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

[Bill Zebub]

Charge could be a nice addition to Action options(yes, I know we have a feat for that too, it's rubbish).
Move up to half speed in straight line over non-difficult terrain and make single attack.
If you have extra attack feature, add your weapon base damage again to your normal melee attack.

This is the general approach I'd like to see with martial maneuvers. That is, unlimited use but can only be used situationally and/or with a risk/cost. Like Shove and Grapple, but more of those. I greatly prefer that kind of structure, as opposed to finite resources that refresh on rests.

 

[Rogerd1]

Personally allowing monks and fighters to block some ranged attacks Jedi style would work great.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

5e initiative is cyclical. The only difference between going first and going last is that if you go first you have an entire extra action in the combat.

That defensively oriented fighter could have made some ranged attacks and moved to a more advantageous position to defend the group if they had gone first. They next get to go after everyone else has had their turn just as they would have if they had got the lowest initiative.

A difference of 5 does not make you go from first to last... most of the time at least. Also a difference of 5 only allows you to shift your initiative to a better position in 25% of all combats. It might result in a round of extra attacks. While this is good in a combat against mooks, if you can throw a fireball, the actual impact of a fighter is relative minor. In the best case of a level 20 fighter this is 8 more attacks which is somewhat ok.
A wizard can have that impact with a fireball at level 5 and only if the fighter does not fo in first and stands in the way...

 

[FrogReaver]

The root of the problem, IMO, is dex adding to damage and not just accuracy.

Wizards cantrips scale like that. I'm not sure that making fighters using bows do nearly the damage of a wizard with a cantrip is the right answer.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In what ways?

DEX affects:

• Ranged attacks (on par with STR-based mêlée at the comparable levels of charop)
• Mêlée attacks
• AC
• Initiative
• A very common saving throw vs. some real nasty effects
• Ability to escape grapple

STR affects:

• Mêlée attacks
• Ranged attacks with thrown weapons
• AC, indirectly
• Ability to grapple and escape grapple
• An uncommon saving throw vs. being prone
• Carrying capacity
• Jumping distance

The only real upsides of STR are AC due to heavy armour and ability to grapple. I've yet to see carrying capacity and jumping distances not handwaved, STR save is almost worthless, what's more there to STR? Is there something I'm not aware of?

It is the impact of a failed save/check.

If you fail to make a dex save, often it jist means some more damage. A strength save fail gets you grabbed and swallowed. A shove can be used as a substitute for an attack, which you can sometimes use to escape a grab by just pushong the grabber away. So you might get more than one chance to escape a grab than by just trying to wiggle out of the grasp.
A failed dex check makes you louder, but either you can leave sneaking to the rogue or use pass without trace to get you where you want. In the worst case you spoil the surprise round or get into a fight. A failed strength check lets you fall from a height, fail to open a door, makes you drift away on a canyon.
The one point of AC difference is also a miscalculation. It is often more, because if you take a feat as a dex fighter, you will be behind in offensive and defensive capabilities, while the str fighter can still improve their AC easily and take a feat.
Actually if you go two weapon fighting, a str based fighter is better off taking the dual wielder feat, because +1 AC is really +1 AC while for dual rapier wielder it is a trap.

So after 10 years of playing DnD I can say that even though dex looks stronger on paper, for fighter types str is more impcatful.
On a second note: it is of course possible to have decent dex and str, so if you go high dex and don't dump str to 8 you are ok and if you are a str fighter and you don't want to go last all the time and be halfway capable in ranged combat, don't dump dex to 8.

And to be perfectly clear: for non fightery/clericy characters that want to do their job of protecting their party dex is of course superior, but that is the way it has always been and is totally ok.

 

[FrogReaver]

But one of things I'm taking into account is an encounter with a flying enemy, who cannot be attacked with a greataxe.

IMO, this is where either magic items or teamwork comes into play. The Wizard casts web or fly. Now the greataxe can hit the flying enemy. Grappling flying enemies when they get close is also a good option (provided they aren't too large). Then there's also throwing javelins at them or pulling out a bow or readying an attack. Str martials have options, maybe not great options but options in that situation. And if they don't it's their own dang fault.

 

[Garthanos]

Personally allowing monks and fighters to block some ranged attacks Jedi style would work great.

Part of the buff melee concept... nods.

 

[Maxperson]

IMO, this is where either magic items or teamwork comes into play. The Wizard casts web or fly. Now the greataxe can hit the flying enemy. Grappling flying enemies when they get close is also a good option (provided they aren't too large). Then there's also throwing javelins at them or pulling out a bow or readying an attack. Str martials have options, maybe not great options but options in that situation. And if they don't it's their own dang fault.

Yep. Classes can and should have weak points that need to be compensated for by other characters.

 

[loverdrive]

Hm, maybe merging STR and CON together would work? So the downside of going ranged is that you're now squishy.

 

[FrogReaver]

Hey I'm not saying people should throw away their greatswords, it just occurred to me that you could solve a lot of problems by just focusing on being ranged primary with very few downsides.

Which is why I asked the question.

Ranged is better at offense. No doubt about it. Melee is better at keeping enemies focused on you and off your allies.

Also, the battlefield map really dictates which is better. If it's mostly open terrain with great visibility then ranged is great. Add in vision limiters (dense forest that you can't see more than 60ft away) or city with many buildings that enemies can jump out of or use for line of sight blocking and things change drastically.

The biggest benefit of a melee character is OA's - which is often one of the least focused on aspects for them in optimization discussions. The second biggest is grappling.