Dual nature of all classes - except Ranger and Rogue.

Forked from: FR Preview-Sword Mage and Genasi

AllisterH said:
I think almost all the classes havea dual nature going on. They have a primary role which is the default and a secondary role they can exploit if they focus on it primarily.

So far we have,
Cleric - LEADER/Controller
Fighter - DEFENDER/Striker
Paladin - DEFENDER/Leader
Warlord - LEADER/Defender
Wizard - CONTROLLER/Striker
Warlock - STRIKER/Controller
Artificer - LEADER/Controller
Swordmage - DEFENDER/Controller

Ironically, both the rogue and the ranger are the only classes that I think have ONLY a primary role.
Yes, I called this a while ago on RPG.net, and it's noticeable that all the dual-natures are pretty obvious, too. It's also noticeable that the Ranger and Rogue don't have them, and to me, this seems like a pretty serious problem. Especially as the Fighter is arguably comparable in damage to the Rogue and Ranger, yet neither of them have anything to back up their "I do lots of damage" role.

Maybe they don't need it, or maybe it's an oversight, or maybe they have secondary roles I don't understand. If their "secondary role" is meant to be "skill-monkey", though, which is my sneaking suspicion, then colour me appalled.
 

Minigiant

Adventurer
The dual nature argument is flawed. Most classes are one role and have an aspect of two of the other role. But this aspect doesn't replace the missing role by itself.

Fighters aren't strikers. They deal better damage then most but lack the "I can disengage you and take out someone else without getting beat up" like rangers and rogues can. If a caster start blasting the group, fighters can't leave the brutes and solders to quickly kill it and return back the the front line without taking a bunch of hits and marks by the enemy front line. Melee rangers and rogues can practically ignore opportunity attacks and marks and the range ones are just out of range.

The same is for every other class.

Instead of a dual nature, each power source has a passive effect on the way it plays. Martial classes deal large amounts of damage. Divine classes can heal and deal radiant damage. Arcane classes have more AOE and debuffs than normal.
 

Wonka

Visitor
Artful dodger rogues can make excellent controllers. Not in a main capacity, but in a secondary role they can be quite powerful. Moving and sliding foes around into position can be masterful. Just one man's honest opinion.
 
Can't rogue and ranger be defenders?

:AMN:
I think 2 weap rangeer seconds in defending and the archer ranger doubles in control...rogue I don't know...

I think each class has a Primary role..and a bad role. Some classes have total kick but secondaries with little 3rd role covrage, others are two ok secondaries.

Cleric Awsome leader/ horrid striker
good second defend and control

Paliden Awsome defend/ Horrid control
Very nice leader and meh striker

Warlock Awsome Striker/ Horrid leader
Very nice controler and meh defender

Fighter Awsome Defender/ Horrid leader
good second control and strike

Warlord Awsome Leader/ Horrid controler
Very nice second defender and meh striker

I think this was done to not box people in. If you want a group were the Warlock is the defender and the cleric is the controler..it is doable..multi class feats make it easier, but even without a creative player set can do it...BUT it will be far from opptmized.
On the other hand in 2 person game a Warlock and a Paliden make a great team...Strong defender and striker powers with some control and leader backups...infact again I say it was done to allow exotic character types.

D&D has always had archtypes...and creative players breaking them down.
 
If standing in your foes' face with a silly high AC counts as 'defending,' then sure ... Rogues and Rangers can defend.
However, as far as single-target DPS goes, no one can match 'em, so meh to dual natures.

Frankly, though ... there's more to a class than the role.

Rogues can ... you know ... disable traps and stuff.
Rangers can ('cos you don't need to build for dex or wis) have the particular mix of steath/acrobatics/perception that makes them awesome scouts.

One crucial skill check could save hundreds of damage to the party, or the difference between success and failure of the mission.
 

FadedC

Visitor
Hmm.....does the wizard really double as a striker? He doesn't seem like he does any more damage then any class without that designation. Unless your counting hits to multiple targets, but that seems more of a controller thing.
 

Kzach

Visitor
If your fighter is equalling your ranger or rogue in damage, then your ranger or rogue is badly built and played by an incompetent player.

A halfling charismatic rogue at 1st-level should have an average damage output of 17.5 with a +10 to hit. An elven bow ranger should have an average damage output of 19 with a +6 to hit.

That versus a fighter maximised for carnage at an average of 12 damage at +6. Of course, if they're maximised for carnage, they're not really doing their job as a defender, so let's get realistic and add in a shield and longsword and that drops their damage average to 9.5 at +7 to hit.

How are they competing against the strikers again? Especially the rogue who is almost assured of hitting every round with such a high to hit bonus (the advantage of being melee over ranged). Not to mention has a much higher median damage output than any other class because of Sly Flourish and double-damage dice on Sneak Attack.

Sorry, just not seeing the problem. I'll happily continue to plink away with my new ranger in one game, and get stabbity with my halfling rogue in another, whilst I defend the entire party with my fighter in my third game.
 

Jhaelen

Visitor
Looking over the list of secondary roles, I'm unsure about the fighter. What is it that reminds you of a striker?

When I first read the fighter powers I thought, several of them were actually controller-like. There are several exploits that can affect everyone in a close burst, isn't that typical for controllers?
 

Revinor

Visitor
Controller is more about controlling monsters rather than just dealing dmg in area (so special effects over dmg). I think that rogue can fit the bill here.

Why do you think that warlord is secondary defender? Defenders are about stickiness, not AC and I don't see any in warlord.

Rest looks roughly ok to me. Indeed, ranger looks like a pure striker - which is probably right, as some analysis on the boards is showing it is a best striker out there dpr wise.
 

eamon

Visitor
I certainly don't get the impression that the ranger or rogue are somehow less viable than other classes - if at all, it's the other way around.

The ranger has some nice abilities which step on the fighters role (power's like disruptive strike, for example), or which push around enemies on the battlefield (like sweeping whirlwind). And, by virtue of their high damage output, they're sticky in the sense that you don't want to provoke their OA, without needing the fighter's extra's. A ranger has excellent defenses to boot. Once Heavy Blade opportunity kicks in, esp. if you're a pit fighter, you really don't want to be provoking those OA's any more...

The difference between a striker and a defender is a subtle thing. I don't feel that it's a problem, as-is, however, and certainly not that the ranger/rogue need to worry about being useful.
 

Tellerve

Registered User
If your fighter is equalling your ranger or rogue in damage, then your ranger or rogue is badly built and played by an incompetent player.

A halfling charismatic rogue at 1st-level should have an average damage output of 17.5 with a +10 to hit. An elven bow ranger should have an average damage output of 19 with a +6 to hit.

That versus a fighter maximised for carnage at an average of 12 damage at +6. Of course, if they're maximised for carnage, they're not really doing their job as a defender, so let's get realistic and add in a shield and longsword and that drops their damage average to 9.5 at +7 to hit.

How are they competing against the strikers again? Especially the rogue who is almost assured of hitting every round with such a high to hit bonus (the advantage of being melee over ranged). Not to mention has a much higher median damage output than any other class because of Sly Flourish and double-damage dice on Sneak Attack.

Sorry, just not seeing the problem. I'll happily continue to plink away with my new ranger in one game, and get stabbity with my halfling rogue in another, whilst I defend the entire party with my fighter in my third game.
Eh?? So, since you don't say how you get +10, I'm going to assume, +4 dex, +3 dagger, +1 theif dagger ability, and +2 for combat advantage. You then quote a fighter's stats that are Maximized and don't give him the same advantages. +4 for str, +3 for bastard sword/longsword, +1 for fighter one-handed ability, and +2 for combat advantage (he's flanking with the rogue). Wow, +10 just like the rogue...lookie there! I agree the halfing rogue will be doing 1d4+4 +2d6 +cha(perhaps), and the fighter only 1d10+4, so yes, the 'striker' is doing more damage. As he should be by the layout of how the classes work. But don't make it seem like fighters can't have good success with hitting. At least level the playing field with statistics
 
Last edited:

Minigiant

Adventurer
Fighters and wizards aren't strikers.

A strikers can attack targets and disengage without an opportunity attack.
Ranger's Hit and Run, Evasive Strike, and Archery Build.
Rogues' Artful Dodger's build, Positioning Strike, and Tumble

Once a fighter gets in melee, he's stuck there unless he wants to get hit or deal poor damage.
 

Mistwell

Legend
Going through the Ranger powers, we all know a large number effect two targets, which is a mini-control aspect. But what I didn't know until I went through it is that 1 in 5 effect three or more targets, sometimes many more (like Blast 5 or "all targets in range of your weapon"). And many also have a secondary effect like stun, immobile, weaken, slow, etc..

Ranger can serve the dual role of controller.
 

ac_noj

Visitor
If your fighter is equalling your ranger or rogue in damage, then your ranger or rogue is badly built and played by an incompetent player.
That's certainly true at first but does not remain so at higher levels. Fighters get a number of stances as they level up that greatly boost their damage by giving them a sustained damage boost that lasts the whole fight (there are 4 daily powers that do this).
So while Rogues and Rangers will always have the best burst damage for short fights, as the fight lengthens Fighters catch up in damage done and overtake strikers at about 6 or 7 rounds of combat.
Then a level 30 a striker that took Demigod will overtake the fighter again due to the unlimited encounter powers.

However, while Fighters can do great damage, the have no ability to move out of a bad spot and attack from a better position. That's really what you're getting when you chose a striker.

Going through the Ranger powers, we all know a large number effect two targets, which is a mini-control aspect. But what I didn't know until I went through it is that 1 in 5 effect three or more targets, sometimes many more (like Blast 5 or "all targets in range of your weapon"). And many also have a secondary effect like stun, immobile, weaken, slow, etc..

Ranger can serve the dual role of controller.
Rangers also get the biggest badest minion-shreadding spell in the game, Hail of Arrows, which can hit everything within 40 squares once an encounter.
 
Last edited:

Cirex

Visitor
If your fighter is equalling your ranger or rogue in damage, then your ranger or rogue is badly built and played by an incompetent player.
I may have to fork this even, but I disagree.

One of my players is playing (redundancy) a dwarven fighter with strength 18, wielding a great axe, with the Dwarven weapon training feat. The other player is an elven ranger, with strength 16, using a long sword and as feat, two weapon combat.

I made an Excel Spreadsheet because in combat I couldn't see the ranger deal the damage she should be dealing, and the player was a bit frustrated.

They are level 2 now. The fighter has +7 to attack (4 strenght, 1 for half level, 2 for proency). The ranger has +7 too (3 strength, 1 for half level, 3 for proency).
Ranger main power is twin strike. If he hits with both, it's 1d8+1(feat)+1d6(prey)+1d8, while the dwarf is hitting for 1d12+6 and add cleave for extra 4 damage if there's an opponent nearby.
With the Excel spreadsheet I managed to find out that, in normal situations, the ranger only out-damages the fighter when both require a 14 to hit, which is kinda rare.

Now, the ranger easily out-maneouvers the fighter, usually getting in flanking positions easily (the third character is a warlord), but the difference is still small.
As for last game, both have magical weapons, which give both an extra point of damage and attack. With such bonus, the ranger starts to out-damage the fighter (using cleave) when both require a 11 to hit, but the difference doesn't seem to be that high.

I'm a bit disappointed with ranger damage so far, so I hope it's slighty higher once better encounter powers appear. We may be adding a brawny rogue soon, with dexterity 18 and strength 16. Wielding a dagger, by my maths, he will out-damage the ranger around a 50%, considering he can get combat advantadge often.

Maybe the ranger should try to fight ranged.

EDIT : Each time the Warlord commands the fighter to strike someone, the ranger dies a bit inside.
 
Last edited:

inati

Visitor
In my games I am finding that the ranger in the group (bow ranger) is out damaging my fighter, but then again I am going with a sword and board type fighter, so this is to be expected. In fact, the ranger far outstrips the dagger rogue as well, due to conditional use of sneak attack vs quarry being available all the time. This may change when paragon paths open up and the rogue takes daggermaster for burst crit damage... But bow rangers just lay down damage so much more easily than their melee counterparts, that I am finding it difficult to see justification of a melee ranger, other than for personal choice/flavor.
 
@Cirex:The character doesn't need higher level encounter powers, Two Fanged Strike already does more single target damage than most Heroic encounter powers, let alone first level encounter powers. (s)He could probably do with some more feats though. Weapon prof & focus bastard sword would be a good start, and maybe Lethal Hunter, all of which will generally give a larger damage bonus than two weapon fighting, while the Dwarven Fighter doesn't have any more damage feats (s)he can take, and you're right, the Ranger will get a greater bonus from having magic weapons.

Ultimately, yes Kzach was exaggerating a bit, but you're comparing a fairly low damage Ranger (the "minimum" would be one point lower) to a quite high damage Fighter (who can't really up his damage much at all) and the Ranger is still averaging more single target damage than the Fighter (although I think the Fighter would be higher with Reaping Strike).

@inati: the bonii for being a melee ranger are a) optional access to Bastard Swords (+1 attack) b)toughness (which is arguably better than defensive mobility) c) Stormwarden.
 

Kzach

Visitor
I may have to fork this even, but I disagree.
Sorry man but your example just proves my point. The elven ranger you presented is badly built. He has poor stat and feat choices which make him subpar.

Give me the guidelines for character creation in your game and I'll happily create a superior ranger for your friend :D

Ultimately, yes Kzach was exaggerating a bit...
I take offence.

I never, ever, exaggerate even a tiny, little, weency, eency little, smidgeon of a bit, ever.

TIC :D
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top