I feel like the ranger and the monk classes are both too squishy for melee combat early game. They may possibly pick up enough survivability for it by level 5 or 6?
I feel barbarians and fighters pre level 5 are the only non caster classes that are stout enough to survive in melee. To me, everything else just feels like it's a deathtrap to actively try and go into melee with.
Paladins pre level 5 are close to being as stout as fighters and barbarians but they feel like they are mising a little something.
Anyone else have similar thoughts or opinions?
Paladins have generally lower con than Fighters because they need Cha for spellcasting, so less points to spread out. However, LOH has more utility than Second Wind and Paladins have healing spells... I believe paladins are slightly more fragile when it comes to massive single-combat damage, but slightly more sturdy in the long term standing up to multiple low-damage encounters.
Anyway... Ranger & Monk...
Rangers need some special attention to be able to survive in Melee early... Specifically, they can't act like a ranger. Armor & Shield & 14 Dex & 14 Con... IF they can survive the low levels, then they can get to dual-wielding in tier 2-3, when taking one or two hits won't take them from Full HP to Death Saves.
Monks are in worse shape, since they can't use shields and armor. They are okay from level 5-11, though... before 5, they are too fragile. After 11, everyone else becomes awesome and monks get very little.
I actually feel like all characters are a little too squishy during the low levels. Combats seem like a bunch of eggs in a hammer fight to me. Especially with the dex adding to damage rolls in this edition. Goblins went from doing a 1d6-1 to 1d6+2. So I came up with a house rule:
At each level, calculate your HP normally and take the bigger of that or your Constitution score.
Example Rogue with a 12con.
At level 1, this character would normally have 9 HP, at level 2 it would have 15. With my house rule, he has 12 HP for level 1 and then switch over to "normal" HP rules at level 2.
In thinking of different examples, I realize an easier rule might just be to take your 2nd level HP for first level. But I made up this rule back when wizards only got a d4 for HP and my beefy half-orc sorcerer got one-shot by a damned rat. Also if you were to just get your 2nd levels worth of HP early, that might be too big a buff for the meatier fighter or barbarian.
- Eck
Ranger can start with Scale mail and enough gp to buy a shield. With a 14 Dex thats an 18 AC. Couple that with a D10 hit die, and I am not sure how much better you want them to be. Heck,drop the Dex to 12 and 17 AC is still pretty good.
Everyone is squishy at low level.
Coredump00 wrote:
Even with the best AC in the party (17) but only averge Con (13) my Cleric didn't feel safe in combat until level 3. The Dwarf Barbarian and the Dwarf Ranger were both tougher and lived in melee. Why did I not feel safe? Because low levels mean you have low hit point pools. Levels make this better because you gain more HP and feel more secure once your HP pool starts cresting 20. Taking 5 damage when you have 20 HP is a lot less scary than when you have 15 HP.
What fix would I suggest? Starting at level 3 as the book states you could/should with experienced players.
My gut feeling feeling is that Rangers and Monks are adequate when it comes to survivability. Both are, to use a 4e term, strikers. Hunter's Mark and Flury of Blows are great for putting out damage and making sure your target is down. A dead enemy can't hurt you.
Coredump00 wrote:
I'm playing an AL Monk and do not feel squishy (I feel NAKED: no armor). I've been downed only once over three levels. If you put your beginning 15 and 14 in DEX / WIS you can start with reasonable but not guaranteed AC. My biggest tactical problem is that I'm so fast that I can do a solo-stunt and get Team Enemy's undivided attention before my friends catch up to help me out. I haven't yet hit a situation where I needed the Flurry nova; Martial Arts and its pseudo-advantage has been fine for my DPR contribution.
I'm also playing a HotDQ Paladin5. I am the group's tank (AC 21) and am perfectly willing to get myself surrounded by crowds of minions; almost nothing can hit me. If something does, I can Lay on Hands myself. Strategy helps too: I keep asking myself if getting into this particular fight will forward our goal of defeating the Cult of the Dragon; as a result we walk away from distractions (usually). HP is not a problem; I've survived a crit and not even been bloodied from it.
I don't think it makes a lot of differnce pre about 5th level. NPCs & Monsters all do a lot of damage pretty fast relative to the PC's hit points. They have to be on their toes and make sure their healer doesn't go down, or their in big trouble basically. Once they start to accumulate some treasure they can upgrade armor to improve AC's and that can help a lot. partial plate and shield with +2 dex is 19.. Once AC's hit 18-21 they get a tad less squishy.
My players and I really dislike the "Stat" generation rules in the PHB. You either have crap stats, or you roll for who knows what. Everyone in our campaigns get exactly the same stats to start with at 1st level. 18, 16, 14, 12, 12, 10. Not awesome stats, but they make a pretty decent difference for survivability, and we figure they're supposed to be Hero's, so they should have some heroic level stats, not farmer level stats lol
We've also found Humans and the Durable feat make a significant difference for Tank-classes.
It should not be news that a fighter/barbarian are the best front line fighters and the primary 'tanks'....
but that is a far cry from saying Rangers are 'too squishy for melee combat' There just isn't *that* much difference..... Rage is cool, but at only twice a day, it doesn't make for that much separation.
Coredump00 wrote:
It depends a lot on luck and the situation at hand.
My players split the party and got ambushed. Both groups had a heavily armored healer (one group had the paladin and the other had the war cleric) who went down in the first round of combat, because despite their awesome AC and healing ability I rolled really well.
The Bear Barbarian didn't play terribly smart, but he was raging for 1/2 damage, and though I could have taken him out I figured seeing 3 of his buddies slaughtered meant the 4th goblin was high-tailing it out of there instead of fighting on.
The other guy was a dragon sorcerer, who critted to kill one bugbear, the second took off with the paladin in an attempt to draw her into a trap (wasn't running up to her after seeing his buddy turned to ash) which she circumvented and took him by surprise from behind. Still might have gotten taken out if the paladin hadn't rolled a nat 20 on a death save and I brought him back with 1 hp (can't remeber if that's an actual rule but I like it) to harrass the bugbear.
Chaosmancer wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Jamwes wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Monks and rangers are perfectly fine imo
Psikerlord wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
BRJN wrote:
Monk aren't that squishy and they do good damages too. But they need a clever strategy.
The monk needs to move far away from ennemis after hitting them. You should always kit your ennemies and makes hit and run if you feel you could get focus by too much attacks.
The easiest way is to take the way of the open hand wich gives you a strong (and free) control effect on your flurry of blows either you push your target up to 15ft or knock it prone.
Don't underestimate the monk because he doesn't have 18 AC at first lvl, he has other tricks to handle himself.
Lysandre01 wrote:
Lysandre01 wrote:
Isnt suggesting to move out away from enemies the definition of being too squishy in melee?
Lysandre01 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I am still stuck on why are you playing a melee ranger ? Almost with out exception I am seeing Dms whine about ranged rangers. Key word in ranger is range.
Monks well I have yet to see oneactually played in this edition so no comment.
well if we agree that a monk and ranger in low levels are to squishy to stand toe to toe in melee then I'm happy to know that we actually agree
Chaosmancer wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
honestly from watching it in action seems like any monk should pick up the mobile feat ASAP...if going as far as going human variant to get it at level 1.
Chaosmancer wrote:
jaappleton wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Even with the best AC in the party (17) but only averge Con (13) my Cleric didn't feel safe in combat until level 3.
Chaosmancer wrote:
SterlingRat wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
You our dont flurry of blows on the turn you disengage
BRJN wrote: