D&D 5E Assuming no GWM/SS, are different fighting styles roughly balanced?

[Zardnaar]

Sigh.

Another one not even mentioning the most important part:

That d12 has a 5ft reach, while an arrow has 80 ft or more.

As soon as you can't reach your next foe in melee, which WILL happen, that d12 of yours turn into a d0.

Not to mention how the fact that you DID reach your foe means your foe reaches you. At range you can often avoid enemy melee attacks altogether, and since many many monsters have considerably stronger melee attacks, this is probably an even stronger factor in favor of ranged.

So believe me when I say archery does NOT need a general, always-on, attack bonus!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

D&D has always had that although perhaps AD&D and 3E were not as generous to archery as it had some restrictions on it and you did not get dex to damage.

The main problem is still the SS feat+ dex to damage and monsters having stupidly low AC with an average AC of 14.5 in the MM.

 

[CapnZapp]

D&D has always had that although perhaps AD&D and 3E were not as generous to archery as it had some restrictions on it and you did not get dex to damage.

The main problem is still the SS feat+ dex to damage and monsters having stupidly low AC with an average AC of 14.5 in the MM.

Certainly you can keep Archery as is.

If you also reverse any of the eleven (!) decisions WotC took to liberate ranged combat... (compared to 3rd Ed)

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[TwoSix]

Related question: If there was a house rule that you could attack with a light weapon as a bonus action, full stop (no requirement of Attack as an action, attack does dice + mod damage), what would be the problematic knock-off effects? (Obviously, two-weapon fighting style and possibly dual-wielder feat would have to be modified as well.)

 

[bid]

As soon as you can't reach your next foe in melee, which WILL happen, that d12 of yours turn into a d0.

That's a pretty one-sided argumentation. What about the penalty to ranged when someone is in melee range?

 

[bid]

Related question: If there was a house rule that you could attack with a light weapon as a bonus action, full stop (no requirement of Attack as an action, attack does dice + mod damage), what would be the problematic knock-off effects? (Obviously, two-weapon fighting style and possibly dual-wielder feat would have to be modified as well.)

EK war magic, shield master, monk become weaker.

 

[hejtmane]

I like this post a lot. People think the Rogue deals a lot of damage. It doesn't its roughly average.

Without feats EB is an outlier and if you have no feats but allow MCing the Sorlock is the new OP build.

Feats and MCing are basically opting in to break the game. I allow it but are under no illusions to the consequences (encounters being to easy, concentration not being much of a draw back etc).

Your class evaluations are spot on, Monks are decent at damage though and are very useful to have around but they tend to get over shadowed by the -5/+10 feats. Stunning strike and flurry of blows are your bread and butter. I prefer them over the Rogue in the skirmisher role.

Smite knights are also right there in that range as while

 

[Ancalagon]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]

Two comments:

1: don't war clerics have access to martial weapons?

2: I agree that the "simplification " of 5e removed the "devil in the details" that held archery back in 3e. However, your argument may be stronger is you briefly listed the 11 reasons...

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Xeviat]

I would have rather all of the Fighting styles been like "Protection", giving you something nifty to do. Ultimately, giving each Fighting Style a bonus action (archery gets "aim", protection gets "protect" ...) would have made them easier to balance and more interesting.

I was going to come in here with math, but it's not really necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TwoSix]

I would have rather all of the Fighting styles been like "Protection", giving you something nifty to do. Ultimately, giving each Fighting Style a bonus action (archery gets "aim", protection gets "protect" ...) would have made them easier to balance and more interesting.

I was going to come in here with math, but it's not really necessary.

That's actually kinda where I was going with this.

 

[Greg Benage]

I like this post a lot. People think the Rogue deals a lot of damage. It doesn't its roughly average.

At 11th level, assuming a baseline 65% hit chance, an arcane trickster with an owl and booming blade is doing about 38 DPR (before movement adders). A Crossbow Expert rogue is about 31, and can get close to that with just hide-and-shoot and no feat. Both at-will, no resources (except owls, potentially). A fighter swinging a greatsword three times (with GWF but no GWM) is about 27 DPR. He'll close the gap by using resources, but he also lacks the exploration/social utility of the rogue.

At 13th level, the rogue gets another sneak attack die and can start hasting himself for two sneak attacks a round and a DPR explosion, while the fighter is still about 27 DPR.

As for "squishiness," the AT has Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, optionally shield, excellent ranged DPR options, one less point of AC, and 11 less hit points than the greatsword fighter.

Balance the game in whatever way works for you, but I have to wonder about the rogues in your games.