Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6959515" data-attributes="member: 12731">Thank you. I think that post is so exceptionally on-topic I'll quote it in full (just tell me if you don't like that and I'll remove it) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Assuming "sword" is shorthand for any weapon with 5 ft reach (or 10 ft reach at most), my answer is:I'm firmly convinced the 5E designers have built pretty much their entire game on the premise that the majority of any party (say three out of five characters) are heroes with Reach 5 and Speed 30. This includes fundamental assumptions about weapon performance, monster manual entries and everything in between.This is also why the game feels so... defenseless against the tactic where the players collectively blow this premise to bits.As for your question, I would love to only include "type 2" - buffs to the sword, as it were. Only problem is, that would still make characters overpowered compared to off the shelf MM monsters. And since the main reason we're having this conversation is to not have to tweak/change/rewrite-from-scratch the MM monsters... well...Which leads us to "type 1" rules - nerfs to the bow, as it were. Here I don't have a particularly attractive response: a nerf is a nerf is a nerf. But is it really? If we instead reframe the nerfs as rollbacks of hasty and ill-advised changes to d20, we can perhaps sell them as more attractive, since the purpose is still good: making 5E better for everyone.What I mean is that compared to d20 5E has made quite the number of changes, that might seem innocuos enough viewed separately, but taken as a group are devastating in the hands of a player unburdened by nostalgia and tradition.1. you can use dexterity for both attacks and damage2. loading times and ammunition can be made into a non-issue3. you can take a feat that makes range a non-issue4. you can take a feat that makes cover a non-issue5. you can take a feat that makes the lower damage of your weapon (compared to greataxes) a non-issue6. you can take a feat that effectively lets you dual wield ranged weapons, and not only that, but lets you stack both the Archery and the Two-Weapon Fighting fightning styles on these attacks7. you can take a feat that makes you invulnerable to the traditional way you shut down an archer: by getting up close and waving a pointy stick in his face (and at his very fragile bow). Also, how this enables you to shoot at monsters wrestling your allies with no added risk of missing and no risk of accidentally making holes in your best bud.I'm convinced that merely rolling back ONE or TWO of these rules changes to its equivalent d20 status would go a great way in restoring the "tyranny" of the sword! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />ZappPS. And indeed this is also what I and other posters have suggested. My own suggestion was 1. and others have suggested 5. To help ensure everyone is crystal clear on what I mean by 1-6 above, let me spell it out. Apologies if this reads as if written by Captain Obvious...1. "A character gets no Strength bonus on damage rolls with a projectile weapon" is what the d20 SRD says. In other words (and here comes my fellow Captain) they do not get to add dexterity to damage. What they do get to do is the following (continuing the SRD quote): "...unless it’s a specially built composite shortbow, specially built composite longbow, or sling"This is what's behind my simplified proposal - to allow all ranged weaponry to add strength to damage. This still makes no difference to a Strength 20 Dexterity 20 character, but at least the added bit of MAD (multi-ability dependency) should make players pause before selecting to play archers.2. Never a popular path for D&D, you could make it impossible to shoot more than once per round with a crossbow. Then you could compensate for this by giving crossbows a built-in strength score (higher than 10 that is /Captain Obvious), making them attractive for characters without Extra Attack.3 & 4. While I appreciate the simplicity of how these benefits are implemented in the Sharpshooter feat, they simply throw out the baby with the bathwater. Ranged fire without range and cover isn't just overpowered, it also feels strangely artificial, and as a result: un-fun. But in this context, we're mostly concerned about the simple fact it makes ranged fire crazy powerful. 5. What we're talking about here is the -5/+10 part of Sharpshooter. The difference between 1d6+5 and 1d12+5 isn't to be sneezed at (without the feat, assuming Strength 20 and no magic). But the difference between 1d6+15 and 1d12+15 is much much less. This big reduction means the difference in range suddenly looms large. The range of the hand crossbow (the first weapon) is 120 feet, while the ranged of the second weapon (the greataxe) is 5 feet. Even if we factor in movement, we're still talking about 150 ft vs 30 ft. Since this is often the difference between finding another target to hit after you've downed the first one, and having to waste an attack, the damage differential is easily compensated for.6. perhaps the clumsiest implementation of all is the added insult to injury of how dual wielding in general got the short shrift, but how the Drizzt has to watch the Crossbow Expert usea) a single hand crossbow as effectively as he uses two swortswordsb) gets to enjoy the same benefit of two-handed weapon fighting style and still get to put the Archery fighting style on top... 7. Crossbow Expert (again) rears its ugly head here: "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls". If you only make one single change, for the love of the gods, ban Crossbow Expert! (The difference to the LotR movies is that D&D forgot to make sure there's a reason why not everyone aren't playing Legolas!)</blockquote>

Verification