D&D 3E/3.5 Anyone play a 3.5 Archer-based Ranger yet?

RigaMortus

Explorer
Just curious how these guys stack up? I will be making one in an upcoming campaign. The new Ranger over all I like, and the new Archery feats they get make them seem kind of powerful. How are they to play in-game? Any suggestions/strategies? I plan to make a Human Ranger (from a Nordic culture, think "13th Warrior"). I was contimplating making an Elf though, or even Halfling. But I wanted that "gruff" Aragorn-esque type, which I think a Human would be able to pull off better than a prissy Elf or childlike Halfling...
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Couple of things...

1) Forget Halflings and other Small races for any of the "fighter" type classes (unless that's where you specifically want to go). I have a friend in a home campaign playing a Kobold rogue. When we converted from 3.0 to 3.5 his fun went down exponentially as he can now almost never kill anything. Small races are much better suited towards spell casting now (as spell damage doesn't vary with size).

2) Since you're specifically asking about the Archer/Ranger route I'm going to guess you're envisioning him something like the old man with the bow in the 13th Warrior. Aragorn is more of a melee ranger in my mind, rather than an archer, but as a personality template I see where you're going.

3) Go with Human and take Point-Blank & Precise Shot as your first level feats. That way when you hit 2nd and get Rapid Shot you do more damage close-up and can rapid shot into melee with impunity.
 

there is currently an 11th level elf ranger in our party. If she can get someone to cast flame arrow or greater magic weapon on her arrows, she's does amazing damage.


Get rapid shot and multishot asap.
 

...I was just trying to build a 3.5e ranger the other day:

What about a halfling ranger-archer mounted on a war dog companion? Wha'd'y'all think? Dumb? Brilliant?




As for the difference in damage: Hey, we can look at that.

(both rangers with Long Composite Mighy Bows, we'll say the human has a 50% chance to hit whatever AC it is, one attack per round)

Human: Str 14, Dex 14 => 3.4 hp damage/round
Halfling: Str 12, Dex 16 => 2.8 hp damage/round

Keep in mind the other halfling bonuses, including that +1 AC bonus and +1 save bonus..... That might "offset" the one half a point of damage difference.

That's right: There's little more than Half a Point of damage difference between these two.

The point is: Although the human does more damage per arrow, the halfling will hit 10% (+2) more often than the human.

So, if the chance to hit is lowered......lets say they both do "rapid shot", then the difference gets much less:

Human: Str 14, Dex 14 => 2.5 hp damage per round
Halfling: Str 12, Dex 16 => 2.4 hp damage per round

Now, if the chance to hit is sunstantially less to hit, the halfling wins.

**Additional point: If the character has some additional dice of damage that's not affected by size, like sneak attack or energy damage, then the halfling wins, hands down.....errr, bows up!
 

I have found that the an archery ranger is a good choice. In the campaign I am DMing right now, one of the players is playing a 6th level elven ranger and is cleaning house with his skills. You figure that an archer has a much better chance to use the full-round attack action to get all of his attacks. All he has to do is just stand there. Since he is a 6th level ranger he gets 2 attacks a round plus an extra from rapid shot. Thus he is getting three attacks just about every round and the fighter in the group is getting only 2 attacks a round (maybe more with cleave and great cleave) but no where near as often. And to top it all off, the ranger has the party sorc cast fly on him all the time. The party works together very well.
 

I am contemplating playing a Ranger for the next game I play in. I have been debating between the 2-weapon route or archery. Overall, the damage potential is very similar with the 2 weapons yielding more in the long run.

Also, archery has 2 potential problems:
1) You need room to maneuver. An archer needs to stay at a distance or he may as well just have made a melee character. This could be problematic in dungeons and other close quarters.
2) Limited ammo. With melee weapons, you have *unlimited* ammo. With archery, you have the potential of running out of ammo and, depending on the scenario, never get the chance to acquire more ammo for a long time (imagine the party teleporting to a cavern system where they adventure from level 6 to 10 and never actually encounter a town or city.

Also, A ranger/rogue combo goes good together and a melee Ranger can benefit more from melee combat (flank/sneak).


Belbarrus
 

Archers are always a powerful option. You avoid direct assault, easily gain extra attacks, and can take the full attack option basically every round. Good combat style

Rangers are really solid archers. Human ranger can have point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot by 2nd level in addition to ranger abilities, 2 good saves, 6 skill pts/lvl, et al. You'll be powerful in combat, useful out of combat, and cool.

As for the halfling archer mounted character- I'd say it'll work but with one point to ponder. Don't you lose your dex while mounted? Seeing as your dex will most likely be the bulk of your AC, you really don't want to lose that.
 

I think the choice of Archer vs. Melee should likely be decided by looking at the party composition. If you've got a tank-like fighter, having an Archer ranger would reallyreally assist the group.

As for halfling archer rangers... why don't you go with a thrown weapon instead of a bow. All the feats aside from Manyshot can be used with thrown weapons and you'd also get your racial +1 bonus. Sure, come 6th level you'd have to decide if you wanted to go bow, but up until then the +1 bonus and Rapid Shot would likely tip the scales in favor of the halfling in the above example.
 

Got a human Archer ranger in my game right now. Pretty cool. He's climbing into the crows nest of the boat and sniping the pirates.
 

Remove ads

Top