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

[Horwath]

Without flanking it doesnt matter if you move inside someones reach. And there is a feat for this, so it's already in the game.

It needs to be general rule

It's already disadvantage, and there is a feat to remove this.

just to add more penalties for using ranged in close quarters

There is a feat that does this (and more).

It needs to be general rule. rework feat to make it more useful. Or just half feat.

You cant drink potions as a bonus action.

just refering to one of most popular house rules

Play a Cavalier if you want this, and as a DM tracking that naughty word would be a nightmare.

Needs to be general rule. Also, DMs cant count to 2 or 3 for most of the campaigns?? Also, it is expected of player to not cheat.

GWM and PAM isnt enough? 2H weapons already do more damage than 1H ones, and many classes cant use them.

No! You need more damage for those -2 AC

That's... actually a good idea.

Well, at least you like one

 

[UngeheuerLich]

problem with ranged, is that due to simplifying 5E from 3.5E, melee has lost some utility and ranged lost some dangers of using ranged weapons.

what we need back or modified:

1. Move without Disengage within someones reach? AoO.
2. Use ranged weapons while in someones reach? AoO.
3. Cast a non Bonus action spell withing reach? AoO.
4. Drink a potion as Bonus action? AoO, or you can drink it as an Action without AoO.
5. AoOs decoupled from Reaction, and you can make proficiency bonus per round of them. Still only one per opportunity. Like a built in 3.5e combat reflexes feat for all.
6. Boosted damage for 2Handed melee weapons or return of 1+1/2 STR mod to damage or 2×STR mod damage even, to keep it simple.
7. When you use your ranged weapon to Attack on your turn, all MELEE attacks have advantage on you until the start of your next turn.


Ranged damage if fine.
Ranged range is fine...heh
But, ranged combat needs some risk and drawbacks for using it.

If you can keep distance it's great, but if they close range on you...you should be in a world of pain. At least for one round.

No to more AoOs. That is a bad way of balancing abilities.

 

[Horwath]

No to more AoOs. That is a bad way of balancing abilities.

more attacks. more damage. combat goes faster.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

more attacks. more damage. combat goes faster.

No. It does not. Everything is slowed down to a crawl.

 

[Flamestrike]

It needs to be general rule

Why? What does it matter if you're inside some ones reach at X and move to inside their reach at Y, with relation to ranged weapons?

And before you say 'to get away from a second creature', it's actually interlapping threatened areas, where AoO are more likely to pin you down in 5E in any event.

just to add more penalties for using ranged in close quarters

You're already at disadvantage to your attacks, and cant make Attacks of Opportunity yourself (barring unarmed) using ranged in close quarters unless you have a particular feat, and the DM allows feats.

Needs to be general rule. Also, DMs cant count to 2 or 3 for most of the campaigns?? Also, it is expected of player to not cheat.

A DM has to track these AoO's (2-6) of every single monster on the battlefield, with them re-setting each turn.

No thanks! Keeping track of a single reaction, and hit points (who's on what) is already taxing enough.

Well, at least you like one

It's not bad at all. It makes sense as well, and adds a risk to using ranged weapons, where an attacker might be able to melee you (so within 30' of a most creatures).

I really like it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

You have it backwards. Strength is in many ways superior to Dexterity. The only real advantage I see is raining down arrows at up to 600ft away without penalty if you have the right feat.

Yes, many unarmored classes use dexterity instead of strength, but that is ok.

Strength is my experience is nearly as underrated as Intelligence in my experience.

I've found Str to be useful in the "lifting and shifting" departments, but there are many ways of bypassing those, and the sort of physical obstacles where athletics is useful. Using rope and block & tackle, using a party mount, any Druid can shift into a form able to shift more weight than most fighters can, or simply having more party members join in.
Dex is a major save, and has three times the skills associated with it.

However the biggest factor is Initiative and ranged combat. Going before your opponent is always beneficial and is effectively getting an extra action in the combat. Outside of a few specific builds, damage in melee is pretty equivalent, but high Dex gives not only better damage, but also far superior range.

The only thing that Dex loses out on is a single point of AC generally.

 

[Flamestrike]

I've found Str to be useful in the "lifting and shifting" departments, but there are many ways of bypassing those, and the sort of physical obstacles where athletics is useful.

Encumbrance.

 

[James Gasik]

Encumbrance.

Which, to be fair, is one of the most commonly ignored rules, but even if not, a Dex based build doesn't need to carry much. Longbow is 2 pounds, studded leather is 13, 20 arrows is a pound, backpack is 5, blanket is 3, traveler's clothes is 4, rations are 2 lbs. per diem, a length of silk rope is 5, waterskin is 5, torches (if even needed) are 1 lb. each, and the heaviest tools you might carry are 10 lbs. Strength 8 lets you carry 120 lbs.. I think you're good.

EDIT: sorry, forgot about the variant rules, if those are used, you'll need more Strength unless you're ok with losing movement speed.

 

[Flamestrike]

Which, to be fair, is one of the most commonly ignored rules,

So dont ignore it.

EDIT: sorry, forgot about the variant rules, if those are used, you'll need more Strength unless you're ok with losing movement speed.

Yeah, and a DM would be well within his rights to ask for a occasional Con save or ability check or gain a level of exhaustion for someone lugging around that much weight on a chicken frame as well.

 

[James Gasik]

A DM is well within his rights to do a lot of things. Whether or not they should is beyond the scope of this conversation. I mean, I had a DM say that since we were low on rations, we had disadvantage on all rolls until we got something to eat. Was he within his rights to do so? Yes.

Should he have done so? Well, considering it wasn't our fault we were out of food in the first place, and that it caused the entire session to devolve into a slog where we struggled to do anything...I don't know. I don't see how it added any fun to the experience. Especially once we finally scrounged up food and were able to rest, and the casters prepared spells to create food and the issue never came up again.

A DM is well within his rights to ignore tracking ammunition or rations as well because he thinks it's mindless bookkeeping. But yes, if you want to make it much harder to play a Dex-based build in your game, using variant Encumbrance will certainly do the trick.

That doesn't really change my question though. I mean, I guess I could revise the question to "are ranged attacks in 5e too good in a game that doesn't use variant encumbrance or house rules", but I could just easily ask "are they too good in a game that allows Feats"? Or multiclassing.