Ranged Builds 5th edition

[2D8HP]

It's wonderful archery is a viable combat choice. That does not make melee chopped liver... .

.
FWLIW, I'm a big fan of Fighter (Champion) / Rogue (Swashbuckler) "builds" for Melee.

Start at first level as a Fighter for those sweet proficiencies and a Fighting Style, than go Rogue until 3rd to 5th level, as a Swashbuckler you can do Sneak Attack without needing Advantage, or having a comrade standing next to the foe, and you use Cunning Action to skedaddle away before the foe hits you.

Fighter 11/Rogue 9 is my usual goal, but I don't think one is unduly harmed that much by taking levels in any order.

Levels in Fighter and Rogue, just please me.

I've also heard good things about Barbarian/Rogues.

Currently I'm hopping to try a Ranger (Gloom Stalker)/ Rogue (Scout).

Yeah, goes against my "Old School cred" but I'm having fun with this now.

I was too subtle in the opening post? It's a wishlist character I try to make in games....

.
I recommend reading the

Ultimate Optimizer's Multiclassing Guide

@Chaosticket, I think you'll find interesting combos there, but thar said, single class PC's can be fun too.

Sorry, but my knowledge of 3.5 is pretty nil, so I can't suggest any thing to match stuff in that.

All I can say is that no "build" in 5e seems as far ahead in coolness over other possible class combinations as the 1e AD&D Ranger was, but 1st level anything in 5e seems on par with 3rd level anything in 1e AD&D, and all 1st level 5e choices seem pretty good to me, the game is just that well "balanced".

[Chaosticket]

an Arcane Trickster with 4 Attacks and (Longbow) Expert feat. I think that would be my kind of Marksman.

Multiclassing in 5th is pretty bad as Extra Attacks and most abilities are tied to individual character level. Unless Prestige classes come out count as both classes for benefits its questionable if there is a net profit.

[Contrast]

Multiclassing in 5th is pretty bad as Extra Attacks and most abilities are tied to individual character level. Unless Prestige classes come out count as both classes for benefits its questionable if there is a net profit.

Depends what you're trying to achieve really. There are lots of times multiclassing is a good idea (and others where it isn't).

Honestly it sounds like a fighter with a couple of levels of rogue (or some magic items to enable flying/teleporting) would address your wants.

[lunaticfringe]

Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster seems what you are looking for then, though other rogues work too. AT just gets you more Magic.

I think you are trying too hard to be awesome at everything. 5e isn't really like that. In 3.X you could build your Mary Sue Snowflake and your team didn't really matter. That's less of a thing in 5e.

[Grod_The_Giant]

an Arcane Trickster with 4 Attacks and (Longbow) Expert feat. I think that would be my kind of Marksman.

Multiclassing in 5th is pretty bad as Extra Attacks and most abilities are tied to individual character level. Unless Prestige classes come out count as both classes for benefits its questionable if there is a net profit.

It's definitely not incentivized to the same extent that it was in 3.5-- there are a few strong combos you can pick up (Paladin, Warlock, and Sorcerer are all great dips for a Cha-focused character, and a level of Rogue or Fighter can help many characters a bit), but you usually want to hit your 5th/6th level offensive boost as soon as possible.

An Eldritch Knight Fighter 5/Bladesinger Wizard 2/EK +13 might be a decent build for your taste? Lots of attacks and a bit of casting? Or a straight-ish Swords or Valor Bard, with a possible Fighter dip.

[2D8HP]

an Eldritch Knight Fighter with Sneak Attack and (Longbow) Expert feat. I think that would be my kind of Marksman.

Multiclassing in 5th is pretty bad as Extra Attacks and most abilities are tied to individual character level.

.
No (Longbow) Expert Feat that I know of, but the "Sharpshooter" Feat is nice.

You can have an Eldrich Knight Fighter with Sneak Attack by fourth level (3 levels of Fighter, 1 of Rogue), but if you want a Cantrip earlier play a Drow, Gnome, or a High Elf.

Feats are technically an "optional rule" but most DM's allow them, and if that's the case you may play a "Variant human" with the Magic Initiate Feat.

Start as a Fighter if you want Heavy Armor proficiency, if you stay Fighter you'll get an Extra Attack by fifth level.

Start as a Rogue if you want an extra skill, third level at Rogue and you do 2d6 Sneak Attack damage, which isn't shabby at all!

[Eric Diaz]

I think ranged is overpowered in 5e.

It gets the best feat (SS) + style combination.

But it seems nobody mentioned why it would be slightly less overpowered: darkvision. Most monsters can usually close the gap and give you disadvantage... unless you've got Crossbow Expert. But then you'd need two feats.

In any case, I imagine that in human versus human wars all battles in 5e play a bit like Agincourt if soldiers are first level humans with sharpshooter on one side and ANY kind of 1st level fighter on the other.

[Unoriginal]

I think ranged is overpowered in 5e.

It gets the best feat (SS) + style combination.

It's really not. It's good, but it's not OP.

In any case, I imagine that in human versus human wars all battles in 5e play a bit like Agincourt if soldiers are first level humans with sharpshooter on one side and ANY kind of 1st level fighter on the other.

5e's wars are not typically going to involve lots of first level humans with Sharpshooters. Most humanoids soldiers are Guard NPCs.

That being said, if you're first level, among the last things you want is a -5 to your attack bonus.

[2D8HP]

...I imagine that in human versus human wars all battles in 5e play a bit like Agincourt if soldiers are first level humans...

.

Sounds right, true, good and proper to me!

[Eric Diaz]

It's really not. It's good, but it's not OP.

We can probably argue if it is OP or not, but I think it is the best combination of style+feat in the game.

5e's wars are not typically going to involve lots of first level humans with Sharpshooters. Most humanoids soldiers are Guard NPCs.

That being said, if you're first level, among the last things you want is a -5 to your attack bonus.

Oh, sure. Still, 100 archers in light armor would beat 100 infantryman in chain + shield (plus cover, since it will get ignored anyway) about 99% of the time if they could start from a distance and use 5e's rules - even if the infantryman had dueling plus some other feat, or great swords with GWM and defense, etc.

.

Sounds right, true, good and proper to me!

[Unoriginal]

"If you put archers with longbows against infantrymen, with a long distance between them, the archers are probably going to win" isn't exactly a ground-breaking diagnosis.

Keep in mind human soldiers are much more likely to have shortbows.

[Chaosticket]

Ranged combat is used with intention of being unfair. You shoot, your enemy can only move closer hoping not to die.

In 3.5 a level Human dexterity Fighter could start with two attacks per turn at a -2 to hit and about 110/1100range. Easy to kill with. Problem is after that you only get new powers very slowly against targets getting tougher so you never are quite as powerful.

In 5th at best I see a slightly different issue. With Extra Attacks only gained every 5 or solo levels and only by the Fighter its easy to lag behind.

I don't expect to oneshot a Dragon but if common enemies are too tough then its just nerf darts.

[polymphus]

The Xanathar's Ranger archetypes make some excellent archers, too. A lot of attention has been paid to the Gloom Stalker, but I think the Horizon Walker really shines. Before Hunter's Mark, your ranged attacks deal 1d8/2d8 extra, and the damage type changes to force. Chuck in Sharpshooter and Hunter's Mark, and you're throwing out 3d8+1d6+15 force damage per turn, and 2d8+30 piercing.

5d8+45 per turn without using any resources. No spell slots, no ingredients except arrows -- it just happens, fairly reliably, every turn. At lvl11, even. That's damage a maxed-out Warlock would be jealous of. It's even got a free disengage button built in.

[Unoriginal]

I don't expect to oneshot a Dragon but if common enemies are too tough then its just nerf darts.

Define "common enemies".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Define "common enemies".

And "too tough."

As noted elsewhere, a CR 1 creature is rated by XGtE at 1:12 for a level 17 party (one PC for every 12 creatures) for a medium-hard encounter (some damage taken, some resources used, but little threat of going to 0 HP).

Averaging across the MM, CR 1 creatures have 29 HP and 13 AC.

A level 17 champion fighter (with maxed DEX) has a +13 to hit (5 Dex, 6 proficiency, 2 from archery style, hitting on everything but a 1) and crits 15% of the time. Regular hits with a regular longbow deal 9.5 (1d8+5) damage and crits deal 14 (2d8 + 5). The fighter makes 4 attacks per round.

Expected damage per attack is 0.8 x 9.5 + 0.15 x 14 = 9.7. That means that in one round, the archer deals enough damage to kill 1 (3 shots) and wound 1. If the character Action Surges, they're killing 2 and seriously wounding another.

Now add sharpshooter. This takes the damage to 19.5 / 24 per hit /crit, and the hit chance to 55% (with still a 15% crit rate). The expected damage per shot is 15.5; the archer kills two every turn, 4 if he Action Surges. That's 2 Dire Wolves in 6 seconds, without any serious optimization or resources expended.

[Eric Diaz]

It is not just archer x infantry.

We can argue all we want about historical battles, but the thread is about how it works "in-game".

Think about 100 1st level archers against an Ancient Red Dragon versus 100 1st level "knights".

The knights will probably get obliterated.

But if the Ancient Red Dragon, in a RAW world, sees 100 1st levels archers in the horizon it'd better start flying the opposite way!

...which might explain why these creatures live in small caves...

So, while tastes my vary, the answer to the OP's question (are ranged builds finally great in in 5th?) can only be a resounding "yes" IMO.

[Davrix]

If you ever want to make the DM cry a little do rogue / ranger, take a crap ton of stealth and take the assignation feature in rogue and sneak up on everything and powershot the hell out of it and double all your dmg die cause it all crits.

[Mjolnirbear]

If you ever want to make the DM cry a little do rogue / ranger, take a crap ton of stealth and take the assignation feature in rogue and sneak up on everything and powershot the hell out of it and double all your dmg die cause it all crits.

Assassination.

Assignation is something entirely different. ;)

[strangebloke]

Ranged fighting is quite good, but it isn't op.

It deals damage to individual targets, and literally does nothing else.

You can't deal with crowds efficiently, you can't lock down the movement of an enemy, and if an enemy closes with you in melee, you are usually in trouble.

Rogues and valor bards get around some of these issues, but they have far lower damage potential than fighters or rangers.

Additionally, melee builds tends to have both higher AC and higher weapon damage, and have an easier time getting advantage. If a melee character with GWM and PAM gets advantage, they actually deal slightly more damage than a ranged character with crossbow expert and SS In most circumstances.

With gwm and advantage he has +1 to hit on average when compared to a SS. Fighting style and damage die adds an additional .5 damage per hit.

Approximately half the time he will get a 1d10 bonus attack. The rest of the time he gets a 1d4 bonus attack. he will also be able to usually get a reaction hit.

[polymphus]

Assassination.

Assignation is something entirely different. ;)

I mean, that's a very different sort of Rogue.

[Coidzor]

Hi all a little side question here,
Does the sharpshooter feat apply to all types of ranged weapons like daggers and hand axes, as well as bows x bows and the like ?

Well, the text of the feat has three points.

• Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.

• Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.

• Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage.

Daggers, Handaxes, Tridents, Light Hammers, Spears, and even Javelins(!) are all melee weapons with the Thrown property. As far as I am aware, that means they count as melee weapons even when making ranged weapon attacks when thrown, but there may have been some clarification on that front. Notably, Darts and Nets are thrown weapons that are not melee weapons with the thrown property, but instead are just classed as ranged weapons.

Thrown: If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack. If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee attack with the weapon. For example, if you throw a handaxe, you use your Strength, but if you throw a dagger, you can use either your Strength or your Dexterity, since the dagger has the finesse property.

So the first two apply to ranged weapon attacks. So it will apply to ranged weapon attacks made with melee weapons.

Due to being classed as melee weapons, though, I believe you're unable to use a Javelin to take advantage of the -5 to hit, +10 to damage component of Sharpshooter.

[Davrix]

Assassination.

Assignation is something entirely different. ;)

this is what I get for typing on my phone.

[Chaosticket]

Well here are questions for everyone.

Is it possible to do 20 times as much damage per turn at level 20 as a level one character?

Is it impossible to oneturnkil a level 20 Barbarian?

[Unoriginal]

Is it possible to do 20 times as much damage per turn at level 20 as a level one character?

Well, it's not impossible, but not in a sustained manner.

Is it impossible to oneturnkil a level 20 Barbarian?

Errr, maybe if you're an Open Hand Monk who's very, very lucky, it's possible. Or if you have a 20 when using a Vorpal Blade.

Generally PvP fights against PCs of same level last until someone get hit twice at full power.

[Contrast]

Is it possible to do 20 times as much damage per turn at level 20 as a level one character?

Most characters as level 1 will have a +3 to damage so assuming a d8 their average damage is 7.

Ignoring anything fancy a 20th level fighter with sharpshooter can have 8 attacks a turn with +15 damage to each attack. So certainly possible to do that much damage.

Is it impossible to oneturnkil a level 20 Barbarian?

This is going to be almost impossible outside of things like Planeshifting him somewhere. Do you really want this is to be possible? Seems like it would suck for the person playing the 20th level barbarian to be able to be one shot by the archer.

[MxKit]

Do you really want this is to be possible? Seems like it would suck for the person playing the 20th level barbarian to be able to be one shot by the archer.

Agreed. OP, you're looking for a build that isn't impossible to build because it's 5e, but because it's a balanced game meant to be played with a group. Your character isn't solo; you're not meant to be doing a bunch of deadly PVP; enemies are not built as player characters.

You're not going to have to fight a 20th level Barbarian, so your question is moot. It's not something you will ever have to do.

However, you can set yourself up to do immense amounts of damage. For just one example (but IMO a very good one): Be a Feral Winged Tiefling. Go Fighter 11/Rogue 9 in any order. Take the Samurai and Arcane Trickster subclasses. Take the Archery fighting style. Take Stealth proficiency somehow, either through Rogue or through background (why not?), and then Expertise it. Take find familiar and invisibility when you can get them. Take the Sharpshooter feat, and the Savage Attacker and/or Skulker feats if you can work them in. Max out your Dexterity. Give yourself advantage as much as possible. Sneak Attack as much as you can. Action Surge a lot. Profit.

Now you can attack up to 7 times in one round, have advantage on the vast majority of your attacks giving you a better hit chance, and can do +5d6 Sneak Attack damage regularly. You can also do +10 damage fairly regularly as well, given that advantage makes it easier to hit and Archery already makes up for some of the -5/+10 penalty using Sharpshooter. And you can fly naturally, and sneak around incredibly well even when you can't fly.

This lets you do a lot of consistent damage and makes you quite capable of taking out some enemies solo, while still keeping you at levels where you're capable of being part of a balanced team, which is what any game of D&D intends. And you might not be able to one-shot a lv20 Barbarian, but if you ever happened to run into one, you could make him very, incredibly, intensely frustrated with you, and have a good chance of being able to kill him, even solo.

[JNAProductions]

To answer the thread title, yes, they kick all kinds of ass.

To answer what seems to be your issue, no, 5E is not 3.5. The power curve is flatter, and the numbers in general are lower.

[Chaosticket]

Well if a character cant do sufficient damage to take out a single enemy do you consider that an effective character?

The Fighter is theoretically much better than older editions but it seems to fall into the same old problem of trading attacks instead of killing.

A Rogue is at best situational. If you could combine Sneak Attack with multiple attacks per turn then you would have high burst damage at least. In Pathfinder I found out how to do that.

[JNAProductions]

Well if a character cant do sufficient damage to take out a single enemy do you consider that an effective character?

The Fighter is theoretically much better than older editions but if it falls into the same old problem of trading blows instead of killing.

A Rogue is at best situational. If you could combine Sneak Attack with multiple attacks per turn then you would have high burst damage at least. In Pathfinder I found out how to do that.

Why? Why should a player have to one-shot an enemy to be effective?

In 3.5, sure, you need to one-shot something, because they can one-shot you.

In 5E? Not so much. It's pretty tough to one-shot a high level character (the only way I can think of is Power Word Kill on a Wizard with a Con of 11 or less, or Quivering Palm), and that's true for monsters too.

[MxKit]

Well if a character cant do sufficient damage to take out a single enemy do you consider that an effective character?

Yes, because it depends on what enemy they're facing. If a character can't, by themself, do enough damage to take out a single goblin even at low levels, there's a major problem. If a character can't, by themself, do enough damage to take out a single hydra before getting killed at that same level, this is completely normal. If a character can't, by themself, do enough damage to take out a single tarrasque even at level 20 before getting killed, this is super, super normal. (And again, this is talking "do sufficient damage before getting killed," not "with a single shot," or even "in a single round.")

That's why characters aren't by themselves. They are in adventuring parties, so maybe they can take down a tarrasque if they need to, by working together. An effective character needs to be able to work as part of the team and contribute to the team.

As for the rest of your reply, I'm not sure why fights lasting more than one round of combat is a bug rather than a feature. Once every combat starts lasting one or maybe two turns, that's when the game gets boring and it might be time to try a new campaign.