Are Archer Rangers getting the Shaft?

[Mad Hamish]

You missed my point: why play a dedicated archer in a game that all but forces you to "be around"?

Because you want to play an archer?

Because you want to be able to attack anywhere on the board so that you can support people anywhere?

Because you want to be able to hang back to provide cover for the wizard while still damaging enemies on the front line or to be able to engage artillary without having to go through their shielding force?

Because you can attack, move in to flank with the rogue and on the next round move away and maintain combat advantage with a power.

Because you can get people chasing you and still attack the rest of the enemies...

Or because you want battlefield archer

Why not play a TWF ranger? He will probably still be the group's best archer for those rare moments when it's appropriate to act like one.

You still get Prime Shot, and you get Toughness for free. Nothing says you can't have a decent Dex just by choosing TWF instead of Archer style...

 

[Pickles JG]

You missed my point: why play a dedicated archer in a game that all but forces you to "be around"?

Why not play a TWF ranger? He will probably still be the group's best archer for those rare moments when it's appropriate to act like one.

You still get Prime Shot, and you get Toughness for free. Nothing says you can't have a decent Dex just by choosing TWF instead of Archer style...

I agree that point that you do need* to take one for the team on occasion as an archer (or Warlock or whatever). I do think that a good party will have some members who are ranged specialists. Not a lot, it's easy to have too many, but some.

Often terrain constrictions prevent a mob of melee characters all getting into the action - or enemies have mobility issues that make it much easier to use ranged attack (fliers especially). Ranged characters have an easier time focusing fire too which is the bedrock tactic in D&D.

I agree with everyopne else though - the archery style seems below par though not rangers who shoot a lot.

*need in the sense of to play as well as possible.

 

[Nifft]

Raw damage output is a poor indicator of anything. I used the quotes because it's all subjective, but the Twin Weapon Fighter MUST mix it up and doesn't have the HP or AC of the defenders and doesn't last as long without help. The archer generally has more "survivability" and can do more damage by still being conscious even without toughness.

For a Striker, I'd argue raw damage output is an indicator of role performance -- for a Striker, dealing lots of damage is your job.

The TWF Ranger ought to be next to a Defender, just as the Archery Ranger ought to be behind a Defender. Neither is built to be a Defender -- and that's okay, so long as they aren't trying to act like one.

Strikers are glass cannons (except the Barbarian, who's more like a glass cannon with a constantly regenerating layer of hull steel).

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mad Hamish]

I'm just looking at what the Archer style gets vs. the Two-Blade style. Defensive Mobility (which doesn't seem very good to me, since an Archer will likely have Nimble Strike), vs Toughness and a feature that you can't gain through feats or anything. Personally, even if I were building an archer, I would just take two-weapon style. I'd still have high Dexterity and powers that focused on ranged attacks, but I'd be quite confident about going toe-to-toe if necessary.

Note that Defensive Mobility applies against _all_ opportunity attacks and there are times when you will want to retreat more than a shift will get you.
Also note that without spending a feat an Archer Ranger gets d10 damage which is what the two weapon ranger can get to with proficiency bastard sword.
With a feat you can get d12 damage.

If you boost dex and str you don't get wisdom and if you don't boost str it drops well behind for hth effectiveness so you can miss with bigger weapons _and_ going ranged and hth means you need 3 magic weapons...

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to adjust this? My experience with 4e is limited so I'm not sure i should be beefing up archers much more than they are (I hear stories about how deadly they can be), but I don't like having one build be simply better than another.

I don't think the build is simply better.
A serious archer isn't going to be all that effective at hth so there's no real benefit to being able to use a larger weapon in the off-hand.
toughness versus Defensive Mobility is open to question as being better or worse.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't know whether melee is king or not, but archer rangers attract a fair amount of enemy attention even if they're trying to avoid melee.

If that's the case at your table, then obviously the problem is smaller. At your table.

In the general case, however, I would think that a character that is actively avoiding melee (and taking damage in general) would (and should!) succeed.

The problem is that while this may be a sound tactic in real life, it's disastrous in D&D 4E.

It seems both players and DM are aware of this issue at your table. While this is great, it does not mean the problem isn't there at other tables.

So the problem is there alright. It has to do with player expectations. The PHB doesn't do a good job explaining to presumptive archer rangers that they should not try to act like real life archers.


Cheers,
Z

 

[Diirk]

If that's the case at your table, then obviously the problem is smaller. At your table.

In the general case, however, I would think that a character that is actively avoiding melee (and taking damage in general) would (and should!) succeed.

The problem is that while this may be a sound tactic in real life, it's disastrous in D&D 4E.

I think your vastly exagerrating things. Per encounter, you still have a limited way to trigger surges. As such, your leader is better off using his/her healing powers on the person the surges are most effective for; this is usually the defender. Defenders also have a lot more surges than everyone else.

Now while its possible to run out of surges on your defender and have to stop for the day, in my experience this is very unlikely. More likely it will be the rogue, or the melee ranger that will run out of surges first. These are the fragile characters.

There's nothing wrong with using your judgement either. Play it a bit safer earlier in the day, hang back and kill stuff. Later in the day if other people are getting low on surges, run up and try to get stuff to hit you.

Honestly, an all melee group seems to me to be destined to failure.

 

[Diirk]

Well, destined for failure is probably a little harsh, I definately think it would have a harder time of it tho.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

My own experience from a 3 player group (dwarf fighter, orc cleric and drow warlock) is that we will typically have to rest when the cleric runs out of surges, at which point my warlock will have a few left, and the fighter will still have at least half. This was from levels 1-4, roughly.

And that's with the cleric using most of his healing powers on himself - then again, he plays more akin to a 3.5 barbarian than a 4th ed. cleric.

As for the group I'm GMing (dwarf cleric, eladrin paladin, eladrin wizard, eladrin warlord and dragonborn 2-melee ranger), I think the wizard is suffering the worst for surges (he likes to get close to thunderwave), but with one encounter left in the current 4 encounter dungeon, I think the whole party is down in the 1-4 surges left range.

So far, the party has been able to rest before loosing surges - and I think I will continue to usually allow them to do so. However, if they were to bug out now to get an extended rest rather than face the last encounter in the dungeon, I think I would make them regret that choice.

 

[Nail]

In the general case, however, I would think that a character that is actively avoiding melee (and taking damage in general) would (and should!) succeed.

I'm curious: CapnZapp, have you found this to be the case at your table? That is to say: have PCs that wanted to avoid damage been able to do so?

In the games I play in or run, I've not found that to be the case. Damage can be focused on one or two PCs, but everyone feels some of the pain.

I have a feeling this discussion is far more about DM-style than Player choices.

 

[OchreJelly]

If that's the case at your table, then obviously the problem is smaller. At your table.

In the general case, however, I would think that a character that is actively avoiding melee (and taking damage in general) would (and should!) succeed.

The problem is that while this may be a sound tactic in real life, it's disastrous in D&D 4E.

It seems both players and DM are aware of this issue at your table. While this is great, it does not mean the problem isn't there at other tables.

So the problem is there alright. It has to do with player expectations. The PHB doesn't do a good job explaining to presumptive archer rangers that they should not try to act like real life archers.


Cheers,
Z

Really? IME I’m often putting pressure on the archer ranger at our table. He is the only striker my players have and the monsters tend to take note of the damage being put into the field by him. Artillery and lurker type monsters tend to target him and when those aren’t present other monsters will actively pursue him.

If a monster has to spend a round closing on the ranger, all the better for the players. Just forcing the monsters to fight on the player’s terms, I think, is worth more than taking one round of hits “for the team”. Nonetheless, the cleric is often standing up the ranger just as often as the fighter so I guess they are both doing their part.