Tony Vargas
Legend
I noticed. Though, again, I have to wonder at the personal investment in the issue. As you, yourself, have acknowledged, it will have no impact on you.
D&D 5E Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.
- Thread starter Horwath
- Start date
Isn't that everyone here, including you? As I see it, we are looking at one of two possibilities. #1: You are playing the out-of-context game to somehow "win" on the interwebs. Or, #2: We differ in that the way my table plays D&D somehow impacts you. Which is it?
Tony Vargas
Legend
Well, clearly, anyone not denying the issue exists might have some interest in it.
@Cyber-Dave.
With feats at level 11 at level 11 the two best single class fighter damage builds are polearm master and hand crossbow fighter.
The melee warrior using a polearm has only 1 more AC than an archer. 3 attacks per round for 1d10+15 damage and a bonus action attack for 1d4+15 damage. Using the -5/+10 feats he will hit roughly 50% of the time for about 40 DPR.
The hand crossbow fighter has 3 attacks at 1d6+15 and one bonus action attack for 1d6 + 15. The crossbow archer also benefits from +2 accuracy over the melee warrior due to the archery fighting style. Since he hits enemies 60% of the time, his DPR is around 45.
The archer will also have +5 more to initiative as well as better proficiency bonuses to many skills. The crossbow archer can theoretically use a shield as well to increase his AC above that of the polearm warrior (though there is some disagreement about whether or both this is intended within the rules).
Whenever an enemy is over 35 ft away, the polearm warrior missed out on 4 potential attacks because enemies are out of range. The archer never suffers from this issue. Even if this only occurs once or twice a day, it leads to a massive damage drop for the melee warrior. The crossbow archer can fight at point blank range just as good as the polearm warrior so even if combat is within 35 feet all day long (highly unlikely) the crossbow warrior will still perform just as well as the melee warrior.
With feats at level 11 at level 11 the two best single class fighter damage builds are polearm master and hand crossbow fighter.
The melee warrior using a polearm has only 1 more AC than an archer. 3 attacks per round for 1d10+15 damage and a bonus action attack for 1d4+15 damage. Using the -5/+10 feats he will hit roughly 50% of the time for about 40 DPR.
The hand crossbow fighter has 3 attacks at 1d6+15 and one bonus action attack for 1d6 + 15. The crossbow archer also benefits from +2 accuracy over the melee warrior due to the archery fighting style. Since he hits enemies 60% of the time, his DPR is around 45.
The archer will also have +5 more to initiative as well as better proficiency bonuses to many skills. The crossbow archer can theoretically use a shield as well to increase his AC above that of the polearm warrior (though there is some disagreement about whether or both this is intended within the rules).
Whenever an enemy is over 35 ft away, the polearm warrior missed out on 4 potential attacks because enemies are out of range. The archer never suffers from this issue. Even if this only occurs once or twice a day, it leads to a massive damage drop for the melee warrior. The crossbow archer can fight at point blank range just as good as the polearm warrior so even if combat is within 35 feet all day long (highly unlikely) the crossbow warrior will still perform just as well as the melee warrior.
Last edited:
S
Sunseeker
Guest
We could almost call that "doing it right."
Well, arguably if I think WOTC did it wrong then the way I think is should be done is indeed the "right" way.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
The observation that ranged combat specialization is dominant in 5E is not predicated on everything taking place on bright white plains. It works just as well in cramped stone labyrinths with 2'-wide corridors. At the risk of belaboring the obvious: four ranged guys in a stone labyrinth can take turns tanking while the other three guys blow the enemy away. They're 95% as effective as three ranged guys and a melee tank, and they're 200-300% as effective as four melee guys.
The primary advantage of melee specialization is that it tends to come with more physical control options. A smaller, secondary advantage is that melee fighters tend to be somewhat better at turning physical control options into an attack advantage, whereas ranged fighters tend to lean more on lighting manipulation and/or hiding to gain their advantage.
The primary advantage of melee specialization is that it tends to come with more physical control options. A smaller, secondary advantage is that melee fighters tend to be somewhat better at turning physical control options into an attack advantage, whereas ranged fighters tend to lean more on lighting manipulation and/or hiding to gain their advantage.
Last edited:
Cyber-Dave
Explorer
That is true. After that, however, what you wrote isn't how analysis is done. You provided rough guesstimates and left information that hindered your argument out. We need actual targets and actual Armor Classes in order to perform an analysis. You also gave the archer a +2 bonus for a fighting style, but you ignored the fighting style benefit of the polearm user. So, let's try again:
First, we need to create a set of assumptions and explicate them so that our analysis is transparent. Let's assume that the archer, in order to make use of those skill benefits you discussed, is using studded leather (the best light armor). Let's assume that the polearm user is using platemail (the best heavy armor). Let's assume no magic items (as those are a mixed bag and treated very differently from group to group). Likewise, opponents are a mixed bag as well. For the sake of simplicity (as I am not willing to take the time required for a more complete analysis right now), let's pit the two characters against each other. The archer will, as per your assumption, use a hand a crossbow. The polearm user will, as per your assumption, use a glaive. Each will start with the base starting stats assumed by the book. The archer will pick a race that benefits Dex. The polearm user will pick a race that benefits strength. Each will max out each option, but only after choosing the two feats you opted to pick for our example. Each has three feats. That means that each will have a Str/Dex of 19 (not 20) at level 11. The archer will gain a +2 attack bonus for its fighting style. The polearm user will gain a +1 AC. Now let's compare the numbers:
Polearm user: +8 to attack, 19 AC, 3 attacks that deal 1d10+4 (+10 at the cost of -5 to attack), one bonus action attack that deals 1d4+4 (+10 at the cost of -5 to attack).
Archer: +10 to attack, 16 AC, 3 attacks that deal 1d6+4 (+10 at the cost of -5 to attack), one bonus action attack that deals 1d6+4 (+10 at the cost of -5 to attack).
The average damage of the polearm user against the archer without taking a -5 to attack is: (0.6*9.5)+(0.05*15)=6.45 and (0.6*6.5)+(0.05*9)=4.35 for a total of (3*6.45)+4.35=23.7
The same numbers for the archer look like this: (0.55*7.5)+(0.05*11)=4.675 for a total of 4.675*4=18.75
If both start using their +10 damage/-5 to attack, the numbers then look like this:
The average damage for the polearm user is: (0.35*19.5)+(0.05*25)=8.075 and (0.35*16.5)+(0.05*19)=6.725 for a total of (3*8.075)+6.725=30.95
The average damage of the archer is: (0.3*17.5)+(0.05*21)=6.3 for a total of 6.3*4=25.2
In other words, in melee, the polearm wielder does 5.75 more points of damage per turn than the archer. The polearm wielder also threatens, which the archer does not. In return, the archer will have range and between +5 and +1 higher initiative skill check bonus with a few (arguably) more effective skills than the polearm wielder (depending on build).
Taking this white room set of assumptions, and using your "4 more potential attacks per combat," scenario, the polearm wielder will be identically effective to the archer any time combat lasts more than 4.3826086956521739130434782608696 turns. Most combats, in my experience, last around 4 or 5 turns. As each of these two combatants will have upwards of 65 hit points, and possibly as much as 109 hit points, we are looking at a fight that will last at least 3 average turns (if each build is gimped in the Con department) and possibly as long as 4.3253968253968253968253968253968 turns worth of attacks for the archer to kill the polearm user and 3.5218093699515347334410339256866 turns for the polearm user to kill the archer. So, if the fighter is an idiot and doesn't attack for one turn (because the archer is between 35 and 60 feet away), the archer has a 0.19641254455470933661563710028979 turn advantage on the fighter (assuming optimized Con, as that seems like the logical choice for both builds). If the fighter plays it smart, numerically speaking, he will get one round of javelin attacks in before closing. (I'm getting lazy, so I won't bother calculating, but I think the average damage off of 3 javelin attacks--made with disadvantage--should offset that 0.2--rounded off--turn advantage). Hell, if the polearm user has a dex of 12 or 14, it might opt for a round of longbow attacks instead (which will definitely set off that 0.2 advantage). On the other hand, if they start in 30 feet or less range, no matter how smart the archer is, the polearm user has a 0.8035874554452906633843628997102 turn advantage.
As I said, in my opinion, that is balanced. Especially because this is a white room assessment. In reality, things play out very different. Often, there is terrain that allows targets to take full cover (no attack possible) against ranged attackers. Often, combats are set up in ways that force melee range combat. And often, characters get to start at even greater range, and the ranged characters dominate (though in my experience the fighter's don't sit around doing nothing; instead, they pull out bows or javelins, and they act as backup). It's up to the DM to make sure that all characters get their spotlight moments by designing his campaign/encounters appropriately. The white room, however, does not suggest what you have claimed it does.
Rather, according to the whiteroom, the melee fighter has a drastic advantage if the fight starts in 30 foot range, has moderate disadvantage if the fight starts between 35-60 feet and he is an idiot, is evenly matched if the fight starts between 35-60 feet and he remembers that he knows how to use more weapons than those he has specialized in, and has a drastic disadvantage if the fight starts at 65+ foot range.
Last edited:
They were with a horde. Explain their tactical capabilities. I want to hear using the Monster Manual entry their tactical capabilities. I want you to list them, then compare them to player tactical abilities. I want you to tell me what abilities they have listed in the Monster Manual that allows them to use other demons tactically. Do they have some special power for repositioning demons? Do they have spell abilities for buffing their demonic allies? What special abilities does a marilith have to represent their tactical capability as a demonic warlord leading other demons? If they tried to muscle up against a group of demons, they would get their ass kicked.
Descriptive text unsupported by mechanical capability makes it so a creature cannot do its stated function. In fact, a group of demons using ranged attacks with flight could kill a marilith with ease. So why are they listening to it? Because the descriptive text said that had to? Some of us are not satisfied by descriptive text. If a marilit is listed as a demonic warlord leading demons, then we expect it to be able to do so using its power to intimidate the demons. The Marilith as written in the MM could be killed by a group of archers or ranged attacking demons or devils with relatively ease. Yet here you are claiming those us pointing this out are "whining", while I feel you are ignoring the mechanical reality of these creatures being unable to serve the function described in the descriptive text.
There is little reason for a demonic horde to follow a marilith other than "the text says so." Demons are Chaotic Evil. In general, chaotic evil creatures do not follow a hierarchy. That means the strongest demons must be strong enough to keep them in line by force. A marilith cannot do this. It would be overwhelmed and killed. This was not the case in 3E. A marilith did have tactical options above and beyond what was common for demon kind. It was a boss demon. Same with a balor.
You appear to satisfied with bags of hit points with melee ability and flavor text that tells you they're special. I prefer the mechanical capabilities of the creature match the flavor text meaning if a horde of demons shows up, they are afraid of the mariith because it could kill hundreds, if not thousands of them, alone. Power rules in The Abyss.
You can call it whining all you want. I call it understanding the mechanics and learning how to make the mechanics match the descriptive text, so that creatures do what they're supposed to be able to do.
BTW, I don't think it is utterly stupid to toss a single marilith at a party of powerful adventures. I think it is utterly stupid that a powerful marilith can't challenge a group of powerful adventurers as written. That's why I rewrote the marilith so the party would be more afraid of it, than it is afraid of them. I hate...UTTERLY HATE...the fact that PCs should scare monsters more than monsters scare PCs. Titans, dragons, powerful demons and devils, and the like should make PCs afraid to even engage in a fight against them both descriptively and mechanically. That's my opinion. I don't care if you don't agree with it.
Last edited:
It's amazing how many people seem to forget that we pay money for books designed by game designers, so DMs DON'T have to do so much stuff to make the game challenging.
hawkeyefan
Legend
[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] I have to ask...why would a Marilith allow herself to be killed by flying archers?
Similar Threads
