The problems with Melee Combat

[MeimuHakurei]

Characters fighting up-close is a standout fantasy image of taking a sword to fight impossibly strong monsters or to duel with another person like you.

However, fighting in melee is highly ineffective in 5th Edition (for both martial and casting characters), for a number of reasons:

1. It greatly limits targeting options.

Obviously, if you're a melee combatant, you have to move within 5 feet (or 10 feet with a reach weapon, fittingly the most effective kinds of melee weapon) in order to even get to attack at all. Not every fight will have you immediately be placed within 30 feet so you can immediately attack. Dashing means you lose your chance to strike that turn, and for every round you fail to attack, you effectively give the enemies a free turn. Archers can have up to 600 feet range, so that takes 10 turns of dashing to get within engagement range (effectively like 6 if you account for long range disadvantage) - but that assumes the archer is just standing there instead of backing up for prolonged kiting. Lastly, vertical distance is a problem - even a gish needs to expend significant resources to fly or otherwise move upwards if the enemy is flying, on a tower or otherwise not easy to walk towards. Even then, several flight options have strings attached that make them not perfectly reliable (concentration on a fly spell for instance, doubling as opportunity cost and a risk for the melee character).

2. Melee is dangerous.

A lot of the monsters you find in 5th Edition are very big, usually feral and occasionally packing strong weapons. Most of them are entirely focused on fighting in melee range or are far more effective up close. Melee combat means you're exposing yourself to the monsters' powerful attacks, which is a problem as defensive martials have poor damage and damaging martials are deceptively frail due to their lack of shields and strong reaction options. As a collorary to that, you don't even get a payoff for getting into melee as that is where the monsters are at their most dangerous.

Sidenote: Monks and skirmishing

Now both of these issues are things that a Monk, Rogue or some other mobile melee might have way to mitigate the two downsides above. The problem is that neither one of these is particularly damaging with melee attacks, the Monk lacking in general and the Rogue being dependent on another person getting in melee (at which point you have to wonder why you even use the Rogue like that). Stunning Strike targets a usually strong save of monsters and can be mitigated by legendary resistance or the presence of more monsters, so its niche usage isn't all that powerful. Both classes have build options to do decently well with a ranged weapon, however, which is beyond the scope of this post.
In general, though, moving with high speed into melee sounds appealing at first, but you can generally achieve the same effect with a ranged weapon or spell attack, which can also target the backline, without having to expend movement to get in and out to boot. Which leads to the next point:

3. Ranged combat is very powerful.

For the most part, the strongest melee builds damage-wise combine Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master to do lots of damage and attack with their bonus action, with the remaining uses of the feats only giving more attack opportunities. The counterpart feats, Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert, not only give the same damage increase, they also negate the penalties incurred from fighting at long range, at point-blank range (making Hand Crossbows also the best melee weapon in a sense) and when opponents take cover. Furthermore, there's also Fighting Styles - the damage reroll of Great Weapon Fighting isn't anywhere near the power of Archery adding +2 to hit. Of course, the free hits I mentioned at the beginning equally apply if the players are shooting at melee monsters.

4. Melee interferes with control options.

Not only is a melee character hindering themself by constraining their attack targets and taking a lot of avoidable damage, they even are a liability to the support! Several highly effective control options include Entangle, Web, Spike Growth and Hypnotic Pattern - spells that will hinder melee allies in the area. It doesn't help that they often also are intended to inhibit a monster's movement - something melee characters cannot take advantage of well. It's a noticeable resource drain if a Wizard has to use less effective control spells to avoid harming the melees or for a Sorcerer to be forced to invest into Careful Spell.

Sidenote: Viability of Paladins

Paladins are indeed constrained by the above points, as their more effective combat options require engaging in melee. However, their viability is given by the 6th Level Aura of Protection, an impressive defensive boon for a lot of parties. They also have the ability to cast Bless and Healing Word to support a ranged party and can cover them more easily now that the party won't be spread out from characters in melee and characters in the backline.

For these reasons, characters struggle to contribute in melee range within more challenging scenarios and campaigns - this goes both for Sword and Board fighters and Bladesingers who are eyeing Shadow Blade as their go-to spell. Go ahead and enjoy melee combat if you really want to, but if you're playing a melee combatant or run a game with one or more of them, be mindful of how much they can be limited (this is impacted by how effective ranged characters are at leveraging their ability to fight at range, of course).

PS: Some might think the problem is Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter are the problem, especially with feats being optional. The issue is, this severely weakens martial classes and gives them even less reason to be picked over casters.

EDIT: Paladins do not natively get Healing Word - Bless alone is still worth it though.

[Unoriginal]

However, fighting in melee is highly ineffective in 5th Edition (for both martial and casting characters)

This simply does not follow, because as you said yourself:

A lot of the monsters you find in 5th Edition are very big, usually feral and occasionally packing strong weapons. Most of them are entirely focused on fighting in melee range or are far more effective up close.

Your characters may not want to fight in melee, but the thing is, your characters will likely not have a choice about it.

Many monsters will want to fight the PCs in melee. Especially in any area where combatants will be closer to each others than the optimal safety range, like for most dungeons

Your two choices are then:

1) insisting that fighting in melee is ineffective, have your whole group spend your whole adventuring career trying to avoid it, and either fail at doing that many times (perhaps not all, sure, but many) or straight up flee all conflicts when they get too close to comfort.

or

2) accept that you will have to fight in melee, and have people good at it with you so that the "ineffective" thing doesn't destroy your characters.


You don't have an army for the war you want to go at, you have an army for the war you go at.

[PhantomSoul]

Your characters may not want to fight in melee, but the thing is, your characters will likely not have a choice about it.

Many monsters will want to fight the PCs in melee. Especially in any area where combatants will be closer to each others than the optimal safety range, like for most dungeons

There's also a secondary point that this (correctly) suggests: while melee is a worse place to be, monsters will tend to want to be in melee... and the characters don't usually equally want to avoid melee. So a character who's good for melee might be suboptimal on a character basis... but it's often a net benefit to the party to have someone that can try to attract aggro or otherwise prevent even more melee-allergic allies from being stuck in melee. Sure, that fighter could be as good at range with a different build and range means increased personal safety... but a monster in melee with that fighter is probably not in melee with your squishies! (Also, at the player level instead of the character level, you might enjoy the increased threat more. If you wanted to be safer, you could be a farmer instead of an adventurer!)

[GreyBlack]

Characters fighting up-close is a standout fantasy image of taking a sword to fight impossibly strong monsters or to duel with another person like you.

However, fighting in melee is highly ineffective in 5th Edition (for both martial and casting characters), for a number of reasons:

1. It greatly limits targeting options.

Obviously, if you're a melee combatant, you have to move within 5 feet (or 10 feet with a reach weapon, fittingly the most effective kinds of melee weapon) in order to even get to attack at all. Not every fight will have you immediately be placed within 30 feet so you can immediately attack. Dashing means you lose your chance to strike that turn, and for every round you fail to attack, you effectively give the enemies a free turn. Archers can have up to 600 feet range, so that takes 10 turns of dashing to get within engagement range (effectively like 6 if you account for long range disadvantage) - but that assumes the archer is just standing there instead of backing up for prolonged kiting. Lastly, vertical distance is a problem - even a gish needs to expend significant resources to fly or otherwise move upwards if the enemy is flying, on a tower or otherwise not easy to walk towards. Even then, several flight options have strings attached that make them not perfectly reliable (concentration on a fly spell for instance, doubling as opportunity cost and a risk for the melee character).

2. Melee is dangerous.

A lot of the monsters you find in 5th Edition are very big, usually feral and occasionally packing strong weapons. Most of them are entirely focused on fighting in melee range or are far more effective up close. Melee combat means you're exposing yourself to the monsters' powerful attacks, which is a problem as defensive martials have poor damage and damaging martials are deceptively frail due to their lack of shields and strong reaction options. As a collorary to that, you don't even get a payoff for getting into melee as that is where the monsters are at their most dangerous.

Sidenote: Monks and skirmishing

Now both of these issues are things that a Monk, Rogue or some other mobile melee might have way to mitigate the two downsides above. The problem is that neither one of these is particularly damaging with melee attacks, the Monk lacking in general and the Rogue being dependent on another person getting in melee (at which point you have to wonder why you even use the Rogue like that). Stunning Strike targets a usually strong save of monsters and can be mitigated by legendary resistance or the presence of more monsters, so its niche usage isn't all that powerful. Both classes have build options to do decently well with a ranged weapon, however, which is beyond the scope of this post.
In general, though, moving with high speed into melee sounds appealing at first, but you can generally achieve the same effect with a ranged weapon or spell attack, which can also target the backline, without having to expend movement to get in and out to boot. Which leads to the next point:

3. Ranged combat is very powerful.

For the most part, the strongest melee builds damage-wise combine Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master to do lots of damage and attack with their bonus action, with the remaining uses of the feats only giving more attack opportunities. The counterpart feats, Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert, not only give the same damage increase, they also negate the penalties incurred from fighting at long range, at point-blank range (making Hand Crossbows also the best melee weapon in a sense) and when opponents take cover. Furthermore, there's also Fighting Styles - the damage reroll of Great Weapon Fighting isn't anywhere near the power of Archery adding +2 to hit. Of course, the free hits I mentioned at the beginning equally apply if the players are shooting at melee monsters.

4. Melee interferes with control options.

Not only is a melee character hindering themself by constraining their attack targets and taking a lot of avoidable damage, they even are a liability to the support! Several highly effective control options include Entangle, Web, Spike Growth and Hypnotic Pattern - spells that will hinder melee allies in the area. It doesn't help that they often also are intended to inhibit a monster's movement - something melee characters cannot take advantage of well. It's a noticeable resource drain if a Wizard has to use less effective control spells to avoid harming the melees or for a Sorcerer to be forced to invest into Careful Spell.

Sidenote: Viability of Paladins

Paladins are indeed constrained by the above points, as their more effective combat options require engaging in melee. However, their viability is given by the 6th Level Aura of Protection, an impressive defensive boon for a lot of parties. They also have the ability to cast Bless and Healing Word to support a ranged party and can cover them more easily now that the party won't be spread out from characters in melee and characters in the backline.

For these reasons, characters struggle to contribute in melee range within more challenging scenarios and campaigns - this goes both for Sword and Board fighters and Bladesingers who are eyeing Shadow Blade as their go-to spell. Go ahead and enjoy melee combat if you really want to, but if you're playing a melee combatant or run a game with one or more of them, be mindful of how much they can be limited (this is impacted by how effective ranged characters are at leveraging their ability to fight at range, of course).

PS: Some might think the problem is Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter are the problem, especially with feats being optional. The issue is, this severely weakens martial classes and gives them even less reason to be picked over casters.

EDIT: Paladins do not natively get Healing Word - Bless alone is still worth it though.

Okay, coolcoolcoolcoolcoolcool. I see what you're saying.

Counterpoint: These are all features, not bugs.

So, you're very right that melee combat is more dangerous than standing in the back lines and using ranged attacks. Melee combat is more dangerous, and it's intended to be more dangerous.

As a hypothetical, though, let's suppose that no one in the party is a melee character. Everyone is designed to stand back and take pot shots until the enemies die.

What happens to those ranged characters when, for example, a dragon gets in melee range? Suddenly, your ranged attacker is getting clawed and slashed and eaten while you are firing at disadvantage into this monster. Your friends might be safe and running 60 feet away to continue firing, but you're just a squishy rogue/wizard/bowman who is crunchy and tastes good with ketchup. Then, when you're dead, the dragon can then move unimpeded to the next friend and systematically destroy them.

And, as such, this is why melee characters are so important to party composition; a melee character is able to stand toe to toe with said dragon, often in heavy armor and with higher HP, and prevent said dragon from getting to said potential dragon crisps. Dragon can't move past said melee character, because the dragon would have to go around them and provoke attacks of opportunity or take some other circuitous route to the target, limiting which targets they can attack. Because those melee characters are standing in front of the beast, they are effectively controlling the battlefield by their very presence.

It seems, to me, that you're making a lot of theorycrafting assumptions about melee characters, but not a lot of these assumptions are borne out in actual play. In my experience, having a melee character or two in front to prevent the monsters from getting into the back lines is crucial. Sure, in 1v1 combat, you might be right, but D&D combat often isn't just 1v1 "who does more damage" contests; it's about creating a party who can work together to solve problems and vanquish enemies who, individually, you might not be able to defeat.

[LordEng1ish]

What happens to those ranged characters when, for example, a dragon gets in melee range? Suddenly, your ranged attacker is getting clawed and slashed and eaten while you are firing at disadvantage into this monster. Your friends might be safe and running 60 feet away to continue firing, but you're just a squishy rogue/wizard/bowman who is crunchy and tastes good with ketchup. Then, when you're dead, the dragon can then move unimpeded to the next friend and systematically destroy them.

And, as such, this is why melee characters are so important to party composition; a melee character is able to stand toe to toe with said dragon, often in heavy armor and with higher HP, and prevent said dragon from getting to said potential dragon crisps. Dragon can't move past said melee character, because the dragon would have to go around them and provoke attacks of opportunity or take some other circuitous route to the target, limiting which targets they can attack. Because those melee characters are standing in front of the beast, they are effectively controlling the battlefield by their very presence.

Why do you think melee characters are significantly more durable than ranged characters? A ranged fighter has AC17. A melee fighter has AC18 if he's trying to do GWM things. (before I account that it seems that many DMs are hesitant to pass out plate) They also have the same HP.

Please explain to me how a dragon flying 20' in the air is stopped by a fighter with a sword. I'll even let you have PAM and sentinel for free. You can't reach that dragon. It's free to fly over anyone it pleases without any AoOs, and engage anyone it pleases with bite, claw, claw, legendary action wing attack.

The problem with melee is that if one character wants to approach the (default RAW) monsters to attack them, the monsters will probably all target that one character because its the closest one/only one they can reach. This heavily taxes their HP much more than if multiple people are playing melee. The first melee character is a problem. Multiple at least spreads the damage among multiple PCs.

Side note: It's trivial to get AC19 on nearly any character with a one level dip into multiple different classes. Combine that with shield/absorb elements on your squishy casters and they're doing just fine if the dragon flies up to them to attack them thrice.

It seems, to me, that you're making a lot of theorycrafting assumptions about melee characters, but not a lot of these assumptions are borne out in actual play. In my experience, having a melee character or two in front to prevent the monsters from getting into the back lines is crucial. Sure, in 1v1 combat, you might be right, but D&D combat often isn't just 1v1 "who does more damage" contests; it's about creating a party who can work together to solve problems and vanquish enemies who, individually, you might not be able to defeat.

It seems, to me, that you're also making a lot of assumptions about how players are choosing their features and that 1d8+str damage is enough of a deterrent for tough monsters to not walk away from the fighter. Monsters live rounds. ROUNDS. Their lives are forfeit the moment the DM puts them in front of the players.

[Unoriginal]

Please explain to me how a dragon flying 20' in the air is stopped by a fighter with a sword. I'll even let you have PAM and sentinel for free. You can't reach that dragon. It's free to fly over anyone it pleases without any AoOs, and engage anyone it pleases with bite, claw, claw, legendary action wing attack.

So you're saying that all those ranged characters will in fact have to engage in "inefficient" melee and there is nothing that can be done about it?

Monsters live rounds. ROUNDS. Their lives are forfeit the moment the DM puts them in front of the players.

"Every single monster is a self-sacrificial fanatic who will give their lives to moderately inconvenience the party" is not a take any DM who want fights to be even remotely engaging, interesting or entertaining will apply to their table.

Some monsters are self-sacrificial fanatics. Not all of them.

[DarknessEternal]

Your characters may not want to fight in melee, but the thing is, your characters will likely not have a choice about it.
.

This. If you're whole party is ranged, then your whole party is melee.

[GreyBlack]

Why do you think melee characters are significantly more durable than ranged characters? A ranged fighter has AC17. A melee fighter has AC18 if he's trying to do GWM things. (before I account that it seems that many DMs are hesitant to pass out plate) They also have the same HP.

Please explain to me how a dragon flying 20' in the air is stopped by a fighter with a sword. I'll even let you have PAM and sentinel for free. You can't reach that dragon. It's free to fly over anyone it pleases without any AoOs, and engage anyone it pleases with bite, claw, claw, legendary action wing attack.

The problem with melee is that if one character wants to approach the (default RAW) monsters to attack them, the monsters will probably all target that one character because its the closest one/only one they can reach. This heavily taxes their HP much more than if multiple people are playing melee. The first melee character is a problem. Multiple at least spreads the damage among multiple PCs.

Side note: It's trivial to get AC19 on nearly any character with a one level dip into multiple different classes. Combine that with shield/absorb elements on your squishy casters and they're doing just fine if the dragon flies up to them to attack them thrice.



It seems, to me, that you're also making a lot of assumptions about how players are choosing their features and that 1d8+str damage is enough of a deterrent for tough monsters to not walk away from the fighter. Monsters live rounds. ROUNDS. Their lives are forfeit the moment the DM puts them in front of the players.

Question: How close do you have to be in order to make a bite or claw attack?

Answer: 5 feet with exceptions.

So, assuming the monster is going to engage in melee, they have to get into melee range of the PC, correct? So they have to be within 5 feet in order to attack the party member.

So. Hypothetical party position. Dragon on ground, fighter with longsword 5 feet ahead, wizard 80 feet behind.

Dragon absolutely could fly 20 feet up to get out of the fighter's range. It risks an opportunity attack, and sure the 1d8+str damage is not a huge amount of damage. So, it decides to fly up and over to the wizard. To clear the fighter's reach, the dragon has to fly 10 feet in the air, but you said 20 feet, so let's do that. Dragon is now 20 feet in the air. Dragon now has to fly 80 feet to get to this wizard. BUT! The dragon can't do that, because it can only fly 80 feet; it can only fly 60 feet now because it flew up 20. Its options are limited as to who it can even attack at that point.

So. Given how tough it is to get to said wizard because of that movement, why isn't the dragon just going to try and murderify the fighter in front of it?

Now. You said a ranged fighter has a 17 AC while a melee GWM fighter has an 18 AC. I'm guessing said ranged fighter has a +5 dex and is wearing studded leather, while the melee fighter is wearing plate. That still means that, on average, the dragon will miss the melee fighter 5% more often than the ranged fighter. Missing an extra 5% of the time is not unsubstantial; that's 1 in every 20 attacks more that the dragon will miss. An adult black dragon has a +11 to hit, meaning that, for the ranged fighter, he has to roll a 6 or higher while for a melee fighter, it's 7 or higher. And this is all just assuming that GWM is the optimal way to play; throw just a regular shield on top of that plate armor, and that 5% miss chance becomes 15% miss chance (3 in 20). Imagine having 15% of a dragon's attacks missing just because you're choosing to engage it with a shield.

And that's all without feats, the dodge action, grappling, shoving prone, and other things you could accomplish in melee range that you are literally not allowed to do while engaging from range. We're also not factoring in that a bow fighter from that range might have to invest in their stats differently (are you really going to play a fighter with 8 strength?).

So, I reiterate: I think you're theorycrafting here. You're right; _theoretically_, ranged combat might be better assuming certain preconditions, such as an infinite flat plane, the ability to infinitely kite your enemy, and no fear of other repercussions. In practice, I don't think you'll see much difference in an actual game because we don't tend to invade featureless planes too often.

[Asmerv]

I agree. Being ranged has very little sacrifices in return for the massive flexibility it gains in positioning, target selection and options.

You have just as much, if not more damage than a damage focused melee character due to the fighting style being very, very good and getting similar feats to add a bonus action attack and -5/+10 just like the melee does. Bonus, you gain a huge initiative advantage and arguably boost a more important saving throw.

I'd like to see melee do more damage and really ideally be capable of some unique melee-only abilities to carve a better niche.

[Sillybird99]

An all ranged party will:

-likely never get an opportunity attack

-struggle more to give a ranged rogue sneak attack

-be dominated by darkness and fog cloud unless they all build devilsight

-will struggle more to lock down casters

-be at disadvantage against melee encounters they can't kite

-never want to talk to someone potentially hostile closer than from 65 feet away

-may have to compromise their optimal build for more tankiness as any of them are equally likely to be faced with melee

-force the DM to prepare much larger battle maps to deal with a party ranged kiting off their normal maps

-be in more competition with eachother for magic item drops

-generally be less unique than their party members

- be really screwed in dungeon corridors with bends, or in small rooms

- have to deal with other ranged creatures on that creatures terms: cover, kiting, etc.

I could go on, but it'd be pointless if none of these convince you that a party wants melee in the mix. Not to mention, not every player is likes ranged combat. Some people like wrecking face, face to face. Not everyone is uber concerned with optimal play or character death. This is a game, and games are fun, and fun is different for everyone.

edit**

OR: the problem with martial combat.

What can a ranged martial do that a caster can't do better.

[NecessaryWeevil]

As others have said, somebody in your party will end up being in melee; while this is dangerous and suboptimal for an individual character, it's best for the party if at least one character plans for it.
That being the case, putting yourself in harm's way is what big damn heroes do, and sometimes I want to be one. "I am Aragorn son of Arathorn, and if by life or death I can save you, I will."

[Thunderous Mojo]

I don't think you'll see much difference in an actual game because we don't tend to invade featureless planes too often.

Those bastards in Flatland have it coming!
I'm tired of them bragging about being in a two dimensional flat plane🃏

[Neoh]

Guys, I don't think the thread is about whether or not you should have a melee character in a party but more about why melee characters feel a bit meh compared to ranged and magic characters.

Sure, it's always better to have someone willing to be the frontline, doesn't mean the characters feels as strong as the others.

Melees lack tools and that's a fact.

[Tanarii]

While I'd love to see shooting into melee penalized for ranged attacks and provoking AOs for ranged & casting and interrupted if casting spells if hit by an AO/interrupt return, I've found that generally not two things break ranged/melee:
1) Feats. Most specially a few broken feats break specific melee styles (GWM or OAM) and archery (SS) or handcrossbow (XBE). But SS is egregious.
2) large open white rooms with no cover and infinite retreating distance.

In actual play, especially if feats aren't allowed, melee PCs are plenty strong enough. Str Fighters. Paladins, Barbarians, Monks (that think a little) all do great. Melee StRangers and Valor Bards are decent. Even Rogues can hang in melee starting around level 5. If you allow Multiclassing dips for armor, even squishy casters suddenly become viable melee survivors.

I mean, you probably still want a squishy caster for AOEs and a ranged specialist for those occasional times when you actually start an encounter outside of javelin range (60ft for most Str melee character). But it's a good idea of have half your group want to be in melee range, and even then you'll struggle to keep a front line to defend the squishies against melee enemies.

[GreyBlack]

Those bastards in Flatland have it coming!
I'm tired of them bragging about being in a two dimensional flat plane🃏

You've just inspired me; I now want to create an adventure where the PC's do just invade a flat, 2 dimensional plane with nothing on it.

Guys, I don't think the thread is about whether or not you should have a melee character in a party but more about why melee characters feel a bit meh compared to ranged and magic characters.

Sure, it's always better to have someone willing to be the frontline, doesn't mean the characters feels as strong as the others.

Melees lack tools and that's a fact.

Yeah, I can see that point of view. I think my point, more than anything else, is that these kinds of discrepancies disappear in the course of regular play; when you're exploring a dungeon and fighting goblins who are pouring out of a 20 foot by 20 foot room, the battlefield can often encourage you to be a bit more melee and tanky focused than just thinking "Well, I deal more DPR this way."

[Neoh]

Yeah, I can see that point of view. I think my point, more than anything else, is that these kinds of discrepancies disappear in the course of regular play; when you're exploring a dungeon and fighting goblins who are pouring out of a 20 foot by 20 foot room, the battlefield can often encourage you to be a bit more melee and tanky focused than just thinking "Well, I deal more DPR this way."

Oh yeah, I agree. But I mainly play melee characters and sometimes it does feel a bit depressing seeing what the others can do more compared to my characters. And seeing how little more I can do compared to them. Especially for strength melees.

[Segev]

Oh yeah, I agree. But I mainly play melee characters and sometimes it does feel a bit depressing seeing what the others can do more compared to my characters. And seeing how little more I can do compared to them. Especially for strength melees.

Mobility-enabled classes like rogue and monk are mentioned as exceptions to this melee weakness rule (but then do less damage overall than more stodgy meleeists). Might I recommend mounts? Mounts greatly increase your mobility, both by having a higher movement speed and by being able to dash without costing you any of your actions. This is less nice for Medium PCs, as indoors, they will have a hard time getting their mounts, but a Small meleeist on a Medium mount (a mule is economical, a mastiff is kind-of traditional; see if your DM will let you take your mount as a sidekick for more hp) will have good movement and all that pro-melee damage, as long as you're not relying on GWM.

And, again, a Large mount for a Medium creature still works outdoors, where the movement speed is most likely to be needed, anyway.

[Ralanr]

Okay, coolcoolcoolcoolcoolcool. I see what you're saying.

Counterpoint: These are all features, not bugs.

So, you're very right that melee combat is more dangerous than standing in the back lines and using ranged attacks. Melee combat is more dangerous, and it's intended to be more dangerous.

As a hypothetical, though, let's suppose that no one in the party is a melee character. Everyone is designed to stand back and take pot shots until the enemies die.

What happens to those ranged characters when, for example, a dragon gets in melee range? Suddenly, your ranged attacker is getting clawed and slashed and eaten while you are firing at disadvantage into this monster. Your friends might be safe and running 60 feet away to continue firing, but you're just a squishy rogue/wizard/bowman who is crunchy and tastes good with ketchup. Then, when you're dead, the dragon can then move unimpeded to the next friend and systematically destroy them.

And, as such, this is why melee characters are so important to party composition; a melee character is able to stand toe to toe with said dragon, often in heavy armor and with higher HP, and prevent said dragon from getting to said potential dragon crisps. Dragon can't move past said melee character, because the dragon would have to go around them and provoke attacks of opportunity or take some other circuitous route to the target, limiting which targets they can attack. Because those melee characters are standing in front of the beast, they are effectively controlling the battlefield by their very presence.

It seems, to me, that you're making a lot of theorycrafting assumptions about melee characters, but not a lot of these assumptions are borne out in actual play. In my experience, having a melee character or two in front to prevent the monsters from getting into the back lines is crucial. Sure, in 1v1 combat, you might be right, but D&D combat often isn't just 1v1 "who does more damage" contests; it's about creating a party who can work together to solve problems and vanquish enemies who, individually, you might not be able to defeat.

Yeah it's a gaming thing. It's not like reality where our ancestors realized, "I don't want to up front in face of that tiger. So I'mma chuck my spear at it instead."

People who want to be in melee will be in melee because they chose to.

[Neoh]

Mobility-enabled classes like rogue and monk are mentioned as exceptions to this melee weakness rule (but then do less damage overall than more stodgy meleeists). Might I recommend mounts? Mounts greatly increase your mobility, both by having a higher movement speed and by being able to dash without costing you any of your actions. This is less nice for Medium PCs, as indoors, they will have a hard time getting their mounts, but a Small meleeist on a Medium mount (a mule is economical, a mastiff is kind-of traditional; see if your DM will let you take your mount as a sidekick for more hp) will have good movement and all that pro-melee damage, as long as you're not relying on GWM.

And, again, a Large mount for a Medium creature still works outdoors, where the movement speed is most likely to be needed, anyway.

The problem with mounts is that they tend to die fast unless you build specifically to protect them or your DM is kind to them.
And then again, might as well play a ranged character on a mount, I can especially see a Small Beast Master Ranger do it with the optional Primal Companion. Actually, this sounds like a pretty fun build, I kinda want to try it now...

[Segev]

The problem with mounts is that they tend to die fast unless you build specifically to protect them or your DM is kind to them.
And then again, might as well play a ranged character on a mount, I can especially see a Small Beast Master Ranger do it with the optional Primal Companion. Actually, this sounds like a pretty fun build, I kinda want to try it now...

Sure, you can play a mounted archer. It's sometimes even effective. It just doesn't help them as much as it does a meleeist. And the sidekick rules can give a mount plenty of hp.

[strangebloke]

Mobility for ranged characters is a defensive trait, for melee characters its more offensive. A slow ranged character might get run down by wolves, a slow melee character may have to spend turns not dealing damage. Generally I would say that most people value being able to deal damage over being able to avoid getting attacked which is why people perceive mobility as being more important for melee characters.

But the thing is, the consistency that melee character can buy with high mobility is something that ranged characters have by default and the defensive bonus that ranged characters get from high mobility is something that melee characters can't emulate without double the movement and some kind of mobile/disengage effect. Ranged play is inherently more consistent and safer.

The other benefit to melee play is of course that you can sometimes get easier sources of advantage (from being prone) and that you can sometimes get an OA for extra damage. But these effects are pretty minor and overall ranged play is a lot better if damage is equal, which it more or less is.

IMO things get a lot less dumb if you remove or alter the highest damage ranged options (agonizing eldritch blast and sharpshooter) and reduce the max range on other ranged options.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've had my fair share of ranged characters over the time I've DM'd. One of my fondest memories was chasing the "I'm a turret sniper, don't get near me" guy all across the map with a manticore shooting tail spines at him. I've yet to have a situation where ranged kiting was tremendously effective, and many situations where ranged characters were at a substantial disadvantage.

On the other hand, ranged monsters are wonderful and hard-counter most casters and ranged characters. Because I can throw 4-5 low CR archers (not the NPC, just enemies with ranged attacks) in per PC and the attacks add up. One of my favorites was 10 quad-drones (CR 1) in packets of two with a couple beefier meat walls. If I wasn't being nice and had focus-fired the squishies (instead of spreading attacks), those 40 arrows per round would have massacred them, even at only 1d6 + X per shot.

[Segev]

IMO things get a lot less dumb if you remove or alter the highest damage ranged options (agonizing eldritch blast and sharpshooter) and reduce the max range on other ranged options.

When that matters, I have found it would only tend to make it take longer before either side is participating other than as a chase or jockeying for position. Mounts make the long range on weapons effectively shorter in terms of engagement distance limitations. And melee characters tend to be playing roadblocks as much as anything else.

In dungeons proper, the engagement distances are rarely large enough that melee can't close quickly, even without mounts, and small meleeists with mounts definitely can.

I do understand the complaint. I just don't think it bears out in real play as much as it sounds like it would.

[Unoriginal]

Ranged play is inherently more consistent and safer.

But you are not guaranteed to be able to stay ranged, even with high mobility.


The idea that the players can *choose* some kind of "all-situation optimal tactic" is not supported by anything. Context defines what tactics ends up viable, and trying to argue that melee is """inefficient""" without any context is just the old "perfectly spherical cow in a frictionless vacuum" standard.

I just don't think it bears out in real play as much as it sounds like it would.

Indeed.

I wasn't being nice and had focus-fired the squishies (instead of spreading attacks), those 40 arrows per round would have massacred them, even at only 1d6 + X per shot.

Yeah, that's another factor to consider: NPCs can easily be more numerous than the PCs, and if they are then *they* are the ones who will be advantaged if you try a "ranged showdown without the ineffective melee stuff" and the DM doesn't consciously choose to spare the PCs.

You want someone capable of threatening the NPCs in melee, so that they can't just select one person at range and go full ham on them.

[GreyBlack]

But you are not guaranteed to be able to stay ranged, even with high mobility.


The idea that the players can *choose* some kind of "all-situation optimal tactic" is not supported by anything. Context defines what tactics ends up viable, and trying to argue that melee is """inefficient""" without any context is just the old "perfectly spherical cow in a frictionless vacuum" standard.

Insufficient airquotes.

But this is exactly it. Anyone who's played more than 3 minutes of D&D has had the experience of realizing that suddenly, their mage is being attacked by the wandering goblin who snuck up behind the party and now has a knife to the wizard's neck. The idea that you can avoid melee is kinda bizarre to me.

[strangebloke]

I do understand the complaint. I just don't think it bears out in real play as much as it sounds like it would.

Even when engagement distances are low, there's still a lot of value in being able to target whoever you like. You get to take out higher priority targets, (gank the caster!) you get to finish off foes who are low health rather than getting stuck in. Things like the hunter conclave's features or even the rogue's sneak attack that care about hitting enemies in certain positions are a lot easier to consistently proc when you have better target selection.

And then of course there are the more extreme cases where the melee characters genuinely are struggling to get in. These situations may be rare, but they feel really bad. The usual culprits are creatures with swim or fly speeds and some kind of projectile. Or any kind of character with a projectile in a field encounter where distances maybe large. People will often claim such enemies are rare, but they're really not since pretty much every spellcasting monster has mostly ranged options.

It's pretty easy to end up 'soft' stuck as well, where you're surrounded by a bunch of low-level mobs you can't deal with very efficiently as a melee character.

This doesn't come up all the time, and there are advantages to fighting in melee (its way better for paladins and barbarians for example, and you don't have to worry about stuff like cover as much and its easier to get advantage) but its pretty hard to justify building rogues or fighters for melee imo, and the requirement to fight in melee is definitely a drawback for barbarians.

But you are not guaranteed to be able to stay ranged, even with high mobility.

The idea that the players can *choose* some kind of "all-situation optimal tactic" is not supported by anything. Context defines what tactics ends up viable, and trying to argue that melee is """inefficient""" without any context is just the old "perfectly spherical cow in a frictionless vacuum" standard.

This isn't that abstract and I'm not making any such appeal to spherical cows. There are lots of rooms in published adventures where enemies start at distances greater than 30-40' and one melee side or the other is forced to lose an entire turn while the ranged guys get to do their thing. There are other situations where a dragon is flying overhead and breathing at you with fire, or where a dragon is swimming in water or lava. There are situations where a powerful mage is flying overhead and raining fire and death on you. Outside of published adventures, there are monsters that are extremely well-suited to similar strategies like flameskulls or centaurs or aboleths. Or maybe you're just fighting in a space with loads of difficult terrain like a swamp.

These things don't come up in every encounter, but they are really severe when they do, and the counter scenario where a ranged character gets mobbed in melee is way less severe. They just drop the bow and draw a rapier. Or they disengage as a bonus action. Or they have crossbow expert and they literally do not care at all. At worst there's a bunch of cover in the way which sorta turns things around where the ranged characters have fewer targets, but IME that's very rare both in published adventures and in homegames.

Yeah, that's another factor to consider: NPCs can easily be more numerous than the PCs, and if they are then *they* are the ones who will be advantaged if you try a "ranged showdown without the ineffective melee stuff" and the DM doesn't consciously choose to spare the PCs.

You want someone capable of threatening the NPCs in melee, so that they can't just select one person at range and go full ham on them.

If there's a large number of ranged enemies like centaurs or hobgoblins or goblins, the melee guy has to run after each of the archers one after another cutting them down, and they realistically can only "lock down" 1-2 enemies at a time. They're in a way way worse position than say a ranged fighter shooting down enemies one after another and then ducking behind cover of some sort.

The situation where melee gets really useful is if you're fighting in extremely close quarters or there's loads of cover in the way. Which does favor melee tbf.

Insufficient airquotes.

But this is exactly it. Anyone who's played more than 3 minutes of D&D has had the experience of realizing that suddenly, their mage is being attacked by the wandering goblin who snuck up behind the party and now has a knife to the wizard's neck. The idea that you can avoid melee is kinda bizarre to me.

And I fail to see the logic of why running face first into melee suddenly becomes a good idea because melee can't be completely avoided.

[Sillybird99]

And I fail to see the logic of why running face first into melee suddenly becomes a good idea because melee can't be completely avoided.

You can't always run from your problems. Sometimes you have to face them head on. Solid life advice.

But not everyone has to be a melee. Noone is arguing that melee is better, only that it's almost always necessary for some valiant selfless meatbag to do it.

[Tanarii]

This doesn't come up all the time, and there are advantages to fighting in melee (its way better for paladins and barbarians for example, and you don't have to worry about stuff like cover as much and its easier to get advantage) but its pretty hard to justify building rogues or fighters for melee imo, and the requirement to fight in melee is definitely a drawback for barbarians.

Str Fighters can wear heavy armor, which is a huge advantage over Dex fighters before later levels when they finally get around to maxing out their attack score, late Tier 2 or even early Tier 3 IMX. Especially if feats are being selected as per the OP, when it might be mid to late Tier 3.

Rogues do have very little reason to close beyond 20ft, except when forced to by the enemy, or to act as an off tank occasionally to take the pressure off another character (wounded tank or squishy). You can even TWF with thrown daggers if you're worried about missing with the first attack. Even with variant encumbrance and Str 8 you can carry a dozen daggers, enough for the typical fight,

[Chaos Jackal]

Oh hey, it's another ranged vs melee affair.

A lot of the counterpoints in this thread seem to ignore two things.

First and foremost, a ranged character is barely if at all frailer than a melee one. Full Dex and studded leather is only one point behind plate, full Dex and mage armor is equal and just having the potential of avoiding one or two rounds of enemy damage increases the effective HP of the party significantly. Higher Dex also means higher initiative, higher initiative means less enemy actions, and that reduction translates into even more effective HP. And they get even more survivability by being able to more easily utilize area battlefield control, because unlike melee they don't have to be in the thick of it when hypnotic pattern drops, and they can stand in a plant or spike growth without losing effectiveness. Not to mention stealth tactics (which a party with a high average Dex and no tin can do a lot with). Ranged characters are by no means glass cannons, and their circumstances make them even less so. A lot of them can also easily be effective in melee; see many gishes and anyone with Crossbow Expert.

Secondly, all those cramped dungeon rooms are still not enough. You can move outside and bottleneck enemies in a door. If the room isn't way too small, you can potentially use kiting tactics. If it's a corridor or something ranged are already massively favored because there's only gonna be a couple things, enemy and ally alike, who get to be in melee and the rest are either ranged or bust. Unless all fights end up taking place in 30x30 locked rooms or all opponents are barricaded archers (which sucks just as much if not more for melee, by the way) or something then ranged are going to be favored and safer for a good part of the day (see also how this adds effective HP, effectively nullifying whatever extra danger might be met in those 30x30 locked rooms). Besides, a lot of the things you can do to affect ranged affect melee even more. And being "forced" into melee, as per the first point, is nowhere near as daunting for a ranged character as many make it out to be.

Combine these two with the inherently increased options ranged characters have in combat and the number of things that can completely stop melee but not ranged attacks (namely speed reducing effects and things like the fear condition) and it's evident ranged characters sacrifice little (they have lower damage dice on their weapons and in general might be a point behind in AC) in order to gain a lot. Their damage is still damn high and potentially even higher than melee thanks to Archery's synergy with Sharpshooter and the existence of Elven Accuracy, in any place of half-decent size they can literally run circles around many enemies, they can choose their targets without worrying about getting past the enemy frontline, they don't suddenly become irrelevant the moment something with wings appears and they don't have magical flight support, and neither do they need to essentially regret their life choices every time difficult terrain appears or they fail their Wis save against Frightening Presence.

Tl;dr in a situation where ranged aren't favored they're still about equal to melee; in a situation where ranged are favored melee can't even show their heads, and there's a lot more of the latter than there is of the former.

This debate has been done to death, unfortunately. People won't be changing their minds over it anytime soon; they had seven years to do so. But yes, as far as effectiveness is concerned, the smart thing to do in 5e when you wanna poke holes into something and not get poked as much yourself is to grab a bow or a crossbow.

[SociopathFriend]

I'm confused- why do people have 'melee characters'? You can have a character that specializes in melee while still being able to use a bow.

Paladin, Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger
Respectively: simple and martial weapons, simple and martial weapons, simple and martial weapons, simple and martial weapons

None of these classes say, "Simple and martial weapons- but no crossbows, longbows, shortbows, or throwing weapons".

Why wouldn't you shoot bows or throw weapons at enemies from afar while they're closing in on you? What daft person has ever said, "You know what, I want the dangerous thing to be in my face rather than farther away"?

When they close on you draw the sword, ready the shield, heft the greataxe, but there's no reason to mutely stare at them if they're over 30 feet away.