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

[Corwin]

I think maybe there's a bit of disconnect here. Is everyone familiar with the definition of the word, 'exacerbate'?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not sure what you mean.

If what you're saying is "ranged was good in 3E too" I don't disagree.

I'm saying there was no need to play the 'popularity' card - especially given WotC's record of steadfastly asserting that each of it's editions is more popular than the last, as it undermines an otherwise valid argument.

Remember, 3rd edition was a huge success. And it had no less than eleven (11) checks and limitations on archers that 5E made the huge mistake of removing.

What I'm specifically pointing my finger at is how WotC for some reason thought it was a good idea to remove ALL of the following restrictions on the basic idea of picking up a bow and starting to shoot:

1. ranged fire requires a different ability than melee
2. ranged fire does less damage (no ability modifier to damage)
3. penalty to shoot into melee (target is in melee)
4. penalty to shoot from melee (archer is in melee)
5. you can't move into position, shoot, then retreat out of sight - you're either stuck out in the open before or after your shot
6. no "power attack" with ranged weapons
7. no dual-wielding with ranged weapons
8. archers gain penalties for cover
9. archers gain penalties for range
10. you can't stack a magic bow with magic ammunition

I've probably forgotten one or two, but these are the ten I could come up with from the top of my head.

You said 11+, you better come up with 11! ;P Of course, the obvious one you left out was the AoO for making a ranged attack in melee. Inability to make AoOs, yourself, was another downside, but 5e hasn't technically removed it, just made AoOs a lot less common and relatively less effective.

I mean, the main advantage of range is still there:

• Shooting at range means the monster can't claw your eyes out, because his arms can't reach you.

For a high-hp fighter with few means of preventing an enemy from closing, that's a fairly minor advantage (for casters it can be huge, of course). Being able to attack an enemy in spite of being unable to reach them (due to distance, intervening obstacles, effects that reduce or nullify your movement, etc), and thus able to attack the target of your choice, every round, focusing fire efficiently, is a pretty major offensive advantage.

Yet, removing ALL of these is what WotC decided to do.
you can now use Dexterity for both your melee and ranged needs

Since you seem to be including feats, yeah, you could do that in 3e or 4e via feats, too. And, you can make ranged attacks with STR, too.

no penalty to shoot into melee (even if you rule creatures can take cover behind your allies, this benefit is negated by the +2 from Archery Style)

Important because it makes it harder to focus fire on enemies engaged with your melee allies. Though, maybe a little too restrictive.

you're free to move both before and after your attacks, which is MUCH more useful for ranged fire than melee. Archers can stay completely out of line of effect except to readied attacks.

And you can move and make all your Extra Attacks, no Full Attack Action like in 3e, so kiting tactics don't need to accept reduced damage.

Without feats, the archer is at least vulnerable to getting caught in melee combat.

Meh, he can plink away without provoking, the disadvantage hurts, but, if there's already sources of advantage and/or disadvantage affecting you, that doesn't much matter.

Did I mention they removed ALL TEN of the checks and balances on 3rd Edition ranged combat...?

You did. Though, to be fair, I find two flaws with that statement: 1) you /are/ assuming feats, which are technically optional in 5e, and 2) you left out at least two such checks, one of them, the AoO, very significant, IMHO.

... Joe McPolearm, and Susan McCrossbow. If you check the numbers using a non-trivial to-hit chance (say 1d20 + 10 Vs AC 16 = 75%), ... conclusively, Susan does more damage per turn against Combat Dummies to the tune of about 1d6 per round. Case closed.

There's more to it than raw DPR. It's unlikely the melee guy gets to attack the target of his choice, every single round, since some rounds are spent moving into melee range, so that further reduces his damage potential, and it reduces his ability to focus all that damage on one target to burn it down to 0 hps. Ranged attackers more rarely face those problems, since an enemy must move a great distance to get out of bow or crossbow range.

Now there's another argument about AC here, in that all things being equal, Joe has an AC 1 higher than Susan at level 12.

That's not all things being equal, that's Joe wearing more expensive armor that brings it's own restrictions with it.

On an infinitely flat plane, Susan is now utterly badass. With her 120ft range, she's dropping every melee enemy before it gets a hit on her

Not quite that bad, in all likelihood - monsters tend to be faster than PCs, and kiting is hard without some blockers or something to keep them from just Dashing right up to you.

However, Move indoors and things change.

They don't change /that/ much. There's no AoOs for firing in melee, and terrain issues that can mean a ranged type is coping with cover or enemies that can get close before moving into LoS can often prevent melee attacks, entirely, as well. And 5e archers aren't melee-alergic like those of past editions - they can prettymuch stand and shoot you in the face. They're still fighters, still with d10 hps.

By contrast something can run at Susan, attack, then dart behind a door (or behind a tree in a densely packed forest).

That's just a silly tactic, and the need to resort to it, because the feat-optimized ranged character faces no downside in melee just makes it that much more laughable - and sad.

Susan doesn't want to be in melee

She doesn't /need/ to be in melee, but she can handle it.

It potentially gets worse for Susan if things are tight AND she's got allies - LoS becomes a bit of an issue, and she's relegated to just dealing damage.

Just dealing damage is all optimized DPR machines like these generally do, and what they should do. Allies just make it that much easier, with no cover penalties and in no danger, she can just pour the hurt onto whatever poor enemy is engaged with her blockers, focusing fire and burning them down fast. It's prettymuch ideal.

So, lets say, for a minute, that Mearls magically activates his time machine, sends himself back in time, and nerfs existing bow tactics.

Now, how does this solve the ranged issue? We still have eldritch blast snipers and other long distance magic users. How does one resolve this issue?

Very valid, larger point. The OP's topic may have been the balance between two types of weapon-user builds, but the removal of restrictions from archery is concurrent with an even more generous treatment of spellcasting, which is that much more significant in it's impact, so it would make sense to focus on solutions that also applied in that realm. AoOs for using ranged attacks (of any kind) in melee, for instance, would make it harder for both archers and casters.

Imbalances between builds (or even weapons) are just much easier to quantify when you're dealing primarily with DPR.

 

[Hillsy7]

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.

The Rules aren't balanced per se, but neither are they terrifyingly weighted one way or the other. In various non-contived situations, both builds can shine.

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)

Small rooms and poor sightlines - that's a drawback.

Say after me: Susan is a competent fighter. She is neither squishy nor bothered by melee in any way.

Agreed - which is why I mentioned the Melee Fighter's ability to lock-down opponents and OAs. Susan is indeed competent, but she's built for ranged. She either lacks OAs, or she uses a finesse weapon, eliminating all the perks she's picked so far. Yeah, she'll still do a hot mess of damage, but that's what fighters do.

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)

Your wizard disagrees

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

Why? The point I'm making is in various non-contrived situations, both builds can shine.

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).

Enemies can use that same obstacles to close spaces, hide themselves, and block sightlines. In smaller locations, opponents can run around obstacles and lock you down (The OROG for instance can double move and charge). That's not to say Susan can't still dodge and weave and pull off a fantastic John Woo single-handed takedown of an orc war band, just that you got to have the right terrain at the right time. Also - would be really, really handy to have Joe in the room, you know, locking those enemies down.

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

I disagree - an all ranged party lacks a lot in close quarters as you're relying on casters burning spells to lock down opponents. Instead, what is does promote is situational considerations and preplanning (i.e. making sure all terrain is a known factor). While this is great for some games, it's not for others where just taking a varied party is the better solution (also gives more characters for players to play).

All that aside, I'm not saying that one or the other is "better". I'm simply stating that in plenty of situations, you're glad you have that big galoot with the halberd up front rather than the Demon Hunter. And I think that's pretty balanced design.

 

[Mephista]

Let me ask this, CapnZapp. You say the game incentivizes "canny"* players to go all-ranged. Has this actually happened in your game? Absolutely no one going melee at all?

In my personal experience, melee characters are necessary to the game. Needing two feats to attain the level of mastery to be the uber-archer without any drawback takes time, and is really only viable when using variant human; otherwise, it takes too long to come online and you're gimping yourself for too much of the game.

So, I have to ask if this has actually been happening in your game, and how have things been going before characters get both feats.**

* I object to the implication that canny = min-maxing.
** If the combination of feats is the problem, why not just ban the ability to combine these two? That should solve your archery woes, no?

 

[Caliban]

I agree with CapnZapp on one thing - ranged combat (with appropriate feats and class abilities) is superior to melee as far as dealing damage. A little too good, which is why I've house ruled a few things in my home game (archery style gives +2 dam instead of +2 att, Sharpshooter gives +2 att vs targets with cover instead of ignoring cover). For me, these minor tweaks seem to have been enough to bring it in line with melee damage dealers.

But I also play a lot of Adventure League, where house-ruling things isn't an option. Ranged characters still don't dominate the semi-random tables of players I play with. There is usually at least one, sometimes two. But I also see just as many melee characters, healers-types, and caster types. The ranged characters generally do more damage than everyone else, but few of them can contribute anything other than damage.

That's the thing I think the ranged vs melee debate overlooks: pure damage output isn't the only factor to consider. The ranged specialists tend to have very little to contribute other than pure damage (which is important), but just damage isn't enough. You still want characters who can contribute in other ways.

There are other, equally important ways to contribute: Being able to "tank" - block the bad guys and absorb damage, preventing them from reaching your less durable, lower AC people. Being able to use crowd control, slowing or stopping the enemy and making them more vulnerable to attacks from your damage dealers, being a healer type to keep your damage dealers on their feet so they can keep doing their damage, etc.

 

[MrHotter]

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.

What ranged restrictions would you like to see added as standard or optional rules? Maybe others can be inspired to house rule something in.

Right now having disadvantage if a monster in in melee range of you, the half cover for targets that are in a melee, and losing the ability to perform opportunity attacks seem like a good trade off for being able to attack at range. It takes two feats to mitigate two of the three ranged disadvantages, and the melee focused guy can use those feats to help their close combat abilities.

Since this is a game based around groups then I'm sure that with clever use of spells and tactics an all ranged party could work. Not being the clever type myself, I still see advantages to having the guys with more AC and HPs being the ones we want to have the monsters getting to first.

If the rest of the party was a wizard, a bard, and a rogue and I was creating a fighter, then an archer fighter would be low on my list. When the monsters get to the party I would not want them attacking the wizard or bard over my character.

 

[Corwin]

IMO a fundamental "miss", with claims that going all-ranged is obviously the best choice, is that we should otherwise be seeing a bunch of posts about how a group keeps getting systematically TPKed because they consist of a barbarian, paladin, valor bard and moon druid. If that party routinely makes it to the next adventuring day, clearly they didn't need to be an all-ranged party to play D&D "correctly".

 

[Tony Vargas]

Let me ask this, CapnZapp. You say the game incentivizes "canny"* players to go all-ranged. Has this actually happened in your game? Absolutely no one going melee at all?

I've seen games go both ways, or very nearly so. All ranged (all caster or casters and an archer or two) or all melee (even all martial in 4e). But, very often, there'll be a few characters that can handle either just fine.

Melee-only characters do, IMX, come up against problems like not being able to attack (or to attack who they want or focus fire) almost as much in 5e as prior editions (TotM makes it very tempting to just hand-wave positioning), but ranged characters rarely have an issue anymore, while in past eds they'd at least occasionally have a problem, if not be downright hosed now and then.

Besides, players often just want to play what they want to play, or never mind all-archers, we'd have all-full-neo-Vancian caster parties, every time. That doesn't excuse imbalance, of course, you still need to make sure that the player who chooses a sub-optimal/non-viable class/build/whatever has a shot at having a good time and isn't driven away from the game. It's just that hopefully the DM will work with what he has to impose balance, rather than letting his game suck while he waits for WotC to perfect the system.

In my personal experience, melee characters are necessary to the game.

Until such time as the optimized feat-abusing archers slough the last remaining limitations of archery in melee, or the casters can summon their own blockers, sure. Necessary can still be inferior, though. :shrug:

Needing two feats to attain the level of mastery to be the uber-archer without any drawback takes time

The same time as getting two feats to be the uber-greatsworder or Sentinel, or cover your non-combat bases as a fighter. And, those first 3 levels do go really fast.
But, yeah, your low-level/non-Variant-human ranged fighters are going to want a finesse weapon for melee for the first 5 levels or so.

** If the combination of feats is the problem, why not just ban the ability to combine these two? That should solve your archery woes, no?

The Capn's tried that many a time - ever since those feats bit off his leg, I think it was...

 

[CapnZapp]

wall of text

Sorry Tony, but if you have a point, it got lost somewhere in there. I can't even be bothered to find out if you agree to my basic premise - that 5e is the straw that broke the melee camel's back. To be honest, with posts such as yours the issue that should be simple comes across as very layered and complex.

But that only detracts from one simple truth: WotC dropped the ball here. They probably just wanted to cater to the special snowflake crowd who needs their dex heroes, but in doing so they forgot about the fundamental assumptions of the game and the genre.

There simply must be mechanical reasons for playing melee Strength builds or the entire game changes, and it becomes too easy and too straightforward to circumvent the monster manual, for example.

Z


PS. But thanks for finding lost AoOs as an eleventh lost restriction (no thanks for later on undermining my argument for not including it, though).

 

[CapnZapp]

IMO a fundamental "miss", with claims that going all-ranged is obviously the best choice, is that we should otherwise be seeing a bunch of posts about how a group keeps getting systematically TPKed because they consist of a barbarian, paladin, valor bard and moon druid. If that party routinely makes it to the next adventuring day, clearly they didn't need to be an all-ranged party to play D&D "correctly".

Sorry but no.

Most published adventures are so easy most groups can complete them regardless of build. That should not prevent us from having a fruitful discussion about "choice X is twice as good as choice Y" decision points.

Adventure difficulty level isn't an useful metric on anything really.

And that's about the only saving grace for playing the game "the way I've always done". That is, the fact you can create a Dwarf Axe Fighter that completes the published adventure campaigns, says nothing about my argument: that this is a severely inferior build choice given how little you gain in return for giving up them twin 120 ft shortswords (that is, Crossbow Expert), and archery in general.