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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6128863" data-attributes="member: 22779">This is what I'm talking about when I mentioned transparency though.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.</blockquote>

Verification