Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg Benage" data-source="post: 9445256" data-attributes="member: 93631">I, personally, don't want melee to be more powerful than ranged, but I also don't want the hand crossbow to be the superior weapon of war from melee to 120 feet (inclusive).From a game design perspective, at least with D&D, it seems a balance was typically sought between ranged and melee combat. In B/X, for example, one couldn't use a ranged weapon against a target within 5 feet or less, and while Dexterity provided a "to hit" modifier to missile attacks, as Strength did for melee attacks, there was no modifier to damage (unlike Strength for melee attacks). If the variable weapon damage rules were used, a sword would also do more damage than an arrow, even setting the damage bonus aside. On the other hand, missile fire was resolved before melee attacks in the combat sequence.This seems reasonably well balanced--both ranged and melee weapons have advantages and disadvantages in different situations. In 5e, a CBE/SS/Archery character will deal the most damage in melee or at range, ignoring cover and range penalties. Even if you're not especially concerned about "game balance," this is just goofy, and the fact that a hand crossbow is the tool of choice is just salt in the wound.</blockquote>