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

[Bill Zebub]

but then in 4e there was no problem encouraging strength based melee characters either.

Don’t forget melee rogues! It’s not just Str-based melee characters.

And for me that’s the core issue: I just think (personal opinion) that melee combat makes for a more interesting game. Although I think the realism arguments are there for toning down archery, it’s really about what kind of game we end up with.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

It took a lot of DM in effect making bad choices for the NPCs

Just as plausible to make arrow recovery and repair as off camera

Anything is ok technically but if you are trying to rationalize it... It is very common components to fix an arrow with and fletching is a very straight forward appropriate skill for the archer specialist to have and one could have 20 arrows in a quiver easy (and an extra quiver on your mount or mule) .... just like the wizard having the skills to prepare those components can be and is assumed.

The way we played In 4e unless the arrow was magical it was basically off screen and not tracked but then in 4e there was no problem encouraging strength based melee characters either.

Yeah with relatively few attacks at low level, I don’t think limiting arrows has a ton of impact. I concede that point. One combat might see 4 arrows launched and two lost in our 50% recovery scheme.

Say we lose 6-8 a day. It’s one roll after each combat or a flat rate and automatic.

If we do thee combats a day, a quiver has say. 3-4 days worth of arrows. Approximate. We then another quiver on the mount. If you are not out for more than 1.5 to two weeks, no biggie assuming 50% loss.

At level 5, and not considering action surge or other abilities that would time is halved. And at high levels it’s even less.

If the issue is 24/7 sharpshooter carnage it might play a role. Surely on campaign. But when we get to teleporting, bags of holding etc., it probably does very little if you can carry a lot of arrows or get a lot easily.

In reevaluating it, I think not allowing missile and spell users a guaranteed “front” is probably more important.

In the end our groups are a mix. I have not seen a big problem for us—our group—for a variety of factors.

I think keeping track of arrows is probably the lesser of them after crunching the numbers.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Don’t forget melee rogues! It’s not just Str-based melee characters.

And for me that’s the core issue: I just think (personal opinion) that melee combat makes for a more interesting game. Although I think the realism arguments are there for toning down archery, it’s really about what kind of game we end up with.

Right here. And I take it upon myself to leverage fun options.

Yes, I know I can more efficiently hit stuff with eldritch blast but I choose to be in the mix for so many reasons.

In our current group we have an archer and he is kind of bored. I am not bored with my greataxe toting dwarven warlock.

I am not sure of the solution for everyone; liberal cover for targets and disadvantage seem like a start

 

[James Gasik]

Although things most ranged characters take, like Archery Fighting Style or Sharpshooter, can overcome cover penalties. Obscured areas and wind effects can impose disadvantage, but you can't have those all the time.

Plus, well, I don't know about you, but if there's a fog bank up ahead of me with enemies hiding in it, I'm not exactly keen on charging into it as a melee character either...retreat or have the Wizard toss a fireball in there seems a bit smarter.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I will say it has not been a proble for my group but for those who have struggled with this—-what proportion of your party are sharpshooting their way to superiority? One archer 2, 3, the whole party?

Just curious where people start seeing the problem.

Relatedly, if you have a bunch of polearm gwm people hacking to victory, how is that handled?

Just curious. Maybe our main DM is beefing stuff up? Dunno

But if we have a wizard fireballing and a cleric blessing…how many sharpshooters are left? Who is holding the line? And if they dump a lot of help into the sharpshooter, don’t we want it to be efficacious?

 

[Micah Sweet]

As was said, it depends on the kind of game you want to play. I want tactics and weapons to work more or less like they would in reality; ie, in a common sense way. I also don't want to push a narrative, especially not with mechanics. That means to me that ranged weapons are generally superior options, just like in real life. I have no issue with this. If you want to fight in melee, you have to fight smart, or be super-tough, or both.

 

[James Gasik]

I will say it has not been a proble for my group but for those who have struggled with this—-what proportion of your party are sharpshooting their way to superiority? One archer 2, 3, the whole party?

Just curious where people start seeing the problem.

Relatedly, if you have a bunch of polearm gwm people hacking to victory, how is that handled?

Just curious. Maybe our main DM is beefing stuff up? Dunno

But if we have a wizard fireballing and a cleric blessing…how many sharpshooters are left? Who is holding the line? And if they dump a lot of help into the sharpshooter, don’t we want it to be efficacious?

When I first really noticed 5e was super good for ranged characters, I was in a party consisting of my Halfling Battlemaster with Archery Style, a Halfling Thief with a crossbow, a Human Champion, an Aasimar Light Domain Cleric, and a Human Evocation Wizard.

Only the Champion and the Cleric really wanted to get into melee, while the rest of us were happy to sit in the back and toss out ranged attacks. Enemies had a hard time getting away from the Cleric (thanks to being slowed due to spirit guardians), and since we had no reason to move too much, the ranged were usually well in the back, so enemies would have to dash to get to us.

And if one did, well, I could frighten them for a turn, or grant an ally free movement to get away (I conserved my superiority dice, being more concerned with the maneuvers than damage), and, if all else failed, I'd just move closer to be a target, since I was a Fighter, after all, and could take a few hits.

We eventually started to use sleet storm in big fights to lock down groups of enemies while we all focused on one threat at a time. I eventually multi-classed into Thief myself, giving me a little more damage and the extremely useful bonus action Disengage.

You don't often run into large groups of enemies with high AC, and I recall an adventure with high winds imposing disadvantage, and I still didn't miss a shot (I had +11 to hit and only needed to roll a 6, as I recall, against most of the enemies).

I only had to use my Rapier once or twice in my whole career. Even the one time I did get pinned down and had a bunch of enemies on me, the DM found out I had a lot of hit points (they seemed surprised by this fact for some reason) so I weaseled out of the fight, but most of the time, I'd barely get scratched, while the Champion would fall down once a battle.

The Cleric, being a Cleric, used a shield and enemies didn't tend to want to be anywhere near him anyways, between spirit guardians and his Radiance of the Dawn.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

When I first really noticed 5e was super good for ranged characters, I was in a party consisting of my Halfling Battlemaster with Archery Style, a Halfling Thief with a crossbow, a Human Champion, an Aasimar Light Domain Cleric, and a Human Evocation Wizard.

Only the Champion and the Cleric really wanted to get into melee, while the rest of us were happy to sit in the back and toss out ranged attacks. Enemies had a hard time getting away from the Cleric (thanks to being slowed due to spirit guardians), and since we had no reason to move too much, the ranged were usually well in the back, so enemies would have to dash to get to us.

And if one did, well, I could frighten them for a turn, or grant an ally free movement to get away (I conserved my superiority dice, being more concerned with the maneuvers than damage), and, if all else failed, I'd just move closer to be a target, since I was a Fighter, after all, and could take a few hits.

We eventually started to use sleet storm in big fights to lock down groups of enemies while we all focused on one threat at a time. I eventually multi-classed into Thief myself, giving me a little more damage and the extremely useful bonus action Disengage.

You don't often run into large groups of enemies with high AC, and I recall an adventure with high winds imposing disadvantage, and I still didn't miss a shot (I had +11 to hit and only needed to roll a 6, as I recall, against most of the enemies).

I only had to use my Rapier once or twice in my whole career. Even the one time I did get pinned down and had a bunch of enemies on me, the DM found out I had a lot of hit points (they seemed surprised by this fact for some reason) so I weaseled out of the fight, but most of the time, I'd barely get scratched, while the Champion would fall down once a battle.

The Cleric, being a Cleric, used a shield and enemies didn't tend to want to be anywhere near him anyways, between spirit guardians and his Radiance of the Dawn.

So as I read this it does two things. One, it makes me want to play D&D right now.

2: it makes me wonder if this is what happens when people use good tactics much of the time?

I gotta say, my pretties usually win regular combats. Maybe you just work well as a unit?

Lastly, if there had been anothe sharpshooter/archer and not champion to soak stuff up…what would have happened? Just all theory but fun to think through

 

[Garthanos]

That means to me that ranged weapons are generally superior options, just like in real life. I have no issue with this. If you want to fight in melee, you have to fight smart, or be super-tough, or both.

I want heroic fantasy combat not a realistic one so as it stands is a fail...

I am not sure of the solution for everyone; liberal cover for targets and disadvantage seem like a start

My preferred solution is buffing melee combatants to be honest

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I want heroic fantasy combat not a realistic one so as it stands is a fail...

My preferred solution is buffing melee combatants to be honest

Interesting. What would it be? Mobility or some spell like effect? More damage?