Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6542303" data-attributes="member: 2656">The devil is in the details. In earlier editions archery was viable at lower levels without huge investment, but paled in comparison to melee at higher levels if strengthbows weren't allowed (often the case) and/or archery specialisation, and there was the need for magic bows and arrows, and in some editions special metals. Archers who didn't specialise and equip themselves adequately were subpar as levels rose. Giving players the illusion that a particular option was viable when in practice it wasn't happened far too much in previous editions.I personally am not a fan of archery specialisation for the fighter class, I admit, but that's in part because I would prefer something like an archer class where the player publically commits to that role. For instance I was content with the ranger as the archer class in 4e, as it could IMO be easily reskinned as a non woodsy archer for those who disliked some of the ranger flavour.My nostalgia in relation to the fighter class is for the melee fighter, I admit.The design decisions in areas like this are the ones that attract some players and repel others. Nethertheless, decisions have to be made.</blockquote>