Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7110636" data-attributes="member: 12731">Again the assumptions. You want it to be true, so it must be true.There is *nothing* in 5e that makes the ranged = fragile assumption true. It's just an assumption that doesn't hold up when examined.(Now, Paladins are a very strong class, så let's not compare oranges to apples.)And your game can be played both ways: Many of 5e's monsters can't get to you at all if you kite, or even if you fly, and published modules seldom include your theoretical &quot;mix of creatures&quot;, including enemy casters. Few monsters can win a battle by&nbsp; running at the ranged guy to bash him. Actually, if you think about it, if they could, the encounter would have been severely over-powered, and that simply almost never happens in this edition.Being slow is a disadvantage, yes. You're seeing my argument backwards. I'm not trying to tell you slow is some kind of benefit. It's not - I'm telling you I have concluded you aren't compensated nearly enough for choosing slow: in this edition, as opposed to every edition before it.The &quot;ranged guys&quot; can be fighters, complete with exceptional killing ability (SS feat), incredible sturdiness (good enough AC and the same great feature set of any fighter), and still not be inconvenienced in the least when a monster does close to melee (CE feat).There does not need to be a melee party member. And every ranged member can be the tough guy.Look, in previous editions all of your assertions were true. We could simply take them for granted, trusting the ruleset to make it so.I'm saying 5e forgot to make it happen. Try it - you will be surprised, and you will ask yourself why anybody (with cold analytical gaze) is still rolling up a melee fighter, a slow axe dwarf...!Sent from my C6603 using <a href="http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=93205" target="_blank">EN World mobile app</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7110636, member: 12731"] Again the assumptions. You want it to be true, so it must be true. There is *nothing* in 5e that makes the ranged = fragile assumption true. It's just an assumption that doesn't hold up when examined. (Now, Paladins are a very strong class, så let's not compare oranges to apples.) And your game can be played both ways: Many of 5e's monsters can't get to you at all if you kite, or even if you fly, and published modules seldom include your theoretical "mix of creatures", including enemy casters. Few monsters can win a battle by running at the ranged guy to bash him. Actually, if you think about it, if they could, the encounter would have been severely over-powered, and that simply almost never happens in this edition. Being slow is a disadvantage, yes. You're seeing my argument backwards. I'm not trying to tell you slow is some kind of benefit. It's not - I'm telling you I have concluded you aren't compensated nearly enough for choosing slow: in this edition, as opposed to every edition before it. The "ranged guys" can be fighters, complete with exceptional killing ability (SS feat), incredible sturdiness (good enough AC and the same great feature set of any fighter), and still not be inconvenienced in the least when a monster does close to melee (CE feat). There does not need to be a melee party member. And every ranged member can be the tough guy. Look, in previous editions all of your assertions were true. We could simply take them for granted, trusting the ruleset to make it so. I'm saying 5e forgot to make it happen. Try it - you will be surprised, and you will ask yourself why anybody (with cold analytical gaze) is still rolling up a melee fighter, a slow axe dwarf...! Sent from my C6603 using [URL=http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=93205]EN World mobile app[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification