[4e] Ranger - how viable without 'Twin Strike'

[Yo! Master]

Say you got whacked on the head & now you don't even remember Twin Strike exists.

Can you make a Ranger, either melee or ranged, that is still viable enough without taking said At-Will? What's your opinion?

[Bobcat11]

Pretty decent actually, even if you want to go 2 blades of death. 18 Str /16 Dex, Shield of Blades and Careful Attack as At-Wills, Dire Wolverine as an Encounter, Sudden Strike as Daily at 1st level. Other Ranger powers aren't bad, Twin Strike's just really great.

[Front Toward Everybody]

In a world without twin strike, TWF rangers would still do very good DPR. Careful attack would actually be decent.

The other at-wills aren't terrible, they're just well... not twin strike.

[Mesel]

Specially if you consider Warning Shot and the one about to come out on MP2, Throw and Stab, that let you throw a weapon and then charge. Those are two situational two-attack at-wills that, in theory, could deal even more damage than TS. You just have to create the right situations.

[mkill]

It would certainly change the class. With Twin Strike, you have a very powerful at-will option, and it's a good idea to choose encounter and daily powers that don't interfere with that, i.e. minor action and immediate interrupt powers. Without Twin Strike, expect Rangers to take more "like twin strike but a bit more damage" encounters and dailies.

Another point that others already mentioned is that we now have other viable Ranger at-wills, like revised Careful attack etc. When there was only PHB1 and MP1 and no errata, the two alternatives, Careful Strike and Hit and Run, just really really sucked. (Hit and Run looks ok on paper, but at the table you'll only want to use it when you get surrounded and really need to GTFO, and in that situation you need to avoid more AOs than just one, and preferably also on a miss.)

With MP2 out, it might even be viable to make a single-weapon or 2H ranger, we'll see.

[Old Gumphrey]

Totally viable.

[Scarik]

I concur its viable, the Ranger would even still be at the top of the damage heap.

If anyone makes a Ranger in one of my games I'm going to houserule Twin Strike to be like Dual Strike, separate targets and for ranged they have to be within your Wis mod in squares of each other.

That should make the other at-wills used more which I like.

[cavalier]

I like that houserule, Scarik. I have a bow ranger in my party, and he does tend to spam twin strike pretty regularly. Granted, they're only level 2, so it's not like they have many other options yet. In the next series of encounters, however, there will be some targets that just demand careful strike.

I made a ranger like this when I saw the thread started this morning. Not only is it viable in any of the three subclasses, it's actually much more interesting to play.

That said, for an archery ranger, what is the benefit of the at will that gives you CA when two of your friends are adjacent to the target over careful strike, that gives you +2 all the time?

[Front Toward Everybody]

Originally Posted by cavalier

That said, for an archery ranger, what is the benefit of the at will that gives you CA when two of your friends are adjacent to the target over careful strike, that gives you +2 all the time?

All I can think of is anything that interacts with CA, like MC rogue sneak attack damage and some weapon properties.

[Samrin]

Originally Posted by Scarik

I concur its viable, the Ranger would even still be at the top of the damage heap.

If anyone makes a Ranger in one of my games I'm going to houserule Twin Strike to be like Dual Strike, separate targets and for ranged they have to be within your Wis mod in squares of each other.

That should make the other at-wills used more which I like.

That kills the power and the Ranger's role as a striker is the problem. Strikers are supposed to focus damage on a single target.