PDA

View Full Version : TW Ranger - worth it?



tyfon
2008-07-30, 03:58 AM
Do You think that Two Weapon Ranger is really worth taking into the party as melee damage dealer ? Is not another Fighter better considering their performance?

Covered In Bees
2008-07-30, 04:01 AM
Do You think that Two Weapon Ranger is really worth taking into the party as melee damage dealer ? Is not another Fighter better considering their performance?

Yes, the TW ranger is a fine Striker. No, another Fighter is not better.

Starsinger
2008-07-30, 04:06 AM
This is why edition/game tags are helpful people. In 4e Rangers will get things dead quicker. In 3.5 well they're both melee so they don't really matter anyways. But still, it's really up to the player's preference.

tyfon
2008-07-30, 04:09 AM
The thing is that after reading powers of both fighter and ranger I'm starting to wonder. There was already topic here that damage cap for fighter seems to be higher than for, let say, rogue.

I'm sure that I'm not expressing myself clear enough - but come on, TW powers usually deal not so big damage compared to fighter, suvival ratio is smaller for ranger due to hp...

Viruzzo
2008-07-30, 04:09 AM
The Fighters is a Strikeresque Defender, and the Ranger may be considered a Defenderesque Striker, but nonetheless one their basic role is different and changes what they do best.
Also you have to consider Hunter's Quarry (not only base power damage) for damage output, and the higher mobility for survival ratio. Also TWF Rangers get some nice close burst attacks later on, depending on what PP you choose.

tyfon
2008-07-30, 04:15 AM
Also you have to consider Hunter's Quarry (not only base power damage) for damage output, and the higher mobility for survival ratio. Also TWF Rangers get some nice close burst attacks later on, depending on what PP you choose.

Yes, quarry is good but It's not big damage, 4.5 per round on heroic tier, 9 on paragon. As with burst - fighter also get good ones (and multiple strikes too) not to mention stances like "deal 1W damage to all enemies that start turn adjecent to You".

High mobility does not improve survivality too much in my opinion. After all You are not archer who depends on breaking away from melee - you need to be there to be useful.

Charity
2008-07-30, 04:31 AM
I think a bugbear Ranger who goes storm warden PP and scimitar dance is about as much average damage per round as you can get consistantly over the 30 levels and they will have all decent defences unlike the maul fighter.
Rangers are really very good, even without the horror that is armour splinter followed by blade cascade.



Here is the Damage Per Round
http://www.c-loomis.com/images/DPR.jpg

Only PHB races here, but Bugbear is even nastier

Oh if you are worried about survivability


Give to Get - How many monsters can you kill in a line before you get bloodied?
http://www.c-loomis.com/images/G2g.jpg

These are based against average level appropriate adversaries.

Blackdrop
2008-07-30, 04:49 AM
Out of curiosity, why is there a drop in damage at various levels?

tyfon
2008-07-30, 04:57 AM
I'd be very interested in these charts - whera are they from? What kind of metodologhy was used ?

Viruzzo
2008-07-30, 04:58 AM
Yes, quarry is good but It's not big damage, 4.5 per round on heroic tier, 9 on paragon.
Well since is any turn, no conditions necessary (not CA, not curse), it still is a constant upgrade to your damage.
Also in Epic you get the nice Twin Strike + Two Weapon Flurry combo, 1 OA = 4 attacks.

If you don't see mobility as something relevant, you should play fighter. They do dish good damage, so it's ok if that fits your style more.

tyfon
2008-07-30, 05:03 AM
Well since is any turn, no conditions necessary (not CA, not curse), it still is a constant upgrade to your damage.
Also in Epic you get the nice Twin Strike + Two Weapon Flurry combo, 1 OA = 4 attacks.

In game I'm playing OA are quite rare.


If you don't see mobility as something relevant, you should play fighter. They do dish good damage, so it's ok if that fits your style more.

I'm not saying that I think that mobility is not relevant. It is, because it takes me to place where I can hit (this is my role). What I'm saying is that mobility does not improve my defence (this is what I ve said in previous post).

Kurald Galain
2008-07-30, 05:11 AM
I think a bugbear Ranger who goes storm warden PP and scimitar dance is about as much average damage per round as you can get consistantly over the 30 levels and they will have all decent defences unlike the maul fighter.

Nice charts, but could you explain to us what the abbreviations mean? For instance, whether "half" means "half-elf" or "halfling", and whether a "war" is supposed to be a warlord or warlock?

Charity
2008-07-30, 07:58 AM
Out of curiosity, why is there a drop in damage at various levels?

No significant power increase and average monster defences increase leading to a fall in average damage.

from here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=237149)

Half is halfling, and War eye is Warlock eyebite AFAIK (these are not my work).

Tengu_temp
2008-07-30, 09:10 AM
What's so super-special-awesome about scimitars, by the way? In comparison to longswords, you lose +1 to attack but gain High Crit. And you get a different weapon feat on Paragon. Bastard swords seem like the better weapons - of course you need to burn a feat, but they seem worth it.

Eikre
2008-07-30, 09:35 AM
No, you gain an extra weapon feat in Paragon.

Scimatars are heavy blades which means they have all the support of a bastard sword, but they also have Scimitar Dance which turns every one of your attacks into damage. They are also not Versatile, which is a good thing, because it means that a halfling can use one in each hand.

Tengu_temp
2008-07-30, 09:43 AM
Ah, true. I still see the improved damage output and attack of a bastard sword as a worthwhile advantage, though.