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

[FrogReaver]

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.

The statement (damage + range) > (damage) is nonsense because all damage has a range. Some melee. Some 30ft. Some 60ft. Some 300ft etc.

What you mean to say is: (damage + long range) > (damage + melee range)

However I contend that it cannot be determined in a vacuum if (damage + long range) > (damage + melee range) unless the (damage + long range) does the same amount of damage at melee range that it does at long range. Without crossbow expertise that criteria cannot be met and so it could just as easily be true that (damage + melee range) > (damage + long range). It's an assumption that (high long range damage and low melee damage) > (poor long range damage and high melee damage) but that assumption isn't necessarily true, nor is it easy to evaluate for any given game whether it is true or not. In other words the value of long range is a bit more complex than what you are attempting to boil it down to.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

Let me start by saying I tend to agree. You know I tend to agree. I don't think it can be proven in a systematic way like this thread is attempting to because there are far to many uncontrolled variables.

1. a d8 vs d12 is a big damage difference. It doesn't sound like much when you are talking a 2 DPR difference but 2 DPR probably translates into about 20% more damage on a character without GWM or SS. That's a pretty solid buff. It's probably still not enough. But don't act like its insignificant. That's a common mistake I see too many people make when they see what they perceive is a low 2 DPR difference.

2. It's easy to switch to a melee weapon, but if we are talking sharpshooters then they lose the -5/+10 ability. That's a huge nerf to their damage. You probably cut their damage in half by forcing them to use a d8 melee weapon instead of a d8 longbow with sharpshooter.

I think we need to decide if we want to talk about a game with feats or without. That changes a lot. Feats change so many variables it's not funny.

 

[clearstream]

The statement (damage + range) > (damage) is nonsense because all damage has a range. Some melee. Some 30ft. Some 60ft. Some 300ft etc.

What you mean to say is: (damage + long range) > (damage + melee range)

Yes, strictly speaking that is exactly what we're saying. I have been simplifying for emphasis. I use the label "ranged" to mean 30' or greater reach, and "melee" to mean 10' or lesser reach. Accuracy, awareness, and movement come into this, too -

Force = damage*accuracy
Applicable Force = force*intelligence*range*movement

I see a lot of theory-crafting around damage-dealing that ignores applicability. My abstract construct for force identifies that "For damage to be effective, we must apply it". I mean, when you write that down you think - "Golly, that's hardly rocket science!". Don't you? Think of the contrary construction, "For damage to be effective, we need not apply it".

Application requires awareness of target, range to target, ability to move to target: our ability to dominate in those dimensions will act as force multipliers. A simple case illustrates it

• A damage*accuracy=47, range 5, move 30
• B damage*accuracy=44, range 120, move 30
• intelligence is symmetrical: they are aware of each other
• A starts 120 feet from B

In that scenario, we can intuit that A can Dash forward 60' each turn while B kites back 30' and looses four bolts. A will take at least 132 points of damage before A can reach melee with B.

• A damage*accuracy=47, range 5, move 30
• B damage*accuracy=44, range 120, move 30
• A starts 5 feet from B

In this scenario, B must accept at least one AoO from A every turn. Plus one attack if A rolled higher initiative.

Both scenarios are outliers. My observation is that scenarios typically start somewhere in between, entailing that B lands considerable damage on A, 44-88 points, before A can reply. A would need 14-28 turns to make up that difference.

However I contend that it cannot be determined in a vacuum if (damage + long range) > (damage + melee range) unless the (damage + long range) does the same amount of damage at melee range that it does at long range. Without crossbow expertise that criteria cannot be met and so it could just as easily be true that (damage + melee range) > (damage + long range). It's an assumption that (high long range damage and low melee damage) > (poor long range damage and high melee damage) but that assumption isn't necessarily true, nor is it easy to evaluate for any given game whether it is true or not. In other words the value of long range is a bit more complex than what you are attempting to boil it down to.

I absolutely agree. The origin of D&D fantasy skirmishes lies in wargaming, and many of the things that are true for wargaming remain true for them. An equality between (firepower) and (range and movement) is a fundamental of wargaming, borne out over a vast number of played scenarios.

So I agree with you that there will be scenarios in which melee trumps range. Perhaps Sentinel is in play, the melee has high Stealth, and first contact is at 5'. However, our question isn't whether such scenarios can or cannot arise, but whether over a vast number of played scenarios whether range "expects" (typically enjoys) an advantage?

I also agree with you that Crossbow Expert is culpable, in obviating range's disadvantage in melee. However, I don't see why we want Sharpshooter to do Great Weapon Master damage at 120' reach?

 

[CapnZapp]

So, what's the 'power' of that? It's a display of courage, an ability to stand up to danger that most cannot. The hero gets others to rally around him and fight on. The hero draws the ire of the greatest enemies. The hero breaks the morale or coordination of the enemy.

Yes...?

Your point, Tony?

Breaking the enemy is done by causing him hit point loss in D&D. This needs to be done better, faster, stronger by melee builds, or the quality of range becomes decisive.

Other editions have had more of it. Combat Reflexes + Reach in 3e, or Combat Challenge/Superiority in 4e.

Or it just isn't going for that...

Know what, you're great at stating the obvious without committing to a position of your own, Tony.

Again I ask: yes, and...?

Not going for melee viability. You make it sound like a neutral choice to make.

Do *you* think it's a good idea to allow power gamers to neuter Monster Manual Stat blocks simply by forming an all-ranged party?

Do *you* think the game is better off with melee builds being relegated to new or nostalgic players that don't see or care their slow axe dwarfs have been essentially made obsolete by 5E?

Or do you have another reason for posting such a lenient closing remark?



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

This is the only thing to be aware of.

Ranged is not always going to be available due to cover and concealment. Furthermore, it's not like PCs have to choose between one or the other and can never switch. If you're running melee, you can often still switch to ranged when you really need it. No, you won't be as optimal, but it's not important to always be optimal because circumstances will prevent that often enough.

I'd say the reverse - if your build is ranged, you can still switch to melee when cornered.

It's much harder to justify Strength builds, since these gain a small edge in melee but at the expense of lousy range.

As a Dex build, it's easy to switch between range and melee.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

I miscalculated how useful Precision is.

Don't feel bad - all indications are the devs did too...



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Let me start by saying I tend to agree. You know I tend to agree. I don't think it can be proven in a systematic way like this thread is attempting to because there are far to many uncontrolled variables.

1. a d8 vs d12 is a big damage difference. It doesn't sound like much when you are talking a 2 DPR difference but 2 DPR probably translates into about 20% more damage on a character without GWM or SS. That's a pretty solid buff. It's probably still not enough. But don't act like its insignificant. That's a common mistake I see too many people make when they see what they perceive is a low 2 DPR difference.

2. It's easy to switch to a melee weapon, but if we are talking sharpshooters then they lose the -5/+10 ability. That's a huge nerf to their damage. You probably cut their damage in half by forcing them to use a d8 melee weapon instead of a d8 longbow with sharpshooter.

I think we need to decide if we want to talk about a game with feats or without. That changes a lot. Feats change so many variables it's not funny.

Thank you!

1. The comparison isn't d8 vs 2d6. The difference between 4.5 and 7 IS significant.

Instead, the difference is between perhaps d8+5 vs 1d12+5. Or even d8+16 vs 2d6+16 with GWM/SS and a magic +1 weapon or other damage bonus.

This is the case in practical play, as opposed to the numbers suggested by the weapons table. Suddenly the difference isn't all that significant.

2. It seems you are discussing the availability of Sharpshooter but without Crossbow Expert. If so, I heartily commend you! (I'm a strong advocate for the wholesale removal of CE)

Finally, with feats - I'm discussing the game *with* feats.

Without feats, the difference between one weapon choice and another is much less pronounced, which is good.

But the less complex charbuild is not good, for us anyway.

And there the issue is if weapons are competitive at all. It's quite possible the correct answer in feat-less games is Eldritch Blast...



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, strictly speaking that is exactly what we're saying. I have been simplifying for emphasis. I use the label "ranged" to mean 30' or greater reach, and "melee" to mean 10' or lesser reach.

I think it's useful to add movement to this. Both your own and the enemy's.

Melee is 40 feet or less. That's the maximum distance where you can still project melee force.

Range is 70 feet or more. That's the minimum distance where you can still avoid enemy melee force.

I think this is useful because the central aspect of "ranged" combat isn't a specific distance, it's the ability to deny the enemy its melee attacks.

Ra



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[clearstream]

Some extra silliness with GFB I just calculated.

Level 12
Battlemaster 4
Arcane Trickster 8
Shield Master
Sentinel
Variant Human (so you can have two feats and a level 20 main stat)
Green Flame Blade

You only get one attack a round, but if you can knock a foe prone you'll get advantage on the attack. Since you only have one attack you can afford to use Precision every single time you miss. You'll also rarely miss if you can prone a foe. In fact, if you can get advantage on the attack you'll hit 96.0% of the time. Who cares if you only get one attack a round if it's almost Magic Missile-like in its ability to hit?

If you can prone a foe you can sneak attack regardless. But here's how the damage works out including sneak attack and GFB on a prone foe:
Target 1: 35.80
Target 2: 10.48
Sentinel: 17.50

Total: 63.78

This is pretty good damage. You'll succeed on knocking foes prone so often that you would use up your 4 superiority dice after 26 rounds of combat. There probably won't be 26 rounds of combat between short rests. So you can probably use your superiority dice to Riposte.

If they hit you, you Uncanny Dodge. If they miss you, you Riposte. If they attack your friend, you Sentinel.

First, this is a very nice character concept! Assuming perfect conditions and with advantage from Shield Master I get a damage maximum of 76. We need to set some tuning values -

1. Strength for Athletics (we'll put Expertise into it)
2. Expected foe's Athletics (this will give us a %prone)
3. Turns a second foe is within 5' of first (this will give us %bounce for GFB)
4. Turns we have Sneak Attack (I'm assuming this is high, but not 100%: shall we say 90%)
5. Turns Sentinel trigger is valid (this can't plausibly be 100%: its inverse will be Riposte triggers)
6. Turns Sentinel Triggers and we have Sneak Attack

I'll check at the end how many superiority dice we are expending. For context, we spent a die more than we had (per combat) in the GWM estimate, reducing expected damage by about 1.7 points.

 

[clearstream]

First, this is a very nice character concept! Assuming perfect conditions and with advantage from Shield Master I get a damage maximum of 76. We need to set some tuning values -

1. Strength for Athletics (we'll put Expertise into it)
2. Expected foe's Athletics (this will give us a %prone)
3. Turns a second foe is within 5' of first (this will give us %bounce for GFB)
4. Turns we have Sneak Attack (I'm assuming this is high, but not 100%: shall we say 90%)
5. Turns Sentinel trigger is valid (this can't plausibly be 100%: its inverse will be Riposte triggers)
6. Turns Sentinel Triggers and we have Sneak Attack

I'll check at the end how many superiority dice we are expending. For context, we spent a die more than we had (per combat) in the GWM estimate, reducing expected damage by about 1.7 points.

Strength 20, wins about 80% of Shield Master checks against expected Athletics of +5
Second foe is within 5' of first about half the time
Sneak Attack condition is met 90% of the time
Sentinel trigger is valid 50% of the time (I'm sure this high-balls it, but let's say foe randomly choose to attack us half the time, which implies we always have one ally near us)
Sentinel or Riposte Sneak Attack conditions are met 90% of the time

If anything those are optimistic, but we're talking about only a few points +/- anyway. About 70 expected damage dealt per turn. Superiority die expenditure looks fine. Green Flame Blade is about 60% stronger than GWM and PHB SS/CEx...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that chiefly goes to show that 5e splatbooks continue the fine tradition of 3e