Compared with melee combat, ranged combat seems boring

[Crucius]

Hey everyone!

In my humble, and often incorrect, opinion, I find that ranged combat feels somewhat lackluster when compared to its melee equivalent. In melee combat a suite of tactical options lie before you; shove, grapple, reach weapons, disengage, movement and positioning. In ranged combat I feel like most of these things are obsolete or severely toned down (the large range on a lot of spells and weapons resulting in rarely using movement and caring about positioning). I feel that the only thing you can play around with as a DM is cover mechanics.

Cue sharpshooter and spell sniper.

I know these are feats, which are optional, but this is the set of restrictions I present you with.

I totally get that it is up to the DM to challenge these players, by using cover, or by introducing enemies up close where the safety of range is omitted. But a part of this game is finding your own fun, so as a player I'm deterred by the lack of options when partaking in ranged combat. My best solution currently is straight up ignoring the sharpshooter feat, though I like the risk-reward aspect to it.

I feel like this is mostly a matter of perspective, so that's what I'm looking here for. A second opinion if you will. To see if I'm not approaching this shortsightedly. I'm curious to see if anyone has noticed the same, and if anyone has any tips on making ranged combat more interesting for the player and providing more options to play with as a DM, or point me to the inevitable rule/mechanic I don't know about yet.

The genesis of this thread happened when I was DM'ing and a player was overshadowing other players with damage through sharpshooter. I dove into the rules and found that cover is the only mechanic a DM can play with to challenge ranged attackers. In my opinion full cover sucks because that's not really making it harder for the player to hit the enemy, it's making it impossible. I want my players to feel good, and not being able to hit anything does not feel good, while having to tactically think about half and three-quarters cover can be enjoyable in its own right. I hope you understand the distinction I'm trying to make here.

[DrLoveMonkey]

Well as a rogue or ranger who can hide as a bonus action, leaping around hiding after every shot behind cover is certainly a way to make the terrain and positioning matter. In fact giving a cover bonus to enemies, especially ranged enemies, can help that a lot too.

[Man_Over_Game]

Ranged combat can be a bit boring, especially if cover can be ignored, but that's why the DM should mix up the tactics with their enemies.

A few examples:

Kobolds with large weapons. Call them "Zerkers". They have Pack Tactics (Advantage on attacks when an ally is adjacent to the same target), very low hit chance and relatively high damage. They punish a team for allowing them to fight as a group or against your back line, and incentivize the players to use their melee line aggressively while spread out.

Then implement enemies that can easily Disengage, so that they can sneak past the players' scattered line and hit the ranged attackers hard. Maybe implement a slowing effect (reduce target's speed by half) on an attack.

The overall goal is to force the ranged players to not be allowed to stand and shoot. By forcing the melee lineup to not be allowed to protect them, the ranged characters will need to come up with some quick tactics to deal with their attackers on their own.

---------

One thing I've implemented was a rule that any Object Interaction that doesn't involve an Action or drawing a light weapon results in an Opportunity Attack. It's enough to keep ranged characters on their toes and preemptively draw their weapons before the enemy engages. As a side bonus, it also buffs up the Thief quite a bit.

[Rerem115]

Having spammed out a bunch of X-COM this month, maybe you could try to bring in some of its core tactical concepts: LoS and enemies that shoot back!

As a total negation, full cover is an important tool. You can't shoot a target without LoS, so make your players work for a flanking shot. Conversely, start using enemies with ranged weapons so your archers have to start thinking about finding their own cover.

[Crucius]

Kobolds with large weapons. Call them "Zerkers". They have Pack Tactics (Advantage on attacks when an ally is adjacent to the same target), very low hit chance and relatively high damage. They punish a team for allowing them to fight as a group or against your back line, and incentivize the players to use their melee line aggressively while spread out.

Then implement enemies that can easily Disengage, so that they can sneak past the players' scattered line and hit the ranged attackers hard. Maybe implement a slowing effect (reduce target's speed by half) on an attack.

The overall goal is to force the ranged players to not be allowed to stand and shoot. By forcing the melee lineup to not be allowed to protect them, the ranged characters will need to come up with some quick tactics to deal with their attackers on their own.

I quite like this. Planning on running a full fledged campaign someday, so designing base-enemies that fall into categories such as runners, bruisers, snipers etc, although a bit gamey, can be worthwhile. Especially for the players who can instantly recognize an enemy type and react accordingly.

[Crucius]

Having spammed out a bunch of X-COM this month, maybe you could try to bring in some of its core tactical concepts: LoS and enemies that shoot back!

As a total negation, full cover is an important tool. You can't shoot a target without LoS, so make your players work for a flanking shot. Conversely, start using enemies with ranged weapons so your archers have to start thinking about finding their own cover.

There is wisdom here, but it sounds like a dedicated ranged encounter. I'd have to think about how to not negatively impact the melee characters that don't have a ranged option in the party. Teamwork would be key, so they can flush the enemies from cover so the ranged party members can pummel them with projectiles. I can work with this! Thanks!

[OverLordOcelot]

If you just let ranged attackers sit back and fire over and over, sure. But there are a lot of things that force ranged attackers to do more than spam attacks, and they're sensible and easy to incorporate, not weird gamey things. An enemy caster can use the first level spell fog cloud to block LOS and prevent ranged attackers from just sitting in safety. Enemies aren't obligated to stand and attack melee fighters, they can rush the bowman. While teleports and 'disengage as a free action' help with this, just having a bunch of melee guys run past the 'front line' and soak the single op attack works too. Enemies don't all join the fight at once, an opponent can summon or raise minions, and can have allies/patrols/random enemies turn up from behind the party. Dungeons can be made to force players to move in closer, for example traps and triggered doors make staying WAYYY back in the hall really dangerous. Enemies can take the front line with them - grappling the front line and carrying them around a corner is not that hard to do, especially for large creatures that have a free grapple rider.

[jas61292]

I tend to agree with the OP, and this is one of the many reasons I find Sharpshooter to be one of the strongest and most poorly designed feats (and why it is one of a few feats my groups ban). While a lot of people focus on the power attack aspect of it (which is also an issue, but a very different one), I think the biggest problem with the feat is that it eliminates the ability for the DM to force strategizing through the use of cover. Furthermore, the archery fighting style clearly seems designed to help negate the effects of cover. +2 attack is powerful. Perhaps moreso than any other fighting style. But if it is constantly being used to just get you back to a normal roll, it is balanced. Sharpshooter makes it always a strict bonus though, making it stupid good. The fact that Sharpshooter also eliminates long range penalties, the only other downside to ranged combat, is just icing.

I think the best way to improve the feel of ranged combat is to eliminate Sharpshooter and utilize cover, but if that is not an option, then you need to further utilize the environment. Use total cover that can be overcome by the player moving around, and combine it with difficult terrain or hazards, or by simply adjusting enemy placing so thre best archery spots have tough enemies in them making it impossible for the archer to hit the threatening casters without either eliminating other guys first, or wading into melee.

[LudicSavant]

Part of the issue is that the entire "cover" aspect of the game (which might have led to you looking for flanking angles or trying to flush people out or destroy their cover or the like) is completely removed by Sharpshooter.

[Rerem115]

Most cover, but not all. Sharpshooter specifically negates 1/2 and 3/4 cover, but NOT full cover.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Concealment is the other side of the coin in ranged combat.

At my group's game yesterday, our party was accosted by sword wraiths during a pouring rain, with limited visibility. (They didn't GAF about rain, being undead!) So while we knew roughly where they were, beyond a certain distance it was impossible to get a shot. The fight devolved into both sides moving into range to get line of sight, firing, then fading back into the pouring rain.

After a couple of rounds our front-line fighters engaged with them, and I knocked down the enemy boss with a ranged Eldritch Smite (my Pact Weapon was a longbow) so they could attack with advantage.

It was one of the more interesting ranged encounters I've seen; our DM knows how to mix things up.

[Vogie]

Then add more things.

A single goblin shaman may throw a windwall or wall of fog out, or an orcish sapper may set fire to a line of haybales to create smoke, creating obscurement.
Require more. Perhaps adding a requirement not move, or use a bonus action (or both) to create a sharpshooter shot.
Diversify your sharpshooter shots. If you have a sharpshooter, maybe a Shortbow, longbow and crossbow all have alternate sharpshooter effects, either in addition to, or in place of, the +10 damage.
Lean into the sharpshooter aspect. Perhaps a sharpshooter can ready an action to interrupt or thwart their target's next action, allowing them to potentially counter a spell, relieve them of their weapon mid-swing, remove their ability to have reactions until next round, or disrupt another type of action, at the cost of a) any extra attacks they may have and b) the PC's reaction.
Give them additional shots in the baseline. Looking at 4e ranger abilities for inspiration, that could be a Singular Shot (added damage on targets that don't have any allies within 5 feet), Warning Shot (allows you to deal ranged attacks of opportunity if that target moves in a certain direction), a Pinning Shot (pin a target to another hostile ally directly behind the first target), or a Warding shot (an action that allow a ranged attack of opportunity if the target moves into melee range of your ally)

[Crucius]

I tend to agree with the OP, and this is one of the many reasons I find Sharpshooter to be one of the strongest and most poorly designed feats (and why it is one of a few feats my groups ban). While a lot of people focus on the power attack aspect of it (which is also an issue, but a very different one), I think the biggest problem with the feat is that it eliminates the ability for the DM to force strategizing through the use of cover.

Exactly this.


Concealment is the other side of the coin in ranged combat.

Nice! Totally forgot about this! Fog, rain, foliage, magical effects. Perfect! I'm noting it down.

[LudicSavant]

Most cover, but not all. Sharpshooter specifically negates 1/2 and 3/4 cover, but NOT full cover.

Yeah. The whole "line of effect / sight" game remains.

[Willie the Duck]

Part of the issue is that the entire "cover" aspect of the game (which might have led to you looking for flanking angles or trying to flush people out or destroy their cover or the like) is completely removed by Sharpshooter.

This is one of the bigger issues that seems to come up in 5e. Because dis/advantage is such a Boolean quality, most things that are penalties in some way are addressed by giving a penalty, and then picking a feat/spell/class that is good with them just eliminates this penalty.

This makes playing a 'guy who focuses on X' mostly means making a straight-up, unmodified skill or weapon attack check. It's only the normal person, forced by circumstance, into doing X that only interacts with any/much detail or specification or nuance. As an even better example, you probably don't spend a lot of time focusing on the wilderness exploration part of D&D unless you have someone in your party that wants to play a ranger. However, what the ranger does is make most of the interesting nuance of wilderness exploration (be it reduced speed, penalties to observation, getting lost, or having to track rations) relatively pointless (or at least smoothing out any actual thought that would have to go into it).

Mind you, with Sharpshooter, there are still ways to make ranged combat less boring (line of sight, visibility, etc.). However, forcing the DM to figure that out for any combat where they don't want it to be a boring roll-off is an added headache.

Honestly, for a simple game with beginner players where added complication is a detriment, I get SS as-is. For other games, I would probably change up how it works. Maybe doubling range, but not making no penalty all the way to long. Maybe a +X to eliminate the cover penalty (archery fighting style could do this as well, instead of a flat +2). Or just not have it in your game. It isn't like 'able to kill from a distance' isn't benefit enough on its' own.

[Specter]

What makes ranged combat boring is the same thing that makes melee combat boring: lack of imagination and planning from the DM.

A melee fight where two strong guys just un towards each other and use the same Attack action every turn is lame, just as an archer combat in a plain, open area.

A good and simple addition to make ranged combat interesting is small concealing places, like trees or pillars. You can shoot and then duck for cover... but so can your opponents. It becomes a game of chess where the one who can use the arena to his advantage will ultimately be the winner.

[KorvinStarmast]

In our latest battle, I moved to get to the high ground and shoot at the enemy boss. Worked great, but during round 2 the enemy force got smart and had two melee fighters climb up to attack me- they got next to me.
My choice. Keep shooting, take two OA's to shoot regular, or take it like a man and shoot with disadvantage. I did the latter, and hit. But it could have been worse.

Tactical things happen.

[Zuras]

If you think ranged combat is boring, you are probably playing a more combat-as-sport type campaign.

I played through Storm King’s Thunder with an all ranged party (no melee tanks at all) and it was very intense and tactical, since we were usually facing encounters that would stomp us flat if they got too close.

Most of the interesting tactics generally involved terrain, mounts, or crowd control spells (so much Spike Growth!), though, so if you are looking at the more obvious tactical options in the rules and class features, it may seem lacking.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is one of the bigger issues that seems to come up in 5e. Because dis/advantage is such a Boolean quality, most things that are penalties in some way are addressed by giving a penalty, and then picking a feat/spell/class that is good with them just eliminates this penalty.

This makes playing a 'guy who focuses on X' mostly means making a straight-up, unmodified skill or weapon attack check. It's only the normal person, forced by circumstance, into doing X that only interacts with any/much detail or specification or nuance. As an even better example, you probably don't spend a lot of time focusing on the wilderness exploration part of D&D unless you have someone in your party that wants to play a ranger. However, what the ranger does is make most of the interesting nuance of wilderness exploration (be it reduced speed, penalties to observation, getting lost, or having to track rations) relatively pointless (or at least smoothing out any actual thought that would have to go into it).

Mind you, with Sharpshooter, there are still ways to make ranged combat less boring (line of sight, visibility, etc.). However, forcing the DM to figure that out for any combat where they don't want it to be a boring roll-off is an added headache.

Honestly, for a simple game with beginner players where added complication is a detriment, I get SS as-is. For other games, I would probably change up how it works. Maybe doubling range, but not making no penalty all the way to long. Maybe a +X to eliminate the cover penalty (archery fighting style could do this as well, instead of a flat +2). Or just not have it in your game. It isn't like 'able to kill from a distance' isn't benefit enough on its' own.

That is absolutely the downside of trying to streamline the game by making many of the bonuses and penalties just Advan/Dis. 5e lacks a ton of granularity.

[Samayu]

I too like the variety of tactical options that appear in melee combat. Especially when the rules provide even more options. That's why I prefer the Battle Master over the Champion.

But it sounds like your issue is that the other martials are unhappy that someone does a lot more damage than they do. I think that's just something you have to get used it.

[Willie the Duck]

What makes ranged combat boring is the same thing that makes melee combat boring: lack of imagination and planning from the DM.

This is a generally true statement, but I think it misses where a specific game rule (or character build option, in this case) conspires to/facilitates making the DM's job harder in the respect.

For example:

A melee fight where two strong guys just un towards each other and use the same Attack action every turn is lame, just as an archer combat in a plain, open area.

Yes, and this is the critique many have with fighters in featless games or the many 'sack of HP' monsters or the like. However, there are usually a lot of options open to making melee have more nuance, from the expenditure of scarce resources to special abilities to flanking rules to heck pushing and shoving. The game actively helps make melee more interesting and less of this roll-off.


A good and simple addition to make ranged combat interesting is small concealing places, like trees or pillars. You can shoot and then duck for cover... but so can your opponents. It becomes a game of chess where the one who can use the arena to his advantage will ultimately be the winner.
Yes, this is what one wants, and SS reduces the situations where this works (by making anything less than total cover immaterial). That's pretty much the complaint people are talking about.