Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 7538863" data-attributes="member: 158">There can't be more than one way to "hit a vital spot?" There's a difference between "landing an arrow in fat or muscle" versus "landing an arrow in or near a joint or groin" versus "landing the arrow in a major artery or in the jaw."My experience has been different -- I've seen tons of both melee and ranged characters in 5e games, with no real preference to either. My current group includes one high-dex archer (me), plus one high-dex melee rogue/swashbuckler, one high-str barbarian, and two spellcasters. If there is one thing it has done, it has relieved the pressure players feel to make MAD characters, and the group can keep ability scores lower as a whole.One thing that used to rub me the wrong way was people running around with 16s to 18s in half their abilities because they felt like they needed it. You can be darned effective with just a high STR or high dex, or high INT/WIS/CHA (if a spellcaster) without needing to feel like you need to make a demigod; all other stats can be in a reasonable range. I see it in the same vein as what WotC did with replacing STR or DEX with the spellcasting attack bonus; now, a wizard doesn't need a high dex for his scorching rays and firebolts, because he uses his INT for the attack roll.</blockquote>