Ranger & TWF vs. Archery Powers

[thedangerranger]

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.

Point.

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

As can anyone else. Requires an investment of 2 feats and a specific magic item to achieve.

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

The potential of splatbooks leveling the field is there. It rankles me that one of the core weapon classes is conspicously absent from the *Mastery feats though.

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

If that's your combat style, why wouldn't you just want to be a TWF ranger and charge them.

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.

I think of it kind of like an MMO. Kiting is fine if the game is all about you, but get's kind of annoying in a party situation.

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.

That's great for our survivability, but kind of stinks from a party dynamic aspect. Why have an archer in the party if the melee strikers are going to put baddies down faster, therefore limiting the damage taken by the whole party?

I just think that archer rangers may end up with "Doesn't play well with others." on their report card.

 

[SableWyvern]

People keep insisting that TWF isn't a huge benefit, and that archers are great.

The fact remains that there is no inherrent motivation for an archer to take the archery path. Taking the archery path doesn't make you a better archer. At most, selecting a path for an archer comes down to a preference for either Toughness or Defensive Mobility.

A TWF Ranger takes the TWF path because it makes him an objectively better TWF. An Archery Ranger has no reason to take the archery path unless he really wants Defensive Mobility and doesn't want Toughness and doesn't feel that he needs any sort of extra edge if he ends up in melee.

 

[Ziana]

If that's your combat style, why wouldn't you just want to be a TWF ranger and charge them.

Because it's a different approach. The tank will have engaged soldiers & melee strikers, and is keeping them off the party's casters. One of the highest value targets to start with is the enemy leaders: take out their healing. The archer is well suited to focussing on that goal. Plus the TWF fighter if he wants that flanking bonus needs to be working with the tank, not off on his own.

I think of it kind of like an MMO. Kiting is fine if the game is all about you, but get's kind of annoying in a party situation.
...
That's great for our survivability, but kind of stinks from a party dynamic aspect. Why have an archer in the party if the melee strikers are going to put baddies down faster, therefore limiting the damage taken by the whole party?

Kiting allows the ranger in many circumstances to take down an enemy while taking no damage. That means they don't need the attention of the healer, which means they can focus on the tank/melee strikers. The TWF ranger, melee rogue, and defenders all need more heals.

If an enemy striker or soldier is chasing a member of the party, the ranger can chase *them*, and take them down on the run, allowing the person being chased to make double moves to get away, then resume their normal actions.

I just think that archer rangers may end up with "Doesn't play well with others." on their report card.

Or useful in numerous situations that Yet Another Meleer wouldn't be? And how often would the Fighter, Rogue, and TWFR be in one clump all trying to flank, vulnerable to AOE attacks from enemy casters?

 

[thedangerranger]

Or useful in numerous situations that Yet Another Meleer wouldn't be? And how often would the Fighter, Rogue, and TWFR be in one clump all trying to flank, vulnerable to AOE attacks from enemy casters?

Interesting perspectives.
I guess time will tell.
It's only through many people playing the different builds in many parties that data less colored by play style will emerge.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Many characters rely on other characters to get the best benefit. A rogue is able to get combat advantage on his own ... however his allies can set them up better. Similarly, the rest of the party can help a ranger "isolate" a character for Prime Shot, simply by moving away, as well as various pushing/sliding powers.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

The potential of splatbooks leveling the field is there. It rankles me that one of the core weapon classes is conspicuously absent from the *Mastery feats though.

sheesh tell me about it...

I did find a few feats though that really benefit the bow and no one else.

Mounted combat. You can fly at maximum range and rain down arrows of death

sly hunter

yeah its a short list. With the lack of feats one can take mettle and evasion and unfettered stride and not feel like they are loose out though.

I did feel sad though that a ranged archer has almost no multiclass options if they want to focus in archery and take a non ranger paragon path. The twf ranger has lots of options though.

wizards seems a bit afraid of how good the archer is.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think the main problem with the twf ranger path is that
1) Their "off-hand anything" power should be a feat with minimal pre-requisites. After all, it gives minimal benefit to non-rangers.
2) I don't really see why they get toughness. They're powers make them more manueverable than rogues, the other melee striker, and they can wear heavier armor IIRC.

Change those two things and the two ranger paths become equal. Change the paragon path requirements to feats and the ranger paragon paths fall in to line as well.

 

[Otterscrubber]

People keep insisting that TWF isn't a huge benefit, and that archers are great.

The fact remains that there is no inherrent motivation for an archer to take the archery path. Taking the archery path doesn't make you a better archer. At most, selecting a path for an archer comes down to a preference for either Toughness or Defensive Mobility.

A TWF Ranger takes the TWF path because it makes him an objectively better TWF. An Archery Ranger has no reason to take the archery path unless he really wants Defensive Mobility and doesn't want Toughness and doesn't feel that he needs any sort of extra edge if he ends up in melee.

Good point. I currently use a TWF ranger but I intend to go the stormwarden path. If I didn't care about paragon paths I and wanted to be an archery ranger and I ask myself what I would do differently in my build: Not a darn thing most likely.

 

[Kaffis]

The comments about "if you want to be an archer but don't want to take a ranger paragon path" really confuse me.

If you want to be an archer, how is battlefield archer something you can go "eh, I'll pass" on?

 

[SableWyvern]

The comments about "if you want to be an archer but don't want to take a ranger paragon path" really confuse me.

If you want to be an archer, how is battlefield archer something you can go "eh, I'll pass" on?

Not everyone can count on playing to paragon levels. Plenty of people will go into a game knowing for a fact they'll never choose a paragon path. Some people may have decided to take a non-Ranger paragon path. And, even for those that do intend to take paragon paths, I don't see why that decision should require them to take an otherwise inferior fighting style.