Ranged Options for All Classes

[The Crimson Binome]

So is there a way to make primary melee classes not completely suck at range strait out of the box? Or will it require house rules?

On the one hand, it's easy to criticize players for building an obvious weakness into their character; not having a viable ranged option is a fairly obvious weakness. On the other hand, that doesn't excuse the designers for turning obvious character builds into traps, that require significant amounts of system mastery in order to overcome; a straightforward barbarian or paladin should be a viable choice, and it shouldn't be critically hamstrung in common scenarios.

Personally, for the long campaign I ran, one of the only house rules was that javelins could be drawn like ammunition. If you don't want to house rule, you could instead make sure that they find a couple of flying potions, or some sort of melee weapon that can throw and return. If that's too heavy-handed, then you may have to rely on the wizard to fly them over in those situations.

 

[Lord Twig]

On the one hand, it's easy to criticize players for building an obvious weakness into their character; not having a viable ranged option is a fairly obvious weakness. On the other hand, that doesn't excuse the designers for turning obvious character builds into traps, that require significant amounts of system mastery in order to overcome; a straightforward barbarian or paladin should be a viable choice, and it shouldn't be critically hamstrung in common scenarios.

Personally, for the long campaign I ran, one of the only house rules was that javelins could be drawn like ammunition. If you don't want to house rule, you could instead make sure that they find a couple of flying potions, or some sort of melee weapon that can throw and return. If that's too heavy-handed, then you may have to rely on the wizard to fly them over in those situations.

Yes, this is the issue that I ran into. A bunch of players that just looked at the options for their class and picked whatever sounded cool. There is no obvious "you need ranged capabilities" statement anywhere and unless you have previous experience you won't know the capability is missing until you need it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes, this is the issue that I ran into. A bunch of players that just looked at the options for their class and picked whatever sounded cool. There is no obvious "you need ranged capabilities" statement anywhere and unless you have previous experience you won't know the capability is missing until you need it.

In the normal course of play, most new players will discover they need some kind of ranged capability before they reach 2nd level, about the same time they discover they need a healer and someone to disarm traps.

Default starting equipment for most classes tends to include a ranged weapon.

 

[S'mon]

IME the barbarian ranged attack is the barbarian jumping over the fiery pit, climbing the wall, and gutting the sorcerer atop the battlements. Athletics with Rage Advantage FTW.

 

[Oofta]

IME the barbarian ranged attack is the barbarian jumping over the fiery pit, climbing the wall, and gutting the sorcerer atop the battlements. Athletics with Rage Advantage FTW.

In my home campaign I had a similar scenario. The barbarian just ran across the lava* and sucked up the damage.

*Sinking in lava is a myth. You'll burst into flames before too long, but lava is much, much thicker than water. Oh, and the lava was illusionary as was the damage she took. Still inspirational.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

On the other hand, that doesn't excuse the designers for turning obvious character builds into traps, that require significant amounts of system mastery in order to overcome; a straightforward barbarian or paladin should be a viable choice, and it shouldn't be critically hamstrung in common scenarios.

"System Mastery" is usually used for things like combining obscure prestige classes from multiple supplements to get extremely good abilities, or knowing that an ability that looks useful actually isn't, not for concepts like "you might need to fight both in melee and at range at different times". I mean, if you ask someone to describe the creature who's name is the first word in the game, it will probably be something like "Giant flying fire-breathing lizard", and dealing with that 'flying' part should maybe occur to people. Every class but monk gets either a ranged weapon or a ranged ability as part of their 1st level setup, they're not making this a secret.

I just don't think that "You might have to deal with a real-world barrier like a wall or chasm that you can't just jump across, or with a common fantastic problem like a flying dragon in your fantasy adventure game" to be some sort of unfair trap.

In this case, the DM screwed up by jumping the characters to level 10 (and skipping the chance for them to learn abilities gradually) without some metagame guidance on how to build, then threw a challenge at them that prepared characters would not have a problem with. Even then, they actually had a viable means of getting to the enemy (summoned flying creatures) that they started to use, but at that point he modified the encounter not to require getting to the enemy.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A few months back I ran the climactic battle for an official D&D adventure path and found a fatal flaw. The BBEG appeared on the opposite side of the room filled with lava, up on a balcony. This is a great cinematic scene, but on the first turn it immediately became apparent that the only characters that were going to be able to participate in this battle were the spell casters and those martial characters that specialized in a bow. The barbarian, paladin and sword and board fighter were relegated to spectating after throwing their few javelins (at disadvantage because of range). I quickly changed up the BBEG tactics by having him summon a hoard of fodder and teleporting to the other side of the room. This was a stupid thing for the highly intelligent antagonist to do, but it made the game a lot more fun for the players.

Now I am deciding on a character to make for a game and I realized I didn't want to be useless at range. This makes playing a barbarian, paladin and monk almost out of the question. As well as a large number of fighter builds and even quite a few ranger and rogue builds.

So is there a way to make primary melee classes not completely suck at range strait out of the box? Or will it require house rules?

I'm discussing making bows finesse, with the other DM in my group, which will help with this problem. However, most barbarians should be fine with a bow, since they'll tend to have decent Dex for the AC. Full tank fighters tend to tank (english is weird) their dex, though. Paladins are a mix, IME.

Monks are good with a bow, though. And mobile enough to get to most enemies regardless. A Shadow Monk in particular can't be denied access to most enemies. But a Kensei monk will be lethal with a bow, and a Sun Soul Monk will have decent range without any tools.

Any rogue build I can even think of will be good with a bow. I've never seen a low Dex rogue, and you have proficiency. If anyone in the group has an owl familiar, you're golden for getting that sneak attack every round.

also at least one XYZ Smite spell is available with a ranged weapon attack, so a Dex Paladin can actually kick ass from range, if not quite at 100%.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"System Mastery" is usually used for things like combining obscure prestige classes from multiple supplements to get extremely good abilities, or knowing that an ability that looks useful actually isn't, not for concepts like "you might need to fight both in melee and at range at different times". I mean, if you ask someone to describe the creature who's name is the first word in the game, it will probably be something like "Giant flying fire-breathing lizard", and dealing with that 'flying' part should maybe occur to people. Every class but monk gets either a ranged weapon or a ranged ability as part of their 1st level setup, they're not making this a secret.

It doesn't take a great deal of system mastery to realize that you might need to deal with flying foes. It does require a great deal of system mastery in order to build a character that can attack effectively at range, while not sacrificing their core competencies.

A barbarian with 14 Dexterity (as suggested by their armor proficiencies), who picks up a longbow, is not an effective ranged attacker. Two attacks, at +6 to hit for ~7 damage, is not a meaningful ranged contribution for a level 10 character. A paladin who knows to dip two levels into warlock, making two attacks at +8 to hit for ~12 damage each, is making a meaningful ranged contribution for a level 10 character.

Compare them to a dedicated ranged attacker, like a ranger, who makes two attacks at +10 to hit for ~13 damage each, with an extra ~5 damage from Colossus Slayer. The pal/lock is at least in the same ballpark, while the barbarian is not. A Dex-based fighter with a shield and a rapier can cover this weakness without any further investment, while a Strength-based fighter with a shield and a longsword cannot; but you need to know something about system mechanics and counter-intuitive build options in order to take advantage of that.

 

[Yunru]

There's also always just getting support from other party members. Fly for instance, is a 3rd level spell.

 

[Lord Twig]

It doesn't take a great deal of system mastery to realize that you might need to deal with flying foes. It does require a great deal of system mastery in order to build a character that can attack effectively at range, while not sacrificing their core competencies.

A barbarian with 14 Dexterity (as suggested by their armor proficiencies), who picks up a longbow, is not an effective ranged attacker. Two attacks, at +6 to hit for ~7 damage, is not a meaningful ranged contribution for a level 10 character. A paladin who knows to dip two levels into warlock, making two attacks at +8 to hit for ~12 damage each, is making a meaningful ranged contribution for a level 10 character.

Compare them to a dedicated ranged attacker, like a ranger, who makes two attacks at +10 to hit for ~13 damage each, with an extra ~5 damage from Colossus Slayer. The pal/lock is at least in the same ballpark, while the barbarian is not. A Dex-based fighter with a shield and a rapier can cover this weakness without any further investment, while a Strength-based fighter with a shield and a longsword cannot; but you need to know something about system mechanics and counter-intuitive build options in order to take advantage of that.

I agree with this. It is easy to find out that you need to be effective at range, the hard part is figuring out how. A paladin can get a couple throwing weapons for short range and a bow, but neither are going to be very effective. If you look at their abilities, none of them really boost their ranged effectiveness.

Fighters have it easier since most of their abilities work at range, but an 8 Dex fighter is going to struggle.

I think the best suggestion is having other party members that can help get their melee monsters into melee range.