Ranged Strikers - more "aggro" mechanics?

[Imban]

(snip)

If you somehow missed my last post, I understand that it is quite possible that the intent of the 4e Ranger is not to be artillery. I do not particularly care about the intent, as it is directly at odds with what every player I have played with who has had their character take up the bow has wanted their character to do.

Seriously, even the guy who was playing a bow rogue and had to be within 30 feet, much like the 3e Scout - which I looked up since your last post - didn't particularly like that restriction at all, and asked me if he could take the feat Crossbow Sniper from PHBII, but without the damage bonus, for bows instead. (I chose to allow this.)

Luckily, this isn't the case here. The ranger is not "locked in" to fire at the frontline warrior nor the backrow mage - both choices may be worthwhile pursuits, rather than one option always being the clearly best choice. That's what makes the design tactically more interesting.

I must concede that it adds a new tactical concern that was not previously present, which increases the amount of considerations that go into an optimal combat strategy. However, I don't think that the previous situation was uninteresting - in a team situation, choosing a target has never been as simple as "shoot at a random squishy" - and I do think the new situation is overly artificial for my tastes.

 

[Dunamin]

I must concede that it adds a new tactical concern that was not previously present, which increases the amount of considerations that go into an optimal combat strategy. However, I don't think that the previous situation was uninteresting - in a team situation, choosing a target has never been as simple as "shoot at a random squishy" - and I do think the new situation is overly artificial for my tastes.

I did not mean to imply the game was uninteresting before this feature - I expect to enjoy 3E and 4E side-by-side in the coming time, depending on what style I'm currently in the mood for. However, I don't think this particular case is one where more interesting tactics necessarily results in less believability. It certainly makes sense to me that a close and exposed target can be hurt more than a distant and bodyguarded target.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

We know from Races & Classes that the Fighter isn't intended to be a ranged combat guy any more. None of his powers would function with a bow, and Strength is the governing attribute for his attacks while Dexterity is the governing attribute for bow attacks, so it'd be pretty bad.

We know from the sneak preview that Rogues aren't capable of sneak attacking with bows, and if that and the preview powers are any hint, none of their powers work with bows either. Additionally, they're less likely to be proficient in the use of a bow. They are likely to have the Dexterity needed, and as such fairly capable of basic attacks with a bow if they are proficient, but the rest of the odds are stacked against them to the degree that it'd likely be a waste of their time to try.

We don't know that none of the fighter's powers function with the bow. We just now that the one's we've seen don't and that the fighter is no longer bow optimal.

The rogue's sneak attack works with a crossbow, and if there isn't a set of crossbow sniper powers now there soon will be. At least one of the powers in the preview works with crossbows, one presumes that others do as well.

As for other classes - if there isn't a way to do the arcane archer now there soon will be, expect to see a wizard spell bowing before the year is out.

 

[med stud]

I ran a playtest two days ago, and the players of the warlock and the ranger did a whole lot of circling around, sometimes taking gambits to close with certain enemies. It added a fluid, organic feel to the battle.

 

[Imban]

We don't know that none of the fighter's powers function with the bow. We just now that the one's we've seen don't and that the fighter is no longer bow optimal.

I'm not quite willing to say I'll eat my hat if it turns out that Fighters have any significant mechanical support for using a bow, but I'd certainly be surprised and confused - it would be directly at odds with the new tighter-focused classes 4e seems to be bringing.

The rogue's sneak attack works with a crossbow, and if there isn't a set of crossbow sniper powers now there soon will be. At least one of the powers in the preview works with crossbows, one presumes that others do as well.

I was very specifically talking about bows - it may well be that rogues using crossbows are the new snipers and rangers using bows are the new close-range skirmishers, and this would fix most of my gameplay problems with this. I'd consider it an... odd thematic choice, though, to be sure.

 

[invokethehojo]

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.

THANK YOU! This statement should have ended the whole discussion!

 

[invokethehojo]

People often (usually) waste actions by focusing fire due to wasted damage and overkill.

Easy example ; the fighter does an average of 45 HP/round against AC 25, the archer and average of 30/hp round.

They have a thug (AC 25) in front of them with 80 HP and an Archer in the back with 50 (Lower AC). What's the best course of action?

If they both focus on the thug, they don't kill him in one round. But the fighter would have killed the thug in two rounds with or without the Archer's help. Therefore the Archer has completely wasted one round worth of attack and the fight will take at least three round since the fighter can't make a full attack against the archer next round. It's only optimal if you can be sure that combined fire from the two character will kill the goon. Whenever it doesn't the archer was useless for the entire round.

Optimum course of action was having the fighter hit the thug while the archer PC shoots the archer opponent. They both get to make two full attack in two round and the fight is won in the shortest possible amount of time. The fact that the archer opponent has lower AC means the archer PC will make even more than the 30hp/round average and will probably be able to shoot an arrow or two at the thug just to be safe in round two.

These kind of scenario are common specifically because this isn't Starcraft (Not real time).

I've never really played D&D before but I heard there was a an element chance involved, like maybe some rounds you hit and some you don't.

 

[Stalker0]

We don't know that none of the fighter's powers function with the bow. We just now that the one's we've seen don't and that the fighter is no longer bow optimal.

The rogue's sneak attack works with a crossbow, and if there isn't a set of crossbow sniper powers now there soon will be. At least one of the powers in the preview works with crossbows, one presumes that others do as well.

As for other classes - if there isn't a way to do the arcane archer now there soon will be, expect to see a wizard spell bowing before the year is out.

Every one seems to have that one thing that scares them about 4e, and for me this is it. I have no problems with classes having schticks, but if I'm so shoehorned into an archetype I can't play anything else, that's going to be a problem.


For example, the rogue's weapon choices. If I want to play a bow rogue, I'm shooting myself in the foot because I can't sneak attack. Sure I could ignore sneak attack, but without it again I'm just kicking myself.

Multiclassing will probably have a big impact on this. For example, could I pick the rogue class but gain hunter's quarry? While its not sneak attack, its still a goodly amount of extra damage. Could I pick up fighter, but with a feat gain access to ranger powers so I can focus on a bow instead of a sword?

 

[Wystan]

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.

I play a scout (mixed scout/ranger/some kind of archer) and I have to say that I have just become effective with a GreatSword. Compared to this Bows suck.

 

[ruleslawyer]

This is perhaps true. I would take less issue with it if it was not so that the Ranger is the only class capable of effectively using a bow at all in this new edition.

IMO, if this is true, it's a feature, not a bug. Dividing fighter-types into the duelist/sneak attack guy, the big armored tank, and the archer makes perfect sense to me, and it seems that the rogue, fighter, and ranger occupy those spots nicely. I have no problem with seeing the classes as toolkits for developing a particular combat style.