Best of the Best - Strikers.

[SigmaX0]

Last campaign I played a TWF ranger with 7 Con (score not mod, we rolled for stats). I had to take durable because 5 surges is just not enough, but I have to disagree about rangers not having get out of dodge powers.

Between Yield Ground, Weave through the fray, Evade the Blow etc there's plenty of ways to avoid damage. I was boosting Dex for my Stormwarden powers so my AC/Reflex was high, TW Defense feat combined with a good Greatweapon fighter (3 person party and no leader) I found as long as I played smart, I was never in any serious danger. YMMV.

 

[Klaus]

All my experience so far suggests the Ranger is just awesome in damage. He deals out a lot, and he takes a lot.

But he can't really take it. There needs to be a very good Defender and Leader in the party to survive for long. But maybe the people playing him are playing him "wrong" - they need to keep moving. If I ever play a Ranger, I will see what I can do about that.

Maybe there is a good argument for actually playing a Dwarven Ranger. Con Bonus, Minor Action Second Wind...

Longtooth Shifter, Chainmail Proficiency, and you're set. Maybe Warlord or Cleric multi for Inspiring/Healing Word?

 

[Samir]

I don't like questions like these because they are so vague.

A Striker's job is to deal damage. If a Striker is not dealing competitive damage, you could say it's not doing the job of a Striker.

So the "Best Striker" is the one that does the most DPR. Not necessarily nova, mind you, but sustained DPR.

Keeping that in mind, the best Striker is the two-blade Ranger--particularly Storm Wardens and Pit Fighters--because it does the most damage, even more than its archer cousin. Of course, that's pretty much all that Rangers are capable of doing--damage. They are the purest Striker, and they excel at it.

If by "best" you actually meant "favorite," then Pursuit Avenger, without a doubt. What an awesomely fun class to play. But as it is, this poll is pretty meaningless because everybody voting on it isn't answering the same question.

 

[tiornys]

I don't like questions like these because they are so vague.

A Striker's job is to deal damage. If a Striker is not dealing competitive damage, you could say it's not doing the job of a Striker.

So the "Best Striker" is the one that does the most DPR. Not necessarily nova, mind you, but sustained DPR.

Keeping that in mind, the best Striker is the two-blade Ranger--particularly Storm Wardens and Pit Fighters--because it does the most damage, even more than its archer cousin. Of course, that's pretty much all that Rangers are capable of doing--damage. They are the purest Striker, and they excel at it.

If by "best" you actually meant "favorite," then Pursuit Avenger, without a doubt. What an awesomely fun class to play. But as it is, this poll is pretty meaningless because everybody voting on it isn't answering the same question.

People may be answering different questions, but the poll is still effective at discerning a combination of what the community as a whole prefers their striker to excel at, and which class they think best represents those qualities. Since the ultimate aim of the poll is to help put together a "community approved" party, I think it's doing its job despite the flaws in the method.

On a side note, I disagree with your definition of striker, so even if we were to define "best" as "best at doing the job of a striker", you and I are still voting by different criteria.

t~

 

[Samir]

On a side note, I disagree with your definition of striker, so even if we were to define "best" as "best at doing the job of a striker", you and I are still voting by different criteria.

t~

My definition of the striker is, IMO, just a restatement of WotC's definition of a striker.

Striker (Ranger, Rogue, Warlock)
Strikers specialize in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time. They have the most concentrated offense of any character in the game. Strikers rely on superior mobility, trickery, or magic to move around tough foes and single out the enemy they want to attack.

Perhaps I should have added "single target" to my previous definition, but the intent was the same.

How do you define a striker?

 

[tiornys]

My definition of the striker is, IMO, just a restatement of WotC's definition of a striker.



Perhaps I should have added "single target" to my previous definition, but the intent was the same.

How do you define a striker?

I think the PHB definitions of the roles are intentionally simplistic and non-comprehensive, and based on the class/role assignments they've released, I think WotC uses a more complex definition set than their PHB overview. I have a thread over on WotC's (currently inaccessible) boards that goes into more depth, but my definition of a striker can be summarized as:

A striker engages and neutralizes priority targets as safely and efficiently as possible.

So, focused high damage is an excellent tool for the neutralization portion of the job (although others exist), but maneuverability and range are important for the ability to access the most important target, and defenses and evasion are important for staying alive and efficiently switching targets. Different strikers have different strengths and weaknesses within those parameters, but they're all capable of doing the job as a whole better than, say, a Fighter, because even though the Fighter can outdamage several strikers, he lacks maneuverability and evasion.

t~

 

[Samir]

I think the PHB definitions of the roles are intentionally simplistic and non-comprehensive, and based on the class/role assignments they've released, I think WotC uses a more complex definition set than their PHB overview. I have a thread over on WotC's (currently inaccessible) boards that goes into more depth, but my definition of a striker can be summarized as:

A striker engages and neutralizes priority targets as safely and efficiently as possible.

So, focused high damage is an excellent tool for the neutralization portion of the job (although others exist), but maneuverability and range are important for the ability to access the most important target, and defenses and evasion are important for staying alive and efficiently switching targets. Different strikers have different strengths and weaknesses within those parameters, but they're all capable of doing the job as a whole better than, say, a Fighter, because even though the Fighter can outdamage several strikers, he lacks maneuverability and evasion.

t~

Arguably, not having the mobility to reach a desired target reduces your DPR against that target, so that could just as easily be folded into the original definition. Along the same lines, a dead striker does 0 DPR, so survivability is of some importance.

But I do see what you're saying. Circumstances are not always ideal, and as such there's more to DPR than the number a damage calculator gives you.

 

[Holy Bovine]

So no surprise that the Ranger wins this one hands down. What i do find surprising, and more than a little amusing, is the large % of respondents who feel the ranger is boring to play. While I have never played a ranger I have seen 2 in play so far and they do look dull compared to my Rageblood Barbarian or the elven AD Rogue.

 

[Kzach]

So no surprise that the Ranger wins this one hands down. What i do find surprising, and more than a little amusing, is the large % of respondents who feel the ranger is boring to play. While I have never played a ranger I have seen 2 in play so far and they do look dull compared to my Rageblood Barbarian or the elven AD Rogue.

One thing I've found that happens with every ranger I've seen in play, and so far that's about six in as many groups, is that inevitably they just end up spamming Twin Strike.

It has so far become a running joke in every single group. "What does your ranger do this turn?" Everybody answering in unison, "TWIN STRIKE!"

 

[Tony Vargas]

It makes sense. The striker role is the simplest, most straightforward of the four. Just do damage. Of course the quintessencial striker would be boring.