Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7113142" data-attributes="member: 6704184">I agree with both of these points. Also, I'd say that the standard Paladin is much harder to kill than any of the classes that focus on range and/or dex, with no loss of efficacy as a cost for that. The fast/ranged guys try to avoid being the target of attacks, while the strong guys rush in and trade blows. Works just fine. An archer fighter that has high enough str to not lose speed in heavy armor, high enough dex to not miss significantly more than a dex lightly armored archer, halfway decent HP, and any bonus in any stats other than str, Con, and dex to be useful outside of combat, can only happen by rolling really well. You cannot get there with point buy or standard array, or even just a fairly average set of rolls. To be optimally effective, the melee fighter just needs good Str and Con, and heavy armor. Everything else can go to being useful outside of combat. And he doesn't need to boost Str as much as the lightly armored archer does Dex, because bounded accuracy means that you dont' have to max stats or religiously boost them. A 15-16 starting Strength is fine, and leaves room for using feats that give +1 Str and do something other than combat efficacy.The lightly armored archer has more incentive to increase their &quot;main&quot; stat, because it is also their AC modifier. If they boost Str to wear heavy armor without penalty, their other stats suffer. Probably including Con. If they don't but wear heavy armor anyway, they lose a lot of the advantage of range, by being easy to catch and pin down. The two options are equal in 5e, as long as your game doesn't take place in an open field with no features, with combat the only thing worth considering. Frankly, if something is only broken when 2/3 of the game are ignored, it isn't broken.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 7113142, member: 6704184"] I agree with both of these points. Also, I'd say that the standard Paladin is much harder to kill than any of the classes that focus on range and/or dex, with no loss of efficacy as a cost for that. The fast/ranged guys try to avoid being the target of attacks, while the strong guys rush in and trade blows. Works just fine. An archer fighter that has high enough str to not lose speed in heavy armor, high enough dex to not miss significantly more than a dex lightly armored archer, halfway decent HP, and any bonus in any stats other than str, Con, and dex to be useful outside of combat, can only happen by rolling really well. You cannot get there with point buy or standard array, or even just a fairly average set of rolls. To be optimally effective, the melee fighter just needs good Str and Con, and heavy armor. Everything else can go to being useful outside of combat. And he doesn't need to boost Str as much as the lightly armored archer does Dex, because bounded accuracy means that you dont' have to max stats or religiously boost them. A 15-16 starting Strength is fine, and leaves room for using feats that give +1 Str and [I]do something other than combat efficacy.[/I] The lightly armored archer has more incentive to increase their "main" stat, because it is also their AC modifier. If they boost Str to wear heavy armor without penalty, their other stats suffer. Probably including Con. If they don't but wear heavy armor anyway, they lose a lot of the advantage of range, by being easy to catch and pin down. The two options are equal in 5e, as long as your game doesn't take place in an open field with no features, with combat the only thing worth considering. Frankly, if something is only broken when 2/3 of the game are ignored, it isn't broken. [/QUOTE]

Verification