Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7020470" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Sorry I couldn't elaborate more earlier.&nbsp; Was running out of time.&nbsp; All I was responding to was the post that said I had the fighter versions AC figured wrong at 17 and it should be 19 because of a shield.&nbsp; I was trying to say that the reason I did not have the fighter bard equipped with a sword and shield was because the lore bard was using a crossbow and there is an inherent benefit to using ranged (less attacks against you, able to deal damage on more combat turns, etc.)&nbsp; So I didn't think it was fair to bring up the 19 ac when it restricted you to melee and compare that to a crossbow wielding bard because of the benefits just mentioned (most of which are harder to quantify).&nbsp; So instead I just equipped both characters with a crossbow which brought the fighter/bard ac down to 17 but then I didn't have to try and make a subjective call over whether staying ranged was better than the +2 ac that being in melee gained.&nbsp; Yes there is some small benefit to being able to use ranged attacks some fights and decide to melee when one of your front line characters is depleted.&nbsp; I acknowledge that.&nbsp; It's worth mentioning but doesn't carry a lot of weight since you can't easily change between sword and shield vs bow in mid combat.&nbsp; (takes an action to take off the shield).On a side note I tend to agree ranged is better in 5e, though everyone being ranged is probably not quite the best either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7020470, member: 6795602"] Sorry I couldn't elaborate more earlier. Was running out of time. All I was responding to was the post that said I had the fighter versions AC figured wrong at 17 and it should be 19 because of a shield. I was trying to say that the reason I did not have the fighter bard equipped with a sword and shield was because the lore bard was using a crossbow and there is an inherent benefit to using ranged (less attacks against you, able to deal damage on more combat turns, etc.) So I didn't think it was fair to bring up the 19 ac when it restricted you to melee and compare that to a crossbow wielding bard because of the benefits just mentioned (most of which are harder to quantify). So instead I just equipped both characters with a crossbow which brought the fighter/bard ac down to 17 but then I didn't have to try and make a subjective call over whether staying ranged was better than the +2 ac that being in melee gained. Yes there is some small benefit to being able to use ranged attacks some fights and decide to melee when one of your front line characters is depleted. I acknowledge that. It's worth mentioning but doesn't carry a lot of weight since you can't easily change between sword and shield vs bow in mid combat. (takes an action to take off the shield). On a side note I tend to agree ranged is better in 5e, though everyone being ranged is probably not quite the best either. [/QUOTE]

Verification