No other Ranged Weapon Class, or How I loathe the ranger

[Rechan]

I have seen about seven rangers in action, in many different groups.

Every. Single. Ranger. Uses. Twin-Strike. Almost. Every. Round.

I hate it. I hate rangers. They're so boring. There's no variety. No choices, no varied tactics, regardless of build just 'hit it twice over and over with my one good At-Will'. The other At-Will might as well not exist.

To quote someone in another thread:

I dunno. Given that 90% of the time I use Twin Strike anyway...I kind of have to force myself to use my encounter powers, but it always seems a risk... with Twin Strike, the odds are good I'll hit at least once and get to use my Quarry damage, but with encounter powers, if I whiff on one roll, nada. Two rolls are always better than one...

AHHHHH.

So, I found a new player, who wants to join our group. He wants to play a ranger. Because he likes "any class that benefits from bows/xbows/thrown". And since the ranger is the only class that does, I am going to have to sit through him constantly twin-striking.

AUGH.

Why can't there be any other class that can use ranged weapons efficiently? Rogues can use them, but since they need to get CA all the time, then that means either they spend a round hiding to get it, or they depend on their allies to cripple enemies with status effects before they ever get an attack off. Artificers are a jumbly mess, especially for a new player, so I'm not going to propose that.

I am not going to tell the player, "Please, just don't play what you like because it irks the hell out of me." But it's going to get under my skin every round of every combat.

 

[Almacov]

Rogues pretty much are the only real alternative.
At least Martial Power has some good rogue ranged powers in it.

You could try to convince him that the archery path gives too little in terms of benefit to justify picking it over Beast Mastery, which would let him choose mostly archery powers, but also allow him to mix things up with his Beast Companion once in a while.
Predator Strike could be a particularly useful at-will if he ends up with a melee monster breathing down his neck at an inopportune time. The beast might be a handy way to keep such threats off his back.

 

[chitzk0i]

This guy playing an LFR character was lamenting that even when he uses an encounter or daily, he's getting twin strike with a bonus. Two-fang strike is twin strike with dex to damage and a bonus if both hit. Split the tree is twin strike with dex to damage and you use the better of the two attack rolls for each one. Also 2[w], but you get the picture.

Another (newer to 4e) LFR player had forgotten that she had another at-will. That's like forgetting you have a nose.

 

[jensun]

Many Ranger encounter powers give two or more attacks, most adding stats to damage. Why wouldn't you use them over Twin Strike?

 

[cjais]

Agreed. As much as I like 4th edition, this problem is really getting to me as well.

It doesn't help that WotC pretends they're completely oblivious to the issue. They seem to have a policy about not admitting any fault in the at-wills at all. They fixed the rules loophole with Cleave, but haven't touched Sure Strike, Careful Strike or Twin Strike with a 10-foot pole. I'm pretty sick of this attitude that "all the at-wills are perfectly balanced, move along now, nothing wrong at all".

Sorry, that was more about WotC not adressing the issue than about rangers in specific.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

It doesn't help that WotC pretends they're completely oblivious to the issue. They seem to have a policy about not admitting any fault in the at-wills at all. They fixed the rules loophole with Cleave, but haven't touched Sure Strike, Careful Strike or Twin Strike with a 10-foot pole. I'm pretty sick of this attitude that "all the at-wills are perfectly balanced, move along now, nothing wrong at all".

Actually, they specifically address Sure Strike and Careful Strike during a podcast. They said that they feel they are perfectly balanced. That it is probably a difference between the way most of WOTC plays and everyone else plays. They explained that nearly everyone at WOTC is bonus to hit mad. They feel accuracy is not only the most important thing. It is the only thing. Any appeal to the people there that two attacks would be better than one with a +2 bonus is met with blank stares(well, they didn't say that EXACTLY, but pretty much).

It's at least somewhat explainable by the fact that I believe +2 to hit IS better when you need 18s to hit an enemy. Even in the very last beta copy of the rules, Solos had 2 higher AC than they do now. 24 AC was considered an acceptable(if hard) AC for level 1 players to hit. It was changed because it was much TOO hard(as anyone who played at DDXP last year found out).

However, they played most of the playtests with those numbers. So bonuses to hit of ANY kind were certainly worthwhile.

During the podcast, they mentioned that they still don't think that they are weak. They said that they are more useful as you get to higher levels and you fight more Solos who have high AC. And they understand that they are more situational than other powers, but they are good with that. It was implied, however, that if the bonus to hit was raised at all, that everyone at ALL their tables would have them as a power.

 

[Klaus]

IMHO, the fighter needs some Heavy Thrown powers, and I suggested as much in a Dragon article proposal. No reply, though.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

They explained that nearly everyone at WOTC is bonus to hit mad.

Except Mike Mearls, who gets that outside WotC it is a different thing.

 

[cjais]

Actually, they specifically address Sure Strike and Careful Strike during a podcast. They said that they feel they are perfectly balanced. That it is probably a difference between the way most of WOTC plays and everyone else plays. They explained that nearly everyone at WOTC is bonus to hit mad. They feel accuracy is not only the most important thing. It is the only thing. Any appeal to the people there that two attacks would be better than one with a +2 bonus is met with blank stares(well, they didn't say that EXACTLY, but pretty much).

It's at least somewhat explainable by the fact that I believe +2 to hit IS better when you need 18s to hit an enemy. Even in the very last beta copy of the rules, Solos had 2 higher AC than they do now. 24 AC was considered an acceptable(if hard) AC for level 1 players to hit. It was changed because it was much TOO hard(as anyone who played at DDXP last year found out).

However, they played most of the playtests with those numbers. So bonuses to hit of ANY kind were certainly worthwhile.

During the podcast, they mentioned that they still don't think that they are weak. They said that they are more useful as you get to higher levels and you fight more Solos who have high AC. And they understand that they are more situational than other powers, but they are good with that. It was implied, however, that if the bonus to hit was raised at all, that everyone at ALL their tables would have them as a power.

Thanks for replying, I hadn't heard that podcast. If that is indeed the case, I have trouble understanding why WotC can't figure out that everyone else plays the game differently that they do.

But back to the ranger. I too have a ranger player (melee build), and I haven't seen him use anything but Twin Strike. The problem with that power is that nerfing it in any way would be met with anger from the players as it's about the only thing the ranger has going for him. All the other at-wills deal little damage or have no greater to hit bonus. They're about as strikery as the cleric without Twin Strike.

I agree completely that the ranger is boring to watch in play, but forcing him to use the other at-wills would make him less effective, and thus less attractive to play.

 

[Rechan]

Thanks for replying, I hadn't heard that podcast. If that is indeed the case, I have trouble understanding why WotC can't figure out that everyone else plays the game differently that they do.

Also Mearls commented that the Wizard at-wills are sub-par as far as controlling are concerned. They're too damage focused, when the wizard is also about Control. Ergo why the newer Controller classes have slightly better At-Wills.

I agree completely that the ranger is boring to watch in play, but forcing him to use the other at-wills would make him less effective, and thus less attractive to play.

Actually, I like Hit And Run/Nimble Strike. They are basic attacks, yes, but they also let you move. Very helpful for "get the hell out of dodge" or, "Hit this guy and then run over there to threaten that one".