NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashkelon" data-source="post: 6982120" data-attributes="member: 6774887">Again though, it is an apples to oranges comparison. If I wanted to play a tanky warrior I would use a shield and take feats that make me tougher. If I wanted to play a damage oriented fighter I would choose to play either a great weapon fighter or an archer.The problem that arises is that there is no situation in which I would not have been better off choosing to play a crossbow archer as opposed to playing a great weapon fighter. The crossbow archer can fight just as well in melee afterall, but also fight at range when needed.In 5e, tactically minded enemies have no real reason to attack the melee fighter. The fighter lacks the tools to draw melee attacks to him or to be a real tank. So it ultimately doesn't matter all that much if the melee fighter devotes many resources to defense. Smart enemies will simply ignore the fighter to attack squishier targets. Ultimately, it doesn't matter very much if the fighter has 100 HP or 120 HP.On top of that, a feat like tough might give the fighter 20% more HP, but has no effect on HD healing, second wind, or the effect of healing magic. As such, a feat like tough really only increases the fighter's overall durability by maybe 10%. A feat like Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter increase the fighters damage by over 20%. It can (and probably should) be argued that these feats increase damage too much, but as they are now, they are a much better investment that the defensive feats. Killing things 20% faster means less damage taken, and fewer healing resources needed to be spent. Increased damage also leads to faster combats, which means there is more time to progress the story. An OA for 10 average damage vs an OA for 6 average damage isn't all that meaningful. Especially when OAs occur only rarely. The difference between the two adds up to maybe 8 to 12 points of damage per session.On the other hand, an optimized 20 strength Great Weapon Fighter will nearly deal double the damage of a 16 strength unoptimized fighter. That can lead to a difference of 10+ damage per round, or 200+ per session.That is why it isn't a very big deal when one fighter's OA is 62% as effective as another's, but it is a big deal when an unoptimized fighter deals only a fraction of the DPR of an optimized one.It is totally a cheesy tactic. I completely agree. It is also 100% RAW. Blame the rules for making such a things possible. In a world where a ranged character can shoot his enemies at point blank range without any penalties, why wouldn't he use such tactics? On the other hand, if ranged characters suffered any consequences for being in melee combat, this scenario would not exist. That is the whole point of this thread though; that ranged characters can effectively perform the role of a melee combatant but also have all the benefits of having a range of 120 feet.The point about OAs is that at low levels the "threat" of 10 damage might be meaningful. At higher levels, not so much. This devalues the worth of OAs as you gain levels. In this very thread a number of people have stated that the "threat" of an OA influences the monsters decisions in a significant way. That is only really true at lower levels when an OA causes damage that results in a significant loss of a monster's HP. At higher levels, 150 HP enemies will rarely care about eating a mere 10 points of damage from an OA if it allows them to move to a position where they can kill the party wizard. As such the "threat" of OAs and its impact on combat diminishes as you level.</blockquote>

Verification