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

[Mistwell]

We play in a lot of dungeons, or dungeon-like environments. And those settings tend to require at least a one or two PCs be melee. Which has led me to choose one of those melee combatants for pretty much the entire time since 5e began.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Yep. It's pretty easy to make a dex character that is great at range and still does good at melee. It's harder to make a PM, GWM, or grappler character that is still good at range. I gave up and keep dex at 14 on my melee characters and carry a longbow for those times I can't swing a melee weapon.

True, though thrown weapons help. Though not when you have over two attacks, I suppose. I find getting Fire Bolt or Eldritch Blast can work, too. Much better range than thrown weapons, though not using your main stat. I made an Oberyn Martel spear fighter that is strength and dex based that works pretty well. He has a longbow when needed, and before I got him goggles of night he would dual wield shortsword and torch when no one had magical light.

 

[Satyrn]

Yep. It's pretty easy to make a dex character that is great at range and still does good at melee. It's harder to make a PM, GWM, or grappler character that is still good at range. I gave up and keep dex at 14 on my melee characters and carry a longbow for those times I can't swing a melee weapon.

Or you could grab a cantrip from somewhere and use it as your ranged combat focus - Sure, you'll still maybe want to up that cantrip's attack stat to the 14, but then you get the added benefit of having a decent Int or Cha.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Or you could grab a cantrip from somewhere and use it as your ranged combat focus - Sure, you'll still maybe want to up that cantrip's attack stat to the 14, but then you get the added benefit of having a decent Int or Cha.

I easily could, but I prefer to attack with weapons. Otherwise I would play a spellcaster.

 

[CleverNickName]

Like Alton Brown, I don't care for unitaskers very much...and that goes for combat. A fighter that is only useful on the front lines is like a weird kitchen gadget that can only rinse lettuce. Unless you are on a salad-only diet, it just takes up space.

My fighters tend to use thrown weapons more than any others, especially the spear. A spear is good in both melee and at range, they can be used with a shield or with both hands, and they can deal piercing or bludgeoning damage (if you use the butt of the weapon instead of the pointy end). And if your DM let's you use such things, Unearthed Arcana has a pretty good feat that will boost their damage, give them reach, and let you set them against a charge.

 

[Satyrn]

I easily could, but I prefer to attack with weapons. Otherwise I would play a spellcaster.

WellI was speaking to the general you, not you specifically. I guess I could have worded it more like "Or for someone looking for some other way for their strength based fighter to have a good ranged attack, they could snag a cantrip from somewhere for their ranged attacks."

 

[BookBarbarian]

WellI was speaking to the general you, not you specifically. I guess I could have worded it more like "Or for someone looking for some other way for their strength based fighter to have a good ranged attack, they could snag a cantrip from somewhere for their ranged attacks."

Right. It typically does take less investment.

 

[manduck]

I prefer melee. For me, it's more exciting to be in the middle of things with some danger. Going toe to toe with a monster is more fun and it's more satisfying to me to overcome that baddie face to face. Now, that doesn't mean I don't take range weapons or dump stats that give range options. Every warrior has to be prepared for the situation at hand. If given the choice though, I get up close and personal.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I find this poll interesting. For all the complaining certain people do about ranged combat in this edition, it seems like almost double the players prefer melee.

 

[The Old Crow]

I have a love of archers that runs back to my Dad reading Robin Hood chapter by chapter as a bedtime story. But I also find the brawny melee fighter to be fun to play, maybe even moreso that an archer. So I like them both.

What's weird is that I think that back in the AD&D days a dex ranged character was good at range and okay in combat if they two weapon wielded, and a str character was good in melee and okay with a bow; both could be competent at either. Nowadays there is such a massive reliance on the ability score, and between that and adding dex to damage, and Archery fighting style, and much shorter ranges for thrown weapons, and limited number of attacks for thrown weapons, the str character is now comparatively incompetent at ranged combat but the dex character still does okay in melee. I don't really like that design paradigm.