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

[Bill Zebub]

A house rule I would use, but don't want to actually suggest it to my players...hoping somebody will think of it...is that holding action for when an archer shoots and then casting the gust cantrip on them would impose disadvantage on the attack roll.

I'd allow the same thing using the shove option from the telekinetic feat.

 

[James Gasik]

A house rule I would use, but don't want to actually suggest it to my players...hoping somebody will think of it...is that holding action for when an archer shoots and then casting the gust cantrip on them would impose disadvantage on the attack roll.

I'd allow the same thing using the shove option from the telekinetic feat.

Just for the one arrow shot? Hm. I'm not sure giving up your action to ready to impose disadvantage is a great use of your action, but it's certainly not broken. I mean, at that point, just have everyone advance on the archer taking the Dodge action (or move to cover while doing so) seems more effective.

A player of mine recently suggested that fireball be allowed to burn up an enemy's bow and arrows, but another player who plays an archer looked ready to strangle him for the suggestion, lol.

 

[Oofta]

L

legit question: if you have a knife in each hand and two attacks, you could throw those, draw one and throw one for a total of three? But if you get three attacks as a fighter you could only throw one, draw one and throw a second…with no additional action to draw a third?

I.e. you run out of interact with an object actions before attacks?

Yes drawing a thrown weapon is an object interaction according to RAW.

You can take the two weapon feat to draw two, and now there's the "thrower" feat that let's you draw as many as you want.

For some reason you can draw an arrow as part of the attack, but not daggers.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

8

Yes drawing a thrown weapon is an object interaction according to RAW.

You can take the two weapon feat to draw two, and now there's the "thrower" feat that let's you draw as many as you want.

For some reason you can draw an arrow as part of the attack, but not daggers.

Yes, they did that wrong in my opinion. At least some small thrown weapons should just have the ammunition property at least.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean, at that point, just have everyone advance on the archer taking the Dodge action (or move to cover while doing so) seems more effective.

I find it pretty easy to imagine (or simply remember) situations where advancing on the archer is not possible, and imposing disadvantage on the shot would be a tactical priority.

In every combat? No.

 

[GSHamster]

I do wonder what D&D would look like if casting and ranged attacks were a full-round action, while you could move and make a melee attack in the same round. That alone would make melee much stronger, but it would also make reactive actions/abilities that punished a caster/ranged for casting next to you much more viable.

 

[James Gasik]

It is odd how D&D got to this point. Everyone talks about how hard it was to cast spells in AD&D, for example, but ranged attacks used to be hard to pull off too.

 

[Garthanos]

Just for the one arrow shot? Hm. I'm not sure giving up your action to ready to impose disadvantage is a great use of your action, but it's certainly not broken.

Broken can be broken because its way too situational and takes resources from/competes with things that arent or because its bad...

It is odd how D&D got to this point. Everyone talks about how hard it was to cast spells in AD&D, for example, but ranged attacks used to be hard to pull off too.

I do not remember archery being tough to pull off.

 

[James Gasik]

Broken can be broken because its way too situational and takes resources from/competes with things that arent or because its bad...

I do not remember archery being tough to pull off.

Oh sure, for example, while Dexterity was used to attack, only thrown weapons, slings, and composite bows could allow for a Strength bonus to damage, and composite bows had to be specially made to allow for that. So most ranged attacks wouldn't gain any bonuses.

Then you had rules like this:

Or this one:

In addition, from The Dragon #149 & 150, "Sage Advice" by Skip Williams:

"Can characters use missile weapons when fighting toe-to-toe with an opponent?
Characters cannot aim and fire bows, use slings, or hurl hand-held weapons while in melee. Loaded and cocked crossbows can be fired in melee but cannot be reloaded. Since light and heavy crossbows are too large to be very handy, the DM might rule that they can be fired only when the user has initiative.

Can missile weapons, other than hurled melee weapons, be used in melee?
No, missiles cannot be fired or hurled when the firing character is in melee. Furthermore, bows and arrows are not melee weapons and cannot normally be used in hand-to-hand combat. A bow or crossbow could, however, be used for pummeling (see Unearthed Arcana, page 107)."

While this concept was a rule in 1e, it was not explicitly stated in 2e, though inferences could (and were) drawn from the text of "firing into a melee" and the existence of a "point blank range" for bow specialists- and most DM's who played in 1e assumed this was still the rule (or, at the least, ruled it this way) before Skip gave a definitive answer.

 

[Garthanos]

Oh sure, for example, while Dexterity was used to attack, only thrown weapons, slings, and composite bows could allow for a Strength bonus to damage, and composite bows had to be specially made to allow for that. So most ranged attacks wouldn't gain any bonuses.

Then you had rules like this:

View attachment 256585
Or this one:
View attachment 256591
In addition, from The Dragon #149 & 150, "Sage Advice" by Skip Williams:

"Can characters use missile weapons when fighting toe-to-toe with an opponent?
Characters cannot aim and fire bows, use slings, or hurl hand-held weapons while in melee. Loaded and cocked crossbows can be fired in melee but cannot be reloaded. Since light and heavy crossbows are too large to be very handy, the DM might rule that they can be fired only when the user has initiative.

Can missile weapons, other than hurled melee weapons, be used in melee?
No, missiles cannot be fired or hurled when the firing character is in melee. Furthermore, bows and arrows are not melee weapons and cannot normally be used in hand-to-hand combat. A bow or crossbow could, however, be used for pummeling (see Unearthed Arcana, page 107)."

While this concept was a rule in 1e, it was not explicitly stated in 2e, though inferences could (and were) drawn from the text of "firing into a melee" and the existence of a "point blank range" for bow specialists- and most DM's who played in 1e assumed this was still the rule (or, at the least, ruled it this way) before Skip gave a definitive answer.

That firing into melee, in effect it hits something random regardless of skill, or actually your skill makes it more likely you hit anything including allies? And a whole lot of nos in there when in 4e it would opportunity attacks and in 5e disadvantage... And firing takes up half your move or in 5e one might translate to uses your bonus action. And crossbows being treated as having an actual loading time ie the absolute fastest small xbow IRL could be 3 of 5e melee rounds.

There are actually decent ideas on keeping ranged combat under control in there if you want to bring it down (Darn I actually want to bring melee combatants up to snuff instead of imposing a bunch of realism nerfs on the archers)