D&D 5E 5E Ranged Attacks

[keterys]

And even in 4E, ranged is tremendously useful and important - it's just that melee is _also_ tremendously useful and you rarely can't melee so ranged instead. Indeed, it's often injurious enough in action economy that it's difficult to switch between the two that you're already losing if you do.

Much like if a 3e barbarian had to choose between making a full attack with his greataxe or a single attack with a javelin. (Or an older edition specialized/mastered with a magic melee vs a non-magical melee).

It's sorta true for all editions of D&D, except in previous editions it was easier to have no option to melee at all.

 

[Tilenas]

I remember 2e as being much more favourable towards ranged combat because of the increased number of attacks, a much better to-hit bonus from high dexterity, and less frequent use of battlemaps, which almost always reduce the relative distances in combat.

As I see it, it was 3e that killed the ranged fighter by restricting many ranged abilities to 30', no matter the weapon's actual range [i.e. you can shoot me, but on my turn I move up next to you and hit you] by providing ridiculously overpowered melee abilities like 2H power attack, and by unifying ability bonuses.

4e then zoomed even further in on the combat scene, making ranged combat even more redundant.

For 5e, I'd like to see a distinct feel for ranged combat, like you get in DSA (that German RPG), where you get fewer attacks with ranged weapons (because of reloading), but they do as much damage as two-handed melee weapons, can benefit from power attack, and can incapacitate the target more quickly.

 

[KidSnide]

One problem is that encounters that begin at long range have a different set of design considerations than most D&D encounters.

If you're designing an encounter where the PCs have a significant range advantage, the DM can attack the PCs with an unusually large group of enemies who have to wade through the PCs ranged onslaught before closing to melee. This type of battle can be a ton of fun since the PCs will get to defeat a much larger group of enemies than they are typically able. Plus, there is a nice dynamic as the survivors start getting into melee range and the melee characters drop their semi-effectual ranged weapons to guard the archers and casters who have to keep pounding the back ranks of the enemy.

On the other hand, if you're designing an encounter where the PCs have a significant ranged disadvantage (typically enemy archers/casters in a secure and difficult to reach position), the DM needs to be judicious about the type and quantity of enemies. The key here is providing (or allowing the PCs to create) terrain that allows the PCs to advance or flank the enemy under cover, perhaps while a subset of the PCs try to attract ineffectual attacks.

These are both fun encounter styles. I hope 5e is good at them.

-KS

 

[Tallifer]

The Fourth Edition archer ranger is just a Fighter with a different name, so players who want to be a Fighter with a bow can still do so: just build a ranger and write Fighter at the top of the paper. The Seeker and the Hunter are more of the woods-loving ranger of previous editions. That gives three ranged weapon classes. Then there is the Skirmishing Warlord.

As far as ranged combat in general, almost every character in Fourth Edition tries to get some ranged ability, whether spells, crossbows, bows or javelins. Flying monsters and ranged monsters hiding behind brutes and soldiers make life hell for a party which focuses on melee.

 

[CM]

I think the roles mostly killed the Fighter as bow-fighter, since he was supposed to be a Defender, and the 4E Defender shtick was to force or encourages enemies to attack him.

I see this sentiment a lot, and I think people might just be hung up on class name too much. In 4e if you want to play a non-magical warrior whose specialty is ranged combat, pick archer ranger. The ranger class no longer carries the divine (or even arcane) magic baggage of past editions, so the character can be played purely as a mundane marksman if you want.

Edit: Gah, ninja'd by Tallifer.

 

[CM]

As far as ranged combat in general, almost every character in Fourth Edition tries to get some ranged ability, whether spells, crossbows, bows or javelins. Flying monsters and ranged monsters hiding behind brutes and soldiers make life hell for a party which focuses on melee.

In fact 4e makes ranged combat even easier by eliminating penalties for firing into melee and cover provided by allies that were present in 3e. The addition of heavy thrown weapons also makes ranged attacks a more viable option for your strength-types who would normally be required to use dexterity for attack rolls. My strength warlord carries around throwing hammers and uses them often.

I don't disagree though that 4e with its focus on miniatures and maps has greatly reduced encounter distance. I just don't see it as that big a problem.

 

[Gort]

I always thought that the default D&D split of "ranged warrior" and "melee warrior" and very few people are equally useful at both, was a bit of a missed opportunity really.

I'd like to see encounters where people use their ranged weapons until battle is joined, then they're tossed aside and swords are drawn and then there's a big melee fight.

I'd also like to see the superhero-esque antics of archers go away. In reality an archer was in big trouble if someone involved him in a melee. In D&D games, outside of a few situations (completely surrounded, enemy has some kind of follow-up or rooting effect) there's no problem! Just back up a bit and you're safe - fill that swordsman with arrows! Let's ignore that a bow is a very clumsy and strength-intensive weapon and pretend you're just plucking a guitar string over and over.

There's also the weirdness where it's just as easy to hit someone with an arrow at 200 feet as it is to stick a sword in someone standing right in front of you. What's that all about? If in medieval times you could eliminate an enemy force as easily from the other side of the field than by actually getting your hands dirty, nobody would ever bother with a sword!

Then there's the ridiculous rates of fire people seem to be able to generate with bows in D&D. One sword swing seems to equal at least two bowshots, and that's when not even particularly exerting oneself.

Finally, I'd like to see crossbows be a valid choice at range for all types of character - from the ranger who wants a main weapon to the bard who wants some backup, crossbows are just like bows, but slower and more powerful. None of this, "Oh, but they don't need a feat" rubbish, that just relegates them to the junk pile as far as D&D characters are concerned.

TL;DR: What I'd like to see:

• Everyone has solid access to a decent ranged ability so if there is a flying foe or whatever, everyone can get involved
• Ranged is inherently less accurate than melee
• Ranged gets REAL, SIGNIFICANT penalties when involved in a melee
• Rates of fire are reasonable
• Crossbows actually have a niche - power over speed.

 

[Hassassin]

I'd like to see encounters where people use their ranged weapons until battle is joined, then they're tossed aside and swords are drawn and then there's a big melee fight.

I'd also like to see the superhero-esque antics of archers go away.

Yes, please!

There's also the weirdness where it's just as easy to hit someone with an arrow at 200 feet as it is to stick a sword in someone standing right in front of you. What's that all about? If in medieval times you could eliminate an enemy force as easily from the other side of the field than by actually getting your hands dirty, nobody would ever bother with a sword!

In 3e you get -4 with a longbow or -6 with a shortbow at 200ft. Is that too little? Maybe, but OTOH you don't get the chance to hit the other ten targets right next to the one you missed.

Finally, I'd like to see crossbows be a valid choice at range for all types of character - from the ranger who wants a main weapon to the bard who wants some backup, crossbows are just like bows, but slower and more powerful. None of this, "Oh, but they don't need a feat" rubbish, that just relegates them to the junk pile as far as D&D characters are concerned.

I'd like to see heavy crossbows ignore armor somehow, but I guess more damage would do.

 

[Keldryn]

I always thought that the default D&D split of "ranged warrior" and "melee warrior" and very few people are equally useful at both, was a bit of a missed opportunity really.

I'd like to see encounters where people use their ranged weapons until battle is joined, then they're tossed aside and swords are drawn and then there's a big melee fight.

What you've described pretty much sums up how it worked in B/X D&D and AD&D. Ranged weapons were used when an encounter started at long range and usually tossed aside once a melee broke out.

I think that the "ranged warrior" and "melee warrior" split is the result of too many specialization options being available. Somebody mentioned it in another thread, but I would also really like to see the notion of a character being built around once specific weapon or combat style go away.

As soon as you open up the system by allowing characters to invest a lot of "character building" resources into specializing in a particular weapon or style, you create a situation where they can easily end up feeling useless if they lose their weapon or if that weapon can't be used in a particular situation. I'm sure this is why there aren't any penalties for shooting into melee in 4e, as it would unfairly penalize "ranged builds" since their other attacks will be largely ineffective for their level.

A bit of specialization is nice for customization, like AD&D's weapon specialization (+1 to hit, +2 to damage). It's nice to have, but doesn't make you feel ripped off if you don't always get to use it. When you have 10 attack powers and they all require one specific weapon to be effective, then you've got a problem if your chosen specialization can't be used the majority of the time.

A slight nod to realism in terms of how missile weapons work in the real world -- as well as how they were actually used historically -- would be nice. 3.x and later D&D seems to treat a bow very much like a reskinned gun.

And please, let's drop the crossbows that can shoot each enemy in 15' radius (close burst 3) within a time span of roughly 6 seconds (a couple of 4e rogue powers do this). My suspension of disbelief can stretch pretty far, but it does have its limits.