Ranged Strikers - more "aggro" mechanics?

[invokethehojo]

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?

Also, keep in mind that feats (especially the class training feats) could easily allow you to pick up the outside-the-archtype features you want.

I'm afraid that too many people are deciding whats wrong with 4e even though only 10% of the rules are out... and even those have already been changed!

 

[SmilingPiePlate]

I like it.

Mostly because I like the concept of playing a character who focuses on using a bow, but the mechanics of actually playing one bore me.

Also, the idea of an archer needing to circle around to get a good shot, or getting closer, actually isn't that wierd to me. My understanding is that precise shooting (the kind we usually associate with an archery-focused ranger) with a longbow has a surprisingly small maximum range. Longbows can be deadly at much longer ranges, but that's normally as part of a line of archers firing volleys. The plan in the latter case is to shower the target formation with arrows, and hit things through volume rather than personal prowess.

I usually don't play archers because the prospect of standing in one place every combat, full attacking a spray of arrows at enemies one at a time isn't something I find overly fun. I think the 4e ranger's style of archery might be more to my liking, it seems like 4e rangers can actually "set up the kill", if that makes sense.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

You make some very interesting points here. What I'd like to know is why some of the limits on class abilities exist as they are (for instance, the rogue's sneak attack). I understand the point of the defender/striker, heavy armor/light armor, and melee/ranged divides, but not allowing rogues to SA with bows just seems odd.

 

[Cadfan]

What makes a rogue a rogue?

Is it disarming traps, finding secret doors, and picking locks?

Because that's available with a single feat these days.

Try not to think "I can't make an X that does Y!" Think, "I want A, B, and C. How can I get them?"

 

[Imban]

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.

I wasn't calling narrowly-focused classes a misfeature so much as I was calling the only available archer being a close-in skirmisher a misfeature. I can easily get behind narrowly-focused classes so long as there's sufficient support for playing the class that does the thing you want your character to do, rather than "You cast spells? You must be a Wizard!" and Wizard being narrowed to only represent a narrow archetype. They seem to not be doing this for Wizard, with the presence of Warlock, the later Spellsword, and supposed later spellcaster classes of other specializations, so I can only hope they won't do this for fighty types.

I usually don't play archers because the prospect of standing in one place every combat, full attacking a spray of arrows at enemies one at a time isn't something I find overly fun. I think the 4e ranger's style of archery might be more to my liking, it seems like 4e rangers can actually "set up the kill", if that makes sense.

I'm glad to see that some people in the open are actually happy with it from the perspective of wanting to play an archer. As I said, my experience has been that fans of archery actually do enjoy playing the artillery / "stand off and spray arrows" role, and yours is the first comment I believe I've seen from someone who likes the change on a "As a fan of archery, this makes me want to play an archer" level, rather than an abstract "I think this is good for the game" level.

What makes a rogue a rogue?

Is it disarming traps, finding secret doors, and picking locks?

Because that's available with a single feat these days.

Try not to think "I can't make an X that does Y!" Think, "I want A, B, and C. How can I get them?"

I... think he thought that, and came to what seems to be the obvious conclusion from the information we have. "I want Sneak Attack, and to use a bow as my primary weapon. How can I get them?" "I can't. Nuts."

It's possible that the multiclassing rules address this, but WotC still steadfastly refuses to release any solid information on them.

 

[s0rn]

A tangental question - I know the ranger can switch his mark, but can the warlock, or does it stick until the target is dead/encounter over?

 

[Imban]

A tangental question - I know the ranger can switch his mark, but can the warlock, or does it stick until the target is dead/encounter over?

From everything we've seen, it sticks until the encounter is over. However, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping a Warlock from target-marking multiple foes, whereas the Ranger can only target-mark one foe and must switch if he wants to mark another.

 

[drjones]

Seems like a lot of smoke and no fire. I'll be really really surprised if it is impossible to make a viable ranged attacker in 4e that stays away from the front line.

 

[Thyrwyn]

A tangental question - I know the ranger can switch his mark, but can the warlock, or does it stick until the target is dead/encounter over?

Neither Warlock's Curse nor Hunter's Quarry describe the target as being Marked. I am willing to bet the text we have is wrong on at least one of them.

Caveat: we do not have all the rules, and the rules we have are incomplete.

I was under the impression that under the basic rules for Marking, you could neither mark nor be marked more than once (specific abilities such as the hinted at "Thicket of Blades" fighter exploit not withstanding).

 

[Immolate]

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

I don't know about you, but if you're going to be crunching umbers, you might as well make peace with it taking time 'cause those bastages are tougher than a turtle-shell taco. You're better off just dropping a house on 'em.

Something that hasn't been mentioned (unless I missed it) is that what we can do to them, they can do to us. With the emphasis now shifting to multi-monster, tactically-supportive encounters, your favorite squishy can look forward to fighting a lot more bow-wielding bad guys than in the past. How long is your wizard or warlock going to last under the withering fire of two or three enemy archers concentrating fire and all doing bonus damage?

I agree with the 'reality' of the restriction in that the closest target will be the most vulnerable, on average, to the most decisive shots. We can stipulate that this isn't a reality game, but we expect things to make sense, and this is supportable from that perspective.

I also agree with the concept of "choices between preferred target and optimal damage" as a mechanic to encourage movement and maneuver. Fluid, highly tactical combat is more fun to play, more fun to watch, and more often yeilds results that can't be quantified as optimal vs. non-optimal. I wholeheartedly, enthusiastically embrace giving every character choices that matter every round. Also, as was already mentioned, the changes in movement rules such as diagonals and, more importantly, not detracting from damage capacity make moving an assumption rather than a sacrifice, with few exceptions.

My hope is that, in your game and mine, the ranger-as-archer becomes a class that appeals to everyone, and not just to the "let me know when it's my turn" archetypes and min/maxxers out there. I trust that there was at least one archer fan among the play-testers who would have mentioned if the new ranger wasn't as fun to play as the old ranger. And yes, the word "trust" is a qualifier.