The 5E Switch Hitter

[NeoSeraphi]

In Pathfinder and perhaps even in 3.5, a strong option for a mundane (ish) character was to take the route of the Switch Hitter (generally ~20 Str, at least 17 Dex, and you had bonus feats to give you both strong THF and Archery prowess).

This was possible in large part because of the ease of multiclassing in 3.5/PF (once you ignored XP penalties like everyone did) and because of the bonus feat system that was available to both fighters and rangers. It was also somewhat due to the fact that fighting styles in those systems were not class features, they were feats that were theoretically available to every class.

Now, however, in 5E, feats are rarer, stats are capped and magic weapons are priceless. Out of the box, it looks like the Switch Hitter would come into this edition very strong, since archers get Dex to their damage for free and the proficiency system allows any class to retain the highest to-hit regardless of multiclassing (so you could dip rogue or bard or whatever you like without sacrificing accuracy to do so).

The problem I see is that a ranger still doesn't get every option he wants this way. You can only get Volley or Whirlwind Attack, not both for example. Getting both the Great Weapon fighting style and the Archery fighting style is simple enough, since you just grab 2 levels of fighter and pick up Action Surge as well. Picking up Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter on the same character is also very simple, especially for a class that essentially only needs 2 maxed stats (you shouldn't have low Con, but a 20 isn't needed). But the feats add damage and reliability, which are useful but they're not of the same class as feats like Manyshot or Shock Trooper.

So, is the Switch Hitter still a viable strategy? Or do most rangers go straight archer these days?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

IMO: Differentiation between melee and ranged power is much smaller in 5e. The main quality of a melee fighter is not the ability to dish out damage but rather the ability to survive in melee. Proficiency scales with level. So mostly you just need DEX that doesn't suck wind.

Given that, any fighter is a competent switch hitter. They get martial proficiency; they just need to find a longbow. Three attacks with a longbow is competitive with other classes. Champions get two fighting styles. Battlemaster maneuvers are applicable at range, giving you situationally powerful abilities like knocking fliers out of the sky. Eldritch Knights get spells and cantrips granting them ranged flexibility; they don't need DEX, and not necessarily even INT.

I think Rangers are capable of being flexible. DEX melee is perfectly viable. You just have to keep that you want to be flexible in mind and not go wholly with things that benefit you at range. You can be a one trick pony in melee as long as you do have a trick.

[Easy_Lee]

A Ranger does not have the option of focusing both ranged and melee damage. They lack the feats to get this off the ground and get only one fighting style.

The easiest way to accomplish what you're discussing would be to go Champion fighter. You get two fighting styles and ASIs out the wazoo. Ideally, this character would focus DEX and take both the TWF and Archery fighting styles in the desired order. Sharpshooter and dual wielder would both be recommended feats. This character will do well in virtually any situation. The feat crossbow expert can potentially replace both dual wielder and the TWF fighting style, since it's such a useful feat.

One other way to do what you discuss is by dipping rogue. Rogues can bonus action disengage, meaning that any time you're in melee range, you can disengage to the desired distance and proceed to used ranged attacks. Again, the feat crossbow expert may remove the need to do so.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I'm not really sure that a "switch hitter" was really all that viable in 3.5 or pathfinder, though. I mean, you could do it, but you'd be significantly less adept at both styles than if you focused on one. That's still the same in 5e, but at least your damage won't be quite as hamstrung.

[calebrus]

The problem I see is that a ranger still doesn't get every option he wants this way. You can only get Volley or Whirlwind Attack, not both for example.

The switch hitter in 3e/PF wasn't great at both.
He was merely adequate from range, and was good in melee. He focused on melee, with a little bit of ranged thrown in.
A 5e ranger can absolutely do that. But what's more, he can actually be good at both now.
A 5e switch hitter (if you're going to compare to 3e/PF) would take whirlwind over volley.
Dex based dual wielding scimitars with the DW style, a hunter feature to choice at level 3, and whirlwind, all with hunter's mark. There's your melee.
For ranged, you're still using the same stat, and you have the same attack bonus, but instead of whirlwind or other features, you rely on spells to increase your ranged potential, and there are tons of great spells for a ranger with a bow or crossbow.

There's your switch hitter. He's just as good as the 3e/PF switch hitter in melee, and he's better from range than his 3e/PF counterpart.

[NeoSeraphi]

Two weapon fighting would certainly make the Dex based warrior easier but in practice how often does one player get three magic weapons at a 5e table? A lot of monsters resist non magic weapon damage don't they?

[DireSickFish]

Two weapon fighting would certainly make the Dex based warrior easier but in practice how often does one player get three magic weapons at a 5e table? A lot of monsters resist non magic weapon damage don't they?

I'd go Duling and rapier if I was going to be a single stat "switch hiter". Even if you just focus archery, when the enemy comes into mele its easy enough to grab the sword and board and be nearly as good. I'f you do a 2 lvl fighter dip for a secondary style then you either have +2 to hit or +2 damage so you can archery for hard to hit targets(or to stay safe, or because its a narrow corridor you can only have 1 person in front) and can switch to sword and board to pile on the damage. After all hunters mark will apply to both.

The real "issue" with this is when it comes to feats. Sharpshooter is a great feat for all of its components so to be a good archer you'd want that. Sword and board has shield master which is nice, but doesn't really increase your offensive power.

Going dual stat (STR/DEX) makes you want Great Weapon Fighting in mele to really increase that offense more than the ranged weapon wants Sharpshooter. This means giving up more ASI to take both feats which means its harder to get the stats maxed out.

All of this feat reliance makes a Fighter a very attractive choice, but any Dex based class can do pure dex switch hitting.

I'd most likely focus on one for most of my adventuring career till i got it maxed out instead of alternating to keep them both comparable. Get sharpshooter and 20 Dex then switch over to grabbing Great weapon fighting/bumping my strength or vice versa.

[Demonic Spoon]

I think pretty much anyone can do it. Feats are unnecessary because, as you mentioned, any given feat will only help you with either melee or ranged. Fortunately, feats are optional and ASIs are perfectly competitive.

If you were to build a character around it, I'd say a dex-based champion fighter. Take Archery fighting style and your choice of other style; switch between longbow and rapier.

Otherwise, most martial characters can do this out of the box to some degree. A barbarian dual-wielding handaxes can be pretty effective (remember the rage damage bonus applies to the off-hand attack) can throw said handaxes when he needs range (reckless attacking to cancel out disadvantage for a long range throw if necessary).

A BM or EK fighter can either use thrown weapons with Strength, or just take a fighting style that's agnostic to weapon type (Defense stands out here). Remember you can use thrown weapons and get the Duelist bonus.

Hunter ranger specifically is a little more difficult for the reasons you mentioned, but the melee/ranged-specific features only come about at level 11.

[Mr.Moron]

Two weapon fighting would certainly make the Dex based warrior easier but in practice how often does one player get three magic weapons at a 5e table? A lot of monsters resist non magic weapon damage don't they?

This is entirely dependent on the GM and the style of the game. Certainly lots of things have resistance to non-magic, but how much that matter is also dependent on the GM and the style of the game.

It's impossible to get any indication of how much you'll find magic weapons or how meaningful that means because there are no firm rules on the matter. It's entirely subjective.

EDIT: For what it's worth I'm trying to be intentionally a bit stingy with magic items, and my group just reached 5th level and just got their first magic weapons (2 magic swords that are identical copies of each other).

[Submortimer]

Honestly, the bigger point is that the ranged specialist doesn't NEED melee. Any archer worth his salt is going to take both Sharpshooter and Crossbow Master. The former gets you the best benefit of Great weapon master, the latter gets rid of your restrictions when shooting while In melee. if you want TFW, use two Hand Crossbows: you get the exact same effect, and you can add your dex to the damage without a fighting style.

This is from a purely mechanical standpoint, BTW. if you WANT to hit things with a sword, by all means do so. Go Champion Fighter, take Archery first and then TWF later on, take the three requisite feats, and have fun switching it up; it's just mechanically easier to stick with the arrows/bolts.

[Demonic Spoon]

Honestly, the bigger point is that the ranged specialist doesn't NEED melee. Any archer worth his salt is going to take both Sharpshooter and Crossbow Master. The former gets you the best benefit of Great weapon master, the latter gets rid of your restrictions when shooting while In melee. if you want TFW, use two Hand Crossbows: you get the exact same effect, and you can add your dex to the damage without a fighting style.

that isn't even remotely true. Blowing an ASI/feat just for the ability to sit in melee with a ranged weapon is a hard sell unless you specifically plan on being in melee all the time (at which point you're very likely to just focus on melee).

Without arguing whether or not it's strictly optimal, it's absurd to say that most archers will take crossbow expert and sit in melee all the time.

[Mr.Moron]

that isn't even remotely true. Blowing an ASI/feat just for the ability to sit in melee with a ranged weapon is a hard sell unless you specifically plan on being in melee all the time (at which point you're very likely to just focus on melee).

Without arguing whether or not it's strictly optimal, it's absurd to say that most archers will take crossbow expert and sit in melee all the time.

Also not all GMs will be using the feats optimal rule, and not all of those will be blanket introducing every feat.

Further, there is image to consider. The dude who shoots his bow, then whips out the swords at close range has a distinct style and image from the dude who just kind of fires his bow in melee, which is different than going around somehow shooting two crossbows at the same time.

[Submortimer]

that isn't even remotely true. Blowing an ASI/feat just for the ability to sit in melee with a ranged weapon is a hard sell unless you specifically plan on being in melee all the time (at which point you're very likely to just focus on melee).

Without arguing whether or not it's strictly optimal, it's absurd to say that most archers will take crossbow expert and sit in melee all the time.

No, of COURSE they wont. But Crossbow master gets you that, PLUS TWF (with hand Crossbows) PLUS removes the major restriction from the highest damage type of bow in the game. If you're a fighter ranger, why would you NOT take it?

Edit: I wasnt saying that I suggest said archer sit in melee the whole time, I'm just saying that said archer has zero mechanical reasons to pull out a pair of shortswords when the orcs rush him, only a thematic reason.

[Demonic Spoon]

No, of COURSE they wont. But Crossbow master gets you that, PLUS TWF (with hand Crossbows) PLUS removes the major restriction from the highest damage type of bow in the game. If you're a fighter ranger, why would you NOT take it?

Do I really need to explain to you why not every fighter in the universe is going to be using crossbow expert + sharpshooter and dual-wielding hand crossbow? Because if not, then you're arguing optimization, which is not what this thread is about. OP used the term "viable", e.g. can I make a character this way without performing poorly.


Edit: I wasnt saying that I suggest said archer sit in melee the whole time, I'm just saying that said archer has zero mechanical reasons to pull out a pair of shortswords when the orcs rush him, only a thematic reason.


Assuming the archer took Crossbow Expert, that is correct. That is not something that is guaranteed, and it's absurd to say that it is.

[Slipperychicken]

So, is the Switch Hitter still a viable strategy? Or do most rangers go straight archer these days?

I think it works fine. 5e gives us free quick-draw and dex to damage, so you only need one stat for it. Just use a rapier, and you're dealing pretty much the same damage at range and melee. You can boost that a bit by dual-wielding.

Still, rapiers don't benefit from GWF (so it's a bit less damage than the bow), but if you also have a good strength, there's nothing preventing you from pulling out a maul or a greatsword instead.


I'm not really sure that a "switch hitter" was really all that viable in 3.5 or pathfinder, though. I mean, you could do it, but you'd be significantly less adept at both styles than if you focused on one. That's still the same in 5e, but at least your damage won't be quite as hamstrung.

Having made and played a switch-hitting ranger in PF, it's very slightly worse at both (i.e. your attack and damage are like 1-2 points lower, which is absolutely nothing in PF), but the versatility you get is totally worth it.

[Jeebs]

My favorite way to do something along these lines in 5e (if I understand your meaning) is to play a Battlemaster Fighter with high STR and DEX. I like the idea of a Fighter in Leather Armor, wielding a Greatsword. You can switch to a Longbow as well, using plenty of your Maneuvers in melee and at range. Because of the Fighter's seven ability score increases, you can eventually max both STR and DEX, get a decent CON score, and grab a feat or two.

It's probably not an optimized build because of the redundancy of the two stats, and because you'll lack for a social stat (assuming point buy), but you could also try to max CON. This is doable as a Half Orc or Mountain Dwarf, especially if you dump your mental stats. I actually imagined playing a Sage who is the disappointing ward/bodyguard of a Wizard. Although he is close to perfect physically, he hunts for a Headband of Intellect to better serve his master. Even with the penalty from INT, the proficiency bonus to skills that players have tended to ignore in my games would be helpful, as is the background feature.