Archer Ranger vs. TWF Ranger

[StreamOfTheSky]

But as you said, either way, you can pick up the other style's feat later on if you want. The only reason to choose archery style if fighting up close (in which case you probably would want toughness as well) that people seem to have identified so far is to qualify for paragon paths. Am I the only one bothered by that? If you're doing archery, shouldn't the archery style just about always be the better choice than the TWF style, just on its own merits? An why should your build type chosen at level 1 even affect you later on like that? I got the impression those "packages" were like the 3E sample character setups: Guidelines for beginners. If I have a huge dex, lots of bow feats, and almost exclusively archery powers, I can't take the archer PP because way back at the beginning of my career I chose one set of minor benefits over a different set?

@Prime Shot: It could also be viewed as a small benefit in a bad situation. Sort of like Point Blank Shot in 3E. Maybe it was just me, but unless I had SA dice, I would rather stay far back as an archer and pincussion foes before they got near. If you're trading full attacks with a bow against a guy with a greatsword, you're going to lose. So while being close wasn't ideal, PBS at least made it suck a little less. I view Prime Shot in the same way. Not something to seek out so much as to partially plug situations of weakness.

As far as contributing your healing surges for the good of the group...even if you stay back, you're still going to get hit. Even the (not so much anymore) dinky kobolds in KotS had plenty of ranged attackers. And if they can aim at you, you're likely the biggest threat, so they will. And as a striker, an archer ranger's hp and surges aren't particularly high anyway. As long as there's a fair mix of ranged/caster enemies each day, you'll probably burn through your surges even while trying to avoid melee. Or not...if people who've actually played 4E into mid/high levels don't agree, I guess...

 

[Cadfan]

I've got a group at level 14. The campaign is combat heavy and hands out experience as per guidelines, meaning about 10 encounters per level.

1. The degree to which a character in the back lines is still contributing his healing surges depends heavily on the party. In my party, we have three characters who fight on the front lines. The two who do not regularly end the day with the vast majority of their healing surges intact.

2. I stand by my belief that the best way for a highly mobile ranged striker to deal significant amounts of damage is to close into point blank range, gain combat advantage from flanking, gain prime shot, and provoke OAs from marked enemies.

3. This is especially true of the archer after level 11, when prime shot can be boosted to a +2 attack bonus, and you can get called shot, which grants +5 damage per hit when you have prime shot. This turns twin strike into an absolute engine of destruction. With combat advantage, that's +4 to hit, +5 damage, per attack. Its almost foolish not to use this. Few boosts to damage in the entire game come remotely close to this.

4. An archer ranger with an 18 starting dexterity and hide armor has the AC of a fighter in scale. With defensive mobility, the ac versus OAs is that of a fighter in scale with a shield. If the target is marked, the AC is close to that of a paladin in plate with a shield. I think that warlocks, artful dodger rogues, and archer rangers tend to be overly concerned with avoiding OAs. Its better to make them work for you. And if things get too heavy, these are the classes most equipped to retreat to safety.

5. I do not believe that the ranger builds and the paragon path qualifications represent a danger to new players. New players don't engage in double think that leads them to take two weapon fighting builds in order to play an archer. If they want an archer, they play an archer build, and everything they need is laid out for them. As for the advanced players, if you're advanced enough to think this through this well, you're advanced enough to reach your own conclusions.

 

[Jack99]

2. I stand by my belief that the best way for a highly mobile ranged striker to deal significant amounts of damage is to close into point blank range, gain combat advantage from flanking, gain prime shot, and provoke OAs from marked enemies.

3. This is especially true of the archer after level 11, when prime shot can be boosted to a +2 attack bonus, and you can get called shot, which grants +5 damage per hit when you have prime shot. This turns twin strike into an absolute engine of destruction. With combat advantage, that's +4 to hit, +5 damage, per attack. Its almost foolish not to use this. Few boosts to damage in the entire game come remotely close to this.

4. An archer ranger with an 18 starting dexterity and hide armor has the AC of a fighter in scale. With defensive mobility, the ac versus OAs is that of a fighter in scale with a shield. If the target is marked, the AC is close to that of a paladin in plate with a shield. I think that warlocks, artful dodger rogues, and archer rangers tend to be overly concerned with avoiding OAs. Its better to make them work for you. And if things get too heavy, these are the classes most equipped to retreat to safety.

The 3 points above are precisely what I would have written. And also exactly why the archer ranger is both viable and as good (if not better) than the TW-ranger.

 

[Mercule]

and provoke OAs from marked enemies.

Here's something that never pans out, though.... Being marked is fairly obvious to the target. I almost never have an intelligent foe trade a pot-shot for a attack from the fighter. The best way to remove a mark is to remove the fighter who dealt it.

That may explain why the fighter generally takes half or more (ofter 3/4) of the damage, by herself. She's still doing her job, though.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Here's something that never pans out, though.... Being marked is fairly obvious to the target. I almost never have an intelligent foe trade a pot-shot for a attack from the fighter. The best way to remove a mark is to remove the fighter who dealt it.

That may explain why the fighter generally takes half or more (ofter 3/4) of the damage, by herself. She's still doing her job, though.

And you still win. Either the monster attacks you with penalties and the Fighter gets a free shot, or it doesn't attack and you splatter them. Its win-win. That's why its good.

 

[drothgery]

Here's something that never pans out, though.... Being marked is fairly obvious to the target. I almost never have an intelligent foe trade a pot-shot for a attack from the fighter.

On the other hand, intelligent foes seem quite willing to blow off being marked by my swordmage in order to attack the barbarian or the rogue, as even with a -2 to hit, they're easy to hit, and they're doing more damage. On the other hand, this does result in a wiry guy with the Mark of Passage popping up in a flanking position and bashing them.

 

[Mercule]

On the other hand, intelligent foes seem quite willing to blow off being marked by my swordmage in order to attack the barbarian or the rogue, as even with a -2 to hit, they're easy to hit, and they're doing more damage. On the other hand, this does result in a wiry guy with the Mark of Passage popping up in a flanking position and bashing them.

Good point. I'm so used to the only striker being a battleraging fighter that I forget that not every marked critter prompts a beating worthy of a striker every time they take an attack.