Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5361884" data-attributes="member: 82106">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. 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).</blockquote>

Verification