Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LokiDR" data-source="post: 516684" data-attributes="member: 6239">Ok, how about a step back here.  If most of the posters have agreed that archers deal more damage than the melee types, and they are fine with that, why?Melee types will be subject to more damage than the ranged types, in general practice, because they are in front.  Melee types will dish out less damage, by general consensus.  They have the advantages that Zad mentioned, threating, subduing, ect.  Are those worth taking more damage and dealing less?In war, you want to kill your enemy before he kills you, end of story.  Advantage: archer.  If you are an investigator, you need to capture.  Advantage: melee.  I could keep listing "adventurer" occupations, but I think you get my point.  I have played and run games most often in the past 7 years as war.  If they try to kill you, you kill them first.  In the case of the golems powered by children, I would give them a quick death and gone to punish those who did this crime.  Maybe we can raise the kids later, but death happens.  This is the simplest solution most often.  Whatever you think of D&D, you should see that this is a perfectly viable way to play.In short (too late), archers are annoying for DM and other players where the "other advantages" of the melee don't come up often.  Since my experience has lead to me to believe that most D&D combat is war, I will continue to be annoyed at archers.  I may, however, choose to run/play in a different type of game in the future.</blockquote>

Verification