tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836223575226497749.post6796463094237497182..comments2023-05-15T07:25:33.973-07:00Comments on Standing in Fire: Home, home on the rangeTalkLoudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08455726048466860436noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836223575226497749.post-13211324222207717552011-04-28T19:24:24.570-07:002011-04-28T19:24:24.570-07:00As soon as the slider shifts to more melee charact...As soon as the slider shifts to more melee characters, the range characters have a ball again. They are rarely seriously threatened to any degree. The melee characters are in much dire straights. The auras don't extend, the damage usually doesn't reach them, and you have to start building out massive encounters each time to give them a challenge. Issues of scale become significant, just trying to counter that ranged edged they possess. <br /><br />As you said, the monsters can't really leave the fight, leaving the ranged impervious. Depending on the defender you have, the amount of melee needed to lock down the enemy can dwindle significantly(Warden, for example, and don't get me started on Essentials).TalkLoudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08455726048466860436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836223575226497749.post-78531305384610276912011-04-28T13:55:32.709-07:002011-04-28T13:55:32.709-07:00Come to think of it, I've played in a 4e game ...Come to think of it, I've played in a 4e game that was mostly ranged characters - striker, controllers, and leader were all ranged. In a six-person party, only the defender and one striker were melee types. It was a whole lot harder than a party with a slight preponderance of melee characters.<br /><br />Part of the reason for that is that, just like you <i>probably</i> get punished as a PC for leaving a melee, you <i>almost certainly</i> get punished as an NPC for doing the same, unless you have some of the skirmisher or lurker abilities designed to counter that.<br /><br />So while ranged strikers may have an easier time dishing out huge damage totals (never <i>having</i> to move helps), it's also the case that I'd much rather have the majority of the team be melee combatants. Even non-defender melee characters can stop enemies from maneuvering freely, which in turn improves the effectiveness of area effects.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13333781524640845035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836223575226497749.post-45185075956167099062011-04-28T07:49:47.213-07:002011-04-28T07:49:47.213-07:00OMG, Derrik Von Borenstien.OMG, Derrik Von Borenstien.Kainenchenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790371621907596051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836223575226497749.post-67956608551651388652011-04-27T12:43:47.027-07:002011-04-27T12:43:47.027-07:00In regard to 4e, I agree that the strikers don'...In regard to 4e, I agree that the strikers don't really come out evenly between melee and ranged. Frankly, though, I'm not sure they come out evenly <i>within</i> a category, either. Let me tell you, bow-rangers and sorcerers are head-and-shoulders better than warlocks, because Warlock's Curse is neat and all but not as good as the damage kickers that the other two have going for them. I haven't seen a crossbow rogue or thrown-weapon rogue, so I can't comment as easily on that. I'm not sure how true this is in current design, but original 4e rogues wanted to get into melee because as long as the positioning was available, that was the easiest place to get CA, and a rogue's damage kicker was the best in the game. Arguably, the sorcerer changed that.<br /><br />Another part of the problem is the design concept of secondary roles. In theory, sorcerers and warlocks are both strikers with a side of controller. "Controller," however, means two things; sorcerers get the "area damage" aspect, while warlocks get the "debuff" aspect. I'd have a hard time telling you what a rogue's or ranger's secondary roles are.<br /><br />Your tactical commentary on melee vs. ranged in 4e is spot-on; when GMing, I tended to look at my optimal tactics as something like "kill the ranged guys first," because even when the melee guys are dealing <i>blistering</i> damage, the ranged guys are for the most part easier to kill. Further, I felt like having to work to defend them was the best thing I could do to make the <i>defend</i> part of defender mean something. Whether or not this was a good idea as a DM is open to discussion, of course.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13333781524640845035noreply@blogger.com