Is Ranged really better than Melee?

[Ratskinner]

I just wrapped up GMing a 5e game that got up to level 8.

I didn't notice the supposed superiority of Ranged at all, not in comparison to the imbalance caused by the variability of the rest mechanics for Paladins vs Fighters, etc. and that was with most of the campaign being outside rather than dungeons. And that was with a Ranger fully kitted out for ranged.

Unless I put them on some kind of clock or whatever to prevent long rests, the Paladin simply dominated. Never the saw the Ranger dominate or felt I had to plan for him. If anything, we had to do a lot of work to keep the Ranger relevant. Some of that may be due to the Ranger player not being so into it as the Paladin player, but ranged is certainly not the insta-win that it sometimes gets portrayed as.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm curious about this. As written, it looks to me that Hexblades just barely keep up. What are you finding in play? What (if anything) is yielding distorting levels of damage?

Having played a Hexblade Warlock for a while, I can tell you being the only melee option that can combine GWM with Elven Accuracy doesn't suck.

Granted, this game had some distortions that favored the concept. Rolling stats gave me a high stat of 17, which combos beautifully with Half-Elf and Elven Accuracy, and our DM was using the "Flanking gives Advantage" rule (which I don't recommend!). So 2 melee attacks, each at +5 for 1d12+16 (boostable to 1d12+20 with Hexblade's Curse) by 9th level, with a 90% accuracy even against an AC 15 opponent, is brutal. Having EB+AB as a ranged backup was just icing on the cake. My damage was high enough that Hex really wasn't necessary, which let me keep spell slots reserved for Armor of Agathys or Counterspell or Synaptic Static or Thunder Step, which are pretty nice trump cards to carry around for a melee focused character.

I don't think it's distorting the game or anything, an Elven Archer could pull off better easily. (Albeit with greater challenges for gaining advantage. Flanking Advantage isn't right, but it really shifts the balance between melee and ranged.) But man, elven Hexblades are really fun. Certainly my favorite 5e character so far.

 

[clearstream]

I didn't notice the supposed superiority of Ranged at all, not in comparison to the imbalance caused by the variability of the rest mechanics for Paladins vs Fighters, etc. and that was with most of the campaign being outside rather than dungeons. And that was with a Ranger fully kitted out for ranged.

The rest rules are definitely problematic. It seems like they were balanced around a six encounter adventuring day, with two encounters per short rest. Unfortunately, especially in an outdoor campaign, that doesn't really happen. I've switched to 24 hour long rests, 4-8 hour sleep/trance to refresh abilities, and 1 hour breather to spend HD. That's working reasonably well in balancing long rest classes, but has favoured short rest too much, so I'm experimenting with a refresh die roll on each feature - a d20, 10+ refreshes the feature. The idea being that short rests happen twice as often as the system was balanced around, therefore halve the chance of refresh.

BTW did you use the outdoor encounter distance guidelines?

Unless I put them on some kind of clock or whatever to prevent long rests, the Paladin simply dominated. Never the saw the Ranger dominate or felt I had to plan for him. If anything, we had to do a lot of work to keep the Ranger relevant. Some of that may be due to the Ranger player not being so into it as the Paladin player, but ranged is certainly not the insta-win that it sometimes gets portrayed as.

Ranger is fairly underpowered. With SS (did your Ranger take it?) Horde Breaker and Volley, they can just about keep up. Paladin on the other hand is pretty strong. Especially if they are a PAM Paladin. What did yours take?

 

[Ratskinner]

The rest rules are definitely problematic. It seems like they were balanced around a six encounter adventuring day, with two encounters per short rest. Unfortunately, especially in an outdoor campaign, that doesn't really happen. I've switched to 24 hour long rests, 4-8 hour sleep/trance to refresh abilities, and 1 hour breather to spend HD. That's working reasonably well in balancing long rest classes, but has favoured short rest too much, so I'm experimenting with a refresh die roll on each feature - a d20, 10+ refreshes the feature. The idea being that short rests happen twice as often as the system was balanced around, therefore halve the chance of refresh.

I'm thinking about implementing a system from Blades in the Dark. In BiTD, characters each have a "vice" that determines what they do to erase Stress. Vices are Faith, Gambling, Luxury, Obligation (family, love, etc.), Pleasure (carousing), Stupor (drugs), and Weird (for spooky or geeky characters). For 5e, I would use Short Rests as normal, but long rests would require a class-appropriate indulgence in a Vice (and I might tweak the list for more heroic fantasy). I haven't decided whether or not to implement a roll with possible consequences as in BiTD, and whether to include HD recovery in this as well. It will probably depend on how much I want to have downtime entanglements be a part of the game.

BTW did you use the outdoor encounter distance guidelines?

Not specifically, but they were usually doing the hunting.

Ranger is fairly underpowered. With SS (did your Ranger take it?) Horde Breaker and Volley, they can just about keep up. Paladin on the other hand is pretty strong. Especially if they are a PAM Paladin. What did yours take?

Like I said, the Ranger was kitted out for ranged, so yes (although we didn't get to Volley). I don't remember the Paladin as specifically, but I think he was GWM, GWF and Oath of Devotion. The biggest issue was spamming smites, IMO. He could often drop two big foes in a round. Overwhelming him with piles of minion types was the best/only solution so that he would waste a lot of damage.

 

[clearstream]

I'm thinking about implementing a system from Blades in the Dark. In BiTD, characters each have a "vice" that determines what they do to erase Stress. Vices are Faith, Gambling, Luxury, Obligation (family, love, etc.), Pleasure (carousing), Stupor (drugs), and Weird (for spooky or geeky characters). For 5e, I would use Short Rests as normal, but long rests would require a class-appropriate indulgence in a Vice (and I might tweak the list for more heroic fantasy). I haven't decided whether or not to implement a roll with possible consequences as in BiTD, and whether to include HD recovery in this as well. It will probably depend on how much I want to have downtime entanglements be a part of the game.

Vices sound like a fun element! A factor I can relay from my own homebrew experience is that when long rests are made longer and/or more conditional, short rest classes can become heavily advantaged. I think if one changes, the other has to be changed in tandem. Otherwise for instance Warlocks get to massively outcast Wizards and Sorcerers over a day.

Like I said, the Ranger was kitted out for ranged, so yes (although we didn't get to Volley). I don't remember the Paladin as specifically, but I think he was GWM, GWF and Oath of Devotion. The biggest issue was spamming smites, IMO. He could often drop two big foes in a round. Overwhelming him with piles of minion types was the best/only solution so that he would waste a lot of damage.

Barring Crossbow Expert / Hand Crossbow silliness, the balance goes to GWM in the first two tiers. It's mostly once the fighter gets their second extra attack that Sharpshooter tips the scales. Ranger never gets that extra attack. If the world contained only Ranger archers and not Fighter archers, Sharpshooter could be left as it is. Considering both, however, I believe it needs a) to apply to heavy ranged weapons only (just like GWM applies to heavy melee weapons only, and b) Sharpshooter probably should be "once-per-turn". It's only a bit IMBA actually, but what I find is that in a shorter combat where an archery fighter can hit Action Surge, their longbow is doing massively more-than-greatsword damage, and in longer combats it is doing about the same. In tier 3.

Of course, piercing in rl might be as much or more wounding than slashing, but it doesn't match my internal picture of heroic fantasy weapons to have arrows do more than two-handed swords or axes.

 

[clearstream]

All in all I think these factors should cause us to reevaluate ranged superiority over melee superiority. Thoughts? Opinions?

Relating to this question, I've been pondering Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert. I believe it is highly justified to make Sharpshooter apply to heavy ranged weapons, just as Great Weapon Master applies to heavy melee weapons. Were that so, it can't stack with the Hand Crossbow bonus attack: forestalling the most egregious use.

A residual question in my mind is if "Once-per-turn" is justified for Sharpshooter? Especially given a desire to avoid unnecessary change. Here are two tables -



This shows the expected (average) and maximum (average) damage given one round in isolation, where everything triggers (GWM cleaves, Warlock hexes, etc). Expected is multiplied only by the expected accuracy at that tier. Maximum assumes 100% of attacks hit and crit.



This one shows a potentially more plausible scenario over a five round combat, where GWM cleaves some of the time, Warlock hex is on some of the time, etc). It docks melee a turn for repositioning, which is a common experience at my table, while giving ranged all up-time. Essentially claiming that, while any character will spend some turns in some fights disengaging or dying, due to reach and target selection ranged is about one turn in five more efficient than melee.

Grey-shaded is every-attack Sharpshooter. Tagged "OPT" is once-per-turn Sharpshooter. Assuming you find these damage values plausible, does nerfing Sharpshooter to once-per-turn, seem justified?

 

[Ratskinner]

Vices sound like a fun element! A factor I can relay from my own homebrew experience is that when long rests are made longer and/or more conditional, short rest classes can become heavily advantaged. I think if one changes, the other has to be changed in tandem. Otherwise for instance Warlocks get to massively outcast Wizards and Sorcerers over a day.

I might be okay with that, as our typical campaign style advantages the long-rest classes heavily. Although generally I agree, which is why I think that this "balance" factor was a mistake.

 

[smbakeresq]

Once spells get involved, it becomes difficult to predict what will happen. I think you can observe that crowd-control on the whole favours ranged attacks.

Thinking about those specific spells, at level 4 a Bard probably adds more to most fights with Greater Invis. which gives advantage on attacks and disadvantage to attackers, unless they have truesight, or Haste. It's better to Haste a Barbarian for instance, if they are Reckless. It's not on the Bard list but they can get it with Secrets. So I'm not convinced about casting Compulsion to trigger OAs. Our Bard used Dissonant Whispers and my experience is that the frequency of provoking an OA is fairly low. I think that was because the best target to Whisper generally wasn't the one already toe-to-toe with the melee character. I like the use of Command.

I should also have pointed out as that max damage is a misnomer, as I'm showing the damage if all attacks can be made and hit, but using only the average damage for each. It's the maximum of the average damage. I'll edit my post to make that clearer.

I think with OAs, their frequency is highly conditioned on how the DM decides to play the foes. It might vary widely group to group. My own experience is that they're not that frequent, either DMing or playing. However, as DM I have noticed a gradual change in how I run foes, to preferring to accept an OA if it means repositioning for a better attack (e.g. on a squishier target). It makes the melee "tarpit" more porous. It does seem more-than-usually speculative to count OAs into a damage estimation, that's for sure.

Command and Dissonant Whispers are 1st level, generating multiple OppAtt with a first level spell at 7th level has a very low cost as by then. You need to set them up of course, they should always generate at least 2 OppAtt with proper play, one of which could be Booming Blade with Warcaster, which would trigger immediately as you can make an OppAtt on your own turn if you use Dissonant Whispers. Remember for Dissonant Whispers the creature must move as far away as possible, so the direction of its move is predetermined by your positioning. For Command, they must move directly away from away, so you can generally choose their path also by your positioning.

Compulsion depends on group build somewhat, but to me has always been underrated. The key is the word "creatures" so you can get the whole lot of them. The effect is huge, all creatures in a 30' radius of you. On your bonus action all of the creatures effected move in a direction, so you all of your friends should be getting OppAtt in, that's 3-4 attacks per round possibly over multiple rounds. Creatures use their movement, so things like BB trigger also. Also the spell says they will not move into a "deadly hazard" but non-deadly hazards are fair game, such as an effect like Plant Growth or just plain difficult terrain, or a river with a current to sweep them away. Its also good to just clear guys away from the softies in the group, or create space for your ranged attackers.

Depending on DM "deadly hazard" might not include things like a patch of burning oil or caltrops on the ground or just something the creature might not recognize, an Ogre might not know what Spirit Guardians spell looks like. Also, that's 30' range on casting, the text does not say they spell breaks if they move 30' away AFTER you cast it, the range then is "see and hear you," but check with your DM. The way I read it you can just keep moving them until they cant see and hear you, Thaumaturgy (voice booms 3x louder then normal) can help with this.

Finally, simple things like moving the guards out of the room and then just shutting the door divides them can also be effective. Remember that moving melee creatures out of their reach means they will not be able to attack at all next turn if they fail their save unless they have a ranged attack ready, as they wont be able to move back into their reach and wont be able to switch weapons as part of their movement before they take their action.

The downsides of course are multiple wisdom saves.

I found that compulsion plays far better then it reads at the table. Give it a shot a few times to test it.

 

[smbakeresq]

100% this.

Seriously:
1) Make STR the ONLY ability modifier ever that adds to weapon damage, ranged weapon damage included. And if your STR modifier is negative, that affects your ranged weapon damage, too.
2) Make it so crossbows can never add ability modifier to damage, such as via a new "mechanical" weapon property. Up crossbows' damage die one size bigger to compensate somewhat.

Those two changes would solve *so many* problems. And get rid of all those annoying 8 STR/20 DEX builds in the process.

And for good measure, 3) change Hexblade so CHA applies only to attack rolls, still need to use STR for damage.

Enforcing encumbrance also helps get rid of those 8 Str builds.


Elfcrusher I have never used the Dodge action in combat for any 2 handed attacker, or for most primary melee types used in the discussion here. Its a waste of an action, just put your damage out and have the group plan to bring you back up.

 

[FrogReaver]

Enforcing encumbrance also helps get rid of those 8 Str builds.


Elfcrusher I have never used the Dodge action in combat for any 2 handed attacker, or for most primary melee types used in the discussion here. Its a waste of an action, just put your damage out and have the group plan to bring you back up.

You crazy. I use dodge all the time. It’s absolutely amazing