Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5574443" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think it is quite a bit less clear-cut than this. Rangers are highly effective. OTOH if I am well versed in playing a Warlock, my tactical proclivities favor the sort of play that the Warlock excels at, and the Warlock fits better into the particular party then the Warlock is a perfectly good choice. I'd also say that it heavily depends on the level you're playing at. During low heroic tier a Ranger will most likely outperform any Warlock most of the time. OTOH at mid-paragon and higher that becomes less and less true. A well-built high level Warlock is NASTY. Not to say high level Ranger isn't, but the relative strengths of the two classes do change a good bit. It is hard to make entirely general statements about which class is better.That isn't to say all classes are made equal of course. That would be an ideal for 4e in theory, but it will never be achieved. You just have to accept that small variations will exist and decide what is important to you.  Eh, still, it is MUCH more possible for any arbitrary character to manage in a situation not conducive to its main role than in say AD&D. It might be good if it was called out more explicitly in the PHB, yes.  Well, consider the 1e AD&D Magic User. He's got d4 hit points. Even at 6th level that means average 15 hit points. He's WELL within the range of single hit kill by any melee monster even close to his level. What his AC will be at that point is hard to say, it will depend heavily on the treasure received. He could be anywhere from AC 10 to AC 4. Most likely he's still far from the fighter's AC, which at that point is unlikely to be worse than 4 and is probably below that. As a level 6 MU I wouldn't in any circumstances risk moving into melee range. I MIGHT survive a round or two of it, with luck. OTOH the 4e wizard will have an AC that is probably only a couple points off from the fighter. He will have a bunch less hit points, but he's still certain to survive a couple of hits, has effective attacks he can use from close range (or really really should), etc. And this is true from level 1. It may not have been an outright design goal for 4e that was stated up front, but I suspect it was a welcome effect of the design and encouraged the devs to go in that direction. It is hard to say, but simply by making the game less swingy you get that effect and I'm thinking this was pretty obvious to the 4e devs when they designed the game. I can hardly imagine they never noticed this effect. Honestly the type of game you're in is going to make a big difference in how much you feel you have to optimize and what you can risk doing. There's a pretty good chunk of variability in 4e play. If you play with a whole slew of tactical optimizers and the DM is throwing tons of super tough combat encounters at you, then you probably want to optimize, may not want to play a concept that is a bit lower down on the optimization scale, and might not take so many risks. In most casual games though? You can afford to do pretty much what you feel like and not worry about it. In AD&D? You better play to type, Magic Users DO NOT get caught in melee, and fighters better be expecting to stand on the front lines and take most of the hits. 4e seems more flexible this way to me.</blockquote>

Verification