PDA

View Full Version : 4e top 3 best classes to fill the striker roll?



randomhero00
2010-02-27, 01:42 AM
Notice I said to fill the striker roll, in case a two hander fighter might win out over a rogue. I am interested in pure classes, don't like messing with hybrids or multiclassing. Also only interested in heroic, not paragon or epic tiers.

I'm thinking, Ranger, Barbarian, and not sure about the third. Sorc? Rogue? Everyone else seems to under-perform. Rogues seem good on paper but seem like they need too much hand holding for CA and survivability, i.e. too much unreliability (at least at low levels). And I've found that strikers need to be a bit more independent compared to other classes as, for instance, they may need to go after a high priority target, and then break off safely.

I'm rather annoyed with striker options so far. Rangers come through on damage but are rather unflavorful. Rogues have nice flavor but seem a little too squishy, nor do they do as much damage considering (as he isn't as tough as a barbarian, and can't hit targets from far away like the ranger). Sorcs are weird frankly, and their mechanic seems annoying (tho the save ends thing for wild mages is awesome). Warlocks just feel weak. Avengers I heard were weak as well but haven't had experience with. Barbarians are similar to rangers, but slightly better I guess as they're a bit more interesting and can soak some damage for the party, good stuff but a bit boring (at least to me).

Blazen
2010-02-27, 01:52 AM
Ranger, Barbarian, and then I would either say 2 weapon fighter, or sneaky rogues from MP2, they can essentially become hidden at-will.

Kylarra
2010-02-27, 02:00 AM
What exactly are you looking for in a striker? A fair number of your complaints seem to be unsubstantiated opinions.


I'm rather annoyed with striker options so far. Rangers come through on damage but are rather unflavorful. Rogues have nice flavor but seem a little too squishy, nor do they do as much damage considering (as he isn't as tough as a barbarian, and can't hit targets from far away like the ranger). Sorcs are weird frankly, and their mechanic seems annoying (tho the save ends thing for wild mages is awesome). Warlocks just feel weak. Avengers I heard were weak as well but haven't had experience with. Barbarians are similar to rangers, but slightly better I guess as they're a bit more interesting and can soak some damage for the party, good stuff but a bit boring (at least to me).

For the sake of argument,

Distant advantage +crossbow is sneak attack at range (or elf with bow with mp2, or daggers ... etc)

Blazen
2010-02-27, 02:17 AM
I should mention that my responses are based purely on damage. Overall any of the strikers are good. Sorcs, and Warlocks rely heavily on secondary effects to render an enemy useless. As for Avengers in my local RPGA group I played with a guy whose Avenger, without multiclassing was dishing out some good damage, but on top of that his build focused on giving teammates bonuses for attacking the same enemy.

Kylarra
2010-02-27, 02:20 AM
I should mention that my responses are based purely on damage. Overall any of the strikers are good. Sorcs, and Warlocks rely heavily on secondary effects to render an enemy useless. As for Avengers in my local RPGA group I played with a guy whose Avenger, without multiclassing was dishing out some good damage, but on top of that his build focused on giving teammates bonuses for attacking the same enemy.Sorcs also are much better at outputting their damage over a group rather than a single target, so while their single target DPR is generally a bit lower, they get a lot more multitarget attacks, and as you say, a fair number of fun riders.

randomhero00
2010-02-27, 02:21 AM
A fair number of your complaints seem to be unsubstantiated opinions.


um, well yeah, they're opinions. never said they weren't...you're bolding parts like I don't know what I wrote. Since I gave a short paragraph about all the striker classes and used all those keywords its pretty obviously an opinion...I mean, come on this isn't an in depth analysis here.

Asbestos
2010-02-27, 02:25 AM
I've never found CA really hard for the Rogue to achieve.

Goonthegoof
2010-02-27, 02:26 AM
People always assume they're weak, but in terms of single target damage a well built radiant avenger with Twin Strike can pump out absolutely massive damage each round.

randomhero00
2010-02-27, 02:30 AM
I've never found CA really hard for the Rogue to achieve.

Yeah I think it has more to with my 4e group, they aren't all that tactically oriented, nor do we have many people with CA inducing powers. I know the rogue has a few of his own, but those can't always be relied upon.

Kylarra
2010-02-27, 02:30 AM
um, well yeah, they're opinions. never said they weren't...you're bolding parts like I don't know what I wrote. Since I gave a short paragraph about all the striker classes and used all those keywords its pretty obviously an opinion...I mean, come on this isn't an in depth analysis here.The keyword in my post was unsubstantiated, not opinions.

You say Ranger is unflavorful, but not why.
You say Barbarian is boring, but not why.
You say Sorcerers are weird, but not why.

You use vague unquantified terms to express an opinion, and that makes it rather difficult to give a proper response.

But sure,
Ranger is hands down the best striker for DPR on a single target. Boring, but efficient. I posit that a belief that the ranger lacks flavor is a sign of a limited imagination.

Barbarian, especially with Primal Power is a close second in terms of damage and resilience. Being able to use CON for AC thanks to Hide Armor Expertise, gives them formidable AC along with their powerful attacks. I posit that strikers that aren't secondary controllers tend to be boring to play. See: ranger.

I dunno what I'd put third, personally, I like Dragonsoul Sorcs, who give you a nice blend of decent OAs without a feat and decent AoE DPR. I posit that perceived weirdness is not a flaw or drawback, particularly when the homogeneous nature of 4e classes is constant complaint.


Yeah I think it has more to with my 4e group, they aren't all that tactically oriented, nor do we have many people with CA inducing powers. I know the rogue has a few of his own, but those can't always be relied upon.Flanking?

Gralamin
2010-02-27, 02:34 AM
People always assume they're weak, but in terms of single target damage a well built radiant avenger with Twin Strike can pump out absolutely massive damage each round.

...Do you even know what this build entails? Usually, this would look like this: Half-Elf Avenger Multiclass into Warlock (For Caiphon PP). Grab Versatile Master. Proceed to crit fish using as many radiant powers as possible (Including a weapon that makes your twin strikes attacks radiant).

So, this builds Trick's essentially relies completely on Ranger and Warlock. That doesn't defend Avenger very well.

Mando Knight
2010-02-27, 02:38 AM
Yeah I think it has more to with my 4e group, they aren't all that tactically oriented,

...4e Tactics 101: Get Combat Advantage as often as you can.
CA Rule 1: Flank the enemy.

If a melee Rogue has trouble getting CA, then someone's got the tactical capabilities of a rabbit.

tcrudisi
2010-02-27, 04:29 AM
In terms of overall damage? I think it would go: Ranger, Paladin, and either Barbarian or Sorcerer, depending on if you want multi-damage or single-target damage. When I was playing a Sorcerer, I was typically able to hit 3-4 monsters with every attack, so my damage was overall higher than that of a Ranger.

Also, I'm confused as to the "fun riders" a couple of people have mentioned on Sorc powers, even comparing them to Warlock powers. I'm away from my books, but I've played a Sorc from 1-10 and then from 24-30, and I never saw the amazing riders in heroic and only started to unlock them in epic.

Oops -- I think I understand. You guys mean additional effects and not status effects, yes? So something like Chaos Bolt being able to bounce around is a rider but not a status effect? Or am I on the wrong path?

Mordokai
2010-02-27, 04:36 AM
Ranger is hands down the best striker for DPR on a single target. Boring, but efficient. I posit that a belief that the ranger lacks flavor is a sign of a limited imagination.

In my experience, rangers can be quite fun to play, as long as you don't limit yourself to just doing Twin Strike every round. Sure, it's damn powerful, but rangers have other options. And if nothing else, DM will make your life hell sooner or later, when he figures out you're basically doing nothing but keeping yourself back and fire two arrows all the time. There are enough monsters out there that have mobility or ranged power to make archer's life a living hell. So yeah, I'd agree with Kylarra here, with some imagination from player and DM alike, archers can be fun to play. Double wielding rangers perhaps even more so.


Barbarian, especially with Primal Power is a close second in terms of damage and resilience. Being able to use CON for AC thanks to Hide Armor Expertise, gives them formidable AC along with their powerful attacks. I posit that strikers that aren't secondary controllers tend to be boring to play. See: ranger.

Barbarians, on the other hand, are ton of fun to play. Their Rampage ability and many charge oriented builds make your regular barbarian a whirlwind of death. Ok, I've tried only Rageblood barbarian, so I can't speak for Thaneborn or others, but this one was particulary fun to play. Crit, charge. Kill, charge.

There was a lot of charging included :smallbiggrin:


I dunno what I'd put third, personally, I like Dragonsoul Sorcs, who give you a nice blend of decent OAs without a feat and decent AoE DPR. I posit that perceived weirdness is not a flaw or drawback, particularly when the homogeneous nature of 4e classes is constant complaint.

Sorcerers, on the third hand (yes, I'm a mutant :smalltongue: ), I don't like much. But that probably has something to do with certain halfling chaos sorcerer bouncing his Chaos Bolt of my gnoll fighter, so he could "hit more enemies" :smallyuk:

Goonthegoof
2010-02-27, 05:12 AM
...Do you even know what this build entails? Usually, this would look like this: Half-Elf Avenger Multiclass into Warlock (For Caiphon PP). Grab Versatile Master. Proceed to crit fish using as many radiant powers as possible (Including a weapon that makes your twin strikes attacks radiant).

So, this builds Trick's essentially relies completely on Ranger and Warlock. That doesn't defend Avenger very well.

I know perfectly well what the build entails, just because it uses a lot of multiclassing doesn't mean it isn't Avenger. Avenger is the class required here, just because it requires multiclassing doesn't make it invalid in its defense of the class.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-27, 05:55 AM
I'm thinking, Ranger, Barbarian, and not sure about the third. Sorc? Rogue? Everyone else seems to under-perform.
At heroic level, the barbarian probably outperforms the ranger. The ranger is heavily reliant on static bonuses (because they apply twice to most of his attacks) and it takes a few levels to get those going.

Rogues don't need hand holding: a well-played rogue will have combat advantage 95% of the time, even at low levels. In most combat,s going after a high priority target isn't such a great idea: focus fire is a better strategy. Also, rogues can do ranged, simply by throwing daggers; if they are hidden, use First Strike, or use Distant Advantage, they'll easily get CA on that too.

Warlocks are more controllers than strikers. They are far from weak though. Sorcerers have excellent damage, but divide it over multiple targets. And yes, I agree that chaos and cosmic sorcs are annoying, but there's also other sorcs.

So my advice to you: try a rogue, and see that it's not just good on paper.

Shazbot79
2010-02-27, 07:39 AM
I agree with Kurald Galain...

While Rogue's require combat advantage for their big damage mechanic, they don't have much trouble getting it.

Particularly if you look at the status effects section of the rules, a lot of people don't realize that a lot of them, like stunned, restrained, dazed, blinded, etc. cause the victim to grant combat advantage.

Plus things like First Strike, Distant Advantage, Surprising Charge, Quick Draw (oft overlooked but REALLY good feat) can help bump the characters efficacy up a bit.

Also, "Talon" weapons (extra damage with CA) or Goblin Totem Weapons for Halfling and Gnome Rogues (extra damage against foes larger than the wielder)

Furthermore, I disagree with the sentiment that Ranger's are lacking in flavor...they're essentially fantasy commandos, which I think is really cool. They're like the Rambo of D&D :smallbiggrin:

tcrudisi
2010-02-27, 07:49 AM
Sorcerers have excellent damage, but divide it over multiple targets. And yes, I agree that chaos and cosmic sorcs are annoying, but there's also other sorcs.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment: A Wild Sorc is what I played from levels 1-10, and after a certain level (7, I think it was), I pretty much rarely used Chaos Bolt. Instead, I would take the sure thing of hitting 2 or 3 targets with an encounter power, or even 2 or 3 targets with Blazing Starfall before I would take the 1, maybe 3, of the Chaos Bolt. (In fairness, I did have the enc. utility to change a roll to even, but I would still find it was better mathematically to go with hitting a sure 3 than a sure 2 + possibly more).

And oh dear god, if you are bouncing it off an ally to reach more targets, you are so doing it wrong. At level 10 I was doing 1d10+21 with my initial Chaos Bolt, or 1d6+16 with the bounces.

As an aside -- Storm Sorcs? /drool.

If you are a Ranger, yes you will do more damage than a Rogue, but the Rogue will bring better secondary effects to the table. For instance: the Rogues do a lot of forced movement and really cool things like Knockout (daily 9). The Ranger? He Twin Strikes a lot, until he gets Triple Shot, Manticore's Volley, Hail of Arrows, etc. It's really, really boring to play. I played a 24 Ranger and was massively outdamaging the other players. I daresay that I was doing the same damage as the other 5 players combined. Plus, my defenses were better than the Warden (except Fort). It was sickening, but definitely the most boring class I've ever played. So in that regards: play something fun. The Rogue is a fun class and will do good enough damage and make up for it with fun effects (much like the Warlock, who does less damage but gets better effects).

AtopTheMountain
2010-02-27, 10:12 AM
I'm going to provoke the collective wrath of the Playground and say Ranger, Rogue, and Avenger, simply because I'm in love with the class. Here's why.

I play a single-class, non-optomized Deva Isolating Avenger, and I definitely do more damage than anyone else in our party except the rogue. And even then, I do more damage when he doesn't have CA. Furthermore, I use Cloth armor and have high enough AC and defenses to go toe-to-toe with an elite Brute with almost no support from my party and with other people blasting me and survive quite easily.

Yes, I realize that the Avenger generally does not do well against Solo monsters, but the Rogue takes a hit too, because it can't flank (Wow, I'm an idiot.). Still not as good as the Ranger, but no other striker is either.

Yes, I realize that Ranger and Rogue (and Barbarian) do more sheer damage than the Avenger. However, the Avenger arguably has the best status effect potential besides the Warlock (which makes it the best Melee status guy), and definitely the best melee Control potential (the Rogue is a close second), while still doing decent damage.

Also, if it matters, the Avenger probably has the best fluff in the game. Yeah, I know that refluffing is easy, but I prefer not to mess with it. That's just me, though. You might be happy with refluffing a Ranger as an Avenger, but I prefer to use the powers that actually fit the fluff.

And when you get into the more optomized builds, like the Radiant Twin-Strike Critfisher described above, it just gets kind of rediculous.

slyfox99
2010-02-27, 08:49 PM
Nothing to do with numbers and/or rules at all (just a fluff question regarding the multiclassed Avenger/Warlock), but what self-respecting deity would accept a servant that is pact-bound to another power? Just curious is all...

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-27, 08:54 PM
Nothing to do with numbers and/or rules at all (just a fluff question regarding the multiclassed Avenger/Warlock), but what self-respecting deity would accept a servant that is pact-bound to another power? Just curious is all...
A God of Betrayal perhaps? :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I'm going to forward the Barbarian as "best Striker." Aside from the mechanical fun of having a 3[W] Encounter Power at 1st LV, they also have access to fun feats - like being able to throw improvised weapons really well. And they're pretty durable while still being easy to use - no real fancy tricks needed.

In the alternative, Battlerager MC Barbarian makes for a fine, durable Striker. They're a bit more "boring" than a straight Barbarian, but they work nicely.

SaintRidley
2010-02-27, 08:56 PM
Nothing to do with numbers and/or rules at all (just a fluff question regarding the multiclassed Avenger/Warlock), but what self-respecting deity would accept a servant that is pact-bound to another power? Just curious is all...

One who isn't self-respecting?

Kurald Galain
2010-02-27, 09:02 PM
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment: A Wild Sorc is what I played from levels 1-10, and after a certain level (7, I think it was), I pretty much rarely used Chaos Bolt
Chaos Bolt is not what I find annoying about wild sorcs. Rather, the random resistance, random effect based on your first (only) attack in the turn, and random encounter/daily powers. Of course, you can simply not take the latter.


The Ranger? ... It was sickening, but definitely the most boring class I've ever played.
I concur. I've played a ranger for a few levels and found it extremely boring in combat.



Yes, I realize that the Avenger generally does not do well against Solo monsters, but the Rogue takes a hit too, because it can't flank.
What makes you think a solo cannot be flanked?



Also, if it matters, the Avenger probably has the best fluff in the game.
I still fail to see any difference in fluff between battle cleric, paladin, and avenger.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-27, 09:09 PM
I still fail to see any difference in fluff between battle cleric, paladin, and avenger.
Probably he means the whole "secret assassin" vibe that Avengers give off. Look closely and there's a lot of "considered heretics by the mainstream" and "secretly supported by the Church" language floating around.

Paladins and Battle Clerics - not so much. I mean, you can work that in, but the default fluff makes those classes seem like the "face" of the Church.

Personally, I love Invokers for the fluff. And 1/day Hand of Fate :smallbiggrin:

sofawall
2010-02-27, 11:13 PM
I know perfectly well what the build entails, just because it uses a lot of multiclassing doesn't mean it isn't Avenger. Avenger is the class required here, just because it requires multiclassing doesn't make it invalid in its defense of the class.

I know perfectly well what the build entails, just because it uses a lot of multiclassing doesn't mean it isn't Ranger. Ranger is the class required here, just because it requires multiclassing doesn't make it invalid in its defense of the class.

I know perfectly well what the build entails, just because it uses a lot of multiclassing doesn't mean it isn't Warlock. Warlock is the class required here, just because it requires multiclassing doesn't make it invalid in its defense of the class.

The same argument can be made for any of those classes. Not really a strong case.

Sir Homeslice
2010-02-27, 11:26 PM
I know perfectly well what the build entails, just because it uses a lot of multiclassing doesn't mean it isn't Avenger. Avenger is the class required here, just because it requires multiclassing doesn't make it invalid in its defense of the class.

MCing Warlock for Student of Caiphon (horrendously overpowered) and using Versatile Master (ranges from having fun applications to being horrendously overpowered) to gain access to Twin Strike as an at-will (most powerful damaging at-will in the game most likely and also considered horrendously overpowered) to use over and over ("spamming") with a Radiant Weapon (also overpowered) while benefiting from Oath of Enmity constantly to get mad criticals, yo, does not redeem the Avenger nor count as an Avenger for purposes of saying that Avengers aren't weak.

It's akin to saying "Well, I built a Ranger, outfitted him in Cloth armor, put everything I could into Cha and Int, and purposefully used the Run action every round to provoke OAs from every single possible enemy I could and as a result my Ranger sucked, so obviously all Rangers are horrible."

Gralamin
2010-02-28, 02:07 AM
I know perfectly well what the build entails, just because it uses a lot of multiclassing doesn't mean it isn't Avenger. Avenger is the class required here, just because it requires multiclassing doesn't make it invalid in its defense of the class.

For it to be the Avenger who is actually required, it would mean that if you remove him, it would all fall apart. It is clear that both Ranger and Warlock is needed - Without them you cannot do it. So, lets do some math shall we?

Consider builds A and B. Build A is the Build I listed above. Build B is a ranger who has taken Student of Caiphon and has grabbed a radiant weapon. In short, B is A without the Avenger.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that they both are level 21, to ensure that both builds are well off on their strategy. Let us farther assume that they both have the same hit chance, though it may very by experiment. In this case the only thing different between the two builds is essentially Oath of Enmity. Let us assume they both have two +4 Radiant weapons, of the same type (Even though the ranger in theory could have a larger weapon) dealing 1d8 damage. Let us assume they have the same static mods (Possible by a copycat strategy: Anything A takes to improve damage, B takes the closest equivalent it can get). It should be clear to everyone that we have isolated Oath of Enmity as the difference between the two. (Due note: In this process, I've ignored that the Ranger has quite a few more opportunities to get a higher hit rate, higher static mods, higher weapon damage, etc. then this avenger build does).

Hypothesis: If Build A deals a substantial amount of damage above B, both overall, and within the likely hit range of a player (45-70%), then Avenger is required for the build. If not, Avenger is not required.

Theory
Next, we will have to generate the formula for both. What we are looking for is the expected value of a single weapon hitting, since by Linearity of Expectation, the Expected Value of two hitting is twice the expected value of one hitting.

Since Build B is simpler, let us generate that first:

E(X) = (1 - HitChance)*0 + (HitChance-CritChance)*(9+StaticMods) + CritChance*(16+StaticMods+3.5*4)
CritChance is 18-20: 18, 19, 20 is 3 numbers - 0.15
E(X) = (HitChance-0.15)*(9+StaticMods) + 0.15*(16+StaticMods+14)
E(X) = 9*HitChance+StaticMods*HitChance+3.15

Build A is a bit more complicated: We have to model HitChance and CritChance as a binomial distribution. A Binomial distribution takes the form:

(n, p)-Binomial: (nCk)(p)^k(1-p)^(n-k)
You Hit something if either attack hits, or if both hit:
(2, HitChance)-Binomial with 1 or 2 successes: (2C1)(HitChance)(1-HitChance)+(2C2)(HitChance)^2
2C1 = 2, 2C2 = 1, so:
HitChancePrime = 2(HitChance)(1-HitChance)+(HitChance)^2
Can we simplify?
HitChancePrime = 2HitChance-2HitChance^2+(HitChance)^2
HitChancePrime = 2HitChance-HitChance^2
You Crit something if both crit, or if either crit:

(2, CritChance)-Binomial with 1 or 2 successes: (2C1)(CritChance)(1-critChance)+(2C2)(critChance)^2
2C1 = 2, 2C2 = 1, so:
CritChancePrime = 2CritChance-CritChance^2
The only difference we are allowing is oath changing rates, so plug in the primes into E(X) for B:

E(X) = 9*HitChancePrime+StaticMods*HitChancePrime+21*Crit ChancePrime
CritChancePrime = 2*0.15-0.15^2 = 0.2775
E(X) = 9*HitChancePrime+StaticMods*HitChancePrime+5.8275
E(X) = 18HitChance-9HitChance^2+StaticMods*(2HitChance-HitChance^2)+5.8275

Evidence
Alright, so lets now plug in some hit chances, and generate A table:

{table=head]HitChance|A NonStaticDamage Term|A StaticDamage Term|B NonStaticDamage Term|B StaticDamage Term
0.05|6.705|0.0975|3.6|0.05
0.1|7.5375|0.19|4.05|0.1
0.15|8.325|0.2775|4.5|0.15
0.2|9.0675|0.36|4.95|0.2
0.25|9.765|0.4375|5.4|0.25
0.3|10.4175|0.51|5.85|0.3
0.35|11.025|0.5775|6.3|0.35
0.4|11.5875|0.64|6.75|0.4
0.45|12.105|0.6975|7.2|0.45
0.5|12.5775|0.75|7.65|0.5
0.55|13.005|0.7975|8.1|0.55
0.6|13.3875|0.84|8.55|0.6
0.65|13.725|0.8775|9|0.65
0.7|14.0175|0.91|9.45|0.7
0.75|14.265|0.9375|9.9|0.75
0.8|14.4675|0.96|10.35|0.8
0.85|14.625|0.9775|10.8|0.85
0.9|14.7375|0.99|11.25|0.9
0.95|14.805|0.9975|11.7|0.95
Next|Row|Is|The|Average
0.5|11.9025|0.675|7.65|0.5
Next|Row|Is|The|SAverage
0.575|13.13625|0.812083333|8.325|0.575
[/table]
The SAverage is the average in the plausible range (0.45-0.7).

Analysis

Every Hit chance:
E_A(X) = 11.9205+0.675*StaticMods
E_B(X) = 8.325+0.5*StaticMods

Plausible Hit Chance:
E_A(X) = 13.13625+0.812083333*StaticMods
E_B(X) = 8.325+0.575*StaticMods

So, lets look at both of these cases for, say, StaticMods between 5 and 20:
{table=head]StaticMod|A_All|B_All|A_Plaus|B_Plaus
1|12.5775|8.15|13.94833333|8.9
2|13.2525|8.65|14.76041667|9.475
3|13.9275|9.15|15.5725|10.05
4|14.6025|9.65|16.38458333|10.625
5|15.2775|10.15|17.19666667|11.2
6|15.9525|10.65|18.00875|11.775
7|16.6275|11.15|18.82083333|12.35
8|17.3025|11.65|19.63291667|12.925
9|17.9775|12.15|20.445|13.5
10|18.6525|12.65|21.25708333|14.075
11|19.3275|13.15|22.06916667|14.65
12|20.0025|13.65|22.88125|15.225
13|20.6775|14.15|23.69333333|15.8
14|21.3525|14.65|24.50541667|16.375
15|22.0275|15.15|25.3175|16.95
16|22.7025|15.65|26.12958333|17.525
17|23.3775|16.15|26.94166667|18.1
18|24.0525|16.65|27.75375|18.675
19|24.7275|17.15|28.56583333|19.25
20|25.4025|17.65|29.37791667|19.825[/table]
As we can see, It appears that, per attack, Oath of Enmity adds between either 4 to 8 damage (For All Values), or 5 and 10 Values (For Plausible Values). We can therefore say that Oath of Enmity is likely responsible for 15 damage on a twin strike attack.

Conclusion
Does 15 Damage make it look like Oath is irreplaceable? I don't think so. I think that logically, this build doesn't need Avenger, and its just there as a damage tweak. Thus, this build isn't actually an Avenger.

tcrudisi
2010-02-28, 05:51 AM
Conclusion
Does 15 Damage make it look like Oath is irreplaceable? I don't think so. I think that logically, this build doesn't need Avenger, and its just there as a damage tweak. Thus, this build isn't actually an Avenger.

Very interesting analysis, although I'll be honest in that I skimmed through the math since I just woke up. :-P However, I created a Ranger for my wife to play in an epic game (24-30) and I have played an epic Ranger (21-25). In the latter, I did consider going Avenger first and ditching everything. I eventually realized that it would have been worthless.

I've seen math where the Oath gives you effectively a +5 (I think) to hit if you need to roll a 10 to hit. Of course, if you need higher, it's better if you need to roll higher to hit and worse if you need lower. But being a Half-Elf gives you a -1 (since you aren't getting Dex or Str as a boost stat). Then the Ranger gets feats and abilities to improve hit rate. Basically, even when I was playing (under a DM who likes to use monsters 5 levels above us), I rarely had to roll higher than a 5 to hit (usually a 2 or 3 would hit). In my wife's game where the DM used monsters no higher than 3 levels above us (except in the last session when we were 30 and fighting gods), she never had to roll above a 3 to hit, and usually a 1 would have hit if it weren't an auto-miss. Even when fighting the gods, a 2 was hitting (monsters 5-6 levels above us). Why? Because I was focusing on +hit abilities and items when I created both characters.

Basically, the Avenger's Oath would have been worthless on her character and not particularly good on mine. Granted, it would have made it easier to pick up utility items and feats instead of +hit ones, but my damage would have gone down considerably (Ranger gets quite a few feats to improve damage).

While I really like the idea of the Avenger, I'm one of those who would like to see it get a boost. There are probably 10 classes that can out-damage the Avenger and that's bad when you start to put non-striker classes over a striker class in terms of damage. Sure, you can really really optimize an Avenger just to make it better than most (but not all) of the other strikers. But if you optimize those classes? Well, the list goes right back the way that it was.

Artanis
2010-02-28, 12:28 PM
I've seen math where the Oath gives you effectively a +5 (I think) to hit if you need to roll a 10 to hit.

Yeah, +5.


Needing a 10 to hit means you hit 55% of the time. Now say you get two rolls:
*Your probability to hit on the first roll is .55
*The other .45, you get the second roll, which has its own .55 probability to hit.
*Thus your overall probability to hit is .55+(.45*.55)=.7975
*That's an increase of .2475, which is effectively the same as a +5 to hit.

TheEmerged
2010-03-01, 01:14 PM
RE: Rogues and CA. You know the statement that 85% of statistics are made up? Well, that statement someone made earlier about a properly-built/played rogue having CA 95% of the time isn't as far off as it might sound. I've been watching this; it's been 18 combat encounters since our Brutal rogue made an attack that didn't include Sneak Attack Damage. Now he's had to use Clever Strike at times to get that, but it remains true.

Doug Lampert
2010-03-01, 02:42 PM
RE: Rogues and CA. You know the statement that 85% of statistics are made up? Well, that statement someone made earlier about a properly-built/played rogue having CA 95% of the time isn't as far off as it might sound. I've been watching this; it's been 18 combat encounters since our Brutal rogue made an attack that didn't include Sneak Attack Damage. Now he's had to use Clever Strike at times to get that, but it remains true.

The party I run for sucks at tactics, and is WORSE at teamwork. And the rogue almost always has combat advantage. This didn't work with the rogue that was in the group levels 1-3, but at paragon levels you always get CA.

Hzurr
2010-03-01, 03:04 PM
If you're just looking for pure and simple damage dealer, your top 3 choices are:

Ranger, Rogue, Barbarian

There are mitigating factors (like what interests you, and how important secondary effects are), and depending on the combat, other strikers might shine (particularly the Sorcerer, if he/she is able to get off some nice area attacks); but as a general rule, these are the 3 that will consistantly deal out the most damage.

Interestingly enough, I find all the other strikers more interesting, but if you only want to consider who can deal out the most damage, these are your choices.