|
Myself and a friend of mine were having an argument about which class was a better archer. I said the fighter with the Archer archtype and he says the Ranger because Ranger is his favorite class. He keeps throwing Favored Enemy and Spells in my face but I remind him that spells are limited and so is Favored Enemy. I told him that "when" facing the ranger's Favored Enemy he is fantastic at it but you aren't always going to be fighting your Favored Enemy and besides, all enemies are a fighter's favored enemy.
What do you think?
I go with archer personally. The ranger is pretty awesome until the archer uses a ranged sunder to snap his bow like a twig
Ranger gets to skip pre-req feats, but fighter gets a crap ton of feats. I prefer ranger because it has more skill points.
in terms of pure DPR the Fighter winds hands down.
in terms of utility, flexibility, and everything else that is fun in the game the ranger is flat out awesome.
I personally prefere the ranger.
I think they both have stuff going for them
Ranger can skip pre-reqs, gets spells and an AC, and his Favored Enemy bonus is higher (by the time the Fighter gets his +1 Weapn Training the Ranger already has +4 on his first FE)
Fighter has a crapload of feats, his Weapon Training works against everyone and Weapon Specialization is able to close the gap between FE and this a bit again.
Also later Ranger can use Instant Enemy spell to make someone his FE when it counts (like the BBEG for example).
So I would say, if you mainly fight enemies on the Rangers FE list (preferable one of his early ones), the Ranger will be better. If you fight constantly changing groups of enemies so the FE barely kicks in, then the Fighter is probably better.
In either way I don't think the difference is huge. Ranger seems to have a bit more versatibility while the Fighter has the abundance of Feats that allow him to learn things the Ranger couldn't.
I would also like to throw the Zen Archer Monk into the Ring.
I'm not sure if its better or worse than those guys, but its something else again, and might fit someone's playstyle better.
It always seemed to me like the Ranger was better off earlier than the fighter because he could ignore some level dependent pre-reqs so he got some cool stuff earlier, but after a certain point the fighter got that same cool stuff plus many more feats... so I'd say Ranger starts out ahead but Fighter pulls ahead in the middle and wins in the end. :O
Basically it's DPR vs non-combat utility.
Fighter Archer is brutally lethal and avoids many of the core mobility problems of the melee fighter. Ranger can actually do stuff out of combat situations.
Personally I think the switch-hitter Ranger is a better choice than the dedicated archer ranger simply because you can use the ignore pre-reqs to be a decent melee and a decent archer without needing to become ridiculously MAD.
|
Instant enemy has been mentioned, and it's the thing that pulls fight in the ranger's court from level 10 on.
For the low cost of a third level spell slot (rechargable with a 9000 gp pearl of power, the ranger can apply his highest favoured enemy AND get the benefit of his bane weapon. That spell means the ranger can have higher bonuses than the fighter for any baddie he chooses.
Before level 5, I'd say it's pretty even. At level 6 the ranger gets Improved Precise Shot and is now more versatile if a little lower on damage against all foes. At level 10 and higher, the ranger is ahead, and he stays that way.
|
|
Instant enemy has been mentioned, and it's the thing that pulls fight in the ranger's court from level 10 on.
For the low cost of a third level spell slot (rechargable with a 9000 gp pearl of power, the ranger can apply his highest favoured enemy AND get the benefit of his bane weapon. That spell means the ranger can have higher bonuses than the fighter for any baddie he chooses.
Before level 5, I'd say it's pretty even. At level 6 the ranger gets Improved Precise Shot and is now more versatile if a little lower on damage against all foes. At level 10 and higher, the ranger is ahead, and he stays that way.
That's if you tailor the encounters and the Ranger waits for the BBEG. Favored Enemy works on "one" enemy only, not one type so you are having to wait until the big bad shows up and you are limited to how many you are going to have, yes a Pearl of Power will give you an extra but there could be a good many encounters in a day.
Well, your thread title asks who is the better archer.
That would be the fighter.
However, the text of your post seems to indicate a more general question of which tends to contribute more as a character. Debatable, but I would guess you will get more saying the ranger is better than the fighter.
|
|
instant enemy + bane weaon is a debatable combo.Instant enemy has been mentioned, and it's the thing that pulls fight in the ranger's court from level 10 on.
For the low cost of a third level spell slot (rechargable with a 9000 gp pearl of power, the ranger can apply his highest favoured enemy AND get the benefit of his bane weapon. That spell means the ranger can have higher bonuses than the fighter for any baddie he chooses.
Before level 5, I'd say it's pretty even. At level 6 the ranger gets Improved Precise Shot and is now more versatile if a little lower on damage against all foes. At level 10 and higher, the ranger is ahead, and he stays that way.
With this spell you designate the target as your favored enemy for the remainder of its duration. Select one of your favored enemy types. For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes.
Bane is a purpose, so I don't really see the debate. It would be fine, I suppose, for a GM to disallow it if they felt it made the ranger too powerful, but all purposes is all purposes.
Don't count on bane weapon working with instant enemy. No GM I play with allows it, and I don't allow it myself.
Me? I prefer Samurai (yabusame archetype) from Way of the Samurai to either an archer fighter or a ranger, though most of his special shots are standard actions so only 1 shot per round, but with feats and other abilities, it's more likely to hit and more likely to do a heck of a lot more damage. Plus for 2 resolve, shoot 10 x normal range with no penalties. Got to love a yabusame.
If you're going to compare apples to oranges, might as well throw in a kumquat too.
Im not fond of using 3rd party in these comparisons.
having said that there SHOULD be a piazo horse archer samurai as that fits the origin of the samurai. where the knights origins are in heavy cavalry the samurais origins are in horse archers.
that said... i still pick ranger.
I personally hate mounts in most RPGs they are incredibly difficult to implement well.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I know how I rule on bane weapons and instant enemy in my own games, how does Pathfinder Society rule on this?
I would love to see how they make the phrase "for all purposes" more clear. I mean it's pretty clear if you read words... but they can do better. I recommend this wording:
"With this spell you designate the target as your favored enemy for the remainder of its duration. Select one of your favored enemy types. For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes... even... you know... THAT ONE SPECIFICALLY."
Before you can determine which class is better, you need to determine what the goals are. Without any criteria, there's no way to determine which class is actually better. It just comes down to preference.
Through at least level 6, I actually prefer the Monk Zen Archer. You get
Rapid shot (flurry) free and precise strike (roll 2 dice and take the higher) at level 1
Weapon focus free at level 2
Point blank master free at level 3
Weapon specialization free at level 6, plus access to improved precise shot
You don't have to meet the prerequisites for bonus feats, and at level 4, you can spend a ki point for an extra attack at your highest bonus.
After level 8, you can spend a ki point to increase the bow's damage die to 1d10, and up to 2d6 at level 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see how they make the phrase "for all purposes" more clear. I mean it's pretty clear if you read words... but they can do better. I recommend this wording:
"With this spell you designate the target as your favored enemy for the remainder of its duration. Select one of your favored enemy types. For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes... even... you know... THAT ONE SPECIFICALLY."
That would help alot!
Especially since it seems to be a controversial ruling to so many. Strangely, the GM's I game with all read it as not working as well. Course, it is how I rule too. So a FAQ would help oodles.Greg
The fighter is going to have more raw DPR, if that's what you mean by "better archer".
I'd posit that the ranger is a better overall character, though, since they're much more versatile with weaponry, have more skillpoints, and have a wider variety of abilities.
Just out of curiosity how is a Ranger more versatile with weaponry than a Fighter? Ranger's get their style and it makes them good at it, but that's one way of fighting. Fighters on the other hand get Weapon Training which gives them plusses to all weapons in a group, and he can select multiple groups as he levels.
For a fighter to get the most out of their class features, they need to invest 4 or more feats in their primary weapon (Weapon Focus/Spec/Gtr Focus/Gtr Spec, possibly Improved Critical). This gives them a limited selection of weapons they can use effectively, but rangers aren't married to one weapon type in the same way. They can pick up pretty much any simple or martial weapon and be just as lethal with it as any other weapon.
Do gloves of dueling work with archer fighter? That's relevant, without those the fighter's DPR is significantly below that of a ranger.
Of course it should be noted that ranger 15/fighter 5 is a rather interesting alternative if you want to max out DPR. You still get 1 level 4 spell (some are pretty nice, just think about bloodsworn retribution or freedom of movement), favored enemy at +8, weapon training (+3 with gloves of dueling, with no arguig about if they work or not), some feats (the ranger is almost on par with the fighter with its style feats, this closes the gap even further) including weapon specialization.
Also, the fighter cannot really dump wis, and investing into wisdom is saving the ranger a feat or two (iron will).
That said, the ranger's spells are a very nice feature, I would rather have those instead of a slightly higher dpr.
To conclude, my vote is for the ranger, but speaking about archer one should also consider the arcane archer, which may actually manage to take the crown (I would consider it superior at least to the archer).
On a side note, the benefit of having an animal companion should not be ignored too.
Well, no, the gloves do not work for archer fighter. Thats why you pick the weapon master archtype. Actually 3 levels of fighter are enough then in order to max out ranger DPR.
|
|
For a fighter to get the most out of their class features, they need to invest 4 or more feats in their primary weapon (Weapon Focus/Spec/Gtr Focus/Gtr Spec, possibly Improved Critical). This gives them a limited selection of weapons they can use effectively, but rangers aren't married to one weapon type in the same way. They can pick up pretty much any simple or martial weapon and be just as lethal with it as any other weapon.
And Ranger's have to rely on the DM to use creatures that are his Favored Enemy type. Also, as a ranger you are forced into going two weapon or archery but with the fighter I can max out in sword and board, or two handed, or two weapon, or archery, or crossbow, or reach etc.....
So what's the criteria for determining which class makes the better archer? I would like to work on a build after work but I don't know what to build to.
Actually switch hitter ranger works pretty well as you just need 2 or 3 feats for THF to work - but since there are the snap-feats its not worth it anymore - maybe in PFS when you will not reach higher levels.
Generally Fighters are just better DPR-wise. Against his main FE the Ranger is a little bit better, but thats it - and against non FE's he's far behind.
Sohei>Fighter>Zen Archer>Ranger (just looking at DPR)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what's the criteria for determining which class makes the better archer? I would like to work on a build after work but I don't know what to build to.
Just build an archer however you want and imagine there are four or five other people in your group so you don't have to build him/her like a one man/woman army.
You can go all DPS or you can make him like a scout or whatever else you like.
The fighter Archer is easier and simpler to use and master.
The Ranger has a lot more options can be used effectively but is a lot harder to mastered. A person who can use all the rangers abilities to the fullest will make the fighter: archer wimper. It's just that those people are few.
I am NOT one of those people that know how to get the most from a Ranger but I have seen someone play one, getting the most from the Rangers abilities.
You're still talking about Pathfinder, right?
Instant enemy is pretty incredible however you can't use it on a creature that is already a favoured enemy. So if the BBEG happens to be your least specialized FE your stuck with only a +2/+2. Personally I think a plain fighter or a weapon master beat out both in terms of hurty goodness. The archer fighter gets to do all the iconic archery stuff the best and ranger gets a bunch of extra side abilities.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Actually switch hitter ranger works pretty well as you just need 2 or 3 feats for THF to work - but since there are the snap-feats its not worth it anymore - maybe in PFS when you will not reach higher levels.
Generally Fighters are just better DPR-wise. Against his main FE the Ranger is a little bit better, but thats it - and against non FE's he's far behind.
Sohei>Fighter>Zen Archer>Ranger (just looking at DPR)
Sohei? You mean sohei arrow turret build? Negative. Massive penalties to hit, plus they totally suck until their shtick kicks in at 6th level.
Sohei? You mean sohei arrow turret build? Negative. Massive penalties to hit, plus they totally suck until their shtick kicks in at 6th level.Actually switch hitter ranger works pretty well as you just need 2 or 3 feats for THF to work - but since there are the snap-feats its not worth it anymore - maybe in PFS when you will not reach higher levels.
Generally Fighters are just better DPR-wise. Against his main FE the Ranger is a little bit better, but thats it - and against non FE's he's far behind.
Sohei>Fighter>Zen Archer>Ranger (just looking at DPR)
Still they end up with more DPR than any other archer.
Still they end up with more DPR than any other archer.Sohei? You mean sohei arrow turret build? Negative. Massive penalties to hit, plus they totally suck until their shtick kicks in at 6th level.Actually switch hitter ranger works pretty well as you just need 2 or 3 feats for THF to work - but since there are the snap-feats its not worth it anymore - maybe in PFS when you will not reach higher levels.
Generally Fighters are just better DPR-wise. Against his main FE the Ranger is a little bit better, but thats it - and against non FE's he's far behind.
Sohei>Fighter>Zen Archer>Ranger (just looking at DPR)
Agreed. The DPR calculator I used showed both archer monk builds sliding off after 8th level. They lack the over the top to-hit bonuses other classes can get and unless you're fighting low AC opponents you see their damage fall off.
nope