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

[Cap'n Kobold]

Part of the reason that this issue appears in martial/caster debates is alluded to in your second paragraph: rather than selecting some ranged attacks from the dozens of class features available, the fighter must be built from the start to specialise in them.

This also gets into the discrepancy between Dex and Str: Outside of a few distinct builds using specific feats, a fighter using Dex is just as good in melee as one using Str, but also has better skills, and most importantly - initiative and ranged attacks.
Thus the issue is not just that the ranged attacker gets to fight well in situations that the melee-focused one doesn't. It is that they're not really giving anything up to do so.

Outside of simple effectiveness concerns, Str-based martial melee characters will often have a place due to concept however: They're iconic. Mixing it up in melee might not be as optimal as playing a ranged attacker or caster of a flying race, but it is something that many people simply would like to play.

 

[ninjayeti]

Both from a theorycrafting perspective and from actual play experience I would say that ranged is objectively better than melee. But not so much better that I think it is a major issue. Ranged has some drawbacks too (cover, disadvantage in melee, can't use shields), and while some of these can be negated with feats you need to consider the opportunity cost of taking the feat.

If I were going to try to balance them better I think I would just make ranged attacks get HALF Dex bonus to damage.

 

[James Gasik]

Hey I'm not saying people should throw away their greatswords, it just occurred to me that you could solve a lot of problems by just focusing on being ranged primary with very few downsides.

Which is why I asked the question.

 

[Ancalagon]

that is why you give greatsword/greataxe/maul 2d8 damage and AoO for ranged attack in melee and all is good.

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

 

[James Gasik]

Both from a theorycrafting perspective and from actual play experience I would say that ranged is objectively better than melee. But not so much better that I think it is a major issue. Ranged has some drawbacks too (cover, disadvantage in melee, can't use shields), and while some of these can be negated with feats you need to consider the opportunity cost of taking the feat.

If I were going to try to balance them better I think I would just make ranged attacks get HALF Dex bonus to damage.

Honestly, I'd rather just increase point buy and get rid of Dex to damage entirely. As a player, I like being able to focus on a few important ability scores, but the knock on effect of devaluing Strength irks the amateur game designer in me. We can go back to Composite Bows, would that be bad?

 

[Ancalagon]

That is a fair point, the ranged Rogue needs somebody to stand in melee for them. If everyone was ranged, the Rogue would be very sad.

Aim helps for that - bonus action to get advantage.

 

[Weiley31]

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

It can if the Greataxe has wings.

 

[James Gasik]

Aim helps for that - bonus action to get advantage.

Yes, that is nice. Didn't have it as an option when I had my archer character, but then again, my group was full of melee characters, lol.

 

[James Gasik]

I can if the Greataxe has wings.

So how does one get their axe to drink Red Bull anyways?

 

[Weiley31]

So how does one get their axe to drink Red Bull anyways?

Simple: you open the can, since the greataxe lacks hands, and then just pour it on the Greataxe.

Hey, if Samurais can spit Alcohol on their swords to awaken the spirit within, so too can the greataxe get wings!