D&D 5E Feelings on Ranged Damage

[nswanson27]

nswanson27 and Saelorn,

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.

Well I guess there is rogue assassin getting an arrow off with surprise, which can have some dramatic effect. But as others have mentioned, 1-shot KOs at high levels just aren't apart of the game, at least not without introducing some situational mechanic designed specifically to a certain combat setting (which you can always do).
Ranger being weak overall I think is a common opinion, and WotC is presumably coming out with an official revision to the class this November. Finally, keep in mind that ranged can target the glass-cannons in the back that strategically should be targeted first, which melee might struggle to reach right away.

 

[mellored]

For the most part, ranged is better than melee.
1d8+dex and +2 AC
vs
1d8+dex and immunity to many attacks.


Rogues do about as much as a fighter. More if they get advantage, less if they don't. And really minimal damage if they don't get sneak attack.
1d6+3d6+4 * 50% = 9 DPR
vs
(1d8+4) * 2 attacks * 60% (archery style) = 10.2 DPR.
vs
4d6+4 * 75% (advantage) = 13.5 DPR.

Also, a magic bow, sharp-shooter feat, crossbow expertise feat, hunter's quarry, battle master dice, action surge, fighting a horde, etc... all favor the ranger/fighter. While rogues get advantage easier.
Overall, who wins goes back and forth depending on the level and situation. Damage between martial classes is pretty balanced overall.


The bigger difference is that fighters are tougher, rogues are mobile, and rangers have spells.

Edit: And beastmasters are just bad. They could use a boost. Try the UA version. Lower damage, but pretty tanky.
https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf

 

[Gadget]

I can't even make heads or tails out of the original post. It seems to be talking about a Ranger (the class) and a ranged weapon user (also referred to as a ranger?). These are two separate issues and conflating them is not a good idea. From what I can gather, OP thinks the Ranger (class) should be pure bow wielder and thus the interchangeable terminology. Throw in an orthogonal reference to sneak attack and it really messes things up.

I would add my voice to others saying I can't recall a time in D&D when Ranged attackers had it so easy. D&D combat has never been particularly "realistic" (however you define that term), and has wisely used some abstraction to make the game playable. This has been particularly true for ranged combat, and if 5e in particular, much of that abstraction has removed many of the hindrances to ranged combat. Add in feats like sharpshooter, crossbow expert and the like, and I really don't know what the OP is talking about.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm just going to put this forth and move on:

You and I have very different definitions of "earlier editions" (I assume that's what you meant). While 3E is technically "earlier" than 5E, I would not have thought to apply that adjective to it without qualification.

Oy, vey! I'm getting old. Now, get off my lawn!

Granpa you can safely assume that people talk about 3rd edition/d20 when they contrast 5E with anything. Very few people still alive today have played AD&D or older editions.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Thanks.

This is really the issue here.

But you can't implement instakills from arrows and not from swords, or you won't have any swordsmen left.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Rangers are great. Revised Rangers are even better. Cast Spike Growth, stand on the other side of it from your enemies, riddle them with arrows while they move through difficult terrain to get you. They'll take piercing damage from the spell and your arrows, or waste movement going around which results in getting shot by more arrows. I guess if your ranger is just standing there shooting, they'll be outdone by the fighter, but I think that's a feature not a bug.

As far as ranged damage as a whole goes it's more effective than melee damage by virtue of the fact that you can start hitting someone without them being in range to hit you. That fact that Melee Damage is despite this fact still a viable way to play the game is one of the systems strengths.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

5E certainly didn't help, with as many as eleven (11 ) relaxed or removed restrictions on ranged fire compared to "older" (hi, Mercule ) editions.

 

[Zardnaar]

5E certainly didn't help, with as many as eleven (11 ) relaxed or removed restrictions on ranged fire compared to "older" (hi, Mercule ) editions.

Even in 3E you had rapid shot+precise shot+ static modifiers (cleric and bards) and in AD&D you had masterwork bows + 18/XYZ strength+ weapon specialization+ multiple atacks.

 

[Mercule]

Granpa you can safely assume that people talk about 3rd edition/d20 when they contrast 5E with anything. Very few people still alive today have played AD&D or older editions.

Dang, son. You don't pull any punches. Now hold still while I beat you with my cane.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Yeah, in 5e doing the one-hit-kill routine is the rogue's job. Specifically the assassin. So, if you want to be Joe Sniper, you put three levels of assassin on your ranger and go to town.