Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Herschel" data-source="post: 5660149" data-attributes="member: 78357">This is where I think the misconception comes from. Simply put...&nbsp;The Ranger does more damage.&nbsp;The Warlock does more. (good damage, status effects, zones, etc.)&nbsp;Some classes can be tailored more than others. Rangers are about as straight-forward as you can get (and to me, archers are utterly dull) and are pure strikers. &nbsp;Warlocks are mose versatile. If in a party with no dedicated controller, they can fill that role some while still doing good damage. If they're in a party that doesn't have other strikers, they can be tailored to max their damage while still getting in some control effects.&nbsp;As for Fighters, they aren't top strikers and if they maximize their offense they aren't top defenders. They're a good class with a ton of support. &nbsp;Roles aren't straightjackets and most classes have secondary roles, depending on the choices one makes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Herschel, post: 5660149, member: 78357"] This is where I think the misconception comes from. Simply put... The Ranger does more damage. The Warlock does more. (good damage, status effects, zones, etc.) Some classes can be tailored more than others. Rangers are about as straight-forward as you can get (and to me, archers are utterly dull) and are pure strikers. Warlocks are mose versatile. If in a party with no dedicated controller, they can fill that role some while still doing good damage. If they're in a party that doesn't have other strikers, they can be tailored to max their damage while still getting in some control effects. As for Fighters, they aren't top strikers and if they maximize their offense they aren't top defenders. They're a good class with a ton of support. Roles aren't straightjackets and most classes have secondary roles, depending on the choices one makes. [/QUOTE]

Verification