New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 16 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 475
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Troll in the Playground
     
    strangebloke's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Ranged DPR is Terrible

    ...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:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Vast majority of monsters have limited ranged options meaning that this style tends to be very effective.
    4. Target selection. Picking off the wizard in the back while everyone else fights the zombie horde.
    5. The Archery style is simply more useful in t1 and t2 than almost any other style, particularly when combined with Sharpshooter.
    6. Needs to worry about opportunity attacks, grapples, and other such things far less frequently.


    For contrast, melee has the following advantages
    1. works better against prone enemies (who aren't moving anyway)
    2. 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)
    3. don't need to worry about enemies getting into melee (Crossbow Expert and BA disengage circumvent this)
    4. More magic weapon options?
    5. 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.
    1. Ranged play is boring because there are few tactical decisions beyond "sit in one place and loose arrows" or "run away and loose arrows."
    2. Melee combat is relatively complex because lots more mechanics come into play in melee. Opportunity Attacks, reach, grappling, shoving.
    3. Because throwing weapons are terrible, strength-based characters have little way to contribute in a lot of these scenarios.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    Last edited by strangebloke; 2021-04-14 at 11:31 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #2

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    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 gets right. Trying to kite Ghroth the Harbinger, a Dhole, or Great Cthulhu is a good way to get killed.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Colossus in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    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.
    Last edited by Eldariel; 2021-04-14 at 10:22 PM.
    Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
    Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
    SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    LudicSavant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by strangebloke View Post
    ...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:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Vast majority of monsters have limited ranged options meaning that this style tends to be very effective.
    4. Target selection. Picking off the wizard in the back while everyone else fights the zombie horde.
    5. The Archery style is simply more useful in t1 and t2 than almost any other style, particularly when combined with Sharpshooter.
    6. Needs to worry about opportunity attacks, grapples, and other such things far less frequently.


    For contrast, melee has the following advantages
    1. works better against prone enemies (who aren't moving anyway)
    2. 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)
    3. don't need to worry about enemies getting into melee (Crossbow Expert and BA disengage circumvent this)
    4. More magic weapon options?
    5. 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.
    1. Ranged play is boring because there are few tactical decisions beyond "sit in one place and loose arrows" or "run away and loose arrows."
    2. Melee combat is relatively complex because lots more mechanics come into play in melee. Opportunity Attacks, reach, grappling, shoving.
    3. Because throwing weapons are terrible, strength-based characters have little way to contribute in a lot of these scenarios.
    4. 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.
    5. 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! 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.

    Last edited by LudicSavant; 2021-04-14 at 10:30 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
    If statistics are the concern for game balance I can't think of a more worthwhile person for you to discuss it with, LudicSavant has provided this forum some of the single most useful tools in probability calculations and is a consistent source of sanity checking for this sort of thing.
    An Eclectic Collection of Fun and Effective Builds | Comprehensive DPR Calculator | Monster Resistance Data

    Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2020

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    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.
    Last edited by 5eNeedsDarksun; 2021-04-14 at 11:36 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2020

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    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.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    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.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Troll in the Playground
     
    strangebloke's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    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.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2020

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by strangebloke View Post
    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.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2018

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

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

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    LudicSavant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by strangebloke View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by strangebloke View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by strangebloke View Post
    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).
    Last edited by LudicSavant; 2021-04-15 at 01:40 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
    If statistics are the concern for game balance I can't think of a more worthwhile person for you to discuss it with, LudicSavant has provided this forum some of the single most useful tools in probability calculations and is a consistent source of sanity checking for this sort of thing.
    An Eclectic Collection of Fun and Effective Builds | Comprehensive DPR Calculator | Monster Resistance Data

    Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Christopher K.'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Mythical Land of Nebraska
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    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.
    The not-so-secret identity of Nat1Advice.
    I also write more serious 5e content on my blog, TBM Games.

  13. - Top - End - #13

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by strangebloke View Post
    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.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2021-04-15 at 03:09 AM.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    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...
    Last edited by MoiMagnus; 2021-04-15 at 03:42 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Colossus in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Eldariel; 2021-04-15 at 04:24 AM.
    Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
    Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
    SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.

  16. - Top - End - #16

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldariel View Post
    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.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2021-04-15 at 04:41 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Colossus in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    (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.
    Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
    Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
    SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.

  18. - Top - End - #18

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldariel View Post
    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.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2021-04-15 at 05:02 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Colossus in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    (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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    (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.
    Last edited by Eldariel; 2021-04-15 at 05:05 AM.
    Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
    Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
    SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.

  20. - Top - End - #20

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldariel View Post
    (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.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    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.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Colossus in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    (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.
    Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
    Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
    SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    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.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    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?
    Last edited by Mastikator; 2021-04-15 at 05:35 AM.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    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.
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2021-04-15 at 05:46 AM.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Colossus in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Eldariel; 2021-04-15 at 06:01 AM.
    Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
    Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
    SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    LudicSavant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    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.
    Last edited by LudicSavant; 2021-04-15 at 06:17 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
    If statistics are the concern for game balance I can't think of a more worthwhile person for you to discuss it with, LudicSavant has provided this forum some of the single most useful tools in probability calculations and is a consistent source of sanity checking for this sort of thing.
    An Eclectic Collection of Fun and Effective Builds | Comprehensive DPR Calculator | Monster Resistance Data

    Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    stoutstien's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    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.
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ElfMonkGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2020

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    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! 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.

    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).

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vacation in Nyalotha

    Default Re: Ranged DPR is Terrible

    Is it valid to assume that a (melee character) will remain relevant through the range of levels in absence of GM accommodation?
    If all rules are suggestions what happens when I pass the save?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •