Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bardolph" data-source="post: 4306080" data-attributes="member: 2304">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?&nbsp; It's probably worth it if the character's chosen ranged powers are far better than his melee powers.&nbsp; With a mix of ranged and melee powers, the ranger is definitely better off with TWF.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Do you wish to disengage?&nbsp; Pick Archery.&nbsp; Do you wish to switch to melee?&nbsp; Pick TWF.&nbsp; That's really what the choice is about.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bardolph, post: 4306080, member: 2304"] 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 [i]will[/i] 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 [i]neither[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification