D&D 5E Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.

[Corwin]

You are over complicating things. I will attempt to simplify:

1. It is generally more dangerous in 5E to be in melee than not
2. Melee PCs more or less have to be in melee, and therefore are exposed to more danger
3. Ranged PCs can avoid melee to some extent without any sacrifice, and this is an advantage for them.
4. There is no corresponding advantage to being a melee PC
5. This particular advantage is bigger than any offensive advantage ranged PCs may or may not have, in my opinion.

So we are dropping the issue of, "The monster manual tends to emphasize melee. A lot of monsters don't even have a ranged attack, and for many that do it's significantly weaker than their melee attack"? It is irrelevant to the topic at hand? Because that has nothing to do with your post here, AFAICT.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Personally I would not alter ranged spell attacks. Was assuming the issue was ranged (non-spell) attacks versus melee attacks.

It's range vs melee, and spells provide some very powerful and highly varied ranged attacks (and forced saving throws, and ways of opening up and maintaining that range, as well). Ranged weapons vs melee weapons are an easy comparison, because both are so limited in what they can do, but not the only issue.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

So we are dropping the issue of, "The monster manual tends to emphasize melee. A lot of monsters don't even have a ranged attack, and for many that do it's significantly weaker than their melee attack"? It is irrelevant to the topic at hand? Because that has nothing to do with your post here, AFAICT.

That statement is part of #1, that being in melee is more dangerous to PCs than not being in melee. This is in large part because the 5E Monster Manual has an overall bias towards melee.

 

[Corwin]

That statement is part of #1, that being in melee is more dangerous to PCs than not being in melee.

And yet ranged specialized PCs tend to be in far more trouble when engaged in melee than a melee specialized PC. Is that not true? They either have to disengage or suffer disadvantage on their attack rolls. Pretty big penalty if you ask me.

Besides, what melee? One of the big "problems" being bandied about here seems to be that the long-range capable PCs are killing the monsters before the melee PCs get their fun. To which you piggybacked on that issue by assuring us all that a lot of monsters fall into this "trap" by having no (or weak) ranged attacks to counter said tactic. No?

 

[Cyrinishad]

If the enemy is at standard encounter distances, the melee character must advance towards the monsters to be most effective, while the ranged character can move away from the monsters without sacrificing anything. Nothing says the ranged PCs need to advance towards the enemies or stand still. The monsters can advance towards the ranged characters, but this is countered by the ranged characters moving away. The ranged character is not necessarily in melee on round 2. The monster can use its action to dash to counter this, but the ranged character gets at least one free round of attacks and this ends up a tactical win for them.

I don't think a melee character is sacrificing efficacy by staying out of melee for as long as possible by guarding the ranged character. If the ranged character can stay out of melee and avoid taking damage so can the melee character, and they can use a readied action to attack an adversary that survives the ranged barrage, as well as an opportunity attack if an adversary tries to bypass them and go after the ranged character... I think we're ultimately getting stuck in an agree to disagree scenario here, because my judgement is that any encounter that all the characters survive is an equal success by both the melee and ranged character. Additionally, I think this is boiling down to a difference in how we approach the game, in that I think that a character that only utilizes melee is deliberately handicapping themselves and should not have the rules changed to benefit their decision. In my mind a "melee character" would be versatile enough to utilize thrown weapons prior to engaging in melee, thereby making the difference between a "ranged" character and a "melee" character more of an aesthetic difference than anything else.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

And yet ranged specialized PCs tend to be in far more trouble when engaged in melee than a melee specialized PC. Is that not true? They either have to disengage or suffer disadvantage on their attack rolls. Pretty big penalty if you ask me.

Besides, what melee? One of the big "problems" being bandied about here seems to be that the long-range capable PCs are killing the monsters before the melee PCs get their fun. To which you piggybacked on that issue by assuring us all that a lot of monsters fall into this "trap" by having no (or weak) ranged attacks to counter said tactic. No?

A well built ranged character isn't at that much of a disadvantage in melee. Somebody with the Crossbow Expert feat doesn't care if an enemy is engaging them. Two levels of Rogue and you can disengage as a bonus action at will. A spellcaster has disadvantage with ranged attack rolls, but save or suck magic and area damage work just fine in melee. There are a number of cantrips that are either melee or have no disadvantage in melee: Shocking Grasp, Shillelagh, Vicious Mockery, Sacred Flame

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I don't think a melee character is sacrificing efficacy by staying out of melee for as long as possible by guarding the ranged character. If the ranged character can stay out of melee and avoid taking damage so can the melee character, and they can use a readied action to attack an adversary that survives the ranged barrage, as well as an opportunity attack if an adversary tries to bypass them and go after the ranged character... I think we're ultimately getting stuck in an agree to disagree scenario here, because my judgement is that any encounter that all the characters survive is an equal success by both the melee and ranged character. Additionally, I think this is boiling down to a difference in how we approach the game, in that I think that a character that only utilizes melee is deliberately handicapping themselves and should not have the rules changed to benefit their decision. In my mind a "melee character" would be versatile enough to utilize thrown weapons prior to engaging in melee, thereby making the difference between a "ranged" character and a "melee" character more of an aesthetic difference than anything else.

The moment a melee PC spends a turn without attacking they are at a disadvantage.

 

[Cyrinishad]

The moment a melee PC spends a turn without attacking they are at a disadvantage.

This is why I said that a "melee" character should be utilizing thrown weapons, which are keyed off of Strength. If someone is making a character that has zero function outside of making melee-only attacks, then they are deliberately handicapping themselves by making a sub-optimal character... and they are entitled to do so, however the rules don't require a rewrite to accommodate that type of decision by a player.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And yet ranged specialized PCs tend to be in far more trouble when engaged in melee than a melee specialized PC. Is that not true?

It should be the case, and was, traditionally (to varying degrees), but is it, in 5e?

It's not that hard to eliminate the disadvantage or to cancel it with advantage (and it's moot if you already have disadvantage from another source), and if you're casting spells switching to one that forces a save instead of attacking AC obviates the issue, entirely.

And, of course, there's no longer an AoO for using a ranged attack or casting a spell in melee.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This is why I said that a "melee" character should be utilizing thrown weapons, which are keyed off of Strength. If someone is making a character that has zero function outside of making melee-only attacks, then they are deliberately handicapping themselves by making a sub-optimal character... and they are entitled to do so, however the rules don't require a rewrite to accommodate that type of decision by a player.

When playing a Paladin, I carried a bunch of javelins and I threw them. It was not as effective as smithing things with a greatsword. I was only at my best when engaged in melee playing that character. It was a case of taking half a turn, as opposed to losing my turn entirely.