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

[thecasualoblivion]

Wow. That's awesome. Look at how cool you are having spent every resource you had on that one shtick. Good for you. Other characters got to spend their resources on cool things too. isn't that neat?

BTW, how many crossbow bolts do you have on you? You sure do burn through them awful quick with that little machine-gun peashooter of yours!

Also, the farthest you can attack (120') with that hand crossbow is *less* than a longbow's *short* range (150'), let alone its amazing long range (600')! What is your fighter doing for 8+ rounds while the enemy is making its way into your crossbow's range? Meanwhile the sharpshooting longbowman is plucking away at them with impunity that whole time.


Do you? Do you deal more damage than anyone else? Are you sure? I've not found hand crossbow fighters to take that particular cake.

As I said, there is little penalty for spending all my resources there. Being in melee changes virtually nothing for me.

Ammo? Our Fighter carries 3 or 4 cases of crossbow bolts on his person. Our Bard has a bag of holding, there are 10+ cases of bolts in that.

The farthest he can shoot is 120 feet, but thanks to Sharpshooter there is no penalty for long range. 95% of the time, 120 feet is more than enough. For when it's not, he carries a Light Crossbow and I've seen it used.

As for more damage, the Hand Crossbow with Crossbow Master effectively gives an extra attack as a bonus action. The wording of the feat is confusing, but there has been an official ruling that it effectively results in a bonus action attack, complete with dex bonus to damage. An extra shot with dex bonus combined with Sharpshooter and Archery style more or less amounts to the most damage you see anywhere.

At level 8, which is where we are at, he's 3 attacks, +10 to attack, 1d6+5 damage. With Sharpshooter, he's +5 to attack, +15 damage. +5 to attack hits low AC enemies pretty well. 3 attacks at +15 damage is harsh, with Action Surge its 5 attacks at +15 damage each. Battlemaster adds a little extra damage and utility. Goading action is pretty hysterical at range, and it's this particular player's favorite trick.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I havent read the whole thread, but to answer the OP, I think the easiest solutions are:

1. Delete the bit in crossbow expert feat that removes disad in melee. Gain +1 stat instead (so it's a half feat)
2. Add more monsters. Lots more.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Do you? Do you deal more damage than anyone else? Are you sure? I've not found hand crossbow fighters to take that particular cake.

Pretty much. A sorceror throwing a metamagic-boosted meteor storm probably has a higher damage on the particular round that she throws it, but in terms of sustained general damage the hand-crossbow build TCO has outlined is pretty much the top.
The ability to have that bonus action attack with full ability bonus and potential feat use for the +10 additional damage is what puts it ahead. Some polearm builds can do similar, but generally lose out by having to move into melee before they can unleash their attacks.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Pretty much. A sorceror throwing a metamagic-boosted meteor storm probably has a higher damage on the particular round that she throws it, but in terms of sustained general damage the hand-crossbow build TCO has outlined is pretty much the top.
The ability to have that bonus action attack with full ability bonus and potential feat use for the +10 additional damage is what puts it ahead. Some polearm builds can do similar, but generally lose out by having to move into melee before they can unleash their attacks.

Archery Fighting Style is also key. The +2 to attack rolls from it goes a long way to offset the -5 to attack from Sharpshooter. Polearm/Greatweapon builds have nothing like it.

 

[Iry]

At the expense dealing less damage (as a general rule, of course). Fair's fair, n'est–ce pas?

No. As a general rule, the ranged attacker is going to deal more damage as a consequence of being more likely to attack an optimal target each round, and spend fewer rounds being completely unable to attack.

Do they? There are categories of attack penalties that apply to ranged that do not (as a general rule) apply to melee.

There are categories of incoming damage that apply to melee that do not (as a general rule) happen to ranged as often.

And yet *have* resources (as a general rule) that do not exist for melee types. Be it ammo, or spell slots, etc.

Basic ammunition is trivial beyond the first few levels. Spell slots are never trivial, but the variety of problem solving options granted by spells eclipses those of most weapons by a staggering degree.

 

[Corwin]

Archery Fighting Style is also key. The +2 to attack rolls from it goes a long way to offset the -5 to attack from Sharpshooter. Polearm/Greatweapon builds have nothing like it.

No it doesn't. That's just creative mathing. Without the -5, you'd be +2 better to hit. You can only ever fully ignore that -5 if you need a 2 or better to hit. Otherwise its a flat 25% less chance of hitting what you are shooting at. So, sure, if you're fighting zombies or oozes I can see it. But with most things you are attacking, that -5 is -5. You may like that you are getting an additional +2 for your style, but that means you'd be that much more likely to hit if you avoided taking the -5. They are individual factors.

Also, your example 8th level crossbow guy is still a net -4 to hit for +9 damage, and that's *including* the Archery fighting style bonus. For a non-variant human its a net -5 to hit for +8 damage. It's fun to pretend opportunity costs aren't a thing. But they are. They always are. You'd be a total of what? +9 to hit? So only +4 if you use Sharpshooter? Yeah. You'll always hit *everything* I'm sure. No problem.

 

[Corwin]

No. As a general rule, the ranged attacker is going to deal more damage as a consequence of being more likely to attack an optimal target each round, and spend fewer rounds being completely unable to attack.

You say that like its a given.

There are categories of incoming damage that apply to melee that do not (as a general rule) happen to ranged as often.

Huh?

Basic ammunition is trivial beyond the first few levels.

I'm having a hard time taking your posts as serious. Are you joshing me? Is this a prank?

Spell slots are never trivial, but the variety of problem solving options granted by spells eclipses those of most weapons by a staggering degree.

So you are saying spell slots are not trivial. And how they are very important to be used for problem solving. I agree. So how do you manage to cast all the potent ranged damage spells you want in a day? Which is it? Are they for dealing a bunch of damage or for problem solving (of course, I have to assume when you say "problem solving" you aren't talking about solving the problem of "killing stuff").

 

[CapnZapp]

Nah. It's true that you can obviate the minimal downsides of ranged weapons & spells in melee with minor application of system mastery (and the DM can block some of those pretty easily, too), but it's not the whole issue. Even if you don't, disadvantage in melee for ranged attacks (not spells that don't use attack rolls) is still pretty minor. Disadvantage comes from many other sources, as well, and, even when staying melee means accepting disadvantage you wouldn't otherwise have and not cancelling it with Advantage, it's still only a reduction in offense, not a risk like AoOs for ranged attacks & spell casting in 4e & (trivial though they could be to negate) 3.5 were. A caster or archer in melee isn't so much in trouble as possibly inconvenienced.

The question doesn't strike me as STR build vs DEX build so much as melee options vs ranged options, FWIW.

5e seems decidedly easy on ranged options, whether using bows or spells, in melee, while also making them very effective options. Probably in the name of fast combat in that case, but it's been a trend the last several editions, really. I've long noticed that the game has gotten much easier on casting as it's evolved, while rarely pulling back the power thereof to match, but in retrospect, the same has been true of ranged weapon combat, if perhaps a bit less dramatically so.

Yes.

It boils down to one simple thing. Since melee has less range than ranged (doh!) you need something else to compensate, or the optimal build will be ranged.

D&D has (together with most fantasy games) historically built up a rather sizeable number of checks to ensure this: add strength to damage, become inconvenienced by melee, range and cover limitations, etc and so on.

Remove them one after another and you will come to a point where you must start adding them back to maintain the purported genre of the game. Otherwise you will end up with a game where people only play melee builds out of nostalgia, tradition or perhaps because they simply don't realize ranged builds have eclipsed theirs in utility and effectiveness.

The classical fantasy genre, that is. The home of Conan or Regdar or any number of range-impaired heroes.

 

[Iry]

You say that like its a given.

It certainly seems to be the case, and all my anecdotal evidence across a dozen gaming tables reinforces my belief. But it is ultimately just an opinion like everything else.

Huh?

Melee attackers are more likely to suffer from attacks of opportunity, or need to move through environmental damage, in order to engage with priority targets. Ranged attackers also have to deal with these complications, but the ranged playstyle usually means you have to deal with these complications less often than your melee counterpart.

I'm having a hard time taking your posts as serious. Are you joshing me? Is this a prank?

I am attempting to answer your posts truthfully and succinctly. Tony is doing an excellent job going into greater detail.

So you are saying spell slots are not trivial. And how they are very important to be used for problem solving. I agree. So how do you manage to cast all the potent ranged damage spells you want in a day? Which is it? Are they for dealing a bunch of damage or for problem solving (of course, I have to assume when you say "problem solving" you aren't talking about solving the problem of "killing stuff").

Actually, I think primary spell casters have more effective things to be doing besides dealing damage with their spells. I'm not sure how we got onto the topic of primary spellcasters (probably because they technically can qualify as 'ranged attackers'), but my comments are directed at the more martial classes.

Though Warlocks are no slouches.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yes.

It boils down to one simple thing. Since melee has less range than ranged (doh!) you need something else to compensate, or the optimal build will be ranged.

D&D has (together with most fantasy games) historically built up a rather sizeable number of checks to ensure this: add strength to damage, become inconvenienced by melee, range and cover limitations, etc and so on.

Remove them one after another and you will come to a point where you must start adding them back to maintain the purported genre of the game. Otherwise you will end up with a game where people only play melee builds out of nostalgia, tradition or perhaps because they simply don't realize ranged builds have eclipsed theirs in utility and effectiveness.

The classical fantasy genre, that is. The home of Conan or Regdar or any number of range-impaired heroes.

Strangely enough, when looking at optimization at a party level, as opposed to character level a lot of the gap disappears. Ranged has the option to avoid enemy contact, but at a party level I find this is a net negative. The melee characters end up taking too much damage, get knocked below zero more often than they should, and this costs the party turns that would otherwise involve a PC attacking. Monsters hit hard in 5E, and experience at the table tells me that the most effective way of handling monster damage at the party level is to spread damage as evenly as possible between the entire party. In order to do this, the ranged characters need to stay close, in harms way, and take their share of hits. The defensive advantages of range, while real when comparing characters to each other, are actually bad strategy in actual play.