D&D (2024) How to simply balance ranged weapons.

[Vaalingrade]

But, with damage types mattering, the realism goes up. Ranged weaponry on the whole is generally only going to be able to deal piercing damage. And in a fantasy world, its not unrealistic to say that fantasy creatures will have distinct resistances, if not active defenses, against such damage.

Ranged then becomes powerful and optimal when not resisted, and is balanced out by being suboptimal when it is.

And moreover, what this then lets you do is justify to players actually using both range and melee on one character, fulfilling the classic fantasy of Archer characters, which almost all of which seldom use only their bow.

Hawkeye, Legolas, Robin Hood, etc all swap into melee weapons when the time calls for it. With Ranged weaponry being as so shallowly powerful as they are in 5e, you can't actually emulate those characters without gimping yourself.

Boxing glove arrow, yo!

 

[Shadowedeyes]

No, it's strongly preferable from a mechanical point of view.

Fighters are built to be very strong at two pillars of the game: dealing damage, and taking damage.

A melee fighter takes advantage of both those strengths. A ranged fighter takes advantage of one of them. Put another way, being someone who can stand in melee and take damage, while delivering good damage in return, is more valuable to an adventuring party than someone who sits at range and might deal a little more damage, but isn't helping much at absorbing it. Percy, in Vox Machina (Critical Role's first campaign) can afford to be a ranged-focused fighter only because the barbarian Grog is up in front taking it in the face.

Part of the problem with rangers and rogues is that their niche is secondary. I think their damage should be stronger, not weaker than it currently is. Or other abilities should be buffed to compensate for their role limitations.

Edit: That said, I do think class fantasy plays a role. Most folks who want to play a fighter probably go in imagining that as a melee class. But the class is very much built with that specialization in mind, even though fighters are flexible enough that a very strong ranged build is possible (ironically, through battlemaster more than through arcane archer, IMO).

The funny thing though, is that the optimized build I was talking about? It can be in melee just fine. Really though, in 5e most of the classes can take some attacks. The fighter is a bit better at it than most (although not the best, as Barbarian and Paladin are as good or better), but Rogues have Uncanny Dodge, Rangers have the same hit dice, and spellcasters even have spells like shield and the like that can protect them.

 

[Blue]

There is a lot of discussion on (over)power of ranged weapons, and as I agree with most of 5E decision for ranged weapons(dex for both attack and damage), some more penalties should be added for usage of Ranged Weapons.

1. Making attack with a ranged weapon provokes Attack of Opportunity.

This is a large buff to ranged weapons if it's replacing the current gaining Disadvantage if a foe is adjacent.

If your main attacks are ranged weapon, disadvantage on your action is a huge penalty. Trading that away for an opportunity attack that (a) might not have a reaction to use, (b) might miss, and (c) is a smaller penalty is making your action more likely wasted is a big advantage to ranged weapon wielders.

And if it's not a a replacement, it's redundant because disadvantage on those attacks will already pretty much always prevent them from being made anyway. If your choice is to move away and take an OA, or not move away and take an OA and have disadvantage, then characters will always move making this completely redundant except in a few corner cases.

So either it's a buff when we want a nerf, or it's a rule that will never come into play. Both cases don't pass the test for adding a rule.

2. When you make an attack with ranged weapon, melee attacks vs. you have advantage until the start of your next turn. This counts for triggering the AoO from point 1.

Does the same thing happen with ranged spell attacks? Why or why not, both gamist and in-world narrative please. And if it does, does it also happen with other spells - same gamist & in-world narrative question.

Also, since ranged attackers usually are at, well, range, and less likely to be attacked, is this that big of a penalty in the first place?

 

[Horwath]

This is a large buff to ranged weapons if it's replacing the current gaining Disadvantage if a foe is adjacent.

If your main attacks are ranged weapon, disadvantage on your action is a huge penalty. Trading that away for an opportunity attack that (a) might not have a reaction to use, (b) might miss, and (c) is a smaller penalty is making your action more likely wasted is a big advantage to ranged weapon wielders.

And if it's not a a replacement, it's redundant because disadvantage on those attacks will already pretty much always prevent them from being made anyway. If your choice is to move away and take an OA, or not move away and take an OA and have disadvantage, then characters will always move making this completely redundant except in a few corner cases.

So either it's a buff when we want a nerf, or it's a rule that will never come into play. Both cases don't pass the test for adding a rule.

If you do not suffer disadvantage but give AoO to enemy, it also speeds up battle.
You deal more damage and more damage is dealt to you.

Also the fun factor, disadvantage on attacks as PC is not really fun.
Taking more damage gives the feel that is more at stake in the battle.
Also DM gets to have several mooks to bash you on the head with advantage.

Does the same thing happen with ranged spell attacks? Why or why not, both gamist and in-world narrative please. And if it does, does it also happen with other spells - same gamist & in-world narrative question.

This is a thread about ranged weapons, but yeah, same can be made for ranged spells.
That is any spell that is not melee spell touch attack or area blast centered from/around the caster.
Aiming with the spell just uses too much of your focus so you trigger AoO.

Nice nerf to Healing word also.

Also, since ranged attackers usually are at, well, range, and less likely to be attacked, is this that big of a penalty in the first place?

As many stated, not all ranged attacks are at 100+ ft. In dungeons you are most times in move range of some enemies. This would encourage enemies to target you after your turn with ranged attacks.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm still not seeing an explanation of why ranged classes need a nerf.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm still not seeing an explanation of why ranged classes need a nerf.

I gave you one in post #25. If that's not convincing to you, that's fine, but to say that you haven't seen an explanation is disingenuous. Further, your constant statements that these things are hypothetical is rather dismissive; you assume that no one has ever seen ranged dominance in play, which would make them want to balance ranged combat. I even gave you a link to a previous discussion on this very point.

If your stance is that the desires of the OP are invalid, and are unnecessary, I'm sure they are thankful for your input. But constantly reminding us of your stance isn't adding anything new to the conversation. The title of this thread isn't "convince me that there is a problem with ranged combat", it's "how to simply balance ranged weapons".

 

[Pauln6]

No stat bonus to damage. Archery fighting style adds +2 to damage.

 

[James Gasik]

No stat bonus to damage. Archery fighting style adds +2 to damage.

Except for thrown weapons, nothing wrong with letting them have Str bonuses. Oh and maybe bring back mighty composite bows; give people more stuff to spend money on.

 

[Stalker0]

Super simple: pick 1 or both.

• Ranged Attacks provoke an OA (and is not much of a nerf, an archer can always just pull out a rapier and still be doing just fine).
• Ranged Attacks with bows use strength for damage.
  • We aren't reintroducing mighty composites here, keep it simple, just any bow: strength to damage instead of dex.

 

[Pauln6]

Except for thrown weapons, nothing wrong with letting them have Str bonuses. Oh and maybe bring back mighty composite bows; give people more stuff to spend money on.

The thread is how to SIMPLY balance ranged weapons. Stop throwing in more complicated good ideas!

I don't think any finesse weapon should have strength bonuses to damage but otherwise yeah.