Ranged Ranger VS Two Weapon Ranger

[Grayson01]

Which is the better way to make a ranger and why, Bowweilder or Two-weapon Fighter?

[StreamOfTheSky]

Both are underpowered fighting styles in 3.5, but TWF is one of the worst styles (only unarmed and "1H only" beat it in the race to the bottom), so I guess archery wins by default.

Archery is tough to fix the major issues with in 3.5, though a few very specific sources/options make a HUGE difference if available. They include:

Hank's Energy Bow, or the Force enhancement from MIC
Access to 3.0 prestige classes like Deepwood Sniper, Peerless Archer, and (3.0 version!) Order of the Bow Initiate
Access to the very few good 3.5 archer PrC's (Soulbow and Cragtop Archer's first 4 levels being the only ones, I think)
The Arrowmind spell, which eliminates the problem that most combats start within charging range.
Swift Hunter feat, which is probably the best archer option not involving a PrC.
The Splitting enhancement from Champions of (Ruin or Valor?), which solves no problems but is so stupidly good it makes archery look good despite them.

Ironically, despite being less used in real life battles, it is much easier to build a good thrower (Master Thrower and/or Bloodstorm Blade alone will fit the bill) in D&D than an archer, though I wouldn't do it w/ ranger.

[Grayson01]

I agree Master thrower is one of the best ranged options. Two-Weapon fighting was done pourly there are not enough good add on feats or PrCs to really make it worthwild. I have yet to use double weapons there a couple good ones but the feat waste has always detered me.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The best double weapons are the ones you can get free racial proficiency with, like the urgosh. IIRC, Complete Warrior even has some text about asking your DM to swap the standard racial proficiencies for newer weapons on a 1-for-1 basis. I used that once to get my dwarf cleric/fighter prof. with the dwarven warpike instead of the urgosh. That warpike...one of the few actual good exotic weapons.

[Darrin]

Which is the better way to make a ranger and why, Bowweilder or Two-weapon Fighter?

Archery probably wins out over TWF because it's easier to "kite" with ranged weapons (attack, then fly/move away fast enough that your opponent can't effectively counter-attack), while TWFers have to stand within melee range and get wailed on by their opponents because standing next to them is a very important part of making sure you get to use TWF on them next round. Even if you can't overcome archery's shortcomings (piss-poor damage, DR, cover/concealment/range modifiers, etc.), the ability to avoid your opponent's counterattack means you will eventually win via attrition/annoyance/luck/boredom.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Flying mounted archery is probably the ranger's biggest edge compared to other options in an archer build, yeah. You can move and full attack and they can't even reach you. Having the arrowmind spell and swift hunter option also being its strong points. Just a shame they nerfed ranger companion to half level instead of level -3 like in 3.0.

[Seharvepernfan]

I feel that both styles get a worse rap than they deserve.

The TWF functions even if you don't have good dex (but only if you wear light armor or less), so you can pump up str and con. You can also grab improved shield bash and get an AC boost at the same time. Not too terrible. Also, don't forget that TWF lets you throw a weapon with each hand. Power attacking with a two-hander still requires you to hit your target, and if you're maxing it out, you're also far less likely to hit.

Archery starts out being pretty crappy, but once you get enhanced arrows on top of an enhanced bow, you can start dealing out tons of damage, plus you can always shoot your targets from where you are, so you don't have to run up to melee range.

Personally, when I play rangers, I prefer the archery style, as with their d8 and light armor (even with shield), they really shouldn't be in melee all that much. Also, archery goes hand in hand with high listen/spot/hide/move silently.

[Flickerdart]

Just a shame they nerfed ranger companion to half level instead of level -3 like in 3.0.
Trade out the companion for the ACF that makes everything you shoot flanked, and use Wild Cohort to get a better companion.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Archery starts out being pretty crappy, but once you get enhanced arrows on top of an enhanced bow, you can start dealing out tons of damage...

Yes, I agree that in 3.0 where bow and arrow enhancements STACKED so you could get up to a +10 between them, archers were better (and Arcane Archer actually had some purpose). But the OP seems to be playing in 3.5. In any case, enhancing two things is super expensive, which is part of the reason TWF sucks. Enhancing two things and one of them is expendable (ie, needs constant replacing) and it can get ludicrously expensive.

Of course, casters do it better, as always. Greater Magic Weapon can buff a bow and/or 50 arrows for hours.

[Seharvepernfan]

Yes, I agree that in 3.0 where bow and arrow enhancements STACKED so you could get up to a +10 between them, archers were better (and Arcane Archer actually had some purpose). But the OP seems to be playing in 3.5.

I was referring to things like dragon bane, holy, shocking, force, etc.

[undead hero]

I feel that both styles get a worse rap than they deserve.

The TWF functions even if you don't have good dex (but only if you wear light armor or less), so you can pump up str and con. You can also grab improved shield bash and get an AC boost at the same time. Not too terrible. Also, don't forget that TWF lets you throw a weapon with each hand. Power attacking with a two-hander still requires you to hit your target, and if you're maxing it out, you're also far less likely to hit.

Archery starts out being pretty crappy, but once you get enhanced arrows on top of an enhanced bow, you can start dealing out tons of damage, plus you can always shoot your targets from where you are, so you don't have to run up to melee range.

Personally, when I play rangers, I prefer the archery style, as with their d8 and light armor (even with shield), they really shouldn't be in melee all that much. Also, archery goes hand in hand with high listen/spot/hide/move silently.

Bolded by me.

Shock Trooper says otherwise.

[sleepyphoenixx]

TWF suffers from the fact that you have to invest a lot of resources simply to function.
It's strictly worse than THF in pretty much all situations.

Archery can work but it requires a bit of optimization to get a decent amount of bonus damage.
You'll still be useless whenever someone casts Wind Wall unless you're a caster.
It works decently as an attack option for wis-based casters but a martial archer without any spellcasting will have a hard time contributing.

[Grayson01]

Distractive Strike PHB2


Trade out the companion for the ACF that makes everything you shoot flanked, and use Wild Cohort to get a better companion.

[Flickerdart]

I feel that both styles get a worse rap than they deserve.

The TWF functions even if you don't have good dex (but only if you wear light armor or less), so you can pump up str and con. You can also grab improved shield bash and get an AC boost at the same time. Not too terrible. Also, don't forget that TWF lets you throw a weapon with each hand. Power attacking with a two-hander still requires you to hit your target, and if you're maxing it out, you're also far less likely to hit.
Assuming 32PB humans, we can have the following arrays for different warriors:
TWF: 18 STR, 15 DEX, 14 CON, 8 INT, 10 WIS, 8 CHA
THF: 18 STR, 12 DEX, 16 CON, 8 INT, 10 WIS, 8 CHA

Already we can see the second guy is better off, with more hit points (possibly less AC, but full plate is the great equalizer) unless you waste two levels on Ranger. Now let's see what happens when they take starting weapons and feats, ignoring other modifiers (since they have equal ability scores for attacking):

TWF: Short sword -2 (1d6+4) and short sword -2 (1d6+2)
THF: Greatsword +0 (2d6+6)

The TWF guy is already behind in accuracy, and the THF guy isn't even using his feat yet. Against a target that the THF guy hits 50% of the time, the TWF guy will only land hits with both his weapons on 16% of the time. Oh, and he needs a full attack to do it; the THF guy can charge around for +2 to hit if he wants, for even more accuracy.

If we channel some Power Attack into the equation, the THF guy can take the same -2 penalty and get +4 to his damage.

This is even sadder when we add in magic weapons. When the THF guy proudly buys his first +5 weapon, the TWF guy can only afford a +4 and a +3. Oh, and if he wants the iterative attacks from his secondary weapon, he better invest even more feats and points into his Dexterity! There is literally no point at which TWF is even comparable to THF.




Archery starts out being pretty crappy, but once you get enhanced arrows on top of an enhanced bow, you can start dealing out tons of damage, plus you can always shoot your targets from where you are, so you don't have to run up to melee range.
Enhancement bonuses from bows and arrows don't stack, you have the same split investment problems as you do with TWF except you only ever add 1*STR and even then you have to pay extra for it.

[Seharvepernfan]

Are you aware rangers get TWF for free? And that they don't need 15 dex for it? Because that's what we were talking about, not fighters or whatever you seem to think.

I never said enhancement bonuses stack.

EDIT: Just checked, it seems that "flaming", "bane", and other such "enhancements" as I thought they were called are actually called "special abilities".

[Chronos]

Two-weapon fighting is almost never worthwhile for a ranger: Even if you've got the feats for free, it's at best still going to only be comparable to using a two-handed weapon. The archery feats, on the other hand, might not come up often, but at least when they do, they provide a real, meaningful benefit, that you couldn't easily get some other way.

[Humble Master]

I would say that archery is more optimal than two weapon fighting, but not by much. Also there are a lot more archery based Ranger spells than two weapon fighting ones.

[Thespianus]

I am getting this urge now to stat out a TWF Swift Hunger Ranger, using bludgeoning weapons, getting Greater Mighty Whallop cast on his two Warhammers (might even consider Oversized TWF just for this occasion), mainly to see a vast array of dice rattle across the table for each hit. :smallsmile: (Travel devotion/1 level of Barbarian/Other method to get Pounce would obviously be required)

[Seharvepernfan]

At high levels, against favored enemies, when both of your TWF weapons have things like bane/holy/anarchic against your favored enemy, then I bet even the damage aspect of the style is better.

In general, THF is better, I never contested that, but I don't think TWF is as bad as people say.

[eggynack]

At high levels, against favored enemies, when both of your TWF weapons have things like bane/holy/anarchic against your favored enemy, then I bet even the damage aspect of the style is better.

In general, THF is better, I never contested that, but I don't think TWF is as bad as people say.
TWF is actually exactly as bad as people say. Just look at the numbers flickerdart posted, and note that the TWF guy and the THF guy are doing the exact same amount of damage. That's before taking into account the difference in accuracy, and without any difference in feats, or in strength. They both deal 13 damage, and we haven't even started looking into ways to make THF really go off. You said before that you weren't investing anything into TWF, because we're talking about a ranger. Of course you are. Instead of putting together a real high damage build, probably involving some mixture of fighter and barbarian, you're forced to saddle yourself to the ranger, and do so forever. If you don't have 15 dexterity, you need to stick with the ranger for 11 levels, or you won't be able to get the later feats without a dexterity bump. Every choice you make has an opportunity cost, and the one you incur in making a TWF ranger is pretty high. They deal less damage, less often, and with more investment. There're a couple of ways to make it work, but straight ranger is not one of them.

[Seharvepernfan]

OP was talking about rangers, thus so was I. He didn't say "What's the best style?", he said "Which is the better way to make a ranger?" I have never said that TWF was as good as THF. I am saying that the frothy-mouthed hatred people have for it is an overreaction. In some situations, TWF is better, but not many; mainly, high-level rogues and rangers.

[Karnith]

In some situations, TWF is better, but not many; mainly, high-level rogues and rangers.
How is a high-level TWF ranger matching the damage output of a high-level character using a two-handed weapon? THF gets really great Power Attack returns and crazy damage on charges, and I am not aware of anything that gives TWF a similar boost. All of the significant melee damage boosters that rangers get access to that I am aware of are more effective with THF than with TWF, and TWF requires a pretty big investment even if you get some of the feats for free. High-level rogues can at least sneak attack for a lot more damage than rangers get for their (extremely situational) favored enemy bonuses.

EDIT: I'm not trying to be hostile, I am genuinely unfamiliar with anything but the most basic ranger optimization, and I simply don't see where you can get the numbers to compare with THF.

[eggynack]

OP was talking about rangers, thus so was I. He didn't say "What's the best style?", he said "Which is the better way to make a ranger?" I have never said that TWF was as good as THF. I am saying that the frothy-mouthed hatred people have for it is an overreaction. In some situations, TWF is better, but not many; mainly, high-level rogues and rangers.
The thing of it is, even on a ranger, you'd still probably be better off just going THF. You're bypassing the feat issue, which is nice, but that's still just one problem of many. You do worse on standard attacks, you have lower accuracy, THF tends to have cooler weapons, there are fewer ways to boost damage efficiently, and you need two magic weapons instead of just one. There's probably also a bunch more, and it all adds up to TWF being a bad choice. Rogues can pull it off, because they have ways to incentivize a pile of attacks, but what is a ranger doing? At least with archery, you're not playing second fiddle to a massive number of better options. Rangers are actually one of the few classes that can pull off archery, so it's a bit of a waste to take a style that a bunch of folks do better.

[Thespianus]

How is a high-level TWF ranger matching the damage output of a high-level character using a two-handed weapon?
I believe he was talking about comparing Ranged Ranger vs Two Weapon Ranger, as the thread title implies.

And, when comparing a Ranged Ranger with a TWF Ranger, there are situations when TWF come out on top.

Sure, there are some situations when TWF will beat THF too, like when you have a character that's High Dex and Low Strength, unable to Power Attack, but that is a side track.


The thing of it is, even on a ranger, you'd still probably be better off just going THF.
I believe there are Dragon Magazine variants for Rangers that give you Power Attack at level 2 instead of TWF and the Ranged version.

Dragon 326, according to my index file.

[Seharvepernfan]

How is a high-level TWF ranger matching the damage output of a high-level character using a two-handed weapon?

At high levels, against favored enemies, when both of your TWF weapons have things like bane/holy/anarchic against your favored enemy, then I bet even the damage aspect of the style is better. Also, TWFers can throw with both hands, which can be nice. As I mentioned earlier, if they went the shield bash route, they can get a small AC boost until animated shields come into play (not the greatest thing ever, I know). Other than that, it's not better. Especially not when things like Shock Trooper come into play.


What you said.

I mostly agree, but there are a few highlights to TWF, so I mentioned them.

[Flickerdart]

Are you aware rangers get TWF for free? And that they don't need 15 dex for it? Because that's what we were talking about, not fighters or whatever you seem to think.

I never said enhancement bonuses stack.

EDIT: Just checked, it seems that "flaming", "bane", and other such "enhancements" as I thought they were called are actually called "special abilities".
I did mention Rangers. I also explained why TWF is worse than THF even if you get the feat for free.


At high levels, against favored enemies, when both of your TWF weapons have things like bane/holy/anarchic against your favored enemy, then I bet even the damage aspect of the style is better.

In general, THF is better, I never contested that, but I don't think TWF is as bad as people say.
I couldn't think of a more contrived example if I tried. Does your DM only ever send one creature type against your characters?

[Karnith]

It still seems like a massive investment for such narrow applicability; even in the best-case scenario, the damage output seems comparable to a ranger using Rhino's Rush and a Valorous weapon with Power Attack, especially since a TWFer's iteratives aren't exactly likely to hit.

EDIT: More on-topic, being an archery-focused ranger lends itself well to going Swift Hunter, so that's cool.

[magwaaf]

am i the only person on this site that builds a character and doesn't build just for the stats and numbers i can throw?

[Drelua]

am i the only person on this site that builds a character and doesn't build just for the stats and numbers i can throw?

Well, I believe one can safely assume that when someone asks which fighting style is better, they're talking mechanically, as the alternative is purely subjective. Personally, I would say TWF is better just because I think it's way cooler, but that hardly has any bearing on which is superior in a general sense, does it?

Basically, there's no room for discussion in terms of something that is pure opinion, so people turn to the numbers since they can be looked at objectively.

[Darrin]

am i the only person on this site that builds a character and doesn't build just for the stats and numbers i can throw?

False dilemma. Read up on the Stormwind Fallacy (http://dictummortuum.blogspot.com/2011/12/stormwind-fallacy.html).

[Krazzman]

I would say THF ranger with Archery Combat Style.

Yes, you might split your resources. Getting a High str to focus on hitting things with a chunk of metal and the archery feats to get a good bowshooting going on. Basically you will try to have an 18 str at the beginning with a Composite +4 Longbow and a Greatsword.

At range (assuming 14 dex) the to hit is only +3 and in melee +5 but 1d8+4 while the enemy runs towards you and when they finally closed to you you pack out your greatsword and smack them up.

Pathfinder luckily made a few feats that help negate some archery weaknesses.

Ingnoring concealment, summing up your damage instead of single damage per shot(good against DR), Deadly Aim (Ranged Power attack).

To explain this:
Our group of "incompetend" adventurers(5 guys level 11) battled a Tar Dragon(CR 15 [know due to SR]). Every strike slimed your weapon to him. As such you needed a move action to retrieve it.
Our Barbarian killed the dragon nearly herself because the TWF Ranger couldn't effectively retrieve his weapons. The barbarian needed quite some time due to no full attacks(luckily she has Vital strike). If the ranger would've been an archer the fight would've been pretty easy.
Out of the dragons ~200-250 hp I did 27 damage, the ranger maybe 10. We only survived this because of a lucky hold monster and slow.
The last time this ranger couldn't wound a werewolf we were fighting. Just the Paladin (with his Shieldbashing + Axewielding) could do something against him since I could only pling with Magic missiles at him.

Ask your DM to implement a few feats from Pathfinder (Deadly aim[CRB] and the Damagepooling one [from Ultimate Combat]).

[Nightraiderx]

Did everyone forget what a two handed weapon with armor spikes was a viable option for TWF ranger?

[Seharvepernfan]

Did everyone forget what a two handed weapon with armor spikes was a viable option for TWF ranger?

It's arguable, and many DMs may not allow it.

[Ace Nex]

Option 3 from Dragon Magazine, Strongarm Variant Ranger. You get 2h weapons, and can put out a pretty good charger. Combine the power attack boost with Rhino's Rush spell and later Leap Attack and you can be putting out some serious damage.