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

[Tony Vargas]

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.

To be fair, it'd likely still be boring were it not well-optimized...

...and possibly less boring were it optimized for something other than ranged-weapon DPR.

 

[Corwin]

There are other roles such as protecting teammates, support though buffs or debuffs etc, but those are outside the scope of this discussion.

Are they? Who decided that? And when? Artificially isolating one specific aspect of play, when comparing characters, invalidates any perceived values you may be trying to identify. At least AFAIC.

I mean, when we do stuff like that we end up with similar *facts* like, "The barbarian is clearly the weakest class." Because we happened to be measuring spellcasting potential at the time.

 

[Cyrinishad]

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.

I think this sums up are crucial difference in our perspective, in that I think that these roles are not outside the scope of this discussion... If those other roles did not exist, and the game were entirely a DPR calculation then I might concede to the assertions made by the OP and the "Ranged>Melee" crowd. However, all of these things are part of what a melee character does. Therefore they are a necessary part of determining the efficacy of Melee combat when compared to Ranged combat. Especially when all of those things are built into the current Fighter class (otherwise known as the "Melee" class).

 

[Tony Vargas]

If those other roles did not exist, and the game were entirely a DPR calculation then I might concede to the assertions made by the OP and the "Ranged>Melee" crowd.

I guess it depends on what you consider the muddy de-facto roles of traditional D&D to be, and whether you can tease out 'just' DPR as one or not. Certainly, D&D damage-tracking (hps) makes focus-fire and DPR very important, and the less "tactics" are emphasized, the less it matters exactly how you accomplish that basic function.

Some of the solutions posited, like making ranged combat less convenient in melee and melee harder to escape, would make it harder to credibly tease out pure DPR that way.

 

[Cyrinishad]

I guess it depends on what you consider the muddy de-facto roles of traditional D&D to be, and whether you can tease out 'just' DPR as one or not. Certainly, D&D damage-tracking (hps) makes focus-fire and DPR very important, and the less "tactics" are emphasized, the less it matters exactly how you accomplish that basic function.

Some of the solutions posited, like making ranged combat less convenient in melee and melee harder to escape, would make it harder to credibly tease out pure DPR that way.

Fair enough.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Iy you think it is a problem houserules are OK. I added a point blank range which is half short range currently where you may add your dex bonus to damage. And after that it is no dex bonus to damage at all. I am currently not sure about thrown weapons and if they need that restriction.

I think if something seems to be too strong in your game you should just nerf that and not buff various things that make the game much more complex.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Are they? Who decided that? And when? Artificially isolating one specific aspect of play, when comparing characters, invalidates any perceived values you may be trying to identify. At least AFAIC.

I mean, when we do stuff like that we end up with similar *facts* like, "The barbarian is clearly the weakest class." Because we happened to be measuring spellcasting potential at the time.

. . . The discussion I'm having with Cyrinishad. He claimed that the damage optimised ranged build was being compared with a sub-optimal melee build. I asked for a better melee build that would make a fairer comparison.
As I pointed out in the post you quoted, there are other aspects of the game, but neither ranged nor melee builds are superior at them inherently. (Or equivalent. For example the ranged build is better at stealth than the melee build, but the melee build is better at climbing etc.)
All other things being equal, you can directly compare the combat performance of two different builds by their survivability and damage output.
So: what things do you believe are not equal?

I think this sums up are crucial difference in our perspective, in that I think that these roles are not outside the scope of this discussion... If those other roles did not exist, and the game were entirely a DPR calculation then I might concede to the assertions made by the OP and the "Ranged>Melee" crowd. However, all of these things are part of what a melee character does. Therefore they are a necessary part of determining the efficacy of Melee combat when compared to Ranged combat. Especially when all of those things are built into the current Fighter class (otherwise known as the "Melee" class).

To point it out to you again, currently both the melee and the ranged DPR specialists that we are directly comparing are Fighters. Fighter is not "the melee class": there are classes much more focused on melee. Several of the Fighter archetypes are either pretty neutral either way, or outright ranged-focused indeed.

Now currently as far as I'm aware we are still discussing the two damage-focused builds: The ranged one put forward by the pro-ranged crowd, and the build that we are waiting for you to put forward since you feel the melee damage build currently being discussed is sub-optimal.

I'm quite happy to have another discussion with you regarding the other roles. Which ones do you feel are "part of what a melee character does" that are not also part of what a ranged character does?

 

[Uchawi]

I guess if there is no gap between ranged and melee then the DM can just throw ranged attackers against the party all the time, except the players can't narrate the scene to start things off at close range or cover. The counter to that is the players will use tactics to start combat off at close range or with cover. But then wouldn't the party do the same thing to start combat at long range if they were ranged combatants or to get free shots in before they engage.

Overall 5E is pretty flat in regards to detailed options for combat so it is easy to game the system unless the DM uses a heavy hand. Just make sure you mix up the pace and terrain, etc. to not make it blatantly obvious.

 

[Cyrinishad]

. . . The discussion I'm having with Cyrinishad. He claimed that the damage optimised ranged build was being compared with a sub-optimal melee build. I asked for a better melee build that would make a fairer comparison.
As I pointed out in the post you quoted, there are other aspects of the game, but neither ranged nor melee builds are superior at them inherently. (Or equivalent. For example the ranged build is better at stealth than the melee build, but the melee build is better at climbing etc.)
All other things being equal, you can directly compare the combat performance of two different builds by their survivability and damage output.
So: what things do you believe are not equal?

To point it out to you again, currently both the melee and the ranged DPR specialists that we are directly comparing are Fighters. Fighter is not "the melee class": there are classes much more focused on melee. Several of the Fighter archetypes are either pretty neutral either way, or outright ranged-focused indeed.

Now currently as far as I'm aware we are still discussing the two damage-focused builds: The ranged one put forward by the pro-ranged crowd, and the build that we are waiting for you to put forward since you feel the melee damage build currently being discussed is sub-optimal.

I'm quite happy to have another discussion with you regarding the other roles. Which ones do you feel are "part of what a melee character does" that are not also part of what a ranged character does?

I reread the thread and noticed that the pro-Ranged positions revolve around tactical scenarios that have no tactical obstructions (terrain/line-of-sight/etc.), and presume nearly infinite ammunition resources. I readily concede that Ranged attacks will be far superior given these circumstances.
I also reread the Fighter class details in the PHB and it seems to be either neutral or melee-focused, not ranged-focused. The Champion and Eldritch Knight Archetypes are neutral, and the Battle Master is neutral/melee. Out of the 15 Combat Manuevers listed, 4 are melee-only, and the rest are neutral.
Lastly, the pro-Ranged position in this thread is reliant on the use of feats, which although we may enjoy using are "optional" and not part of the core system.

I may be misunderstanding this thread, but from what I am reading I am just seeing people wonder what house-rules can be made to make Melee characters more effective when compared to Ranged characters that always have tactical advantage, utilize optional feats, and are equipped with infinite ammo... It just seems silly to me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think a big part of it is that the focus seems to be only on the amount of damage dealt versus received by the archer build as opposed to the melee build. But the determination that ranged combat is more effective than melee seems to rely on comparing the two options solely on paper.

When each is viewed as a part of a typical party of adventurers who will face a variety of threats in a variety of circumstances, then the idea that the ranged combatant is the winner quickly fades. Each has a place within a party, and when viewed in that way, it's much harder to determine who is "better". Yes, the ranged combatant may do buckets of damage, but usually that's because the melee combatant is buying him the opportunity to do so at the cost of his own HP.

The melee fighter is losing HP and dealing a bit less damage than the archer....but that's exactly what he's supposed to do. And without him, the archer would likely be in big, big trouble.

Given actual play and not simple comparison of DPR on paper, I don't know if there is a great imbalance. Some games may find that to be the case, others may not. For those that do, I would think that the best way to correct it would not be any change to the mechanics, but rather a change in the way combat plays out....use of terrain and other features, and with intelligent actions on the part of the enemies.