Ranger > Warlock

[loisel]

Dude, that's what 4E combat is ABOUT.

No, you're not getting it. Just because the lock has a corner case where this works out okay, doesn't mean that the ranger can't use tactics. The ranger has lots of powers that immobilize, weaken, stun, etc... And these obviously have tactical use. It's just that your team mates can make use of this without burning through two dailies and an action point.

Of course, if they want to burn through two dailies an an action point, they can do that even though you're a ranger.

 

[rhm001]

No, you're not getting it. Just because the lock has a corner case where this works out okay, doesn't mean that the ranger can't use tactics. The ranger has lots of powers that immobilize, weaken, stun, etc... And these obviously have tactical use. It's just that your team mates can make use of this without burning through two dailies and an action point.

Of course, if they want to burn through two dailies an an action point, they can do that even though you're a ranger.

I don't think he was arguing that the ranger can't select attacks based on tactics. I believe the point was that the "wizard shtick" you didn't want to consider originally and vulnerability debuffs have a strong potential to increase damage figures. Some of the ranger's attacks will increase party members' ability to hit enemies he has attacked, while a majority of the warlock powers appear to do both that and separately increase potential damage.

By your logic, no one should play a warlord, since the cleric appears to have more direct damage and direct healing. In both cases, different versions of the roles are designed for different play styles and different parties.

 

[Incenjucar]

No, you're not getting it. Just because the lock has a corner case where this works out okay, doesn't mean that the ranger can't use tactics. The ranger has lots of powers that immobilize, weaken, stun, etc... And these obviously have tactical use. It's just that your team mates can make use of this without burning through two dailies and an action point.

Of course, if they want to burn through two dailies an an action point, they can do that even though you're a ranger.

It's a tactical game. The warlock has less DD and more tactical abilities. The ranger may actually be a bit weak in the long run because it has less flexibility and synergy going for it.

The ranger might be the Queen on the chess board, but the warlock is the Knight.

 

[chaotix42]

Well, the warlock can also control the actions of his foes with quite a few powers. He can cause foes to take OAs when anyone moves nearby, even their own allies. He can send enemies to other planes for a short time with several powers as well, removing them from combat entirely. They can weaken, stun, immobilize, teleport the enemy around the battlefield, take 0 damage from a single attack, turn their skin into iron, spider climb, roll a d20 vs an opponent's attack or save and if they roll higher the foe's roll fails...

The ranger targets Reflex and AC. The Warlock targets Fort, Ref, and Will almost exclusively.

Etc.

I mean, there are so many different things potentially going on here that more damage does not immediatly mean "greater than." In a full party, I think everyone is going to have a blast, and when someone does insane damage it's because everyone worked together to make it happen.

 

[Sadrik]

How does the ranger compare to the other striker- the rogue? Is the damage equivalent or does the ranger out class them too?

 

[Zsig]

Remember that when you "roll a toon" above first level you get:

• One magic item of your level +1
• One magic item of your level
• One magic item of your level -1
• Gold pieces worth one magic item of your level -1

So, if you're making a lvl 10 character, nothing keeps you from having a Magic Armor +3 (level 11, which is 10+1)

Regarding the subject if Ragers are better than Warlocks, I don't know and I honestly don't care. To me they're both just as lame.

 

[chaotix42]

Regarding the subject if Ragers are better than Warlocks, I don't know and I honestly don't care. To me they're both just as lame.

lawl

What will you be playing?

 

[loisel]

How does the ranger compare to the other striker- the rogue? Is the damage equivalent or does the ranger out class them too?

I'm not gonna make a complete rogue to answer this question, but my sense is that rogue is between lock and ranger. But let's do a quick back-of-the-envelope comparison at level 10.

pluses: rogue d8 backstabs with the feat (instead of d6 for lock), and rogue backstab at level 10 is 2d8 instead of 1d6 (lock) or 1d8 (ranger). For this comparison only, I will include backstab/quarry/curse damage.

minuses: rogue need to use light blades for most of their powers. Light blades suck. If rogues had iterative attacks, light blades would suck less, but rogues have single attacks for the most part. I'll assume a rapier (1d8).

For level 9 dailies, Knockout knocks the victim unconscious, and from there you can try to get fancy (e.g. a hit is automatically a critical), but it's not real unconsciousness because they wake up if you hit them. So let's keep things simple.

Crimson edge is 2[W]+dex, and 5+str ongoing. Add the 2d8 backstab and assume 2 rounds of ongoing. Assume dex=20, str=18. Assume +2 weapon and weapon focus (+1 damage). Max damage is 58 (counting backstab).

Lock has 48+6=54 and ranger has 78+8=86.

So yeah, rogue is a bit better than lock, but not as good as ranger.

Yeah, in fact, not very close to ranger!

 

[Zsig]

lawl

What will you be playing?

Nothing, I'll be DMing.

 

[chaotix42]

Sweet, me too. : )