Why do rangers have to choose between TWF and archery?

[Aquillion]

Would it really be that unbalancing for rangers to get both the TWF and archery feat chains (at different levels, say)? Maybe they choose which one to get first, but... why not give them both? Sure, it's more feats than most classes get, but so what? It's not like they can use them both at the same time, and the extra versatility wouldn't really break anything.

I've noticed this is a trend with combat / melee-type classes... they generally have to choose one thing to be good at, and that's it. It seems silly to me. Why shouldn't rangers have options for both melee and ranged combat?

Of course, this wouldn't make rangers interchangeable -- a melee-focused ranger would need different stats than an archery-focused ranger, would probably have different equipment, etc. The option they don't choose to focus on would still generally be secondary. But still, why not give them the options? What's the point in making them choose?

(I'm aware that TWF is an inferior option, but bear with me here. If anything, that's just another reason to not make them choose.)

[Talic]

TWF can be quite effective.

Greatsword + Armor Spikes.

[Skjaldbakka]

Rangers don't have to choose. It is perfectly viable to do both at the same time, one set for free, and the other by spending feats. Quickdraw helps in this plan.

There is also the fact that if they didn't choose between the two, all rangers would have both, thus reducing the variety in rangers.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'm guessing that WotC thought that they wold be too versatile if they could take more then 1 combat style (don't ask me how that makes sense when you look at a lot of the speels which cause Wizards to be overpowered). Flavourwise, I think it fits in with Favoured Enermies in the sense that Rangers are supposed to specialise in certain ways of fighting at the expence of other techniques.

[Talic]

Look at it this way.

I'll go High str with low to average dex, and go Greatsword/Armor spikes and throwing axes.

I'll take Brutal throw and power throw, and the shock trooper tree.

Now, I take advantage of both, using the same stats, with similar bonuses, and I can TWF with my ranged weapons as well.

[Matthew]

It would make next to no difference. Replace any Combat Style Abilities with Bonus Feats and there would be no particularly unbalancing effect. The whole 'you need X to do Y' aspect of the Feat System is a double edged sword for D20. On the one hand, it feels as though you are customising your character, on the other hand by defining his abilities in such strict terms and limited resource control, you are also limiting him.

To put it another way, it wouldn't make that much difference if every Class had access to twenty feats at Level One and gained two every level thereafter.

[Talic]

Yes and no.

Yes, rules can give flexibility.

Yes, rules MUST provide limitations, restrictions. They must define boundaries of what can and can't be done.

Yes, you must learn basic math before you can take graduate calculus.
Yes, you must learn algebra and trig before you learn building design.
Yes, you must learn basic programming theory before you can train to be a web developer.

The feat system is a building block system. You must learn basic abilities before you can learn advanced ones.

Giving people more feats? Even at level one, it would vastly increase the power level.

For example, as a cleric, how about... Extend Spell, Persist spell, DMM: Persist, and Extra Turning x17?

For wizard? Sudden Quicken.

For melee types? Well, weapon focus in two different weapons, with most of the dodge tree, most of the power attack tree, the beginning of the TWF tree, and half of the Combat expertise tree. Round it out with about 5 uses of the Toughness skill, or all the save boost feats.

Rogues? How many skill boost feats can I get?

Yes, feat allowance can dramatically alter the power level of a game.

[Grynning]

In Monte Cooke's new "by request" alternate handbook, he just said, screw it, everyone gets a feat every level. Class features are now basically special feats you can select, based on your class.

I will remind everyone that rangers in 3.0 did get both the Archery and TWF progressions. The reason the changed it is because no one wanted to play fighters because the rangers got all the coolest feats anyways (not that anyone wants to play fighters now )

[GutterRunner]

Back in old 3.0 D&D, rangers had the flavor of shooting or duel wielding, but the class only gave TWF feats (two at first level iirc). This ment that a TWF ranger got an advantage, and a 1 level ranger dip was sometimes taken by other classes to get the feats cheaper. Shooting rangers however got no feat help, and as they don't get fighter's bonus feats were actually worse at it than fighters with a moderate focus in shooting. And what was worse was that a ranger who specialised in shooting and only owned one melee weapon was still better at duel wielding than a fighter up to about lvl 8-10 :P

With 3.5 they changed the ranger class a bit, adding the combat styles so it could actually support both flavors, and not automattically support one. Automattically supporting both would lead to a slightly more powerfull class, with less flavorful builds, but could be a houserule you could apply if you find the base ranger to be too weak.

[Matthew]

The feat system is a building block system. You must learn basic abilities before you can learn advanced ones.

Yeah, but it's heavily limited by Level and BAB and other factors that make having a lot of feats not that useful.

Giving people more feats? Even at level one, it would vastly increase the power level.

For example, as a cleric, how about... Extend Spell, Persist spell, DMM: Persist, and Extra Turning x17?

Some feats are more powerful than others, for sure. Feats that stack with themselves, such as Toughness and Extra Turning could prove unbalancing.

For melee types? Well, weapon focus in two different weapons, with most of the dodge tree, most of the power attack tree, the beginning of the TWF tree, and half of the Combat expertise tree. Round it out with about 5 uses of the Toughness skill, or all the save boost feats.

Most of those I wouldn't consider particularly powerful at all, just nice additional options.

Rogues? How many skill boost feats can I get?

Twenty? (or +5 to ten skills) Wouldn't make much difference as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, feat allowance can dramatically alter the power level of a game.

It could, but it probably won't, with a couple of exceptions (mainly multiple toughness and Extra Turning when combined with other certain feats).

Will a character with twenty feats be more powerful than one with three? Well yeah, but not by that much (allowing for the above exceptions)

[Darrin]

Would it really be that unbalancing for rangers to get both the TWF and archery feat chains (at different levels, say)? Maybe they choose which one to get first, but... why not give them both? Sure, it's more feats than most classes get, but so what? It's not like they can use them both at the same time, and the extra versatility wouldn't really break anything.

The first three levels of Ranger are already pretty feat-heavy (Track at 1st, Combat Style at 2nd, Endurance at 3rd). Granted, two of those feats aren't exactly "Wow! Cool!" kind of feats (when the heck was anybody ever excited about Endurance?). So my initial feeling would be "No, it'd be unbalanced".

But when I give it more thought... it probably wouldn't be unbalanced at all. TWF is very feat-heavy and unless you're suplementing the damage-per-hit with something like sneak/skirmish/??? it's sub-optimal. Likewise, any archery-based build is going to have problems with the crappy damage and narrow crit range of bows. A ranger with both Combat Styles would still be pretty well-balanced.

Note: there are other Combat Styles available to rangers other than TWF and ranged. Dragon #326 added Bear-Wrestling (Improved Unarmed Strike), Mounted-Combat (Ride-By-Attack), Piscator (EWP: Net), Strong-Arm (Power Attack), and Throwing (Quickdraw).

[Talya]

I have issues with ranger combat styles, but I do agree with making them choose one or the other.

Combat Style -Two Weapon Fighting

My issue here isn't with the combat style, per se, but TWF itself. Three feats so you can fight less effectively than you can with a single big sword? My house rules in my game are as follows:

Two Weapon Fighting (Req. Dexterity 15): Iterative attacks in your off hand now scale with your BAB. There are no Improved or Greater TWF feats. You take one, you'll get a second attack at BAB 6, a third at BAB 11...and hell, a fourth at BAB 16.

Two Weapon Defense (Req. Dexterity 18): This feat now grants a +3 to shield AC. There are no improved or greater versions of the feat. Rangers using the TWF Combat Style get this in place of Improved TWF at 6.

Dual Strike: This feat now acts like two actual attacks, rolling twice, allowing critical chances for both, and applying any bonus damage to both swings. The normal -2 penalty to hit applies. Rangers using TWF combat style get this in place of Greater TWF at 11.

Combat Style - Archery

My issue here is that all archery feats and PrCs seem to have prerequisites of feats that the Archery combat style doesn't give. I would change this so that after getting Rapid Shot at 2, a ranger is also considered as having Point Blank Shot for all feat and PrC requirements. Furthermore, after getting Improved Precise Shot, a ranger is also considered as having Precise Shot for all feats and PrC requirements.

[bosssmiley]

In answer to the OP's question: because you can be either Drizzt or Legolas, not both!

Serious head. The ranger as is is one of the most gimped character classes in the PHB. Compare/contrast to his outdoors buddy the Druid:

The druid gets 9 levels of spells to the ranger's 4 over 20 levels.
The druid gets a full effect animal companion, the ranger gets a half-power version of same (the dedicated summoner gets another pet?).
The druid gets wildshape and elemental wildshape from level 5 onwards. The ranger gets...err...TWF or Archery at levels 1, 6, and 11. Big whoop.
The ranger gets 5 BAB on the druid over 20 levels. Like BAB actually means something after about level 10.

Giving the ranger both of twf and archery is the least you can do to make sure the druid doesn't steal his thunder every single time. You might also want to gimp the druid's companion and give the ranger the full advancement version instead.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

You might also want to gimp the druid's companion and give the ranger the full advancement version instead.

I fully support this as a step towards actual balance.

[mostlyharmful]

Damnit Bossmiley! Everything I was going to say Plucked from my brain!!! I tell you I do not take kindly to mindreaming!

[DrowVampyre]

Just a thought, without actually checking the stuff (I know it's online...but I'm feeling lazy): how would it be to give Rangers the Sword of the Arcane Order feat for free (lets them prep Wizard spells in their slots and keep a spellbook) and roll the Arcane Archer's abilities into Ranger? Overpowered? My instinct says maybe...but both are considered subpar classes, so maybe not...

[Talic]

Will a character with twenty feats be more powerful than one with three? Well yeah, but not by that much (allowing for the above exceptions)

There are several feats that are limited by the amount of prerequisites that they have.

For example, Sudden Quicken. A human wizard, at level 1, with 2 flaws, cannot get it.

However, it has no prerequisites, other than other feats, which can all be gotten at level 1.

Now, what's the overall power difference between a wizard that can drop 2 spells in a round, and a wizard that can drop 1? A lot.

Further, extra options = extra power. You won't be the best at any one thing, you'll be the best at everything.

For example, a rogue with 20 feats? Skill focus: Hide, and move silently. Shape Soulmeld: Kruthik Claws. Stealthy. There's a +9 to hide there. Now let's go with the spelltouched for DR 3, skill focus in 10 other skills (including bluff), and the ability to bluff as a move action.

As a fighter? Weapon focus, Aberrant blood, Inhuman reach, Willing Deformity, Deformity: Tall, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Stand Still, Animal Devotion, Power Attack, EWP: Spiked Chain, Combat reflexes.

Now, at level 1, we have a guy that has 30 foot reach, a great attack bonus, and great control.

A Kobold? Improved natural armor x20.

A psion/Psi-warrior? There's a feat that boosts your power points. I believe that x20 = +230 PP at level 1. Now say you're an Elan. Instead, go with 19, (+219 pp at level 1) and enhances repletion. Now, at level 1, you're negating about... well, over 800 damage.

Contrary to what you THINK, the facts are that feats, when left open, are powerful.

How many more "exceptions" must I find before they stop being "exceptions"??

[Matthew]

My goodness, you are right; how foolish of me not to realise it right from the get go.

Whatever, Talic. A Wizard with one or two Spells at Level 1 is no great shakes at all, no matter how much Sudden quicken crap he junks up with. There are hundreds of feats in D20 and for the vast majority of them it will make very little difference to the power level of the character. However, I haven't got the time or the inclination to argue about each and every border line case you come up with. D20 is full of dumb ass exploits and character creation is hardly balanced to begin with. That's just my general opinion (and, yes, it's also what I think - indeed, "Cogito, ergo sum" and all that).

[Please note, there is little reason to shout in capitals for emphasis, it's just rude].

[Turcano]

You might also want to gimp the druid's companion and give the ranger the full advancement version instead.

The problem with that is that it makes absolutely no sense thematically: why should the dedicated nature worshiper get a less powerful animal companion than a glorified woodsman? Giving both of them the same progression would be the best compromise between balance and fluff.

Also, how would Dodge > Mobility > Spring Attack work as an alternate combat style?

[Jasdoif]

To put it another way, it wouldn't make that much difference if every Class had access to twenty feats at Level One and gained two every level thereafter.

If feats were designed that way, certainly. However, there's an abundance of feats out there that only rely on other feats and/or a certain ability score, and are theoretically designed to be balanced at taking one every three levels. Shoving twenty of them in at level 1 could easily break things. Of course, those feats are a result of the design decision about how feats would be gained; with a different underlying decision twenty feats plus two per level would be fine throughout. And far more flexible, which I believe is your point.

Now, if there were no class abilities...no classes...everything is a feat....Huh, sounds kind of like GURPS now.

[SofS]

I think that optimizing players would take those 20 feats and create fairly balanced characters, inasmuch as balance means anything in that situation. With that amount of customization, everybody becomes pretty much equally lethal. I don't really think that two 1st level spells is as powerful as many martial options, given that the save-boosting and HP-boosting feats would make any spell of that level rather ineffectual.

As for that Dodge -> Mobility -> Spring Attack progression, I'd ditch Dodge, move the other two down, and give either that one that gives two spring attacks when moving or that one (think it's called Combat Tactician) that gives bonuses when you attack someone in melee that you weren't threatening at the beginning of the round.

[Talic]

These aren't border line cases, though. They're outright breaking the game. The psion who can use a power once a round, every round, for an hour an a half? You know, the one that has more PP's at level 1 than many psywars will have at level 20?

The character that can grapple the light fighter, power attack the heavy fighter, combat expertise the incorporeal one, TWF when the dozen goblins show up, Spring Attack their leader, and sunder his wand? All at level 1?

The rogue with a +25 to hide and move silent, along with bluffing, sense motive, a +20 to listen and spot, and +15 in every knowledge skill that could potentially be useful? At level 1?

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, increasing feats by a silly number increases power by a silly amount. The above examples, I hope, are enough to illustrate this. If not, then either way, I think the discussion is at an end, because, if they don't convince you, not much will.

(Oh, that's not even counting the Heritage feats that offer progressively greater benefits as you get more of them, and there are 3 different trees of them, if memory serves.)

[riddles]

Some feats are more powerful than others, for sure. Feats that stack with themselves, such as Toughness and Extra Turning could prove unbalancing.

It could, but it probably won't, with a couple of exceptions (mainly multiple toughness and Extra Turning when combined with other certain feats).

Will a character with twenty feats be more powerful than one with three? Well yeah, but not by that much (allowing for the above exceptions)

erm...there is a marked difference between taking 5 uses of toughness and taking the DMM: persist tree.

i think the minute you say that stacking toughness would unbalance a character at creation you have lost this argument sir.

i'll take power attack, leap attack, shock trooper over your 3xtoughness at level 1 any day of the week.

[Charity]

Shock trooper - Prerequisite: Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack, base attack bonus +6.

I think what Matthew was alluding to is the fact that spellcasting dwarfs melee to such an extent that any number of feats stuck on to your Ranger really won't make much odds power wise in the long run.

Using DMM to state that getting a lot of feats is broken is daft, we all know DMM is broken, and it's just 1 feat per metamagic, you can cheese away with just your standard allotment of feats, the fact that you get loads is fairly irrelivent, apart from the number of stacking extra turning feats, which would suck without the parmisan that is DMM.

[riddles]

point taken. you couldn't get shock trooper at level 1. i concede that. but given 20 feat choices, you would be foolish to spend them on toughness. the whole of the combat expertise tree bar whirlwind attack, power attack, cleave, iron will, lightening reflexes and great fortitude, improved shield bash, the mounted combat tree and all the skill boost feats make you considerably more capable than a character who takes 20 uses of toughness. and that's core only.

what matthew was alluding to was that, with a large number of feat choices available, characters wouldn't really change in terms of balance unless they took toughness or extra turning multiple times, which is just wrong.

and he doesn't distinguish between spellcasting and melee:

To put it another way, it wouldn't make that much difference if every Class had access to twenty feats at Level One and gained two every level thereafter.

Whatever, Talic. A Wizard with one or two Spells at Level 1 is no great shakes at all, no matter how much Sudden quicken crap he junks up with. There are hundreds of feats in D20 and for the vast majority of them it will make very little difference to the power level of the character.

[Charity]

Well again
Whirlwind attack - Prerequisite: Int 13+, Expertise, Dex 13+, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4 or higher, Spring Attack
Spring Attack - Prerequisite: Dex 13+, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4 or higher

I imagine as most of a spellcasters power comes from their spell list not their associated feats, and trying not to put words in the fella's mouth, he simply disregarded those... this was originally about Rangers after all.

I am not claiming this as my own theory here I just think I drok where he's coming from on this. It's not the number of feats thats the thing, it's that some feats are broken, just look at fighters, they have boat loads of feats, but they are still quite crap.

[Aquillion]

The problem with that is that it makes absolutely no sense thematically: why should the dedicated nature worshiper get a less powerful animal companion than a glorified woodsman? Giving both of them the same progression would be the best compromise between balance and fluff.

Easy. The ranger devotes themselves to a single 'animal companion', who is like a comrade-in-arms to them. Since the ranger is trained in the ways of war, this animal is likewise chosen for its warlike capabilities, and is battle-trained and hardened.

The druid devotes themselves to nature as a whole; they can summon animals constantly, and also happen to have an animal who attends them all the time... but unlike the revised ranger, that one animal isn't a main focus of their class, and is more of a friend than a weapon.

The ranger gets one animal, while the druid gets all animals. It makes sense for the ranger's animal to be unusually tough.

[Talic]

The problem is, if there are 500 feats that wouldn't meaningfully impact the game with a 20 feat rule, and 25 that would, you can expect to see 10 of those 25 on almost any character's list. After all, most players will gravitate towards effective abilities.

Further, nobody's gonna argue that druids are worse off than rangers. Quite the opposite. That said, some abilities were left off ranger.

Such as Hide in Plain Sight, and the like.

Further, you can't tell me that any PC class in D&D is not trained "in the ways of war". All that matters is how thoroughly trained.

My power up of the ranger class? Well, rangers will never match the connection with nature that druids have. But they do train for physical combat. As do their pets.

Allow pets extra bonus feats. They get one whenever the ranger (with level adjustment for animal power) would get an extra feat. How about, for good measure, the animal can qualify for int based feats as if it had the int of the ranger? Now, the animal, with its HD (and BAB), can be meaningfully powered up, in a way that's customized to each ranger. You want a tiger with improved grapple? Great. You want your wolf to have spring attack? Sure thing. Your hawk would be better with wingover and improved flyby attack? Awesome. You can do that. Because you train for physical combat with your animal, in a way the druid wouldn't.

[Charity]

The problem is, if there are 500 feats that wouldn't meaningfully impact the game with a 20 feat rule, and 25 that would, you can expect to see 10 of those 25 on almost any character's list. After all, most players will gravitate towards effective abilities.

This, I can only agree with Talic.

Your Ranger boosting is quite interesting, the only problem I can see in boosting the Ranger via his animal companion is what happens when the thing inevitably dies (in a final fashion) then you are back to square one.

[riddles]

Well again
Whirlwind attack - Prerequisite: Int 13+, Expertise, Dex 13+, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4 or higher, Spring Attack
Spring Attack - Prerequisite: Dex 13+, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4 or higher

I imagine as most of a spellcasters power comes from their spell list not their associated feats, and trying not to put words in the fella's mouth, he simply disregarded those... this was originally about Rangers after all.

I am not claiming this as my own theory here I just think I drok where he's coming from on this. It's not the number of feats thats the thing, it's that some feats are broken, just look at fighters, they have boat loads of feats, but they are still quite crap.

ack. i give up charity. you win, my use of the srd in work has failed me. i maintain (in opposition to matthew) that a character with extra feats will be more powerful. talic's point (made more eloquently than i could) focuses on the fact that many characters would pick the same effective feats and be generic, albeit effective.