Melee or ranged?

[Sindal]

This a nice and simple question. Just because I'm curious for the spread amongst players.

Q: Do you prefer to play melee or ranged pcs. (This is a preference question, not a 'which is better' question)

Bonus Q: Why?

Mine:
My preference is ranged. I love archery and supportive magic so thay usually lands me a short distance away from loggerheads.

I have gotten more comfortable with melee over the years and needing to make the decisions they make is fun. But sometimes uou just wanna pew pew at people.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Switch-hitters. Any DM worth their salt can pin down archers in melee, and conversely overly-specialized melee characters have nothing to do for rounds at a time when there's a significant gap to close before engagement (let alone fighting fliers).

[Kane0]

Most of the time ranged, though there are sometimes i really want to get right in someones face and show them what-for. That feeling typically fades after a session or two though.

[Sandeman]

Melee for me.
Positioning to block opponents and controlling the battle space for some reason interests me.

[Waazraath]

Having played both, I'd say melee if I had to choose. Combat is for me simply more interesting if I have the tactical options melee offers, positioning as well as chosing to shove/grapple/dodge instead of attacking if the situation asks for it. Plinging arrows from afar is often just target selection and, optionally, deceiding to use -5/+10 (something melee can do as well with the similar feat) - something which can become boring.

Having said that, I also agree with this:


Switch-hitters. Any DM worth their salt can pin down archers in melee, and conversely overly-specialized melee characters have nothing to do for rounds at a time when there's a significant gap to close before engagement (let alone fighting fliers).

I've always made sure that my melee characters have a decent ranged option and/or an option to quickly close the distance and avoid obstacles (like misty step), and when I had a ranged character it was able to function fine if enemies closed in melee.

[Dualight]

I also favour versatility, going all-in on either melee or ranged is just asking for getting caught outside your effective range.
Where my focus lies(main melee with ranged backup or vice-versa) depends on the character concept/mechanics. For example, I am unlikely to play a paladin with a ranged focus due to many of their features being either short-ranged or melee exclusive. Meanwhile, I have this concept of a character as a horse-archer, which means that they will prioritise ranged over melee.

[Mastikator]

Both, or ranged. If I can't do anything I'm not playing.

[Psyren]

Whatever the group needs. I have fun ideas for both.

[da newt]

For game play I've found melee more impactful and engaging for martials, but if I was a PC really I'd go ranged and hidden every time.

[Pildion]

This a nice and simple question. Just because I'm curious for the spread amongst players.

Q: Do you prefer to play melee or ranged pcs. (This is a preference question, not a 'which is better' question)

Bonus Q: Why?

Well, I don't mind playing anything, Melee, Ranged or Caster. If I needed to chose a favorite though it would be a Gish? So both? Ether HexBlade, BladeSinger, Arcana Cleric.

[elyktsorb]

Melee

Because I'm too good at fighting from range. I can often position myself in advantageous ways and make it so attacking my character isn't easy, and often it leads to fights where I just sit and fire stuff from the sidelines, and while effective, does make combats start blurring together. Especially when playing a Rogue these days.

[Eldariel]

I'd prefer switch-hitting but the game makes the payoffs really bad and rewards focus. Of the two, generally range; more options (and thus complexity) in positioning, targeting, etc. (well, if Sharpshooter is reworked anyways).

[da newt]

Just to pile on a bit more: I love a ranged fighter when I'm playing them, ambush - hit and run, snipe, hide etc ... but it always feels like a selfish my guy centric choice. Sure my damage output is good and I'm frequently untargetable, but does that really help the party as a team as much as a tank who absorbs more than their fair share of attacks?

If this was a individual 'sport' I'd go ranged every time, but if you approach it as a team contest I'd vote melee tank is the better team player.

(this of course is assuming martial only - the spell slingers are a whole other topic)

[Eldariel]

Just to pile on a bit more: I love a ranged fighter when I'm playing them, ambush - hit and run, snipe, hide etc ... but it always feels like a selfish my guy centric choice. Sure my damage output is good and I'm frequently untargetable, but does that really help the party as a team as much as a tank who absorbs more than their fair share of attacks?

If this was a individual 'sport' I'd go ranged every time, but if you approach it as a team contest I'd vote melee tank is the better team player.

(this of course is assuming martial only - the spell slingers are a whole other topic)

Note that while it's not their primary role, there's nothing stopping ranged types from acting as HP barriers. They may not be as good at it as some melee types (though in many cases, they actually can be) but their HP is still a party resource worth using.

Say, for example, I remember one fight where the party was low on level 5 and got ambushed by a Sahuagin force on the high seas. My Wizard went to the front, cast Hypnotic Pattern to draw attention (and disable key enemies) and just relied on their Shield + Res: Con + AC (this was a Gritty Realism game so he didn't even have Mage Armor up) to give the other characters (a Swords Bard and a Knowledge Cleric; both much more durable but also more beat-up from previous encounters) room to maneuver and lessen the stress on them. We won that encounter (mostly thanks to the Cleric Spirit Guardiansing the hell out of said horde), but my Wizard absorbed 4ish attacks (and prevented a few spells and other attacks) that could've otherwise downed the Cleric before the encounter was won.

In other words, the character that should tank hits (and indeed, the role each character should play) is fluid and contingent on the circumstances. Every point of HP is a resource and when push comes to shove, it's a resource that should be spent when death spiral is on the line (if the Cleric went down, we would've lost that fight). Much comes down to identifying your victory conditions for the present encounter and which characters are best equipped to do that and which characters are best equipped to enable that.

[Psyren]

Just to pile on a bit more: I love a ranged fighter when I'm playing them, ambush - hit and run, snipe, hide etc ... but it always feels like a selfish my guy centric choice. Sure my damage output is good and I'm frequently untargetable, but does that really help the party as a team as much as a tank who absorbs more than their fair share of attacks?

If this was a individual 'sport' I'd go ranged every time, but if you approach it as a team contest I'd vote melee tank is the better team player.

(this of course is assuming martial only - the spell slingers are a whole other topic)

I disagree that going ranged means you're automatically less of a team player. What about all the enemies who never get to surround or pincushion the melee because you're picking them off? Or the casters who don't get to rain AoE and control effects on the melee with impunity because you're forcing them to heal and take cover rather than go on offense? Or the enemies who never get to sound alarms/bring reinforcements because you stop them before they can flee? You can also position yourself away from the melee (and even from the casters, since you outrange many of their effects) making it harder for the enemy to drop effects that catch all of you.

In addition, archers tend to have high Dex, with goes hand in hand with other forms of group utility, like scouting, stealth, and high initiative.

[Snails]

Well, I agree ranged specialists are not automatically lesser team players. The question I would ask is whether your adventuring day is often cut short because one or more of the frontliners has burned through his or her HD quickly, while a number of non-frontliners have been unscathed.

Applied with a degree of common sense in light of the varying ACs and current HP levels, getting the attacks spread around the party is a very important basic tactic. IME, the main cause of a PC dying is a combination of small tactical errors that leave just one or two PCs exposed to the full firepower of the enemy's attacks. This is made more likely by some PCs having a habit of being "very clever" about being hard to attack.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Note that while it's not their primary role, there's nothing stopping ranged types from acting as HP barriers. They may not be as good at it as some melee types (though in many cases, they actually can be) but their HP is still a party resource worth using.

[good example, snipped for length]


Yes, HP is a resource, and should be spent. Just like spell slots or consumables or gold, and I wish more of my players would realize that. With that said, this is another reason why it can pay to invest at least somewhat in melee as an otherwise ranged build. That way you can dish out some damage while sponging up hits rather than just standing there doing nothing. As-is, I've seen archers who didn't pack a melee sidearm almost as often as meleeists who only bothered with a javelin or three, and either way you're really limiting yourself.

[strangebloke]

Melee, but if you don't have an option at range you will eventually wish you did.

[Omni-Centrist]

Ranged, for the Survivability. The heaviest hitters seem to be able to do either just all Melee attacks or have super limited ranged options. The only Melee I like playing are Melee Tanks, since Melee DPS will almost always fall before a proper High AC, High Dex melee combatant, and those guys will undoubtedly fall before the Ranged Fighter does.

[NaughtyTiger]

i tend to go ranged, but I am dissatisfied.
Ranged does more to help the team...
Ranged PCs get to do something every round.

Ranged PCs

hit pretty hard
you can almost always target something
you can almost always hit something (heck +x box with +x arrow is a rare option)
take less damage
no risk is kinda boring



Melee PCs

hit really hard sometimes
risking death is interesting

[Catullus64]

My preference is for melee, mostly on roleplay grounds; the clash of weapons and coming to close grips with the enemy is, for me, the core of any good fantasy action. If tend to find describing and making decisions in close combat to be more interesting than describing the remote exchange of missiles and spells. I will admit that this is mostly a roleplay preference, since D&D doesn't actually make ranged and melee combat feel all that distinct from one another in many particulars.

This preference probably shows through in my encounter design as a DM. I like tight spaces, flanking routes, chokepoints, in-combat puzzle objectives, things which force combatants to get into close quarters. Missiles and spells are valuable for putting pressure on the enemy and softening them up, but fights should be conclusively decided by the hand-to-hand fighting.

[Sirdar]

I like playing melee masochists. I want my characters to be in the thick of it, dealing out huge amounts of damage with a sword, warhammer or glaive and at the same time take a fair load of damage themselves. No heavy armor and preferably no shield. Maybe not optimal for survival, but fun. I still want to play a tactical game, but it just feels better doing it in the front line. Keeping distance and hiding in the shadows with a bow in order to avoid getting hit - it is not for me. Nothing is better than being engaged in closed combat with only 1/3 of your hitpoints remaining when a new dangerous enemy appears. Besides, hitpoints are a renewable resource and resources are there to be spent.

Yeah, my characters goes down a lot.