No other Ranged Weapon Class, or How I loathe the ranger

You are a melee combatant but you are a squishy one. Moving out of melee forces monsters to move to attack you if they want to take you out. This provokes OA's from your friendly neighbourhood defender, quite possibly stopping the monster in its tracks.

The FND is a Paladin who is usually divine challenging the same guy I'm hitting.

Next round you move back into melee, grabbing CA via flanking and bring the pain. Try dancing around the battlefield a lot, you may find it brings with it surprising benefits.

Shrug. If you insist. From my perspective, any round in which I'm not doing damage is a wasted round. I can usually get flank with a single shift, so blowing an encounter power to get what I can get with a move action seems silly. Sudden Strike is nice, not for the move in between, but for the 3d10 damage and the Weaken effect, which has been a life saver on more than one occasion.

With a Paladin, a Bard, and me multiclassed to Warlord, healing mojo is strong and regular enough that dancing around the monsters is generally less efficient than just whacking them. I can take them down faster than the wounds can accumulate, usually. I regularly get knocked to single digits, but so far, by level 3, I haven't yet been hit below 0.

I'll see what I can do tomorrow about using my mobility to try to lure monsters in OA range, though...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Random comments on the thread:

If you want to play a melee/ranged hybrid, the rogue's your man. Martial power has a lot of encounter ranged attacks for the rogue, and in any case, the ranged backup is an excellent way of ensuring that you get sneak attack as often as possible- you can get a shot in on a far away enemy who has been dazed or otherwise is granting combat advantage.

The podcast didn't exactly address the Twin Strike vs Sure Strike issue. It just addressed whether the +2 attack at wills were worthwhile, in a sort of vacuum. One speaker took pro, one took con. I tend to lean towards thinking that its worthwhile for the Fighter at higher levels- If your epic level basic melee attack hits for 4d6 +7 strength +5 enhancement +4 paragon path bonus Brutal 1, the math starts to shift. The strength is a smaller percentage of your overall damage, so +2 attack starts to be more worthwhile. That doesn't necessarily mean that the at will is a good one, though, since you probably shouldn't have to wait until epic tier to make it worthwhile.

As far as the Ranger is concerned: I personally believe that Prime Shot should be a larger bonus. I think this would go a long way towards making the Archery Ranger more interesting. Lets face it, its an archer, its mostly going to shoot at people. Its also the most damage oriented Striker in the game. And if you're more concerned with damage than with bonus effects, its mostly going to shoot at people with Twin Strike or with upgraded encounter and daily versions fo Twin Strike. You can make this not happen by selecting certain encounter powers, but its not as easy as you might like. In order to make the Archery Ranger fun, you have to be maneuvering around. This 1. gives you something else to do on your turn, and 2. makes it more likely that you'll get yourself into trouble and have to use encounter powers to escape. In order to get you to maneuver more, you need a better incentive to do so. Prime Shot is supposed to provide that incentive, but the bonus doesn't seem big enough to motivate a lot of people.

There are feats which upgrade Prime Shot. I think that taking them is worthwhile, because they might improve your enjoyment of your character. I just kind of wish that Prime Shot was more of a gateway ability- maybe make it so that Twin Strike is unusable unless you are receiving your Prime Shot bonus against at least one of your targets. Rangers would suddenly become the most fast moving, high maneuvering class in the game.

For the record, feats you might want are Called Shot (+5 damage v prime shot target) and Prime Quarry (if target is quarry and prime shot target, +2 attack instead of +1). Both are Paragon, unfortunately.
 

I've got two rangers in my game, one melee-focused and the other ranged.

I've never noticed any monotony with them (except for that damned archer always piping up whenever he hears a hint of someone else making a ranged attack so he can join in...)
 


Something I haven't seen anybody mention yet as to why Twin Strike would be limited for archery rangers is due to a very simple reason...ammo. Twin Strike chews through arrows like nobody's business. We've always kept track of ammo in our games, and while the human ranger uses Twin Strike quite a bit once she gets into a good firing position, she also uses Nimble Strike (to maneuver into position) and Careful Attack (to test an opponent's defense or ensure a hit with her frost bow power) a LOT. Just a factor to consider.
 

Something I haven't seen anybody mention yet as to why Twin Strike would be limited for archery rangers is due to a very simple reason...ammo. Twin Strike chews through arrows like nobody's business. We've always kept track of ammo in our games, and while the human ranger uses Twin Strike quite a bit once she gets into a good firing position, she also uses Nimble Strike (to maneuver into position) and Careful Attack (to test an opponent's defense or ensure a hit with her frost bow power) a LOT. Just a factor to consider.

Ammo? Are you serious? I suppose you keep track of food and water too! How antiquated is that.:p Its not like there are any real consequences that come from not eating.

(not at all serious for those with broken sarcasm detectors)
 

Ammo? Are you serious? I suppose you keep track of food and water too! How antiquated is that.:p Its not like there are any real consequences that come from not eating.

(not at all serious for those with broken sarcasm detectors)

Well, not for 30 days. Then you only need to eat once to reset the clock.

But that's a different thread. :)
 

Tangent.

In 10+ years of table top gaming I'm not sure I've ever marked a ration off of a character sheet. I've faithfully kept track of every copper and sling bullet, but I've never had a DM who seemed to care one little bit if your characters ate or not.
 

Tangent.

In 10+ years of table top gaming I'm not sure I've ever marked a ration off of a character sheet. I've faithfully kept track of every copper and sling bullet, but I've never had a DM who seemed to care one little bit if your characters ate or not.

Hmm. Forked thread thing seems to be broken. EDIT: now forked thread is back


The DM shouldn't care one little bit if the characters eat or not. The DM isn't thier momma. He should simply note the effects of starvation and mention said effects to the PC's when then come up.
 

From a GM's point of view it can be even more frustrating with bow rangers. Sometimes it feels like a Benny Hill episode as I try to pin the shifty bastard into a corner.
Soldiers. Soldiers, and controllers that immobilize. Also, several enemies that charge to surround the ranger.
 

Remove ads

Top