Nerfing the Archer Ranger a little

[Mithreinmaethor]

What about this idea for a level 1 character:

Bugbear ruthless ruffian rogue (large mace [versatile], 18 str, 18 dex, WF mace) - 1d10 + 10 = 15.5
Add combat advantage - 1d10 + 10 + 2d6 = 22.5
or, take backstabber instead of weapon focus (mace) - 1d10 + 9 + 2d8 = 23.5

And this is for a melee at-will power (disheartening strike). The best thing is the average might be lower, but the minimum damage is still 11 (or 13) compared to 3 - and that's worth a lot.

Ranged, you can't get quite as good, but the minimum is still high and it's always better with combat advantage:
Ranged (large x 2 shuriken) - 1d8 + 8 = 12.5
with CA (and backstabber) - 1d8 + 8 + 2d8 = 21.5

Granted, you can't rely on CA quite like you can Hunter's Quarry, but on the other hand even without flanking buddies there are many rogue powers that are designed to keep giving you CA over and over.

Not bad but realize it has already been stated that PC races will not have access to the Oversized Weapon ability. So perhaps change your stats above to reflect this.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Where in the rules is the conveyed? It would be nice if this is true.

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

Where in the rules is the conveyed? It would be nice if this is true.

It was a quote from Mike Mearls over on the WOTC board and as we have already seen that Minotaurs in their Dragon Magazine writeup lost this power, once the Bugbears make their writeup they will lose it as well.

But in a home game people can do as they wish. But for organized play the latest rules source is the only viable source.

 

[evilbob]

Well technically all that loses is 1 avg. damage to each attack (since we're only rolling one die and the main bonus is for the +damage), so it doesn't hurt much. And that's only until some splat book or magazine comes out with a superior d10 mace that is brutal for the cost of only 1 feat. (You KNOW it's going to happen.)

However, I am currently also a little doubtful about the oversized weapon thing going away, Mearls quotes notwithstanding. I mean, goliaths are coming out in the PHB2, right? That's a clear racial bonus choice for them if they are anything like the previous goliaths. And we've seen 4 erratas for the MM without changing either the minotaur or the bugbear entry. And the DDI beta character builder still reflects all of this. Sure Dragon might write something different, but until it is errata'd officially you can easily justify it; Dragon hardly means more than the core books.

And if they DO change something like this, then they better go ahead and add some effects onto the wizard's scorching ray and maybe the other at-will powers - speaking of Mearls quotes.

 

[Nail]

Just go get him. Unless you keep fighting in corridors, I don't see what is preventing you from attacking the archer ranger. In most case, unless you keep fighting in very open terrain, he is no harder to reach than the wizard or the warlock.

Yep. ell said.

And your solution is disconnected from the problem you are observing. If the monster has reached him to the point where he threatens the ranger, then he is no longer out of danger, eh?

Exactly.

Rangers are a threat. Threats should be attacked and squashed. What's the rules problem here?

 

[mlund]

I think people often overlook two of the major draw-backs of Archery in this edition:

1.) Bows are +2 Proficiency Weapons that take two-hands to use

2.) It is much harder to gain Combat Advantage for a Ranged Attack

Seriously, losing out on the ability to flank, having to deal with cover, and only having a +2 Proficiency Weapon causes the Archer to miss more.

Using two hands on a weapon usually rewards you with greater damage in exchange for losing the ability to fight with two weapons or a shield. The Archer gets none of these benefits. A Longbow is comparable to a Great Axe: +2 Proficiency, two-handed but it gets 1d10 damage instead of 1d12 and lacks the High Crit attribute.

The pay-off is that the Longbow has 20/40 range.

The Greatbow, as a Superior Weapon, follows the same pattern as a Melee Weapon: 1 Feat = +1 damage die size. The Greatbow is just a templated adjustment slapped onto the Longbow profile.

So the real question is as to whether or not the Longbow is a fair weapon. Personally, I think it is fair, but rather boring in execution.

- Marty Lund

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

Well technically all that loses is 1 avg. damage to each attack (since we're only rolling one die and the main bonus is for the +damage), so it doesn't hurt much. And that's only until some splat book or magazine comes out with a superior d10 mace that is brutal for the cost of only 1 feat. (You KNOW it's going to happen.)

However, I am currently also a little doubtful about the oversized weapon thing going away, Mearls quotes notwithstanding. I mean, goliaths are coming out in the PHB2, right? That's a clear racial bonus choice for them if they are anything like the previous goliaths. And we've seen 4 erratas for the MM without changing either the minotaur or the bugbear entry. And the DDI beta character builder still reflects all of this. Sure Dragon might write something different, but until it is errata'd officially you can easily justify it; Dragon hardly means more than the core books.

And if they DO change something like this, then they better go ahead and add some effects onto the wizard's scorching ray and maybe the other at-will powers - speaking of Mearls quotes.

The current version of the character builder does not include the updates in the Dragaon Magazine article where the Minotaur was written. And it has lost its oversized weapon power. When the final version of the character builder is released it will reflect this since it is the current rules source for that race. And its only a matter of time before the Bugbear writeup ends up in print. And Goliath wont have oversized either. Sorry to burst your bubble on that.

 

[Bagpuss]

Observation: The ranger combines the ability of dealing the most damage in the game with the best ability to stay out of danger. This combination is anti-fun, and thus needs to be fixed.

Hardly, I've seen Fighters out damage a Ranger, the Rogue easily does, and the Warlock matches the Ranger yet you don't want to pick on her. I don't see why this is "anti-fun" either since the back ranks are pretty easy to attack if you want either with Artillery, Controllers or Skirmishers with movement powers.

Solution: "When shifting while wielding a ranged weapon that can't also be used as a melee weapon, the move provokes opportunity attacks"

Except I'm wielding my fist as well, and that count as a melee weapon. Oh and a arrow can count as an improvised one handed weapon.

 

[evilbob]

Re: Mithreinmaethor
Fair enough; we'll know for sure when it comes out. As for the other stuff, I guess for me, Dragon never trumps the core rulebooks. Not sure why it would. If they want to update the rule, they should make an errata - they shouldn't "stealth" update in a magazine that technically you have to pay for that doesn't even mention that it's an update but just prints it like that's what it is. I assumed Dragon was a misprint when I first read it. If bugbears get the same treatment, I'll continue to run them as oversized as well and consider it "official" until the MM gets errata'd.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I know this is a little off-topic for the thread, but on the subject of the "oversized" ability - it doesn't just add +1 damage, it adds +1 to every [W] with zero cost. Not only that, but both races which have oversized also have +2 Str. This makes them absolute no-brainer racial choices for melee-oriented characters for power-gamers/optimizers/whatever-you-want-to-call-them. No dragonborn or human or any other race can match their damage potential, and they didn't really pay anything for that extra potential. They can take every feat or power that other characters can, so they're always +1/[W] ahead of the competition. I totally agree that PC races shouldn't have oversized.