Sharpshooter vs GWM

[MThurston]

I think it is total crap that you can use a sling and hand crossbow for sniper, but you can't use flail for GWM for the damage bonus part of the feat.

[CantigThimble]

So change it in your game. Or add a 'heavy flail' with the same stats as a maul.

I'm sorry, what response are you expecting here?

[stoutstien]

I mean technically the first bulletin of great weapon Master doesn't limit it too heavy weapons.
I'm more bothered by the fact that the weapon that's tied for the heaviest weight on the table isnt considered a heavy weapon.
I think the heavy is more of a descriptor of the distribution of the total weight not an actual total.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm still trying to figure out what 'Sniper' is (do you mean Sharp Shooter? Spell Sniper?). However, There are a few things here that are true:

Flails (so much as they were ever really used in great numbers) by all accounts should have one and two-handed versions. And the two handed versions should probably be considered heavy. The 5e Weapons table is not a great representation of anything. My general advice is to refluff.
The entire 'Heavy' requirement of the second bullet of GWM is rather unkind to gnome and Halfling melee Str-fighters (who already are fighting an uphill battle compared to anyone with Str-bonuses).
That pretty much all of the best martial combat feats require some serious level of fighting style specialization is an interesting design choice.

[MThurston]

I'm still trying to figure out what 'Sniper' is (do you mean Sharp Shooter? Spell Sniper?). However, There are a few things here that are true:

Flails (so much as they were ever really used in great numbers) by all accounts should have one and two-handed versions. And the two handed versions should probably be considered heavy. The 5e Weapons table is not a great representation of anything. My general advice is to refluff.
The entire 'Heavy' requirement of the second bullet of GWM is rather unkind to gnome and Halfling melee Str-fighters (who already are fighting an uphill battle compared to anyone with Str-bonuses).
That pretty much all of the best martial combat feats require some serious level of fighting style specialization is an interesting design choice.


I fixed the title. Thanks for correcting me.

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean, to be fair, extra special training can have you reload and fire a hand crossbow 5 times in 6 seconds, and that 3lb. hand crossbow deals as much damage as a hand axe. Realism isn't DnD's forte.

Although, if you wanted to add an extra "flaily" aspect of gameplay, you could create a feat that uses flails how they were intended: To counter shields.

While countering shields is odd, rare, and annoying to track for a DM, you could have it work well specifically against high AC targets (who often have shields).

Something like:

If you attack with the flail and miss, you can spend your Bonus Action to reroll your attack. You deal half the normal damage with this attack.
Landing a critical with a flail knocks the target prone.

[MThurston]

I mean, to be fair, extra special training can have you reload and fire a hand crossbow 5 times in 6 seconds, and that 3lb. hand crossbow deals as much damage as a hand axe. Realism isn't DnD's forte.

Although, if you wanted to add an extra "flaily" aspect of gameplay, you could create a feat that uses flails how they were intended: To counter shields.

While countering shields is odd, rare, and annoying to track for a DM, you could have it work well specifically against high AC targets (who often have shields).

Something like:

If you attack with the flail and miss, you can spend your Bonus Action to reroll your attack. You deal half the normal damage with this attack.
Landing a critical with a flail knocks the target prone.


There is Flail Master

+1 to hit
Use your bonus action to get a +2 to hit when attacking a for with a shield.
Reaction Attacks can knock opponant prone.

[stoutstien]

There is Flail Master

+1 to hit
Use your bonus action to get a +2 to hit when attacking a for with a shield.
Reaction Attacks can knock opponant prone.
Well that feat is UA which is just Homebrew with better formatting.

[Gtdead]

Sharpshooter builds are superior to GWM in every regard.

Builds can take advantage of Archery to offset the penalty.
It eliminates the penalties of attacking targets behind cover and the disadvantage of shooting from max range.

It offers the same offensive power as GWM for builds that attack from range, while GWM users need to be in melee and can't have a shield.

I actually consider builds that rely on GWM weak. Except maybe for Bearbarian.

[Corran]

Sharpshooter builds are superior to GWM in every regard.

Builds can take advantage of Archery to offset the penalty.
It eliminates the penalties of attacking targets behind cover and the disadvantage of shooting from max range.

It offers the same offensive power as GWM for builds that attack from range, while GWM users need to be in melee and can't have a shield.

I actually consider builds that rely on GWM weak. Except maybe for Bearbarian.
Eh, I wouldn't call GWM weak by any stretch.
It's true, archery is a big benefit for sharpshooter, but on the other hand, I can think of more ways to get advantage on your attack rolls for a melee character than for a ranged character. The fact that the GWM build needs to be in melee is not in itself a terrible thing, cause that means you are tanking at the same time as dealing damage. This can be a much needed quality sometimes. I agree that sharpshooter is better, mainly because I think ranged dpr's are better than melee dpr's, for the simple reason that a ranged dpr has more options when choosing which target to focus.

[Foxhound438]

the equivalent to GWM in Pathfinder (power attack) was applicable to any melee weapon attack, but was more beneficial to characters that used 2 handed weapons. 5e doesn't have the old 1.5*bonuses for a two handed weapon though, so maybe they limited it to heavy weapons since it would keep the two handers dealing enough extra damage to justify not having a shield.

Ranged weapons all having access to sharpshooter largely makes sense in that context, as you still need a free hand to reload your hand crossbow... Yes, even with crossbow expert, as that lets you ignore the "loading" property which limits your attacks per turn but not the "ammunition" property that requires a free hand.

[Willie the Duck]

the equivalent to GWM in Pathfinder (power attack) was applicable to any melee weapon attack, but was more beneficial to characters that used 2 handed weapons. 5e doesn't have the old 1.5*bonuses for a two handed weapon though, so maybe they limited it to heavy weapons since it would keep the two handers dealing enough extra damage to justify not having a shield.

I would like to think that the designers thought to give each fighting style they considered important to have some avenue of game viability. Two weapon fighting is great for rogues, players who want an early lead and don't care about upper levels, and characters without shield proficiency (mountain dwarf wizards may as well fight with two light hammers or axes, if they fight in melee at all). Archery has Sharpshooter. Big Two handed weapons has GWM. I guess one handed weapon (actually probably versatile weapon) and no shield has easily moving into grappling. One handed weapon and shield... well, given that they ruled against (routinely useful) shield bashing, I guess the extra AC is supposed to be enough. Although, honestly, I think the main selling point of sword and board is that you don't have to take a feat to make it work (and the extra damage from 2handers is not sufficient to give up the shield when just considering the weapon damage).

[Man_Over_Game]

The goal of the Archery fighting style was to counter the -2 penalty of shooting through combatants' squares to hit a target. The problem is, DMs keep forgetting that second part, that people on the field count as constant cover. Considering most combat situations require the ranged combatant to shoot into a mosh pit of melee combatants with your ally in the way, this means that Sharpshooter shouldn't be overpowered with an experienced DM.

Basically, almost every ranged combatant in the game is getting a +2 bonus to hit in most fights because of misinformation. Naturally, this will make Sharpshooter a lot better.

Additionally, most sources of consistent Advantage (Feinting Attack maneuver, Reckless Attack) require melee combat. Ranged combat is generally better in a vacuum (which is why Sharpshooter is better), but there's a lot of reasons why someone with GWM might do better.

[NaughtyTiger]

The goal of the Archery fighting style was to counter the -2 penalty of shooting through combatants' squares to hit a target. The problem is, DMs keep forgetting that second part, that people on the field count as constant cover. Considering most combat situations require the ranged combatant to shoot into a mosh pit of melee combatants with your ally in the way, this means that Sharpshooter shouldn't be overpowered with an experienced DM.

Basically, almost every ranged combatant in the game is getting a +2 bonus to hit in most fights because of misinformation. Naturally, this will make Sharpshooter a lot better.

Additionally, most sources of consistent Advantage (Feinting Attack maneuver, Reckless Attack) require melee combat. Ranged combat is generally better in a vacuum (which is why Sharpshooter is better), but there's a lot of reasons why someone with GWM might do better.

I agree that DMs don't impose the partial cover AC bump when shooting through allies.
However, Sharpshooter removes any penalties to 1/2 and 3/4 cover.
so a DM that imposes partial cover actually strengthens Sharpshooter. (edit - reworded to state positive form)

[Man_Over_Game]

I agree that DMs don't impose the partial cover AC bump when shooting through allies.

However, Sharpshooter removes any penalties to 1/2 and 3/4 cover.

so a DM not imposing partial cover is actually weakening Sharpshooter.

Ah, damn, forgot about that stupid clause. Welp, I'm an idiot who doesn't know sh**.

Yeah, thinking about it, it is far too good. The only way that GWM would be better is if you were fighting a swarm of smaller enemies.

x2-x3 range on all ranged weapon attacks
Effectively +2 to hit
Can subtract -5 to hit to deal +10 damage.

Dealing 10 damage with an attack before using the -5/+10 feature, you'd only start to gain damage using the feature if you need less than an 11 to hit. At 10 base damage, this roughly translates to +.5 average damage for every spot less than 11 that you need to hit. In other words, if you need to roll a 7 on the die to hit, using the -5/+10 feature translates to +2 average damage.

However, Sharpshooter also ignores the cover penalty. When combined with something like the Archery Fighting Style, this means that someone using Sharpshooter needs 2 less to hit than someone using GWM, which translates to a 1 damage average difference than someone using GWM.

Sharpshooter provides +1 more damage average than Great Weapon Master, for people using Archery

[fbelanger]

I think it is total crap that you can use a sling and hand crossbow for sniper, but you can't use flail for GWM for the damage bonus part of the feat.

Change both feats to require an attack that deal at least a d8 of damage. Problem solve!

[NaughtyTiger]

Yeah, thinking about it, it is far too good.

I think it should be split into 2 seperate feats: it is so good, that it is mandatory, and (imo) better than +2 dex specifically for the partial cover rules.

[mephnick]

The goal of the Archery fighting style was to counter the -2 penalty of shooting through combatants' squares to hit a target. The problem is, DMs keep forgetting that second part, that people on the field count as constant cover. Considering most combat situations require the ranged combatant to shoot into a mosh pit of melee combatants with your ally in the way, this means that Sharpshooter shouldn't be overpowered with an experienced DM.

I just changed archery fighting style to ignore half cover instead of a blanket +2. Even if the DM accounts for cover, most of the time an archer will be able to find a free line of sight and the blanket +2 becomes broken again.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think it should be split into 2 seperate feats: it is so good, that it is mandatory, and (imo) better than +2 dex specifically for the partial cover rules.


I just changed archery fighting style to ignore half cover instead of a blanket +2. Even if the DM accounts for cover, most of the time an archer will be able to find a free line of sight and the blanket +2 becomes broken again.

Kill two birds with one stone. Remove the +2 benefit from Archery. Remove the Cover benefits from Sharpshooter and put them on to Archery.

[NaughtyTiger]

Kill two birds with one stone. Remove the +2 benefit from Archery. Remove the Cover benefits from Sharpshooter and put them on to Archery.

boom. i like it.

[stoutstien]

Kill two birds with one stone. Remove the +2 benefits from Archery. Put the Cover benefits from Sharpshooter and put them on to Archery.

They cover benefits is the only part of the sharpshooter feat that bothers me.
Adding a little bit of damage every shot doesn't amount to much but completely removing all the tactical benefits of cover makes archery boring.

Same thing for spell sniper.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, thinking about it, it is far too good. The only way that GWM would be better is if you were fighting a swarm of smaller enemies.

Part of the problem is that Archery is a good fighting style which synergizes with Sharpshooter, and Great Weapon Fighting is a crummy fighting style barely worth taking (so melee fighters just take Defense instead). If you made GWF "+2 to hit with melee weapons", Sharpshooter and GWM would be on equal footing for to-hit, and the bigger damage dice + bonus attack sometimes + potential opportunity attacks of GWM would let it pull ahead of Sharpshooter when melee is applicable.

I've heard of DMs who let you freely mix and match "+2 to hit or +2 to damage" with "ranged weapons or one-handed weapons or heavy weapons" for your fighting style. It's more complexity than I want to bother with myself, but it would probably work fine if you wanted to strengthen GWM relative to Sharpshooter.

[Willie the Duck]

They cover benefits is the only part of the sharpshooter feat that bothers me.
Adding a little bit of damage every shot doesn't amount to much but completely removing all the tactical benefits of cover makes archery boring.

One of the things I greatly dislike about some of the simplifications of 5e is where the game effectively states "doing X gives you Y penalty, except for anyone with any interest in routinely doing X, who will undoubtedly pick up feat/spell/class feature Z, which reads, 'when doing X, you do not receive the normal Y penalty.'" Ranged combat runs into range and cover penalties, except that all ranged fighters take Sharpshooter. Same with anyone who doesn't want to have a melee option taking crossbow expert. You probably don't even routinely do wilderness adventures if no one wants to play a ranger, and Natural Explorer (plus goodberry) make almost all the issues with wilderness travel (which, let's be honest, your DM forgets about if you only do the occasional wilderness adventure) completely meaningless. I understand the reason for the simplifications, I just think there could have been a better way to go about it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ranged combat runs into range and cover penalties, except that all ranged fighters take Sharpshooter. My ranger didn't. Is he crippled for life? :smalleek: Archery fighting style suffices.

You probably don't even routinely do wilderness adventures if no one wants to play a ranger, and Natural Explorer (plus goodberry) make almost all the issues with wilderness travel (which, let's be honest, your DM forgets about if you only do the occasional wilderness adventure) completely meaningless. I understand the reason for the simplifications, I just think there could have been a better way to go about it. Of all the classes they got right, Ranger IMO they "almost" got right. (and gloom stalker is a good enough fix that I stopped kvetching about Ranger).

[Man_Over_Game]

My ranger didn't. Is he crippled for life? :smalleek: Archery fighting style suffices.
Of all the classes they got right, Ranger IMO they "almost" got right. (and gloom stalker is a good enough fix that I stopped kvetching about Ranger).

I actually add "Urban" to one of the options for a Ranger's favored terrain, just in case the players decide to stay around town longer than I anticipate and do missions inside city walls.

[KorvinStarmast]

I actually add "Urban" to one of the options for a Ranger's favored terrain, just in case the players decide to stay around town longer than I anticipate and do missions inside city walls. Neat idea. I think SCAG has a background that is very similar to that (investigator? Detective?) Don't have that book near me at the moment.

[Man_Over_Game]

Neat idea. I think SCAG has a background that is very similar to that (investigator? Detective?) Don't have that book near me at the moment.

There was a Modern UA a long while back that included things like a techno-Warlock and a Cleric/Druid that gathers energy from the city, and that's what gave me the idea. It's not like players often need to sneak as a group or scavenge in a town all that often, so it's not exactly as useful as someone might initially think, but still enough for Rangers to not feel useless.

The Street Urchin background basically does the same thing, doubling traveling speed while in the city. Considering things like stealth/scavenging or other effects would probably just be considered a slowing effect on travel speed, it almost translates to them having Favored Terrain: City.

[mephnick]

Kill two birds with one stone. Remove the +2 benefit from Archery. Remove the Cover benefits from Sharpshooter and put them on to Archery.

Sorry, I forgot to mention I remove the cover part of SS. Ignoring 3/4's cover should never happen. It removes all the tactical issues, and only real drawbacks, with Archery. It's too much.

[Willie the Duck]

My ranger didn't. Is he crippled for life? :smalleek: Archery fighting style suffices.

This is entirely too close to me saying 'I don't like something' and someone saying 'well I do, are you saying there's something wrong with me?' There's no such thing as crippled for life in the game rules. Am I somehow not allowed to use hyperbole in my points? There is nothing that all players or characters actually do. My point was about rule setups where there's a penalty to something, and then an obvious (although not mandatory) option which takes it away. Archery fighting style is actually a perfectly good example of another way to do something-they could have not taken away disadvantage for range or minuses for cover, but instead given an additional base to-hit for archery. OR instead of taking away the disadvantage at range, they could have given an offsetting bonus. Those would have all been great. Heavily leaning on the 'here's a penalty, but you can invest in making it a non-issue' is the point of annoyance.


Of all the classes they got right, Ranger IMO they "almost" got right. (and gloom stalker is a good enough fix that I stopped kvetching about Ranger).

Hunter, Gloom Stalker, and Horizon Walker are all pretty good. I actually think they work very well. It's not rangers that I have a problem with, so much as Natural Explorer.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is entirely too close to me saying 'I don't like something' and someone saying 'well I do, are you saying there's something wrong with me?' I was kidding, I think I used the wrong smilie. Should have used one of these.
:smallwink::smallbiggrin:

My point was about rule setups where there's a penalty to something, and then an obvious (although not mandatory) option which takes it away. Archery fighting style is actually a perfectly good example of another way to do something-they could have not taken away disadvantage for range or minuses for cover, but instead given an additional base to-hit for archery. OR instead of taking away the disadvantage at range, they could have given an offsetting bonus. Those would have all been great. Heavily leaning on the 'here's a penalty, but you can invest in making it a non-issue' is the point of annoyance. Point taken.


Hunter, Gloom Stalker, and Horizon Walker are all pretty good. I actually think they work very well. It's not rangers that I have a problem with, so much as Natural Explorer. My core challenge with a Ranger is the multiple attribute dependency thing with the wisdom Spell Save DC, but it is not insurmountable.

[stoutstien]

Sorry, I forgot to mention I remove the cover part of SS. Ignoring 3/4's cover should never happen. It removes all the tactical issues, and only real drawbacks, with Archery. It's too much.
I'm all on board with this option!

[MaxWilson]

Sorry, I forgot to mention I remove the cover part of SS. Ignoring 3/4's cover should never happen. It removes all the tactical issues, and only real drawbacks, with Archery. It's too much.

IME 3/4 cover is much less of a factor with archery than total cover or prone enemies. Ignoring 3/4 cover lets you snipe hobgoblin archers through arrow slits, yes, and that's great, but it won't let you shoot through interior walls and it won't remove the disadvantage for shooting at a hobgoblin shooting back at you from a prone position.

(As an aside: should all weapons suffer penalties from firing in prone positions, or just bows? IRL rifles are easier to aim in the prone position, not harder, and I can imagine crossbows being that way too. Might be worth a houserule at some point.)

[Willie the Duck]

(As an aside: should all weapons suffer penalties from firing in prone positions, or just bows? IRL rifles are easier to aim in the prone position, not harder, and I can imagine crossbows being that way too. Might be worth a houserule at some point.)

I can imagine crossbows being relatively difficult to reload while prone/sitting. Kneeling clearly works, as Pavises were a thing. Slings... well, the less we think about it the better, I suppose.

[Man_Over_Game]

IME 3/4 cover is much less of a factor with archery than total cover or prone enemies. Ignoring 3/4 cover lets you snipe hobgoblin archers through arrow slits, yes, and that's great, but it won't let you shoot through interior walls and it won't remove the disadvantage for shooting at a hobgoblin shooting back at you from a prone position.

(As an aside: should all weapons suffer penalties from firing in prone positions, or just bows? IRL rifles are easier to aim in the prone position, not harder, and I can imagine crossbows being that way too. Might be worth a houserule at some point.)

I've felt the same way regarding prone. Unfortunately, there's no distinction between intentionally prone or accidentally prone, but I could see someone making it so that melee attacks from a prone creature have disadvantage.

This does mean that you'll see a lot more ranged creatures stay prone throughout the fight to avoid incoming fire while shooting back, but I don't see a problem with that. There are a lot of mobility options for melee characters, and a not a lot of reason to use those mobility options, so perhaps a Monk engaging on a group of archers while they're prone might be a good play.

[MaxWilson]

I can imagine crossbows being relatively difficult to reload while prone/sitting. Kneeling clearly works, as Pavises were a thing. Slings... well, the less we think about it the better, I suppose.

David Weber's books have given me the impression that you reload it by lying your back and cocking it with your feet, before poking your head up out of your ice hole to shoot again at the Temple Guardsmen. Seems reasonable but I don't know if it would work in practice. In any case, that's about reloading instead of aiming.

Maybe crossbows should have a ROF penalty while prone instead of disadvantage to attack rolls?


This does mean that you'll see a lot more ranged creatures stay prone throughout the fight to avoid incoming fire while shooting back, but I don't see a problem with that. There are a lot of mobility options for melee characters, and a not a lot of reason to use those mobility options, so perhaps a Monk engaging on a group of archers while they're prone might be a good play.

I agree that it leads to good play. Generally I feel like anything that helps justify the existence of melee characters is a good thing. If someone is lying prone to avoid missile fire, presenting a melee threat is one way to punish them for that.

That said, most of my tool-using bad guys are not disciplined enough to do that kind of thing. Mostly just scro and hobgoblins. (Maybe I should add drow to that list but historically I haven't played drow as disciplined team fighters, rather than chaotic individualists.)

[Man_Over_Game]

David Weber's books have given me the impression that you reload it by lying your back and cocking it with your feet, before poking your head up out of your ice hole to shoot again at the Temple Guardsmen. Seems reasonable but I don't know if it would work in practice. In any case, that's about reloading instead of aiming.

Maybe crossbows should have a ROF penalty while prone instead of disadvantage to attack rolls?





Heh, you mean, like Loading?

I guess you could do something like requiring that weapons with Loading must spend a Bonus Action to attack while prone. This also inherently slows down the fire rate of CBE spammers.

[Willie the Duck]

Heh, you mean, like Loading?

I guess you could do something like requiring that weapons with Loading must spend a Bonus Action to attack while prone. This also inherently slows down the fire rate of CBE spammers.


David Weber's books have given me the impression that you reload it by lying your back and cocking it with your feet, before poking your head up out of your ice hole to shoot again at the Temple Guardsmen. Seems reasonable but I don't know if it would work in practice. In any case, that's about reloading instead of aiming.

Maybe crossbows should have a ROF penalty while prone instead of disadvantage to attack rolls?

What I've gotten out of my admittedly rather unfocused research into IRL medieval/renaissance arms and armor is that there were a lot of different crossbows across the time and place, and each was probably used fairly differently.

Reducing ROF to (as an example) one shot/2 rounds, but giving oneself ~ 50% reduced chance of being hit sounds tactically sound, particularly if it reduces the chance of being hit by effects larger than what you are dishing out (if the 1hd NPC crossbowmen halve their own damage output, but also reduce their damage received by half, including opponent spells or other used-up resources).

[MaxWilson]

Heh, you mean, like Loading?

I guess you could do something like requiring that weapons with Loading must spend a Bonus Action to attack while prone. This also inherently slows down the fire rate of CBE spammers.

I was thinking more like "reloading while prone costs a separate Action." Obviously that's not an issue if you can just stand up, but if someone else has a readied action to shoot anyone that stands up, you might choose to reload while prone just like you sometimes choose to crawl prone instead of standing and walking.


Reducing ROF to (as an example) one shot/2 rounds, but giving oneself ~ 50% reduced chance of being hit sounds tactically sound, particularly if it reduces the chance of being hit by effects larger than what you are dishing out (if the 1hd NPC crossbowmen halve their own damage output, but also reduce their damage received by half, including opponent spells or other used-up resources).

Yep. It's not that hard to get more than a 50% damage reduction, and besides there are psychological factors to consider (reducing his own chance of death is attractive to a soldier even if it makes him fire more slowly). Weirdly though it doesn't work against long-range fire, because disadvantage doesn't stack. Instead of tweaking the rules to make that additional weirdness go away, maybe it's best to just admit to myself that 5E just isn't a good system for running battles with realistic nonmagical tactics.

[Rukelnikov]

While I agree with many of the points that have been raised, I think GWM is being sold short, mainly because they are being compared in a vacuum.

Even accounting that XBE and SS remove two of the most glaring drawbacks of ranged combat, there's still the fact that throughout the rest of the game melee get much more support than ranged.

You can't do AoO with ranged weapons. PAM/Sentinel will let you do it realiably.

More class features/spells that work with melee only (Divine Smite, BB, GFB among the most notable ones)

There's far more magic weapons compatible with GWM than with SS in the DGM.

[Willie the Duck]

Yep. It's not that hard to get more than a 50% damage reduction, and besides there are psychological factors to consider (reducing his own chance of death is attractive to a soldier even if it makes him fire more slowly).

Huge amounts of gameplay would probably change if the largest influence was the actions of people who never rose above 'potentially killed by one hit' threshold.


Weirdly though it doesn't work against long-range fire, because disadvantage doesn't stack. Instead of tweaking the rules to make that additional weirdness go away, maybe it's best to just admit to myself that 5E just isn't a good system for running battles with realistic nonmagical tactics.

At the end of the day, it's not meant to be. The game started with a whole bunch of fighting man vs. fighting man gaming (culled from Chainmail) and each iteration of the game has slowly pared away bits of that.

At the very least, I'd say there are plenty of TTRPGs (and wargames) which would be better suited for the task.


While I agree with many of the points that have been raised, I think GWM is being sold short, mainly because they are being compared in a vacuum.

Even accounting that XBE and SS remove two of the most glaring drawbacks of ranged combat, there's still the fact that throughout the rest of the game melee get much more support than ranged.

I should step back and acknowledge that you are correct. Melee (Str melee, to be specific) is actually, when applicable, more powerful than ranged. The slight greater synergy that archery fighting style has than GWM notwithstanding, melee is clearly superior. Except of course that you have to get up to your opponent (and survive standing next to them). That's a problem that is baked into the game. The equivalent limitations for ranged are either trivialized with feats, or very DM dependent (ex. we in my groups have always had a limit to how many arrows you can carry, but that's nowhere in the rules). So disproportionate constraints. Also, a ranged character forced into melee (if they don't have XBE) pulls out a rapier and still fights with Dex. A Melee character forced into ranged... either has a decent Dex on top of Str, pulls out a javelin (which has range issues, plus parity problems after level 5 baring houserules), or maybe a combat cantrip obtained through one means or another. None of which make the Str-based melee character as good at ranged as the Dex-based ranged character is at melee.

I'm not saying that you are in any way wrong. It still seems however, that whatever limitations the designers wanted for ranged combat in 5e were too easy to work around, and it is a good preferred default mode for combat effectiveness, baring specifically wanting to play something which capitalizes on one of those melee features you mention.

[MaxWilson]

Also, a ranged character forced into melee (if they don't have XBE) pulls out a rapier and still fights with Dex.

Aside:

Or they just eat an opportunity attack and then fire away with ranged weapons as usual. (The Hunter Ranger feature Escape the Horde is useful in this scenario.) It depends.

[Willie the Duck]

Aside:

Or they just eat an opportunity attack and then fire away with ranged weapons as usual. (The Hunter Ranger feature Escape the Horde is useful in this scenario.) It depends.

Or are a high elf who knows Shocking Grasp, there are lots of options. My larger point is that a Dex-ranged character does not get the same helping of penalties when being thrown out of their theoretical comfort zone as their Str-melee counterparts.

[MaxWilson]

Or are a high elf who knows Shocking Grasp, there are lots of options. My larger point is that a Dex-ranged character does not get the same helping of penalties when being thrown out of their theoretical comfort zone as their Str-melee counterparts.

Agreed. It gets better:

It just occurred to me that Escape the Horde is redundant against anyone with a 10' reach, because you can drop prone at 10', crawl out of reach, and then stand back up before attacking. Total movement cost: 30', and the opportunity attack is now at disadvantage because it's an attack against a prone target at range greater than 5'. That's kind of interesting. Archers should be trained to roll away from halberdiers/giants before firing.

[MThurston]

All this debate is good but it doesn't talk about the fact that darts and Vlowgun get the bonus yet my Longsword is a no go.

I do think it's crap that archery gives you a +2, so you take a -3 For a +10 damage.

[Rukelnikov]

I should step back and acknowledge that you are correct. Melee (Str melee, to be specific) is actually, when applicable, more powerful than ranged. The slight greater synergy that archery fighting style has than GWM notwithstanding, melee is clearly superior. Except of course that you have to get up to your opponent (and survive standing next to them). That's a problem that is baked into the game. The equivalent limitations for ranged are either trivialized with feats, or very DM dependent (ex. we in my groups have always had a limit to how many arrows you can carry, but that's nowhere in the rules). So disproportionate constraints. Also, a ranged character forced into melee (if they don't have XBE) pulls out a rapier and still fights with Dex. A Melee character forced into ranged... either has a decent Dex on top of Str, pulls out a javelin (which has range issues, plus parity problems after level 5 baring houserules), or maybe a combat cantrip obtained through one means or another. None of which make the Str-based melee character as good at ranged as the Dex-based ranged character is at melee.

I'm not saying that you are in any way wrong. It still seems however, that whatever limitations the designers wanted for ranged combat in 5e were too easy to work around, and it is a good preferred default mode for combat effectiveness, baring specifically wanting to play something which capitalizes on one of those melee features you mention.

I concur with ranged being very powerful, and that if you are good ranged, as a side effect you are at least a decent melee. I was just raising points in favor of GWM, because it seemed it wasn't being given as much credit as was due.

Personally I've never had either, but I've seen both in play. Ranged has the advantage to come only really fast, as a DM I had a player roll a Tabaxi Ranger (revised), lvl 2 Archery, lvl 3 Gloom Stalker, lvl 4 SS, lvl 5 extra attack. Those 5 levels were spike after spike, and he was clearly the top DD of the party, at 5th though, the Protector Aasimar Fiendlock got on par (and ofc it is another ranged :P). However by lvl 10 or so the Goliath Paladin of Vengeance was doing pretty comparable damage, and in order to pressure him more of an encounter's xp budget was required than to pressure either of the other 2.

Thinking about this now, maybe the gravest problem is that a ranged character doesn't have to go thru much problems to get to what it needs, its online basically since level one, when melees require more investment and take longer to get on par with them.

[Man_Over_Game]

Agreed. It gets better:

It just occurred to me that Escape the Horde is redundant against anyone with a 10' reach, because you can drop prone at 10', crawl out of reach, and then stand back up before attacking. Total movement cost: 30', and the opportunity attack is now at disadvantage because it's an attack against a prone target at range greater than 5'. That's kind of interesting. Archers should be trained to roll away from halberdiers/giants before firing.

Ugh. You suck, Max. I didn't need to know how stupid that is. You could have kept it to yourself.

[MaxWilson]

Ugh. You suck, Max. I didn't need to know how stupid that is. You could have kept it to yourself.

It's a side effect of the stupidity of 5E opportunity attacks in general. It's basically impossible to make sense of why retreating makes you easier to attack but charging or being tied up or even paralyzed does not. GURPS does exactly the opposite: if you retreat as part of a Dodge/Parry/Block, you get a small bonus to your chance of success (but you can only do it once per round, and of course you lose ground).

Given that it already makes no sense that backing away from a pike lets the guy with a pike stab you, it isn't surprising that reasonable defenses against long-ranged attacks (like being prone) also make no sense in that context. A reasonable fix would be to say, "I don't care what the range is, melee attacks always have advantage against a prone target, because you can control a melee attack mid-swing and attack the target from a different angle, unlike with a ranged weapon."

Incidentally this fix is so intuitive that I have seen people accidentally apply it without realizing that the RAW is technically different.

[Rukelnikov]

It's a side effect of the stupidity of 5E opportunity attacks in general. It's basically impossible to make sense of why retreating makes you easier to attack but charging or being tied up or even paralyzed does not. GURPS does exactly the opposite: if you retreat as part of a Dodge/Parry/Block, you get a small bonus to your chance of success (but you can only do it once per round, and of course you lose ground).

Given that it already makes no sense that backing away from a pike lets the guy with a pike stab you, it isn't surprising that reasonable defenses against long-ranged attacks (like being prone) also make no sense in that context. A reasonable fix would be to say, "I don't care what the range is, melee attacks always have advantage against a prone target, because you can control a melee attack mid-swing and attack the target from a different angle, unlike with a ranged weapon."

Incidentally this fix is so intuitive that I have seen people accidentally apply it without realizing that the RAW is technically different.

Disavantage with glaive/halberd/etc against prone doesn't make any sense really.

Regarding AoO nonsense, being paralyzed means every attack against you has advantage and is an auto crit, so I take it like you have no guard at all, why doesn't this generate an AoO idk.

[MaxWilson]

Disavantage with glaive/halberd/etc against prone doesn't make any sense really.

Regarding AoO nonsense, being paralyzed means every attack against you has advantage and is an auto crit, so I take it like you have no guard at all, why doesn't this generate an AoO idk.

I wonder if there's any reason not to implement a houserule like this:

Condition: Unguarded
Anyone in melee range may make an opportunity attack against you with their reaction.

Retreating from melee at more than 1/3 normal speed without Disengaging makes you Unguarded, and being incapacitated also makes you Unguarded. (Stunned/Petrified/Unconscious all make you Incapacitated and therefore Unguarded too.)

It does make mobs of melee monsters stronger, and it makes Hypnotic Pattern an attack spell (can use it to trigger opportunity attacks instead of to disable), but would any of that be bad for the game?

For grognard DMs, add the following: A spellcaster is Unguarded while casting a spell. Has the nice side effect giving you a reason to have actual fighters in your party instead of just Cleric 1/Wizard Xs in heavy armor with Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade for good melee damage and full spellcasting.

Worth playtesting maybe. Thoughts?

P.S. Beholders, Black Puddings, and other 360-vision creatures can have their own special trait, 360-degree vision: retreating from melee never leaves this creature Unguarded.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't like it.

Trying to figure out 1/3 out of 25 or 40 speed just doesn't seem like a solid design choice, and creating alternate "5 foot step" rules was kinda what 5e was trying to avoid: slowing down the game.

Lastly, there are spells that are designed for melee combat (Shocking Grasp, Word of Radiance) that already don't see enough use due to the weapon cantrips. I think the fault comes down to the weapon cantrips rather than trying to balance everything around that.

However, here's something that I think is a bit simpler:


Creatures with Reach are considered to have both 5 foot and 10 foot reach. This means that if you are adjacent to a giant, you provoke an Opportunity Attack if you move to 10 feet away.
If you make an Object Interaction without spending an Action, you provoke Opportunity Attacks to adjacent enemies unless you're drawing a light weapon.



This ends up causing ranged combatants to have to preemptively swap to melee weapons or else risk an attack against them, provides more value to sidearms, penalizes casters who constantly sheath their weapon to hold a shield and weapon and still cast freely. Consider the fact that most circumstances that cause you to fall prone/incapacitated also would make you drop your weapon, which creates a similar dynamic to what you are looking for.

[Agent-KI7KO]

I have been misinformed this whole time in regards to shooting into a melee. However, I would like a something in the books to be able to point it out to my players.

[MaxWilson]

However, here's something that I think is a bit simpler:


Creatures with Reach are considered to have both 5 foot and 10 foot reach. This means that if you are adjacent to a giant, you provoke an Opportunity Attack if you move to 10 feet away.
If you make an Object Interaction without spending an Action, you provoke Opportunity Attacks to adjacent enemies unless you're drawing a light weapon.


I like the first one especially. I don't mind the second one but I'd probably draw the boundaries in a slightly different place than drawing a light weapon.

[mephnick]

I have been misinformed this whole time in regards to shooting into a melee. However, I would like a something in the books to be able to point it out to my players.

Pg. 196 - Half Cover: The obstacle might be a low wall, large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether it be an enemy or a friend.