Why be an archer ranger?

[Klaus]

If you choose Archery, you get a feat (Defensive Mobility)
If you choose Two-Weapon Fighting, you get a feat (Toughness) and you can use one-handed weapons as if they were off-hand.

Unlike other classes where you choose a path (Fighter and his weapons, Warlock and his pacts, Rogue and his tactics), there are no ranger encounter powers that offer additional benefit to a certain style. Lots of ranger powers can be used with either style. The most common build I see ranger players using is choosing Two-Weapon Style and then alternating between that and a bow (usually with 16 in both Str and Dex), and picking up Defensive Mobility with a regular feat (or human bonus feat).

 

[Aenghus]

Mechanically, because the two archer paragon paths in the PHB require the PC to be an archer ranger. This doesn't matter if the PC takes a different paragon path, but few of them help archers as it stands.

Because of the phrasing, the original four ranger paragon paths are available only to rangers, as it currently stands.

 

[Cadfan]

1. Defensive Mobility is actually an alright feat, contrary to popular belief.
2. If you don't intend to ever fight in melee with melee weapons, you don't need the ability to upgrade your off hand weapon.

I don't really know why people are alternating between bow and two weapon combat. There's not much point. With the availability of a one space shift as a move action, you can almost always shift back a space and attack, if that's what you really want to do. And once you've invested feats in improving your attack options with a bow (weapon focus: bows, superior weapon proficiency, etc) you might as well stick with it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, /if/ you always have a space to back into, and /if/ you never want to get or provide a flanking bonus, and /if/ you never have to act as a secondary defender and block or pin down a foe, I suppose you could get by without ever using a melee weapon.

Having a solid melee option as a striker isn't a bad idea, though, it does let you take advantage of flanking, and hold ground if need be. Even if you're more focused on DEX and Ranged, you could go scimitar dance at paragon and grind out a little damage dependably when you have no choice but to go into melee. The ability to use any one-handed weapon in your off hand is nothing to sneeze at and there's no other way to get it, while Defensive Mobility, while a good feat, can always be picked up as a feat.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If you choose Archery, you get a feat (Defensive Mobility)
If you choose Two-Weapon Fighting, you get a feat (Toughness) and you can use one-handed weapons as if they were off-hand.

Flavor.

If I want to play a ranger who uses a greatclub and a longbow, then what does TWF give me? Absolutely nothing to support my character.

Also, rangers are kind of fragile, even with toughness. This is great for some people (light melee skirmisher concept), bad for others (wimpy).

 

[Minigiant]

1) "Everyone" eventaully takes Toughness
2) If you are are archer your STR is probably too low to hit in melee anyway so a strong melee weapon is less useful
3) If you are an archer, you'll eventually not be able to afford 2 magic melee weapons decent enough to hit with your magic bow.
4) The 2 PHB archery paragon path require the Archery style

Basically by the 8th level, most archer rangers won't be able to fight that well with two weapons well due to low STR and underleveled weapons. By mid paragon most archer rangers will plain suck at TWF.

 

[Cadfan]

Well, /if/ you always have a space to back into, and /if/ you never want to get or provide a flanking bonus, and /if/ you never have to act as a secondary defender and block or pin down a foe, I suppose you could get by without ever using a melee weapon.

Having a solid melee option as a striker isn't a bad idea, though, it does let you take advantage of flanking, and hold ground if need be. Even if you're more focused on DEX and Ranged, you could go scimitar dance at paragon and grind out a little damage dependably when you have no choice but to go into melee. The ability to use any one-handed weapon in your off hand is nothing to sneeze at and there's no other way to get it, while Defensive Mobility, while a good feat, can always be picked up as a feat.

You can flank while holding a ranged weapon. Unarmed attacks can flank.

Its actually a good idea to flank once in a while with an archery ranger, particularly if you are flanking with a defender. Go ahead and provoke an opportunity attack- you have a high AC, higher when being attacked with opportunity attacks, and higher still when your foe is marked by a defender, and if your opponent takes it he'll trigger the defender's retaliatory effects. If you've got a lot of healing surges left because you've been hanging out at range, you can afford to risk some damage in this manner to help the team kill faster.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have to be careful with getting versions confused, but I think you still can't flank with a ranged attack, even if you're using it in melee, so, while you might provide a flanking bonus via fisticuffs while still holding your bow, when shooting that bow, you won't benefit from same.

Good point about the unarmed attacks, though. My group seems to ignore that one - neither of our usual DMs has ever had an enemy take an unarmed OA while wielding a ranged weapon (no proficiency, low damage, what's the point, I suppose, is the reasoning).

 

[Kordeth]

I have to be careful with getting versions confused, but I think you still can't flank with a ranged attack, even if you're using it in melee, so, while you might provide a flanking bonus via fisticuffs while still holding your bow, when shooting that bow, you won't benefit from same.

You are incorrect. Flanking gives you combat advantage as long as you're 1) adjacent to the enemy, 2) able to attack that enemy (note: there's no requirement for this to be "able to attack with a melee weapon), and 3) on the opposite side of the enemy from an ally who is also adjacent to the enemy. Combat Advantage does not distinguish melee or ranged attacks.

You'll suffer OAs out the wazoo, but you can get flanking on your ranged attacks.

 

[Ibixat]

You are incorrect. Flanking gives you combat advantage as long as you're 1) adjacent to the enemy, 2) able to attack that enemy (note: there's no requirement for this to be "able to attack with a melee weapon), and 3) on the opposite side of the enemy from an ally who is also adjacent to the enemy. Combat Advantage does not distinguish melee or ranged attacks.

You'll suffer OAs out the wazoo, but you can get flanking on your ranged attacks.

Flank with the defender and provoke AO's

Target is marked by say swordmage, either it gets hit or damage is reduced, marked by pally, damaged, marked by fighter smacked by fighter etc. And as others have said you have good defenses for the most part and the benefits of having CA for your attack and the monster a penalty for attacking you instead of the defender is all good. Of course, don't do it if you're at like 3 hp =P

You could also wear cloth shimmering armor and just not provoke attacks at all =P