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

[clearstream]

replacing -5/+10 in GWM and SS with +1 str and dex is my favorite solution.

It gives melee fighters good chance for cleave and ranged peace of mind about cover and range.

I think the power-attacks are flavorful, and give martial characters using them a choice. Mostly they are just played optimally, but sometimes when the party must down a foe this round the choice becomes interesting.

 

[clearstream]

They already do with 2d6 or 1d12 damage.

From modelling it out and playing it - both extensively - I firmly believe those ranges are not outstanding. They are offering on average 1 or 2 base damage points more than something like eldritch blast, which has solid range and the best damage type in the game.

Sharpshooter as I suggest it particularly helps out ranger, if they go with longbow. The power-attacks feed nicely into low attacks-count classes.

 

[tetrasodium]

Nerf the -5/+0 feats all you have to do.

I dunno, I'd rather see them fixed to restore their niche & maybe be given the supporting dr they needed to matter. Those really do fill an important niche, 5e just left out the DR needed for them to matter Back in the past when a monster might have dr2/5/10/whatever it might shrug off most of the damage coming from normal attackers specialized in other things like hitting many times to play the averages while someone with charger/power attack/etc would be able to deliver the big hits capable of breaking through that dr. Unfortunately with 5e moving to 50% resistance for everything you are usually better off or at worst the same hitting it twice for less each time than once like a truck. With that said, those feats almost always killed the later attacks in the chain when the -whatever combined wirg the -5/-10/-15/etc while 5e just makes them something to spam when you figure hits will be ok. 3.5 had power attack where it was 1:1 & pathfinder had deadly aim where it was 1:2 but was capped by BaB & would apply to all attacks till your next turn if you used it.

There were even monsters like stone/iron/etc golems & such that were either a really tough fight or not too bad if someone could step into that hit like a truck spotlight that allowed interesting fights where the rest of the party was off dealing with lesser baddies involved in the fight to clear an AoO free path

@Elfcrusher that might work, but the range increments can't effectively amount to "basically anything you can see" in totm & "probably more than a grid map"/"ever enough to make roll20 cry on a full attack action" as someone nicely summarized the existing ones earlier.

 

[tetrasodium]

It could be argued that in 3.5, power attack was a way for melee wielders to deliver a good bit more damage than an archer.... so there is some merit there.

indeed, it was wotc carelessly changing too many parts of the equation & not changing involved things to compensate while removing parts that it depended on that screwed it up. Rather than removing as some suggested, I'd rather see them fixed to restore their niche & maybe be given the supporting dr they needed to matter. Those really do fill an important niche, 5e just left out the DR needed for them to matter Back in the past when a monster might have dr2/5/10/whatever it might shrug off most of the damage coming from normal attackers specialized in other things like hitting many times to play the averages while someone with charger/power attack/etc would be able to deliver the big hits capable of breaking through that dr. Unfortunately with 5e moving to 50% resistance for everything you are usually better off or at worst the same hitting it twice for less each time than once like a truck. With that said, those feats almost always killed the later attacks in the chain when the -whatever combined wirg the -5/-10/-15/etc while 5e just makes them something to spam when you figure hits will be ok. 3.5 had power attack where it was 1:1 & pathfinder had deadly aim where it was 1:2 but was capped by BaB & would apply to all attacks till your next turn if you used it.

There were even monsters like stone/iron/etc golems & such that were either a really tough fight or not too bad if someone could step into that hit like a truck spotlight that allowed interesting fights where the rest of the party was off dealing with lesser baddies involved in the fight to clear an AoO free path

@Elfcrusher that might work, but the range increments can't effectively amount to "basically anything you can see" in totm & "probably more than a grid map"/"ever enough to make roll20 cry on a full attack action" as someone nicely summarized the existing ones earlier.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I really think that's unnecessary. Honestly bows still have way too great a range. Even with modern bows, an accurate shot becomes exceedingly difficult past ~160 feet. When you consider that dnd archers are attacking moving targets constantly weaving in and out, and trying to avoid friendlies, and trying to avoid getting pasted themselves....ranges of 300-600 feet are LUDICROUS.

Those kind of ranges are reserved for volley fire, not the "tactical" attacks that are made in dnd combats.

One way to weaken archery, just cut the range in half. 75 feet, 300 feet at disadvantage. That is still incredibly long compared to actual stats, but for a fantasy game still works. And if you want to add in a "Volley Range doubles the range" for your medieval mass combats, by all means.

Given that the vast majority of combats begin within 60 feet I don't see how reducing the range of bows makes much of a difference.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the power-attacks are flavorful, and give martial characters using them a choice. Mostly they are just played optimally, but sometimes when the party must down a foe this round the choice becomes interesting.

I have never seen anyone use gwm who wasn't optimized for its use, and everyone who wields a two-handed weapon uses it. -5 to hit just isn't an effective deterrent to its use.

 

[tetrasodium]

Given that the vast majority of combats begin within 60 feet I don't see how reducing the range of bows makes much of a difference.

except anything outside the players proactively start. Personally I'd rather15* or 30as the base range increment with penalties building up as you go from there so that players who want to be a long range "sniper" type can have feats/ailities/buffs that reduce them without making the ranges scale to "if you can see a humanoid shape in the distance you can accurately strike it."

* Throwing knives(darts) gotta start somewhere, 10 is just too limiting & forces longer range stuff even when I give players a magic item that lets them throw with a returning/self fabricating stack of them

 

[TwoSix]

I have never seen anyone use gwm who wasn't optimized for its use, and everyone who wields a two-handed weapon uses it. -5 to hit just isn't an effective deterrent to its use.

Pretty much this. I've played both GWM and SS characters quite a bit, and the only time you really don't use them is when the enemy has really high AC (20+) or when the enemy is telegraphing that they're almost dead.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Nerf the -5/+10 feats all you have to do.

Or just don't blindly add them to your game without sanity checking them for balance across all of your other options first. There's only so much blame you can put on the designers, when you aren't using the rules as intended.

 

[clearstream]

I have never seen anyone use gwm who wasn't optimized for its use, and everyone who wields a two-handed weapon uses it. -5 to hit just isn't an effective deterrent to its use.

What I mean is that depending on your attack bonus, it is optimal to always use the power attack on some armour classes. However, sometimes it is more important to prevent a foe getting another turn, so a player accepts a mathematically less optimal power attack to have a chance to make that happen. Likewise, sometimes a foe has taken heavy damage and the power attack isn't needed, even if it would be mathematically optimal to use it... on average.

tl;dr what is optimal on average is sometimes not the best choice in particular