How many classes can use ranged weapons effectively?

[hong]

Minus the identifiably ninja elements, I suppose.

Being ninja is a state of mind.

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

Garrett is a ninja, meaning he is a guy who sneaks around. By coincidence, he also happens to use a bow. There is nothing incredibly significant about the fact that he uses a bow. Fixating on his bow misses the point that Garrett is, for all intents and purposes, a ninja. It is thus your problem, not D&D's.

 

[Bishmon]

I'm thinking we're not getting anywhere with this, hong, so I'm done. Take care.

 

[Praeden]

Derren, missile weapons are banned in 4E.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Crossbow makes sense as a rogue weapon designed for sneak attack. From the invention of the crossbow until the advent of rifling, it was the only sniper-worthy weapon in the world.

Shortbow aren't suited for that role, but we know that you can make it so with a feat (A feat that a serious simulationist would ban but I really don't care).

All in all, seems reasonable, especially if the shortbow has gaming advantage over the crossbow.

 

[Harshax]

Honestly, unless the OP is primarily concerned with sanctioned RPGA or Living Campaigns (don't really know if they are the same thing) there is no reason this discussion has to boil down to perfectly replicating movie/book/video game characters in D&D. In fact, I don't think D&D has ever been good at this type of thing. This thread has degenerated into silly fanboyism, which is worse than seeing the ladies fight over the last size 6 at Marshall Fields.

I agree with Mal Malenkirk that swapping weapons for the sake of a player's enjoyment is perfectly fine as long as that swap is equitable. Meaning, unless shortbows have clear advantages over crossbows, there's no reason to adhere to the RAW. Obviously the thief class in 4E illustrates a typical archetype for an archetypal setting. Unless the world is really, really small, there is no reason that a thief type from another culture couldn't be trained in a different kind of weapon.

If shortbows do not have clear advantages over crossbows, then I completely disagree with suggestions of multiclassing or feat purchases for the sake of designing a specific type of character that could be created simply by houserule. These suggestions clearly penalize the player who simply wants to dress their character differently from all the other characters of the same type. Now, if the OP wanted to make Garret Strange, a ninja spellcaster, then his choice must obviously include multi-classing, but cosmetics (shortbow vs. crossbow) can and *should* be accommodated by any reasonable DM for the enjoyment of the game and the enjoyment of a player's experience at hir table.

Now, to the simulationists, I wonder if the default PoL campaign supports a crossbow industry. Crossbows were popular because they didn't require as much training to use, great for sieges (defense and offense), and were easier to mass produce. If the world is going to hell in a handbasket, would it be reasonable to say that bows would regain popularity because they are more suitable tools for survival (hunting), and crossbows would be more rare because PoL campaigns cannot support a large specialized populace (craftsman)?

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

If shortbows do not have clear advantages over crossbows, then I completely disagree with suggestions of multiclassing or feat purchases for the sake of designing a specific type of character that could be created simply by houserule.

Normally, in 3e and in real life, they do ; A much faster rate of fire for a shortbow.

And crossbows also have their advantage ; far better assassin's weapon, better penetration and accuracy as well as easier to train with.

Still, in D&D, faster rate of fire trumped everything else and the bow was a better weapon in 3e than the crossbow.

I don't know how these aspect will be, if at all, modelled in 4e. But apparenltly the crossbow is easier to use for sneak attack which fits part of the bill. I suspect you can't shoot every round with it but we'll have to wait for the rest.

 

[Harshax]

Normally, in 3e and in real life, they do ; A much faster rate of fire for a shortbow.

True, but in 4E everyone gets just 1 attack. So in that respect, they are even. Splitting the tree (or whatever that ranger power is called that allows two shots), will be difficult to envision with a crossbow, but no more difficult than it is to envision a successful stunt like that using a bow.

Range will likely be the deciding factor, but a DM could simply say a thief's SA ability only works out to range X, like in 3E. That is, if such a thing isn't already the RAW.

EDIT: I hope crossbows do more damage than shortbows in this edition. (yes, I'm on that side of the fence)

 

[Derren]

Range will likely be the deciding factor, but a DM could simply say a thief's SA ability only works out to range X, like in 3E. That is, if such a thing isn't already the RAW.

How often did you hear that a combat happened at the full range of a ranged weapon? Most DMs start their combat at 60 ft. max (sadly). Range is most of the time not an issue as if the PCs are very very shortsighted. And in dungeons range isn't a issue anyway.

 

[Harshax]

How often did you hear that a combat happened at the full range of a ranged weapon? Most DMs start their combat at 60 ft. max (sadly). Range is most of the time not an issue as if the PCs are very very shortsighted. And in dungeons range isn't a issue anyway.

There is absolutely no basis for this statement. The simulationist in me says if that is true, then everyone in the world is nearsighted, the most powerful ranged weapon would be a hand crossbow, warfare would rely heavily on fast acting paralytic poisons, and defensive structures would be designed to be narrow with lots of double blinds.

Oh wait, D&D already has that: the drow

[EDIT] To answer your question: often enough in my campaign that no one would even think of traveling without some long range weaponry or tactics.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

How often did you hear that a combat happened at the full range of a ranged weapon? Most DMs start their combat at 60 ft. max (sadly). Range is most of the time not an issue as if the PCs are very very shortsighted. And in dungeons range isn't a issue anyway.

You might be right about ranged weapons in a dungeon, but most of the adventures I run happen outside where having the ability to cause damage first from a distance is very important.

But I might agree that most DMs might run primarily inside adventures where range is not that big an issue.