Are Archer Rangers getting the Shaft?

[Mad Hamish]

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.

That really depends on the character and the encounter composition.

An elven archer ranger who's focused on movement
(fast runner, fleet-footed, boots that boost speed) can get a lot of movement - up to 14 squares on a run action, chuck in another 10 squares when you use shot on the run) so they can probably avoid most melee combatants.
However it's harder to escape artillary and a fair few other enemies have ranged attacks.

If there's an archer ranger who is constantly moving away from the main battle then you've got a single character who is hugely exposed if skirmishers get to him or artillary starts to target him, and a striker who isolates himself becomes a very attractive option considering they're high damaging targets.

 

[Xris Robin]

My solution so far is a Cloak of Distortion. Ranged attacks from more than 5 squares away take a -5 penalty. (Yes, I play an Elven Archer.) My worst enemy is getting caught in melee (usually because of a cramped dungeon) or magic-users with area attacks.

On open ground I tend to be very isolated, but oddly hard to attack. Melee fighters tend to be focused on the rest of the group (try getting past the Dwarven Battleraging Fighter) and ranged fighters have trouble targeting me with a -5. Spitting Cobra Stance and Yield Ground help, since I can run away easily, or deal out punishment for trying to close in.

 

[DanmarLOK]

I can back this up with actual DM observation. In our current group, cleric, paladin, wizard and archer ranger, the archer rarely gets hit by melee (only 2nd level so far) while the paladin and to some extent the cleric are constantly getting KO'd. It's not unusual for the +2 fights to see the paladin hit the dirt at least once while the ranger is still unscratched. If the archer was closer to the fight and a viable target (other than archer rage which I have some monsters feel) the paladin might stay up the entire fight and not force a scramble when he drops.

This is a huge shift that some of you might not be aware of. This makes it the duty of every character to take their share of the damage dished out by the enemy.

That is, by actively avoiding damage you waste an important resource and hurt your team. Your party's ability to soak damage greatly improves if all characters take at least a few points of damage now and then. And since there aren't any long-lasting penalties of taking a moderate amount of damage in D&D (no broken legs etc) there is no good reason not to put your healing surges to work.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Put me down as a counter-example.
Elven archer ranger started with 20 dex, 14 wis and 10 str.

I as well. I went with an elven archer with 20 dex and 16 wis. it seemed to be the best choice. I cant even conceive how a str/dex archer competes.

i also went with twf for the bonus feat. Now maybe this is the dms fault, but if i don't brag and play real quite like, with a paranoia for being in optimum positions, i can sometimes make it though a game without ever being hit.

the key is keep always keep the party in front of you. Let the tanks do their job. The other is always ALWAYS try to find cover.

maybe its the side of a building, or maybe its a pile of bodies. get creative. If you pump dex to its max and find cover consistently, you will have the ac of a defender.

If your surrounded try to make sure that an enemy would have to at least move past other pc's to get to you.

 

[Corvinus]

1. Archer rangers are seemingly intended to be glass cannons.

2. Our group's tests of them indicate that they do FAR more damage than any other build our party has yet tested. It's just not even close.

3. Archer rangers have abilities to avoid melee opponents that no other glass cannon (see: Wizard) enjoys. By level 6, my archer ranger with Weave Through the Fray and Yield Ground can seriously bedevil pursuing attackers while turning them into pincushions with his sheer damage output.

4. Archer rangers have a natural synergy between their DEX for attack and DEX for AC and Reflex that is not enjoyed by dual-wield rangers. In fact, the dual-wield ranger was significantly more difficult to make competitive until I forgot about DEX entirely (set it to 8) and dumped into armor feats instead. Hell, the only attributes an archer ranger even needs are DEX, WIS, and CON (in that order). This conveniently gives them bonuses to all four defensive types as well as bonus hit points and surges. This more than makes up for the lack of the Toughness feat, seeing as they shouldn't even be in melee to start with.

5. Archer rangers can avoid melee VASTLY more easily than laser clerics (range 5), warlocks (range 10) and wizards (range 10). Your -close- range is a multiple of their -max- ranges.

6. I don't know about anyone else... but what chances we've had to test archer rangers, it is indeed very rare to see them in melee combat. Where it has happened, there were ways for them to slip the combat while the tanks used marks and other means to regain the attention of enemies. Hordes of ranged attackers concentrating fire on an archer ranger was vastly more dangerous.

Mind you... they are a bit glass cannon-like. If your archer ranger gets surrounded by big tough melee brutes that your friends can't shake off of you, you're toast.

Now... by contrast...

Melee rangers have, at least in my experience, a much rougher time of things. They typically have less AC (unless you dump DEX and invest in armor feats), less Reflex, are more susceptible to being whacked on in melee when they're so much more attractive as a target than your tanks, and other liabilities.

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but our group's tests of both builds have seemed to indicate that the archers were -vastly- superior.

 

[Mad Hamish]

1. Archer rangers are seemingly intended to be glass cannons.

2. Our group's tests of them indicate that they do FAR more damage than any other build our party has yet tested. It's just not even close.

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but our group's tests of both builds have seemed to indicate that the archers were -vastly- superior.

I think you're confusing two things.

Nobody that I can see is claiming that a ranged attacking ranger is weak (some people are saying that their ability to stay at range and not be attacked hurts the party because it means other people take more damage)

People are querying whether there's any reason to take the Archer build feature rather than either the two-weapon feature or the beast companion.

 

[ricardo440]

Sometimes you have got to get stuck in and take some hits.
It can relieve the pressure on your comrades. If you end the day having spent only one HS and everyone else is out, the rest of the party should be annoyed with you.

Provoking AoO is part of that deal, but it really can be beneficial when combined with defenders marks.

And also remember an archer ranger can both provide and claim a Flank.

When you want to hit with that all important Splintering Shot (a power our group decided to worship after it made a Solo miss 14 times in one encounter) getting +2 CA and +1 prime shot is worth taking the AoO that a) might miss and b) gives your fighter another bash (with a flank).