Inquisitors should have been the name for Avengers

[Zaphling]

The argument is about archer avengers. IMO, 'avengers' shouldn't have been the name of the class. Pathfinder got the right word for it, Inquisitor, which still functions like the 4e avenger, but has ranged weapon capabilities (I'm not a Pathfinder fan). Avengers were designed by Wotc to be the 'witchhunters' or the 'van hellsings' of DnD, but why haven't they given them the capability to focus on a ranged weapon?

Although they have ranged divine magic, but that's just secondary. What I hoped to see is a ranged primary avenger.

 

[Saagael]

I believe the class you're looking for is... The Ranger. Yes, its not a divine class, but you said divine magic was secondary anyway, so can't you get away with this idea by being a Ranger multiclassed into Avenger?

 

[DEFCON 1]

...but why haven't they given them the capability to focus on a ranged weapon?

Because they were designed to be melee attackers. Simple as that. They have clerics and invokers to be ranged combatants for the Divine power source, so the Avenger was not necessary.

If you want to have your Avenger be able to used ranged weapons, you'd just have to house rule it (mainly Oath of Enmity).

 

[Zaphling]

I believe the class you're looking for is... The Ranger. Yes, its not a divine class, but you said divine magic was secondary anyway, so can't you get away with this idea by being a Ranger multiclassed into Avenger?

I know you get what I mean, or maybe you don't. What I just wished to see was a build focusing on archery for avengers.

You said that we should just make ranger/avengers, but why did Wotc make a two-weapon fighter build, when you can just hybrid or MC fighter/ranger? Right?

There is also a archer warlord and archer bard that Wotc made, why not turn them into warlord/rangers and bard/rangers?

My point was an avenger build, not hybrid or MC.

 

[Scribble]

As far as the name goes... I think maybe Inquisitor has some connotations that WoTC didn't want to go with.

 

[Saagael]

I know you get what I mean, or maybe you don't. What I just wished to see was a build focusing on archery for avengers.

You said that we should just make ranger/avengers, but why did Wotc make a two-weapon fighter build, when you can just hybrid or MC fighter/ranger? Right?

There is also a archer warlord and archer bard that Wotc made, why not turn them into warlord/rangers and bard/rangers?

My point was an avenger build, not hybrid or MC.

I would guess because Warlords, fighters, and bards are not strikers. Avengers are strikers, so are rangers. Its easy enough to mix the two and get a decent character.

I guess I'm not sure why you need a ranged version of an Avenger, when the whole shtick of the Avenger is to pursue their oath target, and beat some righteous sense into them. Having a purely ranged build for that seems to be counter to the design space of the whole class.

 

[bganon]

Whatever you want to call it, I've always thought that there's room for a divine ranged weapon class (likely a striker). I've refluffed Seekers, but the problem there is that Seekers are pretty meh. Ranger/Cleric hybrids, refluffing the ranged implement powers to be "bow" powers works OK, but it's definitely not one of the better hybrid builds.

The closest official thing I've seen is the Corellon domain warpriest build in the Neverwinter setting book. It's slightly odd in that it's still really a Wis/Con build, though, without much direct use for Dex.

 

[Zaphling]

I would guess because Warlords, fighters, and bards are not strikers. Avengers are strikers, so are rangers. Its easy enough to mix the two and get a decent character.

I guess I'm not sure why you need a ranged version of an Avenger, when the whole shtick of the Avenger is to pursue their oath target, and beat some righteous sense into them. Having a purely ranged build for that seems to be counter to the design space of the whole class.

It's like this, as I've noticed archery is good with all roles, except defenders (We have never seen an archer/ranged defender so far). The reason why I wanted to see a build like that for an avenger is because it fits them. I know you said that the class's design was to beat the enemies in melee to a pulp. But witchhunters, in the game of Oblivion, used bows and they had magic to help them combat and enchant their arrows.

You also mentioned that having a ranged build is counter to the avenger design, but what about the new defender barbarian they just released in heroes of the feywild? It's because a defender barbarian was plausible.

Please continue to give your arguments. Don't worry, this is just purely academic - if I may use the word.

 

[captainspud]

I know you get what I mean, or maybe you don't. What I just wished to see was a build focusing on archery for avengers.

My point was an avenger build, not hybrid or MC.

Protip: If the point of your post is to say, "I wish WotC would publish something that does [X]", don't phrase it in the hyperbolic terms of "WotC made a huge mistake by not doing [X]". Just because you want something doesn't mean not doing it was a mistake. It's just an additional option you'd like to see.

Hyperbolic topic phrasing is immediately going to make system supporters approach you defensively ("Whoa whoa... this is working fine, thank you.") instead of considering your ideas rationally ("Yeah, that's a decent idea, actually"). That gets your thread off on the wrong foot, and turns it into a partisan argument instead of a productive discussion. It's a big contributor to what makes Internet forums such hostile places much of the time. Instead, show deference to the decisions already made (because complaining about them doesn't accomplish anything) and work from that established point-- suggest ways to expand and diverge, instead of merely assigning blame for past (perceived) errors.

In summary: Don't attack. Suggest.

 

[Zaphling]

Protip: If the point of your post is to say, "I wish WotC would publish something that does [X]", don't phrase it in the hyperbolic terms of "WotC made a huge mistake by not doing [X]". Just because you want something doesn't mean not doing it was a mistake. It's just an additional option you'd like to see.

Hyperbolic topic phrasing is immediately going to make system supporters approach you defensively ("Whoa whoa... this is working fine, thank you.") instead of considering your ideas rationally ("Yeah, that's a decent idea, actually"). That gets your thread off on the wrong foot, and turns it into a partisan argument instead of a productive discussion. It's a big contributor to what makes Internet forums such hostile places much of the time. Instead, show deference to the decisions already made (because complaining about them doesn't accomplish anything) and work from that established point-- suggest ways to expand and diverge, instead of merely assigning blame for past (perceived) errors.

In summary: Don't attack. Suggest.

Duly noted. My mistake on the title approach.