D&D 5E Are ranged attacks too good in 5e?

[ad_hoc]

Yeah, but STR character sacrifices ranged capabilities for smacking people face-to-face, while DEX character can do both. Your agile fighter can just pull out a rapier, your big strong fighter still can't hit the broadside of a barn with a bow.


Of course a ranged attack would always be better than a melee attack with the same stats. It's natural, and I don't see any problem with it.

The problem is that going ranged doesn't entail any sacrifice. The damage, attack number, and your squishiness are pretty much the same.

I've seen plenty of ranged characters get eviscerated when overwhelmed by melee enemies which is going to be most enemies.

Yes, sometimes ranged characters are going to shine when they are able to attack enemies that are hard to reach. And that's fine.

It's common for me to see new players pick ranged characters and be amazed at how awesome they are. And that's great and working as intended. But then they come up against stuff that counters it and they have a hard time.

I've just never seen the ranged superiority phenomenon happen in real play.

 

[ECMO3]

Oh I know I lost my 3d6 Sneak Attack, it was suboptimal (the character was in many respects), but the fact I could do that still surprised me. I hadn't even gotten around to taking Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert, but that made me really think I could get away with the -5 to hit more often than I had thought. Damage was my secondary concern, what I really wanted to do was throw out some battlefield control with my maneuvers. I only got it on one shot a round anyways.

On a Rogue past level 5 you will generally do less damage taking the -5 for sharpshooter.

If you have extra attack and you hit with the first sneak attack then sure.

 

[ECMO3]

I would agree, except that if you're attacking from range you can easily get advantage, especially now with Tasha's, also giving you two chances to land Sneak Attack.

I have not found this very reliable in actual play. Even on a ranged Rogue I find I need to move a lot, if nothing else to eliminate cover if the enemy is engaged.

I use it, but I would say less than 1 turn in 3.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have not found this very reliable in actual play. Even on a ranged Rogue I find I need to move a lot, if nothing else to eliminate cover if the enemy is engaged.

I use it, but I would say less than 1 turn in 3.

Tell your allies to move to the side?

But, yeah, the extent to which these tricks work depend to a great extent on the DM: both how they interpret/apply the rules, and how intelligently they play their monsters. But the same is true when it comes to melee: a DM that wants to frustrate melee PCs can do so easily.

On that note, I will add is that Baldur's Gate III has been an interesting laboratory for thinking about these things. For the most part the BGIII engine plays enemies quite intelligently and deviously. I have found that I often struggle to use my melee characters as effectively as white room analysis would predict...e.g. the cleave benefit of Great Weapon Master turns out to be very hard to use effectively...but my ranged characters (especially the rogue) are especially effective. (And same for enemies in reverse: ranged enemies tend to be more challenging than melee ones.) I keep wanting to use the rogue in melee...especially since he acquires magic short sword/dagger much sooner than a magic bow...but the ranged attack is the better choice almost all the time.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, some thoughts.

Ranged combat is often very boring for some players, because of how easily effective it is, with very little investment. That isn't to say that it's more powerful than the good melee options, it just gets there with little effort, and doesn't do anything interesting in the process.

The only real exceptions are high level rangers (the couple low level bow spells aren't exactly impressive or tactically interesting), battlemaster fighters, and arguably hunter rangers.

I really think that ranged weapon combat needs more mechanical complexity than melee combat does, because melee weapon combat has choices and changing circumstances built in to a greater degree than ranged does.

Of course, that's why I'm iterating and developing an Archer base class.

 

[Ancalagon]

PCs aren't intended to fight other PCs.
The only metric to measure combat is how successful you are at fighting monsters or npcs.

yes, but we are comparing PCs. I'm sorry, and I am not trying to say that your position is nonsense, but your response still leaves me flumoxed as to what your position is.

 

[Ancalagon]

I look at versatility of target acquisition as the big deal here.

Indeed. Focus fire is a lot easier if most people can attack at range

 

[Ancalagon]

The problem tends to be if your meatshield is hanging back shooting things, he's not acting like a meatshield.

let distance be your shield for a few rounds. No need to meatshield right now if the orc warband is 300 feet away.

 

[ECMO3]

Tell your allies to move to the side?

But, yeah, the extent to which these tricks work depend to a great extent on the DM: both how they interpret/apply the rules, and how intelligently they play their monsters. But the same is true when it comes to melee: a DM that wants to frustrate melee PCs can do so easily.

On that note, I will add is that Baldur's Gate III has been an interesting laboratory for thinking about these things. For the most part the BGIII engine plays enemies quite intelligently and deviously. I have found that I often struggle to use my melee characters as effectively as white room analysis would predict...e.g. the cleave benefit of Great Weapon Master turns out to be very hard to use effectively...but my ranged characters (especially the rogue) are especially effective. (And same for enemies in reverse: ranged enemies tend to be more challenging than melee ones.) I keep wanting to use the rogue in melee...especially since he acquires magic short sword/dagger much sooner than a magic bow...but the ranged attack is the better choice almost all the time.

It is not just my allies. It is walls, it is enemies closing with me (which I could use it but then I would be at a straight roll, not with advantage and with no sneak attack and have to stay in melee). It is winning initiative when your party tank is behind you and goes last. It is the wizard telling ME to move so he can let loose with fear or fireball.

Then when you finally have a turn you don't need to move it is the opportunity cost for all the other things you can do with your bonus: Depending on subclass - Mage Hand Legerdemain, Fast Hands, a bonus action spell or hide.

These kinds of things together mean in the games I play and DM, Rogues are not using steady aim most turns.

To be honest I find melee characters making ranged attacks often and ranged characters in melee often.

In the white room you get the people talking about PAM, Sentinel and GWM. In may look good in terms of numbers, but that is a crapton of ASIs you are giving up and while you will have these lofty numbers it ends up being an extremely weak character in play, even in combat. You do get amazing damage every now and again but you do substantially less damage when you have to throw something or trying to prevent a grapple. You don't have any good magic weapons because the chance of finding a magic Glaive or Halberd is low, so by tier 3 either you are doing half damage or you are using your backup magic mace your party found while sporting your 16 strength.

I love BG3 but I have found the enemies to be exactly the opposite - exceedingly stupid enemies. Pretty much all you need to do is start shooting them from range and set up a mini ambush for them and they come to you. Even when you are fighting ranged enemies, they never pop in and out of cover, they just stand there and shoot you.

Get up on high ground. Instead of hiding melee enemies will run from across the battlefield taking 3 turns to get to you and then climb a ladder and get you in melee ….. and when (if) they get to the top you can push them off.



.

 

[Ancalagon]

Are you sure you weren't just fighting zombies on featureless planes?

Ranged groups will demolish many encounters but there are also ones they have a really hard time with.

The creatures are built to have very good movement and terrain often works against the party.

If you must know, it was the dragon of icespire peak campaign.