View Full Version : 4e Explain to me why rangers are considered very strong

Vitruviansquid

2010-07-26, 04:04 PM

See title.

I can't for the life of me figure out why I would want to roll a ranger. I can't work out how, mathematically, the ranger will be dealing that much more damage than most other strikers, or at least the rogue or barbarian. Nor could I figure out how his theme of not being a target is very helpful to the group compared to, say, a barbarian who can help the defender by taking a little bit of damage for him, or a Star pact warlock who can outrigth prevent enemies from attacking sometimes.

Kylarra

2010-07-26, 04:08 PM

Passive damage boosts + twin strike = doubled up damage boosts. The not being a target focus is secondary to the target being dead focus.

Vitruviansquid

2010-07-26, 04:11 PM

What passive damage boosts can be made to apply?

Hunter's Quarry only activates once per round and Twin Strike doesn't allow you to apply any stat modifiers..

Urpriest

2010-07-26, 04:14 PM

What passive damage boosts can be made to apply?

Hunter's Quarry only activates once per round and Twin Strike doesn't allow you to apply any stat modifiers..

Stat modifiers are almost irrelevant. Weapon Focus, Vulnerability (from Frost/Radiant weapons, depending on style), Iron Armbands of Power, and those are just the most obvious ones. Two attacks also means increased chance to hit.

Edit: Weapon Enhancement bonus being one of the biggest, not sure why I forgot that. A level 30 ranger with Lasting Frost and otherwise minimal optimization is adding 3+5+6+6=20 damage with two attacks at least, more if they take Minor Action attack powers (which they have in spades). That gets increased in Eberron where Weapon Crystals will add 7 more, IIRC.

Evard

2010-07-26, 04:16 PM

Which is better for a the party?

3 players that can soak damage

1 player that makes sure that those 3 players dont take that damage

yeah...

Vitruviansquid

2010-07-26, 04:23 PM

Stat modifiers are almost irrelevant. Weapon Focus, Vulnerability (from Frost/Radiant weapons, depending on style), Iron Armbands of Power, and those are just the most obvious ones. Two attacks also means increased chance to hit.

Edit: Weapon Enhancement bonus being one of the biggest, not sure why I forgot that. A level 30 ranger with Lasting Frost and otherwise minimal optimization is adding 3+5+6+6=20 damage with two attacks at least, more if they take Minor Action attack powers (which they have in spades). That gets increased in Eberron where Weapon Crystals will add 7 more, IIRC.

Ah. Well that makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

tcrudisi

2010-07-26, 04:26 PM

Let's use some hypothetical numbers, that are basically realistic:

weapons: 1d10 for Ranger, 1d12 for Barbarian.

both have +6 strength modifier

both have +3 weapon

both have +2 from iron armbands

both have +2 from feat bonus

both have used Lasting Frost cheese for +5 damage.

Barbarian at-will: 1d12 + 2d6 (still at-will) + 18, for an average of 31 with an at-will.

Ranger at-will: 2d10 + 2d8 (quarry) + 24, for an average of 44 with an at-will.

This doesn't include extra bonuses, like the charging bonus a Barbarian would get, but it also doesn't include the fact a Ranger is attacking twice so has a double crit range.

Evard

2010-07-26, 05:16 PM

Of course you are forgetting luck... I have friends that no matter what die they use they never roll good when they play strikers... Luck of the roll trumps math (yay chaos!... err lawful chaos). SO even if a striker can potentially get more damage it means nothing in actual application.

I had a worlock back when PHB1 was the only book out that did more damage/killed more than the party ranger and rogue. I don't think the worlock has ever been anywhere near the best striker (its a lurker). Oh and yes this is before duel implement and many other tricks.

ashmanonar

2010-07-26, 05:28 PM

Let's use some hypothetical numbers, that are basically realistic:

weapons: 1d10 for Ranger, 1d12 for Barbarian.

both have +6 strength modifier

both have +3 weapon

both have +2 from iron armbands

both have +2 from feat bonus

both have used Lasting Frost cheese for +5 damage.

Barbarian at-will: 1d12 + 2d6 (still at-will) + 18, for an average of 31 with an at-will.

Ranger at-will: 2d10 + 2d8 (quarry) + 20, for an average of 40 with an at-will.

This doesn't include extra bonuses, like the charging bonus a Barbarian would get, but it also doesn't include the fact a Ranger is attacking twice so has a double crit range.

A Ranger using Twin Strike does not get Strength bonus. Twin Strike does benefit from Lasting Frost twice though.

tcrudisi

2010-07-26, 06:05 PM

A Ranger using Twin Strike does not get Strength bonus. Twin Strike does benefit from Lasting Frost twice though.

I didn't count Str bonus for the Ranger. Here's the math breakdown on the static mods:

Barbarian: +6 str + 3 weapon + 2 item + 2 feat + 5 frost vuln = +18

Ranger: +3 weapon + 2 item + 2 feat + 5 frost vuln = +12 x2 (attacking twice) = +24

Oops. Okay, so I apparently can't add very well. I meant +24 instead of +20. But yeah, that just proves the point even more.

I'm going to edit the initial post to change the +20 to a +24.

Oh, I think I understand what you meant. I was saying both had a +6 str mod because initially I was going to go heavy into the math and give them both +6 to hit from str (and only the barbarian would get the +6 to damage)... but then I decided that going that far into it was unnecessary. Just the basics alone show how far the Ranger outstrips the Barbarian.

NecroRebel

2010-07-26, 06:12 PM

What many people seem to forget, or maybe fail to realize, is that it isn't average damage per strike that's important, but rather average damage per action. There's a difference between them; when comparing Twin Strike to, for instance, the Barbarian's Howling Strike, you must consider not only the damage dealt with a successful hit, but also the chance to hit. Of every Striker role at-will power, Twin Strike has, by far and away, the best chance to hit at all, which vastly amplifies its average damage per action.

Taking the numbers given before, and adding that both the Barbarian and Ranger are wielding +3 proficiency weapons and have Expertise in their chosen weapon type, and are at level 16, we get a +19 attack bonus for each. The Barbarian's attack deals 1d12+2d6+20 on a hit, while each of the Ranger's deals 1d10+12 on a hit, with an additional +2d8 if at least one hit occurs. Compare that to an arbitrary level 16 monster (the Ice Archon Hailsurge, an Artillery, which is the first nonminion level 16 monster in the first Monster Manual).

The Barbarian needs an 11+ to hit (a 45% chance) and deals 1d12+2d6+20 damage. The average damage per strike is 33.5. Adjusted for to-hit, that's 15.075 damage per action.

The Ranger, on the other hand, needs an 11+ to hit each time, so they're 49.5% likely to hit exactly once, and 20.25% likely to hit twice. If they hit twice, they deal 2d10+2d8+24, or 44 average, while if they hit once they deal 1d10+2d8+12, or 26.5. Adjusted for to-hit, that's 22.0275 damage per action.

Given this math, where Twin Strike is almost half again as powerful as Howling Strike, and it becomes clear why Rangers are considered among the strongest Strikers :smallsmile:

Edit: OK, I'm apparently an idiot... an 11+ to hit is a 50% chance, not a 45%. However, this actually favors the Ranger yet more; including that, the Barbarian's average damage per action increases to 16.75, while the Ranger's increases to 24.25.

Hzurr

2010-07-26, 06:14 PM

That being said, the "optimal" ranger build really does nothing more than spam Twin Strike, and is also one of the most boring builds in the game, because they've become little more than "point & click"

Also, a lot of the ranger's effectiveness depends largely on the rest of the party build. There are times, that the semi-defender qualities of the barbarian will be more useful than the damage output of the ranger; or the controller-y aspects of a Warlock will prove to be the real game changer.

So while they're technically the "most damage dealing" that really shouldn't be the motivation to play one.

Doug Lampert

2010-07-26, 06:33 PM

Let's use some hypothetical numbers, that are basically realistic:

weapons: 1d10 for Ranger, 1d12 for Barbarian.

both have +6 strength modifier

both have +3 weapon

both have +2 from iron armbands

both have +2 from feat bonus

both have used Lasting Frost cheese for +5 damage.

Barbarian at-will: 1d12 + 2d6 (still at-will) + 18, for an average of 31 with an at-will.

Ranger at-will: 2d10 + 2d8 (quarry) + 24, for an average of 44 with an at-will.

This doesn't include extra bonuses, like the charging bonus a Barbarian would get, but it also doesn't include the fact a Ranger is attacking twice so has a double crit range.

It gets even better if you consider misses.

Suppose both hit on 9+.

The barbarian averages 31.5*0.6=18.9 DPR

Now consider the Ranger:

.36 chance of two hits for an average of 44.

.48 chance of one hit for an average of 1d10+2d8+12=26.5

.16 chance of zero hits for an average of 0.

Total is 0.36*44+0.48*26.5=28.56 DPR

The ranger is actually doing over 51% more damage.

The thing is that the ranger gets Hunter's quarry every round unless he misses with every attack. And as far as getting at least one hit rangers tie Avengers for best in the game (and that's the Avenger's main schtick).

And in reallity if a shooty ranger who picked his quarry on a previous round keeps missing he can end up using twin strike, then a minor action attack, then use his move to minor action attack again, then use his action point to twin strike to try twice more, and then use an interrupt like Disruptive strike to try again. A shooty ranger can make up to SEVEN attacks in a turn to try to get a hit in, sure, he can only do that once every two encounters or so. But how often will all those attacks miss anyway?

Edit: Damn Ninja's.

tcrudisi

2010-07-26, 06:37 PM

It gets even better if you consider misses.

Suppose both hit on 9+.

The barbarian averages 31.5*0.6=18.9 DPR

Now consider the Ranger:

.36 chance of two hits for an average of 44.

.48 chance of one hit for an average of 1d10+2d8+12=26.5

.16 chance of zero hits for an average of 0.

Total is 0.36*44+0.48*26.5=28.56 DPR

The ranger is actually doing over 51% more damage.

The thing is that the ranger gets Hunter's quarry every round unless he misses with every attack. And as far as getting at least one hit rangers tie Avengers for best in the game (and that's the Avenger's main schtick).

And in reallity if a shooty ranger who picked his quarry on a previous round keeps missing he can end up using twin strike, then a minor action attack, then use his move to minor action attack again, then use his action point to twin strike to try twice more, and then use an interrupt like Disruptive strike to try again. A shooty ranger can make up to SEVEN attacks in a turn to try to get a hit in, sure, he can only do that once every two encounters or so. But how often will all those attacks miss anyway?

Edit: Damn Ninja's.

We are ignoring crits... and while a Barbarian does benefit more from a crit (with an extra attack), the Ranger will crit twice as often.

cupkeyk

2010-07-26, 08:16 PM

also note that Rangers have out of turn attacks at every chance they can choose an encounter power, although they have twin strike as their bread and butter, they top it of with an immediate action with very easy triggers that improve their dpr.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.