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

[cmbarona]

Hmm... brainstorming here... How about, if you use prime shot, you can also designate/curse one of the attacked targets as part of the attack action?

 

[Zelc]

Fixed link.

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.

I really like the general idea of this, but attack bonuses are extremely important in 4E. This impacts more than just Rangers (and I assume laser Clerics, Warlocks, and Wizards were more or less balanced before this). And it's a huge nerf for the times when they're stuck in that 15' wide hallway. Yes they'd be worse off as melee characters, but it still feels bad. They'd be taking a -2 penalty for maybe even half of their attacks. Not only that, but it'd be very easy for your allies to even grant superior cover. Hit chances are low enough as it is, and characters only hit 4 or 5 times per encounter now. Reducing it by even 1 is a big deal.

Additionally, I don't think this incentivizes Prime Shot. It will incentivize players to seek an open firing lane for the +2 bonus, but that's independent with getting closest to monsters.

A way around this would be to make Prime Shot (at close range) downgrade superior cover to just cover, downgrade cover to nothing, and give a +1 bonus if they didn't have any cover to begin with. Problem is, there's still that nerf to ranged attackers that don't have Prime Shot.

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.

I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I was thinking to limit the range on Hunter's Quarry. Maybe Hunter's Quarry should be limited to Range 10? Range 10 is still within move-charge range, while range 20 probably isn't.

Hmm... brainstorming here... How about, if you use prime shot, you can also designate/curse one of the attacked targets as part of the attack action?

I don't think that's a large enough bonus . It's only an extra minor action, and the target flexibility isn't a huge deal and provides less incentive to move around.

 

[invokethehojo]

Fixed link.

I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I was thinking to limit the range on Hunter's Quarry. Maybe Hunter's Quarry should be limited to Range 10? Range 10 is still within move-charge range, while range 20 probably isn't..

I think this is the direction you need to think in. 4e is complicated enough without adding new complicated rules to it. Do something simple. Here are some suggestions...
1. Are you making your ranged ranger (RR) track his ammo? I ran into the same problems as you so I started making my RR count his arrows (and I didn't allow him to carry more than 1 quiver of arrows on his person). After a few rounds twin strike was less appealing. Taking hundreds of arrows with you sounds good as a player, but in real life people don't do that kind of thing. Although this won't stop your problem if your characters can go back to town between every fight.
2. Get rid of the long bow. Historically it was for large battles only, the short bow was most people carried. Can you imagine how much it would suck to actually carry around a 6 foot tall bow with you everywhere?
3. Hunters quarry could do only 1d4 damage if you take the archer build.
4. Don't allow archer rangers to use armor higher than leather.

I think #1 or #2 are your best options. They are simple, don't involve changing the rules, and it probably won't affect a lot of other enemies/characters.

 

[Zelc]

While replying to this post, this happened.

1. Are you making your ranged ranger (RR) track his ammo? I ran into the same problems as you so I started making my RR count his arrows (and I didn't allow him to carry more than 1 quiver of arrows on his person). After a few rounds twin strike was less appealing. Taking hundreds of arrows with you sounds good as a player, but in real life people don't do that kind of thing. Although this won't stop your problem if your characters can go back to town between every fight.

I must say I really hate this idea, although YMMV. It adds more bookkeeping, just forces the player to keep a throwing weapon, and it will not be fun for the player once he runs out of arrows and can't do anything for the rest of the session until they go to town.

2. Get rid of the long bow. Historically it was for large battles only, the short bow was most people carried. Can you imagine how much it would suck to actually carry around a 6 foot tall bow with you everywhere?
3. Hunters quarry could do only 1d4 damage if you take the archer build.
4. Don't allow archer rangers to use armor higher than leather.

I don't think any of these will do that much. Archer rangers rarely get attacked anyway, and -1 AC isn't going to hurt much. The other two only really take off around 4 expected damage per Twin Strike at epic levels, and maybe a bit more off some of the other powers. They don't incentivize dynamic combat, nor does they solve the problem of the archer ranger plinking away from 40'.




I like the allies grant cover idea the most right now. Prime Shot for all classes works if the enemy is within 3 squares and reduces the superior cover armor bonus to -2, the cover bonus to 0, and adds a +1 bonus if they don't have cover. The archer path increases that to 5 squares. How badly do you think it'll hurt Wizards and laser Clerics?

EDITTTT: This is almost Point Blank Shot. Oops! Maybe I'll just make it a +1 attack bonus within 5 squares on an opponent w/o cover or concealment. Archer rangers get +1/2/3 damage with Hunter's Quarry when Prime Shot works. They can be nerfed a bit by reducing the damage die on all bows by 1 step.

 

[bganon]

Compare Twin Strike with Piercing Strike and run the numbers: against a typical target (Ref two points lower than AC) an 18 Dex dagger-wielding rogue with combat advantage will average nearly 2 hp/round more damage than an 18 Dex longbow archer using Prime Shot. In fact, the rogue's attack bonus is so high that against many targets the dagger isn't even optimal for Piercing Strike - it's slightly better to use a shortsword for the bigger damage die.

This is at level one with no feats or magic items; those pretty much -all- favor the melee rogue (the two attacks from Twin Strike give the ranger a bit more benefit from magic item damage bonuses, but Backstabber and stacking TWF with Weapon Focus more than makes up for this)

It's true that Rogues deal significantly less when they don't have CA, and combat advantage is not always easy to get. But if the archer doesn't even bother going for Prime Shot the rogue only has to get CA on half of all attacks just to break even with the ranger.

I think the classes are balanced just fine - sure the melee rogue takes more risk but their reward is a chance to outdamage the archer by nearly as much as the archer outdamages a fighter (two to three points avg damage per round). That seems like a big deal to me.

On another note: the way I see it Prime Shot -IS- basically the "penalty" for shooting into melee... but turned into a bonus for -not- shooting into melee. The mechanics are slightly different, but in the end it winds up doing pretty much the same thing.

 

[Zelc]

Hey, you're right! Piercing Strike is better than Twin Strike with bows because it gets another +2 attack on top of targetting reflex defense (+1 from dagger proficiency and +1 from the Rogue ability). So nerfing archer rangers isn't needed.