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

[CapnZapp]

There is a lot that can be said about the imbalance between Strength and Dexterity.
I am here going to raise a point about how much 5e favours ranged combat compared to melee combat and then conclude by going back to the Strength vs Dexterity discussion bringing some ideas of possible fixes in the fore.

Thank you for bringing up this.

Here it is useful to remember that 5E changed the game in many ways that benefit ranged combat compared to 3E.

In other words, there's nothing "natural" or "fundamental" about the ranged supremacy in 5E - it all boils down to specific changes from 3E.

While each change by itself might have sounded like a good idea to the 5E devs at the time, trying to simplifying and uncluttering the game, I'm not sure they were aware of the accumulated impact of making all these changes at once.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hot take: The ranged vs. melee imbalance exists for a reason, the same reason that no one in modern warfare uses melee weapons.

Hot take: D&D has never featured combat that feels "modern" for a reason. (Hint: it's not a game in the modern genre)

 

[CapnZapp]

Before you start suggesting new rules and mechanisms to address the issue, how about acknowledging that we wouldn't even be discussing this if 5E didn't change the 3E melee-ranged balanced in several highly specific ways.

In other words, don't reinvent the wheel here, people.

All we need to do is simply to identify and then revert some (not all) of the 3E-to-5E changes.

Might I suggest a single change that might be all we need:

Strength is the only attribute that adds to damage.

That is, archers add Strength (not Dexterity) to their ranged fire. Warlocks add Strength (not Charisma) to their Eldritch Blasts. And so. Crucially, finesse would still work as written. That is, I'm assuming we're discussing ranged supremacy and aren't trying to shut down Dex Warriors and Rogues.

This suggestion is based on observing Pathfinder 2, who does not suffer from ranged supremacy to nearly the same degree.

 

[tetrasodium]

Before you start suggesting new rules and mechanisms to address the issue, how about acknowledging that we wouldn't even be discussing this if 5E didn't change the 3E melee-ranged balanced in several highly specific ways.

In other words, don't reinvent the wheel here, people.

All we need to do is simply to identify and then revert some (not all) of the 3E-to-5E changes.

Might I suggest a single change that might be all we need:

Strength is the only attribute that adds to damage.

That is, archers add Strength (not Dexterity) to their ranged fire. Warlocks add Strength (not Charisma) to their Eldritch Blasts. And so. Crucially, finesse would still work as written. That is, I'm assuming we're discussing ranged supremacy and aren't trying to shut down Dex Warriors and Rogues.

This suggestion is based on observing Pathfinder 2, who does not suffer from ranged supremacy to nearly the same degree.

I agree with the rest completely but the problem with agonizing eldritch blast is not that it adds cha like some classes add onto or wisely for powerful cantrip* or draconic sorc for one element. The problem there is that its a120 foot force damage cantrip that adds extra blasts rather than extra dice different from how every other cantrip scales and it tops that off by scaling at a better rate than fighter extra attack while scaling by character level rather than class level.

It too went from being an interesting single 1d6 60foot ray class ability to a bizarrely munchkinized problem that somehow escaped sanity checking and all the changes add up to dramatically more than should have been allowed.

* Don't get me wrong. I think that powerful cantrip is a symptom of 5e's attempt to force casters towards being blasters rather than all of the other roles they held in the past & that there are probably better solutions that fit each archetype with it better, but none of them are easy & would depend on what other changes are made with casting, focus items, & spell lists. With eldritch blast the only cantrip that gets multiple attacks rather than extra dice powerful cantrip is operating in a different field rather than competing on the same niche

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Your argument would be stronger if you ignored the contribution of feats. If ranged is better than melee due to specific feat support, then that's just evidence for feats being unbalanced, and nothing to do with the actual rules of the game.

I don't exactly disagree with the rest of it. While the obvious solution would be to remove Dexterity to damage, that violates the stated goal of compatibility with 5E; and it's politically untenable as an optional rule (nobody is going to opt into making Dexterity worse, because most players think it's balanced to begin with). Unfortunately, when all you're adding to the game is options, the only way to restore balance is to make the new stuff exactly as overpowered as the old stuff.

 

[tetrasodium]

Your argument would be stronger if you ignored the contribution of feats. If ranged is better than melee due to specific feat support, then that's just evidence for feats being unbalanced, and nothing to do with the actual rules of the game.

I don't exactly disagree with the rest of it. While the obvious solution would be to remove Dexterity to damage, that violates the stated goal of compatibility with 5E; and it's politically untenable as an optional rule (nobody is going to opt into making Dexterity worse, because most players think it's balanced to begin with). Unfortunately, when all you're adding to the game is options, the only way to restore balance is to make the new stuff exactly as overpowered as the old stuff.

"Most players think"?... Is that a sampling of one or do you have some data backing up that opinion there? Its problematic before sharpshooter, that just needlessly munchkinized it in ways you would only expect from a homebrew feat a GM made for a player they were dating.

 

[CapnZapp]

Your argument would be stronger if you ignored the contribution of feats. If ranged is better than melee due to specific feat support, then that's just evidence for feats being unbalanced, and nothing to do with the actual rules of the game.

While I agree Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert is very much part of the problem, please don't bring out that tired old belief "feats are not part of the game".

Especially in this context (Level Up) which pretty clearly exists to go all in on build crunch. Pretending feats isn't going to be front and center helps no one. Thanks

 

[ThatGuySteve]

Before you start suggesting new rules and mechanisms to address the issue, how about acknowledging that we wouldn't even be discussing this if 5E didn't change the 3E melee-ranged balanced in several highly specific ways.

In other words, don't reinvent the wheel here, people.

All we need to do is simply to identify and then revert some (not all) of the 3E-to-5E changes.

Might I suggest a single change that might be all we need:

Strength is the only attribute that adds to damage.

That is, archers add Strength (not Dexterity) to their ranged fire. Warlocks add Strength (not Charisma) to their Eldritch Blasts. And so. Crucially, finesse would still work as written. That is, I'm assuming we're discussing ranged supremacy and aren't trying to shut down Dex Warriors and Rogues.

This suggestion is based on observing Pathfinder 2, who does not suffer from ranged supremacy to nearly the same degree.

Why take a step back to 3E when you could do something new? It has been acknowledged in the survey that people want A5E to give martial characters more options in combat, maneuveres beyond "I attack twice".

You can't look at basic ranged combat in isolation. Whatever changes are made are going to need to work with new class features, combat maneuveres, rewritten/new feats.

Strength for damage doesn't work in every circumstance, why would Eldrich Blast depend on strength? What about crossbows or firearms, why would strength be important?

 

[CapnZapp]

Why take a step back to 3E when you could do something new?

Because the problem only exists because of the changes 5E made?

 

[tetrasodium]

Why take a step back to 3E when you could do something new? It has been acknowledged in the survey that people want A5E to give martial characters more options in combat, maneuveres beyond "I attack twice".

You can't look at basic ranged combat in isolation. Whatever changes are made are going to need to work with new class features, combat maneuveres, rewritten/new feats.

Strength for damage doesn't work in every circumstance, why would Eldrich Blast depend on strength? What about crossbows or firearms, why would strength be important?

The 3.5 ranged combat was much more thought out with many well understood dials. You can't even think about things like "giving martial characters more options in combat, maneuveres beyond "I attack twice" until you address the elephant in the room created by all of the changes 5e made to ranged combat as part of a whole system rather than ialone & n isolation as wotc seems to have done. With regards to eldritch blast, why might it work on strength? easy, the alternative is to acknowledge that a d8 hit dieclass with full caster level progression that gets this

is pants on head what the holy heck were they thinking when compared to this

It's also important to accept that there is no sane path that leads to the 5e warlock & eldritch blast from

Spoiler: this

even if you add

Spoiler: this

and things only get worse when you factor in the bizarrely over the top & obvious problematic elements it causes if the goal was anything other than trying to build a multiclasscombo where abusing the rest mechanic is the number one design goal. Why strength? Personally I think eldritch blast should go back towards what it was instead of the 5e best of everything worst of nothing that it is now but cha to hit str for damage similar to dex/str how bows used to be might work if EB must otherwise remain munchkinized as is.