D&D 5E Feelings on Ranged Damage

[Whithers]

For decades now I have been disappointed with the dramatic effect in Sword and Board of ranged damage. Which game really doesn't matter, but I am currently looking at 5E. With Sneak Attack one may do some really fantastic amounts of damage using a ranged weapon. However, the ranged class cannot equal the damage capacity of a rogue with a bow. In earlier systems, a fighter with the right feats could make a ranger look pathetic even with archer specialization. Even with the new feats, ranged archery gets very little love. I am wondering if anyone else has considered ways to make the ranged character more effective/dramatic for story purposes instead of just someone who plinks in order to slowly edge the target toward kill-able for someone else.

I am contemplating the effects of the following as home brew rules. I am not saying I am adding them, I am just considering them.

Granting sneak attack to concealed ranger characters just like the rogue.
Granting ranged combat specialists their proficiency die as additional damage.
Granting automatic injury to the target on a ranged attack that hits with a die roll of 25 or higher.

Of these I think the last is the most realistic. Ok, what constructive analysis do you all have?

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm sorry, but you and I are apparently playing completely different games.

In my 5th edition, as many as eleven (11!) restrictions on ranged combat has been eliminated compared to 3rd edition, making ranged combat massively better.

And the hand crossbow fighter with Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert deals massive damage with no drawbacks, damage second to none, often more than 80 damage each round, at higher level.

So I'm afraid I can't help you. Good luck with your game.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[ad_hoc]

Wait, let me get this right.

You think ranged attacks are underpowered?

 

[Oofta]

While I agree that Rangers leave something to be desired, I disagree more on ranged combat being underpowered.

Add a couple of feats and your ranged attacker is doing far more damage with no penalties.

 

[nswanson27]

So is your issue with the Ranger class, or just ranged combat in general? One part seems to talk about one, but another part seems to talk about the other.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I agree that bows seem pretty ineffective, because all they can do is slowly whittle down an enemy over the course of many hits. I agree that the rogue, with its sneak attack, feels like they are doing a more reasonable job of actually dropping enemies by shooting them. (Even if a fighter does more damage with three arrows than the rogue does with one, that just means the fighter only drops an enemy with a third of their shots rather than with every shot.)

For game balance purposes, don't give the rogue's sneak attack to the ranger. The ranger already has spells and extra attacks, and giving them sneak attack would be overkill.
For game balance purposes, don't give proficiency to damage for ranged attacks. Getting hit with an arrow should hurt, but so should getting hit with a giant axe or sword.

I'm not sure what you mean by "injury" in this game. But again, it's weird that getting nailed by a perfect shot from a bow is somehow worse than getting nailed by a perfect hit from an axe. They should both be equally bad.

The major reason why bows feel weak is due to HP bloat. When a generic thug has 32hp, and a generic knight has 52hp, it makes you feel like a wimp because your arrows have such little effect when they actually hit. A solution to this problem, as the DM, is to stop using such powerful NPCs. Instead of thugs and knights, which are practically superhuman with their 5-8 hit dice, use bandits and guards; since they have a much more reasonable 11hp, your archer PCs will get to feel more heroic by dropping each one in a single hit.

 

[Mercule]

I'm just going to put this forth and move on:

In earlier systems, a fighter with the right feats could make a ranger look pathetic even with archer specialization.

You and I have very different definitions of "earlier editions" (I assume that's what you meant). While 3E is technically "earlier" than 5E, I would not have thought to apply that adjective to it without qualification.

Oy, vey! I'm getting old. Now, get off my lawn!

 

[Hillsy7]

Rangers also get Archery as Fighting style - which is a 10% damage boost straight off the bat (More hits, more damage), and also mitigates some of Sharpshooter, which is huge (Static damage of 10 is about the same as 3d6). Granted Rogues could have sharpshooter, but they then hit less meaning Sneak attack hits less. Hunter Rangers also get an additional d8 (Collosus Slayer), access to hunter's mark (+1d6) AND have an extra attack. Rogues do not. Also Rogues need someone threatening their target, which means their sneak attack options are slightly limited. Meaning that a Ranger is peppering enemies straight out of the trap while the rogue has to wait a bit for the meatshields to engage.

Basically, a Rogue with a bow is banking A LOT on rolling well and getting advantage.

 

[Caliban]

My feelings on Ranged Damage: It hurts. Please stop shooting me.

 

[nswanson27]

Rangers also get Archery as Fighting style - which is a 10% damage boost straight off the bat (More hits, more damage), and also mitigates some of Sharpshooter, which is huge (Static damage of 10 is about the same as 3d6). Granted Rogues could have sharpshooter, but they then hit less meaning Sneak attack hits less. Hunter Rangers also get an additional d8 (Collosus Slayer), access to hunter's mark (+1d6) AND have an extra attack. Rogues do not. Also Rogues need someone threatening their target, which means their sneak attack options are slightly limited. Meaning that a Ranger is peppering enemies straight out of the trap while the rogue has to wait a bit for the meatshields to engage.

Basically, a Rogue with a bow is banking A LOT on rolling well and getting advantage.

Another small one - rangers get proficiency with longbows, rogues do not. A tad more damage, and a lot more range.