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

[Undrave]

why not just drop initiative bonus entirely from dex if that’s an issue? No stat adds it. Only class features and feats?

Sure, but I thought it would be a good opportunity to 'share the wealth' and boost another stat, like INT or WIS.

I think that is backward.
Ranged Weapons should be focused on damage as that's all you really can do at range with a weapons.

Instead, there should be more options for defense, control, and utility in melee as you have more control of your weapon.

I agree with you.

 

[Haldrik]

I think that is backward.
Ranged Weapons should be focused on damage as that's all you really can do at range with a weapons.

Instead, there should be more options for defense, control, and utility in melee as you have more control of your weapon.

If you want a modern game, where everyone is shooting at range, great.

But if you want melee to happen, then it needs plot protection.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you want a modern game, where everyone is shooting at range, great.

But if you want melee to happen, then it needs plot protection.

melee tends to have +2 ac over ranged and tends to do better damage before feats.

 

[Haldrik]

Range attacks have the inherent benefit of "kiting", dealing damage while being unhittable.

Therefore, the range attacks should be giving up damage, designwise, swapping some amount of damage, for the benefit of dealing it from range.

Cantrips are designed similarly. They are basic attacks, that trade damage for certain special effects.

 

[Kozos]

Some more thoughts pertaining many beautiful points that have risen here.

It is true that I left Attacks of Opportunity out. This is for two reasons. First they are very difficult to trigger. You only get one attack of opportunity that uses up your single reaction. Attacks of opportunity are quite difficult to trigger, the enemy has to move out of the area you threaten. Third, attacks of opportunity do not have a significant impact in that 5e has a relative hp bloat/capped hp issue. An AoO that removes half my health will concern me much more compare to one that removes 1/5th or 1/10th. Finally that AoO cannot be used to grapple or shove prone a foe limit their impact even more.

Some anecdotal evidence from my game experience: The difference between melee vs dexterity is less pronounced in a dungeon where almost every foe will move towards you or at worse you will reach them with a dash action. Now juxtapose that to an open battlefield and you might 3 to 6 rounds of uninterrupted ranged attacks.

Also,it is significantly easy for several builds to stay outside melee range completely. Bonus action dash is a big offender in that. The removal of the 4xMove Run action from 3.5 has made this issue even more significant as is the removal of a charge action.

A final point. Consider how much weaker are melee builds vs flyers than ranged ones.
Honestly bows feel more like small calibre semi auto rifles in 5e with sharpshooter than bows.

 

[FrogReaver]

Range attacks have the inherent benefit of "kiting", dealing damage while being unhittable.

Therefore, the range attacks should be giving up damage, designwise, swapping some amount of damage, for the benefit of dealing it from range.

Cantrips are designed similarly. They are basic attacks, that trade damage for certain special effects.

If you are kiting that typically means your allies are being hit and focused on. Great individual plan. Poor plan for the group.

I agree that ranged should have to give something up - that something does not have to be damage.

 

[Minigiant]

If you want a modern game, where everyone is shooting at range, great.

But if you want melee to happen, then it needs plot protection.

And that's what I'm saying.

Look at 4e. All the pure damage strikers are ranged. The melee weapon user had more roles they could be in combat. The only other role for ranged attackers was slight control and that was just seekers who shot spirit arrows.

Melee should have access to defense, control, and utility to broaden their options for when raw damage doesn't work. Trips, parries, marks, blocks, rushes, sunders...

 

[Stalker0]

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

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.

 

[Haldrik]

If you are kiting that typically means your allies are being hit and focused on. Great individual plan. Poor plan for the group.

I agree that ranged should have to give something up - that something does not have to be damage.

Kiting is a great plan for the group, because the kiter can focus fire on the opponent of a meleeing ally. The extra damage is valuable.

 

[Haldrik]

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.

In reallife, the farthest accurate shooting is just under 1000 feet. For the sake of (theater of the mind) round numbers 1000 feet ( ≈ 300 meters) is fine for a "bow shot".

In game, the bow effectively has unlimited range, in most combat encounters.

In theater of mind, if one can see them, one can probably shoot them.

On a battle grid, if they fit on a grid, one can probably shoot them.

Mostly, anything is within reach of a bow.