Your next v3.5 ranger - 2weapons or bow?
- Thread starter BVB
- Start date
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
I voted option 3.
If I don't use house rules I would always choose archery. TWF is for wild-shaping druids and has nothing to do with being a ranger.
If I don't use house rules I would always choose archery. TWF is for wild-shaping druids and has nothing to do with being a ranger.
jmucchiello
Hero
Shouldn't the title of this thread be "Your first 3.5 ranger - 2weapons or bow?"
I didn't answer because I don't think I've ever made a ranger (since 1st ed) and I still have no desire to.
I didn't answer because I don't think I've ever made a ranger (since 1st ed) and I still have no desire to.
Kahuna Burger
First Post
I find the last choice unneccassary, so I ignored it and answered the question... given the mechanical options, my next ranger will definitly choose the archery path, because thats how my former rangers have been designed, within the limits of the old class. The fact that there will be "more to my ranger" doesn't change that...
Kahuna Burger
Kahuna Burger
Coik
First Post
If my group converts, I'd defintely go for the archery munchkin path. I think I have like two feats right now that *aren't* bow-releated. Yep, exactly two...Improved Init and Favored Enemy Strike.
It'd be a touch decision for me, to be honest, let alone the entire group. If we convert, I lose two feats, but gain two others (I'm playing Monte's ranger). While it doesn't seem that bad, I'd probably have to re-figure my entire feat selection, since I would end up having to use "regular" feat slots to pick up some of the things I have by virtue of the bonus feats...
It'd be a touch decision for me, to be honest, let alone the entire group. If we convert, I lose two feats, but gain two others (I'm playing Monte's ranger). While it doesn't seem that bad, I'd probably have to re-figure my entire feat selection, since I would end up having to use "regular" feat slots to pick up some of the things I have by virtue of the bonus feats...
This is easy...I will be taking two-weapon fighting.
The reason why is simple; they nerfed bows in 3.5 D&D. Bows and arrows no longer stack regarding attack bonus and damage. Now you only count the higher of the two. I am fine with this. Many players felt bows were too powerful in the first place.
Another reason why I am taking two-weapon fighting is because of the insane number of attacks a ranger can get by 11th level. If you take the two-weapon fighting path, you will get 6 attacks at 11th level. Thats whacky!
I know what you are saying, "but Greymarch, the new ranger can get many-shot, and kick serious butt!" Well, many shot is nice, but it has limited uselfulness. Remember, you can only use many-shot if your opponent is within 30 feet. If I am an archer, the whole point of attacking from range is that my opponent cannot get to me after I shoot him. A range of 30 feet is the standard movement for most creatures/npcs, so using many-shot virtually guarantees my opponent is close enough to attack me anyhow.
The reason why is simple; they nerfed bows in 3.5 D&D. Bows and arrows no longer stack regarding attack bonus and damage. Now you only count the higher of the two. I am fine with this. Many players felt bows were too powerful in the first place.
Another reason why I am taking two-weapon fighting is because of the insane number of attacks a ranger can get by 11th level. If you take the two-weapon fighting path, you will get 6 attacks at 11th level. Thats whacky!
I know what you are saying, "but Greymarch, the new ranger can get many-shot, and kick serious butt!" Well, many shot is nice, but it has limited uselfulness. Remember, you can only use many-shot if your opponent is within 30 feet. If I am an archer, the whole point of attacking from range is that my opponent cannot get to me after I shoot him. A range of 30 feet is the standard movement for most creatures/npcs, so using many-shot virtually guarantees my opponent is close enough to attack me anyhow.
Similar Threads
