Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6530333" data-attributes="member: 22779">See, this is what I don't understand.You mentioned before the idea of the lightly armoured ranged fighter.  Thing is, I wonder how much of this is a sort of "gnome effect" situation.  I've never actually seen a player of D&D do this, so, I'm wondering how much of a thing it really is.  I'm not saying it can't be done, but, like a fighter using a spork, it's not something I've ever actually seen in play.And, the thing is, "lightly armoured ranged fighter" is relatively unsupported in 5e, same as 4e.  All of the fighter abilities are related to melee attacks, more or less.  Right in the description it lists Str and Con as the primary stats for fighters.  Sure, there is Archery Style (+2 to hit) but, without special equipment, you can't add your Strength to damage with a bow.  You could be a throwing fighter, I suppose to get around that.  Whereas a Ranger or a Rogue are both much better suited to being a ranged, lightly armoured combatant.  To put it another way, a ranged fighter in 5e is no more effective (or less effective) than a ranged fighter in 4e.  Considering the other four base combat styles are all melee combatant, it's not a big stretch to thing that heavy armoured melee combatant is the norm.  in 3e, you could do it, but, it was going to cost you a LOT of feats to be anywhere near as effective as a melee fighter.  In 2e, you had bow specs, but, these were a distant second to the damage you could do as a melee weapon specialist (to the range of about half as much damage).In 1e, there was absolutely no reason to be a lightly armoured fighter.  That was just suicidal.  After Unearthed Arcana, melee fighters ruled (double specs gave you plus 3 to hit and damage and 3/2 attack routines at 1st level - why on earth would anyone primarily use a bow?).The idea that 4e's defender fighter was made whole cloth for 4e is ridiculous on its face.  Fighters have always been primarily a melee class.  The only difference is, in 4e, they took that idea and expanded on it, making the fighter a lot better at melee at the cost of being not very effective at all at range.  5e has largely done the same thing.  The melee combat feats are much more attractive to a fighter than the ranged ones.  Never minding that there are a hell of a lot more melee style feats than ranged ones.</blockquote>

Verification