Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 6972679" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think a big part of it is that the focus seems to be only on the amount of damage dealt versus received by the archer build as opposed to the melee build. But the determination that ranged combat is more effective than melee seems to rely on comparing the two options solely on paper. When each is viewed as a part of a typical party of adventurers who will face a variety of threats in a variety of circumstances, then the idea that the ranged combatant is the winner quickly fades. Each has a place within a party, and when viewed in that way, it's much harder to determine who is &quot;better&quot;. Yes, the ranged combatant may do buckets of damage, but usually that's because the melee combatant is buying him the opportunity to do so at the cost of his own HP. The melee fighter is losing HP and dealing a bit less damage than the archer....but that's exactly what he's supposed to do. And without him, the archer would likely be in big, big trouble. Given actual play and not simple comparison of DPR on paper, I don't know if there is a great imbalance. Some games may find that to be the case, others may not. For those that do, I would think that the best way to correct it would not be any change to the mechanics, but rather a change in the way combat plays out....use of terrain and other features, and with intelligent actions on the part of the enemies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 6972679, member: 6785785"] I think a big part of it is that the focus seems to be only on the amount of damage dealt versus received by the archer build as opposed to the melee build. But the determination that ranged combat is more effective than melee seems to rely on comparing the two options solely on paper. When each is viewed as a part of a typical party of adventurers who will face a variety of threats in a variety of circumstances, then the idea that the ranged combatant is the winner quickly fades. Each has a place within a party, and when viewed in that way, it's much harder to determine who is "better". Yes, the ranged combatant may do buckets of damage, but usually that's because the melee combatant is buying him the opportunity to do so at the cost of his own HP. The melee fighter is losing HP and dealing a bit less damage than the archer....but that's exactly what he's supposed to do. And without him, the archer would likely be in big, big trouble. Given actual play and not simple comparison of DPR on paper, I don't know if there is a great imbalance. Some games may find that to be the case, others may not. For those that do, I would think that the best way to correct it would not be any change to the mechanics, but rather a change in the way combat plays out....use of terrain and other features, and with intelligent actions on the part of the enemies. [/QUOTE]

Verification