D&D 5E Do you prefer to fight with melee or ranged weapons?

[Sword of Spirit]

I notice a lot of people talk about ranged combatants due to their mechanical effectiveness in 5e. But for me, I just don't like playing a ranged combatant (unless I'm a primary spellcaster). I want to get up into my foe's face and smash it, or sneak around behind them and stab them, etc. Standing back and shooting at them just doesn't have the visceral appeal. I'll also note that the vast majority of other players I've played with prefer melee over ranged also. Ranged attacks are mostly just supplements for when you can't get into their face.

So which do you prefer (ignoring issues of mechanical effectiveness)?

If you prefer one but play the other for mechanical reasons, go ahead and mention that.

 

[ccs]

Melee I guess considering all the weapon users I've played over the years & editions.
It's not really a rules/mechanics thing though, just how I envision alot of my characters.

 

[FrogReaver]

I notice a lot of people talk about ranged combatants due to their mechanical effectiveness in 5e. But for me, I just don't like playing a ranged combatant (unless I'm a primary spellcaster). I want to get up into my foe's face and smash it, or sneak around behind them and stab them, etc. Standing back and shooting at them just doesn't have the visceral appeal. I'll also note that the vast majority of other players I've played with prefer melee over ranged also. Ranged attacks are mostly just supplements for when you can't get into their face.

So which do you prefer (ignoring issues of mechanical effectiveness)?

If you prefer one but play the other for mechanical reasons, go ahead and mention that.

5e has more fun tactical play with a ranged character than with a melee one IMO. In melee I just stand around and beat on the guy until he dies. I rarely move around etc. My ranged characters are constantly moving and searching for cover and lines of fire etc. They can choose which target to prioritize easily and switch that decision on the fly.

That said, I would enjoy a swashbuckler rogue. Their can move around a fight at ease. I also would enjoy a ranged/melee hybrid monk. Shoot them with a bow for a turn or 2 and then run up into combat. If something gets near me then I put bow up and punch it around.

I also prefer ranged as I feel dex helps out of combat a lot more than str and most melee characters I want to make be strength based and feel tanky.

Polearm Mastery is right up my ally for melee too as it gives me a few tactical things I can do with positioning to try and trigger the reaction attack.



My favorite ranged character is a rogue assassian.
My favorite melee character would be a rogue swashbuckler though I've never played one. Someone in one of our adventures once did and they would be exactly what I want to be in melee.

 

[SmokingSkull]

Honestly as a Fighter player I like both, for practical reasons mostly but at the same time shows my character as relatively flexible. Ranged can be satisfying because some enemies are too cowardly or too clever for their own good, so what if they run/fly away...they're getting an arrow/bolt in the back. Melee is satisfying cause nothing's more personal than slamming an axe into something's face, or whatever implement of pain you wish to express your discontent with malcontents with. So I voted to close to call/other.

 

[Shiroiken]

Both have a lot of appeal, and most groups need a mix of each. Technically all ranged can work with shenanigans, but it's risky. I normally suggest 1/2 the party melee, with at least one switch hitter.

Also, every character needs the ability to do both. Melee only becomes worthless in tight quarters and against fliers/higher ground. Ranged only is really bad when the monsters surround and swarm the group. Few characters evenly switch hit between the two, meaning that many are not good at something, but it's better than nothing!

 

[GMMichael]

I want to get up into my foe's face and smash it, or sneak around behind them and stab them, etc. Standing back and shooting at them just doesn't have the visceral appeal.

Spoken like someone who's never been clubbed in the head. The problem is, your foe wants to smash your face too.

Which is why sticking an arrow into your opponent has a much more...comfortable feeling to it. That, and you can do the attacking with a significant amount of cover nearby, just waiting to grant you safety.

Now, I know that the axe-men will make assertions about bravery versus cowardice, but history will support me in the argument of right versus wrong.

 

[Raith5]

A mix of both is important because every ranged PC needs his or her meat shield! But the the big advantage of ranged is the ability to choose where the damage goes, it makes focus fire more effective, which I find satisfying for some strange reason.

 

[Leatherhead]

Using a conventional weapon is only appropriate when all other plans have failed.

 

[Ath-kethin]

It's rare I get to be a player, but the last time I did I played a Lawful Good fey pact warlock who was a big burly dude who liked be in the the thick of things. It was a blast (and not an eldritch blast, the warlock's "I can't think of anything interesting to do" crutch).

Dex builds and ranged combat are 5e on Easy mode, I feel.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I tend to end up in melee, because I feel obligated to use a shield. If I could stay at range, while making use of a shield and plate armor, then that would be ideal.