In examining the mechanics, without having yet played it, it does appear ranged characters are likely far superior to melee, just like in 5E.
In my experience that is not at all accurate.
It could be there's stuff I'm missing. But alll the mechanics that make ranged attacks more advantageous in DnD 5E are present in BG3. Ranged attacks still can reach the whole battle field most of the time, without having to move up to enemies. The Archery Fighting style grants +2 to attack, partially offsetting the power attack penalty if you take Sharpshooter. With ranged attacks it's much easier for Rogues to attack from a hidden position. BG3 gives an advantage for ranged attacks if you have the high ground.
I'm not doubting you. I just want to know what I'm missing. There may be some buffs or game quirks that help melee characters that I'm not aware of.
It is much less hassle with ranged attacks. In melee combat You need position, preparation and combos to be efficient, and have a bunch of emergency measures at hand for when things get sticky. With ranged you just step out, shoot (and do the same amount of damage as melee), and step back in.
Plus you have all the special arrows that work with ranged weapons. There's no shortsword that does double damage against undead that you can just whip out when needed.
Don’t need a shortsword that deals bonus damage against undead when your monk gets 10 attacks per turn dealing 35 - 45 damage per hit and almost never missing.
My party for most of the game is:
Tav 1: Storm Sorcerer
Tav 2: Open Hand Monk / Thief Rogue / Spore Druid
Karlach: Battlemaster Fighter / Wildheart Barbarian
Wyll: Devotion Paladin / Fiend Warlock / Fighter
With the exception of the sorcerer, everybody is kitted out for melee. Everyone just focuses on damage (though Karlach is more of a tank, still hits hard because she can smite when not raging). No healing, no crowd control, just raw DPS. They steamroll everything without any trouble.
