Fixing the Ranger's Archer Fighting Style

[Arlough]

I have been looking at the Archer Fighting Style for Rangers, and I want to make it a viable fighting style choice.

As it is right now, everybody (that I know) who wants an archer type ranger takes one of the other builds (Two-weapon, Beastmaster, etc.) and then goes on building a ranged heavy version of that build.

After looking at the Paragon Paths available only to Archer Fighting Style, I see some good paths that are good, but not compelling enough to make that a reason to take the Archer Fighting Style.

So I would like to propose changing the Archer Fighting Style to the following.

Archer Fighting Style
When you use a projectile weapon such as a bow or a crossbow to make a ranged attack, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from the target or targets of the attack.
Also, since your focus is on archery, you gain the feat Far Shot as a bonus feat.​

What are the potential problems with this change?

 

[Alex319]

The main problem I can see is that it makes it so there is little reason for the "archer" to actually stay at range. He can fight almost as effectively from melee as from range (for instance, if he's using Twin Strike, he won't take any OAs unless there are three or more enemies adjacent to him) and he gets the other benefits of melee like providing CA (he can wear a spiked gauntlet so he threatens adjacent squares).

What you want is something that rewards the ranger for actually fighting AT RANGE. Maybe something like +1 attack against an enemy that is not adjacent to any allies?

 

[ravenheart]

I tried to come up with something similar a while back, but nothing really felt right. Anyway, here's something I just thought of:

Archer Fighting Style
You gain the feat Far Shot as a bonus feat. In addition, you ignore cover from creatures and gain a +4 bonus to AC against opportunity attacks you provoke for leaving a square without shifting.
​

This way the archer ranger has a decent chance of getting out of melee and staying at range even though his quarry is on the other side of the battlefield. It also differentiates the archer from the hunter, which in my mind stepped in the archers spotlight.

 

[Arlough]

Alex,
Actually, if you are next to two enemies and make a Twin Strike that targets both of them, you would provoke two opportunity attack.
Twin Strike, like many Ranger powers specifically states that it is two attacks.

Most of the time, you would only have to deal with one opportunity attack, because each creature only gets one opportunity action per turn.

You would still want to be ranged, because every hit you take is a loss of resources that could be used somewhere else.

But, taking that into consideration, do you think this still gives the archer no incentive to be a ranged character. I know only how I would play it, not how others would see it.

Ravenheart,
Good idea. I wanted something that couldn't just be replaced with a feat, and there isn't a feat that gives more than a +2 vs Opportunity attacks.

I am welcome to more feedback or different interpretations, so keep it coming.

 

[Arlough]

Looks like the +4 to AC vs Opportunity Attacks is something that the Hunter Ranger has already. I wanted this to be more distinct.

Anyone else have ideas?

 

[ravenheart]

Looks like the +4 to AC vs Opportunity Attacks is something that the Hunter Ranger has already. I wanted this to be more distinct.

Anyone else have ideas?

Well, it's sort of the other half of the story - Hunters "gain a +4 bonus to AC against opportunity attacks you provoke by making a ranged attack" so that they can easily skirmish and mix melee and ranged attacks, while my proposed archer "gain a +4 bonus to AC against opportunity attacks you provoke for leaving a square without shifting" so that it can get the heck out of melee (preferably as far away as possible and behind a meatshield), and plink away at its target. That's differing enough, isn't it?

I did consider replace the feature that allows you to ignore cover from creatures to only apply against your quarry, but allow you to deal some damage (half? Dex mod?) on a miss against a creature granting cover to emphasize the secondary role as controller. Too powerful?

 

[Saeviomagy]

I believe that battlefield archer is a very highly rated paragon path, enough so that it's specifically regarded as making the ranged version of a ranger worth taking.

 

[ravenheart]

I believe that battlefield archer is a very highly rated paragon path, enough so that it's specifically regarded as making the ranged version of a ranger worth taking.

Honestly, should the only redeeming quality of a nigh-useless class feature be that it is the requirement for a great albeit singular paragon path? That's built-in mechanical railroading if there ever was any.

To the point, by changing the weapon style choice one might also need to change battlefield archer - either by nerfing it and/or removing the restriction (I'm not that familiar with the optimization possibilities the PP in question offers so I'll leave the specific tweaks to someone else).

 

[bganon]

I think this is tricky, since you're trying to improve the class feature for a build that's already pretty strong. Ignoring cover is a neat idea, but having it all the time seems awfully good, and it makes a bunch of ranger powers redundant. Maybe archer rangers could 1/enc ignore cover and/or concealment on a ranged attack against their quarry? It seems thematic, it's a benefit not easily available from feats, and good enough that I still might consider it even if it isn't too powerful overall.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Honestly, should the only redeeming quality of a nigh-useless class feature be that it is the requirement for a great albeit singular paragon path? That's built-in mechanical railroading if there ever was any.

It's not the only redeeming quality, just another thumb on the scale.

Incidentally, an archer ranger is getting very little from being a two weapon ranger: I mean sure, he gains toughness, but I'd call that even between toughness and defensive mobility given what his playstyle is likely to be, and he's almost never going to use the bigger off-hand weapon, so it's value is very limited.

As for beastmaster: you're giving up prime shot to
*gain a flanking buddy for the melee members of the party
*gain the occasional OA at the expense of your immediate action
*gain a low defense, low hitpoint (once surges are taken into account) resource sponge

To me, that doesn't seem like an automatic choice by a long shot. In fact, unless you're going to choose and use beastmaster-type powers, it looks like a slightly bad deal.