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

[James Gasik]

Yeah it can on his turn, but he does not have a decent Oportunity attack, so he is not performing the same kind of control/threaten function as a lot of melee characters are.

How often are opportunity attacks made in your games? The ones I've played in, they are rare, enemies seem content to belly up to someone and keep pounding on them until one or the other drops.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How often are opportunity attacks made in your games? The ones I've played in, they are rare, enemies seem content to belly up to someone and keep pounding on them until one or the other drops.

I see opportunity attacks on both sides all the time. Usually because someone ends up in a melee they don't want.

 

[James Gasik]

I see opportunity attacks on both sides all the time. Usually because someone ends up in a melee they don't want.

Ok, I mean, I can see that, it's just that hasn't been what I've seen, if that makes sense. I can't point to any particular reason why- whether it's just ranged Rogues with bonus action Disengage, Crossbow Expert, people pushing AC as high as it can go, or good crowd control from casters.

 

[Stalker0]

I see opportunity attacks on both sides all the time. Usually because someone ends up in a melee they don't want.

Generally, the archers in my game just eat the disadvantage, rather than take the OA. Or they just switch out to a rapier and attack in melee. Sure they aren't as full fury as their bow, but they are still completely viable attack wise using their dex with that finesse weapon.

 

[Garthanos]

I never really minded being in melee for many years, but in 4e and 5e, it's become a miserable experience, personally.

Really in 4e I thought they gave solid benefits for melee combatants... unless you were playing a Robinhood/William tell assassin (aka ranger), also that is a simpler striker to play but not necessarily better one. Long range in 4e is much much closer than in 5e this brings everyone closer at the start and the 4e ranged combatant who gets closed on is at much greater disadvantage triggering opportunity attacks and the like.

Taking an opportunity attack doesnt cost you in 4e... unlike 5e

 

[James Gasik]

Really in 4e I thought they gave solid benefits for melee combatants... unless you were playing a Robinhood/William tell assassin (aka ranger), also that is a simpler striker to play but not necessarily better one. Long range in 4e is much much closer than in 5e this brings everyone closer at the start and the 4e ranged combatant who gets closed on is at much greater disadvantage triggering opportunity attacks and the like.

Taking an opportunity attack doesnt cost you in 4e... unlike 5e

Well, it was more, like I said, the fact that weird monster abilities like auras and reactions, tended to strike the melee more. When you charge a Dracolich for the first time and find out it has an immediate interrupt ability to hit you with it's tail, deal damage, and stun you for having the nerve to close with in in melee, you have time to re-evaluate your life choices.

 

[Stalker0]

Long range in 4e is much much closer than in 5e this brings everyone closer at the start and the 4e ranged combatant who gets closed on is at much greater disadvantage triggering opportunity attacks and the like.

Yeah I do think long range in 4e was better paced. It allowed for long range fights without the "okay the archer will by shooting in the first 5 rounds of combat, everyone else take a break until the enemies get closer".

Also I think the 4e ranges are much more realistic. Yes you can shoot a bow 600 feet in real life (well....some people can)....but when you are shooting at those ranges and hitting moving targets while you yourself are under threat.....no way jose.

I would much rather 5e dropped the bow ranges even further (like 60/150 kind of thing), but have an option for long distance. Basically a "sniper" shot, if the archer is not moving and not under threat, and firing at an unmoving target that is unaware of them....ok feel free to like double or triple the range and now make that 600 foot shot.

Here's an example of what that might look like:

Sniper: As a bonus action, an archer may double the range of their ranged weapon, but only against targets that have not yet rolled initiative. The archer cannot move before or after this bonus action is taken.

 

[Garthanos]

Sniper: As a bonus action, an archer may double the range of their ranged weapon, but only against targets that have not yet rolled initiative. The archer cannot move before or after this bonus action is taken.

I considered allowing a long arm throw that allows one to throw a weapon after a minimum of 20 feet movement which allows that javelin to have something closer to ranged user range (perhaps 3 times the normal javelin range or something like that)

In other words buff the supplemental weapon of the melee combatants too.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Also I think the 4e ranges are much more realistic. Yes you can shoot a bow 600 feet in real life (well....some people can)....but when you are shooting at those ranges and hitting moving targets while you yourself are under threat.....no way jose.

And a single feat lets you get sneak attack against a 3/4 cover target at that range with no penalties.

It’s not the realism (or lack thereof) that bothers me, just the disincentive for rogues to ever get close and use daggers or short swords.