Chris Thomasson playtest (Sep-26)

[Beckett]

As for rangers using bows in 4E, they do seem the most sensible class. The fighter's role is defender, which pretty much requires melee fighting. I'm sure there will be opportunities for the fighter to use ranged weapons, but most of the time he'll be melee. So who will use a bow in most 4E parties? Of the classes we know, only the ranger fits.

 

[JRR_Talking]

i think ranger should be archery based. Its outdoorsy stuff at range, not in your face fightery melee. Most 3rd ed archers ive seen are ranger based. I know fighters make good archers but they dont have the skills in spot, listen, track to find their enemies at range.

John

 

[Gundark]

[...]I'm a bit worried about the Ranger at this point. This is the second time now we've seen the Ranger as "the bow guy" in a 4e Playtest, with no other versions of Ranger offered yet. [...]

Could be the same character

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I don't mind rangers with bows, but to hear that the ranger was "blasting the crap out of stuff with his bow" makes me shudder, again, at some of the stylistic choices that 4e portends.

Unless, of course, he's riding around in a Dodge Charger with the Confederate flag painted across the top.

But you know what I mean. If you walk away from your game session and the word "blasting" is your descriptor of choice for ranger whupass, something's definitely up with the fluff.

Wizards blast things.

 

[felwar]

It is entirely possible that the ranger they are testing is focused specifically on archery in order to heavily playtest ranged combat mechanics.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If you walk away from your game session and the word "blasting" is your descriptor of choice for ranger whupass, something's definitely up with the fluff.

Or it was just an odd word choice.

Words like "definitely" imply that you either have access to the draft SRD or you're a mind-reader.

 

[Chocobot]

"Blasting" could just be due to ranger damage being increased to the point where the old standby "plinking" was no longer applicable. But if rangers are actually tying dynamite to their arrows like the good ol boys and Rambo, this is indeed disturbing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I thought it was a pretty odd word-choice.

My personal fear is that Ranger is going to be "the other Striker" (which I think is established, and not my fear), aaaaaand he's going to do huge damage with bows, like as if he was an out-and-out nuker, and that damage is not going to be something anyone else will be able to replicate at range w/o magic.

E.g. he's going to have lot of "manuevers" with his bow that, say, a bow-specialized Fighter doesn't have, that will allow him to do +6d6 damage with this shot, and +3d6 damage with those three shot and so on, sigh.

I just really dislike the forceful allocation of "gud bow shootin'" to the same guy who is "wilderness tracking dude" and "animal friend dude". I think it's limiting and wierd.

 

[Loincloth of Armour]

Nope. Rangers were pure archers pre-Drizzt (and for a while post-Drizzt, too).

Rules-wise there was never a pure archer ranger.

However, the concept of lightly armoured guy fighting with mobility and skill from a woodland setting is a ranger archetype, and that owes a lot to the general mythology of Robin Hood, who is most definately linked with archery.

 

[BryonD]

Uh, I beg to differ. Nothing screams "expert archer" like that, but most expert archers in fantasy fiction are not "Rangers" by D&D standards, i.e. every single one of them is an expert tracker and woodsman, and friendly with animals (and currently in 3E, but hopefully gone in 4E, gains bizarre Divine spells for no readily apparent reason).

I agree with your points, I'm just speaking to perception here....

I think it is very common for the fighter to be viewed more as a tough warrior, and the stalking ranger to be viewed as a sniper/hunter. So the vision of rangers as archers and the tendency to build them that way, has been pretty common. Even if the rules did give a real boost to that approach.

Also there is the whole Robin Hood thing. Because, as we all know, nobles hiding in the woods from the government make the best woodsman archetypes.