Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6976896" data-attributes="member: 12731">Let me stop you right there, since this is something people say like a mantra. They believe it to be true. They want it to be true. It has always been true before...But is it actually true now?Sure a d12 is larger than a d6. But reach 5 is smaller than "reach" 120.And when we add +10 damage per attack to both modes of combat, the statement "melee is hands down better from a numerical point of view" starts to look outright dodgy.From a numerical point of view, you have a choice between dealing (some fraction of) * 4d12+60 damage at range 5 (and 10, if you choose a reach weapon)or* 4d6+60 at ranges 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115 and 120And now falls the hammer: monster manual foes are significantly skewing towards being melee heavy. Not entering melee is not only a winning move, but an outright crippling one (even if ranged did considerably weaker damage than melee, which it clearly doesn't): entering melee means "enable monsters to do their worst". That doesn't sound like a hands down best tactic. At this point I'd say "melee hands down better" is simply an echo from the past. It has nothing to do with actual optimal 5th edition play. (it's actually 5d6+75 for ranged, but I won't add the bonus action to this comparison, since a melee character can put it to use too)PS. I should probably add that I would love for you to be right,  [MENTION=82132]Cyber-Dave[/MENTION]. I emphatically agree with the notion that the cornerstone of the fantasy genre in general and D&D in particular should be the melee hero. But there's a reason we're having these discussions.</blockquote>

Verification