Is Ranged really better than Melee?

77IM said:

Could someone explain to me how the ranged attacker has better damage, or even comparable damage, to the melee attacker? All the melee dudes in my party right now are rockin' the greatsword or maul with the 2d6 damage, and most have Great Weapon Fighting Style and/or barbarian Frenzy, increasing that damage even further. So I'm confused how ranged damage can even come close. Yes, you could pick up Sharpshooter, but the melee folks can get Heavy Weapon Mastery for the same price. What am I missing?

Click to expand...

Ranger Hunter, with Archery, Hunter's Mark, Sharpshooter
Tier 1
Maximum average/round = 20
Maximum average/day = 300 assuming about 3 encounters of about 3 rounds each
Likely average/round = 7
Likely average/day = 106

Tier 2
Maximum average/round = 76
Maximum average/day = 1140
Likely average/round = 23
Likely average/day = 346

Tier 3
Maximum average/round = 82
Maximum average/day = 1230
Likely average/round = 30
Likely average/day = 443

Barbarian Totem, with Rage, Reckless Attacks, Great Weapon Master
Tier 1
Maximum average/round = 19
Maximum average/day = 285
Likely average/round = 7
Likely average/day = 105

Tier 2
Maximum average/round = 87
Maximum average/day = 1305
Likely average/round = 27
Likely average/day = 406

Tier 3
Maximum average/round = 101
Maximum average/day = 1508
Likely average/round = 33
Likely average/day = 493

Without spells, the Barbarian is nearer the system maximum for melee than the Ranger is to the maximum for ranged. With spells, a Barbarian with Haste could increase their average and maximum by a third, while a Ranger with Greater Invisibility could increase their average by up to a half. That is because the Barbarian is gaining one attack (increases max damage), while the Ranger is gaining advantage (more often deals nearer their maximum).

Barbarian likely has 39 HP at Tier 1, and 77 at Tier 2. Doubled due to Rage. Their AC is probably about 14. A factor to keep in mind is that Barbarian's damage is predicated on granting attackers advantage.

Ranger has likely 32 HP at Tier 1, and 60 at Tier 2. Their AC is probably about 16. Ranger's damage is predicated on keeping at least 10' away from attackers.

Looking at Tier 1, where damage is a wash, 150' range seems more good than wanting to stay 10' away from foes is bad. Looking at Tier 2, where Barbarian is doing likely 20 damage more in each encounter, I think it is less clear, but it is also worth noting that the highest damage SS ranged is a CEX Fighter, not a Hunter. An SS/CEX Fighter can push the damage values in tiers 2 and 3 to equal the GWM Barbarian, with 4 points better AC.

For me, within the 5th edition system, there is only one ranged strategy that overshadows all melee to such a great degree that even "twisty-corridors" lack plausibility as a reason not to take it: Sharpshooter, which I firmly believe should be "Once per turn" on the power attack. Other ranged attacks like Agonizing Blast certainly push the envelope, but don't overwhelm other considerations to anywhere like the same degree.

Note that "Maximum average" shows the product if accuracy, resources and up-time were all 100%, while "Likely average" shows the product if those things are matched to values found in play, e.g. chance to hit against an expected foe's AC.

Vexacia said:

But this is the total opposite of correct play from your players - heavy armor weighs so obscenely much that Dexterity reigns utterly supreme under variant encumbrance. The weight difference between heavy and light armor is so great that it dwarfs the additional carryweight having a higher strength gives you. A 10 Strength player in Studded Leather can actually carry 2lbs more than a 20 strength player in Plate.

(sidebar: variant encumbrance is an incredibly badly designed optional rule)

Click to expand...

That's an incomplete comparison, only valid if you absolutely have to maintain full movement speed at all times (often not important for the lumbering armored tank). If [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s players need to be able to grab as much loot as possible, the PC with 10 STR sees his carrying capacity fall off a cliff while the 20 STR guy in plate can lug around another 100 pounds before hitting the next penalty.

That being said, I do wish there were more ways to mitigate encumbrance aside from moving items to magic bags and pack animals. As such, I've added benefits to Medium Armor Master and Heavy Armor Master that halve the effective weight of the armor being worn when calculating carrying capacity.

Ristamar said:

That's an incomplete comparison, only valid if you absolutely have to maintain full movement speed at all times (often not important for the lumbering armored tank). If [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s players need to be able to grab as much loot as possible, the PC with 10 STR sees his carrying capacity fall off a cliff while the 20 STR guy in plate can lug around another 100 pounds before hitting the next penalty.

Click to expand...

Correct, and this was the post I was going to make shortly. If you're carrying your own stuff (no hirelings, Tenser's floating disc, stashing stuff in places in the dungeon, etc.), then what really matters is the range between lightly and heavily encumbered. Though players imagine it as more important than it turns out to be in my experience, a loss of 10 feet of movement in many dungeon environments is practically negligible since tactical movement tends to be over pretty short distances.

Part of the challenge of the dungeon scenario in my view is the balance between what you carry in and what you carry out. To that end, Strength really matters, enough to see a shift in ranged to melee characters. And any solutions the players come up with to mitigate encumbrance are always quite creative and come with trade-offs (needing to protect hirelings holding their stuff, for example) and that's something I really like to have in my games.

FrogReaver said:

When I first started 5e I wanted everything to be against book enemies etc so I could get a feel for what worked and didn't in the PHB. Now that I'm experienced I'm happy to face whatever is thrown at me. Sometimes players what that to be able to get a feel of the game better. After a while they don't care what monsters and what abilities they have that the DM throws at me. Most importantly, remember session 0!

Click to expand...

Session 0 is incredibly important. For an example relevant to this thread, if I saw a Shield user who intended to go into Shield Mastery to bash people around and prone them, I probably wouldn't build a ranged user, as ranged attacks against prone creatures are at disadvantage. If, in addition to the above, there was a Bard who intended to use dissonant whispers and warcaster and booming blade, I need to be ready to be in melee range to crush them with OppAtt in every combat.

clearstream said:

Ranger Hunter, with Archery, Hunter's Mark, Sharpshooter
Tier 1
Maximum/round = 20
Maximum/day = 300 assuming about 3 encounters of about 3 rounds each
Likely average/round = 7
Likely average/day = 106

Tier 2
Maximum/round = 76
Maximum/day = 1140
Likely average/round = 23
Likely average/day = 346

Tier 3
Maximum/round = 82
Maximum/day = 1230
Likely average/round = 30
Likely average/day = 443

Barbarian Totem, with Rage, Reckless Attacks, Great Weapon Master
Tier 1
Maximum/round = 19
Maximum/day = 285
Likely average/round = 7
Likely average/day = 105

Tier 2
Maximum/round = 87
Maximum/day = 1305
Likely average/round = 27
Likely average/day = 406

Tier 3
Maximum/round = 101
Maximum/day = 1508
Likely average/round = 33
Likely average/day = 493

Without spells, the Barbarian is nearer the system maximum for melee than the Ranger is to the maximum for ranged. With spells, a Barbarian with Haste could increase their average and maximum by a third, while a Ranger with Greater Invisibility could increase their average by up to a half. That is because the Barbarian is gaining one attack (increases max damage), while the Ranger is gaining advantage (more often deals nearer their maximum).

Barbarian likely has 39 HP at Tier 1, and 77 at Tier 2. Doubled due to Rage. Their AC is probably about 14. A factor to keep in mind is that Barbarian's damage is predicated on granting attackers advantage.

Ranger has likely 32 HP at Tier 1, and 60 at Tier 2. Their AC is probably about 16. Ranger's damage is predicated on keeping at least 10' away from attackers.

Looking at Tier 1, where damage is a wash, 150' range seems more good than wanting to stay 10' away from foes is bad. Looking at Tier 2, where Barbarian is doing likely 20 damage more in each encounter, I think it is less clear, but it is also worth noting that the highest damage SS ranged is a CEX Fighter, not a Hunter. An SS/CEX Fighter can push the damage values in tiers 2 and 3 to equal the GWM Barbarian, with 4 points better AC.

For me, within the 5th edition system, there is only one ranged strategy that overshadows all melee to such a great degree that even "twisty-corridors" lack plausibility as a reason not to take it: Sharpshooter, which I firmly believe should be "Once per turn" on the power attack. Other ranged attacks like Agonizing Blast certainly push the envelope, but don't overwhelm other considerations to anywhere like the same degree.

Click to expand...

Your examples also do not include the OppAtt that melee users get and should get %50 of the time in a well played group. Dissonant Whispers, Command, Compulsion exist for that very reason.

Another issue with ranged combat specialist is their HP pool is in general not available for the party to use, other players in melee range must take hits for them. This also needs to be planned for at session 0.

smbakeresq said:

Your examples also do not include the OppAtt that melee users get and should get %50 of the time in a well played group. Dissonant Whispers, Command, Compulsion exist for that very reason.

Click to expand...

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.

Elfcrusher said:

Sharpshooter + Archery style is better than GWM + GWF style, in my opinion, because the +2 helps counteract the -5.

Anyway, my impression is that the damage is in the same approximate range, and (I can't speak for others) my beef is that archery is just too easy: you get to largely ignore defense, with no real downside. With a long bow and sharpshooter you stay REALLY FAR AWAY and suffer no penalties whatsoever, neither in accuracy nor rate of fire. Not against a moving target engaged in melee with your buddies. It's just silly.

Archery should largely be reserved for attacking enemies at range, before they close. Once enemies are in melee combat with your friends its utility should drop way, way, way down. (Maybe not against really big targets.)

Maybe the rule should support "You can shoot fast, shoot far, or shoot accurately. Pick two."

Click to expand...

I agree about the combination possible with sharpshooter being better than the combos possible with gwm. That said we aren’t really focused about sharpshooter but about melee vs ranged.

clearstream said:

Ranger Hunter, with Archery, Hunter's Mark, Sharpshooter
Tier 1
Maximum (averaged damage)/round = 20
Maximum (averaged damage)/day = 300 assuming about 3 encounters of about 3 rounds each
Likely average/round = 7
Likely average/day = 106

Tier 2
Maximum (averaged damage)/round = 76
Maximum (averaged damage)/day = 1140
Likely average/round = 23
Likely average/day = 346

Tier 3
Maximum (averaged damage)/round = 82
Maximum (averaged damage)/day = 1230
Likely average/round = 30
Likely average/day = 443

Barbarian Totem, with Rage, Reckless Attacks, Great Weapon Master
Tier 1
Maximum (averaged damage)/round = 19
Maximum (averaged damage)/day = 285
Likely average/round = 7
Likely average/day = 105

Tier 2
Maximum (averaged damage)/round = 87
Maximum (averaged damage)/day = 1305
Likely average/round = 27
Likely average/day = 406

Tier 3
Maximum (averaged damage)/round = 101
Maximum (averaged damage)/day = 1508
Likely average/round = 33
Likely average/day = 493

Without spells, the Barbarian is nearer the system maximum for melee than the Ranger is to the maximum for ranged. With spells, a Barbarian with Haste could increase their average and maximum by a third, while a Ranger with Greater Invisibility could increase their average by up to a half. That is because the Barbarian is gaining one attack (increases max damage), while the Ranger is gaining advantage (more often deals nearer their maximum).

Barbarian likely has 39 HP at Tier 1, and 77 at Tier 2. Doubled due to Rage. Their AC is probably about 14. A factor to keep in mind is that Barbarian's damage is predicated on granting attackers advantage.

Ranger has likely 32 HP at Tier 1, and 60 at Tier 2. Their AC is probably about 16. Ranger's damage is predicated on keeping at least 10' away from attackers.

Looking at Tier 1, where damage is a wash, 150' range seems more good than wanting to stay 10' away from foes is bad. Looking at Tier 2, where Barbarian is doing likely 20 damage more in each encounter, I think it is less clear, but it is also worth noting that the highest damage SS ranged is a CEX Fighter, not a Hunter. An SS/CEX Fighter can push the damage values in tiers 2 and 3 to equal the GWM Barbarian, with 4 points better AC.

For me, within the 5th edition system, there is only one ranged strategy that overshadows all melee to such a great degree that even "twisty-corridors" lack plausibility as a reason not to take it: Sharpshooter, which I firmly believe should be "Once per turn" on the power attack. Other ranged attacks like Agonizing Blast certainly push the envelope, but don't overwhelm other considerations to anywhere like the same degree.

Click to expand...

Ignoring accuracy as you try to always do is a fools errand.

FrogReaver said:

Ignoring accuracy as you try to always do is a fools errand.

Click to expand...

What on Earth do you mean?! (Me = puzzled.) The "likely average" includes the accuracy. The "Maximum (average damage)" does not.

The reason for showing both, is that the former (likely average) takes into consideration accuracy and downtime, while the latter (maximum average) gives an indication of the potential to improve the damage if those factors can be ameliorated.