Any suggestions for creating a Melee Ranger?

[Edgerunner]

We will be working our way through Tomb of Annihilation and I want to build a Ranger. Our group consists of a Monk, Land Druid and Bard.

I have this strange idea to build a melee focused Ranger and am Unsure how to go about it.

Any suggestions?

[Foxhound438]

Half orc, point buy to 16/14/14/9/14/8. you want that race for the free death ward every day, since you're going to be the most likely thing to soak damage on any given round. half plate for 17 AC, defense fighting style bumps it to 18. use a greatsword, and take GWM at 4. Go hunter ranger and take the horde breaker option, and later take multiattack defense. spells you'll want to cast are generally going to be positional control things like ensnaring strike, spike growth, conjure animals (giant octopi), plant growth, and grasping vine to more or less set a positional trap that near guarantees you get to use horde breaker and later whirlwind attack. It might be worth it to use a longsword at earlier levels before you get access to good area spells, so you can grapple a thing and drag it to another foe.

[gloryblaze]

Alternatively, if you want to maximize your spellcasting effectiveness with things like Ensnaring Strike, you could build a wood elf or aarakocra and point buy something along the lines of 8/16/14/8/16/12 to have a starting spell save DC of 13, then you can wear light armor (allowing for stealth) and wield either rapier and shield with Dueling style (for optimization) or (to uphold tradition/rule of cool) dual wield daggers (which can be thrown), shortswords/scimitars (which deal slightly more damage), or some combination of the two.

[Tanarii]

Depends if you want offensive or defensive.

With that group, I'd be inclined to go defensive. Str-primary (Dex-14) with either 2h weapon and Defensive style, or S&B with Dueling. Athletics with Grapple (2H) or Shove (S&B). Probably with Beastmaster, get Barding onyour Wolf, and you've got good area-denial from an extra body and OAs, ability to knock prone with their attack. If feats are allowed, look at Sentinel (either style) and Shield Master if S&B. Ensnaring Strike for further Control.

I've done this before and it's decent. Holds up as a semi-tank / off-tank.

[Chugger]

You can feat magic init to get Shillelagh and get pluses to hit and damage off your Wisdom increases.

At lvl 8 you could be doing 2 strikes with it at +5 from wis, +3 from prof, to hit. And for damage you get your 1d8 from Shil plus 5 dam from wis and plus 2 from dueling (I think rangers get that). And plus your mark and hunter's ability if wounded (that's plus 1d6 and plus 1d8 right?).

And you get to use a shield, and shil counts as a magic weapon.

While doing okay damage. Not as good as gwm with a 2hnd weapon, but you have a better ac, and you're going to hit far more often - and your spells will work better. It's worth considering.

[polymphus]

I had this weird idea to run an Elf/Tabaxi/Anybody with +2 Dex ranger with TWF, two shortswords, hordebreaker/escape the horde/whirlwind attack.

Also take a bow and grab Swiftquiver later. You're not the high single-hit damage guy, you're the high DPS guy because you get a ton of smaller attacks.

You'd probably need to do a 2-dip rogue for cunning action. It's not the most optimised class, but it's an interesting strategic challenge with a lot of options.

[Chugger]

Let's look at a round where you have gwm and a 2hnd sword.

You take -5 to hit. If you're lvl 8 and boosted str you sacrificed your casting stat, wis. If you boosted wis, you have a gimped str. Let's assume you boosted wis for this example.

You have +3 to hit from str and +3 from prof for +6 to hit. Then -5 from gwm, if you take the damage boost option. So you're going to miss a lot.

So let's say on round x of combat you hit once. Thats 2d6 (gr sword) + 3 (str) + 10 (gwm) + 1d6 (mark) + 1d8 (hunter). That's 7 + 3 + 10 + 3.5 + 4.5 = 28 average pts damage.

Now you have + 8 to hit on your shilelagh, so let's say on round x you hit twice. You won't always hit twice - you can miss twice - and there is a way to actually determine your av. dpr w/ hit and miss chances (but my brain hurts today - so we'll just wing it here - but be warned, it's not a perfect comparison - just a so-so one).

With shil you have 1d8 + 5 from wis + 2 from FS dueling + 1d6 from mark + 1d8 from hunter ability.

That's 4.5 + 5 + 2 + 3.5 + 4.5 = only 19.5 av dpr - but - we hit twice on this round. So we did 39 dpr with shilelagh on a round where we hit twice.

If we hit twice w/ gwm and gr sw we do 56 av dam - but - how often is that going to happen? Just as often as we miss both attacks (with that -5). (edit actually depending on ac you can miss a heck of a lot, on both, with that GWM -5).

So landing 2 shil hits with wis bonus and FS is not nec. a bad option.

[Easy_Lee]

Revised Ranger allowed? See my signature. Play a Ghostwise Halfling riding a wolf, have above average movement speed, make 3-5 attacks per round by level 5, two of those with guaranteed advantage and a chance to knock the opponent prone.

[Chugger]

Revised Ranger allowed? See my signature. Play a Ghostwise Halfling riding a wolf, have above average movement speed, make 3-5 attacks per round by level 5, two of those with guaranteed advantage and a chance to knock the opponent prone.

I love EL's ranger guides. Do give him a serious look.

[Citan]

We will be working our way through Tomb of Annihilation and I want to build a Ranger. Our group consists of a Monk, Land Druid and Bard.

I have this strange idea to build a melee focused Ranger and am Unsure how to go about it.

Any suggestions?
Hi!

Well let's start with basics.
- Melee means that you won't learn many Ranger spells that work better on ranged weapon attacks (although I'd advise to still learn Ensnaring Strike with a nuance, see below).
- Melee Ranger also means that, unless multiclass/feats, your only choice will be either stick to close contact and take damage or use thrown weapons to mitigate threats. Whatever happens, you want a decent CON (and a great one if you plan on using concentration spells).
- Ranger means that you can either keep low WIS and take non-WIS spells like Pass Without Trace and Conjure Animals, or get good WIS and use a few WIS spells like Ensnaring Strike.

The way I see it, you have three main ways to go.
1/ Dual-wielder (classic): grab TWF style, go 14 DEX & WIS, aim towards 16 STR and CON, with Resilient: Constitution feat, hack and slash while keeping concentration on Ensnaring Strike / Conjure Animals.
- Pros: easy to build, built-in versatility (use throwable weapons), great concentration, several ways to specialize with feats (since you don't care about anything else than 18-20 STR, you have 2 or 3 feats left): Mobile, Sentinel, Mage Slayer, Dual Wielder, Sharpshooter, Defensive Duelist...
- Cons: bonus action attack from dual-wield eats at Hunter's Mark. Unless you pick either Dual Wielder or Sharpshooter, you lose a bit in both offense and defense.

2/ Versatile: grab Magic Initiate: Druid as Variant Human for Shillelagh (mandatory) and either Magic Stone or Thorns Whip (optional), then go 16 WIS and CON, 12-14 DEX, 12-14 STR (I'd stick with medium armor personally). Style may be Defense or a more specific one.
You could also go for one level of Nature Cleric, or Druid if you don't care about heavy armor nor Cleric spells, but I told myself I'd refrain from multiclassing suggestion since you don't seem very interested into it in the first place, plus single-class is easier and Ranger is a good class, in spite of having a good chunk of features potentially ignored by DMs. XD
- Pros: SAD, buit-in magic weapon, many many ways to branch (PAM or Dual Wielder if you don't use Hunter's Mark, Sentinel, multiclass for more spellcasting, Shield Master if you go Sword and Board, Defensive Duelist if you plan on carrying a dagger off-hand for defense, HAM if you went Cleric dip way).
Great if you plan on using WIS control spells (Ranger spells, but also Command from Cleric or Earth Tremor from Druid) or you just don't know yet what kind of melee Ranger you want to be.
- Cons: restricts you to "quarterstaff" builds (no GWM, no Sharpshooter) unless feat (Dual Wielder > ranged attack versatility), will eat your bonus action on first turn of every encounter unless you can work a deal with your DM ("repeated automatic cast").

3/ Heavy Hunter: Go max STR and CON, just enough WIS and DEX for requirement, grab GWM, 18 STR and Mobile ASAP: idea here is to prebuff yourself with Longstrider and rush from one enemy to another, using bonus action to move Hunter's Mark regularly, or maybe using Ensnaring Strike on a powerful enemy.
- Pros: very good damage thanks to Horde Breaker when you can provoke it, also Sentinel which you will take when you can (priority is to get 18 STR before level 12 unless you have someone in party that can help the to-hit).
- Cons: Whirlwind won't shine unless your party helps you gather creatures around you, also this build has no particular synergy with most of Ranger features. Note that I have never been interested in playing a GWM Ranger though, so there may be things I missed that help improve it.

To be honest, there would be many ways to improve some aspects of each of these with multiclasses, but these should work fine as is so I will refrain from further detail. ;)
(Unless you ask for it of course ^^).

[Mortis_Elrod]

if we talking revised ranger i would always go with Lizardfolk as a race and either hunter or darkstalker. get in there and start biting people. Hunt them down. Stalk them. Then skin the bodies and make weapons. You should value daggers more than they are worth in gold for this purpose as well as daggers are just great. Pick up the cooking feat from UA as well and be your teams chef (good berries taste like cardboard anyway). Lizardfolk are pretty much rangers anyway with all of the racial features. Look into some dips in either monk or barbarian (increase your bite damage with rage or be ale to use it more often with MA.).


Make a feral/Apex predator of a ranger. Since we don't have one of those yet. Be more of a beast than the moon druid.

[HermanTheWize]

(Unless you ask for it of course ^^).

I'm asking for it

[Edgerunner]

To be honest, there would be many ways to improve some aspects of each of these with multiclasses, but these should work fine as is so I will refrain from further detail. ;)
(Unless you ask for it of course ^^).

Yea. I'ld like to hear some of your ideas.
A couple of Specific questions first.

Two Weapon Fighting; Having Hunters Mark work on every attack is very difficult to give up when it comes to Bonus Actions. Does the Damage from TWF keep up when Not using Hunters Mark?

Wouldn't DEX Sword&Board benefit me in the longrun by providing AC and an open Bonus Action?

BTW any Pros/Cons to any of the suggested MultiClassing ideas if I go Deep Stalker Conclave?

[Citan]

Yea. I'ld like to hear some of your ideas.
A couple of Specific questions first.

1. Two Weapon Fighting; Having Hunters Mark work on every attack is very difficult to give up when it comes to Bonus Actions. Does the Damage from TWF keep up when Not using Hunters Mark?

2. Wouldn't DEX Sword&Board benefit me in the longrun by providing AC and an open Bonus Action?

3. BTW any Pros/Cons to any of the suggested MultiClassing ideas if I go Deep Stalker Conclave?
Hey ;)

Sorry it will be probably a short and incomplete answer for now, I'm very tired (first day of new work \o/).

1. Well, you can't expect not to lose damage without using Hunter's Mark, but I'm not sure of the use-case you are speaking about here.

a) TWF without Hunter's Mark compared to Extra Attack with Hunter's Mark? With the related fighting style, we are talking about comparing (1d8*2 and "1d2"*2 thanks to higher die) to 1d6 (without Dual Wielder, 1d6 weapons) + STR/DEX.
With starting 16 in attack stat and taking average, it's 4,5*2 + 1*2 against 3,5+3, so 11 against 7,5.
Which translates to 11 against 9,5 if you max your stat, and 11 against 11,5 if you take Dual Wielder.

Also, note that this is pure theorycraft damage comparison (read: near worthless). In practice, you should take chances to hit into account: Hunter's Mark requires you to hit to trigger, but does not help that to-hit.

At level 6 (considering +2 STR/DEX on first ASI), against an AC 17 (not unexpectable), you have 3+4=+7 to hit. So you need a 10 to hit. So 55% chance to hit.
Even against AC 13, you still have "only" 75% chance to hit.

Two-weapon fighting means one more chance to hit, or make a Shove/Grapple. Whether or not this is relevant obviously varies much from one situation to another. Confer next point.

b) When to expect situations in which doing something else than changing Hunter's Mark's target is the good thing to do?
Well...
- When your concentration broke anyways and you find that for the next rounds another concentration spell as bonus action would be better?
- When you don't think there is any creature in range worthy "wasting" a weapon attack so increase later rounds's damage?
- When you just. want. to. hit. this. effing. creature..
- When you really need that extra weapon attack to Shove/Grapple while still having two full weapon attacks (which is something you can do any day, everyday as a dual-wielder, compared to S&B / Two-hander who needs feat and/or luck)?

2. I'm not sure I understand your question to be honest.

3. Could you please link to the archetype? Away from home so I don't have my "UA library" on hand.

I'll come back later for a more complete answer, for now I just have to go to sleep. XD Good night everyone!

[EvilAnagram]

Citan makes some excellent suggestions, but I would add that UA offers a few extra options. Zephyr Strike in particular is not at all bad for melee Rangers, and it's slated to be in Xanthar's Guide to Everything in the next few days, so it's almost AL legal.

[X3r4ph]

You'd probably need to do a 2-dip rogue for cunning action. It's not the most optimised class, but it's an interesting strategic challenge with a lot of options.
You don't need Rogue if you take the spell Zephyr Strike from UA Starter Spells.

[rigolgm]

I play a Revised Ranger who's melee-focused.

I multiclassed my first level into Rogue. It gives +1d6 sneak attack damage which I think is slightly easier to trigger each turn in melee combat rather than in ranged. He uses a rapier, which is a finesse weapon so allows him to use STR with his sneak attack.

It also gives me more starting skills, double proficiency in Perception and Stealth, and Thieves Tools proficiency.

But, of course, it means I'll forever be a level behind colleagues on most upgrades. It also means I'll never get the level 20 ability (not that I'd ever reach that level!), which is fine with Rangers because their level 20 ability is poor.

(I'm pretty sure DEX builds are more powerful, but I went for higher STR. Hey, at least I can carry more. And multiclassing means I don't get the usual STR save proficiency, so making up for that is another small reason to go the STR melee route if you multiclassed the way I did).

[Malifice]

Id go Dex heavy and TWF personally.

Bow as backup.

From 3rd level youre doing some impressive damage. 1d8+4d6+6 each round (hunters mark/ colossus slayer) presuming 2 scimitars.

Even more if using UA Ranger v favored enemies.

Plus; youve got the bow as backup.

Dip a single level of fighter (after 5 levels of Ranger) for Archery style in addition to TWF. Three levels for action surge and Superiority dice for even more crazy damage.

Then dip off into Rogue.

[rigolgm]

Then dip off into Rogue.

Remember you get fewer skills if you start Ranger then go into Rogue, rather than doing Rogue first. Although you will get marginally more hit points.

Although one nice thing about dipping into Rogue later is that you should have Nature and Survival skills by then, so can choose them to be the two skills you get Expertise (double proficiency). Which is very Ranger-ish! and will make Druids jealous!

[Malifice]

Remember you get fewer skills if you start Ranger then go into Rogue, rather than doing Rogue first. Although you will get marginally more hit points.

Still. 3 for ranger, 2 for background plus 1 for race (human or elf). Plus 2 for rogue.

If scout rogue (the natural choice) works the same, that probably grants even more.

[Easy_Lee]

Remember you get fewer skills if you start Ranger then go into Rogue, rather than doing Rogue first. Although you will get marginally more hit points.

Although one nice thing about dipping into Rogue later is that you should have Nature and Survival skills by then, so can choose them to be the two skills you get Expertise (double proficiency). Which is very Ranger-ish! and will make Druids jealous!

I'd take stealth and perception, personally. Rangers are scouts and those skills come up more often.

[djreynolds]

16/14/14/8/13/8 is a good stat line for strength melee.

Dex is more optimal as you can have a 12-13 in strength and higher intelligence and wisdom.

[Citan]

Citan makes some excellent suggestions, but I would add that UA offers a few extra options. Zephyr Strike in particular is not at all bad for melee Rangers, and it's slated to be in Xanthar's Guide to Everything in the next few days, so it's almost AL legal.
My gosh... This spell is stupidly good, far too good for a 1st level spell imo.
I 1000% back this suggestion should your DM allow UA content.


I play a Revised Ranger who's melee-focused.

I multiclassed my first level into Rogue. It gives +1d6 sneak attack damage which I think is slightly easier to trigger each turn in melee combat rather than in ranged. He uses a rapier, which is a finesse weapon so allows him to use STR with his sneak attack.

Hey ;)
I'm really interested in that feedback. I really had the feeling that for someone that can access Rogue's Cunning Action enabling Sneak Attack at range was easiest. Could you plz give some information as to why you consider it easier in melee? Would it be, per chance, because you usually have a pal that provides advantage (Wolf Barb, shoving martial, Monk, Faerie Fire)?


Id go Dex heavy and TWF personally.

Bow as backup.

From 3rd level youre doing some impressive damage. 1d8+4d6+6 each round (hunters mark/ colossus slayer) presuming 2 scimitars.

Even more if using UA Ranger v favored enemies.

Plus; youve got the bow as backup.

Dip a single level of fighter (after 5 levels of Ranger) for Archery style in addition to TWF. Three levels for action surge and Superiority dice for even more crazy damage.

Then dip off into Rogue.
To be honest that would be my usual suggestion but, I feel that this is a suggestion made precisely because a Rogue dip/multiclass is always "packaged in". For a pure DEX Ranger, apart from "just" better AOE saves and Initiative (in double quotes because I totally agree it's important), I don't feel DEX is bringing anything as far as melee attacks go. So I don't see the point of not just going full ranged way instead, with either Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert, or both (both being an especially deadly combination once Volley comes into play).

Of course, you are more versatile overall than a STR Ranger when no feats are involved, at least as far as "effective weapon reach" goes, and I think everyone by now appreciate how much I love versatility. XD.

So I guess it's the main selling point of "DEX melee", without considering feats/multiclasses.


Yea. I'ld like to hear some of your ideas.
A couple of Specific questions first.

1. Two Weapon Fighting; Having Hunters Mark work on every attack is very difficult to give up when it comes to Bonus Actions. Does the Damage from TWF keep up when Not using Hunters Mark?

2. Wouldn't DEX Sword&Board benefit me in the longrun by providing AC and an open Bonus Action?

3. BTW any Pros/Cons to any of the suggested MultiClassing ideas if I go Deep Stalker Conclave?
So, hey, I'm back. ;)
Time to finish answering your questions, then tackle multiclass options.

I consider the first one answered (as far as I remember, feel free to poke me back on that if you feel it incomplete).
Time to question 2.

2. So I'm still not sure I understand your question...
a) If you compare DEX/STR...
AC-wise it's a wash as long as you have at least 14 DEX. Things can change if you go DEX way and pick MAM, but STR could also take Heavily Armored. So in the end it's still a wash.
"Bonus action"-wise, Shield Master does not rely on stat so it's a wash.

Beyond that...
DEX gives:
- Better Initiative, which may be a boon, or actually a drawback, depending on your party tactics -like if you have a Cleric that usually buffs you...
- And DEX saves, which Ranger is proficient into anyways, and has Evasion, so +3 difference in the end is very good in the long run, but won't make THAT much of a difference against the biggest threats.
- And ability to either throw up to 20 feet, or completely switch to long-range weapons, making you efficient against all kind of enemies.

STR gives...
- Better carry weight, which may be great or useless depending on DM management of weight, how much acrobatics/climbing are involved and other minor factors)...
- Better STR saves and checks against effects: considering how many effects that limit/stop movement target this, you may like having a minimum bonus or instead embrace the weakness ("Ranger are supposed to be agile but fragile").
- Better STR checks (Grapple/Shove): may or not be of importance depending on your liking of those tactics.
- Larger choice of melee weapons, useful for two things, having more chance to loot a melee magic weapon you can use, and having more choice in feat specialization.

Or, to try and summarize... "STR is the king of close combat versatility, DEX is the king of positioning versatility". Not the best way to put it, but I hope you get what I meant. ;)

b) If you compare TWF / Shield...
AC-wise the shield obviously gives you better AC, but taking Dual Wielder mitigates that to an "acceptable potential loss".
"Bonus action"-wise it's a loss or a wash, depending on whether you take the half-empty or half-full glass.

With a shield, you DON'T have any bonus action provided unless you take a feat: so whenever you use bonus action on Hunter's Mark, you will feel you optimized your turn. But whenever you don't, you'll feel like something is missing and may get frustrated. Whereas, dual-wielding means you can mix and match melee attack, ranged attacks, shove and grapple in many ways, like...
- Shove and 2 full weapon attacks (mixing thrown and melee, 0% / 50% / 100%).
- Three melee attacks.
- One ranged attack, one grapple and one shove.
- And I won't list all combinations, work it yourself! :smalltongue:

So, all in all...
- Going DEX plays on the natural strength (pun intended) of the class to reinforce them and makes you nearly as efficient against any kind of creature.
- Going STR gives you a much more balanced character by shoring up some weaknesses and significantly increasing your melee tactical options, at the price of limitations in other aspects (mainly range).

3. Just managed to put a hand on Stalker Conclave description, it seems it's part of the Revised Ranger... Which I don't clearly remember...
Stalker's Flurry and extra spells are really damn tempting. ;)
However, you miss on some of the greatest Hunter features, although those are of higher level...

I'll come back later for multiclass options for both my initial suggestions and a specific Stalker Conclave one. ;)
Have to take a pause (and reflect about all the great tricks you can do with the Staker features: I already see fun things to do with Warlocks and Battlemasters ;)). So next batch either in a few dozen of minutes or much later tomorrow. ^^

[rigolgm]

I'm really interested in that feedback. I really had the feeling that for someone that can access Rogue's Cunning Action enabling Sneak Attack at range was easiest. Could you plz give some information as to why you consider it easier in melee? Would it be, per chance, because you usually have a pal that provides advantage (Wolf Barb, shoving martial, Monk, Faerie Fire)?

It's just because Sneak Attacks don't require advantage if you instead have a friend next to your target (and if you don't have disadvantage and if the enemy isn't incapacitated). In melee, that should allow you to Sneak Attack almost every turn. That rule is the same for ranged attacks but shooting into a melee where your friends are fighting is more difficult.

[EDIT: See below in the thread for more about shooting into melee, as it's barely there in the original Players' Handbook.]

As an aside, remember that Sneak Attack only happens once per turn. So its +1D6 damage is a very small bonus. Better than nothing.

[mephnick]

shooting into a melee where your friends are fighting is more difficult.

It should be more difficult. But for some reasons a lot of DMs ignore the rule that allies provide cover. Or ignore cover completely, making ranged even better than it already is because they're lazy.

[rigolgm]

It should be more difficult. But for some reasons a lot of DMs ignore the rule that allies provide cover. Or ignore cover completely, making ranged even better than it already is because they're lazy.

Yeah the rules are minimal on it. There are rules for people blocking your shot (PHB p196, 'Cover'). It can add to enemy AC and DEX saves a bit (usually +2 for half cover) if they're getting in the way. But I think that's it unless you look at later books. The DMG (p272) says if you miss the target due to cover that you would have hit without cover and you beat the cover's armour class with that roll, you hit the cover instead. I believe that means you risk hitting your friend instead of your enemy when you shoot into their melee. Which is a fun and good rule.

So yeah, ignoring any other potential factors, I still think it means the +1D6 Sneak Attack (from a Ranger taking a level or two in Rogue) might see more/better use in melee rather than ranged combat. One small reason to consider a melee Ranger build, like I did with my character.

[Citan]

It's just because Sneak Attacks don't require advantage if you instead have a friend next to your target (and if you don't have disadvantage and if the enemy isn't incapacitated). In melee, that should allow you to Sneak Attack almost every turn. That rule is the same for ranged attacks but shooting into a melee where your friends are fighting is more difficult.

[EDIT: See below in the thread for more about shooting into melee, as it's barely there in the original Players' Handbook.]

As an aside, remember that Sneak Attack only happens once per turn. So its +1D6 damage is a very small bonus. Better than nothing.

It should be more difficult. But for some reasons a lot of DMs ignore the rule that allies provide cover. Or ignore cover completely, making ranged even better than it already is because they're lazy.

Well, if you want to go that way towards a rant on how "DM don't care about cover", a great prize should be awarded on the total ignorance of the fact that melee attacks are also affected by cover. Granted, it happens rarely (only cases when I had to keep it in mind are tavern brawls so far) but it happens. :)

Also, I'm perfectly aware of cover rules in general, thank you. ^^
I wouldn't be so pessimistic about DM ignoring rules of cover relative to allies. It may just be that players happen to think before acting. ;) Unless you face a true line of enemies, or fight in a very narrow place, it's not difficult for an ally to locate himself on the "side" of an enemy to clear the way, or at least try to reach the enemy at an angle which will allow you to get a clear line with less movement than if he just rushed straight...

At least it's what happens with my players... Maybe we should consider it as a hidden "perk acquirement" from playing so many competitive or cooperative FPS with harsh friendly-fire. ;)

Another theory could just be that games you witness or hear of are for most of them games with at least experienced people, if not powergamers/munchkinists, that just pick Sharpshooter ASAP whenever they play a ranged attacker... Making it easy for DM to forget cover rules for the occasional ranged attacks of other players... ^^


Yeah the rules are minimal on it. There are rules for people blocking your shot (PHB p196, 'Cover'). It can add to enemy AC and DEX saves a bit (usually +2 for half cover) if they're getting in the way. But I think that's it unless you look at later books. The DMG (p272) says if you miss the target due to cover that you would have hit without cover and you beat the cover's armour class with that roll, you hit the cover instead. I believe that means you risk hitting your friend instead of your enemy when you shoot into their melee. Which is a fun and good rule.

So yeah, ignoring any other potential factors, I still think it means the +1D6 Sneak Attack (from a Ranger taking a level or two in Rogue) might see more/better use in melee rather than ranged combat. One small reason to consider a melee Ranger build, like I did with my character.
I agree it's a fun rule, and fair enough too. I never really paid attention to it because as I said the "friendly cover" situation is rare enough as it is in games I dm or play into, but I more or less applied something like that already as a DM: critical fail on attack roll with friendly cover in the way = auto-hit of friend! Because criticals failure must leave a hard imprint in players's memory! MWHAHAHAHAHA... HA.:smallbiggrin:

[rigolgm]

In summary, cover bonuses more commonly hinder ranged attacks than melee ones.

As an aside, in some cases I find it a bit too 'gamey' when an archer tries to use footwork to avoid enemies getting a cover bonus. For example, if three PCs are in melee with a powerful Mummy, I think it would always be reasonable if a DM decides to give the Mummy at least Half Cover .... even if the archer can run to a point where (strictly speaking) s/he can draw direct line of sight to the Mummy.

For me, that would just reflect the hubbub of melee combat. It's definitely how our club's DMs would rule it. It's a shame the PHB doesn't explicitly encourage that, as it talks about being "behind" cover.