Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imban" data-source="post: 4139688" data-attributes="member: 29206">Wasted damage happens in StarCraft too. It's still a choice, just a different one.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.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&amp;D, and with wargame tactics in general, whereas ranged attackers &quot;locking up&quot; 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.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 &quot;Um, whatever, dude.&quot; - 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&amp;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 &quot;people who use a bow at very close ranges only&quot; rather than the traditional archer, I consider it a definite misfeature that, in my experience, will result in less fun around the table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imban, post: 4139688, member: 29206"] Wasted damage happens in StarCraft too. It's still a choice, just a different one. 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification