How many classes can use ranged weapons effectively?

[Bishmon]

This is your problem, not D&D's.

I don't see how having a few preferences is a problem. I'd think that if a game involving freedom and choice couldn't account for some reasonable preferences, that'd be the game's problem.

By the way, if you want to continue discussing this, please tone down the snark.

 

[Derren]

This is your problem, not D&D's.

Do you believe that players having freedom to play what they want is a good thing?
If yes then think about it that in 3E it was no problem to play a rogue with a shortbow. Is it still as unproblematic in 4E?

Thats a problem with a class system. The more rigid the class system is the harder it becomes to play a hybrid concept which is not supported by one class. And the class system in 4E seems to be more rigid than the 3E one.

 

[hong]

I don't see how having a few preferences is a problem. I'd think that if a game involving freedom and choice couldn't account for some reasonable preferences, that'd be the game's problem.

It is entirely reasonable to have ninjae who are better with crossbows than bows. There is a pretty nifty Dragon cover by WAR of a rogue (ninja) with a hand crossbow, in fact. It is entirely unreasonable that a ninja concept should be so rigid that a bow must be used in preference to a crossbow, when the signature abilities of the character on whom said concept is based are almost entirely not bow-based.

If I can play the same character in Baldur's Gate, BG2, BG2: Throne of Bhaal, NWN, NWN2, Jade Empire and Guild Wars, it should be easy-peasy for you to play Garrett with a crossbow.

 

[hong]

Do you believe that players having freedom to play what they want is a good thing?
If yes then think about it that in 3E it was no problem to play a rogue with a shortbow. Is it still as unproblematic in 4E?

In 3E it was problematic to play a rogue with a crossbow. Is it still problematic in 4E?

Thats a problem with a class system. The more rigid the class system is the harder it becomes to play a hybrid concept which is not supported by one class. And the class system in 4E seems to be more rigid than the 3E one.

Yes, Derren.

 

[Bishmon]

It is entirely reasonable to have ninjae who are better with crossbows than bows. There is a pretty nifty Dragon cover by WAR of a rogue (ninja) with a hand crossbow, in fact. It is entirely unreasonable that a ninja concept should be so rigid that a bow must be used in preference to a crossbow, when the signature abilities of the character on whom said concept is based are almost entirely not bow-based.

Who said anything about a ninja? If that's the only character the 4E rogue is capable of emulating, D&D has more problems than simple weapon selection.

 

[hong]

Who said anything about a ninja? If that's the only character the 4E rogue is capable of emulating, D&D has more problems than simple weapon selection.

Garrett is 100% ninja.

 

[Wulfram]

If Robin Hood types and (Wood) Elf rogues can only sneak attack with bows, that would be pretty lame.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

Because I like the shortbow, and I don't like the crossbow. Much in the same way that I likes swords, but I don't like flails. There's just some weapons I like more than others.

The reason I play D&D, almost the entire reason, is to play the characters that I like. If I wanted to be forced to choose from a set of pre-chosen archetypes, I could just play video games.

If 4E is taking away some choice from me in playing what I want to play, that's a big deal. And again, I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. I can understand the game not supporting an effective, dancing, liquor-hurling fighter. But a shortbow wielding sneaky thief type? It looks like I'm gonna have to make some house rules to play that character at a solid level of effectiveness. Hopefully that's the exception, and not the tip of the iceberg.

Is your DM really so inflexible that they wouldn't let your particular "Garrett" character replace the crossbow (and all associated rogue-y stuff) with a shortbow?

And, as others have mentioned, to accomplish your character concept, multiclassing is probably the best way to go-- even to the point that you might want to start with ranger and multiclass into rogue.

I believe that 4e character generation will not be "I want to play X class, that's able to do Y stuff well" but more along the lines of "I want to be able to do Y stuff well, how best can I accomplish that?"

 

[Bishmon]

Garrett is 100% ninja.

Minus the identifiably ninja elements, I suppose. He was western, his clothes were western, and his sword was western. He didn't use shuriken, various gunpowder bombs, pressure point techniques, etc. But other than that, 100%.

Besides, I'm not sure how this whole Garrett/ninja thing reponds to anything I've said.

 

[Bishmon]

Is your DM really so inflexible that they wouldn't let your particular "Garrett" character replace the crossbow (and all associated rogue-y stuff) with a shortbow?

I've already addressed that.

"Now, I'm guessing it'll be very easy to make a Garrett character in a way that doesn't handicap his effectiveness right off the bat. Just count the shortbow as one of the rogue's proficient weapons, allowing him to use it with sneak attack and rogue powers, and just let the rogue pick appropriate ranger powers in place of rogue powers. It's such a simple enough fix, it's surprising that the fix is even seemingly necessary to play this character in the rules as written. That probably doesn't bode well for character concepts more exotic than 'a sneaky thief who snipes enemies with a bow'."

The problem isn't that it's impossible to fix. I can literally fix anything with house rules.

And, as others have mentioned, to accomplish your character concept, multiclassing is probably the best way to go-- even to the point that you might want to start with ranger and multiclass into rogue.

I believe that 4e character generation will not be "I want to play X class, that's able to do Y stuff well" but more along the lines of "I want to be able to do Y stuff well, how best can I accomplish that?"

And I've addressed that, too. This character concept has nothing 'ranger' about him, other than the archery. Now, it's possible that the 4E ranger will be nothing like the 3E ranger and will instead just be an archery machine, but I'm not betting on it.