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

[glass]

If you think a project explicitly about increasing player-side build-crunch is going to skip feats, one of us is going to become severely disappointed.

I have been assuming feats will be a shoe-in. But actually, I am now wondering if they might go in the opposite direction: Since they cannot actually use any of the PHB feats (except Grappler) it might be simpler to ditch feats entirely. I am sure there will be something kinda like feats, but they may not have the same name, or be interchangable with PHB feats.

AoO should return with the rate on 1/opponents turn for free 4E style.

This I would be all in favour of in a new edition/new game, but for this project it would be rather shoot backward compatibility in the head. Unless it was encapsulated in a feat or feat-equivalent.

Similarly, all the stuff about changing how bows and crossbows work is great on its own merits but probably not going to work for Level Up. A better approach might be to encapsulate better defences against ranged attacks in feats or feat equivalents, and/or Level Up classes.

_
glass.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then your complaint is meaningless because it exempts the rest of the attacks in the fighter's attack action and the dex bonus damage any fighter bothering with archery fighting style. Why are you wasting precious electrons to transmit a meaningless partial attack comparison to a fire bolt that csn not be split. What possible point could you be making that requires pretending the extra shot wont be made in a damage per ROUND comparison?

@glass thanks

The extra attack is being made in my comparison. You keep saying it is t but it is. Even after I tell you it is you come back and say it isn’t.

 

[FrogReaver]

@tetrasodium - you obviously are very confused.

The problem with removing dex to damage is that the wizard now attacks harder With fire bolt than the archer fighter...

This is what I've talked about the whole time. The idea of removing +dex to damage. A longbow fighter would do 1d8 damage only. At level 5 he would do 1d8 and make 2 attacks. That's 2d8 vs the Firebolts 2d10. I don't know why this point is still eluding you - but hopefully this has spelled it out for you.

Your the one who specifically chose to claim that firebolt has better dpr than a fighter with a bow..

And it does when you take away dex mod damage (which is what my initial post that you replied to was obviously talking about...)

What possible point could you be making that requires pretending the extra shot wont be made in a damage per ROUND comparison?

It's amazing how you've got in your mind that I am doing something which I am not and no amount of explanation on my part is capable of convincing you otherwise. Truly amazing.

 

[TwoSix]

Then your complaint is meaningless because it exempts the rest of the attacks in the fighter's attack action and the dex bonus damage any fighter bothering with archery fighting style. Why are you wasting precious electrons to transmit a meaningless partial attack comparison to a fire bolt that csn not be split. What possible point could you be making that requires pretending the extra shot wont be made in a damage per ROUND comparison?

@glass thanks

The whole point of @FrogReaver's post was saying that NOT having Dex bonus to damage makes archery too weak. Obviously the comparison will be done showing 2 attacks of 1d8+0 with a longbow (with a 10% accuracy boost thanks to the fighting style) compared to 1 attack of 2d10 with firebolt.

 

[FrogReaver]

The whole point of @FrogReaver's post was saying that NOT having Dex bonus to damage makes archery too weak. Obviously the comparison will be done showing 2 attacks of 1d8+0 with a longbow (with a 10% accuracy boost thanks to the fighting style) compared to 1 attack of 2d10 with firebolt.

Thanks, I was starting to think I was going crazy for a moment.

 

[tetrasodium]

The whole point of @FrogReaver's post was saying that NOT having Dex bonus to damage makes archery too weak. Obviously the comparison will be done showing 2 attacks of 1d8+0 with a longbow (with a 10% accuracy boost thanks to the fighting style) compared to 1 attack of 2d10 with firebolt.

So instead of inventing a contrived example to make a point he's just badly mistaken and missing the fact that people had been talking about removing +dex to damage on ranged weapons and going back to +str to damage like in the past when he jumped in without quoting anyone after either accidentally missing or purposely omitting the second part to defend 5e's SAD ranged builds rather than trying to make a case for why dex/dex is better than dex/str, that it doesn't solve anything, that something else is better.

It's ok to jump in on page 3 of a thread and miss part of what's being discussed, but when people start questioning why you are making such a contrived & irrelivant damage comparison it's probably a good idea to check what key details you are missing @FrogReaver. with +str to damage rather than +dex your example only works if a fighter has 10 strength and chooses archery style knowing it would not gain a damage bonus but that sort of deliberate choice is exempt from damage per round comparisons & he's probably sitting on 20 str/18con or something else that fits his specialization. with dex/dex

 

[FrogReaver]

So instead of inventing a contrived example to make a point he's just badly mistaken and missing the fact that people had been talking about removing +dex to damage on ranged weapons and going back to +str to damage like in the past when he jumped in without quoting anyone after either accidentally missing or purposely omitting the second part to defend 5e's SAD ranged builds rather than trying to make a case for why dex/dex is better than dex/str, that it doesn't solve anything, that something else is better.

It's ok to jump in on page 3 of a thread and miss part of what's being discussed, but when people start questioning why you are making such a contrived & irrelivant damage comparison it's probably a good idea to check what key details you are missing @FrogReaver. with +str to damage rather than +dex your example only works if a fighter has 10 strength and chooses archery style knowing it would not gain a damage bonus but that sort of deliberate choice is exempt from damage per round comparisons & he's probably sitting on 20 str/18con or something else that fits his specialization. with dex/dex

When I jumped in I didn’t reply to anyone though. I made my own standalone point- “We can’t just get rid of dex mod to damage”. That’s something you seem to agree with. Why not just agree with my point?

 

[Phoebasss]

Obnoxious is a strong word.

Most ranges are already in feet such as max ranges and spells. Don't see how this makes a difference.

It's more about the need for calculating exact range. Are you within 60 feet is a question I can immediately answer as a GM. Exactly how many feet away are you is a much weirder question to be constantly keeping track of. One's binary, the other is highly variable, and changes every round.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's more about the need for calculating exact range. Are you within 60 feet is a question I can immediately answer as a GM. Exactly how many feet away are you is a much weirder question to be constantly keeping track of. One's binary, the other is highly variable, and changes every round.

my most common question is “how far away is X”

 

[Phoebasss]

my most common question is “how far away is X”

I suppose I'm being obtuse, the far more important point is that 5e isn't built well for stacking a bunch of modifiers on rolls. Anything that hopes to solve this problem in 5e shouldn't have the solution "play 3.5". Modifiers in 5e are rare and important. There are very few things that modify attack rolls by flat numbers.