[D20/D&D 3.5] Has anyone tried this ranged weapon tweak?

[Gnoman]

Basically, I've seen some homebrew rulesets where ranged weapons recieved the user's dexterity modifier to damage (representing the benefit of a better aimed shot hitting more squarely or in a better location). The problem was those rules usually were designed around ludicrous stat boosts, where stats in the 50s and 60s were average (so melee damage was so high that ranged absolutely needed a stat boost.) Has anyone tried something like this in a more normal setting?

[hamishspence]

4E does this.

I don't know if it would imbalance the game much in 3.5E.

[Fouredged Sword]

In d20 you would run into massive damage more oftine with guns, makeing the game more deadly for people fighting other people with shotguns and other high damage weapons. I would not add it to autofire damage though, but maybe add it to the save DC to avoid the damage.

[The Big Dice]

If you make ranged weapons too good, you run into the danger of making melee utterly obsolete. After all, why clost to melee range when it's safe to shoot from a distance or where cover is a viable option?

Other than that, I've thought about it, but never actually implemented it in play.

[Greenish]

If you make ranged weapons too goodGiven the amount of support melee has, not to even mention that they by default get 1.5x times their main stat to damage instead of just 1x, I shouldn't worry that this makes them better than melee.

Though one might want to nix the Splitting enhancement from lower-powered games.

[The Big Dice]

Given the amount of support melee has, not to even mention that they by default get 1.5x times their main stat to damage instead of just 1x, I shouldn't worry that this makes them better than melee.
I'm not sure that using a one handed weapon with both hands is "by default" in the slightest.

But like I said, if you make ranged weapons too good, you make melee obsolete. Simply because ranged weapons have the ability to strike before melee. So in the time that the melee fighter is closing the range, he's taking damage but you are not.

Ranges of combat is a fairly basic concept, it always amazes me that so many roleplayers forget about the power being good at ranged weapon, melee weapon, kicking and striking and then grappling range brings.

[Greenish]

I'm not sure that using a one handed weapon with both hands is "by default" in the slightest.Using a weapon two-handed, or using two weapons, are basically the default methods of dealing melee damage.

Sword'n'board is a more defensive hybrid, and besides doesn't really work so well in 3.5 without some serious tricking out.

Then there's the fact that damage is the only thing a ranged combatant (without spells) brings to bear. Melee isn't so well off in that department either, but at least they have some options for control and the like.

Of course, if many combats in your game start from outside charging range (60'-80'+), ranged has an advantage, but to my experience that's not so often.


[Edit]: I wonder why you think ranged combat has to be worse than melee? Or do you think the two options are balanced at the moment?

[The Big Dice]

[Edit]: I wonder why you think ranged combat has to be worse than melee? Or do you think the two options are balanced at the moment?
If ranged combat is significantly better than melee, it renders melee obsolete. Why bother closing to use a hand weapon when you can shoot from a distance?

The same thing happened in the real world, where a modern rifle is literally hundreds of times more deadly than even the most powerful muscle powered weapons.

Think about it in D&D terms. If a bow had all the goodies it was possible to get for a greatsword, then the greatsword just got put out of business.