My experience with 5e is that playing a ranged character is significantly more appealing than playing a melee character, because
You don't have to deal with spending time to close distance. In a three round combat the ranged character gets to attack three times; melee characters typically only do so twice. Melee doesn't do 50% more damage.
A ranged build gets stuck in melee usually has options -- either pull out a finesse weapon, or have a feat that cancels melee penalties. For strength-based melee, there just aren't any good options, because thrown weapons are pretty terrible.
Melee characters get punished more than ranged characters, because it's a lot harder to evade auras and zones, and very few monsters are ineffective in melee, while many monsters are ineffective at range.
This playtest package has made one traditionally melee setup (moon druid) nonviable, and made a second one (paladin) no longer melee. It seems like something should be done to make melee a reasonable choice again. Some ideas:
Bring back some form of charge move, so you're much more likely to get your full three attacks, and the same for monsters.
Bring back opportunity attacks from ranged attacks and spells (touch or self spells shouldn't provoke). Maybe also make extra attacks and sneak attack apply.
Increase damage (perhaps with fighting styles). At level 1 without a fighting style, a greatsword has a 33% damage advantage over a longbow (at 70% to hit, 7 dpr vs 5.25), but at level 8 with a fighting style and a +1 weapon (2 attacks), that's now down to 19% (20 vs 16.8). Dual wielding has an even bigger advantage at first level, but at 8th level it's the same 20 dpr.
I'm not sure what intend from point number two. My reading of it is that you want opportunity attacks for ranged weapons, but that would make them even more powerful and that's running counter to your theme of "melee is too outclassed by ranged and that needs to be adjusted".
Personally, I think battle manoeuvres, or something similar, should be made more general for melee. You could have specific manoeuvres for particular weapons or weapon types, but I think that would go a long way to making melee more intersting and more powerful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Personally I feel Paladin, Ranger and Moon Druid have all moved in the wrong direction. Ranger is now actually more viable in melee then ranged... Paladin is now just as viable in ranged as melee while Moon Druid is just not viable at all.
The only issue with ranged paladin is you might not get 13 Strength if you wish to multiclass, literally only cost of it. Oath of Devotion Paladin is basically the most accurate archer in the game with a Dex build as per UA. This literally makes a Paladin with no weaknesses, essentially, I don't think Paladin should be getting access to Archery Fighting style personally, and I believe they should have some features tied to strength, right now the only reason for strength is some heavy armours and martial melee weapons... the only reason to use melee attacks is smites which now no longer have that restriction.
Ranger... hunter's mark does more damage with more attacks and you currently get most attacks from using two shortswords than you do with any bow, hunter's mark should only do half damage when using a separate weapon in each hand.
I think they mean that if you fire a ranged weapon and an enemy is near you they would get an opportunity attacks on you.
Ah ok, that makes sense. Feels a little harsh given they already get Disadvantage...but I'd have to play it to see.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
In my experience at least, melee weapons and combat are much more appealing than playing a character primarily attacks from a range. Many combats allow melee fighters to make a full 3+ ranged attacks because the enemies often start out close enough to each other, or the adventurer may have an ability that lets them move faster temporarily in order to reach the enemy. Not only that, but melee combatants usually have something like a javelin that they can throw at enemies if they don't reach them in the first round of combat.
Ranged builds that get stuck in melee usually don't have as many options as you seem to think. Not every class is proficient in melee weapons, which is likely why they will be attacking from a range. If they are proficient and have enough hit points and armor class to survive the melee, then they shouldn't be in the back. The party can't typically afford to have them there, because there are weaker and less sturdy builds that need to have defenders to hide behind. On top of all that, their strength bonus and melee attacks are likely weaker than their ranged ones and dexterity bonuses, since they had chosen to use the latter method in the first place.
On the other hand, ranged weapons...
1. Are usually weaker than melee ones. The highest damage dealing ranged weapon (sans modifiers) is a longbow, which takes away an average of 5.5 hit points away from the enemy on a hit. Meanwhile, two handed melee weapons like a Greataxe and Greatsword deal an average of 6.5 and 7 damage before bonuses, which is far more than the typical ranged attack.
2. Have disadvantage when melee combatants are within 5 feet of them. This makes it a lot harder to successfully employ this strategy when you're directly engaged due to encounters with too many monsters for the front lines to stop, or enemies coming from both directions.
All in all, I DO think that melee weapons need to have their damage increased + get a buff. That being said, I think ranged weapons need that to, and only believe that melee weapons should be strengthened because that can help solve the Martial VS. Caster disparity, not because I think there is a disparity between ranged and melee characters.
TL;DR: From what I've seen at least, melee weapons aren't less effective than ranged ones. That being said, both of those weapon types should be buffed to make Martials and Warriors more powerful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Ranged builds that get stuck in melee usually don't have as many options as you seem to think. Not every class is proficient in melee weapons, which is likely why they will be attacking from a range. If they are proficient and have enough hit points and armor class to survive the melee, then they shouldn't be in the back.
The primary ranged martial characters are dex fighters, dex rangers, and dex rogues, all of which are proficient with shortsword and rapier. They won't do as much damage as they would at range (since they probably don't have a relevant fighting style), but dropping from +7/1d8+3 to +5/1d8+3 is not exactly helpless.
The optimal solution is no-one in the front; melee monsters can't attack if they can't reach anyone, so just stay back and shoot them until they get into range.
The primary ranged martial characters are dex fighters, dex rangers, and dex rogues, all of which are proficient with shortsword and rapier. They won't do as much damage as they would at range (since they probably don't have a relevant fighting style), but dropping from +7/1d8+3 to +5/1d8+3 is not exactly helpless.
Your math didn't account for the drop to the damage bonus, because you're now using an ability score that you aren't as good in.
The optimal solution is no-one in the front; melee monsters can't attack if they can't reach anyone, so just stay back and shoot them until they get into range.
True. That being said, a decent amount of monsters have affective ranged attacks, or they can quickly move right next to the characters. Not only that, but most monsters will be able to adapt to this strategy and use superior knowledge of terrain, cover, ambushes, or some other method to stop the characters from doing this easily.
Also, D&D is still primarily a game about dungeons. Most dungeons have limited space/everyone is packed together, and the monsters usually know that space better. When it's a 20 feet long hallway, it's hard for the characters to snipe from a range.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
The primary ranged martial characters are dex fighters, dex rangers, and dex rogues, all of which are proficient with shortsword and rapier. They won't do as much damage as they would at range (since they probably don't have a relevant fighting style), but dropping from +7/1d8+3 to +5/1d8+3 is not exactly helpless.
Your math didn't account for the drop to the damage bonus, because you're now using an ability score that you aren't as good in.
Um... those are finesse weapons. You're using the same stat as you would use for ranged weapons.
Ranged builds that get stuck in melee usually don't have as many options as you seem to think. Not every class is proficient in melee weapons, which is likely why they will be attacking from a range. If they are proficient and have enough hit points and armor class to survive the melee, then they shouldn't be in the back.
The primary ranged martial characters are dex fighters, dex rangers, and dex rogues, all of which are proficient with shortsword and rapier. They won't do as much damage as they would at range (since they probably don't have a relevant fighting style), but dropping from +7/1d8+3 to +5/1d8+3 is not exactly helpless.
The optimal solution is no-one in the front; melee monsters can't attack if they can't reach anyone, so just stay back and shoot them until they get into range.
The optimal solution... is where Druid becomes quiet OP, the ability to turn terrain into difficult terrain makes this a very viable tactic. It's where the party stands behind an entangle or spike growth spell and bombards their targets in it. Generally speaking, even most ranged monsters do less damage with ranged attacks than melee attacks....
Personally I'd start by getting rid of the Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter feats; ranged weapons already have enough additional advantages that they don't need to be able to compete with dedicated melee builds.
I've also just always hated Crossbow Expert (and Gunner) feats because it completely eliminates all penalties for choosing those weapons; if anything a crossbow specific feat should almost combine with Sharpshooter, i.e- bolster damage to compete with bows that are firing multiple times.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Regardless of whether it is more effective to go melee or ranged, the question is whether a party can be optimal without anyone meleeing. That is, it is essential that there are at least two that can effectively stay on the front lines to protect those who go with ranged weapons or spells. I think that these analyzes of whether something is optimal or not are often done from an individualistic point of view. But D&D is a collaborative game, where your role in the group should be taken into account to analyze if your character is optimal or not. If your entire party is going with ranged weapons, you are not going to do very well no matter how optimized your character is for ranged combat.
Personally I'd start by getting rid of the Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter feats; ranged weapons already have enough additional advantages that they don't need to be able to compete with dedicated melee builds.
I've also just always hated Crossbow Expert (and Gunner) feats because it completely eliminates all penalties for choosing those weapons; if anything a crossbow specific feat should almost combine with Sharpshooter, i.e- bolster damage to compete with bows that are firing multiple times.
Yeah I am not a fan of things that just remove all penalties, sharpshooters remove cover one really irritates me. It makes grabbing cover a tactical decision a person may want to take pointless. Personally for crossbow expert firing in melee, I'd increase the basic penalty to disadvantage and provokes AoO and have crossbow expert remove one of them so firing in melee still was less useful, sharpshooter reduce medium cover to light cover, remove penalties for light cover.
If anything, decrease ALL attack bonuses across the board. Hit points, too. Armour needs to be represented as being more effective, so I'd like to see ACs rise for each armour type, particularly those in the Medium and Heavy categories.
Bring back the "Weapon vs. Armour Type" modifiers from 1e/2e, but IMO, the weapon-specific ones from the 2e "Player's Option" books were best. It adds an extra fun dimension to consider when selecting a weapon--something apart from just damage and whether or not it can be used with finesse.
If anything, decrease ALL attack bonuses across the board. Hit points, too. Armour needs to be represented as being more effective, so I'd like to see ACs rise for each armour type, particularly those in the Medium and Heavy categories.
Bring back the "Weapon vs. Armour Type" modifiers from 1e/2e, but IMO, the weapon-specific ones from the 2e "Player's Option" books were best. It adds an extra fun dimension to consider when selecting a weapon--something apart from just damage and whether or not it can be used with finesse.
I'm not sure about that as it would require a lot of adjustments especially for things that do damage but don't target AC. But I am not happy with how little AC scales over a characters levels. Just don't know the best solution.
Regardless of whether it is more effective to go melee or ranged, the question is whether a party can be optimal without anyone meleeing. That is, it is essential that there are at least two that can effectively stay on the front lines to protect those who go with ranged weapons or spells.
You mean "is it essential". IME the answer is 'no'. There are two problems with theory that you need a front line to protect the ranged attackers and spellcasters:
Ranged attackers and spellcasters can be perfectly durable. Light armor on a Dex primary build is typically the same AC as medium armor and 1 point worse than heavy armor, which is easily made up for by the chance of not being attacked at all (due to staying out of range).
Front lines often can't protect back lines anyway, opportunity attacks in 5e are just not very good at battlefield control.
Regardless of whether it is more effective to go melee or ranged, the question is whether a party can be optimal without anyone meleeing. That is, it is essential that there are at least two that can effectively stay on the front lines to protect those who go with ranged weapons or spells.
You mean "is it essential". IME the answer is 'no'. There are two problems with theory that you need a front line to protect the ranged attackers and spellcasters:
Ranged attackers and spellcasters can be perfectly durable. Light armor on a Dex primary build is typically the same AC as medium armor and 1 point worse than heavy armor, which is easily made up for by the chance of not being attacked at all (due to staying out of range).
Front lines often can't protect back lines anyway, opportunity attacks in 5e are just not very good at battlefield control.
Yup to both of those, its why I argue getting armor prof for full casters should be harder, spells like shield and the blade singers abilities should be weakened. The wizard should be fragile. Heck every game where DMs pressure the back line where the playtest currently is I expect the mages to take 1es light armor prof, use a shield and wear medium armor, have a 14 dex and rock a 19 AC almost out of the gate, shield bumping them to 24. Assuming they don't dump con their HPs wont be that far behind a fighters. And sadly unless its a narrow corridor you can actually clog up the only thing keeping people off the back line is the DM buying into the front line narrative as the mechanics are not their to do it. Now if the DM does not pressure the wizards etc for narrative purposes letting the line be a line then other options may be better than getting their AC up.
I don't have a great solution as I don't think people want to bring back spell failure etc but whether its a feat or multi class dips its far too easy to circumvent the intended weakness of certain classes. And its pretty one way, you get everything you want out of a one level dip as a full arcane caster but a fighter taking a one level dip into wizard gets far less.
Regardless of whether it is more effective to go melee or ranged, the question is whether a party can be optimal without anyone meleeing. That is, it is essential that there are at least two that can effectively stay on the front lines to protect those who go with ranged weapons or spells.
You mean "is it essential". IME the answer is 'no'. There are two problems with theory that you need a front line to protect the ranged attackers and spellcasters:
Ranged attackers and spellcasters can be perfectly durable. Light armor on a Dex primary build is typically the same AC as medium armor and 1 point worse than heavy armor, which is easily made up for by the chance of not being attacked at all (due to staying out of range).
Front lines often can't protect back lines anyway, opportunity attacks in 5e are just not very good at battlefield control.
Well, I partly agree with you. However, there are several points that need to be clarified:
1.- For a frontliner to be really effective, it should avoid the fallacy of the false tank. That is, you don't need to simply have a high AC but be able to efficiently protect your second line teammates. An example of this is the Ancestral Guardian barbarian. Also the Sentinel feat is a good example.
2.- To have a light armor be just one point less than a heavy one, or equal to a medium, you must have dex 20. For practical purposes, with a standard array, you need to be at least lvl 8 for that. For most campaigns that means pretty much being at the end of your career.
3.- Staying at a distance without frontliners is something very situational. The right conditions must be given to be able to do that, and it doesn't always happen. In fact, in my experience, in most maps it is very difficult for these conditions to exist.
For the rest, I agree that casters have many ways to defend themselves efficiently. However, that tends to drain their resources quickly and should be exploited by a clever DM to make them feel vulnerable. But I think that already falls into a different debate.
Well, I partly agree with you. However, there are several points that need to be clarified:
1.- For a frontliner to be really effective, it should avoid the fallacy of the false tank. That is, you don't need to simply have a high AC but be able to efficiently protect your second line teammates. An example of this is the Ancestral Guardian barbarian. Also the Sentinel feat is a good example.
2.- To have a light armor be just one point less than a heavy one, or equal to a medium, you must have dex 20. For practical purposes, with a standard array, you need to be at least lvl 8 for that. For most campaigns that means pretty much being at the end of your career.
1: investing in sentinel et al pushes you yet further back in general combat effectiveness. If the role of melee is supposed to be tanking, they shouldn't need to pay a feat tax to do it.
2: fighters and rangers can use medium armor. You're probably 2 AC worse if you also want stealth, but if stealth is important you want the entire party to be stealthy so the heavy armor users are SOL anyway.
An all ranged party is going to have problems. Especially since most will have to disengage as an action if they want to fight at range. If they are willing to fight in close combat they won’t be using their best weapons and specs because I’m sure those are geared toward ranged combat. The biggest problem will arise when you realize you need a STR check for something. Your casters might have a spell to help you a few times, but that is burning resources.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My experience with 5e is that playing a ranged character is significantly more appealing than playing a melee character, because
This playtest package has made one traditionally melee setup (moon druid) nonviable, and made a second one (paladin) no longer melee. It seems like something should be done to make melee a reasonable choice again. Some ideas:
I'm not sure what intend from point number two. My reading of it is that you want opportunity attacks for ranged weapons, but that would make them even more powerful and that's running counter to your theme of "melee is too outclassed by ranged and that needs to be adjusted".
Personally, I think battle manoeuvres, or something similar, should be made more general for melee. You could have specific manoeuvres for particular weapons or weapon types, but I think that would go a long way to making melee more intersting and more powerful.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think they mean that if you fire a ranged weapon and an enemy is near you they would get an opportunity attacks on you.
Personally I feel Paladin, Ranger and Moon Druid have all moved in the wrong direction. Ranger is now actually more viable in melee then ranged... Paladin is now just as viable in ranged as melee while Moon Druid is just not viable at all.
The only issue with ranged paladin is you might not get 13 Strength if you wish to multiclass, literally only cost of it. Oath of Devotion Paladin is basically the most accurate archer in the game with a Dex build as per UA. This literally makes a Paladin with no weaknesses, essentially, I don't think Paladin should be getting access to Archery Fighting style personally, and I believe they should have some features tied to strength, right now the only reason for strength is some heavy armours and martial melee weapons... the only reason to use melee attacks is smites which now no longer have that restriction.
Ranger... hunter's mark does more damage with more attacks and you currently get most attacks from using two shortswords than you do with any bow, hunter's mark should only do half damage when using a separate weapon in each hand.
Moon druid... way too much needing fixing.
Ah ok, that makes sense. Feels a little harsh given they already get Disadvantage...but I'd have to play it to see.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
In my experience at least, melee weapons and combat are much more appealing than playing a character primarily attacks from a range. Many combats allow melee fighters to make a full 3+ ranged attacks because the enemies often start out close enough to each other, or the adventurer may have an ability that lets them move faster temporarily in order to reach the enemy. Not only that, but melee combatants usually have something like a javelin that they can throw at enemies if they don't reach them in the first round of combat.
Ranged builds that get stuck in melee usually don't have as many options as you seem to think. Not every class is proficient in melee weapons, which is likely why they will be attacking from a range. If they are proficient and have enough hit points and armor class to survive the melee, then they shouldn't be in the back. The party can't typically afford to have them there, because there are weaker and less sturdy builds that need to have defenders to hide behind. On top of all that, their strength bonus and melee attacks are likely weaker than their ranged ones and dexterity bonuses, since they had chosen to use the latter method in the first place.
On the other hand, ranged weapons...
1. Are usually weaker than melee ones. The highest damage dealing ranged weapon (sans modifiers) is a longbow, which takes away an average of 5.5 hit points away from the enemy on a hit. Meanwhile, two handed melee weapons like a Greataxe and Greatsword deal an average of 6.5 and 7 damage before bonuses, which is far more than the typical ranged attack.
2. Have disadvantage when melee combatants are within 5 feet of them. This makes it a lot harder to successfully employ this strategy when you're directly engaged due to encounters with too many monsters for the front lines to stop, or enemies coming from both directions.
All in all, I DO think that melee weapons need to have their damage increased + get a buff. That being said, I think ranged weapons need that to, and only believe that melee weapons should be strengthened because that can help solve the Martial VS. Caster disparity, not because I think there is a disparity between ranged and melee characters.
TL;DR: From what I've seen at least, melee weapons aren't less effective than ranged ones. That being said, both of those weapon types should be buffed to make Martials and Warriors more powerful.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The primary ranged martial characters are dex fighters, dex rangers, and dex rogues, all of which are proficient with shortsword and rapier. They won't do as much damage as they would at range (since they probably don't have a relevant fighting style), but dropping from +7/1d8+3 to +5/1d8+3 is not exactly helpless.
The optimal solution is no-one in the front; melee monsters can't attack if they can't reach anyone, so just stay back and shoot them until they get into range.
Your math didn't account for the drop to the damage bonus, because you're now using an ability score that you aren't as good in.
True. That being said, a decent amount of monsters have affective ranged attacks, or they can quickly move right next to the characters. Not only that, but most monsters will be able to adapt to this strategy and use superior knowledge of terrain, cover, ambushes, or some other method to stop the characters from doing this easily.
Also, D&D is still primarily a game about dungeons. Most dungeons have limited space/everyone is packed together, and the monsters usually know that space better. When it's a 20 feet long hallway, it's hard for the characters to snipe from a range.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Um... those are finesse weapons. You're using the same stat as you would use for ranged weapons.
The optimal solution... is where Druid becomes quiet OP, the ability to turn terrain into difficult terrain makes this a very viable tactic. It's where the party stands behind an entangle or spike growth spell and bombards their targets in it. Generally speaking, even most ranged monsters do less damage with ranged attacks than melee attacks....
Personally I'd start by getting rid of the Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter feats; ranged weapons already have enough additional advantages that they don't need to be able to compete with dedicated melee builds.
I've also just always hated Crossbow Expert (and Gunner) feats because it completely eliminates all penalties for choosing those weapons; if anything a crossbow specific feat should almost combine with Sharpshooter, i.e- bolster damage to compete with bows that are firing multiple times.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Regardless of whether it is more effective to go melee or ranged, the question is whether a party can be optimal without anyone meleeing. That is, it is essential that there are at least two that can effectively stay on the front lines to protect those who go with ranged weapons or spells.
I think that these analyzes of whether something is optimal or not are often done from an individualistic point of view. But D&D is a collaborative game, where your role in the group should be taken into account to analyze if your character is optimal or not.
If your entire party is going with ranged weapons, you are not going to do very well no matter how optimized your character is for ranged combat.
Yeah I am not a fan of things that just remove all penalties, sharpshooters remove cover one really irritates me. It makes grabbing cover a tactical decision a person may want to take pointless. Personally for crossbow expert firing in melee, I'd increase the basic penalty to disadvantage and provokes AoO and have crossbow expert remove one of them so firing in melee still was less useful, sharpshooter reduce medium cover to light cover, remove penalties for light cover.
If anything, decrease ALL attack bonuses across the board. Hit points, too. Armour needs to be represented as being more effective, so I'd like to see ACs rise for each armour type, particularly those in the Medium and Heavy categories.
Bring back the "Weapon vs. Armour Type" modifiers from 1e/2e, but IMO, the weapon-specific ones from the 2e "Player's Option" books were best. It adds an extra fun dimension to consider when selecting a weapon--something apart from just damage and whether or not it can be used with finesse.
I'm not sure about that as it would require a lot of adjustments especially for things that do damage but don't target AC. But I am not happy with how little AC scales over a characters levels. Just don't know the best solution.
You mean "is it essential". IME the answer is 'no'. There are two problems with theory that you need a front line to protect the ranged attackers and spellcasters:
Yup to both of those, its why I argue getting armor prof for full casters should be harder, spells like shield and the blade singers abilities should be weakened. The wizard should be fragile. Heck every game where DMs pressure the back line where the playtest currently is I expect the mages to take 1es light armor prof, use a shield and wear medium armor, have a 14 dex and rock a 19 AC almost out of the gate, shield bumping them to 24. Assuming they don't dump con their HPs wont be that far behind a fighters. And sadly unless its a narrow corridor you can actually clog up the only thing keeping people off the back line is the DM buying into the front line narrative as the mechanics are not their to do it. Now if the DM does not pressure the wizards etc for narrative purposes letting the line be a line then other options may be better than getting their AC up.
I don't have a great solution as I don't think people want to bring back spell failure etc but whether its a feat or multi class dips its far too easy to circumvent the intended weakness of certain classes. And its pretty one way, you get everything you want out of a one level dip as a full arcane caster but a fighter taking a one level dip into wizard gets far less.
Well, I partly agree with you. However, there are several points that need to be clarified:
1.- For a frontliner to be really effective, it should avoid the fallacy of the false tank. That is, you don't need to simply have a high AC but be able to efficiently protect your second line teammates. An example of this is the Ancestral Guardian barbarian. Also the Sentinel feat is a good example.
2.- To have a light armor be just one point less than a heavy one, or equal to a medium, you must have dex 20. For practical purposes, with a standard array, you need to be at least lvl 8 for that. For most campaigns that means pretty much being at the end of your career.
3.- Staying at a distance without frontliners is something very situational. The right conditions must be given to be able to do that, and it doesn't always happen. In fact, in my experience, in most maps it is very difficult for these conditions to exist.
For the rest, I agree that casters have many ways to defend themselves efficiently. However, that tends to drain their resources quickly and should be exploited by a clever DM to make them feel vulnerable. But I think that already falls into a different debate.
1: investing in sentinel et al pushes you yet further back in general combat effectiveness. If the role of melee is supposed to be tanking, they shouldn't need to pay a feat tax to do it.
2: fighters and rangers can use medium armor. You're probably 2 AC worse if you also want stealth, but if stealth is important you want the entire party to be stealthy so the heavy armor users are SOL anyway.
An all ranged party is going to have problems. Especially since most will have to disengage as an action if they want to fight at range. If they are willing to fight in close combat they won’t be using their best weapons and specs because I’m sure those are geared toward ranged combat. The biggest problem will arise when you realize you need a STR check for something. Your casters might have a spell to help you a few times, but that is burning resources.