Ranged DPR is Terrible

[strangebloke]

...by which I mean that its terrible how easy it is to kill things from range in 5e. Pretty much no matter how you look at it, ranged DPR is only slightly behind melee DPR, and ranged DPR has other massive advantages, including:

Ranged play both enabling kiting and countering kiting. A melee character who wants to kite has to have twice the movement speed available AND be able to fly to kite and/or counter kiting as effectively as a ranged character. This leads to a lot of encounters becoming really really imbalanced really quickly, depending on who has more ranged DPR and/or who has more movement.
If range of engagement is high (basically any outdoor scenario) a ranged character can often get 2-3 rounds of damage in for free even if kiting is impossible.
Vast majority of monsters have limited ranged options meaning that this style tends to be very effective.
Target selection. Picking off the wizard in the back while everyone else fights the zombie horde.
The Archery style is simply more useful in t1 and t2 than almost any other style, particularly when combined with Sharpshooter.
Needs to worry about opportunity attacks, grapples, and other such things far less frequently.


For contrast, melee has the following advantages

works better against prone enemies (who aren't moving anyway)
don't need to worry about cover (circumvented by Sharpshooter, and ranged characters don't have to move any more than melee characters to deal damage)
don't need to worry about enemies getting into melee (Crossbow Expert and BA disengage circumvent this)
More magic weapon options?
TWF is sorta good sometimes (mostly for rogues and at low levels)


Now, I'm not one to argue that 5e needs to be a balanced game. Its fine if certain strategies are better. However.

Ranged play is boring because there are few tactical decisions beyond "sit in one place and loose arrows" or "run away and loose arrows."
Melee combat is relatively complex because lots more mechanics come into play in melee. Opportunity Attacks, reach, grappling, shoving.
Because throwing weapons are terrible, strength-based characters have little way to contribute in a lot of these scenarios.
Having to design encounters while bearing in mind that the party can and will kite the vast majority of enemies to death is annoying and limits a lot of "field" encounters.
Lots of classes and archetypes are heavily pigeonholed into melee combat and simply don't get to use their class features at range. Even if these classes end up being 'good' at range, (like the Kensai) it feels bad because you probably didn't pick monk to shoot arrows all day.


All of the above can be planned around. Maybe everyone just chose to optimize for utility or melee because that's their interest. Maybe you can design encounters cleverly, giving the enemy total cover, you can have enemies gate in directly behind the players, you can run incredibly quick monsters who can nullify the advantages of range, you can have time pressure that forces the PCs to approach... but at some point we're just falling into Rule 0 fallacy. You can fix any problem with lots of clever GMing, but wouldn't it be better to create a general solution before mucking about so much with encounters? I can already think of a few possibilities.

nerf ranged damage heavily. Ban Sharpshooter, drop EB down to a d8 or d6. The idea would be that although kiting would still be very powerful sometimes, melee would be more useful in a lot of other scenarios. The upside here is that damage doesn't need to be that much better for people to feel that melee specialization is worth it. Has the downside of potentially making certain other spells like Animate Objects even stronger than they already are. It's probably best to still have certain classes be able to dish out (relatively) crazy damage at range if they specialize heavily in that one thing, I just don't want it to be so easy.
Add a default action called "charge" that allows a character to increase their movement by half and make (one) melee weapon attack at the end of their movement. This would give melee characters a way of running down enemies who are trying to kite them. (ofc this doesn't do anything against flyers but that's a separate problem.)
Lower max ranges for ranged weapons and/or limit how easy it is to get huge boosts to movement. (or maybe cut their effective range in half if they move at all on their turn? But then this starts to look like 3.5....)


Not saying any of these would work great, but I figure that people here will correct me an I'll at least learn something.

[MaxWilson]

I agree, 5E is designed to work best in artificial scenarios like tiny battlemaps and dungeon rooms where the players forget to use doors during battles. It's a tragedy.

Rational monster strategies should lean heavily on counterplay like operating at night (with darkvision) to even the odds against tool-using humans, which is fine for worldbuilding but is easily counter-counterplayed by PCs.

The issue is greatly lessened when you use monsters who are sufficiently mobile to make kiting nontrivial. This is one of the many things that Cthulhu Mythos For 5E ("https://petersengames.com/the-games-shop/cthulhu-mythos-for-5e/) gets right. Trying to kite Ghroth the Harbinger, a Dhole, or Great Cthulhu is a good way to get killed.

[Eldariel]

You're completely correct and this is sadly well-established. The big issue:

Sharpshooter removes all the tactical considerations from ranged combat by letting you ignore cover and range limitations.
Sharpshooter is also the best DPR feat in the game.
Elven Accuracy works for ranged weapons.
Archery Fighting Style is the best combat style by far. +2 to hit amounts to +4 to damage with a -5/+10 option on the table so it's roughly twice as good as Dueling and more than makes up for any difference in weapon dice and such irrelevancies.


And...well yeah, Archery options are just plain better than their melee peers. Crossbow Expert isn't even much of a problem though I'm not a fan of "Shoot in melee at no penalty"-mechanics since, again, melee threat is one thing that adds some tactical complexity to ranged combat and indeed vindicates using melee weapons at all. Comparing GWM/PAM to CBE/SS and GWM/PAM can't use Elven Accuracy (which is the best to hit booster in the game), doesn't have a useful fighting style (meanwhile archery has the only to-hit booster in the game), and obviously requires you to get to melee to attack at all while CBE can go full blast at 120' and almost full at 600'.

It all revolves around Sharpshooter. The "ignore cover"-part is just terrible far as the game goes and the fact that ranged weapons have a Power Attack option while also having access to every hit buffer in the game is ridiculous (since for some reason one-handed, finesse and TWF are denied). Even the Far Shot part is pretty stupid: it quadruples weapon range. This makes range completely irrelevant to a Sharpshooter and obviously turbocharges CBE. Overall, the ranged combat options just synergise too well and there isn't much you can do aside from gutting them (starting with the triple threat of issues in Sharpshooter) if you want to introduce a semblance of balance to the game.

Fact is that if you wanna be optimal, everybody is an archer or a caster. Melee simply has no place in this game, unless it's also a caster (stuff like Shadow Blade and Spirit Shroud and Magic Jar and Booming Blade+Attack options [Magic Jar'd or Bladesinger] and Shapechange make melee much better since they let you do things in melee you couldn't at range - and Cleric is a great "melee" even if he never takes an attack action due to their spell loadout). Summoning bears while turning into bears riding bears still works, whatever the D&D edition. No reason you can't combine archery and casting though: Swords Bard and Bladesinger both make great Archer Casters and even Valor Bard is passable.

[LudicSavant]

...by which I mean that its terrible how easy it is to kill things from range in 5e. Pretty much no matter how you look at it, ranged DPR is only slightly behind melee DPR, and ranged DPR has other massive advantages, including:

Ranged play both enabling kiting and countering kiting. A melee character who wants to kite has to have twice the movement speed available AND be able to fly to kite and/or counter kiting as effectively as a ranged character. This leads to a lot of encounters becoming really really imbalanced really quickly, depending on who has more ranged DPR and/or who has more movement.
If range of engagement is high (basically any outdoor scenario) a ranged character can often get 2-3 rounds of damage in for free even if kiting is impossible.
Vast majority of monsters have limited ranged options meaning that this style tends to be very effective.
Target selection. Picking off the wizard in the back while everyone else fights the zombie horde.
The Archery style is simply more useful in t1 and t2 than almost any other style, particularly when combined with Sharpshooter.
Needs to worry about opportunity attacks, grapples, and other such things far less frequently.


For contrast, melee has the following advantages

works better against prone enemies (who aren't moving anyway)
don't need to worry about cover (circumvented by Sharpshooter, and ranged characters don't have to move any more than melee characters to deal damage)
don't need to worry about enemies getting into melee (Crossbow Expert and BA disengage circumvent this)
More magic weapon options?
TWF is sorta good sometimes (mostly for rogues and at low levels)


Now, I'm not one to argue that 5e needs to be a balanced game. Its fine if certain strategies are better. However.

Ranged play is boring because there are few tactical decisions beyond "sit in one place and loose arrows" or "run away and loose arrows."
Melee combat is relatively complex because lots more mechanics come into play in melee. Opportunity Attacks, reach, grappling, shoving.
Because throwing weapons are terrible, strength-based characters have little way to contribute in a lot of these scenarios.
Having to design encounters while bearing in mind that the party can and will kite the vast majority of enemies to death is annoying and limits a lot of "field" encounters.
Lots of classes and archetypes are heavily pigeonholed into melee combat and simply don't get to use their class features at range. Even if these classes end up being 'good' at range, (like the Kensai) it feels bad because you probably didn't pick monk to shoot arrows all day.


All of the above can be planned around. Maybe everyone just chose to optimize for utility or melee because that's their interest. Maybe you can design encounters cleverly, giving the enemy total cover, you can have enemies gate in directly behind the players, you can run incredibly quick monsters who can nullify the advantages of range, you can have time pressure that forces the PCs to approach... but at some point we're just falling into Rule 0 fallacy. You can fix any problem with lots of clever GMing, but wouldn't it be better to create a general solution before mucking about so much with encounters? I can already think of a few possibilities.

nerf ranged damage heavily. Ban Sharpshooter, drop EB down to a d8 or d6. The idea would be that although kiting would still be very powerful sometimes, melee would be more useful in a lot of other scenarios. The upside here is that damage doesn't need to be that much better for people to feel that melee specialization is worth it. Has the downside of potentially making certain other spells like Animate Objects even stronger than they already are. It's probably best to still have certain classes be able to dish out (relatively) crazy damage at range if they specialize heavily in that one thing, I just don't want it to be opti
Add a default action called "charge" that allows a character to increase their movement by half and make (one) melee weapon attack at the end of their movement. This would give melee characters a way of running down enemies who are trying to kite them. (ofc this doesn't do anything against flyers but that's a separate problem.)
Lower max ranges for ranged weapons and/or limit how easy it is to get huge boosts to movement. (or maybe cut their effective range in half if they move at all on their turn? But then this starts to look like 3.5....)


Not saying any of these would work great, but I figure that people here will correct me an I'll at least learn something.

Game designer opinion: I think the biggest issue with ranged combat feats in 5e is that they reduce counterplay.

What's counterplay? It's basically a 'best practices' concept for good multiplayer game design that says that a given ability should make the game more interesting both for the person using it, and the person it's used against. Here's a lovely Extra Credits vid on it with plenty of examples! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBcjsOt0_g) A great game designer will make even things like stuns and crowd control make the game more interesting (e.g. creates more tactical considerations and interactions) for the person it's used against, rather than less.

And feats like Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, and Gunner reduce counterplay. People stop darting from cover to cover because those chest-high walls are ignored by Sharpshooter. People don't try to force them to act with Disadvantage by getting in their face because they can just fire point blank as easily as they had a melee weapon. Even the "ignore distance penalty" bit reduces interaction, since quite a few creatures just plain can't interact with things 600+ feet away other than seeking full cover. In short, those parts of the feats slide gameplay a step further towards the "just exchange attacks until one side falls over" end of the spectrum.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBcjsOt0_g

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I don't disagree in the general sense. And I really don't understand why Archery is the only fighting style that adds an attack bonus, and +2 for that matter. That really makes the power attack for Sharpshooter work more reliably vs GWM where someone in your group often needs a way to get the heavy weapon user advantage vs medium to good AC characters. Generally ranged attacks and Dex based characters feel a bit too strong. The only thing we've done about it is limit the benefit of Sharpshooter to either ignoring range or cover, but not both at the same time. 600 feet through a porthole with no penalty just seemed a bit too much for our group.
Edit: Forgot this on initial write: Our group has gotten rid of Dex bonus for initiative, which is a default nerf of these types of characters. Also I agree with other posters that the 5' range benefit for XBE is goofy, but we haven't nerfed it yet.

However, in practice we've had far more martials play melee characters, and I think there are valid tactical reasons why. Some spellcasters are still pretty squishy, and some of any campaign is going to be in confined spaces where they simply can't get away. Sometimes it's dark or foggy. If you don't have at least 2 characters that can both tank and do some damage effectively up close there are going to be times when your party gets overrun and the squishies get chopped to pieces.
Now, somewhat for reasons you mention this is mitigated by the fact that a range based character can function up close, though not optimally as one built for melee. And they are certainly better than a strength based character forced to fight at range. But in a pitched battle up close those melee based characters are unequalled.

So, while I agree with you that the ranged characters feel strong, maybe too strong, it doesn't usually work out that way at my table. If we played traveling through a desert most of the time I might feel differently.

I do, by the way agree with your idea around charging/ running people down. In 2e we used to have a rule that if you were running away and shooting you couldn't run as fast as those chasing and shooting due to the fact you'd have to stop and turn in order to fire. That at least mitigated the ability to kite indefinitely.

[Hael]

If you created two optimized striker characters from the usual suspects eg hexblades, gloomstalkers, arcane tricksters, zealot barbarians, samurai/BM warrior etc and inserted them into an already functioning party.

If you made one of them as an optimized reach melee dpr (who wasn’t the primary tank) and the other an optimized ranged dpr. I’d be willing to bet that if you tallied the damage total over the course of a day, that you’d likely see the ranged character with at least a ~50% damage lead over his doppelgänger.

Melee range gets CCd more, they have too many downturns, do nothing against flying foes, they take too much damage and just generally don’t seem to have much dpr bonuses in the first place for all the reasons already listed.

At least in pathfinder, ranged would face opportunity attacks for firing in melee range. In this version they just gave up on that idea.

[Houster]

Yeah i'm a minmaxer in a party of non minamaxers, and I play a paladin with PAM(will be sorcadin next level) and I thought I would have to tune him down so I would not open a serious-not-fun kind of gap with the others. Then a player who plays his 2nd character, a total beginner, chooses battlemaster-archery-sharpshooter, and gets 20 dex. We always laugh when it is his turn, that he has a shotgun and not a bow, as things usually die when it is his turn. He does not even remember to use his maneuvers or what they do. It does not matter.


I'm still having a lot of fun btw casting bless on him and keeping foes from him so he can obliterate everything.

[strangebloke]

I'm really glad to see that most agree with my core thesis. I didn't really expect much resistance, if anything I'm one of the 'optimized melee is sorta good sometimes' contrarians on this site.

But my more serious question is, what can be done to fix this? IMO good fixes are surgical. A few core rule changes that come up frequently so that everyone can remember them. Don't nerf, just ban. Don't buff, add something made completely of whole cloth. If you are going to change something, make it on the fringes of normal play such that people won't come to the table with an ingrained notion of how things "should" work. I listed a few ideas above, but I'm curious to see if we can reach a consensus on this point.


Sharpshooter needs to go. Period. Massive power attack damage at range is bad design. Removing partial-cover-based counterplay is also bad design. Massive range bonuses here are unnecessary and make kiting trivial. Nothing to be retained here.
Xbow expert needs to be eliminated as well. Letting crossbow users attack faster than longbow users or swordsmen is silly. Shooting in close range is, once again, just removing counterplay options.
Archery fighting style.... might be fine, but we'll come back to this. Alternately I'd give archers a fighting style that lowers movement of targets they hit, giving them the role of tying down speedy opponents.
Add 'Aggressive' fighting style: Once per turn you can move up to half your speed toward a hostile creature that you can see. (usable by paladins, rangers, and fighters)
Mounted Combat probably needs a rework anyway, and most people don't know how the rules work, so here we'll just make our own rules. I like Segev's take from the other thread: "While mounted on a controlled mount, you and your mount share a turn and a set of actions. You occupy your mount's space and you and your mount move using your mount's movement. You may use your action, bonus action, and reaction every round to take any actions available to you or to your mount. When your mount takes damage, you may choose to take any number of the hit points dealt, yourself, but all other effects of any source of damage still affect your mount, and not you."
Finally, if all this isn't enough (and I think it might not be) apply a simple scaling penalty to accuracy based on range. "Every 20' is -1" or something similar, a la fire emblem. Suddenly those numerous accuracy buffs don't matter as much and the DPR begins to drop off and archers have a clear incentive to approach.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'm really glad to see that most agree with my core thesis. I didn't really expect much resistance, if anything I'm one of the 'optimized melee is sorta good sometimes' contrarians on this site.

But my more serious question is, what can be done to fix this? IMO good fixes are surgical. A few core rule changes that come up frequently so that everyone can remember them. Don't nerf, just ban. Don't buff, add something made completely of whole cloth. If you are going to change something, make it on the fringes of normal play such that people won't come to the table with an ingrained notion of how things "should" work. I listed a few ideas above, but I'm curious to see if we can reach a consensus on this point.


Sharpshooter needs to go. Period. Massive power attack damage at range is bad design. Removing partial-cover-based counterplay is also bad design. Massive range bonuses here are unnecessary and make kiting trivial. Nothing to be retained here.
Xbow expert needs to be eliminated as well. Letting crossbow users attack faster than longbow users or swordsmen is silly. Shooting in close range is, once again, just removing counterplay options.
Archery fighting style.... might be fine, but we'll come back to this. Alternately I'd give archers a fighting style that lowers movement of targets they hit, giving them the role of tying down speedy opponents.
Add 'Aggressive' fighting style: Once per turn you can move up to half your speed toward a hostile creature that you can see. (usable by paladins, rangers, and fighters)
Mounted Combat probably needs a rework anyway, and most people don't know how the rules work, so here we'll just make our own rules. I like Segev's take from the other thread: "While mounted on a controlled mount, you and your mount share a turn and a set of actions. You occupy your mount's space and you and your mount move using your mount's movement. You may use your action, bonus action, and reaction every round to take any actions available to you or to your mount. When your mount takes damage, you may choose to take any number of the hit points dealt, yourself, but all other effects of any source of damage still affect your mount, and not you."
Finally, if all this isn't enough (and I think it might not be) apply a simple scaling penalty to accuracy based on range. "Every 20' is -1" or something similar, a la fire emblem. Suddenly those numerous accuracy buffs don't matter as much and the DPR begins to drop off and archers have a clear incentive to approach.


(With the caveat that I've done a couple of minor things to mitigate some of the issues you brought up related to feats and nixing Dex to initiative: see above post)

I wonder if there is another way of looking at this.
I think some of this can be mitigated by DMing in a way that is more friendly to melee based characters:
1) Providing strong martial Magical Weapons; this is supported by the selection of Magic Items in the DMG which is weighted towards Martials.
2) Have some important fights occur in tight spaces; DPR is higher for melees in this case
3) Have hazards available for grapplers to use.
4) One thing I've noticed in the more recent published mods is Monsters with higher ACs. This is a nerf to both Sharpshooter and GWM in terms of power attack, but it's easier to get advantage with melee, so GWM can still be used as designed.
5) I'm sure there are more, so I'm not sure the kind of complete revamp you are asking for is totally needed. The other thing is that if you nerf the ranged martials too much the winners are AOE spellcasters and minionmancers who really don't need the help.

[Merudo]

Although ranged attacks are far more reliable than melee attacks, with melee you have more strategic options: grappling and shoving prone.

[LudicSavant]

But my more serious question is, what can be done to fix this? IMO good fixes are surgical.

Something relatively minimalist to try to start, and see what happens:

Sharpshooter:
You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. You gain the following benefits:
Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.

Crossbow Expert:
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits:
You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding.
And not a change, but a reminder of rules already in the book:
Creatures grant cover to creatures behind them.

If you're wondering "why am I not going after the damage?" It's because adding counterplay will already affect that a bit, and because if we nerf it much... well, people can always just jump ship to non-weapon-based ranged builds that are already competitive, unless you're planning on changing that too... in which case we're talking about a broader rework. But yeah, as is martials already need all the help they can get, so I wouldn't want to use more than a light touch.


Letting crossbow users attack faster than longbow users or swordsmen is silly

Oooh that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I totally agree that flavorwise, a crossbow should be a powerful single shot, while a bow should have the potential to be fired more swiftly and skillfully. If I were making a more sweeping change of that nature, I would also make guns simple and powerful but slow, too. Fire an opening volley, then fix bayonets or draw your saber!


Add 'Aggressive' fighting style

Alternate idea: What if instead of making the melee characters pay damage to gain mobility, we built a mobility cost into the Archery style? Want the full accuracy bonus, move less. Think a bit like the Rogue's "Aim" added in Tasha's. Now you can work your way through cover towards a sniper's perch, and there's some actual consequence to them abandoning their position.

Another alternate idea: What if the Run action came back? (Its disappearance is why we have this weird thing where all creatures in D&D are weirdly slow in terms of real life speeds).

[Christopher K.]

Something to try to start, and see what happens:

Sharpshooter:
You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. You gain the following benefits:
Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.

Crossbow Expert:
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits:
You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding.
And not a change, but a reminder of rules already in the book:
Creatures grant cover to creatures behind them.
I'm a big fan of this approach; cover always feels underutilized in the games I've played in (though my sample size of DM's is certainly smaller than I'd like). I also like to be the guy who ducks prone behind cover at end of turn for that sweet, sweet disadvantage, though.

[MaxWilson]

I'm really glad to see that most agree with my core thesis. I didn't really expect much resistance, if anything I'm one of the 'optimized melee is sorta good sometimes' contrarians on this site.

But my more serious question is, what can be done to fix this? IMO good fixes are surgical. A few core rule changes that come up frequently so that everyone can remember them. Don't nerf, just ban. Don't buff, add something made completely of whole cloth. If you are going to change something, make it on the fringes of normal play such that people won't come to the table with an ingrained notion of how things "should" work. I listed a few ideas above, but I'm curious to see if we can reach a consensus on this point.


Sharpshooter needs to go. Period. Massive power attack damage at range is bad design. Removing partial-cover-based counterplay is also bad design. Massive range bonuses here are unnecessary and make kiting trivial. Nothing to be retained here.
Xbow expert needs to be eliminated as well. Letting crossbow users attack faster than longbow users or swordsmen is silly. Shooting in close range is, once again, just removing counterplay options.
Archery fighting style.... might be fine, but we'll come back to this. Alternately I'd give archers a fighting style that lowers movement of targets they hit, giving them the role of tying down speedy opponents.
Add 'Aggressive' fighting style: Once per turn you can move up to half your speed toward a hostile creature that you can see. (usable by paladins, rangers, and fighters)
Mounted Combat probably needs a rework anyway, and most people don't know how the rules work, so here we'll just make our own rules. I like Segev's take from the other thread: "While mounted on a controlled mount, you and your mount share a turn and a set of actions. You occupy your mount's space and you and your mount move using your mount's movement. You may use your action, bonus action, and reaction every round to take any actions available to you or to your mount. When your mount takes damage, you may choose to take any number of the hit points dealt, yourself, but all other effects of any source of damage still affect your mount, and not you."
Finally, if all this isn't enough (and I think it might not be) apply a simple scaling penalty to accuracy based on range. "Every 20' is -1" or something similar, a la fire emblem. Suddenly those numerous accuracy buffs don't matter as much and the DPR begins to drop off and archers have a clear incentive to approach.


Sharpshooter is a red herring, unless you're willing to eliminate cantrips from the game as well (especially Eldritch Blast). Sharpshooter isn't overpowered, it's just highly visible, whereas the opportunity cost is hidden (not getting to summon demons etc.).

Fundamentally, knives should not be brought to gunfights (ranged combat is genuinely better), so I prefer to focus on the areas where ranged combat is unrealistically good and bring those back into some semblance of reality.

(1) Don't grant unseen attackers advantage on ranged attacks. It's unrealistic and makes Elven Accuracy (or even normal advantage) too easy to exploit via darkness + Dancing Lights, illusions, etc. Only melee attackers should get that accuracy benefit, because being unseen means the opponent can't parry their attack. Denying the otherwise-most common form of advantage to ranged attackers makes melee tend to have a higher DPR than ranged combat, which in turn makes melee better at protecting squishies (kill bad guys faster AND control them with your opportunity attacks and physical presence). The resulting dynamic both reflects reality (bodyguards do not act like snipers) and helps melee players feel there's a point to their existence.

(2) Revamp monsters if possible to have higher speed and longer range on special abilities. Does Medusa's petrification really need to be restricted to only 30'? Do wolves really need to move only 50' per round? Can we give the Tarrasque a burrowing speed as a defense against kiting? Can we give Tiamat a way to cast Teleport if needed? Cthulhu 5E monsters are pretty good at this but most WotC 5E monsters are not.

(3) Revamping mounted combat doesn't hurt, although it affects both melee and ranged equally and is somewhat redundant with point #2. But it is kind of logically offensive for a centaur to be worse at cavalry tactics than a human on a horse, so sure, why not? Segev's rule looks pretty good to me although I question the logic of the damage interception bit especially for psychic damage.

(4) Accuracy penalty based on range is already modeled by disadvantage. What's missing is a penalty based on target speed. Archery fire against an individual moving target should NOT be highly effective at 200 yards. Massed archery fire yes, stationary targets yes, individual moving targets no. This is the biggest unrealistic advantage ranged combat has in 5. All its other advantages are about bringing a gun to a gunfight, but the simplistic attack rules make it more like bringing a guided missile to a gunfight. Unfortunately, speed-based penalties are more a GURPS thing than a D&D thing, so perhaps there's nothing to be done within the 5E idiom. #1 - #3 might have to suffice.

[MoiMagnus]

I'd like to point out that on top of all those remarks, ranged use Dex which is almost strictly superior to using Str:
(1) Initiative is Dex-based
(2) Dex is used for multiple skills, and a lot of GM are way too lenient on using Acrobatics instead of Athletics, which is the only Str skill.

Except for one point: giant strength potions and belts. Sadly, potions are too expensive to really rely on them in every battle, and the Belts come somewhat too late to build around it (you are only superior to Dex builds if you have at least 23 Str while they are capped at 20 Dex).

Rank -- Str -- Potion -- Belt
Hill giant -- 21 -- Uncommon -- Rare
Frost/stone giant -- 23 -- Rare -- Very rare
Fire giant -- 25 -- Rare -- Very rare
Cloud giant -- 27 -- Very Rare -- Legendary
Storm giant -- 29 -- Legendary -- Legendary

However, if you reduce Hill/Frost/Stone from one rank, this might give players some incentive to rely on them for their build, so:

Rank -- Str -- Potion -- Belt
Hill giant -- 21 -- Common -- Uncommon
Frost/stone giant -- 23 -- Uncommon -- Rare
Fire giant -- 25 -- Rare -- Very rare
Cloud giant -- 27 -- Very Rare -- Legendary
Storm giant -- 29 -- Legendary -- Legendary

While this partially solve the range vs melee problem by making Str fighting better, the main downside of this approach is that Str becomes a dump stat for everyone, including Str melee combatants...

[Eldariel]

Sharpshooter is a red herring, unless you're willing to eliminate cantrips from the game as well (especially Eldritch Blast). Sharpshooter isn't overpowered, it's just highly visible, whereas the opportunity cost is hidden (not getting to summon demons etc.).

Hmm, I disagree here. Sharpshooter, while not problematic power-wise per ce, is problematic in that it removes most of the interaction from ranged combat. You don't care about cover so you don't really care about where you shoot. You don't care about range so you don't care about from where you shoot. It just makes the things that should be the things you need to consider wrt positioning and related opportunity costs (which is basically the whole gameplay for a ranged type) not matter to the point that there's basically no gameplay other than "maximise distance and shoot at highest priority target" left. Reducing, modulating or altering the penalties or such would be fine but just cutting all the factors that affect ranged combat away and saying "nothing matters" is really bad for interactive gameplay - if anything, it needs more interaction, not less.

Cantrips don't operate at similar ranges and attack roll cantrips can't e.g. ignore cover so they don't share this issue. Save cantrips (Toll in particular) are a bit annoying but their short range kinda makes it not that big of an issue; you have to at least skirt the combat zone to use them.


Well, Ludic said the same in other words already but fundamentally this is the angle from which I think SS is problematic, not necessarily power per ce. I think it's bad for interactive gameplay and it makes ranged combat too easy and simple.

[MaxWilson]

Hmm, I disagree here. Sharpshooter, while not problematic power-wise per ce, (A) is problematic in that it removes most of the interaction from ranged combat. You don't care about cover so you don't really care about where you shoot. You don't care about range so you don't care about from where you shoot. It just makes the things that should be the things you need to consider wrt positioning and related opportunity costs (which is basically the whole gameplay for a ranged type) not matter to the point that there's basically no gameplay other than "maximise distance and shoot at highest priority target" left. Reducing, modulating or altering the penalties or such would be fine but just cutting all the factors that affect ranged combat away and saying "nothing matters" is really bad for interactive gameplay - if anything, it needs more interaction, not less.

(B) Cantrips don't operate at similar ranges and attack roll cantrips can't e.g. ignore cover so they don't share this issue. Save cantrips (Toll in particular) are a bit annoying but their short range kinda makes it not that big of an issue; you have to at least skirt the combat zone to use them.

Well, Ludic said the same in other words already but fundamentally this is the angle from which I think SS is problematic, not necessarily power per ce. I think it's bad for interactive gameplay and it makes ranged combat too easy and simple.

I often hear people say (A) but the rules don't bear it out. Sharpshooter lets you ignore the worst kind of cover (partial) but does nothing against good cover (total). Prone targets still impose disadvantage against Sharpshooter (and generally make the -5/+10 not worth using), so you still need melee attackers to flush them out by threatening to hit the prone targets with advantage (unless there's no time pressure and you can just plink away at disadvantage and still win--but in that case Sharpshooter was irrelevant already).

IME, Sharpshooters still need to find a good sniper hide with a good FoV and good lines of retreat to alternate angles, and in close terrain (walls, buildings, etc.) they need to cooperate with another PC to actually bring down tough monsters. They're half of the equation and an invaluable half (sniper overwatch = anvil, mobile/Mobile PCs = hammer), but they don't do anything even close to removing the interaction from ranged combat.

BTW, a warlock in contrast can be both anvil and hammer by summoning demons and/or elementals and sending them to flush targets out of total cover. (Or, the targets just get hammered by repeated demon/elemental attacks until they die, without ever coming out.)

(B) Spell Sniper and Eldritch Spear exist.

[Eldariel]

I often hear people say (A) but the rules don't bear it out. Sharpshooter lets you ignore the worst kind of cover (partial) but does nothing against good cover (total). Prone targets still impose disadvantage against Sharpshooter (and generally make the -5/+10 not worth using), so you still need melee attackers to flush them out by threatening to hit the prone targets with advantage (unless there's no time pressure and you can just plink away at disadvantage and still win--but in that case Sharpshooter was irrelevant already).

IME, Sharpshooters still need to find a good sniper hide with a good FoV, and in close terrain (walls, buildings, etc.) they need to cooperate with another PC to actually bring down tough monsters. They're half of the equation and an invaluable half, but they don't do anything even close to removing the interaction from ranged combat.

While this is kinda true, most cover is soft: trees, creatures, rocks, basically nothing short of actual walls or hills offers total cover. Which restricts the terrains where this might matter. Prone is true but if the enemy goes prone while under fire and has no way to return fire, it's just writing its own death sentence in making approaching at least twice as slow. Prone is good for when you are within your own effective range.


(B) Spell Sniper and Eldritch Spear exist.

This is true but unlike Sharpshooter, Eldritch Spearing caster doesn't get to ignore all the other forms of cover and thus the battlefield shows up in a much more nuanced way where you have to find clear shots or deal with the extra AC from whatever obstacles you're trying to shoot through. At extreme ranges in particular, getting to make clean attacks (except for aerial combat) should be a rarity.

[MaxWilson]

While this is kinda true, most cover is soft: trees, creatures, rocks, (A) basically nothing short of actual walls or hills offers total cover. Which restricts the terrains where this might matter. Prone is true but if the enemy goes prone while under fire and has no way to return fire, it's just writing its own death sentence in making approaching at least twice as slow. Prone is good for when you are within your own effective range.

This is true but (B) unlike Sharpshooter, Eldritch Spearing caster doesn't get to ignore all the other forms of cover and thus the battlefield shows up in a much more nuanced way where you have to find clear shots or deal with the extra AC from whatever obstacles you're trying to shoot through. At extreme ranges in particular, getting to make clean attacks (except for aerial combat) should be a rarity.

(A) may be a matter of interpretation. The way I see it, going prone behind a 2' high log clearly does give you total cover from the other side of the log, if you're anything close to human-sized and -shaped. And while someone could interpret it the other way around and rule for simplicity that being prone doesn't reduce your effective height, if you're trying to keep ranged combat interesting, why would you adopt an interpretation that makes ranged combat stronger than it needs to be?

(B) To what are you referring please? Spell Sniper and Sharpshooter have the exact same effects w/rt partial cover: you get to ignore it.

Maybe it's my Battletech background talking where even giant robots routinely find half- or total cover from certain angles behind geological formations etc., but I just can't relate to whatever assumptions others are using that make total cover seem rare to them. Realistically, total cover opportunities from certain angles are ubiquitous for human-sized creatures in most terrains, even when you're only around trees, creatures, rocks, etc. (And tool-using monsters are more than capable of digging simple entrenchments for their own use.)

Indoors in a dungeon crawl it's even easier to find total cover: hide behind doors (including open doors, near the hinge), under tables, behind oak chests, in another room, etc. The Sharpshooter can certainly move to a new angle from which you won't have total cover, but voila! that's interactivity, and it gives you a chance to maybe get close enough to rip the Sharpshooter's face off if you Hide successfully and they pick the wrong position.

Warlocks don't have to risk flushing out their own prey this way--warlocks can be both anvil (with Eldritch Blast) and hammer (via summoned demons or elementals), which again is why Sharpshooter isn't overpowered relative to the opportunity cost, just highly visible.

[Eldariel]

(A) may be a matter of interpretation. The way I see it, going prone behind a 2' high log clearly does give you total cover from the other side of the log, if you're anything close to human-sized and -shaped. And while someone could interpret it the other way around and rule for simplicity that being prone doesn't reduce your effective height, if you're trying to keep ranged combat interesting, why would you adopt an interpretation that makes ranged combat stronger than it needs to be?

Maybe it's my Battletech background talking where even giant robots routinely find half- or total cover from certain angles behind geological formations etc., but I just can't relate to whatever assumptions others are using that make total cover seem rare to them. Realistically, total cover from certain angles is not rare for human-sized creatures, even when you're only around trees, creatures, rocks, etc. (And tool-using monsters are more than capable of digging simple entrenchments.) Partial cover is also common, and the best thing about partial cover is that you can shoot back without breaking partial cover (and Sharpshooter will still let the sniper ignore that partial cover), but total cover is not rare.

Mmh, it depends on your angle of fire of course; if you're firing from the height of 5'7'', I would rule that the log would give total cover if you don't see the target at all (there's a 20-degree angle between a ~5'7'' hider's rear body and the log's top) so about ~15' is still fair game where you can hit but further than that you'd obviously be in total cover unless the attacker has elevation. Still, it just feels dumb to me that if you can see the tip of someone's toe, it's as easy a target as the whole body. I mean, yeah, you can be supernaturally good but I'd rather mimic that as having good bonuses making the hard shot easier, not just removing the rules that make it a hard shot to shoot through a hollow branch or an arrow slit hitting someone's eye or whatever.

I'm totally on board for doing those things but I'm not on board for it being penalty-free even with a feat: halved penalties, sure, but remove entirely? Bleh, boring. Incidentally, that's what I do instead: half-cover becomes +1 AC and three-quarters cover becomes +2 AC instead with the feat. That way the shooter doesn't just plain ignore a big part of gameplay but they are much better than average at shooting at targets behind cover.


(B) To what are you referring please? Spell Sniper and Sharpshooter have the exact same effects w/rt partial cover: you get to ignore it.

Ah, my bad, I was thinking of my own version of the feat. I of course removed that from Spell Sniper too, but it's been so long since I played with RAW Spell Sniper (2017 I thiink) that I'd forgotten it even had the clause. Nevermind, obviously the same consideration has to be extended to that feat too.

[MaxWilson]

(A) Mmh, it depends on your angle of fire of course; if you're firing from the height of 5'7'', I would rule that the log would give total cover if you don't see the target at all (there's a 20-degree angle between a ~5'7'' hider's rear body and the log's top) so about ~15' is still fair game where you can hit but further than that you'd obviously be hidden. Still, it just feels dumb to me that if you can see the tip of someone's toe, it's as easy a target as the whole body. I mean, yeah, you can be supernaturally good but I'd rather mimic that as having good bonuses making the hard shot easier, not just removing the rules that make it a hard shot to shoot through a hollow branch or an arrow slit hitting someone's eye or whatever. I'm totally on board for doing those things but I'm not on board for it being penalty-free even with a feat: halved penalties, sure, but remove entirely? Bleh, boring.

Ah, my bad, I was thinking of my own version of the feat. I of course removed that from Spell Sniper too, but it's been so long since I played with RAW Spell Sniper (2017 I thiink) that I'd forgotten it even had the clause. Nevermind, obviously the same consideration has to be extended to that feat too.

(A) Sure, but now the topic has changed from "there's no interactivity in combat" (debunked) to "aesthetically it feels dumb" (matter of taste, cannot be proven or disproven). In any case, if the shooter has to come within 15' to hit you, there's ample opportunity for you to jump over the log and grapple them or whatever.

[Unoriginal]

Like in real life, yes, being able to kill people at range and to keep them at range while you're doing so is a big advantage.

And like in real life, that advantage is limited by the fact it is really hard to have situations where you can actually do it, outside of an open battlefield (often with some kind of wall/difficult terrain to protect the ranged attackers).

Being able to kill someone at 300ft is meaningless when you're in a 60ft corridor. And kiting only works if you have the enemies pursue you like idiots rather than having them reach/stay in a defensive position in one of the dungeon's rooms.

[Eldariel]

(A) Sure, but now the topic has changed from "there's no interactivity in combat" (debunked) to "aesthetically it feels dumb" (matter of taste, cannot be proven or disproven). In any case, if the shooter has to come within 15' to hit you, there's ample opportunity for you to jump over the log and grapple them or whatever.

Okay, I'll revise the statement to more accurately reflect my issue:
- There's a reduced amount of interactivity with key game elements without a meaningful payoff. Removing two/three categories of cover does remove a lot of the things that one would normally have to consider, I believe we can agree?
- This reduced interactivity has little upside far as gameplay goes; I posit that it be preferable to reduce penalties but keep the mechanics over just removing them entirely.

I do agree that you can hide behind that log while prone, but it assumes that there's a log to hide behind. A terrain with plenty of brush but no trees for example offers no cover whatsoever from an archer (though concealment may be available). While low cover to hide behind does help, you still have to go prone behind said cover, which still restricts the ability to reach a point where one can affect the sharpshooter.

[Morty]

I agree with everyone who said that Sharpshooter needs to be nuked from orbit. The -5/+10 clause is 3E legacy code stuck in 5E, but ignoring range and cover is bad in its own right. Ranged combat is dull to start with, this removes one of the few considerations that stop you from planting yourself at maximum possible range and sniping. Crossbow Expert needs to go too. It's another feat that simply circumvents inherent limitations. And it's highly arguable if crossbows even need to exist separately from bows.

It does also feel rather weird for the archery style to add a straight-up +2 to accuracy, but I don't know what could replace it.

[Mastikator]

Let me get this straight, y'all find one narrow area where some martial classes outperform spellcasting classes in Dungeons and Dragons and y'all wanna nerf it? If you are a martial class that is terribly good at killing single targets at a range then in all likelihood that is the only thing you're good at. A ranged martial class probably sucks at tanking, healing, support, blasting, diplomacy, traps, obstacles and magic. MAYBE they're decent at ONE of those things.

In my experience playing as a archery focused fighter with sharpshooter is that it looked better on paper than in reality. Melee warriors can hit more reliably and almost just as often due to flanking rules, and most encounters are not in wide open spaces but in dungeon rooms or magical mist or darkness or narrow passage ways. Monsters often have ways of negating martial classes wholesale and that includes the ranged ones too. D&D 5e is designed as a dungeon crawler and all of those cool advantages of being an archer go out the window.

To be honest if you take away sharpshooter's benefits you may as well take away bows and crossbows. Why would anyone play a bad ranged martial character when they can instead play a good spellcasting ranged character?

[Man_Over_Game]

I've been partial to forcing any weapon drawn without the Light trait to provoke OAs.

Doesn't seem like much, except a melee character has few reasons to draw a weapon mid-fight.

[Eldariel]

It does also feel rather weird for the archery style to add a straight-up +2 to accuracy, but I don't know what could replace it.

Legacy options offer plenty of stuff there:
- Point blank shot was a thing in AD&D and 3e: +1 to hit and damage within 30' (which is fine, I think, since it forces you to manage your distance and open yourself up to melee to utilise).
- Far shot: Increased range increments. Either percentile (1.5*) or straight up (random numbers) +20' to accurate range and +80' to max range.
- Sharpshooter: Halve cover or reduce cover by one category. Treat half cover as no cover and three-quarters cover as half cover, for example. Or halve the penalties as I do (but in Sharpshooter)
- Ranged threat: Allow threatening area up to 30' range (so enemies moving outside PBS range provoke)
- Simple damage: Increase missile weapon dice by one category. 1d6 > 1d8, 1d8 > 1d10, 1d10 > 1d12.
- Adjust aim: If you miss one shot, get the next one at advantage (or at +4 or whatever).

Or whatever.


Let me get this straight, y'all find one narrow area where some martial classes outperform spellcasting classes in Dungeons and Dragons and y'all wanna nerf it? If you are a martial class that is terribly good at killing single targets at a range then in all likelihood that is the only thing you're good at. A ranged martial class probably sucks at tanking, healing, support, blasting, diplomacy, traps, obstacles and magic. MAYBE they're decent at ONE of those things.

In my experience playing as a archery focused fighter with sharpshooter is that it looked better on paper than in reality. Melee warriors can hit more reliably and almost just as often due to flanking rules, and most encounters are not in wide open spaces but in dungeon rooms or magical mist or darkness or narrow passage ways. Monsters often have ways of negating martial classes wholesale and that includes the ranged ones too. D&D 5e is designed as a dungeon crawler and all of those cool advantages of being an archer go out the window.

To be honest if you take away sharpshooter's benefits you may as well take away bows and crossbows. Why would anyone play a bad ranged martial character when they can instead play a good spellcasting ranged character?

I don't believe it's a good idea to fix structural issues with casters vs. martials (which are substantial) with one mechanic that negates all the other martial ones. I'd much rather just rewrite martial classes to not be **** instead of pigeonholing them all into archery. In general, you shouldn't fix one problem with another problem. That doesn't accomplish much. If the only kind of non-caster the game supports is an archer, it's not very good at its intended goal.

[LudicSavant]

Let me get this straight, y'all find one narrow area where some martial classes outperform spellcasting classes in Dungeons and Dragons and y'all wanna nerf it?

I don't think you have it straight. The OP and others mentioned archers (including caster archers) and eldritch blasters outperforming melee martials. I'm not seeing anything about martial classes outperforming spellcasting classes mentioned.

[stoutstien]

Most of the perceived issues do go away in fully flushed out encounter designs but those take time and even the vast majority of published ones don't take advantage of range, cover, and three dimensional space for various reasons. If a DM is willing it is a pretty valuable teaching tool in game design.

I don't have a problem with range as a concept as a whole but I've found the biggest factor reducing the "fun" or challenge is how easy it is to overcome the disadvantage using it within 5ft of enemies. I brought back AOOs with spell casting within 5ft and moved the big weapon feats onto the weapons themselves as special features to reduce feat tax and allow more focus on opportunity costs of weapon picks.

[Salmon343]

Game designer opinion: I think the biggest issue with ranged combat feats in 5e is that they reduce counterplay.

What's counterplay? It's basically a 'best practices' concept for good multiplayer game design that says that a given ability should make the game more interesting both for the person using it, and the person it's used against. Here's a lovely Extra Credits vid on it with plenty of examples! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBcjsOt0_g) A great game designer will make even things like stuns and crowd control make the game more interesting (e.g. creates more tactical considerations and interactions) for the person it's used against, rather than less.

And feats like Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, and Gunner reduce counterplay. People stop darting from cover to cover because those chest-high walls are ignored by Sharpshooter. People don't try to force them to act with Disadvantage by getting in their face because they can just fire point blank as easily as they had a melee weapon. Even the "ignore distance penalty" bit reduces interaction, since quite a few creatures just plain can't interact with things 600+ feet away other than seeking full cover. In short, those parts of the feats slide gameplay a step further towards the "just exchange attacks until one side falls over" end of the spectrum.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBcjsOt0_g
I love this, it really helps me to encapsulate what I dislike about sharpshooter. Not that its powerful - you spend a feat on it, it should be - but that it reduces strategy by having no counterplay, which just makes the whole thing dull. My current fix for Sharpshooter is to only let one of its features apply at a time. This way the presence of terrain is still interesting, by choosing to ignore it the archer is making a decision of accuracy over power, as they won't be power attacking.

In general I think ranged is strong, the ability to kite is powerful given the immense range of many spells and longbows. I think in general this isn't a problem, the problem is encounter design. It's only bothered me when I have battles in a wide open space with enemies that have poor ranged options, so one of those needs to be fixed. I'm likely going to start giving enemies long range attacks, that either do little damage or are firing from their long range, to offer a counter to attacking from high range, while still rewarding it (disadvantage on the monster's counterplay).

[Xervous]

Is it valid to assume that a (melee character) will remain relevant through the range of levels in absence of GM accommodation?

[Glorthindel]

Crossbow Expert:
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits:
You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding.


I disagree with removing the "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls" completely, as I see this as probably intended to allow use of the hand crossbow in close quarters (since the third ability is written to allow you to make a melee attack and then fire your hand crossbow, its pretty crap if that ability is then saddled with disadvantage). Maybe if it was restricted to only benefitting the hand crossbow (and other pistol-weapons if using gunpowder weapons in your setting), that would be fine, as it has pretty short range anyway.

[Unoriginal]

Is it valid to assume that a (melee character) will remain relevant through the range of levels in absence of GM accommodation?

There is no such thing as an absence of GM accommodation, that's what the GM is here for.

That being said, a melee character will absolutely remain relevant through all levels with the same ammount of GM accomodation as any other character.

Kiting at range is extremely impressive in a featureless, infinity-wide white room. It is still impressive but less so in an open plain or the like. Inside a building? Not really efficient unless your enemies are unable or unwilling to use even the basics of self-preserving tactics.

[Droppeddead]

Well, not saying you are wrong but a lot of the things you bring up isn't a fault of the game but rather how you play it. There are a few factual things you get wrong as well though so I'll just mention those as well.


...by which I mean that its terrible how easy it is to kill things from range in 5e. Pretty much no matter how you look at it, ranged DPR is only slightly behind melee DPR, and ranged DPR has other massive advantages, including:

Ranged play both enabling kiting and countering kiting. A melee character who wants to kite has to have twice the movement speed available AND be able to fly to kite and/or counter kiting as effectively as a ranged character. This leads to a lot of encounters becoming really really imbalanced really quickly, depending on who has more ranged DPR and/or who has more movement.
If range of engagement is high (basically any outdoor scenario) a ranged character can often get 2-3 rounds of damage in for free even if kiting is impossible.
Vast majority of monsters have limited ranged options meaning that this style tends to be very effective.
Target selection. Picking off the wizard in the back while everyone else fights the zombie horde.
The Archery style is simply more useful in t1 and t2 than almost any other style, particularly when combined with Sharpshooter.
Needs to worry about opportunity attacks, grapples, and other such things far less frequently.



In a blank map scenario, this is all true. Remember though that people (and zombies) can both block line of sight and give cover. It might be hard to even see that wzaird of there's a hoard of zomboes (and people fighting the zombies) in the way.


don't need to worry about cover (circumvented by Sharpshooter, and ranged characters don't have to move any more than melee characters to deal damage)

They do actually. Cover works for both ranged and melee attacks.


Now, I'm not one to argue that 5e needs to be a balanced game. Its fine if certain strategies are better. However.

Ranged play is boring because there are few tactical decisions beyond "sit in one place and loose arrows" or "run away and loose arrows."
Melee combat is relatively complex because lots more mechanics come into play in melee. Opportunity Attacks, reach, grappling, shoving.
Because throwing weapons are terrible, strength-based characters have little way to contribute in a lot of these scenarios.
Having to design encounters while bearing in mind that the party can and will kite the vast majority of enemies to death is annoying and limits a lot of "field" encounters.
Lots of classes and archetypes are heavily pigeonholed into melee combat and simply don't get to use their class features at range. Even if these classes end up being 'good' at range, (like the Kensai) it feels bad because you probably didn't pick monk to shoot arrows all day.


Againm this isn't really a problem with the system as much as it is a problem with how people run their games. I can agree that playing on flat, open battlemaps with no distinguishable feature will get boring quickly. The solution to that isn't to change the rules though but to change the way you run your battles. High ground for people to shoot from, things to duck behind or that blocks line of sight. A bee hive that makes the high ground a dangerous place to be at which then sucks for the archer who climbed there. Lots of ways to make battles interesting.


All of the above can be planned around. Maybe everyone just chose to optimize for utility or melee because that's their interest. Maybe you can design encounters cleverly, giving the enemy total cover, you can have enemies gate in directly behind the players, you can run incredibly quick monsters who can nullify the advantages of range, you can have time pressure that forces the PCs to approach... but at some point we're just falling into Rule 0 fallacy. You can fix any problem with lots of clever GMing, but wouldn't it be better to create a general solution before mucking about so much with encounters? I can already think of a few possibilities.

I'd say that this is pretty basic GMing. The basic system is fine. As always, what works for the players works for their enemies. If the players always bring ranged weapons, why wouldn't their enemies?



nerf ranged damage heavily. Ban Sharpshooter, drop EB down to a d8 or d6. The idea would be that although kiting would still be very powerful sometimes, melee would be more useful in a lot of other scenarios. The upside here is that damage doesn't need to be that much better for people to feel that melee specialization is worth it. Has the downside of potentially making certain other spells like Animate Objects even stronger than they already are. It's probably best to still have certain classes be able to dish out (relatively) crazy damage at range if they specialize heavily in that one thing, I just don't want it to be so easy.

Well, it's not easy. At least not easier than it is being good at melee damage. And being good at melee damage is a lot easier and you can be a lot better at melee damage than you can at ranged damage. At least if we talk weapon damage.


Add a default action called "charge" that allows a character to increase their movement by half and make (one) melee weapon attack at the end of their movement. This would give melee characters a way of running down enemies who are trying to kite them. (ofc this doesn't do anything against flyers but that's a separate problem.)

There are a lot of classes that aleady have things like this. Rogue have cunning action, Gloom Stalker have Dread Ambusher, Barbarians have Instinctive Pounce just to name a few. Or the melee people can just dash.


Lower max ranges for ranged weapons and/or limit how easy it is to get huge boosts to movement. (or maybe cut their effective range in half if they move at all on their turn? But then this starts to look like 3.5....)

What are these huge boosts of movement that you speak of that are unavailable to melee fighters? The range of weapons is already ridiculously low.

Again, this is a good case of "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". The system in and of itself works fine if it is used as intended.

[Eldariel]

Again, this is a good case of "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". The system in and of itself works fine if it is used as intended.

Let's establish this first: do you agree or disagree that Archery style + SS + CBE + EA is better than all other martial damage dealing options? If you don't, please present the comparable alternative you suggest complete with math to show that it is indeed comparable.

[Droppeddead]

Let's establish this first: do you agree or disagree that Archery style + SS + CBE + EA is better than all other martial damage dealing options? If you don't, please present the comparable alternative you suggest complete with math to show that it is indeed comparable.

if EA means extra attack then of course I disagree. Where are talking objectively here, right? For example, it's a lot worse than the comparable investment of GWF + GWM + Slasher + greatsword + Improved divine smite. It's also worse than, for example, Eldritch Smiting.

[Unoriginal]

Question for everyone, but in particular for those who think bow/crossbow users are too powerful or more powerful than any other martials:

Do they actually have to keep track of ammunition at your table, or do you handwave this away and they can do an unlimited number of attacks like the melee-weapon users?

[Eldariel]

if EA means extra attack then of course I disagree. Where are talking objectively here, right? For example, it's a lot worse than the comparable investment of GWF + GWM + Slasher + greatsword + Improved divine smite. It's also worse than, for example, Eldritch Smiting.

Elven Accuracy. Martial as in no spells/spell slots.

[Droppeddead]

Elven Accuracy. Martial as in no spells/spell slots.

Ok. Well, objectively, the combo you suggested is not "better than all other martial damage dealing options" so yeah, if course I would have to disagree.

[Eldariel]

Ok. Well, objectively, the combo you suggested is not "better than all other martial damage dealing options" so yeah, if course I would have to disagree.

Okay, present your alternative. Smiting involves spell slots and thus is not martial.

[Chaos Jackal]

Ok. Well, objectively, the combo you suggested is not "better than all other martial damage dealing options" so yeah, if course I would have to disagree.

So if it's not objectively better... what is the alternative that outperforms it?

[Gryndle]

So, does no one make their table track ammunition? This is one of those cases where inserting a little realism can go a long way.

See your GWM fighter or barb never runs out of ammo. Your SS/CBE archer that can nail anything at range, he does run out of ammo.

You ever count how many attacks a pc makes during an encounter? and adventure?

Let the few who want to play an uber archer play it. And if their power scares you make them count ammo. Unless they have a ready method of resupply, this means they are going to have to make decisions about when to take a shot or not.

If other characters carry arrows for them too, or if they can resupply easily then maybe this wont slow them down through a single adventure. But a long wilderness/exploration slog is going to put a strain on their ammo supply.

And arrows are nowhere near as reusable as one might think, especially wooden ones. If you miss outside, probably less than half are recoverable. Miss inside and you might be able to find the arrows, but odds are they need significant repair at the very least. Most likely they wont be reusable at all. Arrows that hit a fleshy target are probably good to go. But an armored or tough creature, those arrows are surely going to at least need some tlc before being reusable.

I use carbon fiber arrows, and I don't miss much anymore. But I still spend a good amount of time replacing fletches, inserts or knocks after every session with the bow.

As for how many arrows can you carry? I'm not sure about historical archers. but i know using modern gear if I'm going to spend a long session shooting, I can comfortably carry 75 arrows (50 in the back quiver, 20 in a hip quiver, 5 on the quiver mounted on my bow). But this also means I'm not carrying anything else that doesn't fit in my pockets. Not because of weight, but simply because I run out of places to put stuff while allowing me to move freely and actually use the bow.
For adventurers who also need other things like a backup weapon, fletching supplies, food, water, bedrolls, thieves' tools, etc. The amount of arrows carried is going to be less than that.

[Droppeddead]

So if it's not objectively better... what is the alternative that outperforms it?

Didn't you read my first reply?

[CapnWildefyr]

- Far shot: Increased range increments. Either percentile (1.5*) or straight up (random numbers) +20' to accurate range and +80' to max range.
- Sharpshooter: Halve cover or reduce cover by one category. Treat half cover as no cover and three-quarters cover as half cover, for example. Or halve the penalties as I do (but in Sharpshooter)


I like this. Reduce, don't eliminate the feat, and maybe extend range some to balance.


Well, not saying you are wrong but a lot of the things you bring up isn't a fault of the game but rather how you play it. There are a few factual things you get wrong as well though so I'll just mention those as well.

In a blank map scenario, this is all true. Remember though that people (and zombies) can both block line of sight and give cover. It might be hard to even see that wzaird of there's a hoard of zomboes (and people fighting the zombies) in the way.
...
Againm this isn't really a problem with the system as much as it is a problem with how people run their games. I can agree that playing on flat, open battlemaps with no distinguishable feature will get boring quickly. The solution to that isn't to change the rules though but to change the way you run your battles. High ground for people to shoot from, things to duck behind or that blocks line of sight. A bee hive that makes the high ground a dangerous place to be at which then sucks for the archer who climbed there. Lots of ways to make battles interesting.


In support -- It's easy to look at the ranges and forget reality. While there is a problem in that there should be more penalties applied -- I mean, ignoring 3/4 cover at 300 feet, and against moving targets? -- I agree that "realistic" GM-ing fixes a lot.

GMs have to think through the scenarios. Arrows at range require altitude, and you just can't ignore tree limbs and so on because of a feat. A target standing in the open below a line of trees, at long range -- how do you sharpshoot that with no penalty at all, if whether the arrow going through the tree limbs or not will be totally random?

Also consider concealment -- lightly and heavily obscured. Again, you should not be able to sharpshoot at something you can't see clearly enough to distinguish. Tall grass that might not stop an arrow can still stop you from getting enough of a line of sight to the target to sharpshoot. Basically add to sharpshooter: "You must have a clear line of sight to the target. The target must not be obscured by other factors besides the cover." Perhaps someone else can suggest better wording, not trying to totally nerf sharpshooter.

[Chaos Jackal]

Didn't you read my first reply?
Yes. It included smites. If spell slots enter the mix then a whole lot of other stuff, like *shadow blade* or *spirit shroud* enter too.

Slots mean casting. We're talking martials here. I believe Eldariel already mentioned that... didn't you read his reply?


So, does no one make their table track ammunition? This is one of those cases where inserting a little realism can go a long way.

See your GWM fighter or barb never runs out of ammo. Your SS/CBE archer that can nail anything at range, he does run out of ammo.

You ever count how many attacks a pc makes during an encounter? and adventure?

Let the few who want to play an uber archer play it. And if their power scares you make them count ammo. Unless they have a ready method of resupply, this means they are going to have to make decisions about when to take a shot or not.

If other characters carry arrows for them too, or if they can resupply easily then maybe this wont slow them down through a single adventure. But a long wilderness/exploration slog is going to put a strain on their ammo supply.

And arrows are nowhere near as reusable as one might think, especially wooden ones. If you miss outside, probably less than half are recoverable. Miss inside and you might be able to find the arrows, but odds are they need significant repair at the very least. Most likely they wont be reusable at all. Arrows that hit a fleshy target are probably good to go. But an armored or tough creature, those arrows are surely going to at least need some tlc before being reusable.

I use carbon fiber arrows, and I don't miss much anymore. But I still spend a good amount of time replacing fletches, inserts or knocks after every session with the bow.

As for how many arrows can you carry? I'm not sure about historical archers. but i know using modern gear if I'm going to spend a long session shooting, I can comfortably carry 75 arrows (50 in the back quiver, 20 in a hip quiver, 5 on the quiver mounted on my bow). But this also means I'm not carrying anything else that doesn't fit in my pockets. Not because of weight, but simply because I run out of places to put stuff while allowing me to move freely and actually use the bow.
For adventurers who also need other things like a backup weapon, fletching supplies, food, water, bedrolls, thieves' tools, etc. The amount of arrows carried is going to be less than that.

I do track my ammunition actually. And it doesn't run out particularly fast, neither does it cost much to replace.

Let's say you're a CBE SS character. If we assume 8 encounters every day (a high number in the case of many tables but I'll be generous) at an average of 4 rounds every fight, with three attacks made every round (pre-lv11 for a fighter), that's 12 bolts every fight. You can recover half your ammunition at the end of every combat, per the rules in PHB pg146. So you end up spending six bolts every fight, for a total of 48 every day (again, assuming a high number of encounters). That's already less than 50 bolts, or two and half cases, and I'd argue carrying two bolt cases at least shouldn't be either hard or rare for a crossbow user.

That's not taking into account the possibility of a character using a bow (so no bonus action attack from CBE and therefore less ammunition spent), the possibility of a character not attacking (they're cc'd or took some other action) or the possibility of finding additional ammunition by plundering the corpses of your enemies.

Ultimately? It would take quite unfavorable conditions for someone to run out of arrows during an adventuring day. And if you're about to set out into the wilderness, you'd better get more than two cases or quivers anyway. And given that it costs 1gp for a full quiver or case refill, I don't think buying new ammunition is gonna dent your finances too much.

[Sigreid]

One thing, Sharpshooter doesn't negate cover. It negates partial cover. There's no reason an opponent can't do the old pop up, attack and duck back maneuver.

[da newt]

I agree with the basic premise - a well built archer is very effective in the right environment and against certain foes - they can even trivialize some encounters. However, in actual game play, these situations only arise ~10% of the time IME.

Buildings, passages, rooms, darkness, trees, your own party members, doors, line of sight, MF-ing 5' wide passages, etc - these things are almost always prohibiting the SS from attacking with impunity.

Although I must admit, I've never played a campaign with a party where every PC was built to kite and win at range, so maybe that would change my experience.

My SS gloomstalker battle master with eyes of the eagle got to attack at a range of over 100' in exactly one encounter in a campaign that went from level 1 to 13, but maybe your campaign's world is mostly open ocean or the vast void of a different plane ...

If I was to tweak things, I would adjust SS to reduce the benefit of cover so 1/2 cover = +1 AC, 3/4 cover = +3 AC, full cover = cannot be targeted, and delete the change to range bullet. I think that would be plenty of a nerf to bring an optimized archer PC into balance with an optimized melee PC (but then there's full casters).

[Sigreid]

I agree with the basic premise - a well built archer is very effective in the right environment and against certain foes - they can even trivialize some encounters. However, in actual game play, these situations only arise ~10% of the time IME.

Buildings, passages, rooms, darkness, trees, your own party members, doors, line of sight, MF-ing 5' wide passages, etc - these things are almost always prohibiting the SS from attacking with impunity.

Although I must admit, I've never played a campaign with a party where every PC was built to kite and win at range, so maybe that would change my experience.

My SS gloomstalker battle master with eyes of the eagle got to attack at a range of over 100' in exactly one encounter in a campaign that went from level 1 to 13, but maybe your campaign's world is mostly open ocean or the vast void of a different plane ...

If I was to tweak things, I would adjust SS to reduce the benefit of cover so 1/2 cover = +1 AC, 3/4 cover = +3 AC, full cover = cannot be targeted, and delete the change to range bullet. I think that would be plenty of a nerf to bring an optimized archer PC into balance with an optimized melee PC (but then there's full casters).

When we have someone with sharpshooter or spell sniper, it helps them not hit our guys when shooting into melee.

[No brains]

Another point about cover and ignoring it is that soft cover from creatures is a rule that often gets ignored. By RAW on a typical 2D map, any creature in the lines between shooter and target grants cover.

I think this rule needs more attention if melee and rage are to be rebalanced. If there's some way outside of positioning for melee to grant cover to their allies and impose it on their enemies, then melee characters could get more consideration.

Perhaps a reworking of the protection or deflection fighting styles? Something like the creature's space provides total cover and attacks made through its reach are made through cover? Maybe with an option to situationally turn this off?

An easy way to rebalance archery fighting style is to have it compensate for cover from creatures. With the focus on bonded accuracy, that may have been the intent all along. Take away the +2 on a clear shot and it's not so unbalanced.

Finally consider that highly situational things like cover are also highly situation elements of fun for some players. If the table likes it simple, DMs should keep it simple in map design and implementation. If a forest of cover is fun for everyone, than by all means make those ruins into a forest of all degrees of cover with goblin cannon fodder blanketing the area with soft cover.

[Amnestic]

Ammunition is cheap and plentiful. Even tracked, it should almost never be an issue.

A quiver/case of 20 arrows/bolts costs 1gp. With the starting gold that you get from class+background, you're more than likely t have 100+, and they're cheap enough that it's unlikely you're going to run out unless you're actively forgetting to buy them.
You can recover half of your expended ammunition after an encounter.
Those with woodcarver tools+proficiency can make 5 arrows/SR and 20 arrows/LR for free, assuming they have 'wood on hand'.




And arrows are nowhere near as reusable as one might think, especially wooden ones.

They're exactly as reusable as the rules say they are - take one minute after a fight, recover half the ones you used.




As for how many arrows can you carry?

20 arrows=1lb of carrying capacity.



For adventurers who also need other things like a backup weapon, fletching supplies, food, water, bedrolls, thieves' tools, etc. The amount of arrows carried is going to be less than that.

A fighter who dumps strength (8) has 120lbs carrying capacity.

Their starter gear totals 88lbs, which is made up of

Leather armor: 10
Longbow: 2
Arrows (20): 1

Martial Weapon, lets say rapier: 2
Shield: 6
Two handaxes: 4
Dungeoneer's Pack - 63lbs: backpack (5), a crowbar (5), a hammer (3), 10 pitons (4), 10 torches (10), a tinderbox (1), 10 days of rations (20), and a waterskin (5). The pack also has 50 feet of hempen rope strapped to the side of it (10)


Toss some common clothes (3lbs) and a pouch (1lb) on top of that from your background and they've still got capacity to carry hundreds of extra arrows.

[Frogreaver]

There is no such thing as an absence of GM accommodation, that's what the GM is here for.

That being said, a melee character will absolutely remain relevant through all levels with the same ammount of GM accomodation as any other character.

Kiting at range is extremely impressive in a featureless, infinity-wide white room. It is still impressive but less so in an open plain or the like. Inside a building? Not really efficient unless your enemies are unable or unwilling to use even the basics of self-preserving tactics.

Range isn’t great unless your whole party is ranged. Then things change. Otherwise, if even one ally is melee you just incentivize most enemies to pound melee friend into the dirt.

[diplomancer]

Let's establish this first: do you agree or disagree that Archery style + SS + CBE + EA is better than all other martial damage dealing options? If you don't, please present the comparable alternative you suggest complete with math to show that it is indeed comparable.

EA is useless if you don't get advantage; what's the martial ranged way of getting advantage? Because casters have ways to get it, and melee has ways to get it, but martial ranged is out of luck.


Ammunition is cheap and plentiful. Even tracked, it should almost never be an issue.

Their starter gear totals 88lbs, which is made up of

Leather armor: 10
Longbow: 2
Arrows (20): 1

Martial Weapon, lets say rapier: 2
Shield: 6
Two handaxes: 4
Dungeoneer's Pack - 63lbs: backpack (5), a crowbar (5), a hammer (3), 10 pitons (4), 10 torches (10), a tinderbox (1), 10 days of rations (20), and a waterskin (5). The pack also has 50 feet of hempen rope strapped to the side of it (10)


Toss some common clothes (3lbs) and a pouch (1lb) on top of that from your background and they've still got capacity to carry hundreds of extra arrows.

5E rules set does not deal with corner cases (like a player wanting to "game" the simplified encumbrance rules to carry hundreds of arrows) directly, leaving that to DM's adjudication. If a player tried to do that with me as a DM, I'd ask "where exactly are you carrying all those arrows"?

At the very least, he'd have to either hire "spear carriers" or buy beasts of burden... and then have to deal with the logistical issues that arise from that choice.

Of course, some magic items also help. The very existence of a Quiver of Elhonna is an indication that you are NOT supposed to easily carry hundreds of arrows. But that's the point, magic items availability is very much DM-dependent.

[Droppeddead]

In support -- It's easy to look at the ranges and forget reality. While there is a problem in that there should be more penalties applied -- I mean, ignoring 3/4 cover at 300 feet, and against moving targets? -- I agree that "realistic" GM-ing fixes a lot.

GMs have to think through the scenarios. Arrows at range require altitude, and you just can't ignore tree limbs and so on because of a feat. A target standing in the open below a line of trees, at long range -- how do you sharpshoot that with no penalty at all, if whether the arrow going through the tree limbs or not will be totally random?


Yeah, all of this should be part basic combat. Heck, you don't even go as far as taking things as arrow altitude into account. Just take a walk through your average park or town square. How often do you have an unobstructed view to anything 300 feet away? Now try this in a forest or other similar common arena for D&D battles.


Yes. It included smites. If spell slots enter the mix then a whole lot of other stuff, like *shadow blade* or *spirit shroud* enter too.

Well, you need to read it again, then. Improved divine smite isn't a spell and doesn't need any spell slots. Can we please stick to the topic?


Slots mean casting. We're talking martials here. I believe Eldariel already mentioned that... didn't you read his reply?

I did, which is why I didn't include any casting. Or are you saying that Paladins aren't a martial class?

[fbelanger]

DnD is setup for casual fight level.
If you play more competitive fight you should wisely adjust the rules.
Your adjustments are nice, use them.

[Frogreaver]

EA is useless if you don't get advantage; what's the martial ranged way of getting advantage? Because casters have ways to get it, and melee has ways to get it, but martial ranged is out of luck.

Yep. And on top of that, most casters grant advantage via disabling an enemy in some way - restrained being a fairly common example. But if the enemy is restrained or otherwise disabled and there’s others that aren’t - is that really the enemy you should be shooting? I’d say quite often it isn’t.

There is eventually greater invisibility but that means you aren’t concentrating on any other control spell.

[shipiaozi]

Ranged become much better in 5e, but still not overpowered.

1. Melee have strength items.

2. There are powerful melee class abilities(Stunning Strike, Rage, Divine Smite and Blade Cantrips), but almost no good ranged ability.

[Unoriginal]

and they've still got capacity to carry hundreds of extra arrows.

They certainly have the capacity. How often do you see them do it?

[Eldariel]

if EA means extra attack then of course I disagree. Where are talking objectively here, right? For example, it's a lot worse than the comparable investment of GWF + GWM + Slasher + greatsword + Improved divine smite. It's also worse than, for example, Eldritch Smiting.

Okay, so we have a Samurai 11 with Archery/EA/SS/CBE and a Paladin 11 with GWM [using on crits]+Slasher+GWF+Improved Divine Smite. Both have 20 in their primary stat. Damage vs. ACs 13-20 (numbers courtesy of Ludic's damage calculator (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14WlZE_UKwn3Vhv4i8ewVOc-f2-A7tMW_VRum_p3YNHQ/edit?usp=sharing) rounded to nearest integer as per normal rules of mathematics):



AC
Archer
Archer (advantage)
Paladin
Paladin (advantage)


13
53
74
37
55


14
49
73
34
53


15
45
71
31
50


16
41
70
29
46


17
38
67
27
46


18
34
67
25
39


19
30
60
23
35


20
27
56
21
33




So it's not particularly close, the Paladin doesn't come anywhere near any optimal damage output on any level vs. any AC with or without advantage (which he can't even get for himself).

EDIT: Fixed link to damage calculator.

[Xervous]

They certainly have the capacity. How often do you see them do it?

Can we ignore cases where ammunition is not tracked in a similar vein to games where GMs don’t act off the player’s explicit statements? (You never said you looked up!) If the players are not at risk for failing to engage with that extra layer it seems to be little more than flavor.

[Eldariel]

They certainly have the capacity. How often do you see them do it?

We always track arrows. They're cheap and don't cost much though so it has never actually mattered in any of my campaigns thus far. I don't remember a case where someone would've had to skip an attack due to not having ammunition in any edition of D&D. Players are generally smart enough to bring enough arrows/bolts (that is, about as smart as a trained monkey). The closest I remember coming was with Eternal Bow build on level 20 in 3.5 but that's because the build involves shooting over 40 arrows in a turn and that particular run was specifically non-magical so Quiver of Ehlonna was not an option. In the end it was handled by just carrying enough (his Str was north of 20 so capacity was nary an issue) and having the skills to craft his own over evenings.

[Gryndle]

crappy editing on my part. too lazy to repost

[x3n0n]

(which he can't even get for himself).

Nit: Vengeance can use his Channel Divinity for that. (Still nothing compared to Samurai's 3/LR + 1/encounter, of course.)

[Amnestic]

They certainly have the capacity. How often do you see them do it?

Not often, because it's usually not needed to go as far as hundreds at a time.

Early on, 100 arrows (5 quivers/cases) is usually going to be enough between "town visits". With recovery, that's roughly 150 shots. If you can strap rope to your backpack, you can presumably strap/store quivers to it too, you only really need one to be accessible at a time anyway. You can also give them to your party members to hold onto or take the noble background for retainers, if your DM is being an extra stickler about volume in a way I would start to describe as 'combative'.

Levels 1-4 you're using 1 arrow/round, and most fights aren't going to last longer than 5 rounds or so, so roughly 1/4 quiver before you need to restock the one you're actually drawing from. Levels 5-10 you're using two arrows/round, so half a quiver per battle.

And that's all assuming you're only able to have one 'accessible' quiver at a time. One on the back and one of the belt means 40 arrows per fight available, which is probably going to be enough even with 4 attacks/turn and action surging at max level.

At level 10+ chances are high they will either have a magic quiver (or bow that makes arrows for them) or some other extradimensional space that carry capacity isn't really any issue. A bag of holding is an Uncommon item, the same rarity as a +1 weapon. If your party isn't getting Uncommon rarity magic items at level 10+ then your martials probably have more issues than just carry capacity.

Ammunition does become an issue if you're on an extremely extended absence from any sort of civilisation without proper planning, sure. And if your player fails to prepare then that's on them. But between generous carry capacity, ammunition recovery rules and being able to craft them with tools+proficiency (which is not unreasonable for an archer to want) I daresay it is very very rarely going to be a problem.

[Droppeddead]

Okay, so we have a Samurai 11 with Archery/EA/SS/CBE and a Paladin 11 with GWM [using on crits]+Slasher+GWF+Improved Divine Smite. Both have 20 in their primary stat. Damage vs. ACs 13-20 (numbers courtesy of Ludic's damage calculator (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tDCdN26uLkNWqBQq3uRSTwVN-PkPB-jCbtur3O3PriY/edit) rounded to nearest integer as per normal rules of mathematics):

So it's not particularly close, the Paladin doesn't come anywhere near any optimal damage output on any level vs. any AC with or without advantage (which he can't even get for himself).

Vengeance Paladins can easily get advantage, any Paladin with Find Steed can easily get advantage. Your evidence is circumstantial at best. Attack for attack the paladin is better. It goes without saying that someone with more attack will have the possibility to do more damage. That wasn't the question you asked, though. So without moving the goalposts, the answer still stands. The ability of the Fighter to deal out more damage is because of their number of attacks, not because Ranged fighting is superior to Melee fighting.

(As a side note, I mixed up Slasher and Piercer, so drop that and throw in say, Savage Attacker instead.)

[Eldariel]

Vengeance Paladins can easily get advantage, any Paladin with Find Steed can easily get advantage. Your evidence is circumstantial at best. Attack for attack the paladin is better. It goes without saying that someone with more attack will have the possibility to do more damage. That wasn't the question you asked, though. So without moving the goalposts, the answer still stands. The ability of the Fighter to deal out more damage is because of their number of attacks, not because Ranged fighting is superior to Melee fighting.

(As a side note, I mixed up Slasher and Piercer, so drop that and throw in say, Savage Attacker instead.)

I asked for highest martial damage. Pally is not it, as you yourself pointed out. Same amount of levels on each side, different investment, highest martial DPR is obviously archery build since it has the best tools. The fact that Pally is a poor archer is immaterial: Pally without Divine Smite or spellcasting isn't a noteworthy damage dealer in the first place.

[Chaos Jackal]

Well, you need to read it again, then. Improved divine smite isn't a spell and doesn't need any spell slots. Can we please stick to the topic?

Apologies, I misunderstood. Didn't realize you meant that just IDS is enough to make up for the difference.

Sticking to the topic then. In such a scenario, no, IDS isn't enough. The calcs showcasing this have already been provided, but you're calling it "circumstantial", so I can't really give you anything else in that regard, since I use Ludic's calculator too.

So I'll leave you with this. You're saying that the fighter's extra attacks is what pushes archery ahead. I run a few calcs of a baseline PAM routine (2 attacks+BA) with GWM and GWF against a CBE SS EA archery routine (2 attacks+BA), both against AC 18, for maxed Str/Dex with +3 and +4 proficiency. It's much closer, but the ranged routine still wins out, with or without advantage. The increased hit chance from archery is really big. If advantage comes in, EA is absolutely massive too.

You can call that circumstantial too if you want. The evidence is there. That's as much as I can contribute to this particular topic.

[Droppeddead]

I asked for highest martial damage.

No, you didn't. You asked if "Archery style + SS + CBE + EA is better than all other martial damage dealing options?" Which it is not.


Pally is not it, as you yourself pointed out.

Per attack? It is.


Same amount of levels on each side, different investment, highest martial DPR is obviously archery build since it has the best tools.

Not really. For example, your samurai would be able to deal more damage if it was a Half-orc with the piercer feat, GWM and a pike. Zealot barbarians at level 11 does more damage through just Rage Damage and Divine Fury than the bonus from sharpshooter without the penalty to hit. Rogues critting with sneak attack and a shortsword can do 87 points of damage in a single attack (97 points with SS and a hand corssbow, 103 with Piercer). Do you count them as a "martial damage dealing option"?

TLDR; your claim that "Archery style + SS + CBE + EA is better than all other martial damage dealing options?" doesn't hold up.


The fact that Pally is a poor archer is immaterial:

Literally no-one said it mattered.


Pally without Divine Smite or spellcasting isn't a noteworthy damage dealer in the first place.

It's correct that Paladins aren't the primary damage dealers of the game. That wasn't the topic we were discussing, though. But if you don't want to talk about your original question that's fine, just say so. It was pretty much a side track from the main topic anyways.


Apologies, I misunderstood. Didn't realize you meant that just IDS is enough to make up for the difference.

No worries, apology accepted. IDS is enough, since it adds more damage. Especially on a crit. Since the point was that there are other combinations that can dish out bigger damage than the one presented, the point still stands.


Sticking to the topic then. In such a scenario, no, IDS isn't enough. The calcs showcasing this have already been provided, but you're calling it "circumstantial", so I can't really give you anything else in that regard, since I use Ludic's calculator too.


Sure, in the biased scenario presented, the option with the bias will come out ahead. My reply was just to point out that the presented statement didn't hold water.


So I'll leave you with this. You're saying that the fighter's extra attacks is what pushes archery ahead. I run a few calcs of a baseline PAM routine (2 attacks+BA) with GWM and GWF against a CBE SS EA archery routine (2 attacks+BA), both against AC 18, for maxed Str/Dex with +3 and +4 proficiency. It's much closer, but the ranged routine still wins out, with or without advantage. The increased hit chance from archery is really big. If advantage comes in, EA is absolutely massive too.

You're almost at the point. In the case I was talking about (Samurai vs Paladin) the only reason the Samurai comes out on top is because of extra attacks. If you take a a Samurai vs a Samurai, that's a completely different situation. Also, you've changed the parameters so of course you will get a different result.


You can call that circumstantial too if you want. The evidence is there. That's as much as I can contribute to this particular topic.

Nah, but to the point I was making, it's a bit irrelevant.

[Osuniev]

While I agree Archery Fighting Style + Sharpshooter make for a powerful DPR, I don't think it's that bad at the table.

However, it might be because I play with some (official) optional rules :

- Flanking provides an easy way for Melee combattant to get Advantage. There is much less easy sources of advantage for a ranged character.
- Variant Encumbrance seems to penalize for STR dumping (5 times your STR and your speed is reduced by 10 feet). In fact, at low levels, heavy armour is so heavy the melee martials actually can carry LESS... However, as soon as they could afford Mithril plate, their superior Strength helped them be able to carry much more stuff.

In addition to that, many enemies in my game tend to stand up, shoot, get back down behind total cover IF there isn't a melee threat nearby. Of course, there usually is... But that means the team has a real need for melee characters.

Finally, has someone mentioned, there is much more magical items for MELEE MARTIALS. My Ranger was actually complaining to me about that on the phone earlier today.

[Willie the Duck]

So, does no one make their table track ammunition?

I think, much like the 'encumbrance is a thing' clause in discussions of Str/Dex balance, it's at least fruitful to realize that enough people don't (track ammunition or encumbrance, respectively) that they make haphazard controls and perhaps poor limiters on game strength. I like both, but then again I came from the editions where encumbrance was an elaborate dance between preparedness and the ability to haul back more coinage back to town to convert directly into XP. If someone else says they didn't sit down at the game table to beancount, I can understand their point.


As for how many arrows can you carry? I'm not sure about historical archers. but i know using modern gear if I'm going to spend a long session shooting, I can comfortably carry 75 arrows (50 in the back quiver, 20 in a hip quiver, 5 on the quiver mounted on my bow). But this also means I'm not carrying anything else that doesn't fit in my pockets. Not because of weight, but simply because I run out of places to put stuff while allowing me to move freely and actually use the bow.
Quivers of 30 seem to be a pretty common historical norm. They may or may not reflect a practical maximum, or simply be how many they felt someone would need to carry at once. The modern D&D norm of traipsing across country in full kit, but without supply trains or similar, all to venture into convenient treasure-filled holes in the ground is sufficiently divorced from either historical huntsmen style archers or campaigning soldier style archers as to make these comparisons rather inexact.


20 arrows=1lb of carrying capacity.
Don't forget the weight of the quivers, though.

[Segev]

It IS worth noting that it takes two feats that are not half-feats to get your ranged warrior to be ignoring cover and having zero trouble with people being right up in their faces.

Conversely, the fighter who focuses on melee but carries a longbow (or even a set of javelins) for when he can't close with the enemy will need NO (special/feat) investment to be able to handle most situations.

Range is very nice, don't get me wrong. But in actual play, I've not seen it overshadow melee except when enormous battlefields are in place. And even then, the melee-focused characters had ways to contribute that didn't make them feel like they were falling way behind the ranged damage-dealers.

[Eldariel]

No, you didn't. You asked if "Archery style + SS + CBE + EA is better than all other martial damage dealing options?" Which it is not.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Se far it performed best of tested builds.


Per attack? It is.

Which is relevant how? Your action involves multiple attacks and your turn multiple actions. The inly relevant frame of reference is Damage Per Round.


Not really. For example, your samurai would be able to deal more damage if it was a Half-orc with the piercer feat, GWM and a pike. Zealot barbarians at level 11 does more damage through just Rage Damage and Divine Fury than the bonus from sharpshooter without the penalty to hit. Rogues critting with sneak attack and a shortsword can do 87 points of damage in a single attack (97 points with SS and a hand corssbow, 103 with Piercer). Do you count them as a "martial damage dealing option"?

Wow. Every statement in this paragraph is flawed or irrelevant. DPR-wise: no, half-orc with GWM and Piercer doesn't even come close. Lacking Archery style alone means it gets far less out of GWM than SS build gets out of SS. Rogue critting is multiplied by the CHANCE of critting which results in VERY modest DPR. Use the calculator to do the math yourself. And Zealot loses out to Fighter for the same reason as the Pally: it gets a ****ty ability instead of Extra Attack 3.


No, TLDR; your claim that "Archery style + SS + CBE + EA is better than all other martial damage dealing options?" doesn't hold up.

So far you have failed to prove this. Further, you're pulling in totally irrelevant stats like damage per single attack, damage on crit (without accounting for crit rate), etc. Stick to the point (DPR), please, or this is a waste of time. I'm not replying to a post that fails to address the actual question anymore. I shouldn't need to spell out that the only damage that matters is the average reliable and nova reliable damage a character can do over a unit of time (simplest to stick to a round, but I'll listen to setup-requiring ideas averaged over their setup and execution time too).

[Droppeddead]

So far you have failed to prove this. Further, you're pulling in totally irrelevant stats like damage per single attack, damage on crit (without accounting for crit rate), etc. Stick to the point (DPR), please, or this is a waste of time. I'm not replying to a post that fails to address the actual question anymore. I shouldn't need to spell out that the only damage that matters is the average reliable and nova reliable damage a character can do over a unit of time (simplest to stick to a round, but I'll listen to setup-requiring ideas averaged over their setup and execution time too).

{Scrubbed} A Rogue *can* do that amount of damage in a round (just halve the relevant part if you don't want to deal with a crit), for example. {Scrubbed}

[Chaos Jackal]

*snip*

...

No.

"The single biggest damage number" isn't what someone is looking for when building a strong DPR routine. We don't care about a single attack. It's the average DPR we want.

You've already been shown that IDS isn't enough if you wanna compare classes. You've already been shown that with no additional class features the ranged routine comes out ahead. Giving the maximum damage from a sneak attack crit shows absolutely nothing. Your half-orc pikeman doesn't manage to get close as they lack a bonus action attack. And if you wanna bring class back in, your zealot at lv13 (with the second Brutal Critical) and GWM still loses out to a samurai of equal level. At least run the calculations first. I did by the way, which is why I am confidently saying that the above is true.

You're making unsupported claims and have repeatedly failed to give any evidence or proper arguments in favor of your positions. The math is there. If you wanna ignore it, that's up to you.

I don't have anything else to say to you.

[Sorinth]

An out of the box idea might be to boost shields and/or heavy armor to make them better against ranged attacks.

For example, giving Shields +2 AC vs Melee but +5 vs ranged attacks could go a long ways towards making ranged attacks less effective against intelligent creatures but leave them strong against beast/monstrosities type creatures.

Alternatively having damage reduction could work. Resistance to ranged damage from either a Shield or Heavy Armour or simply reduce damage done via ranged attacks similar (But worse) then the Monk could also be effective.

[KorvinStarmast]

The issue is greatly lessened when you use monsters who are sufficiently mobile to make kiting nontrivial. someone in our party tried kiting air elementals.
Move / Speed = 90.
Oops. :smalleek:

[MaxWilson]

Okay, I'll revise the statement to more accurately reflect my issue:
- There's a reduced amount of interactivity with key game elements without a meaningful payoff. (A) Removing two/three categories of cover does remove a lot of the things that one would normally have to consider, I believe we can agree?
- This reduced interactivity has little upside far as gameplay goes; (B) I posit that it be preferable to reduce penalties but keep the mechanics over just removing them entirely.

I do agree that you can hide behind that log while prone, but it assumes that there's a log to hide behind. A terrain with plenty of brush but no trees for example offers no cover whatsoever from an archer (though concealment may be available). While low cover to hide behind does help, you still have to go prone behind said cover, which still restricts the ability to reach a point where one can affect the sharpshooter.

(A) I don't really agree except in the narrowest technical sense. I mean, there are niche scenarios where it's super important (hobgoblin archers firing from behind arrow slits find that the sniper is shooting them through the arrow slits!) but those are the scenarios that Sharpshooter is specifically designed for. What I'm saying is that I go out of my way during adventure design to look for scenarios where Sharpshooter or something like it would add extra value (in the same way I also go out of my way to add opportunities for sneaky characters, "face" characters, detectives, etc. to shine--so that players considering a new character can think, "boy, that last adventure should would have been easier if we had had a Rogue with us" or whatever). If it truly removed interactivity, I wouldn't have to be adding those opportunities, they'd be ubiquitous.

So I don't really agree that it removes "a lot" of interactivity. Mostly it just lets you ignore creature cover, and lets you pin certain monsters down from very far away, which... is still a form of interactivity. [thinks] I should probably have creatures try to use other creatures as cover more often though, so that non-Sharpshooters have to shift position slightly in order to maximize their to-hit bonuses, but that doesn't strike me as truly interesting interactivity that Sharpshooters are missing out on--it's just a roleplaying detail and potential opportunity to help Spell Snipers and Sharpshooters seem more like expert marksmen.

(B) It's a matter of taste I suppose. I don't find a +2 or +5 bonus to AC as exciting as immunity to attack, and Sharpshooter/Spell Sniper do nothing to remove that immunity, so as a DM I view ignoring the +2/+5 as a consolation prize and not as something which needs to be nerfed down to "you only suffer +1/+3".

[ZRN]

...by which I mean that its terrible how easy it is to kill things from range in 5e. Pretty much no matter how you look at it, ranged DPR is only slightly behind melee DPR, and ranged DPR has other massive advantages, including:

Ranged play both enabling kiting and countering kiting. A melee character who wants to kite has to have twice the movement speed available AND be able to fly to kite and/or counter kiting as effectively as a ranged character. This leads to a lot of encounters becoming really really imbalanced really quickly, depending on who has more ranged DPR and/or who has more movement.
If range of engagement is high (basically any outdoor scenario) a ranged character can often get 2-3 rounds of damage in for free even if kiting is impossible.
Vast majority of monsters have limited ranged options meaning that this style tends to be very effective.
Target selection. Picking off the wizard in the back while everyone else fights the zombie horde.
The Archery style is simply more useful in t1 and t2 than almost any other style, particularly when combined with Sharpshooter.
Needs to worry about opportunity attacks, grapples, and other such things far less frequently.


For contrast, melee has the following advantages

works better against prone enemies (who aren't moving anyway)
don't need to worry about cover (circumvented by Sharpshooter, and ranged characters don't have to move any more than melee characters to deal damage)
don't need to worry about enemies getting into melee (Crossbow Expert and BA disengage circumvent this)
More magic weapon options?
TWF is sorta good sometimes (mostly for rogues and at low levels)



I think you're shortchanging melee quite a bit. The issue is that you're thinking of this like a DPS character in an MMO, where the goal is just "do a bunch of damage and don't take much in return." But most melee characters in 5e are also tanks to some degree - they're drawing attacks away from the spellcasters, AND they're locking down enemy combatants to keep them in an advantageous position. (Sentinel, PAM, opportunity attacks, etc.) It's much harder to achieve those things from range.

On top of that, several classes (paladins, monks, barbarians) are specifically built to encourage melee over ranged combat. Those classes have their own specific benefits that aren't directly tied to the type of weapons they use, but overall I think it'd be tough to argue that, say, paladins suck because they have to melee.

So what we're really talking about here is the few classes (rangers, rogues, fighters) that have access to both melee and ranged styles, and we're specifically excluding characters with any interest in actively preventing enemies from swarming the party wizard. In that context, for those specific characters, "ranged is better than melee" might well be true, but it's hardly game-breaking.

[Segev]

Am I the only one who finds the primary allure of Sharpshooter to be the ability to fire to long range without disadvantage? The other two are more than just ribbons, I acknowledge, but there are far, far fewer characters I have or would play who would even be tempted by Sharpshooter without that particular bullet. If you offered that bullet on its own, I'd be tempted, even knowing it's not really worth a feat. Offer it on a half-feat, and I would take it in a heartbeat, even without the rest of the feat. And I probably wouldn't take the other two on a half-feat in most characters I play.

[MaxWilson]

So if it's not objectively better... what is the alternative that outperforms it?

It depends on level, but especially in Tier 2, a Zealot with PAM + GWM using Reckless Attack tends to have somewhat better damage. But it also depends on how easily the Elven Accuracy user is able to get advantage. If the DM is using RAW on vision and letting the Elven Accuracy user just hang out at 70' distance (beyond darkvision range) and shoot with advantage against a target illuminated by Dancing Lights or another PC with a torch, he will wind up doing more damage than the Barbarian.

Hunter Rangers with Volley and Horde Breaker also sometimes do far better damage than Crossbow Expert does but that's niche and also not melee anyway. :)


Am I the only one who finds the primary allure of Sharpshooter to be the ability to fire to long range without disadvantage? The other two are more than just ribbons, I acknowledge, but there are far, far fewer characters I have or would play who would even be tempted by Sharpshooter without that particular bullet. If you offered that bullet on its own, I'd be tempted, even knowing it's not really worth a feat. Offer it on a half-feat, and I would take it in a heartbeat, even without the rest of the feat. And I probably wouldn't take the other two on a half-feat in most characters I play.

For me all three bullets of Sharpshooter are equally tempting/awesome.

BTW I allow anyone to with any weapon to target vital points (take a -5 penalty for a +5 to damage), which is usually not worth doing except against very soft targets like AC 8 zombies. GWM and Sharpshooter just increase the payoff to make it actually WORTHWHILE.

[ZRN]

Game designer opinion: I think the biggest issue with ranged combat feats in 5e is that they reduce counterplay.

...

And feats like Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, and Gunner reduce counterplay. People stop darting from cover to cover because those chest-high walls are ignored by Sharpshooter. People don't try to force them to act with Disadvantage by getting in their face because they can just fire point blank as easily as they had a melee weapon. Even the "ignore distance penalty" bit reduces interaction, since quite a few creatures just plain can't interact with things 600+ feet away other than seeking full cover. In short, those parts of the feats slide gameplay a step further towards the "just exchange attacks until one side falls over" end of the spectrum.


I feel like this presupposes one of two weird options: either the DM is giving his archer baddies feats (why would you do this?) or the DM is having his enemies act in really weird, metagamey ways because the DM knows the idiosyncratic rules.

Like, even assuming the enemies have really good knowledge about the PCs, what in-character knowledge could they have that would make them stop using cover? "Tim the Ranger over there is a legendary sharpshooter - my best bet to avoid getting shot is to stop ducking behind things and just casually stroll across an open field towards him, because he probably has a feat that lets him ignore partial cover."

I feel like this is saying Purity of Body is bad because the DM doesn't get to use poison anymore. Naw man, the whole point is for the PCs to get to feel cool when they get bitten by a rattlesnake and it doesn't do anything! If you, as DM, are working hard to avoid them getting the benefit of their feats and class abilities, you're actively impeding their fun!

[diplomancer]

Am I the only one who finds the primary allure of Sharpshooter to be the ability to fire to long range without disadvantage? The other two are more than just ribbons, I acknowledge, but there are far, far fewer characters I have or would play who would even be tempted by Sharpshooter without that particular bullet. If you offered that bullet on its own, I'd be tempted, even knowing it's not really worth a feat. Offer it on a half-feat, and I would take it in a heartbeat, even without the rest of the feat. And I probably wouldn't take the other two on a half-feat in most characters I play.

For me, the best bullet point is about ignoring cover; long range disadvantage cancelling is very good if you are pairing it with XBE, but not that important for a longbow user in most battlemaps my DMs prepare.

[MaxWilson]

I feel like this presupposes one of two weird options: either the DM is giving his archer baddies feats (why would you do this?) or the DM is having his enemies act in really weird, metagamey ways because the DM knows the idiosyncratic rules.

Like, even assuming the enemies have really good knowledge about the PCs, what in-character knowledge could they have that would make them stop using cover? "Tim the Ranger over there is a legendary sharpshooter - my best bet to avoid getting shot is to stop ducking behind things and just casually stroll across an open field towards him, because he probably has a feat that lets him ignore partial cover."

I feel like this is saying Purity of Body is bad because the DM doesn't get to use poison anymore. Naw man, the whole point is for the PCs to get to feel cool when they get bitten by a rattlesnake and it doesn't do anything! If you, as DM, are working hard to avoid them getting the benefit of their feats and class abilities, you're actively impeding their fun!

Well said. I go out of my way to have enemies use cover in ways that a Sharpshooter will get to ignore.


Range isn’t great unless your whole party is ranged. Then things change. Otherwise, if even one ally is melee you just incentivize most enemies to pound melee friend into the dirt.

IME a better strategy is for that one melee guy to act as a stalking horse to flush enemies out of cover, and then he acts defensively (grapples if there are only one or two, or Dodges if there are many, and threatens opportunity attacks) while the ranged guys do the damage. This is one reason why maxing Str isn't particularly important on Paladins compared to maxing Charisma, IMO: Str 16 is plenty to let you grapple and wear heavy armor.

[x3n0n]

Am I the only one who finds the primary allure of Sharpshooter to be the ability to fire to long range without disadvantage? The other two are more than just ribbons, I acknowledge, but there are far, far fewer characters I have or would play who would even be tempted by Sharpshooter without that particular bullet. If you offered that bullet on its own, I'd be tempted, even knowing it's not really worth a feat. Offer it on a half-feat, and I would take it in a heartbeat, even without the rest of the feat. And I probably wouldn't take the other two on a half-feat in most characters I play.

I'm surprised to hear that. The ranges that make sense to me are <30ft, 30-80ish, and 80-120ish, and "longer than that".

In that rubric, Sharpshooter jumps slings and hand crossbows from "close range only" up to that 80-120 range, and everything else jumps up to "longer than that".
If I weren't already wedded to hand crossbow or to sling for some reason, that would not be my primary attraction.

[LudicSavant]

I feel like this is saying Purity of Body is bad because the DM doesn't get to use poison anymore. It’s not saying that at all.

Counterplay is very much *not* saying that you shouldn’t be able to negate abilities. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is about the particular ways in which you do so.

Resistances and immunities have the effect of encouraging players to diversify their elemental portfolios, and adds an extra layer of strategic consideration to (for instance) Wizards choosing their spells. That’s a good thing.

There’s a ton of work done on this subject by fellow game designers, I suggest looking it up, it’s a great read! :)


I feel like this presupposes one of two weird options: either the DM is giving his archer baddies feats (why would you do this?) or the DM is having his enemies act in really weird, metagamey ways because the DM knows the idiosyncratic rules

Neither of these are necessary presuppostions. Some of the counterplay issues described would still happen even if the DM never built NPCs using PC abilities, and always played their creatures in exactly the same way against sharpshooters and non-sharpshooters. One of the reasons for this is because the PC’s behavior still changes.

When removing the cover ignoring bit from sharpshooter, and playing enemies *the same,* player behavior changed dramatically. They used a variety of tactics to seize map positions for better firing lines, or bait enemies, or flush them from cover with aoes, or the like. All to negate that partial cover benefit.

Not even just the person with the feat — *every PC at the table* played differently when that one party member had that one little tweak. Suddenly ranged encounters were playing out more like Xcom (or perhaps more accurately but more obscurely, Atlas Reactor, since that game has fronliner roles alongside xcom-y ranged types).



Like, even assuming the enemies have really good knowledge about the PCs, what in-character knowledge could they have that would make them stop using cover? "Tim the Ranger over there is a legendary sharpshooter - my best bet to avoid getting shot is to stop ducking behind things and just casually stroll across an open field towards him, because he probably has a feat that lets him ignore partial cover."

This is yet another way that the case doesn’t line up with Purity of Body. PoB is an associated mechanic, and therefore one can, totally in character, say “don’t use poison on the Monk, because...”

Associated vs dissociated mechanics is a whole ‘nother kettle of game design worms we could get into.

[HPisBS]

But my more serious question is, what can be done to fix this? IMO good fixes are surgical. A few core rule changes that come up frequently so that everyone can remember them. Don't nerf, just ban. Don't buff, add something made completely of whole cloth. If you are going to change something, make it on the fringes of normal play such that people won't come to the table with an ingrained notion of how things "should" work. I listed a few ideas above, but I'm curious to see if we can reach a consensus on this point.


Sharpshooter needs to go. Period. Massive power attack damage at range is bad design. Removing partial-cover-based counterplay is also bad design. Massive range bonuses here are unnecessary and make kiting trivial. Nothing to be retained here.

Nah, slight nerfs are all that's warranted here, imo.

Just make it so that a Sharpshooter can only get 1 benefit at a time. Either power attack, or long-range without penalty, or ignore partial cover (or maybe just count ¾ cover as ½ cover instead). It's the combination of these factors that pushes the feat beyond the pale.



Xbow expert needs to be eliminated as well. Letting crossbow users attack faster than longbow users or swordsmen is silly. Shooting in close range is, once again, just removing counterplay options.


Should someone with a pistol have a hard time shooting at point blank range? If anything, point blank ranged attacks should provide the defender with a chance for an opportunity attack.

The extra attack, however, really is bad. That should say "... you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding, if it was already loaded. You are unable to draw or load a hand crossbow as part of this attack.


Segev's version of Mounted Combat is good and intuitive. It's basically how I'd do it anyway.


Finally, if all this isn't enough (and I think it might not be) apply a simple scaling penalty to accuracy based on range. "Every 20' is -1" or something similar, a la fire emblem. Suddenly those numerous accuracy buffs don't matter as much and the DPR begins to drop off and archers have a clear incentive to approach.


So... instead of disadvantage, attacking at 550 ft with a longbow would be a -20 penalty? :smallconfused:

Yeah, I don't think that'd fly. lol

[Chaos Jackal]

It depends on level, but especially in Tier 2, a Zealot with PAM + GWM using Reckless Attack tends to have somewhat better damage. But it also depends on how easily the Elven Accuracy user is able to get advantage. If the DM is using RAW on vision and letting the Elven Accuracy user just hang out at 70' distance (beyond darkvision range) and shoot with advantage against a target illuminated by Dancing Lights or another PC with a torch, he will wind up doing more damage than the Barbarian.

Mostly true indeed. By my calcs, without advantage on either side, a zealot is slightly stronger than CBE+SS+EA+archery, while basically being equal if both sides have advantage, against middling AC. Against higher AC it's still in favor of the sharpshooter. Ultimately, they're about equal, all things considered, with maybe a very slight barbarian edge.

Only works in tier 2, but they're some of the most commonly played levels, so it certainly amounts to something.

[SpanielBear]

What are the real issues here? Like, I’m hearing the white-room arguments loud and clear, sure, but are people as GMs:

- Seeing players at their tables with buyers remorse because they picked a martial?

- Having less fun combats- I mean actually, not just in theory.

- Finding sharpshooters and ranged in general something that needs to be penalised because the feedback you are getting from players is “y’know, I feel like this is too powerful and I’m not feeling challenged”

- (blue text) agreed that Elvish Accuracy is a cursed feat and the *real* problem here, because I am tired of seeing it over and over and over again in every martial theorycraft! (End blue text. Sorry, on phone, can’t edit)

Like, I get the math of how in an ideal situation it’s better, I don’t need that proven. What I do feel like I need to see is that it is actually a problem here.

[LudicSavant]

I love this, it really helps me to encapsulate what I dislike about sharpshooter. Not that its powerful - you spend a feat on it, it should be - but that it reduces strategy by having no counterplay, which just makes the whole thing dull. My current fix for Sharpshooter is to only let one of its features apply at a time. This way the presence of terrain is still interesting, by choosing to ignore it the archer is making a decision of accuracy over power, as they won't be power attacking.

In general I think ranged is strong, the ability to kite is powerful given the immense range of many spells and longbows. I think in general this isn't a problem, the problem is encounter design. It's only bothered me when I have battles in a wide open space with enemies that have poor ranged options, so one of those needs to be fixed. I'm likely going to start giving enemies long range attacks, that either do little damage or are firing from their long range, to offer a counter to attacking from high range, while still rewarding it (disadvantage on the monster's counterplay).

I'm glad you found it so helpful! :smallsmile:


but that it reduces strategy by having no counterplay

For the sake of precision I would note that it does still have counterplay, just reduced counterplay.

[Battlebooze]

Let me get this straight, y'all find one narrow area where some martial classes outperform spellcasting classes in Dungeons and Dragons and y'all wanna nerf it? If you are a martial class that is terribly good at killing single targets at a range then in all likelihood that is the only thing you're good at. A ranged martial class probably sucks at tanking, healing, support, blasting, diplomacy, traps, obstacles and magic. MAYBE they're decent at ONE of those things.

In my experience playing as a archery focused fighter with sharpshooter is that it looked better on paper than in reality. Melee warriors can hit more reliably and almost just as often due to flanking rules, and most encounters are not in wide open spaces but in dungeon rooms or magical mist or darkness or narrow passage ways. Monsters often have ways of negating martial classes wholesale and that includes the ranged ones too. D&D 5e is designed as a dungeon crawler and all of those cool advantages of being an archer go out the window.

To be honest if you take away sharpshooter's benefits you may as well take away bows and crossbows. Why would anyone play a bad ranged martial character when they can instead play a good spellcasting ranged character?

I was thinking the same thing. I'm currently running a sharpshooter Gloomstalker DPS build, Yes it is effective and fun. It's also not a cake walk because I have to use tactics to avoid getting trapped and pinned down. My character tends to be a big target because I can lay out the hurt on one single target. Lots of enemies is something I don't like to see.

This character though, is NOT more effective than the party greataxe bear barbarian than can walk into hordes and lay down massive smack while tanking more damage than I could ever dream of taking. Nor is he more powerful than the bard who drops fireballs and counterspells the casters. Or the healing Cleric with spirit guardians that is a walking death field and keeps everyone alive.

Sure, you could nerf martial ranged attacks, but then you would be taking away one of the few competitive martial builds.

[Segev]

I'm surprised to hear that. The ranges that make sense to me are <30ft, 30-80ish, and 80-120ish, and "longer than that".

In that rubric, Sharpshooter jumps slings and hand crossbows from "close range only" up to that 80-120 range, and everything else jumps up to "longer than that".
If I weren't already wedded to hand crossbow or to sling for some reason, that would not be my primary attraction.

For me, I want it on characters who are strength-based because it makes javelins and the like into something I can use when I can't close with the enemy instead (I know, close to 30 feet and throw, but still...), or on an archer because I actually want to be shooting at what you call "longer than that."

This has come up for me a few times. Anecdotal, but I never claimed my reason for finding Sharpshooter's long-range bullet to be the most attractive was anything but.

[greenstone]

As a GM, I dislike the power of ranged combat, especially the Sharpshooter feat, because the lack of counterplay (a term I just learned from this thread) means I get bored.

I can have fun putting my monsters behind cover and moving back and forth and so on (using all the scatter terain that I enjoy painting), or I can just have them stand in the middle of an empty field. It makes no difference.

In my current game I added morale rules, where players can do things other than "hit foe." In a couple of combats, characters sucesfully made intimidation checks to make their foes flee. Only for the archers to shoot them all in the back as they ran away. So, what exactly was the point of the intimidate? As a GM, there's nothing for me to do except just leave the foes toe to toe and roll the same dice every round until someone is dead. Boring.

If I try to add some tension by having foes bearing down on the players from a distance ("The warg-riding goblins charge across the field, spraying dirt and grass behind their charging hooves, screaming prayers to their strange gods!") the archer players just go "How far away are they? 600ft? Cool, we get 10 free rounds of attacking." Boring.

Boring boring boring.

I like this thread, it's given me lots to think about.

One thing I have considered adding is allowing crossbows to be fired while prone.

The disadvantage for moving also sounds good. Perhaps "If a creature used the Dash action, all ranged attacks against it are at disdvantage until the start of its next turn."

[Kane0]

I’m on the fence.

As DM, I cannot deny the power of a good ranged attack. The Warlock of the party is a considerably more reliable ranged attacker than the rogues/fighters and doesnt even use repelling. The damage output is impressive.

But on the other hand i’ve never really had much trouble getting my encounters into melee range, and the other party members are happy to close into melee too so that range advantage is kind of given up since not everyone is adhering to that strategy.

If the entire party focused on ranged combat this would probably change my mind, but even then i think i could counterplay SpellSniper/SharpShooter shenanigans with more cover, CC effects, more mobile or evasive critters, etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

If the entire party focused on ranged combat this would probably change my mind, but even then i think i could counterplay SpellSniper/SharpShooter shenanigans with more cover, CC effects, more mobile or evasive critters, etc. Orc Shaman with fog cloud is a start. :smallbiggrin:

[Kane0]

Orc Shaman with fog cloud is a start. :smallbiggrin:

So far they’ve encountered:
- Carnivorous plants
- Steam mephits
- Forest trolls (bypassed)
- Giant lobsters
- Sea drake
- Displacer beasts
- Leaping Redcaps
- Pack of Raptors
- Mummy warrior
- Zombie pack

So a few encounters where kiting was feasible, at least one preferable, but i wouldnt call it an overwhelmingly successful strategy. Honestly in this particular campaign their biggest asset to date has been swim speeds on two characters.

[HPisBS]

I can have fun putting my monsters behind cover and moving back and forth and so on (using all the scatter terain that I enjoy painting), or I can just have them stand in the middle of an empty field. It makes no difference.

In my current game I added morale rules, where players can do things other than "hit foe." In a couple of combats, characters sucesfully made intimidation checks to make their foes flee. Only for the archers to shoot them all in the back as they ran away. So, what exactly was the point of the intimidate? As a GM, there's nothing for me to do except just leave the foes toe to toe and roll the same dice every round until someone is dead. Boring.

If I try to add some tension by having foes bearing down on the players from a distance ("The warg-riding goblins charge across the field, spraying dirt and grass behind their charging hooves, screaming prayers to their strange gods!") the archer players just go "How far away are they? 600ft? Cool, we get 10 free rounds of attacking." Boring.

There's still plenty of counter-play options as is.

Have your OpFor duck behind dense undergrowth such that they have full cover at the end of their turns so that sharpshooter PCs are left either trying to navigate to a better vantage point or just readying an attack action, thus only letting them make 1 attack per round.

Have the warg-riding goblins include a druid or ranger that can cast Fog Cloud at 120 ft and hamper all ranged attacks for a bit. Or, a sorcerer that can put Darkness on a ring so that the heavy obscurement moves with them. There's also Warding Wind and Wind Wall. Or have the lead goblin be a monk (or just some version of Deflect Missiles), or have goblin-sized Gloves of Missile Snaring. There's plenty of counters you can use, even in wide open spaces - at least occasionally.


One thing I have considered adding is allowing crossbows to be fired while prone.

The disadvantage for moving also sounds good. Perhaps "If a creature used the Dash action, all ranged attacks against it are at disdvantage until the start of its next turn."

Those both sound fun.

[x3n0n]

Fog Cloud at 120 ft and hamper all ranged attacks for a bit.

RAW, does this work? Attacker can't see you clearly: disadvantage; you can't see the attacker: advantage; straight roll. No?

[MaxWilson]

As a GM, I dislike the power of ranged combat, especially the Sharpshooter feat, because it means I get bored.

I can have fun putting my monsters behind cover and moving back and forth and so on (using all the scatter terain that I enjoy painting), or I can just have them stand in the middle of an empty field. It makes no difference.

In my current game I added morale rules, where players can do things other than "hit foe." In a couple of combats, characters sucesfully made intimidation checks to make their foes flee. Only for the archers to shoot them all in the back as they ran away. So, what exactly was the point of the intimidate? As a GM, there's nothing for me to do except just leave the foes toe to toe and roll the same dice every round until someone is dead. Boring.

If I try to add some tension by having foes bearing down on the players from a distance ("The warg-riding goblins charge across the field, spraying dirt and grass behind their charging hooves, screaming prayers to their strange gods!") the archer players just go "How far away are they? 600ft? Cool, we get 10 free rounds of attacking." Boring.

Boring boring boring.

I like this thread, it's given me lots to think about.

One thing I have considered adding is allowing crossbows to be fired while prone.

The disadvantage for moving also sounds good. Perhaps "If a creature used the Dash action, all ranged attacks against it are at disdvantage until the start of its next turn."

If the goal is for the DM to find entertaining ways to mess with Sharpshooter players (not sure I recommend that goal but I sympathize with it), you can set adventures at night (so that foes 600' away aren't even visible yet), or use invisible or burrowing or teleporting creatures, or even just use more monsters.


DM: The warg-riding goblins charge across the field, spraying dirt and grass behind their charging hooves, screaming prayers to their strange gods!

Players: How far away are they? 600ft? Cool, we get 10 free rounds of attacking.

DM: Sure. Roll 2 free rounds of attacks and tell me what your damage is.

Players: [roll vs. AC 15, targeting the goblins] 232 damage after Action Surges and Battlemaster maneuvers!

DM: Well done! Congratulations! That's a lot of damage. You wiped out 8 wargs and 6 goblins, leaving only 16 wargs and 18 goblins, and 8 of those goblins are now on foot. Unfortunately... at the end of round 2, the ground rumbles and then two blunt-nosed, massive creatures with shark faces and enormous teeth explode out of the ground underneath you. You're now in melee with two 10' long shark-looking things--what do you want me to call them?

Players: Um, sharks with feet I guess?

DM: Yep. One bites Bob for 24 points of damage. The other jumps 20' in the air and lands on Sarah and Connor for 18 and 26 HP of damage respectively. You're both knocked prone unless you make a DC 16 Strength or Dex save, your choice. Reminder: your ranged attacks against the goblins have disadvantage until you get at least 10' away from the Sharks With Feet.


Now the players are in a fight after having already blown their action surges, with disadvantage on their ranged attacks, and 8 rounds to kill before the wargs get here and start killing them. What to prioritize, land sharks or wargs or goblins? It's probably not going to be a TPK but it's no longer simple either, let alone boring.

[HPisBS]

RAW, does this work? Attacker can't see you clearly: disadvantage; you can't see the attacker: advantage; straight roll. No?

Since you're heavily obscured by the fog in between you, the attackers would have to guess at your location. (The charging npcs would be making noise, which sorta gives away their location, but they'd be at a distance and multiple sets of feet would be pounding simultaneously, which I'd say should definitely prevent any kind of auditory pinpointing.)

[MaxWilson]

Since you're heavily obscured by the fog in between you, the attackers would have to guess at your location. (The charging npcs would be making noise, which sorta gives away their location, but they'd be at a distance and multiple sets of feet would be pounding simultaneously, which I'd say should definitely prevent any kind of auditory pinpointing.)

On the plus side, multiple sets of feet mean multiple correct answers to "where should I shoot?"

[MoiMagnus]

Since you're heavily obscured by the fog in between you, the attackers would have to guess at your location. (The charging npcs would be making noise, which sorta gives away their location, but they'd be at a distance and multiple sets of feet would be pounding simultaneously, which I'd say should definitely prevent any kind of auditory pinpointing.)

He is not contesting that part. The attacker have a disadvantage since they have to guess the target. He is saying that as per RAW, the attackers also have an advantage because the target doesn't see them: contrary to an invisible target, which is fully able to see its attacker and dodge accordingly, the target in the fog has no idea where the attack is going to come from.

And as soon as you have at least one advantage and one disadvantage, you ignore all of them and roll a straight roll.

[Though one could easily argue that "advantage for unseen attacks" should only applies if the attacker actually sees his target]

[Asisreo1]

Are people forgetting that Ranged attacks have no feat or feature that could account for the fact that enemies can just...go prone? For free.

Also, feats are extremely expensive. Hearing "X-bow Xpert+SS" makes me feel all this isn't even relevant until level 8 at the earliest. And they still took away 3-4 points of ASI's just to get these extra feats.

Also, melee attackers have much better AoO than Ranged attackers and melee attackers can protect their allies against ranged attackers on the enemy's side.

[LudicSavant]

Are people forgetting that Ranged attacks have no feat or feature that could account for the fact that enemies can just...go prone? For free.

There are actually a number of ways for Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert characters to negate the benefit of prone (or even turn an enemy going prone to their advantage). It's possible that you may be the one doing the forgetting, here.

[Kane0]

Are people forgetting that Ranged attacks have no feat or feature that could account for the fact that enemies can just...go prone? For free.

Also, feats are extremely expensive. Hearing "X-bow Xpert+SS" makes me feel all this isn't even relevant until level 8 at the earliest. And they still took away 3-4 points of ASI's just to get these extra feats.

Also, melee attackers have much better AoO than Ranged attackers and melee attackers can protect their allies against ranged attackers on the enemy's side.

A) In a lot of situations that's a blessing in disguise, since it costs half of your movement to get back up again.

B) Very true, though maybe earlier if you're talking Fighter and/or feat-race

C) The former yes unless they just have something else to use their reaction on, the latter can you elaborate?

[MaxWilson]

Are people forgetting that Ranged attacks have no feat or feature that could account for the fact that enemies can just...go prone? For free.

It was mentioned at least five times on just the first page of this thread, so no, I don't think we're forgetting it.


There are actually a number of ways for Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert characters to negate the benefit of prone (or even turn an enemy going prone to their advantage). It's possible that you may be the one doing the forgetting, here.

AFAIK all of those "number of ways" boil down to one way: heavy obscurement, and hoping the DM hasn't houseruled the "unseen attacker" thing to work more realistically when neither can see the other.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Since you're heavily obscured by the fog in between you, the attackers would have to guess at your location. (The charging npcs would be making noise, which sorta gives away their location, but they'd be at a distance and multiple sets of feet would be pounding simultaneously, which I'd say should definitely prevent any kind of auditory pinpointing.)

That's my interpretation, which maybe is a nerf of ranged attackers. If they are fairly close, say 30 feet or less I'll allow an attack, but at more than that I'll give them the general direction and say, "Which square would you like to attack?" If they pick the right one they get a chance to hit. If not, then no.
The raw where the disadvantage and advantage cancel each other out for ranged attacks is goofy IMO. Clearly it's harder to hit someone you can't see, and many misses under normal conditions are not based on the target dodging, but on the attacker missing or hitting armor. So the fact the target can't see the arrow coming should be largely inconsequential. So I don't feel bad telling ranged attackers, "You just don't know where the target is."

[greenstone]

…enemies can just...go prone? For free.

True, but being prone is bad for the prone person, particularly for monsters (who have much less ability to get advantage than PCs).

Full cover works, of course, but its a shame that as a GM I basically never get to use half or three-quarters cover - it is either full or nothing.


Also, feats are extremely expensive.

I hear that a lot, but I don't think its true. I've been playing 5E since it came out, a couple of games every week, and I'm not sure I've ever seen a tier 2 character without a feat. I'm pretty sure I've never seen a tier 3 character without one.

In the game I'm GMing at the moment (8th level) there are 7 players. 2 have Great Weapon Master, one has Sharpshooter. Another (multiclass paladin warlock) has Elven Accuracy and plans to take Great Weapon Master at the next ASI. In the D&D community in my city, this wouldn't be considered unusual.

[Kane0]

I hear that a lot, but I don't think its true. I've been playing 5E since it came out, a couple of games every week, and I'm not sure I've ever seen a tier 2 character without a feat. I'm pretty sure I've never seen a tier 3 character without one.

In the game I'm GMing at the moment (8th level) there are 7 players. 2 have Great Weapon Master, one has Sharpshooter. Another (multiclass paladin warlock) has Elven Accuracy and plans to take Great Weapon Master at the next ASI. In the D&D community in my city, this wouldn't be considered unusual.

I think it's more the opportunity cost of each feat and the grand total you can get rather than just having or not having one.

[Asisreo1]

True, but being prone is bad for the prone person, particularly for monsters (who have much less ability to get advantage than PCs).

Full cover works, of course, but its a shame that as a GM I basically never get to use half or three-quarters cover - it is either full or nothing.

Its only bad if they are in melee with another creature. In reality, a ranged attack-off would be something akin to both parties almost constantly in prone because that gives them both the highest likelihood to survive.



I hear that a lot, but I don't think its true. I've been playing 5E since it came out, a couple of games every week, and I'm not sure I've ever seen a tier 2 character without a feat. I'm pretty sure I've never seen a tier 3 character without one.

In the game I'm GMing at the moment (8th level) there are 7 players. 2 have Great Weapon Master, one has Sharpshooter. Another (multiclass paladin warlock) has Elven Accuracy and plans to take Great Weapon Master at the next ASI. In the D&D community in my city, this wouldn't be considered unusual.
I don't usually get feats until mid tier 2 for my characters because ASI's are the best things you can give your character. Permanent stat upgrades keep you versatile. SS does nothing out of combat and really only works for damage purposes.

Dex+1, on the other hand, gives +1 to initiative, stealth, saves, AC, Attack rolls, Damage rolls and Acrobatics (to escape). Half of these are of the effect of rare magic items, the other couple of these are great bonuses.

Con+1 isn't +1HP, its +20 HP as well as +1 for concentration saves and +1 for most poison attacks/effects.

STR+1 gives attack and damage but also lets you carry an extra 30lb of gear, lift 60lb more, +1 athletics (to escape), an extra 2ft on your long jump and an extra 1ft for your high jump. Also, you can max out your AC to high tier AC with only 15 STR.

Ability scores shouldn't be undervalued. Sure, optimizing for damage is fine if that's what you're going for but the game, even combat, has more to it than just damage.

[LudicSavant]

A) In a lot of situations that's a blessing in disguise, since it costs half of your movement to get back up again.

Aye. It goes even further than that, too. Prone doesn't actually give Melee Guy an edge over SS+CBE guy, because "attack with Disadvantage" is better than "don't attack."

And if you actually get to melee range, CBE guy actually gets Advantage against prone foes! That's right, prone grants advantage to attacks made within 5 feet of you... whether they're ranged attacks or not! By negating the melee penalty for ranged attacks, CBE allows you to exploit prone foes. So does Gunner.

Not only that, but there are a number of Disadvantage canceling mechanics in the game. Not only obscurement, but any source of Advantage will do this, as well as things like Wildhunt Shifting, Restore Balance, Lucky, etc, etc.

Not only that, but prone reduces your mobility, making it even harder to close the distance with ranged guy, who, of course can just keep shooting you and winning trades until you get there, whether they have Disadvantage or not.

All prone can really do is buy you time, and sometimes it won't even buy you that. What Melee Guy needs to do is engage with the enemy and drop or disable them before they can drop Melee Guy.

If you just drop prone... what's your plan? You can't reach ranged guy (unless you're already there, in which case you're handing him Advantage). And ranged guy can drop prone too. So... what, you're going to exchange volleys at Disadvantage? Ranged Guy still wins that.

[HPisBS]

Not only that, but prone reduces your mobility, making it even harder to close the distance with ranged guy, who, of course can just keep shooting you and winning trades until you get there, whether they have Disadvantage or not.

All prone can really do is buy you time, and sometimes it won't even buy you that. What Melee Guy needs to do is engage with the enemy and drop or disable them before they can drop Melee Guy. CCing yourself doesn't really help you with that.

Let's not forget that archery is supposed to use up bolts / arrows with each attack, so they should actually run out eventually. Disadvantage + high AC may be enough to hold out until the quiver is empty. Particularly if it wasn't full when they started, and especially if the archer's trying to use Sharpshooter's extra damage at the same time.

[MaxWilson]

True, but being prone is bad for the prone person, particularly for monsters (who have much less ability to get advantage than PCs).

Full cover works, of course, but its a shame that as a GM I basically never get to use half or three-quarters cover - it is either full or nothing.

This is a surprise to me because even though Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper are popular IME, I've never had a party where more than 50% of the party got to ignore partial cover, let alone 100%.

[Asisreo1]

Aye. It goes even further than that, too. Prone doesn't actually give Melee Guy an edge over SS+CBE guy, because "attack with Disadvantage" is better than "don't attack."

And if you actually get to melee range, CBE guy actually gets Advantage against prone foes! That's right, prone grants advantage to attacks made within 5 feet of you... whether they're ranged attacks or not! By negating the melee penalty for ranged attacks, CBE allows you to exploit prone foes. So does Gunner.

Not only that, but there are a number of Disadvantage canceling mechanics in the game. Not only obscurement, but any source of Advantage will do this, as well as things like Wildhunt Shifting, Restore Balance, Lucky, etc, etc.

Not only that, but prone reduces your mobility, making it even harder to close the distance with ranged guy, who, of course can just keep shooting you and winning trades until you get there, whether they have Disadvantage or not.

All prone can really do is buy you time, and sometimes it won't even buy you that. What Melee Guy needs to do is engage with the enemy and drop or disable them before they can drop Melee Guy.

If you just drop prone... what's your plan? You can't reach ranged guy (unless you're already there, in which case you're handing him Advantage). And ranged guy can drop prone too. So... what, you're going to exchange volleys at Disadvantage? Ranged Guy still wins that.
Prone, get up, Dash. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

You're increasing the distance you travel by ×1.5 and you're having them attack at disadvantage. Assuming the ranged user uses their action to attack and 30ft movement to run away, against an enemy that is 60ft away and has a 30ft move speed, they catch up into melee on round 3-4. This isn't accounting for the likely chance that melee enemies are usually faster than 30ft.

Bandits excel at range, Goblins are roughly equal for ranged and melee, Orcs can move up to 60ft without even taking the dash action yet (they also have javelins), Elementals are pretty fast.

So unless you're constantly fighting zombies, I don't see how ranged attackers can get away with any shenanigans when there are far fewer monsters with no distance counterplay than their are with them.

[Amechra]

One factor that needs to be kept in mind is that being further away from your attacker means that it's easier to get into good cover. If I'm 120ft away, you can kick over a table or duck behind a doorframe and benefit from total cover - if I'm 10ft away from you, I can deal with those barriers by walking around them.

That being said... I think Elven Accuracy is at least partially to blame here. It synergizes way too well with Sharpshooter, without there being an equivalent synergy for melee combatants.

[Segev]

As a GM, I dislike the power of ranged combat, especially the Sharpshooter feat, because the lack of counterplay (a term I just learned from this thread) means I get bored.

I can have fun putting my monsters behind cover and moving back and forth and so on (using all the scatter terain that I enjoy painting), or I can just have them stand in the middle of an empty field. It makes no difference.

Why not move from full cover to full cover?

[LudicSavant]

Prone, get up, Dash. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

You're increasing the distance you travel by ×1.5 and you're having them attack at disadvantage. Assuming the ranged user uses their action to attack and 30ft movement to run away, against an enemy that is 60ft away and has a 30ft move speed, they catch up into melee on round 3-4. This isn't accounting for the likely chance that melee enemies are usually faster than 30ft.

So, according to you, the melee guy is not making attacks for a whopping 3-4 rounds. This is significantly worse than making attacks with disadvantage for 3-4 rounds.

[Kane0]

That being said... I think Elven Accuracy is at least partially to blame here. It synergizes way too well with Sharpshooter, without there being an equivalent synergy for melee combatants.

Back when it was UA it could also be applied to Str attacks I think? It always irks me that it doesn't work with Str.

[Amechra]

Back when it was UA it could also be applied to Str attacks I think? It always irks me that it doesn't work with Str.

It did, and it only improved Dexterity, which I think reads better than "lol, this helps everyone but people who use Strength". I guess they went "oh man, this would be too strong with Reckless Attack", so they nerfed it. And it's still stronger than all of the other racial feats. Which is disappointing — I really want Orcish Fury to be good, but the fact that the bonus weapon die is only once per rest really holds it back.

[MaxWilson]

That being said... I think Elven Accuracy is at least partially to blame here. It synergizes way too well with Sharpshooter, without there being an equivalent synergy for melee combatants.

Elven Accuracy is only a problem IME if ranged advantage is easy to get in the first place. If you restrict unseen attacker advantage to melee attacks, Elven Accuracy still works against prone or restrained targets, but someone has to be close enough to do the shoving/constricting/whatever, and it typically costs either resources or increased risk.


So, according to you, the melee guy is not making attacks for a whopping 3-4 rounds. This is significantly worse than making attacks with disadvantage for 3-4 rounds.

If the ranged archer guy is backpedaling 30' for 3-4 rounds until the melee enemy catches up, and the attacker is moving 45' per round after accounting for prone, then the attacker started out 75'-105' away (75' if the goal is to make a melee attack on round 4, 105' if the goal is just to impose disadvantage andmake an opportunity attack), which means the melee ally is missing zero rounds or one round of combat Dashing while the archer backpedals, not 3-4.

[Segev]

So, according to you, the melee guy is not making attacks for a whopping 3-4 rounds. This is significantly worse than making attacks with disadvantage for 3-4 rounds.

Frankly, the fact that the melee guys don't have backup ranged weapons is pretty irksome. Why is this fight starting at extreme distances with one side being entirely melee? Did the archers ambush them? If so, that's fine, but otherwise....

Well, somebody, either IC or behind the DM screen, sounds like they screwed up, tactically.

[Asisreo1]

Frankly, the fact that the melee guys don't have backup ranged weapons is pretty irksome. Why is this fight starting at extreme distances with one side being entirely melee? Did the archers ambush them? If so, that's fine, but otherwise....

Well, somebody, either IC or behind the DM screen, sounds like they screwed up, tactically.
True. A melee-based doesn't mean a melee-only character. They can put some damage on the board as long as they don't just ignore the longbows in the weapon shop.

Even a character with a +0 in dex can use ranged weapons as long as they have proficiency.

[Amechra]

Elven Accuracy is only a problem IME if ranged advantage is easy to get in the first place. If you restrict unseen attacker advantage to melee attacks, Elven Accuracy still works against prone or restrained targets, but someone has to be close enough to do the shoving/constricting/whatever, and it typically costs either resources or increased risk.

I'm mostly just thinking about how it works really well with SS while doing absolutely nothing for GWM. You also have to consider that it's kinda immaterial how easy or hard it is to get advantage on ranged attacks "normally" — if you're in a position where you're taking Sharpshooter and Elven Accuracy, you've probably also figured out some way of reliably getting the advantage you crave when you need it.

[MaxWilson]

I'm mostly just thinking about how it works really well with SS while doing absolutely nothing for GWM. You also have to consider that it's kinda immaterial how easy or hard it is to get advantage on ranged attacks "normally" — if you're in a position where you're taking Sharpshooter and Elven Accuracy, you've probably also figured out some way of reliably getting the advantage you crave when you need it.

It works fine with GWM via Hexblade 1 instead of Str. (However, then you can't rely on Reckless Attack.)

Anyway, GWM and advantage is obviously better than SS and straight attack rolls. IMO the bigger offender here is Great Weapon Fighting. If a player wants to claim +2 to hit with two handed melee weapons instead of rerolls on 1s and 2s, who am I to say no? There's no deep fundamental reason for GWF to be tied specifically to damage rerolls.

[LudicSavant]

Frankly, the fact that the melee guys don't have backup ranged weapons is pretty irksome. Why is this fight starting at extreme distances with one side being entirely melee? Did the archers ambush them? If so, that's fine, but otherwise....

I couldn't tell you -- Asisreo chose those parameters, not I.

What I can tell you is that changing up the variables isn't going to suddenly make prone the silver bullet that asisreo wants it to be, because the principle of "attacking with Disadvantage > not attacking at all" will continue to be true.

Likewise, "attacking with Disadvantage with your primary schtick > attacking with Disadvantage with your backup weapon" is also true. And of course, reduces the mobility from 1.5x move speed to 0.5x.

Either way, you face a DPR loss in those rounds. Fiddling with the variables only alters the size of the DPR loss from these prone rounds, it doesn't make it so that there isn't one.

[Eldariel]

It works fine with GWM via Hexblade 1 instead of Str. (However, then you can't rely on Reckless Attack.)

Anyway, GWM and advantage is obviously better than SS and straight attack rolls. IMO the bigger offender here is Great Weapon Fighting. If a player wants to claim +2 to hit with two handed melee weapons instead of rerolls on 1s and 2s, who am I to say no? There's no deep fundamental reason for GWF to be tied specifically to damage rerolls.

GWF is indeed horrible; 0,8333 DPR in the best case scenario is just an embarrassment. I get what they're trying to do: heavy weapons should be about landing telling blows and since they already have dice, they went with making the most of those dice but the way GWF is written, it's obviously terrible with anything but two-die weapons (it should be percentile; reroll dice that are under half your weapon's die). It's also mechanically cumbersome and slow. I think some kind of Cleave-rule (if you drop an enemy, you can do the rest of the damage to another enemy; or if you drop an enemy, you get a free attack that doesn't take your bonus action against another enemy in range) could be thematic and solid for great weapon fighting.

But yeah, EA working on everything but Str-based attacks is another unfortunate thing - well, it's mostly because EA is the only actual to-hit booster in the game. This makes Elves obviously the only game in town if you wanna do damage (at least it means Vuman/Custom Lineage/flying race isn't always the optimal choice) and means Str-based damage dealing isn't actually a comparable option. Thematically I get it but there should be some comparable benefits for heavy weapons - and obviously hiding the top tier option behind a racial limitation kinda sucks.

OTOH Hexblade using EA with a two-hander doesn't really make sense thematically. Tho small correction: you need Hexblade 3, not Hexblade 1 (Hexblade 1 is restricted to not picking a two-handed weapon) to use EA with heavy weapons...and even then you're still fighting an uphill battle because you don't have a fighting style so archery still wins out comparatively (though Hexblade opens up Eldritch Smite which at least gives two-handers some burst damage - but that's restricted to 2/SR until level 11 and means you can't use your cool spells and can't be used with non-Warlock slots so it's not exactly amazing either).


Part of the flaw lies with GWM too though. The Cleave-part is pretty weak (since PAM already exists and does it so much more reliably) and it only has two abilities. I'm totally on board with Power Attack for heavy weapons (not so much with power attack for bows) but SS has 3 strong abilities while GWM has 1 strong (though not as strong as SS due to lacking Archery style) and 1 average/weak ability. The difference is obvious.

Of course, the real victim here is TWF, which doesn't even get to be brought to the discussion since its support is so horrid. Archery > Heavy >>> TWF. S&B is different enough thanks to Shield Master and shields in general that it isn't really a problem. I actually really like what they did with Shield Master though I also allow applying the reaction defense to adjacent allies and vs. any AOE damage (since many Dragon Breaths for example are Con-based and it feels kinda arbitrary that you can't protect yourself from a poison cloud but can from a fire cloud).

[Rukelnikov]

If the ranged archer guy is backpedaling 30' for 3-4 rounds until the melee enemy catches up, and the attacker is moving 45' per round after accounting for prone, then the attacker started out 75'-105' away (75' if the goal is to make a melee attack on round 4, 105' if the goal is just to impose disadvantage andmake an opportunity attack), which means the melee ally is missing zero rounds or one round of combat Dashing while the archer backpedals, not 3-4.

True, but note that if Melee Guy is sticking to "bunny hopping" towards Ranged Guy, and Ranged Guy has more than 1 round distance, then he can just take the Dash action the turn before Melee Guy would reach him, forcing Melee Guy to either lose some of the gained distance or take the attacks without the "advantage" of being prone.

Personally I don't think "you can drop prone at the end of your every turn" is viable argument as to why Melee vs Ranged is balanced, just because it makes no sense narratively. Rules should be there to represent the narrative being created by the Players and GM. Adopting this method of "combat" would be a clear case of rules driving the narrative. And while, frankly, that is largely impossible to avoid, I think there are different degrees of impact.

A spell like Spiritual Weapon is a noticeable pull for most Clerics, one may not have pictured their character having a spiritual representation of their deity's weapon fighting alongside them, but I'd bet most of the times, it doesn't enter into conflict with the idea one has of the character, and, ultimately, it only affects the character in question.

Now, melee combatants, or just everybody, because rangeds can do the same if they are not on the run, going prone every couple seconds to avoid enemy fire seems clowny, and only works in a turn based scenario. Narratively the character moved a straight line and randomly decided to go prone a couple times, he's not ducking out of the way of the arrows, he's full prone.

And if that becomes a semi-standard strategy for moderately "intelligent" foes, then combat suddenly starts looking very different from what I'd wager most people imagine when they think medieval fantasy combat. That is a clear sign that rules are geeting in the way.


(snip)

But yeah, EA working on everything but Str-based attacks is another unfortunate thing - well, it's mostly because EA is the only actual to-hit booster in the game. This makes Elves obviously the only game in town if you wanna do damage (at least it means Vuman/Custom Lineage/flying race isn't always the optimal choice) and means Str-based damage dealing isn't actually a comparable option. Thematically I get it but there should be some comparable benefits for heavy weapons - and obviously hiding the top tier option behind a racial limitation kinda sucks.

(snipe).

While I agree with most of what you said, I disagree with this part. Gating a "top choice" behind a racial limitations is good design, it lets different races shine at different things, and also if its available for everyone and THE "top choice" then its no choice at all, it becomes a tax, like Agonizing Blast.

The problem is that currently there are only 3 types of "top choice", those you listed, Extra Feat, Flying movement, Elven Accuracy. While I get the impression flying races are not commonly allowed at low levels of play, that made Vhuman mechanically superior to most other choices for the most played portions of the game. It would be nice if other races had comparable pulls towards them, either innate or attainable by feats.

[Eldariel]

While I agree with most of what you said, I disagree with this part. Gating a "top choice" behind a racial limitations is good design, it lets different races shine at different things, and also if its available for everyone and THE "top choice" then its no choice at all, it becomes a tax, like Agonizing Blast.

That could be true, but in this case we're talking about the primary way about 50% of the classes can contribute in the game. Such a broad area of bestness is certainly an issue in that it limits racial choice rather than enhance it. Further, this brings us right back to the pre-Tasha's where you can't pick the race you want for roleplay purposes but you pick the race you need for mechanical purposes because if you want your character to be good at The Thing, there's no alternative for the racial benefits. If there were different ways to reach similar results or the racial mastery domain were more restricted, that could be different, but as it stands, if I literally just want to make a damage dealer I should make it an Elf because Elven Accuracy.

Doesn't even matter what kind of damage dealer, advantage is a universal mechanic and the Only Game In Town for reaching decent weapon-based damage output and thus EA interacts with everything and makes you better at damage dealing regardless of your approach to dealing damage (other than spellcasters who don't use attack rolls, obviously, but even there the game has enough attack roll spells to make EA very lucrative - but at least you have options like Empowered Evocation + Magic Missile and various AOEs if you wanna do something other than EA).

[Rukelnikov]

That could be true, but in this case we're talking about the primary way about 50% of the classes can contribute in the game. Such a broad area of bestness is certainly an issue in that it limits racial choice rather than enhance it. Further, this brings us right back to the pre-Tasha's where you can't pick the race you want for roleplay purposes but you pick the race you need for mechanical purposes because if you want your character to be good at The Thing, there's no alternative for the racial benefits. If there were different ways to reach similar results or the racial mastery domain were more restricted, that could be different, but as it stands, if I literally just want to make a damage dealer I should make it an Elf because Elven Accuracy.

Doesn't even matter what kind of damage dealer, advantage is a universal mechanic and the Only Game In Town for reaching decent weapon-based damage output and thus EA interacts with everything and makes you better at damage dealing regardless of your approach to dealing damage (other than spellcasters who don't use attack rolls, obviously, but even there the game has enough attack roll spells to make EA very lucrative - but at least you have options like Empowered Evocation + Magic Missile and various AOEs if you wanna do something other than EA).

I understand what you are saying, but this very thread is about how SS/XBE is "OP" and how to compare as a melee you need PAM/GWM, those are 2 feats each, getting EA on top of those means you need 3 ASI's and you still haven't maxed your main stat, vs a Vhuman who would require 1 less feat AND gain 1 more feat.

I think extra feat builds are better in the lower tiers of play, and EA builds are better in the latters (talking about "same" build with or withaout EA), which again I consider good design, neither is the best at all tiers of play, and even when the usual on these and most forums is to make 20th level builds, most characters I've played went to around 7-13th level.

So I understand the problem of having choices that outclass the rest, but before the release of EA I actually felt like I needed to either ban Vhuman or give everyone an extra feat at lvl 1 to even the playing field. So in my eyes the superior choices grew from 1 to 2, which is not that great tbh, but the playing field was already uneven before EA, and even now I still consider Vhuman (or CL) to be the safer choice unless you are starting at higher levels (I still wouldn't allow flying races in low level games because I think they are totally broken).

[Amechra]

Personally I don't think "you can drop prone at the end of your every turn" is viable argument as to why Melee vs Ranged is balanced, just because it makes no sense narratively. Rules should be there to represent the narrative being created by the Players and GM. Adopting this method of "combat" would be a clear case of rules driving the narrative. And while, frankly, that is largely impossible to avoid, I think there are different degrees of impact.

Honestly, this isn't actually that weird. Sprinting in spurts and then throwing yourself behind whatever tiny scraps of cover you can find is pretty much how you'd cover a big open space under covering fire. Like, I can clearly visualize a scene from a war movie here.


Anyway, GWM and advantage is obviously better than SS and straight attack rolls. IMO the bigger offender here is Great Weapon Fighting. If a player wants to claim +2 to hit with two handed melee weapons instead of rerolls on 1s and 2s, who am I to say no? There's no deep fundamental reason for GWF to be tied specifically to damage rerolls.

Again, I think that you're ignoring the fact that people aren't going to bother to pick up SS+EA if they don't have a way to generate advantage when they need it. That's why people bring up the combination in the context of Samurai Fighters and the like. So it's only going to be GWM w/ advantage vs. SS w/o advantage against mooks.

As for which one is the bigger offender... they're both pretty bad, but EA was just the straw that broke the camel's back for me. It doesn't help that it basically enshrines elves as The Best Archers, regardless of what your particular campaign does with them.

[Rukelnikov]

Honestly, this isn't actually that weird. Sprinting in spurts and then throwing yourself behind whatever tiny scraps of cover you can find is pretty much how you'd cover a big open space under covering fire. Like, I can clearly visualize a scene from a war movie here.

Yes, but this isn't that case, its not ducking behind cover, which definitely is the expected thing to do. Its an open field, they are moving in a straight line, and still doing that.

[Eldariel]

I understand what you are saying, but this very thread is about how SS/XBE is "OP" and how to compare as a melee you need PAM/GWM, those are 2 feats each, getting EA on top of those means you need 3 ASI's and you still haven't maxed your main stat, vs a Vhuman who would require 1 less feat AND gain 1 more feat.

I think extra feat builds are better in the lower tiers of play, and EA builds are better in the latters (talking about "same" build with or withaout EA), which again I consider good design, neither is the best at all tiers of play, and even when the usual on these and most forums is to make 20th level builds, most characters I've played went to around 7-13th level.

So I understand the problem of having choices that outclass the rest, but before the release of EA I actually felt like I needed to either ban Vhuman or give everyone an extra feat at lvl 1 to even the playing field. So in my eyes the superior choices grew from 1 to 2, which is not that great tbh, but the playing field was already uneven before EA, and even now I still consider Vhuman (or CL) to be the safer choice unless you are starting at higher levels (I still wouldn't allow flying races in low level games because I think they are totally broken).

I agree, but that's just a problem fixing another problem. Instead of having one obvious top tier choice (Vuman/CL is overpowered due to design issues, i.e. ASI sparsity and relative expense combined with the high amount of highly desirable ASIs/feats for most characters) now there's two top tier choices, which is better but far from the desirable point where all races would have their ups and downs and to play a given character archetype you wouldn't be racelocked but each race would just offer its own version of the same setup.

Of course, giving a bonus feat on 1 to everyone (two to Vuman) helps as does decoupling ASIs and feats or allowing 16-18 on point buy/rolling but that breaks many other expectations of the game (e.g. being able to start with 20 Dex means that armor proficiencies basically don't matter if you go Dex-heavy), and it punishes classes whose special thing those extra ASIs are (so Fighter and Rogue). I ultimately think it's still preferable that way: I prefer having excess ASIs to put into various stats to customise the character (so it's totally okay to have a charismatic fighter who can be every bit as charismatic as the Bard) instead of just using all ASIs on the obligatory power buffs and extra feats to make way for the customisation feats after the obligatory ones are out of the way but of course, there's a lot of bad design there ("obligatory feats" itself is terrible design - it should be baked into the base chassis if it's too good not to take).

[Rukelnikov]

I agree, but that's just a problem fixing another problem. Instead of having one obvious top tier choice (Vuman/CL is overpowered due to design issues, i.e. ASI sparsity and relative expense combined with the high amount of highly desirable ASIs/feats for most characters) now there's two top tier choices, which is better but far from the desirable point where all races would have their ups and downs and to play a given character archetype you wouldn't be racelocked but each race would just offer its own version of the same setup.

Of course, giving a bonus feat on 1 to everyone (two to Vuman) helps as does decoupling ASIs and feats or allowing 16-18 on point buy/rolling but that breaks many other expectations of the game (e.g. being able to start with 20 Dex means that armor proficiencies basically don't matter if you go Dex-heavy), and it punishes classes whose special thing those extra ASIs are (so Fighter and Rogue). I ultimately think it's still preferable that way: I prefer having excess ASIs to put into various stats to customise the character (so it's totally okay to have a charismatic fighter who can be every bit as charismatic as the Bard) instead of just using all ASIs on the obligatory power buffs and extra feats to make way for the customisation feats after the obligatory ones are out of the way but of course, there's a lot of bad design there ("obligatory feats" itself is terrible design - it should be baked into the base chassis if it's too good not to take).

Yeah, I think a lot about how to incentivize more "uncommon" stat allocation (the extremely charismatic fighter) or taking more "ribbons" whithout breaking the game, and I have yet to find a solution that suits me.

[Eldariel]

Yeah, I think a lot about how to incentivize more "uncommon" stat allocation (the extremely charismatic fighter) or taking more "ribbons" whithout breaking the game, and I have yet to find a solution that suits me.

Well, 5e does one thing really well in that regard and that's give everyone a clear, easy cap that can be reached in their primary stat. If you let people get to that 20 main stat and then give secondaries, those could plausibly be placed in tertiary stats. For example, following leveling path:
Feats: 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 (á la 3)
ASIs: +2 on 4, 8, 12, 16, 20

Allow 18 on point buy. Now most races can start with a 20 and Vumans start with 19s. This way it's possible to use all those ASIs on secondary and tertiary stats without hurting your primary contribution, and you'll probably be able to take secondary feats soon after level ~6. Of course, this kind of a system would want better feat balance (in practice everyone would have Resilient, Lucky and Alert since those feats are too good not to take and the only reason they're not universal right now is that there are builds whose core competencies depend on combat feats) and the saving throw system would have to be revamped too (Resilient being a must-have is just a symptom of the saving throw system being terrible).

A more involved rewrite would roll PAM/GWM/SS/CBE/etc. into either scaling class base mechanics (fighting style) or just plain base mechanics of the weapon (depending on the exact feature) and then give feats that enable starting to pick those up, as a sort of a "multiclass feat" option (see Fighting Initiate, Magic Initiate, Martial Adept, etc.). That would obviously be better. Then just focus feats on customisation and balance them. Of course, given we have stuff like Keen Mind and Elven Accuracy on same footing, these ribbonish feats should probably just be called something else (perks?) and be given a progression of their own where you can pick those up, perhaps tied to skills (since they tend to lean towards the skill system anyways). This kind of dissociation would see to the opportunity cost being low enough to not be problematic, making for more variety without having to just slam more stuff in.

But 5e design is sadly very incomplete and making a rework like this oneself is kinda pointless since you can only play it with your own table - the amount of effort it takes is just not worth the amount of benefit you glean from it unless you can market it but that's just not happening without an opening as big as Pathfinder's at least.

[anthon]

...by which I mean that its terrible how easy it is to kill things from range in 5e. Pretty much no matter how you look at it, ranged DPR is only slightly behind melee DPR, and ranged DPR has other massive advantages, including:

Ranged play both enabling kiting and countering kiting. A melee character who wants to kite has to have twice the movement speed available AND be able to fly to kite and/or counter kiting as effectively as a ranged character. This leads to a lot of encounters becoming really really imbalanced really quickly, depending on who has more ranged DPR and/or who has more movement.
If range of engagement is high (basically any outdoor scenario) a ranged character can often get 2-3 rounds of damage in for free even if kiting is impossible.
Vast majority of monsters have limited ranged options meaning that this style tends to be very effective.
Target selection. Picking off the wizard in the back while everyone else fights the zombie horde.
The Archery style is simply more useful in t1 and t2 than almost any other style, particularly when combined with Sharpshooter.
Needs to worry about opportunity attacks, grapples, and other such things far less frequently.


For contrast, melee has the following advantages

works better against prone enemies (who aren't moving anyway)
don't need to worry about cover (circumvented by Sharpshooter, and ranged characters don't have to move any more than melee characters to deal damage)
don't need to worry about enemies getting into melee (Crossbow Expert and BA disengage circumvent this)
More magic weapon options?
TWF is sorta good sometimes (mostly for rogues and at low levels)


Now, I'm not one to argue that 5e needs to be a balanced game. Its fine if certain strategies are better. However.

Ranged play is boring because there are few tactical decisions beyond "sit in one place and loose arrows" or "run away and loose arrows."
Melee combat is relatively complex because lots more mechanics come into play in melee. Opportunity Attacks, reach, grappling, shoving.
Because throwing weapons are terrible, strength-based characters have little way to contribute in a lot of these scenarios.
Having to design encounters while bearing in mind that the party can and will kite the vast majority of enemies to death is annoying and limits a lot of "field" encounters.
Lots of classes and archetypes are heavily pigeonholed into melee combat and simply don't get to use their class features at range. Even if these classes end up being 'good' at range, (like the Kensai) it feels bad because you probably didn't pick monk to shoot arrows all day.


All of the above can be planned around. Maybe everyone just chose to optimize for utility or melee because that's their interest. Maybe you can design encounters cleverly, giving the enemy total cover, you can have enemies gate in directly behind the players, you can run incredibly quick monsters who can nullify the advantages of range, you can have time pressure that forces the PCs to approach... but at some point we're just falling into Rule 0 fallacy. You can fix any problem with lots of clever GMing, but wouldn't it be better to create a general solution before mucking about so much with encounters? I can already think of a few possibilities.

nerf ranged damage heavily. Ban Sharpshooter, drop EB down to a d8 or d6. The idea would be that although kiting would still be very powerful sometimes, melee would be more useful in a lot of other scenarios. The upside here is that damage doesn't need to be that much better for people to feel that melee specialization is worth it. Has the downside of potentially making certain other spells like Animate Objects even stronger than they already are. It's probably best to still have certain classes be able to dish out (relatively) crazy damage at range if they specialize heavily in that one thing, I just don't want it to be so easy.
Add a default action called "charge" that allows a character to increase their movement by half and make (one) melee weapon attack at the end of their movement. This would give melee characters a way of running down enemies who are trying to kite them. (ofc this doesn't do anything against flyers but that's a separate problem.)
Lower max ranges for ranged weapons and/or limit how easy it is to get huge boosts to movement. (or maybe cut their effective range in half if they move at all on their turn? But then this starts to look like 3.5....)


Not saying any of these would work great, but I figure that people here will correct me an I'll at least learn something.

Well, if you look at the psychology of damage, historically,

ancient man had stone knife, then stone spear.
before this time, man had rock, which was both a hand held melee weapon, but also a projectile.

thing is, in ancient rock times, clever man could push one stone or boulder, and then the boulder would roll down the hill, pick up speed, and squash his enemy under ambush. A variation of this was the Rock slide.

Range and Chain Reaction damage was born. Before fire. Before the spear. Before the bow.

Range has always been higher damage. Thats the kernel of the black mage. He sets up the original hillside boulders and avalanches.

You upgrade the technology a little, and the pattern repeats. You get to spears then realize you can throw spears. You can fit about 8 {Scrubbed} with spears stabbing the sabertooth,

or you can Wall of Arrows Wuxia the spears from range, and have 100 {Scrubbed} blacken the sky over the saber tooth with hurled spears, or later arrows.

You upgrade the technology again, and you got swords, but then there's Chinese black powder, fireworks, and cannons.

Explosives pretty much always do more damage than melee, even though they are also melee range, they AOE, like a claymore mine or a stick of dynamite.

The cannon damage from the 15th century includes cannons over 500mm in diameter and well over 1-10 million ft lbs of impact damage. We are talking instantly fatal to a T-Rex or Blue Whale.

So by the time you get to the Medieval Period, Ranged weapons, aside from cannons, also include things like crossbows and double bows, long bows and catapults. Ballista, Scorpions like the ones used to attack Dragons in Game of Thrones.

The big weaknesses of Ranged and AOE attacks are setup time, aiming, and ammunition, like retrieving or constructing, or price. The cost of the Faule Grete of 1409 was 1160 oxen, and they named it the "Lazy Grete" because it took forever to load and move, having a mass of 4.6 tons.

In modern warfare, these truths haven't changed too much. Diamond Cutter drill bits, cutting lasers, and large boring drills are melee weapons, and drastically more impressive than swords, but they still have inferior DPR to 20th century Naval Cannons or Fuel Air Explosives (ranged and AOE). But you can use a mining drill machine all day long to make tunnels, over and over. Cutting lasers can be used on steel plates for years with minimal maintenance. You can't say that about a bomb. It's one and done. The Naval cannons on the Iowa class battleships weigh 267,904 lbs (121 tons) and required a crew of 79 men to operate. Each "arrow knocked" weighed over a ton.


One possible way to think about balancing Missile Weapon/Range people is in terms of Maintenance Time, Maintenance Cost, and Initial Cost with consumables. Casting Time and Aiming time, for instance are possible, but then you have automatic weapons. A Katana or some other super Sword can easily cut a man in half, causing certain death in one hit, then do it again a moment later, repeatedly. But a mini gun, machine gun, or other 1000+ capacity auto firing weapon, like in "Last Samurai" will cut down charging samurai. Super swords are expensive, but they are about 20 times cheaper than their automatic ranged counter parts, and that ammo you burn through is incredibly heavy and expensive.


How that translates into D&D is up to you, like requiring your short rest time to repair the arrow heads, or having a large dump of treasure going to quivers of magical arrows.

Just remember ranged weapons have always had superior DPR, even in cave man days. {Scrubbed}

[Rukelnikov]

Well, 5e does one thing really well in that regard and that's give everyone a clear, easy cap that can be reached in their primary stat. If you let people get to that 20 main stat and then give secondaries, those could plausibly be placed in tertiary stats. For example, following leveling path:
Feats: 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 (á la 3)
ASIs: +2 on 4, 8, 12, 16, 20

Allow 18 on point buy. Now most races can start with a 20 and Vumans start with 19s. This way it's possible to use all those ASIs on secondary and tertiary stats without hurting your primary contribution, and you'll probably be able to take secondary feats soon after level ~6. Of course, this kind of a system would want better feat balance (in practice everyone would have Resilient, Lucky and Alert since those feats are too good not to take and the only reason they're not universal right now is that there are builds whose core competencies depend on combat feats) and the saving throw system would have to be revamped too (Resilient being a must-have is just a symptom of the saving throw system being terrible).

But that's part of the problem, if I give the players those stats and feats, they will just start min/maxing with that in mind, it doesn't incentivize the use of those character creation resources for RP nor does it disencourage from using them to further improve your combat capabilities.


A more involved rewrite would roll PAM/GWM/SS/CBE/etc. into either scaling class base mechanics (fighting style) or just plain base mechanics of the weapon (depending on the exact feature) and then give feats that enable starting to pick those up, as a sort of a "multiclass feat" option (see Fighting Initiate, Magic Initiate, Martial Adept, etc.). That would obviously be better. Then just focus feats on customisation and balance them. Of course, given we have stuff like Keen Mind and Elven Accuracy on same footing, these ribbonish feats should probably just be called something else (perks?) and be given a progression of their own where you can pick those up, perhaps tied to skills (since they tend to lean towards the skill system anyways). This kind of dissociation would see to the opportunity cost being low enough to not be problematic, making for more variety without having to just slam more stuff in.

But 5e design is sadly very incomplete and making a rework like this oneself is kinda pointless since you can only play it with your own table - the amount of effort it takes is just not worth the amount of benefit you glean from it unless you can market it but that's just not happening without an opening as big as Pathfinder's at least.

Yeah, having a different set of perks to pick from that focused more on fluff or RP stuff would be ok, but as you said its a lot of work and requires a lot of player buy-in since you are modifiying a substantial portion of the game. It works for long standing groups that probably already have their own heaps of house rules already.

[Eldariel]

But that's part of the problem, if I give the players those stats and feats, they will just start min/maxing with that in mind, it doesn't incentivize the use of those character creation resources for RP nor does it disencourage from using them to further improve your combat capabilities.

That's true, but once you get to the point where you have 20 in your main stat and 20 in maybe Con, you are left with no choice but to pick what you feel makes sense for your character. And even 20 in Con is kinda secondary, because all additional HP you gain is a smaller relative part of your total HP and thus less integral for your survivability (though still nice to have). I could certainly see putting something in Cha as a Fighter if I had the luxury of getting those +2s on level 4 and didn't have to raise my main stat.

Now, MAD classes like Monks, Paladins, Bards, and Bladesingers (and Barbarians if you want that Dex/Con AC of 20) are different in that they'll have some ASIs tied to raising their secondary stat and it would of course remove some of the interesting decisions from "which to raise" but OTOH it would put those at a predictable footing earlier.


Yeah, having a different set of perks to pick from that focused more on fluff or RP stuff would be ok, but as you said its a lot of work and requires a lot of player buy-in since you are modifiying a substantial portion of the game. It works for long standing groups that probably already have their own heaps of house rules already.

Indeed. Which is why I'd like a system that gets this kinda stuff right for once. Alas, I might just be waiting forever: it doesn't seem like either Paizo or WotC has the competence to hit all the marks right off the mark, and instead of iterative improvements they just throw the baby with the bathwater with every edition, so there'll simply be no iterative improvements to build on a solid skeleton (like 5e).

[Rukelnikov]

Indeed. Which is why I'd like a system that gets this kinda stuff right for once. Alas, I might just be waiting forever: it doesn't seem like either Paizo or WotC has the competence to hit all the marks right off the mark, and instead of iterative improvements they just throw the baby with the bathwater with every edition, so there'll simply be no iterative improvements to build on a solid skeleton (like 5e).

Well, we gotta take the good with the bad. 3e let you play whatever you wanted and ten thousand more things you wouldn't have thought of, but you pretty much needed a PhD in its ruleset and a dedication to make builds. Many a time you would end up spending more time making the build than playing it (in the case of a build intended to be played).

However, that also had the effect of "play a character as powerful as you want". So you knew that by 20th level you could literally nuke a metropolis from 200 miles away with a 9th level slot, or "charge" (more like let yourself fall on enemies) for ridiculous damage multipliers with titan sized weapons. But most people are not interested in playing any of that, and thus fall down to a level of power they consider appropiate, so, in a way, most characters were built with some flavor in mind.

5e is incredibly restrictive by comparison, but has an elegant simplicity to it that makes playing and DMing it so much simpler while retaining decent customization for the most common medieval fantasy archetypes, that I wouldn't go back to 3e unless I was stuck in a white void for a quadrillion years (althought with each book its less so, and the power creep is becoming increasingly evident with Tasha)

[Asisreo1]

I couldn't tell you -- Asisreo chose those parameters, not I.

What I can tell you is that changing up the variables isn't going to suddenly make prone the silver bullet that asisreo wants it to be, because the principle of "attacking with Disadvantage > not attacking at all" will continue to be true.

Likewise, "attacking with Disadvantage with your primary schtick > attacking with Disadvantage with your backup weapon" is also true. And of course, reduces the mobility from 1.5x move speed to 0.5x.

Either way, you face a DPR loss in those rounds. Fiddling with the variables only alters the size of the DPR loss from these prone rounds, it doesn't make it so that there isn't one.
Of course you're facing a DPR loss. The same type of DPR loss that would occur if the Ranged character has to start from melee position round 1 and especially if the monster was as-fast or faster.

Prone is a helpful tool because unlike when you're fighting in melee, there is no way to instantaneously give your enemy disadvantage without an action or bonus action. Its completely free.

Prone isn't the end-all-be-all of ranged tactics though. That would be dumb. Its a part of the various other tools a DM has in store that can sometimes shift the effectiveness around.

Like I said in the previous reply, there are hardly any monster without a true counter to ranged attacks and a DM definitely doesn't only have access to melee-enemies when creating even the most narrow of campaigns.

Another thing: Ranged characters cannot protect their squishier allies at all. Melee characters in melee ranged means that the enemy cannot merely attack with a ranged weapon at the cleric and drop their concentration. At worst, he must take an AoO before they use their ranged attack. But a melee character can even prevent that with a grapple. A Ranged Character lets the enemy do their damage on their desired target.

[Eldariel]

Well, we gotta take the good with the bad. 3e let you play whatever you wanted and ten thousand more things you wouldn't have thought of, but you pretty much needed a PhD in its ruleset and a dedication to make builds. Many a time you would end up spending more time making the build than playing it (in the case of a build intended to be played).

However, that also had the effect of "play a character as powerful as you want". So you knew that by 20th level you could literally nuke a metropolis from 200 miles away with a 9th level slot, or "charge" (more like let yourself fall on enemies) for ridiculous damage multipliers with titan sized weapons. But most people are not interested in playing any of that, and thus fall down to a level of power they consider appropiate, so, in a way, most characters were built with some flavor in mind.

5e is incredibly restrictive by comparison, but has an elegant simplicity to it that makes playing and DMing it so much simpler while retaining decent customization for the most common medieval fantasy archetypes, that I wouldn't go back to 3e unless I was stuck in a white void for a quadrillion years (althought with each book its less so, and the power creep is becoming increasingly evident with Tasha)

We'll only have to take them if an improved product doesn't come up. If some party published a 5.5esque system featuring the good parts of 5e (bounded accuracy, the relative simplicity of combat mechanics and advantage/disadvantage, ability score and ASI chassis, etc.) but with revamped class designs (e.g. martial classes with useful 12-20, fighting styles fleshed out, feats split usefully, more reasonable way to gain feats/etc., more interesting monster design, minionmancy revamped, turn action structure revamped, skill system revamped, etc.) I think it'd be a really easy switch to make. I think 5e hit most of the points in basic system mechanics (though few, such as the action system, could really use a facelift) but then totally dropped the ball in class design. PF2E meanwhile has a worse basic system (though a better action system) but way better class design (though there's probably too many options for sunday players and I could see dropping the moving levers to half). I think 5e with rewritten classes could actually cover most of the needs adequately but sadly since WotC is convinced that they cannot change printed things (though they still do it), fixing mistakes is impossible. Next edition will probably be too big of a departure again and most of the good will be lost while we get another set with something new good and something new bad to the overall same level of enjoyability.

[Morty]

Seems to me like there are two players to 5E combat. One is the intended layer, where you're going to do more or less fine with your chosen weapon style, and the other where feats come in and some combinations outpace others noticeably. It's not a huge problem if a game sticks to one of them, but when they come into contact, things can get problematic.

[Unoriginal]

Seems to me like there are two players to 5E combat. One is the intended layer, where you're going to do more or less fine with your chosen weapon style, and the other where feats come in and some combinations outpace others noticeably. It's not a huge problem if a game sticks to one of them, but when they come into contact, things can get problematic.

It's more that some feats and some tactics have more impact in certain environments and certain situations.

Getting Skill Expert for Diplomacy in a campaign that is solely about destroying outright hostile Undead in a catacomb from lvl 1 to 7 is not going to be very impressive (something IMO the DM should warn the player about immediately). Trying to Sharpshooter-kite while you're attacking goblinoids in their own lair is unlikely to turn well.

[CapnWildefyr]

...
Like I said in the previous reply, there are hardly any monster without a true counter to ranged attacks and a DM definitely doesn't only have access to melee-enemies when creating even the most narrow of campaigns.
...

Agreeing and adding on here:
I think everyone has forgotten dodge (unless I missed it). Dodge imposes disadvantage, which cancels EA completely, and certainly will reduce DPR for archers. Even if the PCs attack from cover to get advantage, after the first arrow flies, you can dodge and still close with the PCs. That first arrow reveals your position -- not even your first round of attacks, the first arrow. (Whether mechanically the targets have an action to use at that point is a different story, but they will on their next turn.)

I'm not sure if you're better using a dash action vs dodge, overall, too much math, and probably too situtational to determine.

Let's look again at the previous example of goblins on worgs at 300ft:


A worg can cover 300 ft using dash in 3 rounds, not 10 as was originally quoted (perhaps meant not literally) a few pages back. Big difference.
A worg can cover 300 ft in 6 rounds using dodge.
A goblin on a worg can SHOOT BACK using a bow as he's closing
A group of goblins attacking what they think is a weak group might be stupid and charge. A group of goblins attacking what they think of as a stronger party would probably using a different tactic -- something diversionary, a split force, planned use of terrain to take advantage of cover, etc
at the end of the dash, the worg can't attack but the goblin on its back can


Another point, building off of previous comments: An archer popping out of cover, firing, and going back behind total cover results in fewer attacks. The PC has to ready an action here, which means no spamming attacks across every target in sight. Slows down the pace of the slaughter.

Not saying the SS feat + gloomstalker + archer and etc are not powerful. I've DM'd them, and they do somewhere between 1,000-10,000 hp/round.:smallwink: But you can make encounters challenging regardless, without "meta-dm-ing" it to death.

[Unoriginal]

Like I said in the previous reply, there are hardly any monster without a true counter to ranged attacks



What about all monsters who start the fight within 30ft of the party?

[KorvinStarmast]

...by which I mean that its terrible how easy it is to kill things from range in 5e.
The Bowmen of Crecy thank you for acknowledging their awesomeness. :smallbiggrin:
(I refer to the novel published in 1966, by Ronald Welch; I discover that there has been a reissue during the 90's)

Let me get this straight, y'all find one narrow area where some martial classes outperform spellcasting classes in Dungeons and Dragons and y'all wanna nerf it? Come see the violence casterance inherent in the system. :smallbiggrin:

In my experience playing as a archery focused fighter with sharpshooter is that it looked better on paper than in reality. Our party's Ranger 3(Hunter) / Rogue 5(Scout) with Sharpshooter feat was a pretty reliable damage source except when he rolled a 1 or a 2 and just freaking missed. :smallcool: My brother (DM) eventually took a page from my book and began to rule "default to partial cover (+2 AC) for enemies in melee with party members" unless there was a blatantly open shot (not really a flanking ruling, but a step toward a bit more verisimilitude). I miss him; he decided to retire the character and try out one of the early UA warlocks (the one associated with stars).

Let's establish this first: do you agree or disagree that Archery style + SS + CBE + EA is better than all other martial damage dealing options? Sure eats feats, doesn't it? Then again, a Fighter has feats/ASIs to burn.

Do they actually have to keep track of ammunition at your table, or do you handwave this away and they can do an unlimited number of attacks like the melee-weapon users? Our table does. I do. Yes, that is a way to balance things a bit, but I think Grod made a point a while back about "balancing by making something annoying isn't great design" - however we do keep track of spell slots.
So, keep track of arrow slots. :smallbiggrin:

One thing, Sharpshooter doesn't negate cover. It negates partial cover. There's no reason an opponent can't do the old pop up, attack and duck back maneuver. Goblins being a fine case in point.

So far they’ve encountered:
{snip fun encounters}
So a few encounters where kiting was feasible, at least one preferable, but i wouldnt call it an overwhelmingly successful strategy. Honestly in this particular campaign their biggest asset to date has been swim speeds on two characters. Sounds like fun.

RAW, does this work? Attacker can't see you clearly: disadvantage; you can't see the attacker: advantage; straight roll. No? Not really. They are obscured. If you cast fog cloud and move 10 feet from your location, the don't know where the target is. If they shoot at last known location with disadvantage, that's usually an auto miss ... but I guess DM's can adjust that if they'd like to.

Full cover works, of course, but its a shame that as a GM I basically never get to use half or three-quarters cover - it is either full or nothing. When friend and foe are in melee, and are the same size, archers shooting into melee are dealing with partial cover. (+2 AC to the target) unless it's a clear case of "I have a clean shot" based on positioning or being airborne and shooting 'down' at a target.

I'm pretty sure I've never seen a tier 3 character without one.
I guess you never met any of my monks. :smallbiggrin:

What about all monsters who start the fight within 30ft of the party? What about orcs and their aggressive trait, which allows them to close rapidly and to make kiting bloody difficult? :smallbiggrin:

[ZRN]

It’s not saying that at all.

Counterplay is very much *not* saying that you shouldn’t be able to negate abilities. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is about the particular ways in which you do so.

Resistances and immunities have the effect of encouraging players to diversify their elemental portfolios, and adds an extra layer of strategic consideration to (for instance) Wizards choosing their spells. That’s a good thing.

There’s a ton of work done on this subject by fellow game designers, I suggest looking it up, it’s a great read! :)

To be clear, I understand the concept of counterplay and don't have a problem with it; I'm saying it doesn't happen to apply in this case because rules and approaches are (or should be) very dissimilar between the DM and the players. I'll use the "ignore partial cover" portion of Sharpshooter as an example here, but it applies to other aspects of the Sharpshooter and Xbox Expert feats as well.

Rules-wise, the DM should only very rarely be giving feats to NPCs (much less every archer baddie), so the PCs will never be incentivized to stop paying attention to cover.

Approach-wise, the DM should (IMHO of course) have his NPCs act in a way that best fits their in-game understanding of the situation, and (UNLIKE the Purity of Body example) it is very difficult to imagine a scenario where any NPC would have in-game knowledge that would encourage them to NOT seek partial cover when fighting an enemy with a ranged weapon. Realistically, if Tim the Ranger has a reputation as an expert sharpshooter, that would just mean he's always more likely to hit - not that hiding behind a bar or whatever just doesn't work.

There are tons of situations where counterplay is important in 5e, but this happens to be one case where the overall design decision to have NPCs and PCs built with different rules and abilities means that a PC-only feat shouldn't impact counterplay in the specific way you describe. I know you could argue that these feats flatten the game a bit by making it so a ranged PC doesn't have to play around cover and limited range as much, but honestly 90% of the time these specific benefits come into play, they wouldn't result in a much different gameplay approach. Like, if a guy's behind partial cover, I'm more likely to take the effective -2 to hit rather than get out of position to get a clear shot. The feat benefits just (a) get rid of added complexities that are vaguely annoying for some people to track, and (b) occasionally make the character feel like a badass.

[MrStabby]

I often hear people say (A) but the rules don't bear it out. Sharpshooter lets you ignore the worst kind of cover (partial) but does nothing against good cover (total). Prone targets still impose disadvantage against Sharpshooter (and generally make the -5/+10 not worth using), so you still need melee attackers to flush them out by threatening to hit the prone targets with advantage (unless there's no time pressure and you can just plink away at disadvantage and still win--but in that case Sharpshooter was irrelevant already).


This is where I think you have it wrong. Partial cover is the best type of cover. Full cover diminishes choice. The question around what to shoot at is taken for you. There are some things you can, some things you can't. Partial cover being partial cover adds a more nuanced tactical decision making process to the game.

Partial cover is also the best cover becuase it is something the whole party can interact with. Full cover basically is the realm of spellcasters or each player chosing where to stand in the terain the DM has gifted them. Partial cover involves the whole part chosing how to position themselves to keep open lines of fire. It involves pinning down other enemies so the cannot provide cover to their allies.

Losing the role of partial cover in the game has a deeper more deleterious effect on fun than I think you describe. It is not a small thing but an elimination of the way that most enemies have of interacting with ranged combat.



Not often, because it's usually not needed to go as far as hundreds at a time.

Early on, 100 arrows (5 quivers/cases) is usually going to be enough between "town visits". With recovery, that's roughly 150 shots. If you can strap rope to your backpack, you can presumably strap/store quivers to it too, you only really need one to be accessible at a time anyway. You can also give them to your party members to hold onto or take the noble background for retainers, if your DM is being an extra stickler about volume in a way I would start to describe as 'combative'.

Levels 1-4 you're using 1 arrow/round, and most fights aren't going to last longer than 5 rounds or so, so roughly 1/4 quiver before you need to restock the one you're actually drawing from. Levels 5-10 you're using two arrows/round, so half a quiver per battle.

And that's all assuming you're only able to have one 'accessible' quiver at a time. One on the back and one of the belt means 40 arrows per fight available, which is probably going to be enough even with 4 attacks/turn and action surging at max level.

At level 10+ chances are high they will either have a magic quiver (or bow that makes arrows for them) or some other extradimensional space that carry capacity isn't really any issue. A bag of holding is an Uncommon item, the same rarity as a +1 weapon. If your party isn't getting Uncommon rarity magic items at level 10+ then your martials probably have more issues than just carry capacity.

Ammunition does become an issue if you're on an extremely extended absence from any sort of civilisation without proper planning, sure. And if your player fails to prepare then that's on them. But between generous carry capacity, ammunition recovery rules and being able to craft them with tools+proficiency (which is not unreasonable for an archer to want) I daresay it is very very rarely going to be a problem.

100 arrows should do 200 shots if you recover half of them each time, so you acually need fewer arrows.


Am I the only one who finds the primary allure of Sharpshooter to be the ability to fire to long range without disadvantage? The other two are more than just ribbons, I acknowledge, but there are far, far fewer characters I have or would play who would even be tempted by Sharpshooter without that particular bullet. If you offered that bullet on its own, I'd be tempted, even knowing it's not really worth a feat. Offer it on a half-feat, and I would take it in a heartbeat, even without the rest of the feat. And I probably wouldn't take the other two on a half-feat in most characters I play.

I think it depends on the DM and the campaign style. I have DMed a few different campaings and found different aspects of the feat to be the powerful bit in different settings. Range is useful, no doubt but I don't think it is the powerful part in most campaings (though with a lot of outside adventuring/shooting from rooftops etc. it could be). In a campaign fighting against low AC enemies or with team-mates that can easily provide advantage then the -5/+10 bit rocks. I think that the ignoring cover part is the most powerful though (or at least most commonly applicable). However, this does show the strength - you have three abilities each of which would have made a perfectly decent half feat, and rolled them into one (which might actually be a solution - 3 half feats would at least take more levels to pick up and gate the most powerful interactions to a stage in the game where martials can begin to fall behind).




What are the real issues here? Like, I’m hearing the white-room arguments loud and clear, sure, but are people as GMs:

- Seeing players at their tables with buyers remorse because they picked a martial?

- Having less fun combats- I mean actually, not just in theory.

- Finding sharpshooters and ranged in general something that needs to be penalised because the feedback you are getting from players is “y’know, I feel like this is too powerful and I’m not feeling challenged”

- (blue text) agreed that Elvish Accuracy is a cursed feat and the *real* problem here, because I am tired of seeing it over and over and over again in every martial theorycraft! (End blue text. Sorry, on phone, can’t edit)

Like, I get the math of how in an ideal situation it’s better, I don’t need that proven. What I do feel like I need to see is that it is actually a problem here.

Yes. Or yes specifically to the "having less fun combats" bit. As a DM, combats involving sharpshooter are less fun and less tactically deep. My choices around where to position the NPCs to cover softer targets or to be covered themselves are eliminated. As a DM, I think it has a smaller effect on the fun of players - I can hae things like enemies run past the front lines to get to the archers to a) put pressure on/give disadvantage to the archers/casters and b) let the melee folk be awesome by getting a load of attacks of opportunity.

As a player myself... it has an effect. Most archers are mechanically pretty similar in practice. Same feats, same attack action. It is hard to play an archer differently if there is another archer in the group (with a possible exception of rogue). Melee has a number of different styles. Between not wanting to play something too similar to someone else, and also not wanting to have something too mechanically similar to a character that group has seen before, I don't play archers. If I add on top of that the melee options that tend to be outshone functionally by archers, then I rule out more characters still (so not a big fan of playing a twf ranger). The end result is that I play casters or a Paladin (which just gets stupidly over-the top amounts of great abilities). Every. Single. Game. They are fun, and I like them but I feel that the edge that ranged combat has whilst getting so samey diminishes the breadth of the game for me.






If the goal is for the DM to find entertaining ways to mess with Sharpshooter players (not sure I recommend that goal but I sympathize with it), you can set adventures at night (so that foes 600' away aren't even visible yet), or use invisible or burrowing or teleporting creatures, or even just use more monsters.

I agree with this - now it might just be how I DM, but I tent to throw a lot of night time or underground encounters at my party which, to me, doesn't feel unnatural or like I am targetting any particular PC but does cap this ability of the feat somewhat.




Honestly, this isn't actually that weird. Sprinting in spurts and then throwing yourself behind whatever tiny scraps of cover you can find is pretty much how you'd cover a big open space under covering fire. Like, I can clearly visualize a scene from a war movie here.


Again, I think that you're ignoring the fact that people aren't going to bother to pick up SS+EA if they don't have a way to generate advantage when they need it. That's why people bring up the combination in the context of Samurai Fighters and the like. So it's only going to be GWM w/ advantage vs. SS w/o advantage against mooks.

As for which one is the bigger offender... they're both pretty bad, but EA was just the straw that broke the camel's back for me. It doesn't help that it basically enshrines elves as The Best Archers, regardless of what your particular campaign does with them.

I think that things like prone are a great answer to sharpshooter (sometimes) but a pretty poor answer to ranged combat being too powerful.

Against sharpshooter the disadvantage makes the -5/+10 ability less useful, it doesn't need cover and if you are shooting back then it is just both sides plinking at each other with low hit rates. Maybe not the most fun fight but it brings the feat in line with others. Of course if the PCs don't also go prone then the enemy can pop up and down for their shooting as well.

As for EA, the benefits of advantage don't have to come from the archer character - playing with a spellcaster that can blind enemies or restrain them is fine.

I am actually very relaxed about EA. In terms of accuracy, it isn't such a big deal: what are the odds of a third die comming up with a hit given that the first two missed? It is really small and I would expect, even on a build that frequently sees advantage, for it to mabe only make a difference one or two times a day. In a game that has the lucky feat, I don't really stress about this. I see a bigger deal on things like Paladins that can smite on critical hits.

And a feat is a big investment. I work on the assumption that 1) sharpshooter will be the better feat and will come first. 2) If you are waiting till level 8 for your second feat you probably want to have an even dex score over that span as the +1 to hit and damage and ancilliary benefits are so big. This means that EA is a modest boost coming along in the mid game and probably with an effctive -1 dex bonus over what you would have had in its absence. Most of the time I think I would still prefer the +1 to dex bonus.

And elves being the best archers? I guess there are worse races it could happen to. So I kind of think that dex bump is better than EA and so elves only become the "best" archers after dex has been maxed and sharpshooter procured... and possibly crossbow expert as well. That said other races have a lot of other things going for them as well - they may be better more effective characters without being better at archery.

[Unoriginal]

What about orcs and their aggressive trait, which allows them to close rapidly and to make kiting bloody difficult? :smallbiggrin:

That is a good point.

[diplomancer]

As for EA, the benefits of advantage don't have to come from the archer character - playing with a spellcaster that can blind enemies or restrain them is fine.

True; but if we go that route, what about casters inflicting the paralyzed, or unconscious, condition when melee characters are nearby; unlike Blinded or Restrained to the target of a Ranged attacker, powerful as they are, those are usually death sentences.

[MrStabby]

True; but if we go that route, what about casters inflicting the paralyzed, or unconscious, condition when melee characters are nearby; unlike Blinded or Restrained to the target of a Ranged attacker, powerful as they are, those are usually death sentences.

Oh absolutely.

I guess my circumlocutory perambulations were not clear.

Whilst I think Sharpshooter is, after a fashion problematic, I see EA as beeing much less of an issue even considering the case against it was made missing some potential benefits.

[ZRN]

I've seen a few people ask on this thread but I don't think I've seen an affirmative answer.

Has anyone actually seen this supposed superiority of ranged martial attacks impact their game negatively?

I just feel like so few characters (rogues, rangers, and some fighters) are actually making a choice between ranged and melee styles that any imbalance isn't likely to really impact most games.

[x3n0n]

I've seen a few people ask on this thread but I don't think I've seen an affirmative answer.

Has anyone actually seen this supposed superiority of ranged martial attacks impact their game negatively?

I just feel like so few characters (rogues, rangers, and some fighters) are actually making a choice between ranged and melee styles that any imbalance isn't likely to really impact most games.

The only one I've seen is on the first page, before people started asking for examples.


Yeah i'm a minmaxer in a party of non minamaxers, and I play a paladin with PAM(will be sorcadin next level) and I thought I would have to tune him down so I would not open a serious-not-fun kind of gap with the others. Then a player who plays his 2nd character, a total beginner, chooses battlemaster-archery-sharpshooter, and gets 20 dex. We always laugh when it is his turn, that he has a shotgun and not a bow, as things usually die when it is his turn. He does not even remember to use his maneuvers or what they do. It does not matter.

I'm still having a lot of fun btw casting bless on him and keeping foes from him so he can obliterate everything.

Note that they're not necessarily perceiving it as negative, and that most of the group is not shooting for max efficiency, including the "offending" player.

[Sorinth]

Now, melee combatants, or just everybody, because rangeds can do the same if they are not on the run, going prone every couple seconds to avoid enemy fire seems clowny, and only works in a turn based scenario. Narratively the character moved a straight line and randomly decided to go prone a couple times, he's not ducking out of the way of the arrows, he's full prone.

And if that becomes a semi-standard strategy for moderately "intelligent" foes, then combat suddenly starts looking very different from what I'd wager most people imagine when they think medieval fantasy combat. That is a clear sign that rules are geeting in the way.

Agreed, and it's one reason Shields should probably do something extra vs ranged attacks and/or have some sort of "formation" bonus. If ducking behind a shield minimized the effects of ranged damage it would be more historically accurate and provide some tactical decision making especially if there was a "cost" associated with ducking behind the shield.

[Ratter]

This is probably worthless to the majority of you, but I was, for funsies, playing a wargame adaptation of 5e, and due to the fact that the bounds of the game were limited (it was maybe a 200 by 200 foot warzone), melee units were almost completely useless until I added rules for stealthing and infiltrating into enemy lines. Once that was added, melee units were not only useful, but completely necessary for fear of instant death by rogues.

[ZRN]

The only one I've seen is on the first page, before people started asking for examples.



Note that they're not necessarily perceiving it as negative, and that most of the group is not shooting for max efficiency, including the "offending" player.

Oh right, I forgot that reply. I feel like that's actually a decent example of what I'm talking about, though - the guy you quoted isn't actually upset, which makes sense because he's a paladin and can tank and heal and boost allies' saves and so on IN ADDITION to doing a bunch of damage.

[strangebloke]

Generally I'm seeing a few different sorts of arguments here:

A good DM can create encounters where melee character have things to do. True! But 30 foot corridors are not the only place combat takes place in, or even the main place. Narrow corridors make the tradeoffs less bad, but swamps and difficult terrain make the tradeoffs worse. And sure you can just not run any of those situations, but being so limited is a flaw of the system. I shouldn't have to only run encounters in fog clouds and sewers. I don't only want to run field encounters with orcs and mounted hobgoblins and air elementals and stone giants. Moreover, I'll point out that ranged characters still out-perform melee at shorter ranges (20 feet or so) because they can pick the most advantageous terrain. A ranged character can climb a tree or stand in a chokepoint or duck behind cover after shooting. A melee character doesn't have these options. The melee characters almost always are the first ones to go unconscious, even when they optimize for survivability.
Balance doesn't matter, its a non-competitive game. True! To an extent. But any time you have party barbarian complaining at the end of the 2nd round of combat that they feel "useless and weak" as the warlock and the fighter chew through ranks of enemies that the barbarian can't even reach yet... And then the Barbarian gets mulched while the ranged characters safely retreat... Suffice to say that this is a problem. The barbarian is being 'punished' for playing to his archetype as a result of the ranged characters trying to play to theirs.
This problem only comes up in white rooms. Not True! The above example has played out many times over the course of my games, and when it doesn't play out its because I've taken specific actions to limit this sort of play (including banning sharpshooter). If a player is optimized for ranged combat and plays to their strengths you will find that they frequently are able to set up situations where they can kill things from 600 feet. Any monster hunt sidequest, any largescale battle, any I've had players do this in Lost Mines of Phandelvr for crying out loud. Now you can argue that such people are 'problem players' but I strongly disagree. Players trying to make the most of their abilities are engaging with the game in their own way and their way of seeking enjoyment is valid.
Ammo tracking solves this. First of all, what if I don't want to track ammo? Secondly, tracking ammo doesn't solve the issue unless you're also using variant encumbrance. Even then, avoiding this issue is as simple as bumping STR by two points. This is pretty much just a Grod's Law solution, as many people have pointed out. Having enough ammo to continue kiting/firing is annoying but it isn't hard. Saying that players will not or should not do this is a silly attitude. Inventing some invisible "volume" rule for carry capacity is ridiculous as no such rule actually exists and reeks of combative DMing. Just ban the root of the problem!
The specific combination of SS + CE +EA is super resource intensive. True! But it outpaces build paths with similar investments like GWM+PAM+WARCASTER, and, indeed, everything else. Lower investment options like Agonizing Eldritch Blast require almost no investment but have no issue matching comparable options like a melee unit with a longsword. The problem isn't that Ranged character's damage is too high, the problem is that this damage is as high or higher than melee damage, while ALSO having a hundred other advantages.



Although ranged attacks are far more reliable than melee attacks, with melee you have more strategic options: grappling and shoving prone.
These are things that are only usable by some characters against some enemies, and even then they're situational.


If you're wondering "why am I not going after the damage?" It's because adding counterplay will already affect that a bit, and because if we nerf it much... well, people can always just jump ship to non-weapon-based ranged builds that are already competitive, unless you're planning on changing that too... in which case we're talking about a broader rework. But yeah, as is martials already need all the help they can get, so I wouldn't want to use more than a light touch.

I'm down for a broader rework. :smallbiggrin: But what specifically do you see as the problem here, outside of the obvious eldritch blast + hex? Most of the time I hear about ranged DPR it involves bows, EB, sneak attack, or spells like animate objects.



Oooh that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I totally agree that flavorwise, a crossbow should be a powerful single shot, while a bow should have the potential to be fired more swiftly and skillfully. If I were making a more sweeping change of that nature, I would also make guns simple and powerful but slow, too. Fire an opening volley, then fix bayonets or draw your saber!

Probably outside the scope of this thread, yeah. I strongly dislike the fully automatic crossbow being the norm. Imagine how silly Legolas' scenes in the LOTR movies would look if he was using a normal crossbow instead. shoot, reload, wiiiind shoot again, five times in six seconds!


Alternate idea: What if instead of making the melee characters pay damage to gain mobility, we built a mobility cost into the Archery style? Want the full accuracy bonus, move less. Think a bit like the Rogue's "Aim" added in Tasha's. Now you can work your way through cover towards a sniper's perch, and there's some actual consequence to them abandoning their position.
In general I really dislike abilities that encourage you to stop moving because of 3.5 related trauma, but this does work as a solution against kiting.



Another alternate idea: What if the Run action came back? (Its disappearance is why we have this weird thing where all creatures in D&D are weirdly slow in terms of real life speeds).
Run is great for monsters, I agree. It really feels flavorful too with wolves moving to encircle your party at frightening speed. Wouldn't this just be a dash action (but x3 intead of x2)

You'd have to fix mounted combat before doing this though.

Sharpshooter is a red herring, unless you're willing to eliminate cantrips from the game as well (especially Eldritch Blast). Sharpshooter isn't overpowered, it's just highly visible, whereas the opportunity cost is hidden (not getting to summon demons etc.).

Fundamentally, knives should not be brought to gunfights (ranged combat is genuinely better), so I prefer to focus on the areas where ranged combat is unrealistically good and bring those back into some semblance of reality.
You say this but this isn't actually true. If you can do a thing at 300 feet using one method and at 5 feet doing another, you'd clearly choose the 300 foot option most of the time, but 'realism' does not dictate that these methods need to have identical outcomes. In real-life history prior to the advent of firearms, pretty much all ranged weaponry existed as a means of gaining advantageous terrain. The most famous example of bow usage, Agincourt, is a perfect example of this military doctrine. The French were caught unawares by the British advancing to and fortifying a muddy hill, and were then forced to charge up said hill (or retreat after taking casualties and morale damage). The arrows inflicted some casualties, but most of the killing was done by men with pikes and swords after the (much fatigued) French reached the top of the hill. Similarly, the Mongols didn't "kite" their enemies so much as use archery and mobility to force the enemy to spread out and then crush them with a powerful charge.

Ranged play in DND is horribly, unbelievably, unrealistically good and anyone who's shot a bow can tell you this. Hitting a target from 150 feet with a bow, when compared to hitting that same target with a spear at five is much more difficult, far less quick, and has less force behind it. This is why most soldiers used spears and shields or pikes and armor. You couldn't kill an enemy army with arrow fire because they had too much HP and your archer's DPR was dog**** and 'kiting' though possible was extremely difficult to the point that the only people who managed it were raised-in-the saddle steppe peoples. The best you could do normally was gain incremental/morale advantages.

And, as far as that goes, almost no bows were actually all that effective against armor past a certain distance. It's all well and good to say that a longbow can throw an arrow 900 feet, but it isn't really going to do anything when it lands.

There are arguments for why a level one human with Xbow Xpert should be able to shoot a heavy crossbow twice in a six seconds, but they are not rooted in realism.

Obviously spells can be whatever you want them to be. I can't believe I forgot to mention cantrips and EB specifically as I definitely did in one of my drafts for this thread. Oh well. Offhandedly I'd say they're fine if you cut their range in half (barring poison spray) and get rid of Agonizing Blast, but I'm not sure. Overall the bigger thing would be to debuff ranged attacking in general.


(1) Don't grant unseen attackers advantage on ranged attacks. It's unrealistic and makes Elven Accuracy (or even normal advantage) too easy to exploit via darkness + Dancing Lights, illusions, etc. Only melee attackers should get that accuracy benefit, because being unseen means the opponent can't parry their attack. Denying the otherwise-most common form of advantage to ranged attackers makes melee tend to have a higher DPR than ranged combat, which in turn makes melee better at protecting squishies (kill bad guys faster AND control them with your opportunity attacks and physical presence). The resulting dynamic both reflects reality (bodyguards do not act like snipers) and helps melee players feel there's a point to their existence.

This makes a lot of sense thanks.


(2) Revamp monsters if possible to have higher speed and longer range on special abilities. Does Medusa's petrification really need to be restricted to only 30'? Do wolves really need to move only 50' per round? Can we give the Tarrasque a burrowing speed as a defense against kiting? Can we give Tiamat a way to cast Teleport if needed? Cthulhu 5E monsters are pretty good at this but most WotC 5E monsters are not.
This is pretty easy to do on a case-by-case basis and probably happens a lot by accident when DM's forget that (for example) Medusa's range is so low. Still, I'd consider this a case-by case fix. I do like Ludic's idea of buffing dashing, since that leads to fun scenarios like wolves encircling you on turn 1.

(3) Revamping mounted combat doesn't hurt, although it affects both melee and ranged equally and is somewhat redundant with point #2. But it is kind of logically offensive for a centaur to be worse at cavalry tactics than a human on a horse, so sure, why not? Segev's rule looks pretty good to me although I question the logic of the damage interception bit especially for psychic damage.
HP is mutable anyway, I'm not fussed over it. I usually think of it as "luck + meat" and in that context its fine... but to each their own, this is definitely a preference thing.

The other option is just to have the mount be constantly dodging, but benefiting from your disengage if you choose to take that action.


(4) Accuracy penalty based on range is already modeled by disadvantage. What's missing is a penalty based on target speed. Archery fire against an individual moving target should NOT be highly effective at 200 yards. Massed archery fire yes, stationary targets yes, individual moving targets no. This is the biggest unrealistic advantage ranged combat has in 5. All its other advantages are about bringing a gun to a gunfight, but the simplistic attack rules make it more like bringing a guided missile to a gunfight. Unfortunately, speed-based penalties are more a GURPS thing than a D&D thing, so perhaps there's nothing to be done within the 5E idiom. #1 - #3 might have to suffice.

From a simulation perspective I think its plenty unrealistic for a character with SS or Eldritch Spear to be just as accurate at 300-600 feet as they are at 10. You might then say that everything is fixed if we halve the range of all spells and weapons, but I would still disagree. Disadvantage is one simple, very punishing mechanic that doesn't stack with other downsides and leads to silly situations.

Inaccuracy based on movement speed is accounted for in the system in a sense. The vast majority of creatures with fast movement speeds are either very large or have high dexterity which correlates to higher AC. In any case this is completely unworkable in a DND paradigm.


I often hear people say (A) but the rules don't bear it out. Sharpshooter lets you ignore the worst kind of cover (partial) but does nothing against good cover (total). Prone targets still impose disadvantage against Sharpshooter (and generally make the -5/+10 not worth using), so you still need melee attackers to flush them out by threatening to hit the prone targets with advantage (unless there's no time pressure and you can just plink away at disadvantage and still win--but in that case Sharpshooter was irrelevant already).
Partial cover comes up very frequently in my games for two reasons

Anyone standing behind another creature has partial cover, so its very very common in the context of a dungeon fight.
Stuff that's inherently impossible to fully hide behind like bushes or narrow saplings. (or if this is a large monster, full size trees)

I wouldn't say that SS removes all counterplay, but it does remove a lot of it. I don't think anyone is asserting that SS allows you to hit people you literally cannot see.

[MaxWilson]

I've seen a few people ask on this thread but I don't think I've seen an affirmative answer.

Has anyone actually seen this supposed superiority of ranged martial attacks impact their game negatively?

I just feel like so few characters (rogues, rangers, and some fighters) are actually making a choice between ranged and melee styles that any imbalance isn't likely to really impact most games.

I've had a player approach me, unhappy about the difficulty his 14th level Barbarian was having engaging the enemy. I gave him what advice I could, including sneaking, but I also had to admit to him that Barbarians bring knives to gunfights and that 5E is to a great extent D&D: Gunfight Edition. The Barbarian wasn't his only PC (he already alternated it with a multiclassed Moon Druid/Monk) but it got less play going forward, and the player spent time leveling a Fiendlock up to level 7 before the campaign eventually ended. BTW this is an example of a campaign where the players "lost the game" (their solution to the initial campaign plot hook of "invading hobgoblin army" had unintended side effects, and eventually their whole planet got conquered by space orcs) but had the majority of their fun after that (leading NPC refugees to find a new home), IIRC. Not everyone wants to save the world; some people apparently have more fun after it ends. :)

[GeneralVryth]

Agreed, and it's one reason Shields should probably do something extra vs ranged attacks and/or have some sort of "formation" bonus. If ducking behind a shield minimized the effects of ranged damage it would be more historically accurate and provide some tactical decision making especially if there was a "cost" associated with ducking behind the shield.

What about something simple like, when you use the Dodge action while using a shield you have 3/4 cover against ranged attacks (if you already have 3/4 cover you instead gain full cover)? Combine that with the suggestion earlier in the thread to modify things that ignore partial cover to instead just reduce the bonus by half +2/+5 to +1/+2 and it seems like you can add a few different avenues of counter-play into ranged combat without much trouble.

[ZRN]

Balance doesn't matter, its a non-competitive game. True! To an extent. But any time you have party barbarian complaining at the end of the 2nd round of combat that they feel "useless and weak" as the warlock and the fighter chew through ranks of enemies that the barbarian can't even reach yet... And then the Barbarian gets mulched while the ranged characters safely retreat... Suffice to say that this is a problem. The barbarian is being 'punished' for playing to his archetype as a result of the ranged characters trying to play to theirs.


It sounds like the DM is allowing the players to consistently set up scenarios that reward these "hit and fade" tactics, which I feel would be a problem even with rules changes to nerf ranged damage. Like, if my archer is consistently able to shoot a bunch of guys from range and then run away before they can close ranks with me, why would I ever try any other tactic? I'd think the approach here would be to more frequently include barriers to that kind of ambush: fog clouds and twisty corridors, sure, but also just effective enemy scouts, enemies who flee or scatter or take cover rather than running into a hail of arrows, measures to prevent the archers from fleeing, etc.

[ZRN]

I've had a player approach me, unhappy about the difficulty his 14th level Barbarian was having engaging the enemy. I gave him what advice I could, including sneaking, but I also had to admit to him that Barbarians bring knives to gunfights and that 5E is to a great extent D&D: Gunfight Edition. The Barbarian wasn't his only PC (he already alternated it with a multiclassed Moon Druid/Monk) but it got less play going forward, and the player spent time leveling a Fiendlock up to level 7 before the campaign eventually ended.

I can definitely see this, and barbarians are probably the worst off if they don't take a lot of specific steps to improve their mobility.

[HPisBS]

I like the houserule idea of Dashing imposing disadvantage on ranged attacks against / by that creature for a round.


Again, I think that you're ignoring the fact that people aren't going to bother to pick up SS+EA if they don't have a way to generate advantage when they need it. That's why people bring up the combination in the context of Samurai Fighters and the like. So it's only going to be GWM w/ advantage vs. SS w/o advantage against mooks.

Speaking of, what are the go-to ways for archers to consistently get advantage?

Rogues: Hide as a bonus action.
Rangers: Ensnaring Strike / Entangle? (requires the PC to not concentrate on Hunter's Mark, etc)
Fighters: ... teamwork?


As said previously, RAW obscurement tends to cause straight attack rolls (unless you grabbed Blind Fighting and are w/in 10 ft of the target, or grabbed Devil's Sight and have a source of Darkness), so I'm not seeing many surefire ways for a dedicated archer to abuse Elven Accuracy on their own (except for Rogues).

[Sorinth]

What about something simple like, when you use the Dodge action while using a shield you have 3/4 cover against ranged attacks (if you already have 3/4 cover you instead gain full cover)? Combine that with the suggestion earlier in the thread to modify things that ignore partial cover to instead just reduce the bonus by half +2/+5 to +1/+2 and it seems like you can add a few different avenues of counter-play into ranged combat without much trouble.

The one problem with that is that by taking using up your action you can't close the distance (Assuming both sides have the same movement speed). You kind of still have to be able to take the Dash action in order to close the gap.

I haven't fully thought it through but maybe instead of an AC bonus the shield just always increases cover by one category. So normally without cover you get the +2 AC, but then if you find partial cover it's +5, and if you find 3/4 you have total cover. You could still change the cover busting rules of SS if you wanted but it might not be as necessary.

[Morty]

A good DM can create encounters where melee character have things to do.[/B] True! But 30 foot corridors are not the only place combat takes place in, or even the main place. Narrow corridors make the tradeoffs less bad, but swamps and difficult terrain make the tradeoffs worse. And sure you can just not run any of those situations, but being so limited is a flaw of the system. I shouldn't have to only run encounters in fog clouds and sewers. I don't only want to run field encounters with orcs and mounted hobgoblins and air elementals and stone giants. Moreover, I'll point out that ranged characters still out-perform melee at shorter ranges (20 feet or so) because they can pick the most advantageous terrain. A ranged character can climb a tree or stand in a chokepoint or duck behind cover after shooting. A melee character doesn't have these options. The melee characters almost always are the first ones to go unconscious, even when they optimize for survivability.

That's kind of my answer to many "but the GM can just run it like X" argument. Yes, they can, but every time the GM has to adjust their encounters to account for a particular kind of character, their options narrow. And somehow it's never necessary to do this for Urist the dwarf fighter with an axe and a shield.

[Sorinth]

Ranged play in DND is horribly, unbelievably, unrealistically good and anyone who's shot a bow can tell you this. Hitting a target from 150 feet with a bow, when compared to hitting that same target with a spear at five is much more difficult, far less quick, and has less force behind it. This is why most soldiers used spears and shields or pikes and armor. You couldn't kill an enemy army with arrow fire because they had too much HP and your archer's DPR was dog**** and 'kiting' though possible was extremely difficult to the point that the only people who managed it were raised-in-the saddle steppe peoples. The best you could do normally was gain incremental/morale advantages.

And, as far as that goes, almost no bows were actually all that effective against armor past a certain distance. It's all well and good to say that a longbow can throw an arrow 900 feet, but it isn't really going to do anything when it lands.

The main issue is that for a lot of people when they make a ranged character they are taking inspiration from Robin Hood or Legolas where unrealistic archery is expected. And it can work so long as these unrealistic abilities are feat locked and the PCs are supposed to be super special.

[quindraco]

I like the houserule idea of Dashing imposing disadvantage on ranged attacks against / by that creature for a round.



Speaking of, what are the go-to ways for archers to consistently get advantage?

Rogues: Hide as a bonus action.
Rangers: Ensnaring Strike? (requires the PC to not concentrate on Hunter's Mark, etc)
Fighters: ... teamwork?


As said previously, RAW obscurement tends to cause straight attack rolls (unless you grabbed Blind Fighting and are w/in 10 ft of the target, or grabbed Devil's Sight and have a source of Darkness), so I'm not seeing many surefire ways for a dedicated archer to abuse Elven Accuracy on their own (except for Rogues).

I'd guess part of this is a refusal to partake in 5E's best way for a melee squad to approach an archer squad, which is to do the worm: it is 100% worth cutting the speed of the squad in half (so it takes twice as many shots!) to have the melee squad fall over at the end of its go (assuming shared initiative for simplicity) and give the archers disadvantage, especially if you're taking fire from rogues.

Mind you, this isn't as effective as when you have enough squad members to put minor illusions in front of the front line, so the archers don't have line of sight without spending their action to Investigate.

[strangebloke]

I've had a player approach me, unhappy about the difficulty his 14th level Barbarian was having engaging the enemy. I gave him what advice I could, including sneaking, but I also had to admit to him that Barbarians bring knives to gunfights and that 5E is to a great extent D&D: Gunfight Edition. The Barbarian wasn't his only PC (he already alternated it with a multiclassed Moon Druid/Monk) but it got less play going forward, and the player spent time leveling a Fiendlock up to level 7 before the campaign eventually ended. BTW this is an example of a campaign where the players "lost the game" (their solution to the initial campaign plot hook of "invading hobgoblin army" had unintended side effects, and eventually their whole planet got conquered by space orcs) but had the majority of their fun after that (leading NPC refugees to find a new home), IIRC. Not everyone wants to save the world; some people apparently have more fun after it ends. :)
I had a barbarian get forcibly retired around level nine for this same reason. In that same game, a few sessions later, the monk used their speed to chase down an enemy... and got killed by a banshee for their trouble. (this was a game without res... RIP Yael.) In this game we also Nothing

It sounds like the DM is allowing the players to consistently set up scenarios that reward these "hit and fade" tactics, which I feel would be a problem even with rules changes to nerf ranged damage. Like, if my archer is consistently able to shoot a bunch of guys from range and then run away before they can close ranks with me, why would I ever try any other tactic? I'd think the approach here would be to more frequently include barriers to that kind of ambush: fog clouds and twisty corridors, sure, but also just effective enemy scouts, enemies who flee or scatter or take cover rather than running into a hail of arrows, measures to prevent the archers from fleeing, etc.
Yeah, shame on that DM for.... allowing players to proactively set up situations that benefit them?

Realtalk but I run sandbox campaigns about as often as I run scripted ones, and in sandbox campaigns, players will want to fight in melee.

I can definitely see this, and barbarians are probably the worst off if they don't take a lot of specific steps to improve their mobility.
It's a trap though. Like you can get a source of flying and put a lot of resources into mitigating CC and a few other things....

...to equal what the ranged characters are doing with less investment.

[HPisBS]

The main issue is that for a lot of people when they make a ranged character they are taking inspiration from Robin Hood or Legolas where unrealistic archery is expected. And it can work so long as these unrealistic abilities are feat locked and the PCs are supposed to be super special.

As opposed to the wizard / sorcerer / bard / druid / warlock where unrealistic world-shaking (sometimes literally (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/earthquake)) spellcasting is expected? Should that be feat locked, too? :smallconfused:

[jas61292]

As opposed to the wizard / sorcerer / bard / druid / warlock where unrealistic world-shaking (sometimes literally (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/earthquake)) spellcasting is expected? Should that be feat locked, too? :smallconfused:

Yes. Though that is a whole different conversation.

There should be a base balance between different types of characters, with each having advantages and disadvantages. Getting around some of the disadvantages is a perfect design space for a feat, so long as it doesn't go too far (looking at you, Sharpshooter).

[HPisBS]

Yes. Though that is a whole different conversation.

There should be a base balance between different types of characters, with each having advantages and disadvantages. Getting around some of the disadvantages is a perfect design space for a feat, so long as it doesn't go too far (looking at you, Sharpshooter).

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree. Half of all classes get 9th level spells, while half of the remaining classes get up to 5th level. It's expected - and appropriate - for such stuff to be epic. PCs are supposed to be epic in general, once they reach high levels.

Don't nerf OP options; buff weak ones instead. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsC8io4w1sY&t=255s) (Good video game devs understand this.)

Martials need buffs. It's just that melee-focused martials might need a little more of a buff than ranged ones do.

[strangebloke]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree. Half of all classes get 9th level spells, while half of the remaining classes get up to 5th level. It's expected - and appropriate - for such stuff to be epic. PCs are supposed to be epic in general, once they reach high levels.

Don't nerf OP options; buff weak ones instead. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsC8io4w1sY&t=255s) (Good video game devs understand this.)

Ah I see we have another man of taste and culture.

I generally agree with the premise as outlined, I just object to arguing that ranged play has to be better because of realism. If you want to argue that Legolas as he appears in the PJ movies should be playable by t2 at the latest then I will agree.

Really I'd prefer to make minor changes to the entire system such that most ranged PCs play normally within moderate-to-normal ranges but melee characters feel way stronger at long ranges and feel stronger at close ranges. I'll come up with a revised list of proposals at some point

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I've seen a few people ask on this thread but I don't think I've seen an affirmative answer.

Has anyone actually seen this supposed superiority of ranged martial attacks impact their game negatively?

I just feel like so few characters (rogues, rangers, and some fighters) are actually making a choice between ranged and melee styles that any imbalance isn't likely to really impact most games.

Short answer: No.
Longer answer: I think that is somewhat dependent on 3 things
1) Some (more minor than has been suggested by the OP) rules changes/ interpretations that might limit ranged characters
2) Intelligent DMing that provides opportunites for everyone to shine
3) As a couple of other posters have said, while ranged might be good, it's pretty boring and 'samey', so our players aren't that interested in it, at least not to the point where we've ever had a party based on it. And the reality is you kind of have to build an entire party around it, or you could end up with a single martial or slow caster getting swarmed.

[Sorinth]

As opposed to the wizard / sorcerer / bard / druid / warlock where unrealistic world-shaking (sometimes literally (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/earthquake)) spellcasting is expected? Should that be feat locked, too? :smallconfused:

They are locked to PC classes so it amounts to the same thing. It will be very rare to find people capable of doing that stuff. A small selection of PCs and NPCs are able to do unbelievable things because they are super special.

[jas61292]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree. Half of all classes get 9th level spells, while half of the remaining classes get up to 5th level. It's expected - and appropriate - for such stuff to be epic. PCs are supposed to be epic in general, once they reach high levels.

Don't nerf OP options; buff weak ones instead. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsC8io4w1sY&t=255s) (Good video game devs understand this.)

Martials need buffs. It's just that melee-focused martials might need a little more of a buff than ranged ones do.

See, I've heard the exact opposite. "Don't nerf. Buff." is a mantra very popular with players, but I have read strong critiques of it, almost exclusively from devs. And the reason is simple. Games contain many different complex systems. If elements of one system are out of balance, the best and easiest thing to do is to fix that one element, which often means nerfing the thing that is too strong (but could mean buffing something that is too weak).

The issue with always buffing is that the player facing systems are just one element of the game. Other systems interact with that system, and have certain expectations from it. If your solution to some elements in one system being out of balance is to make it so that all the other elements in that system are equally out of balance, than on the surface it might seem like you fixed the problem, but in reality, you just created even deeper issues. You now need to rebalance all of the games other systems to fit the new norm, which is a massively larger amount of work.

In D&D terms, if some classes or builds are too strong, it is not simply because they outshine other classes. It is because they confound the expectations of the encounter design, exploration and attrition mechanics of the game. You need to nerf those classes, not buff the others, because doing the latter means not only rewriting a bunch of classes, but also changing the entire game structure as well to account for this new power level.

While I could go on about how I believe casters are an issue, and expectations of 9th level spells and reality warping are a terrible legacy that should be removed, I feel like I should bring this back to the conversation at hand. When it comes to ranged characters vs melee characters, ranged characters are simply too good. The game has clear systems in place to try and limit the effectiveness of ranged characters (lower damage, cover, etc.), but they too easily give out ways for such characters to completely ignore those limitations. Limiting the ways that one can overcome disadvantages such that they require feats is not a bad idea, but putting them all in one neat little package called Sharpshooter is just far too strong. If you look away from the character systems and on to enemies and encounter design, there is far too much that gets easily trivialized by ranged characters with Sharpshooter. Buffing melee characters isn't going to change that, and therefore, is not the best solution to this particular problem.

[Unoriginal]

The main issue is that for a lot of people when they make a ranged character they are taking inspiration from Robin Hood or Legolas where unrealistic archery is expected. And it can work so long as these unrealistic abilities are feat locked and the PCs are supposed to be super special.

Realistic archery is not expected by D&D 5e.

[ZRN]

Yeah, shame on that DM for.... allowing players to proactively set up situations that benefit them?

Realtalk but I run sandbox campaigns about as often as I run scripted ones, and in sandbox campaigns, players will want to fight in melee.

My aim isn't to criticize the DM (or you), it's to question whether specific mechanical nerfs will do much to fix this situation where the party is torn between two incompatible combat tactics.

If half the party wants to snipe at enemies from long distance and fade away before they close ranks, and the other half wants to rush into melee and fight until the other side is dead, there's not really a "-X to arrow damage" that's going to resolve that issue in a way that satisfied everyone. You can certainly make sniping a less viable tactic, but that's just punishing the ranged guys instead of the melee guys.

What I was trying to suggest was ways for the DM to complicate those guerilla tactics in a way that reminds the party why they keep Conan around to smash faces.

I don't know how you define a sandbox game, but most of the time I'd say the DM should still be designing complex and surprising enough encounters that "shoot at them from 600ft away until they die or we retreat to safety" isn't a consistently effective tactic for the party.


It's a trap though. Like you can get a source of flying and put a lot of resources into mitigating CC and a few other things....

...to equal what the ranged characters are doing with less investment.

I dunno, is a barbarian really worse off than a ranger just because he has to find some winged boots or whatever? That doesn't seem to be the dominant feeling on these boards.

[MaxWilson]

What about all monsters who start the fight within 30ft of the party?

How do they prevent the party from attacking before they reach 30'? Are they disguised as pilgrims? Waving a white flag of truce? Operating at night? Invisible? Indoors?

I don't think you can just handwave the approach as if it weren't part of the (potential) violent conflict, even if the game rules pretend that "roll initiative" is when a fight starts.



Again, I think that you're ignoring the fact that people aren't going to bother to pick up SS+EA if they don't have a way to generate advantage when they need it. That's why people bring up the combination in the context of Samurai Fighters and the like. So it's only going to be GWM w/ advantage vs. SS w/o advantage against mooks.

As for which one is the bigger offender... they're both pretty bad, but EA was just the straw that broke the camel's back for me. It doesn't help that it basically enshrines elves as The Best Archers, regardless of what your particular campaign does with them.

You're right, I was ignoring it because "they'll get it somehow, even without the Unseen Attacker rule's help" was too handwavey for me to engage with further/I felt like I'd already addressed it.

If you're now talking about Samurai Elves specifically as the premier damage single-target nova weapon damage dealers after level 8 against targets not resistant to normal weapons, not counting Necromancers... I guess that's a narrow enough niche that I see it as a feature, not a bug. It's not like their sustained damage output is unusually good until you acquire Crossbow Expert at level 12, so playing an elf with EA is not exactly mandatory, and if you're going to be facing many weapon-resistant monsters you'd be better off with an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Archer even while going nova.

That is why IMO the core issue is not Elven Accuracy, it's "unseen attackers getting advantage on ranged attacks." An Arcane Archer who uses Sharpshooter + Elven Accuracy to bring down any enemies the wildshaped druid in Giant Constrictor Snake form grapples is a feature, not a bug. The bug is (for example) an Eldritch Knight with Dancing Lights destroying everything at night away thanks to EA and 60' darkvision range on most monsters. Ditto Minor Illusion/Major Image tricks, or hiding inside a hedge, or Darkness (conveniently an Evocation spell), or any other inexpensive method of becoming unseen.



What about orcs and their aggressive trait, which allows them to close rapidly and to make kiting bloody difficult? :smallbiggrin:

This method would not work against most kiters IME. Kiting movement is typically at least 70' IME. For example, 90' move from Aggressive + Dash is not enough to beat 80' move from Mobile (or Longstrider) + Expeditious Retreat (or Cunning Action), with Dash +40' in reserve if the orcs get too close.

Investing a feat and a spell (or two Rogue levels) is a significant investment, but not the majority of a build. It's more one of several addons you can tack on to any build. And you get a TON of value out of it against MM monsters, probably too much, hence this thread.

Note: if you've got Mobile AND Longstrider and bonus action Dash (100' move total), you can kite even air elementals and young dragons.

[Frogreaver]

When I hear sandboxes described here they sound closer to themed attractions that players can set up a long distance ambush. Guerilla tactics are always going to be superior in that situation. ALWAYS. And since players get to choose what to do in this sandbox they can nearly always only do things that involve their guerilla tactics.

IMO the problem is stemming from how that sandbox is being ran. IMO.

[MaxWilson]

You say this but this isn't actually true. If you can do a thing at 300 feet using one method and at 5 feet doing another, you'd clearly choose the 300 foot option most of the time, but 'realism' does not dictate that these methods need to have identical outcomes. In real-life history prior to the advent of firearms, pretty much all ranged weaponry existed as a means of gaining advantageous terrain. The most famous example of bow usage, Agincourt, is a perfect example of this military doctrine. The French were caught unawares by the British advancing to and fortifying a muddy hill, and were then forced to charge up said hill (or retreat after taking casualties and morale damage). The arrows inflicted some casualties, but most of the killing was done by men with pikes and swords after the (much fatigued) French reached the top of the hill. Similarly, the Mongols didn't "kite" their enemies so much as use archery and mobility to force the enemy to spread out and then crush them with a powerful charge.

Ranged play in DND is horribly, unbelievably, unrealistically good and anyone who's shot a bow can tell you this. Hitting a target from 150 feet with a bow, when compared to hitting that same target with a spear at five is much more difficult, far less quick, and has less force behind it. This is why most soldiers used spears and shields or pikes and armor. You couldn't kill an enemy army with arrow fire because they had too much HP and your archer's DPR was dog**** and 'kiting' though possible was extremely difficult to the point that the only people who managed it were raised-in-the saddle steppe peoples. The best you could do normally was gain incremental/morale advantages.

And, as far as that goes, almost no bows were actually all that effective against armor past a certain distance. It's all well and good to say that a longbow can throw an arrow 900 feet, but it isn't really going to do anything when it lands.

There are arguments for why a level one human with Xbow Xpert should be able to shoot a heavy crossbow twice in a six seconds, but they are not rooted in realism.

I'm confused. You say "you say this but it isn't actually true", and then you say a bunch of stuff I agree with, without saying anything that disagrees with the bit you quoted about how ridiculously and unrealistically-accurate 5E ranged combat is. Did I miscommunicate my point? What is "this" that you think I said?


It sounds like the DM is allowing the players to consistently set up scenarios that reward these "hit and fade" tactics, which I feel would be a problem even with rules changes to nerf ranged damage. Like, if my archer is consistently able to shoot a bunch of guys from range and then run away before they can close ranks with me, why would I ever try any other tactic? I'd think the approach here would be to more frequently include barriers to that kind of ambush: fog clouds and twisty corridors, sure, but also just effective enemy scouts, enemies who flee or scatter or take cover rather than running into a hail of arrows, measures to prevent the archers from fleeing, etc.

Tangential but related topic: it is amazing how much scarier the game gets if the DM violates the expectation that monsters sit and wait in their designated rooms until the PCs show up. Even if you're 80% sure that probably nothing has cut off your line of retreat, even if the monsters potentially cutting off your retreat are slowpokes like Gelatinous Cubes, that 20% uncertainty makes you more nervous with every step you take past a fork in the tunnel, about the branch you haven't explored yet. Uncertainty and tension make good gameplay.

Too bad WotC adventures don't really use wandering monsters but I highly, highly recommend them. The simplest protocol I know is a metagame-oriented one:

A given dungeon isn't typically very big and a monster COULD move from one end to the other in mere minutes at most if it wanted to, but until it knows the PCs are there it has no urgent reason to do so, and no urgent reason NOT to do so, therefore any movement speed or pattern is approximately realistic.

Therefore, every time the PCs move to a new node/room/whatever, the DM (or monster advocate if there is one separate from the DM) may quietly one monster group from one node to an adjacent node. This balances speed and power: if you try to move all of the monsters in the dungeon into one big powerful glob it will move much slower than the PCs, so it's better to move one group fast and use it to try to "encourage" the PCs into another big blog that you already created. If the players are taking a lot of time in one room the DM (or monster advocate) may declare that "time elapses" and treat that as a PC move.

[strangebloke]

Realistic archery is not expected by D&D 5e.
natch, and I'm not saying it should be. I just think that handwringing about how ranged play """"must""" be better because of lanchester laws or realism is... wrong. There is no law of game design that says that any pleb with martial weapon proficiency must pick up a longbow and ping people from 600 feet as fast as they can rapier people from melee.

My aim isn't to criticize the DM (or you), it's to question whether specific mechanical nerfs will do much to fix this situation where the party is torn between two incompatible combat tactics.

If half the party wants to snipe at enemies from long distance and fade away before they close ranks, and the other half wants to rush into melee and fight until the other side is dead, there's not really a "-X to arrow damage" that's going to resolve that issue in a way that satisfied everyone. You can certainly make sniping a less viable tactic, but that's just punishing the ranged guys instead of the melee guys.

What I was trying to suggest was ways for the DM to complicate those guerilla tactics in a way that reminds the party why they keep Conan around to smash faces.

I don't know how you define a sandbox game, but most of the time I'd say the DM should still be designing complex and surprising enough encounters that "shoot at them from 600ft away until they die or we retreat to safety" isn't a consistently effective tactic for the party.

Lets consider a very 'normal' situation. A 60 by 30 chamber with a miniboss wizard at one end and coterie of elite guards near him. Some lesser guards are midfield, maybe. The party is 2 melee guys, 2 casters, 2 ranged characters. The ranged characters and spellcasters (on both sides) can engage the biggest threats on the other side of the map (each other) while the melee characters have to spend several turns moving. This situation persists for one round or even two rounds, and by that point the combat is already firmly going one way. If either side is worried about the melee characters, there are loads of CC effects that will keep them squarely away from the ranged characters and casters until everything is settled. If they're lucky, the melee characters get into range maybe a single turn before the wizard is dead at which point they will deal... the same damage that the ranged characters have been dealing for 1-2 rounds already. Their total damage over the course of the encounter is 1/2 to 1/3 of their counterparts. If you replaced them with ranged characters, they could still attack all the same people they did before... but they could start doing so on their first turn

This is something I'd consider a neutral situation. To make the martials shine you have to deliberately make things easy for them and hard for the casters. You have to add lots of cover to the map, you have to have the wizard cast fog cloud or something to reduce the capability of the archers. You need to squish the throne room to a cramped 20x40. You need to avoid the wizard casting something that would impede the progress of the melee guys. You need to buff the movement of the enemy melee guys so that they actually have a chance to get in against the ranged guys.

This is basic Rule 0 fallacy. Just because the DM can make it work doesn't mean he should have to. Fighting creatures in the open field is a very normal thing to do on an adventure and it should be supported.


I dunno, is a barbarian really worse off than a ranger just because he has to find some winged boots or whatever? That doesn't seem to be the dominant feeling on these boards.
Nobody sane thinks the Ranger is actually weak. Its got thematic issues and mechanical issues but its hilariously strong, with access to amazing spells, good DPR, and the best subclasses in the game.

Barbarians are strong in t1 and t2 when they get into melee, but by the end of t2 onwards they're very underwhelming. I've outright had people retire barbarians early at that point because of frustration. Is that my fault? Maybe. But I'm not a terrible DM generally.

When I hear sandboxes described here they sound closer to themed attractions that players can set up a long distance ambush. Guerilla tactics are always going to be superior in that situation. ALWAYS. And since players get to choose what to do in this sandbox they can nearly always only do things that involve their guerilla tactics.

IMO the problem is stemming from how that sandbox is being ran. IMO.
I don't think you know how sandboxes work. In a sandbox a player will say "I want to kill the gnolls" and the DM will say, "okay, this fort exists, etc. etc. what do you want to do?" Setting up the ecology and habits of the gnolls such that they cannot ever be ambushed is... weird? It's not a sandbox? Mandating specific styles of play is contrary to how this is supposed to work.

And heaven forbid the DM have something like centaur archers in his sandbox setting when his party focused on melee. Ah yes, you're crossing the plains and you encounter centaur bandits... Just a few of them, just four.

Of course in a scripted game you can easily add time pressure that forces them to assault the fort directly, but as I've shown above, even this scenario strongly favors ranged play.


See, I've heard the exact opposite. "Don't nerf. Buff." is a mantra very popular with players, but I have read strong critiques of it, almost exclusively from devs. And the reason is simple. Games contain many different complex systems. If elements of one system are out of balance, the best and easiest thing to do is to fix that one element, which often means nerfing the thing that is too strong (but could mean buffing something that is too weak).

Yes, I agree completely. I'm very much down to talk about buffing the movement options available to melee characters, but it isn't enough to close the gap.

Something like, "when you take the dash action you can make a melee weapon attack as a bonus action" would help a lot but its still not enough. At some point you have to realize that melee characters having almost zero advantages despite having to move potentially massive distances (150 feet for a normal hobgoblin) is an unworkable problem. You have to buff melee damage and movement by an absurd degree to close the gap. I'm talking a 50% damage and a 100% movement increase or more.

This presents other problems, most notably pushing the game further into rocket tag territory.

I prefer buffs to nerfs but its not sufficient all the time.

[strangebloke]

This method would not work against most kiters IME. Kiting movement is typically at least 70' IME. For example, 90' move from Aggressive + Dash is not enough to beat 80' move from Mobile (or Longstrider) + Expeditious Retreat (or Cunning Action), with Dash +40' in reserve if the orcs get too close.

Investing a feat and a spell (or two Rogue levels) is a significant investment, but not the majority of a build. It's more one of several addons you can tack on to any build. And you get a TON of value out of it against MM monsters, probably too much, hence this thread.

Note: if you've got Mobile AND Longstrider and bonus action Dash (100' move total), you can kite even air elementals and young dragons.
To be fair, I've much less of a problem with someone building toward kiting and succeeding than I do someone just "buying a horse" and "using a longbow" and succeeding in an area that allows for it against a slower-ish moving enemy. I disagree with a lot of people on here who say that kiting never happens, but by that same token its a lot harder to completely remove kiting as a strategy from the game. At best you can just make it less efficient which is why I think targeting damage and raising baseline movement options for melee characters is important.

Giving everyone something like 'aggressive' for free would make melee characters (monsters and players) a lot more efficient against enemies in 'normal' situations.

I'm confused. You say "you say this but it isn't actually true", and then you say a bunch of stuff I agree with, without saying anything that disagrees with the bit you quoted about how ridiculously and unrealistically-accurate 5E ranged combat is. Did I miscommunicate my point? What is "this" that you think I said?
Oh, I misread your intent, I apologize. I thought you were making the argument that I sometimes see, that ranged weapons are inherently superior to melee and thus our hands are ited.

Glad we agree.

[Sorinth]

How do they prevent the party from attacking before they reach 30'? Are they disguised as pilgrims? Waving a white flag of truce? Operating at night? Invisible? Indoors?

I don't think you can just handwave the approach as if it weren't part of the (potential) violent conflict, even if the game rules pretend that "roll initiative" is when a fight starts.

Except for flat featureless terrain then the simple answer is Line of Sight. The question is really how far can you see in different situations. It wouldn't be at all surprising to have encounter start distance in a forest to range from 15ft to over 100ft depending how dense the forest is. I think older editions had more guidelines on encounter distance based on terrain.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Except for flat featureless terrain then the simple answer is Line of Sight. The question is really how far can you see in different situations. It wouldn't be at all surprising to have encounter start distance in a forest to range from 15ft to over 100ft depending how dense the forest is. I think older editions had more guidelines on encounter distance based on terrain.

I'd basically agree with this. Roll a d10 and multiply by 10 to determine LOS if you are into doing this randomly. You might hear the enemy further away, but no LOS. I think this basic assumption is one of the things that separates those of us who don't think ranged damage is so much of a game changer with those who do.

[MaxWilson]

See, I've heard the exact opposite. "Don't nerf. Buff." is a mantra very popular with players, but I have read strong critiques of it, almost exclusively from devs. And the reason is simple. Games contain many different complex systems. If elements of one system are out of balance, the best and easiest thing to do is to fix that one element, which often means nerfing the thing that is too strong (but could mean buffing something that is too weak).

Even the quoted link has nice things to say about nerfs, in some circumstances. It's a nuanced take, not a simplistic "always buff instead of nerf".

The real point of the video seems to be mostly about "embrace asymmetries in the game, and don't nerf things into symmetry as a form of balance."

[Kane0]

I've seen a few people ask on this thread but I don't think I've seen an affirmative answer.

Has anyone actually seen this supposed superiority of ranged martial attacks impact their game negatively?

I just feel like so few characters (rogues, rangers, and some fighters) are actually making a choice between ranged and melee styles that any imbalance isn't likely to really impact most games.

I did mention a page or two back, i’ve noticed as DM that ranged attack characters are pretty reliable damage dealers with suprisingly high numbers at times but not to the point of disrupting the game. Maybe i’m just comfortable with the system at this point? But this would probably be a different story if the party weren’t mixed and everyone brought along a mobile sniper character.
But the same would be said if the party were all melee or all casters. Taking away the mix makes encounters harder to create for me since their capabilities arent so well-rounded and things get swingy.

For reference i’ve currently got a monk, a warlock, a bard, two rogues and two fighters (they usually arent all present at once). The rogues and warlock can fight melee and range equally well but the others are all melee focused except for the caster bard.

Edit: i also distinctly remember a long time ago playing a warlock with eldritch spear and spell sniper and getting to actually make use of all that range excactly ONE time, and even then it was one and a half turns of attacks before melee ensued with the rest of the party. Maybe the DM felt it was too strong that i could potentially end the encounter before anyone else could do anything and ‘adjusted’ accordingly but i’ll never know.

[Unoriginal]

How do they prevent the party from attacking before they reach 30'? Are they disguised as pilgrims? Waving a white flag of truce? Operating at night? Invisible? Indoors?

Indoor is the typical situation, yes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have had two "Gonna Snipe" characters. One ranger, one rogue. Both had the personality trait "DON'T TOUCH ME". Both were quite effective...if and only if they could keep the enemies off of them. Which I made sure only happened sometimes. Creatures with faster than usual movement, point-blank teleportation, simply having more than one door (ie flanking), ignoring the tanks, it all works. Or heck, other ranged characters. Because nothing says "have fun" like a horde of CR 1 quaddrones at 4 arrows per turn. Plus flying.

[MaxWilson]

Indoor is the typical situation, yes.

Indoors, how do they prevent the party from reconnoitering them with a Rogue/Chainlock Sprite/wizard's Arcane Eye/Shadow Monk/etc. before they get within 30' of the main party? Are the doors too big for a sprite to open? Magically trapped? Only accessible via teleportal?

[CapnWildefyr]

The one problem with that is that by taking using up your action you can't close the distance (Assuming both sides have the same movement speed). You kind of still have to be able to take the Dash action in order to close the gap.

I haven't fully thought it through but maybe instead of an AC bonus the shield just always increases cover by one category. So normally without cover you get the +2 AC, but then if you find partial cover it's +5, and if you find 3/4 you have total cover. You could still change the cover busting rules of SS if you wanted but it might not be as necessary.

You can move when you're Dodging.



That is why IMO the core issue is not Elven Accuracy, it's "unseen attackers getting advantage on ranged attacks." An Arcane Archer who uses Sharpshooter + Elven Accuracy to bring down any enemies the wildshaped druid in Giant Constrictor Snake form grapples is a feature, not a bug. The bug is (for example) an Eldritch Knight with Dancing Lights destroying everything at night away thanks to EA and 60' darkvision range on most monsters. Ditto Minor Illusion/Major Image tricks, or hiding inside a hedge, or Darkness (conveniently an Evocation spell), or any other inexpensive method of becoming unseen.

OK, but what about the rule for unseen attackers: "If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." I think there is room for interpretation here, as with all rules, but to me this means that when you shoot a bow from within a hedge, after that, the opponents can think, "Oh ****, there's someone in that section of hedge!" and are then able to take cover or take the Dodge action, even though they can't "see" you. Advantage over (unless regained somehow). So my first attack is at advantage, but not the rest. Another point is whether or not you would allow Dodge if the attacker is not directly seen. I wouldn't do that for melee, but for missile weapons I would not blindly stick to RAW and would allow a Dodge -- I mean, arrows are visible. Also, I can still make myself a harder target to a bowman by running and moving randomly. Perhaps not RAW, wondering what's your opinion?



Lets consider a very 'normal' situation. A 60 by 30 chamber with a miniboss wizard at one end and coterie of elite guards near him. Some lesser guards are midfield, maybe. The party is 2 melee guys, 2 casters, 2 ranged characters. The ranged characters and spellcasters (on both sides) can engage the biggest threats on the other side of the map (each other) while the melee characters have to spend several turns moving. This situation persists for one round or even two rounds, and by that point the combat is already firmly going one way. If either side is worried about the melee characters, there are loads of CC effects that will keep them squarely away from the ranged characters and casters until everything is settled. If they're lucky, the melee characters get into range maybe a single turn before the wizard is dead at which point they will deal... the same damage that the ranged characters have been dealing for 1-2 rounds already. Their total damage over the course of the encounter is 1/2 to 1/3 of their counterparts. If you replaced them with ranged characters, they could still attack all the same people they did before... but they could start doing so on their first turn

This is something I'd consider a neutral situation. To make the martials shine you have to deliberately make things easy for them and hard for the casters. You have to add lots of cover to the map, you have to have the wizard cast fog cloud or something to reduce the capability of the archers. You need to squish the throne room to a cramped 20x40. You need to avoid the wizard casting something that would impede the progress of the melee guys. You need to buff the movement of the enemy melee guys so that they actually have a chance to get in against the ranged guys.

This is basic Rule 0 fallacy. Just because the DM can make it work doesn't mean he should have to. Fighting creatures in the open field is a very normal thing to do on an adventure and it should be supported.


Um, not sure about the math here. A T2 6' barbarian can close 40' in one round, then attack. In a 60' long room, how far can all the enemies be? Probably not lined up against the far wall, so one might be in range, especially vs. someone with a reach weapon. If you have slow PCs with stubby legs (dwarves and halflings), they can still dash and get there in 1 round. Sure melee PCs *might* lose 1 round of attacks, but next round is full-up. A fighter could decide to action surge to get there, and attack. So there are other options, it's not all up to the party's casters to 'shrink the room,' or up to the DM to nerf the encounter so martials can get involved.

Besides, there are thrown weapons. Maybe a Rule -1 fallacy is "The game rules aren't broken just because the barbarian didn't think to bring a throwing axe." Sure, it's not full damage, but neither is a caster's flame bolt or magic missile, compared to fireball, cloudkill, mass suggestion, etc. Sometimes you gotta play the hand you're dealt and get on with it. Unless every encounter starts at long distances, things will even out over time.

[HPisBS]

...
The issue with always buffing is that the player facing systems are just one element of the game. Other systems interact with that system, and have certain expectations from it. If your solution to some elements in one system being out of balance is to make it so that all the other elements in that system are equally out of balance, than on the surface it might seem like you fixed the problem, but in reality, you just created even deeper issues. You now need to rebalance all of the games other systems to fit the new norm, which is a massively larger amount of work.

In D&D terms, if some classes or builds are too strong, it is not simply because they outshine other classes. It is because they confound the expectations of the encounter design, exploration and attrition mechanics of the game. You need to nerf those classes, not buff the others, because doing the latter means not only rewriting a bunch of classes, but also changing the entire game structure as well to account for this new power level....


...
Something like, "when you take the dash action you can make a melee weapon attack as a bonus action" would help a lot but its still not enough. At some point you have to realize that melee characters having almost zero advantages despite having to move potentially massive distances (150 feet for a normal hobgoblin) is an unworkable problem. You have to buff melee damage and movement by an absurd degree to close the gap. I'm talking a 50% damage and a 100% movement increase or more.

This presents other problems, most notably pushing the game further into rocket tag territory.

I prefer buffs to nerfs but its not sufficient all the time.

It's not that you should always buff or all the time, just that that should be the first direction you look. People are loss-averse. 'Feels bad, man.

To the point about things being out of balance: most of the game is "out of balance." Pretty much all casters can overshadow pretty much all martials to some degree. And within martials, ranged has been singled out as the superior choice. So, the thing to do would be to bring martials up to where they're on par, with a little extra love given to melee.

- Or, better yet, just tweaking certain parts of the system itself. I really think that making Dash impose disadvantage on all ranged attacks by / against the dasher would probably be sufficient for closing the gap between melee and ranged focused chara

Giving (all?) martials Charger for free at certain levels would be another possibility. (It's weak enough of a feat to be really hard to justify spending an ASI on. So it's not exactly a huge power boost.)

As for "balancing for the new power level," if that is a problem that results from a given buff, then it can often be fixed by simply adding some extra mooks to the encounter(s). But something like Dash triggering disadvantage by / against the dasher shouldn't cause any such issues.

(The whole martial vs caster part would be better discussed and fleshed-out in any of the myriad of threads that already exist on the topic.)


Even the quoted link has nice things to say about nerfs, in some circumstances. It's a nuanced take, not a simplistic "always buff instead of nerf".

The real point of the video seems to be mostly about "embrace asymmetries in the game, and don't nerf things into symmetry as a form of balance."

And Max takes the prize!

[MaxWilson]

OK, but what about the rule for unseen attackers: "If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." I think there is room for interpretation here, as with all rules, but to me this means that when you shoot a bow from within a hedge, after that, the opponents can think, "Oh ****, there's someone in that section of hedge!" and are then able to take cover or take the Dodge action, even though they can't "see" you. Advantage over (unless regained somehow). So my first attack is at advantage, but not the rest. Another point is whether or not you would allow Dodge if the attacker is not directly seen. I wouldn't do that for melee, but for missile weapons I would not blindly stick to RAW and would allow a Dodge -- I mean, arrows are visible. Also, I can still make myself a harder target to a bowman by running and moving randomly. Perhaps not RAW, wondering what's your opinion?

To be clear: I agree that even if you were hidden before, after you make your first attack you are no longer hidden (unless Skulker, etc. changes that). But that doesn't make you unseen, it just makes you no longer hidden. The attacker is still unseen and still gets advantage, at least per RAW. I think we agree on this but I'm stating it to be sure--I think you're just saying the enemy will start Dodging or something as a response. If you're denying the enemy actions because they're busy Dodging to cancel out your advantage from being unseen, that is also a win for the ranged attacker which they don't deserve (it's unrealistic and unnecessary).

I've spent the last four years though running the houserule that only unseen melee attackers get advantage (starting shortly after that unhappy Barbarian story I told upthread, as I started thinking about ways that RAW was unfair to melee PCs), and since then while I've seen ranged attackers be far stronger defensively, when it comes to DPR melee tends to pull ahead, since prone/darkness/heavy obscurement are all situations which favor melee, as indeed they do in real life. Ranged combat is still clearly better (lets you kill bigger monsters more safely with more tactical flexibility) but melee is better at some things (bodyguarding, DPR races in cage fights).

[Sorinth]

You can move when you're Dodging.

And so can the ranged enemy. In an open environment you wouldn't be able to close the distance with a ranged enemy if you spent your action taking the Dodge action unless you had a higher movement speed or an ability to BA Dash.

[ZRN]

Lets consider a very 'normal' situation. A 60 by 30 chamber with a miniboss wizard at one end and coterie of elite guards near him. Some lesser guards are midfield, maybe. The party is 2 melee guys, 2 casters, 2 ranged characters. The ranged characters and spellcasters (on both sides) can engage the biggest threats on the other side of the map (each other) while the melee characters have to spend several turns moving. This situation persists for one round or even two rounds, and by that point the combat is already firmly going one way. If either side is worried about the melee characters, there are loads of CC effects that will keep them squarely away from the ranged characters and casters until everything is settled. If they're lucky, the melee characters get into range maybe a single turn before the wizard is dead at which point they will deal... the same damage that the ranged characters have been dealing for 1-2 rounds already. Their total damage over the course of the encounter is 1/2 to 1/3 of their counterparts. If you replaced them with ranged characters, they could still attack all the same people they did before... but they could start doing so on their first turn

This is something I'd consider a neutral situation. To make the martials shine you have to deliberately make things easy for them and hard for the casters. You have to add lots of cover to the map, you have to have the wizard cast fog cloud or something to reduce the capability of the archers. You need to squish the throne room to a cramped 20x40. You need to avoid the wizard casting something that would impede the progress of the melee guys. You need to buff the movement of the enemy melee guys so that they actually have a chance to get in against the ranged guys.


Okay. A few things.

1. Nobody has to spend a turn moving before engaging except maybe the elite guards, because the melee PCs can take out the midfield guards first.

2. If the melee PCs ARENT there, the guards will curb-stomp the PC mages, because tanking is a thing that only melee characters can even really attempt. So the melee PCs seem pretty essential in this scenario even if they do less damage.

3. The boss mage can just hide behind his throne or the table or whatever for full cover after each spell and render the ranged PCs mostly useless.

[Rukelnikov]

Okay. A few things.

1. Nobody has to spend a turn moving before engaging except maybe the elite guards, because the melee PCs can take out the midfield guards first.

2. If the melee PCs ARENT there, the guards will curb-stomp the PC mages, because tanking is a thing that only melee characters can even really attempt. So the melee PCs seem pretty essential in this scenario even if they do less damage.

3. The boss mage can just hide behind his throne or the table or whatever for full cover after each spell and render the ranged PCs mostly useless.

What? Do you mean tanking as in drawing enemy fire or in a survivability capacity? If the former... hmm ok, maybe, not really, but they do get Sentinel. The latter is blatantly wrong, simple example AbjurerX/Hexblade1, upcast Agathys on demand

[MaxWilson]

Okay. A few things.

1. Nobody has to spend a turn moving before engaging except maybe the elite guards, because the melee PCs can take out the midfield guards first.

2. If the melee PCs ARENT there, the guards will curb-stomp the PC mages, because tanking is a thing that only melee characters can even really attempt. So the melee PCs seem pretty essential in this scenario even if they do less damage.

3. The boss mage can just hide behind his throne or the table or whatever for full cover after each spell and render the ranged PCs mostly useless.

What does point #2 mean? Tanking is a thing that practically anyone in 5E can attempt with a fair degree of success, not limited to PCs. The mages may have AC 19-21 (+5 if Shielding), they may have pre-summoned AC 17 Earth Elementals with 126 HP to tank for them, they may have a whole swarm of conjured animals boosted by Shepherd Druid spirits to tank by proxy. It seems clear that in this scenario, a party with zero melee PCs can do better than the melee party, e.g. by trading each melee PC for a Lyrandar warlock (see my .sig) who is also a ranged attacker.

A party with zero melee PCs is not inherently problematic, but it is problematic when a new player plays a melee PC and then realizes halfway through a campaign that they aren't relevant because of how various 5E rules interact.

[Ir0ns0ul]

I totally agree as well. Important to notice that ranged combat also has great support on magic items.

Bracers of Archery, Longbow +1 and Arrow +1 are all uncommon magic items.

If you have a generous DM, you don’t even need Sharpshooter, with the cheap setup above you’ll be attacking at +11 to hit and delivering 1d8 + 8 of damage as a Fighter/Ranger at level 5+ with DEX 18.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I totally agree as well. Important to notice that ranged combat also has great support on magic items.

Bracers of Archery, Longbow +1 and Arrow +1 are all uncommon magic items.

If you have a generous DM, you don’t even need Sharpshooter, with the cheap setup above you’ll be attacking at +11 to hit and delivering 1d8 + 8 of damage as a Fighter/Ranger at level 5+ with DEX 18.

Note: the arrows are one-time-use (with an estimated XGtE cost of 150gp). That's not trivial until you're much higher level.

[Trafalgar]

One big advantage for ranged builds are the 5e cover rules. An arrow slit or thick tree trunk gives a +5AC bonus which is almost equivalent to all attackers having disadvantage on the archer.

I feel like the main counter in gameplay is actually tracking ammunition and not allowing it to be recovered after combat. That kind of resource management is a drag on game play but does make an archer choose their shots carefully.

[quindraco]

One big advantage for ranged builds are the 5e cover rules. An arrow slit or thick tree trunk gives a +5AC bonus which is almost equivalent to all attackers having disadvantage on the archer.

I feel like the main counter in gameplay is actually tracking ammunition and not allowing it to be recovered after combat. That kind of resource management is a drag on game play but does make an archer choose their shots carefully.

This is a good rule and I support it, but it won't make archers be that careful - instead it'll encourage every archer to take proficiency in woodcarver's tools for 5 arrows per short rest and 20 per long while near wood, like a forest or, if unsupervised, a ship, and they'll find ways to carry the arrows they need by doing things like joining the party clamor for bags of holding. And it'll do actually nothing on artificers, who can't run out of ammo thanks to repeating shot.

So your rule adds both immersion and flavor and I like it, but there's no reality to 5E archers simply running out of ammo in a credible timeframe.

One thing you could do to buff the melee side is applying the TCOE Sidekick rules to warhorses, making them warriors. The biggest problem with 5E cavalry is how quickly horses evaporate in the face of a serious threat - far more quickly than their riders. Horse sidekicks have a way to gain more hit dice (and more Constitution and Dexterity), helping to alleviate that problem. Plus, right at level 1 there's RAW proficiency in barding.

What I can't tell you is how that will actually impact things like CR - the TCOE guidelines say to treat the resulting horse like a full PC for calculating CR, but that's bound to lead to weird consequences.

Note: If I were the GM, I would 100% ban my players from using longbows while mounted. There's just no way to do that without an incorporeal horse. I'd allow them to fire heavy crossbows, but I wouldn't let them reload them, because I interpret heavy crossbows as the kind that need your foot to reload properly.

[Amnestic]

One big advantage for ranged builds are the 5e cover rules. An arrow slit or thick tree trunk gives a +5AC bonus which is almost equivalent to all attackers having disadvantage on the archer.

I feel like the main counter in gameplay is actually tracking ammunition and not allowing it to be recovered after combat. That kind of resource management is a drag on game play but does make an archer choose their shots carefully.

I am unconvinced ammunition tracking actively does anything unless you're comboing it with a variant encumbrance rule - a rule that usually ends up hitting the strengthboys just as much because of how heavy their armour is in comparison to dexboys. And while moving slower under var-encumbrance is bad for the archer for sure, it's worse for melee (for what I hope is obvious reasons).



Note: If I were the GM, I would 100% ban my players from using longbows while mounted. There's just no way to do that without an incorporeal horse. I'd allow them to fire heavy crossbows, but I wouldn't let them reload them, because I interpret heavy crossbows as the kind that need your foot to reload properly.

Ignoring the guy-at-the-gym problems raised, didn't/don't Japanese archers use longbows from horseback?

[CapnWildefyr]

And so can the ranged enemy. In an open environment you wouldn't be able to close the distance with a ranged enemy if you spent your action taking the Dodge action unless you had a higher movement speed or an ability to BA Dash.

True. But anyone used to fighting in an open environment (except for monsters without hands and arms) will almost always be shooting back -- just not as well, and yes, they'll lose unless they have overwhelming numbers. And the melee PCs will be bored if they haven't learned to bring a bow - even if they are not specialized in it.

[CapnWildefyr]

To be clear: I agree that even if you were hidden before, after you make your first attack you are no longer hidden (unless Skulker, etc. changes that). But that doesn't make you unseen, it just makes you no longer hidden. The attacker is still unseen and still gets advantage, at least per RAW. I think we agree on this but I'm stating it to be sure--I think you're just saying the enemy will start Dodging or something as a response. If you're denying the enemy actions because they're busy Dodging to cancel out your advantage from being unseen, that is also a win for the ranged attacker which they don't deserve (it's unrealistic and unnecessary).

I've spent the last four years though running the houserule that only unseen melee attackers get advantage (starting shortly after that unhappy Barbarian story I told upthread, as I started thinking about ways that RAW was unfair to melee PCs), and since then while I've seen ranged attackers be far stronger defensively, when it comes to DPR melee tends to pull ahead, since prone/darkness/heavy obscurement are all situations which favor melee, as indeed they do in real life. Ranged combat is still clearly better (lets you kill bigger monsters more safely with more tactical flexibility) but melee is better at some things (bodyguarding, DPR races in cage fights).

I like your house rule. I was thinking - though I wasn't clear I suppose - that the hidden advantage for missile weapons should not be applicable after an initial attack, which would be a houserule change to the RAW. It makes sense to me that an invisible foe with an invisible sword gets advantage and won't let you Dodge, but not so for ranged attacks. Unless the arrows/javelins are invisible, whether or not you can see the attacker who shot them is not important, since you could see where the missiles came from. In your case or in mine, it does alleviate the problem a bit. So I think I'm in agreement now.

[In a way, though, " If you're denying the enemy actions because they're busy Dodging to cancel out your advantage from being unseen, that is also a win for the ranged attacker which they don't deserve (it's unrealistic and unnecessary)." is basically the same as me dodging a barbarian with a great ax because he's going to hack me to bits. I can attack and get slaughtered, or use my time dodging and hoping to slip away. I guess the diff is in trying to cancel an advantage that shouldn't be there.]

[ZRN]

What? Do you mean tanking as in drawing enemy fire or in a survivability capacity? If the former... hmm ok, maybe, not really, but they do get Sentinel. The latter is blatantly wrong, simple example AbjurerX/Hexblade1, upcast Agathys on demand

Drawing enemy fire and controlling/obstructing enemy movement. They get Sentinel and also often other subclass benefits (e.g. Cavalier or Ancestral Spirits).

To be clear, I meant that of the two types of builds we’re comparing, melee and ranged martial characters, the latter type can’t tank. They usually don’t even get opportunity attacks to punish enemies for running right past them. Of course there are other builds out there that can tank and even more other builds that can withstand a few hits, but unless the entire party is prioritizing survivability (and even to a degree if they are, because focus fire is effective even against tough targets), you still don’t want the enemy freely picking and choosing melee targets.

[ZRN]

What does point #2 mean? Tanking is a thing that practically anyone in 5E can attempt with a fair degree of success, not limited to PCs. The mages may have AC 19-21 (+5 if Shielding), they may have pre-summoned AC 17 Earth Elementals with 126 HP to tank for them, they may have a whole swarm of conjured animals boosted by Shepherd Druid spirits to tank by proxy. It seems clear that in this scenario, a party with zero melee PCs can do better than the melee party, e.g. by trading each melee PC for a Lyrandar warlock (see my .sig) who is also a ranged attacker.
.

I feel like the discussion risks drifting into “melee fighters vs. any build in the game that attacks from more than 5 feet away, with full resources and prep time available,” which isn’t a useful discussion.

[Unoriginal]

Indoors, how do they prevent the party from reconnoitering them with a Rogue/Chainlock Sprite/wizard's Arcane Eye/Shadow Monk/etc. before they get within 30' of the main party? Are the doors too big for a sprite to open? Magically trapped? Only accessible via teleportal?

They don't have to prevent reconnaissance. The environment is what will likely place them within 30ft (or close enough) of the party if a fight is to occure.

[Segev]

On house rules for fighting without being able to see: mine is that you only get advantage if you can see your target and they cannot see you. You get disadvantage if you cannot see your target. This leads to two blinded warriors (or two warriors fighting in the dark without darkvision, or two invisible warriors, etc.) both having disadvantage against each other.

It is also worth noting that going prone only helps at all if you are in short range of the enemy weapon or they have sharpshooter. I know sharpshooter is part of the assumption here, but I feel this needs pointing out nonetheless.

[MaxWilson]

This is a good rule and I support it, but it won't make archers be that careful - instead it'll encourage every archer to take proficiency in woodcarver's tools for 5 arrows per short rest and 20 per long while near wood, like a forest or, if unsupervised, a ship,

Congratulations sir, you got me. If I'd been drinking there would be root beer all over my phone.


They don't have to prevent reconnaissance. The environment is what will likely place them within 30ft (or close enough) of the party if a fight is to occure.

That situation still greatly favors ranged builds then. E.g. the party can plant caltrops on the approach and set a Dodging friendly like an armored zombie at the doorway to the room, and then take turns strafing the room from behind the friendly, or even moving briefly into the room if needed to get an angled shot (since friendlies can move through friendlies as difficult terrain, but enemies cannot).

Only in very niche situations is it difficult to exploit a reach or range advantage, in the 5E ruleset. Remember that burrowing vampire combat challenge you created a while back? Ranged attacks are more useful in that scenario than melee attacks are.

[ZRN]

That situation still greatly favors ranged builds then. E.g. the party can plant caltrops on the approach and set a Dodging friendly like an armored zombie at the doorway to the room, and then take turns strafing the room from behind the friendly, or even moving briefly into the room if needed to get an angled shot (since friendlies can move through friendlies as difficult terrain, but enemies cannot).

Only in very niche situations is it difficult to exploit a reach or range advantage, in the 5E ruleset.

There are a lot of popular melee builds that involve using darkness or fog spells, which I’d say is certainly no more “niche” than carrying around caltrops and zombies to avoid having to fight in melee.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I totally agree as well. Important to notice that ranged combat also has great support on magic items.

Bracers of Archery, Longbow +1 and Arrow +1 are all uncommon magic items.

If you have a generous DM, you don’t even need Sharpshooter, with the cheap setup above you’ll be attacking at +11 to hit and delivering 1d8 + 8 of damage as a Fighter/Ranger at level 5+ with DEX 18.

I disagree both generally and specifically with your post.
Generally, there are way more and powerful melee items in the DMG, including things that add dice based damage bonuses. Bows are limited in nature and Xbows are nearly non-existant. I'd argue this is one of the things that balances the game back towards melees.
Specifically I've never met a DM that would be giving out 3 permanent magic items to a level 5 character, particularly ones that are taylor made for the character. With DMing like this many characters are going to be broken by tier 2.
I guess you could argue that magic is table dependent and there are posters on here that have said they basically have magic shops where players can buy items on demand. However 5e is already so tilted in favor of players if you go this route then at minimum forget about even playing published mods; decent optimization + liberal access to magic on demand = characters that function at way above expected level. This is not range dependent.

[strangebloke]

So, here's my new list of changes, take 3:

Everyone has the charge action. As an action you may move up to your speed toward a hostile creature that you can see and make one melee weapon attack. It's not very good for high-level fighters but its pretty okay for melee rogues, monks, clerics, and Barbarians(sort of, anyway). It won't save you if the Range of Engagement is 150 feet but it will save you if the range of engagement is 45 feet. Of course, the biggest winner here is monsters like the ettin. In order to kite such a creature you'll have to have a BA dash and a speed of 45 or greater, which is possible but not trivial. Kiting air elementals is a fools idea.
Ranges for all bows, crossbows, and damage cantrips are cut in half. (except poison spray lol.)
While mounted on a controlled mount, you and your mount share a turn and a set of actions. You occupy your mount's space and you and your mount move using your mount's movement. You may use your action, bonus action, and reaction every round to take any actions available to you or to your mount. The Dash and Disengage actions apply to your mount as well as you. Your mount always takes the dodge action.
Sharpshooter allows you to take a -5 penalty to either get +10 damage or x4 range.
Archery style only grants you a +2 if you use no movement on your turn.
Unseen attackers do not have advantage on ranged attacks.


Melee creatures will have a much easier time getting in and dealing at least some damage, which massively raises the floor of their functionality. Ranged characters have a far harder time pushing their accuracy stratospheric which makes Sharpshooter a lot harder to leverage for more damage. In "normal" encounters the ranged penalties won't apply that much but it makes the "centaurs on an open field" thing far less oppressive.


Okay. A few things.

1. Nobody has to spend a turn moving before engaging except maybe the elite guards, because the melee PCs can take out the midfield guards first.

2. If the melee PCs ARENT there, the guards will curb-stomp the PC mages, because tanking is a thing that only melee characters can even really attempt. So the melee PCs seem pretty essential in this scenario even if they do less damage.

3. The boss mage can just hide behind his throne or the table or whatever for full cover after each spell and render the ranged PCs mostly useless.


You're missing the part where the melee kill machines spent their first turn fighting the useless chafe at the door. They can't select targets, they can't get to the real enemies in time, so they just have to advance ~20feet up the field and smack some CR 1/8 guards around (who they're actually very inefficient against.) You could literally remove either side of melee combatants from the game and unless your melee PCs are specifically optimized for movement (rogues and monks) nothing would change for the first 1-2 rounds either way. The weaker guards at the door are explicitly pretty weak.
What are the "PC mages"? Do you mean the spellcasters? Bards, clerics, and warlocks all have an easy time getting to 19 AC, and are far less squishy than a lot of melee PC builds like rogues and monks tend to be at low levels. Ranged fighters and rangers etc. can usually get d10 hit die with 17 AC. To be blunt I don't think anyone will be too fussed about this issue, and if they are, its pretty easy for one of the casters to drop a 'hypnotic pattern' or something on the lowlevel guards. The casters are much better equipped to dealing with a lowlevel swarm anyway.
Not all spells need line of sight, Warlocks aren't really impacted by such tactics (they can get their full attack off on a ready EB), and ultimately all of the PCs can pull the same trick on him in reverse by using the doorway.

Finally, what are the melee people.... actually doing to stop these lowlevel guards from attacking the "squishy mages"? Using two reaction attacks? Yay? Killing them (very inefficiently) so that the casters don't have to kill them (very efficiently)?

The only reason melee characters have a reputation as "tanks" is because they're forced to run forward into melee where the enemies (who are almost always optimized for melee) completely butcher them.


I feel like the discussion risks drifting into “melee fighters vs. any build in the game that attacks from more than 5 feet away, with full resources and prep time available,” which isn’t a useful discussion.
I don't think this proves your premise that "mages are squishy and die to low level guards if left unattended."


Except for flat featureless terrain then the simple answer is Line of Sight. The question is really how far can you see in different situations. It wouldn't be at all surprising to have encounter start distance in a forest to range from 15ft to over 100ft depending how dense the forest is. I think older editions had more guidelines on encounter distance based on terrain.
The main difference between me and MaxWilson is that I'm not trying to argue for 'optimal tactics' and I'm not trying to argue that ranged characters totally and utterly dominate every scenario. What I am arguing is:

Ranged characters have the advantage at almost every possible distance. The only time they come up short is if they both unable to run away and are fighting in close quarters because of fog or whatever. In that scenario, if they lack CE, they'll be forced to switch from EB or SS to... normal melee, which will put them a little behind people optimized for that exact thing. In every other scenario the ranged character has a massive advantage because a load of reasons that I listed in the OP, and in some scenarios that do come up they will outright be able to make melee opponents and allies alike feel totally useless. Features that 'help close the gap' like boots of flying or the mobile feat... help ranged characters even more.

Moreover, Forests do not cut your line of sight to 15 feet unless you've fallen into a ditch or something. The only time you might naturally have engagement ranges that short is in a cave, blizzard, or fog cloud. Also bear in mind: For most melee characters if there's difficult terrain the range of engagement might as well be doubled.

Most of the time, engagement ranges are going to be either (1) infinite on the plains or the desert or the high/astral sea (2) 100-200 feet in an environment like a hilly forest (3) 60 feet in darkness or on the edge of a river or finally (4) 15-30 feet indoors or in a cave or adverse weather.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Have you ever been in a natural forest (ie not one manicured with all the underbrush removed)? Being able to see 15' is doing really well unless you're in a clearing. 100-200' is absolutely out of the question.

[strangebloke]

Have you ever been in a natural forest (ie not one manicured with all the underbrush removed)? Being able to see 15' is doing really well unless you're in a clearing. 100-200' is absolutely out of the question.
...What? Yes I have, but we're picturing two very different scenarios

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0072/8249/1455/products/0038-virgin-forest-1.jpg?v=1570049481

In a forest untouched by man, the trees grow tall and thick enough that little light reaches the forest floor which means very little underbrush except around areas where tall trees cannot grow, IE, rivers, large clumps of rocks. Most of the time you'd be better off with a flashlight than a machete. You'll have ferns and mosses and the like elsewhere but its not sufficient to limit the range of engagement so severely. You'll still see an ogre rumbling toward you from a pretty sizeable distance.

In a younger forest where everything is much more chaotic, you'll have underbrush, but certainly not enough to block vision out past 15'. Like gosh how do you think people go hunting?

[Doug Lampert]

Ignoring the guy-at-the-gym problems raised, didn't/don't Japanese archers use longbows from horseback?

Historically everything we'd call a bow is called a "longbow" (crossbow is the alternative, there never was a weapon called a short bow).

So yes, the Samurai were mounted archers and used longbows. As were a bunch of other people. But unlike other mounted longbows, the Japanese "longbow" was actually long enough that mounted use was difficult. So in the D&D sense of the word longbow, they may well have been longbows.

The Samurai bow was held off-center with an asymmetrical bow design, which was substantially less effective than the much shorter Mongol bows. The Samurai shifted toward melee over time, because their bows really weren't all that good.

Tldr: The Samurai bow is long enough that in D&D terms it's a longbow. In terms of effectiveness, I'm not even sure it should be considered comparable to the so called short bow.

[MaxWilson]

There are a lot of popular melee builds that involve using darkness or fog spells, which I’d say is certainly no more “niche” than carrying around caltrops and zombies to avoid having to fight in melee.

But darkness and fog don't hamper ranged combat unless you're using my houserule or something like it.

[ZRN]

[LIST=1]
You're missing the part where the melee kill machines spent their first turn fighting the useless chafe at the door. They can't select targets, they can't get to the real enemies in time, so they just have to advance ~20feet up the field and smack some CR 1/8 guards around (who they're actually very inefficient against.) You could literally remove either side of melee combatants from the game and unless your melee PCs are specifically optimized for movement (rogues and monks) nothing would change for the first 1-2 rounds either way. The weaker guards at the door are explicitly pretty weak.

Okay, I was thinking those weaker guards were more than speed bumps. So in this scenario rogues, monks, and anyone with the fey touched feat gets through no problem. Also psi warriors, echo knights... honestly, thereÂ’s really no excuse for a melee character not to be able to get to the back lines his first round here.



What are the "PC mages"? Do you mean the spellcasters? Bards, clerics, and warlocks all have an easy time getting to 19 AC, and are far less squishy than a lot of melee PC builds like rogues and monks tend to be at low levels. Ranged fighters and rangers etc. can usually get d10 hit die with 17 AC. To be blunt I don't think anyone will be too fussed about this issue, and if they are, its pretty easy for one of the casters to drop a 'hypnotic pattern' or something on the lowlevel guards. The casters are much better equipped to dealing with a lowlevel swarm anyway.

The issue isn’t just “can the bard take a couple hits” but rather “can anyone prevent all the bad guys from focusing fire on our most vulnerable person.”



Not all spells need line of sight, Warlocks aren't really impacted by such tactics (they can get their full attack off on a ready EB), and ultimately all of the PCs can pull the same trick on him in reverse by using the doorway.


HeÂ’s a wizard so he can just fireball the doorway - he doesnÂ’t need LOS. And this thread (including your recommended changes) is mostly about ranged weapons, not spellcasters.



Finally, what are the melee people.... actually doing to stop these lowlevel guards from attacking the "squishy mages"? Using two reaction attacks? Yay? Killing them (very inefficiently) so that the casters don't have to kill them (very efficiently)?


Reaction attacks, sentinel, etc. If the melee enemies are so inconsequential you can just ignore them, as you suggest, then the melee PCs are focusing fire elsewhere, where they can deal damage plenty efficiently.

[Unoriginal]

That situation still greatly favors ranged builds then. E.g. the party can plant caltrops on the approach and set a Dodging friendly like an armored zombie at the doorway to the room, and then take turns strafing the room from behind the friendly, or even moving briefly into the room if needed to get an angled shot (since friendlies can move through friendlies as difficult terrain, but enemies cannot).

Only in very niche situations is it difficult to exploit a reach or range advantage, in the 5E ruleset.

Untrue. The situation you're presenting assumes that the enemies in the room cannot get out of the PCs' line of sight, for example by putting themselves against the wall on either side of the opening, or close the door (if a door is present) and force the attackers to get close to do anything.

People adopting such common defensive tactics when an armed group is attacking is far from niche.



Remember that burrowing vampire combat challenge you created a while back? Ranged attacks are more useful in that scenario than melee attacks are.

True. But that vampire was on the offensive, and was fighting a whole group alone (aside from animals she summoned during the fight) while she had to enter the room even after the ranged combatants can start waiting for her, and had the disadvantage of not knowing where her enemies were/moved to for most of the fight.

[MaxWilson]

Most of the time, engagement ranges are going to be either (1) infinite on the plains or the desert or the high/astral sea (2) 100-200 feet in an environment like a hilly forest (3) 60 feet in darkness or on the edge of a river or finally (4) 15-30 feet indoors or in a cave or adverse weather.

These ranges seem very short to me, unless you're intentionally leaving out a broad category of mountains / hills / etc. where the detection range is a mile or so and the engagement range is "as far as your weapons/spells reach." 100-200 feet is only 30-60 meters.

FWIW military sources I've read (notably Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan:
Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer) indicate that the typical (not maximum!) engagement range in the mountains of Afghanistan is 300 meters. It would be further if using heavier guns.


Operations in Afghanistan frequently require United States ground forces to engage and destroy the enemy at ranges beyond 300 meters. These operations occur in rugged terrain and in situations where traditional supporting fires are limited due to range or risk of collateral damage. With these limitations, the infantry in Afghanistan require a precise, lethal fire capability that exists only in a properly trained and equipped infantryman. While the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine, and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate.

Comments from returning non-commissioned officers and officers reveal that about fifty percent of engagements occur past 300 meters. The enemy tactics are to engage United States forces from high ground with medium and heavy weapons, often including mortars, knowing that we are restricted by our equipment limitations and the inability of our overburdened soldiers to maneuver at elevations exceeding 6000 feet. Current equipment, training, and doctrine are optimized for engagements under 300 meters and on level terrain.

Drivers on a freeway routinely monitor activity a mile or more away from them.

Expecting to get within 100-200 feet of an enemy before being detected might not be a reasonable expectation even in hilly, forested terrain (depends on the forest really). And if you can be detected, you can be engaged - - the fight has started even if the DM doesn't make you roll for initiative yet.


Untrue. The situation you're presenting assumes that the enemies in the room cannot get out of the PCs' line of sight, for example by putting themselves against the wall on either side of the opening, or close the door (if a door is present) and force the attackers to get close to do anything.

People adopting such common defensive tactics when an armed group is attacking is far from niche.

No such assumption was made. This thing in bold? This in bold is exactly why I predicted that PCs might need to take turns moving through the zombie's space to try to get an angled shot.

Give me some credit - - I'm not going to overlook an obvious counterplay. Instead I already gave you the counter-counterplay.

[LudicSavant]

But darkness and fog don't hamper ranged combat unless you're using my houserule or something like it.

Well, there's also the factor that you have to know the enemy's square, which means you have to be able to hear them. The question is: How far away can you hear someone well enough to determine their square?

Oddly, the only official guidance on hearing distance seems to be on a chart on the official DM screen. It's not in the DMG.

[MaxWilson]

Well, there's also the factor that you have to know the enemy's square, which means you have to be able to hear them. The question is: How far away can you hear someone well enough to determine their square?

Oddly, the only official guidance on hearing distance seems to be on a chart on the official DM screen. It's not in the DMG.

True. That's actually why I edited in the words "or something like it." Earlier discussion in this thread included people ruling that obscurement + being out of hearing distance (60' IIRC?) made you unseen and effectively unheard due to being unable to distinguish many marching feet by the echoes, or something like that, therefore hidden.

That's what I had in mind by "something like it."

[LudicSavant]

Can I just mention how weird it is to me that the developers thought that the hearing distance chart was one of the most important charts to always keep right in front of the DM's face, but neglected to include it in any of the actual rulebooks?

Because that's weird to me. Hearing distance does seem important. So why is it only on the DM screen?

[MaxWilson]

Can I just mention how weird it is to me that the developers thought that the hearing distance chart was one of the most important charts to always keep right in front of the DM's face, but neglected to include it in any of the actual rulebooks?

Because that's weird to me. Hearing distance does seem important. So why is it only on the DM screen?

What evidence is there that the DM Screen was made by the same people who wrote the rulebooks? Maybe they outsourced it like they did Rise of Tiamat, around the same time period.

[strangebloke]

These ranges seem very short to me, unless you're intentionally leaving out a broad category of mountains / hills / etc. where the detection range is a mile or so and the engagement range is "as far as your weapons/spells reach." 100-200 feet is only 30-60 meters.

FWIW military sources I've read (notably Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan:
Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer) indicate that the typical (not maximum!) engagement range in the mountains of Afghanistan is 300 meters. It would be further if using heavier guns.


Operations in Afghanistan frequently require United States ground forces to engage and destroy the enemy at ranges beyond 300 meters. These operations occur in rugged terrain and in situations where traditional supporting fires are limited due to range or risk of collateral damage. With these limitations, the infantry in Afghanistan require a precise, lethal fire capability that exists only in a properly trained and equipped infantryman. While the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine, and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate.

Comments from returning non-commissioned officers and officers reveal that about fifty percent of engagements occur past 300 meters. The enemy tactics are to engage United States forces from high ground with medium and heavy weapons, often including mortars, knowing that we are restricted by our equipment limitations and the inability of our overburdened soldiers to maneuver at elevations exceeding 6000 feet. Current equipment, training, and doctrine are optimized for engagements under 300 meters and on level terrain.

Drivers on a freeway routinely monitor activity a mile or more away from them.

Expecting to get within 100-200 feet of an enemy before being detected might not be a reasonable expectation even in hilly, forested terrain (depends on the forest really). And if you can be detected, you can be engaged - - the fight has started even if the DM doesn't make you roll for initiative yet.

Sure I probably could have said 'mountaintops' alongside sea/desert/plains/astral sea for the 'practicaly infinite' distances. I could probably also mention air encounters and cloud tops and limbo. I was just expressing a list of what I thought the primary distances were while adding a few examples of each.

No such assumption was made. This thing in bold? This in bold is exactly why I predicted that PCs might need to take turns moving through the zombie's space to try to get an angled shot.

Give me some credit - - I'm not going to overlook an obvious counterplay. Instead I already gave you the counter-counterplay.
Most players I've had at my table are bluntly kind of terrible at finding the 'optimal' solution, even when I do run encounters as simple as "five guys in a room," which is almost never. Heck, lots of players will deliberately prefer a stupid approach, and from what I can tell this is far more the 'normal' dnd experience. It's why I prefer to rely on extremely naive examples where things progress as people expect.

Not that I'm really trying to persuade people as such. I'm just trying to generate discussion.


Well, there's also the factor that you have to know the enemy's square, which means you have to be able to hear them. The question is: How far away can you hear someone well enough to determine their square?

Oddly, the only official guidance on hearing distance seems to be on a chart on the official DM screen. It's not in the DMG.

yeah, this one is hard to evaluate imo. I usually end up basing it off the passive perception available versus the enemy's stealth check. Even then I'd never allow "I hear a twig snap 500 feet away and instantly know their location to within five feet" unless they had some sort of special ability. I wouldn't let a player attack someone they can't see that's more than a hundred feet away, basically ever. I realize this isn't 100% RAW but that's just me.

[MaxWilson]

Sure I probably could have said 'mountaintops' alongside sea/desert/plains/astral sea for the 'practicaly infinite' distances. I could probably also mention air encounters and cloud tops and limbo. I was just expressing a list of what I thought the primary distances were while adding a few examples of each.


Not just mountaintops. Mountainsides, hillsides, river valleys, most normal terrain. Having your visibility cut to only tens of yards is unusual (especially for those with access to drones and / or flying familiars and / or willingness to climb trees) and needs a specific justification like heavy forest, or a blizzard.

[strangebloke]

Not just mountaintops. Mountainsides, hillsides, river valleys, most normal terrain. Having your visibility cut to only tens of yards is unusual (especially for those with access to drones and / or flying familiars and / or willingness to climb trees) and needs a specific justification like heavy forest, or a blizzard.

Okay. What's your point?

The location of encounters is not actually random. It is, in fact, completely artificial and down to selection of the DM. A party might cross an entire mountain range in safety, only to be set upon as they ford a foggy swamp.

And yes, it makes a lot of sense for creatures fixated on melee to be more common in those regions.

[Witty Username]

Ranged attackers pay a significant cost in area denial and in shorter range encounters. In large open environments ranged attacks work well but in tight quarters, disadvantage on attacks (unless they have XBE or Gunner), losing actions to switch weapons, and being unable to make opportunity attacks eat at the effectiveness.
Fast opponents can hurt this as well, anything with a 60+ft move speed will over take a ranged fighter pretty quickly and once the gap is closed the advantage favors melee.
Further enemies with damage resistance can make ammunition more of a concern, unless you have silver arrows werewolves are going to suck and 1 sword is cheaper than 20-40 arrows.

Sidenote: Are magic arrows required to overcome damage reduction or is a magic bow sufficient? As I understand it magic bows overcome resistance but I don't remember ever seeing that. /Sidenote

[MaxWilson]

Okay. What's your point?

That there's a huge middle ground you're excluding when you say,


<<Most of the time, engagement ranges are going to be either (1) infinite on the plains or the desert or the high/astral sea (2) 100-200 feet in an environment like a hilly forest (3) 60 feet in darkness or on the edge of a river or finally (4) 15-30 feet indoors or in a cave or adverse weather.>>


It's more like:

(1) 200+ yards during daylight hours in normal or lightly forested terrain, riverbeds, mountainsides/hillsides, etc. unless the foe is attempting to hide.
(2) However close you approach to ridgelines if you're moving unstealthily and there happen to be monsters there (depends on PC behavior, could be half a mile if you're trying to avoid contact and they pursue you, or fifteen feet if you walk right into an ankheg trap).
(3) Usually 60' to 120' at nighttime against monsters relying on darkvision (i.e. party has no lights), or whatever the enemy's effective weapon range is if the party is using unshielded lights.
(4) 10' to roughly a hundred yards or so (half a block--in Chicago, a typical city block is 330 by 660 feet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_block)) in urban terrain unless taking precautions to keep it longer.
(5) Anywhere between 5' and maybe 100' or so in a forest, depending on forest density, unless taking precautions to recon ahead, such as having an aerial observer.
(6) As close as it takes to detect a hidden foe, depending on how good the camouflage is and how observant the observers are.
(7) Indoors or underwater or in a blizzard, sometimes as close as 5' to 20', unless taking precautions to keep it longer.

Some of that middle ground is more accessible to players who proactively seek it, some is not. I honestly think part of the problem is battlegrids/maps which train players to think primarily in terms of what is on the battlemap, which in turn leads them to have extremely skewed ideas about how big a 100' x 100' area is. (In fact, this is endemic amongst WotC designers, judging by the maps they create. They have all kinds of crazy things happening within 100' of each other on many maps, and apparently an expectation that these things just somehow don't interact because they're numbered as being different locations. Also, shows up in things like hobgoblin war camps being implausibly small as measured in feet.)


The location of encounters is not actually random. It is, in fact, completely artificial and down to selection of the DM. A party might cross an entire mountain range in safety, (A) only to be set upon as they ford a foggy swamp.

And yes, it makes a lot of sense for creatures fixated on melee to be more common in those regions.

(A) This is starting to touch on other topics like "how hard should a DM frame a scene?", so for now I'll just agree that "yes, you could technically make swamps which are always arbitrarily foggy and put your monsters exclusively there instead of in the mountains", but even there and even if the monsters are ambush predators and very good at stealth, players should still have some agency over the effective engagement distance if they use e.g. a point man. Someone has to run into the T-Rex, but as long as the players are moving it's disproportionately likely to be the point man (because of relative movement speeds), and if that point man is twenty yards in front of the next guy in the party because swamp fog cuts visibility to twenty yards, the T-Rex is approximately forty yards from that next guy, not twenty. And under such conditions it's also disproportionately easy for the PCs to escape any encounters at all just by moving quietly, which is why this comes back to question about how hard DMs should frame scenes, which BTW has no all-purpose answer, just a bunch of options based on what your campaign is supposed to be about.

[Witty Username]

Out of curiosity, how often do your parties start shooting at stuff at max range? Maybe I just prefer humanoid encounters, but parley comes up sometimes as does sneak up and rob it, or the odd attacked at night during camp (or the last time night raid on the town while they were staying at an inn). Sure when my party sees a monster at max range it is dying to eldritch blast but I don't really expect a monster to be an encounter at 600ft much less a difficult one.

[MaxWilson]

Out of curiosity, how often do your parties start shooting at stuff at max range? Maybe I just prefer humanoid encounters, but parley comes up sometimes as does sneak up and rob it, or the odd attacked at night during camp (or the last time night raid on the town while they were staying at an inn). Sure when my party sees a monster at max range it is dying to eldritch blast but I don't really expect a monster to be an encounter at 600ft much less a difficult one.

It's not necessarily shooting--sometimes the first thing done when enemies are noticed is pre-buffing, or summoning, or hiding, or fleeing. "A stern chase is a long chase" and all that.

And yes, you're absolutely right about parley--parley is the #1 reason why my players get at least character caught in melee range, although even then it needn't be all characters, sometimes just the one guy waving the white flag. Most (?) of the players/PCs are softies in terms of not wanting to use lethal force unless and until they know for sure that it's justified, so they won't necessarily open fire on a bunch of horse cavalry just because they're chasing the PCs with possibly-hostile intent.

As far as I'm concerned though that still counts as the encounter starting very far away, since allowing the other guys to close the distance is a choice the PCs made during the encounter.

[Kane0]

Oh thats a good point: only melee attacks can knock someone out rather than kill them.
Of course there is still healing and debilitating magic but its worth noting that ranged attacks are either lethal or lethal.

[Sorinth]

The main difference between me and MaxWilson is that I'm not trying to argue for 'optimal tactics' and I'm not trying to argue that ranged characters totally and utterly dominate every scenario. What I am arguing is:

Ranged characters have the advantage at almost every possible distance. The only time they come up short is if they both unable to run away and are fighting in close quarters because of fog or whatever. In that scenario, if they lack CE, they'll be forced to switch from EB or SS to... normal melee, which will put them a little behind people optimized for that exact thing. In every other scenario the ranged character has a massive advantage because a load of reasons that I listed in the OP, and in some scenarios that do come up they will outright be able to make melee opponents and allies alike feel totally useless. Features that 'help close the gap' like boots of flying or the mobile feat... help ranged characters even more.

I don't disagree that ranged PCs have advantage over melee PC largely thanks to feats and Dex being a better ability score.


Moreover, Forests do not cut your line of sight to 15 feet unless you've fallen into a ditch or something. The only time you might naturally have engagement ranges that short is in a cave, blizzard, or fog cloud. Also bear in mind: For most melee characters if there's difficult terrain the range of engagement might as well be doubled.

Most of the time, engagement ranges are going to be either (1) infinite on the plains or the desert or the high/astral sea (2) 100-200 feet in an environment like a hilly forest (3) 60 feet in darkness or on the edge of a river or finally (4) 15-30 feet indoors or in a cave or adverse weather.

I very much disagree. Do all forests cut visibility down that much, of course not but there most certainly are forests where that is the case. In many forests you have to either follow an existing path or cut a new one. Trying to move without cutting is very difficult. If your imagination is failing think of the typical "Jungle" where people are using machettes to make a path.

I also very much disagree with the idea that deserts provide infinite visibility. For some deserts sure, but deserts with sand dunes then that's clearly not the case.

[Sorinth]

The end goal of any changes should be to create variety. And by that I mean some combats should favour using ranged attacks, and some combats should favour going melee.

One small change that can help in that regard is to ignore the errata about how magic bows make their ammunition magical. If magical ammunition is extremely rare (And frankly should be) then it will help bring the melee PCs into the spotlight against certain monsters.

[MaxWilson]

I also very much disagree with the idea that deserts provide infinite visibility. For some deserts sure, but deserts with sand dunes then that's clearly not the case.

This brings us back to a point I want to stress: engagement distance is influenced by PC and monster behavior. In a desert with sand dunes, using the eyes of a familiar 100' up allows monsters who are not hiding to be detected from even further than usual (1-2 miles is not at all implausible depending on visual conditions). However, all of that is irrelevant if the attacker is an ambush predator hiding under the sand. In that case, engagement distance will be zero for whoever is on point, and for the rest of the party it will be "whatever distance we decided to keep between us and point", unless for some reason the ambush predator has a reason to prefer someone other than the point guy.

TL;DR it's unrealistic to talk about "engagement distance" as a specific, fixed number independent of player decisions. If you ignore their decisions and force a certain distance anyway, that's a very form of hard scene framing, and should not be used more than the players are comfortable with.



One small change that can help in that regard is to ignore the errata about how magic bows make their ammunition magical. If magical ammunition is extremely rare (And frankly should be) then it will help bring the melee PCs into the spotlight against certain monsters.

Good point, although you must then also nerf warlocks somehow. (And would Arcane Archer ammo still count as magical?)

[x3n0n]

One small change that can help in that regard is to ignore the errata about how magic bows make their ammunition magical. If magical ammunition is extremely rare (And frankly should be) then it will help bring the melee PCs into the spotlight against certain monsters.

Good point, although you must then also nerf warlocks somehow. (And would Arcane Archer ammo still count as magical?)

(And add Kensei to the Arcane Archer list.)

What about the spell Magic Weapon? The devs have clearly said that "Monks and the spell Magic Weapon" are intended to be the early-tier-2 damage dealers vs enemy resistances to nonmagical weapon damage.

I think you can rationalize it by errata'ing any "external" source of "magicness" to say that it imparts "magic" to ammunition of affected weapons. (e.g. Arcane Archer, Kensei, spells like Magic Weapon, class features like Forge Cleric, Sacred Weapon, and the Repeating Shot infusion.) Those force an investment from the party to make the weapon matter.

However, that *doesn't* deal with Max's first point, which is that nerfing magic ranged weapons is effectively a huge buff to RAW Agonizing Eldritch Blast.

[ZRN]

However, that *doesn't* deal with Max's first point, which is that nerfing magic ranged weapons is effectively a huge buff to RAW Agonizing Eldritch Blast.

One of the potential issues with some of the suggestions on this thread is that by focusing primarily on nerfs to ranged martial DPS, you'd be comparatively making spellcasters even more effective. (OP suggested nerfing the range of cantrips along with that of ranged weapons, but even that would be at worst an invocation tax on warlocks for Eldritch Spear.)

[MaxWilson]

(And add Kensei to the Arcane Archer list.)

What about the spell Magic Weapon? The devs have clearly said that "Monks and the spell Magic Weapon" are intended to be the early-tier-2 damage dealers vs enemy resistances to nonmagical weapon damage.

I think you can rationalize it by errata'ing any "external" source of "magicness" to say that it imparts "magic" to ammunition of affected weapons. (e.g. Arcane Archer, Kensei, spells like Magic Weapon, class features like Forge Cleric, Sacred Weapon, and the Repeating Shot infusion.) Those force an investment from the party to make the weapon matter.

However, that *doesn't* deal with Max's first point, which is that nerfing magic ranged weapons is effectively a huge buff to RAW Agonizing Eldritch Blast.

I think the whole purpose of the rule change is to fix what is viewed as a mistake made by the 5E devs, so ignoring their stated opinions is very much appropriate in this case. :) Much as I love Magic Weapon, it is too cheap to fit with this fix. If you want to do full damage to an Iron Golem from very far away, I think it's fine to play an Arcane Archer. Kensei I'm more on the fence about. EK with the Magic Weapon spell is too easy / cost-free.

Or maybe I'm wrong and even Arcane Archers shouldn't get to do it - - if every fighter in Tier 3 is suddenly an Arcane Archer we'll know ranged combat is still too valuable.

One unfortunate side effect of this proposed fix is that unless you change monster stats, ALL Fighters are now obsolete vs. most monsters in T3, because now the ranged Fighters can't beat the DPR of massed skeleton archers (even before it was rough but weapon resistance was key when it did work) and melee warriors were already obsolete. However, if you combine this rule variant with others for nerfing ranged combat down to reality I think you may still land somewhere reasonable, although it will be very different from vanilla 5E.

[Sorinth]

This brings us back to a point I want to stress: engagement distance is influenced by PC and monster behavior. In a desert with sand dunes, using the eyes of a familiar 100' up allows monsters who are not hiding to be detected from even further than usual (1-2 miles is not at all implausible depending on visual conditions). However, all of that is irrelevant if the attacker is an ambush predator hiding under the sand. In that case, engagement distance will be zero for whoever is on point, and for the rest of the party it will be "whatever distance we decided to keep between us and point", unless for some reason the ambush predator has a reason to prefer someone other than the point guy.

TL;DR it's unrealistic to talk about "engagement distance" as a specific, fixed number independent of player decisions. If you ignore their decisions and force a certain distance anyway, that's a very form of hard scene framing, and should not be used more than the players are comfortable with.

For sure player/monster decisions can and should influence encounter distance. Although I would point out even if you detect an enemy 1-2 miles it might not change the "real" encounter distance since the PC still has to have line of the target. Facing ranged enemies after a potential initial shot the enemy would presumably stay below the tops of the dunes so that's there's never LoS until they are close enough to rush in. In this case the value of the familiar is more to allow setting up an ambush/avoiding the fight then it is changing the encounter distance.


Good point, although you must then also nerf warlocks somehow. (And would Arcane Archer ammo still count as magical?)

Arcane Archer have a 7th level ability that makes ammunition magical so I would simply leave that as is. Since AA is considered a weak subclass to begin with I don't think it's a problem for them to break the mould in this regard. For spellcasters it's probably beyond the scope of this thread since caster balance is such a huge topic. But they at least don't have Sharpshooter adding +10 damage to each attack. Since there are lots of suggestions for reworking that feat it's just worth noting that just by ignoring an errata you can reduce the OPness of the feat by making it a bit more situational since against enemies with resistance to nonmagical BPS the -5/+10 is actually -5/+5 which is a lot less attractive.

[Amechra]

Honestly, Eldritch Blast was a mistake in the first place, so it deserves to be nerfed. The fact that it's one of the best ranged attack options hides a lot of issues with the Warlock.

The smallest change that'd do the trick is probably just limiting Agonizing Blast to the first bolt that hits each turn.

[MaxWilson]

For sure player/monster decisions can and should influence encounter distance. Although I would point out even if you detect an enemy 1-2 miles it might not change the "real" encounter distance since the PC still has to have line of the target. Facing ranged enemies after a potential initial shot the enemy would presumably stay below the tops of the dunes so that's there's never LoS until they are close enough to rush in. In this case the value of the familiar is more to allow setting up an ambush/avoiding the fight then it is changing the encounter distance.

Arcane Archer have a 7th level ability that makes ammunition magical so I would simply leave that as is. Since AA is considered a weak subclass to begin with I don't think it's a problem for them to break the mould in this regard. For spellcasters it's probably beyond the scope of this thread since caster balance is such a huge topic. But they at least don't have Sharpshooter adding +10 damage to each attack. Since there are lots of suggestions for reworking that feat it's just worth noting that just by ignoring an errata you can reduce the OPness of the feat by making it a bit more situational since against enemies with resistance to nonmagical BPS the -5/+10 is actually -5/+5 which is a lot less attractive.

Detecting the enemy from far away also lets you do things like turn the whole party invisible and then surprise them, or send Earth Elementals under the sand to attack them. Since the PCs are already making decisions and interacting, to me that means the encounter has started, so you have already changed the encounter distance by detecting them.

Of course some PCs and players will ignore that opportunity and just do what they were going to do anyway, especially vs. weak-seeming enemies.

I agree that AA is viewed as weak, but if they were the only ones still getting double damage at range, would they still be seen as weak? I don't know.

[Sorinth]

(And add Kensei to the Arcane Archer list.)

What about the spell Magic Weapon? The devs have clearly said that "Monks and the spell Magic Weapon" are intended to be the early-tier-2 damage dealers vs enemy resistances to nonmagical weapon damage.

I think you can rationalize it by errata'ing any "external" source of "magicness" to say that it imparts "magic" to ammunition of affected weapons. (e.g. Arcane Archer, Kensei, spells like Magic Weapon, class features like Forge Cleric, Sacred Weapon, and the Repeating Shot infusion.) Those force an investment from the party to make the weapon matter.

However, that *doesn't* deal with Max's first point, which is that nerfing magic ranged weapons is effectively a huge buff to RAW Agonizing Eldritch Blast.

Arcane Archer isn't effected since their ability is specifically mentioning ammunition. Kensei it's a little more grey but the others would be a bit of a nerf. But is that really a problem?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

The end goal of any changes should be to create variety. And by that I mean some combats should favour using ranged attacks, and some combats should favour going melee.

One small change that can help in that regard is to ignore the errata about how magic bows make their ammunition magical. If magical ammunition is extremely rare (And frankly should be) then it will help bring the melee PCs into the spotlight against certain monsters.

I was thinking of this as well. Depending on the campaign it could be a huge nerf or not much though.
As much as I'm not a huge Elf fan, the idea of Legolas as primarily a bowman, but who occasionally needs to resort to melee weapons is kind of what I envision as the goal. Unfortunately magic bows making ammo magical and XBE tend to turn ranged martials into one trick ponies.

[Sorinth]

Detecting the enemy from far away also lets you do things like turn the whole party invisible and then surprise them, or send Earth Elementals under the sand to attack them. Since the PCs are already making decisions and interacting, to me that means the encounter has started, so you have already changed the encounter distance by detecting them.

Of course some PCs and players will ignore that opportunity and just do what they were going to do anyway, especially vs. weak-seeming enemies.

I agree that AA is viewed as weak, but if they were the only ones still getting double damage at range, would they still be seen as weak? I don't know.

To me the encounter starts when we roll initiative but really it's just semantics.

AA isn't getting double damage though. They simply aren't being penalized which makes a big difference because the AA damage is still comparable to say the GWM. We maybe see less BM/Samurai archers and more AA and Rangers (Since certain spells would turn the ammunition into magic damage), but is that a problem? I would've thought it was actually a positive outcome. Especially since the other builds are still perfectly viable as it's penalty is always situational.

[Segev]

The end goal of any changes should be to create variety. And by that I mean some combats should favour using ranged attacks, and some combats should favour going melee.

One small change that can help in that regard is to ignore the errata about how magic bows make their ammunition magical. If magical ammunition is extremely rare (And frankly should be) then it will help bring the melee PCs into the spotlight against certain monsters.

What good would magic bows be, then?

[Sorinth]

I was thinking of this as well. Depending on the campaign it could be a huge nerf or not much though.
As much as I'm not a huge Elf fan, the idea of Legolas as primarily a bowman, but who occasionally needs to resort to melee weapons is kind of what I envision as the goal. Unfortunately magic bows making ammo magical and XBE tend to turn ranged martials into one trick ponies.

The good part about that is that the DM controls the availability of magic ammunition. So in games where there are lots of fight against enemies with resistance the DM can increase the frequency of magical ammunition.

[Sorinth]

What good would magic bows be, then?

They still add to hit and damage.

[x3n0n]

I think the whole purpose of the rule change is to fix what is viewed as a mistake made by the 5E devs, so ignoring their stated opinions is very much appropriate in this case. :) Much as I love Magic Weapon, it is too cheap to fit with this fix. If you want to do full damage to an Iron Golem from very far away, I think it's fine to play an Arcane Archer. Kensei I'm more on the fence about. EK with the Magic Weapon spell is too easy / cost-free.


Arcane Archer isn't effected since their ability is specifically mentioning ammunition. Kensei it's a little more grey but the others would be a bit of a nerf. But is that really a problem?

Is the goal to have AA and scarce magical ammo be the *only* ways for martials to deal ranged magical damage? If so, then I guess that's fine, but (as mentioned above) that's effectively a huge "buff" to spellcasters, who have manifold ways to do so.

Having Magic Weapon (and/or its analogs) circumvent the issue seems like a reasonable compromise to me. In RAW 5E, your spellcasters would almost certainly rather be concentrating on something else most of the time; "forcing" them to cast Magic Weapon instead of Blur/Web/Slow/Haste/Hypnotic Pattern/etc seems like a nudge toward teamwork. Even EK doesn't get MW until their 8th-level wildcard slot, where they'd have to take it instead of many other choices (like Shadow Blade), and spend their concentration on it.

[MaxWilson]

Is the goal to have AA and scarce magical ammo be the *only* ways for martials to deal ranged magical damage? If so, then I guess that's fine, but (as mentioned above) that's effectively a huge "buff" to spellcasters, who have manifold ways to do so.

Having Magic Weapon (and/or its analogs) circumvent the issue seems like a reasonable compromise to me. In RAW 5E, your spellcasters would almost certainly rather be concentrating on something else most of the time; "forcing" them to cast Magic Weapon instead of Blur/Web/Slow/Haste/Hypnotic Pattern/etc seems like a nudge toward teamwork. Even EK doesn't get MW until their 8th-level wildcard slot, where they'd have to take it instead of many other choices (like Shadow Blade), and spend their concentration on it.

EKs can get it at 7th level by swapping out the free school pick from 3rd.

IMO if you let the best-in-class archer today (EK) retain best-in-class access to magical weapon damage on its ranged attacks (Magic Weapon) you might as well not even bother with the ammunition houserule. Nothing will change and melee will continue to be the underdog.

[Sorinth]

Is the goal to have AA and scarce magical ammo be the *only* ways for martials to deal ranged magical damage? If so, then I guess that's fine, but (as mentioned above) that's effectively a huge "buff" to spellcasters, who have manifold ways to do so.

Having Magic Weapon (and/or its analogs) circumvent the issue seems like a reasonable compromise to me. In RAW 5E, your spellcasters would almost certainly rather be concentrating on something else most of the time; "forcing" them to cast Magic Weapon instead of Blur/Web/Slow/Haste/Hypnotic Pattern/etc seems like a nudge toward teamwork. Even EK doesn't get MW until their 8th-level wildcard slot, where they'd have to take it instead of many other choices (like Shadow Blade), and spend their concentration on it.

It wouldn't be the only way but yes the idea would be to limit the ability of ranged martials to deal magic damage.

As for being a buff to spellcasters, the same could be said for the multiple suggestion to "fix" the XBE/SS feats.

[x3n0n]

EKs can get it at 7th level by swapping out the free school pick from 3rd.

IMO if you let the best-in-class archer today (EK) retain best-in-class access to magical weapon damage on its ranged attacks (Magic Weapon) you might as well not even bother with the ammunition houserule. Nothing will change and melee will continue to be the underdog.

Ok, that was definitely not on my radar. I thought the consensus "best" archer was Elven Accuracy Samurai or some kind of XBE Battle Master.

I'm certainly willing to be wrong on this. If the goal is to actually play this way and then adjust rules in the aftermath, then definitely "overcorrect" (AA only) and see what's broken, then turn back if necessary.

That said, I'm not sure what the corresponding spellcaster nerf *is*. Obviously Eldritch Blast needs something; do the others? It would be sad if the answer became that the best tier 3 "Fighter" is a Wizard with a familiar and Fire Bolt.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

The good part about that is that the DM controls the availability of magic ammunition. So in games where there are lots of fight against enemies with resistance the DM can increase the frequency of magical ammunition.

You are correct of course. The end result in something like Descent into Avernus is that bows would actually be stronger (certainly in critical fights) as you'd be handing out so much ammo that the player would be getting the double bonus a lot of the time.
I suppose the DM could just give the ammo and not the bow, or restrict both to +1 most of the time to keep it in check. Funny how the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' seems to pop up so often when folks start tinkering.
I'm still of the opinion that the best thing our group did to help re-balance the game was to just take the Dex bonus off initiative. While not directly addressing what the OP presents here, it does help.

[Sorinth]

Ok, that was definitely not on my radar. I thought the consensus "best" archer was Elven Accuracy Samurai or some kind of XBE Battle Master.

I'm certainly willing to be wrong on this. If the goal is to actually play this way and then adjust rules in the aftermath, then definitely "overcorrect" (AA only) and see what's broken, then turn back if necessary.

That said, I'm not sure what the corresponding spellcaster nerf *is*. Obviously Eldritch Blast needs something; do the others? It would be sad if the answer became that the best tier 3 "Fighter" is a Wizard with a familiar and Fire Bolt.

There's no easy fix for spellcaster vs martial imbalance at higher levels and I don't want to derail the thread discussing that too much. But don't forget there's plenty of high tier monsters that don't have non-magical BPS resistance like Dragons. The main source of resistance is things like Fiends that also have magic resistance.

[MaxWilson]

Ok, that was definitely not on my radar. I thought the consensus "best" archer was Elven Accuracy Samurai or some kind of XBE Battle Master.

It's my personal view, not a consensus view, and it's based on EK's combination of survivability, mobility, versatility, and access to self-created magical weapon damage.

An Elven Accuracy Samurai whose DM isn't coddling them has to just hope to get lucky on the magical items table. E.g. here's the result of 12 rolls on the CR 11-16 Horde treasure table:


Coins
178455 gp
16281 pp

Gemstones
1 Alexandrite 500gp
8 Black opal 1000gp
2 Blue sapphire 1000gp
1 Emerald 1000gp
3 Fire opal 1000gp
1 Opal 1000gp
1 Peridot 500gp
2 Star ruby 1000gp
6 Star sapphire 1000gp
1 Yellow sapphire 1000gp

Art Objects
4 Bottle stopper cork embossed with gold leaf and set with amethysts 750gp
1 Brass mug with jade inlay 250gp
1 Carved harp of exotic wood with ivory inlay and zircon gems 750gp
2 Ceremonial electrum dagger with a black pearl in the pommel 750gp
1 Gold ring set with bloodstones 250gp
3 Obsidian statuette with gold fittings and inlay 750gp
1 Silk robe with gold embroidery 250gp
1 Silver chalice set with moonstones 750gp
6 Silver-plated steel longsword with jet set in hilt 750gp
2 Small gold idol 750gp



1 Arrows +2
1 Bag of Beans
1 Conjure Volley scroll, Ranger
1 Destructive Wave scroll, Paladin
1 Figurine of Wondrous Power, Obsidian Steed
1 Gem of Seeing
1 Hat of Disguise
1 Horseshoes of Speed
1 Insect Plague scroll, Sorcerer
1 Longsword +2
1 Luck Blade Greatsword
1 Mace of Smiting
1 Manual of Clay Golems
1 Potion of Diminution
1 Potion of Gaseous Form
1 Potion of Invisibility
1 Potion of Invulnerability
2 Potion of Stone Giant Strength
1 Potion of Superior Healing
1 Potion of Supreme Healing
2 Quaal's Feather Token
1 Ring of Acid Resistance
1 Ring of Warmth
1 Rod of Lordly Might
1 Staff of Fire
1 Tentacle Rod
1 True Seeing scroll, Wizard
1 Universal Solvent


That's a staff, a mace, two rods, a greatsword, a longsword, and a quiver of Arrows +2. Plenty of magic weapons, but none of the type the Samurai is hungriest for (longbows, hand crossbows), only the arrows. EK and Kensei will therefore outdamage the Samurai against many, many Tier 3 monsters.


That said, I'm not sure what the corresponding spellcaster nerf *is*. Obviously Eldritch Blast needs something; do the others? It would be sad if the answer became that the best tier 3 "Fighter" is a Wizard with a familiar and Fire Bolt.

My preferred solution:

Gygaxian restrictions on spellcasting (can be disrupted while casting, can't move while casting) plus magic resistance and magic-immune monsters. Not 5E-style "advantage on saves" magic resistance, actual magic resistance that lets monsters outright ignore/collapse spells like Wall of Force, Telekinesis and Conjure Animals as well as Fireball and Hold Monster. The dynamic you're looking for is, conceptually, a villain laughing that "your puny spells cannot affect ME!" vs. the reply, "a knife (or sword) always works." This is why anti-magic zones, iron golems immune to all magic except Lightning Bolt (which slows them) and Fireball (which heals them), and mind flayers that have a 90% chance to ignore any given spell are all part of (A)D&D's heritage. 5E doesn't have most of these things by default, but if you've ever used e.g. Beholders against an all-caster party you've seen what I'm talking about--it's very disruptive to their normal rhythm of combat and the players have to scramble to create new tactics on the fly, at least the first couple of times. (Even moreso if you let beholders zap invisible or obscured creatures at a penalty, instead of being disallowed.)

Anyway, that's a larger topic but I agree that we definitely don't want the best archer to be a wizard with a cantrip.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's a staff, a mace, two rods, a greatsword, a longsword, and a quiver of Arrows +2. Plenty of magic weapons, but none of the type the Samurai is hungriest for (longbows, hand crossbows), only the arrows. EK and Kensei will therefore outdamage the Samurai against many, many Tier 3 monsters.


Slightly off topic, but are you sure that's a quiver of Arrows +2? I've always interpreted those ammunition entries as a single unit of ammunition (that is, a single arrow, bolt, or stone). Which only makes your point even stronger.

[MaxWilson]

Slightly off topic, but are you sure that's a quiver of Arrows +2? I've always interpreted those ammunition entries as a single unit of ammunition (that is, a single arrow, bolt, or stone). Which only makes your point even stronger.

I'm not sure which one the DMG intends, but as you say, either way it's not something for a Samurai to count on.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure which one the DMG intends, but as you say, either way it's not something for a Samurai to count on.

I can agree to that. I'd just never thought of them as being quiver-fulls.