Essentials are melee heavy

[Stalker0]

Even though there are fewer ranged focused characters, many more of the essential classes can use ranged weapons now without being completely incompetent at them since the focus is on basic attacks and not power driven abilities.

 

[CovertOps]

Even though there are fewer ranged focused characters, many more of the essential classes can use ranged weapons now without being completely incompetent at them since the focus is on basic attacks and not power driven abilities.

Knight (Str/Con): Str primary, heavy thrown Javelin +2/d6 10/20
Slayer (Str/Dex): Dex secondary long bow +2/d10 20/40 OR Javelin above with Str
Warpriest (Wis/Con): not much here, but could skip Con and make Dex secondary
Thief (Dex/[Str/Cha]): Dex primary with Short Bow +2/d8 15/30
Mage (Int/[Con/Wis/Cha]): again, not much here other than powers...usually range 10

It is funny, though, that from what we've seen the ranger build isn't ranged and the cavalier isn't a horseman.

-Dan'L

If by "isn't ranged" you mean that they miss out on their striker bonus damage then yes, the eRanger isn't "ranged".

Well, being melee-heavy is not something started by Essentials. From the beginning, 4e has been rather melee-heavy.

Yep, there was bow ranger and Wizard. But aside from those 2 classes, there was no classes in PHB who can consistently attack at range 20 with reasonable attack.

I guess you don't consider an RBA to be a "decent attack" then.
Fighter: Javelin +2/d6 10/20 (so -2 to hit at range 20)
Paladin: Str build with Javelin
Cleric: Str build with Javelin
Warlord: Javelin
Ranger: Need anything be said here?
Wizard: not much here
Warlock: not much here
Rogue: For a feat you can get Long Bow/Great Bow and who cares you can't sneak attack with it. This is about "consistent/reasonable" range 20 attacks.

 

[Shin Okada]

I guess you don't consider an RBA to be a "decent attack" then.
Fighter: Javelin +2/d6 10/20 (so -2 to hit at range 20)
Paladin: Str build with Javelin
Cleric: Str build with Javelin
Warlord: Javelin
Ranger: Need anything be said here?
Wizard: not much here
Warlock: not much here
Rogue: For a feat you can get Long Bow/Great Bow and who cares you can't sneak attack with it. This is about "consistent/reasonable" range 20 attacks.

No I don't. Sure, strength-based PCs can throw Javelins. But that is sub-per for several reasons. First, the range is not long enough. Second, PCs tend to have much weaker magic Javelin than his primal weapon. 3rd, his feats invested into main weapon group are often not applied to Javelin.

There is a big difference in 3.5e and 4.0e. Combats and monster design in 3.5e were much loose one. And both PCs and monsters tend to hit more than they miss. So, a plain strengh-based warriors grabbing a non-magic Composite Longbow tuned to his strength (and maybe augmented by GMW spell), could become a nice artillery. Even if his Dex mod is 0, his BAB (and multi-attack based on it) was usually enough most of the opponents at reasonable rate. And the damage was based on strength. And Composite Longbow's range was, in 4e term, something like 21/43/65/77/99/121/143/165/187/209/220. And of course, most of the spell-casters had med or long range spells which usually covers almost any battlefield.

In 4e, many of the monster's defenses are calculated so that the attack is done by using primal stats and with a weapon or an implement with appropriately high enhancement bonus. So, the usefulness of sub-per attacks are low.

 

[Shin Okada]

Encounter design should be based on party design. Any inherent flaw in 4th edition is pretty much solved by its inherent strengths. Unfortunately it is just weighted that way, but it's fairly easy to balance. If a DM makes an encounter with a flying creature for a party of fighters, the DM didn't think of what his players might find fun to stab to death with their swords ("Ah-ha, my players won't be able to reach the creature, surely THAT will be interesting!". The DM failed at encounter design. Not D&D.

Yes, an experienced DM can do that.

But is that easy enough for newbie DMs?

I am sure 4e is very player friendly from the beginning. And aldo DM-friendly provided he only run pre-made adventures.

But I have heard from many DMs, both experienced ones and newbies, that making good combat encounters for 4e is somewhat more difficult than making those for 3.5e.

One reason is that to make an interesting encounter in 4e, just placing monsters are not enough. Battle grid and terrain design are very important. And adding some move other than "monster attacks PCs", say, some monsters having different goals, make encounters much interesting. But all of those need a lot of experience.

Then another reason is the overall lack of versatility of PCs. While most PCs do very well within their role in typical battlefield, many of the party become suddenly helpless in certain situations. So DMs may make a TPK encounter without placing overtly higher level monsters. It was somewhat true in 3.5e. But more so in 4e, IMHO.

 

[Klaus]

As mentioned upthread, both variants of the Fighter and the Thief Rogue are built upon basic attacks. As such, they can use Ranged Basic Attacks and still benefit from their stances/tricks.

This is, in fact, a great reason for a Fighter to have Poised Assault, using that +1 to hit to make up for a lesser magic item or a lower ability score. And there are the augmenting whetstones from Adventurer's Vault that can turn a nonmagic weapon into a magic one for a single encounter.

 

[Shin Okada]

As mentioned upthread, both variants of the Fighter and the Thief Rogue are built upon basic attacks. As such, they can use Ranged Basic Attacks and still benefit from their stances/tricks.

This is, in fact, a great reason for a Fighter to have Poised Assault, using that +1 to hit to make up for a lesser magic item or a lower ability score.

Yeah, for that reason, maybe Essentials are slightly less melee-heavy in a way. I don't think it solved the 4e's "typical party cannot fight descently against flying monster" problem much, though.

And there are the augmenting whetstones from Adventurer's Vault that can turn a nonmagic weapon into a magic one for a single encounter.

Yep. But it seems that now all of those consumable items are uncommon at best. In other words, PCs can't expect to have them as reliable options.

 

[Klaus]

Yeah, for that reason, maybe Essentials are slightly less melee-heavy in a way. I don't think it solved the 4e's "typical party cannot fight descently against flying monster" problem much, though.



Yep. But it seems that now all of those consumable items are uncommon at best. In other words, PCs can't expect to have them as reliable options.

If a campaign needs "reliable" ranged options (instead of the occasional ranged fight), then characters are encouraged to take Bow Expertise, Far Throw for those javelins (and Spear Expertise), take Poised Assault, etc. In this case you'd be building the characters to match the campaign, instead of the other way around.

But if such ranged-only fights are merely occasional, then the essentials classes are well-served. All a DM has to do is keep in mind that the party isn't as effective at range, and as such he might be inclined to build such an encounter as if the party were a level lower.

 

[CovertOps]

If a campaign needs "reliable" ranged options (instead of the occasional ranged fight), then characters are encouraged to take Bow Expertise, Far Throw for those javelins (and Spear Expertise), take Poised Assault, etc. In this case you'd be building the characters to match the campaign, instead of the other way around.

But if such ranged-only fights are merely occasional, then the essentials classes are well-served. All a DM has to do is keep in mind that the party isn't as effective at range, and as such he might be inclined to build such an encounter as if the party were a level lower.

This. I've been running 4e about since it came out and my party is just hitting Epic. As I said previously, for the cost of a feat the Rogue can be full power against ranged opponents with a great bow. The Ranger is either built ranged or melee, but is awesome at whichever build (even the Str ranger can get a Javelin and use it with his powers!). The Fighter, Warlord, and Str Cleric all have the option to pick up a Javelin (10/20) and use it with their primary stat. For a feat they can make it 12/22. Except for the Rogue (get a Frost Bow with Wintertouched and Lasting Frost and this problem is solved as well) none of those options loses any substantial amount of damage. Iron Armbands and Weapon Focus* for a grand total of +3/+6/+9 H/P/E is not a devastating loss.

And none of this takes into account the plain fact that most monsters don't have attacks with a range greater than 10. You don't know the number of times I've lamented the bow Ranger in my party that I just couldn't hit because of his base 20 range and the monsters limit of range 10 powers.

*Even the weapon focus loss can be fixed for the cost of a feat making this loss +2/+4/+6. And is this amount of damage really what you're complaining about ([MENTION=64564]Shin[/MENTION])???

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Except for the Rogue (get a Frost Bow with Wintertouched and Lasting Frost and this problem is solved as well) none of those options loses any substantial amount of damage.

Two feats (one of them paragon tier) and a weapon that might never cross the line between my Wish List and my inventory, and it's all solved? Well, I'm glad it's so simple...

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

No I don't. Sure, strength-based PCs can throw Javelins. But that is sub-per for several reasons. First, the range is not long enough. Second, PCs tend to have much weaker magic Javelin than his primal weapon. 3rd, his feats invested into main weapon group are often not applied to Javelin.

Magic Javelin Problem: This is a huge problem in the game system's math. The game assumes a character will have a single, primary weapon and it will have a +X magical bonus depending upon the level of play. It turns magic items (weapon, armor, and neck) into a requirement instead of a reward and limits battlefield weapon choice to a large degree (especially as you go up in levels).

Luckily, the designers realized this error and published a very elegant solution: inherent item bonuses.

Specialization v Versatility
If you accept that the inherent item bonus is the solution to the Magic Javelin Problem, you are left with this issue for ranged/melee characters. Specializing has a cost. You are really good with X, but everything else suffers.

This is purely a player choice. If you choose to specialize with a certain weapon, you accept that when you aren't using that weapon, you are going to be less effective.

This is an opportunity cost. Specialize but be limited in battlefield options, have greater battlefield options but do less overall damage.

Range Limitations: This is an opportunity cost for your stat selection. If you play a Knight who is Str/Con, you've sacrificed some of your ranged options to be tougher. If you play a Knight who is Str/Dex, you've sacrificed some of your toughness to use longer ranged weapons. If you play a knight who is Con/Dex, you sacrifice some of your damage (and a feat slot) to be tough and open up long ranged weapons.

These choices are all valid. But they are choices the player has to make.