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

[Iry]

Perhaps a more balanced comparison would be between two fighters (one ranged & one melee) that have identical resources, so that it's an apples-to-apples comparison.

That sounds good. Two pure Fighters given the exact same resources and put into a variety of combat situations. But someone would need to come up with range of plausible situations that highlights the kind of variety that would normally be encountered.

Look, white knight, what do you call this?...

His comment was also out of line, but you've spoken down to me personally. So I'm asking you directly and sincerely.

 

[Corwin]

His comment was also out of line...

Then I expect you to recant your earlier statement, "Please debate in good faith. Your opponents have not been sarcastic or condescending to you."

 

[Corwin]

That sounds good. Two pure Fighters given the exact same resources and put into a variety of combat situations. But someone would need to come up with range of plausible situations that highlights the kind of variety that would normally be encountered.

Problem is, my impression is that the OP and several others have charged that the issue stems from their games not having variety. They involve scenarios that are generally out in wide open spaces. The ranged characters attack with impunity on melee-centric opponents far away, while the melee PCs watch impotently from the sidelines. And so, obviously, ranged>melee.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I still haven't seen a cogent position that unequivocally displays that "Ranged>Melee". So far all arguments that postulate this have presumed optimized Ranged builds versus sub-optimal Melee builds and/or sub-optimal monster tactics. I remain unconvinced.

Could you perhaps suggest some less sub-optimal Melee builds to which the ranged build could be compared against?
Currently they've used the polearm/GWM build as I think the most optimised. Since that is evidently sub-optimal in your eyes, could you suggest a melee build that would be a better comparison please?

 

[Iry]

Then I expect you to recant your earlier statement.

Certainly. Consider it recanted, and hopefully we can all get along!

Problem is, my impression is that the OP and several others have charged that the issue stems from their games not having variety. They involve scenarios that are generally out in wide open spaces. The ranged characters attack with impunity on melee-centric opponents far away, while the melee PCs watch impotently from the sidelines. And so, obviously, ranged>melee.

Several posters have mentioned that the value is ultimately subjective, because different GM's will have different preferences for the kinds of combat they run. So any scenarios we create are going to have a floating "YMMV" disclaimer.

But I also think the advantages to ranged combat are notable enough that we will see certain trends emerge across a large number of scenarios. Trends that will point towards ranged combat being safer, having an easier time choosing optimal targets, and slightly higher sustained damage across an entire combat compared to melee.

So we need someone neutral to create those scenarios.

 

[Caliban]

I enjoy playing optimized characters, and even I feel that archery is perhaps a bit too strong in this edition, just not to the degree to some of the other posters. Personally I feel that the main culprit is being able to easily ignore cover and fire into melee without any penalty, topped with a bonus to attack from the Archery fighting style that melee and magic do not get. So Archery has no penalties and better attack bonus than an equivalent melee or magic characters. (Magic can ignore ranged penalties via spell sniper, but they don't get the attack bonus.)

It hasn't been that big an issue in most of the games I play though. The main drawback to a heavily optimized ranged character is that they are so very boring. You tend to do pretty much the same thing at every level over the course of the character's career. You only need to move to make sure the target doesn't have total cover, or that you have a good hiding spot nearby. After that you shoot. The only real decision is using Sharpshooter or not.

 

[hejtmane]

I enjoy playing optimized characters, and even I feel that archery is perhaps a bit too strong in this edition, just not to the degree to some of the other posters. Personally I feel that the main culprit is being able to easily ignore cover and fire into melee without any penalty, topped with a bonus to attack from the Archery fighting style that melee and magic do not get. So Archery has no penalties and better attack bonus than an equivalent melee or magic characters. (Magic can ignore ranged penalties via spell sniper, but they don't get the attack bonus.)

It hasn't been that big an issue in most of the games I play though. The main drawback to a heavily optimized ranged character is that they are so very boring. You tend to do pretty much the same thing at every level over the course of the character's career. You only need to move to make sure the target doesn't have total cover, or that you have a good hiding spot nearby. After that you shoot. The only real decision is using Sharpshooter or not.

Magic can ignore cover as while spell sniper then magic user can also sculpt spell (evocation) or careful spell sorcerer and lob aoes into their melee and bad guys and not hurt their friends so they can lob fireball with no worries

 

[hawkeyefan]

4. Ready action can be used to make every attack as normal Attack action. That way when archer peek around corner to shoot you can make your "full attack" on him.

This one seems incredibly likely to swing things in favor of the archers, actually. They would be able to ready an action to then use all their attacks when someone comes out from cover or what have you.

I personally don't think the disparity between the two is very bad at all, but that one rule seems like it would backfire for those who are trying to even things out.

I also don't know if I view loss of HP as being a sign of lesser efficacy. A melee fighter is most likely built to do exactly that....it's one of their primary functions. When they lose HP, isn't that a case of them being effective?

 

[Cyrinishad]

Could you perhaps suggest some less sub-optimal Melee builds to which the ranged build could be compared against?
Currently they've used the polearm/GWM build as I think the most optimised. Since that is evidently sub-optimal in your eyes, could you suggest a melee build that would be a better comparison please?

I think comparing Melee efficacy versus Ranged efficacy is faulty when using Damage Output as the premise. The pro-Ranged positions also specified that Melee taking damage undermined its efficacy, which I similarly believe is faulty, because many of the Feats and class features surrounding Melee involve increasing the HP and/or Resilience of the characters. Which means that the Melee characters are designed to take more damage. So, I think the primary assumptions being made so far to define the efficacy of Melee vs. Ranged are inherently flawed.
A system analysis could very well prove that Ranged characters have greater damage output than Melee characters, or that Melee characters take the most damage in combat... However, neither of these things would be definitive proof that Ranged character is somehow superior or more effective than a Melee character in the context of the game.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think comparing Melee efficacy versus Ranged efficacy is faulty when using Damage Output as the premise.

Both damage intake and output are being considered, since they are the deciding aspects of combat. In other aspects of the game, neither style has particular advantages compared to the other.

The pro-Ranged positions also specified that Melee taking damage undermined its efficacy, which I similarly believe is faulty, because many of the Feats and class features surrounding Melee involve increasing the HP and/or Resilience of the characters. Which means that the Melee characters are designed to take more damage. So, I think the primary assumptions being made so far to define the efficacy of Melee vs. Ranged are inherently flawed.

Taking damage undermines efficiency because if you're on the floor bleeding out, you don't deal any damage. Melee characters tend to be more at risk of this because most opponents generally have better melee attacks than ranged attacks.

The ranged build that most of the discussion is centred around (the hand crossbow using fighter) has the same inherent toughness as the melee builds, although possibly a point less AC at higher levels. Indeed, because their prime stat also boosts their initiative, they can often afford to put more emphasis on Constitution than the melee fighter.

A system analysis could very well prove that Ranged characters have greater damage output than Melee characters, or that Melee characters take the most damage in combat... However, neither of these things would be definitive proof that Ranged character is somehow superior or more effective than a Melee character in the context of the game.

For a character whose role is to deal damage, greater damage output and reduced damage intake means that character is more effective than a character that deals less damage and/or takes more. There are other roles such as protecting teammates, support though buffs or debuffs etc, but those are outside the scope of this discussion.