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

[Micah Sweet]

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

Yeah to me heroic fantasy comes out of the gameplay as you play, not enforced by the combat rules. I totally appreciate your point of view though.

 

[TwoSix]

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

I buffed melee in my current game by buffing flanking. Flanking now gives a +1d3 to hit, and if the 1d3 is a 3, it turns a hit into a critical hit.

The two melee characters in the party, a barbarian tank and a war cleric, do noticeably more damage now.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I buffed melee in my current game by buffing flanking. Flanking now gives a +1d3 to hit, and if the 1d3 is a 3, it turns a hit into a critical hit.

The two melee characters in the party, a barbarian tank and a war cleric, do noticeably more damage now.

Interesting

 

[Ancalagon]

Try hitting any of 5-6 people at 200 yards with a bow as they advance (or run toward you) - isn’t likely to happen. I’m fine (barely) with bows in closer quarters, but that’s largely driven by movies (looking at you Legolas), and tropes within fantasy gaming anyway. Rifles are intentionally accurate and able to hit things at range far more easily than bows ever did.

The bow range were affected by the wargamer roots, where masses of archers would fire masses of arrows at masses of foes. The effective range vs an individual is, as you state, much much shorter.

There was a great OSR type blog that did some very serious research into this many years ago, but alas I can't find it. But they had pretty much conclusively demonstrated that beyond 50-75 metres, hitting an aware opponent was extremely hard.

edit: the warhammer frpg 2nd ed has ranges much more in lines with those estimates - an average bow had 24 yards for "short range" for example

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah to me heroic fantasy comes out of the gameplay as you play, not enforced by the combat rules.

The rules encourage one thing or the other it is unavoidable, and heroic fantasy is not realistic.

Its never enforced but you get inferior melee combatants which is the complaint of this entire thread... in realistic world but not normally in fantasy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The rules encourage one thing or the other it is unavoidable, and heroic fantasy is not realistic.

Its never enforced but you get inferior melee combatants in realistic world but not in fantasy.

Depends on the fantasy. Like I said, if you want to unrealistically inflate the value of melee for dramatic purposes, then do it. I hope that's fun for you.

 

[Garthanos]

Depends on the fantasy.

Robinhood and William Tell sure

The Crossbow fighter is featured in so much heroic fantasy novels its definitely the most popular - D&D must have hit the perfect mark.... /sarcasm

 

[Micah Sweet]

Robinhood and William Tell sure

The Crossbow fighter is featured in so much heroic fantasy novels its definitely the most popular - D&D must have hit the perfect mark.... /sarcasm

Fantasy sometimes fails in the face of practicality.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

To some degree I think that some of it is on the player. What do you want to “see?”

Personally I like STR based characters. I even like blade pact warlocks. They have done just fine.

Yes, there are more efficient things…but I like to visualize them hacking foes with a greataxe!

EDIT: autocorrect madness

 

[Garthanos]

Yes, there are more efficient things…but I like to visualize them hacking goes with a greataxe!

I would like them to be just as efficient because classics like that Conan and others like him are core inspirations for D&D .... (far less than mr crossbow man)