Imposing a penalty to Ranged attacks

[NaughtyTiger]

I am considering imposing a -2 penalty to ranged attacks.
Plus considering additional -1 penalty per 100ft.

Ranged attackers have major advantages over melee.
-less danger
-can attack from hiding
-more targets

Reasonably, it should be harder to hit a moving target at 80ft than at 5ft.

Why is this a bad idea?

[Wizard_Lizard]

I mean. It makes sense but I dislike it.

[nickl_2000]

1. You are toasting spellcasters who cast ranged cantrips and ranged spells
2. Ranged weapons do less damage overall than their melee equivalent
3. Ranged weapon users can't also use a shield, thus lower AC
4. Fighting styles for ranged favor hitting more, fighting style of melee favor more damage. This was the design of the game to begin with.
5. Terrain, cover, battlefield conditions are harder on ranged attackers than melee
6. Prone condition destroys ranged
7. This actually makes flying creatures even more powerful (especially casters who can cast save spells)

I think a better way to handle this is to have smarter enemies and environmental conditions. Baddies who utility cover more, wind that causes problems with arrows, fog that makes it harder to see, darkness that you can only hit from 60 feet out with darkvision.



I wouldn't want it at my table, but as long as you tell the players in session 0 and apply it on the PC and NPC side it should be fine though.

[king_steve]

With half cover, three quarters cover, total cover and in the event your out in the open, dropping prone at the end of your turn all seem like handy options for countering the ranged attackers.

There are also long ranged penalties as well.

I’m not sure there needs to be additional penalties. But, do your games have a lot of ranged fights out in the open?

[Ninja_Prawn]

It's a bad idea because there's already a built-in penalty for ranged attacks. Look at the weapon damage dice: ammunition-firing weapons are always one or two steps lower than equivalent melee weapons.

One-handed simple weapons:
Mace, 1d6
Sling, 1d4

Two-handed simple weapons:
Greatclub, 1d8
Shortbow, 1d6

Heavy, two-handed martial weapons:
Greataxe, 1d12
Longbow, 1d8

To go into a bit more detail, loading is a severe penalty, so you can step up the die for crossbows. Conversely, light and one-handed are good things, so you have to step down the die for those. Hence if you compare the hand crossbow to the longbow, it's one step up, two steps down, i.e. 1d8 becomes 1d6.

Not every weapon is perfectly balanced, but the idea of 'steps' is a good guide in general.

Man, I got ninja'd hard, there. To add something new: you can't Divine Smite or Rage with ranged weapons.

[Demonslayer666]

I would come up with other challenges for your ranged attackers to face.

Give them disadvantage: Engage them in melee combat, poison, displacement, restrain, blind, etc.
Have opponents use Cover.
limit vision (mist, fog, smoke, darkness, trees, etc)
weather (high winds, rain)
wall spells
illusions
stun them, charm them, etc. - there are lots of conditions that limit attacking.

[JumboWheat01]

If you really want to hinder ranged weapon users, simply force them to keep track of their ammo. A standard quiver/case is only 20 shots. That's a mere 10 rounds of combat for most martial characters after level 5. And after a fight, you only recover half the ammunition you used.

Spell casters don't have the ammo problem, but they're either using spell slots or cantrips. Spell slots are a limited daily resource, and cantrips don't have THAT amazing range (120ft I think is max normally.) That can easily be outdone by a ranged weapon. With their lower hit-die and generally lower Con scores, a ranged weapon user can be a good counter for a spellcaster.

[MaxWilson]

I am considering imposing a -2 penalty to ranged attacks.
Plus considering additional -1 penalty per 100ft.

Ranged attackers have major advantages over melee.
-less danger
-can attack from hiding
-more targets

Reasonably, it should be harder to hit a moving target at 80ft than at 5ft.

Why is this a bad idea?

It's a bad idea in that it doesn't address the real design problem: it's just a quantitative fix which will make ranged fights take slightly longer, but won't change the actual dynamics.

What is your real goal here? Is it provide a design rationale for bringing a knife to a gunfight? If so, one limited but fairly simple fix would be instead to allow anyone targeted by ranged attacks to drop prone with their reaction. (After all, dropping prone is exactly what will happen to you if you get hit and go to 0 HP.) That sets up a fairly nice dynamic where ranged attackers act to pin opponents in place (they will drop prone and lose movement) while melee attackers close on them until they have to choose between staying prone in melee or standing up.

[MoiMagnus]

I am considering imposing a -2 penalty to ranged attacks.
Plus considering additional -1 penalty per 100ft.

Ranged attackers have major advantages over melee.
-less danger
-can attack from hiding
-more targets

Reasonably, it should be harder to hit a moving target at 80ft than at 5ft.

Why is this a bad idea?

1) It's additional complexity for not a lot of gain. It feels to me the same way than peoples wanting to add a +1 or -1 when you're using weapons inadequate to the armour of the target (like sword against heavy armour or so).
2) Ranged already come with disadvantages, as other said. (Moreover, there is already a disadvantage for high-range attacks. Which is 80ft for the shortbow.)
3) It is a frustrating fix, which would give a bad taste in the mouth of your players.

If you want to nerf ranged compared to melee, here I'd rather add flanking rules instead, with a +1, or +2, or +1d4 to attack depending on how strong you want it. Flanking is essentially a buff to melee attacks. (Just don't use advantages for flanking, it doesn't run well to give that many advantages)

[Protolisk]

Why impose a range based penalty, when ranged weapons already have a ranged based penalty based on short range and long range?

Why impose an additional modular penalty for ranged attacks, when there already is one in the form of cover (which actually is a -2 for half, and -5 for three-quarters cover), which is a problem melee tends to not deal with? When shooting into melee, your allies can be providing cover to your enemies.

And note that when a melee character actually does enter melee with the ranged character, it means that most often, the ranged character is at disadvantage for trying to shoot while in melee. They might be in less danger until a melee target reaches them, then they are in a LOT more danger since the best you can do is either disengage or dash away, which means you aren't attacking and the enemy will likely catch up as they too can dash, or you attack at disadvantage while they wail away at you.

Not to mention effects like prone makes ranged attacks also go to disadvantage, and paralyze and unconscious only allow attacks within 5 feet to get the auto crit.

Range isn't THAT much more powerful compared to melee.

[Keravath]

I'd agree with everyone else that it is a bad idea since you are trying to penalize play style through negative mechanics rather than through encounter design.

"Ranged attackers have major advantages over melee.
-less danger
-can attack from hiding
-more targets"

They are only in less danger if the enemies don't also have ranged attacks, the enemies are all in one place and not spread out attacking both ranged and melee characters, and the enemies can't assess which are the more important targets."

1) "Attack from hiding" sounds like you have a specific rogue character in mind that is being quite effective from range using the hide and then attack ability to enable sneak attack with advantage on the attack roll.

This requires that there is actually somewhere for the rogue to hide. Unless they are a wood elf or halfling this means something solid to hide behind and there are quite a few situations where this isn't possible. Having played a rogue, they need as many ways to get advantage as possible.

2) You could be dealing with a low level 3 or 4 rogue with 2d6+weapon damage who is out-performing the fighter at the same level. However this isn't a good comparison since as levels change so do abilities and at level 5, the fighter gets extra attack and typically takes the lead again. Rogues (unless they dip fighter) also won't have the archery fighting style.

Overall, despite all the cool dice a rogue gets to roll, I've found it pretty balanced against the other classes even when attacking from hiding at range.

3) Rogues aren't the only ranged attacker. Spellcasters also use cantrips at range since they usually don't want to stand on the front lines either. They don't usually get to hide and a -2 to hit plus additional ranger penalties make their cantrips next to useless. It is a major nerf to a class that doesn't need it.

4) Weapons already get disadvantage at ranges over their normal range. For a long bow this is 150' and for a heavy crossbow 100'. Everything else is less. An additional -1/100 feet is just penalizing ranged attacks for no real reason ... unless you are specifically trying to penalize the range ability of the sharpshooter feat which allows normal attacks out to maximum range. This is a admittedly a powerful and character defining feat but if you want to nerf or exclude sharpshooter you would be better to address that than some arbitrary range penalty that isn't needed.

In addition, I can count on one hand the number of times the initial encounter range exceeded 60-100' in the last 2 years of play ... so long ranged attacks really aren't common enough to bother with unless you are playing a campaign set on the great plains. On the other hand, perhaps your game experience or game worlds are very different from the ones I have played.


---

Anyway, in my opinion, the changes you suggest aren't needed and would not improve either game play or game balance in my experience. I'm not sure what the motivation is for such a substantial nerf but I am guessing either a rogue or a sharpshooter/xbow expert battlemaster fighter (which is typically far better at ranged than the rogue :) ).

---

In game mitigation of the play style can be addressed with:
- intelligent enemies that do not ignore the weak characters at the back who are doing a lot of damage
- encounter design with enemies coming from multiple directions
- design of encounters that limit available hiding spots for a rogue ... put a trap or hidden creature in the spot that looks like the best place to run and hide
- use COVER - firing into targets in melee can be considered 1/2 cover if you have a team mate in the way in many cases (this is a -2 to hit). This means that positioning becomes important and it could be that the best place to hide means that the target will have half cover. 3/4 cover is also a factor depending on the terrain and finally the opponents can duck behind full cover on their turn if they like, they don't need to stand out where it is easy for the hiding rogue to hit them.

The +2 archery fighting style is intended to help counter the -2 cover for firing into a melee ... but quite a few DMs don't really take the cover rules into account. (Note that cover is an excellent reason to take sharpshooter even if you don't want to use the -5/+10).

[stoutstien]

Take sharpshooter out of the game and it would fix most of the issues you are having.

[MaxWilson]

Even though I'm not in favor of the proposed fix, it looks like I'm in a minority here in apparently agreeing with NaughtyTiger that ranged combat is ridiculously overpowered in 5E compared to melee, in anything but absurdly-close terrain.

That is, I can understand why someone would want to depower ranged combat. From both a game balance standpoint and a gameworld logic standpoint, it is straight-up ridiculous that it is easier to make a first-level character who can shoot an AC 12 flying eagle out of the air at 200 paces (600') than to make one who can stab that eagle when it's flightless and on the ground. 5E stacks other advantages on top of that, from the partial cover rules to the mounted combat rules to monsters with Parry (which ranged attacks ignore) to the large number of monsters who do nasty things to you if you get within 30' of them (Medusas, etc.) or hit them with a melee attack (Fire Elementals, Balors). Ranged combat is a ridiculously dominant paradigm from a tactical effectiveness standpoint, even though melee DPR peaks slightly higher.

Where I agree with the majority is in opposing this change, and my logic is pragmatic: it's insufficient. Ranged combat will still be ridiculously dominant, and you'll have complexified your game for no real gain.

[djreynolds]

Take sharpshooter out of the game and it would fix most of the issues you are having.

100%.

SS and GWM and even PAM are really the feats that keep fighter types relevant at higher levels... at lower levels they can really outshine others.

-5 penalty is huge. It forces teamwork to ensure this damage output happens.

Whether a cleric casts bless or valor bard inspires. Or a wizard uses the magic weapon spell... all of this is the party coming together and cooperating as a team.

There is time for individual glory and party glory.

An archer will not have the "advantage" if there is no one stemming the flow of enemies.

Don't get disgruntled as a DM. When a party blows through an encounter... celebrate with them don't mourn. When a character dies... mourn... don't celebrate.

In COS... my players wrecked a particular magical practitioner.... great for them.

Remember also the enemy can retreat or even feign retreat. At some point... someone has to get in close.

The DM is not the party's enemy.

Also even goblins are smart enough to... kite.
Goblins can even ambush.

Be wary of magic items and giving them out... magic bow is very powerful... as it disrupts that teamwork.

[micahaphone]

If there's a creature between you and your target, even an ally, give the target half cover (+2). In my anecdotal experience, most DMs forget to do this. The RAW answer is the simplest. This also provides a neat symmetry to the archery fighting style, cancelling each other out

[Dark.Revenant]

Sharpshooter should not ignore cover. That was a mistake on the designers' part. Take that clause out, maybe replace it with a ribbon based around a perception bonus for spotting distant things. That's all I'd do.

[MrStabby]

Even though I'm not in favor of the proposed fix, it looks like I'm in a minority here in apparently agreeing with NaughtyTiger that ranged combat is ridiculously overpowered in 5E compared to melee, in anything but absurdly-close terrain.

That is, I can understand why someone would want to depower ranged combat. From both a game balance standpoint and a gameworld logic standpoint, it is straight-up ridiculous that it is easier to make a first-level character who can shoot an AC 12 flying eagle out of the air at 200 paces (600') than to make one who can stab that eagle when it's flightless and on the ground. 5E stacks other advantages on top of that, from the partial cover rules to the mounted combat rules to monsters with Parry (which ranged attacks ignore) to the large number of monsters who do nasty things to you if you get within 30' of them (Medusas, etc.) or hit them with a melee attack (Fire Elementals, Balors). Ranged combat is a ridiculously dominant paradigm from a tactical effectiveness standpoint, even though melee DPR peaks slightly higher.

Where I agree with the majority is in opposing this change, and my logic is pragmatic: it's insufficient. Ranged combat will still be ridiculously dominant, and you'll have complexified your game for no real gain.

I agree ranged is good... i think it is hard gauging the degree as it depends on the DM. Firstly, you need to make sure you are using the cover rules. A to hit penalty is appropriate. Likewise enforcing range penalties is very occasionally going to make a difference.

The DM thing though is all about encounters. Ranged attacks start to seem a bit less good when enemies are within 5 ft - a campaign rich in enemies with good mobility, invisibility or other means of slipping into the back lines will even things up pretty quickly. There is a lot a DM can do, from allocation of magic items to encounter design to keep things balanced - but I don't like that such things restrict the DM.

[sithlordnergal]

I am considering imposing a -2 penalty to ranged attacks.
Plus considering additional -1 penalty per 100ft.

Ranged attackers have major advantages over melee.
-less danger
-can attack from hiding
-more targets

Reasonably, it should be harder to hit a moving target at 80ft than at 5ft.

Why is this a bad idea?

Well, its a needless penalty for issues that, in my experience, either rarely come into play, are working as intended, or make little sense. Now, I won't deny that ranged attackers tend to get more benefits in the form of higher hit chance thanks to Archery...but at the same time they're easier to hit and their weapons are weaker as a whole. As for the three things you mentioned:

Less Danger: Ehhh, not really? It is if you're in an open field with no cover that's about 600 feet across...but I've been in a lot of games, ranging from Tier 1 to Tier 4, from Adventure League to Homebrew, Modules to Hardcovers...9 times out of 10, your enemies are within 60 feet of you. Which means usually you're within range of someone getting into melee with you, and as the guy with the bow, you're pretty screwed if someone does that. If your players are constantly staying 80ft away from their foes, then that's a design problem that stems from you, the DM. Build encounters that are closer together, without as much open space to maneuver.

And its really not that hard to do so.If they're outside, provide the enemies with areas of full cover, ranged attacks can no longer hit them. If you're indoors, make the rooms 30 by 30, make sure there is a sharp corner that blocks line of sight in one of the paths, change up the environment to give enemies an advantage. And then if the party is still somehow using ranged attacks, have the enemies go prone. Instant disadvantage on ALL attacks that are not made within 5 feet of the target. Not just ranged, but ALL attacks.


Can attack from hiding: That's a feature, not a bug, and its a feature that really only Rogues and Goblins can make good tactical use of. If a Rogue is giving you that much trouble, I have a few suggestions. One is the spell Mind Spike, its a 2nd level Divination spell that deals 3d8 psychic damage, and makes it so the target can't hide from you or gain the benefits of invisibility with respect to you until you end the spell or they leave the plane of existence you're currently on.

Second option, have enemies use the same tactic, or use Fog Cloud/Darkness to remove the Advantage given from Hiding. Crazy as it sounds, Fog Cloud does a TON to nerf hiding mechanics, because it removes the advantage gained from hiding. Hiding is also a valid tactic. Finally, if you're within range of melee, which most combat encounters are, hiding can be completely negated by simply moving to the other side of whatever the PCs are hiding behind. The PC loses their full cover, and are no longer Stealthed because you can't hide in plain sight without a very special ability. You can roll a 30+ stealth check, its not gonna help if you have nothing to hide behind.


More Targets: This...kind of confuses me? How are they targeting more people then the melee folks? I will admit, there are technically more viable targets for a Ranged attack within the range of their weapons then a melee attack...but again, in practice most combat happens within 60 feet of everyone else. Meaning most melee attacks can also reach those targets with one movement or a Dash.

[NaughtyTiger]

Thanks for the feedback.

respectfully, I disagree with most of reasons against my suggestion.

• sharpshooter ignores partial cover
• sharpshooter ignores long range. short sword has real disadvantage at long range.
• get rid of sharpshooter, definitely, already did that, but we still have problems.
• tracking ammunition favors spellcasters
• ranged attacks do similar damage to melee: daggers, spears, crossbows, eldritch blast, ...
• it would frustrate the ranged players, the melee players are already frustrated.
• in a 10 by 10 room (50ft range), most bad guys are rocking a 40ft move... so they still can't close range without AoO from another ally
• can't use a shield is not the same as being physically removed from combat
• ranged folks suck in melee... except they still have access to melee weapons
• prone is so risky in melee, it isn't a good counter
• -2 penalty is too complex, but +2 archery is simple

giving the edge to DC casters is a problem. this is something i worry about constantly. but nothing stands out as game breaking or horribly gonna ruin the game. worth a try. thank you all again..

i do like the assumption that the players are too hard for DM... nobody considered that the PC barbarian is pissed that he can't hit the giant chucking boulders...
... okay, it's the players kicking my ass, but still.

[JumboWheat01]

You note that ranged characters can still use melee weapons, but melee characters can also use ranged weapons. That shortsword user can easily use a shortbow at the least. A tough fighter or paladin could chuck a handaxe or darts just fine for some ranged. In that 10x10 room, that's even within the long-range for throwing weapons (60ft.)

[micahaphone]

How many dungeons does your table go through? I'm wondering if that's part of people's differing opinions on whether ranged combat is too op.

[Lunali]

As my longbow wielding kensei monk who spends most of his time outdoors, ranged attacks are OP. Melee results in more damage overall, but most enemies can be kited and killed from outside their potential range if necessary. Anything that runs has to build a 600' lead on a monk to escape.

As my AT rogue dungeon delving in a melee heavy party, melee attacks are OP. Ranged attacks would be safer but less accurate (cover and/or flanking) and adding booming blade always tempts me into melee. For particularly hard to hit enemies, booming blade can be dropped in favor of an offhand attack. Anything that wants to run has to worry about soaking another sneak attack as they do.

[sithlordnergal]

Thanks for the feedback.

respectfully, I disagree with most of reasons against my suggestion.

• sharpshooter ignores partial cover
• sharpshooter ignores long range. short sword has real disadvantage at long range.
• get rid of sharpshooter, definitely, already did that, but we still have problems.
• tracking ammunition favors spellcasters
• ranged attacks do similar damage to melee: daggers, spears, crossbows, eldritch blast, ...
• it would frustrate the ranged players, the melee players are already frustrated.
• in a 10 by 10 room (50ft range), most bad guys are rocking a 40ft move... so they still can't close range without AoO from another ally
• can't use a shield is not the same as being physically removed from combat
• ranged folks suck in melee... except they still have access to melee weapons
• prone is so risky in melee, it isn't a good counter
• -2 penalty is too complex, but +2 archery is simple

giving the edge to DC casters is a problem. this is something i worry about constantly. but nothing stands out as game breaking or horribly gonna ruin the game. worth a try. thank you all again..

i do like the assumption that the players are too hard for DM... nobody considered that the PC barbarian is pissed that he can't hit the giant chucking boulders...
... okay, it's the players kicking my ass, but still.

So again...what sort of encounters are you building where combat takes place that far away? Why are you building encounters that happen that far away? How is the Barbarian with a 40ft movement speed unable to enter combat with a single Dash? That's 80 feet of movement right there, that should be able to reach just about every enemy in 90% of combat encounters. If your encounters are starting over 120 feet away...then honestly, that's more on encounter design. There's no need to "fix" ranged by nerfing it. If you build an encounter that starts with the party being 300 feet away, then of course Ranged builds will seem OP, because you're not supposed to start an encounter that far away. The very max you should be starting an encounter is 120 feet away.

EDIT: As for prone being risky in melee, that is true, but if you already have to worry about being in melee, then the melee characters shouldn't have any issue with ranged characters because you're already in melee range. All in all, this just feels like a nerf for no reason. You're putting down reasons for it, but none of those reasons are good or make sense:

"ranged attacks do similar damage to melee: daggers, spears, crossbows, eldritch blast,"

No, they actually do less then melee attacks, outside of certain Crossbows and Eldritch Blast. However, those are evened out because you need a feat to make a crossbow effective, otherwise you make a single attack, and you need charisma for Eldritch Blast.


"in a 10 by 10 room (50ft range), most bad guys are rocking a 40ft move... so they still can't close range without AoO from another ally"

So take the AoO, that'll make the melee's happy. Also, is the party bunched up around the ranged person? You're telling me there is no way to slip by a party of 5 to get behind them?


"ranged folks suck in melee... except they still have access to melee weapons"

And melee folks have access to ranged weapons. Javelins and spears work perfectly well.


"it would frustrate the ranged players, the melee players are already frustrated."

Why are you actively trying to frustrate your players? That's a poor choice to do as a DM, don't try to actively frustrate your players.

Seriously, all of your issues can be fixed by a simple rule: Only give the players a chance to start combat when they're within 120 feet, and have a 120ft maximum for distance outside of very special and specific circumstances. If a player decides to flee beyond that, they leave the battlefield, cannot interact with the battle from beyond that distance, and gain no rewards if they remain outside of the battlefield for too many rounds.

Or you can simply build encounters that force the players to be closer to the action.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Seriously, all of your issues can be fixed by a simple rule: Only give the players a chance to start combat when they're within 120 feet, and have a 120ft maximum for distance outside of very special and specific circumstances. If a player decides to flee beyond that, they leave the battlefield, cannot interact with the battle from beyond that distance, and gain no rewards if they remain outside of the battlefield for too many rounds.

I was going to argue against this, but then I thought through my experiences with playing DND. For the most part, we've played almost exclusively prewritten adventures, the longest running being SKT and Dungeon of the Mad Mage.

These are very different settings for an adventure, but I've realized something in retrospect: Even though SKT is literally your band of adventurers roaming the countryside, leaving potentially miles between you and a giant target, you rarely see a combat where a distance beyond a couple hundred feet is relevant. Sure, we'd done our fair share of sniping from a great distance (by "we" I mean our Sharpshooting Elven Gloomstalker) but that rarely killed a target before it was time for the closer range combatants to enter the area where both sides could be attacking from. Typing that out has made me realize how insane most adventurers in SKT are, you're willingly running at 15-20ft tall giants who can throw boulders the size of two people at you from over 200ft away.

In Dungeon of the Mad Mage this is a complete non issue because aside from a few floors with exceptionally large scale (those who've played the adventure might realize this wording is intentional) you don't even see enemies until you're in this distance. Fleeing in DoTMM is pretty dangerous at deeper levels as well (for several reasons, the biggest being gates) so I don't think the hit and run tactics that you could potentially leverage in SKT are going to fly here.

This leads me to believe that the designers of the game don't really expect you to be fighting in the long half of a ranged weapons range regularly, that range of engagement is not typical and changing the rules of the game because you've designed your encounters to make that typical screams as a mistake on your part rather than the games rules.

[MaxWilson]

The DM thing though is all about encounters. Ranged attacks start to seem a bit less good when enemies are within 5 ft - a campaign rich in enemies with good mobility, invisibility or other means of slipping into the back lines will even things up pretty quickly. There is a lot a DM can do, from allocation of magic items to encounter design to keep things balanced - but I don't like that such things restrict the DM.

IME the most reasonable reason for fights to start at close range is when the PCs are not murderhobos or actively at war with a hostile military power, and therefore tend to want to talk to someone before killing them.

Even then, a good ranged + mobility capability transforms a tough fight into a simple one. Instead of racing to inflict enough DPR to put down an enemy, you're just racing to break contact, and then it's all over but the shouting. This means a big monster like a CR Goristro might get only one or two attacks in the whole combat (one Multiattack if it wins initiative, plus one opportunity attack) and then it's dead meat. Ranged party has achieved victory at the cost of say 60 HP and spent some low-level spells, e.g. Longstrider II + Expeditious Retreat. Melee party probably a *beast* of a fight, lost probably 100-300 HP and some higher-level spells--to them the monster was a much bigger deal!

The OP's rule wouldn't change that dynamic.

[Danielqueue1]

snip

But then the question is how is the party breaking contact? A party is only as fast as its slowest member, so full party kiting is only an option if the whole party is in on it. Longstrider on a dwarf for example still makes it unable to outpace the exampled Gorristro. If the whole party is wood elf rogues, monks and such then you've just made a skirmisher squad that is great for a combat-as-war style game, but most parties are more generally balanced.

Also on the topic of gorristro, how are you running away every turn? Are you fighting a maze-fiend on the open road? If you are fighting one in a wide dungeon or its labyrinth, then as soon as you run away it would take a different path and use its knowledge of the maze (specifically listed on its stats) to ambush the ranged party over and over again. Closing to melee range from a different path.

Or how is the party reliably kiting any monster through a dungeon, branching cavern system, city of the dead, cursed dense forest, or any other closely spaced occupied area? Are there no other monsters? Does the party always predictably run back the way they came? Are there no traps, natural hazards, or difficult terrain?

One shouldn't use them all the time, but making it difficult to reliably kite encounters is pretty simple and i'm pretty sure that simply filling up a map with some variety and using creatures' abilities the way they were designed will prevent one playstyle from becoming dominant.

[djreynolds]

But even IRL in the 21st century, ranged attacks are powerful.

And even IRL in the 21st century, adversaries are able to escape these powerful ranged attacks and satellites

So even IRL in the 21st century, you still need people kicking in doors

Sharpshooter still does nothing versus full cover, so a goblin can shoot someone and run 30ft to total cover

Now someone has to chase this goblin.... or drow (if you are up to the challenge)

My point is even Legolas in the Two Towers movie had to switch to his blades, the enemy had close the distance, hence cannon or arrow fodder

[sithlordnergal]

I was going to argue against this, but then I thought through my experiences with playing DND. For the most part, we've played almost exclusively prewritten adventures, the longest running being SKT and Dungeon of the Mad Mage.

These are very different settings for an adventure, but I've realized something in retrospect: Even though SKT is literally your band of adventurers roaming the countryside, leaving potentially miles between you and a giant target, you rarely see a combat where a distance beyond a couple hundred feet is relevant. Sure, we'd done our fair share of sniping from a great distance (by "we" I mean our Sharpshooting Elven Gloomstalker) but that rarely killed a target before it was time for the closer range combatants to enter the area where both sides could be attacking from. Typing that out has made me realize how insane most adventurers in SKT are, you're willingly running at 15-20ft tall giants who can throw boulders the size of two people at you from over 200ft away.

In Dungeon of the Mad Mage this is a complete non issue because aside from a few floors with exceptionally large scale (those who've played the adventure might realize this wording is intentional) you don't even see enemies until you're in this distance. Fleeing in DoTMM is pretty dangerous at deeper levels as well (for several reasons, the biggest being gates) so I don't think the hit and run tactics that you could potentially leverage in SKT are going to fly here.

This leads me to believe that the designers of the game don't really expect you to be fighting in the long half of a ranged weapons range regularly, that range of engagement is not typical and changing the rules of the game because you've designed your encounters to make that typical screams as a mistake on your part rather than the games rules.

Yup, that is exactly my point, encounters in 5e are not designed to be done at extreme distances. The monsters and system are not designed that way. You'll occasionally have an encounter where you need that 320ft distance with a shortbow, but that should be the exception to the rule, not the standard. Encounters should generally take place in relatively close quarters, where melee characters can get to the action with a single dash, provided they have 30ft movement speed. Heck, I went through SKT as well as a Paladin, and the only time I ended up in a situation where I couldn't realistically reach the enemies as a martial class was when I went last to climb down a rope on the top of a cliff. The DM shot the rope before I began climbing, and I ended up trapped at the top of a 100ft tall cliff while my allies fought for their lives...and even then I could have gotten down by jumping and/or climbing.

[NaughtyTiger]

So again...what sort of encounters are you building where combat takes place that far away? Why are you building encounters that happen that far away? How is the Barbarian with a 40ft movement speed unable to enter combat with a single Dash? That's 80 feet of movement right there, that should be able to reach just about every enemy in 90% of combat encounters. If your encounters are starting over 120 feet away...then honestly, that's more on encounter design. There's no need to "fix" ranged by nerfing it. If you build an encounter that starts with the party being 300 feet away, then of course Ranged builds will seem OP, because you're not supposed to start an encounter that far away. The very max you should be starting an encounter is 120 feet away.

encounters are unusually in 50ftx50ft spaces with obstacles...
it isn't far away.

How is the Barbarian with a 40ft movement speed unable to enter combat with a single Dash? That's 80 feet of movement right there, that should be able to reach just about every enemy in 90% of combat encounters.

hmm. i find that missing 1 round of combat in a 3-4 round fight would be frustrating for a tank.

EDIT: As for prone being risky in melee, that is true, but if you already have to worry about being in melee, then the melee characters shouldn't have any issue with ranged characters because you're already in melee range.

what? the orc in melee with the party barbarian can't go prone to avoid the ranger. nothing says the orc is in melee with ranger.

No, [ranged attacks] actually do less then melee attacks, outside of certain Crossbows and Eldritch Blast. However, those are evened out because you need a feat to make a crossbow effective, otherwise you make a single attack, and you need charisma for Eldritch Blast.

no, they don't even without a feat. 1d6 spear is the same ranged or melee. 1d8 long bow is same as 1d8 longsword, or 1 point less that polearm. most cantrips do 2d8+effects


"in a 10 by 10 room (50ft range), most bad guys are rocking a 40ft move... so they still can't close range without AoO from another ally"

So take the AoO, that'll make the melee's happy.

monsters aren't dumb.
why would they take 1 or 2 AoO? would your PCs do that? *cough* especially once they see sentinel in action.

Also, is the party bunched up around the ranged person? You're telling me there is no way to slip by a party of 5 to get behind them?

they are not bunched up, but given terrain and walls, i have difficulty getting 2 bad guys behind the tank wall (that is the purpose of a tank wall)

[QUOTE=sithlordnergal]And melee folks have access to ranged weapons. Javelins and spears work perfectly well.
except they don't. you can only throw 1 per attack action (free action draw; attack; can't draw another)

Why are you actively trying to frustrate your players? That's a poor choice to do as a DM, don't try to actively frustrate your players.

not constructive and rude.

Seriously, all of your issues can be fixed by a simple rule: Only give the players a chance to start combat when they're within 120 feet

that doesn't solve a darn thing, cuz most of my combats take place within 80ft.

i don't believe that most DMs can threaten the back wall in most encounters without defeating the tanks.

But even IRL in the 21st century, ranged attacks are powerful.
And even IRL in the 21st century, adversaries are able to escape these powerful ranged attacks and satellites
So even IRL in the 21st century, you still need people kicking in doors

IRL, kicking in the doors, they still used ranged attacks indoors.

Sharpshooter still does nothing versus full cover, so a goblin can shoot someone and run 30ft to total cover
Now someone has to chase this goblin.... or drow (if you are up to the challenge)
My point is even Legolas in the Two Towers movie had to switch to his blades, the enemy had close the distance, hence cannon or arrow fodder

right, so legolas is undamaged at range, while the other guys take the pounding to get to the door. legolas is fresh when he has to switch to melee, the tanks are near dead.

[djreynolds]

Its your game and your table.

And the reality is sharpshooter is very powerful.

And yes being able to shoot someone from 90ft out before they even get to you... probably means they are almost dead.

Henry V knew what he was doing

Honestly the weapons in 5E are a mess.

I really do not know how effective and powerful a longbow is at 10ft or at 100ft

But I'm not sure gimping ranged helps, because ranged attacks are powerful.

How do your players feel about this? Is this important to them.

Crossbow expert take a feat, and therefore expensive, it might be 8th level.

Something I used in combat (like 1E)... if you miss your target by more than 5 (or 10) (think of a fair number) with a ranged attack.... you run the risk of hitting an ally within 5ft.

You could take this rule and expand upon it... for every say 30ft, that 5 becomes a 4, then a 3, etc... this increases the risk of launching arrows 120ft away while the paladin is engage in melee with the target.