Ranger weapon style, is always used as the secondary ranger weapon style?

Is it me or every ranger especially multi-classed should not take their favored style if they really want it to be their favored style. Let me explain, this question came up while I was discusting with the Barbarian/ranger in my group which favored style he should take. He is already a specialist in the great axe(weapon focus, power attack, and cleave) now he just reach 6th level Bar4/Ran2 and must choose a favored style. He first taught that 2 weapon fighting would be cool but as we analysed the situation he would be much better taking great cleave and use the bonus to allow it's character to use more effectively a bow(He is not a ranged kind of guy but don't mind being able to shoot 3 arrows in a round).

I looked into the issue more in details and realised that if you want to really focus on a weapon style and still benefits from the ranger feats ,you should focus your normal feats on your prefered style and let the ranger feats be a second "nice to have' style.

Can anyone have an exemple of why not doing it this way with a single class ranger other than, I will get 6 attack instead of 5 at the 11 level instead of 12 logic. Not that great anyway since the 6th attack is done at BAB +1.
As for the bow I don't see any advantages, if you want to be a good archer you will have to take point blank anyway.
The only thing I can see is for NPC which you don't want to see evolve. You just want your 3 level NPC elf enemy ranger to be the best archer he can be.
But if you plan to go to 6th level or above my theory starts to apply.

DarkMaster said:

I looked into the issue more in details and realised that if you want to really focus on a weapon style and still benefits from the ranger feats ,you should focus your normal feats on your prefered style and let the ranger feats be a second "nice to have' style.

Click to expand...

That's purely a matter of opinion. While using the Ranger's style as a secondary style is a worthwhile option, it isn't necessarily the best option.

Look at it this way. Your barbarian axe master could certainly benefit from the Ranger's archery style to give him another option in combat. This makes him a more versatile character, but not necessarily more powerful.

On the other hand, he could take two-weapon fighting as his path, and use that in conjunction with his already impressive selection of melee feats. This choice would make him more effective in melee, but he wouldn't be as versatile as the archer.

It's simply the same choice that every fighter makes when choosing bonus feats. Versatility vs Specialization.

The problem is that two weapon fighting is so weak normally that even getting it for free, if you don't pump everything you have into it, it's crap.

However, being effective in melee with just a few feats is pretty easy. I really like the versatility of longword/buckler switching back and forth with bow. Since I don't expect my ranger to be a combat monster, making it easy to switch back and forth really makes him a better generalist. Where the half-orc barbarian may scream uselessly at the flying vampire, my ranger pulls out his longbow and starts shooting 2-3 shots per round at the guy.

I think the majority of people will take the bow feats because it's simply the more powerful of the two styles. Whether they choose to specialize in that style or not is dependant on the type of ranger you want to play.

-The Souljourner

I have a bbn2/ranger... and I agree partially. He's a little bit behind with extra offhand attacks, but it doesn't matter that much. He's most often using his bastard sword twohanded and likes to throw the off-hand weapon if the enemy falls too soon. (Quickdraw is your friend). But the extra barbarian abilities really help more than the two levels of additional off hand attack at -7 would.

Your ranger would do well with a double weapon, mostly used as a twohanded weapon while offering the TWF versatility.

Ok, what about Monkey Grip?

Now you wield your greataxe one-handed and you can use a light weapon to make some off-hand attack. Well, obviously it might not be your best option (everyone knows that two-handed weapons are far more dangerous than two weapons), but if you face many weak enemies, and you also have great cleave, you may have a really good time...

Anyway IMO the only ranger worth playing was Monte Cook's...

MorganKiller said:

Anyway IMO the only ranger worth playing was Monte Cook's...

Click to expand...

I don't know what monte's ranger looks like, but I think the 3.5 ranger totally rocks, so I see no need for an alternate that people can bitch about.

-The Souljourner

MorganKiller said:

Anyway IMO the only ranger worth playing was Monte Cook's...

Click to expand...

Don't agree I find that the ranger kind of represent the "hero" class. It is a well rounded class in 3.5, you know how to fight, you got good skill allowing you to be very mobile in hostile environement, a few spell, evasion skill, familiar, bonus combat and non combat feat, ect.

During the last session him and the rogue made amazing scout and were able to gather a lot of information on the enemy position before sending the tank in. Without this info the party would have been completly wiped out.

after reading your responses I came to the same conclusion as SoulJourner: take the bow specialisation and put the rest of your feat in whatever you really wants to specialise. I think that even if you want to take TWF this option is still the right choice, especially if you are human

DarkMaster said:

Is it me or every ranger especially multi-classed should not take their favored style if they really want it to be their favored style. Let me explain, this question came up while I was discusting with the Barbarian/ranger in my group which favored style he should take. He is already a specialist in the great axe(weapon focus, power attack, and cleave)

Click to expand...

I think you answer your own question really. This character has already chosen to specialise in a two handed weapon so two weapon fighting isn't going to be useful for him. Well, no surprise there then!

However, if he used battle axe or longsword and sheild, for instance (or dwarven waraxe) the two weapon style could be a neat and "cheap" way for him to move into a nice two weapon barbarian archetype. Two weapons with great cleave can also work very well, as it happens.

The druid/ranger who wants to make the most of his shilelagh spell is well advised to take the two weapon fighting route, for instance.

A fighter/ranger who wants to get the most out of two weapon fighting would be best supplementing his expertise/improved trip/improved disarm/shield bash/etc feats with bonus twf feats...

You are taking a specific case and making an unfounded extrapolation to a general case IMO

Cheers

MorganKiller said:

Ok, what about Monkey Grip?

Now you wield your greataxe one-handed and you can use a light weapon to make some off-hand attack. Well, obviously it might not be your best option (everyone knows that two-handed weapons are far more dangerous than two weapons), but if you face many weak enemies, and you also have great cleave, you may have a really good time...

Anyway IMO the only ranger worth playing was Monte Cook's...

Click to expand...

The monte ranger was.... well. Better than his bard

Just a little remark about the usefulness of TWF style: All you need to make it better than a twohanded weapon is: Extra damage on all weapons. Such as (surprise surprise) Favored Enemy.

So two weapons may indeed be the best option.

Plane Sailing said:

I think you answer your own question really. This character has already chosen to specialise in a two handed weapon so two weapon fighting isn't going to be useful for him. Well, no surprise there then!

However, if he used battle axe or longsword and sheild, for instance (or dwarven waraxe) the two weapon style could be a neat and "cheap" way for him to move into a nice two weapon barbarian archetype. Two weapons with great cleave can also work very well, as it happens.

The druid/ranger who wants to make the most of his shilelagh spell is well advised to take the two weapon fighting route, for instance.

A fighter/ranger who wants to get the most out of two weapon fighting would be best supplementing his expertise/improved trip/improved disarm/shield bash/etc feats with bonus twf feats...

You are taking a specific case and making an unfounded extrapolation to a general case IMO

Cheers

Click to expand...

I don't agree with your two example why for example should the fighter4/ranger2 wait till it gets to being F4/R6 before getting ITWF when he can take the bow specialisation and take TWF as it's 6th level feat and then when he reached F4/R5 he take ITWF without removing any benefit from taking ranger level, and on top of that he will have a nice candy (he is quite competent with the bow). The problem get's even worse when you take Fighter level. I think that TWF combat style bonus is really not worth it especially if you are Multi-Class.