LogFAQs > #896787655

shadowsword87 posted...

Plus there's only a single ranged weapon that uses str (javelin), so if you do go a str heavy build anything ranged just sucks (and there are cool ranged builds that use touch attacks by shooting arrows with spells on the arrow, which is awesome).

Yeah, but the reverse is also true there - if you do a Str-based build but then use nothing but ranged weapons, you're kind of screwing yourself to little gain.

Ironically, most ranged weapons in D&D should require Str (even if you keep Dex to aim). Bows require strength to pull back, crossbows generally require strength to reload, things like slings and darts would do more damage the harder you throw them, etc. Only firearms would be purely Dex in a more realistic setting.



shadowsword87 posted...

Also the second attack uses your bonus action, which you only get one of those a turn (it's basically a minor action from 4e, fuck that name). Then higher level, that bonus action is really, really useful in doing other stuff than extra bit of damage.

That sort of balances out for the Swashbuckler, at least in the sense that they get Disengage as an automatic function of their main attack, so they don't need the bonus action for it. And Rogues can't really do much with bonus actions other than Cunning anyway (at least not with the Swashbuckler archetype).

Granted, you're still losing the option to Dash or Hide (though admittedly, both are less useful for a Rogue who is in the middle of the action rather than taking ranged shots from the surrounding shadows), but I think the real sting is still not being able benefit from the Two-Weapon Fighting style (meaning a real swashbuckler-y build might be better off dipping into at least one level of Fighter - if not actively straddling the two classes as a hybrid Battle Master Fighter/Swashbuckler Rogue, which would also let you pull off some neat dueling moves via Combat Superiority).

As for the other part, ehh. I don't really think Move/Minor/Standard is inherently better or worse than Move/Action/Bonus. I can see why older players dislike the change, but I don't think either is more or less clear or concise than the other. And I'm already used to multiple RPG systems referring to the same concepts by a dozen different names anyway, so I adapt pretty quickly.



shadowsword87 posted...

But that level can really sucks to not use

People always say that (ie, that giving up the top-tier in favor of versatility isn't optimal or really worth it), but it doesn't seem true in 5e.

In the short term, a hypothetical Sorcerer/Paladin may be slightly weaker compared to their allies of same level (or versus a pure Paladin of a given level), but that weakness is offset by greater versatility, options, and extra benefits from saving throws, skills, and abilities. A Paladin might get tons of use out of being able to cast spells like Light, Mage Hand, Mending, Message, or Prestidigitation (not to mention combat spells like Blade Ward or True Strike). And spells like Ray of Frost or Fire Bolt can help if a target is too far away to stab). And ultimately, over time, you're still getting most of the same powers you would have gotten anyway, just slightly later.

In the long term, sure, you're giving up the lvl 20 "god power", but those kind of suck for a lot of classes anyway (and in this specific case, I'm not a fan of the Oath of the Ancients lvl 20 power flavor-wise, so I almost prefer not getting it). And realistically, very few campaigns are ever going to involve prolonged play with lvl 20 characters, assuming they get to lvl 20 at all.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family