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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cyber-Dave" data-source="post: 6976965" data-attributes="member: 82132">No, it is true in every game. The feats an archer takes do not up their damage way above that of a melee warrior. Melee warriors have feats that up their damage in very similar manners. There is no purely numerical argument which indicates that archers do more damage, have better AC, and are thus numerically superior to melee warriors. Anyone who claims otherwise hasn't sat down, built characters, and ran the math on those characters. All arguments in favor of archers require a value judgement about the impact of ranged attacks. Numerically, coming up with a melee build which does more average damage than an archer build (with no consideration for range) is trivial. Your archer has Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert? Great. My melee build has Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, and a suit of full-plate armor. Yes, there are optimal feat combinations, but they exist on both sides of the fence. A character with Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert are not more optimal, in melee, than a character with Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master (let alone one who adds Sentinel on top of that). Likewise, arguments about the numbers of monsters in the MM which have range are somewhat disingenuous, as they ignore the fact that the DM can use whatever monsters he wants (or make his own). One can reasonably complain about certain feat combinations. Crossbow users and polearm users have a disproportionate number of feats which synergize with each other. One can reasonably complain about some specific melee builds which don't receive much, if any, support. I see no reason to play a longsword user who doesn't hold a shield in his off-hand. Maybe those are problems. Maybe they are not. They are, however, worth a discussion. This topic, however, hinges entirely on a subjective evaluation of the tactical value of range, as numerically speaking the melee warrior is already a superior adversary (in melee). The only real question is this: is it better to be a superior warrior in melee or have ranged capabilities? The answer to that question depends on the tactical qualities of the encounters a group regularly faces. If the DM is doing nothing to design encounters in such a way that melee has a real place at the table, the DM is doing something wrong. Yes, obviously, on a bright white plane with no cover or terrain features, range is drastically superior. It should be! That is an ideal arena for a ranged combat. Why, however, is a group facing encounters disproportionately weighted to the tactical reality of that white plane? They shouldn't be! Those are my 2 cents.</blockquote>

Verification