Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mad Hamish" data-source="post: 4641566" data-attributes="member: 25321">I don't really see few couple of points of initiative being a big thing for a melee combatant.For a start a twf Ranger has toughness for free, so that's going to give them better hit points than an archer ranger He can probably do with hide armour for a few levels which gives him a couple of points less of AC than the archer ranger but not terrible.initiative isn't a big deal for him.Against that he provides (and can take advantage of) flanking spreads damage around a bit so that the party can go on longer and has more options in his attacks like several burst 1 abilities at lowish levels.Rangers are probably the highest damaging classes, but they provide a lot less in the way of control.In my limited experience I'd agree with you that Archer rangers are probably the easiest class to play and contribute a significant amount of what they can potentially do for the party.Whether the damage different of an archer ranger compared to another striker build is as useful to the party as the other options that the other striker provides is open to question (and the answer probably varies widely based on the encounter type)The great weapon fighter has his place, it places the tradeoff for damage versus control for a defender in a different place from the sword and board build. I suspect that a greatweapon fighter is better with a Warlord in the party than without -> he also probably does a better job of focusing attacks on himself than the sword and board character because he's more of a damaging threat and he's easier to hit.The strength based Paladin seems to have a few too few options (although I haven't had much of a look at one) to choose from. The splatbook will hopefully fix that.I think the starpact warlock is the in-between option of the initial three pacts. Does more damage than the feylock and less than the infernal lock. Provides less control than they feylock but more than the infernal.</blockquote>

Verification