Pros and Cons of going mainstream

[Manbearcat]

I think much of the Ranger:Warlock issue is PC build decision. I've playtested various Ranger builds quite a bit and there is an enormous amount of PC build tools available to build a stout, tough-guy Ranger and still be a heavy Striker. It just seems that a certain cross-section of the 4e populace builds Rangers as glass cannons, optimizing to umpteenth degree so they can eek out every last possible point of single-target damage. Built that way, they are the highest damage strikers in the game but, of course, glass cannons. Quick look below at the inherent features and available options to Rangers through Heroic tier - up to 11th level...at Paragon tier there are lots of Paths to elevate Ranger survivability - to build a stout, mobile, survivable, melee combatant that can survive duels and offtank effectively:

- Defense bonus for the primary NAD attacked; Reflex.

- Defense bonus for the secondary NAD attacked; Fortitude.

- A build with Dex as primary for all melee attacks, yielding an extremely high primary NAD attacked; Reflex.

- Class feature that grants either 10 HP (Toughness; which should all but make up the HP differential with respect to the Con-lock) or + 1 AC and Reflex (2 Weapon Defense).

- At-Will Attacks that give you a + 2 power bonus to AC or let you shift 2 squares to set up denial of follow-ups against you.

-1st, 3rd, 7th level Encounter Attack Powers that grant:

* Multiple slow and shift options leading to action denial.
* Multiple large shift options after attacks leading to potential action denial.
* Huge attack penalty interrupt which is tantamount to action denial.
* Minor action option that imposes a -2 or -4 to hit you which can be coupled with other Standards or Immediate actions to improve survivability.
* CB1 push and prone for action denial on multiple enemies.

- 2nd, 6th, 10th level Utility Powers that grant:

* Multiple Encounter Powers with Free or Immediate Actions that let you shift/move your speed and/or gain + 2 to + 4 bonus to AC and Reflex, or all defenses (and not all are power so they stack with power bonuses). As Immediate Actions (enemy moves adjacent to you), these can set up action denial.
* Low level Daily that gives (Wisdom) resistance to all damage for the encounter.
* Non-stance Daily with + 2 speed bonus and + 1 shift distance anytime you shift (which can set up action denial).
* Daily with + 4 Speed bonus with running (Stance which stacks with the above speed daily) with no CA against you which can lead to all manner of enemy action denial.
* Encounter power with Shift plus Second Wind as Move Action.
* Daily Stance with + 1 or 2 power bonus to AC.
* Daily Move as Teleport and + 5 power bonus to all defenses.
* 2 Dailies that let you heal your Surge (or more) as Minor or Free Actions.

- 1st, 5th, 9th level Daily Attack Powers that grant:

* Stance with conditional + 2 power bonus to AC and Reflex (and extra 1d8 damage per attack).
* Attack with large power bonus to AC UEOYNT.
* Attack with weakened UEOYNT.
* Stance with MBA + large shift as Immediate Reaction when hit by close or melee attack, so enemies with multiple attacks lose 50 %, or more, of their action economy against you.
* Attack with blinded and cannot shift (save ends).
* Multiple attacks with dazed (save ends), immobilized, slowed or prone (sometimes with shifts) leading to action denial.
* Attack with effect "whenever you hit the target with a melee attack, you gain temporary hit points equal to 5 + your Wisdom modifier."

- Ranger Feats that grant:

* Twin Strike imposes - 2 penalty to attack rolls.
* Enemies adjacent don't gain + 2 bonus to attack rolls for CA.
* Whenever you use an encounter or daily that lets you shift, shift 2 extra squares - coupled with other features its action denial setup.
* Use Second Wind as Free Action after downing quarry.
* Conditional (movement prereq) + 1 feat bonus to AC and Reflex (stacks with power, etc).
* Whenever you hit an enemy with a melee attack during your turn, you don’t provoke opportunity attacks from that enemy for moving away from it until the end of your turn - action denial setup.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmm...I cannot access the OCB. He may have let it lapse. I can log into the DM's account, but buttons don't seem to do anything.

All I can say at this point, then is Magnus has 54 HP according to the math I did (months ago), backed by the OCB character sheet.

But I cannot access the Ranger, and he didn't leave his sheet behind (for once). Perhaps he took an 8 Con to max something else. He IS the highest damage-dealer on a per-blow basis: that would seem to echo Manbearcat's suggestion. Perhaps he built a glass cannon.

FWIW, the Rogue's sheet IS here, though, and he clocks in at 49HP...which, IMHO, still looks flimsy for a melee striker in light of the ranged striker with 54 and comparable or superior defenses.

 

[MichaelSomething]

As always, we need consider more then the RAW numbers. 4th Edition characters do have powers and those tend to greatly influence what a character does. Can you tell us anything about their powers? maybe you can save us all some time and just load complete pictures of the character sheets so we can properly analyze them? Seriously, whenever people want to discuss specific characters, we should just agree to post character sheets.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, since i don't own the Ranger and can't currently access the OCB*, I'm kinda SOL on that.

Like I said, he IS the party's heavy hitter. With that, I have no issue. My problem is that Rangers hiding behind casters is very un-D&D like to me.









* I emailed the DM to see if his subscription is still active. If it is, there's something wonky on my end.

 

[Hussar]

This is what I'm talking about when I mentioned transparency though.

My problem is that Rangers hiding behind casters is very un-D&D like to me.

In 3e, the difference, before ability adjustments, between a ranger and a warlock is 1 hp/level +2. That's it. That's the sum total of difference in hit points. And variability in ability scores and actual hit point rolls can easily put the warlock ahead of the ranger.

But, what I think probably happens at a lot of tables is that people only look at the end results, not how they got there. Sure, a die rolled ranger with a 35 point buy value character is going to be a lot more durable than the die rolled warlock with a 25 point buy character. That's not because of class though, that's because the two players aren't playing on the same level field.

The thing that started all this was the idea that in 4e, you'll always get the same result, but in 3e, the ranger would be ahead more often than not. But, if the same stats are applied in 3e as we have for comparison in 4e, you get identical results. The warlock comes out ahead. And, as levels advance, the warlock comes out even further ahead. There's no difference here.

Unless, of course, the ranger gets lucky a few levels in a row and the warlock gets unlucky. But, again, that's not the classes or the system, that's just luck of the dice. 4e doesn't do that. You always play average characters in 4e because there are no variable hit points. A ranger and a warlock with the same Con score will always have the same hit points (barring feats of course). All strikers will have the same hit points. The only variation is in Con.

So, why would Rangers hiding behind casters feel un-D&D? It was that way in 3e. A high Con warlock and a low Con ranger would be pretty much equal from the gate and the warlock just pulls ahead every level.

But, what people only seem to look at is the end result at their own table. "Well, at my table, the ranger had so many more hit points than the warlock, so the warlock always stayed behind". But there is never any real examination as to why that happened. When you look at the math, the two classes should be darn near equal. But of course, that will get ignored and any counter argument gets buried to death by anecdote.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
FWIW, the Rogue's sheet IS here, though, and he clocks in at 49HP...which, IMHO, still looks flimsy for a melee striker in light of the ranged striker with 54 and comparable or superior defenses.

So, your Rogue would have a 12 Con no?

Again, comparing in 3e, you'd have exactly the same spread. A 16 Con warlock vs a 12 Con Rogue would result in the warlock having more hit points. Should be about 12 more actually (Level 6X2 hp extra per level). Mr Rogue in 3e would have (6+6+3.5*5)=30 HP on average and the warlock (6+18+3.5*5)=41 HP on average. Hey, there's your double digit spread.

Again, I'm really failing to see the difference between 3e and 4e here.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A 16 Con warlock vs a 12 Con Rogue would result in the warlock having more hit points.

In 3.5Ed, they'd have the same HD as well, making for a tautology. The 3.5Ed Ranger has a bigger HD than either one of those classes.

So, why would Rangers hiding behind casters feel un-D&D?

The difference between 4Ed and 3.5Ed is that, for the most part, they didn't design classes primarily designed as ranged attackers based on CON, and- prior to 4Ed- a warrior using CON as a dump stat in 3.5Ed would be as rare as hen's teeth.

But for the operation of random dice- most warriors could/would not be built in such a way as to not be able to take a hit. Even a 3.5Ed archer ranger could take a hit. This guy can't.

Thus: un-D&D feel.


Anywho, just found out that the DM DID let his DDI subscription lapse, which likely means that the 4Ed campaign is over, and that no mo 4Ed will be played by this group ever. I may have been the only one who bought books. *sigh*

 

[Manbearcat]

Someone pick a level. I'm going to build a stout, Human Ranger for that level (wealth/level as inherent bonuses) and compare him against common MM3/MV enemies for that level. I won't use any Theme (which might provide an extra-class buff that would skew results). Then I'm then going to set up a Forest environment with some blocking and difficult terrain and run him through 3 successive encounters for a 4 man group with an encounter budget/4. I'll post the results when I'm finished.

 

[Hussar]

In 3.5Ed, they'd have the same HD as well, making for a tautology. The 3.5Ed Ranger has a bigger HD than either one of those classes.


The difference between 4Ed and 3.5Ed is that, for the most part, they didn't design classes primarily designed as ranged attackers based on CON, and- prior to 4Ed- a warrior using CON as a dump stat in 3.5Ed would be as rare as hen's teeth.

But for the operation of random dice- most warriors could/would not be built in such a way as to not be able to take a hit. Even a 3.5Ed archer ranger could take a hit. This guy can't.

Thus: un-D&D feel.


Anywho, just found out that the DM DID let his DDI subscription lapse, which likely means that the 4Ed campaign is over, and that no mo 4Ed will be played by this group ever. I may have been the only one who bought books. *sigh*

Why do you say that about the archer ranger? The only way that archer ranger would have signficantly more hit points is to jack up his Con. Well, Archer rangers are going to main stat Dex, probably with Str next, need about a 13 Wis to still qualify for all his spells and a number of his skill key off of Wis, and Cha isn't all that out of line for a ranger for the Animal handling stuff. Not unreasonable for Mr Archer Ranger to have a 12 Con.

Unless, of course, we're talking die rolled PC's with 38 point buy values. Then things change a bit.

But, the warlock, OTOH, is going to mainline Cha, probably with Dex next for ranged attacks and Con in third place. Dump stat Str and Int and a 16 Con warlock isn't unreasonable.

All this really is besides the point though. You made the argument that 4e was different from 3e because in 3e you would get different results. No, you actually wouldn't. You'd get identical results with the same inputs. The difference in "feel" that you're talking about comes a lot more from different players than different systems. I imagine the biggest difference is due to the point buy values of the characters being played.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, you would get different results:

1) almost nobody uses Con as a dump stat for 3.5Ed Rangers (I have never seen that in person)

2) 3.5Ed warlocks are not built with Con as their primary stat

If I were to tell you that there were 2 ranged "strikers" in a pre-4E D&D game, one Ranger & one arcane caster/Warlock, which would you guess would be the one with the most HP? I'm talking statistically speaking, not outliers.

Taking the same question in 4Ed, there are at least 2 Warlock types- and possibly other arcane casters as well- that will beat the Ranger on HP every time because they are built to be Con first. There simply are not ranged classes in 3.5Ed designed to prioritize Con.