Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7110748" data-attributes="member: 12731">Nuts and nuts, 3e archers never got Dex to damage (though they could get Str to damage).The cost of &quot;not adding +2 to a stat&quot; is not nuts in my opinion; in fact, what it does equals to a -1 to hit and a damage die decrease in practice. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&quot;Don't forget about cantrips&quot; is a fair argument - I won't. Promise <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Adding dex through Archery fighting style was my first thought. In the end I realized it was not enough. After all, any ranged-focused Fighter would have taken Archery anyway, so it would have no practical impact. It would mean the nerf was words only; cosmetics. (Actually, it would mean the nerf was the removal of the Archery +2, which isn't enough imo. Giving range a +2 attack bonus is a senseless hole-in-head buff that needs to go; but I'm not kidding myself into that the removal of an OP buff is equal to a real nerf).But I remain open to suggestions. I readily admit that choosing feats is fun, and having one feat being &quot;locked in&quot; lessens that fun.Generally speaking, you're right. But I believe the combat model and the way melee and ranged combat works in 5e is sufficiently close to the 3e model that the comparison is indeed justified.Do note I am entirely upfront with how I don't want to walk back *all* the ranged improvements (restriction relaxations) of 5e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7110748, member: 12731"] Nuts and nuts, 3e archers never got Dex to damage (though they could get Str to damage). The cost of "not adding +2 to a stat" is not nuts in my opinion; in fact, what it does equals to a -1 to hit and a damage die decrease in practice. :) "Don't forget about cantrips" is a fair argument - I won't. Promise :) Adding dex through Archery fighting style was my first thought. In the end I realized it was not enough. After all, any ranged-focused Fighter would have taken Archery anyway, so it would have no practical impact. It would mean the nerf was words only; cosmetics. (Actually, it would mean the nerf was the removal of the Archery +2, which isn't enough imo. Giving range a +2 attack bonus is a senseless hole-in-head buff that needs to go; but I'm not kidding myself into that the removal of an OP buff is equal to a real nerf). But I remain open to suggestions. I readily admit that choosing feats is fun, and having one feat being "locked in" lessens that fun. Generally speaking, you're right. But I believe the combat model and the way melee and ranged combat works in 5e is sufficiently close to the 3e model that the comparison is indeed justified. Do note I am entirely upfront with how I don't want to walk back *all* the ranged improvements (restriction relaxations) of 5e. [/QUOTE]

Verification