Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5363480" data-attributes="member: 82106">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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5363480, member: 82106"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification