Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Victoly" data-source="post: 4320125" data-attributes="member: 35127">Sorry if I misinterpreted, but &quot;fighter vs ranger meleeduel&quot; sure sounds like PvP to me.&nbsp; I realize that his main example was of each versus a single foe, but I inferred that he meant to compare their PvP ability as well.Regardless, I think it's an inappropriate way to try to gauge class balance.&nbsp; As I stated earlier: The game is designed around a group of player characters working together to defeat their foes. (Is that not a &quot;valid&quot; point?)&nbsp; If you were able to show some math pertaining to the classes - like how the Fighter's +1 to hit over the ranger equals disproportionately more damage in the long-run, that might be worth seeing.&nbsp; But disregarding the intended mechanics (i.e. group combat; teamwork) for a statistically small number of test runs doesn't really seem like a good test to me.Furthermore, the discussion of the Fighter's &quot;reliable&quot; daily seemed to totally disregard the fact that the melee ranger's daily does half damage on a miss - which, all things considered equal, is at least as good as the &quot;reliable&quot; trait, if not better - and this led me to believe that you weren't looking at the Ranger's abilities as closely as you perhaps should have.&nbsp; Either that or you came up against some really flukey rolls that skewed your results.Either way, my main contention is that the premise here isn't valid - the fighter and ranger do totally different things in the group and don't need to be compared in this way.&nbsp; The suggestion that the fighter's self-healing exploits somehow give him an edge over the ranger baffles me, since that seems to neglect the very significant difference between the defender and striker roles.Sorry if I offended - that wasn't my intention - but the original post seemed like it was ignoring a lot of the fundamental elements of 4E design and was making a strange comparison because of it.And again, for the record - I said I made &quot;several&quot; good points, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize that some of what I wrote was also tongue-in-cheek.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :P"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Victoly, post: 4320125, member: 35127"] Sorry if I misinterpreted, but "fighter vs ranger meleeduel" sure sounds like PvP to me. I realize that his main example was of each versus a single foe, but I inferred that he meant to compare their PvP ability as well. Regardless, I think it's an inappropriate way to try to gauge class balance. As I stated earlier: The game is designed around a group of player characters working together to defeat their foes. (Is that not a "valid" point?) If you were able to show some math pertaining to the classes - like how the Fighter's +1 to hit over the ranger equals disproportionately more damage in the long-run, that might be worth seeing. But disregarding the intended mechanics (i.e. group combat; teamwork) for a statistically small number of test runs doesn't really seem like a good test to me. Furthermore, the discussion of the Fighter's "reliable" daily seemed to totally disregard the fact that the melee ranger's daily does half damage on a miss - which, all things considered equal, is [i]at least[/i] as good as the "reliable" trait, if not better - and this led me to believe that you weren't looking at the Ranger's abilities as closely as you perhaps should have. Either that or you came up against some really flukey rolls that skewed your results. Either way, my main contention is that the premise here isn't valid - the fighter and ranger do totally different things in the group and don't need to be compared in this way. The suggestion that the fighter's self-healing exploits somehow give him an edge over the ranger baffles me, since that seems to neglect the very significant difference between the defender and striker roles. Sorry if I offended - that wasn't my intention - but the original post seemed like it was ignoring a lot of the fundamental elements of 4E design and was making a strange comparison because of it. And again, for the record - I said I made "several" good points, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize that some of what I wrote was also tongue-in-cheek. :P [/QUOTE]

Verification