Ranged DPR is Terrible

[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:

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.

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.

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.

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

Spoiler

Show

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

Spoiler

Show

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 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