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

[Ashkelon]

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.


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.

Again though, it is an apples to oranges comparison. If I wanted to play a tanky warrior I would use a shield and take feats that make me tougher. If I wanted to play a damage oriented fighter I would choose to play either a great weapon fighter or an archer.

The problem that arises is that there is no situation in which I would not have been better off choosing to play a crossbow archer as opposed to playing a great weapon fighter. The crossbow archer can fight just as well in melee afterall, but also fight at range when needed.

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.

In 5e, tactically minded enemies have no real reason to attack the melee fighter. The fighter lacks the tools to draw melee attacks to him or to be a real tank. So it ultimately doesn't matter all that much if the melee fighter devotes many resources to defense. Smart enemies will simply ignore the fighter to attack squishier targets. Ultimately, it doesn't matter very much if the fighter has 100 HP or 120 HP.

On top of that, a feat like tough might give the fighter 20% more HP, but has no effect on HD healing, second wind, or the effect of healing magic. As such, a feat like tough really only increases the fighter's overall durability by maybe 10%. A feat like Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter increase the fighters damage by over 20%.

It can (and probably should) be argued that these feats increase damage too much, but as they are now, they are a much better investment that the defensive feats. Killing things 20% faster means less damage taken, and fewer healing resources needed to be spent. Increased damage also leads to faster combats, which means there is more time to progress the story.

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.

An OA for 10 average damage vs an OA for 6 average damage isn't all that meaningful. Especially when OAs occur only rarely. The difference between the two adds up to maybe 8 to 12 points of damage per session.

On the other hand, an optimized 20 strength Great Weapon Fighter will nearly deal double the damage of a 16 strength unoptimized fighter. That can lead to a difference of 10+ damage per round, or 200+ per session.

That is why it isn't a very big deal when one fighter's OA is 62% as effective as another's, but it is a big deal when an unoptimized fighter deals only a fraction of the DPR of an optimized one.

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.

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.

It is totally a cheesy tactic. I completely agree. It is also 100% RAW. Blame the rules for making such a things possible. In a world where a ranged character can shoot his enemies at point blank range without any penalties, why wouldn't he use such tactics? On the other hand, if ranged characters suffered any consequences for being in melee combat, this scenario would not exist.

That is the whole point of this thread though; that ranged characters can effectively perform the role of a melee combatant but also have all the benefits of having a range of 120 feet.

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.

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.

The point about OAs is that at low levels the "threat" of 10 damage might be meaningful. At higher levels, not so much. This devalues the worth of OAs as you gain levels. In this very thread a number of people have stated that the "threat" of an OA influences the monsters decisions in a significant way. That is only really true at lower levels when an OA causes damage that results in a significant loss of a monster's HP. At higher levels, 150 HP enemies will rarely care about eating a mere 10 points of damage from an OA if it allows them to move to a position where they can kill the party wizard. As such the "threat" of OAs and its impact on combat diminishes as you level.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.)

This is one of the things that makes Mounted Combatant an attractive feat for melee-oriented characters. Melee is normally at a relative disadvantage in open terrain, but Mounted Combatant and a good warhorse together provide mobility, better weapons (lance), and advantage on many attacks whenever you're in open terrain. You can of course do this without any feats at all, but Mounted Combatant eases the logistical aspect (don't need to keep buying fresh warhorses) and provides advantage on many attacks.

But as you say, it depends a lot on the campaign. In a campaign which is all about 3' corridors and dungeon crawling, mounts are probably irrelevant. But ranged weapons will still be very strong in that campaign.

 

[Caliban]

I think perhaps the main reason that ranged combat doesn't dominate in most 5e games is simply because neither the players nor the DM's want it too. Most players (I think - I could be wrong) don't approach it solely as a tactical number crunching game, and most DM's don't run the bad guys as squads of special forces rangers and snipers.

A lot of players just don't think about it that way. They think "I want to play the badass barbarian who wades into melee" or "I'm the wizard who confounds the enemy with his magic" (Ok, maybe it's only my wizards who actually use the word "confound").

They build a melee fighter, barbarian, ranger, paladin, or rogue because they want to be in melee, not because they've run the numbers and it's tactically more advantageous. It's simply more fun for them. If they play an archer they do it because they feel like playing a ranged character (or because they've read a thread like this one and now their melee character seems inadequate).

For most DM's the combats occur as small set pieces and the encounter range is whatever feels appropriate to the DM at the moment. Because this is an RPG game, not a tactical combat simulator with both sides entering the map at opposite ends with the opportunity to hide or initiate ranged combat.

If all or most of your players are tactically minded number crunchers and the DM is the same, then yeah. The game is going to tend to revolve around the one or two combat styles or strategies that are most effective. Because for them, being as effective as possible is most of their fun. And since 5e has fewer moving parts than 3e and 4e, it's easier to identify the most effective combat strategies given the current game mechanics.

It's just not going to matter for most groups, because the guy who likes playing barbarians is still going to be a barbarian, no matter what. That's the reason he plays the game. The guy who likes playing archers was going to do that anyway. If the archer is out-performing the rest of the group, maybe the DM adds a few extra monsters to each encounter just to harass the archer or to make sure the barbarian (or whatever) gets his kill.

Or maybe the DM comes here and reads this discussion and then makes the archer cry as they nerf his OP ass into the ground.

 

[Corwin]

The problem that arises is that there is no situation in which I would not have been better off choosing to play a crossbow archer as opposed to playing a great weapon fighter.

Proven not to be true multiple times. Yet here you are again saying it as if its fact. Weird.

The crossbow archer can fight just as well in melee afterall, but also fight at range when needed.

At this point I'm going to need you to define "just as well." I get the strong impression you think "D&D" stands for "DPR & Dragons."

Definitions need to be consistent. Because, if the archer is fighting "just as well" in melee as the melee guy, then the melee guy is as likely able to fight "just as well" at range as the archer.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think perhaps the main reason that ranged combat doesn't dominate in most 5e games is simply because neither the players nor the DM's want it too. Most players (I think - I could be wrong) don't approach it solely as a tactical number crunching game, and most DM's don't run the bad guys as squads of special forces rangers and snipers.

Very true. Even though I am aware that ranged combat is dominant in the 5E ruleset, I am also aware that 5E is a game in which the DM is supposed to "lose" over and over and over again. Accordingly, I typically avoid giving the PCs intelligent, tool-using foes like humanoids in any scenario that is supposed to be a fun dungeon crawl. Fighting humanoids like hobgoblins and drow is intended to be a big deal in my game, both emotionally and tactically, no matter how low their CR is.

Also, even intelligent foes like Hobgoblins aren't smart enough to reinvent their whole tactical doctrine in thirty seconds of combat against the PCs, so if the PCs have a working strategy, it generally keeps working up until the point where some enemies escape to report back to their base and give specific intel on the PCs. So that adds time pressure and an incentive not to let enemies escape, which incidentally increases the value of opportunity attacks. (Also, melee attacks are the only way to make guaranteed-nonlethal attacks for taking prisoners, e.g. if you have moral compunctions about killing guards for doing their job you can just take them down instead.)

It's just not going to matter for most groups, because the guy who likes playing barbarians is still going to be a barbarian, no matter what. That's the reason he plays the game. The guy who likes playing archers was going to do that anyway. If the archer is out-performing the rest of the group, maybe the DM adds a few extra monsters to each encounter just to harass the archer or to make sure the barbarian (or whatever) gets his kill.

Well, maybe. I had one player who was sad about how ineffective his Barbarian was in certain scenarios (they'd been going up against a lot of tool-users in space at the time, and there was an ongoing hobgoblin invasion) and asked me for advice. I had to tell him, "Yeah, you're perceiving things accurately. Melee really is kind of weak in 5E, just like in real life. Your best bet might be to try stealth to sneak up on enemies." Around that same time, he created a 1st level Warlock and spent about half of his time levelling up that PC instead.

 

[cmad1977]

Very true. Even though I am aware that ranged combat is dominant in the 5E ruleset, I am also aware that 5E is a game in which the DM is supposed to "lose" over and over and over again. Accordingly, I typically avoid giving the PCs intelligent, tool-using foes like humanoids in any scenario that is supposed to be a fun dungeon crawl. Fighting humanoids like hobgoblins and drow is intended to be a big deal in my game, both emotionally and tactically, no matter how low their CR is.

Also, even intelligent foes like Hobgoblins aren't smart enough to reinvent their whole tactical doctrine in thirty seconds of combat against the PCs, so if the PCs have a working strategy, it generally keeps working up until the point where some enemies escape to report back to their base and give specific intel on the PCs. So that adds time pressure and an incentive not to let enemies escape, which incidentally increases the value of opportunity attacks. (Also, melee attacks are the only way to make guaranteed-nonlethal attacks for taking prisoners, e.g. if you have moral compunctions about killing guards for doing their job you can just take them down instead.)



Well, maybe. I had one player who was sad about how ineffective his Barbarian was in certain scenarios (they'd been going up against a lot of tool-users in space at the time, and there was an ongoing hobgoblin invasion) and asked me for advice. I had to tell him, "Yeah, you're perceiving things accurately. Melee really is kind of weak in 5E, just like in real life. Your best bet might be to try stealth to sneak up on enemies." Around that same time, he created a 1st level Warlock and spent about half of his time levelling up that PC instead.

I felt kinda ineffective as a Barbarian. It never really bothered me, I don't have PC envy. Then I started tracking how much damage I mitigated via rage. After a session while we were level 3 during which my character was knocked unconscious twice and at 2 death saves I told the team I had taken near 100 points of damage that session.
That was cool.

This is off topic so back on topic:
This is a non issue some of you are going on about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Caliban]

Well, maybe. I had one player who was sad about how ineffective his Barbarian was in certain scenarios (they'd been going up against a lot of tool-users in space at the time, and there was an ongoing hobgoblin invasion) and asked me for advice. I had to tell him, "Yeah, you're perceiving things accurately. Melee really is kind of weak in 5E, just like in real life. Your best bet might be to try stealth to sneak up on enemies." Around that same time, he created a 1st level Warlock and spent about half of his time levelling up that PC instead.

Weirdly, the 5e Barbarian seems to be more effective in a tank/support role than as a damage dealer. (Resistance to B/P/S when raging, and either resistant to everything except Psychic as Bear, or giving everyone except himself Advantage on melee attacks when raging as a Wolf, etc)

Very different than in previous editions.

I have a Frienzied Berserker barbarian that I play sometimes that does decent as DPS (3 attacks a round with a greataxe at lvl 5 when Frenzied), but he still ends up being more of a tank.

 

[Ashkelon]

I think perhaps the main reason that ranged combat doesn't dominate in most 5e games is simply because neither the players nor the DM's want it too. Most players (I think - I could be wrong) don't approach it solely as a tactical number crunching game, and most DM's don't run the bad guys as squads of special forces rangers and snipers.

A lot of players just don't think about it that way. They think "I want to play the badass barbarian who wades into melee" or "I'm the wizard who confounds the enemy with his magic" (Ok, maybe it's only my wizards who actually use the word "confound").

They build a melee fighter, barbarian, ranger, paladin, or rogue because they want to be in melee, not because they've run the numbers and it's tactically more advantageous. It's simply more fun for them. If they play an archer they do it because they feel like playing a ranged character (or because they've read a thread like this one and now their melee character seems inadequate).

For most DM's the combats occur as small set pieces and the encounter range is whatever feels appropriate to the DM at the moment. Because this is an RPG game, not a tactical combat simulator with both sides entering the map at opposite ends with the opportunity to hide or initiate ranged combat.

If all or most of your players are tactically minded number crunchers and the DM is the same, then yeah. The game is going to tend to revolve around the one or two combat styles or strategies that are most effective. Because for them, being as effective as possible is most of their fun. And since 5e has fewer moving parts than 3e and 4e, it's easier to identify the most effective combat strategies given the current game mechanics.

It's just not going to matter for most groups, because the guy who likes playing barbarians is still going to be a barbarian, no matter what. That's the reason he plays the game. The guy who likes playing archers was going to do that anyway. If the archer is out-performing the rest of the group, maybe the DM adds a few extra monsters to each encounter just to harass the archer or to make sure the barbarian (or whatever) gets his kill.

Or maybe the DM comes here and reads this discussion and then makes the archer cry as they nerf his OP ass into the ground.

I mostlyagree with this. There is a reason I am still playing my greatsword wielding fighter instead of switching over to a polearm or a hand crossbow. I like playing a character concept, not a spreadsheet.

I simply wish that the disparity between various character concepts wasn't quite so large as it is. My choice to wield a greatsword means that I deal 20% less damage per round than the hand crossbow fighter.

Now if the restrictions of the past few editions still applied to 5e, that 20% difference might not matter as much. But that is no longer the case. The crossbow archer does not provoke opportunity attacks for shooting enemies while engaged in melee. The crossbow archer ignores most cover. The crossbow archer can shoot his enemies just as an effectively at point blank range as he can at a range of 120 feet. On top of all that, the crossbow archer can be just as effective at tanking enemies as my greatsword fighter.

I think the game would be better overall if the various options had more parity for one another. That way I won't be be effectively gimping myself for choosing to play a character who wields a greatsword as opposed to a hand crossbow or polearm.

 

[Corwin]

I simply wish that the disparity between various character concepts wasn't quite so large as it is. My choice to wield a greatsword means that I deal 20% less damage per round than the hand crossbow fighter.

Ouch. 20% is very noticeable, I agree. I recommend playing with others who share a playstyle that does not foster such a clearly biased edge toward ranged combat.

Now if the restrictions of the past few editions still applied to 5e, that 20% difference might not matter as much. But that is no longer the case. The crossbow archer does not provoke opportunity attacks for shooting enemies while engaged in melee. The crossbow archer ignores most cover. The crossbow archer can shoot his enemies just as an effectively at point blank range as he can at a range of 120 feet. On top of all that, the crossbow archer can be just as effective at tanking enemies as my greatsword fighter.

If you are melee-focused, why are you not engaging the enemy such that they are threatened by your OAs and susceptible to them should they ignore that threat? Also, does your sword run out of ammo like the crossbowman?

I think the game would be better overall if the various options had more parity for one another. That way I won't be be effectively gimping myself for choosing to play a character who wields a greatsword as opposed to a hand crossbow or polearm.

A system cannot mandate, nor enforce, parity. It is incumbent on the players around the table to do so.

 

[Uchawi]

I think perhaps the main reason that ranged combat doesn't dominate in most 5e games is simply because neither the players nor the DM's want it too. Most players (I think - I could be wrong) don't approach it solely as a tactical number crunching game, and most DM's don't run the bad guys as squads of special forces rangers and snipers.

I believe if it does not occur in a lot of games is because the DM will specifically counter an effective ranged combatant. With great power comes great responsibility, but DMs are only human, so in that sense they are the great equalizer for better or worse.