The Crossbow Ranger?

[Solodan]

For me, the crossbow ranger shines when you multi-class to rogue, since many of the rogue abilities allow a crossbow to be used, but not a longbow

 

[bganon]

You still need to reload after powers, though, which means spending your minor action, and if you need to do this every round when are you going to designate your quarry?

You may wind up doing +2 damage (average) over a longbow ranger, but at the cost of your minor action nearly every round. I don't think it's worth it. At paragon tier, any ranger gets +2d6 (+2d8 with Lethal Hunter) damage against their quarry; I think they're better off being able to move around to get the clearest shot possible. My worry is that if you're stuck trying to use Steady Shooter a lot you'll find that all too often your desired target is behind cover and you'll have to move to get the shot.

 

[tglord0001]

2 times

Powers account for load times for weapons. So the crossbow could be used in conjunction with ranger powers. page 217 under the definition of load clearly states this.

However the lower damage and range is an issue like Aservan said.

So it's stated twice in the phb that crossbows are a viable weapon for ranger powers, I think thats pretty difinitive and from the looks of it a crossbow ranger may have even been in mind since both load and crossbow rules make exception for them.

 

[loisel]

You still need to reload after powers, though, which means spending your minor action, and if you need to do this every round when are you going to designate your quarry?

Good point. You might have to spend move actions to do it. Either that, or convince your DM that quick draw is good enough. But if you can't do quick draw, then not being able to move from time to time could be rather annoying; your mobility is already constrained to be after your attacks by steady shooter. You'll be like a fixed turret or something.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

By the character's design, they will have a move action they don't use often. That is the one they could use as they see fit to reload, or HQ something. On rounds that they move, they would have to HQ a target on the next round. It makes for interesting action juggling.

 

[tglord0001]

You still need to reload after powers, though, which means spending your minor action, and if you need to do this every round when are you going to designate your quarry?

You may wind up doing +2 damage (average) over a longbow ranger, but at the cost of your minor action nearly every round. I don't think it's worth it. At paragon tier, any ranger gets +2d6 (+2d8 with Lethal Hunter) damage against their quarry; I think they're better off being able to move around to get the clearest shot possible. My worry is that if you're stuck trying to use Steady Shooter a lot you'll find that all too often your desired target is behind cover and you'll have to move to get the shot.

I would rule the power would include reload as well, but even if it doesn't you still have 2 minor actions if you don't move, you could load, quarry, shoot. The penalty of not being able to move is enough imo.

Yes, elven longbow rangers are mechanicly superior, but there are still some people that enjoy a character concept over dice roles The 4e ranger already seems to be pigeonholed into being a Legolas or Drizzt clone, I would love to see something like a crossbow ranger show up at my table.

 

[loisel]

First I don't see why you need to reload if load times are taken into account when you use a power.

RAW (PHB217): when a power allows you to hit multiple targets, the additional load time is accounted for in the power. So for instance, if you want to use TS, you still have to "pay" the load once (the second load is free.)

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

I think your average "+2" damage will quickly disappear whenever you're using a power that allows for multiple [W]'s damage. Which is somewhat of a shame, in 4e's framework there is absolutely no reason a crossbow archer should be less viable than a bow ranger.

 

[tglord0001]

I think your average "+2" damage will quickly disappear whenever you're using a power that allows for multiple [W]'s damage. Which is somewhat of a shame, in 4e's framework there is absolutely no reason a crossbow archer should be less viable than a bow ranger.

I agree, 4e is by far the most fantasy/cinematic of any edition and as I said above, nearly every ranger is going to be a Legolas or Drizzt clone, so anything new is a welcome addition imo.

 

[loisel]

I think your average "+2" damage will quickly disappear whenever you're using a power that allows for multiple [W]'s damage. Which is somewhat of a shame, in 4e's framework there is absolutely no reason a crossbow archer should be less viable than a bow ranger.

Rangers get multiple attacks, and the +2 applies to each attack. Check the first post in this thread for some calculations; it seems to amount to something like 20% more damage.

Edit: When you get to 21 and your Twin Strike becomes 2[W], then you're looking at 4d10+whatever, versus 4d8+whatever+6. In this case, the xbow's average damage is only 2 more (instead of 4 more). If you were to have 3[W] attacks, then yes, the xbow with this feat would = the longbow without a feat. But the ranger doesn't do too many of those.