Ranged Options for All Classes

[Mistwell]

Except that he's incorrect. Javelins are not light weapons, you can't use two weapon fighting to throw the second one as a bonus action. [EDIT: unless you have the two weapon fighting feat, of course]

In addition you had mentioned things like quiver of efficiency, but that has no impact on the object interaction rules, it's still only 1 per turn. Unless you're pulling arrows because ummm ... reasons.

He is not using two weapon fighting. He's saying you use your extra attack for the second attack.

The quiver was mentioned just to carry that quantity of javelins, not for drawing them.

 

[Mistwell]

One. The process detailed only applies when you know the situation you're going into, because it requires a round of preparation, and even then it only holds for two rounds. There's not necessarily a "useful action" that you can provide on turn three, and even if there is, it probably takes your free item interaction for the round.

Yes it starts with you knowing you're going against someone at a distance. I don't think that is a stretch.

I've used the Help action to provide a spellcaster with advantage on a concentration saving throw, and a different time the Dodge action while standing in front of the spellcaster to draw fire and give them cover. Both are useful, and both can use the object interaction (you just need a movement and action to interact with an object for free).

And then you're back to two throws the next round.

Botton line, this is not "useless".

If you did know the situation you'd be getting into, and you choose to move forward anyway, then you may well decide to go with the longbow. With twice the rate-of-fire and no Disadvantage on the attack roll, your chance of hitting is substantially increased.

So you're saying they're not useless...after almost 160 posts during which you were saying they're useless? OK then.

The main drawback is that you don't get to use your cool sword, or any of your feats or class features which specifically work in melee combat. Disadvantage on the attack roll is more like adding insult to injury. The ranged character may have -2 AC against melee attacks, but at least they can still fight back. It's not just about that scenario, but it is primarily about that scenario, or other similar ones. Those are the situations where it matters that the barbarian can't fight at range.

My bad, we're back to the "can't fight back" and "can't fight at range" a moment after you just said they can. Lovely.

 

[Oofta]

Yes it starts with you knowing you're going against someone at a distance. I don't think that is a stretch.

You play in different games than I do then. Knowing what's coming happens once in a blue moon but it's rare.

I've used the Help action to provide a spellcaster with advantage on a concentration saving throw

How would you do that? The concentration check doesn't happen until the caster takes damage*.

, and a different time the Dodge action while standing in front of the spellcaster to draw fire and give them cover. Both are useful, and both can use the object interaction (you just need a movement and action to interact with an object for free).

If I were DM, I'd ignore the idiot in armor and take the (potential) -2 to hit the squishy wizard because someone dancing a jig is not a threat.

*EDIT: I guess I can see how you could interpret the rules to do that. I wouldn't allow it in my game (it's just a dumb exploit IMHO) but it's not worth arguing about.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So you're saying they're not useless...after almost 160 posts during which you were saying they're useless? OK then.

There are degrees of uselessness. Firing a longbow for ~4 damage, twice, is slightly less useless than throwing a javelin once, at Disadvantage, for ~8 damage. In neither case does the barbarian contribute meaningfully, but in the former case there's a small chance that their cumulative damage might be worth tracking.

My bad, we're back to the "can't fight back" and "can't fight at range" a moment after you just said they can.

Barbarians can't fight at range in any meaningful capacity. Full stop. Nothing anyone has said in this thread has addressed that in any way, except for the suggested house rule that they be allowed to draw two javelins per round.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There are degrees of uselessness. Firing a longbow for ~4 damage, twice, is slightly less useless than throwing a javelin once, at Disadvantage, for ~8 damage. In neither case does the barbarian contribute meaningfully, but in the former case there's a small chance that their cumulative damage might be worth tracking.
Barbarians can't fight at range in any meaningful capacity. Full stop. Nothing anyone has said in this thread has addressed that in any way, except for the suggested house rule that they be allowed to draw two javelins per round.

Dexterity 14-16 is not uncommon for a barbarian. Eagle totem can also be taken to have quite some ranged advantage over your foe. Even if you only do two attacks for 1d8+2 damage, that quickly adds up over a few rounds... But hey, should a barbarian be the best ranged fighter ever? No!

(i wish there were composite bows using strength though)

 

[Mistwell]

You play in different games than I do then. Knowing what's coming happens once in a blue moon but it's rare.

Familiars, druid wildshaped, sneaking (often while invisible), interrogating prisoners elsewhere in the dungeon, etc.. We frequently gain knowledge of what's coming. It's kinda a primary strategy for dungeon delving for us. Particularly for the big bad. You don't fight a dragon without advanced intel! I think we literally spent an entire session preparing for a dragon fight, including two interrogations, the druid sneaking while wild shaped invisible and under the effects of three spells, a divination spell, a planned path, and a planned strategy for surprise.

How would you do that? The concentration check doesn't happen until the caster takes damage*.

You ready an action to help their ability check if the spellcaster gets hit.

If I were DM, I'd ignore the idiot in armor and take the (potential) -2 to hit the squishy wizard because someone dancing a jig is not a threat.

Sure but you still gave them some cover. It's helpful, and you might become the target.

 

[Mistwell]

There are degrees of uselessness.

Naw naw naw naw. You don't get to suddenly flip around on your position like that. You'd cause whiplash.

In this thread you have described the issue in these terms: "[not] viable choice", "the whole party would be better off if you just played dead", "[not] minimally competent", "might as well leave the table for an hour and go play Mario Kart", "sit out for an hour because you can't contribute", "players will be bored to death", "quadratically terrible", "Sitting around and not contributing for an hour", "whether [you] get to participate, or whether [you] go play Mario Kart for an hour", "not engaging for the player", and "literally meaningless".

That's not "degrees of uselessness" that is "completely totally useless and you might as well not play." You LITERALLY said repeatedly you might as well not play. So do not pretend you're making some "degrees of uselessness" now. You took an extreme position, so you better own it.

Firing a longbow for ~4 damage, twice, is slightly less useless than throwing a javelin once, at Disadvantage, for ~8 damage. In neither case does the barbarian contribute meaningfully, but in the former case there's a small chance that their cumulative damage might be worth tracking.
Barbarians can't fight at range in any meaningful capacity. Full stop. Nothing anyone has said in this thread has addressed that in any way, except for the suggested house rule that they be allowed to draw two javelins per round.

It's not a house rule that you can use two javelins a round for 3 out of four rounds. You just didn't want to reply to that post.

And we disagree about whether this is "meaingful capacity" as I think the reduced damage and other helpful things you can do is quite meaingful and fun.

In my view, you appear to want them to be as good at range as they are at melee and if they are not at least very close to the same they'd be in melee then you might as well go play Mario Kart because there is nothing to interest you about the game anymore (which would get you fired as a player in my game). I don't know where this seemingly entitled attitude concerning you being "awesome always!" in combat is coming from, but most games in my experience have an ebb and flow concering spotlight and sometimes you're "Awesome!" barbarian will not be as effective as the ranged player, and other times they will be more effective than the ranged player, and you're expected to participate and not pout and act bored if you're not doing as much damage as you're used to on rare occasion.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's not "degrees of uselessness" that is "completely totally useless and you might as well not play." You LITERALLY said repeatedly you might as well not play. So do not pretend you're making some "degrees of uselessness" now. You took an extreme position, so you better own it.

Fine. I shouldn't have said that the barbarian might use a bow, given how little of an improvement it is over using a javelin. They're both useless, and everyone would have more fun if the barbarian sits out that fight. (Unless the barbarian has already invested heavily in Dex, in which case the bow would be a significant improvement, but we can't make that assumption anymore than we can assume multiclassing into warlock.)

It's not a house rule that you can use two javelins a round for 3 out of four rounds. You just didn't want to reply to that post.

It would be a house rule to suggest that you can draw two in a round, and still attack. If you spend an action to prepare before combat, then that's an exception to the rule, just as if you'd spent that action before combat to drink a Fly potion; there were extenuating circumstances which made you less terrible than you usually are. Once you start applying pre-conditions, though, the argument loses what applicability it still had. We're already limiting the discussion to important boss fights across unpassable terrain; if you limit the argument to important boss fights across unpassable terrain where you know the geography before the battle starts, then that's getting into a remote corner case.

In my view, you appear to want them to be as good at range as they are at melee and if they are not at least very close to the same they'd be in melee then you might as well go play Mario Kart because there is nothing to interest you about the game anymore (which would get you fired as a player in my game).

There's a limit of efficacy, beyond which the player is probably not having fun anymore. I can't tell you where you should draw that line, but I draw that line at one attack per round, with Disadvantage. (The attack also deals less damage than anyone else is dealing with a single attack, but that's irrelevant at this point.) One attack per round, with Disadvantage, is the equivalent of "probably nothing happens on your turn"; and given how long it can take for your turn to come up, that's not worth looking forward to. I'm not having fun at that point.

If the disparity was less exponential, then that could solve the problem. Reduce the rate of fire, or the accuracy, or the damage. Or reduce each one by a small amount, such that the net impact is that you're half as effective. When you cut the rate of fire by half, and the accuracy by half, and the damage by (almost) half, the net impact is not worth the effort of rolling dice.

I don't know where this seemingly entitled attitude concerning you being "awesome always!" in combat is coming from, but most games in my experience have an ebb and flow concering spotlight and sometimes you're "Awesome!" barbarian will not be as effective as the ranged player, and other times they will be more effective than the ranged player, and you're expected to participate and not pout and act bored if you're not doing as much damage as you're used to on rare occasion.

Ebbing and flowing, and sharing the spotlight, is perfectly reasonable over the course of a campaign. The final boss fight is not the time for that. The final boss fight should be the most exciting part of the game for everyone involved. An hour is too long for the spotlight to stay on any one character, and that's twice as true if it's the last spotlight of the campaign.

 

[Oofta]

The main issue to me is the disparity of options. Unless you are a niche build, there's no reason to not be a dex build for most campaigns.

If I have a 20 dex and standard studded leather + shield wielding a rapier I'm doing exactly as much melee damage as the strength based version, I don't take penalties for stealth, my dex save is far better, as is my initiative. Oh, and my ranged attacks are good as well.

Strength based? Umm ... my AC is better when/if I can afford plate mail (up until then it's probably about even with the dex guy). By 5%. Yippee? Unless I've put significant points into dex, I suck at stealth, my dex save stinks, my initiative is awful. I'd probably be okay with that, but then my ranged attacks have one fifth the effective range and limited to one per round as well*. I guess I can grapple ... except I can't remember the last time that came up in a game over the past four decades or so I've played. I'm better at climbing, but the dex guy will probably just rely on this well oiled team I keep hearing about.

So I should do a barbarian instead. Yep, big tough barbarian. Raar. Except do I really need to be big and tough? What if I just tanked dex and put everything int dex and con? Huh. My AC gets up as high as most fighters in full plate after a while. I don't get to be reckless and my damage is ever so slightly lower, but I could be a stealthy ninja barbarian firing death from the shadows. Strength based? I have to split between strength dex and con. If I want my barbarian to be charismatic or smart I'm SOL.

In any case, reinforced bows bring things more or less in balance and don't hurt anything. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

* unless you spend every other round doing something other than attacking which somehow means I'm getting more attacks or something? Still confused by that one.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I guess I can grapple ... except I can't remember the last time that came up in a game over the past four decades or so I've played.

You've had interesting games. Grappling (and its close cousins shove, shove aside, and knock prone) come up in around 2/3 of the 5E sessions I've played and GMed in the last 2 years.

Occasionally, lack of strength has blocked progress. The DEX 20 character with the rapier is stopped by a simple stuck door or heavy portcullis.