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

[tetrasodium]

Is the problem not more due to a single feat removing all the limits?

Bring back range increments by changing Disadvantage to have more levels of granularity. Multiple increments mean more layers of Disadvantage.

Firing into melee can still be hindered by cover from other creatures. What if ignoring cover was a maneuver? You need to expend a resource to do it, while a melee combatant is using the same resource to knock prone, push, deal extra damage, etc.

No it's both. For simplicity sake, here are the old range weapons

Spoiler: old ones

simple

martial

exotic

Spoiler: New ones

The old range increments had a range increment of X, you could jump that up to 5x with any raged weapon at a cost of -2 each time. That made the longbow have 100ft range no penalties but you could do 200/300/400/500 by taking -2-4/-6/-8/-10 but because the second/third/etc attack were made at -5/-10/-15/etc penalty you were almost certain to dramatcally drop your dpr as you went past the first range increment. By comparison the 5e longbow is 150/ 600 What you couldn't even do with a -10 penalty due to 5x range increment cap 5e lets you do with mere proficiency while bumping the short range too. That might not sound impressive if you are a full martial class with a long bow, but there were plenty of folks who lacked those & were limited to much shorter ranges.

• Heavy xbow was a full round action for one shot. Light xbow also ate a move action. They can be excluded from relevance
• Bard: All simple weapons(dart 20t javelin30ft sling50ft), plus the longsword, rapier, sap, short sword, shortbow(60ft), and whip
• Cleric: Simple Weapons (dart 20Ft javelin30ft sling50ft)
• Druid:
• club, dagger, dart(20ft), quarterstaff, scimitar, sickle, shortspear, sling(50ft), and spear.
• Fighter: all simple/martial weapons(100/110ft longbow/composite longbow)
• Monk: club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin(30ft), kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling(50ft).
• Paladin: all simple/martial weapons(100/110ft longbow/composite longbow)
• Ranger: all simple/martial weapons(100/110ft longbow/composite longbow)
• Rogue: all simple weapons,(dart 20Ft javelin30ft sling50ft) plus the hand cross-bow(30ft), rapier, sap, shortbow, and short sword
• Sorcerer:All simple weapons(dart 20ft javelin30ft sling50ft)
• Wizard: club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff

There is a massive difference between shooting someone from about a move action away & taking a penalty if you are using yours to keep that range compared to 5e shooting them 2-4+ rounds of moving while moving away to keep that distance. It's not really a big deal when the rogue or bardgets in one shot while the melees are closing & then hopes that the melees keep the fight over there. 5e lacks the tactical AoOs that make that happen and it's more like 2-5 rounds of getting in a shot or shots in 5e. There were also things like an AoO for switching weapons & such.

Edit: That says nothing about how dr vrs resist & critters like skeleton archers/bandits would mix things up or How ethe 2/3 BaB classes above were going to have some trouble hitting on the first shot anyways almost You could get a feat to null the firing into melee penalty back then & feats were much more common, but you didn't see people taking it because they might sometimes dabble with a shortbow/xbow if they really needed to.. Too many things were nulled in 5e without adjusting any of the math that kept things in check

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"Most players think"?... Is that a sampling of one or do you have some data backing up that opinion there?

Yes and no. It's based on decades of play on both sides of the table in various systems where the GM has recognized a problem and attempted to fix it, as well as game design/review podcasts which have referenced the issue. If you introduce a house rule that's just a nerf to one thing, then it's safe to expect that players won't interact with that one thing. If you nerf rogues (for example), then it's highly unlikely that anyone will choose to play a rogue in that campaign, under full knowledge that they've just been nerfed. If you introduce a complicated system of tracking armor durability, then you can expect most players to just play a monk or a wizard or something. And if a player really has their heart set on a particular character type, but then they find out you've intentionally nerfed it, then they're more likely to skip out on that campaign entirely. Whether or not a targeted nerf is justified, or would make for better gameplay, it's politically untenable.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

Did I miss a statement that this project is being developed under the assumption that every single optional rule in the PHB will definitely be in effect, as written, and without the DM oversight that the game was intended to operate under?

 

[Minigiant]

The weakness of ranged weapons is supposed to be that you are lack a weapon to party with in melee as your weapon is not made for melee.

Melee Weapon Attackers should get a bonus to AC.

Only Fighters and Rangers should be making close range and PB shots with ranged weapons.

 

[rules.mechanic]

I am sure many people homebrew the STR/DEX balance. We largely ignore finesse by allowing the choice of STR or DEX for the attack bonus of ANY weapon, while only allowing STR for damage bonuses.

You don't really even need to homebrew penalties for firing into melee. The other melee participants are reasonably considered to provide half cover. If your target is small and on the other side of your barbarian and paladin, 3/4 cover is appropriate. If it's the other side of your druid in full T-Rex mode, you probably don't have a shot at all...

 

[aco175]

Does anyone want to go back to 4e where you use your main stat for attack and damage. Wizards attacking with their dagger using Intelligence for example (without going into why he is using a dagger).

I would simplify the saves to just Fort, Will, and Reflex. These can be based on the higher or 2 stats. Damage is only based on Strength.

Some of the problem is with how dungeons are set up. DMs have a role to make opportunities for both to shine.

 

[ThatGuySteve]

No it's both. For simplicity sake, here are the old range weapons

Spoiler: old ones

simple
View attachment 125100
martial
View attachment 125101
exotic
View attachment 125102

Spoiler: New ones

View attachment 125098
View attachment 125103

The old range increments had a range increment of X, you could jump that up to 5x with any raged weapon at a cost of -2 each time. That made the longbow have 100ft range no penalties but you could do 200/300/400/500 by taking -2-4/-6/-8/-10 but because the second/third/etc attack were made at -5/-10/-15/etc penalty you were almost certain to dramatcally drop your dpr as you went past the first range increment. By comparison the 5e longbow is 150/ 600 What you couldn't even do with a -10 penalty due to 5x range increment cap 5e lets you do with mere proficiency while bumping the short range too. That might not sound impressive if you are a full martial class with a long bow, but there were plenty of folks who lacked those & were limited to much shorter ranges.

• Heavy xbow was a full round action for one shot. Light xbow also ate a move action. They can be excluded from relevance
• Bard: All simple weapons(dart 20t javelin30ft sling50ft), plus the longsword, rapier, sap, short sword, shortbow(60ft), and whip
• Cleric: Simple Weapons (dart 20Ft javelin30ft sling50ft)
• Druid:
• club, dagger, dart(20ft), quarterstaff, scimitar, sickle, shortspear, sling(50ft), and spear.
• Fighter: all simple/martial weapons(100/110ft longbow/composite longbow)
• Monk: club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin(30ft), kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling(50ft).
• Paladin: all simple/martial weapons(100/110ft longbow/composite longbow)
• Ranger: all simple/martial weapons(100/110ft longbow/composite longbow)
• Rogue: all simple weapons,(dart 20Ft javelin30ft sling50ft) plus the hand cross-bow(30ft), rapier, sap, shortbow, and short sword
• Sorcerer:All simple weapons(dart 20ft javelin30ft sling50ft)
• Wizard: club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff

There is a massive difference between shooting someone from about a move action away & taking a penalty if you are using yours to keep that range compared to 5e shooting them 2-4+ rounds of moving while moving away to keep that distance. It's not really a big deal when the rogue or bardgets in one shot while the melees are closing & then hopes that the melees keep the fight over there. 5e lacks the tactical AoOs that make that happen and it's more like 2-5 rounds of getting in a shot or shots in 5e. There were also things like an AoO for switching weapons & such.

Edit: That says nothing about how dr vrs resist & critters like skeleton archers/bandits would mix things up or How ethe 2/3 BaB classes above were going to have some trouble hitting on the first shot anyways almost You could get a feat to null the firing into melee penalty back then & feats were much more common, but you didn't see people taking it because they might sometimes dabble with a shortbow/xbow if they really needed to.. Too many things were nulled in 5e without adjusting any of the math that kept things in check

I've never experienced 2-5 round of shooting and running away, personally. Why a DM would choose the tactic of charging across an empty 200ft space at a archer is beyond me.

Regardless, I do agree with the premise of the thread that Str and Dex need to be balanced better. I just disagree with the suggestion of lifting 3e mechanics to do it.

I still think that a holistic approach would be superior to isolating ranged combat and throwing in a bunch of penalties to make it worse. I don't think "we made ranged combat worse" would be as good a selling point for the product as "we made Str/melee more interesting".

 

[Stalker0]

That is, archers add Strength (not Dexterity) to their ranged fire.

This. Its super simple and it works. We don't need to bring back mighty composites due to 5e's streamlining, but this change alone would do a lot to address the problem.

When it comes to design, simpler is better. I see people wanting to do ALL of these changes...but one simple adjustment is really all you need.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Melee Combat vs Ranged Combat
The biggest advantage of Ranged combat is of course the ability to reach out and touch the majority if not all the hostiles at any given time especially if you take the relative freedom of movement in 5e.
There are two issues tied for the second biggest advantage ranged combat enjoys.
2a. Archery fighting style is arguably the best and it combines exceptionally well with Sharpshooter feat.
2b. There are 4 ways to counter ranged combat: i. Cover, ii. Extreme Range, iii. Melee Engagement, iv. Falling Prone. Sharpshooter practically negates i. and ii. and crossbow expert negates iii. Under most circumstances falling prone is BAD.
3. A few monsters or spells negatively affect melee attackers, either with debuffs the trigger based on proximity or by being attacked.
4. The damage is comparable, with certain ranged builds being able to outdamage melee builds. Plus we have stackable magic ammunition and magic weapons.
5. Better magical support. Yes swift quiver I am looking at you and the 10 lvl bards with 4 longbow attacks


Strength vs Dexterity
I am going to keep a more combat focused analysis.
Dexterity is a superior save.
Dexterity governs initiative.
Dexterity offers at worse a -1 ac towards strength builds (with no armor related disadvantages)
A dex build is far more versatile at it can do both ranged and melee combat. Compare that to the laughable performance of thrown weapons that strength builds are practically locked in.

Proposed Solutions
Increase melee weapon damage.
Make two handed melee weapons use 2*str_mod at damage.
Strength requirements for ranged weapons.
Bow damage should (optionally) use strength.
Full plate should have an ac of 19.

FWIW our fixes are:

1. The minimum STR required to use a weapon equals the maximum weapon damage (not including criticals, obviously). So, a greatsword would require a STR 12 to use properly. Otherwise, your attacks have disadvantage if you don't meet the STR requirement.
2. Only STR applies to damage, even for ranged combat. Weapons with the loading property do not benefit from damage modifiers.
3. Heavy weapons use 1.5 x STR modifier (round down) to damage; Light weapons use 0.5 x STR modifier (round down). This means a longbow with STR 18 adds +6 to damage (1.5 x +4).
4. Ranged weapons only add STR modifiers at Normal range; unless the modifier is negative, then it applies to Long range as well.
5. Your Initiative modifier is your choice of DEX, INT, or WIS.

Many match your suggestions. We've been doing this for over a year and our STR-based PCs are roughly even with our DEX-based ones. IOW, we see the difference.

 

[tetrasodium]

I've never experienced 2-5 round of shooting and running away, personally. Why a DM would choose the tactic of charging across an empty 200ft space at a archer is beyond me.

Regardless, I do agree with the premise of the thread that Str and Dex need to be balanced better. I just disagree with the suggestion of lifting 3e mechanics to do it.

I still think that a holistic approach would be superior to isolating ranged combat and throwing in a bunch of penalties to make it worse. I don't think "we made ranged combat worse" would be as good a selling point for the product as "we made Str/melee more interesting".

Flip it around... why would the players not take advantage of all their strengths when making a plan rather than vice versa. The ability to effectively conduct drone warfare from a quarter mile away is most certainly a strength. You also seem to be thinking it's "an" archer as if the rest of the party is in melee.

Lets not pretend that being able to attack from range iis not an advantage over melee attacking from melee & suggest that advantage should not be taken into accont when designing ranged combat. Adding penalties that make sense for ranged combat to have is not making it "worse", it's simply accepting that it should not be "better" I've yet to see someone make a plan that involves swinging a melee weapon 60-100 feet away from an ambush target let alone up to nearly a quarter ,mile from it. Finesse weapons don't require a feat & give +dex to damage so it's not like a ranged attacker would be crippled by MAD to be capable of hitting in melee if ranged weapons went back to sane range increments & that ranged attacker had to switch to melee.... It would even make all those flaming/shocking/etc weapons reasonably useful rather than silly since they'd be swapping +4/+5 damage from dex to +1/+2 from strength & a d6 of elemental damage.