# Are ranged rangers better than melee ones?



## Nareau (Jul 12, 2008)

I'm playing a two-weapon-fighting ranger, and beginning to think the ranged ranger would have been a more powerful build.

My thinking is that they're pretty well matched in terms of powers (ie, just about all the attack powers can be used in melee or ranged, or there are equivalent powers for each).  But the ranged ranger really only has to focus on Dex and Wis.  The melee ranger has to pump up his Str as well.  And he's in the thick of things, so gets hit a lot more often and so needs to boost his AC and Con.

Is there any real benefit to playing a melee ranger?

Nareau


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 12, 2008)

Nareau said:


> I'm playing a two-weapon-fighting ranger, and beginning to think the ranged ranger would have been a more powerful build.
> 
> My thinking is that they're pretty well matched in terms of powers (ie, just about all the attack powers can be used in melee or ranged, or there are equivalent powers for each).  But the ranged ranger really only has to focus on Dex and Wis.  The melee ranger has to pump up his Str as well.  And he's in the thick of things, so gets hit a lot more often and so needs to boost his AC and Con.
> 
> ...




Maybe if you're an eladrin (+2 damage per short sword). But otherwise the ranged ranger is usually a better bet.

And, of course, there's no support for a spear ranger


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 12, 2008)

Archers also only need to upgrade one weapon, rather than two.  I gather the TWF gets some better stuff at higher levels.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 12, 2008)

I think the ranged ranger is a lot better.

Dex gives you everything, ac, reflex, attack, damage, good skills, more initiative, the whole package.

Ranged rangers can do as much if not more damage, and are often tougher as they will have a higher AC.


----------



## Benly (Jul 12, 2008)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Maybe if you're an eladrin (+2 damage per short sword).





Weapon Focus doubledips just as well as Eladrin Weapon Training does. Any damage bonus does, really.

For my part, what I most look forward to with a TWF ranger is Stormwarden's general awesomeness and eventually Heavy Blade Opportunity + Twin Strike + Two-Weapon Flurry + Scimitar Dance. Multiclassing Fighter opens up some truly terrifying bastardry as well, and of course there's Blade Cascade which is pretty sweet even if you don't go insane with it. The TWF ranger does have some stuff going for it.

Also, as noted many abilities work with either. The TWF ranger can be a quite respectable archer in his spare time and vice versa if he invests a feat in Quick Draw.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jul 13, 2008)

I don't think a Ranger should ever consider himself one or the other.  Two-Blade Fight Style is a more power ability and much harder to reproduce than the bonus feat of Defensive Mobility so unless I had planned out a specific Ranger paragon path that required it I would never, ever take Archer Fighting Style even though I believe most of the time the correct move is to shoot at range.

The large number of immediate interrupt encounter and utility powers that can cancel/counter attacks can be used both offensively and defensively and it is up to the Ranger to choose when he should be using them to get out of danger and when he should get right in the middle of things and use them to function as an evasion based Defender.  The Ranger that ditches his bow and moves in with a pair of Bastard Swords and applies his Quarry to the monster beating someone to death has a pretty good chance of peeling it off and with good power selection his bow powers are also TWF powers.

Rangers are all about versatility.


----------



## Agrias Oaks (Jul 13, 2008)

I'd have to say the Ranger paths are about equal.

TWF has the superior 'ability' by allowing you to wield a 1h weapon as an offhand, regardless of whether its too big or not. This allows a Ranger who goes TWF to do some major damage with say, a pair of bastard swords.

Attribute wise, a Dex ranger can probably just get a good dex+wisdom, and survive with a decent str score. TWF rangers seem to rely on str+dex, or if they go with something like pit fighter, they generally go for str+wis instead of dex.

Power wise, both of them can use a lot of the same powers. TWF gets Cascade of blades, which is a very unique, cool, and strong power. However its not the end all, be all of ranger powers.

Archer rangers will (generally) be placed in less danger then melee rangers, as well. They can safely shoot their enemies from a distance, shifting with every shot. Melee rangers take more risk for more reward. IMO TWF=Damage and combat positions (A lot of their powers shift, push, and knock enemies down). Ranged=Defense and mobility.

Of course, a good ranger can do both, a classic TWF ranger that goes str+dex can find himself using a Bow often, since he'll have decent enough dex and quite a few of his powers can probably used with a bow, too. Archer rangers won't be as good in Melee, but they can still fight quite well.

(And this is my first post, I felt compelled to sign up here for it!)


----------



## erik_the_guy (Jul 13, 2008)

Heavy armor can help make up for low DEX. If you spend a lot of time in melee and your DEX is low, you can likely afford high enough CON to buy those armor feats. Plate armor specialization is an attractive option. 3 Feats to become proficient in plate armor, and one if you want to get another +1 feat bonus to AC (which stacks with the +1 shield bonus from two wep def).

If your DEX is at least 15, you probably use a bow occasionally and want some mobility. Go with scale armor, and grab the specialization feet at paragon tier (which allows you to use scale armor without taking a speed penalty). That's two feats to become proficient in scale and one to gain the +1 feat bonus to AC. One less feat than plate armor, one less AC, and one more square of speed.

The defense from heavy armor at levels 1, 15, and 30 is equal to that of light armor and a maxed out DEX score at the same levels (comparing hide to full plate with appropriate armor upgrades for the paragon and epic tiers.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 13, 2008)

Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing stopping a melee ranger from pulling out a magic javelin (strength based range weapon) and using twin strike with that just as well as he used twin strike with his melee weapons. He won't hit quite as hard, but he still has a very strong ranged attack with a hit bonus similar to that of the bow ranger.

Quick draw will help with that, but as long as your javelin is magic, it is not strictly required. It just lets you take a move action when you throw.


----------



## Gloombunny (Jul 13, 2008)

FadedC said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing stopping a melee ranger from pulling out a magic javelin (strength based range weapon) and using twin strike with that just as well as he used twin strike with his melee weapons. He won't hit quite as hard, but he still has a very strong ranged attack with a hit bonus similar to that of the bow ranger.
> 
> Quick draw will help with that, but as long as your javelin is magic, it is not strictly required. It just lets you take a move action when you throw.



Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what kind of ranged weapon you use - all the ranger powers are Dexterity-based for ranged attacks.  "heavy thrown" only affects basic attacks, not powers.

I'm not sure that's a good rule, but it is the rule.


----------



## Shadeus (Jul 13, 2008)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Maybe if you're an eladrin (+2 damage per short sword). But otherwise the ranged ranger is usually a better bet.
> 
> And, of course, there's no support for a spear ranger




The Eladrin Soldier feat grants a bonus to damage for longswords, not short swords.

Melee weapon rangers get the cool scimitar dance plus power attack.  Bows get Sly Hunter, but even that's not very reliable (they target has to be isolated to get the damage bonus).  Melee rangers will generally do more damage, but the archer ranger will survive longer staying out of ranger of many attacks and sliding away from potential attackers.


----------



## Shadeus (Jul 13, 2008)

Agrias Oaks said:


> I'd have to say the Ranger paths are about equal.
> 
> (And this is my first post, I felt compelled to sign up here for it!)




And it was a good one!  Welcome to the boards!


----------



## Agrias Oaks (Jul 13, 2008)

Shadeus said:


> The Eladrin Soldier feat grants a bonus to damage for longswords, not short swords.
> 
> Melee weapon rangers get the cool scimitar dance plus power attack.  Bows get Sly Hunter, but even that's not very reliable (they target has to be isolated to get the damage bonus).  Melee rangers will generally do more damage, but the archer ranger will survive longer staying out of ranger of many attacks and sliding away from potential attackers.





I should say that I don't see the benefit for a ranger using power attack. You get more damage, sure. But Melee rangers probably don't have a huge str, so they don't get a decent +hit score for melee. Though with Scimitar dance, I imagine that it does become more effect, since every miss your still doing damage. I would reccomend against PA+TWF unless you do have a scimitar, in which case, go nuts!


----------



## James McMurray (Jul 13, 2008)

Agrias Oaks said:


> I should say that I don't see the benefit for a ranger using power attack. You get more damage, sure. But Melee rangers probably don't have a huge str, so they don't get a decent +hit score for melee. Though with Scimitar dance, I imagine that it does become more effect, since every miss your still doing damage. I would reccomend against PA+TWF unless you do have a scimitar, in which case, go nuts!




Why wouldn't you have a high strength if you're a melee ranger?


----------



## Agrias Oaks (Jul 13, 2008)

James McMurray said:


> Why wouldn't you have a high strength if you're a melee ranger?




Hrm, I suppose it depends. Most of the time i'm stuck with a standard array (Our DM prefers it over random generation or point buy). So I was stuck wtih 16 str, since I wanted higher dex, a +2 into dex was the only way to get it high. So I suppose it just depends on how you make stats. With random rolling/point buy, theres no reason NOT to have a high strength.


----------



## vigormortis (Jul 13, 2008)

Depending on the party, A melee ranger will often be the only one flanking an enemy with the defender to get CA, something that a ranged ranger cannot and probably shouldn't try to either. a +2 to hit is pretty big, especially in tandem with abilities like armor splinter. Even with 14 strength, a flanking melee ranger automatically has equal to an 18 dex ranged ranger to hit. 

As well, consider that a target that has a defender on it is generally marked and will incur a -2 penalty to hitting other targets like the ranger. A melee ranger can afford to be a bit more daring thanks to the defender, who will either get a chance to strike at your target if he tries to move or attack you if he is a fighter, or automatically deals damage to him if he is a paladin.

 I'd say also that if the defender happens to fall, a melee ranger will be able to afford leaders to heal the defender then a ranged ranger can. He will be in the front line and with an AC built around being in melee more then a ranged ranger would. True, the ranged ranger can pull out a melee weapon and start attacking, but the threat would be negliable.


----------



## fba827 (Jul 13, 2008)

I, personally, prefer the ranged-ranger because it suits my style of play more than melee.

But, having said that, you will *not* be able to fully enjoy being a ranged-ranger if there aren't a couple defenders/tanks/melee oriented in the party to hold people off of you.  'Cause otherwise you'll just be drawn in to melee far too often (or else taking OAs from your ranged weapon attacks).


----------



## Kitsune (Jul 13, 2008)

Proponents of the bow rangers seem to be overlooking one important detail: Ammo.  With enough targets in some of the rangers' area powers, a ranger could easily blow ten arrows in a round.  Unless you propose to have a Tenser's Floating Disk full of quivers floating behind your ranger, eventually you're gonna have to conserve ammo and draw steel.

Honestly, though, I can see no reason that I'd ever take the archer ranger path.  All it gives you is one feat, compared to a feat plus a unique ability for the two-blade ranger.  Unless I had specific designs on an archer ranger paragon path, I'd pick two-blade every time.

I'd take the two-blade ranger, plus the quick draw feat, and aim for powers that worked with both bows and blades.  That way I'd be able to quickly adapt to make the most of any situation.  I'd try to maximize strength and dexterity and keep investing the free stat boosts in them, with only occasional bumps to constitution and wisdom as needed by any feats or powers.  If a ranged-only power was especially good, I'd take it, but since you never know what kind of conditions you'll be fighting in, neglecting the melee powers is foolhardy.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 13, 2008)

The lack of support for ranged Rangers (redundant, I know) is because of Blade Cascade.  It is a TWF daily exploit that allows a ranger to alternate attacks until they miss (so you could score 15-20 hits!).  Unless DM's cap the total it remains the trump card for TWF builds.  However, any DM worth his salt would house rule that power immediately.

Removing Blade Cascade brokeness from the mix, it's fairly even.  Prime shot allows shooty builds to be a bit more accurate (or as accurate).  And while they lack the opportunity attack bonuses from TWF, they avoid melee and get hit less often.  It's a fair trade.  Shooty builds can stay out of combat and pick off strays but must get close* to use their Quarry ability.  TWF builds get a lot of exploits that allow them to shift giving them added maneuverability.

Your assumption that shooty rangers are powerful builds is not unfounded.  They're easier to build for a number of reasons:
1) Dex is used for attack, defense, and initiative.  You won't have to worry about upgrading armor.
2) Wisdom is the "modifier" stat for virtually every ranger exploit.
3) Con isn't as necessary since you stay out of HtH and away from the Party to avoid AoE's.  This essentially allows you to focus on two stats, Dex and Wis, while ignoring the rest.  You'll have better exploit bonuses/penalties from a high Wis and not suffer from a lower Con.
4) One weapon means single feat enhancements.  With the TWF build you have to be concious of two weapons needing feats to upgrade damage, etc.  Shooty builds only have to worry about their bow.

They're both very good.  In my campaign I now have two rangers (one player got killed and made a TWF ranger).  Both builds are good at what they do.  Interestingly enough, a TWF ranger can take some hvy armor prof's and go with a low/mediocre Dex just fine.  Gotta luv the new Scale Armor.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 13, 2008)

Kitsune said:


> Proponents of the bow rangers seem to be overlooking one important detail: Ammo. With enough targets in some of the rangers' area powers, a ranger could easily blow ten arrows in a round. Unless you propose to have a Tenser's Floating Disk full of quivers floating behind your ranger, eventually you're gonna have to conserve ammo and draw steel.



The ranger in my game uses a Bag of Holding to carry most his 1000 arrows.  Then he has a quiver constantly stocked with 20 arrows for rapid attacks.  No big deal.  It just takes a little ingenuity to be a bow ranger.



Kitsune said:


> Honestly, though, I can see no reason that I'd ever take the archer ranger path. All it gives you is one feat, compared to a feat plus a unique ability for the two-blade ranger. Unless I had specific designs on an archer ranger paragon path, I'd pick two-blade every time.



Agree.  Which is why I house ruled Prime shot as a Archer Fighting Style feature to even it out.  Just one of the things that slipped through the cracks *shrug*



Kitsune said:


> I'd take the two-blade ranger, plus the quick draw feat, and aim for powers that worked with both bows and blades. That way I'd be able to quickly adapt to make the most of any situation. I'd try to maximize strength and dexterity and keep investing the free stat boosts in them, with only occasional bumps to constitution and wisdom as needed by any feats or powers. If a ranged-only power was especially good, I'd take it, but since you never know what kind of conditions you'll be fighting in, neglecting the melee powers is foolhardy.



That's the problem.  You'll fall behind the purist.  If you go Str/Dex your Wis isn't going to be optimal meaning you'll miss out on high exploit modifiers.  Don't pretend like it won't add up quickly.  At 1st level you'll be straggling next to the purist (Fox's Cunning and Two-Fanged Strike).


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 13, 2008)

They are about equal. The TWF ranger has better feats, and multiclass better.  The ranged ranger is less reliant on stats   and party make up.  TWF rangers are better for hunting down the annoying enemies. While archer rangers are good at plain old killing.


----------



## vigormortis (Jul 13, 2008)

AtomicPope said:


> That's the problem.  You'll fall behind the purist.  If you go Str/Dex your Wis isn't going to be optimal meaning you'll miss out on high exploit modifiers.  Don't pretend like it won't add up quickly.  At 1st level you'll be straggling next to the purist (Fox's Cunning and Two-Fanged Strike).




I don't think you ever use wisdom to actually hit anything though, nor are any of the powers that use wisdom affected by having a mediocre wisdom score. Fox's Cunning IMO loses to Evasive Strike as a level 1 choice, and evasive strike allows you to shift 1 already. If you have a Wis 12, you can shift 2, which is often enough to get CA on an opponent or position yourself for a ranged attack. 

Wis is good, but purists losing out on strength or dexterity are losing an edge in melee or range that limits their versatility, something wisdom doesn't make up for.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jul 13, 2008)

Could always dump dex heavily, go str/wis, and wear heavy armour.
Sure, it costs a lot of feats, but it would be so awesome for a 2WF character in plate interrupt-shifting all over the place.


----------



## vigormortis (Jul 13, 2008)

The -2 skill check and lack of Dex means you lose the ability to sneak around, but yeah, plate armored dual wielding rangers sound fun. With so much armor you probably don't care who notices you.


----------



## James McMurray (Jul 13, 2008)

They should have made magic bows create their own arrows. Or at least an ever full quiver as a low level item. even as a 1st level item, you're paying the price of 10,800 arrows to avoid the annoyance of bookkeeping your ammo.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 13, 2008)

There are mixed opinions on this.

Some people adamantly insist that the ranged ranger is better because he needs only dex and wis, while the melee ranger needs str, dex, and wis.

Other people adamantly insist that the melee ranger is better, because he can use Proficiency: Bastard Swords, Weapon Focus: Heavy Blades, and Two Weapon Fighting until he's attacking with a proficiency 3, 1d10 weapon, with +2 to damage on his main hand and +1 on his off hand, at heroic tier.  And then he can get Two Weapon Defense, for extra protection.

My take on it is that they're pretty balanced.  The ranged ranger is a bit more efficient in terms of ability scores and feats, and can project damage really, really well.  The melee ranger is a bit stat spread (though he can remedy that with Armor Proficiency: Chain, costs him 1 feat and 1 point of movement in exchange for the ability to dump dex, everyone forget this for some reason), but has good feat choices and acts as a secondary Defender for the party.  That can't be underestimated.  Having a Ranger around loosens up a lot of the pressure on the Fighter by giving him a partner who can benefit from the Fighter's marking powers, and who occasionally absorbs damage, spreading it out amongst the party.


----------



## Benly (Jul 13, 2008)

Personally I'm fond of a house rule that lets a character make more arrows with a fairly easy Nature or Dungeoneering check during extended rests. A guy needs to do something during his watch and it's not odd to think a professional bowman and hunter knows how to make arrows.


----------



## bardolph (Jul 13, 2008)

Gloombunny said:


> Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what kind of ranged weapon you use - all the ranger powers are Dexterity-based for ranged attacks.  "heavy thrown" only affects basic attacks, not powers.
> 
> I'm not sure that's a good rule, but it is the rule.




Can you cite the page # for this reference?


----------



## Agrias Oaks (Jul 13, 2008)

bardolph said:


> Can you cite the page # for this reference?




Every ranged attack power for a ranger has 'Dex vs X', as such, the thrown weapon bonuses would be effectively useless. A ranger does IMO benefit more from carrying around a bow instead of a throwing weapon to use while in Melee.


----------



## bardolph (Jul 13, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> The melee ranger is a bit stat spread (though he can remedy that with Armor Proficiency: Chain, costs him 1 feat and 1 point of movement in exchange for the ability to dump dex, everyone forget this for some reason), but has good feat choices and acts as a secondary Defender for the party.  That can't be underestimated.



A TWF Dwarf won't even take a movement penalty.

I'd say that it really depends on the party composition.  A ranged ranger can get more attack power for less investment in feats and ability scores.  However, the party will need a solid front line in order to give the archer this opportunity.  If the front line is lacking, then ranged strikers will often get engaged by Brutes and Soldiers.  An archer flanked by two soldiers is in quite a pickle, and if this happens on a regular basis, you may regret passing up the Two-Blade focus.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 13, 2008)

bardolph said:


> Can you cite the page # for this reference?




pg. 105-112. Every ranged ranger power uses dex for attack and damage, and its specified as "ranged" when you have a power that could be used with TWF or with ranged.


----------



## bardolph (Jul 13, 2008)

Agrias Oaks said:


> Every ranged attack power for a ranger has 'Dex vs X', as such, the thrown weapon bonuses would be effectively useless. A ranger does IMO benefit more from carrying around a bow instead of a throwing weapon to use while in Melee.



Yes, but heavy thrown weapons are melee weapons, even when thrown.  Why wouldn't that count as a "melee" attack at 5 squares away?


----------



## Agrias Oaks (Jul 13, 2008)

bardolph said:


> Yes, but heavy thrown weapons are melee weapons, even when thrown.  Why wouldn't that count as a "melee" attack at 5 squares away?




The powers are specified as a ranged weapon. You are throwing them. Ergo, they count as ranged powers and you hit with dex instead of str since thats how the power works. It'd be like allowing you to use dex on melee powers, it just don't work for a rangers attacks.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 13, 2008)

Agrias Oaks said:


> The powers are specified as a ranged weapon. You are throwing them. Ergo, they count as ranged powers and you hit with dex instead of str since thats how the power works. It'd be like allowing you to use dex on melee powers, it just don't work for a rangers attacks.



Actually, I'm not sure that an attack with a throwable melee weapon counts as an attack using a ranged weapon.  "Ranged weapon" is a descriptor on the weapon itself.  Things like hand axes do not have that descriptor.  Therefore, you flat out can't use them with ranger powers that require a ranged weapon.


----------



## Ander00 (Jul 13, 2008)

Custserv has ruled similarly I belive, but in my personal opinion, that way lies madness (shuriken would then be the only "ranged" thrown weapons).

Also:


			
				PHB pg. 216 said:
			
		

> A basic attack with a *ranged weapon* is usually a Dexterity attack, unless the weapon you're using has the *heavy thrown* property.



Would make more sense if you consider thrown weapons to be ranged weapons, when thrown.


cheers


----------



## Gloombunny (Jul 14, 2008)

Page 270 specifically describes using thrown weapons to make ranged attacks.

The "ranged weapon" keyword on powers is a subset of the "ranged" keyword, telling you that the range is based on the weapon you're using.  It doesn't mean anything about what kind of weapon you use.  It "allows you to attack a target within your weapon's range" (p. 56), as given in the weapons table.  Thrown weapons have a range, so that keyword applies to them.

Oh, and the description of the "heavy thrown" property on page 216 mentions only ranged basic attacks and says nothing about overriding the attribute used for any powers.


----------



## jaldaen (Jul 14, 2008)

Gloombunny said:


> Oh, and the description of the "heavy thrown" property on page 216 mentions only ranged basic attacks and says nothing about overriding the attribute used for any powers.




This is the reference that rules them all... at least for this debate


----------



## Puggins (Jul 14, 2008)

Couple of points on TWF's behalf:

(1) The Heavy Armor Ranger is viable, from what I can see, and is easily the most damaging build of all rangers assuming that it goes Pit Fighter/Demigod.  24 wisdom = +7 damage on all attacks, both main hand and off hand.  Two-weapon rend gives you three opportunities to score that bonus damage, and, with demigod, it essentially becomes your go-to at-will.

(2) The Dex-based TWF/Pit fighter. isn't THAT far behind the Heavy Armor Ranger in terms of damage, and it's still well ahead of Archers.

(3) The MAD of TWF is overstated.

#3 deserves some elaboration:

a. Yes you need three attributes, but none of the three overlap- you'll be improving every save as you raise your three scores.

b. The drastic increase in point cost for 17/18 mean that a three-attribute character is only slightly behind a two-attribute character.

Take this build, using standard point buy.

Elf Ranger
Start -> End Stat.
Str 16 -> 24 (+7)
Dex 17 -> 22 (+6)
Con 13 -> 15
Int 8 -> 10
Wis 15 -> 20 (+5)
Cha 10 -> 12

Let's look at what the Archer can do.

Build 1, distributing stats.
Str 10 -> 12
Dex 18 -> 26 (+8)
Con 13 -> 15 (+2)
Int 9 -> 11
Wis 18 -> 26 (+8)
Cha 10 -> 12

In this build, the archer will have a +1 to hit/dmg, +3 to his will save and some effects, +1 to AC and reflex (remember TW defense) and a -5 to his fortitude save compared to the TWF.

Build 2, concentrating.
Str 10 -> 12
Dex 20 -> 28 (+9)
Con 13 -> 15 (+2)
Int 9 -> 11
Wis 12 -> 20 (+5)
Cha 10 -> 12

In this build, the archer will have a +2 to hit/dmg, +2 to AC/Ref and a -5 to his fortitude save.

The advantages are simply underwhelming, considering the bonuses the TWF guy gets with weapon feats, ability with (and competence in) opportunity attacks, lack of vulnerability to OAs (though admittedly ranger utilities make up for this) and all those cool interrupt attacks.


----------



## toxicspirit (Jul 14, 2008)

I prefer the following build for an (elven) Archer-Ranger ...

Str 10 -> 12
Con 11 -> 13
Dex 20 -> 28 (+9)
Int 10 -> 12
Wis 16 -> 24 (+7)
Cha 8 -> 10

+ Demigod bonuses in Dexterity and Wisdom.


----------



## Puggins (Jul 14, 2008)

toxicspirit said:


> I prefer the following build for an (elven) Archer-Ranger ...
> 
> Str 10 -> 12
> Con 11 -> 13
> ...




The Wis bonus was a mistake in my original post- you're right, this is definitely better in terms of wis, though it does sacrifice one additional fort defense- something that most archers would be willing to do.

Expanding upon this, let's look at the final bonuses for this build vs. my proposed TWF build.

Final bonuses, after demigod:

TWF: Str 26 (+8) - Dex 24 (+7) - Will 22 (+6)
ARC: Con 15 (+2) - Dex 30 (+10) - Will 26 (+8)

The across-the-board bonuses given by paragon/epic advances and demigod help TWF keep pace, though Archery concentrates on the ranger's prime attributes.

 TWF is using bastard swords and has all relevant feats, archer has longbow and also has all relevant feats.

Defenses, assuming +6 hide armor, +6 amulet:
TWF: AC 39, Fort 39, Ref 39, Will 37
ARC: AC 41, Fort 33, Ref 41, Will 39

This is essentially a wash, IMO.  Archery has edges in three of them, but it completely cedes one defense in order to help the other three.

Basic Attacks (which will hardly ever be used, yes) assuming +6 weapons. No Paragon paths added. 
TWF: +32 (+15 base, +6 weapon, +8 Str, +3 prof), crit on 19+, 1d10 + 15 damage
ARC: +34 (+15 base, +6 weapon, +10 Dex, +3 prof), 1d10 + 16 damage

The difference here is pretty insignificant, in my opinion, but YMMV.  Heavy blade has more feats that do spiffy stuff, and power attack is available.

Of course, TWF is much more feat-intensive, which will probably be a factor once a generous number of feats are available.  It simply isn't an issue currently, though.


----------



## Nareau (Jul 14, 2008)

Puggins said:


> In this build, the archer will have a +2 to hit/dmg, +2 to AC/Ref and a -5 to his fortitude save.
> 
> The advantages are simply underwhelming, considering the bonuses the TWF guy gets with weapon feats, ability with (and competence in) opportunity attacks, lack of vulnerability to OAs (though admittedly ranger utilities make up for this) and all those cool interrupt attacks.



I'm confused--Where is the -5 to the archer's fort save coming from?  What additional weapon feats does the TWF get?

Keep in mind he'll also:

be attacked far less often
spend half as much money to get the same benefit from magic weapons
only need to draw one weapon when going into combat (just a minor action, but important sometimes)
not have to take as many move actions to stay in combat
not have to spend feats to improve his AC, nor feats to use a bastard sword
I consider those to be some pretty major benefits.

Nareau


----------



## toxicspirit (Jul 14, 2008)

I would really love to see a couple more archery-oriented feats make an appearance in the near future.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 14, 2008)

Nareau said:


> Keep in mind he'll also:
> 1.  be attacked far less often



From the perspective of the party, this isn't a positive.  Enemies who aren't attacking a ranged combatant because he's too far away tend to be instead attacking melee combatants who are nearby.  Each additional ranged combatant reduces the overall number of hit points the party has on the front line, meaning that the front liners are likely to die more quickly.


> 5.  not have to spend feats to improve his AC, nor feats to use a bastard sword



The Melee Ranger doesn't HAVE to spend feats on this, he just gets awesome benefits from doing so.  I consider this to be overall an advantage for the Melee guy.  Better feat choices.  It will undoubtedly even out after an expansion book or so, but as it stands, the Melee Ranger has superior feat options.


----------



## Nareau (Jul 14, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> From the perspective of the party, this isn't a positive.  Enemies who aren't attacking a ranged combatant because he's too far away tend to be instead attacking melee combatants who are nearby.  Each additional ranged combatant reduces the overall number of hit points the party has on the front line, meaning that the front liners are likely to die more quickly.



Well, that depends on the party makeup.  Given the choice between the monsters attacking me (AC 16) or the paladin (AC 20-23, lots more healing options), I'd much prefer they focus entirely on the paladin.  If you've got even one defender in the party, having them soak up the attacks is usually better than having the striker do it.

I can see what you mean about the melee ranger having better things to spend those feats on.  I haven't really looked through all the feats carefully.  Do others feel this way too?

Nareau


----------



## Puggins (Jul 14, 2008)

Nareau said:


> I'm confused--Where is the -5 to the archer's fort save coming from?  What additional weapon feats does the TWF get?




The -5 comes from his anemic str/con combo.  Compared to the TWF guy, the Archer's fort is five points lower.

Archery has precious few feats.  This could certainly change in the future.  Now, though, the Bastard Sword wielder has Heavy Blade opportunity and Heavy Blade Mastery, to name just two.  I forgot at least one more.  Archery has one that requires the archer to be closest to his target, which negates at least one of the benefits you've listed below.



> Keep in mind he'll also:
> 
> be attacked far less often





True.  I consider this to be a bit of a wash, considering the ranger has quite a few mitigation utility powers that will help relieve the pressure on the Defenders and trigger defender class abilities.


> [*]spend half as much money to get the same benefit from magic weapons



Very true.


> [*]only need to draw one weapon when going into combat (just a minor action, but important sometimes)



Only sometimes, and a single feat (which has advantages beyond drawing quickly) eliminates this.


> [*]not have to take as many move actions to stay in combat



I suppose this is correct, but the ranger is so mobile anyway that I don't see this as that much of an advantage- whereas the archer is using his mobility to stay out of combat, the ranger is using his to stay IN combat.


> [*]not have to spend feats to improve his AC, nor feats to use a bastard sword



Improving his AC via a feat is not a disadvantage, at least not always.  Sub a Heavy Armor Ranger and it suddenly gives the ranger an AC advantage over the Archer.



> I consider those to be some pretty major benefits.



Keep in mind that I don't consider the TWF superior- I merely think that a very convincing case can be made that they are equitably similar on paper.  Now, when it comes to practice- hell, no one knows yet, right?


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 14, 2008)

Nareau said:


> Well, that depends on the party makeup.  Given the choice between the monsters attacking me (AC 16) or the paladin (AC 20-23, lots more healing options), I'd much prefer they focus entirely on the paladin.  If you've got even one defender in the party, having them soak up the attacks is usually better than having the striker do it.



Sure, until he runs out of hit points.

It all has to do with damage distribution.  If you're fighting five monsters, chances are that they're going to attack five times.  And if all of those attacks hit one character who has 30 hit points, then even with a high armor class and a "defender" role, eventually he's going down.  That's why having more melee combatants is usually a benefit, even if they're not as durable as the defenders.  They can stay near the defenders and benefit from the defenders protection, while still absorbing a percentage of the attacks.  This takes the heat off the defender a bit, helping him survive longer.


----------



## Branduil (Jul 14, 2008)

Puggins said:


> Couple of points on TWF's behalf:
> 
> (1) The Heavy Armor Ranger is viable, from what I can see, and is easily the most damaging build of all rangers assuming that it goes Pit Fighter/Demigod.  24 wisdom = +7 damage on all attacks, both main hand and off hand.  Two-weapon rend gives you three opportunities to score that bonus damage, and, with demigod, it essentially becomes your go-to at-will.




What is two-weapon rend?


----------



## Puggins (Jul 14, 2008)

Branduil said:


> What is two-weapon rend?




My fault: Death Rend.


----------



## toxicspirit (Jul 14, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> The Melee Ranger doesn't HAVE to spend feats on this, he just gets awesome benefits from doing so.



No, most two-weapon Rangers pretty much _have to_ buy those armor feats, because with their main focus elsewhere, their Dexterity isn't likely to stay on a par with the Archer-Ranger, and therefore their AC will suffer. I wouldn't necessarily call that a plus.

But unfortunately they do have quite a few more feats (a lot of them quite juicy) geared toward them than the Archer.


----------



## toxicspirit (Jul 14, 2008)

Puggins said:


> Sub a Heavy Armor Ranger and it suddenly gives the ranger an AC advantage over the Archer.



That's not necessarily true at all.

Give the Two-Weapon Ranger Plate with it's +8.
Give the Archer-Ranger Hide at +3 and a Dexterity of 20 for +8

At Epic, with Godplate giving the Two-Weapon Ranger +14 (+ magic), the Archer will have Elderhide at +5 and his Dexterity of 28 (or even 30), which give him +14 or +15. Specialization in their respective armor types can add another +1 to each, and most other AC boosts are available to both (even Back To The Wall).


----------



## Puggins (Jul 15, 2008)

toxicspirit said:


> That's not necessarily true at all.
> 
> Give the Two-Weapon Ranger Plate with it's +8.
> Give the Archer-Ranger Hide at +3 and a Dexterity of 20 for +8
> ...




Yes, an elf who sacrificed 16 of 22 points to make his initial dex a 20 and who picked demigod as his epic destiny would be able to match someone who picked up plate armor proficiency and took the TWD feat.  I see that as an advantage, since an initial dex of 20 is pretty restricting, but YMMV.   

The fact that the archer ranger doesn't need to concentrate on Str is a two-edged sword- yes, his dex is virtually guaranteed to be higher, but his fortitude defense is going to suffer horribly.  Also, he's working with a weapon that isn't upgradeable- the longbow is +2/1d10, whereas the bastard sword is +3/1d10.  I actually made a mistake in my comparison. accidentally saying that the longbow was +3.  Take a further +1 away from the archer.


----------

