Only true if they have a specific feat. Otherwise they have disadvantage on their attacks. So are we now assuming all hypothetical archers have two feats (Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert) and that no other types of ranged characters exist?
They exist in all instances where the archer doesn't have Crossbow Expert. Are you just pretending that archers without this specific feat don't exist? All archers start as level 6 fighters now, having used their two ABI's for Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert?
I agree that ranged weapon combat is a little too good compared to melee combat, but I feel you are overstating the case just a bit.
(Still not Ashkelon)
Please don't change the subject, Caliban. Whether "all" archers have these feats is not important.
Only that the option for the player character to have them is.
This isn't about NPC archers - this isn't about world building.
This is about PC archers - this is about character building.
The problem is twofold:
First - that when and if you want to create a character that's a ranged combatant, you will (eventually) find that the hand crossbow (with CE and SS feats) outclasses every other option, which severely restricts the number of choices that are both cool and decently effective.
Second - when you realize "but why play melee at all", since this ranged build offers nearly all the advantages of melee combat yet combined with superior range/reach.
The main problem isn't that the build is effective (though that
is a problem).
The main problem is that it is much less fun to create a character if you know you are heavily compromising your combat effectiveness (relative to the best-in-class option). The problem is that the number of roughly equal builds (let's not call them "best-in-class" but more like "good-in-class") is
only a small subset of all cool fun builds possible.
I firmly believe that the DPR gap between best-in-class buils and run-of-the-mill builds is too large. If you could gain maybe 20% by specializing in making a "combat monster" character, fine, no problem. But when this gap reaches 100% many players will simply cease to look at any other kind of character. And less choice is boring, and boring is bad.
A high-level crossbow expert sharpshooter has a damage potential of 5d6+15*5 = 90 damage as contrasted to the "default" sword-n-board fighter with 4d8+4*5=30 damage. Even though doesn't take all your tricks into account, it still gives a rough picture of how big the difference can be.
And to be clear: That's WAY too much of a difference. That's MIND-BOGGLING. Contrast the situation where you remove feats from the equation (and specifically the CE/SS feats only).
Now the archer (because crossbows no longer suit high-level characters) has a damage potential of 4d8+4*5=30 damage. The fact she's got much better reach is balanced by the vulnerability to melee (if a monster catches up to her she's disadvantaged in combat).
Even if a greatsword wielder could somehow reach 4d12+4*8=50 damage potential it would still be borderline okay. Sure you gain roughly 50% damage, but you lose the shield bonus and associated defensive boons. The most important such "boon" is
you're a melee build. If the monsters can't reach you, you can't deal out all that sweet damage. Suddenly all the retreating, kiting, maneuvering, cover-taking tactics that IMHO fit a modern setting much better lose a large portion of their appeal because, unlike the crossbow sharpshooter, you can only avoid monster melee by also not dishing out fearsome damage. This is a HUGE difference, a true gamechanger (for the better).
Just saying this to show y'all I'm not here to complain, and I don't "hate" damage... I'm showing you that I have no problem with differences in potential,
just as long as they're reasonable. (Triple damage is not reasonable)
Furthermore, I firmly believe the cost to ranged has been lowered well past the point where melee is still rational. I fully understand people still playing axe dwarves for reasons (its fun, it's nostalgic, it's "how it should be", or simply because they don't realize the superiority of the alternative).
But I consider it a definite
bug that you can build a crossbow archer that combines two-weapon fighting number of attacks with greataxe "power attack" and yet can't be penalized by monsters attacking you in melee.
In fact, it's a
major bug. To people aware of the math, it's probably a critical bug.
I can't call it anything less than a rather huge oversight on the designers and playtesters, the way several individually minor tweaks to the D&D game engine conspires to overthrow nothing less than the basic premise of the entire foundation of the genre that is D&D, namely the supremacy of melee.
Which is a shame, because it isn't hard to fix. The biggest hurdle, to be honest, is the incredible amounts of resistance shown by certain other players, which can't or won't see the facts for what they really are: the vast amounts of negativity hurled towards anyone daring to discuss faults (or discuss improvements as I prefer to call it) of their favorite game that must remain perfect in all forms.