Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 6972828" data-attributes="member: 6802951">Thats rather a mischaracterisation/misunderstanding of the actual positions. Since the ranged build is as good in melee as the melee build, they aren't dependent upon line of sight; they just have a greater advantage over the melee when they can get a clear shot. Even though strength is generally a tertiary/quaternary priority for the ranged build, they can still carry a lot of ammunition, and its pretty cheap. I see. If you do indeed have only PHB no-optionals, then the issue becomes less "ranged vs melee" and more "Dex vs Str" - which has some of the same, and some different issues.  If you read back a bit, it might seem clearer. The two optimal builds being compared both use feats because they're . . . optimal builds. Just as most games seem to use feats, ammunition doesn't seem to be much of an issue: even games that track it rarely have issues affording enough. The ranged build is actually less reliant on advantage than the melee one, since the Archery weapon style compensates more. Indeed. They are extrapolating that because the ranged build is as good as the melee build in melee range, it will outperform the melee build in more varied situations where there is a mix of both range and melee fighting. If you're going to try to fit the two builds in question into the slots of a 'typical' party of adventurers, they are competing over the same slot: physical damage (dealers and takers). There isn't much reason why the ranged build in question can't perform a blocking and damage-absorbing role as well as the melee build.How so?As has been pointed out, the ranged combatant being used as the example isn't actually at a disadvantage in melee, and is likely to be just as tough as the melee combatant. I'm not sure how that would change the imbalance between the builds.</blockquote>

Verification