D&D 5E Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.

[Corwin]

Don't just carry knives if you are always getting into gunfights.

 

[Cyrinishad]

In my experience, damage isn't the issue. Ranged attack is superior to melee in 5E because you don't have to put yourself in harms way. The melee character has to be in melee and take attacks. That isn't a given for ranged, which I find is the main reason ranged feels superior. Being in melee range of enemies feels like a disadvantage in 5E, and there is nothing to offset this.

I guess my next question would be: "Isn't what's good for the goose, good for the gander?" Essentially: If Ranged Attackers are "superior" why aren't they being targeted by similarly "superior" Ranged Attack adversaries? I would say that the thing to offset this would be encounters that are structured more appropriately and utilize more effective tactics to challenge everyone in the group.

 

[dave2008]

If we presume that is the case, doesn't that just mean that the DM is setting up the encounters to make Ranged Combat too effective? Ultimately, Ranged v. Melee efficacy is dependent on the circumstances presented by the DM. I think both Melee & Ranged combat work just fine, and it is incumbent upon the DM to provide varied tactical scenarios that require the party to utilize both types of combat.

Possibly, I don't have an issue with it in my group, I was just relaying what I have read on these forums before.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I guess my next question would be: "Isn't what's good for the goose, good for the gander?" Essentially: If Ranged Attackers are "superior" why aren't they being targeted by similarly "superior" Ranged Attack adversaries? I would say that the thing to offset this would be encounters that are structured more appropriately and utilize more effective tactics to challenge everyone in the group.

The monster manual tends to emphasize melee. A lot of monsters don't even have a ranged attack, and for many that do it's significantly weaker than their melee attack. I guess a theoretical "good DM" could avoid this, but it doesn't seem to be the default if you're running things straight out of the book.

 

[Corwin]

The monster manual tends to emphasize melee. A lot of monsters don't even have a ranged attack, and for many that do it's significantly weaker than their melee attack.

But why would those types of monsters just hang around letting the party pepper them with ranged attacks? Or worse, try to close the presumably long distance between them while taking even more of these attacks?

 

[Cyrinishad]

The monster manual tends to emphasize melee. A lot of monsters don't even have a ranged attack, and for many that do it's significantly weaker than their melee attack. I guess a theoretical "good DM" could avoid this, but it doesn't seem to be the default if you're running things straight out of the book.

Perhaps I am mis-remembering something, but if someone is running things straight out of the book... aren't the encounter distances in the DMG so close that Ranged vs. Melee is the difference of maybe one round of attacks?

 

[Lidgar]

Reducing by half (rounding down, so minimum +1 and max +2) the damage bonus for Dex-based ranged attacks works just fine.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

But why would those types of monsters just hang around letting the party pepper them with ranged attacks? Or worse, try to close the presumably long distance between them while taking even more of these attacks?

That isn't really the point. The point is that a ranged PC can avoid melee contract while sacrificing nothing, while a melee PC has to put themselves in harms way to be effective. The monsters can respond to PC tactics, but that doesn't change the fact that a melee PC is always putting themselves at risk by default.

Perhaps I am mis-remembering something, but if someone is running things straight out of the book... aren't the encounter distances in the DMG so close that Ranged vs. Melee is the difference of maybe one round of attacks?

Again, I'm not really talking about offense here. I am saying that melee characters are at a disadvantage in terms of taking damage.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Reducing by half (rounding down, so minimum +1 and max +2) the damage bonus for Dex-based ranged attacks works just fine.

Spells?

 

[Corwin]

That isn't really the point.

Yes, it was. The argument you made was, and I quote, "The monster manual tends to emphasize melee. A lot of monsters don't even have a ranged attack, and for many that do it's significantly weaker than their melee attack." That is what I was speaking to. Why would those kinds of monsters just stand around and take all that ranged abuse? Or worse, start heading into enemy fire?

Again, I'm not really talking about offense here. I am saying that melee characters are at a disadvantage in terms of taking damage.

Again, not the particular point I was tackling. See above.