D&D (2024) Ranged nerf by buffing Prone condition.

[Horwath]

Yeah, but the consequence is that ranged combatants continue to have an edge over melee combatants.

We want something that grants melee characters a niche that won't be negated by a feat.

break line of sight with cover, take Heavy armor mastery feat, mobile/speedster feat for faster close in time, use your own ranged weapons(there is a STR bow in A5E),

 

[Stalker0]

Yeah, but the consequence is that ranged combatants continue to have an edge over melee combatants.

We want something that grants melee characters a niche that won't be negated by a feat.

Why? A feat is a precious thing, if someone is willing to get a feat to be extra badass at ranged....well by gum let em have it!

To me the problem is that ranged is innately better than melee for no investment, you just grab a bow and your off to the races. It used to be you had to invest a number of feats to be really good with a bow (along with a mighty composite bow for "real" damage).

So the idea of investing a feat to be really good at range....seems reasonable to me.

 

[Asisreo]

break line of sight with cover, take Heavy armor mastery feat, mobile/speedster feat for faster close in time, use your own ranged weapons(there is a STR bow in A5E),

While a DM can homebrew enemies in such a way, some may argue it adversarial, especially if they just happen to crop up when ranged players show consistent results.

Why? A feat is a precious thing, if someone is willing to get a feat to be extra badass at ranged....well by gum let em have it!

To me the problem is that ranged is innately better than melee for no investment, you just grab a bow and your off to the races. It used to be you had to invest a number of feats to be really good with a bow (along with a mighty composite bow for "real" damage).

So the idea of investing a feat to be really good at range....seems reasonable to me.

I don't have an issue with that, in theory. The issue is that you're probably already really good at range. And when a feat is the optimal choice, it becomes less of an investment and more of an extra benefit. Just the -5, +10 would be enough for players to grab Sharpshooter ASAP.

Ignoring cover is a bonus to what's already great. You don't go out of your way to get it.

Maybe that part of sharpshooter should be its own feat. Maybe we could make sharpshooter a half-feat and this "ignore cover" part another half feat.

 

[Horwath]

While a DM can homebrew enemies in such a way, some may argue it adversarial, especially if they just happen to crop up when ranged players show consistent results.

point of DM is to challenge players and them not to have a cakewalk, but also not to deliberately find opponents to cancel their abilities, there should be balance.

I don't have an issue with that, in theory. The issue is that you're probably already really good at range. And when a feat is the optimal choice, it becomes less of an investment and more of an extra benefit. Just the -5, +10 would be enough for players to grab Sharpshooter ASAP.

Ignoring cover is a bonus to what's already great. You don't go out of your way to get it.

Maybe that part of sharpshooter should be its own feat. Maybe we could make sharpshooter a half-feat and this "ignore cover" part another half feat.

the -5/+10 part is going away in 2024 and rightfully so.
IMO, sharpshooter should ignore disadvantage to prone targets, it's just a variation of cover.

 

[DEFCON 1]

point of DM is to challenge players and them not to have a cakewalk, but also not to deliberately find opponents to cancel their abilities, there should be balance.

Yep! You build some encounters that are a cakewalk for the entire party, some that are a cakewalk for the ranged but not melee, some for the melee PCs but really screw over the ranged, and some that screw over everyone. That's the whole point in DM encounter design. Balance, like you said. Give everyone time to shine and everyone time to fear.

Too often I think people have this idea that these encounters just "show up" in some defaulted generic state where every monster is a melee attacker that appears 120 feet away and has to spend 2 rounds dashing the party to engage, thus giving ranged characters two full rounds to kill everything while the melee characters sit on their hands. And if this was a computer program that made these encounters for us, or just a DM who didn't put any thought or care into what they threw out there I could understand thinking this was the way.

But these encounters and fights aren't-- they are usually crafted by the DM to take every member of the party's abilities, power level, and desired difficulty into account. The DM makes these choices. That why the powerful "Big Bad" is always the last encounter of the adventure, rather than one of the first. Because the DM designed it to be that way.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I think the biggest advantage ranged attackers have in the current edition is when firing into melee. Sure, per the PHB, there might be cover penalties applied, but compare to shooting at a relatively stationary enemy using a flipped table for cover, also fairly stationary (typically).

In melee:

• The “cover” (other creatures engaged in melee) is actively moving around
• The enemy target is moving around
• The attacker is probably going to be extra careful and try not to hit said cover if it’s an ally

Given these factors, I think shooting into melee should impose disadvantage as well as a cover penalty. Or maybe impose disadvantage if there is a cover penalty ( making strategic positioning a little more important.) Sharpshooter can still negate the cover, but not the disadvantage. Keep that for another feat.

 

[Horwath]

Given these factors, I think shooting into melee should impose disadvantage as well as a cover penalty. Or maybe impose disadvantage if there is a cover penalty ( making strategic positioning a little more important.) Sharpshooter can still negate the cover, but not the disadvantage. Keep that for another feat.

I'm all for some extra penalties for shooting into melee, but Sharpshooter needs to get rid of them all, we do not need to repeat 3.5e that you need 12 feats to be decent archer.