Ranger > Warlock

[loisel]

Ranger: 1d10 + 9 + 1d10 + 9 + 1d8
warlock: 3d6 + 8 + 1d6 + 6

47 vs 38, and the warlock is doing aoe damage as well.

For the ranger encounter powers, minimum damage is Hawk's talon at 11. Max damage is two-fanged strike, 2x 1d10+9, then +4, total=42.

For the lock encounter powers, minimum damage is Diabolic Grasp at 9. Max damage is either Fiery Bolt or Infernal Moon Curse, both maxing at 26. I'm looking at single target, Fiery Bolt can also hit adjacent targets, but I'm leaving AoE to the wizard.

So I don't know where you got your numbers, but mine are right.

 

[loisel]

Your warlock should have a minimum of 24 AC (10, +5 level, +4 stat, +2 armor, +3 magic item)

The AC is 22: 10, +5 level, +3 stat, +2 armor, +2 armor enh bonus. +3 magic items start at level 11 or higher. If everybody has +3 items, everything cancels (the +AC is canceled by +to hit) except that the ranger will gain damage, because of his iterative attacks. (old skool!)

Does the ranger really get a +20 to hit? By my count he should only have a +16 (+5 level, +5 stat, +3 prof, +3 magic item).

You're mixing up the level 10 and 20 guy. The level 10 guy has +15 to hit (note that longbow proficiency is only +2, not +3.)

There is an error in the lock. He doesn't qualify for the "Astral Fire" feat, so really you should subtract 1 from all his fire damage.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Warlock is shortened to 'Lock because in WoW, there are two War classes.

Warrior and Warlock.

'Lock makes more sense than 'Rior in shorthand, leaving War for warrior.

I aim to edumacate.

Thank you. I consider myself enrinchingly educamated.

On the other hand, there are only two fricking syllables in "Warlock", so I'm not sure why we need shorthand.

 

[DSRilk]

I'm leaving AoE to the wizard

You can't ignore an advantageous part of a class when stating X > Y. If you're saying "the ranger can be designed to do more single target damage," then sure, ignore AoE and other warlock abilities that the ranger doesn't possess. And sliding someone into a bottomless pit is not quite as probable as your allies sliding an opponent - like 0% for the bottomless pit vs nearly 100% for allies to slide opponents.

You also can't ignore the infernal lock's self healing, the ability to undo a successful enemy save, several sustained damage powers, the ability to eliminate certain types of (commonly encountered) opponents from taking any action on their turn, making an opponent attack their ally, fear effects, and any number of other nifty features. The fact that you didn't choose those powers, doesn't mean they don't exist. You can't optimize the ranger for damage, then not pick some of the powers that make a warlock different (and in some cases better) than a ranger and say, "the ranger is better than the warlock."

The ranger may well be able to be built for more single target damage than the warlock, but I can tell you for certain that doing so doesn't make the ranger greater than the warlock.

 

[Andur]

You also can't ignore the DoT's that the Warlock provides... And I'm not sure I see the big difference in numbers either, for the 20 guys I see damages that max around 50 for both. The Warlock seems swingier, but then again, I don't think the build optimizes the strengths of the class (DoT with spikes)

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I've rolled two toons,

/facepalm

 

[Victim]

What class doesn't have AoE or multitarget powers? I don't really think dismissing them out of hand as the province of only the wizard is a good idea. Note that the ranger also has multitarget attacks - it's just that most of those attacks can also hit a single guy for extra damage at the expense of a bit weaker AoE damage when used in that mode. If rangers are better on single target damage while warlocks have superior AoE and incapacitating effects, that seems fine.

Warlocks also get some nifty built in defensive boosts from their pact and shadow walk. While ranger's have higher default AC from armor, Concealment can help make up for the lack and can apply to non AC attacks as well.

10th level characters start with an 11th level item, IIRC. But that probably does benefit the ranger more, at least on single targets.

 

[loisel]

You can't ignore an advantageous part of a class when stating X > Y. If you're saying "the ranger can be designed to do more single target damage," then sure, ignore AoE and other warlock abilities that the ranger doesn't possess.

Rangers have arguably more AoE than locks. First off, most ranger abilities can have 2 targets, which is better than locks who mostly target 1 target. Second, there is the most kickass AoE stuff in the Ranger tree. For instance, spray of arrows, daily 9, attacks everyone in a close blast 3, for 2[W]+dex damage (in my Ranger, that's 2d10+9).

I mean, the ranger at-will is an "AoE" (2 targets).

You also can't ignore the DoT's that the Warlock provides...

I didn't ignore DoT. I counted two rounds of DoT, which is what you would expect on average. Even if you count 3 rounds, I think the numbers don't change because the DoT ended up less good than some other lock power. Also, nothing gets close to the ranger 15 power Bleeding Wounds (check out the level 20 dude I made.)

 

[chaotix42]

A few rare monsters can resist all damage for a short duration, like some ice archons, gargoyles, and eidolons.

I breezed through the thread, but are rangers flying, teleporting, becoming invisible, becoming insubstantial, giving enemies vulnerability to damage, etc. etc. etc.? If the ranger does more damage, that's fine. Does that mean ranger > warlock? I don't think so. Not yet at least.

 

[SSquirrel]

It's going to be so hard not calling a Shadow Pact 'Lock's Eldritch Blast a shadow bolt when that power source comes out.

Why resist? Heck I was looking at Rogue and Cleric powers and realized I can pretty easily recreate my dwarf rogue and dwarf paladin from WoW. Consecrated Ground does damage AND heals allies, like WoW players have asked for since release Since my Pally is a healadin, Cleric makes lots of sense for him.

The Rogue powers have lots of niftiness that seems similar to my Subtlety spec. I don't consider it a negative that I can do this at all, I like that I can translate characters across games. And before anyone asks, yes playing pen and paper RPGs for 20 years and WoW since launch.