Archery Character - Ranger or Fighter?

[tylermalan]

I've seen a few threads about archery in Pathfinder, but I wanted to just come out and ask the masses:

Which is the better class if you want your character to hold a bow or crossbow in his hand until the day that he dies: Ranger or Fighter?

Bonus Question: Does your answer change depending on the choice of bow or crossbow?

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Crossbows are mechanically inferior to bows. I think it does not change from one class to another. The only exception is sniping with a double one (combo with deadly stroke) - in this case the fighter is more suitable for the feats needed.

I see the issue in this way:

Mobile Heavy Fire Platform: Fighter

Mobile Fire + Control Platform: Archer Fighter in APG.

Skirmisher/SkillMonkery capable of heavy fire: Ranger

Skirmisher/Flanker capable of good sniping and decent fire rate: Ranger

So is not a matter of better and worse, class-wise, but of what you want to obtain.

You cannot match fighters in damage, but rangers have companions (and they can be very different and differently built), skills, and better defenses. And the damage is high anyway, expecially with te instant enemy spell.

 

[SteelDraco]

Mechanically, I don't think crossbows are ever worth it. You can't get a Strength crossbow like you can with a bow, and that's a huge problem. The reloading limitations are even worse. They'd have to be significantly better than a bow per shot to be worth it, and they're not.

I agree with Kaiyanwang - which is better depends on what you want to do. Straight damage output, go with a fighter. If you want to do more than just shoot a bow, I'd recommend ranger - they're significantly more flexible at a relatively minor cost to damage.

Rangers don't have any way to gain access to the Archer archetype's ability to perform combat maneuvers at range. That kinda stinks - I'd like to have my ranger/arcane archer disarm people or pin them to things (grapple attempts at range).

For everything else, I think the ranger is a better choice, especially if you're going to be in a wilderness area. The skills and spells are useful if you prepare properly. Favored Enemy obviously isn't as good as the Expert Archer in terms of damage output, since it's more situational, but FE applies to more than just attack and damage. Obviously, the feats help, especially once you can start taking Critical Focus feats, since an archer is going to pump out more attacks in a round than most melee characters. My arcane archer is already doing some very good damage at 8th level, probably the highest in the party, even more so if I use Ranger's Focus from the Guide archetype. He's a Ranger6/Wizard1/Arcane Archer1 right now.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Fighers are better at it, Rangers get extra stuff that has nothing to do with archery to make up the difference. Rangers instantly become better, though, if your DM is of the school of thought that you need a DC 50 perception check to see creatures 500 ft away. Then again, in that scenario, I'd avoid playing an archer at all.

I will say, though, Rangers getting certain feats (namely Improved Precise Shot at level 6) IS pretty sweet.

As far as crossbows... the Crossbow Master feat more than level the playing field, and I <3 higher crit threat range over higher multiplier, so I think crossbows have a place. Definitely more feat intensive, but that's not a problem for classes with bonus feats.

 

[DragonBelow]

Neither

Zen Archer Monk (APG archetype) is the best option:

1) Flurry with your bow
2) Doesn't provoke AoO from adjacent enemies starting at level 3

That's the way point blank shot was meant to be used

Now this is not based on any number crunching madness, I just think it's very cool to be able to use your bow while other characters threaten you in melee. Have not thought about what to do against Sunder.

 

[Dingo333]

for sheer "shot the fly out from between it's wings" the fighter wins.

More feats means more bonuses faster.

If you wanna do anything else and archery, ranger wins, especially in the wild where they can get food for the party

Gravity Bow also helps with leveling between ranger and fighter (my 2d6 long bow vs your 1d8 long bow)

I also have to agree with the zen archer idea, eventually reaching 2d10 compared with the 2d6 for the ranger and 1d8 of the fighter.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Zen Archer Monk (APG archetype) is the best option:

1) Flurry with your bow
2) Doesn't provoke AoO from adjacent enemies starting at level 3

That's the way point blank shot was meant to be used

Now this is not based on any number crunching madness, I just think it's very cool to be able to use your bow while other characters threaten you in melee. Have not thought about what to do against Sunder.

Fighters can get Point Blank Master at level 4, though practically speaking, they're getting it at level 5. Rangers can get PBM at level 6. So Zen Archer just gets a few levels jumpon them. In return, he loses out on HD and BAB, and compared to Fighter feats and compared to Ranger skills and spells and an extra set of actions per round (also known as an "animal companion".)

I played a Zen Archer from levels 2-7, which is the range where they're really at their best, if you look at the class features. I was still only on par with the archer Ranger in the party (we had 8 players, we could afford redundancy). I had slightly better attack and damage per round, he was better at...everything else. And really, post level 6...you're done getting good class features. I would've GLADLY traded for normal monk's assortment for levels 7-20, even though some of it has no use with archery, the mid/high level Zen Archer benefits are just that bad.

Flurry with your bow is just Rapid Shot by a different name, except it's not as good because you can't take Manyshot with it, and even though you're *shooting* at full BAB, you don't count as having it, which makes it a pain to meet pre-reqs on occasion and really shoehorns you into a boring routine of only ever full attacking unless it's an absolute necessity not to, even more so than a typical archer.

EDIT: I'm criticizing Zen Archer, but don't get me wrong. It works fine for what it does. It's just IMo inferior to Fighter and Ranger, and by far the most narrowly focused and thus boring.

 

[tylermalan]

Alright, so, to play devil's advocate a bit on this...

Let's consider this a 15 point buy character who obviously wants a high dexterity. He can't put a lot of points into strength, which limits the effectiveness of composite bows. Is your answer the same in this situation?

Further, what about the Crossbowman archetype for the fighter from the APG? It gives an ability at 3rd level called Deadshot that allows the fighter to add half of his dexterity modifier to damage rolls made with a crossbow.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Frankly, I think bow or crossbow Fighter is better off using Mobile Fighter variant instead. Or if your DM nerfs the whole "they still get Weapon Training 2-4" thing, still do Mobility or any Fighter that gets the first two armor trainings. I hate that the archer and xbow fighters lose all armor trainings. How dumb is that to take a guy that wants high dex and take away the class feature that lets him get more dex out of his armor?

 

[concerro]

for sheer "shot the fly out from between it's wings" the fighter wins.

More feats means more bonuses faster.

If you wanna do anything else and archery, ranger wins, especially in the wild where they can get food for the party

Gravity Bow also helps with leveling between ranger and fighter (my 2d6 long bow vs your 1d8 long bow)

I also have to agree with the zen archer idea, eventually reaching 2d10 compared with the 2d6 for the ranger and 1d8 of the fighter.

When you flurry with a monk weapon your unarmed strike damage does not apply to the weapon.