Are you sure that's accurate? Or do you *actually* mean, "It is mathematical fact that a singular, specific ranged damage build can potentially deal more damage than most melee damage builds in 5e, when certain circumstances are set by the DM to ensure it happens."?
It is mathematically accurate. A handcrossbow archer deals about 20-30% more damage than a greatsword warrior. Since the hand crossbow archer suffers no penalties for cover or fighting in within 5 feet of his enemies, he can fight just as effectively against enemies who pop up unexpectedly in melee range as the greatsword fighter.
Wow, I didn't know there was a feat that removed ammo expenditure. Which one? I need to let our archer's player know. He also will want to know how you managed to reliably get OAs for your ranged characters. He'd like to be able to threaten those as well. He's going to be so jazzed to know you've found ways to get around those problems. Thanks in advance!
If you need to threaten OAs as a ranged fighter, simply fight in melee range. Use the same tactics a greatsword fighter would use. If you draw a dagger or rapier at the end of every turn, then drop it at the start of the following turn, you threaten OAs just fine. You also happen to be capable of fighting at ranged combat for any situation in which doing so is tactically advantageous. We have gone over this multiple times in the thread though.
You are the one who brought up their class and fear choices as if they proved a point. I am simply explaining to you that the level of optimization being talked about in this thread is far beyond the examples you have given. It merely serves to show you why you may not believe there to be an issue because your players have never chosen the most egregious combinations of abilities.You are joking if you think you can evaluate people you know nothing about. Is looking foolish a debate tactic?
Also, again, you hope to speak to the superiority of "ranged builds". But that's misleading. You should instead strive for accuracy. How about, "that one, particular ranged build that is never achieved by accident?" Try that.
When talking about optimization, you talk about the most powerful examples. You don't say hey the system is just fine because an average unoptimized in knowledgeable player won't be able to push the. Iundaries of the system math. Instead you must inspect the elements that stress the systems capabilities. That is because in an ideal world, the various options would be of a roughly similar power level and no single option should be dramatically more powerful than the others.
I would rather the D&D games function in such a way that using a longbow was a decent choice for ranged weapon when compared to all the other options, instead of dealing significantly less damage.
Your numbers are still cute at best. Phantoms at least.
You haven't even given numbers. Much less analysis. If you are going to contribute to this thread, please back up your talk with numerical evidence.
Are you channeling Brittany Spears right now? Because, oops, you did it again. "Just as well as," has been repeatedly proven to be a lie. I know you know why it's not true. So why keep saying it? At this point I'm starting to think there is an agenda behind all this disingenuousness.
I have proven time and again that the greatsword fighter cannot compete in melee against the crossbow fighter. The crossbow fighter is at most down 1 AC and a feat. For that, it gains roughly 20-30% more damage per round, +5 to Dex saves, +5 to initiative, and the ability to fight at range when needed.
Other melee fighter builds can do quite well, but none of them are damage oriented builds. Those builds tend to focus on melee control utilizing sentinel and polearm master, or grappling.