D&D 5E Ranged attacks and disadvantage in melee

[Gladius Legis]

But, either way, I would just get rid of the original rule in the first place. shrug

Getting rid of the rule would make ranged attacks even more powerful than they already are. They really do not need any help.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Getting rid of the rule would make ranged attacks even more powerful than they already are. They really do not need any help.

Shocker--ranged attacks are more dangerous. Which is why ranged combat is so strong historically. Being able to attack a foe without immediate risk to yourself is pretty good.

If a PC has a sword and the foe has a bow, the bow guy definitely has the advantage. PCs (given the heroic view) wouldn't suffer issues uses a ranged attack in melee.

 

[Asisreo]

Shocker--ranged attacks are more dangerous. Which is why ranged combat is so strong historically. Being able to attack a foe without immediate risk to yourself is pretty good.

If a PC has a sword and the foe has a bow, the bow guy definitely has the advantage. PCs (given the heroic view) wouldn't suffer issues uses a ranged attack in melee.

From a realism point of view, that's fine. But we also have to consider the game aspect of it, otherwise being a melee combatant would be a detriment.

As it stands now, its already true someone with a bow has advantage against someone with a sword at long range. However, the melee combatant has access to more damage and technically more AC. Also, the melee combatant is better when at melee (no surprise) and actively threatens the ranged combatants with disadvantage on their attacks or an Opportunity Attack which can give even more damage.

A ranged combatant gets disadvantage when their target simply takes the prone condition which is free to do and only takes movement to undo.

I think Ranged Combat is strong but its not as powerful as some would believe when factoring in all the pros and cons.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

For situation #1, I agree with the OP's conclusion: just because a PC moves behind another creature doesn't mean that creature doesn't know the PC is there, unless there is a successful stealth attempt appropriate to the scene. Participants in combat are hyper-aware of their surroundings and constantly surveying the scene. On a more granular, gamist level, the creatures are all in 5' squares, which means turning 90 degrees and taking one step backwards in a 5' square could allow a creature to see attackers to their immediately left and right while hardly turning their head. So, yeah, while we're not trying to build a realistic combat simulator, the simplification of the rule works well enough without needing to overthink it.

For situation #2, blindsight allows a creature to "see" in its own way and does not provide relief to the rule that ranged attacks are at disadvantage when in close combat.


Here's an interesting side question (well, to me anyway, since I have two characters in our games with nets, one a sea elf wizard and one a ranger with the fisher background):

A Net is a ranged weapon that has a range of 5'/15'. Is the attack always at disadvantage when throwing it?

 

[Gladius Legis]

If a PC has a sword and the foe has a bow, the bow guy definitely has the advantage. PCs (given the heroic view) wouldn't suffer issues uses a ranged attack in melee.

Not when the sword guy is literally bearing down on him and about to stick him.

 

[Asisreo]

A Net is a ranged weapon that has a range of 5'/15'. Is the attack always at disadvantage when throwing it?

Always? No. But it usually is at disadvantage. The times when they're not at disadvantage is when you are unseen, when your target is incapacitated (stun, unconscious, paralyzed, etc.), when you're underwater, when you've gained advantage from a source not listed above.

Notice the situations called out negates the "ranged in melee" situation, so they stack with advantage. Sneak up on someone and use your net attack, you get advantage on the roll. It can be quite useful for sneak attacks. Monk stuns the enemy? Use the net to basically ensure it has to get through the net and the stun to get rehabilitated.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not when the sword guy is literally bearing down on him and about to stick him.

Watch Legolas again... he does it all the time.

Or Robin Hood. "Can you make your shot when you must?"

And how is it any different from a melee character when a "sword guys is literally bearing down on him blah blah blah"?

 

[DND_Reborn]

From a realism point of view, that's fine. But we also have to consider the game aspect of it, otherwise being a melee combatant would be a detriment.

As it stands now, its already true someone with a bow has advantage against someone with a sword at long range. However, the melee combatant has access to more damage and technically more AC. Also, the melee combatant is better when at melee (no surprise) and actively threatens the ranged combatants with disadvantage on their attacks or an Opportunity Attack which can give even more damage.

A ranged combatant gets disadvantage when their target simply takes the prone condition which is free to do and only takes movement to undo.

I think Ranged Combat is strong but its not as powerful as some would believe when factoring in all the pros and cons.

Good points, all, but I want to address this in particular:

actively threatens the ranged combatants with disadvantage on their attacks or an Opportunity Attack which can give even more damage.

Why impose disadvantage or grant an OA? A melee opponent is assumed always be actively threatening their target, regardless of what weapon you are wielding. And, as you say, ranged attackers typically already have lower ACs and are often denied "parry"-type features.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok, so...

1. Is it really so hard to say that there are (optional) rules for facing on page 252 of the Dungeon Master's Guide compared to what you did?

I... Did say there are optional facing rules in the DMG...?

1. The (optional) rules for facing are so absolutely terrible that I don't blame anyone for blanking out on their existence.

I disagree. They’re pretty solid, if facing rules are a thing you want. I’ve used them for some campaigns I’ve run, and they do their job just fine.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Watch Legolas again... he does it all the time.

Using ammunition as a melee weapon falls under improvised weapon rules.

And how is it any different from a melee character when a "sword guys is literally bearing down on him blah blah blah"?

Now you're being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

If I have to explain to you the obvious fact that it is much easier to defend yourself against and attack an enemy in melee combat with an actual melee weapon, then there is no reason to continue this conversation.