Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7523265" data-attributes="member: 71699">On a &quot;one round in splendid isolation&quot; comparison, DW edges out archery ranger in tier 1. After that, archery ranger out-damages them. That's based on a points-buy character with foe ACs per the DMG.On a &quot;one five-round encounter&quot; comparison, DW continues to edge out archery ranger at tier 1. After that, archery ranger substantially out-damages them. That is with Hunter's Mark assumed up for 3 of those 5 rounds, and melee assumed to be repositioning for 1 of those 5 rounds.Sword-and-board is equaled by ranger in tier 1, but thereafter ranger out-damages them. By either comparison.I think DW and 1HS could look better if accuracy is ignored, and feat selections are all sub-optimal. The former has to be taken into consideration for any plausible assessment, in my view. Regards the latter? Players make sub-optimal choices all the time, but I think posters should call out whenever they're assuming a sub-optimal choice.So I guess I'm saying, if accuracy isn't considered, the analysis isn't plausible.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7523265, member: 71699"] On a "[I]one round in splendid isolation[/I]" comparison, DW edges out archery ranger in tier 1. After that, archery ranger out-damages them. That's based on a points-buy character with foe ACs per the DMG. On a "[I]one five-round encounter[/I]" comparison, DW continues to edge out archery ranger at tier 1. After that, archery ranger substantially out-damages them. That is with Hunter's Mark assumed up for 3 of those 5 rounds, and melee assumed to be repositioning for 1 of those 5 rounds. Sword-and-board is equaled by ranger in tier 1, but thereafter ranger out-damages them. By either comparison. I think DW and 1HS could look better if [B]accuracy [/B]is ignored, and feat selections are all sub-optimal. The former has to be taken into consideration for any plausible assessment, in my view. Regards the latter? Players make sub-optimal choices all the time, but I think posters should call out whenever they're assuming a sub-optimal choice. So I guess I'm saying, if accuracy isn't considered, the analysis isn't plausible. [/QUOTE]

Verification