Why the obsession with archer Fighters?

[Branduil]

I keep seeing this complaint and I don't get it. Is there something utterly odious to some people about playing a Ranger? Why not just play a Ranger and call yourself a fighter?

I can understand the complaints about the lack of an unarmed melee class, the lack of Druids, the lack of Barbarians, and the lack of Bards. But complaining about the inability to play an effective tactical archer with the arbitrary metagame tag of "Fighter" while a perfectly effective one named "Ranger" exists really confuses me.

 

[TimeOut]

I don't understand it too.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

It's an attempt to demonstrate what some assume can't be done by 4th edition. Specifically, the warrior wielding a bow with heavy armor. Which actually can be done.

 

[Regicide]

I keep seeing this complaint and I don't get it. Is there something utterly odious to some people about playing a Ranger? Why not just play a Ranger and call yourself a fighter?

Probably has something to do with people having played previous editions of DnD and learning that if you weren't able to do ranged attacks you were in severe difficulties at higher levels when everything flew, teleported or attacked from range. A fighter without a bow has no response to the wizard at 300 feet with fireballs. Removing the option of being able to use a bow effectively from the fighter in 3E would pretty much kill the class.

I haven't looked at higher level challenges in 4E, but the fact that you're expected to play on a relatively small map may indicate that ranged combat pretty much doesn't happen in 4E. So 4E's lack of options for the fighter may not be crippling because of every else's lack of options.

 

[Alkiera]

Probably has something to do with people having played previous editions of DnD and learning that if you weren't able to do ranged attacks you were in severe difficulties at higher levels when everything flew, teleported or attacked from range. A fighter without a bow has no response to the wizard at 300 feet with fireballs. Removing the option of being able to use a bow effectively from the fighter in 3E would pretty much kill the class.

I haven't looked at higher level challenges in 4E, but the fact that you're expected to play on a relatively small map may indicate that ranged combat pretty much doesn't happen in 4E. So 4E's lack of options for the fighter may not be crippling because of every else's lack of options.

Fighters can use bows. They don't get the prof bonus, but they can use them. They also don't have cool powers with them; but how many fighters took PBS and the other ranged feats in 3.x unless they were trying to be a non-religious archer? The Ranger is no longer tied to spellcasting, so he is the archery specialist. If the fighter just needs a way to plink at flying ranged enemies, he can shoot a bow without too much of a problem.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I think it is because, previously, the Fighter was SEEN as "The Guy Who Fights ... With Weapons".

Even if the most EFFECTIVE tactics were, usually, melee builds of various types, it remained that there were feats and such to support the Fighter as the guy as what fights with weapons ... all of them.

Now the "Fighter" is actually the "Melee Tanky Guy". He CAN'T use bows really effectively, there's nothing in his powers for it and the role defined for him fundamentally means he's unsuited to it.

Before you COULD ... now you CAN'T ... but the name on the class is the same.

The Fighter, now, is probably closer to the Knight of 3.5. He's a melee combatant with battlefield-control powers directed toward encouraging enemies to focus attacks on him.

Which is cool, really, but it's not the Fighter of editions of yore. He was a general-purpose guy-with-weapons combatant. He had no defined role, you defined your role through the choices you made. The Fighter of Tomorrow is defined by his role before you get there. Choosing a fighter defines what you are going to do with him ... Defend ... In Melee.

To be honest, I don't really think of most of the classes by their class names. I think "Defender, Martial" or "Striker, Martial"

I actually find it unfortunate that there are two martial strikers. From the 4E sessions I've run, the plethora of Strikers in the PHB and the different class names has proven to be painful for the players, since each time we've played the party has doubled-up on Strikers and left one of the other roles empty, even if everybody is playing a different class.

I honestly hope that d20 Modern v2.0 goes with four general classes: Striker, Defender, Controller, Leader.

--fje

 

[Branduil]

I think it is because, previously, the Fighter was SEEN as "The Guy Who Fights ... With Weapons".

Even if the most EFFECTIVE tactics were, usually, melee builds of various types, it remained that there were feats and such to support the Fighter as the guy as what fights with weapons ... all of them.

Now the "Fighter" is actually the "Melee Tanky Guy". He CAN'T use bows really effectively, there's nothing in his powers for it and the role defined for him fundamentally means he's unsuited to it.

Before you COULD ... now you CAN'T ... but the name on the class is the same.

The Fighter, now, is probably closer to the Knight of 3.5. He's a melee combatant with battlefield-control powers directed toward encouraging enemies to focus attacks on him.

Which is cool, really, but it's not the Fighter of editions of yore. He was a general-purpose guy-with-weapons combatant. He had no defined role, you defined your role through the choices you made. The Fighter of Tomorrow is defined by his role before you get there. Choosing a fighter defines what you are going to do with him ... Defend ... In Melee.

To be honest, I don't really think of most of the classes by their class names. I think "Defender, Martial" or "Striker, Martial"

I actually find it unfortunate that there are two martial strikers. From the 4E sessions I've run, the plethora of Strikers in the PHB and the different class names has proven to be painful for the players, since each time we've played the party has doubled-up on Strikers and left one of the other roles empty, even if everybody is playing a different class.

I honestly hope that d20 Modern v2.0 goes with four general classes: Striker, Defender, Controller, Leader.

--fje

I think the martial strikers may end up being the default class for newbies. Relatively straightforward powers and you just focus on dealing massive damage to one enemy.

 

[MadWanderer]

I keep seeing this complaint and I don't get it. Is there something utterly odious to some people about playing a Ranger? Why not just play a Ranger and call yourself a fighter?

For me? Same problem I have with Two weapon fighters being Rangers.

Available and obligatory skills: Rangers all have either Nature or Dungeoneering. Rangers do not have Streetwise or Intimidate.

Pretty minor problem though, and one house ruled with ease.

 

[Amadeus Windfall]

Fighters can use bows. They don't get the prof bonus, but they can use them.

Fighters have proficiency in all simple and military ranged weapons, so they get the proficiency bonus when wielding one. The only thing holding back a fighter from being an effective archer is the lack of powers for it, and I agree with everyone who says if you want that, just play a ranger, or if you really want to be a ranged fighter, use multiclass feats for ranger powers.

 

[FrEeZiNgFiRe]

You could change some fighter powers to "Ranged weapon" aswell if you really want to be bow fighter.