Because as an ultimate archer class, the dragon flying around is much less of a tactical penalty to him than it is to the rogue an almost pure melee class. That is my only guess. I would of given archer powers that inhibit movement fairly early on. Even if a single bow IRL can't do it as well as a machine gun, cover fire is just cool.
Why be an archer ranger?
- Thread starter Klaus
- Start date
Because as an ultimate archer class, the dragon flying around is much less of a tactical penalty to him than it is to the rogue an almost pure melee class. That is my only guess. I would of given archer powers that inhibit movement fairly early on. Even if a single bow IRL can't do it as well as a machine gun, cover fire is just cool.
Quite honestly, a level 6 ranger doesn't need to prevent flying, as they basically outshoot the level 6 dragon, dealing better damage at greater range. A young blue's breath weapon needs a target within 10 squares and only deals 1d12+5 damage, and while the at-will burst has range 20 the damage is weak (1d6+4). The dragon gets to target Reflex, but that's not a huge help against many PCs.
A level 6 ranger with a +2 greatbow can be dealing 2d12+1d8+4 (on hits) every round with Twin Strike. Even a less optimized ranger can still be dealing 2d10+1d6+4 or so. The dragon's honestly probably better off closing to melee to KO the ranger before backing off to plink the rest of the party to death, even if it does give the rest of the party a shot at it.
Why indeed, since the PP's in Martial Power are better in every way. I look at the choice as more Beastmaster/Two Weapon though. A ranged fighter with a beast has a great way to make OA's and participate even more in controlling the battlfield. Twin strike + Predator strike means you probably don't even need to own a melee weapon. You give up prime shot and defensive mobility, and get. . .an animal companion. How is that honestly even a trade?
Even if you do not have martial power, going two weawpon fighting gives you an ability that you can't get any other way, using any one handed weapon in your off hand. The bonus feat is better, but if you want to spend a feat for defensive mobility you are essentially as good as both choices. Even if you only use the option to attack with two one handed weapons only once a day, this is a solid choice.
Jay
Even if you do not have martial power, going two weawpon fighting gives you an ability that you can't get any other way, using any one handed weapon in your off hand. The bonus feat is better, but if you want to spend a feat for defensive mobility you are essentially as good as both choices. Even if you only use the option to attack with two one handed weapons only once a day, this is a solid choice.
Jay
Repeat
Two weapon fighting is the worse melee choice for archer rangers.
1) Outside of DEX/Str archer, their Str mod is too low.
2) Affording a bow, armor, neck item, and 2 weapons of the approiate level is hard. Your gold after you buy your bow, armor, and neck item should be around the value of an item of of your level -1. If you spend half of that on melee weapon, they will be about about 5 levels behind each. (a 15th level ranger would be weilding 2 10th level weapons)
3) Combine that with the fact that archer usually get last choice on melee loot.
Meaning you'll never hit in melee weilding two weapons.
Two weapon fighting is the worse melee choice for archer rangers.
1) Outside of DEX/Str archer, their Str mod is too low.
2) Affording a bow, armor, neck item, and 2 weapons of the approiate level is hard. Your gold after you buy your bow, armor, and neck item should be around the value of an item of of your level -1. If you spend half of that on melee weapon, they will be about about 5 levels behind each. (a 15th level ranger would be weilding 2 10th level weapons)
3) Combine that with the fact that archer usually get last choice on melee loot.
Meaning you'll never hit in melee weilding two weapons.
eamon
Explorer
The result being that you're slightly nerfing melee rangers without any reason whatsoever. Nerfing melee rangers doesn't make archer rangers better.
You should be comparing how these things play and not based on some false dichotomy. Your choice isn't just between an archer and non-archer ranger, there's tons of builds, and unless the builds are overpowering as is, there's no reason to take em down a notch. In any case PP choice means that there's a reason to stick with the appropriate class feature - and what exactly is the harm? By making the choice starker, you're also nerfing an already sub-optimal but occasionally interesting choice of the melee+ranged ranger.
In short, you're fixing a problem that doesn't exist, and the side effects, while not dramatic, aren't positive. Why introduce a house rule (which also just adds overhead) for little benefit?
Klaus
First Post
And the rest of the party does...?
eamon
Explorer
Of course, an archer ranger won't use the option to attack with two one handed weapons ever certainly not after magic weapons become the norm and he doesn't want to spend money on an attack he'll never use, and certainly not when he's invested feats and powers in making his ranged attack work, without which, incidentally, his melee attack will be poor. He'd be better off just shifting away or - in the rare case he can't - just shooting from melee (and for that he's got defensive mobility to help!)
An archer ranger picking the two-weapon path is optimizing for a never-occuring situation. But let's say he wants to... why exactly bother penalizing him further?
Alabast
First Post
It's very simple: TWF rangers get sexier abilities because melee combat is more dangerous and difficult than ranged combat. A ranged character gets the luxury of being able to more freely select their target while avoiding melee attacks most of the time (assuming the defenders are doing they're jobs).
In previous editions of D&D, ranged combatants did not get any ability bonus to damage (unless they had throwing weapons or a mighty bow) and had to hit more often to come close to melee damage from high-STR warriors (in 2E, most ranged weapons could attack more often than melee weapons, and 3e characters could take rapid shot). This was to balance out the ranged combat advantages I outlined above.
Now, ranged damage output matches the melee damage output (for rangers, at least). Plus, the addition of the defender role to the game has made archery a more attractive option, as well. These facts combined means that the TWF ranger needs to get a little more just to be playable. You certainly could go TWF for an archer ranger, and it wouldn't be a weak choice, but it essentially costs a feat, since most archer characters would want defensive mobility anyway.
In previous editions of D&D, ranged combatants did not get any ability bonus to damage (unless they had throwing weapons or a mighty bow) and had to hit more often to come close to melee damage from high-STR warriors (in 2E, most ranged weapons could attack more often than melee weapons, and 3e characters could take rapid shot). This was to balance out the ranged combat advantages I outlined above.
Now, ranged damage output matches the melee damage output (for rangers, at least). Plus, the addition of the defender role to the game has made archery a more attractive option, as well. These facts combined means that the TWF ranger needs to get a little more just to be playable. You certainly could go TWF for an archer ranger, and it wouldn't be a weak choice, but it essentially costs a feat, since most archer characters would want defensive mobility anyway.
Why is it that you feel that the Ranger should be the one to fix this problem? He's not the only choice.
