D&D 5E What does it mean to you for a character/class to be "good in melee"?

[CTurbo]

This was brought up in my thread about Tempest Clerics and I'm just curious what people consider to be "good at melee" or "good in melee"


To me, melee is more than JUST damage per weapon attack. It's being able to take some hits. It's being able to stay down on the front line and still contribute to the party in one way or another.


Thoughts?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Agreed. It's a mix of offensive and defensive capabilities.

To-hit, damage output, AC, and hit points are all factors in this. Special abilities or good tactics (either mechanical, or just the player/character is good in this regard) are also factors.

Mathematically I guess it would be defined as somebody that, on average, will kill their opponent before they would die themselves. So a character that, on average, would kill a creature of one level higher than their current level before dying would be very good in melee. If they would be expected to kill a creature two levels higher, then they'd be excellent.

There are a lot of assumptions to be made, which add variables. For example, a wizard with a high Constitution and a high AC (through magical means or Dexterity) could be a "good in melee" by that definition. Somebody that can deal more damage would be better, but it's not straightforward.

One issue that I have with 5e is that all classes use the same to-hit modifier - your proficiency bonus. This means that, with the same ability modifier, a wizard is as good at hitting an opponent in combat as a fighter.

 

[Georlik]

Simply put: Extra attack. If you have it - you are considered having decent martial capability in my book.
There are many other options to consider like availability of feats, range of weapons used and additional sources of damage.
But if someone asks about an NPC or PC in my campaign: "How good are they with sword?", I can roughly categorize them as "knows his blade from the pommel" (1 attack), "knows his footwork" (2 attacks), "renown duelist" (2+ attacks and/or other sources of damage).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[manduck]

To crush your enemies. To see them driven before you. To hear the lamentations of their women.

 

[Hillsy7]

This was brought up in my thread about Tempest Clerics and I'm just curious what people consider to be "good at melee" or "good in melee"


To me, melee is more than JUST damage per weapon attack. It's being able to take some hits. It's being able to stay down on the front line and still contribute to the party in one way or another.


Thoughts?

I would say it's more about preferrred positioning. If more of your abilities, and or team benefits are brought to bear by being up front, then I'd say you're a melee character, regardless of how much damage you to compared to range. A class that has a 5ft aura that slows and blinds enemies, but only has 1 attack and can't use martial weapons.....that character is still "good at melee"....

 

[Ancalagon]

I would say it's more about preferrred positioning. If more of your abilities, and or team benefits are brought to bear by being up front, then I'd say you're a melee character, regardless of how much damage you to compared to range. A class that has a 5ft aura that slows and blinds enemies, but only has 1 attack and can't use martial weapons.....that character is still "good at melee"....

I agree, but you also need the resilience (ac, hp etc) to be able to survive in that position.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Irda Ranger]

There's a lot of different tactics and strategies in melee. You can build around maximizing number of attacks, or damager per attack, or you can build around different types of defense (protecting your team mates, protecting yourself by either high AC or damage resistance, etc.). And these factors interact with the other PCs in your team. If you have some glass canons in your group, being "good in melee" can be entirely about keeping the bad guys away from your canon, with any damage you manage to lay down being gravy.

Ultimately there's no one number you can use to pronounce whether a build is good in melee or not. It really is a subjective and holistic question around "Does the group punch at or above its weight given its level and equipment?" and "Does your PC play its position effectively and well?"

 

[Cornpuff]

I only really think of "good at melee" as being better up close than far away. Which I'd say covers highish AC, being able to dish out additional damage up front, and being able to reduce damage taken somehow someway (Parry, Uncanny Dodge, etc.)

 

[Hillsy7]

I agree, but you also need the resilience (ac, hp etc) to be able to survive in that position.

I very much consider being a sack o' HP, having a high AC, or some form of damage resistance (Uncanny Dodge, Range etc) to be and ability and/or a team benefit.......

TBF, most builds in 5e are pretty balanced, so if you're more effective up front than at the back, the inherent balance of 5e means you're still going to be decent at melee.....