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

[Cyber-Dave]

Archers can wear medium armor which is only 1 AC behind heavy armor. Therefor archers should only ever be 1 AC behind their melee counterparts. Archers in general can afford better stats because they can entirely neglect strength but a melee warrior should probably still have a 12-14 Dex.

Fair point in regards to the medium armor choice, but it won't make that much of a difference. In terms of the comparison I provided, that changes the numbers to (0.30*19.5)+(0.05*25)=7.1 and (0.3*16.5)+(0.05*19)=5.9 for a total of (3*7.1)+5.9=27.2 average damage against the archer by the polearm wielder. The archer, however, will now take Disadvantage on stealth checks, so those skill benefits you talked about just went out the window. To get the skill based benefits, the archer's AC drops back down to 16. Likewise, I have found that athletics is one of the more important skills in the game. I have also found that Strength isn't something an archer can completely dump, as the groups I play with tend to use the advanced encumbrance rules, and characters with too low of an STR often find themselves lightly encumbered (and then suffer a -10 movement penalty, which is not ideal as an archer). That is an artifact of optional rules though.

Archers can still make opportunity attacks. By RAW, due to the wording of archery fighting style, they can use their crossbow as an improvised weapon but still gain the +2 bonus to hit because it is a ranged weapon.

I'm not buying this one. No DM worth their salt would agree to that.

Archers can run up to melee to shoot enemies who hide behind total cover just as well as melee warriors can. Using cover as an argument doesn't actually make any sense.

Yea, it does. Even with sharpshooter, archer's can't target foes who have total cover. Sharpshooter only helps with +2 AC and +5 AC cover, not full cover (can't target). Terrain with obstacles that can provide full cover gives melee characters a way to close the distance while not taking attacks.

Even if most fights take place where enemies are within 30 feet at all times, the archer will still take less damage than the melee warrior overall.

Not in our white-room s/he won't. Moreover, if nobody plays a melee based character, once again this statement ceases to be true. This statement is only true if there are melee based characters working alongside the ranged characters.

Archers are much better at taking care of enemies who are attempting to flee.

This isn't always true either. This is only true if the melee based character doesn't take sentinel and the creature has a movement speed greater than the PC in question. If the creature has a speed equal to or less than the PC, or the PC has sentinel, the melee based character is just as good if not better at taking care of enemies who are attempting to flee.

Archers are also better at taking out enemy spellcasters or other choice targets who are behind a defensive line. Since archers ignore partial cover, they can fire at the mate who is behind a wall of enemy soldiers. The melee warrior is stuck with only being able to engage enemies in the front line. This targeting capability is especially important given that most enemies in the rear tend to have lower AC and fewer HP while simultaneously having greater damage output. Being able to kill such targets before taking out the front line tends to have a much greater impact on outcome of any particular battle.

Yea, that is kind of what archers are designed for...

Basically archers can do everything a melee focused warrior can about as well as the melee warrior, but with the added benefit of being able to perform incredibly well at range.

Except, they can't. They can't protect their allies nearly as well. They don't draw attacks nearly as well. They don't threaten. They deal less damage in melee. They have worse AC (by at least 1 point, probably 2 points--at least until they max out their Dex during high level play, and possibly as much as 4 points).

IMHO, the way the game is designed, the ranged warrior shouldn't even be close to the damage of the melee warrior. If the ranged warrior was truly squishy or truly pathetic in melee combat I might understand them having similar damage. But that simply isn't the case. Fighting styles and feats complete negate any potential penalties the ranged warrior might face.

I believe that melee warriors should have 10-20% more effective HP and 10-20% more damage than an a ranged warrior given the difficulty most melee warriors face in combat (flying enemies, opportunity attacks, being knocked prone, enemies at range greater than 30ft, enemies spread out more than 30 ft, choice targets in the back ranks, etc). Instead, archers tend to deal more damage and have similar defenses.

We will have to agree to disagree; though, like I said, I wouldn't bat an eyelash at ranged attacks provoking attacks of opportunity...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A few other things to not forget!

Archers can wear medium armor which is only 1 AC behind heavy armor. Therefor archers should only ever be 1 AC behind their melee counterparts. Archers in general can afford better stats because they can entirely neglect strength but a melee warrior should probably still have a 12-14 Dex.

Technically, archers can even wear heavy armor, as we see from Cyber-Dave's suggestion that the melee bruiser in plate armor carry a longbow.

But generally archers don't do that because it makes them either MAD or slow, and archers like to be SAD and kite. If you were in a campaign where kiting wasn't a thing, though, I'd expect to see every archers wear the heaviest-possible armor no matter how low his Str.

Archers can still make opportunity attacks. By RAW, due to the wording of archery fighting style, they can use their crossbow as an improvised weapon but still gain the +2 bonus to hit because it is a ranged weapon.

I wouldn't allow you to count a crossbow as a ranged weapon if you're using it as an improvised club. If you do that, it's a club.

Battlemaster archers are far more potent than battlemaster melee warriors. Pushing attack, trip attack, and menacing attack provide much more battlefield control when used at range than in melee. Tripping a flying enemy causing them to fall 100ft can be especially brutal.

Tripping is good in melee too for gaining advantage and/or imposing disadvantage. Can function as a lightweight Sentinel feat too (costs the enemy movement to get up after falling).

Of course, the battlemaster doesn't have to choose between them. A melee-oriented battlemaster can still trip at range, and an archer battlemaster can still trip with a rapier.

I agree though that trip is especially brutal against flying opponents.

I believe that melee warriors should have 10-20% more effective HP and 10-20% more damage than an a ranged warrior given the difficulty most melee warriors face in combat (flying enemies, opportunity attacks, being knocked prone, enemies at range greater than 30ft, enemies spread out more than 30 ft, choice targets in the back ranks, etc). Instead, archers tend to deal more damage and have similar defenses.

I might put the number even higher than 10-20%. I believe that archery would remain viable even if melee fighters did 100-200% more damage once they get into melee range. However, that assessment is influenced by my willingness to kill off PCs, which puts a premium on the defensive characteristics of ranged combat (avoiding Medusa gazes, enabling Dodges, etc.). At a table where losing PCs isn't a thing, or where replacement PCs get brought in as fully-fledged high-level PCs, 100-200% might be too high.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

And in all of these cases, you're now in a ranged combat duel with a guy who is specialized in ranged combat.

I wasn't talking in terms of the whiteroom duel with kiting. I was talking about the use of a single round of ranged attacks before closing in a scenario where kiting isn't viable.

"Guard a particular location" is actually an ideal scenario for ranged combatants, though not for kiting, because you can create distance with obstacles and fortifications instead of kiting.

If the PCs are guarding, yup. I have seen those sorts of tactics used. On the other hand, if the NPCs are guarding a location, the scenario tends to put PC ranged combatants (and the group as a whole) at a disadvantage. Trying to find a sneaky way to close the distance (and then fight in melee ranges) tends to be the primary PC agenda.

Anyway, my 2 copper on the subject have been spent. I am out. Best of luck debating everyone!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Not in our white-room s/he won't. Moreover, if nobody plays a melee based character, once again this statement ceases to be true. This statement is only true if there are melee based characters working alongside the ranged characters.

Range-specialized characters in a ranged-oriented party can function in melee just fine with a rapier and shield. They're actually more robust than the equivalent melee-oriented party because they can use Dodging more effectively.

Four AC 19 melee PCs against a T-Rex: PCs will take 34.08 damage per round on average.

Four AC 16 ranged PCs against a T-Rex: if the guy in the T-Rex's face Dodges, PCs will take 18.63 damage per round (55% as much as melee party) while inflicting 70-75% as much damage as the melee party. Clear win for the ranged party.

If the guy facing the T-Rex has time to don his shield, he's AC 18 and takes only 14.01 damage per round (41% as much).

Edit: of course, Dodging stops working once the T-Rex has bitten you already, because that restrains you and drops your speed to zero. Then you have to switch tactics--but at least you still benefit from the fact that the T-Rex can't target your ranged buddies with its tail.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

That is absurd. Everything you just said the ranged character can do the melee character can do, and he can do it better. That doesn't equate to the ranged party "winning." Melee characters can act like second class ranged characters too. It's nothing to brag about.

 

[pemerton]

Clear win for the melee party.

Is the bolded word a typo, or have I misunderstood something?

Also, a comment on your post 272 - I find your style of analysis very clear and refreshing. It's almost always easy to see how it is that you got the results you did, and the assumptions/play expectations that underpin them.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Is the bolded word a typo, or have I misunderstood something?

Also, a comment on your post 272 - I find your style of analysis very clear and refreshing. It's almost always easy to see how it is that you got the results you did, and the assumptions/play expectations that underpin them.

Er, yes. That is a typo.

Thanks for the kind words.

 

[Yunru]

It seems like you're assuming the archer will just stand still and let the fighter close. That's not the case except in close terrain. If you start at 60', move 30', and throw a javelin, you're getting one attack (at disadvantage if you lose initiative, which you're likely to do because of lower Dex) and the enemy is getting four attacks, then you're back at 60' distance and have to do it all over again. Clear advantage in favor of the ranged guy. In reality you have no realistic option but to "be an idiot", as you call it, taking 4 attacks per 30' of initial distance between you, unless the archer cannot move.

(I'm neglecting Action Surge here because both sides have it.)

There are a couple of other things worth pointing out:

(1) Archers are typically movement-optimized, much more likely (IME) than the melee dude to have something like Expeditious Retreat available.

(2) Your assumption of Dex 19 unrealistically penalizes the ranged guy's AC, which is the source of most of the melee dude's higher DPR. A typical 11th level Eldritch Knight Sharpshooter Crossbow Expert will have AC 18 by that level. (Mage Armor 13 + 5 from Dex 20.)

No they won't. Not with your proposed feats at least. At level 11 a Fighter has three ASIs. Two of those go on feats, leaving at most 19 Dex.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

No they won't. Not with your proposed feats at least. At level 11 a Fighter has three ASIs. Two of those go on feats, leaving at most 19 Dex.

(1) We already covered this.

(2) The majority of characters rolled with the PHB standard method will have at least one 16+, and can reach Dex 20 with two ASIs or one racial bump and one ASI.

(3) Even with standard array or point buy, you can just be a human with +1 to Dex and Crossbow Expert, and then use your three ASIs for Sharpshooter and +4 to Dex.

I don't know how you can make broad claims about what is "at most" achievable without managing to see both options #2 and #3. That's a pretty big blind spot.

Oh, and

(4) They're not my​ proposed feats. I don't even like Crossbow Expert.

 

[Yunru]

1. Not in enough detail.
2. Yeah, and dice rolling is never used for analysis because of it's inherent variance. Which brings us to:
3. Yeah, "just" be human. Wait no, Variant Human, be sure to get your DM's permission. Either way, there is no "just" in limiting it to one specific race. Now we're getting down to individual builds, not broad concepts. It's no longer ranged vs melee, it's Human archer vs (Human?) Melee.