D&D (2024) How to simply balance ranged weapons.

[James Gasik]

Ranged fighters have a big drawback - they cannot protect squishier members of the party. They may be strong individually, but they are often the weak link in a party.

Plus fighting with a ranged weapon is boring.

I don't think ranged weapons are overpowered, I think dex is overpowered.

Also, if you attack a guy who has a bow from 1000 feet away in a clear field on a calm day by running at him with a sword then you deserve to become a pincushion.

I don't really see how regular melee does all that great a job of protection the party to be fair. I mean, what stops an enemy that's really motivated from going after your back line? An opportunity attack? Have you really looked at monster hit points? You have to build a character to specifically have any real ability to be sticky, either with things like Sentinel or a specialized subclass.

Or I guess grappling and shoving but that costs you your attacks usually.

OTOH, a ranged Battlemaster can do just fine at preventing enemies from attacking effectively by using timely maneuvers.

 

[Clint_L]

Most of these hypothetical scenarios don't apply to the game as it is actually played. In actual games, the two main ranged classes are not considered that great, and you don't really need a ranged specialist in your party, not the way you need a tank, a caster, and a healer. Or if you do, it's not for their ranged attacks but for their scouting abilities. I run plenty of wilderness encounters and long range archery duels just don't happen. Nor do you see many scenarios that favour ranged attacks in published materials, especially when compared to the number of encounters that are built around melee battles.

The reality of encounters in D&D is that they overwhelmingly take place in tight quarters with lots of obstacles available. Long range is seldom a factor for bows/x-bows, and in general you wouldn't want any party members to be that far away from the fight anyway. Hypothetical arguments aside, ranged attacks are not a problem in the game as it is currently designed. Unless you are designing encounters just to favour ranged attackers, in which case, do less of that.

Absent terrain/visibility restrictions, a melee warrior using the dash action will need 20 rounds to close with a longbow wielder stepping backwards while firing. That may be an extreme case, but having to endure even half a dozen rounds of fire, even with partial cover intermittently available, is a sufficient obstacle that, under 5e rules, no one in their right mind would come to an outdoor battle armed primarily with a melee weapon.

"Absent terrain/visibility restrictions" - okay, so basically never. Parties have outdoor encounters all the time and melee characters do just fine. Excellent, even. No DM ever sets up an encounter where the PC has no choice but to endure 6 rounds of ranged attacks to get into combat. The only way that happens is if the DM is being malicious, or the players are choosing to do something idiotic.

If the DM presented me with a situation where my fighter had to charge for six rounds through wide open terrain in order to reach a ranged attacker, I am going to assume that the message is "find another way." And we would retreat and figure out a plan, look for the secret entrance that is no doubt nearby, use an invisibility spell, circle around to behind the archer, or whatever. If I just Leroy Jenkins it, I deserve what happens.

 

[Jahydin]

I don't think ranged weapons are overpowered, I think dex is overpowered.

I agree. Since range isn't that big of deal most of the time (thanks to small areas and lots of monsters) and firing next to enemies is made at Disadvantage, it evens out to me.

But boy, does it rub me the wrong way Dex PCs get to have better Initiative and range on top of equal AC, to-hit chance, and damage as their Str companions. Oh, and they even have melee weapons made just for them now, grrrr. One of the many reasons I've moved over to Pathfinder 2e.

But anyways... to punish bow users, cap max arrows carried to 50 and have them lose 5 arrows every time they roll under 5 when attacking.

 

[Horwath]

I agree. Since range isn't that big of deal most of the time (thanks to small areas and lots of monsters) and firing next to enemies is made at Disadvantage, it evens out to me.

Disadvantage just means, cant use ranged weapons, but more politely.
Attacking normally while giving advantage and possible immediate AoO gives risk and reward.

But boy, does it rub me the wrong way Dex PCs get to have better Initiative and range on top of equal AC, to-hit chance, and damage as their Str companions. Oh, and they even have melee weapons made just for them now, grrrr. One of the many reasons I've moved over to Pathfinder 2e.

yeah. Moving initiative to Int is a good variant as it moves it from prime to dump stat.

But anyways... to punish bow users, cap max arrows carried to 50 and have them lose 5 arrows every time they roll under 5 when attacking.

hahaha!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

5e takes the design elements that might make limited ammo meaningful & designs them in a way that makes them self nullify their impact.

• What negative thing happens if you don't store your arrows in a quiver?
  • Nothing with no downside because 5e left out container rules
• What negative thing happens if you do store them in a quiver but feel like you need two or three or five quivers filled with arrows?
  • Nothing because body slot rules were left out so the quiver isn't competing with anything including other quivers. If the GM wants to fight to limit a PC to one quiver there is basically nothing in the rules to help support that GM or even present an obstacle for a player if the player feels that carrying multiple quivers is a thing they can do.
• What negative thing happens if the ranged character with multiple quivers has low strength?
  • absolutely nothing because on top of failing to include container or body slot rules 5e went a step further & included carry capacity rules that are so generous they don't really even start to matter unless somehow the majority of the group has strength well under 8 & even then it probably won't much matter due to the excess.
• What negative thing happens if you need to spend large amounts on arrows?
  • Nothing because arrows are incredibly cheap even for low level PCs and PCs of any level don't need to spend money on improving gear or whatever.
• Shooting into melee penalties?
  • Gone
• Range increments?
  • Gone.. disadvantage at long range but that's not only multiple chessex mats but often multiple physical tables worth of distance...
• Shooting through cover
  • "screw that I have sharpshooter"
• GM sez "you can't see that far" or similar
  • Again nothing in the rules supports this pure naked disarm by GM fiat.

Actually I am glad those rules are gone. Most of them were ignored anyway and don't add to fun. Also they were not really relevant for the balance of a specific encounter.

The problem is, that no rule was added that is always relevant. I think, givibg every melee combatant advantage and adding point blank range for damage bonuses would be the best option.

So using melee weapons gives you advantages. The new unarmed strike rules are on a good way to balance melee and ranged a bit.

You can now use a versatile weapon and just grab a ranged character that tries to move away from you keeping them in melee. Maybe even down them for advantage.
Note, that escaping is once again using an action.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I agree. Since range isn't that big of deal most of the time (thanks to small areas and lots of monsters) and firing next to enemies is made at Disadvantage, it evens out to me.

Strenth just got a big upgrade.

 

[Jahydin]

Strenth just got a big upgrade.

Oh cool. In what way?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Oh cool. In what way?

Unarmed attacks.
Grab and shove as opportunity attack. It depends on strength.
You just became way more sticky. And versatile weapons suddenly make sense.

 

[tetrasodium]

Unarmed attacks.
Grab and shove as opportunity attack. It depends on strength.
You just became way more sticky. And versatile weapons suddenly make sense.

That unarmed attack change feels less like a deliberate upgrade than a convenient side effect they resulted from unfairly offloading the work for supporting the old multiattack needs full round action and anything more than single sttaxj/some soells limits to a 5 ft step onto the shoulders of the gm without actually bringing that back. I don't think that the impact will be as meaningful to making tactical grid combat matter though & think it will just be one more thing on the pile of empty excuses to blame the gm for system level breakdowns.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Disadvantage just means, cant use ranged weapons, but more politely.
Attacking normally while giving advantage and possible immediate AoO gives risk and reward.

Which is in and of itself just means 'can't use ranged weapons' but enforced with violence.