Level Up (A5E) Strength vs Dexterity imbalance cannot be solved without addressing the Melee vs Ranged Imbalance.

[coolAlias]

even though it requires 5th level, I think is too much and it robs the ranged characters of a chance of a "clever use of terrain"

How so? For one, this will probably only be used by PCs 90% of the time, and if an enemy is able to reach you with a Dash anyway, hasn't your "clever use of terrain" already failed?

 

[Horwath]

they will get to you, but will not hit you also.

 

[coolAlias]

they will get to you, but will not hit you also.

Consider it payback for getting shot at for a few rounds before the melee man got into range?

Perhaps it is too generous and should have some sort of penalty associated with it, but consider also that the next round the archer either has to switch to melee, fire at point blank with disadvantage, or retreat and take an AoO if they don't Disengage, and if they don't Dash they will likely be within range to be hit this round.

 

[CubicsRube]

agreed. If there’s a better solution then by all means do that.

I'd prefer to have cover grant disadvantage rather than the +2/+5 bonuses for half and 3/4 (which I think is too much of a fine distinction for 5e) and then have the sole modifier be for range.

The idea that as a sharpshooter I can hit a target 300 feet away as well as 10 feet bothers me.

IMO a -1 per 10 feet is simple math and it creates an incentive for ranged attacked to want to get close. "How far is the target away?" "About 50 feet" "Ok a -5 to my roll".

On the other hand, I'd like there to be more choice of ammunition to make things interesting. Broadheads vs barbed arrows, etc.

 

[Phoebasss]

IMO a -1 per 10 feet is simple math and it creates an incentive for ranged attacked to want to get close.

Why exactly have we decided this should happen within short range. Let's say someone's at what I would consider a fair range of 30 feet. Why do they need to hit 40% of the time? How does that make sense, mechanically? No one would ever use ranged weapons primarily under this rule. This idea is a dead end.

 

[CubicsRube]

Why exactly have we decided this should happen within short range. Let's say someone's at what I would consider a fair range of 30 feet. Why do they need to hit 40% of the time? How does that make sense, mechanically? No one would ever use ranged weapons primarily under this rule. This idea is a dead end.

Not at all, although you have your right to dislike it.

As it is, archery fighting style gives a +2 to counter 20 feet of that. However it may be reasonable to have a short range component such as 30 feet as you've suggested. I would suggest instead that a person can forgo their move to gain advantage on the ranged attack roll.

The idea is to balance ranged vs melee as that's the topic of the conversation. Some people feel that ranged is overpowered vs melee.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'd prefer to have cover grant disadvantage rather than the +2/+5 bonuses for half and 3/4 (which I think is too much of a fine distinction for 5e) and then have the sole modifier be for range.

The problem with assigning Disadvantage to simple cover is that cover is assumed to apply all the time. That's why the fighting style grants +2 to the attack roll in the first place: to offset the inherent penalty of firing past your front line into the target.

 

[CubicsRube]

I really think that's unnecessary. Honestly bows still have way too great a range. Even with modern bows, an accurate shot becomes exceedingly difficult past ~160 feet. When you consider that dnd archers are attacking moving targets constantly weaving in and out, and trying to avoid friendlies, and trying to avoid getting pasted themselves....ranges of 300-600 feet are LUDICROUS.

Those kind of ranges are reserved for volley fire, not the "tactical" attacks that are made in dnd combats.

One way to weaken archery, just cut the range in half. 75 feet, 300 feet at disadvantage. That is still incredibly long compared to actual stats, but for a fantasy game still works. And if you want to add in a "Volley Range doubles the range" for your medieval mass combats, by all means.

Yeah that's the kind of idea I had in mind with a -1 per 10 feet. An experienced archer +4 proficiency with a +5 dex and archery fighting style +2 could hit an AC5 target at 160 feet with a -5 modifier (+4+5+2-16), so about 50% of the time.

 

[CubicsRube]

4e had two entirely separate sets of off-turn actions: Opportunity actions which were once per turn and immediate actions which were once per round. Much as I loved 4e, that always seemed more complicated than necessary. But just having opportunity actions ougt to be fine INMSHO.

I really liked it for Paladins and Mageblades. I preferred Essentials style defender auras for actual fighters, personally.

Unless I am severely misunderstanding the situation, the cannot reprint Sharpshooter (with or without modifications). So in a Level Up-only game, the you can do that. OTOH, as soon as you are using it alongside the PHB it come right back....

_
glass.

I don't mind the idea of more triggers for opportunity attacks and leaving it at one reaction per turn. This shouldn't slow the game down if it's kept in moderation.

 

[Phoebasss]

An experienced archer +4 proficiency with a +5 dex

That's not a real-life experienced archer. This is a demigod in real life. +4 prof doesn't happen until level 9. A real life experienced archer should be judged as a level 1 dnd character.