|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 2:35AM
#201
|
|
|
My first character was the most powerful thing in the party by far, so I disagree. Playing DnD effectively from the time you start isn't difficult, playing DnD effectively without sinking exorbitant amounts of time into it is. Mobility and durability are both non-issues in a good party. Not to mention that approach powers are quite cheap.
At any rate, there are other classes that can do a satisfactory job as strikers, but this in no way negates the fact that the Ranger is head and shoulders above the rest, and head, shoulders, and knees above some.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 2:40AM
#202
|
|
|
My first character was the most powerful thing in the party by far, so I disagree.
Any CharOper's character is going to be the most powerful thing in the party.
Rangers are very easy to do lots of damage, but they're more fragile than other strikers (barbarians and warlocks can regen temps on a kill, rogues can hide in plain sight, sorcerers can be AC gods, and so forth). So I don't complain about rangers, even when I'm being outdamaged by them, because my barbarian can take so much punishment.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 2:53AM
#203
|
|
|
Incidentally, the actually valid reason to take Careful Attack over Twin Strike at low levels, which several posters have groped toward without ever actually getting there, is: you prefer consistent damage over swingy damage and are willing to sacrifice some power to get it. Once you gain a few levels, even this reason loses validity, as Twin Strike becomes superior at consistency of damage while remaining better in all other metrics.
t~
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 3:15AM
#204
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2009
|
My first character was the most powerful thing in the party by far, so I disagree. Playing DnD effectively from the time you start isn't difficult, playing DnD effectively without sinking exorbitant amounts of time into it is. Mobility and durability are both non-issues in a good party. Not to mention that approach powers are quite cheap.
At any rate, there are other classes that can do a satisfactory job as strikers, but this in no way negates the fact that the Ranger is head and shoulders above the rest, and head, shoulders, and knees above some.
Sorry, I mean not everyone can play it effectively at the start. Some players may need to play or research a bit to fully understand his class. And I had instructed my friend about some of his choices as DM, before he got used to the system.
Some utilities can help fix mobility but you may sacrifice your utilities for it. Not that much problem, though.
Ranger is exellent in doing damage fast. But other striker have their own way too. Barb, monk and avenger can go toe-to-toe with their foes real fast, with confident in good HP/THP/Defences that make the party less worry about them. Rogue can support with status effect while doing damage.
And all of them have their own use outside combat and play differently there.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 4:20AM
#205
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2008
|
Incidentally, the actually valid reason to take Careful Attack over Twin Strike at low levels, which several posters have groped toward without ever actually getting there, is: you prefer consistent damage over swingy damage and are willing to sacrifice some power to get it. Once you gain a few levels, even this reason loses validity, as Twin Strike becomes superior at consistency of damage while remaining better in all other metrics.
t~
That reasoning makes no sense. If you take Twin Strike and hit 70% of the time with each attack, you do no damage 9% of the time. If you take Careful Attack, you're hitting 80% of the time and doing no damage 20% of the time. In fact, Twin Strike holds this advantage until you're hitting only 10% of the time on a single Twin Strike attack and 20% of the time with Careful Attack. That comes up if you're dealing with a Paragon creature while you're still in low Heroic. In that case, the issue is with your DM and not your power selection.
Repeat after me: Careful Attack is always a trap. Careful Attack is always a trap. Careful Attack is always a trap.
I killed Aleena.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 5:17AM
#206
|
|
|
Repeat after me: Careful Attack is always a trap. Careful Attack is always a trap. Careful Attack is always a trap.
That, by itself, is reason enough for me to nerf Twin Strike. If I remember it correctly, one of 4th Edition's design principles was to avoid having choices that were so good that they actually weren't choices at all.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But the good name never dies of one who has done well.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But I know one thing that never dies: the glory of the great dead.
- Hávamál
D&D 4th Edition Bard builds: The Dashing Swordsman, The Master of Sound and Illusions, The Warrior Skald
Captain Morality! (No point in not having fun with it. ;-))
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 5:44AM
#207
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Repeat after me: Careful Attack is always a trap. Careful Attack is always a trap. Careful Attack is always a trap.
That, by itself, is reason enough for me to nerf Twin Strike. If I remember it correctly, one of 4th Edition's design principles was to avoid having choices that were so good that they actually weren't choices at all.
It's not a reason to nerf twin strike. It's a reason to bump up Careful Attack again. I would say make it an basic attack or something, but that would make every scout out there froth at the mouth. You nerf TS, you essentially destroy the ranger. It's hard coded into the class now, and would take a rewrite of just about every power to take it away.
Rangers are high damage, and that's really all they are. They have no real sub role to speak of, no big rider effects, nothing. They're glass cannons.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 6:03AM
#208
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2008
|
Repeat after me: Careful Attack is always a trap. Careful Attack is always a trap. Careful Attack is always a trap.
That, by itself, is reason enough for me to nerf Twin Strike. If I remember it correctly, one of 4th Edition's design principles was to avoid having choices that were so good that they actually weren't choices at all.
The developers' inability to do math is not a reason to nerf Twin Strike. Careful Attack never should have existed. At least some of the other Ranger At-Wills provide mobility options.
I killed Aleena.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 6:04AM
#209
|
|
|
You nerf TS, you essentially destroy the ranger. It's hard coded into the class now, and would take a rewrite of just about every power to take it away.
I fully admit I'm not that experienced at playing a Ranger, but is Twin Strike really all there is to the class? I mean, it also has several multiattacking Encounter and Daily powers, for starters.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But the good name never dies of one who has done well.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But I know one thing that never dies: the glory of the great dead.
- Hávamál
D&D 4th Edition Bard builds: The Dashing Swordsman, The Master of Sound and Illusions, The Warrior Skald
Captain Morality! (No point in not having fun with it. ;-))
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 6:09AM
#210
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
If they toned down multi-attack at-wills by allowing one attack and then an effect line (hit or miss) to allow them the option to spend a minor action on the appropriate second attack, would that deal with the alleged overpoweredness? If damage is then too low, would allowing normal damage i.e. str or dex aded on the first attack redress the balance?
|
|
|
