Who can be a superior archer-extraordinaire: A Ranger or Fighter?

[Thanee]

Wonder if anything can be done with a druid? An oversized animal form with oposable thumbs? Dire Ape perhaps?

I just figured - admitedly at a rather high level, Cleric with Shapechange (Animal Domain?)... being shifted into the largest possible form... (then Righteous Might) that might help with the damage?

Could work for the EK bowman as well?

Polymorph into Stone Giant was pretty standard back then...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

For the talk about clerics as combatants, the do need some time to buff at the beginning of a combat. A fighter can get right to hurtin' people...

That's the theory... in practice, clerics can start off right away, too.

Thanks to quicken, persistant and spells with hours of duration.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Plane Sailing]

A ranger, through spells (particullary if you let in various WoTC and d20 sources), can easily outdo a fighter in terms of number of attacks, how likely those attacks are to hit, and how much damage they will do. That said... after using up his small allotment of spells, the ranger becomes slightly better than a warrior of his level at archery.

I wonder what spells you are thinking of here?

As a DM I'd say that regardless of spells a ranger archer would make a more fearsome foe for the party than a fighter sniper. The favoured enemy can be focussed on the party members we want to hit (IMC that would be humans - a good choice because they are most of that world anyway). So a 10th level ranger could have +6 damage to humans from his favoured enemy bonus, he would have got 3 useful bow feats free, allowing him to use his 4-5 character feats to pick up any others that he wants (there aren't that many ranged feats anyway). All he'd be missing is weapon specialisation at this level.

In woodland his improved precise shot would allow him to shoot through bushes and past trees without problem, his woodland stride and evasion makes catching him or damaging him with a spell more difficult.

He'd be darn good at sniping (hide check likely to be something like 13 ranks +3 attribute +any other bonuses... Even with the -20 penalty for shoot and hide he'd do well against parties without dedicated spotting types).

I think you are very mistaken to place him only "slightly better than a warrior"

 

[Darklone]

I think the only thing that would make the ranger a superior archer would be Hunters Mercy

 

[Bauglir]

1 Fighter1 Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot
2 Fighter2 Weapon Focus: Longbow
3 Fighter3 Far Shot
4 Fighter4 Weapon Specialization: Longbow, +1 dex
5 Fighter5
6 DWS1 Precise Shot
7 DWS2
8 Oobi1 +2 dex
9 Oobi2 Manyshot
10 Oobi3
11 Oobi4
12 Oobi5 Zen Archery, +3 dex
13 Oobi6
14 Oobi7
15 Oobi8 QuickDraw
16 Oobi9 +4 dex
17 Oobi10
18 Peerless1 Improved Critical: Longbow
19 Peerless2
20 Peerless3 +5 dex

DWS = Deepwood Sniper
Oobi = Order of the Bow Initiate
Peerless = Peerless Archer

There's an archer plan I put together for a character once (it's pretty sick I know; that was the style of the game though)

That was under 3.0 though. I don't know how, or if it translates to 3.5.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

I wonder what spells you are thinking of here?

I'm not actually sure of all the names, just that I'm running a game thats just about to go epic & the Rnager/Rogue has several spells that help him be a better archer for short bursts.

As a DM I'd say that regardless of spells a ranger archer would make a more fearsome foe for the party than a fighter sniper. The favoured enemy can be focussed on the party members we want to hit

In woodland his improved precise shot would allow him to shoot through bushes and past trees without problem, his woodland stride and evasion makes catching him or damaging him with a spell more difficult.

I think you are very mistaken to place him only "slightly better than a warrior"

First, only evil creatures (according to the main D&D rules) can select their own species as a favored enemy.

Second, for this discussion the topic was a better archer Fighter or Ranger? Relying on the opponent to be on the favored enemies list isn't going to always happen (possibly never happen), thus I didn't even address Ranger fighting favored enemy vs Fighter fighting said ranger's favored enemy.


And, in most combat situations, your average ranger vs average warrior, the warrior is at about the same combat prowess as a ranger, if both are built for archery. Of course the Ranger probably has better stats than the NPC warrior. He also has a much better selection of skills and abilities. But when it comes down to some king fielding an contingent of archers over the course of a battle, the warrior and ranger are about equal.

I didn't try to examine all the different variables. To do so make the discussion pointless. You can always come up with a situation where build x beats build y regardless. I simply did which is better in the vasy majority of situations in pure combat ability. The fighter excells in versatility, whereas the ranger exceeds if a certain number of requirements are met.

Vraille Darkfang

 

[Senior Bobo]

Peerless = Peerless Archer

Where's the Peerless Archer from?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Darklone]

First, only evil creatures (according to the main D&D rules) can select their own species as a favored enemy.

Not anymore.

Peerless Archer was from SilverMarches IIRC.

 

[mikebr99]

First, only evil creatures (according to the main D&D rules) can select their own species as a favored enemy.

Vraille Darkfang

That's 3.0 stuff. You are very welcome to specialize in dealing with your own race in 3.5.


Mike

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

That's 3.0 stuff. You are very welcome to specialize in dealing with your own race in 3.5.


Mike

Thanks for that info. Most of the games I play or gm are still a hodgepodge of 3.0 & 3.5 till the point I don't know rules apply (I always thought the only evil can take favored enemy- own kind was kind of silly).

Vraille Darkfang