Reintroducing archers between fights

[corwyn77]

I'm not crazy about Rangers fighting at 20 squares and basically disassociating themselves from their team as well as being able to fight with little risk compared to all other classes.

At the same time, I hear many complaints as to the general suckitude of Prime Shot, to the point where it seems to be quite popular these days to take the beastmaster build for dedicated archers.

This is an attempt to deal with both issues.

1) Only ranged Rangers get Prime Shot

2) Prime Shot applies if you are the closest character to the target enemy or within 10 squares

3) Quarry damage only applies if you are the closest OR are within 5 squares (10 if you are a ranged ranger)

Note: my games tend to be more outdoorsy and less dungeony than most so it may not be an issue with most games.

I also like that this puts the range more in line with every ranged class in the game and puts rangers on a more even footing if they go for a weapon that is less than optimal compared to a longbow.

Thoughts? Too good? Giving up too much?

A ranger in a game I play in said he hated it and said that +1 to hit in no way made up for the restricted range. I guess he would rather be safe than get the bonus to hit, which seems contrary to the consensus here.

 

[Paul Strack]

Making prime shot part of the Archery Fighting Style is an interesting idea. It balances better against the Two Weapon Fighting Style. Ditto with making Prime Shot work within 10 squares even if you are not the closest.

I don't think you need to change Hunter's Quarry, though. The limitation that your quarry has to be the closest enemy is enough. If you screen your big bad with mooks, the ranger will have a hard time making the big bad the quarry until he gets close.

 

[the Jester]

If rangers stand 20 squares away from the rest of the party, aren't they easy prey for a couple quick skirmishers circling around?

 

[CapnZapp]

Most importantly, standing back from the melee might seem a good idea, until you realize that by making the party effectively one man short, your side is at a correspondingly higher risk of losing.

And then it isn't so fun being the last ally alive.

The major reason why rangers need to move in close, is to soak up some hits for the team. Even rangers have Healing Surges - if you don't use them, you're not playing efficiently.

It's all about party survival in D&D. Individual survival... not nearly as important. (There's always Raise Dead, after all. As long as you don't TPK, that is.)

 

[corwyn77]

Most importantly, standing back from the melee might seem a good idea, until you realize that by making the party effectively one man short, your side is at a correspondingly higher risk of losing.

And then it isn't so fun being the last ally alive.

The major reason why rangers need to move in close, is to soak up some hits for the team. Even rangers have Healing Surges - if you don't use them, you're not playing efficiently.

It's all about party survival in D&D. Individual survival... not nearly as important. (There's always Raise Dead, after all. As long as you don't TPK, that is.)

I've actually been trying to convince both ranger players in different groups of that, to no avail. If you end every fight with full HPs, you could be bleeding morer for the team. OTOH, they tend to end most fights either unscathed or down for the count.

BTW, the ranger in my other group has no problem with my proposed rule.

But perhaps the carrot (improved Prime Shot) would be sufficient to coax him in without the stick.

 

[Mesh Hong]

The problem is you can't really tell someone how to play their character, and why would you place yourself in harms way unnecessarily? From what I can see (as a DM) the ranger is a damage dealing powerhouse from any range, and if he isnt being hit then he isnt soaking up healing that could be used on melee characters.

I also have the problem of the ranger in my group hanging back during combat, in fact he goes to great lengths to make sure there is always a shield of allies between himself and a threat. He has even been known to use the party warlock as a shield.

This is just the way it is, rangers are skirmishers not front rank infantry. It's probably stating the obvious but the application of a bit of cover will force the archer towards the action, as will having a few enemies arrive in round 2 or 3 from the rear. As a DM I also enjoy trying to hunt the archer down after he marks himself as a serious threat by doing a hod load of damage to something.

At the end of the day it is unreasonable to criticise an archer for effectively using archery (maximising his damage output while minimising his chance of harm), in a way it would almost be like criticising a paladin for wearing platemail and using a heavy shield (thus maximising his AC and making it harder to hit him).

As DMs I feel it is our job to maximise fun and excitement, and for the archer to me that seems to involve running about like a lunatic lobbing arrows at monsters while they run around after you. The trick for them is not to get too far away from support because every so often you are going to get caught, and when you get caught you are in for a world of hurt.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Skirmishers and Lurkers could prove a great danger to the Ranger, but also some Artillery monsters. Something that gets around the Defender and focuses on him. Soldiers or Brutes could keep the Defender(s) busy, and Skirmishers move around him to focus on the Ranger.

At higher levels, foes that can make themselves invisible and/or can teleport become more common. Preying on the Ranger will become easier, and he might learn to adapt his tactics.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't see why you should change the rules to "coax" the Ranger into shorter distances. The range of bows are already ludicrously short as it is.

Instead, it might not be that the player isn't uninterested in helping out, it might just be that he cannot free himself of "realism"-related presumptions.

In this case, perhaps everyone (he, you, all the players) is helped by him playing a Dwarf Fighter instead...

In preparation of this, let the players - out of character - discuss the D&D fact any PC needs to provide more than offensive power to the party, he or she must provide defensive power too, which in 4E means your healing surges. And that this applies equally to melee and ranged character archetypes.

In other words, tell your players they should not choose a ranged character unless they accept that the "realism" of archers staying out of range must be tossed by the wayside.

Make sure everybody understands that this is a fundamental shift compared to other rpgs, including 3E. There, sure the Ranger had his hit points, but it was easy to not waste any healing on him. In 4E, one fifth of that healing is built into each character. Thus, each PC must soak hits or this valuable resource is wasted.

In game, let the other PCs conclude they can't have a member not doing his share of the job, and dump him. (Or have him killed, or lost in the woods, or whatever.) Then introduce the new character.


My point here is that nerfing the rules for ranged combat (even more) you might fix the wrong problem, you might fix what wasn't broken, and you might not fix the real issue.

Any archer worth his salt should feel good about being "ambushed" by lurkers and artillery. That at least means he's doing his job. Here, we're discussing the problem that arises when the monsters can't get to the archer because the archer doesn't actively allow them to.

Good luck!