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

[James Gasik]

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.

 

[Horwath]

I have no problem with range and damage of longbow.

But there should be some penalties for using a bow.

There should be AoO for using a ranged weapon, maybe even with advantage.

 

[CleverNickName]

Hard to say. I think I'm gonna vote "no."

I mean, a Hexblade warlock, tricked out with Invocations and shooting Eldritch Blasts from within his dome of darkness is SCARY good. But so is an orc fighter/barbarian, tricked out with feats and potions, raging with a greataxe in melee. And so is a crit-fisher halfling Assassin rogue/Way of Shadows monk, tricked out with feats and Hasted, attacking from the shadows at range (or not) with daggers.

Ranged is good, but not too good. Really it's all good, depending on how you like to fight.

 

[James Gasik]

Hard to say. I think I'm gonna vote "no."

I mean, a Hexblade warlock, tricked out with Invocations and shooting Eldritch Blasts from within his dome of darkness is SCARY good. But so is an orc fighter/barbarian, tricked out with feats and potions, raging with a greataxe in melee. And so is a crit-fisher halfling Assassin rogue/Way of Shadows monk, tricked out with feats and Hasted, attacking from the shadows at range (or not) with daggers.

Ranged is good, but not too good. Really it's all good, depending on how you like to fight.

But one of things I'm taking into account is an encounter with a flying enemy, who cannot be attacked with a greataxe.

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

 

[CleverNickName]

But one of things I'm taking into account is an encounter with a flying enemy, who cannot be attacked with a greataxe.

Well yeah, if you are going to make ranged combat the only option, then ranged combat is going to be the best option. ;-)

I was looking at it more esoterically. Like, if you could choose whether to step forward and fight hand-to-hand, or step back and fight at range, which would be best? Would one be "too good" compared to the other?

 

[Horwath]

But one of things I'm taking into account is an encounter with a flying enemy, who cannot be attacked with a greataxe.

do not bring an axe to a bow fight.

 

[OB1]

I vote no. Full cover makes it easy for enemies to avoid ranged attacks completely, forcing melee or area affect spells to counter.

 

[James Gasik]

I vote no. Full cover makes it easy for enemies to avoid ranged attacks completely, forcing melee or area affect spells to counter.

This is correct, but unfortunately, most enemies want to engage in melee themselves, and from what I've seen, even in published adventures, cover is not presented often enough in encounter design.

And as for the axe/bow fight comments, I'm talking about building a character who doesn't even bother with melee and just uses a bow the vast majority of the time.

 

[Ancalagon]

I vote no. Full cover makes it easy for enemies to avoid ranged attacks completely, forcing melee or area affect spells to counter.

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.