First, I think this might be true in a white room, but not in an actual game. Ranged can only shine because of the existence of melee — the barbarian is up there surrounded by enemies, so the archer has room to breathe. The melee characters are acting as a speed bump to stop ranged from getting swarmed. Ranged might have more options, but in the absence of melee characters, ranged quickly turn into melee characters.
But, if you do still want to take them down a peg, you could add in some of the other old rules. There used to be a -4 for shooting at someone in melee with an ally (to represent the extra care it takes not to hit the ally). That could turn into disadvantage for 5e.
Or add the risk of hitting an ally (miss by more than 5 or 10 or whatever, and you might hit your friend.
Or, start tracking arrows and encumbrance instead of just giving everyone a weightless, bottomless quiver. You want to dump str, go ahead, but then see how many arrows you can still carry after you’re fully kitted out (including rations, torches, tinderbox, crowbar, all the other crap we tend to hand wave nowadays). The move penalty would really hit an archer hard, they have to be able to get to a good position.
First, I think this might be true in a white room, but not in an actual game. Ranged can only shine because of the existence of melee — the barbarian is up there surrounded by enemies, so the archer has room to breathe. The melee characters are acting as a speed bump to stop ranged from getting swarmed.
My experience is that it's true in an actual game. It isn't much of a problem inside a dungeon with super short line of sights, but for anything outdoors if you're not ranged you might as well not be there.
You could also deal with the problem by drastically reducing the range of all ranged weapons and spells.
First, I think this might be true in a white room, but not in an actual game. Ranged can only shine because of the existence of melee — the barbarian is up there surrounded by enemies, so the archer has room to breathe. The melee characters are acting as a speed bump to stop ranged from getting swarmed.
My experience is that it's true in an actual game. It isn't much of a problem inside a dungeon with super short line of sights, but for anything outdoors if you're not ranged you might as well not be there.
Fair point, but it’s not really been an issue for me, so I guess we’re both just going off anecdotal evidence. But overall, what you’re describing seems more like an issue of encounter design. Certainly, you want some of those long range encounters sometimes, and then, yes, ranged will really shine. But everybody gets ambushed sometimes. Or the fight is in an area with lots of cover. It’s not that hard to reign in archers with terrain.
Another fix could be sight distances, which is basically range from another direction. But some rules about how far you can see, vs. how far you can see tactically might help. How close do the five medium creatures have to be before you can decide if they’re orcs or humans or elves? And how much closer before you can see if they’re from a friendly group or a hostile one?
Fair point, but it’s not really been an issue for me, so I guess we’re both just going off anecdotal evidence. But overall, what you’re describing seems more like an issue of encounter design. Certainly, you want some of those long range encounters sometimes, and then, yes, ranged will really shine. But everybody gets ambushed sometimes. Or the fight is in an area with lots of cover. It’s not that hard to reign in archers with terrain.
The problem is that there's really never a situation where melee will shine. A melee build in a long range encounter is crippled. A ranged build in a close range encounter is typically mildly inconvenienced.
Fair point, but it’s not really been an issue for me, so I guess we’re both just going off anecdotal evidence. But overall, what you’re describing seems more like an issue of encounter design. Certainly, you want some of those long range encounters sometimes, and then, yes, ranged will really shine. But everybody gets ambushed sometimes. Or the fight is in an area with lots of cover. It’s not that hard to reign in archers with terrain.
The problem is that there's really never a situation where melee will shine. A melee build in a long range encounter is crippled. A ranged build in a close range encounter is typically mildly inconvenienced.
That's an issue with the current design. Maybe they need to add in a reaction to interrupt a ranged attack (you have no ability to draw ammo if you're busy dodging) and ditch SS and XBM as concepts to keep ranged attackers at a disadvantage indoors and in environments with a lot of cover. Or add in the ability to raise your shield and block all inbound ranged attacks so enemies can turtle and force a melee engagement from at least some portion of the group.
Fair point, but it’s not really been an issue for me, so I guess we’re both just going off anecdotal evidence. But overall, what you’re describing seems more like an issue of encounter design. Certainly, you want some of those long range encounters sometimes, and then, yes, ranged will really shine. But everybody gets ambushed sometimes. Or the fight is in an area with lots of cover. It’s not that hard to reign in archers with terrain.
The problem is that there's really never a situation where melee will shine. A melee build in a long range encounter is crippled. A ranged build in a close range encounter is typically mildly inconvenienced.
I guess we’re back to anecdotal because I play almost exclusively melee characters, and I’ve never had a problem being shiny. 🤷♂️
Literally the only time I have ever run a combat where the melee-focussed characters felt useless was during the long-range part of a ship-to-ship naval encounter where there was, obviously, no cover between the two ships and none of the melee characters had a swim speed.
And that was thoroughly balanced out by them getting a chance to shine when their ship closed in and the action moved to boarding the enemy ship.
The only way I can see that ranged builds would be consistently overpowered in actual play is if the DM running the campaign runs almost nothing but huge, completely flat battle maps without any cover or concealment and ignores the fact that creatures between a ranged attacker and their target automatically provide cover from the ranged attacks (unless they're right next to the shooter and friendly).
Literally the only time I have ever run a combat where the melee-focussed characters felt useless was during the long-range part of a ship-to-ship naval encounter where there was, obviously, no cover between the two ships and none of the melee characters had a swim speed.
And that was thoroughly balanced out by them getting a chance to shine when their ship closed in and the action moved to boarding the enemy ship.
The only way I can see that ranged builds would be consistently overpowered in actual play is if the DM running the campaign runs almost nothing but huge, completely flat battle maps without any cover or concealment and ignores the fact that creatures between a ranged attacker and their target automatically provide cover from the ranged attacks (unless they're right next to the shooter and friendly).
They rarely will feel useless, but what they gain is 1d4/1d6 vs range and all the benefits of range. The argument isn't that melee is useless but that a small amount of damage is not enough to compensate for range. And cover is almost pointless for this argument since sharpshooter totally eliminates all but total cover.
I'm not sure why distance combat needs to be made categorically worse than melee combat?
I understand that some folks think melee combat is currently inferior in all ways, but many of the suggestions I've seen in this thread amount to "remove non-melee attack rolls from D&D". The drawbacks inherent to most suggestions make it effectively pointless to play an archer or a spellcaster. That's swinging too far the other way, ne?
I'm not sure why distance combat needs to be made categorically worse than melee combat?
I understand that some folks think melee combat is currently inferior in all ways, but many of the suggestions I've seen in this thread amount to "remove non-melee attack rolls from D&D". The drawbacks inherent to most suggestions make it effectively pointless to play an archer or a spellcaster. That's swinging too far the other way, ne?
I don't think it should be worse it should be equal, right not the game leans more towards range. I don't think its massive but melee could use a buff. I don't like methods that lock class abilities into it as a ranged x class can be fun. But the core mechanics can be improved. I'd say increasing attack of opportunity options would be one way to do it, though it might not be enough.
I'm not sure why distance combat needs to be made categorically worse than melee combat?
It doesn't, but it needs to be made comparable, and that requires melee to have a substantial power boost when at range where melee is applicable, to make up for that portion of the time when it's inapplicable. Or else make it so ranged combat and spellcasting are unusable about as often as melee is unusable.
The primary ranged martial characters are dex fighters, dex rangers, and dex rogues, all of which are proficient with shortsword and rapier. They won't do as much damage as they would at range (since they probably don't have a relevant fighting style), but dropping from +7/1d8+3 to +5/1d8+3 is not exactly helpless.
Your math didn't account for the drop to the damage bonus, because you're now using an ability score that you aren't as good in.
Um... those are finesse weapons. You're using the same stat as you would use for ranged weapons.
You are correct. I missed that part of your math.
That being said, why would a character attack with finesse weapons when they get trapped in the melee if they have proficiency with more powerful weapons? Both Rangers and Fighters have proficiency with martial weapons, so it doesn't really make sense that they would choose to use something weaker. They would also probably be using a more effective ranged weapon, because Heavy Crossbows deal more damage.
No offense, but the equation for your math doesn't really make sense, because it assumes that the characters aren't using weapons that they should be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
That being said, why would a character attack with finesse weapons when they get trapped in the melee if they have proficiency with more powerful weapons?
The rapier is a martial weapon, and entirely respectable damage output.
Or else make it so ranged combat and spellcasting are unusable about as often as melee is unusable.
That's the DM's job.
No matter how many rules changes one might implement, it doesn't impact anything if you have a DM who builds encounters that give a huge advantage to ranged characters.
And, for that matter, all the (existing) advantages of getting into melee combat don't matter if players don't use them.
That being said, why would a character attack with finesse weapons when they get trapped in the melee if they have proficiency with more powerful weapons?
The rapier is a martial weapon, and entirely respectable damage output.
Yes, but it's a lot weaker than Greataxes or Greatswords. Melee weapons hurt substantial amount more than ranged weapons do, especially if you look at the damage outputs comparatively.
I have had similar experiences to Xalthu on this: The class I play the most is Fighter, and I have almost exclusively been a been a melee attacker when I'm playing a martial like that. I never really felt outshined in combat, because terrain can easily stop or deter ranged attackers in most scenarios, forcing the melee combatants to form a line or wall to attempt to make it so that the people in the backranks don't get swarmed or killed.
Ultimately, I think different people have different experiences on this issue. Everything depends on terrain, campaigns, encounter design, and whether your in a dungeon or not. Due to all the variables here, making one solid conclusion about which style of fighting is always or typically better is near impossible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
That being said, why would a character attack with finesse weapons when they get trapped in the melee if they have proficiency with more powerful weapons?
The rapier is a martial weapon, and entirely respectable damage output.
Yes, but it's a lot weaker than Greataxes or Greatswords. Melee weapons hurt substantial amount more than ranged weapons do, especially if you look at the damage outputs comparatively.
I have had similar experiences to Xalthu on this: The class I play the most is Fighter, and I have almost exclusively been a been a melee attacker when I'm playing a martial like that. I never really felt outshined in combat, because terrain can easily stop or deter ranged attackers in most scenarios, forcing the melee combatants to form a line or wall to attempt to make it so that the people in the backranks don't get swarmed or killed.
Ultimately, I think different people have different experiences on this issue. Everything depends on terrain, campaigns, encounter design, and whether your in a dungeon or not. Due to all the variables here, making one solid conclusion about which style of fighting is always or typically better is near impossible.
Those weapons aren't more powerful if you're DEX based as opposed to STR based. Greataxe does ~2 more damage per hit and greatsword does ~2.5 more damage a hit. If you had 16 Dexterity (+3) and 14 strength (+2), then you'd still be better off with the great weapons than a Rapier, sure. however, more likely however you'd be more in the lines of having 16+ dexterity and 10 strength, where it is clear rapier is vastly stronger. If your focus is ranged weapons and you have a rapier as an arming sword, then you'd use the rapier, not a greatsword since you straight up get more damage. Obviously keeping a backup melee weapon has no real cost and you don't have to walk away (provoking OAs) to attack without disadvantage.
Currently DEX is still stronger than STR as an attribute, since DEX gives +damage +attack +AC +initiative +DEX saves compared to STR that gives +damage +attack +heavy armour req. +STR saves. Unless armour is being revised, Plate only gives 1 more AC than Studded Leather with +5 DEX and DEX gives +5 to DEX saves which are generally more important than strength saves.
The real question is why rapier over shortsword, since that is only ~1 more damage a hit but you can wield two of them at once. Technically you need Dual Wielder to equip two light weapons in one turn, is about all I can see... Why you need a feat to use a parrying dagger, like a main-gauche with a rapier is still a bit strange considering that was a common way to use a rapier.
TBH it's largely encounter design that is the issue here. If DM put enemies just standing in an open field waiting to be picked off by ranged character, then of course ranged characters will shine. However, it makes no sense for the enemies to do that. If you are being targeted exclusively by ranged opponent you should either duck behind full cover (e.g. a tree trunk, a boulder, a building) or lie prone. Just standing there waiting to be hit is stupid.
That said the ranged feats are so problematic! I hate them so much. Because they take away all of the strategy of ranged combat and make it sooo boring! Positioning should matter to ranged characters just as much as it does for melee - using a ranged weapon while in melee should be always a terrible option, trying to shoot through one of your allies at an enemy should always be a terrible option. Ranged combat should be about trying to find ways to flank enemies to avoid their cover without putting yourself at risk of getting into melee.
PS I also hate that WotC seem determined to make Dual Wielding handcrossbows always the optimal choice for ranged characters.
That being said, why would a character attack with finesse weapons when they get trapped in the melee if they have proficiency with more powerful weapons?
The rapier is a martial weapon, and entirely respectable damage output.
Yes, but it's a lot weaker than Greataxes or Greatswords. Melee weapons hurt substantial amount more than ranged weapons do, especially if you look at the damage outputs comparatively.
Sadly no that's not true, when fighting styles and feats are taken into account.
That being said, why would a character attack with finesse weapons when they get trapped in the melee if they have proficiency with more powerful weapons?
The rapier is a martial weapon, and entirely respectable damage output.
Yes, but it's a lot weaker than Greataxes or Greatswords. Melee weapons hurt substantial amount more than ranged weapons do, especially if you look at the damage outputs comparatively.
Sadly no that's not true, when fighting styles and feats are taken into account.
Going by the UA for Expert Classes, both GWM and SS are probably losing the -5 attack +10 damage. If you go by those versions then GWM will definitely do more damage
That being said, why would a character attack with finesse weapons when they get trapped in the melee if they have proficiency with more powerful weapons?
The rapier is a martial weapon, and entirely respectable damage output.
Yes, but it's a lot weaker than Greataxes or Greatswords. Melee weapons hurt substantial amount more than ranged weapons do, especially if you look at the damage outputs comparatively.
Sadly no that's not true, when fighting styles and feats are taken into account.
Going by the UA for Expert Classes, both GWM and SS are probably losing the -5 attack +10 damage. If you go by those versions then GWM will definitely do more damage
Which is why we will need to wait to see if enough was done to balance melee with ranged combat. Previously it either came close to equaling or beat melee combat even before the benefits of range came into play. Until the warrior UA comes out we wont know and until the mages and spell changes come out we wont know about the martial/caster divide.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First, I think this might be true in a white room, but not in an actual game. Ranged can only shine because of the existence of melee — the barbarian is up there surrounded by enemies, so the archer has room to breathe. The melee characters are acting as a speed bump to stop ranged from getting swarmed. Ranged might have more options, but in the absence of melee characters, ranged quickly turn into melee characters.
But, if you do still want to take them down a peg, you could add in some of the other old rules. There used to be a -4 for shooting at someone in melee with an ally (to represent the extra care it takes not to hit the ally). That could turn into disadvantage for 5e.
Or add the risk of hitting an ally (miss by more than 5 or 10 or whatever, and you might hit your friend.
Or, start tracking arrows and encumbrance instead of just giving everyone a weightless, bottomless quiver. You want to dump str, go ahead, but then see how many arrows you can still carry after you’re fully kitted out (including rations, torches, tinderbox, crowbar, all the other crap we tend to hand wave nowadays). The move penalty would really hit an archer hard, they have to be able to get to a good position.
My experience is that it's true in an actual game. It isn't much of a problem inside a dungeon with super short line of sights, but for anything outdoors if you're not ranged you might as well not be there.
You could also deal with the problem by drastically reducing the range of all ranged weapons and spells.
Fair point, but it’s not really been an issue for me, so I guess we’re both just going off anecdotal evidence. But overall, what you’re describing seems more like an issue of encounter design. Certainly, you want some of those long range encounters sometimes, and then, yes, ranged will really shine. But everybody gets ambushed sometimes. Or the fight is in an area with lots of cover. It’s not that hard to reign in archers with terrain.
Another fix could be sight distances, which is basically range from another direction. But some rules about how far you can see, vs. how far you can see tactically might help. How close do the five medium creatures have to be before you can decide if they’re orcs or humans or elves? And how much closer before you can see if they’re from a friendly group or a hostile one?
The problem is that there's really never a situation where melee will shine. A melee build in a long range encounter is crippled. A ranged build in a close range encounter is typically mildly inconvenienced.
That's an issue with the current design. Maybe they need to add in a reaction to interrupt a ranged attack (you have no ability to draw ammo if you're busy dodging) and ditch SS and XBM as concepts to keep ranged attackers at a disadvantage indoors and in environments with a lot of cover. Or add in the ability to raise your shield and block all inbound ranged attacks so enemies can turtle and force a melee engagement from at least some portion of the group.
I guess we’re back to anecdotal because I play almost exclusively melee characters, and I’ve never had a problem being shiny. 🤷♂️
Literally the only time I have ever run a combat where the melee-focussed characters felt useless was during the long-range part of a ship-to-ship naval encounter where there was, obviously, no cover between the two ships and none of the melee characters had a swim speed.
And that was thoroughly balanced out by them getting a chance to shine when their ship closed in and the action moved to boarding the enemy ship.
The only way I can see that ranged builds would be consistently overpowered in actual play is if the DM running the campaign runs almost nothing but huge, completely flat battle maps without any cover or concealment and ignores the fact that creatures between a ranged attacker and their target automatically provide cover from the ranged attacks (unless they're right next to the shooter and friendly).
They rarely will feel useless, but what they gain is 1d4/1d6 vs range and all the benefits of range. The argument isn't that melee is useless but that a small amount of damage is not enough to compensate for range. And cover is almost pointless for this argument since sharpshooter totally eliminates all but total cover.
I'm not sure why distance combat needs to be made categorically worse than melee combat?
I understand that some folks think melee combat is currently inferior in all ways, but many of the suggestions I've seen in this thread amount to "remove non-melee attack rolls from D&D". The drawbacks inherent to most suggestions make it effectively pointless to play an archer or a spellcaster. That's swinging too far the other way, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't think it should be worse it should be equal, right not the game leans more towards range. I don't think its massive but melee could use a buff. I don't like methods that lock class abilities into it as a ranged x class can be fun. But the core mechanics can be improved. I'd say increasing attack of opportunity options would be one way to do it, though it might not be enough.
It doesn't, but it needs to be made comparable, and that requires melee to have a substantial power boost when at range where melee is applicable, to make up for that portion of the time when it's inapplicable. Or else make it so ranged combat and spellcasting are unusable about as often as melee is unusable.
You are correct. I missed that part of your math.
That being said, why would a character attack with finesse weapons when they get trapped in the melee if they have proficiency with more powerful weapons? Both Rangers and Fighters have proficiency with martial weapons, so it doesn't really make sense that they would choose to use something weaker. They would also probably be using a more effective ranged weapon, because Heavy Crossbows deal more damage.
No offense, but the equation for your math doesn't really make sense, because it assumes that the characters aren't using weapons that they should be.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The rapier is a martial weapon, and entirely respectable damage output.
That's the DM's job.
No matter how many rules changes one might implement, it doesn't impact anything if you have a DM who builds encounters that give a huge advantage to ranged characters.
And, for that matter, all the (existing) advantages of getting into melee combat don't matter if players don't use them.
Yes, but it's a lot weaker than Greataxes or Greatswords. Melee weapons hurt substantial amount more than ranged weapons do, especially if you look at the damage outputs comparatively.
I have had similar experiences to Xalthu on this: The class I play the most is Fighter, and I have almost exclusively been a been a melee attacker when I'm playing a martial like that. I never really felt outshined in combat, because terrain can easily stop or deter ranged attackers in most scenarios, forcing the melee combatants to form a line or wall to attempt to make it so that the people in the backranks don't get swarmed or killed.
Ultimately, I think different people have different experiences on this issue. Everything depends on terrain, campaigns, encounter design, and whether your in a dungeon or not. Due to all the variables here, making one solid conclusion about which style of fighting is always or typically better is near impossible.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Those weapons aren't more powerful if you're DEX based as opposed to STR based. Greataxe does ~2 more damage per hit and greatsword does ~2.5 more damage a hit. If you had 16 Dexterity (+3) and 14 strength (+2), then you'd still be better off with the great weapons than a Rapier, sure. however, more likely however you'd be more in the lines of having 16+ dexterity and 10 strength, where it is clear rapier is vastly stronger. If your focus is ranged weapons and you have a rapier as an arming sword, then you'd use the rapier, not a greatsword since you straight up get more damage. Obviously keeping a backup melee weapon has no real cost and you don't have to walk away (provoking OAs) to attack without disadvantage.
Currently DEX is still stronger than STR as an attribute, since DEX gives +damage +attack +AC +initiative +DEX saves compared to STR that gives +damage +attack +heavy armour req. +STR saves. Unless armour is being revised, Plate only gives 1 more AC than Studded Leather with +5 DEX and DEX gives +5 to DEX saves which are generally more important than strength saves.
The real question is why rapier over shortsword, since that is only ~1 more damage a hit but you can wield two of them at once. Technically you need Dual Wielder to equip two light weapons in one turn, is about all I can see... Why you need a feat to use a parrying dagger, like a main-gauche with a rapier is still a bit strange considering that was a common way to use a rapier.
TBH it's largely encounter design that is the issue here. If DM put enemies just standing in an open field waiting to be picked off by ranged character, then of course ranged characters will shine. However, it makes no sense for the enemies to do that. If you are being targeted exclusively by ranged opponent you should either duck behind full cover (e.g. a tree trunk, a boulder, a building) or lie prone. Just standing there waiting to be hit is stupid.
That said the ranged feats are so problematic! I hate them so much. Because they take away all of the strategy of ranged combat and make it sooo boring! Positioning should matter to ranged characters just as much as it does for melee - using a ranged weapon while in melee should be always a terrible option, trying to shoot through one of your allies at an enemy should always be a terrible option. Ranged combat should be about trying to find ways to flank enemies to avoid their cover without putting yourself at risk of getting into melee.
PS I also hate that WotC seem determined to make Dual Wielding handcrossbows always the optimal choice for ranged characters.
Sadly no that's not true, when fighting styles and feats are taken into account.
Longbow + Archery = 0.75 * 1d8+4 = 6.4 DPA
Great Axe + GWF = 0.65*(1d12+4+1) = 7.4 DPA
Add SS / GWM and it becomes:
Longbow + Archery = 0.5 * 1d8+4+10 = 9.25 DPA
Great Axe + GWF = 0.4*(1d12+4+1+10) = 8.6 DPA
Add XbowXpert & PAM
Handcrossbow + archery = 0.5*(1d6+4+10)*3 = 26.25 DPR
Halberd +GWF = 23.4 DPR
Going by the UA for Expert Classes, both GWM and SS are probably losing the -5 attack +10 damage. If you go by those versions then GWM will definitely do more damage
Which is why we will need to wait to see if enough was done to balance melee with ranged combat. Previously it either came close to equaling or beat melee combat even before the benefits of range came into play. Until the warrior UA comes out we wont know and until the mages and spell changes come out we wont know about the martial/caster divide.