As for melee, I am not sure why you think it's better. Can you explain with an example? Because melee seems to be more exposed to attacks than ranged. You can shoot them and swing a sword at them. Maybe it's because your melee characters tend to have more armor?
Of course, melee has its own problems currently because all you have to do is run behind someone and again receive that +4 to hit bonus with almost no cost.
And I realize Saiko already responded to you. I assure you, I am not trying to pile on you. I am just trying to have a reasonable discussion.
In my sessions melee is boss, I mean battle master is so crazy in the damage it can dish out and take. If you have a cleric for heals, with the use of the sprint and menacing attack, you can pretty much wipe out anything. Rogue is also nice, but more squishy which is the way it is suppose to be. But again, with their sprint they can cross an entire area, and attack practically anything with impunity.
With Wizard, it basically seems the only 2 go to spells are magic missle and heat ray that hit consistantly and do damage. Frost ray seems to suck, as well as fire ball.
Even with Lae'zel, with her limited run range not using sprint, you can most of the time use jump which uses less stamina, then run the rest of the way to wack something with Menacing blow and tear them up, and that is not even including riposte.
So yeah, I have played both melee's this includes both battlemaster and Eldritch Knight, both are way better with better hit ratios than either mage or rangers in my experience.
