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

[pemerton]

A single level in rogue gives the fighter expertise in athletics for even better shove/grappling.

Another example of non-transparency - I mean, who coming to the game untutored and just relying on the broad descriptoins and a sense of archetypes would think that the best way to build Hercules (or some other epic grappler) is to sift in a little bit of the Grey Mouser archetype?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The non-transparency is another conributor to results here: the game doesn't just come out and say "If you want to play a melee warrior on the open plains, make sure you take Mounted Combat!" It leaves it all for the players to work out - which makes the risks of outcomes that don't match expectations even greater, and hence amps up even more the pressure on the design team.

There's no reason the system couldn't come out and say that. GURPS: Dungeon Fantasy publishes a bunch of templates under names like the Viking and Chaos Warrior and Legendary Archer. WotC could do the same if they wanted. In fact, that's basically what the so-called "optimization guides" do informally: provide a template and sometimes a name for how to make your character so it will behave the way you imagine in your head even if you're not very good at system analysis yourself. (Which incidentally could be one reason why "optimization guides" are held in such low esteem by some people with high degrees of ability at system analysis--they underestimate the degree to which casual players need such documents. For certain values of "need" anyway.)

All that WotC would need to do would be to publish some templates itself. It's sort of a halfway step between pregenerated characters and PHB rules.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If your point was that you can build a fighter to be a tank and it will perform well in that role, I agreed with that ages ago.

If your point was that a melee fighter built for damage can slip into the role of tank and do so better than the archer, then no I do not agree with that point. The melee fighter built for damage is no better off in melee range than the ranged fighter is.

Besides, Hemlock's example, while very detailed, is still extremely limited. The melee fighter in his example would fair much worse when fighting a Huge sized creature like a Giant because it would be unable to shove or grapple the target. The melee fighter would also fair worse versus a group of enemies such as a pack of Dire Wolves or a horde of Hobgoblins because he can only utilize defensive duelist once per round and would need to make the grapple and shove attempts much more frequently. The archer fighter's performance isn't hindered in these circumstances as he is not relying on a specific combination of tactics to perform his desired action.

Of course, multiclassing and the use of other subclasses also drastically changes the outcome here. Both builds would benefit from being an eldritch knight, though the archer probably benefits to a greater degree. The shield spell can mostly replace the need for the defensive duelist feat for example. The SCAG cantrips can give the archer a powerful opportunity attack if he decides to take the warcaster feat. A single level in rogue gives the fighter expertise in athletics for even better shove/grappling.

I was just making a joke about the program. I wouldn't have the first idea how to do what [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] did.

My original point was far more general. The thread started as a discussion of how to alter the mechanics to bring melee combat more in line with ranged due to its seeming advantage. Some posters then went on to posit that this slight edge is in fact huge, and that significant design alterations were necessary.

My point was that is likely not the case for most games. That a lot of this can be handled through encounter design and effective DMing. Some folks may still require mechanical alterations based on the severity of the situation.

Then it seems to have shifted to a discussion of how ranged is always more effective than melee, so I threw out a few factors that I thought mitigated such a disparity at least to some extent. I said that many are hard to gauge because it's not just about DPR.

In a comparison between your crossbow archer and your great weapons fighter, you are right that the archer comes out on top in damage, and trades off little if he still desires to engage in melee. I acknowledge that. However, I was never saying the GW fighter was able to keep up. My point was that the fighter would likely be better served focusing on other areas of combat than DPR in order to be as effective as the archer.

Efficacy being subjective and different types being hard to gauge without a common metric, it makes it difficult to "prove". @Hemlock's impressive simulation seems to have summarized a lot of what I was trying to explain.

Ultimately, just because it's an archer build that comes up with the highest DPR doesn't mean that melee builds cannot contribute significantly.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Besides, Hemlock's example, while very detailed, is still extremely limited. The melee fighter in his example would fair much worse when fighting a Huge sized creature like a Giant because it would be unable to shove or grapple the target. The melee fighter would also fair worse versus a group of enemies such as a pack of Dire Wolves or a horde of Hobgoblins because he can only utilize defensive duelist once per round and would need to make the grapple and shove attempts much more frequently. The archer fighter's performance isn't hindered in these circumstances as he is not relying on a specific combination of tactics to perform his desired action.

Huge creatures is yet another example of why Eldritch Knights are the best kind of Fighter. An Eldritch Knight could Enlarge himself to deal with a Huge enemy, if there wasn't a party wizard who was willing to Enlarge him instead. (Thanks to Action Surge, Enlarge doesn't even delay his ability to grapple the foe.)

Hobgoblins would bypass Defensive Duelist entirely with their longbows. It only works against melee attacks.

I agree with your overall point: the cage-fighter build (EK or not) is not optimal for all situations. I think either you or hawkeye may be the one who's been making the point all along that "optimal" tactics vary by situation, and that which situations are most common in your games strongly influence which builds are perceived as strong or weak.

My personal bias is towards tactical flexibility, since you never know exactly what a given DM is going to serve up. It's generally better to be 80% as strong as the "optimal" character in any given situation, rather than being 100% optimal in a narrow set of circumstances and 30-70% of optimum in the rest. If you forced me to pick one of the three builds in the Slaad test, I'd go for the Swashbuckler. He's ranged-specialized, but he can hold his own in a cage match anyway, winning about 70-80% of the time against the spell-less Death Slaad. Once the Death Slaad starts chucking Fireballs and Fear Spells and such he'll look even better; and of course in any real scenario (non-cage-match) he'll shine.

Swapping Champion 5 for either Ranger 5 (Pass Without Trace, Spike Growth, Ensnaring Strike, Hunter's Mark) or Eldritch Knight 5 (Shield, Expeditious Retreat/Find Familiar, Mage Armor) can only improve his capabilities further.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Another example of non-transparency - I mean, who coming to the game untutored and just relying on the broad descriptoins and a sense of archetypes would think that the best way to build Hercules (or some other epic grappler) is to sift in a little bit of the Grey Mouser archetype?

Yet another reason why I like the rule variant of letting Remarkable Athlete stack with proficiency: it makes the Champion work intuitively. You want to be Hercules? Play a Champion and it will work out just fine.

 

[Ashkelon]

I was just making a joke about the program. I wouldn't have the first idea how to do what [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] did.

My original point was far more general. The thread started as a discussion of how to alter the mechanics to bring melee combat more in line with ranged due to its seeming advantage. Some posters then went on to posit that this slight edge is in fact huge, and that significant design alterations were necessary.

My point was that is likely not the case for most games. That a lot of this can be handled through encounter design and effective DMing. Some folks may still require mechanical alterations based on the severity of the situation.

Then it seems to have shifted to a discussion of how ranged is always more effective than melee, so I threw out a few factors that I thought mitigated such a disparity at least to some extent. I said that many are hard to gauge because it's not just about DPR.

In a comparison between your crossbow archer and your great weapons fighter, you are right that the archer comes out on top in damage, and trades off little if he still desires to engage in melee. I acknowledge that. However, I was never saying the GW fighter was able to keep up. My point was that the fighter would likely be better served focusing on other areas of combat than DPR in order to be as effective as the archer.

Efficacy being subjective and different types being hard to gauge without a common metric, it makes it difficult to "prove". @Hemlock's impressive simulation seems to have summarized a lot of what I was trying to explain.

Ultimately, just because it's an archer build that comes up with the highest DPR doesn't mean that melee builds cannot contribute significantly.

Sure, a melee fighter can do some great non-DPR oriented feats or martial skill...if he is built to fight with a single rapier, use defensive duelist, wield no shield to keep a hand free, and grapple/shoves a single enemy in order to knock them prone and prevent them from ever standing up.

But that then means that the fighter is basically tunneled into either being a DPR oriented ranged weapon user, or a melee oriented controller. There is no situation in which a melee oriented great weapon fighter is the optimal choice. In fact, if you aren't using a polearm, the melee greatweapon fighter isn't even a great choice, it is ok at best.

This is probably sliding into the realm of discussion for another thread, but IMHO the feats in 5e are very poorly designed. All of these problems were noticed by the community when the PHB Alpha playtest material was available. Numerous threads were made on the WotC forums pointing out the problems of sharpshooter, crossbow expert, great weapon master, and polearm master. Alas, the 5e feats were done as a last minute rush job and never given a pass at for balance. Hell, they weren't even given a pass at for rules text given that things like the Grappler feat made it through their review (it has a feature that doesn't do anything because it references a rule they removed from the game).

 

[pemerton]

There's no reason the system couldn't come out and say that.

Absolutely agreed, as a matter of principle.

But as a matter of commercial practice I think WotC has decided not to, because - for whatever reason - that element of transparency in 4e's presentation was one of the repeated points on which it was attacked by many of its critics.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Absolutely agreed, as a matter of principle.

But as a matter of commercial practice I think WotC has decided not to, because - for whatever reason - that element of transparency in 4e's presentation was one of the repeated points on which it was attacked by many of its critics.

I think the fact that one implementation of transparency was... attacked does not preclude other kinds of transparency.

If Mike Mearls wrote up an Unearthed Arcana article called "Nine Awesome Templates For 5E" and gave GURPS: Dungeon Fantasy-style templates, I don't foresee it attracting the same kind of hatred that 4E's classification schemes for classes apparently did. My evidence: the 5E PHB already does this, kind of, in the "quick builds" for each class. I've never seen anyone disparage those. These would just be more of the same, with some added fluff text.

"Norse Medic: Str 16+, Con 14+, Champion Fighter. Suggested feats: Great Weapon Master, Healer. Suggested background: Sailor (Viking) with Medicine proficiency instead of Perception. You spent most of your childhood tending your farm, but when the opportunity arose to go a-viking you went and bashed in heads, and you patched up all of your viking buddings afterward. Most vikings are loud and obnoxious." [a paragraph or so of text on tactics may follow, a la "Shove them prone and then Action Surge multiple attacks at advantage on them until you get a critical hit or kill them, and then run to the next bad guy and hit him with your bonus action GWM attack on the same turn"]

"Temple Scout: Dex 16+, darkvision or human with Skulker feat, Ranger 5+/Rogue 2+. Suggested feats: Skulker, Sharpshooter, Observant. Take Expertise in Stealth and Deception. Suggested background: Spy or Acolyte with the Charlatan's false identity feature. You've taken a vow of loyalty to a religious or secular organization (e.g. Knights Templar, Sacred Band of Thebes). Your infiltrate other organizations that may threaten your comrades, and when necessary you act from the shadows to eliminate threats." [advice on tactics follows, a la "Cast Pass Without Trace and then lurk in the darkness until you spot your target in the light of his tent's torch or something; then shoot him at advantage with your arrows and Hide again with Cunning Action so his bodyguards cannot find you. Pass Without Trace + Skulker makes you almost impossible to find even with darkvision except in bright light."]

"Knight: Str 16+, Fighter or Paladin with Defense Style. Suggested feats: Mounted Combatant, Great Weapon Master. Etc., etc." Advice on tactics: buy a warhorse, have him ride up to the enemy, attack the enemy several times at advantage from 10' away with your halberd (out of the enemy's reach), and then have your horse Dash away out of the enemy's Dash range so he can't retaliate. (Or if he has a 10' reach, you'll have to have your horse Disengage.) Or just sit there in melee and hammer the other guy to death while you let your horse attack with its hooves (i.e. let it act as an "uncontrolled" mounted, in PHB jargon). Against large armored foes like dragons, put down your halberd, don a shield, and pick up a lance.

Experienced players will find these ideas totally unnecessary, but someone who is new to the game may be inspired.

(Hmmm, I should write up some of these templates for my friends to choose from.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But that then means that the fighter is basically tunneled into either being a DPR oriented ranged weapon user, or a melee oriented controller. There is no situation in which a melee oriented great weapon fighter is the optimal choice.

Nitpick:

"No situation", really? Not even if you're got a buddy who's addicted to grapple/prone/stab?

What if you're someone's bodyguard, and control is sometimes important to prevent a bad guy (e.g. a Blue Slaad) from getting to the principal; and DPR is sometimes important so you can eliminate threats (e.g. a horde of goblins) before they can get to the principal; and nonlethal damage is sometimes important so you can capture without killing e.g. members of a ninja clan so you can interrogate them and find out who paid them to kill the principal?

Sounds like a perfect niche for a burly Great Weapon fighter to me, with a backup one-handed weapon.

And don't forget that archers have to choose between lower AC than melee-centric fighters, or lower speed, or MADness. The Str 12 archers we've been talking about in this thread have a movement speed of only 20', which wouldn't be good for a bodyguard.

 

[pemerton]

buy a warhorse, have him ride up to the enemy, attack the enemy several times at advantage from 10' away with your halberd (out of the enemy's reach)

Completely tangential question - can you really use a halberd from horseback? And get a reach advantage while doing so?