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

pemerton

Legend
The point transcends simpler DPR calculations. It's more the realization that ranged combat kind of breaks the game. The MM is clearly designed on the assumption that melee combat will be commonplace. By not running with this assumption you can essentially shortcircuit the model of the game.

A ranged party can almost always focus their entire firepower on the same foe. This effiency simply doesn't come up in any DPR calculation, no matter how detailed.

A ranged party sustains, as I said, much less damage. This efficiency factors even less into DPR, yet has a huge impact on play and percieved party power.

If you want to object that sounds close to cheating, I am the first to agree. It feels exactly like cheating.

It's akin to "don't bring a sword to a gunfight". Bringing ranged tactics to a melee fight is essentially cheating - it's using the modern genre to break the fantasy genre.
Taking zero damage in a fight at the cost of a bonus action and either a spell (Expeditious Retreat) and open terrain, or a feat (Skulker) and two levels of Rogue is a qualitative advantage. Skulker + Rogue also increases your DPR by the way by giving you advantage on many of your attacks. Most monsters don't have blindsight or tremorsense, so you can hide from them behind obstacles or in the dark even if you're within darkvision range, because of Skulker. Skulker also ensures that you don't lose advantage unless you hit with your attack, which for someone like D'Artagnan the Swashbuckler (although he's not a Skulker until he levels up) means that his d8+4d6+15 (33) killer shot will almost always be made with advantage--it can't be blown on a miss.

Having a bunch of undead meat shields throwing nets to restrain your enemies and also tearing them apart and getting in their way at the cost of a bonus action and a spell or three (Animate Dead) is also a pretty good advantage.
I can't help but feel that this "animate dead for meat shields" thing also counts as "breaking the fantasy genre""!

The hiding less so, but I'm not sure that it's good for the game if the best/most viable builds depend upon multi-classing and careful feat selection rather than emerge fairly naturally out of the core archetypes presented.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

cmad1977

Hero
So, you mean the designers should be absolved from any responsibility? Whatever imbalance or wonkiness that comes out of oversights or mistakes or plain carelessness, you're okay with WotC not needing to own up to it, to acknowledge it, to fix it; and that the responsibility is quarely put upon the DMs shoulders?

I hope you don't mean that, but then I can't see what you did mean.

I guess I don't see the wonkiness you go on about. And what wonkiness is there is so easy to fix that it doesn't require an apology, acknowledgement, or reissue of the books to fix. That's what DMs are for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I can't help but feel that this "animate dead for meat shields" thing also counts as "breaking the fantasy genre"!

I'm not responsible for CapnZapp's opinions. I'm not the one arguing that there's something wrong with 5E. I see the rules and what they imply, and I'm willing to talk about what you could do if you wanted to emulate certain genres more effectively in your 5E game, but I'm not the one who called ranged tactics "cheating" or "genre-breaking".

I think the fantasy genre is enormously diverse and can't really be "broken" that easily. The Wheel of Time, the Malazan Book of the Fallen, the Belgariad, the Stormlight Archives, the Dresden Files, Harry Potter, and yes even D&D pulp novels like the Icewind Dale Trilogy are all within the fantasy genre, even though they all differ far more from each other than 5E does from AD&D.

(And if you think undead meat shields breaks the genre, go read Memories of Ice. Best book in the whole Malazan universe, and the two necromancers in the siege of Capustan are great.)
 

pemerton

Legend
And if you think undead meat shields breaks the genre, go read Memories of Ice. Best book in the whole Malazan universe, and the two necromancers in the siege of Capustan are great.
I guess I feel that this is more a vilainous than a heroic approach, given standard genre conventions.

I'm not responsible for CapnZapp's opinions. I'm not the one arguing that there's something wrong with 5E. I see the rules and what they imply
I realise all this, and hadn't intended to imply to the contrary. I was just struck by the contrast between the two posts - [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] complaining about genre "deraliment", and then you extrapolating from the mechanics in ways that I felt tended to reinforce CapnZapp's point (from CapnZapp's perspective).

As we've already recently discussed (maybe in this very thread?), I prefer to settle genre expectations first and then have mechanics that will deliver them, rather than treat the mechanics as a model for the world and extrapolate out to find out what is possible. (A bit of the latter is of course inevitable in an even remotely mechanically sophisticated RPG, but I like to contain it to peripheral cases, not have it at the core.)

So in that sense I'm sympathetic to CapnZapp in a way that you're not. Though, as I've also posted in this thread, I think there was already an edition that mostly solved his particular problems from a "genre first" perspective. And, conversely, if he thinks his two suggested house-rules (STR for damage with bows and crossbows, and OAs for shooting/throwing in melee) are enough to deal with the issue, then problem solved within the context of 5e and (as far as this thread is concerned) we can all go home!
 

I guess I feel that this is more a vilainous than a heroic approach, given standard genre conventions.

Well, they are villains. Of a sort. Villains and comic relief. (There's a big joke about how Bauchelain's servant accidentally brings him virgin's blood when he asked for wine for him and a guest. The punchline is that he recognized the difference by the taste.) It's a pretty dark series.

"Fantasy" doesn't necessarily mean "heroic."

Memories of Ice said:
"I never free my demons," Bauchelain said.
"Never?"
"Every exception to a magical geas weakens it. I allow none."
"Poor demons!"
Bauchelain shrugged. "I hold no sympathy for mere tools. Do you weep for your dagger when it breaks in someone's back?"
"That depends on whether it killed the [fellow] or just made him mad."
"Ah, but then you weep for yourself."
"I was making a joke."
Bauchelain raised a single, thin eyebrow.
The subsequent silence was broken by Emancipor's return, bearing a tray on which sat a dusty bottle and two crystal goblets.
"Not a glass for yourself?" the necromancer asked. "Am I so unegalitarian, Emancipor?"
"Uh, I took a swig below, master."
"You did?"
"T'see if it was flowery."
"And was it?"
"Not sure. Maybe. What's flowery?"
"Hmmm, we must resume your education, I think, of such finer things. Flowery is the opposite of... woody. Not bitter memory of sap, in other words, but something sweet, as of narcissus or skullcrown--"
"Those flowers are poisonous," Quick Ben noted in faint alarm.
"But pretty and sweet in appearance, yes? I doubt any of us are in the habit of eating flowers, thus in analogy I sought visual cues for dear Emancipor."
"Ah, I see."
"Before you pour from that bottle, then, Emancipor. Was the aftertaste bitter or sweet?"
"Uh, it was kind of thick, master. Like iron."
Bauchelain rose and grasped the bottle. He held it close, then sniffed the mouth. "You idiot, this is blood from Korbal Broach's collection. Not that row, the one opposite. Take this back to the cellar."
Emancipor's lined face had gone parchment-white. "Blood? Whose?"
"Does it matter?"
As Emancipor gaped, Quick Ben cleared his throat and said, "To your servant, I think the answer would be, 'yes, it does.'"
The crow cackled from the mantelpiece, head bobbing.
The servant sagged on watery knees, the goblets on the tray clinking together.
Frowning, Bauchelain collected the bottle again and sniffed once more. "Well," he said, returning it to the tray, "I'm not the one to ask, of course, but I think it's virgin's blood."
Quick Ben had no choice but to inquire, "How can you tell?"
Bauchelain regarded him with raised brows. "Why, it's woody."

In response to your other comment:

So in that sense I'm sympathetic to CapnZapp in a way that you're not. Though, as I've also posted in this thread, I think there was already an edition that mostly solved his particular problems from a "genre first" perspective. And, conversely, if he thinks his two suggested house-rules (STR for damage with bows and crossbows, and OAs for shooting/throwing in melee) are enough to deal with the issue, then problem solved within the context of 5e and (as far as this thread is concerned) we can all go home!

If you implement those changes I think you'll find that they don't do enforce a Conan-like genre at all. They change some minor implementation details (Rogues become more attractive for archery, and so do Sorlocks), but your game will still look more like a gunfight than a swordfight.
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
If you implement those changes I think you'll find that they don't do enforce a Conan-like genre at all. They change some minor implementation details (Rogues become more attractive for archery, and so do Sorlocks), but your game will still look more like a gunfight than a swordfight.
Ah, well, if problem not solved then there's still more work to do!

What's your reasoning for the above? And rogue's beomce more attractive because of their bonus move action?

(Also - the bit of story you quoted reminded me very much of Vance, though perhaps a bit grimmer/necromantic.)
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Survivability and the ability to engage effectively matters more than DPR. That's the whole premise of the ranged superiority argument, nicht so? The game devs kept a tight rein on offensive abilities, and crossbow expert's bonus action doesn't really increase your effectiveness by very much. You want to use your bonus action in a game-changing way that lets you kill monsters you otherwise couldn't kill, and claim treasure you otherwise couldn't claim, and spend less resources than you would otherwise spend.

Increasing your attack rate DPR by 25-50% at the cost of your bonus action, a smaller damage die size (d6 instead of d8), a feat and having to be within 120' isn't a qualitative advantage. (At 1st-5th level when it increases it by 100%, Crossbow Expert is much more appealing, but not so at higher levels.)

Taking zero damage in a fight at the cost of a bonus action and either a spell (Expeditious Retreat) and open terrain, or a feat (Skulker) and two levels of Rogue is a qualitative advantage. Skulker + Rogue also increases your DPR by the way by giving you advantage on many of your attacks. Most monsters don't have blindsight or tremorsense, so you can hide from them behind obstacles or in the dark even if you're within darkvision range, because of Skulker. Skulker also ensures that you don't lose advantage unless you hit with your attack, which for someone like D'Artagnan the Swashbuckler (although he's not a Skulker until he levels up) means that his d8+4d6+15 (33) killer shot will almost always be made with advantage--it can't be blown on a miss.

Having a bunch of undead meat shields throwing nets to restrain your enemies and also tearing them apart and getting in their way at the cost of a bonus action and a spell or three (Animate Dead) is also a pretty good advantage.

Animate Object is similar to Animate Dead but less likely to be available to an archer, unless you think of a Sorlock as an archer. Also, Animate Dead has better action and concentration economies.

Hiding, mobility, and meat shields are the main good uses of bonus actions for archers. For other PCs, good bonus action uses can include wildshaping, teleportation, and maintaining damaging spells like Bigby's Hand.
Let me first address the first part, where I feel you bundle together different topics.

On one hand we're discussing how to best use your bonus action (I know full well you technically don't have it until you do, but still), on the other Crossbow Expert.

Had Crossbow Expert granted only the bonus attack, that would be one thing. Or if the bonus attack came from somewhere else and CE only provided other stuff. But that's not what is happening.

So you can't dismiss CE only on the grounds there are better things to do with your bonus attack. CE cruically removes the risks of entering melee. That it provides the equivalent of two-weapon fighting (the attack mode) as well as two-weapon fighting (the fighting style) is, well, not just "a bonus" since it's better than that, but still.

I can't say which of SS and CE is the most crucial part of enabling the ranged tactic.

What I can say, however, is that just focusing on the use of bonus action is comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, if you somehow could extract just the bonus action benefit, and replace it with something else, then you might want to consider that. But you can't.

So the bonus action from CE is much much more than DPR - it's the choice of the ranged tactic, which IMO is supreme. Talk about qualititive advantage!

---

The other part requires us to theoretically assume you could just slot in skulker or whatever for the bonus action crossbow shot; without replacing anything else for our ranged build.

That said, a few questions:

"Taking zero damage in a fight at the cost of a bonus action" - could you be more specific, please. What exact build choice and what exact combat action are you talking about here?

As for Expeditious Retreat, yes, it's a bonus action spell. But you can't cast that every round (and you don't want to either). So it is by itself a poor substitute for a bonus attack. Or more to the point, nothing says you need to choose here. If you have this spell, you can cast it round one, but then make bonus attacks other rounds.

Skulker seems to me like a way to supply advantage, and as such, it's not a bad option. However I have several caveats: a method that grants advantage to everybody is far superior to one that just grants advantage to one hero. So skulker is on par with barbarian reckless attack in that regard, but worse than, say, Hold Person or Ki Stun.

Also: hiding (not the "getting advantage" part, but the "removing yourself as a target" part). I'm afraid hiding has a requirement, or it is fundamentally flawed. That requirement is - everybody needs to do it, or the monsters will simply hit someone else. And you don't want to make the monsters focus their fire any more than they already do.

(If your DM always plays monsters efficiently, this caveat disappears. But I would bet most DMs don't)

The basic building block, taking Rogue levels, on the other hand, is probably a truly strong tactic. The way Rogues get to use their bonus actions is certainly very useful, bordering on ridiculously strong if everyone in the party has a means to gain such high mobility.

"undead meat shields" - no objection there. When it comes to spamming conjurations it kind of breaks the game in its own way. I prefer to simply not to think about it, which doesn't mean your suggestion lacks validity. I wouldn't call that a tactic based on your bonus action as much as a tactic based on conjuration spells, though...

---

In the end, though, it doesn't matter, since SS/CE isn't primarily about the bonus action, but about 120 ft "reach".

I would more consider your suggestion to take Rogue levels (for the hiding, mobility) as something you might consider adding on top of ranged, rather than replacing it.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
As far as I can tell, [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] was giving average damage, not maximum:

5* (1d6 handxbow +15 feat & DEX) = 5*18.5 rounds off to 90 for the hand crossbow expert (the maximum would be 105, but maximums aren't that significant to this analysis), and 4* (1d8 sword +5 STR) = 38 which CapnZapp has rounded down to 30 rather than up to 40.

In your post you have calculated the averages but for some reason described them as maximums. I'm sure that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has not "intentionally butchered the maths" - rather, I suspect that an error was made in calculating the sword damge (I am guessing that CapnZapp accidentally calculated as if it was 1d6 rather than 1d8, which would give 34 which might reasonably be rounded down to 30).
1d8+5 x4 is indeed closer to 40 than 30. My mistake.

The issue remains.

If the feat-less game is considered playable and useful, how come someone decided that doubling the damage for some weapons configurations, but not for others, was a good idea?

I'l tell you why - because the designers simply didn't foresee the ways you can enable the +10 damage part of GWM or SS without suffering the -5 part.

They simply didn't see the feat as doubling the damage. They likely saw that the damage went from 13 max for a longsword (15 from the fighting style) to 27 max for a greatsword, but probably thought that would be a special occurrence. That the difference wouldn't be greater than people still picking up longswords.

Perhaps the feat designer didn't talk to the monster designer that didn't talk to the bounded accuracy designer, I don't know.

The end result in my practical game is not good, since the sharpshooter uses -5/+10 quite reliably on even as high as AC 18 (which in this edition covers an awfully large portion of all MM entries). In practice it's easily a doubling of the damage dealt.

Even if it is possible to minmax the longsword to reach similar heights, it would still be a problem, since the MM simply can't handle it.

I would much prefer to dial back the damage extremes. Not only does this mean many more weapon combos become viable alternatives, it also means using the MM as is becomes much more practical.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
I can't help but feel that this "animate dead for meat shields" thing also counts as "breaking the fantasy genre""!

The hiding less so, but I'm not sure that it's good for the game if the best/most viable builds depend upon multi-classing and careful feat selection rather than emerge fairly naturally out of the core archetypes presented.
If you were to boil down my complaints to a single thing, this would be it.

5th edition takes considerable pains to prevent many kinds of problems, such as with Concentration and Attunement mechanics.

It's a bummer they couldn't catch conjuration spells, especially since they stranged the animal companion.

It's a bummer they couldn't contain damage explosions, though in fairness, it's mostly a single mechanism (the -5/+10 part). Hopefully it will be errataed before the end of the edition.

More worrying is how they apparently didn't see how 5E loosened all shackles previous D&D editions have held down ranged (or modern) fighting tactics with. This will return to bite them in the rear, mark my words.
 


Remove ads

Top