Ranger as Archer instead of Melee Fighter

[AGGEMAM]

Basically I like the Monte Cooks alternative ranger much more than the WotC one.

It gives you a lot more versatility on all fronts, and that is basically what I think should be the difference between core classes and prestige classes.

That is core classes should give you room to develop the character in multiple directions, read they shouldn't be archetypes.

While prestige classes should be exactly that, focused on an archetype.

Btw, personally I don't really fancy the official Bard, Paladin, Monk, Ranger or Sorceror much.

Monte Cook has done a good job of providing us with more core classes feel in his alternative bard, ranger, and sorceror classes. I highly recommend those.

Now the monk class was fixed with the OA which said that virtual feat could be substituted.

All that is left for me to rant on about is the Paladin. Why does he gain a mount, what if he does not want to play a mounted character.

Also why does a Wizard or Sorceror get a familiar automatically, this should be a choice. Between that and a another bonus feat.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Another consideration is that unless you have obscenely high stats, very low level characters (1-3) don't usually have a sufficent attack bonus to effectively use rapid shot. So I would delay Rapid shot as a bonus feat until about third and go with Precise Shot as the second feat.

I think quite the opposite is true.

Low level characters miss so often against soft ACs that the only way to hit consistently is roll more dice.

IMNSHO the same story is true for TWF. While TWF average damage will lag a two-handed fighter, the extra die rolls make fluke deaths much less likely. TWF is quite valuable at low levels, where you are most vulnerable to luck, and very high levels, where wielding multiple enchanted weapons has some pretty crazy potential advantages. Most analysis is made at medium levels (not surprisingly) so the value of TWF is underestimated.

(There is a short discussion in the DMG how increasing the randomness tends to hurt PCs. It also rates that an extra attack is very valuable, usually much more valuable than an attack bonus, a damage bonus being weaker still. That line of thought supports how TWF was engineered.)

Obviously if your 1st level Archer meets someone in full plate and shield you may need to shift tactics. But those are exceptional situations.

 

[bensei]

I once did a calculation (just for interest):

Character with just one attact per round.
Critical hits are notconsidered in this calculation.

E(D1) = Expected damage per round without Rapid Shot
E(D2) = Expected damage per round with Rapid Shot
p = probability to hit with one shot (without rapid shot)

E(D2) > E(D1) if and only if p > 23%

So if your one shot would hit on a roll of 16 it is better to use rapid shot.
Since you can hit critically twice with rapid shot, it is even better.

(A similar calculation holds for fighting with two weapons, although a two handed weapon may give more boni than a bow.)

 

[Erekose]

Check out the Ranger project:

http://www.electricearth.net/ranger/

Particularly this archer ranger:

http://www.electricearth.net/ranger/rangers/10.html

 

[Y.O.Morales]

For my campaign, I use a ranger variant that someone who responds as "Sonofapreacherman" posted at the Wizards.com boards. Of course I did a little changes but now a player can either choose to be the typical two-swords ranger or an archer or what he wants right from the start. The trick is to mess with the feats and grant them as an option, so characters do not have to take Two-Weapon Fighting, Ambidexterity (or in your case, Point Blank and Rapid Shot) obligatory.