I have not read one person post the obvious in regards to limitless bolts, the tactical advantage range has over melee. Melee you need to get up and personal, you will most certainly take damage. Ranged there is little risk... if your smart. So giving ranged unlimited arrows, is just OP, IMO
Not really. Arrows, on their own, don't do much. And a shortbow is the same as a longsword for damage.
The downside is that you incur an AOO if you shoot while in melee.
So Ranged = Can't do melee
Melee = Can't do ranged.
If you give players infinite base ammo, you're actually balancing the equation, since melee character don't 'use up' their 1d6 sword to attack.
Maybe its my fault, for not spelling it out better, the point ( lets see If I can do this right) Melle take physical damage while in melee, as where ranged do not... IF they are smart and tactical. There for giving them unlimited bolts is OP
And is disagree.
They can be hit by any number of monsters with ranged attacks, or bandits with bows. Or even spells.
They also, unless taking Weapon Finesse, or finding/buying a Composite bow (which are slightly expensive) tend to have a lower ToHit than melee characters, so they miss more, which reduces their damage output.
It looks slightly OP on paper, but when you put it into actual combat, it's really not. Ranged characters just tend to miss more, and thus do less damage. So it's only OP if you assume every attack hits.
And again; if a Melee character Charges them and put them into a melee fight; they are now pretty useless, as they take Attacks Of Opportunity when they try to shoot, unless they move away.
And being geared for range, they probably don't have a shield, so they have lower AC and get hit more.
Edit: I should add, between 3.5, Pathfinder, & 5E, I've NEVER had to keep track of my arrow use, unless they were special arrows, and I've never been OP compared to our melee fighters.
