Realistically is there any point of melee dps when mages and archers are far more superior?
>4chanrenstay
It's cool to be an ooga booga ape and hit shit
Buffs and interrupts
>>724823857>melee dpsNo. Melee is for tanking only.
>>724823857being an actual hero>magicgay>bowscowardly
>>724823857melee DPS is usually much better for fighting in confined spaces and offers stuns plus usually little to no resource management like mana or arrows. I remember back when I played Neverwinter a really good rogue could match or beat out some mage and ranger DPS
>>724823857>enemy moves behind an obstacle >mages and archers immediately become uselessdoesn't sound superior to me
>>724823857if they have some sort of crazy mobility, or if theyre some 2 handed axe aoe machine.
>>724824389rouge with high level sneak attack will yield highest dps if the sneak attack proc even outclass wizard in term of damage but in nwn you're forced to be melee to proc sneak attack afaik, ranged had weird formula for sneak attack, at least in pathfinder it's easier for ranged rouge to do arrow sneak attack
>>724823857>redditrenkys
>>724824743forgot to add i'm trans by the way. just saying!
>>724824690I haven't played in over 5 years probably, at the time control wizard and hunter rangers were pretty much locked as 1/2 at the end of dungeons. I'm not sure how much it has changed since then. Maybe I'll reinstall it to see how it's changed now that I'm thinking about it
>>724823857ok my man, go run around soaking shit and do other mechanics as a caster.
>>724823857depends on the game
>when mages and archers are far more superior?Well, that obviously depends on the game!But thinking about it from first principles/innate properties of the archetype, it is almost always the case that "fighter" (or "warrior", "barbarian", "knight", "shapeshifter druid", whatever) is a "dumb, straightforward", option. Perhaps they don't do the same amount of damage as an "rogue" might from stealth kills or backstabs, or perhaps a mage can blow stuff up in some AoE combo, but precisely because they are so dumb, you tend to win just by autoattacking. You might as well ask why play a rogue when a fighter would already have leaped in and killed all the enemies by the time a rogue would have sneaked into a position to attack, and has then charged to attack the next set of enemies while a mage has blown their load and is recovering (whether it's spell slots, cooldowns, mana, long initial cast for whatever big nuke that puts you in combat, or whatever, that they are waiting for).It is often the case that in actual practice the steady, reliable, output of "fighter" archetypes ends up doing the most damage over the course of the game, while never lagging behind. And of course, there's something to be said about frontlining: a rogue doesn't get to backstab if the enemies are facing them, and while a mage might be capable of self-sufficiency by crowd controlling enemies with cold spells and what not, that means they aren't setting up meteor combos on stationary enemies.The same is largely true of non-gimmicky "fighter archer" archetypes too, but generally ranged-melee is balanced either by the assumption that melee just does more damage on account of putting themselves in the harm's way or having more combat factors to scale from (like getting effective extra attacks from attacks of opportunity), or also does area damage ("cleave", "whirlwind", "ground slam") and control with stuns and interrupts, while the archer archetype is almost purely a single target sniper.
>>724826559>It is often the case that in actual practice the steady, reliable, output of "fighter" archetypes ends up doing the most damage over the course of the game, while never lagging behind.its overturned and simple for drunk and high players.
