Fighter: Still the King of melee?

[Sitara]

It appears to me that the fighter is, overall a better 'fighter' than the ranger. IMo 1-1 at nearly any level, a purely optimized fighter vs optimized ranger meleeduel would result in the fighter being victorious.

Now ofcourse, I haven't played it out yet, but from a few test combat where i pitted the fighter against solo foes and the ranger against solo foes, the fighter performed much, much better. Looking at their powers over levels, the fighter gets good healing powers, has better hp, and more surges.

An example of my test combats is the 'Human guard' critter in the MM. I pitted a level 1 ranger against it, using melee combat only and then pitted a fighter against it, using melee again. The fighter won 3/3 rounds, while the ranger did not win even one.

The biggest atribute to this was the fighters 'reliable' ability; the ranger usually missed with his daily while the fighter always hit, albeit sometimes after a few tries.

Overall, while the ranger may certainly dish out more damage, the fighter can stand toe-to-toe much longer, can absorb more punishment, and thanks to 'reliable' dailies always hits; thus as a result actually do MORE damage overall than the ranger. The balancing factor appears to be ranged combat, if the ranger has time he can whittle away a foe at range.

Thoughts? Am I onto something or am I mistaken?

p.s. Oh and btw, the Paladin performed even better than the fighter in the test combats I ran due to Lay on Hands. But he also missed when hitting his dailies sometimes.

 

[Stalker0]

1 vs 1 combat is not the way to determine teh balance of classes.

Instead, does the ranger feel he is contributing to the group, and does he have fun doing it.

 

[Sitara]

Thats not exactly my point. I don't mean the ranger doesn't fit in or anything; I am just saying it seems to me that the fighter is still a better melee combatant than a ranger in the long run.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

That's the way it should be.

Rangers aren't as tough as fighters, as they're strikers, and I wouldn't expect a striker to win a 1:1 duel with a fighter.

I think ranged rangers are more powerful anyway. A ranger that hits with something like Bear Trap can cripple a fighter, reducing their speed, then move away and unleash ranged attacks, while the fighter can't catch them and may have to rely on their much weaker ranged attacks. (Rangers also have encounter powers like Fox's Cunning if they don't want to use a daily like Bear Trap.)

 

[Flazzy]

Reliable also isn't that big of a benefit, since you do nothing on a miss, other than keep your daily. Let's say the level 1 fighter misses his brutal strike twice and then finally hits on his third strike. Total damage over 3 rounds - 3W+Str.
Had the ranger rolled exactly the same as the fighter, he would have missed with his first jaws of the wolf (so half of two attacks at 2W+Str = 2W+Str), then misses with his two fanged strike, and then finally hits with his at will hit and run for another 1W+Str. Total damage for the ranger - 3W+2Str.

 

[Drakhar]

A fighter is more likely to have higher Str then the Ranger though truthfully.

 

[Sitara]

Sure bear'strap is good, as is stuff like blade cascade and armor splinter.

but the fighter has stuff like villains menace (at first level). Open up with that bad boy successfully, adn the ranger is in it deep. (add kensai to it for more wickedness)

 

[generalhenry]

have you tested fighter v rogue yet?

 

[Minigiant]

Reliable isn't that good. It keeps you from wasting damage but rangers attack twice almost all the time and will get at about 1/2 their damage in every turn.

If you spend 3 turns brutal striking, the ranger can quarry the guard then Hunter's bear trap or sudden strike, then two fanged strike, then twin strike. The ranger might die if the guard is luck and gets 2 powerful strikes to hit. But if you give them both a 50% hit rate, the guard is taking 2W+2d6+2xStr the first 2 turns and 1W+1d6 every turn after. That will kill him in 4-5 turns. And if you made the ranger level 3 too then i'd give him less time.

The fighter is less likely to die but will take 2 or so more turns.

 

[Victoly]

It appears to me that the fighter is, overall a better 'fighter' than the ranger.

You don't say! I have something else to postulate...
Get ready for this...
It appears to me that the ranger is, overall, a better 'ranger' than the fighter!

IMo 1-1 at nearly any level, a purely optimized fighter vs optimized ranger meleeduel would result in the fighter being victorious.

1v1 PvP duels are just about the farthest thing from relevant to the balance of this game that I can imagine. The game is designed around a group of players fighting a group of monsters. What does 1v1 PvP have to do with anything?

Now ofcourse, I haven't played it out yet, but from a few test combat where i pitted the fighter against solo foes and the ranger against solo foes, the fighter performed much, much better.

Again, 4E is designed around groups of heroes working together, not on a single class fighting alone. Also, a single fight where you can freely blow all of your dailies and your action point isn't a very good test of the way things should normally go.

Looking at their powers over levels, the fighter gets good healing powers, has better hp, and more surges.

And the ranger gets more attacks from his powers, higher damage powers, and more movement. What good would hp and self-heal powers be for a striker? The ranger isn't supposed to be getting hit! That's the fighter's job!

An example of my test combats is the 'Human guard' critter in the MM. I pitted a level 1 ranger against it, using melee combat only and then pitted a fighter against it, using melee again. The fighter won 3/3 rounds, while the ranger did not win even one. The biggest atribute to this was the fighters 'reliable' ability; the ranger usually missed with his daily while the fighter always hit, albeit sometimes after a few tries.

This is where I really have to question your knowledge of the game's mechanics. I think you built your ranger wrong.

The ranger gets two attacks with his daily (Jaws of the Wolf, unless you built a gimped melee ranger just to sabotage your own test) and scores half damage for each miss. That's a possible total of 4[W]+2xStr and a minimum of 2[W]+Str in one round. If we choose to assume that both the fighter and ranger will each roll one miss and then one hit, the fighter spends two rounds to do 3[W]+Str damage while the ranger spends only one round doing it.

Furthermore, with the free toughness feat it's likely that the melee ranger is going to have almost as many hit points as the first level fighter, and their defenses shouldn't be that different either. The two classes have roughly the same survivability at early levels, and - though I haven't done the math - I fail to see how a 1st-level fighter could outperform a 1st-level ranger so decisively.

It's also worth noting that Twin Strike (the ranger's at-will of choice) scales much, much better with magic weapons at higher levels than does the fighter's.

Overall, while the ranger may certainly dish out more damage, the fighter can stand toe-to-toe much longer, can absorb more punishment, and thanks to 'reliable' dailies always hits; thus as a result actually do MORE damage overall than the ranger. The balancing factor appears to be ranged combat, if the ranger has time he can whittle away a foe at range.

The balancing factor is the fact that you're not supposed to be fighting monsters alone! Different classes play different roles in combat! Read the darned books, please.