There are 2 changes I would like to see with the ranger fighting styles:
1) The addition of the unarmed fighting style from the fighter. In many ways it makes more sense to me than wasting a feat for tavern brawler or something and it helps out with possible monk multiclasses.
2) A change to the archer style allowing you to chose between the +2 to hit or firing 2 arrows at normal chances. This would fit with the reality between being simply proficient and being an expert. Proficient is the old English requirement of 12 aimed shots a minute (1/5 sec) or 1 shot a round that we have now but expert is the guy I saw demonstrating the longbow years ago at Warwick Castle in England. Fired 18 arrows into a torso target at 100m in a timed minute - that is 1 every 3 seconds or 2 arrows a game round. Same guy then taking time to carefully aim (ie the +2) hit a thumb sized stick 3 times at the same distance - top, middle, bottom. That is what an archer or arcane archer should be doing.
Being able to trade the +2 from archery for two full shots per attack would definitely be too much in balance terms; a longbow deals better damage than a dagger, and a dagger doesn't require drawing and nocking an arrow each time it's used to attack with. In balance terms ranged weapons already have an advantage due to being ranged, they shouldn't also be able to do more damage overall.
In terms of realism I think it's important to keep in mind that you're comparing firing of a longbow against a stationary target at a fixed range during a contest, against firing in a chaotic battlefield at enemies who do not want you to hit them. English and Welsh longbowmen also aren't a great comparison as they mostly fought in massed ranks firing volleys at other massed ranks of enemies, so rate of fire was more important than pinpoint accuracy, but that's not how the adventurers in D&D fight. It's also worth remembering that attack roll vs. AC in D&D isn't just about hitting a target, it's about hitting the right part of your target in order to bypass its armour (hit an enemy in full plate centre mass every time and you'll be lucky to ever harm them, you want to hit the gaps in the armour but on a moving target that's easier said than done).
If your archer were entering a contest, or fighting as part of firing line against massed ranks, then it might absolutely make sense to fish for a special mechanic from your DM to represent it, but for classic D&D style adventuring accuracy is crucial; to represent that kind of rate of fire against single moving targets you'd probably need to take a hefty penalty to hit to balance it in which case you'd just be missing more.
I was originally going to suggest a two-weapon fighting style trade off as an alternative (swap the +2 for a Bonus Action attack with no modifier on its damage) but even that wouldn't be especially well balanced, as a longbow can do better damage at range than a shortsword can up close shot-per-shot, so it would end up giving you the same or better damage than a two-weapon fighter with twin shortswords (to compete with you they'd need to take the Dual Wielder feat as well).
The other thing to remember in D&D is that it's not about realism, it's about playability and balance and it seems that one of the trade-offs for going ranged is no bonus action attacks, except in certain circumstances (a Kensei Monk can reliably do it with Deft Strike and Ki-fuelled Attack, but that's costing a resource, War Priests can do it again with a resource and so-on). Not that 5e gets the balance right overall, it's definitely skewed in favour of casters, and martials are all over the place.
But yeah, double shots is definitely too many. It's finally worth noting that Arcane Archers actually do already get a bonus action attack thanks to Curving Shot, it just hits another target; I'd prefer a re-roll option, as against a single enemy the ability is useless, but that's more of a problem with how Arcane Archers function, as they're a bit weird overall (a Battle Master works just fine as a ranged fighter and has more options, which is silly).
Apologies for the word wall, and I don't intend it to seem too critical, just giving my (probably far more than welcome) thoughts on the subject 😉
Access to the Unarmed Fighting Style absolutely makes sense though, no idea why that wasn't added; I think restricting fighting styles was a bad idea in the first place, as it just limits choice. Paladins, Rangers, College of Swords Bards etc. should just have access to all of them so that players can just build whatever they want.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think at least part of my problem is that don’t normally play ranged rangers , I play melee ones and the changes from 1-3e to 5e in terms of damage potential haven’t fully set in. Old style you couldn’t do too much damage with anything so you needed those extra arrow shots and the full 2 attacks of a dual wielder rather than the bonus action extra attack you get now. 4e was so different it wasn’t really comparable to 1-3e, but much of 5e is quite similar with just enough differences to throw me off.
If you're interested, here is a small average damage per turn table I made to show the comparison between archery and 2 attacks per round (I also added in basic attacks, advantage, and duelling to give an idea of how they affect things). The damage die is a d8 and I'm imagining we're at a primary attribute bonus of +3 and proficiency of +2. Bolded values are the best of row.
Again let me ask: Where are the 2 shots coming from? I get that at level 5 and after you get 2 shots and that at levels 1-4 a fighter can have one round of 2 shots with his action surge but I would not be giving an archer a bonus attack to fire a second shot and a doubt most DMs would so where does the second shot come from? or is that 2 attacks my proposal? for comparison? What I would have liked to see is dual weapon fighting in there with the combined main attack and bonus action offhand attack. Also is that archery including the +2 for the archery fighting skill or is this essentially pure L1?
Again let me ask: Where are the 2 shots coming from? I get that at level 5 and after you get 2 shots and that at levels 1-4 a fighter can have one round of 2 shots with his action surge but I would not be giving an archer a bonus attack to fire a second shot and a doubt most DMs would so where does the second shot come from? or is that 2 attacks my proposal? for comparison? What I would have liked to see is dual weapon fighting in there with the combined main attack and bonus action offhand attack. Also is that archery including the +2 for the archery fighting skill or is this essentially pure L1?
Basic is just a standard attack at level 1 or 2 (when the fighting styles become available, depending on your class if fighter also got this fighting style change), assuming that you put a 16 or 17 in your primary attack attribute, Advantage is that same attack made at advantage, Archery is including the +2 to hit, assuming you're using a longbow. Adv. Arch. includes the +2 to hit and for some reason you also have advantage, Two Shots is your proposal, Duelling is including the +2 to damage wielding a one handed melee weapon with a d8, Adv. Duel is if you had advantage on the attack.
I added the advantage to the discussion to show how powerful that second attack was. As you can see two shots outperforms archery until facing something with AC 24, which is highly unlikely at these levels, and it outperforms duelling at all stages.
Dual weapon fighting is actually quite relevant but I missed it, I will see if I can add a comparison.
So it outperforms dual weapon fighting quite well, which was expected.
These all have trade-offs/advantages however.
Archery (and your proposed two shots) take two hands, but you don't have to be near your opponent.
Duelling allows a shield, but you need to be close.
Dual weapon fighting requires two hands, but of the current styles does the most damage at low levels.
I expect that there is a drop off once the extra attack comes into play at level 5, and it would be even more at level 11 where fighter gets three attacks, or lots of ranger subclasses get a pseudo third attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are 2 changes I would like to see with the ranger fighting styles:
1) The addition of the unarmed fighting style from the fighter. In many ways it makes more sense to me than wasting a feat for tavern brawler or something and it helps out with possible monk multiclasses.
2) A change to the archer style allowing you to chose between the +2 to hit or firing 2 arrows at normal chances. This would fit with the reality between being simply proficient and being an expert. Proficient is the old English requirement of 12 aimed shots a minute (1/5 sec) or 1 shot a round that we have now but expert is the guy I saw demonstrating the longbow years ago at Warwick Castle in England. Fired 18 arrows into a torso target at 100m in a timed minute - that is 1 every 3 seconds or 2 arrows a game round. Same guy then taking time to carefully aim (ie the +2) hit a thumb sized stick 3 times at the same distance - top, middle, bottom. That is what an archer or arcane archer should be doing.
any thoughts?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Being able to trade the +2 from archery for two full shots per attack would definitely be too much in balance terms; a longbow deals better damage than a dagger, and a dagger doesn't require drawing and nocking an arrow each time it's used to attack with. In balance terms ranged weapons already have an advantage due to being ranged, they shouldn't also be able to do more damage overall.
In terms of realism I think it's important to keep in mind that you're comparing firing of a longbow against a stationary target at a fixed range during a contest, against firing in a chaotic battlefield at enemies who do not want you to hit them. English and Welsh longbowmen also aren't a great comparison as they mostly fought in massed ranks firing volleys at other massed ranks of enemies, so rate of fire was more important than pinpoint accuracy, but that's not how the adventurers in D&D fight. It's also worth remembering that attack roll vs. AC in D&D isn't just about hitting a target, it's about hitting the right part of your target in order to bypass its armour (hit an enemy in full plate centre mass every time and you'll be lucky to ever harm them, you want to hit the gaps in the armour but on a moving target that's easier said than done).
If your archer were entering a contest, or fighting as part of firing line against massed ranks, then it might absolutely make sense to fish for a special mechanic from your DM to represent it, but for classic D&D style adventuring accuracy is crucial; to represent that kind of rate of fire against single moving targets you'd probably need to take a hefty penalty to hit to balance it in which case you'd just be missing more.
I was originally going to suggest a two-weapon fighting style trade off as an alternative (swap the +2 for a Bonus Action attack with no modifier on its damage) but even that wouldn't be especially well balanced, as a longbow can do better damage at range than a shortsword can up close shot-per-shot, so it would end up giving you the same or better damage than a two-weapon fighter with twin shortswords (to compete with you they'd need to take the Dual Wielder feat as well).
The other thing to remember in D&D is that it's not about realism, it's about playability and balance and it seems that one of the trade-offs for going ranged is no bonus action attacks, except in certain circumstances (a Kensei Monk can reliably do it with Deft Strike and Ki-fuelled Attack, but that's costing a resource, War Priests can do it again with a resource and so-on). Not that 5e gets the balance right overall, it's definitely skewed in favour of casters, and martials are all over the place.
But yeah, double shots is definitely too many. It's finally worth noting that Arcane Archers actually do already get a bonus action attack thanks to Curving Shot, it just hits another target; I'd prefer a re-roll option, as against a single enemy the ability is useless, but that's more of a problem with how Arcane Archers function, as they're a bit weird overall (a Battle Master works just fine as a ranged fighter and has more options, which is silly).
Apologies for the word wall, and I don't intend it to seem too critical, just giving my (probably far more than welcome) thoughts on the subject 😉
Access to the Unarmed Fighting Style absolutely makes sense though, no idea why that wasn't added; I think restricting fighting styles was a bad idea in the first place, as it just limits choice. Paladins, Rangers, College of Swords Bards etc. should just have access to all of them so that players can just build whatever they want.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think at least part of my problem is that don’t normally play ranged rangers , I play melee ones and the changes from 1-3e to 5e in terms of damage potential haven’t fully set in. Old style you couldn’t do too much damage with anything so you needed those extra arrow shots and the full 2 attacks of a dual wielder rather than the bonus action extra attack you get now. 4e was so different it wasn’t really comparable to 1-3e, but much of 5e is quite similar with just enough differences to throw me off.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
If you're interested, here is a small average damage per turn table I made to show the comparison between archery and 2 attacks per round (I also added in basic attacks, advantage, and duelling to give an idea of how they affect things). The damage die is a d8 and I'm imagining we're at a primary attribute bonus of +3 and proficiency of +2. Bolded values are the best of row.
Again let me ask: Where are the 2 shots coming from? I get that at level 5 and after you get 2 shots and that at levels 1-4 a fighter can have one round of 2 shots with his action surge but I would not be giving an archer a bonus attack to fire a second shot and a doubt most DMs would so where does the second shot come from? or is that 2 attacks my proposal? for comparison? What I would have liked to see is dual weapon fighting in there with the combined main attack and bonus action offhand attack. Also is that archery including the +2 for the archery fighting skill or is this essentially pure L1?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Basic is just a standard attack at level 1 or 2 (when the fighting styles become available, depending on your class if fighter also got this fighting style change), assuming that you put a 16 or 17 in your primary attack attribute, Advantage is that same attack made at advantage, Archery is including the +2 to hit, assuming you're using a longbow. Adv. Arch. includes the +2 to hit and for some reason you also have advantage, Two Shots is your proposal, Duelling is including the +2 to damage wielding a one handed melee weapon with a d8, Adv. Duel is if you had advantage on the attack.
I added the advantage to the discussion to show how powerful that second attack was. As you can see two shots outperforms archery until facing something with AC 24, which is highly unlikely at these levels, and it outperforms duelling at all stages.
Dual weapon fighting is actually quite relevant but I missed it, I will see if I can add a comparison.
There we go.
So it outperforms dual weapon fighting quite well, which was expected.
These all have trade-offs/advantages however.
Archery (and your proposed two shots) take two hands, but you don't have to be near your opponent.
Duelling allows a shield, but you need to be close.
Dual weapon fighting requires two hands, but of the current styles does the most damage at low levels.
I expect that there is a drop off once the extra attack comes into play at level 5, and it would be even more at level 11 where fighter gets three attacks, or lots of ranger subclasses get a pseudo third attack.