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

[Ashkelon]

It isn't also worth noting that in 5e, it is rare for combat to go above 5 rounds with 3 to 5 being the most common. Since the vast majority of combat encounters do not start with enemies already engaged at melee range, the archer who wishes to threaten OAs will not typically need to be armed for melee combat in the first round. Since weapons can simply be picked up after a battle is over, even an archer who is "cheesing" the item interaction rules to draw a weapon every turn to provoke OA, should need no more than 4 melee weapons.

The typical melee weapon loadout I have seen archers utilize is 2 rapiers or shortswords and a few daggers.

So Corwins's hyperbolic statement about archers with 12 rapiers is completely ridiculous and not at all relevant to anything anyone has offered up in this thread, like much of what he types.

 

[Salamandyr]

Anyone have any examples of ways they've fixed this problem, or has that taken a backseat to arguing whether there is a problem?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Poor questions get poor answers. What is it computer programmers like to say?

Further proof of an dismissive and argumentative posting style. How hard would it be to not do this? Other posters seems to manage just fine.

Anyway, "How long are your combats?" is a largely useless question. But okay, you clearly are desperate for an answer. So, I'd say, realistically anywhere from 1 to 12 rounds. Depending (I know you hate that word, but again it's the only way to answer such a broad question). I mean, I've been playing 5e for over two years. Multiple groups. Multiple campaigns up through the bulk of available levels (admittedly we've never gone past 17th of yet, and that was only once so far). Hundreds of fights. Literally hundreds. I'm sure one or two may have even gone *past* 12 rounds. I'd also like to take this opportunity to question your "typically 4-5 rounds long" claim. Really? That's an awfully narrow margin. So excuse me if I think you are being a bit inaccurate, or at least convenient, with those numbers. Mind you, you didn't say "average." You said, "typically." That's a big difference.

I'd also say 'average'. I'd even say 'median.' The VAST majority of my fights are 4-5 rounds once initiative is rolled. Looking at my 11th level party average damage, and not counting hit percentages, the rogue puts out about 30 dpr, the ranger 40, the battlemaster 40, and the tempest cleric varies between 12 and a lot (half maximized destructive wave at 30thunder+5d6 radiant). That's 110 damage not counting the cleric's output (who's mostly control oriented anyway). That's a critter a round for most encounters at that level, and so 4-5 critters handled (without the cleric) in 4-5 rounds. Most of my encounters fall into 3-6 monsters, so that's a fair assessment (I've found I get far more challenge out of an encounter with more, weaker monsters than few, stronger ones). So, yeah, 4-5 is the typical, average, median encounter for me.

But thanks for insinuating that I'm unaware of how my game plays and/or that I'm misrepresenting myself just to win the internets. Please don't do it again.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Further proof of an dismissive and argumentative posting style. How hard would it be to not do this?

How hard would it be to not comment on a thread looking for ways to address an issue you have no experience with?

Anyone have any examples of ways they've fixed this problem, or has that taken a backseat to arguing whether there is a problem?

The latter.

Par for the course, really.

Though we've gone over the factors that made it not a (mechanical) problem in the past: AoOs for ranged weapon/spellcasting in melee, penalties for firing into melee (even random target determination if you go back far enough), MAD for archers, lower damage for ranged weapons...

 

[Ovinomancer]

Anyone have any examples of ways they've fixed this problem, or has that taken a backseat to arguing whether there is a problem?

I've nerfed sharpshooter to replace the -5/+10 with +1 DEX, although I'm unhappy with that solution now. The more I think about it, the issue I have is that it's just too easy to game away the few restrictions on ranged combat (this applies to sorlocks as well). I think a more comprehensive solution that addresses the fundamental imbalance is needed. To that end, my current thoughts are:
Changes to ranged:
1) rewrite sharpshooter to allow you to ignore cover penalties or range penalties, but not both at the same time. Require a bonus action be spent to engage either ability. +1 DEX.
2) rewrite crossbow expert to remove ignoring disad in melee. Replace with the ability to make an OA as if the crossbow was a melee weapon with reach 10'. Remove the extra attack for crossbows. Add +1 DEX
3) change archery style to allowing a bonus action attack with a ranged weapon if the attack action was used. (I don't mind ranged getting more attacks)
4) reduce the die for all ranged weapons by 1. Does not apply to thrown weapons.

Improvements to melee:
1) rewrite savage attacker to always add a d6 of damage to all attacks. (this is in line with many monster abilities)
2) change 2 weapon fighting style to allow add the die and effects of the second weapon to all attack damages (ie, a shortsword would add d6 to all attacks, a flametoungue short sword would add a d6 and a d6 fire to all attacks). Duel wielding feat remains the same.

Changes to casters:
1) don't allow classes abilities to mingle. Sorlocks couldn't quicken warlock spells (or cantrips gained from warlock levels) or cast warlock spells in sorcerer slots, or burn warlock spell slots for spell points, for example. Solves most of that problem (which resides in sorlocks).
2) change spellsniper to the same mechanic (bonus action to ignore cover) as SS
3) change eldritch spear to explicitly not stack with spell sniper

This is a work in progress, and I'd like to reiterate this is a thought experiment for me -- the only change I've made to my current game is the no -5/+10 to SS one and I'm perfectly fine. As I say to a player of mine, "this is mostly because I'd rather have a system that doesn't what I want rather than keep hoping none of my players decided to exploit the one we have. I'd rather swing the hammer before the behavior than have to fix it on the backside."

 

[Caliban]

Why do people think the archer needs multiple weapons in order to threaten OA's? Last I checked, picking up something up off the ground was covered under the "one free object interaction" and dropping it was a free action. If the archer didn't move after dropping the weapon, it should still be there to pick up.

(Not that it isn't cheese, I just think it's even cheesier than people seem to think it is. )

 

[Ashkelon]

Potential solutions have been made though they quickly get swallowed up in the turmoil of arguing.

Here are some potential changes that would help the issue.

Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master -5/+10 is changed to Something Else (-3/+5, a flat +1/2 proficiency, or +1 STR or DEX).

Bonus action attack from crossbow expert and polearm master removed. Potentially replaced with +1 STR or DEX.

Quicken Spell Metamagic doesn't allow you to quicken cantrips.

 

[Salamandyr]

Though we've gone over the factors that made it not a (mechanical) problem in the past: AoOs for ranged weapon/spellcasting in melee, penalties for firing into melee (even random target determination if you go back far enough), MAD for archers, lower damage for ranged weapons...

I've been dipping in and out of the thread. I'm in the camp that it is a problem. I just spent the past 15 minutes writing a post showing my experience, but that's just doing what I was complaining about.

Just a note; the problem isn't in the feats. I ran a featless game and ranged characters were still the strongest damage dealers in the game.

 

[Salamandyr]

Some issues that I see contributing to ranged dominance.

It's not really ranged combat that is superior. It's Dexterity. Without feats (and feats are optional, dammit!), duellist with dexterity competes with great weapon fighting, and has a better AC.

Outside of Great Weapon Mastery, a lot of the best damage bumps (like Hunter's Mark, and Hex) work better for ranged than they do for melee--and the melee they boost the best also happens to be the dexterity ones.

I don't want to fix feats; I don't want to create yet another way for a fighter to only ever use one weapon, to the exclusion all others--seriously, can you imagine a slew of wizard feats designed to have you only ever use one spell? Yes, the warlock exists, but the warlock is its own class; it's not designed for flexibility with one hand and encourages you to throw away that flexibility in the other. I want to fix the mechanic.

I tried something that might work--a fundamental change in the game, that obviates a lot of the mechanical fiddly bits they came up with. I use graduated success.

For every 5 points you beat the AC of your opponent, you roll another weapon die (or 2, for greatswords).

I have some other ideas, but want to see how this one works out (tried it a couple times, love it so far) before I do much else.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For every 5 points you beat the AC of your opponent, you roll another weapon die (or 2, for greatswords).

It'd be a major re-write and return to 3e-esque BAB, but if you tossed Extra Attack and substituted a +5 to hit, that could work out pretty well, and 'fix' a whole 'nuther set of issues.