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

[Corwin]

The optimal choice is eldritch knight. It is hands down above and beyond the other options. I was merely pointing out that the there is a crossbow archer build that can have the same AC as plate for none of the weight.

Interesting. I generally hear DPRists, such as yourself, giving praise to the battlemaster over the champion. Not so much the EK. Also, when does this EK, with all these feats he needs, get his 20 dex, anyway? Not that we should focus on annoying realities such as the EK's not having access to that 18 AC for potentially a while compared to the platemail fighter. That's an inconvenient point. It's usually better to not let stuff like that get in the way of white-room, cherry-picked chicanery.

The champion example was only used for simplicity's sake. (And even then only for Hemlock's analysis). I would never play a champion though. I have also never used one in my examples of actual game play. That is all you.

Can you show where I ever offered up a champion? Or even mentioned one in an example? I know *you* have, is all. Just sayin'.

Finally, 20 Dex and studded leather armor is still 17 AC, just one point behind the AC of plate. So the champion or battlemaster can simply use that. One less AC isn't that big of a deal given the other benefits the archer has.

Or 2 AC behind if the melee fighter goes for the Defense fighting style (*look* - I can play Schrodinger's fighter, too!). Didn't you just get done touting what a huge factor a 2-point swing is when you tried to explain the potency of archery style's bonus? I mean, if +2 to hit is a massive benefit, then +2 AC is therefore equally as valuable. That's maths for ya. Can't have one side of an equation without the other.

 

[Rhenny]

Or 2 AC behind if the melee fighter goes for the Defense fighting style (*look* - I can play Schrodinger's fighter, too!). Didn't you just get done touting what a huge factor a 2-point swing is when you tried to explain the potency of archery style's bonus? I mean, if +2 to hit is a massive benefit, then +2 AC is therefore equally as valuable. That's maths for ya. Can't have one side of an equation without the other.

In a number of situations (not the cage match vs. 1 opponent), +2 AC may actually be statistically more beneficial than a +2 to hit. For example, if the PC is defending against more attacks than he/she is dishing out, then defense gets weighed more heavily. (I guess defense is also more valuable if the potential damage taken is >10% more than PC can dish out)

Just a thought.

Hey [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION], how would the bow fighter and the melee fighter do against a number of weaker opponents in that cage match?

 

[Ashkelon]

Interesting. I generally hear DPRists, such as yourself, giving praise to the battlemaster over the champion. Not so much the EK. Also, when does this EK, with all these feats he needs, get his 20 dex, anyway? Not that we should focus on annoying realities such as the EK's not having access to that 18 AC for potentially a while compared to the platemail fighter. That's an inconvenient point. It's usually better to not let stuff like that get in the way of white-room, cherry-picked chicanery.

Battlemaster is the best for damage overall. But EK is best for utility (both in and out of combat), and defense (mage armor, shield, etc).

The build only needs 2 feats to to work. So level 8 is the earliest point when it can have them and a 20 main stat as a human. Level 12 for a non human. Of course in a game where rolling for stats happens frequently, you only need a to roll a single 16 to have this combination available to any race with a +2 DEX by level 8. That will occur in over 60% of games where rolling is the preferred method used for character creation.

Of course, until the point where you have a 20 DEX, either scale male or a breastplate can serve just fine. At a fraction of the cost of plate armor, they are much easier to come by. Both provide an AC of 16 which is the same as a fighter would have in chainmail. Either way, the archer will lag behind the melee fighter by 1 AC for the first few levels (assuming the melee fighter can get his hands on splint armor reasonably early).

Can you show where I ever offered up a champion? Or even mentioned one in an example? I know *you* have, is all. Just sayin'.

You keep saying that the archer is a champion one second and an EK the next. I have only ever used champion in relation to hemlock's analysis for ease of compution. Assume when I talk about the archer, I am never talking about the champion.

Or 2 AC behind if the melee fighter goes for the Defense fighting style (*look* - I can play Schrodinger's fighter, too!). Didn't you just get done touting what a huge factor a 2-point swing is when you tried to explain the potency of archery style's bonus? I mean, if +2 to hit is a massive benefit, then +2 AC is therefore equally as valuable. That's maths for ya. Can't have one side of an equation without the other.

So..you are gimping your damage even more by taking defensive fighting style? Further putting archery in the lead for dealing damage. I thought you already thought a 20% damage disparity was large. Take out the great weapon fighting style and the disparity jumps to over 30%.

Of course the melee fighter is welcome to trade off his offense for defense if he so desires, but the comparison I am making is using two warriors who are putting their resources toward a similar goal. It would be disingenuous to compare two fighters who are devoting their resources in drastically different ways toward different goals and then try and make a meaningful comparison between the two. That is why the comparisons I have been making are using two characters both devoting the entirety of their available character options toward achieving their goal.

On top of that, due to the fact that PC AC scaling doesn't really exist in 5e, the one or two extra AC won't make much of an impact at high level. When monsters have +15 to hit you, it will matter very little if your AC is 20 (they hit you 80% of the time) or 18 (they hit you 90% of the time). At that point, a 2 AC difference means you take about 12% more damage from attacks against AC.

And let us not forget the defensive advantage the archer already has innately due to having a higher Dexterity. He has better initiative, meaning he is more likely to start the battle in an advantageous position or to kill enemies before they get a chance to attack as frequently. He has better Dex saving throws, meaning he takes less damage from some of the most common spells and monster abilities.

As a melee fighter, I would gladly trade 2 AC for for 30% increased damage and +5 to both initiative and Dex saves.

 

[guachi]

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).

I don't know if others have replied to this or not as I haven't read posts past this one. I can't tell if you intentionally butchered the math or not to make ranged look better. But here's the actual correct math:

A hand-crossbow using crossbow expert/sharpshooter shooting five times and using the -5/+10 portion of the feat does a maximum of (1d6+15)*5 =92.5 damage

The featless sword and shield user, who undoubtedly took dueling fighting style, does (1d8+7)*4 = 46 damage, not 30 damage.

The difference is 2x not 3x and the sword/shield guy still has a bonus action and two feats to play with. And we haven't taken hit chance into effect. So let's do so.

The archery style handcrossbow user has +12 to hit reduced to +7 if he uses -5/+10. Against AC18 he'll hit on an 11 or higher, or exactly 50% of the time. The sword/shield user has +10 to attack and hits on an 8 or higher, or 85% of the time. The crossbow user's damage is now reduced to 46.25 and the sword/shield reduced to 29.9.

The bow user's advantage is now only 50%, not 200% like in your example. If a feat boosts damage by 20% like you say one should then taking two feats boosts damage by 44%, not far off from the 50% difference we see.

But we haven't even given the sword/shield guy any feats! So let's give him some. You could give the s/s guy GWM as the bonus attack works with a one-handed sword. It wouldn't be awful if you were a Champion and had four attacks as you'd crit once 35% of the time and you'd probably knock a creature to 0 xp quite often. So, say, you get to use it 60% of the time. Your damage is now 34.4.

Give the s/s guy shield mastery instead. On a turn he knocks an AC 18 opponent prone he hits 87.75% of the time (and if he dipped rogue to get expertise in athletics he has 1d6 sneak attack). His damage (if not dipping rogue) is now 40.37 and the bow user is only 14.5% ahead.

If he dipped rogue he'll almost never miss (.02% with prone advantage or 1.5% without) four times so that extra d6 is basically guaranteed. At this point he does 43.87 and the bow user is only 5.4% ahead.

But you still have one more feat to go! You could give him defensive duelist or heavy armor master or a non-combat feat or boost his Constitution. Whatever. There aren't too many actual damaging combat feats for a single weapon user. But let's take Savage Attacker (which is really weak). Rerolling any time you get less than average (a 1-4) yields an increase in damage of 2.3. Now your average (assuming no rogue sneak attack) is 42.7 if you can prone someone or 32.2 if you can't.

Alternatively, you could take Sentinel and you'd be adding 7.48 dmg (11.5 dmg x 65% hit chance) every time you got to use it, though I leave it to the reader to figure out how often you'd get to use it a round.

On a good round, a sword/shield using sentinel/shield mastery level one rogue dipping fighter will actually outdamage the crossbow user 48.74 to 46.25. If you are a Battlemaster and you've got a buddy to fight with you can Sentinel/Riposte your way to an extra reaction attack (and sneak attack if you dipped rogue) at a high frequency every round.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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

From a rules perspective, yes, you can. Mounted Combatant grants advantage on "melee attack rolls against any unmounted creature that is smaller than your mount." No restriction to 5' range there.

From a realism perspective, well, I cannot in fact use a halberd at all, let alone from horseback. I have no idea whether someone else could.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

This isn't true.

Crossbow Expert is a relatively poor use of your bonus action (in addition to being cheesey if done with a single crossbow).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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

If you follow the chain of quotes by clicking on the arrow button you will find that that isn't what was being discussed at all. That was a response to "I keep saying crossbow archers can fight in melee just as well as dedicated melee warriors because it is true. No example has been given that proves otherwise."

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sure thing. At level 11, a greatsword fighter with a +1 weapon deals this much damage per attack: ACC * (5+1+10+8.3333333)+0.05 (8.33333333) where ACC is the likelihood of a hit. The 5 is from Strength, the 1 from weapon, the 10 from great weapon master, and the 8.33333 from 2d6 reroll 1s and 2s once. Against a 16 AC foe, his ACC is 50%. Against an 18 AC foe his ACC is 40%. With 3 attacks per round, his DPR is 37.75 vs the 16 AC foe or 30.45 vs the 18 AC foe. The great weapon fighter can also get a bonus action attack on a crit. For the 16 AC foe this adds 1.79 DPR and for the 18 AC foe it adds 1.45 DPR. Total DPR is 39.54 vs 16 AC, and 31.9 vs 18 AC.

He also gets his bonus action attack on a kill. In a campaign where the party fights a lot of trash mobs like drow, hobgoblins, and orcs, every hit against one of those enemies will be a kill and thus a bonus action attack.

Furthermore, if the DM has enemies fighting in a prone position because the crossbow expert is shooting at them (imposes disadvantage on the ranged attacks), the GWM guy (when he reaches them) will have advantage on his attacks.

It depends on how the DM runs the campaign. Playstyle matters.

 

[Ashkelon]

He also gets his bonus action attack on a kill. In a campaign where the party fights a lot of trash mobs like drow, hobgoblins, and orcs, every hit against one of those enemies will be a kill and thus a bonus action attack.

Furthermore, if the DM has enemies fighting in a prone position because the crossbow expert is shooting at them (imposes disadvantage on the ranged attacks), the GWM guy (when he reaches them) will have advantage on his attacks.

It depends on how the DM runs the campaign. Playstyle matters.

Against hordes of really weak enemies, the GWM will do better than in the numbers I gave, but at level 11 how often do you face groups of enemies that all die in 1 hit. This isn't 4e with its minion rules afterall.

As to prone enemies, the crossbow fighter encourages enemies to use that behavior. The crossbow archer also gets advantage to his attacks while in melee range, so benefits just as much as the great weapon fighter. The trick to playing the crossbow archer is to play it like a melee fighter who just happens to have a 120 foot range.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In a number of situations (not the cage match vs. 1 opponent), +2 AC may actually be statistically more beneficial than a +2 to hit. For example, if the PC is defending against more attacks than he/she is dishing out, then defense gets weighed more heavily. (I guess defense is also more valuable if the potential damage taken is >10% more than PC can dish out)

Just a thought.

Hey @Hemlock, how would the bow fighter and the melee fighter do against a number of weaker opponents in that cage match?

A large number of weaker opponents makes it more complicated to compute the correct tactics, but if you just scale up the number of opponents like this (https://repl.it/EnFq/5) without changing tactics, then against two Earth Elementals at once you get:

Rufus the Archer wins 75 out of 100 matches against Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling, with 37.95 HP remaining (30% of total)
Brutus the Tank wins 99 out of 100 matches against Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling, with 68.35 HP remaining (55% of total)
D'Artagnan the Swashbuckler wins 76 out of 100 matches against Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling, with 31.05 HP remaining (25% of total)

And against three of them at once you get:

Rufus the Archer wins 3 out of 100 matches against Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling, with 0.77 HP remaining (0% of total)
Brutus the Tank wins 12 out of 100 matches against Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling, with 2.85 HP remaining (2% of total)
D'Artagnan the Swashbuckler wins 0 out of 100 matches against Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling, with 0.00 HP remaining (0% of total)

Edit:

If Brutus gives up on grappling and uses his shield for AC 21, then you get:

Rufus the Archer wins 75 out of 100 matches against Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling, with 38.44 HP remaining (31% of total)
Brutus the Tank wins 87 out of 100 matches against Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling, with 49.81 HP remaining (40% of total)
D'Artagnan the Swashbuckler wins 83 out of 100 matches against Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling, with 33.87 HP remaining (27% of total)

Rufus the Archer wins 4 out of 100 matches against Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling, with 0.66 HP remaining (0% of total)
Brutus the Tank wins 8 out of 100 matches against Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling, with 2.92 HP remaining (2% of total)
D'Artagnan the Swashbuckler wins 1 out of 100 matches against Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling and Gronk the Earthling, with 0.11 HP remaining (0% of total)


So it looks like not changing tactics is the right way to go here--at least that way you get to take one of your opponents out of the fight immediately by knocking him prone and grappled, and you also increase the speed with which you kill him and move on to the next guy.