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

[nswanson27]

Another element to this is that there is in general more CC for melee attackers than archers. E.g., battle maneuvers, stunning strike.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I reread the thread and noticed that the pro-Ranged positions revolve around tactical scenarios that have no tactical obstructions (terrain/line-of-sight/etc.), and presume nearly infinite ammunition resources. I readily concede that Ranged attacks will be far superior given these circumstances.

Thats rather a mischaracterisation/misunderstanding of the actual positions. Since the ranged build is as good in melee as the melee build, they aren't dependent upon line of sight; they just have a greater advantage over the melee when they can get a clear shot. Even though strength is generally a tertiary/quaternary priority for the ranged build, they can still carry a lot of ammunition, and its pretty cheap.

I also reread the Fighter class details in the PHB and it seems to be either neutral or melee-focused, not ranged-focused. The Champion and Eldritch Knight Archetypes are neutral, and the Battle Master is neutral/melee. Out of the 15 Combat Manuevers listed, 4 are melee-only, and the rest are neutral.
Lastly, the pro-Ranged position in this thread is reliant on the use of feats, which although we may enjoy using are "optional" and not part of the core system.

I see. If you do indeed have only PHB no-optionals, then the issue becomes less "ranged vs melee" and more "Dex vs Str" - which has some of the same, and some different issues.

I may be misunderstanding this thread, but from what I am reading I am just seeing people wonder what house-rules can be made to make Melee characters more effective when compared to Ranged characters that always have tactical advantage, utilize optional feats, and are equipped with infinite ammo... It just seems silly to me.

If you read back a bit, it might seem clearer. The two optimal builds being compared both use feats because they're . . . optimal builds. Just as most games seem to use feats, ammunition doesn't seem to be much of an issue: even games that track it rarely have issues affording enough. The ranged build is actually less reliant on advantage than the melee one, since the Archery weapon style compensates more.

I think a big part of it is that the focus seems to be only on the amount of damage dealt versus received by the archer build as opposed to the melee build. But the determination that ranged combat is more effective than melee seems to rely on comparing the two options solely on paper.

Indeed. They are extrapolating that because the ranged build is as good as the melee build in melee range, it will outperform the melee build in more varied situations where there is a mix of both range and melee fighting.

When each is viewed as a part of a typical party of adventurers who will face a variety of threats in a variety of circumstances, then the idea that the ranged combatant is the winner quickly fades. Each has a place within a party, and when viewed in that way, it's much harder to determine who is "better". Yes, the ranged combatant may do buckets of damage, but usually that's because the melee combatant is buying him the opportunity to do so at the cost of his own HP.

If you're going to try to fit the two builds in question into the slots of a 'typical' party of adventurers, they are competing over the same slot: physical damage (dealers and takers). There isn't much reason why the ranged build in question can't perform a blocking and damage-absorbing role as well as the melee build.

The melee fighter is losing HP and dealing a bit less damage than the archer....but that's exactly what he's supposed to do. And without him, the archer would likely be in big, big trouble.

How so?
As has been pointed out, the ranged combatant being used as the example isn't actually at a disadvantage in melee, and is likely to be just as tough as the melee combatant.

Given actual play and not simple comparison of DPR on paper, I don't know if there is a great imbalance. Some games may find that to be the case, others may not. For those that do, I would think that the best way to correct it would not be any change to the mechanics, but rather a change in the way combat plays out....use of terrain and other features, and with intelligent actions on the part of the enemies.

I'm not sure how that would change the imbalance between the builds.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Indeed. They are extrapolating that because the ranged build is as good as the melee build in melee range, it will outperform the melee build in more varied situations where there is a mix of both range and melee fighting.

It won't necessarily be as good in melee range because all of the chosen feats and class options are based on being a ranged build. I think this is why there was some comments about comparing an optimized archer to an unoptimized melee combatant. Surely the melee warrior in question has chosen some cool abilities as well, and those will give him some kind of edge in another aspect of the game.

If you're going to try to fit the two builds in question into the slots of a 'typical' party of adventurers, they are competing over the same slot: physical damage (dealers and takers). There isn't much reason why the ranged build in question can't perform a blocking and damage-absorbing role as well as the melee build.

Again, we have disadvantage on ranged attacks in melee. If feats are taken to remove that, then the archer either loses an ASI that another character may have, or selection of a feat more suited to melee combat or something else that may help the party.

How so?
As has been pointed out, the ranged combatant being used as the example isn't actually at a disadvantage in melee, and is likely to be just as tough as the melee combatant.

He may be. It is not a certainty. Again, we're comparing a specific archer build against...what exactly? A vaguely defined melee warrior? Or any possible melee build? I may have missed if a specific melee build was provided.

There is some trade off in specializing in archery. Now, it's not as severe as it has been in past editions....the character would still be as good as a baseline fighter. But choosing archery style means he doesn't get something like the guardian style, where he can help protect nearby allies. And so on.

Choosing to specialize in ranged combat doesn't make him weaker, but it means he doesn't specialize in other areas.

I'm not sure how that would change the imbalance between the builds.

Well I'm not sure there is an imbalance. Or if there is, that it is all that significant.

As for adjusting for such an imbalance if it is found in a game, my approach to such things is to keep any possible change to the mechanics as a last resort. First, I would see if there were simply tactics or playstyle adjustments that could help. For instance, most archers tend to seek cover. This is as true of enemies as it is of PCs. So I would give the ranged villains access to cover if they want. That way they can do the pop-out-shoot-pop-back tactic just like the PCs can. Let the PC archer ready an action to shoot such a foe....then he is only getting one attack. Meanwhile, the melee warrior is hacking away at the non-archers using all his attacks in a round.

The battlefield conditions and presence of cover and all other manner of factors can play a big part. Putting different types of foes into the combat to pose different types of threats and challenge the party in different ways is key. Maybe there are elements of the combat that require hands on action...opening a door or activating a switch or some such. Maybe a rogue has to make his way across the battlefield while the sword and board fighter has to keep him safe, and the archer covers them from afar. Such a scenario gives each character a vital role to the success of the group. Which is most vital? Hard to say since it can't be boiled down to a number like DPR.

The DM has a lot of input on how effective any kind of character can be....so to me, the first step is for him to see if it is how the encounters are set up and how they're played. See if it can be addressed at that level first before resorting to any mechanical changes. I'd only alter the rules if nothing else worked, in this instance.

Also, I would imagine that player outlook is a big part. If you have one player who loves being the big damage dealer, and other players who like to excel in other areas (healing, control, social, etc.) then I don't think it's a problem. If you have a table full of players who are all competing to do the most damage, then it may be an issue.

 

[Corwin]

Since the ranged build is as good in melee as the melee build

How do you figure? What criteria are you using? Or, more specifically, excluding?

 

[nswanson27]

How do you figure? What criteria are you using? Or, more specifically, excluding?

Indeed. If you just look at starting point-buy stats (and assuming characters have money for plate armor), a str melee is mathematically better in melee than a dex build.
Even if a dex build gets plate, that still requires 15 str, which will either take away from their dex or their con (hp).

 

[Rhenny]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I do like this idea the best: ranged weapons simply cannot be used against a foe that is adjacent to the attacker. I'd make this applicable to any bow or thrown weapon, but not spells. I'd still allow the caster to try to get off a spell at disadvantage when in close.

If that's not enough, there is the Pathfinder option that doesn't grant any bonuses to ranged weapons. (To me that sucks, but for others that may be what discourages ranged over melee).

Cheers.

 

[Corwin]

Indeed. If you just look at starting stats (and assuming melee has money for plate armor), a str melee is mathematically better in melee than a dex build.

Yeah, I'm not even talking about the maths. There's so much more to combat than the maths. Like OAs. I think stickiness is a potentially huge factor in combat effectiveness. A ranged specialist, even *with* the CE and SS feats, can still be walked away from with impunity. And that ain't nothin'. So, again, I have to ask of the Cap'n: define "as good."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It won't necessarily be as good in melee range because all of the chosen feats and class options are based on being a ranged build. I think this is why there was some comments about comparing an optimized archer to an unoptimized melee combatant. Surely the melee warrior in question has chosen some cool abilities as well, and those will give him some kind of edge in another aspect of the game.

As far as I'm aware, the melee damage build in question is a BM fighter with polearm master, which should allow bonus action attacks as well as some Reaction attacks, and GWM allowing greater damage on low ACs and with advantage or precision attack.
Its melee damage potential is pretty similar to the ranged build, better if you can get your opponents to close with you. Its damage-taking capability is about on-par with the ranged build: 1 better AC, probably slightly fewer HP.

Again, we have disadvantage on ranged attacks in melee. If feats are taken to remove that, then the archer either loses an ASI that another character may have, or selection of a feat more suited to melee combat or something else that may help the party.

And again, the specific point that I'm talking about incorporates the use of feats.

He may be. It is not a certainty. Again, we're comparing a specific archer build against...what exactly? A vaguely defined melee warrior? Or any possible melee build? I may have missed if a specific melee build was provided.

As far as I'm aware (and the reason that I entered the discussion), its the polearm/GWM BM build mentioned above. As far as I know, thats a pretty optimal build for melee damage, which is why I'm here: to ask for suggestions of a better one of the person who characterised it as sub-optimal.

There is some trade off in specializing in archery. Now, it's not as severe as it has been in past editions....the character would still be as good as a baseline fighter. But choosing archery style means he doesn't get something like the guardian style, where he can help protect nearby allies. And so on.

The melee damage build in question is likely to have the Twohanded weapon style.

Well I'm not sure there is an imbalance. Or if there is, that it is all that significant.

Its not been enough of an issue in my games to worry about needing the sort of houserules suggested in the thread.

Indeed. If you just look at starting point-buy stats (and assuming characters have money for plate armor), a str melee is mathematically better in melee than a dex build.
Even if a dex build gets plate, that still requires 15 str, which will either take away from their dex or their con (hp).

As mentioned before, the ranged build will likely have one less AC (Light armour + Dex for 17 vs the melee's plate for 18). However Con is their secondary stat compared to the melee who will want both Con and Dex if possible for the toughness and initiative.

 

[Corwin]

As mentioned before, the ranged build will likely have one less AC (Light armour + Dex for 17 vs the melee's plate for 18). However Con is their secondary stat compared to the melee who will want both Con and Dex if possible for the toughness and initiative.

If the strength fighter *isn't* dumping dex, as you suggest, then he should be just fine shooting a longbow at ranged targets. Since, getting back on track, that seems to be the bulk of the OP's concern. Even a melee-focused fighter, with just a decent dex, can be quite effective with a ranged weapon. Thanks, Bounded Accuracy! You're the best!

 

[Rhenny]

There is also the optional "cleave" rule in the DMG. If a table uses that consistently, it would offer that extra overflow damage to melee attacks and not to ranged. Of course, it is only a small situational benefit, but every little bit helps.