Playing Against Expectations - The Archer Fighter

[OnlineDM]

An archer wearing chainmail sounds a little bit strange to me. If your goal is to shoot bad guys from far away with a bow, why do you want to be weighed down by chainmail? I haven't played Dragon Age 2 yet, though, so maybe it will make more sense once I do.

In any case, if you agree that it's a little strange for an archer to wear chainmail (and perhaps you don't agree), then I think it's reasonable to expect that building a D&D character that's a chainmail-wearing archer is going to be a little wonky. Be a ranger and take two feats to be able to wear chainmail (despite what might end up being a lower AC since you give up your Dex bonus), or be a slayer and either give up on using Power Strike or house-rule its use on ranged attacks (as you have).

I think it's okay for it to be a wonky solution, because it's an unusual character concept. I don't think the rules need to support every unusual character concept in an elegant manner.

 

[Zaphling]

Well, this could lead us to our next argument: archer/ranged defenders.

 

[Herschel]

So you want to play a fighter who uses a bow because of a character in a video game and it has to be a "fighter" name on the class? Really?

1. As an archer, your mark sucks because you have no way of enforcing it.

2. As a damage-dealer your damage sucks because you don't have all the goodies archer classes have.

If you want to play a chainmail-wearing archer without having to invest feats play either a Warlord or a Prescient Bard. Voila, useful and feat-cheap.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In Threats to the Nentir Vale, there is a "bandit archer defender" who can enforce marks with "bolt to the gut", letting him shoot anyone who doesn't attack him. (I don't believe he actually uses marks though.)

I don't think there's enough support to warrant making such a class from WotC though, especially in a product for money. Mind you, WotC has supported marginal character concepts before.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Rangers on the other hand, don't start out with chainmails and it is counterproductive to learn a chainmail feat for it while fighters already have it.

It's only counterproductive if you fall into the way of thinking that optimization trumps everything else (like characterization). Now granted... that pretty much applies to probably 75% of all the players out there... but if there was one class where you could afford to step away from optimization and move towards characterization... the ranger's the one to do it.

Spending a single feat to get chainmail proficiency (if that really matters to you) just means your archer ranger goes from quite overpowered compared to the rest of the party, to just fairly overpowered compared to the rest of the party. You really are not losing anything. Plus you gain what you wanted... which is a chainmail-wearing, bow-wielding warrior. Plus, if you take Dungeoneering instead of Nature, pretty much all vestiges of being a 'nature guy' are gone.

 

[MerricB]

Clerics can now be archers.

Neverwinter Campaign Setting and Dragon Magazine have given them powers so they can do so if they like. NWCS gives "Blessing of the Wild" with Ranged or Melee weapon, and Dragon #386 has "Silvery Arrow" for bows only. (Thanks, Klaus!)

I see no reason why Slayers shouldn't be able to have similar powers.

In fact, I don't see why your standard defender Fighter can't have an archery attack... marking, even without use of the Superiority/Challenge powers is pretty good. Mind you, at present he'd be far better off using a throwing hammer or something similar. Master at Arms is the feat of choice, of course.

Cheers!

 

[Zaphling]

Clerics can now be archers.

Neverwinter Campaign Setting and Dragon Magazine have given them powers so they can do so if they like. NWCS gives "Blessing of the Wild" with Ranged or Melee weapon, and Dragon #386 has "Silvery Arrow" for bows only. (Thanks, Klaus!)

I see no reason why Slayers shouldn't be able to have similar powers.

In fact, I don't see why your standard defender Fighter can't have an archery attack... marking, even without use of the Superiority/Challenge powers is pretty good. Mind you, at present he'd be far better off using a throwing hammer or something similar. Master at Arms is the feat of choice, of course.

Cheers!

Which is exactly my point Wotc called the O-fighter "Weaponmasters", but can't even wield a bow right - as depicted by the none-existence of rangerd fighter powers.

 

[MerricB]

Incidentally, in my 30th level campaign, we had a Knight character (essentials fighter defender) with a +6 throwing hammer of distance. It was pretty interesting to see: pretty much the same attack bonus and damage as his regular melee attack, 20 range(!!), no long-range penalty. The drawbacks... no power strike, and no extra critical damage (although that didn't turn up often).

(Compare +36 vs AC, 2d10+21 to +36 vs AC, 2d6+21).

There are two fundamental problems with the 4E design which make fighter-archers hard to achieve.

The first comes from ability scores. In Basic D&D, you get a +3 difference in capability between an average fighter (10 Dex) and a great fighter (18 Dex) in their ranged capability - and thus between the ranged and melee capability as well. In AD&D, it might become +4.

In 4E, the difference is between +9 and +1 for fighters without Dex as their secondary stat. It's just too much for even a basic ranged attack.

The second problem is a legacy way of approaching it (which actually underpins a lot of problems with 3e). Why can't the fighter have ranged Str attacks with bows? Other classes don't have a problem with ranged weapon attacks that don't use Dex... and it's because of the legacy issues surrounding the fighter and how Str and Dex work (and because Martial characters have more problems using non-physical stats).

I don't really have a problem with the fighter being a melee character without ranged powers; I just don't like how he sucks so horribly with a bow, which is far more due to how the ability scores diverge so much at higher levels.

Related to this: I really dislike how many older melee characters were still using Str for their basic melee attacks, whilst their at-will attacks were something else. Huh? How does that work? One of the best additions to the Ardent class was the addition of a power - Intent Laid Bare - that can be used as a basic attack unaugmented. Suddenly, you get a character that you worry about provoking opportunity attacks around.

There's a lot of early 4E design that displays how new the system was...

Cheers!

 

[OnlineDM]

Chiming in with another reminder and seconding MerricB: Strong fighters can use heavy thrown weapons just fine. Sure, they're not bows, which might be a flavor problem for some players, and their range and damage generally aren't as good as bows. But it's incorrect to imply "fighters are useless at range." Just chuck a javelin at the bad guy and you're fine!

No, it's not a nifty "fighter power" but Ranged Basic Attack is a fine power in its own right. Not as cool as the melee powers, sure, but that's because the fighter is intended to be a melee character. There are other class options for ranged characters, as many on this thread have pointed out.

 

[DEFCON 1]

In 4E, the difference is between +9 and +1 for fighters without Dex as their secondary stat. It's just too much for even a basic ranged attack.

That's where the choice is made at character creation to make Dexterity your secondary stat. If you really wanted to be an archer fighter... you obviously won't be making many Opportunity Attacks, and thus you don't need a high Wisdom... and you won't be in combat as often, meaning you don't need as high a Constitution. So you could easily make a 18-16 STR/DEX or DEX/STR character (even 18/18 if going Halfork) and get your attack bonuses fairly close to each other.

Now I'm sure the real issue here that I imagine Zaphling is trying to work out is creating the ideal of the warrior who starts combat with his bow out to get one shot off when enemies are spotted, before then rushes into combat to go melee. And for that, you wouldn't want to necessarily sacrifice CON or WIS just for that one bow shot at the start of combat. In that regard... that's when you talk to your DM about refluffing/houseruling. Ask him to let your character use a shortbow (+2 1d8 15/30) as if it had the Heavy Thrown property, or if that's too much for the DM then just change the shortbow's stats to match the javelin (+2 1d6 10/20). The fact you'll need to use minor actions to stow your bow and draw your weapon will off-set any slight advantage you might have gotten for using a shortbow over a javelin.