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

[hawkeyefan]

I don't doubt that Hemlock has an Eldritch Knight fighter archer. But until this discussion, just about every other Fighter Archer build I've seen used as an example has been a Battlemaster (frequently with a hand crossbow and Crossbow Expert) so they can use their dice to increase their attack bonus when using Sharpshooter or damage on a crit, etc.

I just found it odd that when the topic turned to AC, it was suddenly a fighter archer with mage armor and shield instead of the damage focused fighter archer usually used as examples in these discussions. Turns out it was just a coincidence.

Yeah, it's hard to stick with any one build because different posters are making different points and so on. The Eldritch Knight archer does seem particularly strong as described.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I keep saying crossbow archers can fight in melee just as well as dedicated melee warriors because it is true. No example has been given that proves otherwise.

Perhaps you should amend your statement to "crossbow archers can deal as much damage in melee just as well as dedicated melee warriors"? Because I have shown an example of a melee warrior designed to absorb more damage than the crossbow archer.

Again, DPR is not the end all be all.

Again, here are the examples people have used to say archers cannot fight well in melee:

1) If the enemy has total cover from one side and is over 30 feet away, both the crossbow archer and the melee fighter cannot attack.

2) If the enemy is less than 30 feet away and has total cover from one side, both the archer and the melee fighter can move to close combat and attack.

3) If the enemy is prone and within 30 feet, both the archer and the melee warrior can engage to within 5 feet and make attacks with advantage.

In all those examples, both the archer and the melee fighter are equally capable in each of those scenarios.

This assumes they both start in the same location and that their positioning throughout the fight doesn't matter. One of the advantages of the ranged build has been quoted as their ability to attack from afar. If they close, they are no longer attacking from afar. They're still capable, but they've lost some of the edge they have over the melee warrior, according to most folks.

Now the archer can also attack in the following scenarios mostly unhindered while the melee fighter cannot.

1) an enemy is over 30 feet away

2) an enemy is within 30 feet but has partial cover

3) an enemy is flying at least 10 feet up

4) a choice enemy target is behind a wall of meat shields

Depends on the melee build....but ranged weapons are available to melee fighters too. I mean, none of those examples you gave is even out of range for most thrown weapons. But yes, the melee fighter's ranged attacks in these instances will be less damaging than their melee attacks.

Finally, there has been quite a lot of talk about opportunity attacks. Now a number of posters have said they are exceedingly rare in terms of actual use, but their threat is what keeps enemies at bay. Well, given that the archer fighter can fight up close and personal equally as well as a great weapon fighter, the archer can use daggers to threaten OAs and shoot from the front lines. Their OA with a dagger is still almost as effective as the great weapon fighters.

Not so. Their dagger attacks are far less effective than an OA from a melee focused fighter.

And I would not say OAs are "exceedingly rare". I don't think anyone who has cited OAs as part of the discussion has done so. They are quite common, and the threat of them is nearly constant in most encounters at my table.

Note that if the fighting space is cramped enough (which it must be if no enemies are ever 30 feet apart), an enemy won't even need to provoke an OA to attack units in the back, since a creature can run circles around a melee unit without ever triggering an OA. The tank effectively needs to be 10 feet in front of the back lines in order for his OAs to be an actual threat. Nevermind the fact that OAs become progressively less powerful as you level (monster HP tends to grow at a steady rate, but the effectiveness of an OA in relation to an Attack action only decreases).

Why compare an OA to an attack action? An OA is not made in lieu of an attack. No one is choosing between the two. Instead, compare between an attack action plus an OA versus just an attack action. Now tell me which is better.

 

[Ashkelon]

Feats certainly exacerbate the issue, but the issue still exists in 5e even without feats (as feats also make melee combat more powerful as well). Though given the trend of the UA, not even a featless game will be safe from ranged superiority.

The Close Quarter Shooter fighting style from the underdark UA, or the Sharpshooter archetype from the fighter UA show that the designers of the game clearly lack any understanding of this issue as both negate the penalties of using a ranged weapon.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I agree with just about everything you've said here. I just want to point out though that the Eldritch Knight was offered as an example of the archer build. And I don't think @Hemlock cited a specific build so much as pointing out what is possible.

Edited: I see that while I was posting, @Hemlock did indeed commit to the Eldritch Knight as his example. hahaha that teaches me for assuming.

No, you were right the first time. I was pointing out that you can't assume an archer is a bad tank. I wasn't claiming that all archers are necessarily good tanks--that would be silly. You could theoretically have a naked archer with Con 4, and that would be a bad tank but a good archer.

Some archers are good tanks, some are bad tanks.

Remember that this was an offhand response to a tangent I called out as irrelevant: originally I was responding to Caliban's claim that an archer in melee attacks at disadvantage; he responded to my counterexample by claiming that because you have no defensive features, you'll do poorly in melee; I just pointed out that you can't assume a lack of defensive features. I could have been more detailed in my response but we were already way off-topic so I didn't.

 

[Ashkelon]

Perhaps you should amend your statement to "crossbow archers can deal as much damage in melee just as well as dedicated melee warriors"? Because I have shown an example of a melee warrior designed to absorb more damage than the crossbow archer.


Again, DPR is not the end all be all.

Yes, a fighter that devotes his feats to defense has greater defense. But that is comparing apples to oranges. When comparing two fighters whose ultimate goal is to deal damage, the crossbow archer and polearm fighter are the two top contenders, and the archer wins out. Not to mention that killing enemies faster actually saves the whole party far more HP overall and is a much more effective use of feats than on defense.

This assumes they both start in the same location and that their positioning throughout the fight doesn't matter. One of the advantages of the ranged build has been quoted as their ability to attack from afar. If they close, they are no longer attacking from afar. They're still capable, but they've lost some of the edge they have over the melee warrior, according to most folks.

How far spread out do your parties tend to be? Usually in the groups I'm in, players start within 10 feet of each other. And since the archer suffers no penalties for fighting in melee, he is more than in his right to do so, especially given that he can threaten OAs if he does so.

Depends on the melee build....but ranged weapons are available to melee fighters too. I mean, none of those examples you gave is even out of range for most thrown weapons. But yes, the melee fighter's ranged attacks in these instances will be less damaging than their melee attacks.

Using my level 12 Great Weapon Fighter as an example, One thrown weapon for 1d6+5 or 3 ranged attacks for 1d8+1 (and having to drop his +1 greatsword). That is roughly 25% as effective as my normal round of melee attacks.

Not so. Their dagger attacks are far less effective than an OA from a melee focused fighter.

d4+5 vs 2d6+5 means the dagger is 62% as effective as the greatsword at an OA. If the archer chose to draw a rapier instead, his OA is 80% as effective as the great weapon fighter's. Compare that to the greatweapon fighter's ranged capability.

And I would not say OAs are "exceedingly rare". I don't think anyone who has cited OAs as part of the discussion has done so. They are quite common, and the threat of them is nearly constant in most encounters at my table.

Again you say the threat of them is what counts. The archer fighter can threaten them about 70% as well as the great weapon fighter can. That is still a very credible threat.

Why compare an OA to an attack action? An OA is not made in lieu of an attack. No one is choosing between the two. Instead, compare between an attack action plus an OA versus just an attack action. Now tell me which is better.

While an OA of 2d6+5 might be good against 10 HP enemies its not nearly as much of a threat to enemies with 100 HP. As such, provoking an OA from a front line warrior becomes much less a worry to most monsters as you reach higher and higher levels of play. This is mostly due to the fact that damage scales through additional attacks, but OAs only get 1. Hence the comparison.

 

[Corwin]

Perhaps you should amend your statement to "crossbow archers can deal as much damage in melee just as well as dedicated melee warriors"? Because I have shown an example of a melee warrior designed to absorb more damage than the crossbow archer.

Again, DPR is not the end all be all.

Precisely this. And regardless of how much [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION] hopes to minimize the value of OAs, that value remains not zero. Therefore, it is impossible to take seriously the usage of words like, "just as well as," when comparing the fighting capabilities of archery specialists and melee-focused fighters. Its simply an untenable position.

 

[Corwin]

Again you say the threat of them is what counts. The archer fighter can threaten them about 70% as well as the great weapon fighter can. That is still a very credible threat.

I confess I am beginning to question your veracity. Was this example made in earnest?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I keep saying crossbow archers can fight in melee just as well as dedicated melee warriors because it is true. No example has been given that proves otherwise.

Let's both of us make 12th level fighters using PHB rules and put them in a 10'-wide Forcecage with your choice of an Earth Elemental (Medium fight) or a Death Slaad (1.5xDeadly). You make a crossbow archer. I'll make a melee fighter. Dollars to donuts you take more damage killing the Slaad than I do.

Edit: okay, make that a 20' Forcecage so that the Earth Elemental can actually fit inside with the fighter.

 

[Ashkelon]

Let's both of us make 12th level fighters using PHB rules and put them in a 10'-wide Forcecage with your choice of an Earth Elemental (Medium fight) or a Death Slaad (1.5xDeadly). You make a crossbow archer. I'll make a melee fighter. Dollars to donuts you take more damage killing the Slaad than I do.

Edit: okay, make that a 20' Forcecage so that the Earth Elemental can actually fit inside with the fighter.

Lol, sure.

Make them both champions (to remove spell or maneuver choice from affecting the outcome). Give the melee fighter Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master to maximize his damage. Give the archer Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter. Give them both +1 weapons and full plate. And run a simulation of the outcome of the combatants trading blows back and forth in the most boring of duels ever 1000 times.

I'm fairly certain the crossbow archer wins out simply because they have about 10% higher DPR, but I would love to see your analysis of the situation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, a fighter that devotes his feats to defense has greater defense. But that is comparing apples to oranges. When comparing two fighters whose ultimate goal is to deal damage, the crossbow archer and polearm fighter are the two top contenders, and the archer wins out.

The archer's goal is certainly to deal damage, and has an edge compared to melee combatants. But if we're going to talk about balance between the two approaches then we have to look at other areas of combat beyond just DPR. Melee combatants usually have more durability or more AC or some other factor that helps offset the lesser damage they may have compared to a specialized archer build.

Not to mention that killing enemies faster actually saves the whole party far more HP overall and is a much more effective use of feats than on defense.

Sure if a party can pour out damage at a rate that drops most enemies quickly, that is an effective way to cut down on damage taken. I don't know if I'd agree that it always makes more sense to focus on damage output at the expense of all else, though.

How far spread out do your parties tend to be? Usually in the groups I'm in, players start within 10 feet of each other. And since the archer suffers no penalties for fighting in melee, he is more than in his right to do so, especially given that he can threaten OAs if he does so.

It varies quite a bit, depending on circumstances. But they do often start off together. They rarely remain side by side, though. Our ranged expert does indeed try to maintain distance and hit enemies from afar. And they react differently to events in combat.

The archer does not threaten opportunity attacks; he uses a bow and doesn't keep a weapon in his offhand.

Using my level 12 Great Weapon Fighter as an example, One thrown weapon for 1d6+5 or 3 ranged attacks for 1d8+1 (and having to drop his +1 greatsword). That is roughly 25% as effective as my normal round of melee attacks.

Can't he throw more than one weapon?

d4+5 vs 2d6+5 means the dagger is 62% as effective as the greatsword at an OA. If the archer chose to draw a rapier instead, his OA is 80% as effective as the great weapon fighter's. Compare that to the greatweapon fighter's ranged capability.

But what ranged weapon is your crossbow archer using? A hand crossbow? Or does he need to use his item interaction to draw his dagger one round, and then use it to stow the dagger next round? Does your DM allow you to load your weapon without a free hand?

Again you say the threat of them is what counts. The archer fighter can threaten them about 70% as well as the great weapon fighter can. That is still a very credible threat.

Not sure on the math, or the frequency of them, but that's fine.

Are you telling me that your crossbow expert just wades into melee? That he actually DOES threaten enemies with OAs? They didn't seem too big a deal to you at all, and attacking from a distance was something a lot of folks mentioned as an advantage...so how does it actually play out?

While an OA of 2d6+5 might be good against 10 HP enemies its not nearly as much of a threat to enemies with 100 HP. As such, provoking an OA from a front line warrior becomes much less a worry to most monsters as you reach higher and higher levels of play. This is mostly due to the fact that damage scales through additional attacks, but OAs only get 1. Hence the comparison.

HP fluctuate, no? At some point, every monster is a 10 HP creature.

The idea is about dealing damage outside of your turn. It's bonus damage. Any enemy that has to choose between moving and possibly taking an OA (or maybe two or more depending) or else taking his action in some other way is being forced to behave in response to the party. Maybe the bad guy has to spend his turn disengaging.

Again, this goes back to well designed encounters. If all your DM is worrried about is the total HP of damage your party can put out in relation to a group of enemies....then yes, combat will favor the high damage characters. Is that surprising?