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

[Micah Sweet]

Another point that I want to raise that is more a matter of personal preference from a design perspective is that I would rather see weaker options empowered vs strong ones nerfed. I hate to take things away. I hate to make perfectly valid builds not valid. I prefer to increase the options, not decrease them.

Reasonable philosophy. The only thing I'm seriously considering nerfing or removing is GWM. Do you think people would still take it if it was -10 to hit instead of -5?

 

[Horwath]

Shields adding more to AC against range would be interesting.



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.

and that is a good encounter design.

but most of the time, lurker is better of piling on a greatsword user as it is the point that deals most pain

 

[FrogReaver]

Reasonable philosophy. The only thing I'm seriously considering nerfing or removing is GWM. Do you think people would still take it if it was -10 to hit instead of -5?

yes. the bonus action attack on crit or kill is about a 20-30% damage increase on its own.

 

[Undrave]

Reasonable philosophy. The only thing I'm seriously considering nerfing or removing is GWM. Do you think people would still take it if it was -10 to hit instead of -5?

Nah they wouldn't. The dip in accuracy needs to be lower than the dmg buff to be worth it.

and that is a good encounter design.

but most of the time, lurker is better of piling on a greatsword user as it is the point that deals most pain

Yeah but people here complain it's the opposite. If the Melee guy's strength is lock down then it becomes a different priority. Furthermore, if the Melee guy can't hit the Lurker or ranged monster, that monster is better off dealing with someone that CAN hit them, and has lower AC and HP, first, and THEN focus fire on the melee guy with the brute.

 

[Horwath]

Reasonable philosophy. The only thing I'm seriously considering nerfing or removing is GWM. Do you think people would still take it if it was -10 to hit instead of -5?

either remove that part and add +1 str to feat, or change it to -prof bonus, +2×prof bonus

 

[Micah Sweet]

either remove that part and add +1 str to feat, or change it to -prof bonus, +2×prof bonus

I like that proficiency bonus idea! That could work. I have a frenzied rage barbarian with too many magic items (I know, my fault) with gwm that's driving me nuts. He has so many hit points that him getting hit all the time doesn't really matter.

 

[FrogReaver]

either remove that part and add +1 str to feat, or change it to -prof bonus, +2×prof bonus

I thought we showed long ago that was much stronger than -5/+10

 

[Micah Sweet]

I thought we showed long ago that was much stronger than -5/+10

How would it be stronger? It would match the existing feat only once proficiency bonus reaches five, a ways down the line.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

5e screwed that up by making everything it's own unique thing in too many cases instead of saying that $CoolAbility counts as a ranged attack or whatever. It further screwed that with "you triggered my trap card">"hahaha! your trap card triggers my trap card" cascades. It used to be pretty simple with a few exeptions like grapple that were just badly designed.There is a big difference than what 4e did & 5e's near complete removal of both a well defined structure for AoOs as well as removal of the hooks(see below) that a system of tactical AoOs from abilities & such.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you think a project explicitly about increasing player-side build-crunch is going to skip feats, one of us is going to become severely disappointed.

If the classes are being fixed in order to make them more interesting and consistent, then there's no reason to assume the same can't be done for feats.