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

[tetrasodium]

It's more about the need for calculating exact range. Are you within 60 feet is a question I can immediately answer as a GM. Exactly how many feet away are you is a much weirder question to be constantly keeping track of. One's binary, the other is highly variable, and changes every round.

That's really only the case if you are trying to replicate tactical grid based combat in totm rather than handwaiving some details to focus on rekevamt things like intent of positioning/movement & whatnot. There's been at least one or two versions of d&d that recommend usinc candy or snacks to represent a combat & those in it. "How far away is x" when I feel like using the tvbox & gridmap is overkill for something & just use totm might be an absolute number, it might be a range, it might be "what are you thinking of doing?... shooting it with your $weapon? You think you could probably(not) do it but there is the blocks on the walls & trees/tall grass/etc between you too". 5e manages to have just enough tactical grid map stuff to sometimes get in the way of totm (compared to fate or something where range is in zones) while being completely lacking in enough to support meaningful tactical grid based combat.


The reason why people point to 3.5 ranged combat is because it was far more elegant & "three or four times your short range" worked great for totm with the players jumping to "ouch, can we sneak our way to one or two?" with those occasional loose not worth the gridmap things and with the grid map. A lot of 5e's changes are just change & simplicity for the sake of change & simplicity without bringing anything new or improved to gameplay.

 

[FrogReaver]

I suppose I'm being obtuse, the far more important point is that 5e isn't built well for stacking a bunch of modifiers on rolls. Anything that hopes to solve this problem in 5e shouldn't have the solution "play 3.5". Modifiers in 5e are rare and important. There are very few things that modify attack rolls by flat numbers.

I don’t want to see too many but 5e could have had a few +x bonuses. It wouldn’t have hurt anything.

 

[Phoebasss]

I don’t want to see too many but 5e could have had a few +x bonuses. It wouldn’t have hurt anything.

Sure, but an entire type of combat shouldn't rely on them to fix a problem that is much more easily fixed and solutions of which can come with much less "feels bad".

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, but an entire type of combat shouldn't rely on them to fix a problem that is much more easily fixed and solutions of which can come with much less "feels bad".

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

 

[Horwath]

Well for range penalty, I would like to see the 3.5e range increments with -1 penalty per increment.
I.E.
longbow with 60ft range. up to -10 penalty at 660 max range.
hand crossbow with 15ft range. up to 165ft with -10 penalty
thrown weapons with 10ft range. 110ft with -10 penalty

Sharpshooter ignoring up to -5 penalty. that means for longbow 360ft without penalties and 660ft with -5 penalty.

Rebalanced Sharpshooter:
+1 dex
You ignore up to -5 penalties for range.
You reduce cover by one step. +2 AC to +0 AC, +5 AC to +2 AC
you can take -1 attack penalty to gain +2 damage.
at proficiency bonus +4 you can take -2 attack for +4 damage
at proficiency bonus +6 you can take -3 attack for +6 damage

 

[Undrave]

Warlocks add Strength (not Charisma) to their Eldritch Blasts.

Why?! That makes no sense... Plus, the Charisma bonus is from an invocation, not the spell itself.

Also, too much OA spamming slows down the game. Too many reactions and interrupt are often cited as why D&D 4e was such a problem.

Why take a step back to 3E when you could do something new? It has been acknowledged in the survey that people want A5E to give martial characters more options in combat, maneuveres beyond "I attack twice".

You can't look at basic ranged combat in isolation. Whatever changes are made are going to need to work with new class features, combat maneuveres, rewritten/new feats.

Strength for damage doesn't work in every circumstance, why would Eldrich Blast depend on strength? What about crossbows or firearms, why would strength be important?

I think it'd be better to make melee more worthwhile.

I think if you reintroduce marking, making it much harder for someone to ignore the melee characters, then melee becomes valuable as a 'wall'. Then it doesn't really matter if melee or range inflicts more damage, what's important is that the melee character keeps the enemy off of the damage dealer so they can do their job.

 

[Undrave]

This I would be all in favour of in a new edition/new game, but for this project it would be rather shoot backward compatibility in the head. Unless it was encapsulated in a feat or feat-equivalent.

Similarly, all the stuff about changing how bows and crossbows work is great on its own merits but probably not going to work for Level Up. A better approach might be to encapsulate better defences against ranged attacks in feats or feat equivalents, and/or Level Up classes.

I think the Fighter should get extra reaction as it progresses, or at least a feat to get extra reaction.

I think if there were more Lurker monsters that could slip through the crack and target the archers it would also help balance things out a bit. Monsters are too static in 5e, they need to be more mobile and dynamic.

 

[Horwath]

I think the Fighter should get extra reaction as it progresses, or at least a feat to get extra reaction.

I think if there were more Lurker monsters that could slip through the crack and target the archers it would also help balance things out a bit. Monsters are too static in 5e, they need to be more mobile and dynamic.

it's not worth the extra effort to go after archers if you have someone that is smacking you with a greatsword over the head.
He is dealing more damage to you. Would you run after someone that has 1 AC less and deals less damage?

Now it's other way around if he has a shield and one-hander.

if you need to spend actions to close range, it is because of a wizard not a guy with a bow.

 

[Undrave]

If you have shield and take Dodge action, double your shield bonus to AC vs ranged attacks.

Shields adding more to AC against range would be interesting.

it's not worth the extra effort to go after archers if you have someone that is smacking you with a greatsword over the head.
He is dealing more damage to you. Would you run after someone that has 1 AC less and deals less damage?

Now it's other way around if he has a shield and one-hander.

if you need to spend actions to close range, it is because of a wizard not a guy with a bow.

That's why you need multiple monsters with multiple roles per encounter. You have your lurker sneaking by a ganking the squishies, while the brute ties up the melee. The guy getting smacked by the great sword isn't the same one going after the archers.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why?! That makes no sense... Plus, the Charisma bonus is from an invocation, not the spell itself.

Also, too much OA spamming slows down the game. Too many reactions and interrupt are often cited as why D&D 4e was such a problem.



I think it'd be better to make melee more worthwhile.

I think if you reintroduce marking, making it much harder for someone to ignore the melee characters, then melee becomes valuable as a 'wall'. Then it doesn't really matter if melee or range inflicts more damage, what's important is that the melee character keeps the enemy off of the damage dealer so they can do their job.

i did like 4e style marking.