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

[CapnZapp]

That doesn't mean that I get to accuse you of not grasping how 5E combat plays out. The answer is it plays out differently at different tables. Your table has an issue with balance between ranged combat and melee combat.....no need to accuse others who don't experience that problem as not knowing what they're doing.

I mean....it seems odd to tell someone who isn't having a problem that they're the one doing something wrong, no?

I'm not Ashkelon, but my beef is with people saying "the game doesn't need changing because I have no problems".

Saying "I don't need to change the game is fine".

But the game doesn't work for people that focus on building optimal characters.

If the game were to be changed, it would start to work for these people.

But it would highly likely still work just fine for people that aren't having this focus.

I find it highly unlikely that anyone's satisfaction depends directly on those areas that prove so troublesome and which a small number of posters defend so desperately.

So: just fix these bugs already.

 

[CapnZapp]

Only true if they have a specific feat. Otherwise they have disadvantage on their attacks. So are we now assuming all hypothetical archers have two feats (Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert) and that no other types of ranged characters exist?



They exist in all instances where the archer doesn't have Crossbow Expert. Are you just pretending that archers without this specific feat don't exist? All archers start as level 6 fighters now, having used their two ABI's for Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert?

I agree that ranged weapon combat is a little too good compared to melee combat, but I feel you are overstating the case just a bit.

(Still not Ashkelon)

Please don't change the subject, Caliban. Whether "all" archers have these feats is not important.

Only that the option for the player character to have them is.

This isn't about NPC archers - this isn't about world building.

This is about PC archers - this is about character building.

The problem is twofold:

First - that when and if you want to create a character that's a ranged combatant, you will (eventually) find that the hand crossbow (with CE and SS feats) outclasses every other option, which severely restricts the number of choices that are both cool and decently effective.

Second - when you realize "but why play melee at all", since this ranged build offers nearly all the advantages of melee combat yet combined with superior range/reach.

The main problem isn't that the build is effective (though that is a problem).

The main problem is that it is much less fun to create a character if you know you are heavily compromising your combat effectiveness (relative to the best-in-class option). The problem is that the number of roughly equal builds (let's not call them "best-in-class" but more like "good-in-class") is only a small subset of all cool fun builds possible.

I firmly believe that the DPR gap between best-in-class buils and run-of-the-mill builds is too large. If you could gain maybe 20% by specializing in making a "combat monster" character, fine, no problem. But when this gap reaches 100% many players will simply cease to look at any other kind of character. And less choice is boring, and boring is bad.

A high-level crossbow expert sharpshooter has a damage potential of 5d6+15*5 = 90 damage as contrasted to the "default" sword-n-board fighter with 4d8+4*5=30 damage. Even though doesn't take all your tricks into account, it still gives a rough picture of how big the difference can be.

And to be clear: That's WAY too much of a difference. That's MIND-BOGGLING. Contrast the situation where you remove feats from the equation (and specifically the CE/SS feats only).

Now the archer (because crossbows no longer suit high-level characters) has a damage potential of 4d8+4*5=30 damage. The fact she's got much better reach is balanced by the vulnerability to melee (if a monster catches up to her she's disadvantaged in combat).

Even if a greatsword wielder could somehow reach 4d12+4*8=50 damage potential it would still be borderline okay. Sure you gain roughly 50% damage, but you lose the shield bonus and associated defensive boons. The most important such "boon" is you're a melee build. If the monsters can't reach you, you can't deal out all that sweet damage. Suddenly all the retreating, kiting, maneuvering, cover-taking tactics that IMHO fit a modern setting much better lose a large portion of their appeal because, unlike the crossbow sharpshooter, you can only avoid monster melee by also not dishing out fearsome damage. This is a HUGE difference, a true gamechanger (for the better).

Just saying this to show y'all I'm not here to complain, and I don't "hate" damage... I'm showing you that I have no problem with differences in potential, just as long as they're reasonable. (Triple damage is not reasonable)

Furthermore, I firmly believe the cost to ranged has been lowered well past the point where melee is still rational. I fully understand people still playing axe dwarves for reasons (its fun, it's nostalgic, it's "how it should be", or simply because they don't realize the superiority of the alternative).

But I consider it a definite bug that you can build a crossbow archer that combines two-weapon fighting number of attacks with greataxe "power attack" and yet can't be penalized by monsters attacking you in melee.

In fact, it's a major bug. To people aware of the math, it's probably a critical bug.

I can't call it anything less than a rather huge oversight on the designers and playtesters, the way several individually minor tweaks to the D&D game engine conspires to overthrow nothing less than the basic premise of the entire foundation of the genre that is D&D, namely the supremacy of melee.

Which is a shame, because it isn't hard to fix. The biggest hurdle, to be honest, is the incredible amounts of resistance shown by certain other players, which can't or won't see the facts for what they really are: the vast amounts of negativity hurled towards anyone daring to discuss faults (or discuss improvements as I prefer to call it) of their favorite game that must remain perfect in all forms.

 

[CapnZapp]

Perhaps you should amend your statement to "crossbow archers can deal as much damage in melee just as well as dedicated melee warriors"? Because I have shown an example of a melee warrior designed to absorb more damage than the crossbow archer.

Again, DPR is not the end all be all.

Range is the end all be all.

The best way to absorb damage is to not take it in the first place.

The vast majority of monster manual monsters deal out much more damage in melee. Denying them this is, by far, the winning strategy.

The fact that your DPR is still best-in-class while you do this is completely inexplicable.

(And before you start; I'm not entertaining the fantasy of an all-ranged combat. Even a single round of no melee is a gamechanging win for the ranged argument, even if it doesn't even happen in all fights)

a. Had 5E offered ranged combat with a significant cost (such as "ranged damage is Strength-based" removing the way archers can focus only on Dexterity), fine.

b. Had 5E offered ranged combat that was compromized once melee was joined (such as no way to get rid of the "disadvantage when foe within 5 yards" rule), fine.

c. Had 5E offered ranged combat DPR that was significantly lower than melee combat DPR, fine.

Now, I personally would want A+B be true. But failing to provide EVEN ONE of these three reasonable solutions make the situation pretty frakking far from fine, if you were to ask me...

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm disappointed to see several posters take strawman positions.

Discussions that devolve into how effective OAs are, for instance.

Sure an OA is nice. But don't let it overshadow the greater issue.

 

[CapnZapp]

Let's both of us make 12th level fighters using PHB rules and put them in a 10'-wide Forcecage with your choice of an Earth Elemental (Medium fight) or a Death Slaad (1.5xDeadly). You make a crossbow archer. I'll make a melee fighter. Dollars to donuts you take more damage killing the Slaad than I do.

Edit: okay, make that a 20' Forcecage so that the Earth Elemental can actually fit inside with the fighter.

Congratulations on "proving" the superiority of melee by removing range and mobility from the equation.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

The Adventures in Middle-Earth official 5E setting allows +4 "greatshields".

Of course, this is mostly to counter the absence of AC 18 platemail, but I like the effect.

In fact, I would probably not advise to use +4 shields in a game with AC 18 armor, since that's a net bonus of +2 AC which doesn't work too well with the assumption of bounded accuracy.

If a Greatweapon Master (or Crossbow Expert) starts out with AC 16 while a sword-and-board fighter gets AC 20, the claim that the former builds are worse tanks than the latter holds much more weight.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

Perhaps I missed something (in this 500+ post thread ) but could you summarize why the hate?

 

[CapnZapp]

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

A Paladin is indeed a very powerful (too powerful?) build choice.

I can't speak for others, but I am limiting my discussion to a Fighter's options.

I feel this limitation to be reasonable, because I would never be content with "words of wisdom" saying "if you want to go melee, don't be a fighter, be a Paladin".

So I'm not contesting your example. I just hope you will agree it's not enough that a Paladin can win out - I need a Fighter to do it too.

To me about every fighter should know how to fight in melee. Ranged should be a complement. Being able to rely ONLY on range should be the exception, not the rule - meaning it should require considerable sacrifice in some form.

Being asked to spend two ASIs on feats is not enough of a sacrifice. These feats are not exactly a burden... SS & CE are more like the two best feats in the entire game, especially since they pretty much blow every traditional restriction on ranged combat right out the water...

 

[CapnZapp]

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).

Let me just add that to me "relatively short range" includes a range of 70 ft or even as short as 40 ft. To me, that's entirely reasonable.

(What I don't see as reasonable is the expectation that monsters can routinely charge a hero in the first round, assuming they win initiative. That simply stretches credulity too much, given the inherent disadvantage group sneak have visavi group perception, and especially given the lack of racial skill modifiers in 5E). "Charge outta nowhere" as I call it still happens of course, but as a player, getting ambushed like that needs to be the exception and not the rule or I get (very) frustrated that my character lacks any ability to ward himself from being jumped from a paltry ten yards...

70 feet - the monster cannot close to melee this round, and - assuming the party isn't surrounded and retreats 30 ft - still starts the next round not able to deliver a full round's worth of melee attacks.

40 feet - the monster cannot both close to melee and deliver a full round's worth of attacks this round. Either the monster "loses" one round (compared to the party) or it has to rely on ranged attacks. Some creatures have excellent ranged attacks, of course - but on average, this is a huge win for the party.

Do note that this depends on the party being able to deal as much (or nearly so) damage at range as in melee.

Which is exactly the core of the entire issue.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

It's always dangerous to bring in real life into rpg discussions, but I can't help myself -

Ask the Mongols if ranged fire is disadvantaged in scenarios where mounts are available...

(Using Mongols as an example, since D&D is equivalent to that time period in that "melee" is not inherently stronger defensively than "ranged".

If we were to cap Dex bonuses to AC to a maximum of +2 regardless, and restricted archers to light armor only, we could talk. In fact that would be yet another way to solve the issue, at least partially.

But D&D doesn't force archers to be "light" fighters; at least not in 5E.)