accurate but I would also point out that if we are going to correct ranged vs melee their is a problem that blocking a an arrow with a greatsword is not a feat for the faint of heart but blocking a sword with a greatsword is pretty standard. So perhaps their are limitations that should be on ranged that are not but also bonuses that ranged should have that it doesn't. I mean … ranged includes firebolt right? so your sword is not stopping that... does that mean ranged spells get different rules from archery? The intent of 5e was to simplify rules to focus on gaming an not on the rules. So do we want to step into a more complicated system because ranged has an advantage over melee? For me the answer is no, because despite players at my table excepting ranged and foundationally superior we always have at least 2 melee in the group. I was for my last two characters and I knew it. It's simple a matter that most people I have played with don't care when they pick because the game is still fun as long as the group works together.

Click to expand...

But ranged is only individually better. It isn't better for the group. It leads to fewer melee characters getting damage spread out between them which makes each melee character more likely to die.

S'mon said:

From https://5thsrd.org/combat/cover/ I can't see why cover wouldn't apply to melee attacks.

Click to expand...

It's not that cover doesn't apply to melee... it's that in melee you have a lot easier time to circumvent the cover. Someone moves behind an obstacle while you're in melee with him? You move behind the same obstacle too. Someone moves behind an obstacle 100ft away while you're shooting arrow at him?

Without getting into the lengthy discussion (which as usual means, the longer the discussion, the less obvious what is the real answer), cover is indeed the most effective and natural defense against ranged attackers, while distance is the most effective and natural defense against melee attackers. The main advantage of a ranged attacker versus a melee-only opponent is defense, which comes automatically from the distance. The general assumption of the game is that if you invest too much on your ranged skills, you're neglecting other skills such as other defenses that you will need when distance is not available. For the melee character or monsters, it's important to stay away from open spaces, and then figure out how to close the distance.

When I first started to play 5e, I was a bit concerned that ranged attacks in melee only get disadvantage and do not provoke OA as in older editions, my first thought was that this made ranged weapons too easy to use in melee compared to 3e. I was wrong, because in 3e you could use the 5ft step to completely avoid AoOs, and still get your full attacks with a ranged weapon from 10ft away. In 5e instead, there is no 5ft step, so a ranged attacker who finds herself in melee range with an opponent has many options but none of them is nice: be stuck with disadvantage OR provoke an OA to move away and avoid disadvantage OR give up the attack action to disengage OR switch to a melee weapon.

I played an Archery Style fighter as my first 5e character and I loved it. I played a human variant so I started with the Sharpshooter feat. I had a lot of versatility in damage, accuracy, and weapon styles. The +2 bonus to hit from Archery Fighting Style is a massive bonus for BA. I could reliably hit monsters that others were missing. When we fought a Roper I burned him down from a safe distance while the others couldn't hit the AC 20. When I had to get up close I'd fight with two light blades or a maul.

AtomicPope said:

I played an Archery Style fighter as my first 5e character and I loved it. I played a human variant so I started with the Sharpshooter feat. I had a lot of versatility in damage, accuracy, and weapon styles. The +2 bonus to hit from Archery Fighting Style is a massive bonus for BA. I could reliably hit monsters that others were missing. When we fought a Roper I burned him down from a safe distance while the others couldn't hit the AC 20. When I had to get up close I'd fight with two light blades or a maul.

Click to expand...

The maul part lost me...

but more importantly the claim is t to take an all melee party. The claim is that you need 2-3 melee characters in a normally sized party because the fewer melee characters you have the more likely they will die.