Nerfing the Archer Ranger a little

[Spatula]

Keep in mind that Rangers virtually always target AC, whilst Warlocks are usually targeting the much more vulnerable Will/Fort/Reflex defenses. This way more than makes up for the only slightly superior die d12 type

Not really, since non-AC defenses are about 2 pts lower than AC (generally speaking), and the ranger gets an extra +2 to hit from weapon proficiency that implement wielders don't get.

Also, the warlock's damage is just plain awful and can't be improved, aside from some flat +1 dmg feats that are power-specific and hard to qualify for.
Astral Fire (fire & radiant): requires 13 Dex when warlocks need Int.
Burning Blizzard (acid & cold): requires 13 Wis when warlocks want Cha.
Dark Fury (necrotic & psychic): requires 13 Wis when warlocks want Cha.

Whereas weapon users get Weapon Focus: no prereqs, one feat, applies to all of their powers instead of only some. Rangers (and rogues) additionally can upgrade their quarry/sneak attack damage, while warlocks cannot upgrade their curse damage. And then the weapon users can spend a feat to upgrade their weapon dice, too...

which adds only +1 avg. damage and was paid for with a feat anyhow.

+1 per [w], actually - which is great for rangers, who get to attack twice per round in most cases (which also gives them a double benefit from Weapon Focus and their weapon +). Note that casters don't have any equivalent feat.

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

Not really, since non-AC defenses are about 2 pts lower than AC (generally speaking), and the ranger gets an extra +2 to hit from weapon proficiency that implement wielders don't get.

Also, the warlock's damage is just plain awful and can't be improved, aside from some flat +1 dmg feats that are power-specific and hard to qualify for.
Astral Fire (fire & radiant): requires 13 Dex when warlocks need Int.
Burning Blizzard (acid & cold): requires 13 Wis when warlocks want Cha.
Dark Fury (necrotic & psychic): requires 13 Wis when warlocks want Cha.

Whereas weapon users get Weapon Focus: no prereqs, one feat, applies to all of their powers instead of only some. Rangers (and rogues) additionally can upgrade their quarry/sneak attack damage, while warlocks cannot upgrade their curse damage. And then the weapon users can spend a feat to upgrade their weapon dice, too...

+1 per [w], actually - which is great for rangers, who get to attack twice per round in most cases (which also gives them a double benefit from Weapon Focus and their weapon +). Note that casters don't have any equivalent feat.

Without those feats that add +1 to damage, a Warlock can still lay down some decent damage. If even to throw down Eldritch Blast for 1d10+1d6 curse+4 (or maybe +5) thats still avg 13 or 14. But not being able to upgrade their curse die is a shortfall. But its not like they are suffering in dishing out damage.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Not really, since non-AC defenses are about 2 pts lower than AC (generally speaking), and the ranger gets an extra +2 to hit from weapon proficiency that implement wielders don't get.

A few monsters concede only a 2 points advantage between their AC and lowest defense. Heck, the Beholder is a rarity; his AC is his lowest defense! He continues his tradition of being a spellcaster's nightmare.

But the average monster concede at least 3 points between his AC and lowest defense.

Random check;

Fire Giant ; reflex and will is 6 point lower than AC
Phantom Warrior ; reflex is -3
Ghoul ; Will is -4
Ettin ; reflex is -10 (!)

That's just flipping page randomly. Some classics;

Most dragons only concede -2 to -4 but the black dragons have very bad will. The Ancient black concede -12 on his will!

Good old Pit fiend concede -6 on reflex while the Balor only concedes -3.

Fan's favorite the Death Knight, concede 9 points on reflex and 8 on will.

I could go on but you get the idea. It might take some testing (or monster knowledge check), but attacking non AC defense can translate to a lot more than -2. Hence the importance of trying to vary which defense your spells target.

A cunning warlock won't miss nearly as often as a ranger if he keeps hammering on the achilles heel of every monster he meets.

---

One of the reason I prefer warlock to archer are the better effects, right from level 1. Tagging a tough monster with -4 to hit with witchfire is just great and well worth doing less damage. And diabolic grasp can be used to toss a monster in the area zone of the wizard in a nice arcane tag team. Diabolic Grasp + burning hand = More damage than a ranger alone of level 1 can do.

I feel the warlock synergize better with other PCs. And the melee rangers helps the team mroe by relieving the defender a bit and improving their marking powers. The archer ranger on the other hand... Meh.

 

[evilbob]

You can disagree all that you like. It doesnt mean that you are any less wrong. Even when presented with the actual text you still wish to see it otherwise.

Please, don't say things like this, especially after I've politely disagreed with you. I am not "wrong" and I do not "wish to see [text] otherwise". Your post is only mean spirited and frankly I'd appreciate it if you deleted it.

 

[urzafrank]

Please, don't say things like this, especially after I've politely disagreed with you. I am not "wrong" and I do not "wish to see [text] otherwise". Your post is only mean spirited and frankly I'd appreciate it if you deleted it.

Bob, Your post came off as very very dismissive of thier points, one of which by the way comes directly from the MM, which you have stated that you cared about as it is official to you.

This i think is the reason he responded as he did. Hope you both can see where this is going on stop it before it gets there.

The MM is meant for NPCs not PCs as stated in the MM entry so any WOTC product that has a PC write up for a race changes what PCs can use cause that is what they are for. the Drow and the Gnoll were "updated" as well

Also DDI does not allow you to pick the MM minotaur when making a PC.

 

[evilbob]

Bob, Your post came off as very very dismissive of thier points

Fair enough; I did not mean to be dismissive but I could certainly see how it would read that way as I was trying to avoid derailing the thread any worse. I apologize if my posts seemed dismissive.

The MM is meant for NPCs not PCs...

Also DDI does not allow you to pick the MM minotaur when making a PC.

And again I will simply disagree, especially on your second point - if you are referring to the character builder beta, which I think you are - as I have done exactly that.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Please, don't say things like this, especially after I've politely disagreed with you. I am not "wrong" and I do not "wish to see [text] otherwise". Your post is only mean spirited and frankly I'd appreciate it if you deleted it.

Actually, you are wrong, and there is nothing at all mean spirited about pointing out that someone is wrong about the rules in a rules forum. If you post incorrect information in a rules forum, someone else posting the correct information is doing the right thing. Wizards Community - View Single Post - Demo beta now has Martial Power Powers, Barbarian and Gladiator feats "To be clear, our plan is to update the published content as it evolves through the R&D design. The latest version is the "official" version. So in the case of the Minotaur, the Dragon version supercedes the MM version. At that stage, we do not have any plans to support different versions of the same race/class/power... The compendium, as well as the character builder, will use the latest version published. The fact that the Dragon Minotaur in the compendium had the Oversized feature for a while was a data bug, and not a feature. This has been solved, and the Minotaur now properly shows up with the reference to the Dragon Magazine it has been updated in."

 

[ricardo440]

getting back to the original post.

Although much of the time the ranger is out of the path of danger, having played one from 1st to 10th level I have to say that the times when you are NOT safe make up for it all. Your not as robust as any other character. Monsters with ranged strikes, area powers, or just the abiity to shift multiple times can very easily move to you.
You have some evasion powers, but that is the point.

Also there are some times when I went in close to provide a flank and get the combat advantage, then you can take some beats. I've been close to death a couple of times, once on 2 death saves, so you are not entirely safe. (we had three PCs die in the journey from 1st to 10th to put it in perspective as how dangerous the game was).

And finally having all the attacks against AC is a pain, it means that when you do face up against that Ettin Soldier Elite with insane AC you can't hit him, so the rogue with a REF attack, all the spell casters and a fighter with auto damage are all going to outshine you. But that is ok, you just have to try to do something different, perhaps use skills to asist your mates somehow.

At no stage in the 10 levels of play did I, another player, or the GM think this was all "un-fun"

 

[evilbob]

...there is nothing at all mean spirited about pointing out that someone is wrong about the rules in a rules forum. If you post incorrect information in a rules forum, someone else posting the correct information is doing the right thing.

I agree; I was not aware that they were changing the character builder since I can still create an oversized minotaur on my beta copy right now, and I was not aware that the official policy on updates was changing so that you have to pay for a subscription in order to receive them instead of downloading free errata, which I still strongly oppose. Thank you for the link to the staff post.

I still disagree that Mithreinmaethor was not being mean spirited. But I won't post anymore about it.

 

[Stalker0]

If you want to nerf the ranger, give twin strike a -1 or -2 to attack rolls.

Twin Strike is the source of the archer rangers incredible power