Ranger & TWF vs. Archery Powers

[Xorn]

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.

This is well laid out, but still there is the fact that if you take TWF + Defensive Mobility versus Archery + Toughness, you gained more from TWF. I don't really care, myself, but it's true.

Now I consider the other option--never take Toughness, and take Weapon Focus (Bow). I got Defensive Mobility, and more damage with my bow. I don't care how good the defender is--they can't stop everyone from attacking the strikers. I also think it's funny that the archer ranger is going to have a higher AC than the TWF, because they can scrap STR for more DEX.

 

[Xorn]

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.

Last game the ranger in my group was surrounded by kobolds. The group was surprised. Defensive Mobility kicked her AC up to 21 for the three opportunity attacks she generated to shoot her way out. I rolled a 19 for one attack, and a 20 for the other. This was not a ludicrous situation, not every fight is a revolutionary war lineup in a ten foot wide hallway.

 

[Zurai]

Your archer had a kobold in every adjacent square? If not, a simple Move action to shift followed by a Nimble Strike, or an Evasive Strike without the shift, would have gotten him out of trouble without provoking OAs. Alternately, she could have simply delayed her turn until after one of the kobolds was killed (if there's 8 of them, they're gonna be easy to kill) and acted then. In neither case would Defensive Mobility have helped, because you wouldn't even have had the opportunity to attack her.

 

[Kaffis]

X X
 O
X X

Nimble strike your way out of that. Evasive strike your way out of it in difficult terrain (elves notwithstanding). It's not even a crazy, DM's-out-to-get-you set-up -- you've got two sets of guys flanking you, so that's something they'd go after naturally.

Then, there's the situation where you want to brush past a screen of minions to get in an advantageous spot to HQ the big bad. Sometimes, you'd judge that an okay risk with defensive mobility. *shrug*

Accepting the imperfect protection that defensive mobility grants you frees you up to take Fox's Cunning instead of Evasive Strike, too.

 

[Zurai]

How often is the ranged character with the most range in the game going to be double-flanked in the perfect tactical position to prevent shifting out of melee range while in deep difficult terrain? That's a pretty off-the-wall scenario, IMO. Especially when there are a vast number of Immediate Reactions/Interrupts available to rangers that let them move away when an enemy moves adjacent or attacks.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

The more I think about Archery Rangers and Prime Shot, the more I dislike it. If anything it seems like it should be reversed: if you are furthest party member away from your enemies, you get a bonus to hit. Or perhaps "if you have no enemies within X squares, you get a bonus to hit." Those options might be too good, but Prime Shot is so weird as-is.

 

[Kosh]

How often is the ranged character with the most range in the game going to be double-flanked in the perfect tactical position to prevent shifting out of melee range while in deep difficult terrain? That's a pretty off-the-wall scenario, IMO. Especially when there are a vast number of Immediate Reactions/Interrupts available to rangers that let them move away when an enemy moves adjacent or attacks.

A goblin shadow-mage thing summoned four zombies in that exact formation around my bow ranger just last Friday. Luckily I had Fox's Cunning, but two of them still got OAs, so I was glad to have Defensive Mobility.

So far, 100 percent of the sessions I've played my ranger in, I've been happy to have Defensive Mobility.

What has your in game experience shown?

 

[Stalker0]

Here's the question, does an archer ranger want toughness more than defensive mobilitiy.

I mean, honestly, if your playing a bow guy, how often are you going to want to use that TWF ability?

If you want toughness, take the path that gives you toughness. You want defensive mobility, take the path that gives you that.

I will say that I personally think bow rangers are better than TWF rangers. Bow rangers can use dex for everything, attack, damage, AC, reflex defense, initiative, and all dex skills. That's the golden ticket right there. They can dump more points into wisdom for more ranger secondaries and a better will defense. And points left over can be thrown in con for more hitpoints.

A TWF ranger has to invest in heavier armor or use their dex for AC, dex for ref defense. They invest in strength, so aren't as likely to invest in con (meaning archery rangers may actually have MORE hitpoints). And archery rangers get to fire all over the place.

 

[thedangerranger]

I don't know.
I feel like the archer rangers got left behind on several of the party dynamics issues.
In 4e it seems like your to hit is Ability + .5*Level + Magic + Proficiency + Combat Advantage + Party Buff.

I think the archer ranger suffers a bit in the last two categories.
You don't qualify to flank (probably the most common way to get combat advantage), so in my playing the archer has had a heck of a time squeezing those two points out.

If you're playing sniper style, you likely won't be in range to get any buffs from your warlord or cleric. You also won't qualify for prime shot. (dumbest archer ability ever... What archer is going to want to be in the front?)

You tally all the lost hit bonuses from these things and suddenly your striker isn't looking so hot on the damage front because he's whiffing all the time.

This is just my experience playing an archer ranger so far. Maybe things even out at higher levels.
When you look at the TWF ranger, who gets 95% of the bang for the buck out of the ranger powers, has feats that actually improve the weapon over the levels (more than making up for d6/d8 vs d10 differences [if you even have to worry about them]), and can regularly benefit from a flank and warlord/cleric buffs: I think it's a no-brainer. The TWF ranger seems mechanically superior.

I still play the archer because that's what I want to play. That doesn't mean I don't wish for an epic-tier archery feat, or a bigger range on the party buff abilities...

 

[Ziana]

Archers can stealth using any terrain or corners to gain CA. I believe it's part of the design they do this. They need to make use of their surroundings, rather than just stand in the open firing away.

They can use the Wintertouched, Lasting Frost, and Frost Weapon enhancement combo for constant CA + 5 damage bonus.

Missing out on an epic archery feat is disappointing, we'll probably see those in splatbooks. Unfettered Stride is about it for now.

We can make use of Prime Shot by circling around the melee and targetting the back-row artillery and controllers.

Also consider the value of kiting-oriented feats like Running Shot, Uncanny Dodge, Fast Runner and Fleet Footed. An elf ranger can move 12 squares per turn at no penalty (13 with boots), and still make a full attack.

We get the benefit of rarely taking damage and being exposed to less risk, and so it's expected our damage output might be slightly lower than front-line strikers who need to invest in armor or heal themselves more.