D&D (2024) How to simply balance ranged weapons.

[Shadowedeyes]

Ranged is definitely stronger than melee at the top end of optimization. Even if we assume the classes that can use it are weaker (Ranger, Rogue, and conveniently forgotten in the discussion, Fighter), the issue is that there is little reason, from a purely mechanical view, not to go ranged over melee with those specific classes.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ok. I understood you correctly the first time and hard disagree.

about? at least so far we haven't seen anything to suggest that 6e won't be continuing a design that expects the GM to throw out quite a few monsters per player. Expecting the GM to track which monsters are grappled by which PC & which PC by which monster(s) is a nontrivial amnount of tracking added to everything else that a GM does under those conditions.

 

[mellored]

But boy, does it rub me the wrong way Dex PCs get to have better Initiative and range on top of equal AC, to-hit chance, and damage as their Str companions. Oh, and they even have melee weapons made just for them now, grrrr. One of the many reasons I've moved over to Pathfinder 2e.

???
Str vs Dex in Pathfinder 2e has the same AC, same to-hit, and it has dex based melee weapons.

Damage is the only difference. With no dex to damage (though thief still does), and the lower damage die.

 

[Emberashh]

If you made damage types matter more, Ranged weaponry would be balanced out as they'd mostly be Piercing weapons, with few exceptions that would be easy to account for balance wise.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

about? at least so far we haven't seen anything to suggest that 6e won't be continuing a design that expects the GM to throw out quite a few monsters per player.

Ok. Glad we are not seeing 6e anytime soon...
so until then, i won't bother answering any further...

 

[Clint_L]

We don't send soldiers into battle with swords today. But when the available ranged weapons were bows or renaissance era firearms, people absolutely went into battle with melee weapons. The same is true in the fantasy D&D seeks to emulate (albeit with more swords and fewer polearms). To support that fiction, the DM should work to ensure that melee and ranged weapons are similarly viable options. But if an encounter where the combatants see each other across a quarter mile of open pasture is incompatible with that goal, I'd argue the rules are doing a poor job of supporting the DM.

I'd argue that that is a scenario where the ranged weapon deserves its advantage. Just like if he walks around the corner and into a barbarian with a great axe, that archer is going to have a bad day.

Ranged is definitely stronger than melee at the top end of optimization. Even if we assume the classes that can use it are weaker (Ranger, Rogue, and conveniently forgotten in the discussion, Fighter), the issue is that there is little reason, from a purely mechanical view, not to go ranged over melee with those specific classes.

Because those specific classes can't survive in melee very well. With the way D&D is normally played, there are a ton of advantages to being close to the action, and the game is essentially built on the assumption that every combat will involve melee. The reason few fighters go for a ranged build is that most players who build fighter characters see melee as the preferable option.

 

[Clint_L]

Here's what I mean about the game being built around a melee assumption, with ranged combat being limited so that you basically never have the option of just sitting back at 300' feet and shooting things from long range with your bow. Let's look at the archetypal 5e starting adventure, Lost Mine of Phandelver (available for free!):

Goblin Arrows
The first encounter is set up specifically as an ambush with ranged weapons! Yet, the text specifies: "When the time comes for the goblins to act, two of them rush forward and make melee attacks while two goblins stand 30 feet away from the party and make ranged attacks." This is teaching players what to do in this situation, and note that the goblins are placed where a typical frontline fighter can reach them on their first turn and still get an attack.

Cragmaw Hideout
This one starts with another ranged ambush, but now in a situation where the players should know what to do and be trying to approach stealthily: "Characters moving carefully or scouting ahead might be able to surprise the goblin lookouts."

The rest of the Cragmaw scenario is close ranged fighting in tunnels and small rooms, designed for melee encounters.

Phandalin
The main encounter in town is a bar fight. The Redbrand hideout is narrow passages and small rooms again.

The Spider's Web
Here's where you get most of the outdoor encounters. Yet all of them take place in areas with plenty of cover, like a building, ruined tower, or the abandoned town of Thundertree, which again more or less functions as a dungeon.

Wave Echo Cave
Caverns/Dungeon. Narrow passages, small rooms.

This is typical of published material, and is how players are trained to imagine D&D. Battles simply do not take place across "a quarter mile of pasture." Ever. So an advantage in that situation is really irrelevant to D&D. This is a melee focused game, and any advantages ranged weapons might have does not seem to be changing that or making those characters overpowered. It's nice to have one ranged weapon specialist in a decently sized party. But only once you have 1-2 melee specialists, a strong caster, and a support class like a bard or cleric.

So if we nerf ranged weapons, what happens to that secondary niche that they occupy?

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I'd argue that that is a scenario where the ranged weapon deserves its advantage. Just like if he walks around the corner and into a barbarian with a great axe, that archer is going to have a bad day.


Because those specific classes can't survive in melee very well. With the way D&D is normally played, there are a ton of advantages to being close to the action, and the game is essentially built on the assumption that every combat will involve melee. The reason few fighters go for a ranged build is that most players who build fighter characters see melee as the preferable option.

Is it preferable from a mechanical point of view, or simply from a flavorful/character/RP point of view? Because one of the big things I think is true is that the majority of players don't deeply care about playing something because it is the "Best." They may feel disheartened if their concept doesn't seem to play as effectively as it should, but they won't go out of their way to find out the best mechanics and play with them.

So you end up with fighters heavily skewed to melee even if a Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter is mechanically stronger, and melee doesn't have many actual advantages over the aforementioned build.

 

[Emberashh]

Ironically, adding onto my last comment, the realism of ranged weaponry tending to be superior to that of melee is hamstringed by not actually being realistic.

As noted, without any mechanical meaning behind damage types, nearly all martial attacks are mechanically identical with the only difference being the range at which they can be applied, which as a result means higher range is always better regardless of the circumstances.

Even with some of the other suggestions here, that issue isn't really resolved. Punishing shooting in melee range of an opponent doesn't go far enough in making up the difference simply because most aren't going to be just sitting still facetanking when trying to attack at range; you may as well just fight with melee at that point for all it matters.

But, with damage types mattering, the realism goes up. Ranged weaponry on the whole is generally only going to be able to deal piercing damage. And in a fantasy world, its not unrealistic to say that fantasy creatures will have distinct resistances, if not active defenses, against such damage.

Ranged then becomes powerful and optimal when not resisted, and is balanced out by being suboptimal when it is.

And moreover, what this then lets you do is justify to players actually using both range and melee on one character, fulfilling the classic fantasy of Archer characters, which almost all of which seldom use only their bow.

Hawkeye, Legolas, Robin Hood, etc all swap into melee weapons when the time calls for it. With Ranged weaponry being as so shallowly powerful as they are in 5e, you can't actually emulate those characters without gimping yourself.

 

[Clint_L]

Is it preferable from a mechanical point of view, or simply from a flavorful/character/RP point of view? Because one of the big things I think is true is that the majority of players don't deeply care about playing something because it is the "Best." They may feel disheartened if their concept doesn't seem to play as effectively as it should, but they won't go out of their way to find out the best mechanics and play with them.

So you end up with fighters heavily skewed to melee even if a Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter is mechanically stronger, and melee doesn't have many actual advantages over the aforementioned build.

No, it's strongly preferable from a mechanical point of view.

Fighters are built to be very strong at two pillars of the game: dealing damage, and taking damage.

A melee fighter takes advantage of both those strengths. A ranged fighter takes advantage of one of them. Put another way, being someone who can stand in melee and take damage, while delivering good damage in return, is more valuable to an adventuring party than someone who sits at range and might deal a little more damage, but isn't helping much at absorbing it. Percy, in Vox Machina (Critical Role's first campaign) can afford to be a ranged-focused fighter only because the barbarian Grog is up in front taking it in the face.

Part of the problem with rangers and rogues is that their niche is secondary. I think their damage should be stronger, not weaker than it currently is. Or other abilities should be buffed to compensate for their role limitations.

Edit: That said, I do think class fantasy plays a role. Most folks who want to play a fighter probably go in imagining that as a melee class. But the class is very much built with that specialization in mind, even though fighters are flexible enough that a very strong ranged build is possible (ironically, through battlemaster more than through arcane archer, IMO).