Ranged Strikers - more "aggro" mechanics?

[GoodKingJayIII]

The other way opens up interesting tactical options too.

Never said it didn't.

 

[drjones]

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

In the very limited playtest I did there was some discussion about who to mark (mostly because I ruled that unless a mark explicitly stated that it did not replace other marks like the pallys does then you can only have 1 on a target) but I did not find it particularly slowing any more than figuring out which kobold is bloodied or was my mini in that space or this one, who will I hit with an aoe on this guy vs. that guy etc.

I can't compare it to 3.5 but in general it seemed to go pretty fast once we had an idea how the powers worked.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

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

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).

 

[Lord Sessadore]

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).

Except that with the elimination of iterative attacks, I think that will come up a lot less often. Making the fighter need to move in round 2 doesn't prevent him from attaining his normal damage potential, unless his next target is too far away for him to reach with one move action.

Also, the situation will probably be switched in 4e in that the ranger will likely be able to do more damage/round than the fighter. Just speculation based on what we've seen so far.

 

[Imban]

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

Wasted damage happens in StarCraft too. It's still a choice, just a different one.

To put it in military history terms, the Ranger would be a circle-around-behind 'em Skirmisher, not a stand-in-a-line-of-more-of-us Archer.

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.

And in all the games I've played so far, the ranger is perhaps TOO good at killing the back row-squishies, not the other way around.

I don't quite understand the OP's idea that the tactics are somehow different than either older D&D games, OR reality. Could you elaborate?

I may be overreacting, and in actual play the target mark does not pan out as making it only worthwhile to attack your marked target in most cases. However, I would insist that ranged attackers firing past the front line to attack the back-row squishies is consistent with earlier versions of D&D, and with wargame tactics in general, whereas ranged attackers "locking up" with the nearest tank, even if it's technically from 15 feet away, and firing at her and only her round after round is consistent only with aggro-bound monsters in video games.

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.

On the Scout part, my error, and I indicated that I may have been making one in the post you replied to. As I said, while I've read Complete Adventurer, the Scout has never seen play at any table I've run or played at.

I'm really going to just have to answer this with an "Um, whatever, dude." - literally every player I've ever seen play an archer in any RPG did so with the intent of basically being artillery. Furthermore, there is no class currently in 4e D&D that is even capable of using a bow effectively other than the Ranger, and we have heard of no future plans for bow-capable classes that would fill this niche if, indeed, Rangers are not intended to fill it.

So, even if this is the case, and Rangers are 100% intended to be "people who use a bow at very close ranges only" rather than the traditional archer, I consider it a definite misfeature that, in my experience, will result in less fun around the table.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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..

Not meaning to be a jerk, and I tire of the "we haven't seen it all" line myself, but seriously... where did you read that the ranger's the only guy to use a bow?

And if you want to argue "effectively" because the ranger is the MOST effective archer, try to remember that not being the best does not inherently make you bad at something.

Fitz

 

[Corinth]

You focus fire on the Defender's target, keeping the enemy support offline through the use of crowd control, and following the kill order set by the Defender. Reapply crowd control as necessary until the group gets to that monster's turn in the kill order; this is where your Entangle, your Hold Person, your Sleep, your Fear, your Web and other similar spells, abilities and gear come into play.

 

[Imban]

Not meaning to be a jerk, and I tire of the "we haven't seen it all" line myself, but seriously... where did you read that the ranger's the only guy to use a bow?

And if you want to argue "effectively" because the ranger is the MOST effective archer, try to remember that not being the best does not inherently make you bad at something.

Fitz

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 have a pretty good idea that Paladins are not going to suddenly become ranged combat guys, both because it's never been one of their themes, and because the Paladin Smites article clearly showed that all Smites require melee weapons.

I will assume that you don't need me to cover why Clerics, Wizards, and Warlocks are unlikely to be the best choice for someone who wants to play an archer.

This leaves the Ranger, the only guy whose actual class abilities and powers work at all if you're using a bow, and possibly the only class to default to being proficient with a bow. (Fighters might be, and admittedly all Eladrin/Elves may be automatically.)

EDIT: Oh. I totally forgot about Warlords in my initial post, given that we've gotten very little information on them. A quick look at the one little bit of crunch we do have for them, however, reveals exactly what one might expect - all three previewed powers are melee-weapon-only.

 

[VannATLC]

Imban - What makes something 'artillery'?

A ranger in DND 3e was artillery.

A ranger in DND 4e is not.

What made the scout the scout?

The same thing that makes the 4e ranger *not* artillery.

 

[Dunamin]

I may be overreacting, and in actual play the target mark does not pan out as making it only worthwhile to attack your marked target in most cases. However, I would insist that ranged attackers firing past the front line to attack the back-row squishies is consistent with earlier versions of D&D, and with wargame tactics in general, whereas ranged attackers "locking up" with the nearest tank, even if it's technically from 15 feet away, and firing at her and only her round after round is consistent only with aggro-bound monsters in video games.

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.