Sure, but now you're looking to fix the rulebook's generosity by tweaking monsters. I much prefer to fix the core issue once and for all, and then I can use the monster stat blocks as-is just fine.
Besides, it's is a losing strategy to enter an arms race. "The PCs are too strong at a distance. So add range to the monsters." And then the PCs do this (use cover, for instance), and you need to counter that.
In the end, you have lost the core idea of a fantasy game that is based around manly and bravely walking up to the foe to axe it to death.
Much better to fix the core issue, and that is how 5e forgot to make melee suitably better than ranged.
Well, in my game I did - ranged weapons work quite differently in my world. That doesn't necessarily make them less deadly, just different. But that's not an option for everybody.
But adding a bow to a goblin or orc isn't tweaking. The fact is, in a world where this type (or really any type) of combat is common, there will be a natural arms race. Thing is, in the game you have the ability to cap the arms race - these are the weapons available to everybody.
Gnolls are listed with a longbow, goblins with shortbows, hobgoblins with longbows, etc. No tweaking needed anyway.
Why? Because it just makes sense. Any race that is in regular combat will look for every advantage they can get. Numbers, ranged weapons, higher ground, cover, surrounding their opponents, not to mention tactics, such as locking them in disadvantageous positions with their ranged weapons...from both sides...from higher ground...with cover. Battles can turn very, very quickly with solid tactics when one side can get the upper hand.
If your monstrous humanoids aren't taking advantage of these sorts of things, even without feats like sharpshooter, then you're not really thinking like a monstrous humanoid as far as I'm concerned. These are races that live for war, and their entire lives are conflict and strife. It's not even a matter of singling out the player that's running off the map. They should be a sizable threat for the party as a whole.
Don't forget, if that character is that far away when he is dropped by orcish arrows, he's also too far away to be stabilized by his allies.
I'm not interested in an arms race with the players, you're 100% correct there. Nor a tactical race with the players. But the orcs have been having an arms and tactical race with humans for thousands of years. They should be played that way.
And I fail to see how a game that gives spellcasting to more classes than it doesn't, and various other abilities to be one that's based around "manly and bravely walking up to the foe to axe it to death." The game was actually based on war games. And war games were based on actually military tactics for the period they simulate. And ranged weapons has always been a big part of that as it's a normal and expected tactic for any creature that can take advantage of it.
Nor do I agree that 5e "forgot to make melee suitably better than ranged." I do agree that ranged attacks are unrealistically effective. When shooting a bow long range, you target a space, not a moving target. Because you'll always miss a moving target. It's most effective en masse, when you have a bunch of archers. Having said that, any attempt to attack a position of ranged enemies is always dangerous and usually deadly. Being open to being hit without being able to hit them in return is always the best tactic.
The only "core issue" I consistently see is that DMs don't consider the tactics that intelligent creatures would use in combats of this nature. Ranged weapons have dominated the battlefield since ancient times. In nearly every culture.