How many classes can use ranged weapons effectively?

[Derren]

PCs are supposed to always use at will powers instead of basic attacks, and while there will possibly be feats to allow the powers to be used with a different weapon than the default one I don't think there will be a way to make a melee only power useable with a ranged weapon. Also its very likely that only the most basic powers are melee or ranged as those have to be fairly generic.
All this means that what powers a class has determines if that class can use ranged weapons effectively. Now lets look at the classes.

The ranger is obviously an archer guy, no question there.
Wizards and Warlocks have spells and no need for a ranged weapon.
Fighters an Paladins as defenders are supposed to be in close combat with the enemy so they likely won't have many ranged powers
Rogues have some ranged powers (see article) but they are, at least how I understand it, supposed to be light armored melee fighters so the majority of their powers will probably be melee only.
That leaves the Cleric and the Warlord. I don't have much information about them but I think the cleric will more be a spell guy while the warlord looks rather melee orientated to me.

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.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Derren, I think your first Given is not exactly correct, as written.

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

I would agree with this, if 'when able' were added to the statement. That is, you will always want to use an 'at will' power rather than a basic attack if that power can actually do something. If you are fighting, say, a flying monster, and you have nothing but melee powers, I would hope that you would pull out a ranged weapon rather than do nothing.

And, in this, is this so much different from 3.X? Only those who really chose to specialize in ranged weapon attacks were all that effective at it (Rangers and Rogues, mainly), and while the rest could do so, they weren't nearly as effective as they otherwise would be.

4E may increase the effectiveness gap, but it certainly doesn't create the gap from nothing.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

You are aware that the Ranger's at will powers are hella lame right?

 

[Bishmon]

4E may increase the effectiveness gap, but it certainly doesn't create the gap from nothing.

That seems like a pretty poor defense.

Anyway, for better or worse, 4E's more narrowed focus when it comes to classes is going to result in these sorts of things. There's benefits and drawbacks to it, and different people will be affected differently by those benefits and drawbacks. That's just how it is.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Of course we haven't see the full range of available powers, so who knows that else might be in there.

That said everyone class supposed to be decent at many things and best at something (their "role"). For Rangers ranged attacks will probably be the area they are better than everyone else. That does not mean other classes are not effective, they just don't get the uber-powers that make them the best at those kinds of attacks.

 

[Ulthwithian]

I wasn't aware that I was 'defending' anything by my statement. If you want a 'defense', the applicable 'we don't know enough yet to judge' defense is quite capable of handling this issue.

 

[Derren]

I would agree with this, if 'when able' were added to the statement. That is, you will always want to use an 'at will' power rather than a basic attack if that power can actually do something. If you are fighting, say, a flying monster, and you have nothing but melee powers, I would hope that you would pull out a ranged weapon rather than do nothing.

That is not what I call effectively, especially at higher level when (most likely) the difference between power and basic attack will be bigger than at 1st level.

So far I have yet to see a at will power which is worse than a basic attack. Even the, according to Charwoman Gene, lame ranger at will powers are better than a basic attack.

And, in this, is this so much different from 3.X? Only those who really chose to specialize in ranged weapon attacks were all that effective at it (Rangers and Rogues, mainly), and while the rest could do so, they weren't nearly as effective as they otherwise would be.

The important word is choice. You could choose to be good with ranged weapons by selecting the right feats. Want a archer without all that ranger baggage? Fighter with ranged weapons. A sniper? Rogues with a ranged weapon. With the right builds even a cleric could be a good archer and barbarians could use their strength increase with thrown weapons.

In 4E, unless the other classes also get good ranged powers (not only at will but also encounter and daily ones) it means that to be a good archer you are limited to a single class.

 

[Cadfan]

Define "effectively."

We have eight classes so far.

Ranger
Specializes in ranged weapons.

Rogue
Has several ranged weapons in his proficiencies, some which permit sneak attack. Has some special bonuses with certain ranged weapons. Is likely to have some special abilities related to ranged weapons, see Defiant Rake (DDM character that is probably a rogue build) for possibilities.

Warlord
Has at least some abilities which help the entire party shoot ranged weapons more effectively. Specifics unknown.

Fighter
Unknown, but seems to like thrown weapons because thrown weapons are based off of strength, the Fighter's best stat.

Paladin
Unknown

Wizard
Shoots magical lasers.

Warlock
Shoots magical lasers.

Cleric
Shoots magical lasers.

So... the only character classes that seem to truly be out in the cold in terms of ranged weaponry would be the Warlord and the Paladin, and even the Warlord not totally.

But if you want a character who does ranged combat as his shtick, it does seem that you want a Ranger.

 

[frankthedm]

Considering...

*Bows don't need expensive compositing in 4E to get a damage bonus
*No feats needed for shooting into melee
*Aliies do not grant cover to foes
*Cover is a measily 2 point penalty

...missile fire is a lot more more practical in 4E. However the reduced range on missle fire rates does make fewer situations of "Bring out the bow or do nothing", so it might still be a wash.

 

[Ulthwithian]

I don't believe I said anything about 'effectively'; I said 'able'.

I think the 'so far's and the 'yet's in your posts are the important points. We just don't know how many characters will be good with ranged weapons, and we also do not know what the gap between 'power and basic attack' will be for any given level.

In 4E, unless the other classes also get good ranged powers (not only at will but also encounter and daily ones) it means that to be a good archer you are limited to a single class.

This is stated as unequivocal without sufficient basis for such. It is possible that you're completely correct. It is also possible that you are completely wrong. There could be feat chains that allow for Rapid Shot ability or something similar that would make a 'basic attack' (meaning in this case a non-power attack) on par with a power. We already suspect with a reasonable degree of correctness that there are feats that allow you take powers from other classes.

Also, what do you mean by 'good archer'? Do you mean 'as good as any other character at archery'? Or do you mean 'archery is as good as any other attack form choice for that character'? Or do you mean both, or something else entirely?

If you could clarify some parts of your statements, it would help to facilitate discussion. What exactly do you want to be able to do? Where do you think that you will not be able to do this?