Battlefield Archer quarry damage

[DracoSuave]

Toughness is more than 5 hitpoints. It's 5 + 1 or 2/surge (at heroic) or 10 + 2 or 3/surge (at paragon). You'll be taking damage no matter what, but you won't be taking OA's no matter what, and if you do take OA's, DM is going to save you only time out of ten.

Looking at a level 13 skirmisher, randomly picked out of the Dark Sun book cause that was what was in reach, the Kirre.

It has two basic attacks it can use. One slows, and is terrible for a ranged attacker to get hit by because of that. Toughness does not help you here. The second hits for 3d8+6 damage, or 19.2 points of damage. As an archer ranger, you likely have 7 surges. It depends on how long your adventuring day is, but if you get missed twice because of defensive mobility, toughness has been beat for the amount of 'unconsciousness prevention' you've incurred. On top of that, Dm prevented that slow it's more likely to use, or that immobilize, or that 5 ongoing damage(save ends) or all those nasty riders that basic attacks have on monsters that player characters don't get on their sheets.

 

[Obryn]

My PCs find it easier to stay conscious when they don't get hit in the first place.

Sure, but are they helping as much as they could? If you're not getting hit, odds are you're also not getting your Prime Shot and the various bonuses from excellent feats like Prime Quarry and Called Shot.

I had an Archer Ranger in my high-paragon game who picked the Hunter style, followed with the Sharpshooter paragon path. I mean, there's little comparison...

Archery Style: +2 vs OAs, take Battlefield Archer

Hunter Style: +4 vs OAs caused by shooting, +2 to initiative, sheathe for free, draw as part of an attack, take Sharpshooter.

Sharpshooter and Battlefield Archer are certainly in the same ballpark as far as quality paragon paths go.

Personally, I think most Rangers have enough powers to help them avoid OAs that any feats or abilities which give bonuses against OAs are only useful if the Ranger was trying to provoke in the first place.

In my own game, the Ranger would provoke OAs left and right, intentionally shooting in melee range against a target that one of the party's defenders had Marked. Sure, he might get hit ... but with +4 against OAs and -2 to attacks due to the mark it was unlikely. Regardless, the Fighter got to swing away anyway on top of a Twin Strike with +2 to-hit (usually +4 with flanking) and +5 extra damage per hit.

Every once in a while, he'd pull out his Greataxe, too, and with Dex-based melee attacks, it was a pretty good strategy. Most of the time, though, he was perfectly happy to risk attacks to maximize his usefulness.

-O

 

[DracoSuave]

See, throw Hunter into the mix and yeah, you have a different sort of discussion. I do agree, Hunter is by far the better archery ranger class feature.

Toughness doesn't even show up on the radar compared to Hunter's upside.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

My PCs find it easier to stay conscious when they don't get hit in the first place.

...and my PCs are attacked most commonly when it isn't my turn. Some DMs are simply cruel beyond words.

 

[DracoSuave]

...and my PCs are attacked most commonly when it isn't my turn. Some DMs are simply cruel beyond words.

Rangers are pretty adept at avoiding those things tho.