D&D 5E the dex warrior - why make a strength based one?

[Ovinomancer]

You're not totally wrong: wielding a sword once you and the monster contact, he has to take an OA to get to the squishy (S). Which is why using a reach weapon without feat support is generally not a great defensive tactic (Reach is great for hit and run battlemasters or rogues though).

However, with polearm mastery the trade off here is before he gets to the Squishy he's got to go within 10 feet of you, triggering the OA. So in this instance, you're "Fending him off" with the threat of an OA (As soon as he steps on any 2, you attack), rather than "Locking him down" with the OA threat. It's essentially where the monster pays the Pain toll.

Now where the Polearmer really shines is multiple enemies: no one can run around him because he's got such a huge hit box....again, they all have to pay the Pain toll to get by (Unless they all charge at once). Again in your example you are right that the monster only pays the pain toll once. However, if your squishy takes a 5 foot step back, now they are paying twice if they don't move fast. Take the Sentinel feat instead of GWM and your reaction is pretty much getting used every turn because, with good positioning, everything need to run past you and you stop them dead. 5 feet away. Then you attack with reach and move backwards. It can be pretty devastating.

Against a single enemy, yes, it works well. Numbers make it much less useful, though, as you're still limited to 1 reaction a round.

 

[Erechel]

Sorry for my black arts. I'm the necromancer, because it came up in a discussion with some friends on the Frente Rolero Argentino. I've only pointed up that the difference between dexterity and strength isn't as powerful as it seems to be (indeed, it is a very very situational one). The zombi thread became an undead resemblance of that, changing to ranged vs. melee. But my point (I guess) was successful, although many people don't agree. I tend to believe that most people that has commented here has a sort of dogmatic positioning, and no argument could be done that could deviate one millimeter from their dogma.

1) About the original thread, I could say yes, the work is done. Ranged vs. Melee is a no argument in the discussion about str vs. dex, as javelins have 120 feet range, so the strong characters aren't locked to fighting the nearest target. And the dextrous could easily grab a dagger or shortsword and still be efficient. A lot more arguments have been done (Athletics, EG)

2) About the zombi thread: No one actually proved that melee isn't a thing, and no one addressed the issue of the Prone condition, which levers the field. Being prone in melee is awful, although being prone in ranged combat is awesome. Also, many of the issues here are actually two, for one specific "build" that actually only negates its own flaws, and many other viable characters that hasn't that flaw for starters, and their features are directed to cover some ground.

3) if there is an issue about ranged vs. melee (a thing on which I fail to agree), is so nitpicking, so insignificant compared to other major issues (like the feat tax for being merely competent vs. über versatility) in earlier editions. Its about 1 or 2 DPR. People, please. This is a non-issue. Also, sorry for you if you choose to ignore the rules and then say "it's a CATASTROPHE! my DPR is 2 points less than ANOTHER'S ONE, focused entirely on DPR!".

Sorry people. I swear that I will not necro another thread.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sorry for my black arts. I'm the necromancer, because it came up in a discussion with some friends on the Frente Rolero Argentino. I've only pointed up that the difference between dexterity and strength isn't as powerful as it seems to be (indeed, it is a very very situational one). The zombi thread became an undead resemblance of that, changing to ranged vs. melee. But my point (I guess) was successful, although many people don't agree. I tend to believe that most people that has commented here has a sort of dogmatic positioning, and no argument could be done that could deviate one millimeter from their dogma.

1) About the original thread, I could say yes, the work is done. Ranged vs. Melee is a no argument in the discussion about str vs. dex, as javelins have 120 feet range, so the strong characters aren't locked to fighting the nearest target. And the dextrous could easily grab a dagger or shortsword and still be efficient. A lot more arguments have been done (Athletics, EG)

2) About the zombi thread: No one actually proved that melee isn't a thing, and no one addressed the issue of the Prone condition, which levers the field. Being prone in melee is awful, although being prone in ranged combat is awesome. Also, many of the issues here are actually two, for one specific "build" that actually only negates its own flaws, and many other viable characters that hasn't that flaw for starters, and their features are directed to cover some ground.

3) if there is an issue about ranged vs. melee (a thing on which I fail to agree), is so nitpicking, so insignificant compared to other major issues (like the feat tax for being merely competent vs. über versatility) in earlier editions. Its about 1 or 2 DPR. People, please. This is a non-issue. Also, sorry for you if you choose to ignore the rules and then say "it's a CATASTROPHE! my DPR is 2 points less than ANOTHER'S ONE, focused entirely on DPR!".

Sorry people. I swear that I will not necro another thread.

Heh, "I'm dismissing everyone that disagreed with me as dogmatic and unwilling to listen to argument." So much irony.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Heh, "I'm dismissing everyone that disagreed with me as dogmatic and unwilling to listen to argument." So much irony.

Maybe it's 'cause I've lived my whole life here on the Left Coast, but doggedly defending the status-quo sounds more "dogmatic and unwilling to listen..."

 

[Corwin]

Sorry people. I swear that I will not necro another thread.

I don't see the issue with raising up old threads, if the topic is something you wish to contribute something to. Heck, sometimes its even fun, or enlightening, to stroll down memory lane.

IMX, I've noticed people sometimes get the most upset about such things when it contains unflattering posts they rather not be brought back to the surface and hoped they'd've stayed buried and forgotten...

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't see the issue with raising up old threads, if the topic is something you wish to contribute something to. Heck, sometimes its even fun, or enlightening, to stroll down memory lane.

IMX, I've noticed people sometimes get the most upset about such things when it contains unflattering posts they rather not be brought back to the surface and hoped they'd've stayed buried and forgotten...

Ah, good old Corwin, doing the vaguely insulting comments about unspecified posters bit, hoping someone's gonna bite. Don't change, mang.

 

[Erechel]

Heh, "I'm dismissing everyone that disagreed with me as dogmatic and unwilling to listen to argument." So much irony.

False, pal. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but you Must have arguments and don't dismiss any reply. I read the posts, and even if I'm ready to compromise about some things, there are people that like to make straw man's, like ignore the OA, cover, ammo and prone rules and then complain about that as if they don't were a factor. I never denied that dexterity is powerful in 5e, but I don't had as much problems as many claimed. I've even uploaded an analysis about MM's saving throws, showing how much a fallacy is that the "most common save" is dexterity. Most of them are concentrated on a few high level monsters, but I accept that much more spells have Dex saves than Strength. I also never denied that Sharpshooter is a very powerful feat, specially if you are a variant human, but it really isn't the mother of all problems, and if it were, it is really easy to fix: don't allow feats. They are optional, after all, and it isn't really game breaking nor impedes other playstyles. They aren't the casters problem from prior editions. So save me the sarcasm

 

[Ashkelon]

False, pal. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but you Must have arguments and don't dismiss any reply. I read the posts, and even if I'm ready to compromise about some things, there are people that like to make straw man's, like ignore the OA, cover, ammo and prone rules and then complain about that as if they don't were a factor. I never denied that dexterity is powerful in 5e, but I don't had as much problems as many claimed. I've even uploaded an analysis about MM's saving throws, showing how much a fallacy is that the "most common save" is dexterity. Most of them are concentrated on a few high level monsters, but I accept that much more spells have Dex saves than Strength. I also never denied that Sharpshooter is a very powerful feat, specially if you are a variant human, but it really isn't the mother of all problems, and if it were, it is really easy to fix: don't allow feats. They are optional, after all, and it isn't really game breaking nor impedes other playstyles. They aren't the casters problem from prior editions. So save me the sarcasm

The old debate rested upon these facts:

By a certain level an archer can get both crossbow expert and sharpshooter. These feats negate all penalties for ranged combat such as cover, range, or being within 5 feet of an enemy.

Due to the way item interaction rules work in 5e, a crossbow archer can drop a rapier at the start of his turn, fire off a hand crossbow 3-5 times, then pick up the rapier. This allows them to still be capable of making perfectly good opportunity attacks while also possessing a 120 foot range.

Due to the archery fighting style, sharpshooter, and the extra attack from crossbow expert, the crossbow archer will deal roughly 25% more damage per round than a great weapon fighter.

So a crossbow archer, if he chooses can fight his enemies at melee range to deal more damage than a great weapon fighter at melee range and still have the ability to make decently powerful opportunity attacks. The archer also has the option to attack enemies at range, which the great weapon fighter cannot do effectively.

This is all in addition to the crossbow fighter having a similar AC, better Dex saves, better skills, and higher initiative than the great weapon fighter.

You may not believe that ranged combat is superior to melee in 5e, but the facts are clear. If you have access to feats, ranged is significantly more powerful than melee at dealing damage.

 

[Ancalagon]

Sorry for my black arts. I'm the necromancer, because it came up in a discussion with some friends on the Frente Rolero Argentino. I've only pointed up that the difference between dexterity and strength isn't as powerful as it seems to be (indeed, it is a very very situational one). The zombi thread became an undead resemblance of that, changing to ranged vs. melee. But my point (I guess) was successful, although many people don't agree. I tend to believe that most people that has commented here has a sort of dogmatic positioning, and no argument could be done that could deviate one millimeter from their dogma.

1) About the original thread, I could say yes, the work is done. Ranged vs. Melee is a no argument in the discussion about str vs. dex, as javelins have 120 feet range, so the strong characters aren't locked to fighting the nearest target. And the dextrous could easily grab a dagger or shortsword and still be efficient. A lot more arguments have been done (Athletics, EG)

2) About the zombi thread: No one actually proved that melee isn't a thing, and no one addressed the issue of the Prone condition, which levers the field. Being prone in melee is awful, although being prone in ranged combat is awesome. Also, many of the issues here are actually two, for one specific "build" that actually only negates its own flaws, and many other viable characters that hasn't that flaw for starters, and their features are directed to cover some ground.

3) if there is an issue about ranged vs. melee (a thing on which I fail to agree), is so nitpicking, so insignificant compared to other major issues (like the feat tax for being merely competent vs. über versatility) in earlier editions. Its about 1 or 2 DPR. People, please. This is a non-issue. Also, sorry for you if you choose to ignore the rules and then say "it's a CATASTROPHE! my DPR is 2 points less than ANOTHER'S ONE, focused entirely on DPR!".

Sorry people. I swear that I will not necro another thread.

But you just re-necroed it! Granted this time it was more of raising a fresh corpse type of necromancy but....

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Corwin]

Ah, good old Corwin, doing the vaguely insulting comments about unspecified posters bit, hoping someone's gonna bite. Don't change, mang.

Considering your last two posts are so indicative of your posting style, I'm not certain how you can hope to be seen as taking any kind of high road. Between my last two posts and your last two posts, guess which ones are in violation of the forum rules...