You really aren't. Like, no, really, this screed is as subjective as Zapp's views are, just with an added dose of unnecessary nasty.I am looking at it with objective eyes.
And my eyes have seen that the players I play with are not at all concerned with playing the absolute best and strongest PC build with the least likelihood of being hurt or attacked. And based upon much of what I've read here and in other threads, other DMs at other tables ALSO have not seen this issue through their objective eyes.
Your objective eyes have told you that at YOUR TABLE... your players move to ranged PCs because it's "safer" and they are "more effective" according to whatever metrics your table puts a premium on. But it's your SUBJECTIVE eyes that see this as an issue for the entirety of the D&D game and is an issue for EVERY OTHER TABLE out there. And you constantly attempt to use your subjective eyes and opinions that this is an issue for the entirety of the D&D game to make sure other people follow your subjective opinions, presumably because that's the only way WotC will ever change anything in the game to match your perceptions-- if enough other people agree with you.
It's a fool's errand of course... you've already seen how little WotC cares about your concerns for the game... but I credit you for not giving up the ship. I just continually make it a point to let other people know that your subjective opinions about issues involving the entirety of the D&D game are just that-- subjective. And that for the most part people can ignore you because your beliefs only affect your own table and the tables of those few who agree with you. The rest of us know your subjective eyes are blind to what is actually happening to our tables and thus your opinions can be safely ignored.
Have 'Class Tiers' been replaced by a 'ladder,' now? Has WotC using Tier as jargon for a grouping of levels in 4e & 5e finally crowded out the term?... this theoretical "ladder" of potential class power that some players have created..
Subjectivity is a double-edged sword, or a two-faced shield, maybe. IDK, I'm sure the analogy is 'subjective,' too....objective......objective...objective...SUBJECTIVE...
....subjective...subjective.. ...subjective ... subjective...
The edition war proved that a 'subjective opinion,' repeated often enough, becomes the truth - truth enough for WotC customer surveys, anyway.presumably because that's the only way WotC will ever change anything in the game to match your perceptions-- if enough other people agree with you.
It's a fool's errand of course...
The game developers thought they had ranged vs melee balanced when they made the game. They may have changed their mind now that the game has been out for so long (or they may not have), but the balancing mechanism is in the rules. Two non-feat using creatures would seem to be balanced by the rules. Having ranged weapons fire with disadvantage when there is an enemy within 5 feet sounds like a good reason for a ranged creature to stop using their ranged weapon or try to create space between them and those attacking them.
As soon as we add in feats this can change. Many DMs see no issue with ranged vs melee, so we don't need a change. I would say that those who do see an imbalance at their table should go ahead and house rule a 'fix' on day one of a campaign. If the DM says that anyone firing a ranged weapon (or casting a ranged spell) provokes opportunity attacks from creatures within melee range, then I'm sure that some players would decide they like melee weapons (or a combination of ranged /melee) after all.
And it wouldn't even matter then. I'd still be happily playing my rapier wielding gnome paladin.Or...
If there isn't another paladin in the party, then it doesn't matter whether a ranged paladin is better or worse than a melee paladin.
Sure, but lances work really poorly in dungeons. Unless you're a halfling riding a deinonychus, but the overlap between "dino-riding halflings" and "worshipers of the Silver Flame" is pretty small.The Silver Flame paladins couldn't've stayed all Knightly and used Lances? They're piercing.
Sure, but lances work really poorly in dungeons. Unless you're a halfling riding a deinonychus, but the overlap between "dino-riding halflings" and "worshipers of the Silver Flame" is pretty small.
Realistically, horses don't do too well in dungeons, yeah, but, realistically, neither do longbows. Point is, there's a few piercing weapons that don't clash with the Paladin's traditional knightly image, the lance being the most iconic, obviously, as much as D&D has hated on it the last 3 editions. In addition to the lance and arming sword (slashing in D&D), every knight would have a poniard (dagger or shortsword in D&D, piercing). A few other knightly weapons like battle-axes & warhammers would have a back-spike, and there were outright picks, as well. Then there were later, more obscure piercing weapons necessitated by heavier armors, like the estoc and bec de corbin.Sure, but lances work really poorly in dungeons.
Then again, is anything really too 'off the wall' for Eberron?Unless you're a halfling riding a deinonychus, but the overlap between "dino-riding halflings" and "worshipers of the Silver Flame" is pretty small.
Apparently the Silver Flame needs to start recruiting a dino-rider wing of its military faction. Doesn't even know what's its missing.
Paladin is already borderline OP, if not straight up OP. Adding to that power is an obvious no no.