Essentials are melee heavy

[Neverfate]

Not really, most people concider it boring.

It's true. How interesting would chess be if all the pieces hung out behind pawns lobbing missiles at each other?

At least in melee you get the added fun of pushing the pawns in the way.

 

[The Little Raven]

Considering every one of the Warpriest powers are 'Cleric attack X', I believe you absolutely can select cleric powers, although there is some debate on the matter.

Why is there debate? It's pretty clear.

Whenever you choose a new class power, you can select it from the list presented in this book or you can take a power of the same class, level, and type (attack or utility) from another source.

For example, when your slayer reaches 2nd level, you could select a 2nd-level fighter utility power from a source other than this book or you could choose one of the 2nd-level fighter utility powers in the "Knight" section of this book.

 

[BobTheNob]

While this is pure speculation at this point, the fact that the slayer -- out of the box -- only gets bonuses to two weapon groups suggests to me that there's more weapon group support coming. I'm excited to see what support they'd lend to a bow slayer.

Wow. Just noticed. There damage bonus is to "Weapon" attacks, and doesnt qualify melee or ranged. So they can use a bow with a massive damage bonus!

I had respect for them before, but now....wow. Im stunned. Is there anything this class doesn't do? (Rhetorical question, no need to respond)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Magic Javelin Problem: This is a huge problem in the game system's math. The game assumes a character will have a single, primary weapon and it will have a +X magical bonus depending upon the level of play. It turns magic items (weapon, armor, and neck) into a requirement instead of a reward and limits battlefield weapon choice to a large degree (especially as you go up in levels).

Actually this is a trivial issue. A weapon with one less plus than your primary weapon is AT LEAST 5 levels lower, maybe up to 9 levels lower, which makes its cost practically negligible. A 10th level Fighter can easily afford a +2 javelin, not at all shabby. You'll find that the cost to the character's wallet is basically pocket change.

Whetstones are always a good extra as well, allowing the character to add some useful bonus to his attacks when he's really needing to do something effective at range.

For characters that either have Dex primary or a weapon attack that uses their primary or strong secondary (warlord for example, even some fighters, all melee rangers and rogues) etc. they can pick up a long bow and a few magic arrows, or a crossbow and likewise.

Specializing has a cost. You are really good with X, but everything else suffers.

This is purely a player choice. If you choose to specialize with a certain weapon, you accept that when you aren't using that weapon, you are going to be less effective.

This is an opportunity cost. Specialize but be limited in battlefield options, have greater battlefield options but do less overall damage.

Yes, this was pretty much also true in previous editions as well.

Really 4e characters overall are not a lot more range challenged than in previous editions. I'd be hard pressed to remember a fight where a 2e fighter preferentially used a bow and it was a decisive tactic at anything but low levels. A fighter COULD focus on archery, sure, but it didn't make any more sense then than it does in 4e. Why would the guy who's main benefits are being tougher than everyone else want to lurk at the back of the party? If you were going to do that you were best off as a ranger in ANY edition. If you're going to have a secondary capability to use ranged weapons in a pinch, then the 4e STR and DEX based classes are all in pretty good shape and are likely to be as effective (or not) as in past editions.

I don't know what the thing about anyone saying Wizards and Warlocks aren't QUITE effective ranged attackers either. 10 squares is still a pretty fair distance and only a small fraction of monsters are going to stand off more than that to fight you. There are close to NO monsters that can attack from beyond range 20, which even a javelin is good for and which Wizards should be prepared to engage at. Truthfully if a party is wandering around in the open trying to engage a Blue Dragon and hasn't planned ahead so they can force it into close range, then they probably should have planned better. I certainly remember using the same tactics against AD&D parties and having plenty good results. You'd be hard pressed to find a party in any edition that was as good at range as they are at melee.

Basically it seems to me they made it a bit harder to be 'pretty good' at ranged weapon use and all ranges in 4e are shortened. This really is just a matter of making the game work better tactically. Previous editions ranges were bloated compared to movement rates (and both were too high).

 

[Zaran]

I have never liked this about 4e. With most ranged powers reduced to 10 squares, it forces players to stay close to the enemy. While this might make things easier to use tiles, it really reduces the ability to have non-dungeon type encounters such as Ship to Ship combat. They should have left the ranges alone when they designed 4e. Dungeon tiles naturally reduce ranges just fine.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Against flying creatures:

Powers that knock prone will solve ranged problems. A big difference to older editions where the fighter could not do anything like that.

Range in general:

range 20 is veryvery low... it is only one turn of running + a second turn of charge. Only a combination of slow or better conditions and ranged 20 powers allow you to stay out of melee. Fun for the wizard? Maybe not always...

Fun for the rest of the party and the DM? Yes.

The most boring Characters I remember were those that monsters could never catch up with... No real help for the party, totally annoying for the DM.

 

[keterys]

it really reduces the ability to have non-dungeon type encounters such as Ship to Ship combat.

In my experience, it makes those encounters more worth having. When such encounters are largely affairs of making attacks at hundreds of yards with most people standing about waiting for melee to happen, it's not worth planning them at all.

When they're a round of positioning then swinging across on lines and leaping gaps to get into melee? Absolutely, that's the action we're all looking for...

 

[Shin Okada]

Against flying creatures:

Powers that knock prone will solve ranged problems. A big difference to older editions where the fighter could not do anything like that.

If that is a ranged/area power or a character can fly and attack. Both of them are not so easily obtained. Ranged/Area knock prone powers are usually encounter or daily. And only few builds can actually fly AND attack flying monster.

Range in general:

range 20 is veryvery low... it is only one turn of running + a second turn of charge.

If the monster is hovering in very low altitude. Having high speed is meaningless against flying artillery or controller when the monster is keep flying and hurling ranged/area attacks.

 

[Shin Okada]

Really 4e characters overall are not a lot more range challenged than in previous editions. I'd be hard pressed to remember a fight where a 2e fighter preferentially used a bow and it was a decisive tactic at anything but low levels. A fighter COULD focus on archery, sure, but it didn't make any more sense then than it does in 4e.

If you compare 4e against 2e, , yes. Fighters were sub-per in ranged attacks.

But in 3.5e, in my experience, that was quite different. The damage of composite longbows were based on strength. And in overall, Attack Roll Modifier vs AC was not so strict as in 4e. So, say, a level 4 fighter with strength +4 with a masterwork composite longbow (str+4) was a serious ranged combatant even if his Dex mod was +0. Also, in 3.5e, magic arrows and GMW spell were far much easily available.

I played and run many campaigns in 3.5e in various level ranges. I actually run a very long campaign which starts at level 4 and ended at level 21.

In my experience, in 3.5e, combats against flying monsters in open field, or an combat against massed-archers on the wall or tower, were reasonable challenge even at lower level (so you see a lot of them in Red Hand of Doom campaign which starts from level 5).

But I think such an encounter is too much for most of the heroic tier parties in 4e. And even some Paragon parties may end up in TPK. With new Item Rarity rule, even some Epic characters can't deal well with such an encounter.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If you compare 4e against 2e, , yes. Fighters were sub-per in ranged attacks.

But in 3.5e, in my experience, that was quite different. The damage of composite longbows were based on strength. And in overall, Attack Roll Modifier vs AC was not so strict as in 4e. So, say, a level 4 fighter with strength +4 with a masterwork composite longbow (str+4) was a serious ranged combatant even if his Dex mod was +0. Also, in 3.5e, magic arrows and GMW spell were far much easily available.

I played and run many campaigns in 3.5e in various level ranges. I actually run a very long campaign which starts at level 4 and ended at level 21.

In my experience, in 3.5e, combats against flying monsters in open field, or an combat against massed-archers on the wall or tower, were reasonable challenge even at lower level (so you see a lot of them in Red Hand of Doom campaign which starts from level 5).

But I think such an encounter is too much for most of the heroic tier parties in 4e. And even some Paragon parties may end up in TPK. With new Item Rarity rule, even some Epic characters can't deal well with such an encounter.

I think it depends on the party. It also depends on whether or not the DM has provided the players with a heads up too. There are a lot of things a group can do to buff up their ranged combat ability some. Burn some money enchanting a couple of good backup ranged weapons, pick up some magic ammo or alchemical ammunition, pick up some other consumable items (both reagents and whetstones can be quite handy for instance). I think a reasonably well-written adventure will also provide ways to at least partly negate a situation like that through SCs or just sensible strategy by the players. Sometimes it is GOOD to have a scenario that isn't just amenable to easy solution by run-of-the-mill tactics. People often complain about 4e being formulaic but then they refuse to entertain the use of these kinds of scenarios.

The real problem with comparing to past editions is that past editions were tactically inept. Ranges were definitely too long. It makes most tactics that are likely to be employable by a small group of adventurers or monsters pretty much irrelevant. 3.5 fixed SOME things, but it certainly left a lot more on the table. The current balance between ranges and movement rates is actually pretty good. It generally allows for the possibility of closing with artillery but doesn't necessarily make it TOO easy.