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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 6972885" data-attributes="member: 6785785">It won't necessarily be as good in melee range because all of the chosen feats and class options are based on being a ranged build. I think this is why there was some comments about comparing an optimized archer to an unoptimized melee combatant. Surely the melee warrior in question has chosen some cool abilities as well, and those will give him some kind of edge in another aspect of the game. Again, we have disadvantage on ranged attacks in melee. If feats are taken to remove that, then the archer either loses an ASI that another character may have, or selection of a feat more suited to melee combat or something else that may help the party. He may be. It is not a certainty. Again, we're comparing a specific archer build against...what exactly? A vaguely defined melee warrior? Or any possible melee build? I may have missed if a specific melee build was provided. There is some trade off in specializing in archery. Now, it's not as severe as it has been in past editions....the character would still be as good as a baseline fighter. But choosing archery style means he doesn't get something like the guardian style, where he can help protect nearby allies. And so on. Choosing to specialize in ranged combat doesn't make him weaker, but it means he doesn't specialize in other areas. Well I'm not sure there is an imbalance. Or if there is, that it is all that significant. As for adjusting for such an imbalance if it is found in a game, my approach to such things is to keep any possible change to the mechanics as a last resort. First, I would see if there were simply tactics or playstyle adjustments that could help. For instance, most archers tend to seek cover. This is as true of enemies as it is of PCs. So I would give the ranged villains access to cover if they want. That way they can do the pop-out-shoot-pop-back tactic just like the PCs can. Let the PC archer ready an action to shoot such a foe....then he is only getting one attack. Meanwhile, the melee warrior is hacking away at the non-archers using all his attacks in a round. The battlefield conditions and presence of cover and all other manner of factors can play a big part. Putting different types of foes into the combat to pose different types of threats and challenge the party in different ways is key. Maybe there are elements of the combat that require hands on action...opening a door or activating a switch or some such. Maybe a rogue has to make his way across the battlefield while the sword and board fighter has to keep him safe, and the archer covers them from afar. Such a scenario gives each character a vital role to the success of the group. Which is most vital? Hard to say since it can't be boiled down to a number like DPR. The DM has a lot of input on how effective any kind of character can be....so to me, the first step is for him to see if it is how the encounters are set up and how they're played. See if it can be addressed at that level first before resorting to any mechanical changes. I'd only alter the rules if nothing else worked, in this instance. Also, I would imagine that player outlook is a big part. If you have one player who loves being the big damage dealer, and other players who like to excel in other areas (healing, control, social, etc.) then I don't think it's a problem. If you have a table full of players who are all competing to do the most damage, then it may be an issue.</blockquote>

Verification