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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Lol, sure.

Make them both champions (to remove spell or maneuver choice from affecting the outcome). Give the melee fighter Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master to maximize his damage. Give the archer Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter. Give them both +1 weapons and full plate. And run a simulation of the outcome of the combatants trading blows back and forth in the most boring of duels ever 1000 times.

I'm fairly certain the crossbow archer wins out simply because they have about 10% higher DPR, but I would love to see your analysis of the situation.

Tell you what: I get to pick my own build and tactics instead of relying on the one you created here, although I'm willing to make him a Champion if you like. You can use the boring 'trade blows' tactic for your Crossbow Expert if you want to. Fair enough?

I'm not a big fan of DPR optimization. Sometimes it's a poor choice. Loss Ratios (i.e. DTPO, Damage Taken Per Opponent) is more relevant to an actual adventurer's concerns.

 

[Ashkelon]

The archer's goal is certainly to deal damage, and has an edge compared to melee combatants. But if we're going to talk about balance between the two approaches then we have to look at other areas of combat beyond just DPR. Melee combatants usually have more durability or more AC or some other factor that helps offset the lesser damage they may have compared to a specialized archer build.

This is the type of thinking this thread was created to discourage. You are under the mistaken assumption that archers are squishier than melee warriors.

Sorry to tell you, but the greatweapon fighter and the crossbow archer can have exactly the same AC. Both can wear plate just fine. The archer could also use bracers or armor or the mage armor spell to have the same AC as plate armor without any of the weight though. They will also have the same Con score and therefor the same HP.

Sure if a party can pour out damage at a rate that drops most enemies quickly, that is an effective way to cut down on damage taken. I don't know if I'd agree that it always makes more sense to focus on damage output at the expense of all else, though.

D&D is a daily war of attrition. In most scenarios, killing things faster does far more for the party overall than surviving longer would. Especially given the disparity between an optimized damage dealer and a mediocre damage dealer. And this is all ignoring the fact that the archer has +5 more initiative, +5 more stealth, and +5 to Dex saves as compared to the melee warrior, all of which contribute far more to overall survivability than a few more HP.

It varies quite a bit, depending on circumstances. But they do often start off together. They rarely remain side by side, though. Our ranged expert does indeed try to maintain distance and hit enemies from afar. And they react differently to events in combat.

The point of this thread is that they don't need to. The crossbow archer can fight in melee range or at range. Whichever is more needed for the current situation.

The archer does not threaten opportunity attacks; he uses a bow and doesn't keep a weapon in his offhand.

This thread is primarily talking about the crossbow archer, though the premise is the same with a regular archer. At the end of your turn, use your item interaction to draw a dagger or other melee weapon so you threaten OAs. At the start of your turn drop the dagger and make ranged attacks. Repeat as needed.

Can't he throw more than one weapon?

Nope. Drawing a weapon is your one item interaction for the round. So only one thrown attack no matter how many attacks you actually have. This is part of why this thread states that ranged weapons are superior to melee.

But what ranged weapon is your crossbow archer using? A hand crossbow? Or does he need to use his item interaction to draw his dagger one round, and then use it to stow the dagger next round? Does your DM allow you to load your weapon without a free hand?

See above about drawing a weapon at the end of your turn and dropping it at the start. Daggers are cheap, but at higher levels when gold is plentiful, no reason to not carry a few rapiers for each combat.

Are you telling me that your crossbow expert just wades into melee? That he actually DOES threaten enemies with OAs? They didn't seem too big a deal to you at all, and attacking from a distance was something a lot of folks mentioned as an advantage...so how does it actually play out?

The point is that the crossbow archer can choose to fulfill the same function as the melee warrior if he so chooses by wading into melee and shooting enemies at point blank range, all the while threatening them with OAs as needed, but can also function at full efficiency when enemies happen to be outside of melee range.

HP fluctuate, no? At some point, every monster is a 10 HP creature.

True, but at low levels the threat of an OA is significant. At higher levels not so much. A high level enemy with 100+ HP would barely care about the 10 average damage it might take from provoking a fighters OA. So the "threat" of OAs and their impact on combat diminishes as you level. As such, it becomes less and less meaningful to the discussion about the fighter's capabilities in melee.

The idea is about dealing damage outside of your turn. It's bonus damage. Any enemy that has to choose between moving and possibly taking an OA (or maybe two or more depending) or else taking his action in some other way is being forced to behave in response to the party. Maybe the bad guy has to spend his turn disengaging.

Sure, but how often does an enemy decide not to do an action because of a potential OA. If his choice is take an OA to attack a squishier target or avoid taking an OA and attack the high HP high AC fighter, the answer will vary depending on the creatures level and HP. An 11 HP hobgoblin would not likely risk it, but a 150 HP giant probably would't care nearly as much. Therefor the so called threat of OAs and their impact on combat diminishes with level.

 

[Flamestrike]

There are two problems I have that can affect what we are seeing.

One, having a melee weapon to parry with in melee has no effect whatsoever on your defense. I suppose this is why something like making a ranged attack while in melee range provoked an OA in the past (It did, didn't it?) because if you were shooting you weren't parrying.

Two, shields just aren't as useful as they seem to have been historically, especially against ranged attacks. Defending against a ranged attack with a shield was easy, just put the shield in front of you.

I'm not certain how one could mechanically simulate either of the two things I've described. Maybe say that any ranged attack or casting a spell with a range provoked an OA from opponents in melee range. And for point two you could say that a shield is +4 or whatever vs. a ranged attack instead of +2.

That shield idea is brilliant!

The extra +2 would be negated by the archery style and gives it something to do. I might steal that for my gritty Campaign im cobbling together.

 

[Caliban]

Sure, but how often does an enemy decide not to do an action because of a potential OA. If his choice is take an OA to attack a squishier target or avoid taking an OA and attack the high HP high AC fighter, the answer will vary depending on the creatures level and HP. An 11 HP hobgoblin would not likely risk it, but a 150 HP giant probably would't care nearly as much. Therefor the so called threat of OAs and their impact on combat diminishes with level.

If it is a melee oriented character who has spent feats on it, their OA's can be pretty signficant. Sentinal means they eat the damage and don't get to move any farther. War Caster means they may get hit with Booming blade for significant damage, and even more if they continue to move. (I play a Paladin/Warlock who does the Warcaster thing with booming blade, and many polearm fighters also take Sentinal along with Polearm master).

 

[Ashkelon]

If it is a melee oriented character who has spent feats on it, their OA's can be pretty signficant. Sentinal means they eat the damage and don't get to move any farther. War Caster means they may get hit with Booming blade for significant damage, and even more if they continue to move. (I play a Paladin/Warlock who does the Warcaster thing with booming blade, and many polearm fighters also take Sentinal along with Polearm master).

Can't an eldritch knight crossbow archer also take warcaser though? At that point his OAs are 90% or more as effective as the full melee fighter. At level 11, 1d8+5+2d8 isn't all that different from 2d6+ 5+2d8. And much better than the poor non-magical fighter is able to produce.

And if the melee fighter chooses feats other than polearm master and greatweapon master as some of his first, the damage difference between the crossbow archer and the great weapon fighter will be huge.

So yes, there are ways for a melee oriented character to improve his OAs. But he should only do so after enhancing his primary means of damage (STR 20, Great Weapon Master, and most likely Polearm Master). If he focuses on those other feats before maximizing for damage, his overall damage per encounter will actually be lower overall. However, by the time the melee oriented character has those feats, the crossbow archer will also have everything he needs (20 Dex, Crossbow Expert, and Sharpshooter). Which means that feats like sentinel or warcaster are equally viable for both builds. And while it is strange to think of a crossbow using eldritch knight taking the warcaster feat just to enhance his OAs, it is no less reasonable than a melee focused build doing the same.

Side note: I hate the scag cantrips that enhance melee attacks. They are another example of poorly thought out abilities that drastically affect gameplay balance. At this point, I have noticed enough issues with the 5e mechanics that I kind of wish there was a 5.5

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is the type of thinking this thread was created to discourage. You are under the mistaken assumption that archers are squishier than melee warriors.

Well no. Check the OP. [MENTION=6801299]Horwath[/MENTION] said he thought melee "lagged a little behind ranged" and then made some suggestions on how to balance melee with ranged. Since then the conversation has shifted...but you don't get to decide that the thread agrees with you.

And I am not claiming that ranged characters must be squishier than melee fighters. My point is that it certainly is an area upon which a melee fighter can focus with feats and class abilities while the archer has focused on ranged combat.

Sorry to tell you, but the greatweapon fighter and the crossbow archer can have exactly the same AC. Both can wear plate just fine. The archer could also use bracers or armor or the mage armor spell to have the same AC as plate armor without any of the weight though. They will also have the same Con score and therefor the same HP.

Depending on feat choices and the like. Also, please stop assuming I am talking about the great weapon fighter, and also that I am solely looking at DPR.

D&D is a daily war of attrition. In most scenarios, killing things faster does far more for the party overall than surviving longer would.

I don't know if I really follow that. Survival is the stated point of killing things faster, no? Are you just saying that damage output trumps damage mitigation? Maybe I misunderstood.

Especially given the disparity between an optimized damage dealer and a mediocre damage dealer.

I don't know....you seem to shrug when an attack is only 62% as effective as if that's not a big deal, but now you cite the disparity as being vital.

And this is all ignoring the fact that the archer has +5 more initiative, +5 more stealth, and +5 to Dex saves as compared to the melee warrior, all of which contribute far more to overall survivability than a few more HP.

None of this need be true at all. Maybe with this great weapon master build you assume I'm talking about. A melee fighter who takes Shield Master and Resilient, let's say, removes most of that.

This thread is primarily talking about the crossbow archer, though the premise is the same with a regular archer. At the end of your turn, use your item interaction to draw a dagger or other melee weapon so you threaten OAs. At the start of your turn drop the dagger and make ranged attacks. Repeat as needed.

Meh. Yes, I suppose this is possible. It's also the cheesiest tactic I think I've heard proposed. I don't think any of my players would ever propose this as a regular tactic. Perhaps in a pinch if needed, but as their standard method? Ugh.

Nope. Drawing a weapon is your one item interaction for the round. So only one thrown attack no matter how many attacks you actually have. This is part of why this thread states that ranged weapons are superior to melee.

Okay, fair point. I allow the drawing of the weapon as part of the attack, so I let someone throw more than one weapon if they have more than one attack. But that seems more like a house rule, so I'll give you this point.

See above about drawing a weapon at the end of your turn and dropping it at the start. Daggers are cheap, but at higher levels when gold is plentiful, no reason to not carry a few rapiers for each combat.

No reason except no one ever did that....if I read it in a book, I'd toss the thing across the room. I realize this may be allowed within a strict reading of the rules, but it's so incredibly cheesy I can't even believe a player would want to do that.

The point is that the crossbow archer can choose to fulfill the same function as the melee warrior if he so chooses by wading into melee and shooting enemies at point blank range, all the while threatening them with OAs as needed, but can also function at full efficiency when enemies happen to be outside of melee range.

To some extent, yes. But the feats and options taken by the melee warrior may make him better at this in ways other than DPR.

True, but at low levels the threat of an OA is significant. At higher levels not so much. A high level enemy with 100+ HP would barely care about the 10 average damage it might take from provoking a fighters OA. So the "threat" of OAs and their impact on combat diminishes as you level. As such, it becomes less and less meaningful to the discussion about the fighter's capabilities in melee.

If we look at it in this way, the same is true for every attack. So this point is moot.

Attacks hurt and both PCs and NPCs tend to want to avoid them. Any possible hit is a risk/reward scenario. Choosing to grant someone additional attacks on you? I'd never really look at that as not meaningful.

Sure, but how often does an enemy decide not to do an action because of a potential OA?

Pretty often in my game. Hard to say for sure because it's not like I catalogue it, but a few times per combat on average, I'd say. It'll vary by table, though, so how much they matter is very much subjective.

 

[Caliban]

Can't an eldritch knight crossbow archer also take warcaser though? At that point his OAs are 90% or more as effective as the full melee fighter. At level 11, 1d8+5+2d8 isn't all that different from 2d6+ 5+2d8. And much better than the poor non-magical fighter is able to produce.

And if the melee fighter chooses feats other than polearm master and greatweapon master as some of his first, the damage difference between the crossbow archer and the great weapon fighter will be huge.

So yes, there are ways for a melee oriented character to improve his OAs. But he should only do so after enhancing his primary means of damage (STR 20, Great Weapon Master, and most likely Polearm Master). If he focuses on those other feats before maximizing for damage, his overall damage per encounter will actually be lower overall. However, by the time the melee oriented character has those feats, the crossbow archer will also have everything he needs (20 Dex, Crossbow Expert, and Sharpshooter). Which means that feats like sentinel or warcaster are equally viable for both builds. And while it is strange to think of a crossbow using eldritch knight taking the warcaster feat just to enhance his OAs, it is no less reasonable than a melee focused build doing the same.

Side note: I hate the scag cantrips that enhance melee attacks. They are another example of poorly thought out abilities that drastically affect gameplay balance. At this point, I have noticed enough issues with the 5e mechanics that I kind of wish there was a 5.5

How many feats is this crossbow archer spending on things other than archery? You need at least two ABI's to get a 20 Dex, Sharpshooter, etc.

Plus, my example is a Paladin/Warlock with Warcaster and Polearm master. You also get to worry about a smite on top that.

 

[pemerton]

you seem to shrug when an attack is only 62% as effective as if that's not a big deal, but now you cite the disparity as being vital.

As I understand it, [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION]'s view is that a 60% effective OA is as effective (from the point of view of posing a threat that will affect an enemy's decisions) as a 100% effective one. But that being 62% effective overall is a severe penalty to a fighter.

These views seem consistent to me, though the first one depends upon a conjecture about how GMs make their decisions (eg I know that in my game I tend to forget about OA provoking when I'm playing enemies, and so OAs have a bigger effect in terms of damage dealt than in terms of impact on decision-making).

The archer's goal is certainly to deal damage, and has an edge compared to melee combatants. But if we're going to talk about balance between the two approaches then we have to look at other areas of combat beyond just DPR.

If only WotC had published a fantasy RPG in which the distribution of combat functions was acknowledged and built into the balance of classes from the get-go . . .

 

[hawkeyefan]

As I understand it, [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION]'s view is that a 60% effective OA is as effective (from the point of view of posing a threat that will affect an enemy's decisions) as a 100% effective one. But that being 62% effective overall is a severe penalty to a fighter.

These views seem consistent to me, though the first one depends upon a conjecture about how GMs make their decisions (eg I know that in my game I tend to forget about OA provoking when I'm playing enemies, and so OAs have a bigger effect in terms of damage dealt than in terms of impact on decision-making).

Well there are a lot of factors at play. Yes, standard attacks are more common than OA and so therefore I can see how someone would view them as "more inportant". I don't know if the disparity is as great as that cited for the OA calculation. But again, there are so many contributing factors that it's difficult to say for certain.

Ultimately, the way I see it is that in order for this imbalance between ranged combat and melee combat to be as big as many claim, there are several things that need to happen:
- feats are allowed
- the archer in question selects Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter
- we focus solely on DPR as our metric for evaluation
- the DM has to fail to adjust for these feats in any significant way in regard to encounter design
- the DM has to fail to adjust for these feats in any significant way in regard to enemy tactics
- the players have to notice this imbalance and feel that it is a negative

So I suppose if all of that happens, then yeah...ranged combat could far outweigh melee combat instead of having a slight edge on damage output. But I don't know if it should be that surprising at that point. Nor if I'd describe such an imbalance as a flaw in the game design.

If only WotC had published a fantasy RPG in which the distribution of combat functions was acknowledged and built into the balance of classes from the get-go . . .

Well, they clearly did design things with combat functions in mind. I don't know if they worried as much about "balance" as many here seem to. Some classes or options are better than others at what they are designed to do. Mechanical balance would be more important in some sort of competitive game, but I would imagine that given the cooperative nature of RPGs the designers weren't as concerned about it.

 

[pemerton]

- the DM has to fail to adjust for these feats in any significant way in regard to encounter design
- the DM has to fail to adjust for these feats in any significant way in regard to enemy tactics

Among the participants in this thread, these seem to be the most contentious issues.

I think it was you, not too far upthread, who posited that a significant number of encounters would happen in dungeons, and hence at relatively short range. It seems, though, that that may not be the case for those who find that ranged combat is a dominant strategy (and it is worth remembering that this view is not limited to those who focus on DPR alone - see eg [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] in this very thread).

To me it seem consistent with the general tenor of 5e design, but not necessarily the best possible design all things considered, that this matter is put more in the GM's hands than the players'. (Whereas, for instance, one could imagine melee character who have the ability to close range with rapid bursts of speed - and without having to eat up their action surge, which is a good chunk of their DPR - to do so.)

they clearly did design things with combat functions in mind. I don't know if they worried as much about "balance" as many here seem to. Some classes or options are better than others at what they are designed to do. Mechanical balance would be more important in some sort of competitive game, but I would imagine that given the cooperative nature of RPGs the designers weren't as concerned about it.

I think they worried very much about balance - hence the very non-traditional die spreads for healing, for damaging spells, etc, as well as the 6-8 encounter per day baseline (without which spell-using classes, especially ones with good attack spells, can tend to dominate).

But I also suspect they made assumptions about the context and framing of encounters that aren't spelled out in the rulebooks, but in the absence of which ranged combat can tend to dominate.

But anyway, my comment was really a slightly ironic allusion to 4e - in effect, your argument over your past few posts has been that because melee fighters are (in 4e parlance) defenders, the fact that they are second-tier strikers (again, using 4e parlance) compared to archers does not matter.

4e was designed precisely along these sorts of lines - so a player knew what s/he was getting into with the choice of class/sub-class, and the mechanics for each class (especially the defender, who needs supporting mechanics like some of those you have identified - controlling attacks, damage mitigation, etc) were designed to feed clearly into these distinctions. (Or, when they blurred them, they did so in an obvious way, so that - again - everyone goes in with eyes open.)

5e is clearly less transparent in its design intentions, and leaves all this stuff to be worked out by players via analysis and bitter experience. In this respect, at least, 5e's design and presentation resembles 3Es, and in light of this, it doesn't surprise me that we're seeing threads about issues with PC build and PC balance similar to those which are common in relation to 3E.

For clarity, I'm not saying that the complaints about imbalance are sound (in the 5e case - I think they fairly clearly are in the 3E case). I'm saying that the fact that they exist at all is a symptom of a deliberate feature of 5e's design and presentation, namely, the avoidance of transparency about what sorts of functions for particular classes/builds will produce at least a rough degree of mechanical effectiveness under some particular parameters or other.