D&D 5E Do you prefer to fight with melee or ranged weapons?

Oofta

Legend

• Nov 21, 2017

• #21

My last character was supposed to be melee and somehow morphed into a ranged guy. I blame sharp shooter for this, the damage was just too effective to pass up.*

It felt ... weird. I felt like I was playing on easy, only rarely taking any damage while I had to help stop others from bleeding out on a fairly regular basis. In addition, while I like simple mechanics for my fighters, I felt like I didn't have a lot of tactical options. Would I target the guy on the left with my ranged attacks, or the one on my right? Decisions, decisions.

So for me, I kind of felt like a bit of a coward hiding behind the real heroes.

*Yes, I know I didn't have to take SS, but it made sense for the character. How better to protect my buddies than to kill things as quickly as possible?

 

log in or register to remove this ad

flametitan

Explorer

• Nov 21, 2017

• #22

I'm a melee fan. Both of the fighters I've played were primarily melee. I just like the aesthetic of the armoured warrior who leads the charge (hence why I ultimately decided on Banneret instead of Battlemaster on my latest character, even though I know Battlemaster is technically superior.)

 

D

Draegn

Explorer

• Nov 21, 2017

• #23

For our group it depends upon the character and the situation we find ourselves to be in.

 

Gardens & Goblins

First Post

• Nov 21, 2017

• #24

Melee for the most part, with generous DM support and maximum smashiness.

Table flipping, defenestration, and fireballs.

Fireball is a CQC attack.

 

redrick

First Post

• Nov 21, 2017

• #25

Most of my characters tend to be envisioned as mobile melee types — sort of a swashbuckly vibe, though I've never used that particular subclass. That being said, in practice, the mobility only seems useful for rogues. For instance, my last character was a barbarian with the Eagle totem, which, if I remember correctly, allowed her to move away from opponents without taking opportunity attacks. But since there's not really any benefit for disruption in 5e, this just meant giving up on focus fire or forcing another character to soak damage. (I guess it would have been useful if we had a proper heavy armor tank in our party, but we were all light armor and no armor, and I think my barbarian's high constitution might have made her the AC leader for the group.)

I also like hand-axe/javelin/dagger characters that allow me to wield a weapon that can be melee or ranged as the situation requires.

 

C

Caliban

Rules Monkey

• Nov 21, 2017

• #26

I play a lot of melee and ranged, with both weapons and spells. I tend to prefer spells for range, as archery in 5e is pretty boring (if very effective).

 

mellored

Legend

• Nov 21, 2017

• #27

Range is a bit boring. Just stand and shoot.
Of course, melee can be that way too. But you have to move at least once.

Spells are best. Doing more interesting things than just damage.

There is a big lack of close range spells. (Other than spiritual guardian, which is great).

 

Satyrn

First Post

• Nov 21, 2017

• #28

Oofta said:

It felt ... weird. I felt like I was playing on easy, only rarely taking any damage

Click to expand...

That is what I find when I play ranged-focused characters. And it's just not as fun for me.

 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

• Nov 21, 2017

• #29

I always make sure my characters have options for both, and I decide which to use depending on the situation.

 

N

nswanson27

First Post

• Nov 21, 2017

• #30

I play a monk/rogue with mobility, melee hit, stun, and run for me!