Broken Ranger with Barbarian MC

[BobTheNob]

Thanks for the heads up...now, how to preent this happening in MY game...what to do, what to do?

New feature of the barbarian :
'Barbarian Menace' : Allows extra damage on certain powers.

Then, go through said powers and make the extra damage contingent on the 'Barbarian Menace' feature. So the powers operate exactly as they do for a barbarian, but a multiclasser doesnt get them. And if they complain, point out that the multiclass barbarian feat already comes with a damage bonus and the extra striker damage is just double dipping.

Now Im off to my errata document!

(Once again, thanks for the heads up)

 

[BobTheNob]

Just thought of something. If you think your ranger is bad, imagine an Avenger with a Barbarian Paragon. Rediculous armor class with roll twice on each attack AND barbarian striker damage. What a nightmare!

 

[Prism]

what to do, what to do?

To be honest, I wouldn't do anything. 41 points of damage at this level is pretty standard for an unoptimized straight ranger nevermind a barb multiclass. I like the m/c idea for the flavour. If you made it much weaker it wouldn't be worth doing especially with all the feat investment and the loss of a paragon path

 

[Saeviomagy]

This is an impossibly high number, he regularly reduces 100+ HP enemies to dust in 1-2 rounds. His average, for the at will is 41 damage. Once he starts whipping out Rages, Dailies and more - I'm weeping and the rest of the crew are mostly relegated to providing the occasional flanking (when his doggy isn't close enough) or healing him.

I'm level 6, and my rogue's average damage for an at-will that hits is 20 already. And I hit way more than this guy will.

100hps is LOW for a level 13 non-elite soldier. Strikers are SUPPOSED to kill them in 1-2 rounds. Otherwise an easy fight with 4 equal levelled soldiers would drag on for eons.

Incidentally, soldiers at this level have ~29 ac. That means that your ranger-barbarian needs to roll a 13 to hit them (he's +16 to hit with flank, right? 6 level, 5 str, 3 enhance, 2 weapon, -2 power attack).

A rogue daggermaster would be doing 1d4 + 3d8 + 17 with a +21 to hit reflex (which is 22 on this particular soldier) and an 18-20 crit range. He hits the same foe on a 2+. Guess who does more damage per round?

Incidentally: any party with a melee striker would be well served getting safe flanks for that striker whenever possible.

 

[BobTheNob]

To be honest, I wouldn't do anything. 41 points of damage at this level is pretty standard for an unoptimized straight ranger nevermind a barb multiclass. I like the m/c idea for the flavour. If you made it much weaker it wouldn't be worth doing especially with all the feat investment and the loss of a paragon path

Agreed, I like the flavor too. Ranger/Barbarian has a nice feel.

I'm level 6, and my rogue's average damage for an at-will that hits is 20 already. And I hit way more than this guy will.

100hps is LOW for a level 13 non-elite soldier. Strikers are SUPPOSED to kill them in 1-2 rounds. Otherwise an easy fight with 4 equal levelled soldiers would drag on for eons.

But the OP was concerned with how this character damage output was making the other players look weak. To compare his damage output against the monsters of the level is kind of specious.


If it is your position that a striker should be downing a creature in 1-2 rounds (I decline to agree or disagree) thats fine, but how is he going against other strikers in the group? If I read the OP right, they arent keeping up because this unique combo is pushing 1 character (1 in a group...its a group game) beyond everyone elses capabilities, what it means is...

• 1 person has a great old time
• Eveyone else is relegated to supporting him (or just getting killed because the monsters have to be tuned against that one character to have any point what-so-ever)
• DM is frustrated out of his brain because game design needs to constantly incorporate the fact that one player found an effective rule combination.

Balance is not just player to monster, it is also from player to player. If one player is so far ahead of everyone else (as the OP suggests), not through proper reward for good playing but through rule manipulation, its the GM's job to do something about that so the game stays enjoyable for everyone involved, rather than just the one person.

Sometimes rule combinations will slip through the cracks that end up far too powerful(read the Hybrid test doco....the designers admit this happens), s as a GM, I hold to the belief that it is our responbility to control this.

That is my position, others prefer RAW : more strength to them. Many disagree with what I would consider unbalanced, thats their privelege. But I know that my group is enjoying the game I have put together and thats good enough for us.

Good luck to all who have to tackle the thorny issue of game breaking character builds.

 

[N8Ball]

I see the problem, but let's look at a fair comparison. How does this build compare to another strong striker build, like a Daggermaster rogue with the same magic items and perhaps a vicious dagger? Between the dramatically better to-hit chance (+3 weap, weapon talent, nimble blade) and the much better crit range, I bet the DPS is close.

Also, what kind of encounter powers does this guy have since almost all the ranger powers require 2 weapons? Has he sunk all his feats into power swaps? There's a price he's paid for his awesomness and perhaps the apparent brokenness comes from not seeing all the other awesome combinations he's passed up.

The ranger in our group has multiclassed into Rogue and is going for Death dealer. It's going to be really sick when he uses an action point on a 3[W]x2 power and adds 6 striker dice with EACH DAMAGE DIE getting a +2. There's some outrageous damage for you. Oh and by the way, my character is a tactical warlord with all the dressings, so he's deninitely going to hit (+3/+5 on APs)and have some more damage on top of it all.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Perhaps the issue is that the other players in the group could use some help tweaking their characters.

Large numbers of at-level (or even below level) foes, not necessarily minions, should give him a bit of trouble and let the rest of the party join in. If you are trying to challenge him with fewer and bigger monsters, that may be the wrong way to go. Try four L-1 archers fronted by three L-1 skirmishers and anchored by two L+1 soldiers. The soldiers engage your heavy hitter, the skirmishers tie up or delay the party defenders, and the archers focus fire on one character at a time. Not every encounter needs to be like this, but there should definitely be some.

 

[BobTheNob]

Perhaps the issue is that the other players in the group could use some help tweaking their characters.

Large numbers of at-level (or even below level) foes, not necessarily minions, should give him a bit of trouble and let the rest of the party join in. If you are trying to challenge him with fewer and bigger monsters, that may be the wrong way to go. Try four L-1 archers fronted by three L-1 skirmishers and anchored by two L+1 soldiers. The soldiers engage your heavy hitter, the skirmishers tie up or delay the party defenders, and the archers focus fire on one character at a time. Not every encounter needs to be like this, but there should definitely be some.

This is another approach I would agree with. Help the other players to get up to speed with the guy that is streaking ahead, just make sure your players are all pretty relative. (Mind you, that can be hard to judge as roles factor into this, but I can tell the original OP is at a point where one has streaked ahead already)

Either way, it just has to be that all your players are on a level playing field with each other. Once you can say that is the case, you can sort out the monsters they go up against later.

 

[Regicide]

But the OP was concerned with how this character damage output was making the other players look weak. To compare his damage output against the monsters of the level is kind of specious.

I think other people have pointed out and supported that the problem isn't really the build. No need to houserule it when half-a-dozen other classes could put out the same damage. Something else needs to be done for the group.

 

[Mad Hamish]

by my rough calculations an archer ranger will average more damage than the ranger/barbarian above

1d12+4d8+16 for the barbarain to an average of 40.5 damage on a hit
archer ranger (assuming great bow) with twin strike
d12 + 3d8 + 7 (assume +3 weapon, weapon focus (bow), and bracers of archery) for the first hit of a round average 27
Assume both characters have a 50 % change of hitting on each attack and the barb/ranger averages 20.25 damage/round and the archer ranger averages 20.25 damager/round _ignoring_ the fact that the archer ranger has a 25% of hitting twice in the round (adding another 4 or so to average damage) and that the archer ranger isn't power attacking so should have a better chance to hit.