In 4e D&D they cut the number of attacks per round down to one. I built a two-weapon fighter who was capable of making four attacks in one round occasionally. The extra attacks are nice for quickly taking out a crowd of minions.
I've also seen a ranger be awesome with a bow. I guess it would really depend on how well they implement both rulesets and which ones really works better in game. Also, the archer really needs someone to hold the monsters back for him.
Not if there body hits the floor first :x. Fwooph. Right between the eyes <. (I am a bow and arrow user if you can't tell. Long live sharshooting!)
Wow! I wonder if people do realize being a ranger does not have anything to do with sword, longbow and pistol but mobility, stealth and tracking ... ... ... ... still wondering.
0
denkasaebaMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Wow! I wonder if people do realize being a ranger does not have anything to do with sword, longbow and pistol but mobility, stealth and tracking ... ... ... ... still wondering.
Right on Gillrmn... Ranger are formost wildernes trackers and guides. They utilize light weapons and armor for stealth and mobility while moving thru the wilds. They almost always will be found with a bow even if they choose dual weilding for their choice of mele combat, this is because they spend a majority of their lives out doors and must hunt for their food and thru that life style they also learn allot of nature and basic healing.
As a D&D Roll player I am first and foremost a Druid when possible, from their its the Ranger and then Rogues. My prefered race is Wood and or Wild Elves when playing my class. Thrue the years I have went back and forth between dual weild and Archer on my Ranger builds, it really depends on how I envision that character and how I will roll play him, where he will fit in most with the rest of my group and the roll I'll play in said group.
Needless to say Rangers were an awesom class even before the likes of the famed Drizzt! Will I be a Drow Ranger in NW??? Maybe though I'd give my left nut to see a druid...Currently hoping to see a Ranger as it is................
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
elewyndylMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Actually in this game your auto unmount immediately if you engage in combat or someone attacks you and that applies for both PvE and PvP. Therefore if you want to keep shooting from ranged distance and every now and then run a bit movement can be useful. I don't know if you can also shoot at same time as moving/running but that is absolutely not possible if you are riding a mount.
Right on Gillrmn... Ranger are formost wildernes trackers and guides. They utilize light weapons and armor for stealth and mobility while moving thru the wilds. They almost always will be found with a bow even if they choose dual weilding for their choice of mele combat, this is because they spend a majority of their lives out doors and must hunt for their food and thru that life style they also learn allot of nature and basic healing. ................
Exactly! I share in the hate of emo Drizzt due to many other reasons ...
Yeah, even when they have bows, they are not really archers - they are rangers - something like human beings were before they took on agriculture. They are not expert swordsmen, but more akin to hunters and trackers in the wild.
A ranger bends down and smells the land. There were three of orcs. One of them broke wind at this very place...
0
muzrub333Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited January 2013
What are these things you speak of? Must be 4e stuff. My ranger always had a bow, a handaxe, and a HAMSTER sword. Studded armor, (or Elven chain if I could get it), soft leather boots, and a cloak of Elven kind. Bow with a strength bonus could absolutely devastate foes, and the HAMSTER sword had nice stats too. A stealthy bringer of death, who could gather up a nice meal, and make a fire pretty much anyplace the party might need.
That is not exactly the case. While it certainly did inspire the fantasy genre, the word Ranger and its themes comes from before those times.
Ranger is a military unit based on mobility to stalk its prey. Using bows, animals and being a good tracker in reading tracks all come from there - not vice versa.
EDIT:
Aragon is a subset of rangers, not other way round.
I agree the term ranger came before LotR and its meaning can be varied but in the context of D&D, the ranger class was originally inspired by Aragorn. And you are correct in stating that the class had nothing to do with what type of weapon they used but their methods of engaging their foes. They were scouts, trackers and specialists. It saddens me that the current class is so limited in their weapon/combat style.
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited January 2013
Rangers have indeed existed for much longer than Dungeons and Dragons as well as Lord of the Rings but the concepts have remained the same.
Familiarity with the wilderness, lighter armor, stealth, tracking.
I can also argue light weaponry isn't considered part of the repertoire. Certainly just about every ranger you will read about in D&D does carry a bow but they're not always or even often the primary weapon. The great thing about the ranger is they use weapons based on the need so while many do use a bow it is only for hunting or when the fight at hand can be benefited by the use of a bow.
If I can shoot you a few times before you canswing at me, I'm going to! That doesn't make it the primary weapon simply because any good ranger carries one.
The two handed fighter build for 4E may suck but it's not "oh rangers don't use anything but light weapons."
The most famous of rangers, other than Aragorn, also used a two handed sword when you first meet him. Good old Minsc.
Two handed weapon rangers died with the free benefits of Dual Wielding in Third Edition. That's a side effect of the game making one method just far superior to the other method.
It has nothing to do with right or wrong for the class...simply made far less viable from a power-gaming perspective.
...
I can also argue light weaponry isn't considered part of the repertoire. Certainly just about every ranger you will read about in D&D does carry a bow but they're not always or even often the primary weapon. ....
There are 2 reasons why rangers always carry a bow:
- It is a silent weapon
- You do not need to take your eyes off the target.
Crossbow: the only weapon to compete longbow is not beneficial in either.
However, if a ranger often faces foes with heavy armor, he will instead be using crossbows instead of longbows. That is because they change their weapons according to enemy.
However, still the rangers who use crossbows or two-handed weapons will be rare - only available at places where they have problems using longbows and one handed swords on enemies.
Odd discussion, everyone sticking to their idea of the definition of the ranger class, role or definition...
Lets face it, ranger describes a wanderer, by definition, It is often applied to armed forces involved in patrolling regions.
Applied to a class, we can encompass the hunter, skirmisher,scout, tracker, survivalist subsets.. Its not that ranger has to mean what weapon he uses, or what tactics he employs.. The only thing we attribute to the ranger is that he is fast moving, adept at moving through the land, and observational.. every other attribute is implied.. i.e survivalist or stealth.
the rule set will dictate which is best, but as to which is preferred.. hell i hope the game is flexible enough for me to have a halfling rogue with a 2h greatsword in each hand... screaming into battle on the back of a giant black bear
... The only thing we attribute to the ranger is that he is fast moving, adept at moving through the land, and observational.. every other attribute is implied.. i.e survivalist or stealth.
...
I think everybody is already in agreement to that - it is implied ones we are debating about.
...Ranger is a military unit based on mobility to stalk its prey. Using bows, animals and being a good tracker in reading tracks all come from there...
Um, yeah "Ranger" has never meant ranged weapons until recent years with the onslaught of MMO's. Rangers are first and foremost people who know how to survive in the wild. Minor healing abilities and woodland affinity. Aruguably their orgins are based on Lord of the Ring's Aragorn more than anythign else.
They are not, by any means, considered the Archer Class though there are certainly rangers which specialize in archery.
....
The parts not quoted here are in hot discussion - i.e. which weapons are more ranger-ish to an iconic ranger.
Anti-drizzt faction is in favor of bows as they are more iconic, while pro-drizzt fan clucb want dual wielding-scimtars. Others like beastmaster club etc are in favor of a ranger with a jeep.
EDIT: Remember they do say iconic classes in interviews. Hence we are kind of debating which ranger should come first.
my post was a wish that the game is flexible enough to allow us to do things that we want to do not that the ruleset dictates us to do.. regardless of the inadvisability of it..
Can you imagine the skill checks, and reduction to my attack rolls for my mad halfling rogue? yet it was allowed oh and a critical failure of dropping the great sword and causing 1d8 damage to my own black bear who got annoyed and attacked my group.. I miss 3.5
Okay okay maybe thats a bit too far to go for freedom.. but dont tie us into using weapons that is dictated by interpretations of classes and roles. Whether your wish is to specialise in ranged or dual wield, I would be impressed to see a build that balances the two.. as there is always times when close up and personal is better than range.. and vice versa..
I do think that pets should happen though.. makes the class a bit more special
If there are pets, and the pets have good animations and idles and either good or highly controllable AI*, I'll probably go for melee ranger over Rogue for my first melee character. Otherwise, it'll take some amazing levels of stabby bastarding to edge out what we've already seen for the Rogue. Or spears. I do love me some spears. Spear + loincloth + animal companion = ohyesss
*of the sort that doesn't get stuck on doorways, plummet to its death over the nearest pit of doom, or draw aggro on the entire dungeon at once.
The parts not quoted here are in hot discussion - i.e. which weapons are more ranger-ish to an iconic ranger.
Anti-drizzt faction is in favor of bows as they are more iconic, while pro-drizzt fan clucb want dual wielding-scimtars. Others like beastmaster club etc are in favor of a ranger with a jeep.
EDIT: Remember they do say iconic classes in interviews. Hence we are kind of debating which ranger should come first.
If they are going by current MMO trends, the iconic ranger is the archer. 4e uses both the bow ranger and the dual wielding ranger. I suspect the first will be the bow ranger because the old preview silhouette seemed to suggest the ranger class used a bow.
And I haven't cracked open my 4e books in a long time but I don't believe rangers get pets, at least not in the core books.
There are 2 reasons why rangers always carry a bow:
- It is a silent weapon
- You do not need to take your eyes off the target.
I think you are inferring a bit too much here. Fighters regularly carry bows too. In fact, pretty much every class has some sort of ranged ability. It's just generally wise to have some sort of ranged weapon before you close the gap.
i.e. which weapons are more ranger-ish to an iconic ranger.
Anti-drizzt faction is in favor of bows as they are more iconic, while pro-drizzt fan clucb want dual wielding-scimtars. Others like beastmaster club etc are in favor of a ranger with a jeep.
Considering the classes that we know off, a Ranger using a bow as main feature would be better than a Ranger using any kind of melee weapon (two-blades or not). More diversity, you know. Beyond that, there is no "iconic", only "I prefer/like...". I do prefer two-blades (not necesarily two scimitars...) of the existing options because it's a style that I like, no matter the class. I have tried countless times to do a nice dual wielding (human) paladin in NwN1&2. 3(3.5) D&D is not nice for such "freaks" though.
In any case, all the characters no mater the class, should try to have gear that allows combat at different ranges. Some encounters may make melee combat difficult at best* while others may make ranged combat also difficult**. It'd be nice if we had something like that in Neverwinter (Cryptic and/or Foundry).
*like ranged enemies in terrain of difficult access, or like flying enemies that don't happen to land so the PCs have an easier time to deal with them despite their lack of bows/slings/crossbows/stones... (to totally depend on the Wizard to do all the ranged combat may not be so wise)
** bad weather, some cave system in the Underdark, being sniped to death in the ambush turn by the enemy archers...
I think you are inferring a bit too much here. Fighters regularly carry bows too. In fact, pretty much every class has some sort of ranged ability. It's just generally wise to have some sort of ranged weapon before you close the gap.
I thought it was obvious.
Fighters prefer crossbows. The reason being that a crossbow requires strength to load it. Also its spring mechanism is very creaky and noisy. Also reloading requires you to keep it secured in legs or somewhere and you have to look away from target.
However, crossbows can pierce armor as their bolts are stronger and have more potential energy in them due to spring loading.
I thought it was obvious.
Fighters prefer crossbows. The reason being that a crossbow requires strength to load it. Also its spring mechanism is very creaky and noisy. Also reloading requires you to keep it secured in legs or somewhere and you have to look away from target.
However, crossbows can pierce armor as their bolts are stronger and have more potential energy in them due to spring loading.
Bows are silent and easier to reload.
Exactly what are you referring to? You're bouncing from D&D mechanics to real life examples. In D&D, crossbows and bows are exactly the same except for rate of fire and whether or not you can add strength modifiers to damage and whether they are classified as a simple or martial ranged weapon. So I'm not sure why a bow being silent in real life has any purpose to this discussion?
And most of the players who used fighters I knew almost always opted to bows because you could add strength damage. Again, not sure where you got the idea crossbows are for fighters and bows are for rangers.
And I haven't cracked open my 4e books in a long time but I don't believe rangers get pets, at least not in the core books.
In the PHB they do not, later on there was a Ranger build option released where you get a pet and completely focus on it, all of your attacks are you and your pet double teaming it, stuff like that, and you loose some of the things you would have gotten if you had done archer/dual blades.
Besides that, there are character Themes you can choose that give you pets with some options on them that would more than cover the "have a pet that helps in combat" part of Rangers while still letting you do the archery/dual wield.
I havent played a 4e ranger, only played with them, but from what I saw they were pretty fun looking. I am looking through the character creator on the D&D site (subscription is totally worth it for anyone who plays 4e regularly by the way, with that and a PHB you do not need any other books to have ALL character options). The one that I want to look into a bit more now is the Marauder build, you specialize in weilding two weapons, your off hand is a thrown weapon you can use to parry/hit/throw. That sounds pretty fun...
There is no right answer for what a ranger is or should be. I personally feel like MMOs are getting stuck in certain roles too much, ie rangers shoot arrows and maybe have a close ranged attack or two, fighters use swords and maybe have a ranged attack or two. I would like the option to do either one on both, but have reasons of one person wanting to choose an archery fighter over an archery ranger, and vice versa.
There is no right answer for what a ranger is or should be. I personally feel like MMOs are getting stuck in certain roles too much, ie rangers shoot arrows and maybe have a close ranged attack or two, fighters use swords and maybe have a ranged attack or two. I would like the option to do either one on both, but have reasons of one person wanting to choose an archery fighter over an archery ranger, and vice versa.
In 4e P&P
Melee characters have much more option for range weapon back-up.
Because ALL magic-enchant throwing weapons will return to the owner after each attack.
Str melee often use javelin or handaxe for range back-up
because they are "heavy thrown" weapon(use Str for attack roll and damage roll).
Dex melee use bow/crossbow or ever dagger
because its use Dex.(dagger is "light thrown" weapon, it's use dex for throwing only,in melee it's still use Str)
And for Heavy blade/Light Blade weapon group,
it's had special magic weapon "Farbond Spell Blade", it's add heavy thrown properties to that weapon.
They can use throwing Longsword or ever Greatsword.
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
If they are going by current MMO trends, the iconic ranger is the archer. 4e uses both the bow ranger and the dual wielding ranger. I suspect the first will be the bow ranger because the old preview silhouette seemed to suggest the ranger class used a bow.
And I haven't cracked open my 4e books in a long time but I don't believe rangers get pets, at least not in the core books.
Yes, they can for years after the Martial powers books. I'll detail it in the below quote.
In the PHB they do not, later on there was a Ranger build option released where you get a pet and completely focus on it, all of your attacks are you and your pet double teaming it, stuff like that, and you loose some of the things you would have gotten if you had done archer/dual blades.
Beastmaster
Besides that, there are character Themes you can choose that give you pets with some options on them that would more than cover the "have a pet that helps in combat" part of Rangers while still letting you do the archery/dual wield.
Animal Master, Fey Beast Tamer
I havent played a 4e ranger, only played with them, but from what I saw they were pretty fun looking. I am looking through the character creator on the D&D site (subscription is totally worth it for anyone who plays 4e regularly by the way, with that and a PHB you do not need any other books to have ALL character options). The one that I want to look into a bit more now is the Marauder build, you specialize in weilding two weapons, your off hand is a thrown weapon you can use to parry/hit/throw. That sounds pretty fun...
It is...
There is no right answer for what a ranger is or should be. I personally feel like MMOs are getting stuck in certain roles too much, ie rangers shoot arrows and maybe have a close ranged attack or two, fighters use swords and maybe have a ranged attack or two. I would like the option to do either one on both, but have reasons of one person wanting to choose an archery fighter over an archery ranger, and vice versa.
The way this MMO seems to be doing it is via "builds" as "classes," each "build" being its own independent setup. So we might have a dual wield one, an archery one, a beast one, etc.
As noted before, this is both D&D and an MMO. That means we're using those rules both.
I thought it was obvious.
Fighters prefer crossbows. The reason being that a crossbow requires strength to load it. Also its spring mechanism is very creaky and noisy. Also reloading requires you to keep it secured in legs or somewhere and you have to look away from target.
However, crossbows can pierce armor as their bolts are stronger and have more potential energy in them due to spring loading.
Bows are silent and easier to reload.
Nope, speaking on the D&D-centric and not real world, crossbows have the easier use of cocking the winch making anybody load the bolt while bows are using the strength of the wielder including the strength bows we historically saw in multiple editions.
Historically in "tales mirroring reality when not interspersed with magic and creatures," Odysseus slew the courters after his wife by nocking the "nigh impossible" bowstring and slew the suitors by drawing and firing it, something nobody else had the muscle and endurance for.
Nice videos, sufficient to prove my point - almost word by word.
I thought it was obvious.
Fighters prefer crossbows. The reason being that a crossbow requires strength to load it. Also its spring mechanism is very creaky and noisy. Also reloading requires you to keep it secured in legs or somewhere and you have to look away from target.
However, crossbows can pierce armor as their bolts are stronger and have more potential energy in them due to spring loading.
Bows are silent and easier to reload.
Longbow is of no use to fighter martial fighting armored opponents. Ranger who lives in wild and fights animals in his territory needs bows as they are silent and quick to load.
Infact fighter snipers of medieval times used to use crossbows with only one shot. For two or three shots, they used to carry two crossbows with them instead of trying to reload.
EDIT:
One point which was not stressed in videos was that even though Crossbows are faster, longbows have longer range.
This is because the crossbow is used for targets in straight lines, while a long bow can be fired efficiently at 45 degree of angle. This is because use of longbow requires expertize, while crossbows are made for anyone to load and fire.
Comments
Not if there body hits the floor first :x. Fwooph. Right between the eyes
Irrelevant, when you're riding a warboar.
St. Augustinus
Right on Gillrmn... Ranger are formost wildernes trackers and guides. They utilize light weapons and armor for stealth and mobility while moving thru the wilds. They almost always will be found with a bow even if they choose dual weilding for their choice of mele combat, this is because they spend a majority of their lives out doors and must hunt for their food and thru that life style they also learn allot of nature and basic healing.
As a D&D Roll player I am first and foremost a Druid when possible, from their its the Ranger and then Rogues. My prefered race is Wood and or Wild Elves when playing my class. Thrue the years I have went back and forth between dual weild and Archer on my Ranger builds, it really depends on how I envision that character and how I will roll play him, where he will fit in most with the rest of my group and the roll I'll play in said group.
Needless to say Rangers were an awesom class even before the likes of the famed Drizzt! Will I be a Drow Ranger in NW??? Maybe though I'd give my left nut to see a druid...Currently hoping to see a Ranger as it is................
Exactly! I share in the hate of emo Drizzt due to many other reasons ...
Yeah, even when they have bows, they are not really archers - they are rangers - something like human beings were before they took on agriculture. They are not expert swordsmen, but more akin to hunters and trackers in the wild.
I agree the term ranger came before LotR and its meaning can be varied but in the context of D&D, the ranger class was originally inspired by Aragorn. And you are correct in stating that the class had nothing to do with what type of weapon they used but their methods of engaging their foes. They were scouts, trackers and specialists. It saddens me that the current class is so limited in their weapon/combat style.
Familiarity with the wilderness, lighter armor, stealth, tracking.
I can also argue light weaponry isn't considered part of the repertoire. Certainly just about every ranger you will read about in D&D does carry a bow but they're not always or even often the primary weapon. The great thing about the ranger is they use weapons based on the need so while many do use a bow it is only for hunting or when the fight at hand can be benefited by the use of a bow.
If I can shoot you a few times before you canswing at me, I'm going to! That doesn't make it the primary weapon simply because any good ranger carries one.
The two handed fighter build for 4E may suck but it's not "oh rangers don't use anything but light weapons."
The most famous of rangers, other than Aragorn, also used a two handed sword when you first meet him. Good old Minsc.
Two handed weapon rangers died with the free benefits of Dual Wielding in Third Edition. That's a side effect of the game making one method just far superior to the other method.
It has nothing to do with right or wrong for the class...simply made far less viable from a power-gaming perspective.
There are 2 reasons why rangers always carry a bow:
- It is a silent weapon
- You do not need to take your eyes off the target.
Crossbow: the only weapon to compete longbow is not beneficial in either.
However, if a ranger often faces foes with heavy armor, he will instead be using crossbows instead of longbows. That is because they change their weapons according to enemy.
However, still the rangers who use crossbows or two-handed weapons will be rare - only available at places where they have problems using longbows and one handed swords on enemies.
Lets face it, ranger describes a wanderer, by definition, It is often applied to armed forces involved in patrolling regions.
Applied to a class, we can encompass the hunter, skirmisher,scout, tracker, survivalist subsets.. Its not that ranger has to mean what weapon he uses, or what tactics he employs.. The only thing we attribute to the ranger is that he is fast moving, adept at moving through the land, and observational.. every other attribute is implied.. i.e survivalist or stealth.
the rule set will dictate which is best, but as to which is preferred.. hell i hope the game is flexible enough for me to have a halfling rogue with a 2h greatsword in each hand... screaming into battle on the back of a giant black bear
The one and only thing i like abot gw2 was the weapon swap option thou.
I think everybody is already in agreement to that - it is implied ones we are debating about.
The parts not quoted here are in hot discussion - i.e. which weapons are more ranger-ish to an iconic ranger.
Anti-drizzt faction is in favor of bows as they are more iconic, while pro-drizzt fan clucb want dual wielding-scimtars. Others like beastmaster club etc are in favor of a ranger with a jeep.
EDIT: Remember they do say iconic classes in interviews. Hence we are kind of debating which ranger should come first.
Can you imagine the skill checks, and reduction to my attack rolls for my mad halfling rogue? yet it was allowed
Okay okay maybe thats a bit too far to go for freedom.. but dont tie us into using weapons that is dictated by interpretations of classes and roles. Whether your wish is to specialise in ranged or dual wield, I would be impressed to see a build that balances the two.. as there is always times when close up and personal is better than range.. and vice versa..
I do think that pets should happen though.. makes the class a bit more special
*of the sort that doesn't get stuck on doorways, plummet to its death over the nearest pit of doom, or draw aggro on the entire dungeon at once.
If they are going by current MMO trends, the iconic ranger is the archer. 4e uses both the bow ranger and the dual wielding ranger. I suspect the first will be the bow ranger because the old preview silhouette seemed to suggest the ranger class used a bow.
And I haven't cracked open my 4e books in a long time but I don't believe rangers get pets, at least not in the core books.
I think you are inferring a bit too much here. Fighters regularly carry bows too. In fact, pretty much every class has some sort of ranged ability. It's just generally wise to have some sort of ranged weapon before you close the gap.
In any case, all the characters no mater the class, should try to have gear that allows combat at different ranges. Some encounters may make melee combat difficult at best* while others may make ranged combat also difficult**. It'd be nice if we had something like that in Neverwinter (Cryptic and/or Foundry).
*like ranged enemies in terrain of difficult access, or like flying enemies that don't happen to land so the PCs have an easier time to deal with them despite their lack of bows/slings/crossbows/stones... (to totally depend on the Wizard to do all the ranged combat may not be so wise)
** bad weather, some cave system in the Underdark, being sniped to death in the ambush turn by the enemy archers...
I thought it was obvious.
Fighters prefer crossbows. The reason being that a crossbow requires strength to load it. Also its spring mechanism is very creaky and noisy. Also reloading requires you to keep it secured in legs or somewhere and you have to look away from target.
However, crossbows can pierce armor as their bolts are stronger and have more potential energy in them due to spring loading.
Bows are silent and easier to reload.
Exactly what are you referring to? You're bouncing from D&D mechanics to real life examples. In D&D, crossbows and bows are exactly the same except for rate of fire and whether or not you can add strength modifiers to damage and whether they are classified as a simple or martial ranged weapon. So I'm not sure why a bow being silent in real life has any purpose to this discussion?
And most of the players who used fighters I knew almost always opted to bows because you could add strength damage. Again, not sure where you got the idea crossbows are for fighters and bows are for rangers.
In the PHB they do not, later on there was a Ranger build option released where you get a pet and completely focus on it, all of your attacks are you and your pet double teaming it, stuff like that, and you loose some of the things you would have gotten if you had done archer/dual blades.
Besides that, there are character Themes you can choose that give you pets with some options on them that would more than cover the "have a pet that helps in combat" part of Rangers while still letting you do the archery/dual wield.
I havent played a 4e ranger, only played with them, but from what I saw they were pretty fun looking. I am looking through the character creator on the D&D site (subscription is totally worth it for anyone who plays 4e regularly by the way, with that and a PHB you do not need any other books to have ALL character options). The one that I want to look into a bit more now is the Marauder build, you specialize in weilding two weapons, your off hand is a thrown weapon you can use to parry/hit/throw. That sounds pretty fun...
There is no right answer for what a ranger is or should be. I personally feel like MMOs are getting stuck in certain roles too much, ie rangers shoot arrows and maybe have a close ranged attack or two, fighters use swords and maybe have a ranged attack or two. I would like the option to do either one on both, but have reasons of one person wanting to choose an archery fighter over an archery ranger, and vice versa.
My sentiments exactly.
Melee characters have much more option for range weapon back-up.
Because ALL magic-enchant throwing weapons will return to the owner after each attack.
Str melee often use javelin or handaxe for range back-up
because they are "heavy thrown" weapon(use Str for attack roll and damage roll).
Dex melee use bow/crossbow or ever dagger
because its use Dex.(dagger is "light thrown" weapon, it's use dex for throwing only,in melee it's still use Str)
And for Heavy blade/Light Blade weapon group,
it's had special magic weapon "Farbond Spell Blade", it's add heavy thrown properties to that weapon.
They can use throwing Longsword or ever Greatsword.
Yes, they can for years after the Martial powers books. I'll detail it in the below quote.
As noted before, this is both D&D and an MMO. That means we're using those rules both.
Nope, speaking on the D&D-centric and not real world, crossbows have the easier use of cocking the winch making anybody load the bolt while bows are using the strength of the wielder including the strength bows we historically saw in multiple editions.
Historically in "tales mirroring reality when not interspersed with magic and creatures," Odysseus slew the courters after his wife by nocking the "nigh impossible" bowstring and slew the suitors by drawing and firing it, something nobody else had the muscle and endurance for.
Crossbow 102
Longbow is of no use to fighter martial fighting armored opponents. Ranger who lives in wild and fights animals in his territory needs bows as they are silent and quick to load.
Infact fighter snipers of medieval times used to use crossbows with only one shot. For two or three shots, they used to carry two crossbows with them instead of trying to reload.
EDIT:
One point which was not stressed in videos was that even though Crossbows are faster, longbows have longer range.
This is because the crossbow is used for targets in straight lines, while a long bow can be fired efficiently at 45 degree of angle. This is because use of longbow requires expertize, while crossbows are made for anyone to load and fire.