D&D 5E (2014) Are ranged attacks too good in 5e?

[Flamestrike]

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.

I've never seen ranged attacks dominate in a game I've ever played in though.

Scroll down a few pages, and there is a thread where I literally ran a 14th level SS/ CBE/ Archery style/ hand crossbow Battlemaster fighter with a +3 Bow or some such and there was no issue.

He did tons of damage of course, but lacked any battlefield control, or tanking.

In fact, in that game, the casters were already getting hit pretty hard as a consequence, but they had a melee Rogue and a Paladin/ Cleric to tank a bit (plus peace domain damage transfer to take up the slack) thankfully.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah and I played in a game where my Battlemaster 7/Rogue 5 did really well for himself. Though granted, once he ran out of maneuvers, I was mostly just damage dealing, save for the Ise rune I got from Storm King's Thunder (1/short rest sleet storm). Though being a Rogue gave me a lot of utility. Was I optimized? Heck no, and I won't claim that I was. But I was having a lot of fun.

But it still colored my view on things, since I could do anything I would have been able to do as a melee character and more (well, except carry a shield).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

It is not always benefical to go first in combat. A defensively oriented fighter wants to go after the wizards has thrown their fireball and after the enemies have closed the 60ft gap. In 3e, as there was a delay action where dex also determined how low you were able to go it was different. In 5e initiative for melee fighters is not that impactful.

 

[Flamestrike]

But it still colored my view on things, since I could do anything I would have been able to do as a melee character and more (well, except carry a shield).

No, you couldnt. Absorbing damage at the front lines, and pinning monsters via AoO to start with.

And swap your CBE and SS feats for Sentinel and GWM while you're at it.

One of those two PCs draws monsters to him, and controls the battlefield. The other one wants distance, and just picks off creatures doing damage.

 

[James Gasik]

No, you couldnt. Absorbing damage at the front lines, and pinning monsters via AoO to start with.

And swap your CBE and SS feats for Sentinel and GWM while you're at it.

One of those two PCs draws monsters to him, and controls the battlefield. The other one wants distance, and just picks off creatures doing damage.

Actually I could take hits fairly well, I just rarely needed to. I didn't have CBE or SS either (did I mention I wasn't optimized)? And I couldn't use GWM if I wanted to, being a Halfling.

But that's all besides the point. If I had been required to do any of that, I could switch to a melee weapon and a shield and done the same amount of damage as I was doing with my shortbow.

I get the feeling you're underestimating the value of being able to use maneuvers at range though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think we're largely saying the same thing. I think it's a problem, as a matter of game design philosophy, if a desirable archetype (e.g., rogue that likes to stab things rather than shoot them) is a mechanically worse choice. There should be some incentive to get in close and dirty, to balance the incentive to snipe from a safe distance. Not from a realism argument, but from a game design perspective. If that incentive can be created via "realism" (e.g., hard to shoot accurately into a melee) I suppose that's preferable, but it's not necessary.

Its necessary for me, or at least without it the game feels off.

 

[ECMO3]

Con is a Rogues second stat (after Dex)

You can dump Str.
Int is not needed for anything other than Investigation (which is often underused by DMs anyway, and you can always take expertise, and you're proficient in Int saves so who cares)
Wisdom is OK to have for perception, but you have expertise in it anyway, and you're eventually getting Wisdom saves anyway.
Charisma is only useful for face Rogues (and Swashbucklers), and again, you can take expertise in those skills anyway, and Cha saves are rarer than Int saves.

I dont know too many rogues that dont start with a Dex/Con of either 18/14 or 16/16.

To be honest I find concentration to be overated across the board. On Paladins, Monks and Melee Fighters I generally start with a 12 CON. Barbarians a 14-16. Other characters it is usually 10 unless it is a subclass or race that uses CON for a save.

On Rogues specifically, Inteligence, Wisdom and Charisma are all pretty important IME. Without intelligence your investigation is going to suck, without wisdom your perception is going to suck, without charisma your charisma skills are going to suck and without strength your climbing is going to suck. That is before you even consider subclasses. Arcane Trickster, Scout, Inquisitive, Mastermind and Swashbuckler all make extensive use of Wisdom, Charisma or Intelligence (or several of them) in their subclass features. These are the core things that define your build.

You realize how bad this is when you get reliable talent and you still fail over half the "medium difficulty" checks you make with proficiency while the guy who took a +1 instead automatically makes all of them.

Expertise lets you cover this a bit, although you are not really expert-level when playing an 8 and you don't have enough to cover all your skills. Generally when I play a Rogue I dump strength to 8 and take expertise in athletics to counter the low strength. Since athletics it is the only strength-based skill this is the easiest one to dump.

Cosntitution is usually next at a 10.

Then depending on subclass and build my other abilities get the rest of the points with all of them all generally being at least +1 at start. If I am an AT I am probably going 16 intelligence or 15 intelligence and 14 Charisma. Scout 14 Wisdom, Swashbuckler 14 Charisma. That means I am good at the skills I am proficient in, really great at the skills I have expertise in (except Strength) and not terrible at the other skills while having abilities to play into my subclass.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

That is in the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I was with you until there. I think everything up until number 7 is fine, but 7 goes a bit too far.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I agree that's interesting (in addition to having ranged attacks provoke AoO's).