D&D 5E Ranged party member keeps running off the map

[nswanson27]

You do realize an archer fighter with a rapier is just 1 feat behind any other fighter with a rapier???

But well behind a fighter with a greatsword, if we're talking melee.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You do realize an archer fighter with a rapier is just 1 feat behind any other fighter with a rapier???

In addition to what [MENTION=6797553]nswanson27[/MENTION] said, the non anrcher will have Dueling or Two Weapon Fighting, and will have feats for being in melee, and/or possibly the Dual Wielder feat. The Archer will not.

The non Archer is more likely to have a magical melee weapon, if the group has magic items. The Archer is more likely to have magical ranged weaponry.

The duelist or dual wielder fighter will have no wasted feats or resources, and multiple resources dedicated to kicking ass at the thing they are doing. The Archer will be completely out of their element.

OR, and this is what most groups do, there will be a mix of ranged and melee, cast and strong, characters, and they will bulwark eachother's weaknesses and heighten each others strengths, because 5e does a good job of making that easy to do.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why do people so often forget what they actually posted and start trying to defend another position entirely than the one they made 1 or 2 posts back. Stop being concerned with being right. Be concerned with being honest.

 

[FrogReaver]

@CapnZapp you've gone well past my tolerance for condescending knowitallism, so I'm done discussing this with you. I played no games, nor did I base anything on assumptions.

If you're seeing a lot of archer fighters that are just as tough as the average full plate melee fighter, your game is unusual. The classes that are built to be fast ranged guys are less durable than the fighter, paladin, and Barbarian. Oddball builds don't change that.

You have a hang up and some confirmation bias.

<shrug> have fun wth that.

THIS. Here is the original quote that started it all. See how the goalpost here was an implication that a melee fighter was "much more durable" than a Sharpshooter Archer Fighter. Now the goalpost has shifted away from durability and into who does more damage in melee....

Please see the below post for the new goalpost

In addition to what [MENTION=6797553]nswanson27[/MENTION] said, the non anrcher will have Dueling or Two Weapon Fighting, and will have feats for being in melee, and/or possibly the Dual Wielder feat. The Archer will not.
The non Archer is more likely to have a magical melee weapon, if the group has magic items. The Archer is more likely to have magical ranged weaponry.
The duelist or dual wielder fighter will have no wasted feats or resources, and multiple resources dedicated to kicking ass at the thing they are doing. The Archer will be completely out of their element.
OR, and this is what most groups do, there will be a mix of ranged and melee, cast and strong, characters, and they will bulwark eachother's weaknesses and heighten each others strengths, because 5e does a good job of making that easy to do.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

THIS. Here is the original quote that started it all. See how the goalpost here was an implication that a melee fighter was "much more durable" than a Sharpshooter Archer Fighter. Now the goalpost has shifted away from durability and into who does more damage in melee....

Please see the below post for the new goalpost

What in the hells are you talking about?

There are multiple points to be made. I'm not beholden to just...what, retread the same points I've already made even while speaking to another person?

Like most people, I'm perfectly capable of talking about multiple facets of a subject in one discussion. Both statements of mine that you've quoted are true. However, why on earth would I bring up the first point, in response to someone talking about a different facet of the argument? That would be *very weird* of me.

Also, by what twisted logic could my last comment to a person I was telling that I was done arguing with be what "started it all?"

Seriously, did you quote the wrong posts or something?

edit: also, try to remember what the words "in addition to" mean, and reread the post you first responded to me on.

Like...I don't know know how clear you want people to make it that they are adding points to the argument, and I don't really care, because you're being unreasonable.

Please knock it off.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

THIS. Here is the original quote that started it all. See how the goalpost here was an implication that a melee fighter was "much more durable" than a Sharpshooter Archer Fighter. Now the goalpost has shifted away from durability and into who does more damage in melee....

Please see the below post for the new goalpost

Where are you even getting that? When did I compare those specific things, even? I was super clear about what comparison I was referring to in that post, there is literally no such implication.

I did, at one point, as 1 part of the arguement, talk about how the stat array of an archer and a melee guy will probably be different, and how silly the idea of a full plate Archer with no speed penalty as "the norm" was, but...that isn't the same thing as what you're saying I implied, there, so....again, what in the hells are you talking about?

 

[FrogReaver]

What in the hells are you talking about?

There are multiple points to be made. I'm not beholden to just...what, retread the same points I've already made even while speaking to another person?

Like most people, I'm perfectly capable of talking about multiple facets of a subject in one discussion. Both statements of mine that you've quoted are true. However, why on earth would I bring up the first point, in response to someone talking about a different facet of the argument? That would be *very weird* of me.

Also, by what twisted logic could my last comment to a person I was telling that I was done arguing with be what "started it all?"

Seriously, did you quote the wrong posts or something?

edit: also, try to remember what the words "in addition to" mean, and reread the post you first responded to me on.

Like...I don't know know how clear you want people to make it that they are adding points to the argument, and I don't really care, because you're being unreasonable.

Please knock it off.

Right post was quoted. Capnzapp had made the point that the archer fighter was just as durable in melee. You disputed that and things went back and forth before they got out of hand between you too.

Now some of us are interested in finishing that discussion and wondering what makes you think archer fighters are that much less durable than melee fighters in melee. You bringing up that melee fighters will do more damage in melee just isn't going to cut it because it adds nothing to that discussion.

 

[nswanson27]

I don't see goalpost moving here. I see people making points and comments that steers the conversation from one specific subject matter to another related but different one. Kinda like how real life conversations flow.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Right post was quoted. Capnzapp had made the point that the archer fighter was just as durable in melee. You disputed that and things went back and forth before they got out of hand between you too.

Now some of us are interested in finishing that discussion and wondering what makes you think archer fighters are that much less durable than melee fighters in melee. You bringing up that melee fighters will do more damage in melee just isn't going to cut it because it adds nothing to that discussion.

I don't care what will "cut it", for you. I'm not in any way obligated to you. The conversation moved on. I made the points I felt needed to be made on the durability question, and when others started talking about other aspects, I jumped in there. I'm not obligated to keep engaging on the durability thing.

So, again, please knock it off. In fact, just leave me alone unless you have something to add to the current topic that I'm engaged with. Thanks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't see goalpost moving here. I see people making points and comments that steers the conversation from one specific subject matter to another related but different one. Kinda like how real life conversations flow.

Indeed. Anyway, have we pretty much covered it, here? I feel like maybe we have. 5e rewards melee and range, both are fun, both have pros and cons, and both are needed, and need eachother, in an actual game.