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

[thecasualoblivion]

Yes, it was. The argument you made was, and I quote, "The monster manual tends to emphasize melee. A lot of monsters don't even have a ranged attack, and for many that do it's significantly weaker than their melee attack." That is what I was speaking to. Why would those kinds of monsters just stand around and take all that ranged abuse? Or worse, start heading into enemy fire?


Again, not the particular point I was tackling. See above.

The monster can react to PC tactics, but this is not an advantage for melee PCs. Ranged enemies are free to target either melee or ranged PCs, and melee enemies can move adjacent to and attack either melee or ranged PCs. Monsters can move towards ranged PCs, but ranged PCs can move away and still attack at full strength. Melee PCs do not have an equivalent advantage.

Ranged PCs can act to avoid enemy contact without sacrificing anything. Melee PCs are by definition in harms way.

 

[Cyrinishad]

That isn't really the point. The point is that a ranged PC can avoid melee contract while sacrificing nothing, while a melee PC has to put themselves in harms way to be effective. The monsters can respond to PC tactics, but that doesn't change the fact that a melee PC is always putting themselves at risk by default.



Again, I'm not really talking about offense here. I am saying that melee characters are at a disadvantage in terms of taking damage.

If the enemy is at standard encounter distances, then the melee character is not at any more of a disadvantage in terms of taking damage than the ranged character, because both characters will be in melee in the second round of combat. Unless there is something forcing enemies to attack the melee character instead of the ranged character. I know that the 4e mechanics provided tools to the melee characters to force enemies to attack them, but 5e doesn't have that kind of thing anymore... unless I am missing something?

 

[Lidgar]

Spells?

Personally I would not alter ranged spell attacks. Was assuming the issue was ranged (non-spell) attacks versus melee attacks.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

If the enemy is at standard encounter distances, then the melee character is not at any more of a disadvantage in terms of taking damage than the ranged character, because both characters will be in melee in the second round of combat. Unless there is something forcing enemies to attack the melee character instead of the ranged character. I know that the 4e mechanics provided tools to the melee characters to force enemies to attack them, but 5e doesn't have that kind of thing anymore... unless I am missing something?

If the enemy is at standard encounter distances, the melee character must advance towards the monsters to be most effective, while the ranged character can move away from the monsters without sacrificing anything. Nothing says the ranged PCs need to advance towards the enemies or stand still. The monsters can advance towards the ranged characters, but this is countered by the ranged characters moving away. The ranged character is not necessarily in melee on round 2. The monster can use its action to dash to counter this, but the ranged character gets at least one free round of attacks and this ends up a tactical win for them.

 

[Satyrn]

1. Raise the damage die of non-finesse melee weapons by one die. 1d4->1d6,1d6->1d8,1d8->1d10,1d10->2d6,1d12/2d6->2d8.

I don't see this helping at all. Indeed, it would irritate me if I was your player.

I choose to play a melee character because I like playing a guy in melee. I far prefer doing so over playing a ranged combatant (whether martial or spellcaster).

5th Edition has, for the first time in D&D's history made it a snap for me to play a lightly armoured swashbuckler with a good Dex and low Strength. Right out of the PH, my concept can be realized, both in flavour and mechanics. But it relies on finesse weapons to feel effective. Your proposed rule, although it boosts Strength based weapons rather than actually penalizing Dex based melee weapons, still feels like a punishment to me, to my swashbuckler.

When your goal is to make melee more attractive, why are you only boosting some melee?


Anyway, from my experience, I find that the people who play ranged combatants do so because they value not getting hit well over big damage. And I believe you would have to boost melee damage dramatically in order to sway many players into choosing melee.

Me, I play melee combatants because I value scrapping by a bloody mess over avoiding damage. There is nothing you could do to get me to favor ranged combat (unless maybe creating a sort of aggro mechanic I could use to draw fire towards me)

See, I believe you're issue is related to your players' preference and your own far more than anything mechanical. If your players are avoiding melee as much as possible it's probably because that's what they want to do, what they find fun. Warping the mechanics to get them to do something else is likely to create some irritation.

You might accidentally make one of player's character concepts less appealing, as you did mine.

 

[Corwin]

The monster can react to PC tactics, but this is not an advantage for melee PCs. Ranged enemies are free to target either melee or ranged PCs, and melee enemies can move adjacent to and attack either melee or ranged PCs. Monsters can move towards ranged PCs, but ranged PCs can move away and still attack at full strength. Melee PCs do not have an equivalent advantage.

Ranged PCs can act to avoid enemy contact without sacrificing anything. Melee PCs are by definition in harms way.

You keep going back to PC tactics. Not sure why. You seem to be unsure what points you are making. Or, more likely, you've made more than one point and I'm only addressing one of them. Otherwise, what do PC tactics have to do with your assertion that, "The monster manual tends to emphasize melee. A lot of monsters don't even have a ranged attack, and for many that do it's significantly weaker than their melee attack"? Maybe I'm trying too hard to read between your lines? But back when you said that, to me at least, you were touching on the fact that many monsters just have to take the abuse the ranged PCs dish out and die like good little pin cushions. And that the melee PCs have to stand around and watch while those ranged PCs get all the glory. Which is why I'm asking why those types of monsters are allowing that to happen in the first place? Are they just suicidal bags of XP looking for a swift death?

 

[Corwin]

If the enemy is at standard encounter distances, the melee character must advance towards the monsters to be most effective, while the ranged character can move away from the monsters without sacrificing anything. Nothing says the ranged PCs need to advance towards the enemies or stand still. The monsters can advance towards the ranged characters, but this is countered by the ranged characters moving away. The ranged character is not necessarily in melee on round 2. The monster can use its action to dash to counter this, but the ranged character gets at least one free round of attacks and this ends up a tactical win for them.

I agree that PCs with long range capabilities will always benefit from infinitely large white rooms. Hard to say how relevant that is to actual play though.

 

[The Old Crow]

The issue is, I believe, that range combatant take out the threat before a melee combatant can do anything.

In my experience, damage isn't the issue. Ranged attack is superior to melee in 5E because you don't have to put yourself in harms way. The melee character has to be in melee and take attacks. That isn't a given for ranged, which I find is the main reason ranged feels superior. Being in melee range of enemies feels like a disadvantage in 5E, and there is nothing to offset this.

I think the issue is not just that some enemies never make it into melee, but also that a Dex-based ranged attacker has pretty good melee damage, AC etc. Even more so if they're just able to use their ranged weapons in melee as well.

In addition to these, the advantage I found ranged combatants to have in play over melee was the ability to choose their target for maximum effect. They can easily switch targets to any opponent on the battlefield, dropping a wounded guy way over there then switching to trying to disrupt concentration on that other guy way over in the opposite direction. They are way over efficient with the damage they deal. I feel like melee deserves a perk for engaging the enemy, something to make engaged be something people will seek to achieve.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

You keep going back to PC tactics. Not sure why. You seem to be unsure what points you are making. Or, more likely, you've made more than one point and I'm only addressing one of them. Otherwise, what do PC tactics have to do with your assertion that, "The monster manual tends to emphasize melee. A lot of monsters don't even have a ranged attack, and for many that do it's significantly weaker than their melee attack"? Maybe I'm trying too hard to read between your lines? But back when you said that, to me at least, you were touching on the fact that many monsters just have to take the abuse the ranged PCs dish out and die like good little pin cushions. And that the melee PCs have to stand around and watch while those ranged PCs get all the glory. Which is why I'm asking why those types of monsters are allowing that to happen in the first place? Are they just suicidal bags of XP looking for a swift death?

I agree that PCs with long range capabilities will always benefit from infinitely large white rooms. Hard to say how relevant that is to actual play though.

You are over complicating things. I will attempt to simplify:

1. It is generally more dangerous in 5E to be in melee than not
2. Melee PCs more or less have to be in melee, and therefore are exposed to more danger
3. Ranged PCs can avoid melee to some extent without any sacrifice, and this is an advantage for them.
4. There is no corresponding advantage to being a melee PC
5. This particular advantage is bigger than any offensive advantage ranged PCs may or may not have, in my opinion.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

In addition to these, the advantage I found ranged combatants to have in play over melee was the ability to choose their target for maximum effect. They can easily switch targets to any opponent on the battlefield, dropping a wounded guy way over there then switching to trying to disrupt concentration on that other guy way over in the opposite direction. They are way over efficient with the damage they deal. I feel like melee deserves a perk for engaging the enemy, something to make engaged be something people will seek to achieve.

A melee PC currently engaged with an enemy, barring some magic or class ability, has to provoke an opportunity attack to change to a target they are not currently engaged with. A ranged PC who is not in melee can change targets freely.