Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 520042" data-attributes="member: 1149">[/B]</blockquote>I give no argument that there are advantages... merely to the percieved fragility in comparison.At lower levels, the factors that propel archery beyond melee are not present. The fact that a levelless orc has a better chance is relaively insignificant in my games once arhcery is at its peak.By the levels when archery is IMO in need of balancing, the sunder feat is easily accessible for those who tend to include it in their tactics. it fits right nicely alongside the opposite feats spent on archery in the examples.No argument, the bow is easier to hit. hitting it and damaging it, are two different things. I have no problem with any Gm who has decided to add house rules to further empower melee weapons as opposed to bows. It seems many Gms have decided to use such rules and that once they are in use some semblance of balance occurs.I have no issue with these examples of alternatives at all.Well, acrually, i would tend to guess that if the balance option chose for archers is "break your magic weapons" that this might not be the most enjoyable solution for those who want to play archers and who really would prefer a balanced set of archery mechanics in favor of having their hard earned loot broken again and again and again.Me, i st6ill prefer using the "solve the problem" by direct means, addressing the double double rules instead of trying to find more ways to take things away.[/QUOTE]

Verification