Reason to fight in melee

[Vowtz]

For what reason would you make a character that specilizes in melee?


After playing a lot of 5e I came to like this new edition, of course, there are some problems, but most of them can be ignored or overcome (like using the alternate rule of slow healing rate to avoid the "videogame healing" problem).

Even so recently I became really disapointed with one fact: it seems there is no reason to engage monsters in melee.

..
Choosing to fight at long range seems to be almost always the best option, here are some examples:

A rogue can dash as bonus, so he can walk, walk, and shoot: if your enemy has no ranged attack, you already won.

A character that has archery fighting style gain +2 to hit, this is a great bonus in a system that only grants a +1 to hit every 4 levels.

Even if an enemy reaches you, shooting with disvantage is not so bad considering you have this +2 on your side.

You can just use magic at a distance, if eventually an enemy gets into melee, it makes no difference, since casting in melee creates no disvantage or AoO. And casters have access to great defensive stuff, like shield, shield of faith, darkness, imposing disvantage on reaction, choosing enemy's attack rolls, rolling dices to reduce enemys atacks, etc.


..
Of course sometimes it is inevitable to fight in melee, but why would enyone choose to specialize in melee?

You could say that ranged damage is inferior, but it is not by a great margin that would justify putting yourself in harm's way, and just with the sharpshooter feat your damage can be 1d8+13 at +2 to hit on first or fourth level.

You could say that at ranged character's AC is inferior, but with crossbow expert you can fire a crossbow while using a shield, without any disvantage, making your AC just as good as anyone else's.

And in term of defensive capabilities you can reach Ac 26 easily mixing Fighter, Warlock and Sorcerer, aditionally, you will be able to fire all your Eldritch Blasts as an action, again as a bonus action and again in one action surge, if you manage to get the crossbow expert feat you can do so in melee without any drawbacks.

..
The only reason to fight in melee would be:

If you are a polearm master sentinel, to try a little tactical play, but it's not too impressive considering you only get one Aoo per round.

Or a Grappler, but he's got problems with multiple enemies.

Or a monk to use stunning fist, yeah, I think he's the best melee around.

Or a barbarian that especializes in strength, to gain an unimpressive +2 to damage and attack with advantage. Wait, even as a Barbarian it seems to be better investing on dexterity to gain more unarmored AC and keep attacking at a distance, with the eagle totem you can be like a cunning action rogue, but taking only half damage from those who dare to trade ranged attacks with you, or you can dip 2 levels in rogue for the bear totem.


..
I may be overlooking something really basic, because I can't see a character that especializes in melee as anything but suboptimal, with the sole exception being the monk.

As I am unable to find the answer myself, I ask you guys, For what reason would you make a character that specilizes in melee?

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

There's RP reasons of course. People love the iconic image of a great warrior with his sword/axe/hammer/whatever wading into the thick of his enemies and knocking them about.

But you seem to arguing more from a mechanical point of view.


Of course sometimes it is inevitable to fight in melee

This mainly is the crux. You're not going to be fighting in clear open terrain most of the time. Most enemies aren't going to blindly chase you while you kite them until death. Sometimes you'll be in cramped quarters with lots of obstacles; and sometimes there are choke points that need holding, enemies that need to be stopped from fleeing. The party wants a melee specialist because if they do it, the ranged characters can operate unhindered. The party with a versatile makeup compliments itself.

[Whammydill]

As far as I can remember, AFB a the moment, paladin's smite ability is required to be melee as well. I'm playing a Bear Barbarian/Vengance Paladin in one of our games and he is only effective in melee. He is pretty tanky.

Your assumption is that battles will always go the way you plan them and you can skirmish away whenever you want. This may be the case if all your encounters are in open terrain and you have mobility options. This may be the case if your DM never uses enemies tactically (i.e. grapple, surrounding, bottlenecking, cover, concealment, silencing...etc.)

I can see your point though. As even the things I said are arguable. However my experience has borne out that in well planned encounters and/or enemies being used effectively and intelligently (if they are capable of it) you need someone to bottle neck a door/passage and take hits, you need someone that is like a big sign saying attack me, not them, I'm a bigger threat. That is invariably a melee character. Some chump with a shield and a hand crossbow isn't ,in my mind, that guy.

Personally I think the real reason is theme. My group has more fun playing archetypal heroes with archetypal roles (Tank, support, blasty..etc.) It may be "optimal" to run around like a head-with-your-chicken-cut-off caster or a shoot-and-scoot archer type, but it is not necessarily fun.

[Demonic Spoon]

First off, nothing in your Op is valid unless you're fighting in an open field.

Rogue doesn't get his sneak attack while kiting unless someone is fighting in melee, so that's out.

The archery fighting style is good, but so are the others. I don't see your point here.

Shooting with disadvantage is awful, especially since a melee fighter will be getting other fighting style bonuses that aren't canceled out and then some by disadvantage. A ranged character is far better off dropping their weapon and drawing a finesse-y melee weapon than trying to continue to shoot in melee.

Many spells use ranged spell attacks, which take disadvantage in melee just like ranged weapon attacks.

Ranged attacks have to contend with enemies having cover. Half cover by itself cancels out archery fighting style.


but with crossbow expert you can fire a crossbow while using a shield, without any disvantage, making your AC just as good as anyone else's.

And in term of defensive capabilities you can reach Ac 26 easily mixing Fighter, Warlock and Sorcerer, aditionally, you will be able to fire all your Eldritch Blasts as an action, again as a bonus action and again in one action surge, if you manage to get the crossbow expert feat you can do so in melee without any drawbacks.


Only a hand crossbow can be used with a shield, at which point you've blown a feat to use a weapon with a bad damage die and poor range (only 30 feet).

How are you getting 26 AC? You know that armor, sorcerer draconic ancestry, and armor of agathys don't stack, right?

[Laurefindel]

(...)
As I am unable to find the answer myself, I ask you guys, For what reason would you make a character that specilizes in melee?

I can only think of "internal world logic" reasons.

1) the drive to exercise violence "first hand". Aggressiveness is typically expressed "at close range" Arguments come to fist, fist fight devolve into melee. Only when you have a more cool-headed war can you remove yourself enough to use these relatively primitive range weapons)

2) Nobody wants to risk it's life in melee, but reality forces you to. Because orcs came in overbearing numbers, because hobgoblins assumed a roman-like "turtle" formation virtually impervious to arrows, because wolf-riding goblins were much more mobile and faster than the cunning-action rogue, because the swooping griffons would get you faster if you didn't ready an action to dodge or attack the beasts, because armies could never field enough wizards to blast other things than other wizards and archers.

And so it forced your ancestors for generations, to the point that society values melee fighters enough to need them and glorify them.

[Spacehamster]

One big reason: melee is fun, ranged is cowardly and boring. ^.^

[Person_Man]

I would observe that most D&D games tend to take place in dungeons or other cramped spaces. So its not like there's a reason why you should actively seek out melee. Its more that parties will be forced into melee, and its not always an option to avoid it, so someone better be prepared for it.

[Demonic Spoon]

I would observe that most D&D games tend to take place in dungeons or other cramped spaces. So its not like there's a reason why you should actively seek out melee. Its more that parties will be forced into melee, and its not always an option to avoid it, so someone better be prepared for it.

If the thing you're fighting is ranged (say, a spellcaster making spell attacks, or anything else), you're much better off attacking in melee than at range. There are many monsters that are worse in melee than they are at range. Additionally, you're better off in melee if the target is melee and you can't keep yourself away from it.


That said, ranged is pretty strong in 5e and while I don't think it obsoletes melee by any stretch of the imagination, it is a viable alternative as opposed to 3.x where ranged was hyper-specialized and usually much worse.

[Rilak]

For what reason would you make a character that specilizes in melee?

To make ranged opponents attack with disadvantage or grant you an OA.

[Vowtz]

I agree with the "cramped spaces" and "tiny dungeon rooms" logic, but my point is, even in those enviroments, ranged weapons are a viable option, specially with the crossbow expert feat and magic, with these two options you can be as efective as an melee oriented character.

Still considering dungeons, even there exists places with enough space to do what you want, like the mines of Moria from Tolkien, for example: there are giant rooms, long corridors, and small rooms.

On the long corridors and large rooms you get overwhelming advantage as ranged against melee, on the tiny rooms you can do just fine too with a ranged weapon.

If you focus on melee you will do fine everywhere against melees, and get owned by fast rangeds on open spaces.

[Demonic Spoon]

I agree with the "cramped spaces" and "tiny dungeon rooms" logic, but my point is, even in those enviroments, ranged weapons are a viable option, specially with the crossbow expert feat and magic, with these two options you can be as efective as an melee oriented character.

Still considering dungeons, even there exists places with enough space to do what you want, like the mines of Moria from Tolkien, for example: there are giant rooms, long corridors, and small rooms.

On the long corridors and large rooms you get overwhelming advantage as ranged against melee, on the tiny rooms you can do just fine too with a ranged weapon.

If you focus on melee you will do fine everywhere against melees, and get owned by fast rangeds on open spaces.


There is exactly one type of ranged weapon that can be used effectively in melee, and that requires a feat to do, so not even close to "You can do just fine with a ranged weapon in tiny rooms". And even then, you're comparing a ranged weapon with that feat against a melee weapon that could have polearm master, sentinel, or +2 STR/DEX.

No, you're not completely hosed, but it's not a situation you want to be in. Especially since the tighter the space, the more plentiful cover is going to be, which will wreck your ability to hit anything.

In large rooms and such, melee-oriented characters can use thrown weapons as they close the distance...assuming that they don't just dash to get into immediate melee, at which point the ranged character is, as mentioned, SOL.

Ranged weapons don't have area control. You can't use a ranged weapon to block enemies from getting to your squishy casters. Even though casters can cast many spells without penalty in melee range, they still only have a d6 HD and bad AC, so they don't want to be in front.

There are also any number of ways to impede movement, such as grappling or shoving prone. Good luck kiting then.

[Joe the Rat]

There is a point here, though. Ranged is better when you can get it, because you can hit them without them hitting you. Of course, your opponents may have the same idea. So you want someone to keep their side from shooting your side, and send in the blockers. Which they may do as well.

The problem is that melee does happen, and may be unavoidable in given situation. Now, you can have someone who's "okay" at melee to step up, but that's a bit like having someone who's "okay" at stealth and perception to scout ahead of the party while exploring. A specialist will be more effective, more efficient, keep others out of harm's way, and let them focus on their specialties, including standing back and shooting. Ideally, your melee specialist is also capable of ranged fighting, so they can contribute while combat remains at distance.

If you're non-caster, there's another reason to prefer melee: ammunition. Sooner or later you run out of bolts/arrows/bullets/daggers/javelins/small-sized-characters. Your sword doesn't run out of ammo.

[Demonic Spoon]

I would point out that, for the reasons stated before, most characters should probably have some ranged option available to them even if primarily melee. Throwing weapons are good for this purpose for strength-based characters.

[CrusaderJoe]

First off, nothing in your Op is valid unless you're fighting in an open field.

I wanted to reiterate this point. Because this point is the be all end all to this discussion.

OP, you forgot that D&D has terrain and features. The reason why you need that +2 to hit because anyone with half a brain can get some sort of defense against ranged attackers.

Even if it is dropping prone. Which is disadvantage on the attack roll. Net on archery style is is -3 which is huge in this system.

[Eslin]

Keep in mind barbarians, druids, paladins and monks are forced to melee, they all have class features that work only with melee attacks.

It should also be noted that by far the best way to deal damage against many targets is poison (limitless amounts available if you have a caster helping), which lasts a minute on a melee weapon and 3 attacks on a ranged weapon

Discounting those who are using spells as their main attacks we're left with ranger, rogue and fighter. The ranger picks their style, melee hits more targets past 11 (movement+whirlwind attack) but except for that is much better with ranged attacks. Rogues can go either, but are also better with ranged attacks unless they need to melee to get sneak attack. Eldritch knights are better ranged, champions are crap, most of the good battlemaster maneuvers can be used ranged and so should be.

[obryn]

You need melee to lock down areas and control territory, basically.

I wish 5e had more support for doing so - imo, the high action cost of opportunity attacks and the way they get progressively less important is a shame* - but even so, it's all but necessary for someone to manage the terrain.


* Basic idea - to 'keep up' with damage, your melee folks mostly get more attacks. Opportunity attacks are always 1 attack, so it goes from "just as effective as a normal attack" to "1/4 as effective as a normal attack" as you level. This is, of course, disregarding riders on those attacks; if you can prone or push on an OA, that's some nice control, there. I still wish you got more of them, though; one dude can't hold off an army except in a 5' corridor. goblin-goblin con-ga goblin goblin con-ga

[Rogue Shadows]

I would point out that, for the reasons stated before, most characters should probably have some ranged option available to them even if primarily melee. Throwing weapons are good for this purpose for strength-based characters.

Agreed. This is among the reason why any extra gold I have at character creation goes into purchasing knives. Among the reasons. Not the only one. Knives are also useful for scratching marks on a surface, jamming a gear or other device, cutting up food, impressing the locals with your mad juggling skills, and tossing to rust monsters so that you don't have to fight them since rust monsters aren't evil, or even particularly territorial. Just hungry. Who'd want to hurt one if they didn't have to?

Knives are like rope, or dakka. The answer to "do we have enough?" is always "more."

That, and towels. A towel is just about the most massively useful thing any adventurer can carry. Partly it has great practical value. You can wrap it around you for warmth as you bound across the cold plains of Icewind Dale; you can lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Zakhara, inhaling the heady sea vapours; you can sleep under it beneath the stars which shine so redly within the Anarauch Desert; use it to sail a miniraft down the slow heavy River Chionthar; wet it for use in hand-to-hand combat; wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or avoid the gaze of the Cockatrice (a mind-bogglingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you — daft as a brush, but very very ravenous); you can wave your towel in emergencies as a distress signal, and of course you can dry yourself off with it if it still seems to be clean enough

More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a commoner discovers that an adventurer has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, washcloth, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, holy water, wet-weather gear, suit of armor, etc., etc. Furthermore, the commoner will then happily lend the hitchhiker any of these or a dozen other items that the adventurer might accidentally have "lost." What the commoner will think is that any man who can traverse the length and breadth of Faerun, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through and still knows where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with.

[CrusaderJoe]

You need melee to lock down areas and control territory, basically.

I wish 5e had more support for doing so - imo, the high action cost of opportunity attacks and the way they get progressively less important is a shame* - but even so, it's all but necessary for someone to manage the terrain.


* Basic idea - to 'keep up' with damage, your melee folks mostly get more attacks. Opportunity attacks are always 1 attack, so it goes from "just as effective as a normal attack" to "1/4 as effective as a normal attack" as you level. This is, of course, disregarding riders on those attacks; if you can prone or push on an OA, that's some nice control, there. I still wish you got more of them, though; one dude can't hold off an army except in a 5' corridor. goblin-goblin con-ga goblin goblin con-ga

Wish I could give gold on this site...


Agreed. answer to "do we have enough?" is always "more."

That, and towels. A towel is just about the most massively useful thing any adventurer can carry. Partly it has great practical value. You can wrap it around you for warmth as you bound across the cold plains of Icewind Dale; you can lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Zakhara, inhaling the heady sea vapours; you can sleep under it beneath the stars which shine so redly within the Anarauch Desert; use it to sail a miniraft down the slow heavy River Chionthar; wet it for use in hand-to-hand combat; wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or avoid the gaze of the Cockatrice (a mind-bogglingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you — daft as a brush, but very very ravenous); you can wave your towel in emergencies as a distress signal, and of course you can dry yourself off with it if it still seems to be clean enough

More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a commoner discovers that an adventurer has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, washcloth, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, holy water, wet-weather gear, suit of armor, etc., etc. Furthermore, the commoner will then happily lend the hitchhiker any of these or a dozen other items that the adventurer might accidentally have "lost." What the commoner will think is that any man who can traverse the length and breadth of Faerun, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through and still knows where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with.

I do the same thing with towels lol. I or someone in the party must have presdigitation or the towel gets... Nasty quite fast.

Omg, great magic it idea.

Towle that can cast the cleaning portion of presdigitation...

[Easy_Lee]

Opportunity attacks are the melee advantage. If you play a rogue, melee is very tempting for this reason since sneak attack is once/turn (as opposed to once/round). Rogues totally ignore the diminishing returns on opportunity attacks that fighters face.

[silveralen]

Monk and paladin both give fairly significant benefits for doing so.

The marking optional rule makes it much more useful as well.

After that, it gets hard to justify it in terms of min maxing.

[Mithradates]

Because "The Demi-Dracolich laughs as the corridor collapses behind you. You feel the air ripple with heat as he prepares to unleash his breath attack down the hallway" is an entirely valid string of words to hear from your DM. And if your entire party is in that corridor...well, there's always Parcheesi.

[Garimeth]

Level 20 Battlemaster With great weapon feat and polearm master feats using a glaive or halberd:

DPR potential at level 20, assuming no buffs or magic equipment:

Attack: 1st: 1d10+15 (10 from Great weapon fighting 5 from strength) 2nd: 1d10+15 3rd: 1d10+15 4th: 1d10+15 Bonus: 1d4+15
Action surge:
Attack: 1st: 1d10+15 (10 from Great weapon fighting 5 from strength) 2nd: 1d10+15 3rd: 1d10+15 4th: 1d10+15 Bonus: 1d4+15

Current total: 8d10+2d4+150 = 238 total damage possible on a single target, assuming no crits. Use Precision attack manuever to ensure hits, if not needed use any other attack for the bonus damage die. Add 8d12 = 96 Damage potential.

Total possible damage: 334 damage in one round, assuming no crits.

Now you may say that he can only do that twice, and that he needs a short rest in between. To which I respond that you just did triple the damage of disintegrate or PW: Kill, so who cares?

Edit: This build has an at-will DPR potential of in excess of 100, far and away higher than any other at-will damage source in the game, though there may be some stronger builds I haven't considered. Additionally, somebody has to be the meatshield to keep all those ranged and caster types from getting wailed on.

[SharkForce]

Level 20 Battlemaster With great weapon feat and polearm master feats using a glaive or halberd:

DPR potential at level 20, assuming no buffs or magic equipment:

Attack: 1st: 1d10+15 (10 from Great weapon fighting 5 from strength) 2nd: 1d10+15 3rd: 1d10+15 4th: 1d10+15 Bonus: 1d4+15
Action surge:
Attack: 1st: 1d10+15 (10 from Great weapon fighting 5 from strength) 2nd: 1d10+15 3rd: 1d10+15 4th: 1d10+15 Bonus: 1d4+15

Current total: 8d10+2d4+150 = 238 total damage possible on a single target, assuming no crits. Use Precision attack manuever to ensure hits, if not needed use any other attack for the bonus damage die. Add 8d12 = 96 Damage potential.

Total possible damage: 334 damage in one round, assuming no crits.

Now you may say that he can only do that twice, and that he needs a short rest in between. To which I respond that you just did triple the damage of disintegrate or PW: Kill, so who cares?

Edit: This build has an at-will DPR potential of in excess of 100, far and away higher than any other at-will damage source in the game, though there may be some stronger builds I haven't considered. Additionally, somebody has to be the meatshield to keep all those ranged and caster types from getting wailed on.

while true that this build has very respectable DPR, DPR does not get calculated with maximized damage rolls *or* the assumption that every attack hits. in excess of 100 DPR? i call BS. you probably have about 50 DPR here against a target you'd reasonably expect to fight at level 20. which is still quite good, mind you... but no, your DPR is not in excess of 100 unless you're fighting enemies with a negative value for their AC and a special rule that a 1 doesn't always miss, and also unless you're using some sort of special ability to only deal maximum damage with your weapons.

also, action surge does not give you an extra bonus action.

[Easy_Lee]

while true that this build has very respectable DPR, DPR does not get calculated with maximized damage rolls *or* the assumption that every attack hits. in excess of 100 DPR? i call BS. you probably have about 50 DPR here against a target you'd reasonably expect to fight at level 20. which is still quite good, mind you... but no, your DPR is not in excess of 100 unless you're fighting enemies with a negative value for their AC and a special rule that a 1 doesn't always miss, and also unless you're using some sort of special ability to only deal maximum damage with your weapons.

also, action surge does not give you an extra bonus action.

Notably, a crossbow expert + sharpshooter build (same number of feats) can pull off nearly the same damage but with +2 to the attack rolls instead of rerolling 1's and 2's. The crossbow expert doesn't get opportunity attacks, but does get to focus Dex and do its damage from range. Also, +2hit is huge.

[obryn]

while true that this build has very respectable DPR, DPR does not get calculated with maximized damage rolls *or* the assumption that every attack hits. in excess of 100 DPR? i call BS. you probably have about 50 DPR here against a target you'd reasonably expect to fight at level 20. which is still quite good, mind you... but no, your DPR is not in excess of 100 unless you're fighting enemies with a negative value for their AC and a special rule that a 1 doesn't always miss, and also unless you're using some sort of special ability to only deal maximum damage with your weapons.

also, action surge does not give you an extra bonus action.
Yeah... Precision Attack gives you an average of +6.5 to-hit, with a lot of variability on account of the 1-12 flat range. Which is a bit more than what's needed to counteract the -5 from GWF.

In other words, it's basically turning your +11 to-hit into a +12.5 to-hit. If you're attacking AC 20, that's a hit on an 8 or better, or 65%. Average damage per-strike is 20.5 (or 17.5 on the haft strike, which, as you noted, you only get the once.)

So, ignoring crits, each attack is worth 13.325 damage against AC 20 ... but only as long as you have Precision Attack dice to spend. On a "nova" round that's (13.325 x 8) + (11.375 x 1), or ~118. The extra crit attack from GWF can basically be ignored, since you're already using your bonus action.

Now, if you're out of dice, the situation looks a whole lot worse.

[CrusaderJoe]

Opportunity attacks are the melee advantage. If you play a rogue, melee is very tempting for this reason since sneak attack is once/turn (as opposed to once/round). Rogues totally ignore the diminishing returns on opportunity attacks that fighters face.

I'm away from book right now, what's the wording of the Paladin Smites? Is it for the attack on your turn or attacks for the round?

Besides that yeah I think the rogue at higher levels is the only melee class that has a reason to take OA... Though that means that another party member also needs to be in the area of melee.

[Rogue Shadows]

I'm away from book right now, what's the wording of the Paladin Smites? Is it for the attack on your turn or attacks for the round?

"When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack."

[Slipperychicken]

Melee guys provide a portable meat-shield/blender between you and the bad guys. Since you most likely don't have the luxury of dropping every foe before they get within 40ft, you should be grateful they're doing the dirty work.

Also, melee guys tend to have an easier time getting bonus attacks and abilities to synergize with their fighting style. They also get more chances for opportunity attacks and other reactions. Unless you're comparing them to a ranged martial, their health and AC are also generally going to be better.

Still, both melee and ranged have their advantages. Ranged characters get to deal similar damage from a distance, thanks to automatic dex-to-damage, and range comes with a host of potential advantages, like easier disengagement, mounted-skirmishing tactics which doom countless monsters, better stealth for ambushes, and the ability to take advantage of cover and elevation differences.

[CrusaderJoe]

"When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack."

I figured it would be something like that but wasn't sure.

Maybe there needs to be a smite that lasts for say, 10 minutes, where all your AO deal 1/2 normal smite damage for the level of the spell a lot used to fuel this spell.

Maybe a similar that adds rider effects based on level of spell slot used?

[Garimeth]

while true that this build has very respectable DPR, DPR does not get calculated with maximized damage rolls *or* the assumption that every attack hits. in excess of 100 DPR? i call BS. you probably have about 50 DPR here against a target you'd reasonably expect to fight at level 20. which is still quite good, mind you... but no, your DPR is not in excess of 100 unless you're fighting enemies with a negative value for their AC and a special rule that a 1 doesn't always miss, and also unless you're using some sort of special ability to only deal maximum damage with your weapons.

also, action surge does not give you an extra bonus action.

I said max DPR potential, which is how I evaluated every other classes damage output potential also. Precision attack makes the fighter hitting pretty likely.

I didn't know that about the bonus action though, so thanks.

[Rilak]

Maybe there needs to be a smite that lasts for say, 10 minutes, where all your AO deal 1/2 normal smite damage for the level of the spell a lot used to fuel this spell.

Divine Favor? Crusader's Mantle? Not quite the same, but not far off either.

[Rowan Wolf]

Agreed. This is among the reason why any extra gold I have at character creation goes into purchasing knives. Among the reasons. Not the only one. Knives are also useful for scratching marks on a surface, jamming a gear or other device, cutting up food, impressing the locals with your mad juggling skills, and tossing to rust monsters so that you don't have to fight them since rust monsters aren't evil, or even particularly territorial. Just hungry. Who'd want to hurt one if they didn't have to?


Depends what do rust monster's taste like?

[Vowtz]

Notably, a crossbow expert + sharpshooter build (same number of feats) can pull off nearly the same damage but with +2 to the attack rolls instead of rerolling 1's and 2's. The crossbow expert doesn't get opportunity attacks, but does get to focus Dex and do its damage from range. Also, +2hit is huge.

Exactly! The crossbow expert has maximum to hit (with archery fighting style and battlemaster bonus dice), great damage (after you get sharpshooter, or sneak attack), and can fight in melee with the same competence as at long range.

The fighter/warlock/sorcerer of doom has some of the best defensive options available in the game, and can use magic or fight in long and close range without problems.

A barbarian/rogue can outrun most monsters and if forced to fight in melee can get advantage in rage to receive half damage while sneak attacking, and there is uncanny dodge...

An elf monk can outrun a lot of monsters and can deflect one missile, if forced to fight in melee he's got the outstanding stunning fist.

A cleric has great AC by default and can fight at a distance or melee with his magic (highlight for spiritual weapon).
..

I'm not saying if you fight at long range you will be invincible, of course not.

If the enemy is stronger at ranged attacks you lose, and if an enemy imposes a save or die effect, there's nothing you can do.

But chances are, if you lost in these scenarios, you would have lost the same, or worse, if you were melee oriented.

..

If your DM dislikes ranged tactics he can adjust his dungeons accordingly to always force close combat, the same adjustments can be done more easily against melee chars, it is pointless to argue about DM preferences as a valid battle tactic.

..

Being a meat shield is not so important in 5e, as you can slow down ONE monster/round, and only if you are a sentinel, and after your reaction is spent, a monster can just ignore you and walk right to your caster's face while still having all his attack options available.

Also, If feats/multiclass are allowed, chances are your party wizard is a better tank than the fighter.



..

My point is: Kiting, as you guys call, is too strong in this edition, there is no reason not to do it, if you have the chance.

Even if you are a ranged character forced in melee, chances are you can hold your own there too, while the oposite is not true, if you are a melee focused character you get your ass most likely kicked at long range.


PS: even if you have javelins you can't extra attack with it, since you are allowed only one free interaction with objects per round, and you attack with disvantage if the target is farther than 30 feet.

[Mrmox42]

Considering the fact that most adventuring groups will find themselves in a multitude of different situations, and different types of terrain, and oppose a very diverse array of opponents, one fighting style cannot cover them all.

In this way, an adventuring group is like an army. You need combined arms.

If you have an all-shooty group, they will do very well in shooty-friendly conditions, but will be in dire straits when in tight spaces. If you have an all-melee group, their will dispair against fast shooty opponents. If you have a no-magic group, they will find themselves in situations where they wish they hadn't.

A combined arms group have some shooty power, some fighty power and some magic power. They can cover any and all situations.

As allways, you have to consider that most D&D games have a GROUP of PC's adventuring, and this group is mostly better off, if they cover all the situations that they will face.

Edit: Spelling

[silveralen]

My point is: Kiting, as you guys call, is too strong in this edition, there is no reason not to do it, if you have the chance.

Even if you are a ranged character forced in melee, chances are you can hold your own there too, while the oposite is not true, if you are a melee focused character you get your ass most likely kicked at long range.

To a degree it is an issue. It honestly has been in most editions so it isn't that surprising. Most classes can get around it in some way though, as you pointed out.

Monk and Barbarian have the faster move speeds and can pick up dash as a bonus action in class (costs ki for the former and is a totem choice for the latter). Rogue can bonus action dash as well. Fighter is a little stymied, mainly just action surge, though battlemaster can trip enemies at range (slowing them down) and EK gets a teleport and can access speed boosting spells. Ranger is best as an archer in anycass, and Paladin has some spells that help, vengeance and ancients have mobility spells+movement restricting spells. The mobility feat can help slightly for everyone, though I wouldn't bother on most.

So I'd say most melee classes can build around such tactics. Devotion paladin, beserker barbarian and champion fighter suffer the most. Battle master does as well, but not to as big an extent. It's actually worth noting I'm having a harder and harder time justifying using fighter as a melee combatant over monk/paladin/barbarian. Even for paladin and barbarian, dipping 2-3 levels often gives you the best stuff.

[Demonic Spoon]

xactly! The crossbow expert has maximum to hit (with archery fighting style and battlemaster bonus dice), great damage (after you get sharpshooter, or sneak attack), and can fight in melee with the same competence as at long range.

The fighter/warlock/sorcerer of doom has some of the best defensive options available in the game, and can use magic or fight in long and close range without problems.

A barbarian/rogue can outrun most monsters and if forced to fight in melee can get advantage in rage to receive half damage while sneak attacking, and there is uncanny dodge...

An elf monk can outrun a lot of monsters and can deflect one missile, if forced to fight in melee he's got the outstanding stunning fist.

A cleric has great AC by default and can fight at a distance or melee with his magic (highlight for spiritual weapon).
..

Crossbow expert + sharpshooter takes you down two ASIs. That's two ASIs or two feats in order to mitigate the disadvantages we've talked about. Those two ASIs you're down are equivalent to +4 of your fighting attribute which is, needless to say, huge.

fighter/warlock/sorcerer as mentioned doesn't work the way you think it does.

Barbarian/rogue doesn't work because you can't sneak attack unless one of your allies is in melee, so you've just created a melee dependency in your "melee is useless" thread.

Monk ranged weapon options are positively terrible, I don't know why you would hold up a monk as an example of a good ranged attacker.

Clerics are casters.

[Rilak]

Barbarian/rogue doesn't work because you can't sneak attack unless one of your allies is in melee, so you've just created a melee dependency in your "melee is useless" thread.

Barbarians have advantage on all attacks (and can thus SA) even if there is no other ally in melee. The restriction is you need to use a finesse weapon using STR.

[Easy_Lee]

Crossbow expert + sharpshooter takes you down two ASIs. That's two ASIs or two feats in order to mitigate the disadvantages we've talked about. Those two ASIs you're down are equivalent to +4 of your fighting attribute which is, needless to say, huge.

Yeah but that's not really a big problem for fighters, particularly not Dex-based ones. That said, it is important to note that many classes besides fighter have many good reasons to fight in melee. Rogues, monks, and barbarians are all very good at closing distance. Paladins are as well with find steed, and BM rangers can be. Rogues can get SA on opportunity attacks from foes trying to run away, and monks can't do too much from range.

Seems to me that its just fighters and most rangers who are encouraged to use ranged attacks. Even then, a shieldmaster or polearm sentinel build can be very tempting as a fighter, presenting their own benefits. And rangers have range in their class name.

[Demonic Spoon]

Barbarians have advantage on all attacks (and can thus SA) even if there is no other ally in melee. The restriction is you need to use a finesse weapon using STR.

Ah, alright.

You can still only rage 2/day (Unless you cut your damage by going heavy into barbarian), which isn't enough to do it every encounter...and even when it is, the monster just turns and eats your allies, so kiting hasn't actually helped you do anything.

[Gnaeus]

If the enemy is stronger at ranged attacks you lose, and if an enemy imposes a save or die effect, there's nothing you can do.

But chances are, if you lost in these scenarios, you would have lost the same, or worse, if you were melee oriented.

No, if the enemy is stronger at ranged attacks, YOU lose. I send up a melee to disrupt his attacks to give us the advantage.



If your DM dislikes ranged tactics he can adjust his dungeons accordingly to always force close combat, the same adjustments can be done more easily against melee chars, it is pointless to argue about DM preferences as a valid battle tactic.


Having characters adventure in dungeons, which are often cramped, is a genre standard. It is common in published advantures. It is common in homebrewed adventures. Having a DM set up all the fights in such a way that everyone just stands back and shoots at each other is the unusual preference. Having some fights start at close range is pretty much the default.

Then there are:
Fights in thick forests or other areas with lots of cover. Now the archery style is actually at a disadvantage, if it can be used at all. Fog cloud is a first level spell. While it imposes disadvantage to both melee and ranged, good luck explaining to your DM that you are shooting blindly into a cloud of fog and why you aren't just hitting your friends.




Being a meat shield is not so important in 5e, as you can slow down ONE monster/round, and only if you are a sentinel, and after your reaction is spent, a monster can just ignore you and walk right to your caster's face while still having all his attack options available.

1. Intelligent monsters may occasionally do that. Stupid monsters will often attack the nearest target. Many monsters will simply attempt to gang up on the guy their first friend attacked. Other monsters will prefer certain targets. Sometimes the fighter will be able to use roleplaying to draw hate. Also, in 5.0, it is much more difficult to immediately recognize the soft targets. That mountain dwarf in the back rank with platemail could be a wizard as easily as a fighter. Until he starts busting out spells, how does the monster know?

2. This assumes that this tactic is even plausible. A good tank will often be able to block a chokepoint and keep enemies from running past him that way.


Also, If feats/multiclass are allowed, chances are your party wizard is a better tank than the fighter.

While I do not necessarily agree with your assertion, assuming it is true, that doesn't mean that tanks aren't helpful, only speaks to who makes a good tank.

[SharkForce]

I said max DPR potential, which is how I evaluated every other classes damage output potential also. Precision attack makes the fighter hitting pretty likely.

I didn't know that about the bonus action though, so thanks.

you can use precision strike on what, 6-7 attacks? (depending on if you spent a feat or not).

that's not DPR. that's a nova or burst damage tool. fighters do have pretty good burst damage options. but it certainly is not remotely close to the same thing as DPR.

[Garimeth]

you can use precision strike on what, 6-7 attacks? (depending on if you spent a feat or not).

that's not DPR. that's a nova or burst damage tool. fighters do have pretty good burst damage options. but it certainly is not remotely close to the same thing as DPR.

Which is the same thing as using a spell. You are splitting hairs here man. I said MAX DAMAGE POTENTIAL PER ROUND. Would you prefer it if I reword it to max damage in a single round? Who cares? My point is that the fighter is capable of putting out a huge burst of damage. And actually a Fighter using great weapon with just four attacks around has on of the higher DPR of most pure classed characters anyway.

On Topic:
I think the bigger issue here is not that ranged is too strong, its that multiclassing is too strong, or rather, there aren't meaningful enough capstone features for each class, and so therefore no reason not to multiclass if you are playing one of them. Combine this with no penalty to multiclassing, and why wouldn't you mc?

On Group Tactics:
The group should be well rounded, and I would say that within reason so should every member of the group. Every one should have both a melee and ranged attack otpion or weapon, everybody should have some kind of out of combat utility, and everybody should have some means of self-care or defense. You aren't an island, but you shouldn't be dependent either.

[SharkForce]

Which is the same thing as using a spell. You are splitting hairs here man. I said MAX DAMAGE POTENTIAL PER ROUND. Would you prefer it if I reword it to max damage in a single round? Who cares? My point is that the fighter is capable of putting out a huge burst of damage. And actually a Fighter using great weapon with just four attacks around has on of the higher DPR of most pure classed characters anyway.

yes, as a matter of fact i would prefer it if you did use words that actually apply to what you're describing. to do otherwise defies the point of having a conversation. if you're going to just spew out random stuff without thinking about what it means, then how is anyone ever supposed to understand what you are talking about?

if you want to talk about burst damage, then call it burst damage. if you want to talk about how much DPR something has, then call it DPR.

otherwise you end up with confusing situations and completely absurd claims, like the fighter being able to deal 100 damage per round no problem when that is pretty much never the case, and it muddies the maters of discussion. there *is* a reason to get into melee. 100 DPR that does not exist is not one of those reasons (particularly since you can get pretty similar figures at range).

[T.G. Oskar]

On Topic:
I think the bigger issue here is not that ranged is too strong, its that multiclassing is too strong, or rather, there aren't meaningful enough capstone features for each class, and so therefore no reason not to multiclass if you are playing one of them. Combine this with no penalty to multiclassing, and why wouldn't you mc?

The Paladin would like a word with you. All three oaths four archetypes, actually. The Paladin is the only class thus far in the game that has a variable capstone, and a really powerful one at that, even if limited to once per long rest. It very easily beats the likes of Bard, Monk and Sorcerer (recharge their pool), and edges ahead of Fighter and Ranger (extra attack and extra damage on crits). The only classes, IMO, that really outclass the Paladin's capstone(s) are Barbarian (free boosts to ability scores AND to the ability score limits) and Cleric (100% successful Divine Intervention, which is the closest thing to an "I Win" button). I would say Druid, but infinite Wild Shape uses mostly depends on how much you use them. That leaves Rogue (pretty much equal, but never the flexibiity of Paladin), Warlock (a short rest should suffice, but it helps you on those difficult battles) and Wizard (YMMV). The Paladin's capstone features are pretty insane, even the one of the Oath of Devotion (defined as the weakest by consensus) is pretty flexible enough. It's quite likely the ONLY class that gets new capstones with every archetype that is ever made for the class.

On topic: melee and ranged combat are two different monsters. As mentioned, melee characters are pretty notorious in getting extra attacks, what with TWF, Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master offering them for free, and in full power to boot (though the former requires jumping some hoops, specifically the fighting style required to add your Strength/Dexterity to the offhand). The bonus to attack rolls is really good, but declaring it's universally better than the ability to reroll 1s and 2s or an extra +2 to damage on every hit is taking it too far: if you can already hit well, you'll want more damage to take advantage of it. Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter are essentially equivalents of each other, offering the same loss of accuracy and increase to damage, with an added boost to boot. However, ranged combat is pretty easy to optimize compared to melee: get Archery, good Dexterity, and stay in range; if feats are allowed, get Sharpshooter first moment you can.

It does imply, though, that Ranged characters are played almost the same way, with VERY minor differences. There's three distinct methods of ranged combat, without adding spellcasting (which won't benefit from many of the ranged combat feats, instead benefitting from its own): archery (the simplest), crossbows (like Archery, but requires one extra feat) and thrown weapons (less range and some require Strength). To follow up on the matter of efficiency (as someone mentioned: why go melee if kiting is more efficient?), if you're implying that you're looking for the most efficient tactic, you need to go with the one that requires the least hurdles, and that means kiting with bows (no less, no more; Crossbows can't do the same damage because of loading issues barring Crossbow Master, and Throwing Weapons require lightning-fast reloading to do the same thing). Even if you follow up on the other ranged combat styles and look for the same efficiency, you need to jump through similar hurdles.

Melee characters have other distinct methods of play, and that includes a degree of battlefield control. Opportunity attacks provide melee characters with the ability to keep the enemy away from their allies, and get an extra blow to boot; mix it with marking, and you get a sure hit that even an Archery-spec'ced character would kill for. Just going by battlefield control, you can go two distinct ways - either knocking prone (Sword & Board does this admirably, turning their bonus action into the potential for advantage and also helping the Rogue while at it) or keeping at bay (the realm of Sentinel, doubled with Polearm Master and its ability to execute OAs against approaching targets). Just remaining close ruins the kiter's day; trying to escape it is generally a bad idea, even without feats, since they get to eat a free attack or else. You ALWAYS have to remain at appropriate range to prevent being hit, and as long as a Melee character happens to approach you, you're pretty much screwed as a ranged combatant. With feats, the advantage attacks like Crossbow Master and Sharpshooter can bring are somewhat negated by feats like Shield Master/Polearm Master + Sentinel. And that's without dealing with their capacity for damage: either Dueling for the +2 to damage (for Sword & Boarders) or Great Weapon Fighting + Great Weapon Master for insane amounts of damage. So, a melee character can approach the ranged character in damage, AND/OR deal with minor battlefield control if built appropriately (a Fighter with Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Sentinel AND Great Weapon Fighting on a heavy polearm is something to behold). That's a big reason why you'd want to be in melee - to keep the enemy from approaching the squishies, kiting or otherwise. After all, what's better: to be safe but always running from the enemy, or to not worry at all from the enemy because someone is keeping it entertained?

To me, that's a strong reason to fight in melee. But then again, I might be biased. Any spell that boosts attack or damage rolls is a welcome addition.

[Garimeth]

The Paladin would like a word with you. All three oaths four archetypes, actually. The Paladin is the only class thus far in the game that has a variable capstone, and a really powerful one at that, even if limited to once per long rest. It very easily beats the likes of Bard, Monk and Sorcerer (recharge their pool), and edges ahead of Fighter and Ranger (extra attack and extra damage on crits). The only classes, IMO, that really outclass the Paladin's capstone(s) are Barbarian (free boosts to ability scores AND to the ability score limits) and Cleric (100% successful Divine Intervention, which is the closest thing to an "I Win" button). I would say Druid, but infinite Wild Shape uses mostly depends on how much you use them. That leaves Rogue (pretty much equal, but never the flexibiity of Paladin), Warlock (a short rest should suffice, but it helps you on those difficult battles) and Wizard (YMMV). The Paladin's capstone features are pretty insane, even the one of the Oath of Devotion (defined as the weakest by consensus) is pretty flexible enough. It's quite likely the ONLY class that gets new capstones with every archetype that is ever made for the class.

Yeah the paladin has some of the best level 20 features in the game. Druid is meh, Barbarian is ok, Bard sucks, sorcerer suck, Cleric I personally think is only good depending on your DM (I don't even think avatar of battle is that amazing for level 20 and its the only domain that gets one. Paladin is really well designed imo.


yes, as a matter of fact i would prefer it if you did use words that actually apply to what you're describing. to do otherwise defies the point of having a conversation. if you're going to just spew out random stuff without thinking about what it means, then how is anyone ever supposed to understand what you are talking about?

if you want to talk about burst damage, then call it burst damage. if you want to talk about how much DPR something has, then call it DPR.

otherwise you end up with confusing situations and completely absurd claims, like the fighter being able to deal 100 damage per round no problem when that is pretty much never the case, and it muddies the maters of discussion. there *is* a reason to get into melee. 100 DPR that does not exist is not one of those reasons (particularly since you can get pretty similar figures at range).

LOL. I never said "just" DPR I said "max damage potential per round" which means something different, also seeing as how you are the only one in the thread who "misunderstood" what I said, I don't think the problem is on my end.

In addition, if you do the full math accounting for averages I have zero doubt that the fighter still has the highest AT-WILL DPR of any pure classed build. Period, because its damage potential is 30 points higher than any other class. If you have math that shows otherwise, I'm all ears, but otherwise you are basically just quibbling over my wording - which has not confused anybody else in the conversation.

EDIT: You know what man I'm over here getting insulted by your attitude, but I took a chill pill and reread my response to you, and I started it. I'm at work and was just upset about something else earlier and didn't check my tone before I responded, so I apologize.

On Topic:
Oskar, I'm actually in agreement with you, the concentration effect on spells makes playing a melee one of the more effective types of battlefield control in the game, especially when you add disarms, knockdowns, shoves, opportunity attacks, and the like.

[Mellack]

Barbarians have advantage on all attacks (and can thus SA) even if there is no other ally in melee. The restriction is you need to use a finesse weapon using STR.

How are you getting that in ranged? If you meant Reckless attack, it says it gives advantage to melee weapon attacks.

[SharkForce]

LOL. I never said "just" DPR I said "max damage potential per round" which means something different, also seeing as how you are the only one in the thread who "misunderstood" what I said, I don't think the problem is on my end.

and then you went and used burst damage numbers like spending all maneuvers and action surges for your "per round" maximum damage. those abilities are nice abilities, but they are not something you can figure into "per round" *anything* unless you're having a single 2-round battle between short rests and nothing more.


In addition, if you do the full math accounting for averages I have zero doubt that the fighter still has the highest AT-WILL DPR of any pure classed build. Period, because its damage potential is 30 points higher than any other class. If you have math that shows otherwise, I'm all ears, but otherwise you are basically just quibbling over my wording - which has not confused anybody else in the conversation.

highest yes (of what i've seen). large margin... eh, not so much.

ashrym did a much better job than i care to repeat the effort of doing, and obviously this is only at higher levels, but:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18580877&postcount=37

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18583985&postcount=60

(the lower accuracy is using great weapon mastery for -5 to hit and +10 to damage).

i don't believe he did one for other classes, some of which might come surprisingly close (rangers and paladins in certain situations for example), and the warlock really probably should have hex running for this calculation (which brings it a lot closer), but generally speaking fighters are not ahead by nearly as much as you might think in DPR when compared to other classes. if their high end is 30 higher, then their low end is only a few points higher, if even that, and their expected average is (as shown) only about 5-10 points above rogues and barbarians.

he also didn't run the numbers for bladelocks, which i understand have a higher DPR eventually than blast locks (presumably because they get to add cha and strength to their attacks with a polearm, polearm mastery, and GWM feats).

[T.G. Oskar]

On Topic:
Oskar, I'm actually in agreement with you, the concentration effect on spells makes playing a melee one of the more effective types of battlefield control in the game, especially when you add disarms, knockdowns, shoves, opportunity attacks, and the like.

It also indirectly nerfs spellcasters, but not by much. It simply shifts priorities. No longer cast Blur, since it requires concentration; Mirror Image, however, is untouched. It prevents mass buffs, though, save for a few early ones (Bless is formidable, as well as Crusader's Mantle), unless you spend a higher spell slot. It's a good start, but could have been worked better.

That said: ranged attacks do break concentration as well. It depends on the damage potential. On the other hand, melee is the way to do disarming (far more flexible than before, if only because it relies on your attack roll and doesn't impose an OA), flanking (easiest way to get advantage, ever), marking (easiest way to save your Reaction for things other than opportunity attacks, and pretty much singlehandedly redeeming the Protection fighting style) and shoving (no longer as cool as Bull Rush, but the Prone condition is just plain murder). Takes spells to duplicate that, and rarely with the skill a melee character can pull it.

It's probably the fact that they super-simplified the special attacks in this edition, thus making them more attractive, what makes melee a bit more interesting. Just the morsel of Shove was nice enough, and so simple and intuitive (remains a Strength check, uses a skill proficiency to add the relevant bonus, remains an opposed check, and doesn't have many impediments other than size, which is no longer as limiting as the double penalty for being small-sized) that it almost merits replacing an attack with it. The "almost" comes because sacrificing one attack for a Shove hurts (which makes Shield Master so nice, since you don't really get an attack but instead gain an action you use to Shove).

[Icewraith]

If you're calculating anything on a per round basis, you only use abilities that you can reliably activate every round.

The words are "maximum one round damage, no critical hits" for what was calculated. If you're bothering to calculate that, you should also give the minimum. Technically that's always zero, but the minimum damage under the same circumstances, i.e. all successful hits but rolling as low as possible on the damage dice would be nice to know.

However, when rolling large amounts of dice and adding the results together, the average is still far more useful.

[Louro]

Whenever you need to enter somewhere by force, you will need melee guys.
The guys defending that place aren't leaving their cover spots to run suicidally towards you.

[Balor777]

Reason to fight in melee
You smite in melee,you attack recklesly in melee,you deal rage damage i melee,you have +2 AC or more in melee, you have 2d6 wepons in melee,your half-orc barbarian deals 5d12 damage at crit at melee.

Melee deals better damage and can have MUCH better AC.
A full plate sbield user with a rapier and defensive duelist feat will have
23 AC without magic items at the level he will have the cash to buy the full plate.And max 32AC at +3 armor shield at 17lvl+.Try to kill this guy with a bow while kiting him.You will run out of breath
faster than him after running for your life 3 miles and guess what?you will fail that fortitude saving throw first probabaly even if you run faster.

[Slipperychicken]

Whenever you need to enter somewhere by force, you will need melee guys.
The guys defending that place aren't leaving their cover spots to run suicidally towards you.

You say that as if dnd enemies use cover and aren't suicidal.

[Aramis Rhett]

I haven't read every post, so I'm not sure someone else has already said it, but AMMUNITION is one reason to be forced into melee. Sure, bolts and arrows are cheap, lightweight, and salvageable (any reference as to "how salvageable" they are? Haven't spotted it in book as I haven't specifically looked for it), conserving ammo has always been something I do if playing with any ranged implements. Never know when an enemy is going to try to break away to warn his absentee buddies.

[obryn]

I haven't read every post, so I'm not sure someone else has already said it, but AMMUNITION is one reason to be forced into melee. Sure, bolts and arrows are cheap, lightweight, and salvageable (any reference as to "how salvageable" they are? Haven't spotted it in book as I haven't specifically looked for it), conserving ammo has always been something I do if playing with any ranged implements. Never know when an enemy is going to try to break away to warn his absentee buddies.
I haven't tracked (or asked my players to track) ammunition since the early nineties.

[Aramis Rhett]

I haven't tracked (or asked my players to track) ammunition since the early nineties.

Our DM and my fellow PCs don't track ammunition either, but the DM calls out a "low ammo" warning if someone has been flinging arrows or bolts for quite a while.

[Slipperychicken]

I haven't read every post, so I'm not sure someone else has already said it, but AMMUNITION is one reason to be forced into melee. Sure, bolts and arrows are cheap, lightweight, and salvageable (any reference as to "how salvageable" they are? Haven't spotted it in book as I haven't specifically looked for it), conserving ammo has always been something I do if playing with any ranged implements. Never know when an enemy is going to try to break away to warn his absentee buddies.

Unless your characters used the default starting equipment (only gives you ~20 arrows) and/or absurdly poor, it's not hard to just pack way more ammunition than is necessary. Hit up town, sell off your vendor trash, then buy like 60+ rounds worth of ammunition. Increase that amount appropriately if you expect a lot of time between supply-runs. Once you've packed an armory's worth of munitions, just liberally spray hostiles until they stop moving.

[Suichimo]

Yeah, Paladins are pretty much hosed when it comes to range. Heavy bias towards Strength>Dex, no Archery fighting style, no ranged smiting, and short range auras. You can always dip two levels of Warlock to get a strong Eldritch Blast though.

[Aramis Rhett]

Unless your characters used the default starting equipment (only gives you ~20 arrows) and/or absurdly poor, it's not hard to just pack way more ammunition than is necessary. Hit up town, sell off your vendor trash, then buy like 60+ rounds worth of ammunition. Increase that amount appropriately if you expect a lot of time between supply-runs. Once you've packed an armory's worth of munitions, just liberally spray hostiles until they stop moving.

Our DM would still pit the odds against us. He would find some way for the bulk of the munitions to be lost or broken. Besides that, our party consists of battle master fighter, thief rogue, tempest cleric, and find pact tome warlock. I'm the warlock, in case it matters. Ammunition WILL run out for a dedicated projectile plinker at our DMs table. Eldritch Blast spam doesn't run out, has better damage overall (augmentations from invocations futher its usefulness), and uses force damage. I can keep up a concentration spell and still spam it, while the fighter and rogue, and occasionally cleric keep most hostiles engaged in melee to reduce the amount of conc. rolls I have to make.

[SharkForce]

unless you're using hex (at which point, there's your one concentration spell), eldritch blast is typically not more damaging than melee builds (or even weapon-based archer builds for that matter), actually. sometimes even if you *are* using hex, it's not more damaging than melee builds, even.

it has other advantages, mind you. kiting potential goes through the roof when you get repelling blast, for example, and force damage is admittedly a rather consistent damage type. more sustained damage than a good weapon user is generally speaking not one of those advantages, is all.

[Aramis Rhett]

unless you're using hex (at which point, there's your one concentration spell), eldritch blast is typically not more damaging than melee builds (or even weapon-based archer builds for that matter), actually. sometimes even if you *are* using hex, it's not more damaging than melee builds, even.

it has other advantages, mind you. kiting potential goes through the roof when you get repelling blast, for example, and force damage is admittedly a rather consistent damage type. more sustained damage than a good weapon user is generally speaking not one of those advantages, is all.

True it isn't more damaging, but it scales. As I sit casting EB with 2 beams, a bonus 4 to damage on each (provided they both hit) and another 1d6 necrotic damage bonus to each beam, add Disadvantage to ability checks (which includes saves) is good for the whole group.

Side thought: to impose disadvantage to an attributes check, does that include attack rolls or no?
For instance, I choose str. They would have disadvantage on grapple checks to be sure, but what about swinging their axe/sword/hammer that relies on their strength?

[Demonic Spoon]

Side thought: to impose disadvantage to an attributes check, does that include attack rolls or no?
For instance, I choose str. They would have disadvantage on grapple checks to be sure, but what about swinging their axe/sword/hammer that relies on their strength?


No. Ability checks are a separate type of d20 roll from attack rolls (the third type being saving throws).

[Aramis Rhett]

No. Ability checks are a separate type of d20 roll from attack rolls (the third type being saving throws).

So does that mean technically saves aren't affected either?

[Demonic Spoon]

Correct. If the effect only causes disadvantage on ability checks, only ability checks (STR/DEX/CON/WIS/INT/CHA) checks, and skill checks (which are just ability checks + proficiency) are affected. That is why abilities that are designed to affect more than one type (such as Bless) will explicitly call out multiple types separately.

[Aramis Rhett]

Hrm... Will have to outwit my DM into making our opposition use more skill checks relevant to combat... Any suggestions?

[Demonic Spoon]

Hrm... Will have to outwit my DM into making our opposition use more skill checks relevant to combat... Any suggestions?

The big one is Athletics/Acrobatics. Have a warrior in your group shove an enemy prone and grapple him to stop him from doing anything useful, then proceed to beat on him while he ineffectually tries to make opposed Athletics checks with disadvantage.

Edit: out of curiosity, what ability is this you're talking about? I am not seeing it in the invocations list.

[Aramis Rhett]

Suppose there are bonus uses of it. Interrogate someone, have hex on them, pick charisma as the attribute, and dare them the to use deception or persuasion. Also the 1d6 necromantic damage from a pimp slap would be cause of much laughter at the table I sit at.

[Aramis Rhett]

The big one is Athletics/Acrobatics. Have a warrior in your group shove an enemy prone and grapple him to stop him from doing anything useful, then proceed to beat on him while he ineffectually tries to make opposed Athletics checks with disadvantage.

Edit: out of curiosity, what ability is this you're talking about? I am not seeing it in the invocations list.

The one where disadvantage is imposed to all checks made from a selected attribute? That's part of Hex.

[Slipperychicken]

The big one is Athletics/Acrobatics. Have a warrior in your group shove an enemy prone and grapple him to stop him from doing anything useful, then proceed to beat on him while he ineffectually tries to make opposed Athletics checks with disadvantage.

Make that a barbarian if possible, since they have free advantage on strength checks.

[Aramis Rhett]

Make that a barbarian if possible, since they have free advantage on strength checks.

Free during rage, or if they take Aspect of the Beast: Bear. Then it's a little more limited in what they have advantage on.

[Vowtz]

Melee deals better damage
The most damaging weapon deals 2d6, 3.5 average damage more than the hand crossbow.



and can have MUCH better AC.
If you are focusing on AC your damage is not far superior, like your previous point implied. In adition, the guy with the crossbow will use similar armor and shield comparing to the standard sword and board fighter, so their AC are not too different.

And unlike a one handed swordsman, the guy with the crossbow can have the option to power attack with his weapon.


A full plate sbield user with a rapier and defensive duelist feat will have
23 AC without magic items at the level he will have the cash to buy the full plate.And max 32AC at +3 armor shield at 17lvl+.

32AC against ONE attack at level 17, all other attacks against your defensive fighter must hit AC 26, not a hard feat.

I usually dislike including magic items in my calculations, but following your logic, Even considering AC 32, with the magical items you mentioned the crossbow guy will have +6prof, +6dex[tome], +2 style and +3 weapon.

+17 to hit... Oh wait, i forgot ammunition bonus stack with weapon bonus now, so +3 from ammunition

+20 to hit.

He needs a dice roll of 12 agains the 32 ac duelist, and a roll of 6 after his reaction is spent.

With battlemaster maneuvers on that level he can even add a d12 to his accuracy or damage.


Try to kill this guy with a bow while kiting him.You will run out of breath
faster than him after running for your life 3 miles and guess what?you will fail that fortitude saving throw first probabaly even if you run faster.
I will have to disagree.


fighter/warlock/sorcerer as mentioned doesn't work the way you think it does.

Can you point a flaw? I don't see any.

Fighter gives heavy armor, shield and defense fighting style for an AC of 21, second wind and action surge.

Warlock gives a Blast that fires as often, or faster, than a fighter can attack and has similar damage(1d10+cha).

Sorcerer gives the shield spell to make this warlock's AC 26 without magical items for one round, and socery points to shoot all his blasts again as a bonus action.

After you get the crosbow expert feat (removes disvantage from any ranged attack in melee, I remember crowford or the other guy saying so), you can tank and fight in melee just as effectively, or even better, than a fighter, while being able to shoot from afar with the same damage ooutput without any harm from "melee only" monsters.

And on top of being a great tanky machine gun you have some utility spells to fly away or become invisible, see in darkness, buff, debuff (and so on), as you gain levels.

[Louro]

You say that as if dnd enemies use cover and aren't suicidal.
Don't they?
If they open a door and see intruders, why should they come at you instead of taking advantage of the door full cover?

[Demonic Spoon]

If you are focusing on AC your damage is not far superior, like your previous point implied. In adition, the guy with the crossbow will use similar armor and shield comparing to the standard sword and board fighter, so their AC are not too different.

And unlike a one handed swordsman, the guy with the crossbow can have the option to power attack with his weapon.


Stop throwing out feat features as if they're a given. You're pretending like every ranged character in the world has these features by default without having to give up anything. If you're going to frame this discussion in terms of all ranged characters using sharpshooter and crossbow expert, then other people get to assume that their melee characters are fighting at +2 attack/damage, or have polearm master/sentinel.



Can you point a flaw? I don't see any.


Ah; I thought you were trying to use a mix of mage armor/draconic bloodline/real armor, which doesn't work.

Anyway, it's hard to talk about warlock/sorcerer/fighter without giving the number of levels for each.

[Slipperychicken]

Don't they?
If they open a door and see intruders, why should they come at you instead of taking advantage of the door full cover?

Usually because the DM is playing the melee guys like violent lemmings. It all balances out because the PCs are usually played to a similar level of stupidity.

[Giant2005]

There are a lot of melee only class abilities which increases damage significantly and there isn't really that much of a downside.
In enclosed areas like dungeons, you are pretty much always in arms reach of your enemy or at the very least, within throwing range. So the Archer gains nothing at all and loses damage, melee-only abilities, and has to endure the prospect of cover.
In an open area the melee guy can close gaps pretty fast if he is mounted and then make all of his attacks with advantage (Via Mounted Combat feat) which imo is an advantage that is far superior to the benefits of long range. Advantage in 5e is tremendously powerful and the melee fighters have better access to it. They also have access to attacks of opportunity which is a potential that the ranged guys will never enjoy.
Without feats included then the ranged guys have some serious issues with the cover rules which puts them on a peg below the melee fighters. With feats included the ranged guys can't keep up because of mounted combat.

[Gwendol]

Usually because the DM is playing the melee guys like violent lemmings. It all balances out because the PCs are usually played to a similar level of stupidity.

This made me smile. It's fun because it's true!