Firing into Melee

[theNater]

Refuse all you want, but apparently, you missed my caveat, "Less than optimal? Perhaps, if you're not a Ranger, Fighter, OA Samurai or PsyWar, but you still have that option."

Besides, it still depends upon your build & how much you want to commit to it. I usually use a Dex & Wis build for my monks, as opposed to Str & Wis. Early on, equipped with a Quiver of Ehlonna and a bunch of javelins & alchemical bombs, they make fine artillery. And again, you really only need the first two feats to make a difference in your ranged combat effectiveness- the rest is gravy.

As the Monk levels up, he will, of course, suffer in comparison to a "warrior" class sniper.

Using sustainable attacks, when the only difference is class, a 3rd edition monk will be 1-5 points behind the ranger in attack bonus, and be making 0-1 fewer attacks. These differences depend on level, and usually get worse for the monk as levels go up.

Using at-will powers, when the only difference is class, a 4th edition warlord will be 0-3 points behind the ranger in attack bonus, and will be making 0-1 fewer attacks. These differences do not change with level, and are never both at maximum, as the ranger has to choose between the extra attack and the extra accuracy.

Why is the 3rd edition monk an acceptable sub-optimal sniper, but not the 4th edition warlord?

Not quite. "Better" has nothing to do with it.

I'm objecting to 4Ed's design decision that- unlike 3.X- certain starting class abilities are never available to a multiclassing PC unless he starts in that class...and the player doesn't even get to choose those abilities from which his PC will be forever barred. A 4Ed multiclassed PC has been essentially "socially promoted"- even though he lacks some of a class' fundamental abilities, he still gets to call himself a fully qualified member of that class.

In this particular, a 4Ed PC who is proficient with a ranged weapon and multiclasses into the Ranger class will never get access to a fundamental class ability.

In 3.X, the abilities your PC lost out on due to multiclassing were the high-level ones. This more accurately reflects the way people learn and earn promotions.

A fundamental ability is not the same as an ability which is easy to learn. Remember that 1st level characters in fourth edition are highly trained. Prime shot isn't a matter of a month's worth of tutelage under a master archer, it's the result of five to ten years of firing arrows at a target every day for two hours.

Multiclassing doesn't provide five years of archery practice, and most adventuring groups aren't going to put saving the world on hold for five years while Jonny puts in his time at the firing range.

That said, as I recall, PBS, PS, and WFoc were all available in the 3.0 PHB. Reach Spell is the only thing I mentioned not in that book.

I was assuming the arcanist in your example was a member of the character class "arcanist", which is not in the 3.5 PHB I(which I'm using for reference). If it's just any arcane caster, well, they'll run out of rays and orbs long before an archer will run out of arrows.

 

[Kaldaen]

1. The warlord is trained with a bow - so he's not 'suddenly picking up a bow and making hard shots'.

2. He will suck compared with the ranger at doing so, because his dex sucks. If the player has put together a warlord who's dex doesn't suck, then he probably deserves to be good with a bow - at this point you've got someone who is trained in a bow AND naturally good with one.

3. The ranger can still make better shots. He can either choose careful attack for a +2 to ranged attacks OR he can shoot twice for every shot his warlord fellow takes. Additionally the warlord cannot get prime shot bonuses.

That really wasn't the focus of my post. Replace "Warlord" with "Rogue" if it'll help the stats fit better. It's a moot point anyway, seeing as I spent the next three paragraphs agreeing with you.

 

[Otterscrubber]

I can honestly say that not getting a penalty for firing into melee does not bother me at all. Or the fact that someone else who is trained to use a ranged weapon is as good at it as someone else who is trained to use a ranged weapon. Think folks get too caught up in names when it comes to 4e sometimes.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Something many posters in this thread seem to ignore completely is that D&D is not populated exclusively by PC's. Now any incompetent with a ranged weapon can weave his shots through any number of bodies to hit the low AC target. That's not credible, and it's not a very good game design element.

Why do you care that a peasant has a decent shot at hitting another peasant with a bow even if there are some other peasants in between? Does this come up often in your campaign? Why do some folks feel the need to codify the rules to encompass gross incompetence when they seem to cover competent characters quite well IMHO.

 

[DracoSuave]

Peasants -aren't- decent shots with that bow. They're not proficient in military ranged weapons. They -might- have simple ranged weapons proficiency.


Here are all the classes currently in the game, and the ranged weapons they have training with, if any. As well, Classes with many powers that are -explicitly- Ranged/Area or may require ranged weapons are also noted.

Artificers: Simple Ranged, Ranged Powers
Clerics: Simple Ranged, Ranged Powers
Fighters: Simple and Military Ranged
Paladins: Simple Ranged
Rangers: Simple and Military Ranged. Many powers utilize Ranged Weapons
Rogues: Simple Ranged, plus one Superior Ranged. Many powers utilize Ranged Weapons
Swordmages: Simple Ranged, Some Ranged Powers
Warlords: Simple Ranged
Warlocks: Simple Ranged, Ranged Powers
Wizards: Simple Ranged, Ranged Powers

So, of the classes in the game, all classes are trained in ranged weapons. Only 3 classes in the game lack ranged-weapon powers or ranged-spell-type powers.



One thing to note, someone was complaining you can't use an ally as a human shield any more. Actually, allies DO provide cover/concealment for you if they are in line of effect between you and the attacker. They just don't provide the same service for your enemy when you attack -them- back. The game makes the fundamental assumption that characters in an adventuring party locked in a fight to the death will actually bother to -communicate- things like 'incoming' or 'jump.' Adventurers are professionals, after all. And yes, this is a rewarding tactic, and if you make a Stealth roll vs. their Perception, you might even get Combat Advantage.

And this is -by design.-

 

[chromeraven]

seriously?

you're basically saying that for probably half the characters you'll ever see, they'll take precise shot at level 1 to be able to function like the rules assume they do.

Why do you hate your rangers? your warlocks? your wizards? your WIS clerics? Your CHA paladins? Your javelin warlords and fighters? Your rogues who want to throw knives? Your dwarves throwing axes?

Training/expertise is built into the system via proficiencies, power selection and using the point buy. People who are focused on melee (with a few exceptions) are going to be worse at ranged attacks by a margin of 3-5 to start, and getting worse comparatively as the game progresses. On top of that, your ranged specialists are dealing striker bonus damage. Oddly, that's what firing into combat used to look like...

 

[Celtavian]

you have to look at it differently

They worked it differently for fourth edition. The elminated the penalty, but still made ranged strikers the best at firing into melee.

How?

No one but ranged strikers are good at ranged striking: For the most part only those classes that use ranged weapons are very good at firing them. If you build an archery ranger, you are clearly the best bowman in your group and no one can do the tricks you do with the bow including firing into combat or around cover.

No one has archery tricks save for maybe another ranger.

It is the same for the warlock and rogue who have high dexterity and used ranged attacks often whether a eldritch blast or thrown shuriken.

That is how they handled making ranged strikers much more proficient at attacking from ranged.

So though you do not have to take precise shot and point blank shot, you do have to be trained ranged striker to have a very good chance of hitting with a ranged weapon. Given the limitations on stats, it isn't very likely that you will be able to make a character good at everything.

Another thing to take into account is that they reduced the number of attacks per round. So no longer can a ranged striker fire more than one shot around unless he is a ranger and then you are limited to two.

Given that limitation, why wouldn't a character be able to make one precise shot into melee if he had trained with a bow and had high dexterity? Why wouldn't a ranger being specialized with ranged weapons be able to make two shots into melee?

So they did make it so that you need a trained ranged attacker to be effective with the bow at firing into melee. Otherwise there is a good chance that you will miss because you are not at all focused on using ranged attacks nor do you have many good options with ranged attacks.

That is how they took care of the idea that you must be a trained ranged striker to fire into melee. Heck, they made it so you have to be a trained ranged striker to be effective at all with ranged weapons. Sure anyone can make a basic attack with a bow, but only an archery ranger can make that bow sing and do tricks.

So they still provide the feel of a trained archer, but they do it differently than 3.5 did it. And I don't see the problem with it. You can build all kinds of archers, even archers that wear heavy armor 4th edition. So almost every conceivable fighter type concept can be transposed to 4th edition if you bother to take the time to think about how to do it.