Archer Ranger vs Two-Blade Ranger

deathssickle

Im not a big Ranger player but I was wondering which you guys prefer the Archer Ranger or the Two-Bade Ranger?

ruinedmirage

Depends on if it's Tuesday or Wednesday. I'm a VERY spontaneous person when it comes to character creation. I haven't even considered what I'm going to play in NWO yet. I'll probably make something up on the fly. So I think the best solution is to include them both when the Ranger class starts.

stormdrag0n

deathssickle wrote: »

Im not a big Ranger player but I was wondering which you guys prefer the Archer Ranger or the Two-Bade Ranger?

I want the flocking Ranger that gets his native pet back.....Beastmaster my afterburners.

tinbender02

Yes,

It really depends on the character of the ranger I want to play. In general I prefer the archer version but sometimes the two blade version is quite fun to play.

ryvvik

Ranged there is only one ;P

stormdrag0n

Guess Drizzit is no longer a ranger as he can use Ranged, two Blades and has a pet.:rolleyes:

wodny1988

Archer Ranger - there is only one ranged class right now, so such Ranger will be great.

sakuda13

In this game lets say fighter or ranger.. Can you chose to dual wield or you stuck with one choice? Not that it matters haha gonna go Trickster rogue but just curious

xearrik

Ranged ranger of course. Whats the point in playing a ranger if you don't want to use ranged weapons?

ranncore

Ranger certainly implies more than using ranged weapons. It implies being a warrior of the woods.

Anyways, in 3.5, I always preferred fighters as archers anyways

Don't know much about ranged combat per 4e.

cosmictimber

In almost all MMO's I play a bow class. (if they got em)

adamantium1

two weapon fighting all the way here with a splash of Rogue is my preferred build for a Ranger.

rendalyn

I love ranged rangers, but I always put too much on dexterity and not enough strength to carry all my treasure.

devoteoftempus

xearrik wrote: »

Ranged ranger of course. Whats the point in playing a ranger if you don't want to use ranged weapons?

Whats the point of playing a ranger if you you don't want to use animal companions or dual wield?

Back to topic, I foresee that at a min with Ranger they'll have the tempest and the archer specialty. However I would like above all that a beastmaster ranger be available. Probably because for so many god **** years they never gave rangers animal companions even though twice they've came out with classes that had pets.

Ranger is a dead last class though for me, likely because I got burned out with playing one 90% of the time in DDO.

torskaldr

I want to switch between the two not choose one or the other. I don't mind learning one then the other or each a little at a time and having to make choices, but I don't want to sacrifice the ability to slice it up near and far.

ambisinisterr

Um, yeah "Ranger" has never meant ranged weapons until recent years with the onslaught of MMO's. Rangers are first and foremost people who know how to survive in the wild. Minor healing abilities and woodland affinity. Aruguably their orgins are based on Lord of the Ring's Aragorn more than anythign else.
They are not, by any means, considered the Archer Class though there are certainly rangers which specialize in archery.


I'm surprised so many of you state a love for the Archer Ranger. I have always been a huge fan of Dual Wielding Rangers (or melee rangers in general)
If a Dual Wielding Ranger is available at launch that is what I will use.
I have never, ever, been a huge fan of the Archer Ranger for whatever reason.

Ranger is my favorite class in all of D&D but I far prefer the melee variety either with a 2h or dual wield.

spectralhunt

ambisinisterr wrote: »

Um, yeah "Ranger" has never meant ranged weapons until recent years with the onslaught of MMO's. Rangers are first and foremost people who know how to survive in the wild. Minor healing abilities and woodland affinity. Aruguably their orgins are based on Lord of the Ring's Aragorn more than anythign else.
They are not, by any means, considered the Archer Class though there are certainly rangers which specialize in archery.


I'm surprised so many of you state a love for the Archer Ranger. I have always been a huge fan of Dual Wielding Rangers (or melee rangers in general)
If a Dual Wielding Ranger is available at launch that is what I will use.
I have never, ever, been a huge fan of the Archer Ranger for whatever reason.

Ranger is my favorite class in all of D&D but I far prefer the melee variety either with a 2h or dual wield.

Yay, someone who knows what the original rangers were like! What I'd give if this game allowed us to make a 2H melee ranger.

I also wasn't a big fan of archer rangers because in PnP, ranged weapons weren't all that great and you had limited ammo. But there were times I went with archery mastery so I could have an excuse to use a two hander in melee.

iamtruthseeker

You mean dual weilding, not 2H. 2H means holdiging ONE weapon with two hands, like a greatsword.


As for me, as long as there's a ranger class! Speaking as a person who played rangers of all kinds on PnP and MMO (even with DDO until the gimped my ranged ranger,) I like the options. Snipers arer fun, but so are dual attackers!


Dangit, now I want RANGERS NOW again!

gillrmn

You have to remember that archery is favored class of rangers as they are about stalking their prey (i.e. stealth check). Hence the light armor, camouflage and bow and arrow.

Using sword means you have already lost your ranger ability (to stalk the prey) Sword is plan B which is often used by rangers.

However, remember that rangers use light weapons - like longsword and a dagger - not heavy swords. This is because of stealth and mobility. (Yeah drizzt clones carry two scimtars but thats because elves are more dexterous :rolleyes:)

So having bow as an alternate weapon will always be ranger-ish and normal level-headed ranger would never use crossbow or daggers instead of bow and arrow as ranged weapons - only bad eggs in rangers do that.

A ranger is defined by stealth and camouflage.

spectralhunt

iamtruthseeker wrote: »

You mean dual weilding, not 2H. 2H means holdiging ONE weapon with two hands, like a greatsword.

Not sure if this was meant for me but yes, I was referring to two-handed weapons like a greatsword. I actually never appreciated dual wielding (curse that Drizzt for making it popular).

spectralhunt

gillrmn wrote: »

You have to remember that archery is favored class of rangers as they are about stalking their prey (i.e. stealth check). Hence the light armor, camouflage and bow and arrow.

Using sword means you have already lost your ranger ability (to stalk the prey) Sword is plan B which is often used by rangers.

However, remember that rangers use light weapons - like longsword and a dagger - not heavy swords. This is because of stealth and mobility. (Yeah drizzt clones carry two scimtars but thats because elves are more dexterous :rolleyes:)

So having bow as an alternate weapon will always be ranger-ish and normal level-headed ranger would never use crossbow or daggers instead of bow and arrow as ranged weapons - only bad eggs in rangers do that.

A ranger is defined by stealth and camouflage.

This is a more recent interpretation of a ranger...well recent meaning 1990...man I feel old.

As mentioned before, the original idea for a ranger was from LotR. Aragorn was the archetype. Rangers used a variety of weapons and they were not restricted in using armor. They were essentially fighters who had an affinity to nature. Heck, I don't think they even had pets.

shiaika

deathssickle wrote: »

Im not a big Ranger player but I was wondering which you guys prefer the Archer Ranger or the Two-Bade Ranger?

Two-Blade Ranger, of course. And Two-Blade Fighters and Two-Blade Rogues and... well, almost everything is better as Two-Bladed in my little corner of the universe.

tinyish

In 4e D&D they cut the number of attacks per round down to one. I built a two-weapon fighter who was capable of making four attacks in one round occasionally. The extra attacks are nice for quickly taking out a crowd of minions.

I've also seen a ranger be awesome with a bow. I guess it would really depend on how well they implement both rulesets and which ones really works better in game. Also, the archer really needs someone to hold the monsters back for him.

denkasaeba

iamtruthseeker wrote: »

You mean dual weilding, not 2H. 2H means holdiging ONE weapon with two hands, like a greatsword.

For the records, there's also a 2h weapon build in the 4e version of the ranger... not that it's good compared to dual-wielders or archers, but it is there

gillrmn

spectralhunt wrote: »

This is a more recent interpretation of a ranger...well recent meaning 1990...man I feel old.

As mentioned before, the original idea for a ranger was from LotR. Aragorn was the archetype. Rangers used a variety of weapons and they were not restricted in using armor. They were essentially fighters who had an affinity to nature. Heck, I don't think they even had pets.

That is not exactly the case. While it certainly did inspire the fantasy genre, the word Ranger and its themes comes from before those times.

Ranger is a military unit based on mobility to stalk its prey. Using bows, animals and being a good tracker in reading tracks all come from there - not vice versa.

EDIT:
Aragon is a subset of rangers, not other way round.

iamtruthseeker

denkasaeba wrote: »

For the records, there's also a 2h weapon build in the 4e version of the ranger... not that it's good compared to dual-wielders or archers, but it is there

True that, but there's a reason it doesn't get any press!

gillrmn

denkasaeba wrote: »

For the records, there's also a 2h weapon build in the 4e version of the ranger... not that it's good compared to dual-wielders or archers, but it is there

Thematically nothing wrong with it, but it is going to be gimp. Mobility defines a ranger (and stealth) - both take a hit when using 2H weapon.

nimloh

I've always loved the D&D character archetypes and I generally honor them when I play. To me, the archer is more iconic for a Ranger and that's the one I like the most.

elewyndyl

Beastmaster = BM Ranger all the way!

In WOW they nerfed BM Ranger so Survivalist Ranger(hmm bladed ranger comes close to that) was best. I quit playing WOW during year 2011 but they had buffed back BM Pet so it was extremely fun in PvP Battlegrounds for me to play as Hunter(Ranger) BM(Beastmaster). BM Pet that can become berserk and thus can be immune to most mind/fear control spells and is a horrible monster for cloth users and also dangerous for those who do not use Plate Mail.

zylaxx

ambisinisterr wrote: »

Um, yeah "Ranger" has never meant ranged weapons until recent years with the onslaught of MMO's. Rangers are first and foremost people who know how to survive in the wild. Minor healing abilities and woodland affinity. Aruguably their orgins are based on Lord of the Ring's Aragorn more than anythign else.
They are not, by any means, considered the Archer Class though there are certainly rangers which specialize in archery.


I'm surprised so many of you state a love for the Archer Ranger. I have always been a huge fan of Dual Wielding Rangers (or melee rangers in general)
If a Dual Wielding Ranger is available at launch that is what I will use.
I have never, ever, been a huge fan of the Archer Ranger for whatever reason.

Ranger is my favorite class in all of D&D but I far prefer the melee variety either with a 2h or dual wield.

Nice post. I usually like the melee ranger more as well but am not opposed to playing with a longbow. As long as the class isn't tied to a pet I usually enjoy playing rangers but once a pet becomes mandatory then the class loses all appeal to me.

aeroth001

ranger elf -> longbow
ranger human -> swords