D&D 5E Ranged attacks and disadvantage in melee

[DND_Reborn]

Using ammunition as a melee weapon falls under improvised weapon rules.

He also fires his bow in those situations--I was not talking about him stabbing an orc with an arrow.

Watch the movies again.

Now you're being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

No, I was quoting you:

Not when the sword guy is literally bearing down on him and about to stick him.

And how is it any different from a melee character when a "sword guys is literally bearing down on him blah blah blah"?

and decided I had quoted enough since I really didn't see this discussion leading anywhere productive.

If I have to explain to you the obvious fact that it is much easier to defend yourself against and attack an enemy in melee combat with an actual melee weapon

You don't have to explain anything... you don't even need to reply, in fact.

there is no reason to continue this conversation.

Finally, you say something that makes sense! Have a nice day.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's an interesting side question (well, to me anyway, since I have two characters in our games with nets, one a sea elf wizard and one a ranger with the fisher background):

A Net is a ranged weapon that has a range of 5'/15'. Is the attack always at disadvantage when throwing it?

Yep, unless the net user has Crossbow Expert and/or Sharpshooter.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Notice the situations called out negates the "ranged in melee" situation, so they stack with advantage. Sneak up on someone and use your net attack, you get advantage on the roll. It can be quite useful for sneak attacks. Monk stuns the enemy? Use the net to basically ensure it has to get through the net and the stun to get rehabilitated.

Oh, good points.

 

[Gladius Legis]

and decided I had quoted enough since I really didn't see this discussion leading anywhere productive.

Your suggestion to give ranged combat, already on the powerful side of things in 5e, a buff it never needed, using the most corner-case fantasy example ever as your justification, was never going to result in a productive discussion.

Quite frankly, your 6eNow! handle makes it obvious any discussion with you about 5e rules will never be productive.

 

[Asisreo]

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.

I don't entirely understand what you're asking but I'll clarify some things.

When a creature is in melee with someone hostile to it, it has disadvantage on ranged attacks (both weapon and spell attacks). This means a ranged combatant must now fight in melee, which is something they rarely want to do with someone that is built specifically for melee. Well, they could walk away, but they risk Attacks of Opportunities against an enemy who already has strong melee attacks.

So if the Ranged attacker wants to escape with minimal pressure, they'd have to teleport, use their action to disengage, or make themselves unseen somehow. These all have costs to them, though. When a ranged combatant is in melee, they are at disadvantage both technically and definitively.

Oh, good points.

One last point that undoes disadvantage: Charming the enemy.

The enemy must be hostile to have a net put on it, but certain charm effects turn the opposition into friendly acquaintances or better. This means you don't get disadvantage against them since they aren't hostile to you.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Your suggestion to give ranged combat, already on the powerful side of things in 5e, a buff it never needed

It isn't a buff--it is removing a nerf. Also, I disagree that ranged combat is really any more powerful than melee, anyway.

using the most corner-case fantasy example ever as your justification

One of the most commonly cited concepts of ranged combat in melee

was never going to result in a productive discussion.

Frankly, there was never anything to discuss.

your 6eNow! handle makes it obvious any discussion with you about 5e rules will never be productive.

Lots of people want and speculate on 6E, and I still play 5E, so that really has nothing to do with this. shrug

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So if the Ranged attacker wants to escape with minimal pressure, they'd have to teleport, use their action to disengage, or make themselves unseen somehow. These all have costs to them, though. When a ranged combatant is in melee, they are at disadvantage both technically and definitively.
One last point that undoes disadvantage: Charming the enemy.

The enemy must be hostile to have a net put on it, but certain charm effects turn the opposition into friendly acquaintances or better. This means you don't get disadvantage against them since they aren't hostile to you.

I like the charm idea!

Now that you bring up the hostile requirement, I'm noticing something else in the rule:

you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated.

Would you say that as long as any hostile creature is within 5' of the PC, a ranged attack on any creature is at disadvantage regardless of whether or not the target of the ranged attack is that same hostile creature?
I had always thought the rule was specific to a target that is next to the ranged attacker, but now I'm thinking the disadvantage actually goes beyond that...

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't entirely understand what you're asking but I'll clarify some things.

When a creature is in melee with someone hostile to it, it has disadvantage on ranged attacks (both weapon and spell attacks). This means a ranged combatant must now fight in melee, which is something they rarely want to do with someone that is built specifically for melee. Well, they could walk away, but they risk Attacks of Opportunities against an enemy who already has strong melee attacks.

So if the Ranged attacker wants to escape with minimal pressure, they'd have to teleport, use their action to disengage, or make themselves unseen somehow. These all have costs to them, though. When a ranged combatant is in melee, they are at disadvantage both technically and definitively.

Ok, picture this: a wizard (empty hands but a spell component pouch) is being attacked by two orcs in melee.

Case 1: He casts shocking grasp (without problems) against an orc.
Case 2: He casts fire bolt at one of the orcs instead (suppose he doesn't know shocking grasp)! But now he is supposed to have disadvantage...

Why the disadvantage in the second case? In both cases he has no weapon to block with, etc. and is just as exposed to melee attacks regardless of which spell he casts. He is still attacking one of the orcs he is facing, not focusing on a third target or anything.

So, my point is why would you attribute disadvantage to an attack form (ranged) and not another (melee) when the PC is in the same situation?

 

[Asisreo]

I like the charm idea!

Now that you bring up the hostile requirement, I'm noticing something else in the rule:

you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated.

Would you say that as long as any hostile creature is within 5' of the PC, a ranged attack on any creature is at disadvantage regardless of whether or not the target of the ranged attack is that same hostile creature?
I had always thought the rule was specific to a target that is next to the ranged attacker, but now I'm thinking the disadvantage actually goes beyond that...

This is precisely the interaction and why I think Ranged combat gets too overstated.

A melee combatant shuts down any and all ranged attacks from every nearby enemy regardless of targets.

This also helps tanking-type builds. Most disregard tanking in 5e because there's hardly any reliable way to force aggro but being able to disrupt attacks is nearly as effective. A Barbarian that reckless attacks both makes targetting the distant members harder while they make targetting themselves easier. Backing up to attack still puts the Barbarian's damage on the board and basically multiplies their damage by x1.5-2.

Ok, picture this: a wizard (empty hands but a spell component pouch) is being attacked by two orcs in melee.

Case 1: He casts shocking grasp (without problems) against an orc.
Case 2: He casts fire bolt at one of the orcs instead (suppose he doesn't know shocking grasp)! But now he is supposed to have disadvantage...

Why the disadvantage in the second case? In both cases he has no weapon to block with, etc. and is just as exposed to melee attacks regardless of which spell he casts. He is still attacking one of the orcs he is facing, not focusing on a third target or anything.

So, my point is why would you attribute disadvantage to an attack form (ranged) and not another (melee) when the PC is in the same situation?

Mostly game balance. Again, there should be some significant trade-off for added range.

Ranged attacks already have alot going for them. Dexterity is a favorable ability score in almost all campaigns anyways. Alot of enemies are more effective in melee than at ranged. Terrain itself usually favors ranged characters too since anything that makes movement harder makes getting close to ranged enemies harder by consequence.

More damage, higher AC, and more carrying capacity probably isn't exactly enough to justify putting your character in a dangerous position: front and center. There should be more rewards to being in melee and more penalties for ranged combatants being in melee.

 

[Gladius Legis]

It isn't a buff--it is removing a nerf.

Removing a nerf IS a buff.