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

[hawkeyefan]

It used to be that you could open the cover and play right out of the book. Those days are over it seems. Hasbro is a toy company that caters to kids, that's what we have. They assume that DM will be like me and basically use the MM as a guideline and spice it up. The use of legendary and lair actions must be increased by the DM to balance stuff out, as is various mundane stuff to spice encounters up.

I don't think that's the case. I do believe that the game can be played right out of the book. Certainly that is the case with new players or more casual players. For those of us who have been playing each iteration of the game across a few decades? Yeah...there may be a level of system mastery that has to be taken into consideration. The question seems to be whose job is it to take that into consideration...the designers of the game or the experienced players/DMs.

The complaint is "how does a SINGLE marilith live up to the grand description" and the sad answer is her stat block sadly does not even come close.

That's actually not an answer. It's just a complaint.

The possible answers would seem to be either we as players adjust the monsters or the game mechanics that we have issues with (such as making repelling blast only work on creatures of large size or smaller, etc.) or waiting for WotC to make such adjustments.

 

[smbakeresq]

I don't think that's the case. I do believe that the game can be played right out of the book. Certainly that is the case with new players or more casual players. For those of us who have been playing each iteration of the game across a few decades? Yeah...there may be a level of system mastery that has to be taken into consideration. The question seems to be whose job is it to take that into consideration...the designers of the game or the experienced players/DMs.

This is the issue. It does seem that their is a lot of content out there from the developers and it is being parceled out in portions so as not to give too much.


As far as repelling blast I have changed it based on size. The force required to push a huge creature away would be so immense that a creature of medium size would be obliterated. We play with it a large size only. I know its a logic construct in a magical game, but to me its a little over the top without a limitation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Not so much in 5e, no. Not compared to the prior two eds, anyway. The thing is, if we feel there should be more danger to ranged attackers/casters in melee and/or that melee should be harder to avoid and/or extricate themselves from, then (as DMs) we can make that happen. Thus threads like this, I suppose.

Prior editions (from 4e all the way back to 2e C&T) have a lot of possibilities that might be adopted to accomplish that...

I miss 4E's "solos" and even more so, "Solo elites". ...I'm more concerned there's an inherent flaw in the monster design so even if something looks cool, I'll still get unspectacular results.

Legendary monsters seem to fill the Solo/Elite secondary role. Any monster being used that way should probably be fleshed out a little, too. Given a few more tricks, some action-preservation traits or the like.

 

[KRussellB]

Okay, full caveat, I did not read the entire 24 pages here. But here's one solution that I stole from Jackie Chan:

Give combat encounters more than one goal.

In one of my favorite Jackie Chan films (I think it's Super Cop? The Cop That Can't Be Stopped? His name is Kevin, which is why it's my favorite.), Jackie is a (super) cop (that can't be stopped) pretending to be in a gang to find information. He's in a bar trying to get information from his gang-makes, when police raid the bar. Suddenly Jackie has to...
A) not get arrested
B) prevent any of his gang-mates from getting arrested
C) prevent any of the cops from getting killed
D) not reveal his identity as a cop

It's a fantastic scene!

Anyways, it inspired me in my combats. I try to have more than one goal in my encounters. Usually any encounter already has the goal of "stop the bad guys, don't die," but what if you throw in some thieves, or a wall that needs to be knocked down, or a hostage, or someone summoning thick fog, or a (magic) time-bomb, or mind-controlled villagers who are trying to hurt you but whom you do not want to hurt, or...

This may not be a solution to nerfing the ranged guys or empowering the melee guys, but certain goals are going to always favor ranged (being attacked by a random encounter!), and certain goals are going to favor melee (pushing boulders down the cliff). Also, it's fun!

Anyways, that's one idea!

 

[Corwin]

Not so much in 5e, no. Not compared to the prior two eds, anyway. The thing is, if we feel there should be more danger to ranged attackers/casters in melee and/or that melee should be harder to avoid and/or extricate themselves from, then (as DMs) we can make that happen. Thus threads like this, I suppose.

Your 5e is evidently much different than my 5e. Which is fine. But please don't just "no" my experiences away as if yours are somehow more correct. Ranged focused PCs experience plenty of danger in our games. Heck, we just played our weekly Tuesday night campaign again last night (last night being Tuesday and all). My uncle's archer ranger was getting schooled by a rather brutish lizardman, with a nasty series of melee attacks, harrying him for several rounds. He was none too pleased in the moment.

Prior editions (from 4e all the way back to 2e C&T) have a lot of possibilities that might be adopted to accomplish that...

You sure do like to bring up previous editions an awful lot...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Your 5e is evidently much different than my 5e. Which is fine. But please don't just "no" my experiences away as if yours are somehow more correct.

Like I said, as DM's were free to adjust it to suit, which is the point of the thread more than arguing over the base-line, but I'll stand by the assessment that prior editions presented ranged attackers and casters with more risks and restrictions in melee (though I'll hedge and acknowledge that you could system-master your way out of 'em in 3.x).

You sure do like to bring up previous editions an awful lot...

5e is very backwards-looking, and yet, it's new, so the comparisons are inevitable. I think in this case, though, its constructive. It wouldn't be hard to adapt prior-ed ideas, like randomly determining your target when you fire into melee, or interrupting spells, or having AoOs per turn instead of per round...

 

[Corwin]

Like I said, as DM's were free to adjust it to suit, which is the point of the thread more than arguing over the base-line,...

"Adjust it to suit"? "Baseline"? Implying what? Because we haven't "adjusted" anything. Maybe you are the one inadvertently making ranged attackers overly effective by way of *your* table's adjustments? Just spitballing.

...but I'll stand by the assessment that prior editions presented ranged attackers and casters with more risks and restrictions in melee (though I'll hedge and acknowledge that you could system-master your way out of 'em in 3.x).

And other systems have even more? Okay. I'm still not sure I get the point of the comparisons?

5e is very backwards-looking, and yet, it's new, so the comparisons are inevitable. I think in this case, though, its constructive.

I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that you find edition comparing constructive.

It wouldn't be hard to adapt prior-ed ideas, like randomly determining your target when you fire into melee, or interrupting spells, or having AoOs per turn instead of per round...

Make ranged attacking a terrible idea if you like. Go bonkers. We won't notice what you've done at our table.

Oh, and minor nit to pick: in 5e they are OAs (Opportunity Attacks), not AoOs (Attacks of Opportunity). That's what they were called in a previous edition. Understandable error, given.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

I've largely avoided this thread up until now. I have decided to come on and give 2 quick cents: melee is already hands down better than ranged combat from a pure numerical point of view. You get a better AC and more damage with a strength based melee set up. If you opt for a shield, you have the same damage but MUCH better AC. In return for this benefit, ranged attackers tend to act first. Ranged becomes MUCH better if the ranged combatants can somehow manage to attack their targets about 1/2 way between maximum range and point blank. I say 1/2 way, as if you attack from maximum range, the targets have an easy solution: run away. At the 1/2 way point, whether they close for melee combat or run away, the ranged attackers can pelt their foes with a ranged barrage for a short period of time. Melee is MUCH better if the ranged combatants are in 30 feet (id est, you can close melee in one round). The ranged attackers attack with disadvantage. The melee attackers don't, and they do more damage. In other words, the disparity between the two isn't a matter of numbers, it's a matter of tactics and scenarios. Thus, the solution to a disparity between ranged and melee attacks, in my opinion, is not the addition of house rules. The problem isn't the rules, it's your tactics and scenarios. The solution is a change of tactics and scenarios.

Find ways to throw PCs into situations where melee combat cannot be avoided. Make those scenarios seem organic. if you are having trouble doing so, stop and think through the problem as a character IN THE WORLD would think through the problem: the PCs constantly send out scouts to plan ranged attacks? Ok. If you were a character in the world, and that was a regular tactic used in that world, how would you try and counter it? If you constantly send scouts out to find your PCs and plan ranged attacks against them, how would they react to try and foil your plans? Do that to them! What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If your NPCs are guarding a stationary location, why aren't they using stationary installments to twist ranged combat into their favor? A proper use of crenelations and machicolations would allow NPC archers to attack while making it virtually impossible for PCs to counterattack. I suppose the PCs could ready actions to try and attack when the NPCs pop out to take shots, but the NPCs would still have a +5 to their AC in that case. PCs won't want to fight in those conditions. They will look for ways to use stealth and close into melee range if you start throwing them encounters of that sort. Likewise, use stealth tactics to close in with PCs and try and force them into melee when the terrain favors their ranged tactics. I don't know if I have been lucky with my gaming groups, but I have never encountered the problems described here! The only time ranged or melee combat have been disproportionately effective is when the DM I have been playing with has allowed such tactics to become disproportionately effective, and the tables have always swung back and forth from encounter to encounter based on the tactical context of the encounter and its participants.

 

[Ashkelon]

[MENTION=82132]Cyber-Dave[/MENTION]: what you say is only really true in a game without feats. The feats an archer would want to take being their damage up way above that of a melee warrior while simultaneously removing any penalties for fighting at point blank range.

Combine this with the fact that the ranged fighting styles styles are vastly superior to the melee ones and you will see that ranged PCs almost always outperform melee ones.

 

[CapnZapp]

I've largely avoided this thread up until now. I have decided to come on and give 2 quick cents: melee is already hands down better than ranged combat from a pure numerical point of view.

Let me stop you right there, since this is something people say like a mantra.

They believe it to be true. They want it to be true. It has always been true before...

But is it actually true now?





Sure a d12 is larger than a d6. But reach 5 is smaller than "reach" 120.

And when we add +10 damage per attack to both modes of combat, the statement "melee is hands down better from a numerical point of view" starts to look outright dodgy.

From a numerical point of view, you have a choice between dealing (some fraction of)
* 4d12+60 damage at range 5 (and 10, if you choose a reach weapon)
or
* 4d6+60 at ranges 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115 and 120

And now falls the hammer: monster manual foes are significantly skewing towards being melee heavy. Not entering melee is not only a winning move, but an outright crippling one (even if ranged did considerably weaker damage than melee, which it clearly doesn't): entering melee means "enable monsters to do their worst". That doesn't sound like a hands down best tactic.

At this point I'd say "melee hands down better" is simply an echo from the past. It has nothing to do with actual optimal 5th edition play.

(it's actually 5d6+75 for ranged, but I won't add the bonus action to this comparison, since a melee character can put it to use too)

PS. I should probably add that I would love for you to be right, [MENTION=82132]Cyber-Dave[/MENTION]. I emphatically agree with the notion that the cornerstone of the fantasy genre in general and D&D in particular should be the melee hero. But there's a reason we're having these discussions.