D&D 5E "Why don't you just shoot it?"

[James Gasik]

I see this argument all the time. "Oh, you can't reach an enemy in melee, why don't you have a bow?"

It annoys me because yes, you can use a bow to attack enemies at long range, but if you're a melee character, this might not be as easy or effective as it sounds.

First of all, let's talk action economy. I can drop a weapon and use my free 'interact with an object' action to equip a ranged weapon. Of course, now my main weapon is on the ground, let's hope I'm not forced to move, or an enemy can't mess with it. If I use two weapons or a shield (since it appears that shields are held in 5e, not strapped to one's arm), then I have two items on the ground, which means I'd have to use an action to pick up both of them later.

Now we move onto effectiveness. A Dexterity-based character won't lose any chance to hit, but a Strength-based one might. This might not be more than a few points, but it could be. Since it's impossible to have a consensus on how much of an issue this might be, all I can do is point to the extremes.

Dexterity-based melee Fighter: virtually no downside.
Strength-based Fighter who also has a high Dexterity (Maybe a game that doesn't use point-buy?): likely a slight disadvantage, no more than -2 to hit.
Strength-based Fighter who doesn't have a good Dexterity: anywhere from -3 to -6 to hit.

This isn't taking into account Archery Fighting Style or ranged Feats, such as Sharpshooter (which can have a serious impact if cover is present. If the enemy is easy to hit, to where a normal melee character using a ranged attack isn't really in danger of missing, then the dedicated archer is getting +10 damage to his attacks...). It neither takes into account melee-based Fighting Styles or Feats, which can't be used in these sorts of scenarios.

Nor does it take into account magic items, as, again, impossible to have a consensus about their absence or presence.

The point I want to make though, is that the ability to attack with a bow as a melee character can be a severe disadvantage, and greatly reduce the impact your character can have on a combat. Yes, having a bow can still allow you to participate in the combat, but it shouldn't be treated as an option that never seriously limits what a character can do in an encounter.

And I've seen people treat it in that exact manner far too many times; "Oh fighting a dragon, why don't you have a bow lol".

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "Oh fighting a Wizard with Wind Wall, why don't you have a greatsword lol". And I've never heard anyone say "Oh you're a Sorcerer fighting someone protected by a Globe of Invulnerability, why don't you have a quarterstaff lol".

Of course, now that I've said that, I'm sure someone will say it.

 

[Satyrn]

You don't want me to tell you to just shoot that dragon?

Well, fine. "Hold my beer."

 

[neogod22]

You can always throw a weapon. Thrown weapons like javelins, they use strength and have a pretty decent range.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Of course, now that I've said that, I'm sure someone will say it.

That'd be me.

In the groups I've played in, it is extremely rare for spellcasters not to pack some kind of melee weapon, and to seek magical versions thereof as the campaign progresses. Because experience has shown us that- at some point- spells won't work. At least, not the ones you have available.

As for your original point...

A few years ago, I participated in an ENWorld Game Day one-shot at a local game store. We all supplied our own PCs, based on the limitations pre-distributed by the DM. For the final encounter, the party was fighting a pair of green dragons who had enough space in their lair to remain airborne most of the time. One PC didn't have a ranged or reach weapon at all. He ran around the battlefield trying to attack the critters when they did land.

...but he couldn't close the distance fast enough to reach them before they were aloft again. He never landed a blow.

I don't know if the player had fun in that encounter- he seemed to- but if that party had been part of an ongoing campaign as opposed to a 1 time thing, that might have gotten old.

 

[FrogReaver]

I see this argument all the time. "Oh, you can't reach an enemy in melee, why don't you have a bow?"

It annoys me because yes, you can use a bow to attack enemies at long range, but if you're a melee character, this might not be as easy or effective as it sounds.

First of all, let's talk action economy. I can drop a weapon and use my free 'interact with an object' action to equip a ranged weapon. Of course, now my main weapon is on the ground, let's hope I'm not forced to move, or an enemy can't mess with it. If I use two weapons or a shield (since it appears that shields are held in 5e, not strapped to one's arm), then I have two items on the ground, which means I'd have to use an action to pick up both of them later.

Now we move onto effectiveness. A Dexterity-based character won't lose any chance to hit, but a Strength-based one might. This might not be more than a few points, but it could be. Since it's impossible to have a consensus on how much of an issue this might be, all I can do is point to the extremes.

Dexterity-based melee Fighter: virtually no downside.
Strength-based Fighter who also has a high Dexterity (Maybe a game that doesn't use point-buy?): likely a slight disadvantage, no more than -2 to hit.
Strength-based Fighter who doesn't have a good Dexterity: anywhere from -3 to -6 to hit.

This isn't taking into account Archery Fighting Style or ranged Feats, such as Sharpshooter (which can have a serious impact if cover is present. If the enemy is easy to hit, to where a normal melee character using a ranged attack isn't really in danger of missing, then the dedicated archer is getting +10 damage to his attacks...). It neither takes into account melee-based Fighting Styles or Feats, which can't be used in these sorts of scenarios.

Nor does it take into account magic items, as, again, impossible to have a consensus about their absence or presence.

The point I want to make though, is that the ability to attack with a bow as a melee character can be a severe disadvantage, and greatly reduce the impact your character can have on a combat. Yes, having a bow can still allow you to participate in the combat, but it shouldn't be treated as an option that never seriously limits what a character can do in an encounter.

And I've seen people treat it in that exact manner far too many times; "Oh fighting a dragon, why don't you have a bow lol".

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "Oh fighting a Wizard with Wind Wall, why don't you have a greatsword lol". And I've never heard anyone say "Oh you're a Sorcerer fighting someone protected by a Globe of Invulnerability, why don't you have a quarterstaff lol".

Of course, now that I've said that, I'm sure someone will say it.

Oh yes. Using a bow totally neuters your character. But it's still better than the alternative of doing nothing... Well maybe the dash action will help more in most cases than using a bow with 8 dex...

I'm really not sure the point of your thread other than to complain that melee is bad because it can't always reach the enemy.

 

[Azzy]

Ok, so do nothing.

 

[Ancalagon]

Any semi-decently well designed character is going to have some kind of ranged attack capacity. The capacity to attack at range is a *huge* tactical advantage, especially vs foes who have no such capacity. It's a winning move and should be engineered whenever possible, and every character should be able to take part in such an endeavor, not just the party's archer. If you are the party melee specialist, and you spent a few rounds plinking at your foes with a short bow while the party ranged specialists devastate your foes... that's a win.

 

[Yunru]

I think a key point is no-one (well, almost) is advocating you switch weapon mid-battle if there are other options, but against, say, a theoretical dragon, you should enter it's lair knowing it may fly, bow (or thrown weapon) at the ready.

 

[James Gasik]

It just feels like whenever the topic of characters not being able to attack in melee comes up, the instant response of "well use a bow lol" makes my eye twitch. Now fortunately 5e is much more forgiving of this tactic than other editions have been, where you needed a lot more than proficiency to be able to effectively deal damage with the bow, but it still bothers me. I'm not saying NOT to have a ranged option, but I think that the topic deserves more examination.

Like, when a player says "I spent a whole combat frightened and unable to engage in melee", rather than responses like "what idiot doesn't carry a longbow", why aren't more people willing to accept that while it is A solution, it's not a great one?

I'd even accept "well, you could carry a javelin. range is terrible though, a bow is better, but obviously you're going to lose a lot of damage potential that way, damage your party no doubt relies on you to provide. here's a few tricks I've used over the years...".

Of course, the best way to overcome these issues is with magic (and magic items, for the magic-deficient), but that leads to a very different discussion...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

why aren't more people willing to accept that while it is A solution, it's not a great one?

Your major options are:

1) do nothing
2) use ranged weapons
3) use ranged magic

What the heck else do you want?