D&D 5E Are ranged attacks too good in 5e?

[Garthanos]

I think a Fighting Style would be the best place to put it. Several classes get access to these. Sadly not the Barbarian, but Barbarians have good mobility and ways to mitigate damage already, I suppose.

the reaction cost makes it incompatible with cleave except some rare times in level up where someone may have more exertions. Perhaps we could add to it. This can be used with the same reaction as cleave? I have wanted a way to get cleave on non-two handed weapons.

Momentum Fighting: You use your body to add weight and momentum to the attacks of your one handed weapon. You may use a single handed weapon to perform maneuvers and apply feats normally restricted to two handed. Additionally If you reduce an enemy's hit points to 0 with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to move 10 feet. The reaction cost is not required if you are using cleave. This movement must move you closer to another enemy, but does not provoke opportunity attacks.

Probably too complicated that way.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don’t think the part about not provoking opportunity attacks is necessary, at least if the primary goal is to not waste attacks.

I’ve been playing a lot of Solasta lately, which is actually kind of an interesting laboratory for these things. And, yeah, I waste a lot of attacks because the next target is out of reach.

Also, Twinned Haste is crazy.

 

[James Gasik]

I don’t think the part about not provoking opportunity attacks is necessary, at least if the primary goal is to not waste attacks.

I’ve been playing a lot of Solasta lately, which is actually kind of an interesting laboratory for these things. And, yeah, I waste a lot of attacks because the next target is out of reach.

Also, Twinned Haste is crazy.

You're probably right about the opportunity attack removal, I was thinking about how Maneuvering Attack worked. So you could instead switch it to "spend a reaction to move half your speed" or even all your speed.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You're probably right about the opportunity attack removal, I was thinking about how Maneuvering Attack worked. So you could instead switch it to "spend a reaction to move half your speed" or even all your speed.

Or just get free 10' movement every time you drop an opponent to 0 on your turn. Since it's on your turn you don't need a reaction to use movement, and anyway I personally don't like reactions that trigger on your own turn.

 

[James Gasik]

Or just get free 10' movement every time you drop an opponent to 0 on your turn. Since it's on your turn you don't need a reaction to use movement, and anyway I personally don't like reactions that trigger on your own turn.

The reason I was thinking reaction is because we're generating extra movement out of nowhere, just like Maneuvering Attack does, so I thought a reaction was an appropriate cost.

EDIT: I originally thought "gain extra speed as a bonus action for dropping a foe to 0" but in case Great Weapon Master is on the table, having both options be able to work together rather than be either/or felt better to me.

 

[Oofta]

Suppose I take this feat as a battle master; further suppose I take the Archery fighting style. Well, now that -5 To Hit is already down to -3. Now as an archer battle master I also, let's suppose, have the wits to take the Precision Attack maneuver and I use it against my especially hard target. Mean average, I'm now up to +1.5 on the attack and the bard and/or cleric hasn't even done anything to buff my attack yet. If we throw in things like Bless, Bardic Inspiration and what-not, I'll be confident of my odds even against a very hard target.

And that +10 damage--it does a lot.

Also take 3 levels of rogue to get Steady Aim so you get advantage most attacks. Make it an elf and pick up super advantage elven accuracy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While thinking about things being said in another thread, a common point of debate when it comes to the non-caster classes is their inability to fly without a magic item. But then I considered, why not just use ranged weapons?

The Fighter can be built to use a longbow, gain a fighting style that lets him effectively ignore soft cover (and get a +2 to hit targets not behind said cover). If he or she is a Battlemaster, they can use their maneuvers just as well from range. They can engage targets at any distance, be Dex-based, and if Feats are on the table, can fire in melee.

The only downside is you can't use a shield. I mean, there is a damage loss compared to a greatsword (4.5 vs. 7 average damage) but that seems a small price to pay for the versatility of being able to attack from anywhere on the battlefield without needing to move that much (and force enemies to move more to close with you, perhaps).

The Rogue is likely better as a ranged attacker than a melee combatant (barring debates about two weapon fighting to guarantee getting your sneak attack in, I guess- when I played a Fighter/Rogue archer, I missed so rarely, especially as a Halfling, that I was once told to make all attacks at disadvantage for a fight due to high winds, and because the DM didn't say otherwise continued to do so for the next two encounters and didn't miss once).

So this has me wondering- compared to being a melee martial, well, the thread title says it all.

I'm not really seeing it and it's all conjecture with no math and no strong arguments.

You're doing less damage, you have a worse AC than someone doing the same damage as you would have, you're dealing with more penalties (cover, range, DMs being twerps as per your example etc.), you have to blow your fighting style just to try and deal with that fact rather than to give you a real advantage. They also can't act as a tank, can't perform Attacks of Opportunity (unless I guess you swing at them unarmed or something). It's not as far behind melee as it could be, but from what you're presenting, the idea that it's "too strong" seems laughable, unless you think ranged should be miles behind melee, which I sure do not.

Ranged Rogues have to stay within 30ft, which negates a lot of the advantages of being ranged in the first place, and to reliably get SA they have to use Steady Aim, which means no moving before or after the attack, and again, that negates a lot of the advantages of being ranged. Someone like a dual-wielding Swashbuckler Rogue is going to get SA more reliably, for sure, and may well be just straight-up more dangerous, and not that dramatically more risky given you're rooted to the spot due to Steady Aim.

Also your example is basically "I had a lucky streak", and is totally meaningless, not even anecdotally interesting, without numbers to give it context.

And people involving Feats are generally fantasists (at least until a Feat at L1 and L4 becomes the rules), because they're usually talking about a character who "comes online" at level 8 or 12, outside corner cases caused by DM decisions like rolled stats + free Feats.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm not really seeing it and it's all conjecture with no math and no strong arguments.

You're doing less damage, you have a worse AC than someone doing the same damage as you would have, you're dealing with more penalties (cover, range, DMs being twerps as per your example etc.), you have to blow your fighting style just to try and deal with that fact rather than to give you a real advantage. They also can't act as a tank, can't perform Attacks of Opportunity (unless I guess you swing at them unarmed or something). It's not as far behind melee as it could be, but from what you're presenting, the idea that it's "too strong" seems laughable, unless you think ranged should be miles behind melee, which I sure do not.

Ranged Rogues have to stay within 30ft, which negates a lot of the advantages of being ranged in the first place, and to reliably get SA they have to use Steady Aim, which means no moving before or after the attack, and again, that negates a lot of the advantages of being ranged. Someone like a dual-wielding Swashbuckler Rogue is going to get SA more reliably, for sure, and may well be just straight-up more dangerous, and not that dramatically more risky given you're rooted to the spot due to Steady Aim.

Also your example is basically "I had a lucky streak", and is totally meaningless, not even anecdotally interesting, without numbers to give it context.

And people involving Feats are generally fantasists (at least until a Feat at L1 and L4 becomes the rules), because they're usually talking about a character who "comes online" at level 8 or 12, outside corner cases caused by DM decisions like rolled stats + free Feats.

I played a multiclassed Rogue before Steady Aim was a thing, and the only time I couldn't get Sneak Attack was when there was some wacky wind effect giving me disadvantage. Also, where are you getting this "30 feet" from?

Now granted, yes, what I was doing was shooting at someone who had a melee guy next to them, so you could argue that if everyone was ranged, then I'd have to come up with another way to get Sneak Attack.

But that doesn't negate my point about ranged builds being strong. And sure, yes, my AC is 3 points lower because I don't use a Shield; but I see tons of Fighters who use two handed weapons and polearms, so I don't think that's a fair comparison. Further, what about Barbarians? Their AC is garbage, and most of them seem to think granting advantage to all their enemies each turn is amazing! In addition, ranged characters get targeted by less attacks than melee.

As for my one opportunity attack a round, so what? How often enemies provoke is purely a campaign-dependent thing, as my experience was, enemies belly up to somebody and stay there until they have to move.

Also, as an aside, I kept enemies off my teammates just fine as a Battlemaster, but that's a side point. As for Feats, I, personally, never took Sharpshooter- I never had need of it. I already got a +2 to hit to negate soft cover if it came up. I didn't take Crossbow Expert either, as a Rogue, I had a bonus action Disengage for that.

Finally, as for my "lucky streak", it's not really that lucky. At level 11, I had a +12 to hit with my +1 shortbow. If I only need 8 or less (usually more like needing a 5 or 6) to hit an enemy, disadvantage really isn't that big a deal.

 

[Garthanos]

You're probably right about the opportunity attack removal, I was thinking about how Maneuvering Attack worked. So you could instead switch it to "spend a reaction to move half your speed" or even all your speed.

if one is giving archers triggering opportunity attacks (I am) then this ability does not need the remove opportunity attacks -> I am also having casters trigger opportunity attacks for ranged spells.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not really seeing it and it's all conjecture with no math and no strong arguments.

You're doing less damage, you have a worse AC than someone doing the same damage as you would have, you're dealing with more penalties (cover, range, DMs being twerps as per your example etc.), you have to blow your fighting style just to try and deal with that fact rather than to give you a real advantage. They also can't act as a tank, can't perform Attacks of Opportunity (unless I guess you swing at them unarmed or something). It's not as far behind melee as it could be, but from what you're presenting, the idea that it's "too strong" seems laughable, unless you think ranged should be miles behind melee, which I sure do not.

Ranged Rogues have to stay within 30ft, which negates a lot of the advantages of being ranged in the first place, and to reliably get SA they have to use Steady Aim, which means no moving before or after the attack, and again, that negates a lot of the advantages of being ranged. Someone like a dual-wielding Swashbuckler Rogue is going to get SA more reliably, for sure, and may well be just straight-up more dangerous, and not that dramatically more risky given you're rooted to the spot due to Steady Aim.

Also your example is basically "I had a lucky streak", and is totally meaningless, not even anecdotally interesting, without numbers to give it context.

And people involving Feats are generally fantasists (at least until a Feat at L1 and L4 becomes the rules), because they're usually talking about a character who "comes online" at level 8 or 12, outside corner cases caused by DM decisions like rolled stats + free Feats.

While rolled stats are hardly a corner case, I agree with everything else you said.