Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7572226" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I take issue with the 1-10 level range.&nbsp; Shouldn't it be more like level 3-10?&nbsp; Everyone always tells me that levels 1 and 2 go by so fast they don't matter.In the level range provided,1) All fighters except eldritch knights suck at 60% of the pillars.&nbsp; At most they can rate a 40/100 and as you meniotned not even that because they aren't hands down the best at the combat pillar.&nbsp; I'd say outside of specialized damage builds (like CE + SS + precision) that fighters should be rated 6/10 on the combat pillar.&nbsp; Good but not great.&nbsp; Overall that would put their effectiveness across all 3 pillars at maybe 25% overall.2) Hunter Rangers are worse than battlemaster fighters at combat due to lackluster nova capabilities, but are considerably better exploration and utility.&nbsp; Id rate them at 50% combat pillar and 50% exploration pillar.&nbsp; That bumps them up to 35% overall.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7572226, member: 6795602"] I take issue with the 1-10 level range. Shouldn't it be more like level 3-10? Everyone always tells me that levels 1 and 2 go by so fast they don't matter. In the level range provided, 1) All fighters except eldritch knights suck at 60% of the pillars. At most they can rate a 40/100 and as you meniotned not even that because they aren't hands down the best at the combat pillar. I'd say outside of specialized damage builds (like CE + SS + precision) that fighters should be rated 6/10 on the combat pillar. Good but not great. Overall that would put their effectiveness across all 3 pillars at maybe 25% overall. 2) Hunter Rangers are worse than battlemaster fighters at combat due to lackluster nova capabilities, but are considerably better exploration and utility. Id rate them at 50% combat pillar and 50% exploration pillar. That bumps them up to 35% overall. [/QUOTE]

Verification