Ranger > Warlock

[Incenjucar]

You're also using Necrotic damage, which isn't going to be resisted much by things which aren't undead. You also have a poison attack. You also have some crazy Soul Spark ability. My general impression has been that Rangers are Damage heavy, and Warlocks are Cookie heavy.

And there is the question of whether you chose your abilities wisely, which I cannot determine as the books aren't out yet, they did not deliver mine early, and I have ethics.

 

[Thesubtlepenguin]

But of course, warlocks aren't allowed to become competitive with bolstering blood!

 

[keterys]

It's true that the ranger deals plain damage, which cannot be resisted by any monster in the MM

Wait, what - no monsters have resist weapon X? Seriously?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

"Lock"?

Hey, why don't rangers get to be called "gers"?

 

[Incenjucar]

"Lock"?

Hey, why don't rangers get to be called "gers"?

I think it's safe to assume he's from a WoW background, considering the terminology. It can be a habit.

 

[loisel]

Wait, what - no monsters have resist weapon X? Seriously?

I didn't check every single monster, but a couple of us have checked and found no resistance to untyped damage. What they have more of instead is regeneration. The only special material I've seen is silvered weapons, which turns off the regeneration of some monsters.

Sadly, there are lots of monsters that are highly resistant (20-30) or even immune to many typed damages. I was sort of paying attention to fire and poison (because of the warlock). Immunity to poison is very, very common. Resistance and immunity to fire is also quite common. There's an epic feat to counter fire resistance, which should tell you something.

Anyway, in 4e, typed damage = bad, untyped damage = kickass.

 

[keterys]

Rangers deal 'weapon' damage. It's a type. I think.

I mean, monsters might still not have resist weapon X, but I coulda sworn we saw it on some monster, at some point. Guess I'll check the monster manual (next week, hopefully)

But if no monster does, that's... odd. Anyhow, sorry to derail...

I believe the ranger is intended to deal the most damage of all the strikers, as the others are supposed to have more specials and more survivability. I'm quite surprised at all of the 'make 2 or 3 attacks' with the bow, I'll admit. I guess it's one way to let a power work for both bow and dual wield, but... another thing that's odd.

This thread is filled with confusing me. Time for bed.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Of course the devil is in the details, but here are some quick numbers. At level 10, encounter powers give...

Lock damage is 9-26, plus a cookie.
Ranger damage is 11-42, plus a cookie.

Eh?

Ranger: 1d10 + 9 + 1d10 + 9 + 1d8
warlock: 3d6 + 8 + 1d6 + 6

47 vs 38, and the warlock is doing aoe damage as well.

The average for the ranger is 34.5 and the average for the warlock is 28, bringing them closer still.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I think it's safe to assume he's from a WoW background, considering the terminology. It can be a habit.

Ah, thank you very much. I know nothing about WoW jargon.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Warlock is shortened to 'Lock because in WoW, there are two War classes.

Warrior and Warlock.

'Lock makes more sense than 'Rior in shorthand, leaving War for warrior.

I aim to edumacate.