How many classes can use ranged weapons effectively?

[Mostlyjoe]

Tell me if I'm off base here. But, didn't a lot of the powers have [W] in their stats for attack. And [W] just means weapon. Not sword, not bow, just weapon. So say you blow a feat to get training in a ranged weapon and your a Paladin.

 

[FadedC]

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.

Hmm.....but still....Garrett was not very effective with his bow overall unless the enemy was 100% unaware not only of his presence, but of any danger at all. Even if you shot at a foe who didn't know where you were but who was "on alert" you barely did any damage. An archer rogue would certainly not model him well. And 4E rogues can effectively snipe people in the shadows with their crossbows just like Garrett could.

And I used sap all the time to knock people out, far more then I used my bow. It was just neater and quieter. People you shot with the bow screamed and left a blood stain.

 

[kennew142]

First, I'll need to take a feat to even use the shortbow, since rogues aren't even proficient with it.

This doesn't invalidate any of your other points, but in 4e non-proficiency doesn't make you unable to use a weapon, or even give you a penalty. Proficiency gives a bonus to hit and (possibly) opens up specific powers with the weapon. Your rogue can use a bow without a feat.

 

[Bishmon]

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.)

And in my above example, I did that. It took me two feats just so I could sneak attack with a shortbow, and that still left me unable to use my one known ranged rogue power with the shortbow.

And then I had to venture into more feats in order to get powers from the ranger so I had some powers to use with my weapon of choice.

So like I said, now I'm down at least three feats and the number of levels it took to get those feats, just to get to the same level of proficiency with my very reasonable weapon of choice as other classes have with their weapons right off the bat. And like I said, the problem gets worse if the feat required to take ranger powers is in any way limiting in when and what powers I can get.

These are some serious hurdles in the rules as written for a very mundane character concept. It's not like I'm asking to play a fighter who likes to dance while hurling bottles of liquor at his enemies in order to kill them.

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'.

 

[Bishmon]

This doesn't invalidate any of your other points, but in 4e non-proficiency doesn't make you unable to use a weapon, or even give you a penalty. Proficiency gives a bonus to hit and (possibly) opens up specific powers with the weapon. Your rogue can use a bow without a feat.

It's pretty much the same thing done in a slightly different way.

In 3E, if you used a weapon you weren't proficient in, your attack bonus was a couple points behind what it would otherwise be because you were receiving a penalty.

The same will essentially be true in 4E. If you use a weapon you're not proficient in, your attack bonus will be a couple points behind what it would otherwise be because you're not receiving a bonus.

 

[kennew142]

It's pretty much the same thing done in a slightly different way.

In 3E, if you used a weapon you weren't proficient in, your attack bonus was a couple points behind what it would otherwise be because you were receiving a penalty.

The same will essentially be true in 4E. If you use a weapon you're not proficient in, your attack bonus will be a couple points behind what it would otherwise be because you're not receiving a bonus.

It's true, but the bonus has been +1 or +2 so far. I don't think we've seen anything higher than that so far, so the difference is much smaller in 4e than it was in 3e.

You may want to take the proficiency anyway, if it opens up powers with the weapon. I seem to remember this from somewhere, but I can't seem to recall where it was. If you can take powers related to weapons based on having the proficiency, it goes a long way towards alleviating the problem of the ranger class having all the archery goodness.

4e seems designed with kitbashing in mind. I'm hopeful that it won't be too difficult to to mix and match elements of the classes to make the character you want. Fighter (because of the emphasis on their stickiness) would probably not be a good choice for an archer.

My question is, how much woodsiness have we seen tied to the ranger class? If it's all flavor, then it doesn't require any house rules or kitbashing at all.

Overall, I'm agreeing with you that you should be able to make the character you want to play. As a GM I'm always amenable to a good concept so long as it doesn't break the game. I also understand the desire to be able to do it without changing any rules. I like to keep any house rules I use to a minimum.

 

[Ximenes088]

It's pretty much the same thing done in a slightly different way.

In 3E, if you used a weapon you weren't proficient in, your attack bonus was a couple points behind what it would otherwise be because you were receiving a penalty.

The same will essentially be true in 4E. If you use a weapon you're not proficient in, your attack bonus will be a couple points behind what it would otherwise be because you're not receiving a bonus.

But your bonus is based on your prime attribute- Dexterity. You'll be about 2 points shy of maximum if you don't take the feat, whereas if the feat-to-use-rapier-with-sneak-attack model applies, you spend one feat to use sneak attack with a shortbow. If you're trying to model Garrett, that's exactly how it works. He's always shooting at flat-footed, unalert targets, and if he tries to plant an arrow in someone who's aware of the danger, he does trivial damage. If you want to succeed at the hardest game level for Thief 3, if I recall correctly, you can't cause any deaths at all- so the character designers pretty clearly see the quintessential Garrett as being so good he doesn't have to snipe anybody.

But in a larger sense, the kind of character you're describing is simply not a conventional bow fighter. A bow is not his primary weapon in combat. He gets one shot off from cover, and then he either runs to get cover again or he closes for melee with the survivors. He's simply not going to _use_ any ranger powers, unless it's one or two first-strike whammies he lays down from cover. If you're going to make a character like this with ranged attacks as his primary fighting mode, even after the first sniping shot, then it's really not appropriate to slather on all the goodness that rogues get as well. The rogue who snipes from ambush and then goes to his blades is much better represented by a normal rogue who's just taken a feat to make sneak attack usable with a bow.

 

[Voss]

Tell me if I'm off base here. But, didn't a lot of the powers have [W] in their stats for attack. And [W] just means weapon. Not sword, not bow, just weapon. So say you blow a feat to get training in a ranged weapon and your a Paladin.

Nope. All the paladin powers we've seen require a melee weapon.

Regarding the orignal question- yes, out of the 8 classes the only good (as in, better than some average shmoe) archer is the ranger.
At least for now, the classes are shoehorned into strict, confining roles. The splatbooks may open them up again, but maybe not.

 

[Rex Blunder]

I have the fear that ranged weapons will play a very minor role in 4E

The fear? I didn't know you were planning to switch to 4e, Derren.

 

[Henry]

At least for now, the classes are shoehorned into strict, confining roles. The splatbooks may open them up again, but maybe not.

Splatbooks? Heck, the Core PHB I may open them up, because we haven't seen enough to say whether they're "confining" or not. Time will tell, but I still don't believe that the even the sample Rogue entry on the web site was the whole entry.