Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7522691" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Yep, by no means were the lists I provided exhaustive.If foes start taking OA's then melee greatly increases the amount of damage they are dealing.&nbsp; Thus melee is now doing significantly more damage than their ranged allies in this scenario.Ranged can always focus fire at least till a melee gets up to them.&nbsp; Then they typically start having to take an OA to do so after that which starts working in the melee characters favor at that point.&nbsp; Either that or they pull out a melee weapon and start melee attacking the melee PC.&nbsp; Either way the melee PC caused either A) more damage via OA's or B) the damage to be spread out more.So please try to understand that my claim relies on a catch 22.&nbsp; The enemies get to make the decision but that decision always results in melee characters either causing the damage to be spread around more or dealing significantly more damage than ranged PC's because the OA's the enemy team starts taking to try and focus fire.But that's not such a fair comparison is it.&nbsp; 1 attack being taken vs 3.&nbsp; Shouldn't it be looking at 3 attacks being taken in both situations?Rogues are a bit squishy.&nbsp; But they also have the easiest ability to run away.&nbsp; IMO.&nbsp; The best goal with a rogue is to start the fight with up close till you take a hit then run away.&nbsp; Monks with any decent amount of KI can be some of the tankiest characters in the game while still dealing damage.&nbsp; Bonus action dodge is amazing.&nbsp; The most important tactical advantage that melee offers is the ability for the party to have damage spread out better.&nbsp; That's why it's better to have a mixed group.&nbsp; Otherwise it really would be better to have an all ranged group.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7522691, member: 6795602"] Yep, by no means were the lists I provided exhaustive. If foes start taking OA's then melee greatly increases the amount of damage they are dealing. Thus melee is now doing significantly more damage than their ranged allies in this scenario. Ranged can always focus fire at least till a melee gets up to them. Then they typically start having to take an OA to do so after that which starts working in the melee characters favor at that point. Either that or they pull out a melee weapon and start melee attacking the melee PC. Either way the melee PC caused either A) more damage via OA's or B) the damage to be spread out more. So please try to understand that my claim relies on a catch 22. The enemies get to make the decision but that decision always results in melee characters either causing the damage to be spread around more or dealing significantly more damage than ranged PC's because the OA's the enemy team starts taking to try and focus fire. But that's not such a fair comparison is it. 1 attack being taken vs 3. Shouldn't it be looking at 3 attacks being taken in both situations? Rogues are a bit squishy. But they also have the easiest ability to run away. IMO. The best goal with a rogue is to start the fight with up close till you take a hit then run away. Monks with any decent amount of KI can be some of the tankiest characters in the game while still dealing damage. Bonus action dodge is amazing. The most important tactical advantage that melee offers is the ability for the party to have damage spread out better. That's why it's better to have a mixed group. Otherwise it really would be better to have an all ranged group. [/QUOTE]

Verification