[3.5] Better Archer, Ranger or Cleric (still)?

[RigaMortus]

Do you think the new Ranger will become a "better" Archer than the Cleric? I sure hope so...

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If only core rules are considered, yes.

If you allow material from FR and *book sources (elf, time domains), the cleric gets ahead rapidly.

 

[Michael Tree]

I don't think we know enough about the 3.5 spell changes to say. I strongly suspect that Divine Power has been made less godly, as has Divine Favor. The changes to Greater Magic Weapon, and bow and arrow enhancement bonuses no longer stacking, already shift the balance of power towards the ranger.

If using suppliments, the Persistent Spell makes the 3.0 cleric ludicrously powerful. Also note that the Divine Might feat also works with ranged weapons.

If using suppliments, a 3.5 Ranger with one level of Cleric may be the best archer of all. He'd sacrifice +1 BAB, some skill points, and slower access to higher level abilities for two feats and turn undead, which can be used to power the Divine Might feat.

 

[Thels]

IMHO, Fighters should be the best archers if they devoted all (and not just a spare few) feats to archery, with Rangers with the archery path following close behind.

If that's the way it's gonna be, then great. If spellcasters get the capabilities to surpass the warriors in combat due to their spells for more than a very few rounds/day, then something's not good.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

Missing class

Try sorcerers for archers. True strike and magic weapon make for some lethal low-level archers.