D&D 5E Evaluating Range versus Damage (SS vs GWM) - putting a price on range

[CapnZapp]

With regard to range, these are following significant thresholds.

upto 10 feet: melee
upto 30 feet: close (30 foot move) (thrown weapon) (close quarters combat)

upto 100 feet: short range (large room, small house) (20 squares, most of a battlemat)
upto 300 feet: short range (large house, city block, ancient town wall) (bow shot) (60 squares, more than battlemat)

upto 1000 feet: long range
upto 3000 feet: long range (roughly 1 kilometer, 10 city blocks, small town, medieval town wall) (long range rifle)

beyond

Note. Ranges often require line of sight too.

I'd say the only ranges that matter are:

30 feet, being the range where monsters can straight up reach you to make all their attacks...

...and 60 feet, where they can reach you, forcing you to Disengage unless you want to fight in melee.

Other than that there is seldom any difference. 100, 150 or 300 feet: you win, since you can keep monsters from delivering their melee attacks, while still delivering yours.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

If we include ranged builds that either haven't yet taken crossbow expertise or won't take it at all then I think such a ranged character should be judged as losing just as many attacks in a typical campaign as a character that's heavily melee focused.

Crossbow expertise solves that problem (though not for free) and so ranged crossbow expertise characters totally ignore that part of the melee ranged balance spectrum and so you get threads like this that say it's a damage problem. Well, not really IMO. It's more of a crossbow expertise problem.

I think another very huge and overlooked issue with ranged characters (and especially crossbow expertise characters) is the tendency for focus fire. a lot more than their melee counterparts.

Exactly.

Remove Crossbow Expert.

This solves much of the problem, since it is much harder to focus-fire in a melee party.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[guachi]

Just as a comparison, A level 8 EK, level 3 Rogue with a 20 Dex, wielding a rapier, casting Greenflame Blade, with Sentinel feat can (if he can trigger Sentinel and GFB can hit two targets) do about 45 DPR. You could also wield a whip and Sentinel from behind the front line melee units to increase your chance for Sentinel. Though in this case you'd probably have to be a Swashbuckler to move up, cast GFB, and retreat as you'll have no bonus action to Disengage.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just as a comparison, A level 8 EK, level 3 Rogue with a 20 Dex, wielding a rapier, casting Greenflame Blade, with Sentinel feat can (if he can trigger Sentinel and GFB can hit two targets) do about 45 DPR. You could also wield a whip and Sentinel from behind the front line melee units to increase your chance for Sentinel. Though in this case you'd probably have to be a Swashbuckler to move up, cast GFB, and retreat as you'll have no bonus action to Disengage.

At least cite the AC you are looking at when you mention DPR. A very low AC can more than double DPR compared to a 20 AC.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree CEx is a problem too, in a different way. But dealing GWM damage at 120' is also not okay. And we need to be cautious of an argument that asserts that range has no value. Range has value. We can debate over how much, but to assert zero seems wrong.

With that in mind, dropping CEx and taking another Dex increase, switching to Longbow still does 31.2 with PHB Sharpshooter alone, under the same conditions that GWM is doing 33.6. I believe 600' range is better than +2.4 damage.

That said, I agree that CEx exacerbates the problem by allowing our Archer to do exactly the same damage using their bow in melee. Hence my revisions make a small tweak to CEx as well as SS.

Those are here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?585873-Refined-PHB-feat-revisions


That's such a good point, and one I overlooked but have experienced regularly. Ranged characters gain additional efficacy by focusing fire.

I'm not asserting range has no value. Range definitely has value. It's just melee has value too. I'm asserting that in a typical campaign melee will have an equal value. Melee characters lose attacks when something is too far away and ranged characters lose effectiveness when something gets to close. I would assert that in a typical campaign these occurences should come up relatively equally. Crossbow expertise ruins that melee/ranged tradeoff though.

 

[clearstream]

I'm not asserting range has no value. Range definitely has value. It's just melee has value too. I'm asserting that in a typical campaign melee will have an equal value. Melee characters lose attacks when something is too far away and ranged characters lose effectiveness when something gets to close. I would assert that in a typical campaign these occurences should come up relatively equally.

In stating that the way you did, you seem to have said that ranged has no value. Or let's put it another way, do you agree with the following premise -

(damage+range) > (damage)


I should add that this assumption is a fundamental one in wargame design thinking. The ranged attacker usually enjoys more up-time against their target, better damage mitigation, and better control over if and where the combat happens.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not asserting range has no value. Range definitely has value. It's just melee has value too. I'm asserting that in a typical campaign melee will have an equal value. Melee characters lose attacks when something is too far away and ranged characters lose effectiveness when something gets to close. I would assert that in a typical campaign these occurences should come up relatively equally. Crossbow expertise ruins that melee/ranged tradeoff though.

And even without Crossbow Expert, it's debatable if there are enough checks on ranged.

After all, even without Crossbow Expert, you can build a ranged fighter dealing comparable damage: the difference between d8 and d12/2d6 isn't really enough to justify going melee, seeing how easy it is to switch from bow to melee weapons, and all the advantages of range and focus fire.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Argyle King]

Question: Does "line of sight" require you to be using your eyes?

 

[clearstream]

If the Champion is level 10, he can have both GWF and Defense. There's no tradeoff. Though I'd still rather have GWF than Defense if I could only have one. Unless you're a half-orc, why are you taking a great axe instead of a greatsword? The greatsword does more damage. There's no reason to have a great axe.

Also, I'd suggest doing the math on Battlemaster and pretending the only maneuver he has is Precision. You'll probably want to assume the Battlemaster knows the AC of his target so you can come up with a set sequence to use the maneuver. E.g., if you miss by 4 or less, use Precision. Then you'd have to make an assumption on number of rounds of combat between short rests. You'll probably find that the Battlemaster does more damage than a Champion because of how valuable hitting is.

I'll take a look at that. Good point about Champion: I forgot their second fighting style pick up. However, remember that up to this point, I have not counted in the available maneuvers on the Archer's side. My goal is to get a sense of the balance, not to attempt a false precision. For analysis on paper, stacking everything on offense always gives us the biggest numbers. However, that doesn't fairly represent play at the table, where foes get to fight back and engagement distances start longer (see official DM Shield for ranges). In many cases, the Archer is landing attacks while the GWM fighter is still moving to engage.

A GWM, Precision-using, GWF-having, greatsword-wielding Battlemaster will do 39.0 dpr versus an AC 17 foe. How often will he drop a foe to zero? Will he intentionally choose to target weaker enemies just to trigger a bonus attack? (I would...). For simple math let's assume that he gets a bonus attack on 25% of rounds in addition to his roughly 15% chance for a critical on one of his three attacks. That's a bonus attack 40% of the time and an extra 3.9 pts of damage per round.

So that's 39.0 + 3.9 = 42.9 damage per round.

Okay we will compare

A = Level 11 Battlemaster*, GWF fighting style**, Greatsword, GWM+Str+Str (20 Strength)
B = Level 11 Battlemaster*, Archery fighting style, Hand Crossbow, SS+CEx+Dex (18 Dexterity)

We will concede the GWM fighter a bonus attack in 1/4 of rounds and on critical hits (these can overlap) to represent killing a foe outright. We will concede the SS fighter an extra turn of attacks every 10 turns to represent their greater up-time. GWF fighter will use the Precision maneuver (1d10) while SS fighter will either use Precision or a Menacing Attack to add damage to critical hits (2d10) - whichever the analysis suggests is stronger. Target AC will be 17.

*Spending 2.5 superiority dice per combat or 0.5 dice per turn
**In order to estimate the value of defense, we will take the average damage of foes striking them, and we will discount that 3/5, and then deduct if from their effective damage. If Archer is using Menacing Attack, we might take that into account.

Does that scenario sound robust? If it isn't, what change do you want to propose?


[Edited to expand the options for Archer maneuvers. Adding 2D10 damage on critical hits might prove worth more than Precision.)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

5e lacks balance mechanisms for ranged attack.
+2 ac bonus from cover is not enough to counterbalance range and possible focus fire options.

Especially fighting style and cover removal and removing of long range by sharp shooter pushes it ober the top.

Solution is quite easy: add point blank range from 3e. You only add precision based damage within 30ft from your target.

I am indifferent however if the -5/+10 part will be usable from ojside point blank range or if the better option would be increasing point blank range to 60ft or both.