D&D 5E Mike Mearls: Ranged Paladin doesn't break anything

[T0ky0L1ghts]

They should do a seeker or celestial hunter style oath for people want to play as range pally with official ranged smite rules.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I always thought a Ranged Paladin that used the Smite Spells that work at range for ranged attacks, and used Divine Smite when in melee worked just fine. I never saw the need to let divine smite work at range.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am looking at it with objective eyes.

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.

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

... this theoretical "ladder" of potential class power that some players have created..

Have 'Class Tiers' been replaced by a 'ladder,' now?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?

...objective......objective...objective...SUBJECTIVE...
....subjective...subjective.. ...subjective ... subjective...
....subjective....

Subjectivity is a double-edged sword, or a two-faced shield, maybe. IDK, I'm sure the analogy is 'subjective,' too.
Yes, it lets you dismiss anything someone says without actually daring to engage it in any meaningful way, but it also immunizes whatever they're saying from criticism, analysis or debate.

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 edition war proved that a 'subjective opinion,' repeated often enough, becomes the truth - truth enough for WotC customer surveys, anyway.
So don't expect the tactic to go away.

 

[MrHotter]

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.

 

[CapnZapp]

I agree the game w/o feats is better balanced in this regard. Sadly that game is less crunchy, so my priority is the game with feats.

Of course, then there's the notion feats are needed to provide melee with a necessary damage boost. In other words, that w/o feats builds like the Sorlock completely dominate.

Myself, I can understand that view, but balancing different melee builds takes precedence. That is, how to avoid every melee PC taking a greatweapon, and how to not leave lots of interesting builds in the (damage) dust...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

It's not really balanced without feats, though it is better. Ranged still maintains parity in dealing damage, especially with archery fighting style. The limitation of having disad while in melee is well offset by the fact that you're almost as good using a rapier as a bow and, when you're not in melee, you get to avoid most attacks. Feats just remove the small limitations that remain on ranged.

That isn't to say that it's broken or that everyone cares. It's something I care about because I like looking into rulesets and seeing how they work. It's something I care about because one of my least mechanically incline players in my current game started with a melee rogue concept, but used a bow at 2nd level and hasn't looked back since due to the improved usefulness (she doesn't have to get into melee and be attacked, mostly, but also doesn't suffer any dropoff in effectiveness when using a bow). When the mechanically disinclined notice one is better than the other, I notice that. It doesn't rise to a level that I feel the need to correct for it (although I do have a houserule for sharpshooter) for me, but I notice it and wish it was better balanced with melee.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

All this talk makes me miss the days of AD&D where a paladin refused to use ranged weapons because it was cowardly to attack an enemy at range rather than in the glorious and righteous and fair hand-to-hand combat.

 

[Psikerlord#]

All this talk makes me miss the days of AD&D where a paladin refused to use ranged weapons because it was cowardly to attack an enemy at range rather than in the glorious and righteous and fair hand-to-hand combat.

Booyeah!

 

[Satyrn]

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.

And it wouldn't even matter then. I'd still be happily playing my rapier wielding gnome paladin.

Because none of the "advantages" to being a ranged combatant trump why I play in melee.

1) It doesn't bother me that I take the brunt of the damage - that's fun!
2) I don't care that I can't just target any foe in sight. Indeed, I like the added challenge.

Ranged combat just isn't much fun for me.