Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6867939" data-attributes="member: 996">So it's an imbalance on a featureless plane.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> In theory, yes, sometimes ranged attackers have a huge advantage and can set up a beaten zone or crossfire and just cut the enemy to pieces as they try to close.&nbsp; Heck, not just in theory.&nbsp; But, you need clear fields of fire and sufficiently powerful ranged attacks for that to work.&nbsp; I know, Sharpshooter takes care of a lot of that 'but.' Also in theory, sometimes melee attackers gain a huge advantage, when in close quarters, when trying to take &amp; hold ground, when fighting in formation, when any other sort of action is required beyond poking small holes in things.&nbsp; Maybe 5e is better at reflecting the former than the latter?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6867939, member: 996"] So it's an imbalance on a featureless plane. ;) In theory, yes, sometimes ranged attackers have a huge advantage and can set up a beaten zone or crossfire and just cut the enemy to pieces as they try to close. Heck, not just in theory. But, you need clear fields of fire and sufficiently powerful ranged attacks for that to work. I know, Sharpshooter takes care of a lot of that 'but.' Also in theory, sometimes melee attackers gain a huge advantage, when in close quarters, when trying to take & hold ground, when fighting in formation, when any other sort of action is required beyond poking small holes in things. Maybe 5e is better at reflecting the former than the latter? [/QUOTE]

Verification