Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7146321" data-attributes="member: 996">I've seen games go both ways, or very nearly so.&nbsp; All ranged (all caster or casters and an archer or two) or all melee (even all martial in 4e).&nbsp; But, very often, there'll be a few characters that can handle either just fine.&nbsp; Melee-only characters do, IMX, come up against problems like not being able to attack (or to attack who they want or focus fire) almost as much in 5e as prior editions (TotM makes it very tempting to just hand-wave positioning), but ranged characters rarely have an issue anymore, while in past eds they'd at least occasionally have a problem, if not be downright hosed now and then.&nbsp; Besides, players often just want to play what they want to play, or never mind all-archers, we'd have all-full-neo-Vancian caster parties, every time.&nbsp; That doesn't excuse imbalance, of course, you still need to make sure that the player who chooses a sub-optimal/non-viable class/build/whatever has a shot at having a good time and isn't driven away from the game.&nbsp; It's just that hopefully the DM will work with what he has to impose balance, rather than letting his game suck while he waits for WotC to perfect the system.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Until such time as the optimized feat-abusing archers slough the last remaining limitations of archery in melee, or the casters can summon their own blockers, sure.&nbsp; Necessary can still be inferior, though.&nbsp; :shrug:&nbsp;The same time as getting two feats to be the uber-greatsworder or Sentinel, or cover your non-combat bases as a fighter.&nbsp; And, those first 3 levels do go really fast.But, yeah, your low-level/non-Variant-human ranged fighters are going to want a finesse weapon for melee for the first 5 levels or so.&nbsp;The Capn's tried that many a time - ever since those feats bit off his leg, I think it was...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7146321, member: 996"] I've seen games go both ways, or very nearly so. All ranged (all caster or casters and an archer or two) or all melee (even all martial in 4e). But, very often, there'll be a few characters that can handle either just fine. Melee-only characters do, IMX, come up against problems like not being able to attack (or to attack who they want or focus fire) almost as much in 5e as prior editions (TotM makes it very tempting to just hand-wave positioning), but ranged characters rarely have an issue anymore, while in past eds they'd at least occasionally have a problem, if not be downright hosed now and then. Besides, players often just want to play what they want to play, or never mind all-archers, we'd have all-full-neo-Vancian caster parties, every time. That doesn't excuse imbalance, of course, you still need to make sure that the player who chooses a sub-optimal/non-viable class/build/whatever has a shot at having a good time and isn't driven away from the game. It's just that hopefully the DM will work with what he has to impose balance, rather than letting his game suck while he waits for WotC to perfect the system. Until such time as the optimized feat-abusing archers slough the last remaining limitations of archery in melee, or the casters can summon their own blockers, sure. Necessary can still be inferior, though. :shrug: The same time as getting two feats to be the uber-greatsworder or Sentinel, or cover your non-combat bases as a fighter. And, those first 3 levels do go really fast. But, yeah, your low-level/non-Variant-human ranged fighters are going to want a finesse weapon for melee for the first 5 levels or so. The Capn's tried that many a time - ever since those feats bit off his leg, I think it was... [/QUOTE]

Verification