Archer Ranger vs. TWF Ranger

[Mercule]

This conversation came up last night. Are the Archer fighting style and Two-Blade fighting style really comparable? Forget entry to Paragon Paths or similar dependancies. Those are external to the builds.

I don't think the archer in my game has ever been subject to opportunity attacks (she shifts or switches to a melee weapon temporarily), which makes the +2 AC worthless. I get that it's still a real bonus, but it's not much of one.

The off-hand wielding for TWF seems fair against that, but the extra hit points push it over. I imagine the argument is that the archer is supposed to get hit less than the TWF build, but that's not what happens in practice. There are plent of monsters with ranged and area attacks.

So, are these builds not comparable, or am I missing something?

 

[Tallifer]

Our party of four much prefers that our ranger uses a bow.

1. He can hit the flying monsters.

2. He can peg the caster hiding behind the monsters' seried ranks.

3. He can shoot from the back in a narrow corridor or through a doorway.

4. His range with a great bow means he can affect the foes before they can affect any of us. Especially nice if he immobilizes a couple or gives one a penalty to attack for the rest of the encounter.

5. His range and damage also mean few monsters can flee and bring more of their friends.

Our wizard also can cast at range, but the range on most of his spells is too short sometimes, and his damage is usually less than the ranger's.

As for the bonus AC versus opportunity attacks, that is good for when he wants very much to get close to use his prime shot against a monster with high AC.

 

[Nightson]

If the builds are balanced, they're balanced around the idea that melee get a little extra for dealing with the difficulties of melee. And I can buy that reasoning, the TWF ranger in my game is a lot easier to turn and smack then the ranged striker we have.

 

[Klaus]

This conversation came up last night. Are the Archer fighting style and Two-Blade fighting style really comparable? Forget entry to Paragon Paths or similar dependancies. Those are external to the builds.

I don't think the archer in my game has ever been subject to opportunity attacks (she shifts or switches to a melee weapon temporarily), which makes the +2 AC worthless. I get that it's still a real bonus, but it's not much of one.

The off-hand wielding for TWF seems fair against that, but the extra hit points push it over. I imagine the argument is that the archer is supposed to get hit less than the TWF build, but that's not what happens in practice. There are plent of monsters with ranged and area attacks.

So, are these builds not comparable, or am I missing something?

The TWF ranger will most likely never benefit of Prime Shot.

The archer ranger can either benefit from Prime Shot (by being in close range) and thus benefit from Defensive Mobility, or he can stay out of melee and conserve hit points.

Also, a TWF ranger will often have to bump Str (for his attacks), Dex (for his AC) and Wis (for ranger skills and additional effects), while the archer ranger can focus exclusively on Dex (attack and AC) and Wis (skills and effects). He can even forgo Str and bump Con a little, getting him more hp.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Have the best of both worlds and choose the TWF Ranger class features but primarily use a bow? Granted, I don't know if that screws you over down the line, but for my Keep on the Shadowfell game I was hating playing Fighter and had statted up a bow Elf Ranger* with Quickdraw to switch between melee and ranged with ease (and still get off a twin strike that round) to replace him with. Don't know how it would have worked out, as the rest of the group didn't even want to finish the adventure and go back to our normal campaign instead. But it seemed fine on paper, at least for level 1.

*Err...a TWF Ranger that had a much better dex than str and preferred to use a bow, and took mostly bow powers is what I meant, I guess...

 

[thecasualoblivion]

One of the most valuable and underrated resources an archer Ranger has is his hit points and healing surges. To contribute his utmost to the party, the Ranger should be taking hits. If the Ranger sits way back and never gets hit, the rest of the party is going to burn through surges much faster and sometimes not be able to continue.

I've found the best way for the archer Ranger to contribute is to play as close to the enemy as possible. Try to get the Prime Shot bonus as much as possible, entice the enemy to pursue and attack you, end your turn next to an enemy to give an ally flanking, and finally to move adjacent to an enemy marked by a Defender and provoke Opportunity Attacks to trigger the Defender's punishments. Played this way, the +2 AC vs Opportunity Attacks becomes valuable.

Its also far less boring to play the archer that way, and we all know that the worst thing about archer Rangers is how boring they can be.

 

[cdrcjsn]

Have the best of both worlds and choose the TWF Ranger class features but primarily use a bow?

This is actually the way to go. Unlike other classes, none of the encounter powers are dependent on which path you take and the ability to wield two weapons of equal size and free toughness will come up way more often than what the ranged option give you.

Now, that might change with Martial Power 2, but until then, a bow ranger is better off taking the melee class feature (or even the beast master feature) and just choosing ranged attack powers.

 

[Klaus]

I've seen a few DMs enforce the build to reflect how the character is played, i.e. if the character is primarily a bow user, he gets the Archery style.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The one thing hard coded into the system for the Archery style is that it lets you take the Battlefield Archer path, which is still one of if not the best Paragon Path for a bow Ranger.

I still say that the archer Ranger does his best work at point blank range, and at point blank range will make use out of Defensive Mobility. If you can go two consecutive fights without being attacked in 4E, as far as I'm concerned you're doing it wrong.

 

[Mercule]

Have the best of both worlds and choose the TWF Ranger class features but primarily use a bow?

Yeah. Apparently I was extremely, extremely unclear in my original post (I was rushing to get it off before leaving for work). This is pretty much what I was getting at.

I wasn't trying to compare using a bow to dual-wielding in melee. The player is definitely all about ranged combat. I get the advantages of ranged vs. melee fighting, so that's not what I was getting at.

The question really is whether there is any freaking point to the archer build bonus feat or (barring pre-reqs for paths) whether even an archer ranger should just take the TWF build and be done. Really, at 3rd level, the archer ranger build seems just plain worthless, even for a ranger who intends on staying out of melee.

Are archer rangers prohibited from using the melee/TWF forms of their powers? Are TWF rangers prohibited from using a bow to Twin Strike? Is there some reason the mobility is actually of use to an archer more than the added hit points?