I recently got back into Descent, just playing with the vanilla box for now and my friends and I are wondering if ranged heroes (and weapons) have any real utility. One of them reasoned that melee characters do more damage, attacking from range rarely makes a difference and, if you need to hit from far away, a mage does it better. Am I missing something here, or are the ranged heroes the weakest link in the chain?

It varies. I've played games where the ranged hero has gotten a good combo of skills and equipment such that he would be able to one shot monsters fairly easy.

Also, the ranged heroes tend to be the best "runners" in the game. Heroes who open the doors, run in, open the chest to get loot and get out before getting crushed by the monsters.

Ranged is definitely the weakest attack type in terms of sheer damage output (though it has arguably the most broken offensive skill, Rapid Fire). I believe the concept was for them to use their range (which is noticably superior even to magic weapons) to pick off weak/sniper monsters efficiently, so that no one has to waste movement chasing them down, while also being better protected than mages (because they don't have to equip runes, have the option of using one-handed weapons, and have more money left over after buying weapons at the start of the game), leaving them better able to stand in a dangerous position (perhaps covering against spawns). I don't think that concept was implemented as well as it could have been.

I believe that having a ranged attacker is still generally worth it in a party, just because you can't control what treasures you draw, so you're more likely to get something useful for everyone if everyone is looking for something different.

There's also a fairly strong correlation between ranged trait dice and "runner" builds...though not to the point of being exclusive (in either direction).

As a minor note, Ranged heroes really shine in the Sea Of Blood expansion, where the sea and island maps are so large and you get into many 5+ range shots.

-shnar

I'm willing to agree that Rangers are the weakest in terms of damage output, but having at least one in the party (assuming 4 heroes as that's how we always play) is still worthwhile. Mostly for reasons Antistone mentioned. Having the ability to attack at range is important in this game. Melee heroes can do a lot of damage to one or two creatures if they're close enough, but they have to spend more time moving around due to the fact that they can only (generally) hit adjacent targets. Having a ranged attack means you don't need to move as much to pick off monsters and help clear a room.

Yes, mages are better at clearing areas since they tend to do more damage at reasonable ranges and/or have the ability to hit multiple targets with a single attack, but mages are also squishy. A party of 2 melee and 2 mages would be great as long as everyone can stick together. If you need to spread out to maintain effective spawn coverage, though, you might end up leaving a hole for monsters to get through to the mages (and if you don't spread out then obviously spawning will happen and tear the party up). A party with 3 mages would be a veritable buffet unless the one melee was a particularly effective tank with good skills. Ranged heroes can still attack at a distance, but they also tend to have better defenses than mages. This means they can meet the "ranged attacks are good" criteria without leaving the party with too many squishy targets.

Like a bard in D&D, Rangers make a good fourth party member. They aren't necessarily great at any of the main roles, but they usually don't suck at any of those roles either. They can fill whatever position the party needs filled.