so i was wandering the other day, why do Ranger's get two weapon fighting as one of there combat style options, i can understand the idea of them getting the archery but what is it about ranger's that make them more inclined to dual wield more so then any other class?
i would like to hear what you think about this.
so i was wandering the other day, why do Ranger's get two weapon fighting as one of there combat style options, i can understand the idea of them getting the archery but what is it about ranger's that make them more inclined to dual wield more so then any other class?
i would like to hear what you think about this.
No reason, I think, other than way, way, way back, when D&D was in its infancy, rangers were the only class that could dual-wield. Why? Dunno, I guess Gygax needed to give them something to make them interesting. Why couldn't everyone else? Dunno, maybe Gygax didn't think of it until he started writing up the ranger class.
Interestingly enough, rangers were no better with ranged weapons than anyone else. Dual-wielding wasn't an option, or rather, ther wasn't a second option for archery stuff. That didn't show up until 3.x this decade.
In any case, through the years, nobody has broken that old ranger stereotype. It's one of the few remaining "sacred cows" that we grognards need to hold near and dear to our hearts.
Or something like that.
|
so i was wandering the other day, why do Ranger's get two weapon fighting as one of there combat style options, i can understand the idea of them getting the archery but what is it about ranger's that make them more inclined to dual wield more so then any other class?
i would like to hear what you think about this.
No reason, I think, other than way, way, way back, when D&D was in its infancy, rangers were the only class that could dual-wield. Why? Dunno, I guess Gygax needed to give them something to make them interesting. Why couldn't everyone else? Dunno, maybe Gygax didn't think of it until he started writing up the ranger class.
Interestingly enough, rangers were no better with ranged weapons than anyone else. Dual-wielding wasn't an option, or rather, ther wasn't a second option for archery stuff. That didn't show up until 3.x this decade.
In any case, through the years, nobody has broken that old ranger stereotype. It's one of the few remaining "sacred cows" that we grognards need to hold near and dear to our hearts.
Or something like that.
Just like good 'ol Drizzt D'urden ;)
|
I know in 1st ed there was no preference either way. The dual wielding thing didnt start till 2nd ed, and it always struck me as a "how can we get people to play this class over fighters" sort of thing for 2nd ed rangers, rather than a thematic thing.
I think you are right, Driz'zt caused the wave of dual wielding rangers, just like Robin Hood in the forest likely caused the connection of rangers to bows.
I like the ranger as a class, myself.
Rather than worry about the two offered Combat Styles, I constantly create new combat styles to allow rangers to use. Its the combat style concept that I think is cool, and not the limitation to the two offered styles.
In our home brew ranger combat styles, we've got these additions:
1. 1 handed combat style - focus on critical hit feats, and using the second hand to do something else.
2. 2-handed combat style = vital strike chain, power attack, any increased damage causing effects, critical focus, improved critical, etc.
3. Stealth striking style - things like Spring Attack, things that cause opponents to become flat-footed or loose their dexterity, besides flanking to assist the Sneak Attack members of the party.
4. Grappler/Unarmed combat style.
Any of these styles could be feat selections by any player as normal, just that since the Ranger do not have to take prerequisite feats to qualify, its putting Spring Attack on a combat style list, but no need to place dodge and mobility.
Certain styles like 2-weapon fighting are feat heavy to get all you want, so being a Ranger means, being able to select all your feats, without having to go high levels to get them all.
Combat styles is just one of the Ranger bennies, that's all.
GP
i like playing rangers a lot but i very rarely use ranged weapons or dual wield, more than often i use a two handed weapon so the combat styles just feel like a bit of a waist, sure i usually have a ranged weapon but that's only for specific situations that's why i was wandering what every one thought.
Funny thing is, my favorite character EVER was 2nd ed. ranger, and I never bothered with two weapons with him -- he was an archery beast, had a STR of 18.97, and a Bow of Strength. I suppose I wads failing to optimize him, but damn, he was fun to play. He started out NG, but I played him as so conscientious my DM laid an alignment change on me, ruled he was LG.I toiled away for years trying to find him a set of Boots of Elvenkind, only to have them stolen the first week he had them by a thief that was played by a new player to the group. The real pisser? The Player was my own cousin!
Sorry, getting a bit nostalgic.
i have a character right now who i am thinking of multy classing into ranger, i have a halfling who has 4 levels barbarian, 4 levels rogue and i am considering going into ranger, he uses an earthbreaker so my question is that is it worth picking up the archery combat style if i will almost never really use ranged weapons.
You could just get spiked armour and go the TWF route.
/Jokes :)
Seriously tho, this is why it's important to plot out your feat and class progression before character creation.
What feats do you have currently?
Why do you want Ranger, anyway? For Favored Enemy? Track? Wild Empathy? Did you just want a couple bonus feats and a combat style you won't uese?
Really, you're likely to get more mileage just staying in the two classes you have. Level those up for bigger better rages and bigger better sneak attacks. And if you stay mostly with your Favored Class, you can get an extra HP or skill point each level.
But if you really want a 3rd class, ask yourself if you're doing it just to optimize yourself (if you are, then ranger is not what you want since you won't use the best low-level stuff they get (combat style). But if you're doing it for rolepaying reasons ("Gosh, great-granddad was a ranger and I always wanted to follow in his footsteps") then you don't need tow worry about whether or not the archery combat style is "worth it" for you.
Short answer, if you're going ranger for roleplaying reasons, then just do it and use that archery style when and if the need arises. If you're doing it for optimization, consider just advancing what you have or maybe going fighter instead of ranger - you'll get more optimizing that way.
i have a character right now who i am thinking of multy classing into ranger, i have a halfling who has 4 levels barbarian, 4 levels rogue and i am considering going into ranger, he uses an earthbreaker so my question is that is it worth picking up the archery combat style if i will almost never really use ranged weapons.
What ever you choose to do, picking up Quick Draw is a good choice so you can switch between the bow (if you are using it) and your prefered melee weapon without having to waste any actions on it... But frankly, as DM_Blake just said, ask yourself why you want to take a third class...
mainly its an rp thing, i do like a lot of the ranger abilities but i also want to do a lot of multy classing with this character.
nothing about the character is optimized at all and i like it that way.
right now the feats i have are power attack and toughness.
i just realized i made a mistake with my character levels, i have 2 levels barbarian and 2 levels rogue.
Well, you still have your options open to go the TWF or the THW route. I'd suggest TWF as your sneak attack will apply to all attacks. + consider asking your DM to use the retraining rules from PHBII.
If you're a melee guy, then i agree; the archery route is far from optimal. Remember that if you're only gonna dip a few levels in Ranger then it's not a big deal. The archery feats are good with thrown weapons too.
btw, if 3.5 stuff is allowed and you retrain, consider the Lion Totem Barbarian from Complete Champion. You can pounce, full attack w/2 weapons and get multiple sneak attacks. Plus you've got the HP to withstand the inevitable counter full attack.
If you're using LPJ Undefeatable series (they are only like $1.99 or less each) there's a feat book dedicated to Rangers, with some great archer feats. In some cases I think some of the feats are a bit broken, so its up to you whether to include them.
But... some archer feats in that guide are really great.
Archer Coup de Grace - coup de grace at 30 feet range? There are several feats chained that bypass concealment. The two threatened zone feats, give archers an attack of opportunity when opponents enter a ranged distance away from someone with a ready bow. In other words their threatened range is actually 20 or more feet away from them. A couple Archer Trip type feats where you can perform combat maneuvers at distance.
In 101 Magical Properties book by Rite Publishing, there's a magic property for bows, that give a free bullrush with a successful arrow hit - it makes me think of someone getting shot by a 357 magnum and not falling but goes flying when hit. Fun stuff!
Add these to standard ranger archer combat style feats and bowman become truly awesome. I've built a ranger adding LPJ's new feats, and never regretted primarily fighting at distance. Sure he still uses a sword up close - I've never considered archery as only a circumstantial method of fighting. YMMV.
GP
Take bow path, use two handed weapon. Best of ALL worlds ;)
|
|
I remember seeing a couple of new homebrew ranger combat styles on the PathfinderDB if your DM is open to more than RAW.
Zweihander combat style (2 handed weapon)
If hes not open to allowing you a new style that suits your character build, you probably should re-consider going ranger, from a mechanical viewpoint.
I remember seeing a couple of new homebrew ranger combat styles on the PathfinderDB if your DM is open to more than RAW.
Zweihander combat style (2 handed weapon)
If hes not open to allowing you a new style that suits your character build, you probably should re-consider going ranger, from a mechanical viewpoint.
The only thing I see wrong with the Zweihander is not bad mechanics, but choice of name -- with a name like that I'd expect some requirement to use two-hnded weapons.
mainly its an rp thing, i do like a lot of the ranger abilities but i also want to do a lot of multy classing with this character.
nothing about the character is optimized at all and i like it that way.
They you're good as gold. Take the ranger levels, go archery since you don't want to TWF, and use it when you can and don't use it when you can't.
Since it's all RP anyway, then it doesn't really matter "if it is worth picking up" or not.
You shouldn't try to have it both ways. RP this character, or Optimize him. You can do both, by the way, by RPing him as a guy who really wants to learn the best skills and abilities to survive a dnagerous adventuring career. But if you don't do that, then pick either "RP" or "Optimization" because, at least in this case, they are not the same thing.