4e Ranger fighting styles?

[fracas]

I'm playing a 4e game (all official material allowed, everyone is using fully updated Character Builder) currently at 1st level in addition to the 3.5 game I posted about below.

XP is coming slowly and encounters are pretty lethal so I'll be low level for a long time and will likely die before I get a chance to worry about anything beyond level 5 or so.

I'm running a Predator Druid at the moment but in a game like this it's always good to have a backup ready to go. My original backup idea was a standard ranger archer taking a hint from LDB's battlefield archer but using a longbow/greatbow and going straight ranger.

The party is currently a Paladin, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard/Rogue hybrid, Warlock, and my Druid. Everyone tends to do their own thing (people seem familiar with rules but not with 4e's tactical focus... I can count on occasional Cleric healing but no real defender/controller tactics) so I need to be effective mostly on my own (hence a super-mobile sniper who can hit basically anywhere on the battlefield).

As I was working on the build, the Hunter fighting style caught my attention. At first glance, Hunter sacrifices a marginal amount of ranged damage for the option to transition seamlessly to melee TWF (quickdraw feat + sheathe weapons as a free action) which works very well with my need to operate independently.

Thoughts? Build advice? (keeping current goals in mind: optimize for levels 1-5 and a non-tactical party in mind)

[Meta]

I'm playing a 4e game (all official material allowed, everyone is using fully updated Character Builder) currently at 1st level in addition to the 3.5 game I posted about below.

XP is coming slowly and encounters are pretty lethal so I'll be low level for a long time and will likely die before I get a chance to worry about anything beyond level 5 or so.

I'm running a Predator Druid at the moment but in a game like this it's always good to have a backup ready to go. My original backup idea was a standard ranger archer taking a hint from LDB's battlefield archer but using a longbow/greatbow and going straight ranger.

The party is currently a Paladin, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard/Rogue hybrid, Warlock, and my Druid. Everyone tends to do their own thing (people seem familiar with rules but not with 4e's tactical focus... I can count on occasional Cleric healing but no real defender/controller tactics) so I need to be effective mostly on my own (hence a super-mobile sniper who can hit basically anywhere on the battlefield).

As I was working on the build, the Hunter fighting style caught my attention. At first glance, Hunter sacrifices a marginal amount of ranged damage for the option to transition seamlessly to melee TWF (quickdraw feat + sheathe weapons as a free action) which works very well with my need to operate independently.

Thoughts? Build advice? (keeping current goals in mind: optimize for levels 1-5 and a non-tactical party in mind)

you sound like you frequent charop and know what youre talking about, so not sure what you want? Are you asking if trading some ranged prowess is worth some versatility?

[Gralamin]

I'm playing a 4e game (all official material allowed, everyone is using fully updated Character Builder) currently at 1st level in addition to the 3.5 game I posted about below.

XP is coming slowly and encounters are pretty lethal so I'll be low level for a long time and will likely die before I get a chance to worry about anything beyond level 5 or so.

I'm running a Predator Druid at the moment but in a game like this it's always good to have a backup ready to go. My original backup idea was a standard ranger archer taking a hint from LDB's battlefield archer but using a longbow/greatbow and going straight ranger.

The party is currently a Paladin, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard/Rogue hybrid, Warlock, and my Druid. Everyone tends to do their own thing (people seem familiar with rules but not with 4e's tactical focus... I can count on occasional Cleric healing but no real defender/controller tactics) so I need to be effective mostly on my own (hence a super-mobile sniper who can hit basically anywhere on the battlefield).

As I was working on the build, the Hunter fighting style caught my attention. At first glance, Hunter sacrifices a marginal amount of ranged damage for the option to transition seamlessly to melee TWF (quickdraw feat + sheathe weapons as a free action) which works very well with my need to operate independently.

Thoughts? Build advice? (keeping current goals in mind: optimize for levels 1-5 and a non-tactical party in mind)

The Archer Style is only worth using if you are going Battlefield Archer (Which requires it). If you are not going Battlefield Archer, there is absolutely no point in using it.

[fracas]

I'm mostly a lurker here but yes, I'd at least call myself a semi-competent amateur. :)

Thing is, I'm fairly inexperienced at 4e. Haven't quite figured out the details yet and not entirely sure how the fighting styles influence the class. Some of the attacks get bonuses depending on your style and the tactical flow of the game is way different than 3.5e (which is where 95% of my experience is).

The question is a bit broader than ranged prowess vs flexibility, but that's the general idea. I'm mostly trying to figure out if I'm losing any benefits that aren't immediately apparent by going Hunter over Archer. Losing Defensive Mobility is pretty minor as far as I can tell, but what other consequences does that choice entail?

Also, it occurs to me that since we're low level and have just finished our third milestone without any chance for an extended rest (charging through the mother of all kobold dungeons) I'll be relying heavily on at-wills... nova tactics with Daily+AP+other will certainly be great whenever we hit a solo but until then my goal is mostly to nail high-value single targets that the rest of the party has trouble hitting.

Twin Strike is an obvious choice but not sure about the rest. Accuracy is important since I'll be targeting enemies with high defenses. DPS is obviously a priority. Keeping myself alive via high defenses and mobility is a must... and not getting torn apart in melee is gold. So unless there's a pretty big hidden downside to Hunter I'm going for it.

Now... how to optimize this thing?

1. Ability scores: I rolled pretty well. How's this look: Str 14, Con 14, Dex 18, Int 14, Wis 17, Cha 12. I was considering switching Con and Wis but Con doesn't contribute as much to HP as it did in 3.5.

2. Race: I'm guessing Elf-Human-Githzerai-Shifter would be the best choices, in that order. Other options? Might Shifter be better for low level play with the extra maneuverability?

3. Feats: I'm thinking Hobbling Strike is the way to go. Never hurts to have some controller power on top of my rather nice DPS. +1 damage from Greatbow just doesn't seem as useful.

4. Powers:
At will: Fading Strike, Careful Strike, Nimble Strike, Twin Strike, Warning Shot are what look like the best options. Twin Strike would give me some decent minion clearing and reliable damage vs high-defense enemies. For my other choice? I'm not sure. Everything I listed looks pretty solid. Ideas?

Encounter: Evasive Strike, Fox's Cunning, Hindering Shot all sound good, but Two-Fanged Strike would be a great caster killer. Hmm...

Daily: Boar Assault, Commanding Confrontation, Skirmishing Stance, Split the Tree. Boar Assault stands out as being both melee and ranged but is otherwise not overly appealing... helps cover a weakness, but does not play to my strengths or my high-damage/mobility goals.

5. Gear: Longbow, leather armor, not sure what else. Lots of items I haven't had a chance to check out yet. Suggestions?

[fracas]

Gralamin - I'd be shocked if this guy survives to lvl 5 much less 11, so battlefield archer isn't really an issue. So is Hunter the obvious way to go here or am I still missing something important about the other options? Also, Running Attack seems far superior to Prime Shot.

[Kurald Galain]

As I was working on the build, the Hunter fighting style caught my attention. At first glance, Hunter sacrifices a marginal amount of ranged damage for the option to transition seamlessly to melee TWF (quickdraw feat + sheathe weapons as a free action) which works very well with my need to operate independently.
Well, it depends on what you want out of it. My personal favorite is the beastmaster style because it's fun to keep a beast around, and it gives you a free flank. The most powerful style is probably twinblade, because dualwielding big damage die weapons is very good. Archery style sucks unless you need it for a paragon path; that is not to say that using a bow sucks (it doesn't, it's great) but simply that the style adds very little to that.

Hunter style, well, it's a fun option to swap between melee and ranged, but note that (1) you rarely need to do that (if you use a bow, you can usually shift away and shoot anyway; if you use melee weapons that are heavy thrown, you're also fine without the swap), and (2) there are many options for getting free draws and sheathes, including equipment, familiars, the quick draw feat, and the thri-kreen race.

[tcrudisi]

Hey Fracas:

I'm a bit of a charop geek myself. Seeing that it's currently 05:12, though, I'm only going to answer a couple of questions before I hit the sack.

For an archer ranger, yes yes yes go Hunter Style. Archery Style is garbage unless you plan on hitting level 11. Hunter Style? Well, you get options and a really, really nice +4 against OA's...

which is important for when you provoke them via Prime Shot. Why Prime Shot? Mostly because Running Attack is a bit hard to use as a Ranger. How many powers will you have that allow you to move and attack as a standard action? Not many. Prime Shot, however, you should be able to activate most rounds... which is a lot more than Running Attack. Plus, because you get +4 vs. OA's, you'll have the option of forcing that +1 to hit from Prime Shot if you want to incur an OA (hint: they should miss you anyway, especially if your tank marked them for that extra -2 to hit you).

Last: Go for the Elf. It's unbeatable and the bonuses it gives are awesome. Reroll one attack an encounter and a sweet bonus to Perception (hint: you'll be the Perception monkey) and a speed of 7? It's... it's amazing.

Now, having said all of that, I would like to give one recommendation: avoid the Ranger. It's so boring. It's like playing 4e on easy. You will find that you just say "Twin Strike" over and over and over. Yeah, it's effective. Yeah, it's boring. Also, at lower levels you'll get spanked in DPR by other strikers... but by level 7 or 8 you'll take over and spank everyone else. But you mentioned levels 1-5 ... when something like a Barbarian will bend you over and call you Susan. And the Barbarian is much more fun. It's just... well, Twin Strike is so boring. So boring.

Okay, my sales pitch is over. If you go with the Ranger, I hope you enjoy it! It's a very high-damaging class and brings some really helpful things to the table.

*editing to add info*


The most powerful style is probably twinblade, because dualwielding big damage die weapons is very good. Archery style sucks unless you need it for a paragon path; that is not to say that using a bow sucks (it doesn't, it's great) but simply that the style adds very little to that.

Hunter style, well, it's a fun option to swap between melee and ranged, but note that (1) you rarely need to do that (if you use a bow, you can usually shift away and shoot anyway; if you use melee weapons that are heavy thrown, you're also fine without the swap), and (2) there are many options for getting free draws and sheathes, including equipment, familiars, the quick draw feat, and the thri-kreen race.

Twin blade is definitely stronger than archery. Archery is strong, mind you, but two swords > archery in terms of damage per round.

Since you aren't hitting level 11 let's do a direct comparison of the styles:
Archery: +2 feat bonus against OA's thanks to a feat.
Hunter Style: abilities that can be replicated but also +4 untyped bonus against OA's when using ranged attacks.

The big difference? You can always get Archery Style's bonus by spending 1 feat. You can never get Hunter Style's bonus by spending a feat. So if you went Hunter Style, you could always pick up Defensive Mobility for a whopping +6 against OA's when you use a ranged attack (although you probably wouldn't want to... it is an option). If you went Archery Style you could never pick up that +4 against OA's when doing a ranged attack.

[Meta]

I'm mostly a lurker here but yes, I'd at least call myself a semi-competent amateur. :)

Thing is, I'm fairly inexperienced at 4e. Haven't quite figured out the details yet and not entirely sure how the fighting styles influence the class. Some of the attacks get bonuses depending on your style and the tactical flow of the game is way different than 3.5e (which is where 95% of my experience is).

The question is a bit broader than ranged prowess vs flexibility, but that's the general idea. I'm mostly trying to figure out if I'm losing any benefits that aren't immediately apparent by going Hunter over Archer. Losing Defensive Mobility is pretty minor as far as I can tell, but what other consequences does that choice entail?

Also, it occurs to me that since we're low level and have just finished our third milestone without any chance for an extended rest (charging through the mother of all kobold dungeons) I'll be relying heavily on at-wills... nova tactics with Daily+AP+other will certainly be great whenever we hit a solo but until then my goal is mostly to nail high-value single targets that the rest of the party has trouble hitting.

Twin Strike is an obvious choice but not sure about the rest. Accuracy is important since I'll be targeting enemies with high defenses. DPS is obviously a priority. Keeping myself alive via high defenses and mobility is a must... and not getting torn apart in melee is gold. So unless there's a pretty big hidden downside to Hunter I'm going for it.

Now... how to optimize this thing?

1. Ability scores: I rolled pretty well. How's this look: Str 14, Con 14, Dex 18, Int 14, Wis 17, Cha 12. I was considering switching Con and Wis but Con doesn't contribute as much to HP as it did in 3.5.

2. Race: I'm guessing Elf-Human-Githzerai-Shifter would be the best choices, in that order. Other options? Might Shifter be better for low level play with the extra maneuverability?

3. Feats: I'm thinking Hobbling Strike is the way to go. Never hurts to have some controller power on top of my rather nice DPS. +1 damage from Greatbow just doesn't seem as useful.

4. Powers:
At will: Fading Strike, Careful Strike, Nimble Strike, Twin Strike, Warning Shot are what look like the best options. Twin Strike would give me some decent minion clearing and reliable damage vs high-defense enemies. For my other choice? I'm not sure. Everything I listed looks pretty solid. Ideas?

Encounter: Evasive Strike, Fox's Cunning, Hindering Shot all sound good, but Two-Fanged Strike would be a great caster killer. Hmm...

Daily: Boar Assault, Commanding Confrontation, Skirmishing Stance, Split the Tree. Boar Assault stands out as being both melee and ranged but is otherwise not overly appealing... helps cover a weakness, but does not play to my strengths or my high-damage/mobility goals.

5. Gear: Longbow, leather armor, not sure what else. Lots of items I haven't had a chance to check out yet. Suggestions?

1: Good as is, but with how good ur stats are, you could be an effective dual wielder and ranged threat by dropping that 17 in STR and making ur race half orc (who have pretty solid, but not the best racial feats too)
2: Elf Elf Elf unless you plan on using those blades a fair amount, in which case githzerai
3: Great Bow is rather nice because because your damage die matters more at low levels when twin striking. Hobbling Shot is solid, but if you wanna be in melee, definitely take a look at githzerai blade mastery or manticore's fury
4: I play with an archery ranger and we you use my sliding at-will combined with warning shot for some good damage. That said twin strike is pretty boss. You're a striker so damage is highest priority when choosing powers
5: Predator's Hide is pretty solid for armor buy you'd have to go hide, which isn't worse than leather. Prime Shot weapon is your best bet for weapon methinks. Some freezing arrows wouldn't go amiss either.

EDIT: Hunter > Archer till paragon btw

[DragonBaneDM]

Gralamin - I'd be shocked if this guy survives to lvl 5 much less 11, so battlefield archer isn't really an issue. So is Hunter the obvious way to go here or am I still missing something important about the other options? Also, Running Attack seems far superior to Prime Shot.

Prime Shot is fanastic come level 11. You can turn it into a +2 to hit and an extra 5 damage with each attack. Being a ranger, that's usually an extra 10 damage.

Also, there's Prime Shot weapon, which is also fun.

[Meta]

Prime Shot is fanastic come level 11. You can turn it into a +2 to hit and an extra 5 damage with each attack. Being a ranger, that's usually an extra 10 damage.

Also, there's Prime Shot weapon, which is also fun.

Pfft, I'm on vacation and still posting your info in ranger threads before you :smallwink:

[fracas]

Thanks for the info everyone. The reason I'm going archer over TWF is that we're dealing with kobolds and other sneaky types and a smart DM who's pretty adept at using terrain and traps and such to keep us out of melee with the casters.

Rangers have great mobility but there are only so many spaces I can move to in a cavern full of assorted kobolds and lizardfolk, especially when they keep setting off avalanche traps. Also, the assortment of obstacles and traps they keep unloading means that every charge toward a caster is potentially a charge into a pit trap or snare or whatever... or it might just require a DC 20+ Jump check to cross an obstacle, and a single bad roll might wipe out a third of my HP and take me out of combat for a round or three while I get myself out of whatever predicament... to say nothing of all the AOs I might incur in the process.

The Druid I'm playing now is already gimped by low rolls (we still use 4d6/reroll 1's/add the top three - my scores were 15/13/13/12/10/8) and tends to fail skill checks like crazy because of that and armor check penalties. A ranger will of course succeed at skill checks more easily and an archer can avoid a lot of them altogether, as well as nailing enemies that are trying to cast spells/retreat/heal/whatever without ever exposing myself to whatever traps may be waiting or having to worry about terrain or AOs.

How does TWF increase damage so much? Either way I'll be spamming twin strike a lot, and hitting once each with a pair of 1d10 bastard swords doesn't seem to have any advantage over hitting twice with a single 1d10 longbow/1d12 greatbow... especially with 4e nerfing high-crit weapons, I don't see the advantage. I'm sure it's there; I'm just missing something.

I do see the advantage of prime shot now - missed the qualification that I had to use a standard action to move and attack rather than making a move action and then attacking.

tcrudisi - What would you recommend instead of Ranger? I'm open to suggestions for other ranged strikers especially secondary controllers/leaders (controller preferred since we don't often have enough cohesion for effective leadership). Was looking at warlock and the status effects are nice but damage doesn't seem any higher and it looks like they'll have a lower chance to hit through lack of two-chances powers like twin strike and less synergy with elf and therefore possibly missing elven rerolling. Also no prime shot and if I'm reading the rules right they won't get the +2 weapon proficiency bonus with their implement unless they take an accurate implement and blow a feat on it... which weapon-users get free. Am I missing something? I remember the Druid handbook mentioning the implement feat+accurate implement being a secret rules fix anyway... blowing a feat to fix a bad rule doesn't seem like much of a fix.

Anywho, what else should I be looking at? Barb would be fun except for aforementioned reluctance to do melee striking in the current environment.

[mobdrazhar]

maybe look at seeker?

[tcrudisi]

tcrudisi - What would you recommend instead of Ranger? I'm open to suggestions for other ranged strikers especially secondary controllers/leaders (controller preferred since we don't often have enough cohesion for effective leadership). Was looking at warlock and the status effects are nice but damage doesn't seem any higher and it looks like they'll have a lower chance to hit through lack of two-chances powers like twin strike and less synergy with elf and therefore possibly missing elven rerolling. Also no prime shot and if I'm reading the rules right they won't get the +2 weapon proficiency bonus with their implement unless they take an accurate implement and blow a feat on it... which weapon-users get free. Am I missing something? I remember the Druid handbook mentioning the implement feat+accurate implement being a secret rules fix anyway... blowing a feat to fix a bad rule doesn't seem like much of a fix.

Well, here's the thing about casters vs. physical attackers. An archer or weapon user attacks vs. AC. A caster attacks (typically) vs. Ref or Will. If you look at the average across monsters, Will and Reflex tend to be about 3 points lower than AC. So yeah, you lose out on the +2 or +3 proficiency bonus, but you are targeting a defense that is 2-3 points lower anyway.

Or, as an example, with a bow you might be +12 vs. AC 20. With a wand you might be +9 vs. Ref 17. In both cases you need to roll an 8 to hit.

Well, if ranged is a must -- an Archer Ranger is okay. I just really want to forewarn you that Twin Striking gets old very fast. It never deviates. At least a little bit more exciting? Chaos Bolt from a Wild Sorcerer... how many attacks will you make? I once got lucky and made 8 attacks in a round with Chaos Bolt. At least the randomness keeps it interesting for me and every time I roll an even number I get excited.

You are correct, though, in that multi-attacks are where the real power lies in 4e and nobody does it better than a Ranger. It's just that it typically means "Twin Strike" like crazy until higher levels when you get encounter powers that are finally better than Twin Strike.

Warlocks are nice... but not very high damaging. However, they make up for it by being secondary controllers... so they do pretty good damage while making life hell for your enemies. They can also be very tough to kill (Con through the roof).

Sorcerers are nice... in a "I blow up everything" sort of way. For a striker they really require you to have a strong grasp of tactics and ability to work with your teammates. Otherwise, you end up nuking them. But nobody can really outdamage a well-played Sorc. Sure the Ranger will do 30 points of damage onto target A, but the Sorc just did 18 points of damage onto targets A, B, and C.

Really -- if you think you will enjoy a Ranger, go for it. I would just ask the DM beforehand, "I'm wanting to try a Ranger, but I've been told that it tends to just do the same thing over and over... if I find after a few sessions that I don't like it, may I switch to another character without penalty?"

I hope that gives you a bit more insight and help. I don't want you to think that I hate Rangers in 4e, because I don't. I will readily admit that 1) they are the highest DPR class in the game and 2) I love having them at my table in LFR because it means damage won't be a problem. I just feel like they end up doing the same thing over and over (and I have heard many people say this), much more-so than normal characters. But please feel free to ask other people who have played a Ranger what they think as I don't want one opinion to turn you completely away from a class before you've even had the chance to play it. (Note: I'm a min-maxer, so I enjoy powerful characters. The Ranger was too much like playing the game on easy mode for me, though.)

[fracas]

Boring play is definitely an issue - powerful characters are great, but I'm not getting paid to play so ultimately fun is first priority. If Rangers are best off just twin striking all the time that's kind of a major flaw for me. I loved playing high mobility tactical snipers in 3.5 (Warlock, Ranger, etc) but spamming one power all the time without that neat Warlock flavor just sounds bland... and tactics shouldn't be limited to "hit the caster or the archer?"

At first glance Seeker is a controller and secondary striker. I'm well aware some controllers have pretty crazy damage potential but dunno anything about seeker. I'll read up on it. Also concerned about them being able to deal with skill challenges (lots of Acrobatics/Athletics/Perception, which are bread and butter for a Ranger).

Sorc sounds like fun but doesn't look like it can stand up to the skill challenges like a Ranger can (although I like the description of their Powers more and controller/crowdkill options are always good).

3.5 Warlocks fit my preferred playstyle perfectly (Black Tentacles + Dimension Door + Improved Invisibility + EB = lovely). I've heard they're much different in 4e but haven't had a chance to look over them.

If we were a little higher level I'd even consider Monk just because they get all those nice mobility powers which could to some extent avoid traps altogether.

Thanks for the input guys, keep it coming! :)

[mobdrazhar]

The Seeker IS a controller primarily and stiker secondary but unlike the Ranger they are not a one trick pony.

Warlocks can do some serious damage output from what i've seen. They are definately different from the 3.5 warlocks (i've played both). And the ability to gain concealment aftedr moving more than 3 squaares is always a good thing.

[DragonBaneDM]

Pfft, I'm on vacation and still posting your info in ranger threads before you :smallwink:

You act like I know what I'm doing with Briggs. If I cared at all about optimizing him why would I be using homebrew guns that jam 15 percent of the time?

[tcrudisi]

Sorc sounds like fun but doesn't look like it can stand up to the skill challenges like a Ranger can (although I like the description of their Powers more and controller/crowdkill options are always good).

A Sorc potentially could. They get Athletics on the skill list already and if you want Acrobatics, you can easily take the Warrior of the Wild feat, get some bonus damage and training in one Ranger skill. Is it as good as playing a Ranger? Nah, but there are options. Also, if your DM uses backgrounds you can sneak a skill onto your class list via that route.

Warlocks are kinda cool -- but they don't do as much damage as other strikers. However, they are better at their secondary role than other strikers... so it's a nice balance. I'm a big fan of the Fey Warlock since they get to teleport around everywhere. Most of the time it's useless, but woo boy it is fun.

[Meta]

You act like I know what I'm doing with Briggs. If I cared at all about optimizing him why would I be using homebrew guns that jam 15 percent of the time?

Spread > move actions.

OT:
If you're going to go Ranger I still recommend putting that 17 in strength. You have some tremendous rolls there, no reason to waste em.

Seeker's aren't bad but from what you say about your DM, may have some trouble

[Kurald Galain]

How does TWF increase damage so much? Either way I'll be spamming twin strike a lot, and hitting once each with a pair of 1d10 bastard swords doesn't seem to have any advantage over hitting twice with a single 1d10 longbow/1d12 greatbow...
It's easier to get bonuses and combat advantage in melee than ranged.


What would you recommend instead of Ranger?
I agree with the notion that rangers are boring to play. I retired my beastmaster for precisely that reason. Even if you don't spam twin strike, most of your encounter or daily powers are also quite similar to that.

For other ranged strikers I'd recommend the sorcerer, primarily. Also, warlocks are better than you think - they are indeed not the highest damage dealers, but they don't have an accuracy problem either.

[Meta]

A ranged rogue would be great fun to play

[fracas]

OK, the 17 is moved from Wis to Str. My current tactic is just to build a Seeker, an archer Ranger, a Sorc (using a background to get Acrobatics and utilizing my sweet ability score roles to keep Str and Dex fairly high), and a Warlock and decide from there which to play.

I have the nagging feeling that Ranger will be top of the power list just because reliable high damage to valuable single targets is exactly what the party needs (Fighter, Paladin, Cleric are all melee... the party Warlock hasn't been very effective and the hybrid Wizard/Rogue is painfully frail and seems to draw a lot of aggro and so loses many potential actions to avoid AOs or just hiding behind cover). Ranger's power also comes from an at-will power which means it won't be run down so much through the course of a long fight or several fights before a rest.

Oh well. If it's going to be boring to play it's not even an option.

Potion Sale- When you said I might have trouble with Seeker, were you referring to the skill challenges or something else? I do concur though; like I said the party Wiz/Rog draws a lot of aggro despite not being very effective. Lousy AC and low HP just make an appealing target I guess.

Ranged Rogue could be interesting and would certainly keep me ahead of the skill challenged but I'd imagine it's somewhat difficult to setup a sneak attack at range, especially since the party pays no attention to coordinated maneuvers. And like I said, my current goal is basically anti-caster/archer. Melee is out because of traps, risk of failed skill checks to pass obstacles, and high risk of getting flanked without some semblance of defender coverage. Hunter Ranger means I can snipe from relative safety and if they do manage to close on me I can either get out of the way with Fading Shot and a move action or switch to melee and keep doing full damage without AOs.

Side questions:
1. How do these classes compare defensively? Ranger seems gold just by massive mobility and being equally viable in melee and ranged but not sure about the others. So far AC has been by far the most important defense with an occasional fire shot or alchemist fire vs Reflex. We've yet to be hit with an attack targeting Fort or Will.

2. What type of Warlock would you guys recommend? My understanding is that Fey=mobility, Hellfire=DPS (in which case why not just play a higher DPR class?), Star=controller. Star is certainly the best flavor IMO but of course that doesn't count for a whole lot in a heavy combat game. The mobility would be nice but most of it doesn't seem to kick in till later levels - if I use a daily or encounter power to teleport myself across a barrier to get line of effect on a caster but can't teleport myself back to safety I'm just gonna get myself mobbed. And if I'm considering Hellfire it looks like I'm better off just playing a Sorc/Ranger instead. How would a Star warlock compare against Seeker offensively and defensively?

[Meta]

OK, the 17 is moved from Wis to Str. My current tactic is just to build a Seeker, an archer Ranger, a Sorc (using a background to get Acrobatics and utilizing my sweet ability score roles to keep Str and Dex fairly high), and a Warlock and decide from there which to play.

I have the nagging feeling that Ranger will be top of the power list just because reliable high damage to valuable single targets is exactly what the party needs (Fighter, Paladin, Cleric are all melee... the party Warlock hasn't been very effective and the hybrid Wizard/Rogue is painfully frail and seems to draw a lot of aggro and so loses many potential actions to avoid AOs or just hiding behind cover). Ranger's power also comes from an at-will power which means it won't be run down so much through the course of a long fight or several fights before a rest.

Oh well. If it's going to be boring to play it's not even an option.

Potion Sale- When you said I might have trouble with Seeker, were you referring to the skill challenges or something else? I do concur though; like I said the party Wiz/Rog draws a lot of aggro despite not being very effective. Lousy AC and low HP just make an appealing target I guess.

Ranged Rogue could be interesting and would certainly keep me ahead of the skill challenged but I'd imagine it's somewhat difficult to setup a sneak attack at range, especially since the party pays no attention to coordinated maneuvers. And like I said, my current goal is basically anti-caster/archer. Melee is out because of traps, risk of failed skill checks to pass obstacles, and high risk of getting flanked without some semblance of defender coverage. Hunter Ranger means I can snipe from relative safety and if they do manage to close on me I can either get out of the way with Fading Shot and a move action or switch to melee and keep doing full damage without AOs.

Side questions:
1. How do these classes compare defensively? Ranger seems gold just by massive mobility and being equally viable in melee and ranged but not sure about the others. So far AC has been by far the most important defense with an occasional fire shot or alchemist fire vs Reflex. We've yet to be hit with an attack targeting Fort or Will.

2. What type of Warlock would you guys recommend? My understanding is that Fey=mobility, Hellfire=DPS (in which case why not just play a higher DPR class?), Star=controller. Star is certainly the best flavor IMO but of course that doesn't count for a whole lot in a heavy combat game. The mobility would be nice but most of it doesn't seem to kick in till later levels - if I use a daily or encounter power to teleport myself across a barrier to get line of effect on a caster but can't teleport myself back to safety I'm just gonna get myself mobbed. And if I'm considering Hellfire it looks like I'm better off just playing a Sorc/Ranger instead. How would a Star warlock compare against Seeker offensively and defensively?

For the rogue idea, have a melee person take vexing flanker. They'll appreciate your huge damage spike. If none of them take it, you can take distant advantage but that's not as ideal. The rogue will do excellent damage in this way at your level. You're also mobile and a great skill monkey. 20 in dex to start and you can have some great AC

[Danin]

I'm going to jump on the rangers get repetitive fast bandwagon. There fun for a few sessions, maybe a story arc. Beyond that... well, get used to being a one (admittedly very powerful) trick pony.

I do love sorcerers and they make great ranged snipers (Storm sorcerer would also get you the chance to fly past many obstacles) while a fey warlock would let you teleport all over the place. Consider not only their skills but the additional kinds of utility of movement that their abilities grant them. Monk is similar but a little more tricky, especially if your DM is doing his best to avoid melee combat through skill challenges. I wouldn't recommend Rogue in a less than tactically minded party as they benefit most when other players are working with them.

As to weapon / implement expertise it is something of a math fix at higher levels, though at level 1 its a moderate improvement at best. The two have been amalgamated in PHB3 (I think) to versatile expertise to reduce the feat tax on classes that split between weapons and implements often.

[tcrudisi]

I'm going to jump on the rangers get repetitive fast bandwagon. There fun for a few sessions, maybe a story arc. Beyond that... well, get used to being a one (admittedly very powerful) trick pony.

I do love sorcerers and they make great ranged snipers (Storm sorcerer would also get you the chance to fly past many obstacles) while a fey warlock would let you teleport all over the place. Consider not only their skills but the additional kinds of utility of movement that their abilities grant them. Monk is similar but a little more tricky, especially if your DM is doing his best to avoid melee combat through skill challenges. I wouldn't recommend Rogue in a less than tactically minded party as they benefit most when other players are working with them.

+1 to all of this.


As to weapon / implement expertise it is something of a math fix at higher levels, though at level 1 its a moderate improvement at best. The two have been amalgamated in PHB3 (I think) to versatile expertise to reduce the feat tax on classes that split between weapons and implements often.

Yes, it is a math fix. However, it is more than just a "moderate improvement"; it is a necessity. Pretend for a moment that you hit on an 11 (so 50% chance to hit) and when you hit you do 30 damage. You have a choice between Weapon Focus for +2 damage or Weapon Expertise for +2 to hit. I am ignoring crit chance because it has no bearing on this. Basically, your average damage per round would be 15, or 16 if you take Weapon Focus (50% x 30 = 15, or 50% x 32 = 16). If you take Weapon Expertise, your chance to hit goes up to 60% for an average damage per round of 18 (60% x 30 = 18).

At level 1? Let's say you do an average of 12 damage on a hit and you hit 60% of the time. Your average dpr is (60% x 12 = 7.2), or with Weapon Expertise (65% x 12 = 7.8). Weapon Focus instead gives (60% x 13 = 7.8). The difference only gets more in favor of Weapon Expertise as your average damage per hit increases or your ability to hit decreases.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, it is a math fix. However, it is more than just a "moderate improvement"; it is a necessity.
Sure it's a math fix, but upping your damage-per-round from 15 to 18 is not what I would call a "necessity".

Expertise is a good feat once it gives you a +2 (i.e. at level 15 or above), but I would not take it before that, simply because there are more important feats to take first. A feat that gives you a whole new option (e.g. a multiclass feat, or enlarge spell, or polearm momentum) is generally a more effective choice than a feat that gives a +5% bonus to something you can already do.

[Delcan]

Expertise is a good feat once it gives you a +2 (i.e. at level 15 or above), but I would not take it before that, simply because there are more important feats to take first. A feat that gives you a whole new option (e.g. a multiclass feat, or enlarge spell, or polearm momentum) is generally a more effective choice than a feat that gives a +5% bonus to something you can already do.

If there were a great deal of feats that gave many more in-combat options to rangers, I'd say yeah, certainly go for them before Expertise at heroic level - in particular, I'd definitely consider a multiclass feat at heroic just for the opening-up of options.

However, the ranger is a class that is concerned more than any other striker class with one thing - multiattacks. Starting right from Twin Strike, the ranger's true specialty is attacking, and doing it a lot. The more attacks you make, the more Weapon Expertise becomes important. Your standard DPSing Twin Strike ranger, in a balanced party, will likely make 14-20 attacks in a single combat. Chances are at least one of those will be redeemed by Expertise.

If not multiattacking, rangers are making attacks that cause additional effects when they do hit, not just dealing damage - and Weapon Expertise makes those more likely to actually trigger.

The reason Expertise is so important, even at early levels, is simply because of the breadth of what the feat does for a character. Most every other feat in the books is limited in scope. Enlarge Spell helps your burst attacks; Polearm Momentum helps your push and slide attacks. Expertise helps every single attack you will ever make, ever. No extra feats, no specific builds, no tweaking necessary. It just improves everything you do, period.

Given this fact, it's not hard to see why you should have that sort of edge as early as you can possibly get it.

[Kurald Galain]

The reason Expertise is so important, even at early levels, is simply because of the breadth of what the feat does for a character. Most every other feat in the books is limited in scope. Enlarge Spell helps your burst attacks; Polearm Momentum helps your push and slide attacks. Expertise helps every single attack you will ever make, ever.
Not entirely. You point out how often the effects occur, but not how powerful the effect is.

Enlarge Spell and Polearm Momentum have a huge effect. Expertise has a tiny effect. Getting a powerful effect that applies to most of your attacks is better than getting a tiny effect that applies to all of them.

(edit) for instance, for a ranger, multiclassing to rogue or barbarian is likely to increase your overall damage by more than expertise will, and throws in a free skill too.

[Delcan]

Not entirely. You point out how often the effects occur, but not how powerful the effect is.

Enlarge Spell and Polearm Momentum have a huge effect. Expertise has a tiny effect. Getting a powerful effect that applies to most of your attacks is better than getting a tiny effect that applies to all of them.

(edit) for instance, for a ranger, multiclassing to rogue or barbarian is likely to increase your overall damage by more than expertise will, and throws in a free skill too.

I've acknowledged the applicability of a multiclass feat as a viable (and preferable) option over Expertise at low levels, so I won't argue that. Enlarge Spell is another considerable feat to take, since it applies to pretty much any worthwhile wizard power to take, and can add an extra target when necessary - effectively granting another attack to the wizard, giving them the same edge that Rangers get from Twin Strike.

However, to make a powerful feat like Polearm Momentum or Enlarge Spell apply to most of your attacks, you have to make most of your attacks apply to the feat itself. If your goal is to do so, then by all means take Polearm Momentum first, since you're creating a build that focuses on making it useful. If, however, you're not specifically maxing your ability to do what Polearm Momentum does, which is make forced movement more powerful, then the feat is a minor improvement. To get the situation of "a powerful effect that applies to most of your attacks", you need most of your attacks to apply to that, which means you're limiting yourself to a narrower range of options.

The key benefit behind Expertise feats is that they do apply to everything you do. Build doesn't matter, power selection doesn't matter - it just helps.

I imagine that you could get a think tank together to determine the utility of Expertise over these other powerful feats - you'd have to determine just how much of a tactical/strategic advantage was gained by knocking enemy A prone, or including enemy B in a burst, or scoring the single barely-hit on enemy C. But what it comes right down to is that Expertise's benefits are immediate and quickly perceptible. Yeah, take as many powerful option-granting feats you can early on, but the truth of the matter is that there's not that many powerful option-granting feats. When the two or three good ones you can find are gone, Expertise is still there, and it still applies to everything you do - and you'd be a fool not to take advantage of that.