a ranger question [Archive] - Wizards Community

a ranger question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
zelvious
03-05-04, 11:01 PM i was wondering,the ranger, and his weapon, should it be a bow, or the 2 swords, i know they can have both, but what seems more proper?
cheers:)
ssvegeta555
03-06-04, 12:39 AM I would see a archetypal ranger use a bow more.
William Coburn
03-06-04, 12:49 AM I've never played a 3.5 ranger. But if I do odds are that I'll stick with TWF.
It seems much more flexble then Archery, anyway the improved TWF is way better than Manyshot.
And the fact that my last Ranger TWF a saber and flintlock has nothing to do with my bias what-so-ever...
fractal
03-06-04, 04:22 AM Originally posted by zelvious
i was wondering,the ranger, and his weapon, should it be a bow, or the 2 swords, i know they can have both, but what seems more proper?
A bow is really more in flavor for a Ranger, in my opinion. Also, the general consensus seems to be that two-handed weapons are at least as good as TWF, and don't require lots of feats to use. So, you could specialize in bow, and still deal good damage in melee, with a two-handed weapon of some sort.
zelvious
03-06-04, 04:52 PM thanks, everyone for the feedback, it helped alot:cool:

cheers!!!!!
Ranger REG
03-06-04, 05:19 PM Well, if one combat style is more proper than the other for a ranger class, then Wizards would have offered only that one. So, it's up to you. Do you style yourself as an archer or a two-weapon warrior?
Lyandriel
03-07-04, 07:35 AM Under 3.0 I played a TWF Ranger, but with the reduction of HP under 3.5 it became too dangerous to stand toe to toe and trade blows, so archery became a much better option.

Graham
xdude800
03-08-04, 09:55 AM i'm not gonna say i'm the master of rangers
i wouldn't dare
but it really depend on twohings
1. which direction do yu want to take the ranger in
If you try hard enough he can be good at either one
2.What is your characters mentality
are they the "up in you face and kick you ass" type or
are the"tactics and statagey, destroy your enemny from a distance type
think about it
if you where just looking for a general answer
then it would be a bow
i mean honestly
if you were a ranger out in the woods
and your hungry, but wait theres a deer
would you
A. draw your sword/axe/hammer
run up to it and start hacking
B.Draw you bow, loose two arrows
then walk over and pick up you meal
epchristi
03-08-04, 06:31 PM Originally posted by fractal
A bow is really more in flavor for a Ranger, in my opinion. Also, the general consensus seems to be that two-handed weapons are at least as good as TWF, and don't require lots of feats to use. So, you could specialize in bow, and still deal good damage in melee, with a two-handed weapon of some sort.

From a purely statistical point of view, fractal is right on! If the ranger uses a weapon two-handed he gains 1.5 strength bonus on the attack. Using Power-Attack, he can boost that by spending -1 to hit, to gain +2 on damage. This becomes an extremely effective tactic. In the case of making it equal to TWF, you can spend -2 to hit, to gain an additional +4 damage.. not to mention the strength bonus increase of 50%. It requires you use something like a greatsword, however, to keep the effectiveness. Why?

TWF: 1d6 + 1d6 + strx2 in a single attack at -2 to hit.
average damage: 7+str*2

THWF: (greatsword or something) 1d12 + str*1.5. If power attack.. it's
1d12+4+str*1.5 for a -2 to hit. (to put this in perspective)
average damge: 10.5+str*1.5

As you can see.. the strength modifier plays into the decision a bit,
but again, is offset with a feat like power attack to some degree.

So, the ranger is nearly as capable in melee with two-handed weapon fighting as he would be with TWF. Now consider Rapid Shot, Many Shot and Improved Rapid shot.. and you can find a much better mix of abilities.

That said, if you planned to multi-class into a rogue or had a way to deal additional damage on each attack.. TWF does provide the greatest number of attacks.. especially if the progression is made all the way through. (Greater TWF, etc.)
adiaven
03-08-04, 06:49 PM archery path will generally do more damage and you have a higher survival rate.

Only go TWF for flavor if your party needs someone to block enemies and take hits (which rangers don't do that as well as fighters, barbs, paladins)
lotterybucks
03-08-04, 08:26 PM I agree with the others. Go with archery and take one melee weapon. You'll deal more damage, and depending on your party, be more important as a scout/sniper. There are no shortage of melee classes.
Geethree
03-08-04, 09:51 PM Archers always seemed to be stereotypical rangers to me. I never really understood why TWF was forced on them in 3.0. Tradition, I suppose.

I'm currently playing a rogue/ranger right now and he is deadly with his bow. With Rapid Shot (and Improved Rapid Shot from Complete Warrior) he gets a lot of attacks per round and those sneak attack dice add up. Outside of the sneak attack damage, though, he still gets quite a bit of damage in. When you hit multiple times in a round, those composite bonuses and Point Blank Shot damage bonuses add up and you get to stay safely out of melee.

Go with TWF if you want to be a more melee oriented ranger, which they can do pretty well. Don't expect to be the frontline tank, but you can definitely help out.
q'afuu
03-08-04, 10:13 PM Originally posted by epchristi
So, the ranger is nearly as capable in melee with two-handed weapon fighting as he would be with TWF. Side note: you apparently assume that the TWF ranger won't have better Str than the archery ranger who uses a two-hander when he needs to be in melee. That's a pretty big assumption. At the very least, the TWF ranger will have a better attack bonus than the archery ranger when the latter uses a non-finessable greatsword.
epchristi
03-08-04, 10:40 PM Originally posted by q'afuu
Side note: you apparently assume that the TWF ranger won't have better Str than the archery ranger who uses a two-hander when he needs to be in melee. That's a pretty big assumption. At the very least, the TWF ranger will have a better attack bonus than the archery ranger when the latter uses a non-finessable greatsword.

Actually.. I didn't make a big assumption. I mentioned it's nearly as good.

I also made a point of saying, As you can see.. the strength modifier plays into the decision a bit,
but again, is offset with a feat like power attack to some degree.

So, yes, strength plays a factor in it. Power Attack offsets that a bit, as the benefit from using a weapon two-handed is better with power attack. It's also fairly easy to increase strength, despite the fact that a bowman's dex will likely get the level increases.

That's not to say you can't go TWF, I just think that the melee is "good enough" and the bow makes the ranger a lot more flexible. I certainly think a ranger/rogue with TWF is a great PC.. adding the damage to those attacks makes TWF very cool.
q'afuu
03-09-04, 07:50 AM Originally posted by epchristi
So, yes, strength plays a factor in it. Power Attack offsets that a bit, as the benefit from using a weapon two-handed is better with power attack. It's also fairly easy to increase strength, despite the fact that a bowman's dex will likely get the level increases.
Perhaps I should have put it another way. What I meant was that Str doesn't just factor in the damage, but also in the attack roll. Power attacking isn't much use if your attack mod is rather low to begin with, which it often is for an archer switching to a non-finessable melee weapon.
odomok
03-09-04, 12:10 PM To make a true ranger of doom, you select you weapon style at level two and then use your feats in order to gain the abilties of the other weapon style:behold: :b: :behold:
fatal error
03-09-04, 04:51 PM well actually your off hand attack gains only .5 str mod so its 1d6+str*1+1d6+str*.5 orr 2d6+str*1.5 right? so you do same damage without a -2 to hit which COULD make up for the lower attack bonus of not being finnesed (sp) or you could use it to gain +4 damage if you were hitting enough

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
zelvious 03-05-04, 11:01 PM	i was wondering,the ranger, and his weapon, should it be a bow, or the 2 swords, i know they can have both, but what seems more proper? cheers:)
ssvegeta555 03-06-04, 12:39 AM	I would see a archetypal ranger use a bow more.
William Coburn 03-06-04, 12:49 AM	I've never played a 3.5 ranger. But if I do odds are that I'll stick with TWF. It seems much more flexble then Archery, anyway the improved TWF is way better than Manyshot. And the fact that my last Ranger TWF a saber and flintlock has nothing to do with my bias what-so-ever...
fractal 03-06-04, 04:22 AM	Originally posted by zelvious i was wondering,the ranger, and his weapon, should it be a bow, or the 2 swords, i know they can have both, but what seems more proper? A bow is really more in flavor for a Ranger, in my opinion. Also, the general consensus seems to be that two-handed weapons are at least as good as TWF, and don't require lots of feats to use. So, you could specialize in bow, and still deal good damage in melee, with a two-handed weapon of some sort.
zelvious 03-06-04, 04:52 PM	thanks, everyone for the feedback, it helped alot:cool: cheers!!!!!
Ranger REG 03-06-04, 05:19 PM	Well, if one combat style is more proper than the other for a ranger class, then Wizards would have offered only that one. So, it's up to you. Do you style yourself as an archer or a two-weapon warrior?
Lyandriel 03-07-04, 07:35 AM	Under 3.0 I played a TWF Ranger, but with the reduction of HP under 3.5 it became too dangerous to stand toe to toe and trade blows, so archery became a much better option. Graham
xdude800 03-08-04, 09:55 AM	i'm not gonna say i'm the master of rangers i wouldn't dare but it really depend on twohings 1. which direction do yu want to take the ranger in If you try hard enough he can be good at either one 2.What is your characters mentality are they the "up in you face and kick you ass" type or are the"tactics and statagey, destroy your enemny from a distance type think about it if you where just looking for a general answer then it would be a bow i mean honestly if you were a ranger out in the woods and your hungry, but wait theres a deer would you A. draw your sword/axe/hammer run up to it and start hacking B.Draw you bow, loose two arrows then walk over and pick up you meal
epchristi 03-08-04, 06:31 PM	Originally posted by fractal A bow is really more in flavor for a Ranger, in my opinion. Also, the general consensus seems to be that two-handed weapons are at least as good as TWF, and don't require lots of feats to use. So, you could specialize in bow, and still deal good damage in melee, with a two-handed weapon of some sort. From a purely statistical point of view, fractal is right on! If the ranger uses a weapon two-handed he gains 1.5 strength bonus on the attack. Using Power-Attack, he can boost that by spending -1 to hit, to gain +2 on damage. This becomes an extremely effective tactic. In the case of making it equal to TWF, you can spend -2 to hit, to gain an additional +4 damage.. not to mention the strength bonus increase of 50%. It requires you use something like a greatsword, however, to keep the effectiveness. Why? TWF: 1d6 + 1d6 + strx2 in a single attack at -2 to hit. average damage: 7+str2 THWF: (greatsword or something) 1d12 + str1.5. If power attack.. it's 1d12+4+str1.5 for a -2 to hit. (to put this in perspective) average damge: 10.5+str1.5 As you can see.. the strength modifier plays into the decision a bit, but again, is offset with a feat like power attack to some degree. So, the ranger is nearly as capable in melee with two-handed weapon fighting as he would be with TWF. Now consider Rapid Shot, Many Shot and Improved Rapid shot.. and you can find a much better mix of abilities. That said, if you planned to multi-class into a rogue or had a way to deal additional damage on each attack.. TWF does provide the greatest number of attacks.. especially if the progression is made all the way through. (Greater TWF, etc.)
adiaven 03-08-04, 06:49 PM	archery path will generally do more damage and you have a higher survival rate. Only go TWF for flavor if your party needs someone to block enemies and take hits (which rangers don't do that as well as fighters, barbs, paladins)
lotterybucks 03-08-04, 08:26 PM	I agree with the others. Go with archery and take one melee weapon. You'll deal more damage, and depending on your party, be more important as a scout/sniper. There are no shortage of melee classes.
Geethree 03-08-04, 09:51 PM	Archers always seemed to be stereotypical rangers to me. I never really understood why TWF was forced on them in 3.0. Tradition, I suppose. I'm currently playing a rogue/ranger right now and he is deadly with his bow. With Rapid Shot (and Improved Rapid Shot from Complete Warrior) he gets a lot of attacks per round and those sneak attack dice add up. Outside of the sneak attack damage, though, he still gets quite a bit of damage in. When you hit multiple times in a round, those composite bonuses and Point Blank Shot damage bonuses add up and you get to stay safely out of melee. Go with TWF if you want to be a more melee oriented ranger, which they can do pretty well. Don't expect to be the frontline tank, but you can definitely help out.
q'afuu 03-08-04, 10:13 PM	Originally posted by epchristi So, the ranger is nearly as capable in melee with two-handed weapon fighting as he would be with TWF. Side note: you apparently assume that the TWF ranger won't have better Str than the archery ranger who uses a two-hander when he needs to be in melee. That's a pretty big assumption. At the very least, the TWF ranger will have a better attack bonus than the archery ranger when the latter uses a non-finessable greatsword.
epchristi 03-08-04, 10:40 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu Side note: you apparently assume that the TWF ranger won't have better Str than the archery ranger who uses a two-hander when he needs to be in melee. That's a pretty big assumption. At the very least, the TWF ranger will have a better attack bonus than the archery ranger when the latter uses a non-finessable greatsword. Actually.. I didn't make a big assumption. I mentioned it's nearly as good. I also made a point of saying, As you can see.. the strength modifier plays into the decision a bit, but again, is offset with a feat like power attack to some degree. So, yes, strength plays a factor in it. Power Attack offsets that a bit, as the benefit from using a weapon two-handed is better with power attack. It's also fairly easy to increase strength, despite the fact that a bowman's dex will likely get the level increases. That's not to say you can't go TWF, I just think that the melee is "good enough" and the bow makes the ranger a lot more flexible. I certainly think a ranger/rogue with TWF is a great PC.. adding the damage to those attacks makes TWF very cool.
q'afuu 03-09-04, 07:50 AM	Originally posted by epchristi So, yes, strength plays a factor in it. Power Attack offsets that a bit, as the benefit from using a weapon two-handed is better with power attack. It's also fairly easy to increase strength, despite the fact that a bowman's dex will likely get the level increases. Perhaps I should have put it another way. What I meant was that Str doesn't just factor in the damage, but also in the attack roll. Power attacking isn't much use if your attack mod is rather low to begin with, which it often is for an archer switching to a non-finessable melee weapon.
odomok 03-09-04, 12:10 PM	To make a true ranger of doom, you select you weapon style at level two and then use your feats in order to gain the abilties of the other weapon style:behold: :b: :behold:
fatal error 03-09-04, 04:51 PM	well actually your off hand attack gains only .5 str mod so its 1d6+str1+1d6+str.5 orr 2d6+str*1.5 right? so you do same damage without a -2 to hit which COULD make up for the lower attack bonus of not being finnesed (sp) or you could use it to gain +4 damage if you were hitting enough