Gladius Legis
Legend
Getting rid of the rule would make ranged attacks even more powerful than they already are. They really do not need any help.But, either way, I would just get rid of the original rule in the first place. shrug
Getting rid of the rule would make ranged attacks even more powerful than they already are. They really do not need any help.But, either way, I would just get rid of the original rule in the first place. shrug
Shocker--ranged attacks are more dangerous. Which is why ranged combat is so strong historically. Being able to attack a foe without immediate risk to yourself is pretty good.Getting rid of the rule would make ranged attacks even more powerful than they already are. They really do not need any help.
From a realism point of view, that's fine. But we also have to consider the game aspect of it, otherwise being a melee combatant would be a detriment.Shocker--ranged attacks are more dangerous. Which is why ranged combat is so strong historically. Being able to attack a foe without immediate risk to yourself is pretty good.
If a PC has a sword and the foe has a bow, the bow guy definitely has the advantage. PCs (given the heroic view) wouldn't suffer issues uses a ranged attack in melee.
Not when the sword guy is literally bearing down on him and about to stick him.If a PC has a sword and the foe has a bow, the bow guy definitely has the advantage. PCs (given the heroic view) wouldn't suffer issues uses a ranged attack in melee.
Always? No. But it usually is at disadvantage. The times when they're not at disadvantage is when you are unseen, when your target is incapacitated (stun, unconscious, paralyzed, etc.), when you're underwater, when you've gained advantage from a source not listed above.A Net is a ranged weapon that has a range of 5'/15'. Is the attack always at disadvantage when throwing it?
Watch Legolas again... he does it all the time.Not when the sword guy is literally bearing down on him and about to stick him.
Good points, all, but I want to address this in particular:From a realism point of view, that's fine. But we also have to consider the game aspect of it, otherwise being a melee combatant would be a detriment.
As it stands now, its already true someone with a bow has advantage against someone with a sword at long range. However, the melee combatant has access to more damage and technically more AC. Also, the melee combatant is better when at melee (no surprise) and actively threatens the ranged combatants with disadvantage on their attacks or an Opportunity Attack which can give even more damage.
A ranged combatant gets disadvantage when their target simply takes the prone condition which is free to do and only takes movement to undo.
I think Ranged Combat is strong but its not as powerful as some would believe when factoring in all the pros and cons.
Why impose disadvantage or grant an OA? A melee opponent is assumed always be actively threatening their target, regardless of what weapon you are wielding. And, as you say, ranged attackers typically already have lower ACs and are often denied "parry"-type features.actively threatens the ranged combatants with disadvantage on their attacks or an Opportunity Attack which can give even more damage.
I... Did say there are optional facing rules in the DMG...?Ok, so...
- Is it really so hard to say that there are (optional) rules for facing on page 252 of the Dungeon Master's Guide compared to what you did?
I disagree. They’re pretty solid, if facing rules are a thing you want. I’ve used them for some campaigns I’ve run, and they do their job just fine.
- The (optional) rules for facing are so absolutely terrible that I don't blame anyone for blanking out on their existence.
Using ammunition as a melee weapon falls under improvised weapon rules.Watch Legolas again... he does it all the time.![]()
Now you're being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.And how is it any different from a melee character when a "sword guys is literally bearing down on him blah blah blah"?