Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8601572" data-attributes="member: 6877472">I really should have created a poll for this thread, lol.&nbsp; It seems that we've gotten bogged down in debates about playstyles and table variance (which is so common I really should expect it).&nbsp; I think I've gotten my answer though.Are ranged attacks too good in 5e?&nbsp; Short answer: it depends.Long answer: group composition and encounter design matter a lot.&nbsp; One player in a group can find that ranged attacks are superior because hard cover is rarely an issue, and there are lots of enemies out of reach of melee in combats, and their melee are efficient at keeping enemies locked down (heavy armor clerics with spirit guardians, PAM/Sentinel Fighters, castes with good &quot;crowd control&quot;).&nbsp; Another player can find that there's a lot of ranged enemies firing back at them, their fighter is a dual wielding Champion who only cares about &quot;moar damage&quot;, and their casters only care about blowing things up.Tactical ability of individual players can matter as well.&nbsp; TLDR: on paper, ranged attacks seem very good.&nbsp; The weaknesses of the style can be obviated in games with multiclassing and feats especially.&nbsp; In practice, there are a lot of variables that can make melee a stronger or weaker choice than ranged attacks, such as mobility of enemies, difficult terrain, enemies that make good use of available cover, obscured areas, presence of spellcasters, and what percentage of the party thinks melee is a good idea in the first place.Typically, in most parties, people seem to like to melee.&nbsp; Even some Bards and Wizards get in on this!&nbsp; An all-ranged party might do very well in the vast majority of combats, but they need to consider the weaknesses of their style and tailor their group's options accordingly.In the end, it is probably better to try and not overspecialize, and always have a good ranged option available.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8601572, member: 6877472"] I really should have created a poll for this thread, lol. It seems that we've gotten bogged down in debates about playstyles and table variance (which is so common I really should expect it). I think I've gotten my answer though. Are ranged attacks too good in 5e? Short answer: it depends. Long answer: group composition and encounter design matter a lot. One player in a group can find that ranged attacks are superior because hard cover is rarely an issue, and there are lots of enemies out of reach of melee in combats, and their melee are efficient at keeping enemies locked down (heavy armor clerics with spirit guardians, PAM/Sentinel Fighters, castes with good "crowd control"). Another player can find that there's a lot of ranged enemies firing back at them, their fighter is a dual wielding Champion who only cares about "moar damage", and their casters only care about blowing things up. Tactical ability of individual players can matter as well. TLDR: on paper, ranged attacks seem very good. The weaknesses of the style can be obviated in games with multiclassing and feats especially. In practice, there are a lot of variables that can make melee a stronger or weaker choice than ranged attacks, such as mobility of enemies, difficult terrain, enemies that make good use of available cover, obscured areas, presence of spellcasters, and what percentage of the party thinks melee is a good idea in the first place. Typically, in most parties, people seem to like to melee. Even some Bards and Wizards get in on this! An all-ranged party might do very well in the vast majority of combats, but they need to consider the weaknesses of their style and tailor their group's options accordingly. In the end, it is probably better to try and not overspecialize, and always have a good ranged option available. [/QUOTE]

Verification