Are ranged rangers better than melee ones?

[Nareau]

In this build, the archer will have a +2 to hit/dmg, +2 to AC/Ref and a -5 to his fortitude save.

The advantages are simply underwhelming, considering the bonuses the TWF guy gets with weapon feats, ability with (and competence in) opportunity attacks, lack of vulnerability to OAs (though admittedly ranger utilities make up for this) and all those cool interrupt attacks.

I'm confused--Where is the -5 to the archer's fort save coming from? What additional weapon feats does the TWF get?

Keep in mind he'll also:

1. be attacked far less often
2. spend half as much money to get the same benefit from magic weapons
3. only need to draw one weapon when going into combat (just a minor action, but important sometimes)
4. not have to take as many move actions to stay in combat
5. not have to spend feats to improve his AC, nor feats to use a bastard sword

I consider those to be some pretty major benefits.

Nareau

 

[toxicspirit]

I would really love to see a couple more archery-oriented feats make an appearance in the near future.

 

[Cadfan]

Keep in mind he'll also:
1. be attacked far less often

From the perspective of the party, this isn't a positive. Enemies who aren't attacking a ranged combatant because he's too far away tend to be instead attacking melee combatants who are nearby. Each additional ranged combatant reduces the overall number of hit points the party has on the front line, meaning that the front liners are likely to die more quickly.

5. not have to spend feats to improve his AC, nor feats to use a bastard sword

The Melee Ranger doesn't HAVE to spend feats on this, he just gets awesome benefits from doing so. I consider this to be overall an advantage for the Melee guy. Better feat choices. It will undoubtedly even out after an expansion book or so, but as it stands, the Melee Ranger has superior feat options.

 

[Nareau]

From the perspective of the party, this isn't a positive. Enemies who aren't attacking a ranged combatant because he's too far away tend to be instead attacking melee combatants who are nearby. Each additional ranged combatant reduces the overall number of hit points the party has on the front line, meaning that the front liners are likely to die more quickly.

Well, that depends on the party makeup. Given the choice between the monsters attacking me (AC 16) or the paladin (AC 20-23, lots more healing options), I'd much prefer they focus entirely on the paladin. If you've got even one defender in the party, having them soak up the attacks is usually better than having the striker do it.

I can see what you mean about the melee ranger having better things to spend those feats on. I haven't really looked through all the feats carefully. Do others feel this way too?

Nareau

 

[Puggins]

I'm confused--Where is the -5 to the archer's fort save coming from? What additional weapon feats does the TWF get?

The -5 comes from his anemic str/con combo. Compared to the TWF guy, the Archer's fort is five points lower.

Archery has precious few feats. This could certainly change in the future. Now, though, the Bastard Sword wielder has Heavy Blade opportunity and Heavy Blade Mastery, to name just two. I forgot at least one more. Archery has one that requires the archer to be closest to his target, which negates at least one of the benefits you've listed below.

Keep in mind he'll also:

1. be attacked far less often

1. 
   True. I consider this to be a bit of a wash, considering the ranger has quite a few mitigation utility powers that will help relieve the pressure on the Defenders and trigger defender class abilities.
   

   [*]spend half as much money to get the same benefit from magic weapons

   Very true.
   

   [*]only need to draw one weapon when going into combat (just a minor action, but important sometimes)

   Only sometimes, and a single feat (which has advantages beyond drawing quickly) eliminates this.
   

   [*]not have to take as many move actions to stay in combat

   I suppose this is correct, but the ranger is so mobile anyway that I don't see this as that much of an advantage- whereas the archer is using his mobility to stay out of combat, the ranger is using his to stay IN combat.
   

   [*]not have to spend feats to improve his AC, nor feats to use a bastard sword

Improving his AC via a feat is not a disadvantage, at least not always. Sub a Heavy Armor Ranger and it suddenly gives the ranger an AC advantage over the Archer.

I consider those to be some pretty major benefits.

Keep in mind that I don't consider the TWF superior- I merely think that a very convincing case can be made that they are equitably similar on paper. Now, when it comes to practice- hell, no one knows yet, right?

 

[Cadfan]

Well, that depends on the party makeup. Given the choice between the monsters attacking me (AC 16) or the paladin (AC 20-23, lots more healing options), I'd much prefer they focus entirely on the paladin. If you've got even one defender in the party, having them soak up the attacks is usually better than having the striker do it.

Sure, until he runs out of hit points.

It all has to do with damage distribution. If you're fighting five monsters, chances are that they're going to attack five times. And if all of those attacks hit one character who has 30 hit points, then even with a high armor class and a "defender" role, eventually he's going down. That's why having more melee combatants is usually a benefit, even if they're not as durable as the defenders. They can stay near the defenders and benefit from the defenders protection, while still absorbing a percentage of the attacks. This takes the heat off the defender a bit, helping him survive longer.

 

[Branduil]

Couple of points on TWF's behalf:

(1) The Heavy Armor Ranger is viable, from what I can see, and is easily the most damaging build of all rangers assuming that it goes Pit Fighter/Demigod. 24 wisdom = +7 damage on all attacks, both main hand and off hand. Two-weapon rend gives you three opportunities to score that bonus damage, and, with demigod, it essentially becomes your go-to at-will.

What is two-weapon rend?

 

[Puggins]

What is two-weapon rend?

My fault: Death Rend.

 

[toxicspirit]

The Melee Ranger doesn't HAVE to spend feats on this, he just gets awesome benefits from doing so.

No, most two-weapon Rangers pretty much have to buy those armor feats, because with their main focus elsewhere, their Dexterity isn't likely to stay on a par with the Archer-Ranger, and therefore their AC will suffer. I wouldn't necessarily call that a plus.

But unfortunately they do have quite a few more feats (a lot of them quite juicy) geared toward them than the Archer.

 

[toxicspirit]

Sub a Heavy Armor Ranger and it suddenly gives the ranger an AC advantage over the Archer.

That's not necessarily true at all.

Give the Two-Weapon Ranger Plate with it's +8.
Give the Archer-Ranger Hide at +3 and a Dexterity of 20 for +8

At Epic, with Godplate giving the Two-Weapon Ranger +14 (+ magic), the Archer will have Elderhide at +5 and his Dexterity of 28 (or even 30), which give him +14 or +15. Specialization in their respective armor types can add another +1 to each, and most other AC boosts are available to both (even Back To The Wall).