D&D 5E Feelings on Ranged Damage

[FormerlyHemlock]

Rangers are fine. Not quite as good at archery as a specialized 11th+ level Fighter, but still excellent.

Sharpshooter
+ Colossus slayer or Horde Breaker
+ Bonus action spells like Ensnaring Strike or Hunter's Mark
---------------------------------
Lots of fun and lots of damage

 

[Mercule]

OK. Actual feedback:

First, I'm not sure how you figure that ranged combat is less effective than melee combat. It's true that the Rogue's sneak attack is very potent, but that's a completely different conversation than ranged v melee. I'm actually inclined to say that the issue is with sneak attack and that the bar should be somewhat higher for using it. Rogues are largely skill monkeys and it might be more appropriate to encourage them to behave that way, rather than inviting a serious conversation about whether Rogues are better at filling the swashbuckler and/or William Tell archer archetype than some other class.

Granting sneak attack to concealed ranger characters just like the rogue.

I wouldn't do this. First, as I said, above, I feel that sneak attack is still a bit too good. Spreading it around just aggravates the problem.

The idea, itself, raises questions about what your goal is with the Ranger, though. What is a Ranger, to you? There are more than a few folks who'd be fine with turning the Ranger into a Rogue kit that got some bonuses in the woods. There are also a number who'd be fine with making the Ranger a Fighter kit. There are other options, too. A common criticism of those who advocate for a rebuilt Ranger is that some fans seem to want the Ranger to be better at Fighting than the Fighter, better at sneaking (at least in the woods) than the Rogue, have more hit points than a Barbarian, cast spells, and still have a few tricks of their own.

Personally, I've settled on the idea that the Ranger's niche is really to be one hard SOB to kill -- not because of hit point (though those help), but because they do a very good job of using their surroundings. Yes, an 8th level Ranger (mid-range PC) is going to be better than fighting than a city guardsman (3rd level Fighter, at best) and better at sneaking than a journeyman guild thief (3rd level Rogue). It's just fine for the Ranger to be second string in straight-up combat compared to the Fighter (or even the Rogue by current niche). If you use the latest UA Ranger and they actually cast hunter's mark, they can be pretty effective. I'm pretty sure the (archer) Ranger in my current game has the highest kill count besides the Moon Druid (which is crazy, so far).

Granting ranged combat specialists their proficiency die as additional damage.

Define "specialists". If you mean a character who takes that combat style, it could work. I don't think I'd combine it with the proficiency die option, though, because of the critical hit rules. If you do it, though, it should be a replacement for the current +2 to-hit, not additional.

If you mean something else, I'd like to know what mechanic you're using. Assuming it's a feat (or something else modular), one should be able to specialize in melee, as well -- especially if you're interested in "realism" (or just verisimilitude). The benefit should be on par with what's granted for ranged specialization. So... no net gain.

Granting automatic injury to the target on a ranged attack that hits with a die roll of 25 or higher.

What the heck does this even mean?

Whatever it means, it breaks the general mechanic that attacks either succeed or not. The die roll doesn't matter, except for the natural 20 crit. Whether it was a good hit or not is determined by the damage dice -- that's pretty much the whole reason they exist. I would not add a 25 or higher tick.

 

[Whithers]

nswanson27 and Saelorn,

I am answering both of your posts together.

I agree that bows seem pretty ineffective, because all they can do is slowly whittle down an enemy over the course of many hits. I agree that the rogue, with its sneak attack, feels like they are doing a more reasonable job of actually dropping enemies by shooting them. (Even if a fighter does more damage with three arrows than the rogue does with one, that just means the fighter only drops an enemy with a third of their shots rather than with every shot.)

I have been watching a lot of online play to get more familiar with 5E as I am leaving 3.5 Pathfinder. And yes, I notice that a rogue using daggers can opportunistically out damage the ranger regularly. First noticed this with Critical Role, but have spotted it elsewhere also.

For game balance purposes, don't give the rogue's sneak attack to the ranger. The ranger already has spells and extra attacks, and giving them sneak attack would be overkill.

I don't see these making up the difference in damage, and they are certainly not dramatic for story perposes. But I also understand why this would not be desirable.

For game balance purposes, don't give proficiency to damage for ranged attacks. Getting hit with an arrow should hurt, but so should getting hit with a giant axe or sword.

I can agree with this argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by "injury" in this game. But again, it's weird that getting nailed by a perfect shot from a bow is somehow worse than getting nailed by a perfect hit from an axe. They should both be equally bad.

I was considering adapting the Linguring Injury Table on DMG 272, or generating a conditional effects table. I can understand your argument.

The major reason why bows feel weak is due to HP bloat. When a generic thug has 32hp, and a generic knight has 52hp, it makes you feel like a wimp because your arrows have such little effect when they actually hit. A solution to this problem, as the DM, is to stop using such powerful NPCs. Instead of thugs and knights, which are practically superhuman with their 5-8 hit dice, use bandits and guards; since they have a much more reasonable 11hp, your archer PCs will get to feel more heroic by dropping each one in a single hit.

HP bloat affects all weapons. The difference to me is that originally the only actual HP of the character were those of the first HD at 1st level. All HP above that were not health points, but were a sort of exhaustion points. They represented the characters ability to outlast, dodge, etc. in 1E. Real physical damage didn't take place until the hero was worn down to his last HD. I don't remember which book or article I read this in 40 years ago, but my rulings as DM were based on this as far back as 1977-78.

So is your issue with the Ranger class, or just ranged combat in general? One part seems to talk about one, but another part seems to talk about the other.

My issue is somewhat with both. The ranger class has some amusing features but is overall weak at being ranged, and certainly nothing special. The Beast Master has always been a joke because players don't want their pet to die. A real Beast Master treats his "pets" as an expendable and replaceable asset. Keep them healthy, keep them trained, use them, and replace them. Those who play "pet keepers" do not approach their pets with the cold calculating efficiency of Suntzu. Plus pets are almost always too weak to be of any real value - they are almost always a negative.

But it is also because of the loss of dramatic effect. When Bard of the Lakemen kills Smaug, the as yet undamaged ancient dragon, with one arrow it is a highlight in the book and the movie. When a sniper kills the enemy leader with a single shot at 300 meters, it is a dramatic effect. In game, unless I as the DM decide to simply make a ranged character's sniping shot a clear kill shot by utterly ignoring the rules this dramatic plot point cannot exist in game. Unless I specifically arrange for the guards along the parapet to be 1st level pathetics with minor amounts of HP, then the ranged character taking out the guard in the tower before the assault on the palisade, then this plot device is not available in story. I shouldn't have to sprinkle kobolds about the battlefield just so the ranged characters can actually get kills. Because the ranger is generally, as it name implies, ranged this weakness in the story telling structure is more obvious there.

In melee combat this is less important because the dramatic blow by blow fight between Don Diego de la Vega and Captain Esteban Pasquale, or between Robin Hood and Sir Guy is about the tension of the scene. Then there is the infamous fight between Inigo Montoya and the Dread Pirate Roberts. Wondering how or if the hero will win adds intrigue to the plot device of the drawn out combat. None of these fights are by any means realistic, but the make great heroic fantasy.

 

[CydKnight]

Hmmm. Rogue Sneak Attack with a bow is more an exception from the norm so I really don't see it as a noteworthy comparison.

More to the point, ranged attacks don't feel under powered to me in actual game play. That and it's always nice to be able to sit back 100 feet or more from the brunt of the melee relatively safe while raining down the pain even if the damage output isn't the highest in the party. Maybe hide behind a tree, large boulder, or whatever cover there happens to me in between turns.

 

[Whithers]

First, as I said, above, I feel that sneak attack is still a bit too good. Spreading it around just aggravates the problem.

Understand the concern if what one is looking for it -for-tat miniatures combat, like we used to do with lead miniatures once upon a decade.

What is a Ranger, to you?

Robin Hood, Minamoto no Tametomo, Aragorn, etc.

Personally, I've settled on the idea that the Ranger's niche is really to be one hard SOB to kill -- not because of hit point (though those help), but because they do a very good job of using their surroundings.

I generally see most ranger constructs as harriers. All second string dabbling in parts of other things with no effective focus. I have seen hunter's mark used, but it does not make the ranger the woodland assassin it should be.

Define "specialists". If you mean a character who takes that combat style, it could work.

I mean someone who spends a feat to be an archery specialist, in much the same way that one can be a Great Weapon Master or a Crossbow Expert.

What the heck does this even mean?

I just saw the smiley faces above in my very legitimate term. That amusingly makes an innuendo where none would otherwise exist. How ironic.
It means a negative for the target, such as an arrow running through one's intestine and spleen would roughly effect. Or an arrow stuck in the shin or shoulder.

 

[Sunseeker]

The default ranger class is rather underwhelming yes. Ranged combat in general is not.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I have no idea what game OP is playing. Not D&D 5E, that's for sure. I just finished up a Curse of Strahd campaign where the party's main battle tactic was "keep the bad guys away from the Ranger so he can shoot them to death".

Archery fighting style, high Dex, Extra Attack, Horde Breaker for even more attacks, sharpshooter, and Hunter's Mark is a ridiculous combination. He also picked Undead as his Favored Enemy, which obviously helps in a Ravenloft campaign. He consistently did mid-twenties damage (sometimes in the thirties) per shot and rarely missed. The Paladin of Vengeance with the Sun Sword would occasionally get massive combat rounds when facing undead, but the Ranger was just super productive at churning out pain. All at long range.

 

[Ratskinner]

Looking at the thread and the thoughts and complaints...

The HP system is at the heart of the problem here. It just doesn't leave room for the kind of results we want to see from the fiction. Kinda messes everybody up. The game could really use a separate system for this kind of thing. As it is, you've got a find a way for the Smaug-killer to do a zillion points of damage---once---or not. It just doesn't fit the rather singular narrative that the HP system provides, namely that two foes whittle each other down.

EDIT: not that I expect that sacred cow to be exiled from the herd.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

HP bloat affects all weapons. The difference to me is that originally the only actual HP of the character were those of the first HD at 1st level. All HP above that were not health points, but were a sort of exhaustion points. They represented the characters ability to outlast, dodge, etc. in 1E. Real physical damage didn't take place until the hero was worn down to his last HD. I don't remember which book or article I read this in 40 years ago, but my rulings as DM were based on this as far back as 1977-78.

Eh, close enough. It's not so much exhaustion, as it was luck and magic and divine favor and a whole raft of other things, but it amounts to much the same thing. It looks like you're new around here, but the great HP debate is one that pops up frequently, and it's unlikely to be solved anytime soon.

I guess the question is, given that you seem fine with it taking five sword hits to drop a knight and not-so-fine with it taking five arrow hits to drop a knight, what's the difference to you? Is it just that it's easier to abstract those sword hits into actually being near misses and partial parries, where it's harder for you to imagine an arrow hit being anything other than just that?

Or is it the actual mechanical efficiency? Are you afraid that the multiple arrows from a fighter or ranger are not as effective as the single arrow from the rogue? Because I can assure you that two arrows each at 1d8+1d6+5 are indeed more effective than one arrow at 4d6+5. It couldn't be anything as simple as you forgetting to add Dex bonus to the damage of each arrow, could it? Because I know that's a new thing in 5E, and it would be easy to overlook.

 

[Zardnaar]

Make me wonder if people actually know how to play 5E or even D&D in general. Ranged combat has been out damaging melee since AD&D.

Beastmaster ranger is a bit meh but the hunter ranger can put out stupid amounts of damage.

Ranged rogues look good but then you figure out that melee ones deal a lot more damage. This is because they can dual wield. This lets you get in an extra d6 damage and doubles the chance of getting a sneak attack in. You should be defaulting to melee only trying to sneak attack at range if you can't get to the opponent. If you're firing into melee odds are your opponent gets +2 AC as well. If you have a single fighter level and can add dex to damage with the off hand a melee rogue equals the damage of a sharpshooter rogue without having to take -5 to hit and doubles the chance of landing a sneak attack.

Basically grow some balls and get in there.

Sure you can take sharpshooter but you can't really use the -5/+10 part that well as you do not have the archery style, and hitting with sneak attack is more important than +10 damage on a single attack. A Rogue with the dual wielder feat