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

[Ruin Explorer]

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

Yeah sorry I was implying higher-than-usual rolled stats, should have been clearer.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Why do you think the rogue needs to be within 30 feet? They just need advantage or the enemy has to be engaged with something hostile to it.

I played a ranged fighter rogue, it was one of the best damage dealers in the group. When I took sharpshooter it was so broken I discussed it with my DM and got rid of it. It was before steady shot which just would have made it worse.

In my current group we're 5th level and 2 PCs have feats, the rogue has elven accuracy while getting advantage on most attacks.

Your edge case is my reality.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

If you are looking for statistical evidence you're not understanding the argument.

It's not the white room DPR at issue, it's that on the actual battlemat the melee combatant often has trouble getting to their target. And (as discussed a little ways upthread) if they manage to drop that target they they have trouble getting to the next one with their second (or third, or fourth) attack. And your DPR drops to zero if you can't reach a target.

Meanwhile the archer points and zaps. Then steps around the corner or behind the pillar to avoid return fire.

Sure, if everybody chose this role there would be no tank. Not arguing with that. But this thread is about DPR. (Actually, it’s not. Got my threads crossed.)

Now, it's 100% possible that in your experience this just doesn't happen very often. That somehow your combats are set up so that there aren't good places for archers to snipe from, and melee combatants rarely have trouble reaching their targets. If so then, yeah, you wouldn't agree. But clearly a lot of people, myself included, have a different experience.

I played a ranged fighter rogue, it was one of the best damage dealers in the group. When I took sharpshooter it was so broken I discussed it with my DM and got rid of it. It was before steady shot which just would have made it worse.

I played a Gloomstalker/Assassin in OotA. Ridiculous. And, yeah, pre-Steady Shot.

Your edge case is my reality.

Yup.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Different scenario:

I have a major illusion of myself, who is hostile, and have it walk upon the enemy archer. Does it grant disadvantage by the rules?

 

[James Gasik]

Like so many questions in 5e, it really comes down to what the DM rules. The rule in question is "when you make a ranged attack with a weapon, spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated."

By definition, an illusion is not a creature, so on the face of it, the rules would say no. Of course, this same rule allows an invisible opponent who is simply standing next to you to impose disadvantage as well- the DM could rule that the illusion affects the archer (just as they could rule that an archer wouldn't be disadvantaged by an invisible creature if they so chose).

I'm not sure how I would rule on this personally. Spells do what they say they do, and a Major Illusion is not a creature- but by the same token, unless the archer spends their action and makes an Intelligence (Investigation) check (or shoots at it) they would certainly believe that it is one.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

this is what makes dex build better then str build...

a long sword at 1d8+str compares to a rapier at 1d8+dex... BUT the dex build can then use a longbow for 1d8+dex and the str build has to ALSO use dex for long range attacks (they can use str for some thrown weapons at short range... I think the javelin is the best one)

 

[Oofta]

this is what makes dex build better then str build...

a long sword at 1d8+str compares to a rapier at 1d8+dex... BUT the dex build can then use a longbow for 1d8+dex and the str build has to ALSO use dex for long range attacks (they can use str for some thrown weapons at short range... I think the javelin is the best one)

Add in that you can draw a dozen arrows on your turn if you have the ability to attack that many times but you can never draw more than one javelin. Meanwhile you can somehow magically fire a heavy crossbow which requires a lever or crank to pull back the string can also fire as many times as you have attacks. It's a bit silly.

I allow people to throw as many weapons as they want as a house rule, I assume a bandolier or some sort of quiver for thrown weapons. Oh, and longbows are versatile.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Add in that you can draw a dozen arrows on your turn if you have the ability to attack that many times but you can never draw more than one javelin. Meanwhile you can somehow magically fire a heavy crossbow which requires a lever or crank to pull back the string can also fire as many times as you have attacks. It's a bit silly.

yeah... sigh I forgot about that.

I allow people to throw as many weapons as they want as a house rule, I assume a bandolier or some sort of quiver for thrown weapons. Oh, and longbows are versatile.

we have house ruled that so long I FORGOT that the base rule didn't let a 3 attack per round character throw 3 knives...

 

[Stalker0]

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?

View attachment 255774
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.

30 ft rule was a 3.5 thing, that’s probably where they got it from

 

[Warpiglet-7]

L

yeah... sigh I forgot about that.

we have house ruled that so long I FORGOT that the base rule didn't let a 3 attack per round tcharacter throw 3 knives...

legit question: if you have a knife in each hand and two attacks, you could throw those, draw one and throw one for a total of three? But if you get three attacks as a fighter you could only throw one, draw one and throw a second…with no additional action to draw a third?

I.e. you run out of interact with an object actions before attacks?