Fighter: Still the King of melee?

[Zsig]

I have not tested as you did. But I think it's imperative for the Ranger to make use of mobility and hit & run tactics. Even though they are both melee they got totally different playstyles, if you expect the ranger to be effective just by standing toe to toe with an enemy, you'll fail.

(It's not implied on the OP if you used, if you did then nevermind me).

 

[Sitara]

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!


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?


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.


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!


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.


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.

You really need to read up on the forum ettiquete here, before making rabid rants such as these. I can understand that you are a ranger/drizzt fanboy but that does not give you leave to start jumping around and screaming like a retarded baboon.

 

[cangrejoide]

since this is group oriented, try setting a fight between 5 fighthers vs 5 rangers.

 

[Victoly]

You really need to read up on the forum ettiquete here, before making rabid rants such as these. I can understand that you are a ranger/drizzt fanboy but that does not give you leave to start jumping around and screaming like a retarded baboon.

I admit that my first section was sardonic - supposed to just be a joke - but the rest of it was honest and I think I made several valid and rational points. Perhaps you should read my post again and try to respond to some of the claims I make? I mean no offense, but it honestly seems as though you don't understand the intended balance for 4E when you make a post such as this. And, for the record, I really don't like Forgotten Realms much at all - let alone being a "Drizzt fanboy".

 

[Imaro]

This...

have you tested fighter v rogue yet?

and even moreso this with rogues...

since this is group oriented, try setting a fight between 5 fighthers vs 5 rangers.

I may be wrong, but I actually think the Rogue is the new "king" of melee. Make sure to give them Blinding Barage, the Backstabber feat and their combat advantage at the beginning of the first round...My money is a party of high Dex rogues will destroy high Str Fighters in a group fight. Of course this is all based of guesswork and conjecture, but I'd be interested to hear what others think.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

The fighter is certainly supposed to be a better defender than the ranger, and the ranger is meant to be a better striker than the fighter. The fighter can rival the ranger's damage-dealing with his best damage-intensive exploits, but he can't match the ranger's mobility or stealth.

In a 1:1, defenders will probably fare pretty well, simply because they are so hard to put down. But, even more than in 3e, 1:1 is pretty meaningless in 4e, it's even more a team game, now, and without the support of the other roles, any PC archetype is going to underperform.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

. . . but the rest of it was honest and I think I made several valid and rational points.

Valid?

Like "What does 1v1 PvP have to do with anything?"

He never said PvP. 1v1 could be one party fighter against one enemy ranger.

Rational? Like . . . "This is where I really have to question your knowledge of the game's mechanics." or "Read the darned books, please." Reads very much like veiled insults insinuating the person you responded to is stupid and you are the arbiter of smart-enough.

 

[Minigiant]

each of the true melee classes (clerics and warlords are basically weak fighter with heals and buffs) dominates melee differently.

Defenders fight via attrition. Slow but surviving, they bash their targets. The fighter is better against high HP targets and wants a leader flanker due to his better damage. Paladin prefer the high damage enemies and loves a striker flanker because he can heal and buff.

The strikers go for the quick kill. Rangers have more reliable damage and needs a flanker less due to his better HP and more attacks. The Rogue deals more damage but wants a defender to take some hits.

 

[Sitara]

@zsig: Nope, I had the ranger go toe to toe with the guard. As I mentioend before, IMO had the ranger been allowed to start at range with a bow he would have won. But even then, IMO his toe to toe performance was poorer than expected.

@VIctoly: Note my main point is not a pvp between a fighter and ranger, it wasa fighter vs a human guard and thena ranger vs a human guard best of 3 each; the fighter won all 3, the ranger lost all 3. Both were fully optimized btw. The ranger was outfitted with twin scimitars and took the most powerfulencounter and daily powers to complement TWF (like jaws of the wolf). And yeah I htink he actually had a point or two hp above the fighter due to the toughness feat. He did start toe to toe though.

One thing I will say at level 1 is that initiative really matters, at least it did in this fight. If the human guard wins init and lays in his recharge power (the one that knocks you prone and does a lotta damage) you will most likely lose, unless if you are a paladin with the LOH ability. (because the guard uses his recharge power and knocks you prone, then shifts back 1 sq. That means you cannot attack him next round in melee unless you use an ap)

I have not yet experimented with the rogue, cleric and warlord. I am surprised to hear the rogue may be as good as you say, since on paper he looks flimsy (and most of his powers are with a lightblade, not quite a match with a greataxe you know)

But you know what, you can all do this test by yourselves: Make a level 1 fighter and a level 1 ranger (and heck a level 1 rogue as well). Run them all through test comabts vs the Human Guard in the 4e MM, say by doing a best of 3 each and post the results here. It will be good to compare.

Lastly note, I am not stating the fighter is the king of melee; I am basically putting this out there because right now with my LIMITED experiance it is what seems like to me. I just picked the human guard for fun and because there was a huge thread on it over at rpg.net (you should read it, its quite interesting where numerous posters give their accounts of their level 1 pc vs the human guard) However after running the test with the paladin and fighter, I just became shocked when the ranger, who I thought would utterly destroy the guard got owned instead.

 

[Umbran]

You really need to read up on the forum ettiquete here, before making rabid rants such as these.

*Blink*. Sitara? Pot calling a kettle black? Perhaps in writing that, did you somehow forget that name calling and insults (like "rabid fanboy") are not acceptable in this forum's etiquette...

Either way, don't post in this thread again, please.

Everyone - do not go down this road. We expect you to show respect for your fellow posters, however much you may disagree with them or otherwise not like what they write.