Archer Ranger Changes - Forked Thread: Why be an archer ranger?

[Zelc]

Forked from: Why be an archer ranger?

This might belong in houserules. Feel free to fork if you want to talk about this more. I was thinking of doing the following to Rangers:

• Prime Shot works if you're within 2 squares of the target, and you don't need to be the closest target.
• Hunter's Quarry only triggers if you're within 3 squares of the target when you attack, and has a range of 3 for the application.
• Archery path increases Prime Shot range to 3 and Hunter's Quarry range to 5 as well as giving you Defensive Mobility.
• The Sly Hunter feat should ignore you (you can be within 3 squares of the target as long as no one else is).

No more just standing there plinking away 20' or 40' from the action. The option is still there, but now there's a nerf for being more than 5 squares away and an incentive to be 3 squares or less away and being in some sort of danger. Plus this doesn't affect melee Rangers much. They're going to be close to the enemy anyway to attack, and your Hunter's Quarry doesn't end if you go out of range (you just have to be close to apply it and trigger it) so there's extra action requirement.

Same things happen to the Warlock's Prime Shot and Warlock's Curse (might need to put Warlock's Curse range at 5 but that really belongs in Houserules), except there's no boosted range option. They have better defenses so it's probably ok, and most of their powers have low range anyway.

I don't see how this will improve gameplay; the need to be closest is a lot more dynamic than the need to be withing 3 or 5 squares (which simply allows you to stand behind the party melee presence). In any case, it's certainly a feasible alteration, and it's hardly complex, so other than that I personally don't see the advantage, it sounds like a fine rule...

The problem is right now, the Prime Shot bonus is so high risk and low reward that people seem to just write it off and not worry about getting its bonuses.

Maybe this would make it more dynamic:
Prime Shot doesn't require you to be closest to the target. It works if you're within 2 squares of the target, and there are no allies, enemies, or other obstacles that would grant concealment or cover between you and the target (as defined by the method to determine cover: drawing lines from one corner of your square to all corners of the target's square).

Archery path ups the range to 3. Range requirement is needed or the plinking away from 20' or 40' problem still applies, only to different targets.

 

[Cadfan]

The problem is right now, the Prime Shot bonus is so high risk and low reward that people seem to just write it off and not worry about getting its bonuses.

I have mixed feelings here. On one hand, I know that people think this about Prime Shot, and that's a problem. On the other hand, I think that people think this erroneously, so I don't really want to power up the ability.

So an ideal solution for me would be one that was equally powerful, but "felt" better.

 

[cmbarona]

Considering that Warlocks get the same feature, it might be more appealing to leave the rules for determining Prime Shot the same and tweak the benefits for getting it. Perhaps a series of feats that increase the power of prime shot that are specific to class and class feature selection?

 

[Morgan_Scott82]

Forked from: Why be an archer ranger?


The problem is right now, the Prime Shot bonus is so high risk and low reward that people seem to just write it off and not worry about getting its bonuses.

Maybe this would make it more dynamic:
Prime Shot doesn't require you to be closest to the target. It works if you're within 2 squares of the target, and there are no allies, enemies, or other obstacles that would grant concealment or cover between you and the target (as defined by the method to determine cover: drawing lines from one corner of your square to all corners of the target's square).

Archery path ups the range to 3. Range requirement is needed or the plinking away from 20' or 40' problem still applies, only to different targets.

I agree that Prime shot is poorly implemented, but I don't especially like this fix.

Moreover I feel the need to ask "how is an archer attacking from 40' away a problem?" Characters built for archery should be 40' away, maybe more, have you also truncated the range of all of those pesky wizard and warlock powers that allow them to hit from 10 or 20 squares away?

 

[Zelc]

I have mixed feelings here. On one hand, I know that people think this about Prime Shot, and that's a problem. On the other hand, I think that people think this erroneously, so I don't really want to power up the ability.

So an ideal solution for me would be one that was equally powerful, but "felt" better.

Considering that Warlocks get the same feature, it might be more appealing to leave the rules for determining Prime Shot the same and tweak the benefits for getting it. Perhaps a series of feats that increase the power of prime shot that are specific to class and class feature selection?

I'm guessing you didn't like my idea of granting the bonus if they're close and "have a clear shot" at the target? What would you suggest?

Moreover I feel the need to ask "how is an archer attacking from 40' away a problem?" Characters built for archery should be 40' away, maybe more, have you also truncated the range of all of those pesky wizard and warlock powers that allow them to hit from 10 or 20 squares away?

Because it's not fair and it's not really fun. Fairness first. The rogue has to go through the trouble of flanking the target and generally being in melee. Archer rangers currently can attack from the safety of 20' or 40' away. Rogues also have less armor than rangers and they have fewer "get out of jail free" utility powers. Oh, archer rangers and rogues have about equal damage output. What's up with that?

Fun. As a rogue, you're constantly moving around to get combat advantage. Even as a melee ranger, you need to worry about not getting exposed and making sure you have a clear path to your next target. As an archer ranger, you... sit at 20' or 40' and Twin Strike all day long. If someone gets close to you, you have a high Perception check and good defenses and HP, and use one of your "get the heck out of here" utility powers. Warlocks have few powers with a range of more than 10, and the Prime Shot and Warlock's Curse changes would affect them too. Wizards have some long-ranged powers, but they're much squishier and they have some really good powers that force them to get closer.

Again, it's not like they don't have the option to attack from 40' away if they really want to. They lose at most 10.5 damage (or 13.5 with the feat) per round in the epic tier, which is significant but certainly not crippling. And they don't get the benefit of Prime Shot, but they didn't before either.

 

[Morgan_Scott82]

Because it's not fair and it's not really fun. Fairness first. The rogue has to go through the trouble of flanking the target and generally being in melee. Archer rangers currently can attack from the safety of 20' or 40' away. Rogues also have less armor than rangers and they have fewer "get out of jail free" utility powers. Oh, archer rangers and rogues have about equal damage output. What's up with that?

I see this as an issue with rogues not having a viable ranged option, that doesn't mean rangers shouldn't have a viable ranged option. I blame the Stealth skill errata from taking the ranged option away from rogues, but I don't have a problem with archery rangers, hell I think rogues should be able to use shortbows. Just because there isn't a ranged rogues doesn't mean the archery ranger should be bad at doing exactly what the player wants and has built his character to do in the name of fairness.

Fun. As a rogue, you're constantly moving around to get combat advantage. Even as a melee ranger, you need to worry about not getting exposed and making sure you have a clear path to your next target. As an archer ranger, you... sit at 20' or 40' and Twin Strike all day long. If someone gets close to you, you have a high Perception check and good defenses and HP, and use one of your "get the heck out of here" utility powers.

What if that's exactly what the player thinks is fun about the archery ranger, what if they don't especially enjoy thinking tactically and want a character they can put somewhere and reliably contribute to the party without having to think much. What if they want to play the daring wilderness sniper, who could put an arrow through a keyring at 200 paces. Neither of those things are facilitated or made more fun by your proposed change.

I guess what I'm saying is different players find different things fun, because something isn't fun for you doesn't mean that isn't precisely what attracts someone else to that particular class.

 

[Zelc]

I think you make a good point with regards to the fun issue. I still disagree with the Rogue issue though. I'm not trying to compare ranged Rogues with ranged Rangers, I'm comparing a melee Rogue to a ranged Ranger. A lot of the really good Rogue powers require a melee weapon, and the problem is a melee Rogue deals damage roughly equal to a ranged Ranger and the Ranger is much safer. The melee Rogue has a poor risk-reward tradeoff.

You may be right in that Hunter's Quarry should be left alone (and Warlock's Curse with it). I still think Prime Shot could still be changed to something that's less situational, more dynamic, and something the archer path could improve on.

I'm still annoyed over the wording though. The flavor is smooth: if you are close enough and have an clear shot at the target without having to shoot around your annoying fighter buddy, +1 attack! However, there is no term like line of sight or line of effect that determines whether a target has cover; there's just a totally separate test that is written out and hard to key off of. And while I could key it off of the line of effect rules (works if the line of effect to the target doesn't cross any no obstacles that grant cover or creatures), I have a feeling this is too generous.

 

[Morgan_Scott82]

I'm not trying to compare ranged Rogues with ranged Rangers, I'm comparing a melee Rogue to a ranged Ranger. A lot of the really good Rogue powers require a melee weapon, and the problem is a melee Rogue deals damage roughly equal to a ranged Ranger and the Ranger is much safer. The melee Rogue has a poor risk-reward tradeoff.

I know that the comparison between the ranged rogue and ranged ranger isnt the comparison you're trying to make. I'm saying it should be. You say the rogue has too much risk for the possible reward, but let me pose another question: is the melee rogue have a less favorable risk reward tradeoff than the melee ranger? I don't think he does. Therefore the deficit isn't between melee rogue and ranged ranger, but in the lack of a viable ranged rogue build.

I still think Prime Shot could still be changed to something that's less situational, more dynamic, and something the archer path could improve on.

I agree with every one of these points. I just don't really care for your proposed changes, not that I have anything better to recommend.

 

[CapnZapp]

Forked from: Why be an archer ranger?

Broken link - do you have a better one? Thanks.

 

[CapnZapp]

Why not simply add in the rule you have in lots of other rpgs, namely that you get a penalty to hit if one of your allies is in the way?

Some rpgs impose a risk of hitting said ally, others are more lenient and allow you to take a to hit penalty to remove any such risk.

In 4E, the easiest implementation would be to apply the rule for cover not only for enemies but for allies as well. That is, you get -2 to the attack (which is a mere -10%; remember many other rpgs would impose a -25% penalty under the same circumstances).

The difference between getting +1 for being closest and getting -2 for having your Defender stand in the way should be more than sufficient motivation for the ranged Ranger to move about. Effectively, seeking "clear shots" would be rewarded with a +3 bonus, not only a +1 bonus any more.

---

The other issue discussed here is the beefing up of the ranged Ranger. But this I would be very wary of doing.

Being able to stand well back from the front line while still being able to deliver your attacks is an immense advantage (if we consider personal safety only, not party maximization). It might be easy or boring, but it is safe. Safety should not be rewarded, it is its own reward.

In my mind, the ranged Ranger should do less damage than either the melee Ranger or the Rogue. That is, ranged Strikers should do less damage than melee Strikers. Melee strikers expose themselves to harm and needs to be compensated for that, or nobody will want to play a melee Striker.