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

Satyrn said:

Gronk - "Hey guys I brought a friend for tonight's game. Everybody, this Gronk."
Gronk - "Hi, Gronk"
Gronk - "Gronk, this is Gronk."
Gronk - "Hey."
Gronk - "Hi, Gronk"
Gronk - "and, this is Gronk."
Gronk - "Hey."
Gronk - "Hi, Gronk"

Click to expand...

Heh.

Here (https://repl.it/EnFq/6) is how you do random names. I use Dominion 4 names a lot in my tabletop game, so I just assigned Agarthan names to the Earth Elementals and undead names to the Death Slaads.

Rufus the Archer wins 5 out of 100 matches against Deepfriend the Earthling and Stonemined the Earthling and Sandhand the Earthling, with 0.99 HP remaining (0% of total)
Brutus the Tank wins 14 out of 100 matches against Stonespawned the Earthling and Earthfinger the Earthling and Diamondthought the Earthling, with 4.23 HP remaining (3% of total)
D'Artagnan the Swashbuckler wins 1 out of 100 matches against Rubyeye the Earthling and Caveson the Earthling and Cavebreaker the Earthling, with 0.49 HP remaining (0% of total)

Rufus the Archer wins 0 out of 100 matches against Gravetongue the Death Scuz and Nar the Death Scuz, with 0.00 HP remaining (0% of total)
Brutus the Tank wins 0 out of 100 matches against Urathu the Death Scuz and Vekhithu the Death Scuz, with 0.00 HP remaining (0% of total)
D'Artagnan the Swashbuckler wins 0 out of 100 matches against Ashem the Death Scuz and Ebenezar the Death Scuz, with 0.00 HP remaining (0% of total)

Corwin said:

Why should the designers own up to/acknowledge/fix something I have not found to be imbalanced/wonky/an oversight/a mistake/plain careless?

Click to expand...

Because there might be others who feel the pain?

Because your players would probably be just as happy with an alternate ruleset as with the current one?

Because you and your players might find this issue imbalanced/wonky/an oversight/mistake or plain careless someday? And that this day might arrive closer than you think, now that I have pointed out the issue to you?

Have a nice day,
Zapp

CapnZapp said:

I'm afraid I need to ask you to offer your suggestions on how to put your bonus action to better use.

(The "it's cheesy" part I wholeheartedly agree to)

Click to expand...

Survivability and the ability to engage effectively matters more than DPR. That's the whole premise of the ranged superiority argument, nicht so? The game devs kept a tight rein on offensive abilities, and crossbow expert's bonus action doesn't really increase your effectiveness by very much. You want to use your bonus action in a game-changing way that lets you kill monsters you otherwise couldn't kill, and claim treasure you otherwise couldn't claim, and spend less resources than you would otherwise spend.

Increasing your attack rate DPR by 25-50% at the cost of your bonus action, a smaller damage die size (d6 instead of d8), a feat and having to be within 120' isn't a qualitative advantage. (At 1st-5th level when it increases it by 100%, Crossbow Expert is much more appealing, but not so at higher levels.)

Taking zero damage in a fight at the cost of a bonus action and either a spell (Expeditious Retreat) and open terrain, or a feat (Skulker) and two levels of Rogue is a qualitative advantage. Skulker + Rogue also increases your DPR by the way by giving you advantage on many of your attacks. Most monsters don't have blindsight or tremorsense, so you can hide from them behind obstacles or in the dark even if you're within darkvision range, because of Skulker. Skulker also ensures that you don't lose advantage unless you hit with your attack, which for someone like D'Artagnan the Swashbuckler (although he's not a Skulker until he levels up) means that his d8+4d6+15 (33) killer shot will almost always be made with advantage--it can't be blown on a miss.

Having a bunch of undead meat shields throwing nets to restrain your enemies and also tearing them apart and getting in their way at the cost of a bonus action and a spell or three (Animate Dead) is also a pretty good advantage.

Animate Object is similar to Animate Dead but less likely to be available to an archer, unless you think of a Sorlock as an archer. Also, Animate Dead has better action and concentration economies.

Hiding, mobility, and meat shields are the main good uses of bonus actions for archers. For other PCs, good bonus action uses can include wildshaping, teleportation, and maintaining damaging spells like Bigby's Hand.

CapnZapp said:

Because there might be others who feel the pain?

Click to expand...

What pain?

CapnZapp said:

Because your players would probably be just as happy with an alternate ruleset as with the current one?

Click to expand...

Would they though? They seem pretty ecstatic about this one as it is. And that's considering the lack of enthusiasm, and loss of luster, I've seen them express about the last few editions and their problems with them. Did you find the last few editions to have problems like this? I mean, problems that impacted your enjoyment of the game as you seem to have with this edition?

CapnZapp said:

Because you and your players might find this issue imbalanced/wonky/an oversight/mistake or plain careless someday? And that this day might arrive closer than you think, now that I have pointed out the issue to you?

Click to expand...

Ah. There it is. We just don't "get it." Yet, anyway. But someday, maybe soon, as you suggest, we will become as enlightened as you and finally see these "problems." How much longer do you think I should give my fellow players? I mean, we've been playing 5e extensively, and regularly, for years now. Maybe any day now?

CapnZapp said:

Have a nice day,
Zapp

Click to expand...

Roger that, Capn. Good luck to you, sir. And Happy New Year!

Hemlock said:

That's exactly the point. It's not "regardless of playstyle." It matters very much whether your DM is the sort to throw hordes of screaming cannibals at you at level 11.

Click to expand...

It also matters a lot whether those hordes are comprised of CR 1/4 individuals or CR 1/2 individuals. The latter type, such as orcs, can't actually be one-shot with any regularity unless you have extenuating circumstances.

Saelorn said:

It also matters a lot whether those hordes are comprised of CR 1/4 individuals or CR 1/2 individuals. The latter type, such as orcs, can't actually be one-shot with any regularity unless you have extenuating circumstances.

Click to expand...

We're talking about a GWM using power attack, aren't we? An orc will always drop from a 2d6+15 hit.

Corwin said:

I'd like to point out that I never said a system can't be balanced. Even very well balanced. It just can't mandate, nor enforce, parity.

Click to expand...

Why not? Eg How does HeroWars/Quest not come pretty close to enforcing parity?

I agree that in D&D, or any other list-based build system, players can always choose to pick things from the list that don't synergise well together. (Eg I build a STR fighter who wears leather armour and fights with a dagger.)

And systems that rely on GM guidelines (eg BW for scene-framing; MHRP for use of the Doom Pool) can suffer from sucky GMing, which undermines parity between PCs.

But what about a system like HeroQuest revised which (even moreso than its predecessor editions) does not involve list-based PC building and does not rely on GM guidelines to achieve parity? (The obvious answer I can see is: a player in that game can still decline to declare actions for his/her PC, and so might not actually do anything in the game. Is that the point you're trying to make?)

Corwin said:

if +2 to hit is a massive benefit, then +2 AC is therefore equally as valuable.

Click to expand...

Huh? That's not true as a general proposition. It depends on the base chance to hit or to be hit (which is then being modified by the +2).

@Ahskelon's example of +2 being a benefit was when it increased the chance to hit from 40% to 50% - a 25% increase in hit chance and hence (if everything else is equal) in DPR.

But if your AC is such that you are hit only on a nat 20, then a +2 increase is worthless.

Or if your AC is such that you are hit on a 3 or better, than a +2 increase (taking that to 5 or better) reduces the enemy's hit chance from 18 in 20 to 16 in 20, which is a 1/9 reduction in the chance to be hit and hence a 12.5% increase in effective hit points. Whether that is worthwhile or not will depend on how precious hp are as a commodity to the PC, but it seems not as worthwhile as a 25% increase in DPR, as (if hp are your hard limit on actions) it's only half the increase in efficiency.

The best time to get a +2 increase in AC is if the monster hit you only on (say) a 17 or so, and you take that to a 19 or so. That is a halving (or thereabouts, depending on the precise numbers) of the chance to be hit, and hence a doubling (or thereabouts) of effective hp. But that is not likely to be the case at the sorts of AC being tossed around by [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION] (17, 18, 19).

Looking at the SRD, a CR 7 Stone Giant has +9 to hit, and a CR 1/2 Gnoll has a +4 to hit. Against the former, taking AC from 17 to 19 takes the hit chance from 13 in 20 to 11 in 20, which is about a 19% increase in effective hp. Against the latter, the same AC boost reduces the hit chance from 8 in 20 to 6 in 20, which is about a 33% increase in effective hp.

What the value is of an average increase in effective hp of (say) 25% is hard to analyse in the abstract - for some tables hp per day might be the main constraint on adventuring, for others spells per day, for yet others the GM's story inclinations.

One way in which it strikes me as potentially inferior to a 25% increse in DPR is that the latter leads to a faster turn-around of the action (you do 5 rounds worth of work in 4 rounds). Whereas the former leads to a slower turn-around of the action (you take only as much damage in those 5 rounds of work as the quick person would take in 4 rounds). Too much of that will lead to the same "grind" issues as afflicted 4e parties with too many leaders and low-DPR defenders, and not enough strikers or high DPR defenders/controllers.

Hemlock said:

From a rules perspective, yes, you can. Mounted Combatant grants advantage on "melee attack rolls against any unmounted creature that is smaller than your mount." No restriction to 5' range there.

From a realism perspective, well, I cannot in fact use a halberd at all, let alone from horseback. I have no idea whether someone else could.

Click to expand...

I was thinking "realism" as much as rules.

When I think of classic images of mounted warriors, I think of sabres, spears, bows (obviously) but not halberds!

guachi said:

A high-level crossbow expert sharpshooter has a damage potential of 5d6+15*5 = 90 damage as contrasted to the "default" sword-n-board fighter with 4d8+4*5=30 damage. Even though doesn't take all your tricks into account, it still gives a rough picture of how big the difference can be.

Click to expand...

I don't know if others have replied to this or not as I haven't read posts past this one. I can't tell if you intentionally butchered the math or not to make ranged look better. But here's the actual correct math:

A hand-crossbow using crossbow expert/sharpshooter shooting five times and using the -5/+10 portion of the feat does a maximum of (1d6+15)*5 =92.5 damage

The featless sword and shield user, who undoubtedly took dueling fighting style, does (1d8+7)*4 = 46 damage, not 30 damage.

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] was giving average damage, not maximum:

5* (1d6 handxbow +15 feat & DEX) = 5*18.5 rounds off to 90 for the hand crossbow expert (the maximum would be 105, but maximums aren't that significant to this analysis), and 4* (1d8 sword +5 STR) = 38 which CapnZapp has rounded down to 30 rather than up to 40.

In your post you have calculated the averages but for some reason described them as maximums. I'm sure that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has not "intentionally butchered the maths" - rather, I suspect that an error was made in calculating the sword damge (I am guessing that CapnZapp accidentally calculated as if it was 1d6 rather than 1d8, which would give 34 which might reasonably be rounded down to 30).