D&D 5E Ranged attacks and disadvantage in melee

[Asisreo]

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

Because melee is a more vulnerable position. While you are threatening your enemy with OAs, the enemy also threatens you with them as well so you're in just as much of a situation as your opponent. Being in melee means that you're likely not in cover from other ranged attackers in the enemy ranks. You also can't go prone against your ranged enemies since a melee enemy will then be more dangerous.

With all these concerns, you need to have some good incentives which melee provides through its other good facets.

 

[CubicsRube]

Are we going for realism or fantasy emulation? The goalposts have changed quite a few times in this thread.

 

[GMMichael]

Are we going for realism or fantasy emulation? The goalposts have changed quite a few times in this thread.

I go for Uncommon Sense, which is highly subjective.

Because melee is a more vulnerable position. . .
With all these concerns, you need to have some good incentives which melee provides through its other good facets.

Melee's incentive is that your melee-weapon can reach your opponent. I would expect melee (range) to be less than preferable if you have a ranged weapon that you could use first. In fact, all good fighters know that they should carry two weapons at minimum, and of these, one should reach farther than the fighter's arm. (File this under realism for CubicsRube).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Well, I wouldn't know first hand as I've never tried shooting an arrow at a human-sized target, especially in combat when it was trying to avoid me.

Let's put it this way: Bow hunters using modern compound bows, which are way more accurate than mediaeval weapons generally won't try to take a shot at over 40 yards. And that is against an unarmoured, unaware, and generally stationary target.

With a shield, of course the odds plummet! (For 5E, your chance decreases 10% with the +2 AC bonus.)

Yeah. 5e (and pretty much all editions of D&D) don't really model how effective shields are.

And the rule suggests PCs can't be unless you take Crossbow Expert. Or, who knows... maybe it is just because orcs' ACs suck and he is so good the disadvantage really doesn't matter? That is more likely the case.

I mean orcs in 5E have AC 13. Assuming Legolas has +12 to hit, he would only miss on double 1's or less than 10% of the time if he did have disadvantage...

Yep. I was thinking that he was just managing to hit despite disadvantage on the few occasions he needed to.

I'm not following you here. Care to elaborate?

I'm suggesting that the motions required to cast and target a Shocking Grasp and other melee spells do not expose you quite so much as those required to cast and target a ranged spell. Thus they do not suffer disadvantage to land compared to the ranged spells.

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

. . . I don't think you could have missed the context. It was in the paragraph directly above the one you actually quoted.

I believe they did, too. But that doesn't make sense for two reasons:

1) Ranged weapons take disadvantage at distance. The opposite of that, being as close to the target as possible, should get advantage.

Uh. There is a distinction in ease of use between "opponent is within the effective range of your weapon" and "weapon is within the effective reach of your opponent."

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.

Animals generally go with overbearing and batting or biting at you. 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. Stabbing it with an arrow is likely easier despite the issues with attempting that.
It is very much harder to shoot a bow in a situation like that than it is to use a spear or sword on them.

 

[Asisreo]

Melee's incentive is that your melee-weapon can reach your opponent. I would expect melee (range) to be less than preferable if you have a ranged weapon that you could use first. In fact, all good fighters know that they should carry two weapons at minimum, and of these, one should reach farther than the fighter's arm. (File this under realism for CubicsRube).

The question is why should you even build yourself as a melee character if ranged characters get to fight from a safer position? You can take your sword with you, but you're only incentivized to use it when your opponent comes to you if the way 5e handled ranged attacking was different. Nobody would be a melee fighter because the opportunity costs would be too high.

Game Design vs Realism has to draw a line somewhere. If you want the most realistic experience, you can always buy real swords and arrows and fight your friends until one of you dies but I doubt its actually any fun to kill your friends for the sake of a realistic game.

Anyways, the line drawn in D&D incentivizes fun game design over realism in the majority of cases. It allows a DM to pack realism into it, but only to an extent before reaching beyond the bounds of the system.

 

[Rockyroad]

Historically bowman have always been routed when faced with infantry at melee range and so I have no issues with the game modeling that by giving the ranged weapon disadvantage when an enemy is within melee range of the shooter. And as others have said, range combat doesn't need anymore advantages over melee combat, simply for the fact that one can attack the other without the other being able to retaliate at all if at range.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Historically bowman have always been routed when faced with infantry at melee range and so I have no issues with the game modeling that by giving the ranged weapon disadvantage when an enemy is within melee range of the shooter. And as others have said, range combat doesn't need anymore advantages over melee combat, simply for the fact that one can attack the other without the other being able to retaliate at all if at range.

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

 

[Rockyroad]

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

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Then the shooter should be dodging or disengaging IMO.

 

[Rockyroad]

Then the shooter should be dodging or disengaging IMO.

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.