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

[Tony Vargas]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]
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...

Go ahead and re-post them, Zapp, I've only seem 'em twice before that I recall, I won't complain that you're badgering us with the same agenda over & over...

I would have rather all of the Fighting styles been like "Protection"

So, situational, with an action-economy cost and tending to make no difference half the time?

, 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.

Oh, OK, that'd've been cool, sure.

 

[Mistwell]

At will damage in 1-4 bracket can be dominated by 2 things.
1. Anything with a bonus action attack that gets mod damage.
2. A dual-wield rouge using sneak attack or a ranged rouge that gets advantage every turn.

 

[Mistwell]

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

And you're not mentioning that you, as the fighter, very likely WANT the foes to be focused on you rather than other PCs. Which means you may WANT to be right next to them, where they get an opportunity attack if they move off you. It's a trade off, and you seem only focused on the offensive part of that equation and not at all in the defensive aspect.

 

[clearstream]

Fundamentally, this edition place a very low cost on range. That is, you lose very little by choosing to be a ranged combatant. At range, there are two builds that stand out: your 4b and 5a. Either go Sorlock (Sorcerer with two Warlock levels, and Eldritch/Agonizing Blast) or go martial (probably a multiclassed fighter) with Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter - your single hand crossbow then practically becomes twin shortswords with 120 feet reach: yes, you gain the better part of two-weapon fighting AND you're not inconvenienced by melee.

Either of these two stand heads and shoulders above a "regular" build.

For me it isn't so much an issue to deal with them, but that it would distort the narrative for me to do so. How might tactics and technology need to change to respond to the possibility of such a fighter? At 11th level it looks like the CM/SS Battlemaster Archer using Hand Xbox can choose four of the following attacks per turn (3 actions + 1 bonus action)

1d6 + 5
1d6 + 15 (-5)
1d6 + 1d10 +5
1d6 + 1d10 + 15 (-5)

They'll have 5 superiority dice so that is an exhaustible resource. They'll have AC 17, +11 to hit, and +5 to initiative given 20 Dex. A level 6 Battlemaster level 5 Swashbuckler duelist can probably defeat them as, with similar stats they can have AC 19, +9 to hit, and +12 or so initiative through taking Alert. They can't Riposte and trigger their Sneak Attack damage twice, but they can rule out the +10/-5 attacks through Uncanny Dodge which will punish "spikey" DPS. It depends very much on who fails what saves against combat superiority maneuvers, and how the out-of-combat skills play out. Battlemaster/Swashbuckler Stealth likely beats Archer's Passive Perception whatever they roll.

I point this out to say that the archer is a very narrow character. Strong in an outdoors clear area with 120' sight in all directions. Weaker in other situations such as a winding corridor in a dungeon. Attending to detail then is probably how one avoids distorting ones narrative around them.

It is notable that the Eldritch Blaster is not dependant on feats, so in games without feats, this character must be considered broken. Being able to project 4d10+20 force(!) damage at long range, when corresponding featless melee characters do 4d12+20 slashing damage at 5 ft range, what were they thinking?

It's strong, but again I wonder if the devil in in the details? Warlock Dragoons could easily be a thing, but in a dungeon?

Which brings us to the greatweapon wielder. You actually gain very little for staying a melee character in this edition. A d12 weapon instead of a d10 (in the case of EB) or a d6 (for the X-bow), and your opportunity attack. Sure with good Strength you can use heavy armor, but Dexterity is probably still superior - light armor isn't sufficiently worse than heavy armor, and Dexterity saves and Initiative trump Athletics. You can improve upon this by choosing a weapon that qualifies both for GWM and Polearm Mastery at the same time for more reliable bonus attacks. Still, you will lose attacks simply because you can't reach your opponent in melee, and if you do this even once, you have lost the DPR race. Being able to project force at over 100 ft - if everyone in the party does this - fundamentally breaks the game, since if you have no incentive to enter melee, monsters cannot deal with your group (monsters are decidedely melee heavy, but lacks the tools and tricks of previous editions).

I think the PAM GWS guy could be looking for crits to balance things out. Say taking Half Orc and Champion to double down on that. Then with the heaviest possible armor to compensate for the lack of shield and need to stand toe-to-toe.

All of this is because WotC removed or lessened not fewer than eleven (11) restrictions on ranged fire compared to 3.x. Yes, I complained about this in a old thread, and we ended up with 11 distinct parameters that 3.x used to keep ranged fire in check that is no longer present in 5th edition, or can be mitigated/circumvented.

Yup. For me the biggest issue with CM/SS is actually the obviating of cover. It makes a non-narrative-distorting combat harder to achieve.

This is the source of my "triple damage" claim. At level 11, a fighter with SS/CE can dish out four attacks of d6+15, which even if we account for the -3 penalty, easily is triple that of two attacks at d8+5 for a "regular" sword'n'boarder.

They go from +11 to +6. For me this more reveals an issue with low ACs in the MM than anything else. The MM is set to "easy" difficulty so far as I can see. Dial that up a little and dropping to +6 makes it much less of a gimme. Again, it's ignoring cover that really concerns me.

In between you have things like Rogue. I am personally convinced the Rogue doesn't get enough sneak damage to justify being such a squishy combatant.

By that I mean that if I am to forego all the robustness of a fighter or paladin or barbarian I would have wanted to easily be the king of DPR. But that simply isn't the case in games with feats.

I part agree with this. I'd just point out that the rogue has narrative power: solid abilities that allow players to advance the narrative in their preferred direction. It's not all combat

The Monk can't compete on damage except for the lowest levels, but at levels 5-12ish Stunning Strike is an excellent and most powerful addition to any group, since to so beautifully sets up -5/+10 strikes from the fighters. At high levels monsters start to save against it, and I worry Monks lose out there.

Well, the Wood Elf Monk at 11th level with Mobile can go for moving say 65', with +9 to hit, AC 18 or so, +5 to Init

close 30'
1d8 + 5 (save vs stun)
1d8 + 5 (save vs stun)
1d8 + 5 (save vs prone)
1d8 + 5 (save vs prone)
and then retreat to 35'

So that isn't horrible. Once the CM/SS fighter is out of their 5 superiority dice, the Monk's 11 ki makes them look a bit better. My personal fix is that a short rest is 6 hours, and a long rest 2 days. So there's that To close from 120' (worst case), the Monk could move, dash, dodge. In that situation the CM/SS archer can't really throw in 10/-5s. Or maybe on one or two attacks with precision strike but then - Deflect Missiles.

The Eldritch Knight can easily be played just like a regular fighter, only he spends all his spell slots on Shields to become nigh-invincible in combat. Not convinced it's worth mucking about with cantrips and war magic. Just gain +5 AC and you have probably optimized your magic...

5e The druid's martial capabilities are weak, unless it wild shapes, and as overpowered that is at level 2, it probably loses out in the end. (Of course, by then the Druid is a full caster, so I'm not worried for the class. Just saying that I would drop any ideas of actually wielding a weapon in humanoid form)

Until you run out of spell slots and Druid transforms back to human shedding all damage...

The most broken builds don't seem to me hugely above the others. They're strong. They're a poser. They're not far from fine.

 

[clearstream]

A few things, in no particular order, that I believe would greatly enhance the game for people sensitive to charop:

* remove the general +2 bonus from the "Archery" fighting style. It is a far too generous and wholly misplaced bonus, given out by someone that completely underestimates the power of being able to project your party's force at range. Yes, if you're the only archer in the group ranged fire isn't broken, but once the players realize nobody needs to be melee-based, the game ceases to work as intended. (I have added the two words "...with cover" to change it into "+2 against targets with cover")

* remove Crossbow Expert. It provides three benefits, all bad or misshapen. The, by far, most important reason is there should not be any way to remove ranged disadvantage when in melee. But also how the feat initially appears to allow the scimitar + hand crossbow fighting combo - it does not. What it does is overshadow dual wielding since it effectively allows you to dual-wield a single hand crossbow, AND it effectively gives you the "Two-Weapon Fighting" fighting style (the bonus action hand crossbow attack gains Dex to damage) so you can combine it with the "Archery" fighting style! The removal of "loading" is minor, and could concievably stay assuming the other nerfs to the SS/CE archer are implemented. The easiest solution is to simply bury the feat.

* remove the -5/+10 mechanism. 5th edition provides too many ways to turn misses into hits. This means that something like the Precision battlemaster maneuver is calibrated for a 1d12+5 attack - not a 1d12+15 attack! The feats can otherwise stay - replace the -5/+10 mechanism with a simple +1 Strength (for GWM) and a +1 Dexterity (for SS).

* completely reverse the recent clarification/errata on Eldritch Blast so it only scales with Warlock level. EB isn't too broken for a pure Warlock, but for a ranged martial its probably questionable and for a Sorcerer its right out.

Then I'd consider...

...adding a damage feat geared towards single-attack martials. Preferably something exclusive to melee (thrown is okay, but not ranged). This would be a feat that adds +X damage to a melee weapon attack once per turn. This would obviously help a fighter too, but the important take-away is that it should not scale with Extra Attack, so it helps the Rogue just as much. This would help to shore up many weak builds btw: the single weapon "Zorro" build, the valor bard, the war cleric, the sword and board etc...

I believe Archery is basically fine. Crossbow Expert needs tight rulings on ammunition, but isn't for me that problematic. Sharpshooter shouldn't simply obviate cover. That just makes combat less interesting. Perhaps a simple rule is that it treats 3/4 as half and half as none. I agree about the problem with it overshadowing dual wield but I believe the issue could be with duel wield rather than archery. -5/+10 is fun!

I like your idea for the single attack feat. Perhaps though I'd leave CM/SS with only a mild tweak, and look intead at duel wield and the relevant feat and core rules.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

That should absolutely stay.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

[
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...

I'll dig up the old thread when I have the chance. IIRC I could only enumerate ten, then Tony Vargas (?) reminded me of the eleventh.

Unless one of y'all beats me to it

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

And you're not mentioning that you, as the fighter, very likely WANT the foes to be focused on you rather than other PCs. Which means you may WANT to be right next to them, where they get an opportunity attack if they move off you. It's a trade off, and you seem only focused on the offensive part of that equation and not at all in the defensive aspect.

Oh, I'm focused on the defensive aspect alright.

If the monsters are more than 30 feet away, they can only do piddly ranged damage or no damage at all (while dashing into your reach).

If they are more than 60 ft away they can do nothing.

Exposing yourself to piddly to no damage sounds like an excellent defensive focus to me.

---

Look, I realize many of you play 5th ed just like you have always played D&D.

But maybe just once look up from your ingrained routine, and really question *why* you roll up a melee fighter.

You will find out that the underlying reasons (basically that archery has always sucked in D&D) are no longer present.

Try it. Chances are you will feel like you've woken up from a dream, and realize that if *noone* in the party does melee, the game no longer functions - it can no longer provide the group with a reasonable challenge.

(As written, that is. Please don't respond that a good DM can fix any flaw, because that's intensely beside the issue)

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

For me it isn't so much an issue to deal with them, but that it would distort the narrative for me to do so. How might tactics and technology need to change to respond to the possibility of such a fighter? At 11th level it looks like the CM/SS Battlemaster Archer using Hand Xbox can choose four of the following attacks per turn (3 actions + 1 bonus action)

1d6 + 5
1d6 + 15 (-5)
1d6 + 1d10 +5
1d6 + 1d10 + 15 (-5)

They'll have 5 superiority dice so that is an exhaustible resource. They'll have AC 17, +11 to hit, and +5 to initiative given 20 Dex. A level 6 Battlemaster level 5 Swashbuckler duelist can probably defeat them as, with similar stats they can have AC 19, +9 to hit, and +12 or so initiative through taking Alert. They can't Riposte and trigger their Sneak Attack damage twice, but they can rule out the +10/-5 attacks through Uncanny Dodge which will punish "spikey" DPS. It depends very much on who fails what saves against combat superiority maneuvers, and how the out-of-combat skills play out. Battlemaster/Swashbuckler Stealth likely beats Archer's Passive Perception whatever they roll.

I point this out to say that the archer is a very narrow character. Strong in an outdoors clear area with 120' sight in all directions. Weaker in other situations such as a winding corridor in a dungeon. Attending to detail then is probably how one avoids distorting ones narrative around them.


It's strong, but again I wonder if the devil in in the details? Warlock Dragoons could easily be a thing, but in a dungeon?


I think the PAM GWS guy could be looking for crits to balance things out. Say taking Half Orc and Champion to double down on that. Then with the heaviest possible armor to compensate for the lack of shield and need to stand toe-to-toe.


Yup. For me the biggest issue with CM/SS is actually the obviating of cover. It makes a non-narrative-distorting combat harder to achieve.


They go from +11 to +6. For me this more reveals an issue with low ACs in the MM than anything else. The MM is set to "easy" difficulty so far as I can see. Dial that up a little and dropping to +6 makes it much less of a gimme. Again, it's ignoring cover that really concerns me.


I part agree with this. I'd just point out that the rogue has narrative power: solid abilities that allow players to advance the narrative in their preferred direction. It's not all combat


Well, the Wood Elf Monk at 11th level with Mobile can go for moving say 65', with +9 to hit, AC 18 or so, +5 to Init

close 30'
1d8 + 5 (save vs stun)
1d8 + 5 (save vs stun)
1d8 + 5 (save vs prone)
1d8 + 5 (save vs prone)
and then retreat to 35'

So that isn't horrible. Once the CM/SS fighter is out of their 5 superiority dice, the Monk's 11 ki makes them look a bit better. My personal fix is that a short rest is 6 hours, and a long rest 2 days. So there's that To close from 120' (worst case), the Monk could move, dash, dodge. In that situation the CM/SS archer can't really throw in 10/-5s. Or maybe on one or two attacks with precision strike but then - Deflect Missiles.



Until you run out of spell slots and Druid transforms back to human shedding all damage...

The most broken builds don't seem to me hugely above the others. They're strong. They're a poser. They're not far from fine.

Sorry, I can't be bothered to break up that wall of text on the phone, just going to reply to the crossbow archer comment in there:

That character is still a fully fledged fighter. It is not weaker or squishing, like you could assume of an archer archetype.

It is a full fighter with all its abilities.

It fights just as well in melee as at 100 ft range.

When I describe it as having dual 120 ft shortswords, that is *literally* its capabilities.

Sure it may not sport a d12 in those cases it comes into melee and needs to stay in melee.

That loss is, however, thoroughly insignificant compared to each time it can fire at range, where a melee build would do nothing or very much less.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Mistwell]

Oh, I'm focused on the defensive aspect alright.

No, you're focusing on their own PERSONAL defense....not the defense they add to the party by drawing the attacks towards them, intentionally, so those attacks are not against the more squishy parts of the party.

It's not an individual game, it's a team game. Your focus would be similar to talking about how a basketball player can play good one-on-one defense, while ignoring their ability to clog lanes and get rebounds.

If the monsters are more than 30 feet away, they can only do piddly ranged damage or no damage at all (while dashing into your reach).

Or they squash another party member. Which, in a dungeon, is exactly what will happen most of the time if your Fighter-type is constantly far away from the foes.

If they are more than 60 ft away they can do nothing.

Which, in a dungeon, is almost never. That's a very particular focus you seem obsessed with.

Look, I realize many of you play 5th ed just like you have always played D&D.

But maybe just once look up from your ingrained routine, and really question *why* you roll up a melee fighter.

You will find out that the underlying reasons (basically that archery has always sucked in D&D) are no longer present.

Try it. Chances are you will feel like you've woken up from a dream, and realize that if *noone* in the party does melee, the game no longer functions - it can no longer provide the group with a reasonable challenge.

(As written, that is. Please don't respond that a good DM can fix any flaw, because that's intensely beside the issue)

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Your assumption that I have not considered these concepts is kinda insulting. Regardless, most of our games take place in dungeons - it's in the name of the game after all. Melee combat is crucial in a dungeon. At least, it is in our games.

And in a complete non-sequitur, I'd be pleased as punch if you could vote in this poll?