4e- New Class Acts: Ranger Article

[Asbestos]

Some love for those that want to control movement at range with a martial character.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drcact/20100106

Not bad, and further steals from the options that a 'martial controller' class might have.

[FoE]

OMG, options for a bow ranger?

THE END OF DAYS HAS COME

[Yakk]

A lot of zones of threat powers.

Some of them need errata. For example, using warning shot on someone in a doorway means (by RAW) you get a free attack on everyone who passes through the doorway. Even if there are 20 of them.

That seems pretty strong for a level 1 at-will.

[Artanis]

There's some stuff that isn't half bad in there. It's also nice that it tries to give the Ranger stuff that resembles a secondary role, instead of eighteen more ways to shoot the enemy repeatedly.


OMG, options for a bow ranger?

THE END OF DAYS HAS COME

That's almost exactly what I was thinking, except my version had a Cthulu reference :smalltongue:

[Hashmir]

A lot of zones of threat powers.

Some of them need errata. For example, using warning shot on someone in a doorway means (by RAW) you get a free attack on everyone who passes through the doorway. Even if there are 20 of them.

That seems pretty strong for a level 1 at-will.

I think the RAW is ambiguous (depending on how strictly you insist on reading terms like "a creature," or whether you are ever allowed to make more than one "secondary attack"), but yeah, it's a problem. Easy fix: Make the secondary attack an Immediate Interrupt, which I what they meant to say anyway.

[Tiki Snakes]

I think the RAW is ambiguous (depending on how strictly you insist on reading terms like "a creature," or whether you are ever allowed to make more than one "secondary attack"), but yeah, it's a problem. Easy fix: Make the secondary attack an Immediate Interrupt, which I what they meant to say anyway.

Mmm, I'm pretty sure that the RAW isn't unclear, whenever a creature enters the square till your next turn, you get a secondary attack. That means if the Regiment of Retarded Mooks call his bluff, there's going to be a body-count.

Circumstantially great, but not imo game breaking.

Probably will get cleaned for the compiled version though. :)

[Yakk]

I think the RAW is ambiguous (depending on how strictly you insist on reading terms like "a creature," or whether you are ever allowed to make more than one "secondary attack"), but yeah, it's a problem. Easy fix: Make the secondary attack an Immediate Interrupt, which I what they meant to say anyway.
Sure. And don't even charge the immediate interrupt; just say "the first time" and "as a free reaction".

Note that interrupt is a bad word, because then you shoot before they enter the square, which could mean you lack LOS! :-)

[Hashmir]

Sure. And don't even charge the immediate interrupt; just say "the first time" and "as a free reaction".

Note that interrupt is a bad word, because then you shoot before they enter the square, which could mean you lack LOS! :-)

Er, yeah, that would be a Reaction.

But yeah, I like it as a Free Action. It seems nicely balanced against Twin Strike, although I would almost like the damages to be switched and dear more to the secondary target. Would make it feel more threatening. Although it would probably be less powerful, as you're trading definite damage for potential damage, and the ranger isn't a controller anyway...

That said, I suspect it'll only see use in very specific situations, like a single opponent that you're sure you can kill, with another known enemy approaching but not in view. Otherwise, you're still probably better off Twin Striking in case one misses.

[Evard]

Hmmm seems like the Seeker will have a bit ranged controller competition :p