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

[Stalker0]

A softer nerf to range is the oppurtunity attack rules.

A character that leaves a threatened area...or performs a ranged attack within it...provokes an opportunity attack.

It’s certainly a lighter nerf than dropping the damage, but it nerfs ranged and gives melee fighters more benefit to get in close

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Well, that is one of the options.

But I like to see dex to damage as your ability to aim the shot where it would do more damage.

As attack roll is usually 0 or 1.

And it prevents a great archer(dex 20) to do 1 damage per shot. That is kind of pathetic.

But that's where the sharpshooter feat comes in. It gives you an opportunity to do more damage. I also wouldn't have an issue adding reroll 1s and 2s for damage (once).

In other words, most people don't get the extra damage options, etc., that's part of better training (that is, a feat).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Definite knock to rogues there esp melee ones, with the need for muscle. Any problems with that you have seen so far balancewise?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

No, because that's pretty much been the rule for the last 30+ years of my campaign. DEX for damage was new for 5e (maybe 4e, don't have it handy, didn't play it much). It was an unnecessary change in my mind.

Having said that, you're only talking about a couple of points of damage for each hit, hardly an issue when a rogue is designed to get their sneak attack damage nearly every round. Personally, I like there to be trade-offs in character design, so I prefer it if more abilities have some usefulness for a class. So as a rogue, having to decide between Strength (additional damage/grappling effectiveness), Constitution (hit points/saves), and Wisdom (Perception/saves), Intelligence (Investigation), Charisma (Deception), it would be nice if the last two had a bit more meat to them. Obviously there are some other benefits for all of them, but those are common ones.

 

[Lhynn]

Dex is too good. It does everything str does and more.
Coupled with ranged superiority there's no reason to either go str or be melee.

 

[5ekyu]

Dex is too good. It does everything str does and more.
Coupled with ranged superiority there's no reason to either go str or be melee.

One of the reasons i removed Dex from Initiative in fact.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Stalker0]

Having said that, you're only talking about a couple of points of damage for each hit, hardly an issue when a rogue is designed to get their sneak attack damage nearly every round.

Just to put a little context on that statement. If you assume a Rogue has 3d6 sneak attack and uses a rapier. Since most people don't play at the higher levels, 3d6 is a good average of the low level rogues' abilities.

That is 15 points of damage on average, vs 19 if he adds in his +4 dex to damage. The dex to damage adds 26.7% more damage.


Now I am not saying that is a bad change, I just wanted to point out its not a little one.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Just to put a little context on that statement. If you assume a Rogue has 3d6 sneak attack and uses a rapier. Since most people don't play at the higher levels, 3d6 is a good average of the low level rogues' abilities.

That is 15 points of damage on average, vs 19 if he adds in his +4 dex to damage. The dex to damage adds 26.7% more damage.

Now I am not saying that is a bad change, I just wanted to point out its not a little one.

Assuming they don't have any bonus due to Strength (or equipment if a bow/crossbow). It sounds like a lot as a flat percentage. In the context of the game I think it matters much less.

A hard encounter for a single 5th level character is 750 XP, an owlbear is 700, or CR 3. Assuming the average damage per round, at 19 hp damage it's 3.1 rounds to kill the owlbear, vs 3.9. In other words, it's 4 rounds in either case. Obviously the higher the Dexterity, the more of an impact it could potentially have. But the game isn't one of raw math, and if combats might last a round longer, the players adjust accordingly.

Can you (or somebody better with the math than me) put together some examples of how many combats would last even an extra round because the rogue (in a party of 4) is causing 4 less damage per hit. It's also well within the math of the game. For example, the damage range for a given CR of monster is a 6 point range. A CR 5 monster is expected to deal 33-38 points of damage per round.

So I'm curious. I'm sure it becomes pretty impossible to model, since there are lots of other abilities and circumstances at play. Especially as you get to higher levels. But I think those variables minimize differences in damage output as well.

 

[Mistwell]

We took a poll. Not only did melee beat out ranged for preferences of the users here, but it kicked the butt of ranged by a massive 30 point margin. Make melee more competitive? It not only competes, but it trounces ranged in terms of popularity.

Once that has been established, why is this thread still going like this? Shouldn't it rather be, "how can we make ranged more attractive to people instead of melee?"

 

[5ekyu]

Assuming they don't have any bonus due to Strength (or equipment if a bow/crossbow). It sounds like a lot as a flat percentage. In the context of the game I think it matters much less.

A hard encounter for a single 5th level character is 750 XP, an owlbear is 700, or CR 3. Assuming the average damage per round, at 19 hp damage it's 3.1 rounds to kill the owlbear, vs 3.9. In other words, it's 4 rounds in either case. Obviously the higher the Dexterity, the more of an impact it could potentially have. But the game isn't one of raw math, and if combats might last a round longer, the players adjust accordingly.

Can you (or somebody better with the math than me) put together some examples of how many combats would last even an extra round because the rogue (in a party of 4) is causing 4 less damage per hit. It's also well within the math of the game. For example, the damage range for a given CR of monster is a 6 point range. A CR 5 monster is expected to deal 33-38 points of damage per round.

So I'm curious. I'm sure it becomes pretty impossible to model, since there are lots of other abilities and circumstances at play. Especially as you get to higher levels. But I think those variables minimize differences in damage output as well.

I think if you asked most STR characters how important their strength bonus to damage was they might not all say tiny or start talking about ner rounds difference.

But thats me.

I also wonder how much of the percieved imbalance stems from or relies on feats?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Lost Soul]

That isn't really the point. The point is that a ranged PC can avoid melee contract while sacrificing nothing, while a melee PC has to put themselves in harms way to be effective. The monsters can respond to PC tactics, but that doesn't change the fact that a melee PC is always putting themselves at risk by default.



Again, I'm not really talking about offense here. I am saying that melee characters are at a disadvantage in terms of taking damage.

Melee oriented characters taking more damage than ranged characters is a feature and not a bug of the game. Its the reason that in the 20th century no one gets into hand to hand combat unless they CANNOT avoid it by any means. Ranged weapons should in fact do MORE damage than they currently do in a D&D game as piercing attacks are much more effective at armor penetration than slashing or bludgeoning attacks. You sign up for being a melee class EXPECTING to take more damage than a ranged character. Its the reason you are in heavier armor and tend to use a shield because you are protecting friends and its YOUR JOB to absorb, deflect or sustain the damage that your weaker companions cannot. If you don't like that then sit in the back and cast spells or use a ranged weapon.