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

[bid]

That should absolutely stay.

Well I guess there's no point in listening to such a one-sided rant, if you're ignoring any and all points that goes against the narrative.

 

[Ancalagon]

It's really map/playstyle dependent isn't it? If you are always in tight quarters, melee makes sense.

But if the style is more varied... there will be a number of occasions where all ranged will work great. And once the party realises that, it will try to capitalize on these opportunities and even engineer them.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Except Rogues with multiple attacks can't sneak attack more than 1.round without an outside source enabling them such as Commanders strike or the Dissonant Whispers Spell.

Also I meant Rogues do not deal that much damage when the -5/+10 feats are being uised. Even with the SCAG cantrips which look good a lot of the time you are cutting your sneak attack odds in half for a few more dice of damage.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Not quite. They cannot use a shield. You're probably all over the Ammunition rules but I will summarise for those that are not. When you take the Attack action, fetching ammo and loading it is included in each attack but only if you have one free hand. Thus you cannot have a shield or weapon in the other hand. Further, the feat requires that your crossbow is loaded before you take the bonus action. So for that last shot you cannot rely on the action itself fetching ammo and loading it. Thus you must use your one interaction per turn to fetch ammo between your attack action, and your bonus action. So that your bonus action can trigger.

Therefore archery CM/SS fighter will generally have an AC that is 2 points lower than dueling fighters. At 11th level they have had access to three feats (four if allowing variant human). I believe that three of those are accounted for in the optimal build - CM, SS, and one ASI into Dex.

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.

I hold no such predispositions. It's clear to me what the advantages of CM/SS are. I believe you overstate them, while at the same time agreeing that many feats - including those - could be better balanced. Were I aiming to tone them down I would change them fairly simply. I would probably have SS downgrade cover. And I agree with you that retaining disadvantage when near a hostile foe could make a lot of sense. Still, against doing anything is the overall game balance at that level between martial and caster: which favours casters.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.



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.




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



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?

If all you play is the party opening doors with monsters behind them, yes, I can see why you would go melee there.

Okay, so let's leave Mistwell out of this:

For those of you *not* mucking about in dungeons (the kind where it's impossible to scout ahead and where there are no distances to speak of), you would do well not creating melee characters out of sheer tradition.

Before you do that, think about how an all-range party can shortchange much of the 5e content: trivializing encounters and neutering monsters.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[clearstream]

It's really map/playstyle dependent isn't it? If you are always in tight quarters, melee makes sense.

But if the style is more varied... there will be a number of occasions where all ranged will work great. And once the party realises that, it will try to capitalize on these opportunities and even engineer them.

For me the issue is more generally that feats aren't well balanced. Shield Master for instance is fantastic in a wide range of common setups. The Shield Master doesn't need 120' clear in all directions! Or the Paladin Polearm Master taking Variant Human and overshadowing nearly anything else right through the early levels. Again, fantastic in a wide range of common setups. Mobility on the right character is incredible. And I shudder to contemplate the nuisance value of Sentinel. A problem with these feats is there is frequently no counter to them. We see players focusing on a handful of them because they are better than every alternative in most common adventuring situations.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well I guess there's no point in listening to such a one-sided rant, if you're ignoring any and all points that goes against the narrative.

Now you've lost me.

You asked about the penalty to range when in melee.

I answered it should absolutely stay.

As in, it should not be possible to remove it. That aspect of Crossbow Expert is removing one of the most, if not the most, important safeguards to viable melee.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Except Rogues with multiple attacks can't sneak attack more than 1.round without an outside source enabling them such as Commanders strike or the Dissonant Whispers Spell.

Also I meant Rogues do not deal that much damage when the -5/+10 feats are being uised. Even with the SCAG cantrips which look good a lot of the time you are cutting your sneak attack odds in half for a few more dice of damage.

And that the Rogue is far too squishy for such a moderate damage benefit.

I mean, compare to a hypothetical Rogue that gets one sneak dice every level, instead of every other: suddenly a reason appears to bring such a squishy damage dealer into the group, since now it justifies it's presence with actual top notch DPR.

Of course in games without feats the situation looks better.

Which makes me conclude that when the game offers a feat that increases the potential damage of a fighter by +50, it should have offered a damage-boosting feat for rogues as well. It needs to.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[clearstream]

For those of you *not* mucking about in dungeons (the kind where it's impossible to scout ahead and where there are no distances to speak of), you would do well not creating melee characters out of sheer tradition.

It is reasonable to include in balance assessments the ratio of times when a feat is imba. Across my campaigns my PCs have spent a lot of time out of dungeons/castles/streets but even more time in and among them. A lot of the time they aren't even in combat. So you should really drop the "sheer tradition" thing: insulting people achieves nothing. I do not choose the characters I play out of "sheer tradition". I aim for ability to shape the narrative both in and out of combat, looking for flexibility as to how I approach each problem. Archer fails for me because it turns out to be a very narrow character. It's really good at one thing: when you're not doing that thing it hangs around looking stupid. For similar reasons I probably wouldn't play the most optimal GWM fighter although I might play a slightly less optimal one that has some broader abilities.

Before you do that, think about how an all-range party can shortchange much of the 5e content: trivializing encounters and neutering monsters.

I think of this differently from you perhaps. For me, if there exists in the world some uber-fighting-style my first question is 1) why isn't everyone using it (or maybe they are!) and my second question is 2) how do people counter it if it becomes ubiquitous? So the way I would frame the problem you're describing is that it is about whether and how I want to shape - and possibly distort - my world. Either way, the PCs are going to be challenged. But do I want to have my villains always thinking about sight lines and ranges? Do I really want my Orcs to all switch to pavises and/or adopt the hand crossbow themselves? If I don't, then my reasons for rebalancing the feats are about that wider world shaping.

 

[CapnZapp]

Not quite. They cannot use a shield. You're probably all over the Ammunition rules but I will summarise for those that are not. When you take the Attack action, fetching ammo and loading it is included in each attack but only if you have one free hand. Thus you cannot have a shield or weapon in the other hand. Further, the feat requires that your crossbow is loaded before you take the bonus action. So for that last shot you cannot rely on the action itself fetching ammo and loading it. Thus you must use your one interaction per turn to fetch ammo between your attack action, and your bonus action. So that your bonus action can trigger.

Therefore archery CM/SS fighter will generally have an AC that is 2 points lower than dueling fighters. At 11th level they have had access to three feats (four if allowing variant human). I believe that three of those are accounted for in the optimal build - CM, SS, and one ASI into Dex.


I hold no such predispositions. It's clear to me what the advantages of CM/SS are. I believe you overstate them, while at the same time agreeing that many feats - including those - could be better balanced. Were I aiming to tone them down I would change them fairly simply. I would probably have SS downgrade cover. And I agree with you that retaining disadvantage when near a hostile foe could make a lot of sense. Still, against doing anything is the overall game balance at that level between martial and caster: which favours casters.

I can confirm our Crossbow Expert use no shield.

Shooting at range is much more useful than having a shield anyway.

Offense beats defense, especially in a game so heavily slanted towards the player characters winning as 5th edition.

The overwhelming majority of encounters simply aren't nearly so hard that you need to focus on defense.

Besides, the best way to not take damage is to kill off the monsters ASAP. I really recommend you to try an all-out offensive party sometime: you should find that the number of attacks made against you are so much lower when you can focus fire that it easily beats +2 in personal defense.

Yes, focus fire. If every party member shoots at range, martials as well as casters, and aren't inconvenienced by melee, this nets frighteningly effective results.

As a fighter there's no reason to attack the hulking brute slobbering in your face - instead you shoot across the room at the other monster that everyone else has already attacked.

Bringing down wounded foes quickly gives far better results, with far less incoming damage, than the traditional way of fighting, where each fighter squares off in a duel with "his own" monster.

PS

At this time I probably should reiterate: I'm not really advocating this fighting style. It breaks the game, it even breaks the genre! Of course it's fun to play a slow dwarf with a big axe!

It's just that, unlike every preceding edition before it, 5th edition has forgotten traditional melee-centric fantasy combat doesn't happen by itself!

It happens because fantasy games are steeped in fairly unrealistic conventions. The most important is hit points in themselves: you need to de-emphasize the importance of hitting your foe first. But that is not enough! You must still actively nerf archery, or the inherent advantages of ranged combat and focus fire will still be used by power gamers.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app