Search results

Again though, it is an apples to oranges comparison. If I wanted to play a tanky warrior I would use a shield and take feats that make me tougher. If I wanted to play a damage oriented fighter I would choose to play either a great weapon fighter or an archer. The problem that arises is that...

Can't an eldritch knight crossbow archer also take warcaser though? At that point his OAs are 90% or more as effective as the full melee fighter. At level 11, 1d8+5+2d8 isn't all that different from 2d6+ 5+2d8. And much better than the poor non-magical fighter is able to produce. And if the...

This is the type of thinking this thread was created to discourage. You are under the mistaken assumption that archers are squishier than melee warriors. Sorry to tell you, but the greatweapon fighter and the crossbow archer can have exactly the same AC. Both can wear plate just fine. The...

Lol, sure. Make them both champions (to remove spell or maneuver choice from affecting the outcome). Give the melee fighter Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master to maximize his damage. Give the archer Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter. Give them both +1 weapons and full plate. And run a...

Yes, a fighter that devotes his feats to defense has greater defense. But that is comparing apples to oranges. When comparing two fighters whose ultimate goal is to deal damage, the crossbow archer and polearm fighter are the two top contenders, and the archer wins out. Not to mention that...

Feats certainly exacerbate the issue, but the issue still exists in 5e even without feats (as feats also make melee combat more powerful as well). Though given the trend of the UA, not even a featless game will be safe from ranged superiority. The Close Quarter Shooter fighting style from the...

I keep saying crossbow archers can fight in melee just as well as dedicated melee warriors because it is true. No example has been given that proves otherwise. Again, here are the examples people have used to say archers cannot fight well in melee: 1) If the enemy has total cover from one side...

Polearm master is a great feat for sure. In fact it is another feat I have issue with for being unbalanced, but that is a topic for another thread. But even so, opportunity attacks are still being overvalued here. As another poster said, 2 were made in his last session. Two whole opportunity...

A few other things to note. The crossbow archer can can carry a number of mundane daggers on his person. As such he can draw a dagger at the end of each turn to be used for opportunity attacks. A d4+5 damage opportunity attack isn't great, but it's still about 70% as effective as a d12+5...

What is reasonably balanced though? Because even with terrain, varied encounters, and good use of player tactics, there have been plenty of rounds of combat where my greatsword wielding fighter had to dash just to engage an enemy. In our last game for example, out of ~16 rounds of combat, I...

I'd say drop the bonus damage down to d10s or d8s and it should be fine. Allowing a spellcaster to make melee attacks that ignore their Strength or Dexterity is pretty huge. A 20 Int blades over with this csntrip would be a fright to behold. And while Fire bolt may do d10s on its own...

I'm very confused why the designers of 5e changed core gaming tenants that worked to counter ranged superiority in previous editions. The removal of the charge action, the removal of opportunity attacks vs spells and ranged attacks, the ability for archers to be just as tanky as melee...

Is it just me or did Yunru say to start combats at realistic distances but then proceeds to say any combat that starts at 50 feet takes place in an infinite flat white plane? lol. I guess all combats only take place within 30 feet of enemies and nobody ever notices enemies at the full range of...

Combat lasts about 4 rounds on average in 5e. Any combat that starts out at a range of 35 feet or more means the melee warriors miss out on 25% of their damage potential because they must spend a round dashing into melee range. If they decide to not dash and instead move only 30 feet and use...

They all feel boring for the most part. I want new mechanics. I want new ideas. I want something truly exciting. These new archetypes don't really do that for me. They tend to be nothing more than rehashes of the same old 5e mechanics.

A few other things to not forget! Archers can wear medium armor which is only 1 AC behind heavy armor. Therefor archers should only ever be 1 AC behind their melee counterparts. Archers in general can afford better stats because they can entirely neglect strength but a melee warrior should...

@Cyber-Dave. With feats at level 11 at level 11 the two best single class fighter damage builds are polearm master and hand crossbow fighter. The melee warrior using a polearm has only 1 more AC than an archer. 3 attacks per round for 1d10+15 damage and a bonus action attack for 1d4+15...

Cyber-Dave: what you say is only really true in a game without feats. The feats an archer would want to take being their damage up way above that of a melee warrior while simultaneously removing any penalties for fighting at point blank range. Combine this with the fact that the ranged...

I like the ideas here but I do think allowing the use of a maneuver on every attack might be a tad too much. Perhaps maneuver usage would be better if it were limited to one per Attack action.

You could also give inspiring word infinite uses (aka at-will), but limit their usage per PC to once per rest (similar to how the Healer and Inspiring Leader feats work). Maybe at level 11, you could be able to use inspiring word on an individual twice between each rest.