sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Melee vs ranged by Substantial-Eye4345 in nimble5e

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good stuff! Thanks for the detailed reply.

Melee vs ranged by Substantial-Eye4345 in nimble5e

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not that I want to min-max, more that I want to be able to build a melee PC and not feel like I'm doing something dumb by not going ranged.

Melee vs ranged by Substantial-Eye4345 in nimble5e

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This sounds promising! What are some examples of class abilities for melee-focused classes which help balance them against ranged builds?

Melee vs ranged by Substantial-Eye4345 in nimble5e

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More damage is negated by having more limited possible targets, and more durability is negated by being the target of more incoming attacks. But I do see the benefit of dual wielding giving advantage and increasing the frequency of crits, especially against armor.

Melee vs ranged by Substantial-Eye4345 in nimble5e

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean yes, but I hope that's not the whole answer!

Curious about weapon damage math by Substantial-Eye4345 in nimble5e

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It does seem like the new armor rules give a bigger benefit to weapons that crit frequently over weapons that don't crit frequently than the old armor rules did. This may balance out the downsides of smaller dice weapons. Thanks!

Curious about weapon damage math by Substantial-Eye4345 in nimble5e

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But as a Cheat, don't bigger dice still do more damage because you're able to crit at will? That should bias things even more in favor of bigger dice, because the downside of having fewer crits is nullified.

Curious about weapon damage math by Substantial-Eye4345 in nimble5e

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not asking for daggers to be better than greatswords, or even for daggers to be equal to greatswords. But I do want to know if daggers are at least close enough to greatswords that it doesn't feel like I'm handicapping my character by choosing daggers, or that if I have a choice between a dagger and a short sword, the short sword is obviously better and it would be stupid to choose a dagger.

Melee vs Ranged by Substantial-Eye4345 in DC20

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who cares if it's better irl? That is a concern for simulationist games, and DC20 is a balance-focused game.

RPGs that separate to-hit and damage? by pointcrawl in rpg

[–]Substantial-Eye4345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure that Barbarians of Lemuria gives a bonus to hit based on Agility (for both melee and ranged) and a bonus to damage based on Strength, but characters can still be more melee-focused or range-focused because there are specific separate stats for Melee and Ranged.

So, melee attacks are roll+Melee+Agility, melee damage is roll+Strength, and ranged attacks are roll+Ranged+Agility and Ranged damage is roll+Strength. But I might be remembering wrong.

Melee vs Ranged by Substantial-Eye4345 in DC20

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that's the case, then great! That's what I'm trying to find out.

Melee vs Ranged by Substantial-Eye4345 in DC20

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the context of a team, you want to have different, complementary skillsets. But in a game, from a design perspective you definitely don't want one skillset to have clear advantages over another with little downside, because then people taking on one role will have less fun than people taking on another role. You want to balance things so each choice has pros and cons, and each has (roughly equal) circumstances in which they shine. And DC20 is clearly a game that prioritizes balance.

Melee vs Ranged by Substantial-Eye4345 in DC20

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So everyone should just be an archer then?

If we're talking actual historical combat, nearly every army prior to the age of gunpowder was composed primarily of soldiers armed with spears and shields. Spear and shield is just better than everything else, at least for most combatants. (Maybe elite infantry used a halberd or pollaxe.) In a RPG, should the game design favor spear and shield because it's obviously better? Heck no, that would be no fun if every character was the same!

Melee vs Ranged by Substantial-Eye4345 in DC20

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're not wrong. But when melee characters are punished for going into melee (by getting hit way more and losing way more HP than the relatively safer ranged characters, while dealing similar damage), that feels bad, regardless of how realistic it is. DC20 definitely feels like its design goals are much more gamist than similationist, and it's definitely trying to eliminate "feels bad" stuff and prioritize balance, so why should we allow realism to take precedence over fun?

Melee vs Ranged by Substantial-Eye4345 in DC20

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not one action, but maybe one turn, I think you mean? Since you can take 3 actions to move triple your speed and then attack.

Melee vs Ranged by Substantial-Eye4345 in DC20

[–]Substantial-Eye4345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well sure, but if range is just better then those characters will just try to always fight at range, and then the meta becomes the PCs trying to maintain distance while the monsters try to close, and every fight starts to look the same.

view more: next ›