House Rule: Tactical Ranged CA

I had an idea, and thought I'd run it past my fellow 4e fans:

Combatants get CA on ranged attacks against enemies who are 1) adjacent to one or more of the attacker's allies and 2) have nothing between themselves and the attacker. Basically, you can 'flank' enemies using your bow or whatever, so long as you have a clear shot. Which I think makes a lot of sense; it's hard for the bad guy to dodge your arrows when he's also trying to parry your buddy's sword thrusts.

This solves two issues: It gives ranged combatants a semi-reliable way to get CA that doesn't involve feats, and it creates an incentive for ranged combatants to move around the battlefield that doesn't involve Prime Shot.

Thoughts?

I like condition number 2 better than the prime shot... it seems a definite benefit but I would think you would replace prime shot perhaps?

Here's a question: Are ranged attacks better than melee attacks?

Conventional wisdom has said that yes, when you attack with a ranged weapon you're in a better situation then someone in melee because it's harder to damage you. 3.5e did this by "supposedly" giving ranged characters less damage (I question this. In Pathfinder I was able to deal as much damage as the fighter using only the Core Rulebook. Now with all the splatbooks I think ranged characters are overpowered in 3.5e). In 4th ed (AFAIK) the Archer Ranger deals as much damage as the Two-Weapon Ranger. So therefore the only difference is that Melee Rangers can flank (giving them a +2 to hit).

I'm a bit burnt out on archers due to Pathfinder. In 4th ed I'd probably be more than happy with this rule as you can't get around provoking an AoO when you make a ranged attack. Cornering an archer puts them in a very bad situation as their melee basic attack will be awful. So I'm happy to let them flank.

I dunno about that, while a strait dex archer ranger might suck with the melee attacks, I have a human scout who uses a rapid longbow and twin strike for opening turns where I can't reach melee (move + twin strike + minor action RBA) or where melee just isn't an option at the moment. My melee attacks certainly don't suck.

Similarly, a rogue can use a bow and melee attacks off of dex, an archer warlord uses strength for his bow attacks, and the hunter can use an RBA in melee without provoking after level 9. It's really only one ranger build that suffers from poor melee attacks (and there is one ranger melee at-will that keys off dex instead of strength so even they're not up a creek in melee if they take that and twin strike).

It's an interesting idea, but the potential weakness of a weapon using class in melee really isn't really a valid arguement for (or against) it.

I think the ranger in 4e is by default one of the last classes to umm need an unpaid for helping hand mechanically BUT since C4 is likely talking about PoL, our normal context for analysing it might need shifted. I find this interested in the element of inducing movement to have a clear shot.
Dynamic combat is ++

I agree, this mechanic seems like it would add alot to the tactical options of ranged combatants, I approve.

Garthanos wrote:

I think the ranger in 4e is by default one of the last classes to umm need an unpaid for helping hand mechanically BUT since C4 is likely talking about PoL, our normal context for analysing it might need shifted. I find this interested in the element of inducing movement to have a clear shot.
Dynamic combat is ++

Yeah, it may have been a mistake to present this as a house rule, because I am indeed considering it as a standard rule for Points of Light.

I do appreciate the feedback I've gotten though, so thanks everyone!