How many classes can use ranged weapons effectively?

[hong]

And if it really is that annoying (eg. world shattering), then their is always Rule 0.

Because of little things like this, I've often used class & sized based weapon damage.

Oh, you're a fighter, and you want to swing a big mangly club but hate that it doesn't do as much damage as a sword? No problem, for cinematic gaming. Just say a medium weapon in the hands of a fighter does 1d10 damage, and be done with it.

Or in the case of Garret: you can sneak attack with a light or tiny ranged weapon.

Or just a crossbow. If your character concept is so rigid that it cannot withstand swapping a bow out for a crossbow, D&D (or any class-based game) is not for you.

 

[Felon]

And if it really is that annoying (eg. world shattering), then their is always Rule 0.

Only if the person who's annoyed is the DM.

 

[Harshax]

Only if the person who's annoyed is the DM.

Funny how quick that can happen when dealing with annoyed (read: whiny) players.

 

[Felon]

I have the fear that ranged weapons will play a very minor role in 4E as you can either "shooter lasers" or are very craptastic with them so you should (must to not endanger the party?) use melee weapons and that only one class really benefits from having a ranged weapon and whenever you want to be good with them you have to take a power/multiclass with that class.

I think in general, the intel we've been given so far indicates that you're right. So far, 4e seeems to have a very prescribed approach to characters. Hopefully, there will be lots of ways to bend the rules, because 3e taught a great many gamers how to tinker with the existing ruleset. It would be a bad idea to leave the tinkerers out in the cold now.

 

[Felon]

Funny how quick that can happen when dealing with annoyed (read: whiny) players.

How quick what can happen?

Invariably it's the people who have the kneejerk reaction of labeling others as whiners that turn out to be the most pushy and onerous people in any group.

 

[hong]

I think in general, the intel we've been given so far indicates that you're right. So far, 4e seeems to have a very prescribed approach to characters. Hopefully, there will be lots of ways to bend the rules, because 3e taught a great many gamers how to tinker with the existing ruleset. It would be a bad idea to leave the tinkerers out in the cold now.

A good tinkerer can tinker with any ruleset. A bad tinkerer complains about having to learn new opportunities to tinker. A silly tinkerer complains about not having any new opportunities to tinker.

 

[drjones]

Yep only a ranger can hold a bow. We know for a fact that each class can only do one thing and multi classing is impossible. Might as well give up now.

 

[Harshax]

How quick what can happen?

Invariably it's the people who have the kneejerk reaction of labeling others as whiners that turn out to be the most pushy and onerous people in any group.

You'd think that, but then there's the odds that you're wrong.

By how quick what can happen, I refer to a DM becoming annoyed in response to a player's annoyance over a triviality in the rules. If a player at my table said, I can't make this character concept because all the thief rules apply to crossbows and not shortbows, I would likely say 'Fine' you can use a shortbow but not a crossbow.

Neither the rules, my patience, or my belief that a player will return to my table is so inviolate that I would let the printed page predetermine what I can and cannot change for the sake of getting on with it. Therefore, IMO, the one example of trying to emulate Garret is pointless, except for DM's and players that follow the rules explicitly.

And to be clear, I wasn't saying the OP was whiny. I meant to imply that a player who cannot create their character concept will either a) leave, or b) whine, c) get his way. A and B are lousy options because they demonstrate that the rules are broken (in the sense that they are not ultimately considered guidelines), or the DM lacks experience (again my opinion only).

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

PCs are supposed to always use at will powers instead of basic attacks..

If Kathra is fighting a single opponent and doesn't want him to be pushed back, what, oh waht, could she possibly do?

A basic attack.

You'll note that both of her at-will powers do not increase damage on targets, they just have a secondary effect.

Now if there's a guy flying above, what does she do? Basic ranged attack. She even has a nice throwing axe on hand that does a respectable 1D6+5. If it were better, she'd outshine the dedicated ranged attacker.

The ranger is obviously an archer guy, no question there.

The pregen ranger is. Not every ranger.

If that is correct then the Ranger would be the only one who really could use a ranged weapon which imo would be rather sad. I hope I am wrong and that all classes (except maybe the spellcasters) can choose some ranged powers without needing to multiclass into ranger.

I hope not. Waste of text space. I want all my fighters powers to be, well, fighteresque..

I know it will annoy some people but one thing you eventually have to learn : The customer isn't always right. I don't think the number of people who can't accept playing an edition of D&D where a cleric can't be a kickass archer is sufficient to justify the expenses of accomodating them. The PHB has only so many pages and therefore adding ranged weapon powers to classes that don't need them either takes the place of better powers or bloat the book beyond what is reasonable. D&D can't be everything to everyone and it's actually bad business ot even try.

That being said, maybe we'll see other bow based strikers in the future. In fact that's a near certainty.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

A question:

If we've seen three classes with ranged weapon powers or related abilities - Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord - are we still worried that too few classes - out of 8 mind - are getting ranged weapon powers?