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

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't want to single out any one of the replies saying this so no direct quote, but

"meat shields is easy, a ranged fighter can just switch to melee"

I need to ask y'all why I read this over and over again. I think I have said it many times, but all the thinking archers are squishy is outdated in 5e.

A character does not need to switch to melee.

Just keep firing crossbow bolts completely unhindered regardless of whether the monsters are 100 ft away, or if they surround you completely.

No squishyness. No need to switch to melee. No drawbacks, penalties. Completely unhindered steady stream of bolts.

Sure, to me this is a Flaw that needs to be fixed. But the first step towards recovery is insight.

As long as you think of how ranged combat worked in previous editions you can't see the problems with how it really works in 5e (assuming feats).

Since you ask--it's because switching over is (sometimes) more efficient. Let's say you're in a stone labyrinth or something, so your front line is only 2'-4' wide and you only need one PC to hold it while the others make ranged attacks. If that one PC is in archer configuration shooting arrows, he has full damage output. If he instead puts on a shield and Dodges, the party's damage output drops by 25-35%, but the monsters' damage output drops by 40-70%. (Depends on the monsters' to-hit and the new tank's AC.) The party comes out of the fight in better shape if the guy in front tanks instead of shooting.

Ranged specialization does not preclude functioning as a tank when needed.

 

[CapnZapp]

Since you ask--it's because switching over is (sometimes) more efficient. Let's say you're in a stone labyrinth or something, so your front line is only 2'-4' wide and you only need one PC to hold it while the others make ranged attacks. If that one PC is in archer configuration shooting arrows, he has full damage output. If he instead puts on a shield and Dodges, the party's damage output drops by 25-35%, but the monsters' damage output drops by 40-70%. (Depends on the monsters' to-hit and the new tank's AC.) The party comes out of the fight in better shape if the guy in front tanks instead of shooting.

Ranged specialization does not preclude functioning as a tank when needed.

But that's a special case.

Just like when I don't include the "a gorge separates us from the Ravenna hordes" scenario to say ranged is better than melee, I tend to avoid "you're locked into a cupboard with a chainsaw wielding maniac" scenario if I want to proclaim melee I'd superior...

In other words, yes, you're right, but let's assume at least limited mobility to allow all build choices to compete on roughly equal terms

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm very confused why the designers of 5e changed core gaming tenants that worked to counter ranged superiority in previous editions.

The removal of the charge action, the removal of opportunity attacks vs spells and ranged attacks, the ability for archers to be just as tanky as melee bruisers, the ability to counteract all penalties for distance and cover by taking a single feat, and the archery fighting style synergizing extremely well with the -5 / +10 feats are just some of the examples changes that promote ranged superiority.

Don't forget the elimination of "requires magical weapons to hit." In AD&D, magical arrows were prohibitively expensive, and there were no at-will cantrips, so monsters with weapon immunity basically had to be engaged in melee on a regular basis.

Also, 5E's six-second melee round makes movement relatively slower and gives archers more shots. In AD&D, closing from a longbow's maximum range (210 yards) to melee range consumed five minutes at melee speeds or one minute (IIRC) if running, though I don't remember what penalties the running dude suffered. (I don't think the archer was allowed to move after firing, although I confess that back then the notion of kiting wouldn't have occurred to me.) At melee speeds that gave the archer five shots. In 5E, closing from 600' requires one minute when Dashing, which means the archer gets ten shots, or twenty if the archer moves too.

 

[CapnZapp]

(cont'd)

The really important point is: as an archer you never need melee weapons or shields as backups, as you did in all previous editions.

You're not squishy, you're not reduced or limited in any way.

That's the message I want to come across, and to that end your scenario risks blurring the fundamentals.

 

[CapnZapp]

(cont'd)

The reason I want to be so clear is because when I take the next step, that is to criticise this state of affairs and propose changes, we tend to see replies that question the very premise. Which results in the discussion never getting anywhere.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But that's a special case.

Just like when I don't include the "a gorge separates us from the Ravenna hordes" scenario to say ranged is better than melee, I tend to avoid "you're locked into a cupboard with a chainsaw wielding maniac" scenario if I want to proclaim melee I'd superior...

In other words, yes, you're right, but let's assume at least limited mobility to allow all build choices to compete on roughly equal terms

Yes, it's a special case, but since you quoted me ("[generating] meat shields is easy, a ranged fighter can just switch to melee" is a near-direct quote of one of my posts a few pages back) and asked why you'd want to switch to melee, I answered.

The related answer is that, at least at my table, I tend to skip over combat scenarios that are easily-trivialized. So a foe which can just be kited to death from horseback is purely a roleplaying encounter--if the players decide they're going to kill the crippled hag using their standard tactics, one of two things will happen: either I say, "Okay, you kill her," or I'll say, "Let's play this out in detail, guys." And if the latter happens, the players ought to get a bad feeling...

Anyway, due to the latter, the combats that I actually run in detail tend to disproportionately feature things that go wrong. One of the things that can go wrong is close terrain, and it helps to have someone who can take point, so when I'm imagining a party in an Internet discussion, I always imagine a party with someone who can take point if necessary. It gives you more tactical flexibility.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

(cont'd)

The really important point is: as an archer you never need melee weapons or shields as backups, as you did in all previous editions.

You're not squishy, you're not reduced or limited in any way.

That's the message I want to come across, and to that end your scenario risks blurring the fundamentals.

Er, that's not really true. As an archer you are arrow-limited. Sometimes you switch to another weapon like a dagger to kill a lone orc because you've been killing orcs for weeks after the entire army got killed and you're down to your last six arrows, and you have to save them for when it really counts. Sometimes arrows are more precious than HP.

Yes, this is another niche scenario, but I'm a computer programmer so I react strongly to the word "never" when it's not really "never."

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, it's a special case, but since you quoted me ("[generating] meat shields is easy, a ranged fighter can just switch to melee" is a near-direct quote of one of my posts a few pages back) and asked why you'd want to switch to melee, I answered.

The related answer is that, at least at my table, I tend to skip over combat scenarios that are easily-trivialized. So a foe which can just be kited to death from horseback is purely a roleplaying encounter--if the players decide they're going to kill the crippled hag using their standard tactics, one of two things will happen: either I say, "Okay, you kill her," or I'll say, "Let's play this out in detail, guys." And if the latter happens, the players ought to get a bad feeling...

Anyway, due to the latter, the combats that I actually run in detail tend to disproportionately feature things that go wrong. One of the things that can go wrong is close terrain, and it helps to have someone who can take point, so when I'm imagining a party in an Internet discussion, I always imagine a party with someone who can take point if necessary. It gives you more tactical flexibility.

It's possible this isn't related to you, but when you have players that actively work to avoid close combats (and especially ambushes) by using a disposable flying invisible imp as a point man, you end up wishing monster manual stat blocks were considerably more sophisticated...

But it's okay to not go there.

 

[CapnZapp]

Guess my point was only the instinctual most combats against bog-standard monsters tend to be of the kind you characterize as "easily-trivialized"...

 

[CapnZapp]

Er, that's not really true. As an archer you are arrow-limited. Sometimes you switch to another weapon like a dagger to kill a lone orc because you've been killing orcs for weeks after the entire army got killed and you're down to your last six arrows, and you have to save them for when it really counts. Sometimes arrows are more precious than HP.

Yes, this is another niche scenario, but I'm a computer programmer so I react strongly to the word "never" when it's not really "never."

It's bolts

But seriously, stop counting arrows.. ☺