It's not a common enough tactic no.
It's a smart tactic but it's not the funnest one so people don't use it as often at my tables.
I don't think so. Might want to ask how many games she has seen though, and how many different groups.
|
In my group only 1 out of the 6 used any ranged weapons, I have players who have ranged weapons on their character sheet yet have ended their turns multiple times in a row during combat having stood in place for 3 or 4 turns in a row and never took a shot.
This has been a theme i have noticed for multiple groups i have GM'd for as well.
There's an element of DM style in there too. If the vast majority of your encounters start with everyone already in charge range, the usefulness of ranged combat is reduced. And even when the encounter range is longer, it may not be immediately obvious that hostilities will ensue. Firing on that approaching group of humanoids is almost guaranteed to make them hostile even if they might not be if allowed to approach to parley range. Now, if they fire first, or are shouting an intention to do you bodily harm while brandishing weapons and pounding on their shields, it's a good bet.
Edit: dang speeling
I tend to play my more martial oriented characters that way....using ranged and melee depending on the situration. I even usualy take quickdraw so as not to waste that that round of damage.
I have seen generally a mix in other players....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play both 4e and Pathfinder. I play ranged, melee and ranged/melee in both games.
4e is a different game, and this is one area the difference really manifests. Just about the only detriment to ranged attacks is the potential for opportunity attacks if you can't keep away from the bad guys. Although there is a profusion of techniques and powers that allow ranged fighters to avoid even that. But ranged attacks in 4e are pretty much identical in power to melee attacks.
In Pathfinder there are a series of major penalties that ranged attackers have to deal with. However, if you can deal with them you can outpace most melee attackers simply due to the increased opportunity for full attacks. To do so requires paying a heavy feat tax which means it is harder to create a truly viable ranged/melee fighter in Pathfinder than in 4e. A truly well-designed PF ranged attacker who has paid the feat taxes should avoid dropping their bow and entering melee. The party should be utilizing tactics and battlefield control specifically to allow the ranged attacker to attack at range. If a dedicated ranged character in PF is routinely dropping their ranged weapon to engage in melee, the party probably needs to take a hard look at their strategies and tactics.
I think this depends on the size of the gaming mat/table.
On a standard table at home, i am not going to start a fight 100 feet away simply because i don't want to represent things that far away.
Also, if you are doing your standard dungeon crawl, there's never 100 feet of strait open space without a twist or turn.
So yes, everyone opening up with ranged is a little odd, particularly after level 5 when nothing that starts that far away will ever make it to the wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me tell you the story of the goliath and the assassin. This was in 3.5e.
The goliath, a dragon shaman/barbarian, had two weapons at this point in his life: his beloved large greataxe and his own primal might. His friends had any distance fighting covered through long range weapons or magic, so he usually spent those sort of battles just defending the squishies.
One day, while we were walking next to a forest, centaurs appeared! We fought with all our might, for surely this was just a random encounter. Handily dispatching the enemies, we began looting. The goliath found a large compound bow - no one but him in the part could use it, but it wasn't even magical, so we figured we'd just discard it. He took it, just in case. He was tired of sitting around when the enemy was out of reach.
Not too long after that, an assassin suddenly attacked us from the trees! We began using our ranged abilities until we weakened her enough that she needed to flee. She began dashing through the tree tops, at a speed we weren't likely to catch up to.
Well, the goliath remembered his bow. He pulled it out, knocked an arrow, aimed into the mass of trees, past his first range increment, at the tiny figure darting away...
[At this point, the player was mainly doing this as roleplay; after all, he had never used a bow nor had he really intended to get a lot of use out of it. However, he rolled the die - 20. Automatic hit in our group, and he confirmed the crit.]
The assassin wasn't even carrying loot worth having, but that encounter gave us much more than that: the knowledge that every character should walk around with some form of ranged weapon, even if it's mundane and crappy, just in case. My current character has a longbow that he's had since level 1, that I have used maybe once, and to no avail, but I will never stop carrying it.
The cover system goes both ways. I've been saved quite often by an enemy standing between my character and one of his buddies trying to shoot me. Really the only fighting style that requires little investment is THW. I can't image how she feels about TWF.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
In my campaign I run, I have 2 archers (a Ranger with the archery build and a Fighter with the Archer archetype) and, because the druid, rogue, and fighter love going into melee, they went with the Point Blank/Precise shot combo for their own sake. As noted, they didn't have to, but chose to given the fact that the rest of the party was going to enter the fray and the penalty seemed to severe otherwise. Also note, that this does lead into other great feats such as Clustered Shots to improve arrows against enemy DR and makes feats like Snap Shot better, too.
Ranged weapons are not very useful in dungeon crawls, due to confined spaces. If your GM prefers above ground/outdoors then ranged weapons for everyone is a must.
Ranged weapons are not very useful in dungeon crawls, due to confined spaces. If your GM prefers above ground/outdoors then ranged weapons for everyone is a must.
Well, my dungeon crawling must have been done in different dungeons. My ranged characters have managed to be effective in dungeons and out. You only need 10 feet most of the time, if you can control the battlefield even marginally.
I think this depends on the size of the gaming mat/table.
What he said. The only time that non-ranged characters use their ranged weapons (in my experience) is if an encounter starts from a long distance (e.g. 100' to 200'). Ranged characters usually use their ranged weapons all the time (sucking up the cost of Precise Shot and the occasional penalty for soft cover).
What I find weird is the implication that non-ranged characters use ranged weapons in 4E. In my party, that's never been the case; the melee characters usually run forward to attack.
In my experience even with small game mats and restricted space, all it takes to make ranged attacks tactically advantageous is for some decent battlefield control from a wizard, druid or other caster, or a mastery of certain combat maneuvers.
Entangle and a bunch of crossbows is pretty awesome. Spike growth, grease, bull rush, tripping.... the options are quite numerous.
I had a discussion yesterday at the FLGS with a young lady that is a D&D4e fan. She brough up a few gripes about Pathfinder (no surprise), but one that struck me was this:
She had stated that she disliked that friendlies provide cover bonuses to ranged attacks and than Precise Shot with the prerequisite Point Blank Shot were so necessary for making ranged attacks that they precluded the use of ranged weapons except for those characters made specifically for ranged attacks. She also said that this included casters that want to use rays.
I disagreed and stated that in my party of six everyone uses ranged weapons when the foe is at a distance (usually more than 100 feet), but everyone (even the ranger that's very good with a bow) puts them away when the fight closes to melee and draws out melee weapons even if this costs them a turn of not doing damage. She thought this was 'weird' and said that that's not what shes seen in most Pathfinder games.
Is it so odd?
That doesn't seem right. I don't think it's that people give cover, it's really only if you shoot in melee. Basically, two dudes that are enemies to each other and either one threatens the other. Of course there are ways around that, like if the dude is 10 feet or more away from the other combatant but still threatens (think polearm fighter or someone with alot or reach).
Tripping kind of hurts the archers, as it gives them a +4 ac against your attacks. Its also one of the few combat maneuvers consistently worth doing.
That doesn't seem right. I don't think it's that people give cover, it's really only if you shoot in melee. Basically, two dudes that are enemies to each other and either one threatens the other. Of course there are ways around that, like if the dude is 10 feet or more away from the other combatant but still threatens (think polearm fighter or someone with alot or reach).I had a discussion yesterday at the FLGS with a young lady that is a D&D4e fan. She brough up a few gripes about Pathfinder (no surprise), but one that struck me was this:
She had stated that she disliked that friendlies provide cover bonuses to ranged attacks and than Precise Shot with the prerequisite Point Blank Shot were so necessary for making ranged attacks that they precluded the use of ranged weapons except for those characters made specifically for ranged attacks. She also said that this included casters that want to use rays.
I disagreed and stated that in my party of six everyone uses ranged weapons when the foe is at a distance (usually more than 100 feet), but everyone (even the ranger that's very good with a bow) puts them away when the fight closes to melee and draws out melee weapons even if this costs them a turn of not doing damage. She thought this was 'weird' and said that that's not what shes seen in most Pathfinder games.
Is it so odd?
Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
Tripping kind of hurts the archers, as it gives them a +4 ac against your attacks. Its also one of the few combat maneuvers consistently worth doing.
Just tripping hurts archers while the target is prone. Using tripping to control the battlefield and separate combatants so archers can get clear shots when they stand up is more what I was referring to. Fighter trips and moves away, wizard casts grease, archers prepare for fun.
|
In many, many games I have met up with Improved Initiative Melee Attackers in so many stripes that often the discussion becomes:
GM: "You see..."
IIMA: "I close and attack!"
Ranged Attacker: "Um... What about a pot shot?"
A good ranged strategy in PF often requires melee attackers who have enough tactical intuition to know when to hang back and pull out the bows themselves. More often than not, they (and this can include myself) do anything in their power to get to melee NOW.
That doesn't seem right. I don't think it's that people give cover, it's really only if you shoot in melee. Basically, two dudes that are enemies to each other and either one threatens the other. Of course there are ways around that, like if the dude is 10 feet or more away from the other combatant but still threatens (think polearm fighter or someone with alot or reach).I had a discussion yesterday at the FLGS with a young lady that is a D&D4e fan. She brough up a few gripes about Pathfinder (no surprise), but one that struck me was this:
She had stated that she disliked that friendlies provide cover bonuses to ranged attacks and than Precise Shot with the prerequisite Point Blank Shot were so necessary for making ranged attacks that they precluded the use of ranged weapons except for those characters made specifically for ranged attacks. She also said that this included casters that want to use rays.
I disagreed and stated that in my party of six everyone uses ranged weapons when the foe is at a distance (usually more than 100 feet), but everyone (even the ranger that's very good with a bow) puts them away when the fight closes to melee and draws out melee weapons even if this costs them a turn of not doing damage. She thought this was 'weird' and said that that's not what shes seen in most Pathfinder games.
Is it so odd?
Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
Huh, I had never seen that before. Amazing what you learn when you actually read the rules :). I'll have to remember that and let my PCs know. Thanks for pointing that out.
My group rarely uses a table, only using models to set up how we're laid out. The DM keeps track of distances in his head, which really makes combat over a large area much easier. Our encounters rarely start from range, but if we get a runner we send our pets (Shadow and a Lion) to chase while we pelt the target as a group.
Yeah, its an 8 point swing, -4 for shooting into melee AND a +4 to their ac for the soft cover. So you really DO need point blank and precise shot. You've still got a -4, but a -8 will usually put you in the " i need a natural 20 to hit" range.
Yeah, its an 8 point swing, -4 for shooting into melee AND a +4 to their ac for the soft cover. So you really DO need point blank and precise shot. You've still got a -4, but a -8 will usually put you in the " i need a natural 20 to hit" range.
The rules state that if more than half of the target is visible, then the cover penalty is a -2, not a -4. If you have a reasonable GM you can usually agree on when the cover penalty is -2, which is still a problem, but not insurmountable. In that case precise shot is usually enough to make the archer viable.
I personally think the cover rules as written are much too harsh. The diagram they have in the rules section shows a sorcerer who can't target an ogre without cover penalties although only a fraction of two squares are obscured by a corner. More of the ogre is visible than any medium sized creature, but the sorcerer still takes a -2 with a ranged ray attack?
Seems insane to me. I am more liberal in how I apply cover rules in my games.
In many, many games I have met up with Improved Initiative Melee Attackers in so many stripes that often the discussion becomes:
GM: "You see..."
IIMA: "I close and attack!"
Ranged Attacker: "Um... What about a pot shot?"A good ranged strategy in PF often requires melee attackers who have enough tactical intuition to know when to hang back and pull out the bows themselves. More often than not, they (and this can include myself) do anything in their power to get to melee NOW.
Charging is usually a fool's errand anyways:
"Let me close on you get a single attack and then let you get a full attack in with my AC being 2 less than normal! This is good idea YA."
I love ranged combat. with point blank master the only penalty to using pointblank at all times is not being able to flank.
honestly between that and clusterd shots removing the only penalties to using bows I dont see why any one ever uses melee any more.
Charging is usually a fool's errand anyways:
"Let me close on you get a single attack and then let you get a full attack in with my AC being 2 less than normal! This is good idea YA."
LOL, excellent point. I can't recall having a character who ever charged an opponent. It seems like there is always a better option.
Now, if you've optimized your character for charging, that's another thing. But that's not even on my list of character builds I want to try...
Charging is usually a fool's errand anyways:
"Let me close on you get a single attack and then let you get a full attack in with my AC being 2 less than normal! This is good idea YA."
LOL, excellent point. I can't recall having a character who ever charged an opponent. It seems like there is always a better option.
Now, if you've optimized your character for charging, that's another thing. But that's not even on my list of character builds I want to try...
Well Mounted combatants but I don't think we are counting those since they are typically going with ride by attack and spirited charge and either a lance or pounce.
I think this depends on the size of the gaming mat/table.What he said. The only time that non-ranged characters use their ranged weapons (in my experience) is if an encounter starts from a long distance (e.g. 100' to 200'). Ranged characters usually use their ranged weapons all the time (sucking up the cost of Precise Shot and the occasional penalty for soft cover).
What I find weird is the implication that non-ranged characters use ranged weapons in 4E. In my party, that's never been the case; the melee characters usually run forward to attack.
Flying enemies are the most common reason that ranged backup options get pulled out in 4e games I've been part of. Obviously you want to get flying enemies grounded as soon as possible, but that's not always easy. "Immobilized or slowed away from the action" is probably reason number two, and "desire to not walk through or into certain areas, or simply the inability to do so" is reason number three. There are a small number of classes and builds of classes that do not, by default, have much in the way of ranged options, but 4e's mechanics are such that if you're proficient with a thrown weapon, you're generally good enough with it that it's not just a total waste of your turn if you have to resort to it.
Druids are good for charging, other than that I can't think of anything.
Druids are good for charging, other than that I can't think of anything.
any melee character other than a monk or twf at level 1-4. no haste, no speed weapons, no iterative attacks means one attack anyway. once multiple attacks become available it gets less impressive very quickly.
Flying enemies are the most common reason that ranged backup options get pulled out in 4e games I've been part of. Obviously you want to get flying enemies grounded as soon as possible, but that's not always easy. "Immobilized or slowed away from the action" is probably reason number two, and "desire to not walk through or into certain areas, or simply the inability to do so" is reason number three. There are a small number of classes and builds of classes that do not, by default, have much in the way of ranged options, but 4e's mechanics are such that if you're proficient with a thrown weapon, you're generally good enough with it that it's not just a total waste of your turn if you have to resort to it.
What I find weird is the implication that non-ranged characters use ranged weapons in 4E. In my party, that's never been the case; the melee characters usually run forward to attack.
I've been playing in a 4e campaign for almost two years now. My ranger is a deliberately built "balanced" melee/ranged build. He has maintained identical or near-identical dex and str scores from his inception to level 19 where he is now. He specializes in spiked chain for melee and dagger throwing for ranged.
He is more effective in melee due to a couple of melee feats (power attack mostly) but he does fine ranged as well.
His main use of ranged attacks has been to either wipe out minions with close burst daggers or to use specific magic daggers to achieve battlefield advantages. We've rarely fought flying creatures, but he uses his ranged attacks in virtually every encounter.
First and second level magic daggers are cheap, and the nice thing about 4e magic weapons with encounter or daily powers is that if you hit with them, their effects are typically just as effective against a 20th level foe as a 5th level foe. You just have to hit. And there are plenty of ways to make even a +1 dagger hit at 20th level if you know how to set it up.
He has a dozen +1 and +2 magic daggers in sheaths all over his armor and they do everything from dazing opponents to teleporting them to be adjacent to him.
He also uses a bow, and his favorite trick is to use a "transit arrow" which, if he hits, can teleport him adjacent to any target within range of the bow.
His ranged abilities and his use of magic daggers and ammo makes him so effective that it's actually pretty silly.
... would it be rude to say that the explanation of that character seems kind of silly?
no offense to you at all... but reading your comment removed any inclination that may have been brewing to try 4e.
hopefully 5e will do a little better.
@blue_the_wolf: when it came out i tried and tried to love fourth edition... but i couldn't. it's a solid, balanced system that has no magic to it at all. (though the warlock power 'hurl through hell' was almost worth percivering for. almost.)
as to the main topic: with very few exceptions every character in my local parties always carry a ranged weapon for backup, and they often get used. the exceptions include: my blaster elemental sorcerer, who for most of his career refused to carry any weapon at all (relied on spells and class abilities rather than bits of metal. generally worked fine), the characters of our local wannabemuchkinpowergamercheat who somehow didn't twig to the idea that his wonderously-statted (almost pure 18s) and optimised character was a laughing stock... mainly because he asked someone who was onto him to make it for him, as he couldn't be bothered munchkining it himself. he no longer plays with us.
... would it be rude to say that the explanation of that character seems kind of silly?
no offense to you at all... but reading your comment removed any inclination that may have been brewing to try 4e.
hopefully 5e will do a little better.
It's not really any different than the 3.5 character with the big pile of weapons made of different metals. Well, it's different in that the character is using a bunch of different backup weapons because 4e weapons actually do interesting things instead of because he needs to circumvent a bunch of random types of DR, but it's the same general feel. His character is also a bit unusual; golfbagging tons of different weapons is dramatically less common in 4e than in 3.5 or even PF. (I also prefer PF in general, but I recognize that there are a lot of things that 4e does better. I'd call 4e's core mechanics just massive improvements pretty much all around, but I miss a lot of the 3.5/PF modularity.)
Flying enemies are the most common reason that ranged backup options get pulled out in 4e games I've been part of.
Good point. We haven't fought any flying enemies....YET.
Obviously you want to get flying enemies grounded as soon as possible, but that's not always easy. "Immobilized or slowed away from the action" is probably reason number two, and "desire to not walk through or into certain areas, or simply the inability to do so" is reason number three.
We usually have enemies coming up to us for melee anyways.
... would it be rude to say that the explanation of that character seems kind of silly?
no offense to you at all... but reading your comment removed any inclination that may have been brewing to try 4e.
hopefully 5e will do a little better.
LOL, its pretty hard to offend me about games where people pretend to be fantasy creatures who attack 20 ton fire-breathing behemoths with shiny, pointy sticks...
I don't see anything conceptually different in my 4e build described above and similar characters I've played in 3.5. The mechanics are pretty dramatically different (and each system has pluses and minuses) but the fundamental goals, approach and story are quite similar. I've had plenty of 3.5 magic weapon specialists who exploited a variety of magic items for the same purpose as my 4e ranger.
There is certainly a "flavor" difference between PF and 4e and I have posted my issues with 4e on these boards, but even though I prefer 3.5 my whole approach to gaming is more about getting together with friends to have a fun session of cooperative fantasy role playing, and whatever faults 4e has, it's still a totally fun way to spend an afternoon with friends exploring wild fantasy worlds and overcoming interesting challenges.
In my home games we always usually have everyone have a ranged weapon. I think if you have uneven ground that does not give cover so it is harder to get into melee then ranged combat might work until you get into melee but then you can't 5 foot step back to take ranged attacks unless you have nimble moves. I also have played my share of archer characters including a 3.5 scout.
When I played 4th for a bit I ended up playing a warlock that kept eldritch blasting stuff a lot.
One thing I've observed over the years is that many GMs simply have a preference for melee combat. Perhaps that's because melee combat is easier to map out on the battle grid, perhaps that's because combat is easier to manage if everyone is in melee, perhaps that's because they are catering to players who tend to be melee specific.
It's never really bothered me, but I don't GM that way. My worlds have NPCs who understand tactics, and if a party has limited ranged capabilities then those NPCs will exploit that weakness and the party will suffer from it.
My players know that, or learn it pretty quickly, and as such it is rare that my games lack ranged combat.
However, in games I PLAY in instead of GM, it's quite common for ranged combat to be rare. For example, in a recent PF campaign my character was the ONLY character in the party with ranged attack ability. When the big boss climbed a high ceiling that was unclimbable for our party members, four of five party members either stood around doing nothing, or else fired off lame attacks like "ray of frost" just to do SOMETHING.
My character even had a javelin that she is not proficient with and basically begged the party fighter to at least TRY to hit the boss with the javelin, but he said he only fights with his hammer.
In the end we managed to force him back down to our level by setting fire to the ceiling, but for several rounds the boss's reach was allowing him to pound on the party unmolested except for my character's bow shots.
I truly cannot understand this. Throw SOMETHING for goodness sake. You can't do any worse than just STANDING there...
After that session I talked with the other player who has a character capable of ranged attacks and worked out agreeable tactics to have at least TWO characters able to attack at range.
Why didn't we work that out ahead of time? Well, because we had just added two new characters to the party and it had not occurred to me that they would be completely unable to perform ranged attacks. Lesson learned...
I love ranged combat. with point blank master the only penalty to using pointblank at all times is not being able to flank
Spiked armor will solve that problem for you.
|
I just returned to RPGs a few months ago after a 20+ year absence, and the one common trend I've noticed in playing both 4e and PF is players without ranged weapons. This has just struck me as very weird. Back in 1st edition D&D and AD&D, we always used to make sure that every character could do something in both ranged and melee combat, even if it was just the wizard carrying around a dagger.
In my first gaming session in 20+ years, I played 4e at a local shop, and our group was attacked by flying creatures. In a 7 person group, only two of us had any ranged capability. Myself and another old school player returning to the game both just sat there staring at the rest of the group, wondering what they were thinking in making characters without a ranged weapon for backup. They don't have to be great with it, but they should at least have something.
I've mostly been playing with a local Pathfinder Society group, and the same thing has popped up a couple of times there. One player in particular, who is probably the biggest optimizer in the group, has two different fighter type characters who are good in melee, but don't even carry ranged weapons. Needless to say, I was pretty shocked by this. My barbarian may have all melee feats and high strength, but he also carries a composite longbow as a backup.
Maybe it doesn't mesh with the players concept of a melee warrior who knows nothing of ranged attacks or considers them 'cowardly' and the mark of a man afraid to take his enemies toe-to-toe.
I have an issue with the very concept of a "warrior" who "knows nothing of ranged attacks."
In our party the fighter has clearly chosen to role play exactly that sort of "warrior." The end result in the boss fight described is that for several rounds of a major boss fight (and I mean MAJOR, this fight was the culmination of two years of real life gaming time) that character quite literally stood around contributing nothing to the fight until we were able to force the boss off the ceiling.
The idea that this "warrior" would consider the only party member actually fighting while he stood around with his thumb up his ass "cowardly" is absurd in the extreme.
I acknowledge that this sort of role playing happens. However I simply don't believe actual warriors would ever act this way, and as a player I frankly find this sort of role playing to be detrimental to party success and party dynamics.
As a general rule in a fight I would peg the one most likely to be a coward to be the one standing around while his friends are fighting.