D&D 5E Possible Changes to Rebalance the Ability Scores

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I always had the feeling 5E was trying to downplay the system mastery elements of 3-4E. Are you sure Wizards cares whether stats are balanced? This observation is mostly in the context of the OP’s suggestion that the next edition must “fix” stats.

I'm not sure that WotC cares if the stats are unbalanced, but they are. IMO, in the next edition, all the ability scores should be equally important.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Way too many changes.

If you think Dexterity is the clear winner and Intelligence the clear loser, start by removing Dex bonus from something important and replace it with Int bonus. Initiative is a good start but I think AC is even more dramatic.

Is there a way to make the ability scores too balanced? Each of the suggestions I mention would help balance the ability scores, but are not significant enough to make Dexterity or Charisma be bad ability scores.

 

[tommybahama]

• Nerf ranged weapons and boost melee combat. Ranged combat already has the benefit of being away from all the action, and the majority of monsters are stronger at melee combat than ranged. This makes an imbalance. I recommend either decreasing the damage dice of most ranged weapons by one size, and/or increasing the damage dice of melee combat one size. For example: Greatswords/Mauls do 2d8 damage, Glaives/Halberds do 1d12, Greataxes/Lances do 1d12+proficiency bonus or something like that. Melee combatants should get an automatic Parry reaction to prevent damage. Ranged Combatants should gain other disadvantages of attacking at range. Both should be equal. Maybe even give an AC boost to melee combatants, or two different armor classes, one for ranged attacks and another for melee. There could be different mechanics to balance these styles of combat as well. These boosts to melee combat could also apply to Finesse Weapons, but this change would still help balance out STR and DEX a bit.

One of my DMs has jumped on this bandwagon and I think it is horribly misguided. How can the DM say ranged fighters are OP when it is the DM that controls every aspect of an encounter?

If you want to give melee characters a boost then use the optional flanking rule that gives them advantage. There is no easy way that I'm aware of for ranged fighters to gain such an advantage at a distance. Also, most DMs I've played with ignore rules for half and 3/4 cover. Start implementing rules as written and there should be no problem.

In our campaigns it's almost never the tank or barbarian that gets knocked out. It's usually the lightly armored rogue or ranged fighter that falls before them because most of the maps are too small to allow them to maintain distance from the enemy. Even in wilderness maps the distance is usually less than 100 feet. That's just two to three rounds of movement to overrun the archer. You can throw in a couple of extra meat shields or some fast moving monsters or mounted cavalry to run the archer down just like it was done throughout history.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

One of my DMs has jumped on this bandwagon and I think it is horribly misguided. How can the DM say ranged fighters are OP when it is the DM that controls every aspect of an encounter?

First, it's not a bandwagon. Second, because there are many more monsters in D&D that use melee than ranged. So, if the game is designed around the majority of monsters being in melee, if ranged characters are OP compared to melee characters, that is an issue.

If you want to give melee characters a boost then use the optional flanking rule that gives them advantage. There is no easy way that I'm aware of for ranged fighters to gain such an advantage at a distance. Also, most DMs I've played with ignore rules for half and 3/4 cover. Start implementing rules as written and there should be no problem.

Third, flanking is OP and requires multiple people in melee. Also, it's easier to hide at range than in melee, so that is a way to get advantage. Fourth, that's an anecdote, and I do use cover all the time. Fifth, I have strictly use rules as written, and there is a problem, as many others have noticed in this edition.

In our campaigns it's almost never the tank or barbarian that gets knocked out. It's usually the lightly armored rogue or ranged fighter that falls before them because most of the maps are too small to allow them to maintain distance from the enemy. Even in wilderness maps the distance is usually less than 100 feet. That's just two to three rounds of movement to overrun the archer. You can throw in a couple of extra meat shields or some fast moving monsters or mounted cavalry to run the archer down just like it was done throughout history.

Sixth, yet another anecdote. Seventh, does the archer let the enemies catch up to them? A rogue gets to dash as a bonus action and their movement, so they should never take melee damage.

 

[Lanefan]

If you want to give melee characters a boost then use the optional flanking rule that gives them advantage. There is no easy way that I'm aware of for ranged fighters to gain such an advantage at a distance. Also, most DMs I've played with ignore rules for half and 3/4 cover. Start implementing rules as written and there should be no problem.

In our campaigns it's almost never the tank or barbarian that gets knocked out. It's usually the lightly armored rogue or ranged fighter that falls before them because most of the maps are too small to allow them to maintain distance from the enemy. Even in wilderness maps the distance is usually less than 100 feet. That's just two to three rounds of movement to overrun the archer. You can throw in a couple of extra meat shields or some fast moving monsters or mounted cavalry to run the archer down just like it was done throughout history.

How many DMs even have (or enforce) significant penalties for firing into melee? Absent those, who in their right mind would ever play a front-liner when all you need to do is hire (or charm!) a bunch of expendable grunts to hold the line while you-as-PC stand back in safety and shoot the opponents like fish in a barrel.

Also, what's with this "maps are too small" bit? Indoors, sure, spaces are often confined, which means more melee and less opportunity for ranged anyway so no problem there. But outdoors? Barring severe terrain obstacles such as a cliff, the "map" is as big as outdoors itself! The world doesn't end at the edge of the battlemap...

 

[CleverNickName]

A rogue gets to dash as a bonus action and their movement, so they should never take melee damage.

I don't disagree, but I should point out that plenty of monsters can also dash as a bonus action.

 

[Rabulias]

There are also some with a speed that can catch up to a dash-and-dash-and-moving rogue with just a dash-and-move.

 

[Khelon Testudo]

Why not have STR dictate the range of most ranged weapons? Crossbows would be the probable exception - so make loading time dictated by STR.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't disagree, but I should point out that plenty of monsters can also dash as a bonus action.

How many is "plenty?" I've used most of the monsters in the Monster Manual, and have only ran into a few that can dash as a bonus action. In my experience, there were more monsters with dash as a legendary action than a bonus action dash, but my experiences might be different from yours.

In my experience, if a ranged character wants to stay out of melee, they normally can for most of the combat.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Why not have STR dictate the range of most ranged weapons? Crossbows would be the probable exception - so make loading time dictated by STR.

I like the idea, but I'm not sure how you would go about doing that. It seems like it would be a lot of math crunching for each character that wouldn't really benefit the game a ton.