How many classes can use ranged weapons effectively?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmmm.

You mean "Hmm, Derren made a good point?" Awesome!

"Dedicated" archers seem only possible with the Ranger at this moment. Other classes might be able to wield a bow, but none of them seems to provide a focus on it.

I am not sure if that's bad, good, or neutral. I've rarely seen non-Rangers in 3E focussing on a Bow (even though it's a viable Fighter build!). Rogues could hardly sneak attack with it, Barbarians Rage is mostly useless with Bows, Cleric spells are more useful for melee buffing, and spellcasters BAB is so low that spending resources on bows is a waste.

4E seems to have the advantage that you no longer need Precise Shot to be effective with a bow, and that allies no longer give you cover (and cover is -2 only, anyway). That benefits especially those that are not focused on ranged combat. Any 3E archer build would have Point Blank Shot & Precise Shot, and eventually Improved Precise Shot in 3.5. If you didn't have it, you where usually not very effective in it. It was probably better to invest in the Run feat or Boots of Flying to get to enemies, then shooting arrows.

The lack of item enhancers in 4E can also reduce the problems. A 3.5 Fighter would have something like Str 22 and Dex 12 at 10th level. That's a 5 point attack difference (though only 2 of which are probably magical item based), before taking into account penalties from range, firing into melee, lack of good magical weapon, or weapon focus!

 

[vagabundo]

My guess here is that a couple of nice feats at 1st or above could open up the field here to an Archer Specialist in any of the martially power classes. And if not included with the PHB (and they should), would be in the Martial Splat book. It would be nice if someone from WOTC could chime in, I've always liked Archery in my games, although none of my players have ever gone that route.

Wasn't Arcane Archer confirmed as a Paragon path? That would suggest that one could focus on Archery...

 

[Aenghus]

There is definitely more focus in class design with the new power system, and there will be far less swiss-army-knife characters that can be completely customised, regardless of their power source. While the power system allows more options for non-spellcaster classes, the need for power synergy and to fulfill role functions leads to some classes being more constrained than in previous editions.

In 2e and 3e editions classes could often be customised all over the place, so much so that saying you were playing class X was not a sufficient indicator as to the PC's role, details of the exact build were necessary if a balanced party was desired.

I'm OK with rangers being the definitive archer class. I'm guessing now, but I suspect the woodsman association can be dialed up or down as desired (with DM approval), as that is mostly fluff.

The other issue is that with increased numbers of monsters in encounters, front-line types are more important than they used to be. I have seen lightweight and/or archer-heavy parties in previous editions, where no-one wanted to be front-line - they had big problems in large encounters as a consequence. Reducing the number of archer classes makes this issue more transparent. (granted, adventures can and should ideally be customised to suit the party, but there may not be the time or energy to do this).

 

[Plane Sailing]

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

You're jumping to conclusions right there.

This ranger is an archer guy, sure. But that doesn't say that all rangers are archers as you imply. In fact evidence elsewhere suggests that rangers will have a two weapon path to sit alongside an archer path (just like fighters have 2HW vs S&B styles, rogues have 'strong' or 'sneaky' styles and so forth.

 

[D.Shaffer]

1) My reference to Garrett was for the concept: a sneaky thief who snipes from the shadows with a bow. That's it.

I think you're getting to hung up on the class name. The CONCEPT is a thief, but that doesnt necessarily mean you automically jump to the thief class first. What you need to do is see what skills/abilities you need at a bare minimum and go from there, which might mean a different class would be more efficient.

 

[hong]

Be fair; the 4E thief is 100% ninja, just like Garrett. But for the life of me, I can't see why sniping with a bow -- as opposed to a crossbow -- is something so vital to the character concept. Big deal if he uses a crossbow instead.

 

[ThirdWizard]

A while back WotC_Miko heavily implied you will be able to gain SA with other weapons.

 

[Kishin]

Although I personally hope that it isn't the case that you need to be a Ranger to play a competent archer (I'm reasonably sure it isn't; My faith in the design team is such that I don't think they'd eliminate the option), if I think about, it would really be no different from the fact that in 3E, the only way to make archery a competitive source of damage is to go scout and make use of Skirmish and Greater Manyshot. So in that case, I suppose it isn't a huge switch.

What I'd like to see more of is the melee side of the Ranger, so that we know that to do the lightly armored evasive skirmisher concept don't have to (to satirize WoW) 'reroll rogue n00b.'

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

Be fair; the 4E thief is 100% ninja, just like Garrett. But for the life of me, I can't see why sniping with a bow -- as opposed to a crossbow -- is something so vital to the character concept. Big deal if he uses a crossbow instead.

btw it's a little harder to sneak with a bow than with a crossbow

 

[tomBitonti]

So I'm thinking of two scenes (vaguely remembered), one from Mulan where the archer shoots one of the two prisoners who were sent to send a message, and one from Fafrd and the Grey Mouser, where one of the two makes a (near?) epic shot at a fellow running away from them.

The question is, which of those archer characters are supported by the rules?

There is also movie Van Helsing, where Helsing seemed to be pretty darn good with the crossbow.

Thx!