D&D 5E the dex warrior - why make a strength based one?

[FrogReaver]

I wouldn't think a pole arm fighter will get more than 1-2 reaction attacks from the feat a combat.

 

[CapnZapp]

OK - Seems to me the balance here is about right between Joe McPolearm, and Susan McCrossbow.

Sigh.

If all you can come up with is "they both deal roughly the same amount of damage, one is better at range, the other at melee" I really feel you have decided you are going to consider the rules balanced no matter what arguments you hear.

For the rest of us, the addition of 120 frikkin feet range is immense, and definitely worth more than a piddly 4 DPR or thereabouts.

(In fact, this isn't and shouldn't be solely about damage. I don't want to reduce archer damage to nothing. Its much better to have archers be exposed to drawbacks that monsters can capitalize on)

Which brings me to my next point...

Why do you say "Susan doesn't want to be in melee"? Yet another fallacy that prevents people from correctly concluding 5E is broken in this regard. Say after me: Susan is a competent fighter. She is neither squishy nor bothered by melee in any way.

The only reason to wish not to be in melee is because then the monsters can no longer beat on you (most monsters are heavily melee centric) BUT THIS IS THE KEY TO VICTORY. Each point of damage not taken is the best kind of "dpr".

Comparing Joe is better in a dungeon room, Susan outside of it is horrifically simplified.

In ANY situation where you're not facing the classic Orc with a Pie in a featureless 30x30 room, Susan has infinitely better ways of damage mitigation than Joe, who needs to expose himself completely to enemy melee attacks in order to accomplish anything.

Not only can Susan trade her almost-equal DRP to the inferior ranged fire of most monsters, she can often find something to spend the combat behind except during her own turns. This allows her to trade her best-in-class DPR for NOTHING AT ALL (except area attack spells where the damage area can reach around corners).


This incentivizes canny players to play an all-ranged party.

It moves the gameplay away from classic fantasy melee-centric gaming, into much more modern-seeming "duck and shoot" combat.

Which is exactly why the lack of ranged restrictions is so bad. Not only does the game engine handle distance in combat badly, its monsters are built on the expectation of melee.

 

[The Old Crow]

I wouldn't think a pole arm fighter will get more than 1-2 reaction attacks from the feat a combat.

I would think that would be a lot if combats only last a few rounds.

Still, I have been playing without feats (though I plan on allowing them in the newest campaign). I hate balance gated behind feats, and I hate the use of specific "builds" to achieve balance. Feats and feat builds don't really address the issues I have with ranged combat, though everyone taking polearm master might work for others.

 

[CapnZapp]

I've found this perceived problem, of ranged exceptionalism at some tables, can be exacerbated by lax observance of encumbrance rules and ease of ammunition access.

DM: "You've been shooting three crossbow bolts every round of every fight this entire dungeon. Aren't you just about out by now?"
Player: "Nah. I bought six hundred bolts last time I was in town. That's enough for two-hundred combat rounds worth of shooting!"
DM: "..."
Player: "You said we could buy whatever mundane adventuring gear we wanted at book prices."
DM: "Six hundred crossbow bolts?! Where do you even keep them all?"
Player: "In quivers on my belt. I bought thirty of those too."
DM: "..."

If you feel it is fun to count ammo, knock yourself out.

But it can only ever be A solution, not THE solution.

I'd much rather the game and its feats retained ranged weaknesses regardless. I find the idea of ammo counting mind-numbingly boring myself.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Fair point


Holy Hacking Halberds Batman! How have I never read that properly?!?! I always thought it was just an extension of OA's to reach!

So yeah, in melee favourable terrain the STR fighter is significantly up on the DEX crossbow-er. OAs everywhere......how have I not made a polearm fighter yet?!?!?

It doesn't extend the OA range at all, it allows a special reaction OA when an enemy moves from further away to within 10'. Your normal OA range is still 5'. IF the enemy is already within 10', they can close to 5' without triggering the PM special OA. It's rather limited, but limited to a common occurrence, so still good. Don't expand it further.

I've found this perceived problem, of ranged exceptionalism at some tables, can be exacerbated by lax observance of encumbrance rules and ease of ammunition access.

DM: "You've been shooting three crossbow bolts every round of every fight this entire dungeon. Aren't you just about out by now?"
Player: "Nah. I bought six hundred bolts last time I was in town. That's enough for two-hundred combat rounds worth of shooting!"
DM: "..."
Player: "You said we could buy whatever mundane adventuring gear we wanted at book prices."
DM: "Six hundred crossbow bolts?! Where do you even keep them all?"
Player: "In quivers on my belt. I bought thirty of those too."
DM: "..."

This argument of yours was already addressed. Bags of holding, portable holes, and quivers of Elhonna, are all common magic items. It's trivial to have a quiver you're using and 50 full spares in a bag of holding, and takes but a few actions to swap. Wear 2 if you feel like you're going to run out in a combat, still not an encumbrance or access issue.

But say you're low magic, just have everyone carry an extra bolt case or 2 for you in their backpack. You have 2 ready on you and plenty of spares to swap during rests or other activities where you have a minute or two. Ammunition is a very rare hindrance past level 3.

 

[Corwin]

If you feel it is fun to count ammo, knock yourself out.

But it can only ever be A solution, not THE solution.

I clearly said 'exacerbated'. Are you disagreeing with my observation?

I'd much rather the game and its feats retained ranged weaknesses regardless. I find the idea of ammo counting mind-numbingly boring myself.

Sure. I could have guessed. I'm not at all surprised your choices have led you to your current situation. After all, that's how most people end up where they are. The amalgam of preferences and choices has resulted in your dislike of many aspects of 5e, as you play it. Rest assured, others do not have those same set of concerns and/or problems. Because they make different choices and have different preferences. And those have led to their own set of different issues with the game. Cuz, guess what, no published TTRPG system fits any group perfectly. That is a unicorn.

But some systems fit particular groups less than others. When someone regularly has massive problems with a given system, or edition, I often recommend they find one better suited to their playstyle. I sometimes even offer to help them find something they'll like more. There are so many out there these days. Something for everyone. World's your oyster, and all that.

 

[CapnZapp]

I wouldn't think a pole arm fighter will get more than 1-2 reaction attacks from the feat a combat.

I clearly said 'exacerbated'. Are you disagreeing with my observation?


Sure. I could have guessed. I'm not at all surprised your choices have led you to your current situation. After all, that's how most people end up where they are. The amalgam of preferences and choices has resulted in your dislike of many aspects of 5e, as you play it. Rest assured, others do not have those same set of concerns and/or problems. Because they make different choices and have different preferences. And those have led to their own set of different issues with the game. Cuz, guess what, no published TTRPG system fits any group perfectly. That is a unicorn.

But some systems fit particular groups less than others. When someone regularly has massive problems with a given system, or edition, I often recommend they find one better suited to their playstyle. I sometimes even offer to help them find something they'll like more. There are so many out there these days. Something for everyone. World's your oyster, and all that.

None of your arguments really validate your overarching theme that is "make no changes" and "everything is already good".

If you could come up with a single compelling argument why your game would be ruined by having range put in its proper place I would be more inclined to listen, Corwin.

As it is, you're mostly extraneous to the problem. You're not exactly defending the designers unwise choice to remove all checks on ranged combat... which means you're not really discussing the issue at hand.

You're mostly here to throw a wet blanket over the discussion, and it's so very very tedious.

 

[Corwin]

This argument of yours was already addressed. Bags of holding, portable holes, and quivers of Elhonna, are all common magic items.

Your typical 5th-level game is clearly far different than my example would imply. But that's cool. To each their own. I ditched magic item wish lists, expected treasure, and build-necessary item acquisition an edition ago. That you still play that way is fine and all. But I would caution you not to make assumptions about how 5e is typically played by using your playstyle as any kind of baseline.

Also, BTW, not one of those items you listed is a common magic item. Two are uncommon, one is rare. FYI.

 

[Corwin]

None of your arguments really validate your overarching theme that is "make no changes" and "everything is already good".

Can you show me where I've made that argument. In fact, I specifically said different groups aleways have problems with any given rule set. Because none are perfect. Now I'm starting to feel like you aren't bothering to read my posts and just want to be contrarian.

If you could come up with a single compelling argument why your game would be ruined by having range put in its proper place I would be more inclined to listen, Corwin.

That's, again, the real problem with your position. Some of us have not found ranged needing to be "put in its place". Sure, again, we have other issues with the game. But ranged might not be one of them. So your theory is flawed. The theory that ranged is objectively a problem that must be address on a core, rules level.

As it is, you're mostly extraneous to the problem. You're not exactly defending the designers unwise choice to remove all checks on ranged combat... which means you're not really discussing the issue at hand.

So, I made a suggestion, and an insight into what might be exacerbating (there's that word again) some problems, and you didn't like it. Therefore I have not been contributing to the topic. Maybe you should just tell me what to say so you can agree with me and we can move forward?

You're mostly here to throw a wet blanket over the discussion, and it's so very very tedious.

Well, at least I bother to read what people post and respond to their actual words. So at least give me credit for that.

 

[The Old Crow]

If you feel it is fun to count ammo, knock yourself out.

But it can only ever be A solution, not THE solution.

I'd much rather the game and its feats retained ranged weaknesses regardless. I find the idea of ammo counting mind-numbingly boring myself.

In AD&D we did for a while, then just counted special arrows (magic and silvered) once everyone had enough money that copper piece inching wasn't an issue and everyone could stock up on normal arrows. When the characters are broke and just starting out it can be fun tracking the dwindling resources.

5e though has things like Eldritch Blast and Firebolt, neither of which requires having or tracking any sort of material component. It feels petty to me to require a fighter type to become encumbered by ammo and count ever stick while the wizard can shoot off 600 firebolts in an hour, 6000 in 10 hours, and not have to carry or count a thing. I don't think ammo counting is a good solution when there are unlimited attack ranged cantrips.