For reference, here is the link to when we had this conversation before 5e came out:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?320149-The-Tyranny-of-the-Sword
Thank you. I think that post is so exceptionally on-topic I'll quote it in full (just tell me if you don't like that and I'll remove it)
There is a lot of talk now about the balance of fighters vs wizards and whatnot. And now is a good time to bring up a problem that I don't think I have ever seen someone talk about. Specifically, its about melee characters, and the way the metagame, or even metafiction, reacts to them. I say “sword” instead of melee, mostly because swords seem to be the favored melee weapon for this kind of thing.
You see, there is a problem with melee combat that is best known from the real world adage: “Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.” What it basically boils down to, is that the sword isn't the ideal weapon to use in most situations, but it is at it's most glaring when you look at other options with a range and/or power (or perhaps even ease of use) advantage over the sword. This problem was addressed in real life, by the eventual phasing out of the sword from modern conflict.
In the fantasy genre, however, this problem was in direct conflict with the sword's iconography. The sword is a “cool” weapon, and it symbolizes power, honor, nobility, all that kind of jazz. So when you want a character to reflect those traits, you want them to use a sword.
So here lies the main problem: You want to use a sword, but using a sword isn't as great as it sounds. Some fantasy just rolls with it, This happens in more “historic” settings, deconstructions, or even in games where a player has access to more than one character.
Now for what I am really talking about (apologies to the tl:dr crowd)
Most players want their swordsman to be just as cool as everyone else (at least). This has lead to the balancing trends that you see in games, and especially in modern games, as most things build somewhat off of those things that have come before.
When it comes to balance, the metagame has to be adapted in order to make a swordsman an attractive option. There are, basically, two different ways to accomplish this. Sometimes, the two are even used in tandem with varying degrees.
Type 1, the first way: Making other options unattractive.
The best example of this kind of option in fiction, that I know if, is the Dune universe. Therein, people of importance have a personal shield which prevents weapons, other than “slow moving” ones such as swords and knives, from harming them. This is a more extreme example, as other options are rendered completely inviable: Bullets and other projectiles simply do not penetrate the protection field, and energy weapons, explode like an atomic bomb when used against the shield. Needless to say, people end up using melee combat.
Type 2, the second way: Making swords (and their users) more attractive.
A good example of this, again imo, comes from the Star Wars universe. The swords in this universe, lightsabers, are able to cut through nearly any substance, and even reflect energy attacks, which happen to be the standard type of ranged ammunition in this setting. The primary Sword users of this setting are Jedi (or Sith, but lets not delve too far). Jedi have superhuman powers including expanded awareness, incredible agility, and the ability to manipulate objects over distances. These things, when combined, nearly negate all of a traditional swordsman's weaknesses. They can close the gaps, negate ranged attacks and ambushes, or even use their sword as a ranged weapon if need be.
Each gaming system is shaped by how much of each type they employ. In wargames, individual unit balance is less stressed. This lends itself to picking minor amounts of each, such as “melee weapons deal more damage than ranged weapons, because they don't have range” (type 2) and possibly “a penalty for ranged units when attacking in melee range”( type 1). Of course, because the players are using armies with rigid rules of what they can and cannot do, instead of a single RPG character, the choice to have any individual unit as melee has a much smaller opportunity cost.
The problem
When you don't use enough of Type 1 or Type 2, swordsmen fall behind the curve. But everyone has an upper threshold of exactly how much of Type 1 and/or Type 2 they will enjoy. This amount is largely Dependant on the game they are playing. A game where everyone is using normal humans would probably favor Type 1 (things like gun malfunctions), and tolerate next to no Type 2. Contrast that with people playing a game of superheroes, who would possibly love Type 2 but loathe any amount of Type 1.
When looking at this problem with a D&D lens, you have to consider how much of each you want to use. The sneaky guy wants to be just as cool as the swordsman, so type one is perhaps a bit less desirable. On the other hand, some people prefer their mundane swordsmen remain mundane, so having gobs of type 2 will throw them off. Keep in mind the other players are trying to be wizards and clerics and other such things, so keeping people at about the same level of coolness is going to be a challenge.
The question
How much of Type 1 and how much of Type 2 should D&D Next have?
Assuming "sword" is shorthand for any weapon with 5 ft reach (or 10 ft reach at most), my answer is:
I'm firmly convinced the 5E designers have built pretty much their entire game on the premise that the majority of any party (say three out of five characters) are heroes with Reach 5 and Speed 30. This includes fundamental assumptions about weapon performance, monster manual entries and everything in between.
This is also why the game feels so... defenseless against the tactic where the players collectively blow this premise to bits.
As for your question, I would love to only include "type 2" - buffs to the sword, as it were. Only problem is, that would still make characters overpowered compared to off the shelf MM monsters. And since the main reason we're having this conversation is to not have to tweak/change/rewrite-from-scratch the MM monsters... well...
Which leads us to "type 1" rules - nerfs to the bow, as it were.
Here I don't have a particularly attractive response: a nerf is a nerf is a nerf.
But is it really? If we instead reframe the nerfs as rollbacks of hasty and ill-advised changes to d20, we can perhaps sell them as more attractive, since the purpose is still good: making 5E better for everyone.
What I mean is that compared to d20 5E has made quite the number of changes, that might seem innocuos enough viewed separately, but taken as a group are devastating in the hands of a player unburdened by nostalgia and tradition.
1. you can use dexterity for both attacks and damage
2. loading times and ammunition can be made into a non-issue
3. you can take a feat that makes range a non-issue
4. you can take a feat that makes cover a non-issue
5. you can take a feat that makes the lower damage of your weapon (compared to greataxes) a non-issue
6. you can take a feat that effectively lets you dual wield ranged weapons, and not only that, but lets you stack both the Archery and the Two-Weapon Fighting fightning styles on these attacks
7. you can take a feat that makes you invulnerable to the traditional way you shut down an archer: by getting up close and waving a pointy stick in his face (and at his very fragile bow). Also, how this enables you to shoot at monsters wrestling your allies with no added risk of missing and no risk of accidentally making holes in your best bud.
I'm convinced that merely rolling back ONE or TWO of these rules changes to its equivalent d20 status would go a great way in restoring the "tyranny" of the sword!
Zapp
PS. And indeed this is also what I and other posters have suggested. My own suggestion was 1. and others have suggested 5.
To help ensure everyone is crystal clear on what I mean by 1-6 above, let me spell it out. Apologies if this reads as if written by Captain Obvious...
1. "A character gets no Strength bonus on damage rolls with a projectile weapon" is what the d20 SRD says. In other words (and here comes my fellow Captain) they do not get to add dexterity to damage. What they do get to do is the following (continuing the SRD quote): "...unless it’s a specially built composite shortbow, specially built composite longbow, or sling"
This is what's behind my simplified proposal - to allow all ranged weaponry to add strength to damage. This still makes no difference to a Strength 20 Dexterity 20 character, but at least the added bit of MAD (multi-ability dependency) should make players pause before selecting to play archers.
2. Never a popular path for D&D, you could make it impossible to shoot more than once per round with a crossbow. Then you could compensate for this by giving crossbows a built-in strength score (higher than 10 that is /Captain Obvious), making them attractive for characters without Extra Attack.
3 & 4. While I appreciate the simplicity of how these benefits are implemented in the Sharpshooter feat, they simply throw out the baby with the bathwater. Ranged fire without range and cover isn't just overpowered, it also feels strangely artificial, and as a result: un-fun. But in this context, we're mostly concerned about the simple fact it makes ranged fire
crazy powerful.
5. What we're talking about here is the -5/+10 part of Sharpshooter. The difference between 1d6+5 and 1d12+5 isn't to be sneezed at (without the feat, assuming Strength 20 and no magic). But the difference between 1d6+15 and 1d12+15
is much much less. This big reduction means the difference in range suddenly looms large. The range of the hand crossbow (the first weapon) is 120 feet, while the ranged of the second weapon (the greataxe) is 5 feet. Even if we factor in movement, we're still talking about 150 ft vs 30 ft. Since this is often the difference between finding another target to hit after you've downed the first one, and having to waste an attack, the damage differential is easily compensated for.
6. perhaps the clumsiest implementation of all is the added insult to injury of how dual wielding in general got the short shrift, but how the Drizzt has to watch the Crossbow Expert use
a) a single hand crossbow as effectively as he uses two swortswords
b) gets to enjoy the same benefit of two-handed weapon fighting style and
still get to put the Archery fighting style on top...
7. Crossbow Expert (again) rears its ugly head here: "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls". If you only make one single change, for the love of the gods, ban Crossbow Expert! (The difference to the LotR movies is that D&D forgot to make sure there's a reason why not
everyone aren't playing Legolas!)
