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

[CapnZapp]

You're right that I did part of that math wrong. If your base is +6/8, you get +1/18 as an option. Then if you can "mitigate", you now have +6/18 or +11/8. And +11/8 is not generally as good damage-wise as +6/18.

I do think it's worth looking at other things that affect damage. If you've got a rogue getting sneak attack, for instance, +6d6 damage on a hit hugely alters outcomes; that's +21 damage. If we replace 8/18 with 29/39 damage, +11 at 29 average damage is better than +6 at 39 average damage for anything AC 13 or higher; basically, the only point at which the to-hit penalty comes out ahead is when part of the to-hit bonus is useless because one always misses. Of course, rogue isn't getting Extra Attack.

So some of the benefit of the -5/+10 is specific to being able to get lots of attacks which are otherwise relatively low damage. The higher the base damage is, the less significant the +10 is.

And since bounded accuracy means that Mooks Are Viable, it's pretty easy to just toss people a field full of 8hp targets, where doing 20+ damage to them is a waste of effort.

Any build doing few big attacks won't and shouldn't use GWM/SS, no.

Not coincidentally I'd far prefer if Sneak Attack actually mean doing lots of damage compared to fighters. I mean, they're far more frail. To me a Rogue works best as a glass cannon archetype, especially since the skill monkey niche has shrunk so much in this edition.

In fact I think Sneak damage should probably be even higher, even if we remove GWM/SS from fighters. My players are considering a few Rogue levels, but only as complement to a fighter chassi. One d6 per two levels is actually not that compelling since its only once/turn. But that's a different discussion

8 hp Mooks are trivially wiped away by other tools than weapons. At least in any combat that's actually challenging. That's the reason I'm not overly concerned about "overdamage" in my calculations. (I'm firmly convinced lots of people make the mistake of including "easy" combats into their DPR calculations. But it matters much more how effective you are when the stakes are high than when they're not! DPR math might show you how ineffective overdamage can be, but in real play there are only two scenarios: either the combat is actually challenging, and then the mooks will be dealt with by somebody else than the fighter, possibly using limited resources such as area spells (which is okay since there won't be many such fights this day); or the combat isn't challenging, and then nobody cares that the fighter might be losing some DPR). Thus I posit that overdamage isn't a real issue - it's more of a DPR construct than something that you ought to take into account when building your character.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am sort of thinking that the right answer might involve a smaller ratio, and possibly scaling. Something like -2/+3 at low levels, increasing to -4/+6 and -6/+9 at higher levels, so both the penalty and the damage stay relevant.

I tried [- proficiency / + 2x proficiency]

This targets the other problem much more than the one we're discussing here: it prevents a first level character from doing 25 damage in a single attack (which basically destroys any hardness variant).

When characters get +5 proficiency at level 13, which is also where the problem really goes into overdrive, this solution does nothing at all.

While I realize you have changed the ratio, my basic objection remains: that fighters can do much more damage with some weapons but not all weapons (less selection of weapon and styles), that they can do it equally well at range than in melee (ranged outshining melee), and that they can do it at all (PCs wrecking MM stats).

 

[CapnZapp]

In a game without feats or fighting styles, a longbow archer deals roughly 80% of the damage of a greatsword fighter. In addition to the reduced damage, the longbow archer also suffers penalties for cover, and disadvantage to attacks while within 5 feet of enemies. This is theoretically balanced due to the many benefits ranged attacks inherently possess over melee.

In a game with feats and fighting styles, the ranged attackers damage increases significantly. Between crossbow expert and sharpshooter, all of the inherent penalties ranged warriors face disappear. On top of that, it provides a ranged warrior with a garuanteed means of utilizing his bonus action to attack. This means that compared to a greatsword warrior, the crossbow fighter is attacking significantly more often (a human with crossbow expert is attacking twice as often from level 1). Combine the additional attacks with the +2 accuracy bonus from the archery fighting style and the large static damage bonus from sharpshooter and you have a very potent combination.

All in all, a tricked out hand crossbow archer deals about 35% more damage than a greatsword fighter from levels 6-10 and about 20% more damage than a greatsword fighter from levels 11-19. That is including the bonus action attack from great weapon fighting style.

The optimized melee damage build is a polearm fighter, which closes the gap significantly, but is still behind that of the hand crossbow archer.

When you're putting it like that, I got to ask myself

"What were the devs thinking??"

I mean, it's a fantasy game. Nobody said ranged needed to be balanced in the first place. I am quite okay with ranged falling behind melee even when all benefits of both options are taken into account. If ranged is "balanced" against melee at 80% damage, maybe ranged should make 60% damage.

To me, the difference between fantasy and modern is precisely that the melee weapon is the go-to option for a hero, unless there's an exception.

5E shouldn't get to change all this, at least not without having to be upfront about it.

As is is, we can make one out of two choices:

a) either assume 5E is designed that way on purpose, intentionally and deliberatedly. That is bad, since it means drawing away the rug from us without saying so. WotC is trying to eat the cake and having it too. They're trying to cater to the ranged-loving crowd without having to confess that they are drawing out the rug from the traditional melee-loving crowd.

b) or assume 5E just ended up that way coincidentally, by mistake. Each and every relaxation of ranged penalties were made in good-faith. Nobody looked at the greater picture, nobody realized the entire underpinning of the traditional D&D model relies on people actually seeting melee as superior to ranged.

I don't know which is worst.

Or rather, I do - I far prefer option b). I can live with WotC not doing enough QC. I can't live with WotC intentionally betraying their roots just to appease people that are annoyed at limitations for their Legolas hero, in the process turning D&D into something unrecognizable.

Option b) also lets me keep the hope that this discussion will lead to the entire community becoming enlightened and in the end, that WotC will impose whatever houserules we end up with as official errata.

 

[Corwin]

Sorry, but I just can't seem to get over the fact that me and my various tables have been playing 5e all wrong this whole time. Our not finding ranged to be substantively better than melee clearly stems from our own lack of awareness and understanding. I mean, we just haven't experienced it. And that's on us. Not even after the alt-human hand crossbow rogue we had in the game for quite a while. Or my buddy's awesome sorlock. Not even our current wood elf archer ranger. None of it has broken our table. So I must apologize, for all of us, who have failed. Failed to experience this phenomenon. Our bad. I vow we will try harder to achieve this breakthrough in game-ruinedness. Come heck or high water. We will find a way to enjoy 5e less for these tragic and glaring faults. This I promise you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sorry, but I just can't seem to get over the fact that me and my various tables have been playing 5e all wrong this whole time. ...Come heck or high water. We will find a way to enjoy 5e less for these tragic and glaring faults. This I promise you.

Or just continue enjoying them...

That's the genius thing about 5e, it's not just that it takes the 'best' from each prior edition (whatever that's supposed to mean), it's that it preserves the 'worst' (what ever that's supposed to mean - sometimes the same things, no doubt) as well, letting us pick and choose which 'tragic/glaring flaws' we want to fix, and which we wish to revel in. ;P

 

[CapnZapp]

Assuming that [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] is right that -5/+10 is needed to keep fighter damage up to par, at least part of the solution seems to be to power up some melee builds, especially non polearm ones.

I would much rather identify "par" and then power that down.

This way, not only is the balance between different weapon combos/styles from featless games retained; but also the MM regains usefulness.

Now, I might be wrong (or have an incomplete understanding) but as I understood Hemlock, "par" is eldritch-blast based builds (what he calls "the sorlock").

If the alternative to -5/+10 (or alternative powerups) is to nerf cantrips, that seems way more attractive. My current thinking is to not change the actual cantrips, but remove the idea of atwill (free and endless) cantrips.

I like this approach because it kills two birds with one stone. Not only does it allow us to remove -5/+10 without worrying everybody will want to become a sorlock, it also removes the (for me) considerable worldbuilding headache of having people with built-in always-on welding torches (and

Now, if "par" was a dozen completely different builds, I would have to concede this approach would be too impractical. Meaning, if fighters no longer get to add +10 to every attack, that powergamers would simply becomes rogues, or warlocks or whatever instead. But at least here and now, it seems like the Sorlock (and the Eldritch Blast) is the only major contender.

I guess the question we need to ask ourselves before we start, is:

Assuming you want to create a damage dealer and not someone reliant on high-level spells; is the fighter is a viable build/class for a powergamer at all in a game without feats? If not, what builds dominate among powergamers?

If we find one or two answers, then lets examine those to see if they can be powered down alongside the fighter. If we find six or twelve, I agree fighter damage feats need to stay, and we will have to power up those builds that doesn't use -5/+10 (along with resigning ourselves to treating the MM as not very challenging).

 

[CapnZapp]

I may be missing a thing. Crossbows and bows aren't one-handed weapons, so the loaded hand crossbow thing only works when you're not using one of those. And just from the flavor text, etc., I would only let you do that if you had a "loaded hand crossbow". As in, once you've done that, you now have an "unloaded hand crossbow", and you're going to have to burn an item interaction or something to resolve that. And will need a free hand.

And while these are both decent feats, you're also looking at the gap between a 16 and a 20 in an attack stat at that point, so, +2/+2. I suppose at higher levels you can eventually have enough feats to make up for that, but...

And I guess you could just go with "wielding hand crossbow only", although I'd probably rule that "extra attack with a loaded hand crossbow" is implicitly "other than one you might have been wielding as primary weapon". And hand crossbow's damage is lower than that of the others, but I suppose if you're betting on that +10 to save you, that's not always a huge deal.

I can only say that your questions effectively start the thread over from scratch, so I will not make a more detailed reply.

 

[CapnZapp]

To [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION], [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and [MENTION=18333]Rhenny[/MENTION], among others:

Regarding initiative, allow me to remind you Hemlock started a new thread before he left this discussion.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?513971-Simultaneous-initiative

 

[Ashkelon]

Sorry, but I just can't seem to get over the fact that me and my various tables have been playing 5e all wrong this whole time. Our not finding ranged to be substantively better than melee clearly stems from our own lack of awareness and understanding. I mean, we just haven't experienced it. And that's on us. Not even after the alt-human hand crossbow rogue we had in the game for quite a while. Or my buddy's awesome sorlock. Not even our current wood elf archer ranger. None of it has broken our table. So I must apologize, for all of us, who have failed. Failed to experience this phenomenon. Our bad. I vow we will try harder to achieve this breakthrough in game-ruinedness. Come heck or high water. We will find a way to enjoy 5e less for these tragic and glaring faults. This I promise you.

Just because you haven't noticed or choose not to perceive a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your lack of awareness does not mean you are playing wrong by any means, but it also does not mean there is no problem.

It is mathematical fact that ranged damage builds deal more damage than melee damage builds in 5e. It is also fact that the ranged damage builds can remove any of the penalties they normally face through use of the same feats that increase their damage to such levels in the first place.

It also seems like your players are not the best optimizer as a rancher archer (who doesn't use hand crossbows) or a hand crossbow using rogue are not on the same level of damage output as a handcrossbow fighter, so for your group, you will not notice the true potential of a fully optimized ranged build.

For those of us who are aware of the problem of ranged superiority and who actually care about this issue, it is a fairly big problem. After all, by playing my greatsword fighter I am self imposing a 20% damage penalty on myself simply because I chose not to wield a hand crossbow. On top of that, I also am required to fight foes in melee whereas the hand crossbow fighter can fight enemies in melee just as well as my greatsword fighter, but also at a range of 120 feet. From a logical point, there is no reason at all to play a mere greatsword fighter given the vast superiority of the hand crossbow. Each session, my character is letting my party down by not being as effective as he possibly can be.

 

[Corwin]

Just because you haven't noticed or choose not to perceive a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your lack of awareness does not mean you are playing wrong by any means, but it also does not mean there is no problem.

And yet, just because you believe you've noticed or choose to perceive a problem doesn't mean it exists for others.

It is mathematical fact that ranged damage builds deal more damage than melee damage builds in 5e.

Are you sure that's accurate? Or do you *actually* mean, "It is mathematical fact that a singular, specific ranged damage build can potentially deal more damage than most melee damage builds in 5e, when certain circumstances are set by the DM to ensure it happens."?

It is also fact that the ranged damage builds can remove any of the penalties they normally face through use of the same feats that increase their damage to such levels in the first place.

Wow, I didn't know there was a feat that removed ammo expenditure. Which one? I need to let our archer's player know. He also will want to know how you managed to reliably get OAs for your ranged characters. He'd like to be able to threaten those as well. He's going to be so jazzed to know you've found ways to get around those problems. Thanks in advance!

It also seems like your players are not the best optimizer as a rancher archer (who doesn't use hand crossbows) or a hand crossbow using rogue are not on the same level of damage output as a handcrossbow fighter, so for your group, you will not notice the true potential of a fully optimized ranged build.

You are joking if you think you can evaluate people you know nothing about. Is looking foolish a debate tactic?

Also, again, you hope to speak to the superiority of "ranged builds". But that's misleading. You should instead strive for accuracy. How about, "that one, particular ranged build that is never achieved by accident?" Try that.

For those of us who are aware of the problem of ranged superiority and who actually care about this issue, it is a fairly big problem.

Maybe, once you finally realize what the problem is you think you have, you can better address it. As I've had to demonstrate several times in this very post, and others have done so repeatedly throughout this thread, you are not even presenting the problem accurately. So how can you, or anyone else, produce useful solutions?

After all, by playing my greatsword fighter I am self imposing a 20% damage penalty on myself simply because I chose not to wield a hand crossbow.

Your numbers are still cute at best. Phantoms at least.

On top of that, I also am required to fight foes in melee whereas the hand crossbow fighter can fight enemies in melee just as well as my greatsword fighter, but also at a range of 120 feet.

Are you channeling Brittany Spears right now? Because, oops, you did it again. "Just as well as," has been repeatedly proven to be a lie. I know you know why it's not true. So why keep saying it? At this point I'm starting to think there is an agenda behind all this disingenuousness.

From a logical point, there is no reason at all to play a mere greatsword fighter given the vast superiority of the hand crossbow. Each session, my character is letting my party down by not being as effective as he possibly can be.

Haha. You should never let your fellow players down. I recommend doing what they ask and play the same hand crossbow fighter they all are already playing. Quit dragging the party's DPR down, man. That's uncool. Don't be an albatross!