Level Up (A5E) Strength vs Dexterity imbalance cannot be solved without addressing the Melee vs Ranged Imbalance.

[FrogReaver]

No it's not always a bad thing. A ranged build focusing on using ranged weaponsfrom a distance doesn't need to be so close & can put less focus on hp/ac giving them more room to focus on other stuff. There is also the relative value to dex and whatever

i say being too weak is always a bad thing. Your answer is that it’s okay to be too weak. But how does that even make sense? I could be wrong, but The only conclusion I find reasonable is that you just want to argue to be arguing. Maybe I’m wrong and it’s something else but at this point I don’t care.

please don’t reply to me on this topic again.

 

[FrogReaver]

Tentatively, removing Dex damage seems to address a deep problem, helping to balance Strength versus Dexterity. It prevents Dexterity from making Strength irrelevant.

Meanwhile, comparing Fighter bow damage with Ranger and mages is a shallower concern, that can be looked at separately.

how Do you arrive at the position that it’s a shallow concern? Are we going to go in and change all of those abilities for a 5e compatible game?

 

[Haldrik]

how Do you arrive at the position that it’s a shallow concern? Are we going to go in and change all of those abilities for a 5e compatible game?

The six abilities are the fundamental − deepest − machinery of the 5e gaming engine. If the six abilities dont work, then nothing works.

Making sure that the abilities are of equal worth is a high/deep priority.

Concerns about weapon damage versus cantrip damage is more about the spell list and weapons table.

 

[tetrasodium]

I feel like half of these, if not more, would be constantly forgotten at the table... and OA on 'attack (unarmed)' and 'stand up from prone' just call for ridiculous situations.

It's a table on page 141 of the 3.5 phb. Many of the things it lists are foundation level building blocks but despite having an easy to reference table feats & abilities themselves tended to mention if they provoked an opportunity attack or changed a particular action to no longer provoke them.

@FrogReaver Abilities are not isolated unrelated things no matter how much you want them to be to support a weak position. A character is a sum of all their abilities & by focusing on one set of abilities they are able to avoid the need to focus on things that are required for being effective with another ability. You know unequivocally that nobody is talking about removing dex from ranged attacks & not adding something else, if you don't want people to respond to your repeated attempts to defend dex/dex by polluting the thread with comments that seem relevant to the discussion then the solution is on you.

 

[FrogReaver]

The six abilities are the fundamental − deepest − machinery of the 5e gaming engine. If the six abilities dont work, then nothing works.

Making sure that the abilities are of equal worth is a high/deep priority.

Concerns about weapon damage versus cantrip damage is more about the spell list and weapons table.

the abilities can’t be balanced in a vaccum. That’s always the problem with this discussion.

if I was building a game fully from scratch i find the less damage proposal workable. But 5e is already established with various abilities and the fundamental system of Archer damage does have to be looked at in the context of the whole system. No one wants to go through and recalibrate every other class feature because of such a change - and that would have to be done.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's a table on page 141 of the 3.5 phb. Many of the things it lists are foundation level building blocks but despite having an easy to reference table feats & abilities themselves tended to mention if they provoked an opportunity attack or changed a particular action to no longer provoke them.

@FrogReaver Abilities are not isolated unrelated things no matter how much you want them to be to support a weak position. A character is a sum of all their abilities & by focusing on one set of abilities they are able to avoid the need to focus on things that are required for being effective with another ability. You know unequivocally that nobody is talking about removing dex from ranged attacks & not adding something else, if you don't want people to respond to your repeated attempts to defend dex/dex by polluting the thread with comments that seem relevant to the discussion then the solution is on you.

please stop replying to me about this topic.

 

[Haldrik]

@FrogReaver

An opposite approach is to make the Strength bow a normal part of the weapons table.

In concept, a Strength bow is just a bow that is harder to pull, thus unusuable to a person that lacks its Strength prereq. Each Strength bow can only be used to deal a specific amount of Strength damage. For example, a Strength 16 bow would be unusuable (or disadvantageous) to anyone with less than 16, but even someone with Strength 18 could only inflict +3 Strength to damage via the bow.

The idea here is to allow characters (especially the Fighter) to stack the Strength damage on top of the Dexterity damage. Thus characters who invest in both Strength and Dexterity deal noticeably more damage than those who invest in Dexterity only.

This fails to address the ubiquity of finesse weapons, but it does make Strength concepts better at range.

It also makes a Fighter prefer range over melee, which itself is a concern.

 

[Haldrik]

the abilities can’t be balanced in a vaccum. That’s always the problem with this discussion.

if I was building a game fully from scratch i find the less damage proposal workable. But 5e is already established with various abilities and the fundamental system of Archer damage does have to be looked at in the context of the whole system. No one wants to go through and recalibrate every other class feature because of such a change - and that would have to be done.

At the same time, it is impossible to balance the abilities, except by balancing the abilities themselves.

 

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver

An opposite approach is to make the Strength bow a normal part of the weapons table.

In concept, a Strength bow is just a bow that is harder to pull, thus unusuable to a person that lacks its Strength prereq. Each Strength bow can only be used to deal a specific amount of Strength damage. For example, a Strength 16 bow would be unusuable (or disadvantageous) to anyone with less than 16, but even someone with Strength 18 could only inflict +3 Strength to damage via the bow.

The idea here is to allow characters (especially the Fighter) to stack the Strength damage on top of the Dexterity damage. Thus characters who invest in both Strength and Dexterity deal noticeably more damage than those who invest in Dexterity only.

This fails to address the ubiquity of finesse weapons, but it does make Strength concepts better at range.

It also makes a Fighter prefer range over melee, which itself is a concern.

so you would be doing 1d8+3 on two attacks.
2d8+6 vs 2d10 + 4 (Any character that gets mode damage to a cantrip).

archers need to do more than cantrip damage IMO. Which is the problem - there’s not much space between a cantrips and basic archery.

 

[FrogReaver]

At the same time, it is impossible to balance the abilities, except by balancing the abilities themselves.

i disagree. It’s all about how strong class features that interact with those abilities are.