How many classes can use ranged weapons effectively?

[Ximenes088]

For me, the rogue I most identify as a rogue, is Garrett from the Thief video games.

Garrett fought with a bow?

I thought he used it chiefly as a utility tool and only tried to snipe people when he ran out of good options. And he was certainly never to be found at the rear, potting a dozen arrows into a melee scrum. No, Garrett just had his regular +Dex to hit with bows, which made him perfectly good with one since nonproficiency is no longer a penalty. He also spent a feat gaining sneak attack benefits with the bow- benefits he could never have in 3.5 unless the target was less than 10 paces distant. I believe such a sneak-attack feat has been mentioned for rapiers already. Given those assumptions, I find a 4e rogue a perfect match for Garrett, right down to his willingness to fight with a dagger.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Alternately, I could just use the ranger, since that's got the bow proficiencies and the necessary powers. But then I'd have to rip out any woodsman flavor from the class, change the skill list, and modify class features to get rid of the 'hunter' vibe and add a 'sneak attacker' vibe. That's no small task.

Well, the way I see it is that you can either choose to simply replace your short bow with a cross bow(which is by FAR the easiest way to make this character) or play a ranger, as you've said. Still, even looking at the ranger that's been released, what woodsman flavor does it have? The Hunter's Quarry ability just adds extra damage when you attack your chosen target. It's not particularly woodsman flavored and can easily be described as the ability to hit in vital spots a lot like a sneak attack with less requirements.

I've said in another thread that a character I used to play who was a fighter/thief in 2nd ed would likely be a ranger in 4th.

 

[Bishmon]

Garrett fought with a bow?

I thought he used it chiefly as a utility tool and only tried to snipe people when he ran out of good options. And he was certainly never to be found at the rear, potting a dozen arrows into a melee scrum. No, Garrett just had his regular +Dex to hit with bows, which made him perfectly good with one since nonproficiency is no longer a penalty. He also spent a feat gaining sneak attack benefits with the bow- benefits he could never have in 3.5 unless the target was less than 10 paces distant. I believe such a sneak-attack feat has been mentioned for rapiers already. Given those assumptions, I find a 4e rogue a perfect match for Garrett, right down to his willingness to fight with a dagger.

Is this serious?

Edit: Because yeah, he fought with a bow. That was pretty much the whole point, sniping guys from the shadows. Occasionally you'd use the sap to knock a guy out if you didn't want to kill him for some reason, but otherwise, the point was to pretty much stay hidden and snipe unaware enemies with the bow. And of course Garrett never stood back and fired into a melee scrum, he didn't have any allies, and had no abilities to randomly make guards start melee scrums with other guards just so he could shoot into such a scrum. Also, Garrett's sword certainly wasn't a dagger, and while he fought with it, it was almost always a bad idea.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I have to agree, +4 to hit and -4 to damage in comparison to a basic attack is awesome. Take the ranger from the previews, +6 to hit 1d10+4 +1d8 damage (avg 14). or +10 to hit 1d10+1d8 damage(avg 10).

Vs a AC 18 mob this equates to:
21-18+6/20 = 9/20 or 45% of 14avg = 6,3 dmg OR
21-18+10/20 = 13/20 or 65% of 10avg = 6,5 dmg

In other words, slightly better damage and much more consistent. Against a higher AC opponent it gets much better in comparison.

VS AC 22
21-22+6/20 = 5/20 or 25% of 14avg = 3,5 dmg OR
21-22+10/20 = 9/20 or 45% of 10avg = 4,5 dmg

In other words 28% better damage, which is quite a lot.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Bishmon: You assume far too much about how 4E operates. Also, I find your conception of Rogues... limiting for my taste.

Blackbird: I like your numbers, but you're ignoring the fact that not everything is averages. Believe me, I love statistical analysis more than most, but if the BBEG is at 19 hp and has a 22 AC, and his turn is next, which attack do you use? The one that _can_ drop him, or the one that _can't_?

 

[RandomCitizenX]

As a huge thief fan, I feel it safe to agree that Garrett is a rogue with a feat or two to let him use bows and get SA dmg with them. If he didn't have the drop on the guard then his bow fighting skills were useless(well all of his fighting skills really). He also never really did much trick shooting other than the specialized arrows which let you manipulate your surroundings.

 

[Lacyon]

Bishmon: You assume far too much about how 4E operates. Also, I find your conception of Rogues... limiting for my taste.

Blackbird: I like your numbers, but you're ignoring the fact that not everything is averages. Believe me, I love statistical analysis more than most, but if the BBEG is at 19 hp and has a 22 AC, and his turn is next, which attack do you use? The one that _can_ drop him, or the one that _can't_?

Normally we can't see the BBEG's hp status directly, though. I mean, there are definitely situations where Careful Attack isn't as good as a basic attack, but Fog of War also means that PCs aren't always going to know when that's the case.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Well, this is true, but we do know when the enemies are Bloodied (nice mechanical way of representing this), and so we can sort of gauge this. This is entirely disregarding the dramatic moment of 'We gotta take the guy down NOW before [insert apocalyptic event] happens!'

 

[Bishmon]

Bishmon: You assume far too much about how 4E operates.

The only things I assumed about the rogue example were your proposed solutions. The other stuff, rogues not being proficient with the shortbow, sneak attack not applying to the shortbow, the rogue power not applying to the shortbow, those weren't assumptions at all. The other a

Also, I find your conception of Rogues... limiting for my taste.

Of course my "conception of rogues" is limiting when I use a single conception to make a point.

 

[AuraSeer]

Is this serious?

Edit: Because yeah, he fought with a bow. That was pretty much the whole point, sniping guys from the shadows. Occasionally you'd use the sap to knock a guy out if you didn't want to kill him for some reason, but otherwise, the point was to pretty much stay hidden and snipe unaware enemies with the bow.

You must have only played at the lower difficulties. I recall most of the missions having "Don't Kill Anyone" as a primary goal. Garrett was a thief, not an assassin. (And besides, killing someone leaves all those messy bloodstains.)

Anyway, I think that's beside the point, because either way it's easy to make the kind of character you're talking about.

If you want a master sniper who can hide, you don't start with the rogue class. Instead, take a bow specialist and give him some stealth. In 4E it looks like this will mean a ranger or fighter with a few rogue abilities. He may not be quite as snipey as a pure archer, but that's sensible, because the single-minded guy didn't waste any time learning to skulk.

On the other hand, if you want a tremendously sneaky dude who can also shoot a bow, that's when you start with rogue. Then, you may choose to take some ranger or fighter powers to make the bowshot more deadly. (IMO this is where the solo sneaker like Garrett would fit. In 3E terms, he rolled the d20 for Move Silently a lot more often than he did for bow attacks.)