How can you hate something that is so helpful? It has no alterior motives. It only wants to help your hamburger.
it wants to helpful, but it requires water to work. Water it doesn't provide itself. Just because it can help doesn't mean it's good help or the cost of that help is a good price for what you get.
Why take Hamburger Helpers when you can take.... more Casters or at least a Gish?
That was always my question. A fighter/cleric or fighter/magic-user was pretty much always a better choice from the party's standpoint. They weren't the best characters to play, though not bad. You could get a few extra lower level spell slots in the party that way and let the straight MU dedicate his to blasting stuff or carry around a few extra CLWs.
Archery Challenge: Replaces Combat Challenge. When you make an attack roll, you may choose to mark the target until the end of your next turn. When a marked enemy who is not adjacent to you makes a ranged, area, or close attack against an ally who is not adjacent to him or moves or shifts closer to an ally of yours through a square that doesn't grant cover, you get a ranged basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt.
The big problem with all of these sorts of attempts is that you end up getting a large number of RBAs.
In theory you could. If an enemy tried to avoid giving them to you, though, it wouldn't be that difficult. A ranged combatant would simply attack you - standard defender paradigm. A melee combatant could simply keep fighting whichever of your allies it was already engaged with, suffering the free attack only when changing targets. It'd work very well in combination with a melee defender. As a sole defender, it'd be questionable, since it concentrates on provoking ranged duels, but it could also be quite troublesome to skirmishers. Obviuosly, the conditions that grant the RBA would need some refinement. The basic idea is a ranged attacker who 'pins down' the enemy, forcing ranged combatants to deal with him. You could drop the movement thing, though I think there's room for some variation on it.
I don't think its utterly impossible to devise a ranged defender, but its going to have to have some limitations that aren't currently present in fighter style marking. The swordmage for instance, while not a true ranged defender, can defend from a distance, but he also has to focus on one specific enemy at a time and notice he has NO effect on the enemy's mobility because that creates too strong of a dilemma for the enemy.
The swordmage and paladin can both mark at range, punish ignoring a mark at range, and make attacks at range. They're not dedicated ranged defenders, but they certainly seem capable of defending at range as well as melee.
Actually, thinking about the fighter variation to act as a ranged defender, I think something simpler would be fine. Fighters already mark at range, giving out that -2 penalty, that's fine for a start, really.
Archery Weapon Talent: You use STR instead of DEX to make ranged basic attacks regardless of the weapon used. You gain a +1 to hit with one class of ranged weapons: bow, crossbow, sling, light thrown, or heavy thrown (IIRC, those are the types of ranged weapons).
Archery Challenge: Replaces Combat Challenge. When you make an attack roll, you may choose to mark the target until the end of your next turn. When a marked enemy who is not adjacent to you makes a ranged attack against an ally, or an area or close attack that does not include you, you get a ranged basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt.
Yeah, paladins and swordmages are almost kinda sorta close to being ranged defenders. A paladin can chuck a javelin at someone and DC them. Ultimately they generally have to close in to maintain their challenge and pretty much fight at melee. Swordmages likewise, you still really fight mostly a melee battle, though you may well do it by kiting away from the enemy.
I guess mostly I'm just not all that convinced by the flavor of a martial ranged defender. The fighter also doesn't seem like the best platform for it. You really want a suite of powers to complement your role and if you're going to basically drop a whole set of ranged powers on the fighter you might as well create a whole new class.
Actually, thinking about the fighter variation to act as a ranged defender, I think something simpler would be fine. Fighters already mark at range, giving out that -2 penalty, that's fine for a start, really.
Archery Weapon Talent: You use STR instead of DEX to make ranged basic attacks regardless of the weapon used. You gain a +1 to hit with one class of ranged weapons: bow, crossbow, sling, light thrown, or heavy thrown (IIRC, those are the types of ranged weapons).
Archery Challenge: Replaces Combat Challenge. When you make an attack roll, you may choose to mark the target until the end of your next turn. When a marked enemy who is not adjacent to you makes a ranged attack against an ally, or an area or close attack that does not include you, you get a ranged basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt.
Well, I think the problem with the restriction to ranged attackers is it basically makes the Bowfighter useless against enemies that don't have ranged attacks, forcing the DM to drop at least one artillery into every encounter so that the Bowfighter has something to do. That's why my version had "melee or ranged" powers, and the Quick Draw ability added in. The idea would be to mark the enemy at range, force them to engage you, and then either kite them with a bow or draw a sword and fight them like a standard fighter.
Actually, I'm starting to the think the best way to do it would be to leave combat challenge as is, and replace Combat Superiority instead (like Combat Agility did). To wit;
Combat Archer: This feature replaces combat superiority. You lose proficiency with chain and scale armor, and gain the Combat Archer power:
Combat Archer At-Will * Martial, Weapon Immediate Interrupt Ranged Weapon Target: One creature marked by you that you can see. Trigger: The target moves and does not end closer to you, or makes an attack which doesn't include you against an ally within 10 squares of you. Effect: You may shift 1 square and make a ranged basic attack against the target, with a bonus to the attack roll equal to your dexterity modifier. On a hit, the target is slowed until the end of its next turn.
The idea here would be that you advance and attack to mark a target, and if it doesn't move toward you (note this includes shifting away from you) or if it attacks one of your allies, you get a shot off. The attack also slows the target, effectively mimicking Combat Superiority at range (as well as providing "Shift Charge" defense).
Since the BowFighter still has the normal Combat Challenge, it can still function effectively at melee range, so that if it needs to stick in one place and tank, it can still do so. Naturally, it would be based on dexterity as a secondary stat, so heavy armor can easily be dropped as a cost for the added versatility.
Btw, I keep including the 10 square range limit just so that you can't just stay on the other side of the field and get off free attacks without the enemy being able to get to you. 10 squares, I think, is a good range, because most monsters will have enough speed to move and charge, though it may lead to issues of "should I move and charge the fighter and provoke an AoO from this guy, or whack this guy and take an attack from the fighter". I'm assuming the monsters aren't going to care much about AoOs (either due to power-related wuju, or the subject having a crap MBA), but if it's a serious concern the range could always be dropped to 5 (thereby ensuring any monster can just shift and charge the fighter).
Actually, thinking about the fighter variation to act as a ranged defender, I think something simpler would be fine. Fighters already mark at range, giving out that -2 penalty, that's fine for a start, really.
Archery Weapon Talent: You use STR instead of DEX to make ranged basic attacks regardless of the weapon used. You gain a +1 to hit with one class of ranged weapons: bow, crossbow, sling, light thrown, or heavy thrown (IIRC, those are the types of ranged weapons).
Archery Challenge: Replaces Combat Challenge. When you make an attack roll, you may choose to mark the target until the end of your next turn. When a marked enemy who is not adjacent to you makes a ranged attack against an ally, or an area or close attack that does not include you, you get a ranged basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt.
Well, I think the problem with the restriction to ranged attackers is it basically makes the Bowfighter useless against enemies that don't have ranged attacks, forcing the DM to drop at least one artillery into every encounter so that the Bowfighter has something to do. That's why my version had "melee or ranged" powers, and the Quick Draw ability added in. The idea would be to mark the enemy at range, force them to engage you, and then either kite them with a bow or draw a sword and fight them like a standard fighter.
Actually, I'm starting to the think the best way to do it would be to leave combat challenge as is, and replace Combat Superiority instead (like Combat Agility did). To wit;
Combat Archer: This feature replaces combat superiority. You lose proficiency with chain and scale armor, and gain the Combat Archer power:
Combat Archer At-Will * Martial, Weapon Immediate Interrupt Ranged Weapon Target: One creature marked by you that you can see. Trigger: The target moves and does not end closer to you, or makes an attack which doesn't include you against an ally within 10 squares of you. Effect: You may shift 1 square and make a ranged basic attack against the target, with a bonus to the attack roll equal to your dexterity modifier. On a hit, the target is slowed until the end of its next turn.
The idea here would be that you advance and attack to mark a target, and if it doesn't move toward you (note this includes shifting away from you) or if it attacks one of your allies, you get a shot off. The attack also slows the target, effectively mimicking Combat Superiority at range (as well as providing "Shift Charge" defense).
Since the BowFighter still has the normal Combat Challenge, it can still function effectively at melee range, so that if it needs to stick in one place and tank, it can still do so. Naturally, it would be based on dexterity as a secondary stat, so heavy armor can easily be dropped as a cost for the added versatility.
Btw, I keep including the 10 square range limit just so that you can't just stay on the other side of the field and get off free attacks without the enemy being able to get to you. 10 squares, I think, is a good range, because most monsters will have enough speed to move and charge, though it may lead to issues of "should I move and charge the fighter and provoke an AoO from this guy, or whack this guy and take an attack from the fighter". I'm assuming the monsters aren't going to care much about AoOs (either due to power-related wuju, or the subject having a crap MBA), but if it's a serious concern the range could always be dropped to 5 (thereby ensuring any monster can just shift and charge the fighter).
No, that's kind of the point some of us were trying to make in going on about a ranged defender in the first place.
A defender degrades the effectiveness of enemy actions by getting them to concentrate their offense on him - because he's tough, has good defenses and high hps and lots of surges.
A controller degrades the effectiveness of enemy actions more directly, by imposing conditions and interdicting portions of the battlefield with AEs and Zones, and, incidentally, depends on exerting that control (and on the rest of the party) to defend himself, since he's usually pretty fragile.
Controllers can be melee. Defenders can be ranged.
Well, I think the problem with the restriction to ranged attackers is it basically makes the Bowfighter useless against enemies that don't have ranged attacks, forcing the DM to drop at least one artillery into every encounter so that the Bowfighter has something to do.
Maybe a bit. Fighters are pretty heavily melee-oriented, and I think DMs often avoid encounters that might consist of a bunch of artillery in a hard-to-reach position, even though such are /very/ logical things for enemies to set up if they can, because there are so many melee-oriented classes. Anyway, a regular fighter can still mark with a ranged attack, and the bowfighter can still mark a melee foe, so it's not all bad.
Combat Archer At-Will * Martial, Weapon Immediate Interrupt Ranged Weapon Target: One creature marked by you that you can see. Trigger: The target moves and does not end closer to you, or makes an attack which doesn't include you against an ally within 10 squares of you. Effect: You may shift 1 square and make a ranged basic attack against the target, with a bonus to the attack roll equal to your dexterity modifier. On a hit, the target is slowed until the end of its next turn.
That works. It works a bit like the Paladin's challenge, really, so rather than simply being 'sticky' you tend to 'peel' enemies off your allies and draw them to you.
Just a question: on the whole "ranged defender" concept, with a large percentage of the creatures out there wanting to do melee damage, how would you remain a "ranged defender" if you're doing your job and getting things to attack you?
Knowing is Half the Battle. The Other Half is VIOLENCE.
Imagine a lightsaber duel between Optimus Prime and Batman. You're welcome.
