Ranger & TWF vs. Archery Powers

[Kaffis]

and if you take the dual sword wielding Ranger, you are one feat away from doing d10/d10 in melee or in ranged. This is necessary for the Melee Ranger, I get that. I'm not saying that the Archer ranger is weaker, I'm saying that he needs something to make him special before eleventh level.

As it stands, you may as well select the TWF ranger even if you want to be an archer.

Why? Joe sucks, so he gets a little something special to make him not suck. I'm already awesome, but I need something because Joe got something?

Seriously, that's scary logic.

If you don't think your game is going to progress to paragon levels... go TWF and wield your bow anyways. Why does it matter? That's what's confusing me. It's a line on your character sheet if you plan to retire the character before paragon. It doesn't matter what it says, because nothing references it until then. So why do you care which you pick?

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Also, if you're not sure whether you'll get to paragon or not: discuss it with your DM. Not with all the people on the internet with no stake in it whatsoever. Ask your DM if he's cool with you taking the TWF thing even though you're an archer, and letting you retrain if you get to level 10 or 11. If the DM is unsure how long the campaign will run as well, and is decently lenient, I don't think that should be a problem. Can't hurt to talk to the guy

 

[Zurai]

TWF rangers never lose the ability to attack outside of enemy action. Archers can (no more ammo).
TWF rangers don't provoke OAs for attacking. Archer rangers do.
TWF rangers get access to other feats that increase damage and defenses. Archers don't.
TWF rangers get epic-level weapon feats. Archer rangers don't.
TWF rangers can easily control which target is their Quarry. Archer rangers can't.

I could go on. Could we please stop with the "Oh, the poor maligned Drizzts need the extra impossible-to-replace class feature to compete!" drivel?

 

[Otterscrubber]

Honestly, lets look at the benefits vs the play style of the two options. If you are an archer ranger I don't see why improved TWF is such a big benefit unless you are an archery ranger with a higher Str than Dex, this is highly unlikely in most builds I tihnk. All improved TWF does is simulate the damage you already do with a bow with melee weapons by letting you make two damage rolls of the same type. I don't see this as a "Huge" benefit by any stretch of the imagination as there are very few situations where an archery ranger can't just shift back and take his 2 d10 shots. The only situations where they can't shift out of, they will have to take an OA to get to a spot where they can use their bow, or just take an OA for using a ranged weapon in melee, and that is when the Defensive Mobility comes in.

TWF Rangers face a different combat situation all together though. Improved TWF simply gives them a viable option to using their bow, without this feat it would be better to use a bow in virtually all cases. This "huge" benefit merely gives them +1 damage in general to their off-hand weapon. And now they are in melee, with lower AC, fewer healing surges and less HP than most of their defender teammates. Yet they are more likely to attract the aggro of monsters who aren't marked, or even some who are, because they do such solid damage. So they get some toughness to even things out. And how much is prime shot helping here? Not much generally I would say.

If your Str<Dex then improved TWF is of very limited use if you ask me. Sure you can make attacks in melee without causing OA, but its using a less accurate attack method which is not a winning strat for a striker. The fact that a archer ranger can stay at range and effectively do his/he thing, using cover and terrain to get CA, to me outweighs Toughness, or at least equals its effectiveness. Once again, it looks unbalanced on paper but works well in play.

 

[Styracosaurus]

NO.

I'm not saying to make the Archer more powerful in making damage.
I'm saying that either you can play the TWF ranger or you can play the inferior plain ranger. That is the choice for my player who wants to play the Archer.

I fully understand that the Archer has distinct advantages built into the system. I'm saying that as his DM, it is my job to make sure that everyone is happy. He is a good player and so I can see how the Archer is lacking some small touch for good flavor. He will choose the Archer anyway, but I can see into the future and see that he will be disappointed at about 5th level.

I'm leaning towards making it easier for him to make magic arrows (tweak) or just giving him another ability like Improved Deer Hunting with his bow.

Just having fun.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Hmmm ... giving archer rangers the ability to make their own arrows out-of-combat with little to no cost would actually be quite flavorful. I mean, how often do you expect the woodsy, urban-phobic guy (total stereotype, I know) to go to town to buy arrows??

That would be really cool, for me anyways

 

[Zurai]

I'm leaning towards making it easier for him to make magic arrows (tweak)

No such thing as magic arrows, any more.

 

[Styracosaurus]

No such thing as magic arrows, any more.

Well I never liked the +1 or +2 approach to magic. By magic, lets say "special". Think Hawkeye or Green Arrow. Nice to have a fishing line grapple arrow, smoke arrow, signal arrow, etc.....

 

[bardolph]

I haven't playtested the Archery path, but my assumption is that Defensive Mobility is designed for the following scenarios:

(a) when engaged in melee, to disengage with full move action and fire from a distance.

(b) when engaged in melee, to fire from point-blank range.

If the character piles all of his powers into ranged attacks, then both (a) and (b) are definitely going to matter any time the ranger gets engaged by a melee enemy.

However, the question arises: is a +2 AC against opportunity attacks enough of a bonus for the ranger to take the risk of getting hit? It's probably worth it if the character's chosen ranged powers are far better than his melee powers. With a mix of ranged and melee powers, the ranger is definitely better off with TWF. However, if the character is 100% loaded with ranged, then Defensive Mobility will matter.

The simplest solution I can think of for those who think the Archer option is underpowered compared to TWF, is to either add Toughness to the the Archer path (if you believe Archery is underpowered), or to remove Toughness from the TWF path (if you believe TWF is overpowered).

In the situation where the party functions well and the ranger never gets engaged anyway, the point is moot, since neither path would provide bonuses that make a difference.

The different paths are designed to skew the player's reaction to the situation where he gets engaged by a melee enemy. Do you wish to disengage? Pick Archery. Do you wish to switch to melee? Pick TWF. That's really what the choice is about.

 

[Zurai]

However, if the character is 100% loaded with ranged, then Defensive Mobility will matter.

I disagree. An archer ranger will only very rarely have a "sticky" enemy in melee that they can't shift away from, and they have access to a LOT of powers that give them the ability to move away from creatures that engage them in melee, including some that are part of the attack itself. I really don't see Defensive Mobility getting much mileage for an archer ranger.