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

[James Gasik]

Also, if you're the kind of gamer that likes some realism in your games, last I checked, you need some "muskles" to fire a bow. The idea that a Dex 8 guy can do more damage than a Str 20 guy because he has more Dex is vaguely silly.

 

[Jer]

This is true, but

1: there are a lot of control spells that prevent, or at least slow down, the melee rush

This is true. I think it's the one thing that the PCs really have on their side if they want to try to make an encounter entirely ranged.

2: there are many ways to get out of melee somewhat easily - misty step, swarmskeeper movement etc

I find this is less true - it's also pretty easy to have monsters close in on players who do these things unless there's someone there to tie the opponent down and protect them unless I've put terrain there to specifically help those players out (like a ledge or a ravine they can move to or over to prevent the attacker from getting to them). With as freeform as moving is in 5e they gain maybe a round if that IME.

3: there are many ways to fight ranged in melee - crossbow expert, for example

I mean, this might be a terminology choice but I don't consider using a ranged weapon to fight in melee to be a "ranged attack" except in the very narrow game terminology usage. If I have an opponent next to you who can attack you in melee, then that negates most of the advantages of making a ranged attack compared to a melee attack IMO.

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

That's true, but gets into a different discussion about Dex as an uber stat for martial combat. Unless you have a "charge in and start the beatdown" player (which I do and I love them so much) then the strategy you outline is exactly how I see it go, except that generally my monsters aren't so weakened (though I'm not using a 6-8 encounter per day plan - I assume maybe half that - so foes in our combats tend to be tougher or more numerous than I suspect the average is).

 

[Horwath]

Because you want to attack them?

if they cant attack me, why should I close range for few pts of damage per shot?

 

[Jer]

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!"

Before 5e came out (where it was just done away with entirely) I liked the 13th age take on this, which is that you only have a chance of hitting your friend if you roll a 1 while firing into combat, and Precise Shot made it so it would never happen. (I now like 5e's version where accidentally hitting your ally is relegated to the "optional rules" section of the DMG).

 

[Micah Sweet]

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!"

I was thinking no Precise Shot. If you want to shoot in melee freely, you have to take the Ultimate Marksman subclass.

 

[commandercrud]

Bows are better than swords in game and in real life.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

I don't think its needed for balance. I just think both those rules nake logical sense.

 

[Horwath]

so in other words, you agree with the OP's premise that the ranged attacks are too good.

I agree that there should be penalties for using ranged weapons in close quarters.

also 2H weapons lost 1 and 1/2 str bonus from 3.5e, so raising 2d6 to 2d8 fixes that. That is as much balance towards one handed melee weapons as it's for ranged weapons.

 

[James Gasik]

I was thinking no Precise Shot. If you want to shoot in melee freely, you have to take the Ultimate Marksman subclass.

Oh whew, good. I was worried for a second there.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

What if stats to damage rolls wasn't a thing by default and just a thing certain classes get? Maybe tied to Fighting styles?

I think Shadow of the Demon Lord does that. Only a few ''prestige classes'' gets to add their mod to damage. It works well if monsters do not have 10000000 hit points like in 5e, tho.

I wonder if I could get my table to try this:
0) HP dont get +Con (both for players and monsters)
1) no mods to damage. (it boost the value of certain fighting styles)
2) Exploding damage die (once per attack)
3) Critical Hit = automatic max damage (so automatically 1 exploding die) + 1 bonus die, no limit on ''dice explosion''. (Yup, barbarian crit would be devastating)

Also, if you're the kind of gamer that likes some realism in your games, last I checked, you need some "muskles" to fire a bow. The idea that a Dex 8 guy can do more damage than a Str 20 guy because he has more Dex is vaguely silly.

I once had a table of ranges for bows and thrown weapon with short/long range based on STR score.

I think it could be a good option. In my games I use proficiencies based on STR scores, so heavy crossbows/longbows actually requires 13 STR (IIRC). Same with armors. So a fighter with 8 Str would be forced to wear no armor and fight with, at best, a sling or darts