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

[Plaguescarred]

Dex is King stats-wise, and.many ranged combattants rely on it, which means good save, init, attack and damage bonus, Fighting Style etc all while enjoying the safety of long distance that melee combattants don't have in the heat of close combat. Some often find them more boring on the other hand though.

 

[ScuroNotte]

While thinking about things being said in another thread, a common point of debate when it comes to the non-caster classes is their inability to fly without a magic item. But then I considered, why not just use ranged weapons?

The Fighter can be built to use a longbow, gain a fighting style that lets him effectively ignore soft cover (and get a +2 to hit targets not behind said cover). If he or she is a Battlemaster, they can use their maneuvers just as well from range. They can engage targets at any distance, be Dex-based, and if Feats are on the table, can fire in melee.

The only downside is you can't use a shield. I mean, there is a damage loss compared to a greatsword (4.5 vs. 7 average damage) but that seems a small price to pay for the versatility of being able to attack from anywhere on the battlefield without needing to move that much (and force enemies to move more to close with you, perhaps).

The Rogue is likely better as a ranged attacker than a melee combatant (barring debates about two weapon fighting to guarantee getting your sneak attack in, I guess- when I played a Fighter/Rogue archer, I missed so rarely, especially as a Halfling, that I was once told to make all attacks at disadvantage for a fight due to high winds, and because the DM didn't say otherwise continued to do so for the next two encounters and didn't miss once).

So this has me wondering- compared to being a melee martial, well, the thread title says it all.

Ranger attacks are not op, but the game is advantageous to those who focus on dexterity: add modifier to both melee and ranger weapons, applies to AC, and initiative.

 

[RobJN]

I'm still irked about the whole "add your Dex mod to damage" that ranged weapons get in 5e.

 

[Ancalagon]

And the way ranged attacks work if the monsters rush in they can usually lock down a ranged attacker and force them into melee, so you need someone to play the guard to keep the monsters off the ranged attackers backs.

This is true, but

1: there are a lot of control spells that prevent, or at least slow down, the melee rush
2: there are many ways to get out of melee somewhat easily - misty step, swarmskeeper movement etc
3: there are many ways to fight ranged in melee - crossbow expert, for example

but I think the worse is 4:
Dex-build PCs can be pretty good in melee.

We ran a campaign with a druid, a rogue, a dex-based battlemaster and a kensei monk. So our two "tanks" were really good at ranged too! By the time the foes reached us - if at all - the battlemaster and Kensei would switch to melee to protect the rogue and druid, and the foe was quite weakened. I mean, we weren't a raging barbarian swining an axe tanky but... it was more than enough.

 

[Ancalagon]

Outside of simple effectiveness concerns, Str-based martial melee characters will often have a place due to concept however: They're iconic.

I will note that high Str has a a lot of utility - smashing stuff, lifting stuff etc. So there is that too

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ranged weaponry has an inherent advantage, tactically speaking, and has been so for all of history - however, for a long time the ranged weapons were not quite up to the task (vs today, where they absolutely dominate).

So a "balance" between the two is desirable, for gaming purposes. Is this balance achieved in 5e? No. Ranged attacks are too good, and also because dex is too good (there is a synergy between the two).

The root of the problem, IMO, is dex adding to damage and not just accuracy.

How are ranged weapons too good? Is it just by virtue of being a ranged weapon, or some other factor? Damage seems roughly commensurate. If it's just because they have a range, I don't see what you can do with that while maintaining visimilatude (which is important to me). Ranged are, in some ways, just better. That is how it should be, imo, and doesn't make them "too good" by any means.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is highly terrain dependent.

Also, there are no more penalties to shooting in melee (I do impose a cover penalty if your ally is between you and your target, but still). Also, cover penalties can be circumvented by sharpshooter and mitigated by archery fighting style.

Furthermore, high dex give ranged combatant an initiative advantage, stealth for positioning/ambushing... not to mention great ease of focus fire.

I would support AoO against ranged attackers and bringing back issues with firing into melee.

 

[James Gasik]

I would support AoO against ranged attackers and bringing back issues with firing into melee.

Oh no, please can we not go back to having Precise Shot be a thing? "Haha, sucker, take this feat or you'll never make a ranged attack!"

 

[Ancalagon]

I would support AoO against ranged attackers and bringing back issues with firing into melee.

I would agree with that - and the fact that this is "needed" is an indication that currently, ranged is too good vs melee.

 

[Ancalagon]

Oh no, please can we not go back to having Precise Shot be a thing? "Haha, sucker, take this feat or you'll never make a ranged attack!"

The way I've done it is impose cover if the friend is between the archer and the foe, and if they fumble they do risk hitting their friend.