How to simply balance ranged weapons.

[James Gasik]

First, DM's need to start enforcing the soft cover rule for shooting at people with other people in front of them; Archery style is meant to remove this penalty, but too often, it's just a +2 bonus to hit. Second, Archery style needs to be rewritten to say "reduce penalties due to cover by 2".

*The third thing would be to remove Sharpshooter as a Feat, but the playtest seems to be doing that already, so instead:

Thirdly, make it so that ranged weapons and only add Dexterity to damage within 30 feet of the target, and make using a ranged attack (including ranged spell attacks) in melee provoke attacks of opportunity.

Fourth, make Crossbow Expert only work with crossbows. Crossbows have been underwhelming throughout so much of D&D's history I'm fine with them getting a perk, lol. At this point, you can remove OA's for "point blank" crossbow shots as well, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[tetrasodium]

Hm. In reality IME 5e archers are typically attacking from more like 30' not 150'+. The game is played mostly in dungeons, after all.

That would create multiple problems & is avoiding the problem that you yourself noted earlier...

Yes, I think characters are too slow relative to attack rate. Doubling everyone's movement (perhaps through some special Actions like 'sprint' and 'charge' that you can't use while shooting) would help fix that.

Ranged attack ranges are dramatically overinflated for d&d for this very reason. Both ranged weapons & ranged spells should be retuned to be more in line with the distances the game is actually designed for & played at. Inflating the ranges as we have now or extending move speeds to match them would only serve to raise the bar for how much work that the GM needs to do in order to prepare encounters.

Using standard 5ft squares there should be nothing that can hit any point on a 23x26() chessex battlemat (92x130ft)& definitely not with a 34x48 megamat (170x240ft). Yet there are multiple things that meet or exceed those values significantly. Even if you limit the scope to only starting equipment many characters can enter the game trivially ble to hit any point on a the regular mat & quite a few who can do the same with the giant one before gaining even a single item coin or point of experience. With the rise of VTTs this is even more critical for oned&d to course correct on because the gm can no longer just say "Yea the mat isn't big enough for your plan" & players can push the dm to show everything

 

[payn]

First, DM's need to start enforcing the soft cover rule for shooting at people with other people in front of them; Archery style is meant to remove this penalty, but too often, it's just a +2 bonus to hit. Second, Archery style needs to be rewritten to say "reduce penalties due to cover by 2".

*The third thing would be to remove Sharpshooter as a Feat, but the playtest seems to be doing that already, so instead:

Thirdly, make it so that ranged weapons and only add Dexterity to damage within 30 feet of the target, and make using a ranged attack (including ranged spell attacks) in melee provoke attacks of opportunity.

Fourth, make Crossbow Expert only work with crossbows. Crossbows have been underwhelming throughout so much of D&D's history I'm fine with them getting a perk, lol. At this point, you can remove OA's for "point blank" crossbow shots as well, as far as I'm concerned.

I think we got a winner here.

 

[Clint_L]

No, seriously, why are we talking about nerfing ranged attacks? The classes that primarily use ranged attacks, rangers and rogues, are widely considered weaker classes. They need a damage decrease? I'm not seeing a problem with ranged damage being good; it keeps those guys viable.

 

[James Gasik]

No, seriously, why are we talking about nerfing ranged attacks? The classes that primarily use ranged attacks, rangers and rogues, are widely considered weaker classes. They need a damage decrease? I'm not seeing a problem with ranged damage being good; it keeps those guys viable.

The argument is that it's safer to be a ranged damage dealer than a melee damage dealer. You can easily build a character who can deal nearly as much damage as a melee guy, use Dexterity as your primary ability score instead of Strength (YMMV, but many people see this as an advantage), have close to the same AC and durability as a front liner, but can more easily elude melee attacks, have greater ability to select targets in combat, and be less likely to deal with the consequences of being in melee, such as reaction counterattacks, damaging auras, enemies that harm you for attacking them due to being on fire or covered in acid, deathsplosions (enemies who blow up upon demise), etc., etc..

Depending on monster choices, being a melee character can be quite miserable. Combat starts, you might have to dash or wait for enemies to close to you, while the archer is picking off whatever target they like. People like to talk about the Monk's mobility, for example, and how they can rush to the back line, but an archer build can start attacking the back row the instant they see an enemy.

Add to that the fact that, due to improper use of soft cover, most archers get a +2 bonus to hit over everyone else, making their attacks much less likely to miss. Then there are other considerations, like Rogues being able to inflict their full sneak attack damage at range, or Battlemasters dropping Maneuvers on distant foes, keeping them from being able to act effectively.

And with Crossbow Expert, you can basically be a switch hitter, since you don't particularly care if someone actually does close with you, since you can still keep pumping out damage without penalty (or alternately, a Rogue can just bonus action Disengage).

 

[GMMichael]

No, seriously, why are we talking about nerfing ranged attacks? . . .

Because the idea of one weapon being inherently better than another is unacceptable to some people. Or because players of melee characters have some sort of bias against non-melee characters?

I always thought that a limited number of arrows would keep archers in check.

 

[MGibster]

I haven't found ranged attacks to be particularly difficult to deal with in D&D for the part part. As we use miniatures, the size of the map kind of determins the size of our fighting area. Another thing to consider is the difference between theoretical range and practical range. I have a rifle that has an effective range of about 1,000 meters in the hands of skilled shooter. Where I typically hunt, I'll never see a deer from 1,000 meters away because I'm in a wooded area. I think 150 meters is the absolute farthest I've ever shot at a deer (20 meters was the closest and I felt a little bad about that). So just because a PC has a theoretical range of 600 doesn't mean he's going to have a 600 foot shot.

 

[James Gasik]

Because the idea of one weapon being inherently better than another is unacceptable to some people. Or because players of melee characters have some sort of bias against non-melee characters?

I always thought that a limited number of arrows would keep archers in check.

Many groups don't really track ammunition (at least, that's been my experience with 5e) and even if they do, arrows don't really cost much nor do they weigh a lot, so unless you're using the Encumbrance variant, it's easy to load up on arrows between adventures, as 5e treasure rules give you fairly liberal wealth.

Now granted, in a game where you don't have easy access to a base, this might become a problem. Personally, I haven't bothered to track ammunition since 4e, since I don't particularly see the point of letting magic users throw cantrip attacks all day long, and taxing a guy small amounts of gold to use a bow; instead I use something like lifestyle expenses and just deduct a small portion of earned treasure to cover incidentals like this just to keep the game rolling. I've found if you enforce stuff like rations and ammunition, players will just find some way to end run around anything they find obnoxious anyways, so it's easier to just cut out the middleman (Note: I tell my players I'm doing this and they haven't complained).

So from my perspective, I'd rather adjust the mechanical balance then relying on money and making it a nuisance for the players to play the game. YMMV, of course.

 

[James Gasik]

I haven't found ranged attacks to be particularly difficult to deal with in D&D for the part part. As we use miniatures, the size of the map kind of determins the size of our fighting area. Another thing to consider is the difference between theoretical range and practical range. I have a rifle that has an effective range of about 1,000 meters in the hands of skilled shooter. Where I typically hunt, I'll never see a deer from 1,000 meters away because I'm in a wooded area. I think 150 meters is the absolute farthest I've ever shot at a deer (20 meters was the closest and I felt a little bad about that). So just because a PC has a theoretical range of 600 doesn't mean he's going to have a 600 foot shot.

This is an often overlooked aspect of ranged attacks in the open world; you do need to be able to see the target to shoot at it. But even in a dungeon or on a small battlemap, there are many advantages to being able to deal damage at range as opposed to melee, that, while certainly realistic, can seem a bit unfair to melee specialists, who gain less of an advantage for the tradeoff.

 

[Amrûnril]

No, seriously, why are we talking about nerfing ranged attacks? The classes that primarily use ranged attacks, rangers and rogues, are widely considered weaker classes. They need a damage decrease? I'm not seeing a problem with ranged damage being good; it keeps those guys viable.

Melee and ranged weapons are reasonably balanced in a dungeon delving context. In a high visibility outdoor encounter, though, a melee-focused combatant is utterly helpless against a range-focused combatant of comparable level or CR.

Absent terrain/visibility restrictions, a melee warrior using the dash action will need 20 rounds to close with a longbow wielder stepping backwards while firing. That may be an extreme case, but having to endure even half a dozen rounds of fire, even with partial cover intermittently available, is a sufficient obstacle that, under 5e rules, no one in their right mind would come to an outdoor battle armed primarily with a melee weapon. Both balance considerations and historical practice, though, suggest that it should be entirely plausible for a warrior with a shield and spear to close with an archer.

Outdoor combat may not be the primary focus of D&D, but neither is it a rare enough scenario that it's alright for it to break game balance to this degree.

 

[Clint_L]

Melee and ranged weapons are reasonably balanced in a dungeon delving context. In a high visibility outdoor encounter, though, a melee-focused combatant is utterly helpless against a range-focused combatant of comparable level or CR.

Absent terrain/visibility restrictions, a melee warrior using the dash action will need 20 rounds to close with a longbow wielder stepping backwards while firing. That may be an extreme case, but having to endure even half a dozen rounds of fire, even with partial cover intermittently available, is a sufficient obstacle that, under 5e rules, no one in their right mind would come to an outdoor battle armed primarily with a melee weapon. Both balance considerations and historical practice, though, suggest that it should be entirely plausible for a warrior with a shield and spear to close with an archer.

Outdoor combat may not be the primary focus of D&D, but neither is it a rare enough scenario that it's alright for it to break game balance to this degree.

So people are postulating that ranged weapons are better in theory? But the classes that rely on them are not doing that great in actuality. Should reality trump theory? Ranged weapons are not a problem in the game as it actually exists.

 

[tetrasodium]

Because the idea of one weapon being inherently better than another is unacceptable to some people. Or because players of melee characters have some sort of bias against non-melee characters?

I always thought that a limited number of arrows would keep archers in check.

5e takes the design elements that might make limited ammo meaningful & designs them in a way that makes them self nullify their impact.

• What negative thing happens if you don't store your arrows in a quiver?
  • Nothing with no downside because 5e left out container rules
• What negative thing happens if you do store them in a quiver but feel like you need two or three or five quivers filled with arrows?
  • Nothing because body slot rules were left out so the quiver isn't competing with anything including other quivers. If the GM wants to fight to limit a PC to one quiver there is basically nothing in the rules to help support that GM or even present an obstacle for a player if the player feels that carrying multiple quivers is a thing they can do.
• What negative thing happens if the ranged character with multiple quivers has low strength?
  • absolutely nothing because on top of failing to include container or body slot rules 5e went a step further & included carry capacity rules that are so generous they don't really even start to matter unless somehow the majority of the group has strength well under 8 & even then it probably won't much matter due to the excess.
• What negative thing happens if you need to spend large amounts on arrows?
  • Nothing because arrows are incredibly cheap even for low level PCs and PCs of any level don't need to spend money on improving gear or whatever.
• Shooting into melee penalties?
  • Gone
• Range increments?
  • Gone.. disadvantage at long range but that's not only multiple chessex mats but often multiple physical tables worth of distance...
• Shooting through cover
  • "screw that I have sharpshooter"
• GM sez "you can't see that far" or similar
  • Again nothing in the rules supports this pure naked disarm by GM fiat.

 

[James Gasik]

So people are postulating that ranged weapons are better in theory? But the classes that rely on them are not doing that great in actuality. Should reality trump theory? Ranged weapons are not a problem in the game as it actually exists.

If you're interested, there was a long discussion about this awhile ago. I don't think it's a theoretical problem, but whether or not it affects your games at home depends on what sorts of adventures you have, and how your DM builds encounters.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/are-ranged-attacks-too-good-in-5e.687300/

 

[Amrûnril]

So people are postulating that ranged weapons are better in theory? But the classes that rely on them are not doing that great in actuality. Should reality trump theory? Ranged weapons are not a problem in the game as it actually exists.

In my actual play experience, it's the advantage of ranged weapons that's reality and the weakness of the Rogue and Ranger that's theoretical. Even with deliberate scenario design choices that prevent ranged attacks from being used to anywhere near their full potential, the ranged characters in my parties consistently dominate outdoor encounters, while the Ranger and Rogue characters have been effective even in close quarters.

Admittedly, the maximum potential of a longbow remains largely theoretical. But this isn't a case of an issue remaining theoretical because it has no reason to arise naturally. Longbow wielders have every incentive to find opportunities to use their weapon's full range. The rules should be structured in way that allows this to be the beginning of an exciting encounter, not a scenario so one-sided that DMs will go out of their way to keep it from happening.

 

[James Gasik]

I recall an adventure where our party was tasked to take out some mounted bandits who were preying on merchants along this trade route. Our Ranger allowed us to stay off the main road and move through the forest to the side of it.

The DM tells us we hear the sounds of horses, so we poke our heads out of the treeline to see riders wearing red armor (identifying them as the bandits in question) coming down the road. Our melee Fighter said he was running towards the riders. The rest of us took out bows and crossbows.

The Fighter was one turn away from getting to swing his sword when all the bandits were killed. We never again had an encounter with an easy ranged firing solution for the rest of that campaign.

Most DM's, as Amrunril pointed out, know to avoid encounters such as this like the plague (no doubt learning the hard way), so they are usually not the norm. But even in smaller encounters, the ability to just start piling on damage without having to close is a huge advantage all of it's own, and many encounters end with the ranged characters not having taken damage at all!

Now obviously, somebody has to be in melee range (usually), because if everyone is ranged, no one is, and enemies will get in your face. But this still isn't much fun for whoever is in melee, as they take the lion's share of attacks and have to deal with all the nuisances of being in melee range with foes. I wonder how many players look upon the ranged damage dealers with envy, as they put out really good damage while being relatively unbothered by the proceedings.

And of course, if you are a Fighter or Ranger with 17 AC and a gob of hit points, you can take your share of bumps if someone does get in your face while either switching to a rapier or firing without penalty thanks to Crossbow Expert.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Because the idea of one weapon being inherently better than another is unacceptable to some people. Or because players of melee characters have some sort of bias against non-melee characters?

I always thought that a limited number of arrows would keep archers in check.

Yes this. I'm in a game where we are on a 10 day trekk. I have 20 arrows and almost no time or materials to craft more. If I miss a shot, I lose the arrow and if I hit, I get it back. I, therefore, make sure I only shoot if I have a good chance of hitting. In most cases, I'm at a DISADVANTAGE next to the melee fighters because I have to weigh the advantages of actually shooting at enemies and risk losing ammunition.

But we aren't playing that game in 5e. So, unfortunately, this:

5e takes the design elements that might make limited ammo meaningful & designs them in a way that makes them self nullify their impact.

• What negative thing happens if you don't store your arrows in a quiver?
  • Nothing with no downside because 5e left out container rules
• What negative thing happens if you do store them in a quiver but feel like you need two or three or five quivers filled with arrows?
  • Nothing because body slot rules were left out so the quiver isn't competing with anything including other quivers. If the GM wants to fight to limit a PC to one quiver there is basically nothing in the rules to help support that GM or even present an obstacle for a player if the player feels that carrying multiple quivers is a thing they can do.
• What negative thing happens if the ranged character with multiple quivers has low strength?
  • absolutely nothing because on top of failing to include container or body slot rules 5e went a step further & included carry capacity rules that are so generous they don't really even start to matter unless somehow the majority of the group has strength well under 8 & even then it probably won't much matter due to the excess.
• What negative thing happens if you need to spend large amounts on arrows?
  • Nothing because arrows are incredibly cheap even for low level PCs and PCs of any level don't need to spend money on improving gear or whatever.
• Shooting into melee penalties?
  • Gone
• Range increments?
  • Gone.. disadvantage at long range but that's not only multiple chessex mats but often multiple physical tables worth of distance...
• Shooting through cover
  • "screw that I have sharpshooter"
• GM sez "you can't see that far" or similar
  • Again nothing in the rules supports this pure naked disarm by GM fiat.

To be fair, I'd prefer something in between. Having to ration ammunition is a fun challenge but maybe not for an entire campaign.

 

[GMMichael]

5e takes the design elements that might make limited ammo meaningful & designs them in a way that makes them self nullify their impact.

There's a good point here: 5e actually did some streamlining, and it was to remove most of the archery rules from 3e.

. . . The Fighter was one turn away from getting to swing his sword when all the bandits were killed. We never again had an encounter with an easy ranged firing solution for the rest of that campaign.

Um, bows are actually a thing. So I don't know what these bandits were doing, but you won't make it long as a bandit if you don't know how to flee or use your horse for cover.

Now obviously, somebody has to be in melee range (usually), because if everyone is ranged, no one is, and enemies will get in your face. But this still isn't much fun for whoever is in melee, as they take the lion's share of attacks and have to deal with all the nuisances of being in melee range with foes. I wonder how many players look upon the ranged damage dealers with envy, as they put out really good damage while being relatively unbothered by the proceedings.

Usually, the melee gals wear the heaviest armor. This is supposed to increase their survivability by a lot. Also usually, your allies don't want to risk shooting you (unless their names are Geoffrey or Bolton), so you're at least safe from allied arrows while in melee range. Those ranged attackers have a great job until they run out of arrows and get trampled by flanking cavalry. Unlike footmen, archers tend to wear little or no armor, so when the arrows run out, so do their options.

 

[Horwath]

No, seriously, why are we talking about nerfing ranged attacks? The classes that primarily use ranged attacks, rangers and rogues, are widely considered weaker classes. They need a damage decrease? I'm not seeing a problem with ranged damage being good; it keeps those guys viable.

I have no problem with ranged damage or ranged weapons having long ranges.

If you are stupid enough that you find yourself in an open field vs a trained archer, then you deserve to die.

This is just a suggestion to punish using ranged attacks when melee combat is inevitable.

 

[James Gasik]

There's a good point here: 5e actually did some streamlining, and it was to remove most of the archery rules from 3e.


Um, bows are actually a thing. So I don't know what these bandits were doing, but you won't make it long as a bandit if you don't know how to flee or use your horse for cover.


Usually, the melee gals wear the heaviest armor. This is supposed to increase their survivability by a lot. Also usually, your allies don't want to risk shooting you (unless their names are Geoffrey or Bolton), so you're at least safe from allied arrows while in melee range. Those ranged attackers have a great job until they run out of arrows and get trampled by flanking cavalry. Unlike footmen, archers tend to wear little or no armor, so when the arrows run out, so do their options.

I'm not sure what you're saying here; the encounter that lets bows dominate shouldn't ever be happening in the first place, so it's not a problem that DM's avoid it like the plague? Lol.

Or what cavalry has to do with a typical D&D encounter, this isn't the same as real battlefield conditions. As for armor...once you get into the later Tier 2 and Tier 3 and enemies have +11 to hit and up, even the heaviest armor stops providing huge benefits in defense over the Dex 20 guy in leather. AC 21? You're hit on a 10, the archer is hit on a 6, so that's 20% less protection; noticeable, but overwhelming. At this point, it becomes all about the hit points, and a melee Fighter doesn't have dramatically more of those than a ranged one.

And as far as arrows running out, we are talking about a game where 1 point of Strength lets you carry 15 shots, you're not carrying any single item heavier than your leather armor or bow itself, and you get back half the arrows that miss.

 

[Lojaan]

Ranged fighters have a big drawback - they cannot protect squishier members of the party. They may be strong individually, but they are often the weak link in a party.

Plus fighting with a ranged weapon is boring.

I don't think ranged weapons are overpowered, I think dex is overpowered.

Also, if you attack a guy who has a bow from 1000 feet away in a clear field on a calm day by running at him with a sword then you deserve to become a pincushion.