D&D (2024) Ranged weapons; can we return to the range increment penalty instead of this all consuming advantage/disadvantage?

[DEFCON 1]

If it works for your table, go for it.

If the post here is to inspire WotC to changes the rules when they make their 2024 edits... wrong place to put the suggestion. They don't use EN World for that, they use their surveys and playtest teams.

(If folks here really want to have an impact on the D&D game going forward... they should do whatever they can to become part of the alpha playtesters WotC uses. That way you can have a direct line to the designers and can tell them your thoughts on these things as they get tested, not after the fact or a part of the mass survey results where you just have to hope your blocks of text get read.)

 

[Umbran]

You can do what you like, of course, but I will not join the bandwagon of "we".

I'm good with the broad strokes - having played with them in the past, I find fiddly small range modifiers don't ultimately add much to the play experience except time for each combat round to complete.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Note that there are issues with mixing the approaches. Right now, you're 'capped' out on penalties, generally speaking, if you have disadvantage. There is only one major source of a penalty to hit - cover. Beyond that, you're usually either at disadvantage or at advantage.
If you stack some range penalties on top of the disadvantage/advantage mechanic, you can get to some pretty ridiculous penalties to hit. Take, for example, someone trying to throw a ranged weapon with at the longest range at something that is concealed. You'd be stacking a -5 penalty to hit on top of the disadvantage. If you had a +9 to hit and were targeting AC 17, you'd go from a 42.25% chance to hit under new rules down to a 16% chance to hit with the revises rules.

When you combine how fiddly it is to calculate the exact range and determine which range category you're in with the huge changes in probabilities that can drastically alter the efficiacy of ranged weapons, you end up with a pretty high cost for implementing the idea.

So it ends up quite close to doubke disadvantage for really bad circumstances.
Probably double disadvantage is more fitting in the end.

 

[Yaarel]

Better is -1 to everything per level.

Huh. Instead of accumulating negative bonuses, a cleaner mechanic might be as follows.

EXHAUSTION
For each new "tier" of exhaustion that you reach, your proficiency bonus decreases by 1.

Each time that your proficiency bonus would reduce to a negative number, the proficiency bonus is instead zero and you must make death saves in order to survive.

 

[Horwath]

Huh. Instead of accumulating negative bonuses, a cleaner mechanic might be as follows.

EXHAUSTION
For each new "tier" of exhaustion that you reach, your proficiency bonus decreases by 1.

Each time that your proficiency bonus would reduce to a negative number, the proficiency bonus is instead zero and you must make death saves in order to survive.

that would be that it is only things you are trained are affected, so less proficiencies, less stuff to worry about with exhaustion?

 

[Yaarel]

that would be that it is only things you are trained are affected, so less proficiencies, less stuff to worry about with exhaustion?

Keeping simplicity in mind, the answer is yes. It only affects proficiency.

Nonproficient rolls are already someone who sucks at something. So exhaustion can reduce any proficient roll to that. But high level characters can press on longer.

Intentionally, the ability bonuses continue to apply. So someone who is strong can continue to be more effective than someone who is less so, even if at a disadvantantage.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I miss bonuses and varied design.

Ad/Dis was interesting when it was a Pathfinder dice breaker and a sometimes food and not the mechanical equivalent of Shadowrun's soylent.

 

[jgsugden]

So it ends up quite close to doubke disadvantage for really bad circumstances.
Probably double disadvantage is more fitting in the end.

With bounded accuracy, it is a very heavy penalty. I'd analyze the math before calling it problematic or fine - and that is going to be hard as there is a broad spectrum of situations in which it might arise.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

With bounded accuracy, it is a very heavy penalty. I'd analyze the math before calling it problematic or fine - and that is going to be hard as there is a broad spectrum of situations in which it might arise.

This is the intention:
long range and concealment. You could as well just say: you can´t see the target anymore. I think it is more fair however if you get your lucky shot.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yes. That or let disadvantage stack. Shooting at max range, in a thunderstorm, in the dark should be harder than shooting when only one of those conditions apply.