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: 6982062" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Well there are a lot of factors at play. Yes, standard attacks are more common than OA and so therefore I can see how someone would view them as "more inportant". I don't know if the disparity is as great as that cited for the OA calculation. But again, there are so many contributing factors that it's difficult to say for certain. Ultimately, the way I see it is that in order for this imbalance between ranged combat and melee combat to be as big as many claim, there are several things that need to happen:- feats are allowed- the archer in question selects Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter- we focus solely on DPR as our metric for evaluation- the DM has to fail to adjust for these feats in any significant way in regard to encounter design- the DM has to fail to adjust for these feats in any significant way in regard to enemy tactics- the players have to notice this imbalance and feel that it is a negativeSo I suppose if all of that happens, then yeah...ranged combat could far outweigh melee combat instead of having a slight edge on damage output. But I don't know if it should be that surprising at that point. Nor if I'd describe such an imbalance as a flaw in the game design. Well, they clearly did design things with combat functions in mind. I don't know if they worried as much about "balance" as many here seem to. Some classes or options are better than others at what they are designed to do. Mechanical balance would be more important in some sort of competitive game, but I would imagine that given the cooperative nature of RPGs the designers weren't as concerned about it.</blockquote>

Verification