Firing into Melee

[Dannyalcatraz]

How many options? To specialize in archery, the first six feats need to be Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Far Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and Weapon Focus.

How many options? At least as many base classes exist in 3.X, to start with. Then, lets add in some PrCls.

As opposed to having a ranged combat options only PCs starting as Rangers or Warlocks get, any 3.X PC can opt to get the requisite feats over time. Less than optimal? Perhaps, if you're not a Ranger, Fighter, OA Samurai or PsyWar, but you still have that option. And you don't have to start as a particular class.

Furthermore ranged snipers need not neccessarily be archers. In 3.X, a human arcanist can be a proficient sniper with just the first 2 feats- IOW, 3rd level if he is also taking WFoc: ranged touch attack and concentrating on orb & ray spells. By 6th, he can add Reach spell to make his touch spells into rays. (Shift these numbers by 3 for non-humans, of course).

 

[theNater]

How many options? At least as many base classes exist in 3.X, to start with. Then, lets add in some PrCls.

I refuse to believe that a 3rd edition monk makes a good sniper. The feats cannot make up for the lower base attack bonus and the smaller number of attacks per round.

As opposed to having a ranged combat options only PCs starting as Rangers or Warlocks get, any 3.X PC can opt to get the requisite feats over time. Less than optimal? Perhaps, if you're not a Ranger, Fighter, OA Samurai or PsyWar, but you still have that option. And you don't have to start as a particular class.

You mention twice in here the starting class requirement. Is your actual objection that a rogue cannot suddenly become a better sniper than a ranger? I find that very confusing.

It is a fact of 4th edition that players need to know, in general terms, what they want their character to be able to do before they create the character, rather than figuring it out after 5 or 10 levels of play. I have seen some people take exception to this, and while I don't understand it, I recognize that it troubles some folks. Is that what's bothering you?

Furthermore ranged snipers need not neccessarily be archers. In 3.X, a human arcanist can be a proficient sniper with just the first 2 feats- IOW, 3rd level if he is also taking WFoc: ranged touch attack and concentrating on orb & ray spells. By 6th, he can add Reach spell to make his touch spells into rays. (Shift these numbers by 3 for non-humans, of course).

I've always held that it's unfair to compare the 4th edition PHB to the entirety of materials published for 3rd edition. Can you rephrase this in 3rd edition PHB I terms?

 

[Xorn]

I'm pretty sure Dannyalcatraz cited a wire-fu movie to illustrate a lack of realism in a gamist system a few posts back...

Myheadasplode.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I refuse to believe that a 3rd edition monk makes a good sniper. The feats cannot make up for the lower base attack bonus and the smaller number of attacks per round.

Refuse all you want, but apparently, you missed my caveat, "Less than optimal? Perhaps, if you're not a Ranger, Fighter, OA Samurai or PsyWar, but you still have that option."

Besides, it still depends upon your build & how much you want to commit to it. I usually use a Dex & Wis build for my monks, as opposed to Str & Wis. Early on, equipped with a Quiver of Ehlonna and a bunch of javelins & alchemical bombs, they make fine artillery. And again, you really only need the first two feats to make a difference in your ranged combat effectiveness- the rest is gravy.

As the Monk levels up, he will, of course, suffer in comparison to a "warrior" class sniper.

You mention twice in here the starting class requirement. Is your actual objection that a rogue cannot suddenly become a better sniper than a ranger? I find that very confusing.

Not quite. "Better" has nothing to do with it.

I'm objecting to 4Ed's design decision that- unlike 3.X- certain starting class abilities are never available to a multiclassing PC unless he starts in that class...and the player doesn't even get to choose those abilities from which his PC will be forever barred. A 4Ed multiclassed PC has been essentially "socially promoted"- even though he lacks some of a class' fundamental abilities, he still gets to call himself a fully qualified member of that class.

In this particular, a 4Ed PC who is proficient with a ranged weapon and multiclasses into the Ranger class will never get access to a fundamental class ability.

In 3.X, the abilities your PC lost out on due to multiclassing were the high-level ones. This more accurately reflects the way people learn and earn promotions.

It is a fact of 4th edition that players need to know, in general terms, what they want their character to be able to do before they create the character, rather than figuring it out after 5 or 10 levels of play. I have seen some people take exception to this, and while I don't understand it, I recognize that it troubles some folks. Is that what's bothering you?

Actually, I don't think that the amount of forethought required in PC design between the editions is that different.

What does differ is..well, I mentioned it above.

I've always held that it's unfair to compare the 4th edition PHB to the entirety of materials published for 3rd edition. Can you rephrase this in 3rd edition PHB I terms?

While you do have a point, I've pointed out in other threads that it is also perfectly valid to compare 4Ed to 3.X because that is its direct competitor in the marketplace.

That said, as I recall, PBS, PS, and WFoc were all available in the 3.0 PHB. Reach Spell is the only thing I mentioned not in that book.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm pretty sure Dannyalcatraz cited a wire-fu movie to illustrate a lack of realism in a gamist system a few posts back...

Myheadasplode.

Because you misunderstood me.

I cited a wire-fu movie to illustrate the upper end of what cinematic hyper-accurate character could do when throwing something into a truly chaotic and involved combat.

That can be simulated in 3.X. A warrior- really, any PC- with the right feats can make amazing shots. The feats he expended to do so reflect his time training.

In contrast, in 4Ed, there is virtually no difference between the accuracy of various PCs firing into combat except, of course, that one Ranger exploit. The field is so level its virtually flat.

 

[Kordeth]

Because you misunderstood me.

I cited a wire-fu movie to illustrate the upper end of what cinematic hyper-accurate character could do when throwing something into a truly chaotic and involved combat.

That can be simulated in 3.X. A warrior- really, any PC- with the right feats can make amazing shots. The feats he expended to do so reflect his time training.

In contrast, in 4Ed, there is virtually no difference between the accuracy of various PCs firing into combat except, of course, that one Ranger exploit. The field is so level its virtually flat.

Small correction. The playing field has not been leveled, it's been moved three steps to the left. What differentiates a mediocre shot from an amazing shot is "how much of a penalty can you avoid when shooting into a fight?" but rather "what awesome stuff can you do with a ranged weapon?" A mediocre bowman is probably using ranged basic attacks or the few powers he might have picked up through multiclassing. An amazing shot is hitting targets so hard they're dazed or shooting every enemy in a 9-square area or nailing people to walls.

D&D is primarily, and pretty much always has been, a very skirmish-level game--that means your allies are going to be in melee and/or providing cover to enemies a lot, which means that, in 3.5, primarily ranged characters suck (-6 to attack is huge even in 3.5) and essentially have to take the feats to negate those penalties ASAP if they want to contribute meaningfully to combat. That deprives them of resources that could have been used to buy character-building feats that give cool, unique abilities and differentiate one archer from the next, and that's why removing the penalty was a good idea.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Pretty lame response. You are not the arbiter of what matters. Obviously, this thread proves it matters to some folks.

How is "this is D&D" an exemption from credibility? We're not talking about some magical effect, we're talking about throwing a javelin or shooting an arrow--an arrow that might not come from a ranger's bow, but that of a half-competent orc.

This is probably the most pointless argument when it comes to most of these discussions. We get it. Fantastic things exist and happen. The real point is the level of fantasy and what that means to different characters.

Well, for starters a coup-de-grace by a longsword does not kill any but the weakest characters. That sort of sets a baseline for realism.

 

[Atreides]

For what it is worth, the RWA do seem rather silly.

I suspect we'll ignore the 'Allies don't provide cover to enemies' part and call it a day.

 

[Kaldaen]

Even operating with the base design assumption of 4Ed eliminating most penalties in favor of giving bonuses instead, and thereby making everyone equally good at firing into combat, they still could have made a true sniper out of the Ranger or Warlock by making Prime Shot provide its bonus on difficult shots, like firing into combat or at a creature with cover, as opposed to firing at unengaged targets, when accuracy isn't at a premium.

You know, this would have made Prime Shot a lot more useful than it is now.

I see your point. It doesn't seem fair for a Warlord to just pick up a bow and suddenly start making hard shots -- the arrow whizzing past the Fighter's ear and into the goblin's forehead -- just as well as the Ranger can. It's practically automatic to apply a penalty when making such a shot, because it just makes sense.

But the reason the penalty is gone in 4E is very simple: powers. By the end of the Heroic Tier, most Rangers and Warlocks who've opted to focus on long-range combat will have a power suite comprised mostly or entirely of ranged attacks. If there were a penalty for shooting into melee, these characters would face it in every encounter, no matter what they did. Given how Defenders are supposed to handle the front line in combat, ranged characters would almost always be executing their powers with that -4 to attack, while the melee characters would be able to use theirs unhindered. It would create a very unbalanced situation, one that would make ranged fighting a rather undesirable concept.

To prevent that imbalance, the designers would have two options. The first would be to give Warlocks and Archery Rangers an ability that lets them ignore the melee penalty. However, players of other classes that wanted to make use of ranged weapons or powers would complain that there was no way for them to avoid the penalty. The Wizard in particular has plenty of ranged powers -- why should he be left out? The solution to that would be to reintroduce the Precise Shot feat, but then we're back to the situation where every Archery Ranger and Warlock takes that feat as a rule.

Ultimately, I think there are just too many powers that would be screwed over by a "shooting into melee" penalty to make it worth including the rule in 4E. If you're looking for a way to differentiate the snipers from the wannabes, may I suggest the following house rule: allow certain classes to ignore cover provided by the target's allies. This would apply to Archery Rangers, Warlocks and possibly Wizards using wands as their implements.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I see your point. It doesn't seem fair for a Warlord to just pick up a bow and suddenly start making hard shots -- the arrow whizzing past the Fighter's ear and into the goblin's forehead -- just as well as the Ranger can. It's practically automatic to apply a penalty when making such a shot, because it just makes sense.

1. The warlord is trained with a bow - so he's not 'suddenly picking up a bow and making hard shots'.

2. He will suck compared with the ranger at doing so, because his dex sucks. If the player has put together a warlord who's dex doesn't suck, then he probably deserves to be good with a bow - at this point you've got someone who is trained in a bow AND naturally good with one.

3. The ranger can still make better shots. He can either choose careful attack for a +2 to ranged attacks OR he can shoot twice for every shot his warlord fellow takes. Additionally the warlord cannot get prime shot bonuses.