Level Up (A5E) Sharpshooter (5E) nerfed to Deadeye in Level Up?

[Micah Sweet]

Those people aren't playing a game that's meant to be fun for all participants.

I think that's an overstatement. Ranged weapons have an inherant advantage in many circumstances over melee. Pretending they don't seems silly to me. Some amount of parity makes sense for play, but using a crossbow instead of an axe should mean something.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think that's an overstatement. Ranged weapons have an inherant advantage in many circumstances over melee. Pretending they don't seems silly to me. Some amount of parity makes sense for play, but using a crossbow instead of an axe should mean something.

The disadvantages aren't exactly modeled either.

 

[Morrus]

I think that's an overstatement. Ranged weapons have an inherant advantage in many circumstances over melee. Pretending they don't seems silly to me. Some amount of parity makes sense for play, but using a crossbow instead of an axe should mean something.

There's plenty of TTRPGs that do that to varying degrees. D&D has never been one of them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not convinced that weapons that can do damage for multiple rounds while opponents are closing and incapable of counterattacking honestly need that much more help. At most, the disparity between bows and crossbows could sometimes use some work, largely because most games understate the punch of many crossbows (and even lower-tech guns).

 

[lichmaster]

Question: isn't ranged combat strictly better than melee anyway? Much harder to hit you when you're waaay over there.

That depends on the setup. In a field battle with little to no cover of course ranged attacks are a huge boon.
But not every encounter should be without any form of cover, against monsters that are slower than you, have no ranged attacks and no way to pull you towards them/slow you down.
Tower shields also exist for a specific reason, and LU did an amazing job with them (you can get cover AND if you dodge you also gain an expertise dice to your AC, for a minimum of +3 which is nothing to sneeze at).

 

[Micah Sweet]

That depends on the setup. In a field battle with little to no cover of course ranged attacks are a huge boon.
But not every encounter should be without any form of cover, against monsters that are slower than you, have no ranged attacks and no way to pull you towards them/slow you down.
Tower shields also exist for a specific reason, and LU did an amazing job with them (you can get cover AND if you dodge you also gain an expertise dice to your AC, for a minimum of +3 which is nothing to sneeze at).

Sure. I was just referring to the general principle that getting to attack your opponents before they can attack you is very handy.

 

[TwoSix]

Question: isn't ranged combat strictly better than melee anyway? Much harder to hit you when you're waaay over there.

Absolutely it is, which is why we don't want the baseline rules to make it even more of an obvious choice . I mean, I'm assuming we want a fantasy game to support the trope of the armored warrior with a sword, right?

 

[lichmaster]

Sure. I was just referring to the general principle that getting to attack your opponents before they can attack you is very handy.

True, and also holds for pole weapons (which were way more common than swords and maces), and being mounted (because you can move in and out faster than your enemy). I feel like these two aspects have largely been neglected since 3E, and LU is making them shine again as they should

 

[Thomas Shey]

True, and also holds for pole weapons (which were way more common than swords and maces), and being mounted (because you can move in and out faster than your enemy). I feel like these two aspects have largely been neglected since 3E, and LU is making them shine again as they should

People have never had a tendency to pursue those much because of applicability; there are too many situations you can't use them in. There are some with bows, but not as many.

 

[lichmaster]

People have never had a tendency to pursue those much because of applicability; there are too many situations you can't use them in. There are some with bows, but not as many.

For mounted combat I could partially agree (especially in a dungeon focused playstyle instead of a more open world approach, but in such an environment you lose a good chunk of the advantages of ranged attacks anyway), but what are the limits of applicability of a spear wrt a sword?