What style of ranger-fu do you use?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

What combat style does your ranger use?

You can go into as much detail as you like, and posting your favored enemy choices would also be a good idea. (I would add them to the poll, but you gain more favored enemies as you gain levels, keeping track of just how big a bonus you get with each one would also be impossible...)

 

[Myrddin ap Taliesen]

I kind of dislike the two-weapon fighting rangers, not because the concept is bad, but only because everyone I've ever seen play them uses scimitars, is an elf of some sort, wants a pet astral animal, thinks their character should be nigh god-like and tends to have a name along the lines of "Drazt" or "Dirzt" or some such.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ok, so the last part was a bit of an exageration, but I'm sure they would if they felt the DM would allow it

 

[Pseudonym]

I went with the archery option, as the whole two-weapon fighting thing didn't fit my character concept. Not many folks hunt game with two swords.

 

[wizardneedsfood]

Dual-Wielding because sometimes 'game' is that guy in the corner with the one sword.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I've used both, and while my dual short swords was fine and worked well, I prefer the archery style. Makes for a better hunter, IMO.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Now that there are some votes on the board...

I'm playing an archer ranger, who is a hunter. The "plain" kind (eg he hunts animals and other forms of game). He's also got a shortspear (for boars and other such animals) and a short sword (for animals with only two legs... tee hee.) I need to get my hands on a handaxe sometime soon. His favored enemy is animals... he hasn't reached 5th-level yet.

I'm not too worried about facing a ranger who dual-wields... I can always move around the battlefield, and unless I'm really surprised I'll probably shoot him before he can close with me. (Rapid Shot is nice that way.) And if that fails, I'll use my spear to disarm him. (I get a +4 bonus, more if he's using a light weapon, as most dueal-wielding rangers would. He gets a -2 penalty.)

I might play a dual-weidling thri-kreen ranger one day (and by dual I mean exactly that... Thri-Kreen of Athas basically prohibited thri-kreen from wielding four weapons simultaneously) but otherwise I don't think I'll join the dark elf... err... side. Archery is just way more useful when it comes to hit-and-run tactics and hunting, IMO.

PS if you're using another tactic, like a spear or shield bash or something like that, please make a post about it. Thanks.

 

[Wombat]

Enough other classes have the toe-to-toe ability; the archery is unique to the Ranger and, therefore, more interesting to me.

Besides, I always loved Robin Hood and Henry V (Olivier)

 

[JRRNeiklot]

No choice for "combat styles are the worst idea since halfling paladins," so I chose other.

 

[Deadguy]

I play a Ranger in a fairly low-magic setting, where the PCs are engaged in a long journey through harsh and lonely mountains seeking aid for their home town.

He's a two-weapon wielder not through choice but because, by the time I got to creating my character, other niches had been filled. Out of a party of seven we had only one all-out melee fighter, and an elven fighter-mage (we started at level 4). This was a bad choice for the character - he had only a 10 Constitution (the DM insists on rolling in order for abilties).

My experience? That at early levels he really sucked in combat, though a goodly part of that was due to his low hit points (I take average since I can't afford a low roll). The Fighter always achieved far more than I did in combat, and that was with the benefit of me having Cosmopolitan, giving me access to Tumble as a class skill. I could get into a fight only needing to retreat almost straight away if something big got a hit on me.

But... since I turned level 8 and got a hold of a +1 and a masterwork shortsword (dual short sword wielder, btw), I seem to have become much better. I can now tumble past opponents to strike at mages and clerics, or to get flanking at the rear. I can take a couple of hits and not have to flee now, so I can get some full attacks in. Four attacks that often seem to land 2 to 3 hits is good, even when each individual hit is poor. And when I go against my favoured enemies (humans and undead) I get to be really nasty. Most recently I chopped a powerful ghast to pieces by myself, and forced a cleric who was acting in support to flee for his life (only to get run over by a charging celestial bison!).

So, I am beginning to think that whilst TWF is weak, with the right choices of feats and tactics, a TWF-Ranger can be lethal. But it very much depends on getting reasonable kit and knowing your enemies.

Well, I'll get another chance to test this. I start running a new campaign soon, and one PC is a TWF-Ranger (1/2-Elf). We've already talked character design - next we'll talk tactics. But I have high hopes for him in conjunction with the party Druid and animal companion(s).

 

[Falconnan]

I went with TWF, as I generally play elves when playing a martial class.
An elf with weapon finesse, a pair of short swords or rapiers, or even daggers, and a high dex is good. His AC is going to be fair, his saves are good for combat, and as a scout, his odds of being forced into melee are fairly high.
The low hitpoints seem a liability, but creative use of tactics, such as combining attacks with the party's tank(s) can make a huge difference in the combat end.