Ranger & TWF vs. Archery Powers

[Styracosaurus]

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.

Instead of saying "inferior", I say "mundane."

As Cadfan has pointed out before, adding something besides just raw damage potential makes something cool. It won't unbalance anything, just gives a different advantage. I can do this on my own, I just don't see why the archery path was left so blah in the end.

 

[bardolph]

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.

These are fine options, but Defensive Mobility allows the ranger to use more offensive, high-damage abilities, instead of relying on low-damage strikes to avoid OAs.

Additionally, there are times when a ranger would prefer to use a full move action instead of merely a shift. This is particularly true when a defender is nearby and able to lock down the target to prevent re-engagement with the ranger.

While it certainly is possible for the ranger to use Delay Action and hope for a rescue attempt before shifting away and firing, I can see plenty of reasons why a ranger would prefer not to do that, and would rather shoot now and risk the OAs, especially if he has an automatic +2 AC due to Defensive Mobility.

====

Strictly on paper, I can see why TWF is seen as the better option. However, a DEX-loaded ranger who is optimized for bow fighting simply isn't going to benefit from the ability to wield a longsword in his off-hand, so really it comes down to Toughness vs Defensive Mobility. This question comes down to a couple of things:

(a) Is the DM using tactics to try to knock out Strikers before Defenders?

(b) When engaged, does the ranger prefer to "run and gun" and put more distance between him and his opponents?

If both are true, then Defensive Mobility comes into play. This is especially true when the ranger is an Elf with 7 move, and can use that movement to put enough distance between him and his opponent that they CAN'T re-engage next turn.

 

[bardolph]

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?

Realistically speaking, most campaigns won't reach the Paragon Tier, and even if they did, I think most DMs would allow a player to retrain to the archer path in order to allow them to become a battlefield archer.

It's bad design to require players to suffer through an inferior choice for 10 levels in order to obtain a reward at level 11. However, I do see the Archer path as a viable choice for some builds.

 

[Ziana]

I really don't see the archery path as something one has to "suffer through".

We give up Two-Blade Fighting Style. Big deal: our damage depends on our bow, and most archers will probably pick up Weapon Focus: Bow in the first couple levels. Switching to melee would be a decrease in damage in most cases, and our combat style is based on remaining at range. This is a negligible difference.

Defensive Mobility instead of Toughness. It's a minor feat, but it will come in handy from time to time for archers, who will have the option of risking an OA to get back to range, and have a better chance of not getting hit doing it. I intend to take Toughness at first level for survivability, so that is definitely a nice feat, but I don't consider it a great loss that I get one and not the other for free.

I don't know how long any particular campaign will last. But I'd definitely want to play with the intention of getting Battlefield Archer eventually, and I don't believe I'm somehow missing out by going that route.

There are very few feats available that buff archer damage output. WF:Bow, Lethal Hunter, and the Wintertouched/Lasting Frost combo. Sly Hunter and Devastating critical are situational and fractional respectively. Most of the feats we'll be selecting will be defense or utility oriented. Not getting toughness to start with is seriously not a big loss, as it's one of many good options we'll likely take anyway. From what I've seen, TBF rangers have more feats that would be considered necessary to their style, from bastard sword proficiency to the armor proficiency and specialization feats.

If Wizards decides to buff the Archer path I certainly wouldn't complain, but as it is, we're not missing out on much and complaining just seems peevish. If a ranger-archer suits your playstyle, take the path and enjoy it. If not, go with TBFS if that's what you prefer.

 

[Kaldaen]

Every class has features that make it stand out in its role on the battlefield. A number of classes can heal, but Clerics have Healer's Lore, which helps them heal better than those other classes. Many classes use melee weapons, but Fighters get the Fighter Weapon Talent class feature that gives them a +1 with their chosen weapon style, making them slightly better than other classes wielding that same weapon.

The Ranger class is unique in that your choice of fighting style determines your role on the battlefield. If you choose the Two-Blade style, your role becomes that of an agile melee striker, using two weapons to deal heavy damage to the enemy while staying on the move. Other classes can dual-wield, but the TB Ranger's Fighting Style feature allows him to wield two main-hand weapons and make a separate attack for each one. This makes him better at dual-wielding than another class wielding two swords.

Choosing the Archery fighting style puts you into the role of artillery support. Most of your damage comes from your bow or crossbow. Supposedly, you have focused on ranged attacks, but you are no better at hitting targets with the bow than any other class. Anyone with proficiency in military ranged weapons can pick up a longbow and get the exact same +2 bonus to attacks as your archer. In fact, in order for another class to match your "focus on ranged attacks," all they need to do is take a feat -- one that's actually fairly useful.

This is why we're saying the Archery fighting style needs a boost -- there's nothing unique about it that demonstrates how the character excels at his chosen role.

If you want a mechanical example of how the Archery style is lacking, it's actually rather easy for a TB Ranger to outclass an Archer's attack bonus and equal his potential damage. All he has to do is dual-wield Bastard Swords, which are a good choice of weapon for him regardless. Consider the Twin Strike power:

The Two-Blade Ranger is dealing 1d10/1d10 damage
The Archery Ranter is dealing 1d10/1d10 damage with a longbow

The Two-Blade Ranger gets a +3/+3 proficiency bonus on attacks
The Archery Ranger only gets +2/+2 bonus on his longbow attacks

So now the Archer is actually worse off than his Two-Blade counterpart. I know someone is going to suggest that the Archer just take Weapon Focus (longbow), but the TB Ranger can just as easily take WF (bastard sword), and we're back in the same situation.

On top of that, a Dex-centric Rogue can take the Weapon Proficiency (longbow) and Ranger multiclass feats, choose Triple Shot as a replacement Ranger power, and then be just as good with it as the Archery Ranger.

I think it's important for the Rangers who choose the Archery style to have something that makes them just a little bit better than other characters at range. Every other class has staked out their territory, so to speak, so it makes sense that Archers should have theirs.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If you want a mechanical example of how the Archery style is lacking, it's actually rather easy for a TB Ranger to outclass an Archer's attack bonus and equal his potential damage. All he has to do is dual-wield Bastard Swords, which are a good choice of weapon for him regardless. Consider the Twin Strike power:

The Two-Blade Ranger is dealing 1d10/1d10 damage
The Archery Ranter is dealing 1d10/1d10 damage with a longbow

The Two-Blade Ranger gets a +3/+3 proficiency bonus on attacks
The Archery Ranger only gets +2/+2 bonus on his longbow attacks

Two things. The archery ranger has an additional +1 to hit if he's the closest person (or equal closest) to his target (this is the same situation as his melee friend is in, so it's pretty fair to give it to him).

Furthermore he has an additional +1 damage from choosing weapon focus: bow instead of proficiency: bastard sword.

So the archer is actually 1 point of damage per hit better off.

 

[Kaldaen]

Two things. The archery ranger has an additional +1 to hit if he's the closest person (or equal closest) to his target (this is the same situation as his melee friend is in, so it's pretty fair to give it to him).

Furthermore he has an additional +1 damage from choosing weapon focus: bow instead of proficiency: bastard sword.

So the archer is actually 1 point of damage per hit better off.

The Two-Blade Ranger can take Weapon Focus, too, and then they're doing the same damage again.

But that's not even the main point. The point is that anyone can be as good with the bow as an Archer, but all of the rest of the classes have a way of standing out in their particular role.

 

[Kaffis]

Choosing the Archery fighting style puts you into the role of artillery support. Most of your damage comes from your bow or crossbow. Supposedly, you have focused on ranged attacks, but you are no better at hitting targets with the bow than any other class. Anyone with proficiency in military ranged weapons can pick up a longbow and get the exact same +2 bonus to attacks as your archer. In fact, in order for another class to match your "focus on ranged attacks," all they need to do is take a feat -- one that's actually fairly useful.

Incorrect. You, as a ranger, are a better archer than any other class, because you can make two attacks with a bow at-will.

Now, had you said that you're not a better archer than a TWF ranger, while a TWF ranger is a better TWF than you, you'd have a point.

You know what? Just give the archery path the feature where they get to wield one-handed weapons in their off-hand, and be done with it. None of the rangers who want to be TWF will care -- you haven't made them any worse, and you haven't made the archery path rangers any better than the TWF rangers are. Most archery path rangers won't care, either -- they never use TWF, they could care less what they're allowed to wield in the off-hand. But the small subset of people whining that TWF "gets more" will be appeased, and the topic can be put to rest.

 

[Ziana]

Rangers are rangers. They're one class. Archers and TBF rangers aren't in competition with each other, they're two sides of the same coin. Their powers are largely shared, and mostly equivalent in capability.

The ranger, the class, is better at archery than any other class because they have the powers to support it. Hail of Arrows, Three in One Shot, Arrow of Vengeance... these are essential to the class. The only question that need be asked, is any other class better at archery than the ranger?

Can a fighter, or rogue, or wizard match an archer in this way? No, or only with significant feat investments. But that's true of any multiclassing. By default, the archer has what she needs to fulfill her role, better than any other class.

What distinguishes an archer from a TBF ranger? 1 minor feat, and each can pick up the other's, and an advantage with offhand weapons, which is largely irrelevant to the archer as they should be using their bow almost all the time. However, the archer is free to draw their long & short swords and employ their two-weapon powers, doing only slightly less damage than the TBF ranger.

What's the big distinction between the paths? The paragon path choices. Battlefield Archer defines the role. (Unfortunately, Beast Stalker is a bit inferior). Likewise, many TBF rangers will gravitate to Stormwarden. The ranger paths are mutually exclusive in this regard, so any ranger than wants to eventually master one style or the other will choose the appropriate one.

The two ranger paths overlap in many ways; but diverge sufficiently that the archer does become the more skilled at ranged combat, and the Two Blade ranger achieves superiority in his fighting style.

In terms of advantages granted at character creation, the TBF ranger has a very minor edge on the archer. The difference is largely insignificant, and doesn't diminish from the archer's ability to deal solid damage at range and keep herself alive.

If you honestly feel that you are disadvantaged by taking the Ranger path, ask your DM to houserule giving you Weapon Focus: Bow as an additional feat at the start.

If archers get a little buff in future errata, I wouldn't complain. But there's far more serious issues with 4E than this trivial disparity.

 

[Roxlimn]

If we restricted Prime Shot to the Archery Ranger path, then that's a solid reason for them to want to choose that instead of the TWF path.

That said, the Archer Ranger really is incredibly strong. Ranged fire just should not be underestimated like that, especially now that you can shoot right through your allies and not have it matter in the least.