Does the Point-Blank Master rule the Switch Hitter Ranger out?

[Nicolas Melchior]

(By the way, I want to thank Treantmonk for his great guides)

Rangers have some skills, an animal companion and some spell. Indeed Treantmonk´s build is very interesting, being more than decent at close combat and incredible with ranged attacks. Of course, there is no perfect build, but it was pretty solid.

My "problem" is that a fighter with this feat can devote himself to ranged attacks and use them in close combat too. That would (IMHO) render the ranger a completely inferior choice in combat in every single way.

[Kaiyanwang]

You cannot compare a class to fighter basing the comparison on fighting techniques only. Fighter just wins - it's the FIGHTER.

Ranger has other stuff - more skill points, animal companion, evasion, spells.

They play differently. With ranger, you can have the luxury of being less straightforward.

[Abraham spalding]

No it would not. There are a few ranger types that can access the point blank mastery feat too. Even without though the ranger brings many things to the table that the fighter cannot match.

The ranger has better saves, skill points and spell usage. The animal companion (if you get one) can offer a lot too, and switch hitting isn't a bad idea for tactical reasons.

[LazarX]

Nicolas Melchior wrote:

(By the way, I want to thank Treantmonk for his great guides)

Rangers have some skills, an animal companion and some spell. Indeed Treantmonk´s build is very interesting, being more than decent at close combat and incredible with ranged attacks. Of course, there is no perfect build, but it was pretty solid.

My "problem" is that a fighter with this feat can devote himself to ranged attacks and use them in close combat too. That would (IMHO) render the ranger a completely inferior choice in combat in every single way.

You do understand that the ranger is more than just combat? The fighter gives his all to putting hurt on people, but that's all he does. The ranger however is your advance scout, he provides some minor magical support, considerable wilderness survival support, and is pretty much your rogue when it comes to being outside of the dungeon, and can be pretty good on the stealth everywhere.

If your campaign is nothing but melee separated by a couple of paragraphs of DM speech, you'd be probably right.

[vuron]

Ranger is effectively a multiclass Fighter/Rogue. Full BAB, good skill usage, decent solo buffing options, animal companion, etc.

He's never going to be as good as the fighter in baseline DPR, he can rival given a high enough level of favored enemy. He's not going to be as skilled as the rogue at skill monkey stuff.

But he's got decent saves and while he can't absorb hits like a Fighter or Barbarian can he's still pretty solid.

[Nicolas Melchior]

I´m glad to hear that, but I was talking about a Ranger build that, before that feat, could rival with a fighter in a combat in many ways.
(I already admit the advantages of skills, animal companion and spell)

And in order not to be so useless out of a combat there is in the pathfinder campaign setting an option to give up the first bonus feat and have INT +4 skill points per level (he has no perception, but he has survival after all).

To be honest, what I´m looking for is a way to regain this combat advantage for the ranger.

[LazarX]

Nicolas Melchior wrote:

I´m glad to hear that, but I was talking about a Ranger build that, before that feat, could rival with a fighter in a combat in many ways.
(I already admit the advantages of skills, animal companion and spell)

And in order not to be so useless out of a combat there is in the pathfinder campaign setting an option to give up the first bonus feat and have INT +4 skill points per level (he has no perception, but he has survival after all).

To be honest, what I´m looking for is a way to regain this combat advantage for the ranger.

He hasn't really lost it.

[vuron]

In terms of pure DPR the Ranger is not supposed to be equal to the Fighter unless a situational bonus like favored enemy comes into play.

Look at it this way

Fighter
Good DPR
Good AC
Good HPs
Poor Saves
Poor Skill Points
Poor Utility

Ranger
Decent DPR/ Good with Situational Factors
Decent AC
Good HPs
Decent Saves
Decent Skill Points
Good Utility

In order to be balanced against the fighter the Ranger has to sacrifice something in order to be more flexible and have better utility. In regards to combat that means being inferior to the Fighter in terms of baseline DPR and inferior in terms of AC.

If there wasn't a trade-off the Fighter would be undeniably a weaker class than the Ranger and we aren't playing 1e-2e anymore ;)

[Pawn512]

The point blank master feat specifically states that a ranger with the archery combat style can choose the feat starting at 6th level. So the archer ranger really hasn't lost anything to the archer fighter - they both gain a similar advantage.

What this does do is render the switch-hitter ranger somewhat pointless. A pure archery ranger can now do pretty much everything the switch-hitter does but without diluting its focus in any way.

[Nicolas Melchior]

You are all right. I´ll miss the switch-hitter, but there is no other way.

[Father Dale]

Pawn512 wrote:

What this does do is render the switch-hitter ranger somewhat pointless. A pure archery ranger can now do pretty much everything the switch-hitter does but without diluting its focus in any way.

I thought this at first, but after thinking it through I'm not so certain of this.

First thing to note is that the archery ranger has the very difficult choice at 6th level of taking either Point Blank Master or Improved Precise Shot. He can get the other one at 10th level of course. But realistically many games peter out by around 10th level as it is. So in a lot of games this choice may be an all or nothing question.

But comparing the switch hitter to the Point Blank Master ranger, the switch hitter has options regarding melee attacks that the archer won't have. Critical feats, stunning/dazing assault, CMB attacks, things of that nature. While the archer ranger will likely have a higher damage output overall, the switch hitter will likely be more effective at battlefield control.

And really, the archer doesn't want to have to use Point Blank Master in the first place. He'd like to be able to skimp on his Con somewhat since he is a ranged attacker; even with the feat he won't want to stand in the midst of combat. Its certainly great to have, but I don't think it alters his playstyle or build that much. He'll still need high dex, and moderate str (for damage) and wis, with con being his fourth most important stat.

So I don't think the feat really renders the switch hitter moot. The switch hitter is a melee combatant primarily with some archery abilities. The feat doesn't change that for him at all. It simply makes the archer ranger a little more survivable when he gets confronted by something up close and personal.

I think the bigger question is Does the variant combat style feats render the switch hitter moot? i.e. does the two-handed weapon combat style supersede the switch hitter?

[vuron]

Also keep in mind that while the PBM is very flexible sundering bows really isn't that difficult. PBM is intended to give the archer some flexibility but shouldn't be a routine stance for the most part. Stand base to base long enough and someone is going to shatter that bow for you.

[Quintin Crusher]

Nicolas Melchior wrote:

(By the way, I want to thank Treantmonk for his great guides)

Rangers have some skills, an animal companion and some spell. Indeed Treantmonk´s build is very interesting, being more than decent at close combat and incredible with ranged attacks. Of course, there is no perfect build, but it was pretty solid.

My "problem" is that a fighter with this feat can devote himself to ranged attacks and use them in close combat too. That would (IMHO) render the ranger a completely inferior choice in combat in every single way.

Apg added point blank master, but lead blades and gravity bow do wonders for the ranger. If we are talking later levels, instant enemy is super good. Untill then, you can't afford the composite longbow, and the armor, the versatility of a back up melee guy. If your just going with the ranger, maybe but with the animal companion, closing melee on the fighter, no way.

[Abraham spalding]

vuron wrote:

Also keep in mind that while the PBM is very flexible sundering bows really isn't that difficult. PBM is intended to give the archer some flexibility but shouldn't be a routine stance for the most part. Stand base to base long enough and someone is going to shatter that bow for you.

Actually I'll argue against this: An archer has the correct stat requirements to have a very good CMD meaning it's going to be hard to hit the bow in the first place (especially with good BAB to help that CMD) -- add to this the fact you must have an enhancement bonus equal to or larger than the weapon you are trying to sunder and breaking the bow is not something that will happen everyday.

[Lopsotronic]

Nicolas Melchior wrote:

(By the way, I want to thank Treantmonk for his great guides)

Rangers have some skills, an animal companion and some spell. Indeed Treantmonk´s build is very interesting, being more than decent at close combat and incredible with ranged attacks. Of course, there is no perfect build, but it was pretty solid.

My "problem" is that a fighter with this feat can devote himself to ranged attacks and use them in close combat too. That would (IMHO) render the ranger a completely inferior choice in combat in every single way.

I respectfully disagree. A couple of times per day, the ranger will be out-damaging the fighter. Instant Enemy and Hunter's Howl make it mechanically very advantageous to stack all FE bonuses on one type, since you can apply that bonus to anything via spells. Gravity Bow is huge for devoted archers, since they spam so many attacks per round. The different with the fighter is that he can do it all day, every day, to anyone. Both are out-damaged by an Inquisitor archer, though, but his lethality is even more situational.

[Orville Flibblegribble]

Actually I'll argue against this: An archer has the correct stat requirements to have a very good CMD meaning it's going to be hard to hit the bow in the first place (especially with good BAB to help that CMD) -- add to this the fact you must have an enhancement bonus equal to or larger than the weapon you are trying to sunder and breaking the bow is not something that will happen everyday.

Question about that Abe, Monsters that have Improved Sunder (example Elder Earth Elemental) and use natural attacks wouldn't be able to sunder magic weapons? Is there something I'm missing, because at CR 11 its at that point where PC's have magical weapons. So can it only sunder armor?

regards

-Orville