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

[psychophipps]

Well, if you set up your adventures with encounters with 100+ ft of open terrain and you have a grip of crossbow and archery gawds then...yeah. Of course they will treat your encounters like $2 whores.

Sent from my XT1254 using EN World mobile app

 

[Spohedus]

Here are my suggested changes to bring ranged back to an even risk/reward relationship to melee, that allows player choice to build a ranged character of similar damage potential as a melee character. I welcome input.

1. Any enemy in melee combat has partial cover, regardless of the direction of your attack.
2. Ranged weapons enjoy a Dex bonus to attack, but a strength bonus to damage. Masterwork bows and crossbows are required that allow a character's strength bonus to apply.
3. The Sharpshooter feat allows players to add their Dex bonus to damage in lieu of strength (instead of providing the -5/+10 damage modifier).


These changes allows a rogue or fighter to build for competitive ranged damage (similar to melee, greater than cantrips), but their damage is progressing as they level up by selecting the feat. Sharpshooter ignores partial cover, plus they can do similar damage that they can do with their sword, but switch targets and have less risk.

This setup allows for players to make interesting choices that change their overall playstyle while having clear tradeoffs. This choice is replacing a potential ABI, or other feat options.

Please discuss.

 

[Ancalagon]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Do not allow dex to give bonus to damage. Dex *can* give bonus to weapon accuracy (ranged weapons and finesse weapons) but not damage.

This will not unbalance the game. Dex is already an excellent stat to have, and range fighting has a lot of tactical advantages over melee fighting already. This is how it used to be in older editions after all.

I'm not doing this in my game at this time, but I would strongly consider it if I felt ranged combat became dominant.

 

[Ancalagon]

Here are my suggested changes to bring ranged back to an even risk/reward relationship to melee, that allows player choice to build a ranged character of similar damage potential as a melee character. I welcome input.

1. Any enemy in melee combat has partial cover, regardless of the direction of your attack.
.

Firing into melee without a penalty really bothers me

2. Ranged weapons enjoy a Dex bonus to attack, but a strength bonus to damage. Masterwork bows and crossbows are required that allow a character's strength bonus to apply.

Fully agree

 

[Iry]

What a foolish statement. I'm not even sure how to even respond to such shenanigans.

Whatever. Please stop being so hyper simplistic. You don't DM do you? You are a exclusively a player I take it?

Please debate in good faith. Your opponents have not been sarcastic or condescending to you.

 

[Cyrinishad]

I still haven't seen a cogent position that unequivocally displays that "Ranged>Melee". So far all arguments that postulate this have presumed optimized Ranged builds versus sub-optimal Melee builds and/or sub-optimal monster tactics. I remain unconvinced.

 

[Iry]

I still haven't seen a cogent position that unequivocally displays that "Ranged>Melee". So far all arguments that postulate this have presumed optimized Ranged builds versus sub-optimal Melee builds and/or sub-optimal monster tactics. I remain unconvinced.

Can you describe how you might be convinced? I don't mean with persuasive rhetoric (that could go either way), but perhaps having a neutral party take several encounters out of different adventure modules and demonstrating the strengths and weaknesses of both playstyles in each encounter? We would need quite a lot of them to keep the sample size relatively unbiased. Or would there be another way?

 

[The Old Crow]

1. Any enemy in melee combat has partial cover, regardless of the direction of your attack

This is what I favor because it makes "engaged" into a thing with meaning.

2. Ranged weapons enjoy a Dex bonus to attack, but a strength bonus to damage. Masterwork bows and crossbows are required that allow a character's strength bonus to apply.

You know, I really really like this idea, BUT that is because I don't like that strength and dex are mutually exclusive rather than complimentary, which is a whole other issue for me. As much as I like this idea, it concerns me to nerf martial ranged ability but not magic ranged ability. The strength of point one is that it gives the +2 to AC vs missile fire to anyone who wades into melee, whether they be martial or spellcaster, so it works as a way to strengthen melee in general.

 

[Cyrinishad]

Can you describe how you might be convinced? I don't mean with persuasive rhetoric (that could go either way), but perhaps having a neutral party take several encounters out of different adventure modules and demonstrating the strengths and weaknesses of both playstyles in each encounter? We would need quite a lot of them to keep the sample size relatively unbiased. Or would there be another way?

I am uncertain that I can be convinced given the context of this discussion, partly because the pro-Ranged position in this thread has revolved around the presumptions that melee characters taking any amount of damage and/or lack of party co-operation as major factors in the "Ranged>Melee" equation. Which makes the pro-Ranged position entirely subjective... Perhaps a more balanced comparison would be between two fighters (one ranged & one melee) that have identical resources, so that it's an apples-to-apples comparison. Additionally, I would tend to think that any amount of damage taken that is not lethal and does not require an expenditure of resources during the combat encounter is ultimately irrelevant when discussing combat efficacy, because all HP can be recovered without using resources after a combat is resolved.

 

[Corwin]

Please debate in good faith. Your opponents have not been sarcastic or condescending to you.

Wow, are you being serious? Look, white knight, what do you call this?...

"You really aren't speaking from a perspective of anything resembling system mastery, here or anywhere in this thread."

I'm sure the fact that you agree with thecasualoblivion has nothing to do with your opinion on who is out of line and when,right? [rolleyes]