Is Ranged really better than Melee?

[FrogReaver]

You seem to be relying heavily (almost exclusively) on this "spread the damage around" argument, but that ignores:
1) The players usually can't control where the damage goes (if players can focus fire, so can intelligent enemies)
2) In many cases it's not a matter of "spreading it around" it's "everybody takes AoE damage"

1). A mixed group of enemies cannot all focus fire without taking OA’s from at least some of the melee PC’s. If they choose to do that then melee damage ends up being much higher than ranged. The reason I’ve focused attention on spreading damage is because it’s the most obscure reason having melee could be better. Once it’s established that spreading damage is a good strategy everything else falls in place.

If if I hadn’t started talking about spreading damage and started with OA’s you would be saying enemies just won’t move to take them. Which is true. But if enemies don’t move to take OA’s they also can’t focus fire effectively.

Its a damned if they do and damned if they don’t type argument.

2). AOE has the same effect against in a melee heavy party or a ranged heavy party IMO. Do you think otherwise?

 

[Zardnaar]

With feats and equivalent magic weapons yes, in real games magic hand crossbows are almost unheard of and magic bows are rarer than swords and they generally lack things like flaming ones and other effects that grant additional dice. If you play like AD&D (use what you find) ts probably alright, if you play like 3E and 4E where the PCs get what they want or if one PC can get a +2 flaming shortshword and the ranged user can get a +2 flaming hand crossbow you might have trouble.

 

[FrogReaver]

With feats and equivalent magic weapons yes, in real games magic hand crossbows are almost unheard of and magic bows are rarer than swords and they generally lack things like flaming ones and other effects that grant additional dice. If you play like AD&D (use what you find) ts probably alright, if you play like 3E and 4E where the PCs get what they want or if one PC can get a +2 flaming shortshword and the ranged user can get a +2 flaming hand crossbow you might have trouble.

Your not really talking about ranged vs melee you are talking about crossbow expertise and sharpshooter being much to strong. Leave those out. They don’t have any real place in a melee vs ranged discussion unless you are trying to point out that some extreme builds are so much better than others that the generalization changes when you start talking about them.

 

[Zardnaar]

Your not really talking about ranged vs melee you are talking about crossbow expertise and sharpshooter being much to strong. Leave those out. They don’t have any real place in a melee vs ranged discussion unless you are trying to point out that some extreme builds are so much better than others that the generalization changes when you start talking about them.

Its what it generally comes down to. Without feats the styles are a lot loser in effectiveness and whats better will vary by the situation. With feats ranged is always better if you focus on it enough with the exception of magic weapon drops.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think one of the problems here is that you are (I believe) comparing "melee heavy" to "ranged heavy", and I'm asking something simpler: if you've got the basic roles covered, is it more effective to go melee or ranged. Let's say we've got a fighter tank, a melee cleric, an archer rogue, and a wizard. I want to play a Ranger. Should I be a melee ranger or an archer ranger? From a pure optimization standpoint I think there is no question that I should go ranged. The only reason to go melee is just that I think it's more fun. (Which is plenty of reason, of course. But I shouldn't have to sacrifice effectiveness for that.)

1). A mixed group of enemies cannot all focus fire without taking OA’s from at least some of the melee PC’s. If they choose to do that then melee damage ends up being much higher than ranged. The reason I’ve focused attention on spreading damage is because it’s the most obscure reason having melee could be better. Once it’s established that spreading damage is a good strategy everything else falls in place.

If if I hadn’t started talking about spreading damage and started with OA’s you would be saying enemies just won’t move to take them. Which is true. But if enemies don’t move to take OA’s they also can’t focus fire effectively.

The "spreading damage" argument is an interesting one. And I can see that in some cases it might be a good idea. But it's by no means the default or even usual case. At most it mitigates the tactical superiority of ranged.

2). AOE has the same effect against in a melee heavy party or a ranged heavy party IMO. Do you think otherwise?

Only if the ranged are silly enough to clump together. Unless constrained by terrain I can't imagine why they would, though. Even without AoE, as the DM I'd let my monster take the AoO's to go wreak havoc in a dense group of ranged squishies.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think one of the problems here is that you are (I believe) comparing "melee heavy" to "ranged heavy", and I'm asking something simpler: if you've got the basic roles covered, is it more effective to go melee or ranged. Let's say we've got a fighter tank, a melee cleric, an archer rogue, and a wizard.

I'm good with exploring that question, though I don't think my melee heavy and ranged heavy designations are really all that different of a way of analyzing the issue.

I want to play a Ranger. Should I be a melee ranger or an archer ranger? From a pure optimization standpoint I think there is no question that I should go ranged. The only reason to go melee is just that I think it's more fun. (Which is plenty of reason, of course. But I shouldn't have to sacrifice effectiveness for that.)

I would disagree with that take. From level 1-4 a dual wielding ranger without hunters mark does better damage than a longbow ranger using hunter's mark.

From levels 5-10 the longbow ranger WITH hunters mark will just slightly edge out the Dual Wield ranger not using hunters mark.

Or perhaps a more apt comparison. The Sword and Board ranger with the +2 damage fighting style that uses hunter's mark. For low levels the difference is 1d8+1d6+5 vs 1d8+1d6+3. At level 5 it becomes 2d8+2d6+12 vs 2d8+2d6+8. Archery style will bring things a little closer, but the sword and shield fighter still has an edge on damage (although not on uptime with hunter's mark).

Most importantly, despite the slight differences in damage output all these builds I'm describing are doing nearly the same damage as each other and have the same initiative and the normal difference of a shield in AC. The only thing the ranged Ranger has over the melee Ranger comes down to whether you view ranged as being inherently better than melee and I don't have that view. In fact I would argue that in a 5 person party you would want 3 melee and 2 ranged preferably over 2 melee and 3 ranged. (one would be melee heavy and the other ranged heavy as per my earlier description). Melee characters tend to take the brunt of the damage, spreading that damage over 3 melee characters is much preferable to spreading it over 2.

The "spreading damage" argument is an interesting one. And I can see that in some cases it might be a good idea. But it's by no means the default or even usual case. At most it mitigates the tactical superiority of ranged.

Thanks, I actually think it puts melee slightly on top, but I'll settle for my argument causing you to reevalute just how much better you think ranged is than melee. That's probably the most important thing that can come of this conversation.

Only if the ranged are silly enough to clump together. Unless constrained by terrain I can't imagine why they would, though. Even without AoE, as the DM I'd let my monster take the AoO's to go wreak havoc in a dense group of ranged squishies.

I can agree with that, though the key to melee playing as I describe is to spread out some too but to stay within at least about 30 ft of your nearest melee ally. Maybe even 15-20ft would be more advisable. Melee Characters also should spread the enemies out in different levels. Once the first enemy and PC melee engage the other melee PC's should typically look for targets beyond his position that are still within that movement of him. I don't see ranged characters necessarily spreading out much more than I'm describing melee characters doing above, though it is possible for them to do, I'm not sure that is actually more optimized (barring them fighting a dragon or some other enemy known to be able to produce large AOE's)

One added bonus in AOE context is melee characters have enemies intermixed with them making it harder to land an aoe like fireball on them without hitting the enemies allies.

That's my reasoning on AOE attacks.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I would disagree with that take. From level 1-4 a dual wielding ranger without hunters mark does better damage than a longbow ranger using hunter's mark.

From levels 5-10 the longbow ranger WITH hunters mark will just slightly edge out the Dual Wield ranger not using hunters mark.

Or perhaps a more apt comparison. The Sword and Board ranger with the +2 damage fighting style that uses hunter's mark. For low levels the difference is 1d8+1d6+5 vs 1d8+1d6+3. At level 5 it becomes 2d8+2d6+12 vs 2d8+2d6+8. Archery style will bring things a little closer, but the sword and shield fighter still has an edge on damage (although not on uptime with hunter's mark).

I'm not arguing that ranged does better white room damage than melee. I'm saying that: a) it is more likely to be able to do its damage uninterrupted each round (e.g., not having to Dodge, or miss out because of positioning) and is also less likely to take damage.

You may have had much different experiences than I have, but I usually play melee because I like it more, and I've definitely noticed that while I'm trying to avoid/mitigate damage, get closer to my desired target without pulling AoO's, etc., the archers just sit there cranking out damage every round. It's just so....Legolas.

Sure, the DMs could be doing more to give the archers a hard time (Fog Cloud spells, or setting things up so that the melee allies have no choice but to give the bad guys cover, or whatever) but it seems to me that requiring DMs to improvise to fix imbalances in the game isn't as good as not having the imbalances to start with.

Again, if archers didn't get their bonuses beyond a certain range, and had automatic penalties for shooting into melee, especially when your allies are in that melee, I think most of the problem would be alleviated.

Here's an idea: you have Disadvantage shooting at targets engaged in melee with your allies. If both rolls miss, roll a new attack against your ally.

THAT would get some archers in there with their short swords.

 

[clearstream]

1). A mixed group of enemies cannot all focus fire without taking OA’s from at least some of the melee PC’s. If they choose to do that then melee damage ends up being much higher than ranged. The reason I’ve focused attention on spreading damage is because it’s the most obscure reason having melee could be better. Once it’s established that spreading damage is a good strategy everything else falls in place.

In RPG-skirmish style combat, where effectiveness is simplified to "fully-functional until dead", a fundamentally powerful strategy* is removing participants one-at-a-time from the combat. Focus-fire enables this. OAs do not.

I feel like this is being overlooked by your thesis. The putative Catch-22 is countered by a more powerful Catch-23.



*...and a good argument for critical hit systems that incrementally cripple participants.

 

[clearstream]

I would disagree with that take. From level 1-4 a dual wielding ranger without hunters mark does better damage than a longbow ranger using hunter's mark.

From levels 5-10 the longbow ranger WITH hunters mark will just slightly edge out the Dual Wield ranger not using hunters mark.

Or perhaps a more apt comparison. The Sword and Board ranger with the +2 damage fighting style that uses hunter's mark. For low levels the difference is 1d8+1d6+5 vs 1d8+1d6+3. At level 5 it becomes 2d8+2d6+12 vs 2d8+2d6+8. Archery style will bring things a little closer, but the sword and shield fighter still has an edge on damage (although not on uptime with hunter's mark).

On a "one round in splendid isolation" comparison, DW edges out archery ranger in tier 1. After that, archery ranger out-damages them. That's based on a points-buy character with foe ACs per the DMG.

On a "one five-round encounter" comparison, DW continues to edge out archery ranger at tier 1. After that, archery ranger substantially out-damages them. That is with Hunter's Mark assumed up for 3 of those 5 rounds, and melee assumed to be repositioning for 1 of those 5 rounds.

Sword-and-board is equaled by ranger in tier 1, but thereafter ranger out-damages them. By either comparison.

I think DW and 1HS could look better if accuracy is ignored, and feat selections are all sub-optimal. The former has to be taken into consideration for any plausible assessment, in my view. Regards the latter? Players make sub-optimal choices all the time, but I think posters should call out whenever they're assuming a sub-optimal choice.

So I guess I'm saying, if accuracy isn't considered, the analysis isn't plausible.

 

[FrogReaver]

In RPG-skirmish style combat, where effectiveness is simplified to "fully-functional until dead", a fundamentally powerful strategy* is removing participants one-at-a-time from the combat. Focus-fire enables this. OAs do not.

I feel like this is being overlooked by your thesis. The putative Catch-22 is countered by a more powerful Catch-23.



*...and a good argument for critical hit systems that incrementally cripple participants.

So your argument is that if monsters take option 2 where they just take the OA’s and focus fire that such a decision puts the PC’s in a worse position than if they had just focus fired the enemies.

I agree in part with your general heuristic but try to think more about how the battle is going to flow. I’ll elaborate more later.