Ranged Options for All Classes

[Paul Farquhar]

Wizards have spikes in their capability, but with 5E they always have some decent cantrips.

Wizards are not required to pick up any ranged cantrips. It's quite possible and legal for a wizard to have no ranged capability whatsoever.


Sure, it's inadvisable, in the same way that a warrior not bringing a bow is inadvisable.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wizards are not required to pick up any ranged cantrips. It's quite possible and legal for a wizard to have no ranged capability whatsoever.


Sure, it's inadvisable, in the same way that a warrior not bringing a bow is inadvisable.

One difference is that wizard cantrips fire with INT, rather than DEX. Wizards are ensured a reasonable degree of accuracy with their cantrips, where warriors are not guaranteed a reasonable degree of accuracy with a bow, unless they build for it.

Personally, I'm of a mind that nobody should get a free pass on things that they aren't good at. Both wizards and warriors should need to invest into DEX, if they want good at-will ranged attacks. Both warriors and rogues should need to invest into STR, if they want to be good with melee attacks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I still just don't see why we shouldn't just make bows finesse, and give str characters some kind of bonus that applies to all str characters, scales with str score, and makes Dex characters willing to consider not dumping str.

Like...it's purely additive, and it gives just enough room that in games with feats we can also boost the dual wielding feat and the defensive duelist feat so that dex melee builds don't fall behind as much, so both feat and featless games are more even.

 

[Satyrn]

I still just don't see why we shouldn't just make bows finesse . . .

That's essential what [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] had already done.

I had considered at one point to make my guns be completely independent of ability scores. They'd get an extra die of damage over a crossbow, and the attack roll would just be double proficiency to attack rolls instead of Prof+Dex. I still have the idea in my notes to be used for a specific item rather than as a general rule.

 

[Yunru]

Strength might be worsr at ranged combat, but at least they can carry their loot.
#3PillarsNot1

 

[Mistwell]

One difference is that wizard cantrips fire with INT, rather than DEX. Wizards are ensured a reasonable degree of accuracy with their cantrips, where warriors are not guaranteed a reasonable degree of accuracy with a bow, unless they build for it.

Personally, I'm of a mind that nobody should get a free pass on things that they aren't good at. Both wizards and warriors should need to invest into DEX, if they want good at-will ranged attacks. Both warriors and rogues should need to invest into STR, if they want to be good with melee attacks.

Here are the ranges of the 15 Wizard attack cantrips:

60 Feet: 5
5 feet or touch: 5
120 Feet: 2
30 feet: 1
15 feet: 1

So about half of them (7) have a range the same or shorter than the short range of a Javelin; 5 have a range double that of the short range of a Javelin but shorter than the long range of a Javelin, two have a range equal to the long range of the Javelin. None have a range longer than the long range of a Javelin (which I think is no coincidence). I think it's fair to characterize the "average" wizard as not having an attack cantrip which has a range which extends beyond 60 feet.

This is a meaningful trade off that you and some others continue to ignore. You literally cannot hit some targets that the warrior can hit with a Javelin with the vast majority of Wizard cantrips.

The situations where the average wizard has the advantage is when the target happens to be at a range of 35-60 feet (the Javelin thrower will have disadvantage where the wizard will not).
The situations where the average warrior has the advantage is when the target happens to be at a range of 5-30 feet (they will likely do more damage), OR a range of 65-120 feet (they can still hit the target while the wizard cannot).

Nobody is getting a free pass. The wizard is not better with their attack cantrips than the warrior with their javelin in a majority of those ranged situations. One can argue they're about equal, but frankly I'd rather be the warrior than the wizard with just attack cantrips in most of these scenarios since that pocket of 35-60 feet is a pretty narrow window for the wizard and they're completely useless with those attack cantrips beyond 60' unless they happen to have one of the only two cantrips with a longer range.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This is a meaningful trade off that you and some others continue to ignore. You literally cannot hit some targets that the warrior can hit with a Javelin with the vast majority of Wizard cantrips.

I get what you're saying, but I think you're over-estimating the accuracy of a single javelin attack made with Disadvantage. A wizard literally can't hit an enemy that's 100 feet away, but the fighter effectively can't hit an enemy that's 100 feet away. The fighter with a javelin may technically be better off, but that's just a technicality. For all intents and purposes, neither is going to hit anything in this scenario.

The fighter is better off when the enemy is within 30 feet, but if the enemy is that close, then you can often get into melee. You don't have a lot of fights where everyone stays at short non-melee range, so the fact that fighters are bad with ranged weapons is mostly irrelevant at those distances.

 

[Mistwell]

I get what you're saying, but I think you're over-estimating the accuracy of a single javelin attack made with Disadvantage.

And I think you are underestimating the quantity of times one can throw a second javelin with extra attack if one thinks ahead.

A wizard literally can't hit an enemy that's 100 feet away, but the fighter effectively can't hit an enemy that's 100 feet away. The fighter with a javelin may technically be better off, but that's just a technicality. For all intents and purposes, neither is going to hit anything in this scenario.

This is a patently false claim. Warriors routinely take a -5 to attack with a variety of feats (like Great Weapon Master) and I have never once seen someone characterize that as "not going to hit anything". Disadvantage is a bummer, but it's far from doom to an attack and it's slightly better than a -5 to the attack (since -5 means your maximum roll is 15 while disadvantage means your maximum roll remains a 20). Particularly since most things which attack from that distance are themselves not armor specialists and tend to be casters or archers or other creatures with a relatively mediocre armor class.

 

[Lord Twig]

In addition to the "Thrown Weapons are Ammunition" house rule, I might add extra range for thrown attacks for high Str. Maybe +5' effective and max range for every Str bonus?

So a 20 Str fighter can throw a hand axe 45' effective or 85' max. Javelins would be 55' and 145'.

It's simple and that way not everyone is using bows.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This is a patently false claim. Warriors routinely take a -5 to attack with a variety of feats (like Great Weapon Master) and I have never once seen someone characterize that as "not going to hit anything".

It's entirely true, in my experience. Disadvantage is an invitation to take a different action, because more often than not, Disadvantage will turn a hit into a miss.

Power Attack is high risk, high reward. There's a time and a place for that. Throwing a javelin at long range is barely better than nothing, and rarely better than dodging.

This might be one of those things that varies between tables. I have no idea what your encounters are like, or whether it's worthwhile for your low-Dex fighter to throw a javelin at long range. In my experience, those situations are exceedingly rare. What I say is true, at my table.