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

[doctorbadwolf]

There's a reason armies love artillery and rifles. Before rifles it was Bows. Ranged attacks in the real world are freaking horrible, especially if they are accurate. I have no problems with that. But If your DM is allowing you to start every fight at range then the problem isn't that ranged attacks are too good, it's that your enemies are too stupid.

Well, if the enemy doesn’t have decent ranged capability and they are attacking people that do, yeah, very stupid.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Also in 4e every combatant has a charge maneuver giving them a longer effective range for their melee attacks (and one can actually do some real enhancing of that charge). IMHO 5e debuffed melee martials and buffed the ranged combatants .... a lot.

This is a good point.
the Charger feat in 5e should just be a general rule, just for a start.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

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)

I get that. Aside from getting rid of a few feats, not sure the best remedy.

I have always taken less efficient as a badge of pride which not universal or perhaps in the majority. Same thing with against type fixed ASIs for race.

I like the idea some had about flanking bonus for one. As to some facing things…I know we can pick our monsters…

Dang…even some sort of weapon vs armor type seems to not be much use save against short bows…

We do some outdoor stuff but still enjoy dungeons. In dungeons have always found melee to make sense—-especially strength based with pushes and shoves and grapples. Outside in grasslands that won’t do much though

 

[James Gasik]

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

There is something to be said for everyone taking their fair share of beats, but our Champion had this idea he was invincible, so he took a lot of beats he didn't need to. More than once we had to stop him from running into crowd control because he wanted to fight bad guys!

I'm reminded of Hulk in Thor: Ragnarok.

For one adventure we did have a Druid with a Staff of Swarming Insects, that was amazing combined with the Sleet Storm tactic (those poor ogres never had a chance).

Though honestly, I think we could have replaced the Fighter with a second Cleric and made mincemeat out of most encounters.

 

[James Gasik]

Really I know what happened. Go grab an old school dungeon map. Look at how small those rooms and corridors tend to be. Imagine being a ranged character with no more than torchlight or infravision, trying to land shots through a door because there's not enough room to enter. And enemies are within one move action of you, unless you can back up down the hallway. Hallways have lots of twists and turns as well.

In modern play, light sources are more prevalent, it's a simple matter to keep a light spell on your melee, and I've noticed combats take place in larger rooms to accommodate more enemies or cool terrain features. And there's a lot more outdoor combats than I remember (though this might be anecdotal and DM-dependent). It used to be, that you could never really expect to use long range weaponry effectively, and the damage was terrible, with the exception of slings or composite bows if you're really strong, and most people using ranged weapons weren't- the strong guys were usually up front melee types.

Also it used to be that either you couldn't fire in melee at all, or later, that you took opportunity attacks. And in 2e, didn't bows have lousy speed factors?

Basically, there's a lot of factors in both how encounters are designed, the fact that old school dungeon crawling has changed, and ranged combat got some buffs like Dex to damage.

I don't really want to go back to having ranged options suck, mind you, but it does feel like you're playing football, but suddenly the star quarterback is untouchable (and there's more than one!), and rather than chase him, the offensive line is more than happy to beat the defenders bloody, in the hopes eventually they'll be unable to stop them, and then they'll worry about the pesky QB.

 

[Guest 7034872]

^^ I think that's right. Dungeons are such different environments from outdoors, and out of doors a weapon that can go over 300' is a big, big plus.

I don't know if ranged weapons are too powerful or if melee weapons are too lackluster, but I do think somewhere between those two possibilities sits a real problem. Add to this that the ranged weapons use DEX, not STR and that we now have these fancy-dancy "finesse" melee weapons, and it gets harder and harder for me to see why I'd build a character--even a fighter--in whom I put the STR stat at top position.

It feels like the really hardcore martial melee weapons ought to have something they can do that other weapons just can't. I've no notion what that something should be, but there should be something.

 

[James Gasik]

^^ I think that's right. Dungeons are such different environments from outdoors, and out of doors a weapon that can go over 300' is a big, big plus.

I don't know if ranged weapons are too powerful or if melee weapons are too lackluster, but I do think somewhere between those two possibilities sits a real problem. Add to this that the ranged weapons use DEX, not STR and that we now have these fancy-dancy "finesse" melee weapons, and it gets harder and harder for me to see why I'd build a character--even a fighter--in whom I put the STR stat at top position.

It feels like the really hardcore martial weapons ought to have something they can do that other weapons just can't. I've no notion what that something should be, but there should be something.

Well, the lack of robust weapon options doesn't help, though I'm not sure that's the cause. There's not much reason to use a greataxe over a greatsword, characters aren't forced into small groups where reach weapons would be ideal (and in fact, most groups scatter to avoid "fireball formation", which limits the usefulness of, say, Paladin auras).

Thrown weapons are terrible again (I miss 4e's "instant return" feature for magic weapons), plus switching to a backup missile weapon can be a hassle, so I see a lot of melee guys without ranged options.

Would the game be better if we had mordenkrads, craghammers, mercurial greatswords, and the like back for melee to use?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Well, the lack of robust weapon options doesn't help, though I'm not sure that's the cause. There's not much reason to use a greataxe over a greatsword, characters aren't forced into small groups where reach weapons would be ideal (and in fact, most groups scatter to avoid "fireball formation", which limits the usefulness of, say, Paladin auras).

Thrown weapons are terrible again (I miss 4e's "instant return" feature for magic weapons), plus switching to a backup missile weapon can be a hassle, so I see a lot of melee guys without ranged options.

Would the game be better if we had mordenkrads, craghammers, mercurial greatswords, and the like back for melee to use?

Unpopular opinion: if we ha armor type vs weapon type, lowly maces would be enticing at times and dex builds would have to consider a short sword Va plate (sorry rapier vs plate).

The issue then is what will longbows vs plate? If you make armor better against bows—-not a lot but some—-melee weapons—big str ones move up the hierarchy. Bonus points for some historical mapping

 

[Garthanos]

I get that. Aside from getting rid of a few feats, not sure the best remedy.

Like I said I prefer going the opposite direction and buffing the other side.. rather than debuffing ... though I suppose there are some things that would be easier that way.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Well, the lack of robust weapon options doesn't help, though I'm not sure that's the cause. There's not much reason to use a greataxe over a greatsword,

Absolutely. It's not the variety or lack of variety among them that most troubles me, either: it's the lack of special oomph to them when they're used. I don't think adding, on average, +1 or +2 damage per attack is enough to make them special.

Thrown weapons are terrible again (I miss 4e's "instant return" feature for magic weapons),

Don't get me started...