Ranged Strikers - more "aggro" mechanics?

[KidSnide]

Because, with the way it is now, the tactically viable things for archers/warlocks to do, in 90% of cases, is either fire at the tank and ignore the squishies he's protecting, despite having a bow / shooting magical energy, or dash through the enemy lines *with a bow* to mark a squishy. Unless someone's about to drop, it rarely makes sense to do otherwise.

Any alternative viewpoints, explanations for why they may have chosen this implementation, et cetera are welcome.

I thought the point of these powers was to give the ranged strikers an incentive to try flanking their opponents to get a good shot at the vulnerable targets in the rear. Dashing through the enemy lines is only an issue in a enclosed space with no way around the back. I figure most good dungeons will involve multiple approaches to significant rooms, leaving the ranger/warlock the option of running down a side hall to get a mark on the enemy controller. Similarly, in an open space, you try to get to the sides/rear so the controllers are the closest enemies without getting so close that you get engaged by the enemy brutes.

 

[Imban]

For tactics to be meaningful, you need to have hard choices to make.

In 3e, the archer who is shooting at the soft target in the rear instead of the high HP, high AC target in front may think he is being tactical. He is not. He's on auto-pilot. What kind of idiot woulnd't do that?

Focus Fire: It's not just for StarCraft players.

I thought the point of these powers was to give the ranged strikers an incentive to try flanking their opponents to get a good shot at the vulnerable targets in the rear. Dashing through the enemy lines is only an issue in a enclosed space with no way around the back. I figure most good dungeons will involve multiple approaches to significant rooms, leaving the ranger/warlock the option of running down a side hall to get a mark on the enemy controller. Similarly, in an open space, you try to get to the sides/rear so the controllers are the closest enemies without getting so close that you get engaged by the enemy brutes.

I'd like to pull out a grid to demonstrate this to you (and myself, to make sure), but I don't think this pans out very well. Basically, with the way distance is measured in 4e now, as long as the enemy front line remembers to have some people on each side of the back line rather than lining up perfectly straight, you pretty much have to either get all the way behind the enemies or charge in (either through the front line, or merely into close range after flanking them) in order to be "closest" to the back row. I'm not sure how this actually plays out, though, because people are also far more mobile along diagonals than they used to be. I'd need to see how it works in actual, head to head play.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Er, a melee striker (rogue, since that's all we have right now) just gets his bonus for attacking anyone he has combat advantage against. More to the point, he's a melee guy, so of course he should be making contact with the enemy lines, and as a rogue he should be slipping through them.

It seems more than a little odd to expect an archer to be slipping through enemy lines to get as close as possible to his enemy. I mean... archer. That's not what archers do.

You need to "get a clear shot". The ideal place is behind enemy lines, 8 metres up a tree where no one can smack you.

 

[VannATLC]

Er, a melee striker (rogue, since that's all we have right now) just gets his bonus for attacking anyone he has combat advantage against. More to the point, he's a melee guy, so of course he should be making contact with the enemy lines, and as a rogue he should be slipping through them.

It seems more than a little odd to expect an archer to be slipping through enemy lines to get as close as possible to his enemy. I mean... archer. That's not what archers do.

I heard a Ranger killed a scout and stole his stuff.

 

[Imban]

I heard a Ranger killed a scout and stole his stuff.

Uh, sure. I seem to recall 3.5e Scouts being melee guys (though to be fair, they never saw play at any table I was at), and darting through enemy lines is also a fine thing for a melee ranger to be doing.

This has no bearing whatsoever on it being something incredibly stupid for the "archer" class. Yes, I know Rangers aren't only archers, but they are the only archers.

 

[VannATLC]

Uh, sure. I seem to recall 3.5e Scouts being melee guys (though to be fair, they never saw play at any table I was at), and darting through enemy lines is also a fine thing for a melee ranger to be doing.

This has no bearing whatsoever on it being something incredibly stupid for the "archer" class. Yes, I know Rangers aren't only archers, but they are the only archers.

Go re-check your rules before assumptions.

Scouts got Skirmish with ranged and melee.. and the scout was decidedly better off as ranged.

A ranger is *not* an archer.

Legolas was not an archer. He was somebody that used a bow, sure.. but an Archer is an artillery unit. And no 4e role, except the Controller-as-damage (Wizard, currently) can claim to be artillery.

 

[baberg]

The root of the issue is that now you have to choose. Do you maximize DPS on the front-line defender knowing that he's got backup? Or do you attack the backfield in the hopes that crippling his cleric and wizard will open up the field for the rest of your party?

There is no automatic "I attack the backfield for my maximum damage because I'd do the same damage to the squishies as I would to the tank" - the new 4e rules force you to make a choice between maximized damage but potentially minimal effect, or smaller damage for potentially maximum effect.

 

[Cadfan]

Options now available:

1. Stay in your own back line and shoot at the enemy front line and deal maximum damage, but probably be targeting a high AC high HP enemy.

2. Stay in the back line and shoot at the enemy back line, dealing lower damage but targeting an enemy with lower AC and HP.

3. Try to maneuver around so that you're close to the enemy back line, so that you can deal maximum damage to the low AC low HP foes, but in the meantime subjecting yourself to greater risk of personal harm.

This is a positive development, in my book.

 

[FourthBear]

As on the forced movement thread, I think this is primarily there to encourage to get the ranged strikers to move tactically, instead of just finding a cozy spot away from the action and sniping away round after round. It's a carrot to get the ranged strikers moving around the battlefield to get close enough to an important enemy to curse/quarry assign them. Otherwise, you would be more likely to get the rangers and warlocks always fleeing to the least accessible spot in the encounter area that is still close enough to shoot from and then crouching there for the combat.

 

[Warbringer]

Decisions, decisions, decisions...

And as the players crunch the umbers I wondering if this wee mechanic has the potential to bring gameplay to the speed of molasses in mid winter in Alaska