[4e] How are you fixing it?

[Oracle_Hunter]

So, you may have heard me sound like a 4e fanboy on one or more threads out there (and lord knows there are plenty of them) and you may ask "why, oh why, is there yet another 4e thread here?"

Because here's one I haven't seen: you don't like something about 4e, so how are you fixing it?

Personally, I don't like everything about 4e, but the system it presents is so elegant and easy to use, that I am going to, well, use it. It handles skill challenges, traps, combat, and adventure design so much better than 3.5 (or really, any D&D edition previously) that to go back to 3.5 would be like beating myself in the head with a hammer.

But I'm not using it straight. Here are some of the things I'm changing:
1) I'm making a homebrew world. This means that Dragonborn aren't going to be good guys, and Tieflings are going to be tolerated, but not accepted (and for good reason!). It means I'm making up my own pantheon and re-mixing the Divine Feats to suit their flavor. I'm not doing this because I hate the pre-packaged world, but because I love making my own (oh, and I hate Dragonborn and Tieflings as presented :smalltongue:)

2) I'm bringing back Non-Weapon-Proficiencies (NWP). Back in 2e, you could pick some of these, and they acted kind of like "background" abilities. Take Forestry and you could say "hey, I can totally find food in the woods even though I'm a fighter" or Musician and say "I play some music." These are just some freebies I'm giving my players, to let them add some depth to their characters, and maybe give them +2 Cir. bonuses to a couple of skill checks.

And if one of my PCs wants to be a blacksmith, then he can just forge standard items like that. No "masterwork" until Tier II though, since he's spending all that time fighting, and not so much forging.

3) I'm keeping the 3.5 Alignment System. I just like the depth that it provided to pretty much everything. There, that wasn't so hard.

How about you? Surely some of you who are complaining about 4e plan to use it - or maybe some of you like it mostly, but see some things that'd you'd tweak for your own comfort?

Post away! :smallbiggrin:

[Jothki]

Aren't all of the fiddly little skills that were covered by NWPs supposed to be completely abstracted away in 4e? By bringing them back you're actually restricting your players beyond RAW, but then again if everyone likes having that structure there I suppose that works fine.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Aren't all of the fiddly little skills that were covered by NWPs supposed to be completely abstracted away in 4e? By bringing them back you're actually restricting your players beyond RAW, but then again if everyone likes having that structure there I suppose that works fine.

No, no, no... I'm adding NWP in addition to the regular skills. They will work like Profession (5 ranks) in the sense that they gave +2 Cir. bonuses in rare circumstances. Unlike Professions, they don't magically give you money, and you don't need to waste anything to get them - they are free at LV 1, part of your pre-adventuring background.

This will allow the PCs to dabble in the fiddly skills if they like, get a small mechanical benefit on occasion, and help them think a bit about their pasts.

I suppose I shouldn't have called them NWP, since that'll confuse some folks. If there was a system for using NWP aside from saying "roll a X check" then I never heard about it :smalltongue:. I was thinking about calling them "kits" but that would just confuse people more.

Maybe if I called them "Background Feats" and say that all first level characters can choose one "Background Feat," that would be easier?

[Tough_Tonka]

That actually sounds like a fun idea, I might use that in a latter campaign. I have one question though how are you going to determine how many non-weapon proficiencies the characters have. Will everyone have a set amount or have so many based on int or something?

[Oracle_Hunter]

That actually sounds like a fun idea, I might use that in a latter campaign. I have one question though how are you going to determine how many non-weapon proficiencies the characters have. Will everyone have a set amount or have so many based on int or something?

One.

They all get one.

It represents their job/upbringing before they started adventuring.

Some examples:
Gambler: You lived by shooting dice and making bets.
- Example Cir. Bonuses: Thievery (when cheating with Sleight of Hand), Streetwise (if trying to locate a gambling den), Perception (to notice cheating).

Woodsman: You lived in the woods, chopping down trees and hunting game.
- Example Cir. Bonuses: Nature (when identifying trees), Perception (for tracking game animals), Nature (for locating watering holes), Stealth (when stalking animals)

Musician: You played in taverns, on the street, wherever there were people.
- Example Cir. Bonuses: Diplomacy (when trying to make a good impression with musical talent), History (regarding music or musicians), Streetwise (to find a spot to play music)

The only cautions I'd give are for "professions" that are unlikely, may come up too often, or are too in line with the basic character concept (such as a ranger who was a bounty hunter, or a fighter who was a mercenary). These backgrounds should add some depth to your character, and the Cir. bonuses are just there to encourage the PCs to actually think about it.

What can I say? I like using sticks and carrots to bring out the RPer in my players. Well, more carrots than sticks, to be honest :smallbiggrin:

[Excal]

Simple, remove tripping and change the settings so Wavedashing and L-Cancelling work again. Then I can play my Teifling Warlord in Melee like God intended!

On to more serious business, the main issue I see with that is that if you don't allow for occupations that are too in line with the adventuring life, then you're effectively penalising anyone who wants a background where they were militia, or born into a warrior caste and therefore grew up in a martial setting.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Simple, remove tripping and change the settings so Wavedashing and L-Cancelling work again. Then I can play my Teifling Warlord in Melee like God intended!

On to more serious business, the main issue I see with that is that if you don't allow for occupations that are too in line with the adventuring life, then you're effectively penalising anyone who wants a background where they were militia, or born into a warrior caste and therefore grew up in a martial setting.

Meh, if the PC really wants their fighter dude to be a mercenary, then I'll let them.

Mercenary: You live by the sword
- Example Cir. Bonuses: History (mercenary bands), Streetwise (identifying mercenaries by band).

It's just not very exciting. After all, if you've always been a mercenary, then why did you leave to become some random adventurer? Now, I know not everyone can be flower-arrangers-turned-master-swordsmen, but I would encourage the PCs to think about whether they really want to just be that guy who said "I was an orphan, taken in by a military company/wizard school/thieves' guild and I trained my whole life to be that."

The point is to use them for flavor, not to min-max your skillset.

EDIT: Flower arranging is waaaay too topical in retrospect. How about a wizard who always wanted to be a baker (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0366.html)? I bet his cherry turnovers were the best ever.

[EvilJames]

So, you may have heard me sound like a 4e fanboy on one or more threads out there (and lord knows there are plenty of them) and you may ask "why, oh why, is there yet another 4e thread here?"

Because here's one I haven't seen: you don't like something about 4e, so how are you fixing it?

Personally, I don't like everything about 4e, but the system it presents is so elegant and easy to use, that I am going to, well, use it. It handles skill challenges, traps, combat, and adventure design so much better than 3.5 (or really, any D&D edition previously) that to go back to 3.5 would be like beating myself in the head with a hammer.

But I'm not using it straight. Here are some of the things I'm changing:
1) I'm making a homebrew world. This means that Dragonborn aren't going to be good guys, and Tieflings are going to be tolerated, but not accepted (and for good reason!). It means I'm making up my own pantheon and re-mixing the Divine Feats to suit their flavor. I'm not doing this because I hate the pre-packaged world, but because I love making my own (oh, and I hate Dragonborn and Tieflings as presented :smalltongue:)

2) I'm bringing back Non-Weapon-Proficiencies (NWP). Back in 2e, you could pick some of these, and they acted kind of like "background" abilities. Take Forestry and you could say "hey, I can totally find food in the woods even though I'm a fighter" or Musician and say "I play some music." These are just some freebies I'm giving my players, to let them add some depth to their characters, and maybe give them +2 Cir. bonuses to a couple of skill checks.

And if one of my PCs wants to be a blacksmith, then he can just forge standard items like that. No "masterwork" until Tier II though, since he's spending all that time fighting, and not so much forging.

3) I'm keeping the 3.5 Alignment System. I just like the depth that it provided to pretty much everything. There, that wasn't so hard.

How about you? Surely some of you who are complaining about 4e plan to use it - or maybe some of you like it mostly, but see some things that'd you'd tweak for your own comfort?

Post away! :smallbiggrin:

You might want to consider the secondary skills as opposed to NWP from 2nd ed (I despise calling it 2e for some reason) It sounds like that's more along the lines of what you were going for. NWP usually represented a single skill the character was good at, whereas secondary skills were essentially a background for your character and your character could be considered to know how to do anything that someone with that background would know.

For instance Tommy the Necromancer has the secondary skill of shepherd (from brighter and better times, before he took up the life of an adventurer) so he knows anything a shepherd could reasonably be expected to know. Like how to tell if wolves are in the area, how to handle domestic herd animals and domestic dogs, also basic care for such creatures and simple treatments for their injuries. Since this is a custom world of your own design he might know even more depending on what's expected of a shepherd in your world; it might even depend on where in the world he is from. He might know a thing or to about griffons or hippogriffs there habits and habitats and how to avoid them. There isn't any rolling involved with secondary skills you just knew what you should know and find the things you needed if they were there to be found. Nothing says you can't use both (they weren't intended to be used together but they didn't really interfere with each other and secondary skills add a few more dimensions to the characters so it's not uncommon for a dm to allow both.
but since you're not playing 2nd ed I would say NWP's are redundant with 3e or the new game's skills system

Just my thought

[Totally Guy]

I think I'm going to make the full healing and replenishment of healing surges for an extended rest as a unique ritual only the party member's ritual caster knows. The PC's are unique in knowing this ritual. It'll be free but it handwaves some of the non-realistics of the system. The person that stands guard the night has to maintain it which is trivially easy but essential for the ritual to work.

No change really but I need there to be magic for healing like that.

[Oracle_Hunter]

You might want to consider the secondary skills as opposed to NWP from 2nd ed (I despise calling it 2e for some reason) It sounds like that's more along the lines of what you were going for NWP usually represented a single skill the character was good at, whereas secondary skills were essentially a background for your character and your character could be considered to know how to do anything that someone with that background would know.

Oh hey, that's what they were called. I remember them being in the same section as NWP. But yeah, that's what I'm going for.

Man, last time I use a term I haven't thought about in... gosh, has it been a decade?

Also: Cheers to Glug! The first response to my actual question. I've not been bothered by Healing Surges myself, since if I'm willing to accept HP, then I'm willing to accept action-hero-esque recoveries of said HP by breathing deeply :smallwink:

But more power to you!

[EvilJames]

I think they are in the same section. They are just two different ways to handle similar situations.

Sorry I can't say much on the original topic since I still play and run 2nd ed with the occasional dabbling in 3rd ed (mostly as a player or looking for stuff to translate backwards like the 3e warlock)

[Kabump]

I like the idea of the background feats. With the number of feats you get in 4e, its very reasonable to spend on that if you so wish, without hindering the development of your character mechanically. Plus it allows some background and customization that some people miss with the new skill system! Me personally, I think my change to the system will be in the skill challenge. Not in how they work, but the numbers mostly. I saw a thread somewhere where a lvl 1 party on a complexity 1 skill challenge, with each character able to use a skill in the challenge with a +9 (+5 trained, +4 from ability) leads to a ~25% success rate for the overall challenge. Pretty low. So there is a chart with altered DCs and complexity success/failure numbers Im gonna try. Now this is all based on what I read in this post, and the math presented in it. If anyone has actual experience with the skill system and how it went, Id love to hear it. Im currently trying to put together a small 4 or 5 encounter one-shot for the guys I usually play with so they can try 4e. Ive never DMed in my life, let alone 4e so id love to hear from anyone who has run a 4e skill challenge. Sorry to get slightly off topic :)

[AKA_Bait]

The only thing I'm changing for sure, other than creating my own setting (or continuing work on the Sea of Glass / 10k Days, depending on what VP decides to do) is to limite Cascade of Blades to a number of additional attacks equal to Wisdom Modifier +1.

[Kabump]

The only thing I'm changing for sure, other than creating my own setting (or continuing work on the Sea of Glass / 10k Days, depending on what VP decides to do) is to limite Cascade of Blades to a number of additional attacks equal to Wisdom Modifier +1.

Oh forgot about that. Orcusslayer, you have been defeated! :smallbiggrin: Thats a good way to do it, though me personally would probably go with a cumulative -1 penalty. More often than not you will get 3 or 4 attacks in, and every so often you will get that lucky streak and go to town on someone.

[its_all_ogre]

multiclass rogue and ranger, rogue takes dagger path or whatever it is and there is a high level ability that allows you to reroll attacks that miss for one complete turn...(i re-roll per miss so 2 misses you're still screwed)
then get cascade of blades...

[Jerthanis]

I've gone back and forth on this first houserule I've come up with, and am still not sure if I want to implement it.

Minions die on miss damage as well. I just like the idear of swaths of the buggers going down at a sneeze, but the idea rang more true to me when I thought they were filler to make a battle more interesting, and not how I've come to understand them, as vicious murderers who will swarm the crap out of us and beat us within an inch of our lives so the actual monsters can finish us off.

I still like the idea of a sufficiently powerful person just saying, "I kill an orc." and having the DM immediately pick a miniature off the grid and ask, "So, do you want to take a move action?" Maybe I'll have 6 minions for every normal monster instead of 4 and it'll balance out? Maybe I'll just see how I like the minion rules as is after another half dozen sessions.

One thing I will be instituting is a "Healing Surge Tax" that was mentioned a while back in some thread or other. Instead of returning to full HP AND full Healing Surge value, your maximum healing surges are reduced by 1 for every time you've been bloodied the previous day, and by 2 for each time you've been reduced to negatives and rendered dying. For every day the character ISN'T bloodied, they regain one (or maybe two) of their maximum healing surges for the day. In this way, PCs out on the range, cut off from the sweet, sweet innroom and hounded by pursuit can get worn down and exhausted, and may need some time off when they get the chance, but for the most part, they're one extended rest from full capacity. This also would serve to keep people from being reckless with HP, as I've seen happen once or twice already, running through traps and hazards because they know they'll just heal up to full after the encounter is over, and the likelihood of running out of healing surges ENTIRELY is fairly low, and will simply signal an extended rest.

Finally, I may homebrew a line of ranged attack powers for Fighters and Paladins, to allow a primary Meleeist to occasionally do cool things with a bow or thrown weapons when he needs to. Sometimes a bad guy is just hideously inefficient to attempt to engage in melee consistently, Like Dracoliches, or you just want to be able to rain death down from advantaged terrain, or whatever. Clerics have their Lazor abilities, and I'm fairly sure rogues work somewhat well at range, though I admit to not memorizing every detail of how classes work so far. Obviously Rangers, Warlocks, and Wizards are all fine at range. Mostly I want to facilitate Fighters and Paladins being able to do cool stuff while standing on a castle battlement, and not wait twiddling his or her thumbs until the door gets broken down for them to get some excitement.

[LoneGamer]

I'd bring back the 1-2-1-2 cost of diagonal movement. Areas of effect would subsequently become more round and less boxy.

[Talya]

[4e] How are you fixing it?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Dnd_v3_5_rulesbooks.png

[Human Paragon 3]

One thing I will be instituting is a "Healing Surge Tax" that was mentioned a while back in some thread or other. Instead of returning to full HP AND full Healing Surge value, your maximum healing surges are reduced by 1 for every time you've been bloodied the previous day, and by 2 for each time you've been reduced to negatives and rendered dying. For every day the character ISN'T bloodied, they regain one (or maybe two) of their maximum healing surges for the day. In this way, PCs out on the range, cut off from the sweet, sweet innroom and hounded by pursuit can get worn down and exhausted, and may need some time off when they get the chance, but for the most part, they're one extended rest from full capacity. This also would serve to keep people from being reckless with HP, as I've seen happen once or twice already, running through traps and hazards because they know they'll just heal up to full after the encounter is over, and the likelihood of running out of healing surges ENTIRELY is fairly low, and will simply signal an extended rest.



Yeah, that was one of mine.

Overall, I think this will be a good house rule. I'd also use it in "extreme" situations such as a forced march or desert journey to simulate fatigue while keeping characters at fighting strength.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I've gone back and forth on this first houserule I've come up with, and am still not sure if I want to implement it.

Minions die on miss damage as well. I just like the idear of swaths of the buggers going down at a sneeze, but the idea rang more true to me when I thought they were filler to make a battle more interesting, and not how I've come to understand them, as vicious murderers who will swarm the crap out of us and beat us within an inch of our lives so the actual monsters can finish us off.

I still like the idea of a sufficiently powerful person just saying, "I kill an orc." and having the DM immediately pick a miniature off the grid and ask, "So, do you want to take a move action?" Maybe I'll have 6 minions for every normal monster instead of 4 and it'll balance out? Maybe I'll just see how I like the minion rules as is after another half dozen sessions.

Nah, allowing minions to die on a miss defeats the balance between paper tigers and dire tigers. Reaping Strike, for instance, is a first level fighter power that does damage on a miss. This means that any fighter will be able to effortlessly kill any minion, making them just boring. At least if they roll to hit, it makes them "feel" like they're fighting, as opposed to just playing checkers.

Auto-hit attacks remain pretty rare, I think. I haven't done a really thorough reading of all the powers.


Finally, I may homebrew a line of ranged attack powers for Fighters and Paladins, to allow a primary Meleeist to occasionally do cool things with a bow or thrown weapons when he needs to. Sometimes a bad guy is just hideously inefficient to attempt to engage in melee consistently, Like Dracoliches, or you just want to be able to rain death down from advantaged terrain, or whatever. Clerics have their Lazor abilities, and I'm fairly sure rogues work somewhat well at range, though I admit to not memorizing every detail of how classes work so far. Obviously Rangers, Warlocks, and Wizards are all fine at range. Mostly I want to facilitate Fighters and Paladins being able to do cool stuff while standing on a castle battlement, and not wait twiddling his or her thumbs until the door gets broken down for them to get some excitement.

I can see why WotC did this segregation though - the crunchies stay up front, and the squishies stay in the back. If I'm making a fighter who wants some awesome ranged powers, I'd have them multiclass with ranger and take one of those sweet bow powers. The demise of the mighty bow is kind of sad, though.

[Zocelot]

Intelligence needs more use.

All multiclassing requires Int 13. Wizards multiclassing requires Int 15

Skills need to be less static.

At level 1, you may choose to train in less skills then normal, and receive Skill Focus for every skill less then normal you do not train in.

New Feat:
Master Practitioner
Prerequisistes: Skill Focus, Int 13
You receive a +1 feat bonus to all skills in which you have skill focus. This bonus increases to +2 at 11th level and +3 at 21st level.
Special: This bonus stacks with the bonus from Skill Focus

Options in combat (besides powers) are weak.

Aid Another: You roll against half of the AC or DC.
Bull Rush: You push the opponent back one square for every 5 points your Strength attack exceeds their Fortitude.
Charging: You may use at-will powers at the end of your charge. If the attack is against AC or Reflex, you gain a +2 bonus to the attack. You take a -2 penalty to you AC and Reflex until the start of your next turn.
Grab: You may make unarmed attacks while grabbing someone, or while in a grab.
Total Defense: You gain a +4 bonus to all defenses.
Partial Defense: Minor action. You take a -5 penalty to attacks, and gain a +2bonus to all defenses.

This thread should have been put in the homebrew section.

If you like my work, and want anything homebrewed, PM me. I'll do it, but I can't guarantee you'll like it.

[hamishspence]

Desert trek:

DMG p79 Skill Challenge: lost in the Wilderness. Not much need to homebrew: maybe higher complexity, harder DCs, lose extra healing surges, etc.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Intelligence needs more use.

All multiclassing requires Int 13. Wizards multiclassing requires Int 15

More use? It already can be substituted for your Dex in AC and Reflex. Not to mention several powers which use INT damage. I guess it's not as essential as it was in 3rd, with it determining your skill points (and WIS is much more important now) but I'd hardly say it is under-served. How do you figure?


Options in combat (besides powers) are weak.

Aid Another: You roll against half of the AC or DC.
Bull Rush: You push the opponent back one square for every 5 points your Strength attack exceeds their Fortitude.
Charging: You may use at-will powers at the end of your charge. If the attack is against AC or Reflex, you gain a +2 bonus to the attack. You take a -2 penalty to you AC and Reflex until the start of your next turn.
Grab: You may make unarmed attacks while grabbing someone, or while in a grab.
Total Defense: You gain a +4 bonus to all defenses.
Partial Defense: Minor action. You take a -5 penalty to attacks, and gain a +2bonus to all defenses.

Considering how much powers deal with things like shifting (Bull Rush, Charge) and defense (Total Defense), is it really necessary to complicate these powers again? Why did you make this change?

[Avor]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Dnd_v3_5_rulesbooks.png

100% agreed

[Zocelot]

More use? It already can be substituted for your Dex in AC and Reflex. Not to mention several powers which use INT damage. I guess it's not as essential as it was in 3rd, with it determining your skill points (and WIS is much more important now) but I'd hardly say it is under-served. How do you figure?



Considering how much powers deal with things like shifting (Bull Rush, Charge) and defense (Total Defense), is it really necessary to complicate these powers again? Why did you make this change?

1. Everybody who doesn't have Int as a necessary skill will go for Dex for AC and Reflex. It's more important because it applies to ranged weapons, and the more useful skill checks.

2. The reason for this is because I believe every character should be able to do the combat actions, not just the people who belong to certain classes (and even then, only if they take the right power). Combat actions are generic, and should be able to be used by anyone at any time. Also, they were some of the things I liked best about 3.5e.

[Zeta Kai]

<image of the 3.5 core books>

Ah, proof that a picture truly IS worth a thousand words. My sentiments exactly.

[Skyrocket]

I'm keeping the 3.5 body slot rules. I really like magic items, having PCs decked out in them and the crunch the comes with trying to find just the right ones for my characters.

Oh, and pretty much any item from 3.5/3.0 is usable in my games.

[Jerthanis]

Yeah, that was one of mine.

Overall, I think this will be a good house rule. I'd also use it in "extreme" situations such as a forced march or desert journey to simulate fatigue while keeping characters at fighting strength.

Yeah, I would've credited you with the idea, but I didn't remember which thread it was from, and didn't care to try and track it down on a vague recollection. It's a great idea.


Nah, allowing minions to die on a miss defeats the balance between paper tigers and dire tigers. Reaping Strike, for instance, is a first level fighter power that does damage on a miss. This means that any fighter will be able to effortlessly kill any minion, making them just boring. At least if they roll to hit, it makes them "feel" like they're fighting, as opposed to just playing checkers.

Auto-hit attacks remain pretty rare, I think. I haven't done a really thorough reading of all the powers.

I know, and this is why I'm seesawing on the issue. My idea for why it'd be balanced with reaping strike is the fact that killing a single minion doesn't change much about the battlefield, and a fighter who chose to do that didn't choose to use an ability like Come and Get It, which could potentially kill 4 or more minions at once. Of course, I will have to take serious looks at Wizard encounter powers to make sure 90% of them don't do miss damage at an area. I'm okay with dailies killing as many minions as possible... after all, Dailies like Rain of Blades and Flaming Sphere will already auto-kill minions in their areas without attack rolls. Like I said, I'm going to see how it works as is for a few more sessions before I decide one way or the other.



I can see why WotC did this segregation though - the crunchies stay up front, and the squishies stay in the back. If I'm making a fighter who wants some awesome ranged powers, I'd have them multiclass with ranger and take one of those sweet bow powers. The demise of the mighty bow is kind of sad, though.

Yeah... but some fighters won't want specifically to do that multiclass. Also, Ranger archery powers aren't always what you'd want out of Fighter archery powers. It's hard to describe what I mean here, but if I were to homebrew a Fighter line of ranged powers they'd be subtly different than most Ranger powers.

Then again... I've still got to get used to this system before I start playing around with it so deeply.

[AKA_Bait]

I'm keeping the 3.5 body slot rules. I really like magic items, having PCs decked out in them and the crunch the comes with trying to find just the right ones for my characters.

Oh, and pretty much any item from 3.5/3.0 is usable in my games.

Including the stat boosting items? Perpare for carnage...

[THAC0]

I'm getting rid of Dragonborn. :wink:

[Zocelot]

Yeah... but some fighters won't want specifically to do that multiclass. Also, Ranger archery powers aren't always what you'd want out of Fighter archery powers. It's hard to describe what I mean here, but if I were to homebrew a Fighter line of ranged powers they'd be subtly different than most Ranger powers.


The fighter is primarily a tank, secondarily a striker. Using a bow, pretty much defeats the purpose of tanking. The archery powes for the fighter were purposely not included, in order to make fighters fit the role of tank.

Any defender shouldn't be using a bow. You'd need a class that focuses completely on ranged weapons. (Oh, we already have one. It's called a Ranger)

[Oracle_Hunter]

The fighter is primarily a tank, secondarily a striker. Using a bow, pretty much defeats the purpose of tanking. The archery powes for the fighter were purposely not included, in order to make fighters fit the role of tank.

Any defender shouldn't be using a bow. You'd need a class that focuses completely on ranged weapons. (Oh, we already have one. It's called a Ranger)

Simma down.

Dude just wants to have fighters with some bow skill. You like everyone to have awesome combat maneuvers, he wants fighters to have bows - both break the strict role mould.

Personally, I think throwing bow powers into fighters is going to be problematic for the same reason it was weird making 3rd Ed. fighters bow masters - the guys have training with big swords and heavy armor, and so they're going to hang back in light armor and use bows? Yes, 3rd edition didn't really let Rangers do the bow-mastery thing right, and they all had a nature-worship bent.

Ranger in 4e as a hunter & style fighter works pretty well for me, but it's not for everyone.

[F.L.]

Mainly at the moment I'm dissappointed with some changes to some of the monsters/races/etc. I'm also a little unimpressed with ritual and power selections for magi, but that'll probably get better eventually. I miss some flavor details, but really, those can be put back in by any DM in their own setting. Still like 3.5 better for the time being.

[Dacia Brabant]

The fighter is primarily a tank, secondarily a striker. Using a bow, pretty much defeats the purpose of tanking. The archery powes for the fighter were purposely not included, in order to make fighters fit the role of tank.

Any defender shouldn't be using a bow. You'd need a class that focuses completely on ranged weapons. (Oh, we already have one. It's called a Ranger)

Except the Ranger archetype has always been that of the lone woodsman, which yes is known for archery ever since Robin Hood, but that doesn't at all mesh with well-established military traditions of missile soldiers--from French crossbowmen to mounted samurai archers, there's a long history of armored troops and millitias who specialize in archery, none of which resemble the Dunedain.

(Also, I'm getting pretty sick of seeing people telling other people how they're supposed to play the darn game in all these 4e threads, though I'm starting to wonder if this "you have to play X character exactly this way" attitude is going to be a common feature in this system with such concrete roles. Disturbing if so.)

I've seen people say that people can just rename the Ranger to Archer and change some of the flavor text if they want to play a bow-using soldier, but it still restricts them to essentially a guerilla warrior the way the class is designed for light armor, mobility and stealth. Are there any Ranger paragon paths that would make sense for a soldier?

I also want to point out that tanks, at least in MMOs, have a primary role of drawing aggro which also means that in groups they exist as much to pull the mobs onto them as they do to keep them there, and pulling is always something done at range beyond melee. If the Fighter in D&D has a secondary role as a striker to the primary role of tank, then allowing him to strike from a distance at least initially makes sense for the sake of drawing the monsters onto him in encounters that begin more than a few squares away.

I can see Fighters having encounter powers for ranged weapons designed to get the monsters' attention and make them want to kill the guy who just filled them up with arrow holes, or that lets them shoot for big damage at melee range.

[Skyrocket]

Including the stat boosting items? Perpare for carnage...

I did say "pretty much." Stat boost items will be decided on a case-by-case basis.