D&D 5E Ranged attacks and disadvantage in melee

[Dausuul]

I'd rather allow melee attackers an OA against a ranged attacker when confronting them in melee than saying the ranged attacker has disadvantage. shrug

That's what happens if the shooter prefers it that way. You move away from the melee foe, eat the OA for moving, and now you can shoot without penalty. But you also have the option to stay where you are and accept disadvantage if you don't want to risk the OA.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's what happens if the shooter prefers it that way. You move away from the melee foe, eat the OA for moving, and now you can shoot without penalty. But you also have the option to stay where you are and accept disadvantage if you don't want to risk the OA.

Fair enough point LOL.

 

[billd91]

If there were several enemy at melee range with the shooter, would they all get OA against the shooter? That may be a little too much.

Indeed - plus it would conflict with 5e's goal to reduce the AoO issue that kind of plagued and slowed down 3e.

 

[Horwath]

I would expand the 5ft rule to being in reach of melee attack(be that 5,10,15 or whatever distance) and also you provoke AoO in addition to disadvantage on your ranged attack roll. Unless you have succeed on a stealth check before the attack.

Also, I would detach AoO from reaction "slot", and give a number of AoO's per round equal to prof bonus.

 

[GMMichael]

They're not attacking your bow like an intelligent opponent would, but think about trying to load and draw a shot while a large dog is yanking you around as it worries at your leg.

Think about trying to spear a large dog while it's yanking you around. You'd be just as likely to stab yourself as the dog.

The question is why should you even build yourself as a melee character if ranged characters get to fight from a safer position? . . . Nobody would be a melee fighter because the opportunity costs would be too high.

Because you have limited arrows, and it's hard to hit targets that are trying to avoid being hit? Because the typical encounter distance in a dungeon is 20 feet, AKA charging range?

Or you could give the melees advantage on their attacks against the shooter. For me it doesn't really matter about the specifics, the point being that if ranged wants to play with melee at melee range then there should be consequences.

Anything other than "disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature" would be great. Under this rule, you have trouble shooting enemies just because an angry hamster is gnawing on your boot.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Anything other than "disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature" would be great. Under this rule, you have trouble shooting enemies just because an angry hamster is gnawing on your boot.

Call me crazy, but if I had one of these things gnawing on my boot, I'd be a bit distracted...

Cheers, Al'kelhar

 

[Horwath]

Think about trying to spear a large dog while it's yanking you around. You'd be just as likely to stab yourself as the dog.


Because you have limited arrows, and it's hard to hit targets that are trying to avoid being hit? Because the typical encounter distance in a dungeon is 20 feet, AKA charging range?


Anything other than "disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature" would be great. Under this rule, you have trouble shooting enemies just because an angry hamster is gnawing on your boot.

disadvantage on attacks is a good mechanics, it's just not enough.
I.E. if you have shield and you are few feet only from attacker with ranged weapon, your shield covers you all, or you can easily hit a bow with your melee weapon(or even hand) and put it way off target.

 

[loverdrive]

2) "Someone actively hacking" is part of the assumption. But how many D&D opponents fit this assumption? Spellcasting wizards don't. Neither do animals (which should include many monsters with similar tactics...and plants...); they don't bat/parry away your attacks (or bow in this case). They just try to bite the closest or most accessible thing they can. Which could be your leg, arm, head... Regardless, they don't make it any harder to shoot them with your bow than to spear them or stab them.

I don't know much about bows outside of range, but I can safely say that hitting someone with a pistol at 5 meters is relatively easy thing, but someone at arm's length who is moving and doesn't want to be hit? Nope. And pistol is infinitely easier to operate than even a modern bow.

Did I miss the context? Why, exactly, should melee be rewarded over ranged combat?

Because ranged combatants:

• Deal pretty much the same damage
• Attack more often
• Hit more often
• Don't need to spend ASIs on a dumpstat

 

[Mannahnin]

Trying to wield a bow or other missile weapon effectively when you're in sword's reach of someone trying to cut you is difficult to impossible. The Disadvantage mechanic is simple, clean and adequate to represent this. It still allows characters who get lucky or have high attack bonuses to get some hits, which is probably at the appropriate level of heroic unrealism for D&D. The AoO rule also made reasonable sense in 3.x to represent the archer's vulnerability in this position, but takes up more game time.

Getting back to the original questions-

1. If you use facing rules, I could definitely see taking away the penalty if you're behind the foe, but I'd also want to see some form of simultaneous movement to make it possible for him to turn with you if you're his target. Just running around back of the guy who's trying to stick you would be even more unrealistic and more of an absurd result than the baseline I-go-you-go initiative/movement system. Me moving in a circle around a person is (basically) always slower than them pivoting to face me.

2. Blindsight means the creature has other sensory abilities which grant it all the same combat effectiveness as a sighted creature, even though it can't see. They are still threatening the missileer just as well as a sighted character.

 

[GMMichael]

I.E. if you have shield and you are few feet only from attacker with ranged weapon, your shield covers you all, or you can easily hit a bow with your melee weapon(or even hand) and put it way off target.

Trying to wield a bow or other missile weapon effectively when you're in sword's reach of someone trying to cut you is difficult to impossible. . .

News flash: if you're using a sword instead of a bow, your opponent is trying to bat that away, too.

The AoO rule also made reasonable sense in 3.x to represent the archer's vulnerability in this position, but takes up more game time.

So what is OP to do? Auburn2's ruling #2 is pretty legitimate; someone with no eyes clearly can't see his opponent, so the disadvantage rule is not satisfied. Blindsight doesn't count; "perceiving" is not seeing. Further, the first example of a blindsight user is an ooze, and I'm pretty sure that an ooze isn't batting your bow away while you're trying to shoot it. Nor is it dodging your aim.

Mannahnin suggests using an Opportunity Attack (instead of disadvantage?). That's a decent solution if you want to show that an ammunition-using fighter is likely to take (more) damage while using it near a melee-weapon fighter.

I'd like to see fighters actually use an action to load their weapons. Then the "opportunity attack" is simply the melee-fighter attacking during the ranged-fighter's reload action/round.

Because ranged combatants:

• Deal pretty much the same damage
• Attack more often
• Hit more often
• Don't need to spend ASIs on a dumpstat

Those are arguments explaining why it's better to be a ranged combatant, not why melee should be rewarded over ranged combat. Except for the dumpstat argument, that's a different story.

One could argue-

• because melee is cooler than ranged fighting, or
• D&D is equally about stabbing and shooting, or
• the 5e rules are unfairly biased toward ranged fighters,

but if ranged fighting is simply better than melee, then you should choose to fight at range instead of demanding rewards for melee. /sidetrack