The Best Ranger.. is a Fighter

[ariellyn]

Another down time while update 39 is prepared has me looking forward to the coming White Plume Mountain; a tabletop module I remember fondly. Dungeon module S2 I believe the designation was.. right behind another favorite, S3, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks in which some science fiction aspects were introduced.

I use the down times to re-examine plans for a character heading for class reincarnation Completionist. Life 9 is near; I consider what class I want to advance next. I think of what will be the least fun among remaining classes. All the options have been enjoyable; choosing the least fun class to get through next creates hesitation of decision. While looking through the spreadsheet of builds I remembered Ranger. I played that class first to get it over with the soonest. Soonest for I view Ranger as.. no offense intended here.. a waste of a class. Now mind I've seen some awesome Rangers. I've been the awesome Ranger. Fighter with a bow, however, will always be more powerful (of equal comparison; of course a Ranger with several past lives and tons of tomes will be more powerful than a first life Fighter with nuthin').

There's some examples to cite for explanation. Elf Fighter is the choice for fighting with a bow. Elves gain access to the Arcane Archer tree. That's the tree to have. Therein is the damage. Deep Woods Sniper is not available to the Elf. However after examining the Sniper tree I conclude I would rather be an Arcane Archer anyway.

Fighters get a combat feat at level 1 and each even Fighter level. A Fighter may easily obtain all of the bow modifying feats a Ranger may get. .. Plus many more combat feats. Fighters are able to be the best two weapon fighting builds AND bow builds at the same time. Ranger will have only enough feats available to be best at one of those builds at a time.. and still not be able to reach the damage of a straight Fighter. The weapon specialization, greater specialization and superior weapon focus are some examples of feats Rangers are unable to obtain. These nickel/dime bonuses added to the Fighter Kensei tree bonuses stack up for large amounts of damage.. especially when applied to critical hits (which again are seen much more consistently on straight Fighter builds).

My favorite example of Fighter archer being more powerful with a bow: Power Surge. This +8 bonus used to apply only to strength. That was great; Fighter archer would also have the Bow Strength feat. Now the +8 bonus applies to all attributes. What was great became awesome. Several enhancements from the Arcane Archer tree apply Wisdom bonus to saving throws. The ever popular Paralyzing Arrows in the hands of a Fighter now reach a +4 Difficulty Check a Ranger will never see.

The Fighter archer won't be able to mesmerize animals. The straight Fighter won't have evasion. The Fighter won't get the +2 size bonus to strength from a Ram's Might spell. I'll still trade away those and the other small conveniences for the damage of a Fighter.

When I finally reach enough reincarnations to squeeze in Completionist I'll be running through the classes 2 more times each. I want to stack up those past life bonuses to their maximum potential. I am thankful straight classes won't be required at that time. The next Rangers will be multi-classed.

Paraphrasing Quigly Down Under: I said I have no use for a sword. I never said I didn't know how to use one.

[Ballrus]

Fighter's rock!!

[GramercyRiff]

Do you think the Ranger is called Ranger because it can use ranged attacks?

This isn't why it's called Ranger.

[Xanthrawl]

Elf Fighter is the choice for fighting with a bow. Elves gain access to the Arcane Archer tree. That's the tree to have. Therein is the damage. Deep Woods Sniper is not available to the Elf. However after examining the Sniper tree I conclude I would rather be an Arcane Archer anyway.

Fighters get a combat feat at level 1 and each even Fighter level. A Fighter may easily obtain all of the bow modifying feats a Ranger may get. .. Plus many more combat feats. Fighters are able to be the best two weapon fighting builds AND bow builds at the same time. Ranger will have only enough feats available to be best at one of those builds at a time.. and still not be able to reach the damage of a straight Fighter. The weapon specialization, greater specialization and superior weapon focus are some examples of feats Rangers are unable to obtain. These nickel/dime bonuses added to the Fighter Kensei tree bonuses stack up for large amounts of damage.. especially when applied to critical hits (which again are seen much more consistently on straight Fighter builds).

My favorite example of Fighter archer being more powerful with a bow: Power Surge. This +8 bonus used to apply only to strength. That was great; Fighter archer would also have the Bow Strength feat. Now the +8 bonus applies to all attributes. What was great became awesome. Several enhancements from the Arcane Archer tree apply Wisdom bonus to saving throws. The ever popular Paralyzing Arrows in the hands of a Fighter now reach a +4 Difficulty Check a Ranger will never see.

The Fighter archer won't be able to mesmerize animals. The straight Fighter won't have evasion. The Fighter won't get the +2 size bonus to strength from a Ram's Might spell. I'll still trade away those and the other small conveniences for the damage of a Fighter.



While I don't entirely disagree with you, your post is a bit misleading and makes it appear Ranger is a clear cut favorite. I believe the margins are much smaller than you are proposing. For instance, Rangers get the entire TWF line FOR FREE, plus most of the bow feats to boot. This frees up many of your core feats for other options.

It is true that a Ranger will not have access to Weapon Specialization feats, however Rams Might provides +2 strength AND damage, which helps mitigate this a bit. Plus DWS tree is a far better tree than you are giving it credit for. Additional Sneak Attack dice are very useful, even solo if you have deception. It provides a DEX to DMG option for build diversity options (which has synergy with Evasion.) And the Activated Shot abilities (like sniper shot) are amazing.

Rangers also get some cool utility spells like FoM and resist energy that can be super useful. That's not to say a fighter cannot overcome this with gear and ship buffs, but a Ranger does not have to, potentially creating more gear versatility as well.

Plus, accessing AA through the Racial Tree can be very expensive (14AP minimum in tree) if you don't have a lot of racial points available, thus limiting your build options.

WAY more skill points, and arguably more useful skills.

I really don't think Rangers are a bad option.

[Cantor]

Plus DWS tree is a far better tree than you are giving it credit for.

Sniper shot alone makes me consider 6 ranger for any ranged build.

Last I played one*, max DPS over time bow ranger is not T5 AA, it's DWS if you are not in fury. AA just excels at getting big burst when combined with fury.

I won't argue that a fighter is not a higher DPS choice for many weapon spec, but that's not really a bad thing. You give up a lot of other stuff that other classes have.

* just throwing this in b/c I haven't played a pure bow ranger in a while and gear power creep has been heavy... so it's possible this shifted though I doubt it.

[unbongwah]

I see a lot of claims, however I don't see a build which backs them up...

[erethizon]

The most important part of being a ranger is access to magic (including healing). If all we are talking about is use of weapons, then yes, fighters should be the clear winners hands down. The ranger gives up some of that specialization to have access to magic instead.

[count_spicoli]

not sure where your going with this. Are you saying a fighter makes a better ranged and twf combo than ranger or Just ranged or twf or just better at everything. Are you talking just dps or defensively and for groups. They are totally different classes with unique abilities that separate them and don't necessarily think one is better than the other. Cant throw heals at your party members as a fighter. And for twf straight up ranger will always be better simply for 100% off hand attack capability and DOD plus they arent restricted to dmg with a select weapon class. Fighters get better tactics and more defense with stalwart defender. Cant speak to bow ranged stuff cuz have done enough of that to comment

[Kaboom2112]

The best 'ranger' is a monk because SSG decided Shurikens should double/triple the damage of all other ranged options and haven't fixed a favorable bug on Spite for like 9 months.

[Fivetigers33]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that a Tempest Ranger is the king of two weapon fighting, and any max DPS Fury Shot bow build is going to include at least a Ranger splash for Deepwood Stalker's Sniper Shot.

[mutantspacegoat]

I've only been playing this game since March. I chose it as my first mmorpg because I used to play the pnp version. And in the pnp version, ranger was my favorite class. Crawling through tunnels, a ranger was basically just a fighter who could heal. But outdoors was where the ranger class really shone. In terms of things like tracking ability, ranger was unmatched. You'd never go hungry or get lost in the wilderness with a ranger along. But those things aren't really useful in the video game version of D&D. Something got lost in the translation. It isn't that there isn't plenty of stuff in outdoor settings, it's just that there's no inherent ability to find one's way around more easily, for example; that's left up to the player, not the character. It might be nice if rangers got an inherent class bonus to skills like spot, listen and move silently in outdoor settings. Or an ability called "direction sense" or "smell" or "detect spoor", etc.. I've had very few disappointments with this game so far, but the ranger class is one of them.

[glmfw1]

A D&D Ranger is a wilderness warrior as opposed to the D&D Fighter who doesn't have the Wilderness focus.
In the same way, a D&D Druid is a nature based caster in contrast to the D&D Cleric's generic divine power.

Rangers are called Rangers, because they range through the wilderness. Rangers are good at ranged combat because it can be useful when they are ranging (i.e. travelling through the wilderness). They are not named Rangers because they are "Ranged Combat Specialists" although they can be. With the right race and feat choices, a Fighter can be a better Ranged Combat Specialist than a Ranger can, but that doesn't mean they are a better Ranger.

[Renvar]

It sounds like the OP is making the claim that:

Fighter Bonus Feats + Elf AA Tree + Kensai Tree is better for a Bow user than Ranger Free Feats + Ranger AA Tree + DWS Tree.

That is an interesting debate. One key factor will be the AP spend and which tree you are using T5 and capstones in. This will also then include how many racial AP you have. Because it costs you 14 AP to get to the AA Tree in Elf in the first place, so unless you have a lot of R-PL's and Racial AP to spend, you are going to be pretty tight on AP on the Fighter side. Another question will be what your To Hit/Damage stat will be. Are you doing Dex/Strength, Dex/Dex, Int/int, or Wis/Wis? You can't get Wis/Wis on the fighter build as easily. 41 points in AA with the 14 points in Elf and 12 in Falconry leaves you with 13 AP for Kensai. No more Power Surge, unless you have Racial AP.


Advantages of the Fighter option:
1) Weapon Specialization, Greater Focus, Greater Specialization, Superior Focus feats add more damage.
2) Power Surge, Crit Multipler, +5 to Hit, +7 Damage from Weapon Focus line. A little Doubleshot, Shattering Strike Special Attack, Extra action boosts
3) Elf Accuracy, +2 to hit, +2 damage.
4) Heavy armor and PRR


Advantages of the Ranger option:
1) +4 Sneak Dice, +3 Hide, +1 crit range, Sniper Shot (really good and only 6 second cool down), mark of the hunted, Aimed shot, Killer, Merciful Shot, Leg Shot.
2) Easier to use Wis/Wis on to hit and damage. Or Dex/Dex.
3) Can use Wisdom race, like Aasimar for synergy with wisdom. Plus healing hands.
4) Can use the 14 AP from elf for more stuff in Falconry or DWS, which is more useful than what Elf gives
5) Evasion
6) Better synergy with Scion of Ethereal.

I suspect that the fighter build will do more per hit base damage, but the ranger build has more special attacks, more crits, and waaaay more sneak attack damage. I like the ranger build better in short analysis, but I can see why the fighter build has some appeal. I'm not sure about a fighter strength based build, though. That seems odd.

[Selvera]

As someone who's played both a bow 20 ranger and a bow 20 fighter; I can say that the DPS I saw on the fighter was higher in general (I wasn't furyshotting or anything like that); but it comes at a significant cost; less/less useful skills, no evasion and terrible saves and no spells (healing) are just a few of these penalties. It also is a lot weaker at lower levels (since it costs 14 AP to unlock AA, and more to get dex-to-damage).

Mathematically; the fighter gets more ranged power while the ranger gets more doubleshot; the winner is not necessarily clear-cut.

In terms of TWF; Dance of Death outperforms everything a fighter can get put together.

[HAL]

Do you think the Ranger is called Ranger because it can use ranged attacks?

This isn't why it's called Ranger.

A common misconception.

[Thrudh]

Another down time while update 39 is prepared has me looking forward to the coming White Plume Mountain; a tabletop module I remember fondly. Dungeon module S2 I believe the designation was.. right behind another favorite, S3, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks in which some science fiction aspects were introduced.

I use the down times to re-examine plans for a character heading for class reincarnation Completionist. Life 9 is near; I consider what class I want to advance next. I think of what will be the least fun among remaining classes. All the options have been enjoyable; choosing the least fun class to get through next creates hesitation of decision. While looking through the spreadsheet of builds I remembered Ranger. I played that class first to get it over with the soonest. Soonest for I view Ranger as.. no offense intended here.. a waste of a class. Now mind I've seen some awesome Rangers. I've been the awesome Ranger. Fighter with a bow, however, will always be more powerful (of equal comparison; of course a Ranger with several past lives and tons of tomes will be more powerful than a first life Fighter with nuthin').

There's some examples to cite for explanation. Elf Fighter is the choice for fighting with a bow. Elves gain access to the Arcane Archer tree. That's the tree to have. Therein is the damage. Deep Woods Sniper is not available to the Elf. However after examining the Sniper tree I conclude I would rather be an Arcane Archer anyway.

Fighters get a combat feat at level 1 and each even Fighter level. A Fighter may easily obtain all of the bow modifying feats a Ranger may get. .. Plus many more combat feats. Fighters are able to be the best two weapon fighting builds AND bow builds at the same time. Ranger will have only enough feats available to be best at one of those builds at a time.. and still not be able to reach the damage of a straight Fighter. The weapon specialization, greater specialization and superior weapon focus are some examples of feats Rangers are unable to obtain. These nickel/dime bonuses added to the Fighter Kensei tree bonuses stack up for large amounts of damage.. especially when applied to critical hits (which again are seen much more consistently on straight Fighter builds).

My favorite example of Fighter archer being more powerful with a bow: Power Surge. This +8 bonus used to apply only to strength. That was great; Fighter archer would also have the Bow Strength feat. Now the +8 bonus applies to all attributes. What was great became awesome. Several enhancements from the Arcane Archer tree apply Wisdom bonus to saving throws. The ever popular Paralyzing Arrows in the hands of a Fighter now reach a +4 Difficulty Check a Ranger will never see.

The Fighter archer won't be able to mesmerize animals. The straight Fighter won't have evasion. The Fighter won't get the +2 size bonus to strength from a Ram's Might spell. I'll still trade away those and the other small conveniences for the damage of a Fighter.

When I finally reach enough reincarnations to squeeze in Completionist I'll be running through the classes 2 more times each. I want to stack up those past life bonuses to their maximum potential. I am thankful straight classes won't be required at that time. The next Rangers will be multi-classed.

Paraphrasing Quigly Down Under: I said I have no use for a sword. I never said I didn't know how to use one.

One who has limited experience and knowledge should not state opinions as facts.

You don't have to run pure classes even the first time through to get completionist.

Rangers get TWF, ITWF, GTWF, Bow Strength, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Improved Precise Shot, and Diehard for free.

Even ignoring Diehard, that's 8 free feats.

A pure fighter gets 11 extra feats. To get Bow Strength, he'll also need pre-requisites of Point Blank Shot and Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons.

So there's 10 of the fighter's 11 extra feats just to MATCH what the Ranger gets for free. If you want to specialize, the fighter should pick either archery or melee

Fighter specialization means specializing in a weapon type

An elf fighter can indeed be as a good as a ranger at archery. But a ranger can be good at archery AND melee. A fighter has to choose. You said that "Fighters are able to be the best two weapon fighting builds AND bow builds at the same time." This is the exact opposite of the truth. Rangers, are good at both, and excellent at one. A fighter has to choose. You can't specialize in both types of combat.

Deep wood Sniper is a very good enhancement tree for archers. Foolish of you to dismiss it so easily.

Fighters are very powerful. You can indeed make a very good elf fighter archer.

But they are not far better than a ranger archer. A ranger archer will have more APs to spend on enhancements. A ranger archer will have evasion and self-healing. Those two things cannot be dismissed easily. Favored enemies and more skills are a nice boost too... If you ever play at cap, having a max Hide skill, and being a Dex build with access to Deepwood Sniper offers some serious DPS with Scion of the Ethereal Plane

Plenty of excellent multi-class options for an archer too. You don't just have to choose between pure fighter and pure ranger. For many years, my TWF melee character would multi-class 6 levels of ranger, regardless if his main class was fighter, paladin, barb, rogue, or monk. I just always liked the free feats (TWF, ITWF, Bow Strength, Rapid Shot, Manyshot). I always found it useful for my melee character to have Manyshot when ranged combat was needed.

A 12/6 fighter/ranger gets Power Surge AND access to the DWS and AA trees. It also gets MORE feats than a pure fighter. It does lose access to the capstones. But you also have two levels left to grab rogue (evasion and traps), or monk (evasion and two more feats, plus the option to go centered), or maybe barb (for run speed and the new DR), or FvS (for Divine Will or Divine Presence)

Lots of good options that would probably be more fun to play than just a pure fighter.

[Ausdoerrt]

Rangers get TWF, ITWF, GTWF, Bow Strength, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Improved Precise Shot, and Diehard for free.

And Evasion!! (And, well, HiPS, if we get really pedantic about it).

Also, there's not nearly enough Favored Enemy discussion in this thread to even make the fighter vs. ranger a valid discussion (thanks for mentioning it, though).

[ariellyn]

I see a lot of claims, however I don't see a build which backs them up...

(f= fighter feat. l= level feat)
1. f,l: point blank shot, weaponp focus, ranged
2. f: rapid shot
3. l: magical training (need a few spell points to work arcane archer)
4. f: weapon specialization, ranged
5.
6. f,l: bow strength, many shot
7.
8. f: improved critical, ranged
9. l: precise shot
10. f: power attack
11.
12. f,l: cleave, great cleave
13.
14. f: improved precise shot
15. l: greater weapon focus, ranged
16. f: pow critical
17.
18. f,l: greater weapon specialization, ranged, ? (hmm.. any feat. perhaps something more melee)
19.
20 f: superior wep focus

Enhancements:
race: 14 (to reach arcane archer. toss in some Arcanum for spell points)
arcane archer: 25 (up to paralyzing arrows. include 2 tiers of elemental arrows, an elemental damage, morphic arrows, metalline arrows, banishing arrows, smiting arrows)
kensei: 41 (reaching capstone, all the specializations through weapon master, keen edge for more crit chance).

I hadn't lengthened the original post for the trees and feat lists being available for everyone to see for themselves.

[ariellyn]

not sure where your going with this. Are you saying a fighter makes a better ranged and twf combo than ranger or Just ranged or twf or just better at everything. Are you talking just dps or defensively and for groups. They are totally different classes with unique abilities that separate them and don't necessarily think one is better than the other. Cant throw heals at your party members as a fighter. And for twf straight up ranger will always be better simply for 100% off hand attack capability and DOD plus they arent restricted to dmg with a select weapon class. Fighters get better tactics and more defense with stalwart defender. Cant speak to bow ranged stuff cuz have done enough of that to comment

I'm saying that Fighters make better ranged damage characters, better melee damage characters and better damage combinations of ranged and melee.. which ever of the 3 builds.

You're right about heals. Fighters don't naturally throw them. I speak only of damage output. .. Which brings me to the next thought: simply for the 100% off hand attack; that is not enough to compare to the critical frequency and damage a Fighter reaches even only with an 80% off hand attack chance from Greater Two Weapon Fighting. Fighter critical threat range and critical damage will be much wider and higher.

Don't even worry about a single weapon class restriction. Carry an adamantite set, byeshk, cold iron and silver set, know your enemies' weaknesses and you'll not need more than one weapon class.

[ariellyn]

I've only been playing this game since March. I chose it as my first mmorpg because I used to play the pnp version. And in the pnp version, ranger was my favorite class. Crawling through tunnels, a ranger was basically just a fighter who could heal. But outdoors was where the ranger class really shone. In terms of things like tracking ability, ranger was unmatched. You'd never go hungry or get lost in the wilderness with a ranger along. But those things aren't really useful in the video game version of D&D. Something got lost in the translation. It isn't that there isn't plenty of stuff in outdoor settings, it's just that there's no inherent ability to find one's way around more easily, for example; that's left up to the player, not the character. It might be nice if rangers got an inherent class bonus to skills like spot, listen and move silently in outdoor settings. Or an ability called "direction sense" or "smell" or "detect spoor", etc.. I've had very few disappointments with this game so far, but the ranger class is one of them.

I hear that. Online games thus far lack something tabletop has. Online, most of the time, the name of the game is defeating opponents. That means doing damage. Heck.. quests have score card information listing kills of each member. There is no need to track prey, forage for food, weave shoes from vines.. I don't think I would enjoy such things other than at the tabletop where imagination is not restricted to what software provides. Online I want to stomp enemies. .. Or be the healer in reaper mode that keeps a team stomping enemies. .. Or that multi-class fighter with 1 level of rogue that never blows a trap. Online has it's place. I still run tabletop with friends once a week.

[Gywiden]

Man, all this time I thought those Ford trucks and forest rangers were things that excelled at wielding bows ;).

[HungarianRhapsody]

If you're just looking for best ranged attacks, the clear answer is Sorcerer with high enough DCs to land Charms/Holds/Instakills together with blasting to kill the stuff that doesn't die to instakill. It doesn't get much higher DPS than a Circle of Death that kills everything inside it.

[Fivetigers33]

I'm saying that Fighters make better ... better melee damage characters...

Which brings me to the next thought: simply for the 100% off hand attack; that is not enough to compare to the critical frequency and damage a Fighter reaches even only with an 80% off hand attack chance from Greater Two Weapon Fighting. Fighter critical threat range and critical damage will be much wider and higher.

You missed a few things. Rangers get +1 threat range in the Deepwood Stalker 4th core and +1 multiplier in Tempest 4th core. So Fighters and Rangers have the exact same critical threat profile.

From there Rangers get 20% more offhand attacks, and all of their offhand attacks do full damage, whereas the fighter's offhand attacks only benefit from 1/2 of their damage ability modifier.

If that wasn't enough, Dance of Death lets Rangers hit 4 enemies per swing 66% of the time.

It's not even close dude. TWF Ranger > TWF Fighter

[ariellyn]

And Evasion!! (And, well, HiPS, if we get really pedantic about it).

Also, there's not nearly enough Favored Enemy discussion in this thread to even make the fighter vs. ranger a valid discussion (thanks for mentioning it, though).

The second to mention the free feats. Xanthrawl was the first. Fighters get the normal feats at levels 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18; 7 feats. The class allows for combat feats at level 1 and each even Fighter level thereafter; 11 more feats. With 18 feats all the free ones Rangers get are available.. plus several more.

Rangers will end up with a +10 damage to favored enemies. Fighters will end up with that much and more vs.. well.. everything (+10 alone coming just from kensei weapon group specialization column).

[Chai]

Classic example of what happens when the terms "class balance" and "DPS" are used synonymously.

[ariellyn]

Do you think the Ranger is called Ranger because it can use ranged attacks?

This isn't why it's called Ranger.

Do you think I'm speaking of anything other than the main method of the game; defeating enemies? That means dealing damage. There's a quest here and there requiring stealth or swimming, a few objectives handled by diplomacy or some such. The name of the game is defeat opponents. Deal damage. Do more damage over less time to complete quests sooner.

Cast your Freedom of Movement. Charm Those wolves. Heal a teammate. Ranger is useful. My enjoyment is just different; crushing my enemies, seeing them driven before me.. dps for me.

[FuryFlash]

The second to mention the free feats. Xanthrawl was the first. Fighters get the normal feats at levels 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18; 7 feats. The class allows for combat feats at level 1 and each even Fighter level thereafter; 11 more feats. With 18 feats all the free ones Rangers get are available.. plus several more.

Rangers will end up with a +10 damage to favored enemies. Fighters will end up with that much and more vs.. well.. everything (+10 alone coming just from kensei weapon group specialization column).

I think you need to take a better look at the Ranger trees and do some real comparisons before making these statements. Not only do Rangers get a minimum +10 to favoured enemies (not counting the ways of increasing that in the trees), they also get a +7 damage to all enemies from Tempest with any weapon. That puts fighters +3 ahead in that area, not counting other Ranger enhancements or favoured enemies. You need to make more accurate comparisons like this before making these blanket statements about Fighters being better.

[ariellyn]

As someone who's played both a bow 20 ranger and a bow 20 fighter; I can say that the DPS I saw on the fighter was higher in general (I wasn't furyshotting or anything like that); but it comes at a significant cost; less/less useful skills, no evasion and terrible saves and no spells (healing) are just a few of these penalties. It also is a lot weaker at lower levels (since it costs 14 AP to unlock AA, and more to get dex-to-damage).

Mathematically; the fighter gets more ranged power while the ranger gets more doubleshot; the winner is not necessarily clear-cut.

In terms of TWF; Dance of Death outperforms everything a fighter can get put together.

Reference: the above build I posted in reply to Unbongwah, who said he saw a lot of claims but no backing build.

While two weapon fighting to outperform Dance of Death that strikes up to 4 targets each hit for 10 seconds I don't think any modification would be necessary; cleave and great cleave, each recharging in 5 seconds, will strike more targets when opponents are positioned properly. The Fighter won't, of course, get the damage vs. multiple opponents for another 4 seconds but has just damaged more than 4 targets twice. Should I find I don't have the quickness of thought and coordination to position opponents a little modification to free up 5 feat slots for whirlwind attack: give up the level 3 magical training (spell points still come from the elf tree and gear.. but let's not even consider gear. Elf spell points are enough to run the arcane archer). Improved Precise Shot can hit the road. Great Cleave would be replaced. Superior weapon focus.. though I'd hate to do it.. gets removed. There's an undecided feat in the level 18 slot of the build. That makes enough to get Whirlwind attack and still have Cleave. Now I don't have to be coordinated. Each 5 seconds I just have to be under a dog pile to have a chance to hit more targets. That's what the Ranger has when using Dance of Death; a chance to hit. .. So let's just say everything hits for both classes. Dance of Death hits 4 targets how many times in 10 seconds? 'Don't care; I'll just surround myself with at least that total of opponents and Whirlwind a dozen targets.. a score. The Cleave and Whirlwind still damages more in 10 seconds than damaging 4 targets with each separate attack in 10 seconds with the positional Dance of Death. Mind the Fighter is still also making its single attacks during the 4 seconds remaining before the first of the Cleave or Whirlwind is recharged.

Ranger has useful abilities. They do some fancy stuff. My original post was related to dps with a bow. Not damage once each 6 seconds as some have returned with replies including sniper shot, not damage vs. favored enemies when you see them sometimes (which is matched by kensei weapon group specialization vs. everything anyway). Not sneak attack damage dice you get once before threat is turned to the attacker (whatchya gonna do.. bluff something 30 meters away?) Damage Per Second. Fighters do it best. .. As they should. They're fighters. The casters do better for as long as they have spell points. After all a bow just isn't a maximized fireball.

Of course, long ago in another post, I have read that there is nothing more dangerous than a wizard in sight of a shrine.

[slarden]

Isn’t the real issue that bow damage sucks compared to shuri and great crossbows at 30?

[PsychoBlonde]

While I don't entirely disagree with you, your post is a bit misleading and makes it appear Ranger is a clear cut favorite. I believe the margins are much smaller than you are proposing. For instance, Rangers get the entire TWF line FOR FREE, plus most of the bow feats to boot. This frees up many of your core feats for other options. .

They also get the feats without needing the dexterity pre-req, so you don't have to plan for having a 19 base dex to get Improved Precise Shot if you go Ranger.

It's also expensive--unless you have a huge stack of racial past lives--to go arcane archer through elf. I've done it, and I didn't have nearly enough AP to make the build really viable.

[unbongwah]

Enhancements:
race: 14 (to reach arcane archer. toss in some Arcanum for spell points)
arcane archer: 25 (up to paralyzing arrows. include 2 tiers of elemental arrows, an elemental damage, morphic arrows, metalline arrows, banishing arrows, smiting arrows)
kensei: 41 (reaching capstone, all the specializations through weapon master, keen edge for more crit chance).

I hadn't lengthened the original post for the trees and feat lists being available for everyone to see for themselves.
Great! Now show your work proving this is better than pure ranger. For bonus points, compare to monkcher and come to the same crushing conclusion the rest of us do:

Isn’t the real issue that bow damage sucks compared to shuri and great crossbows at 30?

[Kaboom2112]

Isn’t the real issue that bow damage sucks compared to shuri and great crossbows at 30?

This, yet I think this thread is about melee now.

[ariellyn]

I think you need to take a better look at the Ranger trees and do some real comparisons before making these statements. Not only do Rangers get a minimum +10 to favoured enemies (not counting the ways of increasing that in the trees), they also get a +7 damage to all enemies from Tempest with any weapon. That puts fighters +3 ahead in that area, not counting other Ranger enhancements or favoured enemies. You need to make more accurate comparisons like this before making these blanket statements about Fighters being better.

"That puts fighters +3 ahead in that area.."

Did you mean Rangers +3 ahead?

Are you forgetting flat damage bonuses and weapon power from feats Fighters get that Rangers Cannot (Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Superior Weapon Focus)?

Who needs to do what?

Daang, people, trash me more for missing things while missing things yourselves. .. And I didn't miss things. Original Post mentioned there's some examples. Some. I didn't want to write a freaking 10 page post so just mentioned there's feats a Fighter can get that a Ranger cannot. Open a dang character sheet, click the feat tab and click a "show unavailable" box to see what a Ranger doesn't get.

I'm just saying Fighters do more DPS whatever the choice of weapon. .. As they should. They're fighters. In the original post I said I view rangers as a waste of a class. That's MY view.. not the view of others. That viewpoint is mine for my desire to just do more damage than be able to do some damage, evade traps and charm some animals. Ranger was fun for me. Just not the most fun. As I have replied elsewhere: the name of the game is defeating enemies. Most of the time quests are completed by defeating opponents. That means dealing damage. The more damage per second dealt means the sooner completion of a quest. That is what is fun for me. Crushing enemies. The faster I can do that the more enjoyment I have. Other people? They have fun tossing a heal or charming a wolf. That's fine.

Also as replied elsewhere; I speak of dps. Not damage once each 6 seconds with a sniper shot. Not sneak attack dice ya get once before threat turns to the attacker. Not favored enemy damage vs. opponents you see sometimes (matched anyway by kensei weapon group specialization vs. everything instead of just favored enemy), not Dance of Death striking 4 targets each attack for 10 seconds (the reply above to Selvera deals with that thought). I mean Damage Per Second. Fighters do it best with weapons. As they should.

[Mindos]

That makes enough to get Whirlwind attack

I thought whirlwind was broken for everyone except handwrap users. IDK
but other wise, play both builds, do dps tests, post a video, etc. It's fun to compare and contrast!

[Thrudh]

The second to mention the free feats. Xanthrawl was the first. Fighters get the normal feats at levels 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18; 7 feats. The class allows for combat feats at level 1 and each even Fighter level thereafter; 11 more feats. With 18 feats all the free ones Rangers get are available.. plus several more.

Okay, now you're just trolling. It's one thing to be mistaken, it's another to have your mistake pointed out to you, and then you just repeat the same foolishness.

Rangers get 8 strong feats for free.. Plus the 7 from 1-18. That's 15.

Fighters get 11 extra feat slots. Plus the 7 from 1-18. That's 18.

Fighters get 3 more feats than a ranger. Which they have to use on focus and specialization feats (if they are building to match a ranger).

They are basically exactly the same, feat wise, except fighters have like +2 to hit and damage from feats and some extra melee power (with one type of weapon)

Of course, Rangers get Ram's Might which gives +2 to damage as well.

But they are pretty close. You mentioned how fighters get "many more combat feats". They don't. This is indisputable.


Rangers will end up with a +10 damage to favored enemies. Fighters will end up with that much and more vs.. well.. everything (+10 alone coming just from kensei weapon group specialization column).

If you're going to talk about fighter enhancements, you have to talk about ranger enhancements. The favored enemies list is a class feature, BEFORE we start talking about enhancements. And a few Action Points in the Vistani tree gets you to 6 favored enemies (+12 for all of them), and a twist in Epic Destinies gets you to 7 (+14). And I believe the new Falconry tree would even let one get to 8 (+16) favored enemies.

That's BEFORE we start comparing enhancements for the two classes.

[lyrecono]

Wait, for those people claiming a ranger can melee, i usually see them die first.
Rangers are glas canons, every ranger i see in end game keeps his distance.
A fighter has cheap acces to the defencive stance, adding mrr, prr, saves and hp
Cheap if you're a racial completionist.

And as for healing, silver flame pots work beter then a dinky ranger cure.
And every non healer in reaper is using scrolls anyway, exept for barbs, noone loves barbs....

On the plus side, rangers get a run speed boost :p

[Thrudh]

I'm just saying Fighters do more DPS whatever the choice of weapon.

You're completely wrong. I don't know how you could think this. Have you ever played a fighter using the Kensai tree? Have you never clicked on the those Weapon Group Specialization icons, and then had to choose ONE group from the NINE possible?

If you focus on light blades, a fighter will not do more DPS than a ranger with ranged weapons. If you focus on Axes, you can't pick up a rapier and do more DPS than a ranger.

Kensai fighters do not "do more DPS whatever the choice of weapon". The whole POINT of a Kensai fighter is that CHOICE of a weapon type. You get ONE choice.


That viewpoint is mine for my desire to just do more damage than be able to do some damage, evade traps and charm some animals. Ranger was fun for me. Just not the most fun. As I have replied elsewhere: the name of the game is defeating enemies. Most of the time quests are completed by defeating opponents. That means dealing damage. The more damage per second dealt means the sooner completion of a quest. That is what is fun for me. Crushing enemies. The faster I can do that the more enjoyment I have. Other people? They have fun tossing a heal or charming a wolf. That's fine.

You do less damage. You are having less fun than you could because you're too stubborn to learn.


Also as replied elsewhere; I speak of dps. Not damage once each 6 seconds with a sniper shot. Not sneak attack dice ya get once before threat turns to the attacker. Not favored enemy damage vs. opponents you see sometimes (matched anyway by kensei weapon group specialization vs. everything instead of just favored enemy), not Dance of Death striking 4 targets each attack for 10 seconds (the reply above to Selvera deals with that thought). I mean Damage Per Second. Fighters do it best with weapons. As they should.

You don't understand what you're talking about. Sniper shot gives you FOUR seconds (out of every 6) of sneak attack damage. So it doesn't matter if threat turns to the attacker. A ranger can get sneak attack damage anyway (plus there's also radiance weapons, deception weapons, and a Tier 5 DWS enhancement that lets you blind attackers - which again, gives you sneak attack bonuses).

Rangers are just as good as fighters for DPS, PLUS they get evasion and self-healing.

There are good fighter builds. Building a pure fighter to look exactly like a weak ranger is not one of them.

[ariellyn]

Great! Now show your work proving this is better than pure ranger. For bonus points, compare to monkcher and come to the same crushing conclusion the rest of us do:

Great Maker how far do ya need me to go? Are not the numbers enough to know x+ > x?

I have a first life level 12 straight fighter bow build on Cannith server, Arielyn Quickbow. No tomes applied. I'll compete with any first life level 12 ranger having no tomes applied. Using the same bow and arrows. I'll win kill count on a bad day.

The character has not advanced beyond level 12 for it only being the implement once before of the exact thing for which you asked; proof. My best friend said she wanted to create a Ranger to fight with a bow. I told her to make a fighter. I ran her through the trees, through the feats. I added up all the numbers right in front of her face. She still needed to see.

So she made her Ranger. I made my Fighter. We adventured for a while.. to when she finally gave in to never winning a kill count. Bow being not as enjoyable for me as being blade cuisinart the ranged fighter became storage space.

You're just pullin' my chain now, yes?

[ariellyn]

You're completely wrong. I don't know how you could think this. Have you ever played a fighter using the Kensai tree? Have you never clicked on the those Weapon Group Specialization icons, and then had to choose ONE group from the NINE possible?

If you focus on light blades, a fighter will not do more DPS than a ranger with ranged weapons. If you focus on Axes, you can't pick up a rapier and do more DPS than a ranger.

Kensai fighters do not "do more DPS whatever the choice of weapon". The whole POINT of a Kensai fighter is that CHOICE of a weapon type. You get ONE choice.



You do less damage. You are having less fun than you could because you're too stubborn to learn.



You don't understand what you're talking about. Sniper shot gives you FOUR seconds (out of every 6) of sneak attack damage. So it doesn't matter if threat turns to the attacker. A ranger can get sneak attack damage anyway (plus there's also radiance weapons, deception weapons, and a Tier 5 DWS enhancement that lets you blind attackers - which again, gives you sneak attack bonuses).

Rangers are just as good as fighters for DPS, PLUS they get evasion and self-healing.

There are good fighter builds. Building a pure fighter to look exactly like a weak ranger is not one of them.

uh.. duh. If a Ranger fights with a bow and wants to see competition in the bow I'll choose bow group focus.. should I wish to compete myself. If that ranger wants to fight with axes and wants my fighter competition.. I'll choose axes in which to focus. "Whatever the choice".

[Thrudh]

uh.. duh. If a Ranger fights with a bow and wants to see competition in the bow I'll choose bow group focus.. should I wish to compete myself. If that ranger wants to fight with axes and wants my fighter competition.. I'll choose axes in which to focus. "Whatever the choice".

So you admit this statement of yours in the first post was incorrect?


Fighters are able to be the best two weapon fighting builds AND bow builds at the same time.

[Enoach]

Both the Ranger and Fighter classes have advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other for "Ranged" combat purposes

Rangers advantages
1. Feats available without meeting necessary pre-req such as Minimum required Dexterity
This is an advantage more towards players that do not have the ability to hit all the gates needed for the feats easily or even possibly until they are in the upper levels
2. Access to two enhancement trees that do provide good advantages to using ranged attacks with bow
3. Wisdom Enhancements (works well with DC abilities found in AA tree)
4. Ranger Spell list. Spells like Ram's Might benefit Bow Strength feat
5. TWF as an option
6. Evasion

Fighter advantages
1. Heavier Armor
2. Customizable Feat choices to allow more Focus to Ranged
3. Fighter Tree that adds specialization to a weapon/combat style


---
I personally went with a 12/8 Fighter/Wizard Elf and use the AA and EK (Dex based utilizing Elven Grace) trees but that is so I can focus on being a Arcane Archer as well as go with the thematic of Basic Dungeons and Dragons where Elf was what you were and you received both Fighter and Wizard abilities as you leveled up. With this I also utilize the Arcane Warrior feat as I can take advantage of cheap spells like Magic/Chain Missiles to power my Range Power, and my ranged shots to power my spell power.

Sure there are many builds that have a higher DPS then me, but the control and ability to stand point-blank in a fight thanks to heavier armor as well as self-cast buffs like displacement is far more valuable to my playstyle.

Basically, you cannot measure one class over the other on a single aspect, you have to take the whole in to consideration. Additionally, you have to take the player's style into consideration as well.

[unbongwah]

The character has not advanced beyond level 12 for it only being the implement once before of the exact thing for which you asked; proof. My best friend said she wanted to create a Ranger to fight with a bow. I told her to make a fighter. I ran her through the trees, through the feats. I added up all the numbers right in front of her face. She still needed to see.

So she made her Ranger. I made my Fighter. We adventured for a while.. to when she finally gave in to never winning a kill count. Bow being not as enjoyable for me as being blade cuisinart the ranged fighter became storage space.
"My build is better at level 12 than pure ranger" and "my build is better at all levels including endgame than pure ranger" are not the same thing.

But whatever: you've found an approach which works for you and that's what matters most.

[Selvera]

Dance of Death hits 4 targets how many times in 10 seconds? 'Don't care; I'll just surround myself with at least that total of opponents and Whirlwind a dozen targets.. a score.

Ok; Let's calculate this number...

The epic tempest ranger is attacking more then 1ce per second. Each attack doublestrikes and offhands automatically (100% chance of each) and without pastlives has 35% chance to produce offhand doublestrike. So we're looking at more then 3.35 attacks per second; per target. Over 10 seconds and 4 targets; that's 134 attacks.

Now; you think that cleave + greatcleave + whirlwind attack even comes close? None of these doublestrike; offhandstrike or ofhand doublestrike. If you aren't an unarmed monk whirlwind attack doesn't even get bonus attacks (and you aren't because you're a fighter). So against 10 targets your rotation hits 3x10 = 30 attacks.

But; the fighter's attacks might do a little more damage and get some bonus +[w] on them; so let's be generous and count it as 40 attacks. The ranger is doing 3 times more AoE damage. It's not even close.

Reference (besides math): I've played dual wielding builds with cleaves and dual wielding builds with dance of death. You can feel the difference; especially when you step into EE and higher.

[Thrudh]

I have a first life level 12 straight fighter bow build on Cannith server, Arielyn Quickbow. No tomes applied. I'll compete with any first life level 12 ranger having no tomes applied. Using the same bow and arrows. I'll win kill count on a bad day.

If you don't have Improved Precise Shot as an archer, the level 12 ranger with IPS (played by anyone competent) will beat the fighter in kill count. So we have to assume the fighter has IPS.

Ranger has all 8 TWF and ranged feats by level 12, including Improved Precise Shot, plus the standard 4 feats. We'll say he spends one on Point Blank Shot.

Fighter gets 7 feats by 12, plus the standard 4 feats.

To get Bow Strength, the fighter needs to get Weapon Focus: Ranged and Point Blank Shot. So that's 10 of his 11 feats to have all the same feats as the Ranger. He would have to spend 1 more feat on Weapon Specialization: Ranged to unlock Tier II Kensai bonuses. (This gains him +2 melee power over the ranger - Ram's Might balances out the +2 damage from Weapon Specialization)

Ranger has 3 more feats at level 12 than the fighter. But let's say, for fun, he spends 1 of them on Weapon Focus: Ranged so the two builds are closer together. Still leaves him 2 more feats.

Both only have 32 action points at level 12. The ranger archer can put them all in AA and DWS.

The fighter archer has to spend 14 of those 32 just in Elf to even get ACCESS to the AA enhancement tree.

The ranger is going to have more DPS from enhancements at this point.

The fighter also needs a 19 Dex for IPS, which the ranger doesn't need. The fighter doesn't have any tomes, so he spent a lot of stat build points in Dex (or level ups). He's also an elf. The ranger could be any race. The ranger likely has a higher STR than the fighter.

Can a pure fighter go Dex-based? I don't think so. But I could be wrong there.

Two advantages for the fighter (and they are decent). Fighter archer can have crit multipler +1 by this level (But if he does this, he'll have only 7 points left for AA). Ranger would have to spend more and just get +1 crit range from DWS (Leaving only 11 for AA). Or just go deeper into AA and wait for the +1 crit range enhancement until later.

Fighter also gets Haste Boost. That's big.

To recap at level 12:

Ranger has 2 more feats than a Fighter.
Ranger has more available Action Points to spend on AA enhancements
Ranger has more STR than fighter for damage (or the Ranger can go Dex-based for damage)
Ranger has evasion
Ranger has cure spells
Fighter does have Haste Boost though.



They otherwise have the same gear. There's no way a level 12 archer elf fighter is substantially better than a level 12 archer ranger.

You may be better at playing DDO than your friend. That doesn't mean fighters make better archers than rangers.

[Thrudh]

But whatever: you've found an approach which works for you and that's what matters most.

Oh, that's all good.

But that's not what he said. He said fighters are far better than rangers. That rangers are a "waste of a class". He's a little bit beyond "Hey, this is what works for me".

[unbongwah]

But that's not what he said. He said fighters are far better than rangers. That rangers are a "waste of a class". He's a little bit beyond "Hey, this is what works for me".
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
At some point, you realize you have better things to do with your life.

[Thrudh]

At some point, you realize you have better things to do with your life.

Heh, point taken. :)

[AbyssalMage]

I see a lot of claims, however I don't see a build which backs them up...
This ^

And if memory serves, (Bow) Ranger's were still (slightly) more DPS than Fighter's before the pass (which could be wrong). Now with Falconry (instead of Harper) there may be more synergy to pull a few more DPS out of them. But U39 is till new so I'll hold off on the bold statement until further tests.

[Coffey]

Did i miss mention of Ranger Deepwood Stalker enhancement Improved Archer's Focus?




My favorite example of Fighter archer being more powerful with a bow: Power Surge. This +8 bonus used to apply only to strength. That was great; Fighter archer would also have the Bow Strength feat. Now the +8 bonus applies to all attributes. What was great became awesome. Several enhancements from the Arcane Archer tree apply Wisdom bonus to saving throws. The ever popular Paralyzing Arrows in the hands of a Fighter now reach a +4 Difficulty Check a Ranger will never see.

Edit: Bow Strength changes the damage modifier only if Strength is higher but it does not stack on a higher Dexterity to damage modifier.

To make it worth while Fighter for ranged i would want to be able to get some Stalwart Defender enhancement for stance,
and AC but AP is running a little thin to do this. I would also want 3-4 Heavy Armor Feats for PRR MRR because they are available.

[FuryFlash]

"That puts fighters +3 ahead in that area.."

Did you mean Rangers +3 ahead?

Are you forgetting flat damage bonuses and weapon power from feats Fighters get that Rangers Cannot (Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Superior Weapon Focus)?

Who needs to do what?

Daang, people, trash me more for missing things while missing things yourselves. .. And I didn't miss things. Original Post mentioned there's some examples. Some. I didn't want to write a freaking 10 page post so just mentioned there's feats a Fighter can get that a Ranger cannot. Open a dang character sheet, click the feat tab and click a "show unavailable" box to see what a Ranger doesn't get.

I'm just saying Fighters do more DPS whatever the choice of weapon. .. As they should. They're fighters. In the original post I said I view rangers as a waste of a class. That's MY view.. not the view of others. That viewpoint is mine for my desire to just do more damage than be able to do some damage, evade traps and charm some animals. Ranger was fun for me. Just not the most fun. As I have replied elsewhere: the name of the game is defeating enemies. Most of the time quests are completed by defeating opponents. That means dealing damage. The more damage per second dealt means the sooner completion of a quest. That is what is fun for me. Crushing enemies. The faster I can do that the more enjoyment I have. Other people? They have fun tossing a heal or charming a wolf. That's fine.

Also as replied elsewhere; I speak of dps. Not damage once each 6 seconds with a sniper shot. Not sneak attack dice ya get once before threat turns to the attacker. Not favored enemy damage vs. opponents you see sometimes (matched anyway by kensei weapon group specialization vs. everything instead of just favored enemy), not Dance of Death striking 4 targets each attack for 10 seconds (the reply above to Selvera deals with that thought). I mean Damage Per Second. Fighters do it best with weapons. As they should.

My post was not a comprehensive list of damage sources from both sides. The intention was only to point out that if you are going to make a direct comparison like that, you need to consider all the factors. I'm not choosing a side in this discussion because I simply haven't done a comprehensive comparison, and I don't care enough to spend the time to do a real comparison. But when you come on the forums saying Fighter is better than Ranger in all DPS aspects (maybe it is, I don't know), you can't just ignore stuff like special attacks (sniper shot/exposing strike/DoD, or opportunity attack for Kensai), sneak attack dice (seriously, you think this hits once?), favoured enemies (if you choose right, this is much more than "opponents you see sometimes") or anything else you want to leave out of the discussion. I mean, if you compared Fighters and Rangers for DPS, and your only method for comparison was Melee Power, you would say Fighters clearly have more DPS. It's just more complicated than that.

[Chai]

Great Maker how far do ya need me to go? Are not the numbers enough to know x+ > x?

I have a first life level 12 straight fighter bow build on Cannith server, Arielyn Quickbow. No tomes applied. I'll compete with any first life level 12 ranger having no tomes applied. Using the same bow and arrows. I'll win kill count on a bad day.

The character has not advanced beyond level 12 for it only being the implement once before of the exact thing for which you asked; proof. My best friend said she wanted to create a Ranger to fight with a bow. I told her to make a fighter. I ran her through the trees, through the feats. I added up all the numbers right in front of her face. She still needed to see.

So she made her Ranger. I made my Fighter. We adventured for a while.. to when she finally gave in to never winning a kill count. Bow being not as enjoyable for me as being blade cuisinart the ranged fighter became storage space.

You're just pullin' my chain now, yes?

Using kill counts to prove DPS should be a DDO meme, and not part of serious character building or build comparison discussions.

There are games where "last hitting" is a perfected skill as it helps win games. I could get a diamond level LOL player in here and (s)he would dominate kill counts, having the worst DPS character in the group.

We might be onto something here though. The use of these terms interchangeably may just be a large part of the reason real character balance in this game flew the coop.

[bsquishwizzy]

Another down time while update 39 is prepared has me looking forward to the coming White Plume Mountain; a tabletop module I remember fondly. Dungeon module S2 I believe the designation was.. right behind another favorite, S3, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks in which some science fiction aspects were introduced.

I use the down times to re-examine plans for a character heading for class reincarnation Completionist. Life 9 is near; I consider what class I want to advance next. I think of what will be the least fun among remaining classes. All the options have been enjoyable; choosing the least fun class to get through next creates hesitation of decision. While looking through the spreadsheet of builds I remembered Ranger. I played that class first to get it over with the soonest. Soonest for I view Ranger as.. no offense intended here.. a waste of a class. Now mind I've seen some awesome Rangers. I've been the awesome Ranger. Fighter with a bow, however, will always be more powerful (of equal comparison; of course a Ranger with several past lives and tons of tomes will be more powerful than a first life Fighter with nuthin').

There's some examples to cite for explanation. Elf Fighter is the choice for fighting with a bow. Elves gain access to the Arcane Archer tree. That's the tree to have. Therein is the damage. Deep Woods Sniper is not available to the Elf. However after examining the Sniper tree I conclude I would rather be an Arcane Archer anyway.

Fighters get a combat feat at level 1 and each even Fighter level. A Fighter may easily obtain all of the bow modifying feats a Ranger may get. .. Plus many more combat feats. Fighters are able to be the best two weapon fighting builds AND bow builds at the same time. Ranger will have only enough feats available to be best at one of those builds at a time.. and still not be able to reach the damage of a straight Fighter. The weapon specialization, greater specialization and superior weapon focus are some examples of feats Rangers are unable to obtain. These nickel/dime bonuses added to the Fighter Kensei tree bonuses stack up for large amounts of damage.. especially when applied to critical hits (which again are seen much more consistently on straight Fighter builds).

My favorite example of Fighter archer being more powerful with a bow: Power Surge. This +8 bonus used to apply only to strength. That was great; Fighter archer would also have the Bow Strength feat. Now the +8 bonus applies to all attributes. What was great became awesome. Several enhancements from the Arcane Archer tree apply Wisdom bonus to saving throws. The ever popular Paralyzing Arrows in the hands of a Fighter now reach a +4 Difficulty Check a Ranger will never see.

The Fighter archer won't be able to mesmerize animals. The straight Fighter won't have evasion. The Fighter won't get the +2 size bonus to strength from a Ram's Might spell. I'll still trade away those and the other small conveniences for the damage of a Fighter.

When I finally reach enough reincarnations to squeeze in Completionist I'll be running through the classes 2 more times each. I want to stack up those past life bonuses to their maximum potential. I am thankful straight classes won't be required at that time. The next Rangers will be multi-classed.

Paraphrasing Quigly Down Under: I said I have no use for a sword. I never said I didn't know how to use one.


I dunno. I'm running an Elf Wizard Arcane Archer build (using the Elf AA tree). It's mainly an INT / DEX build in robes or light armor. It's got a couple of downsides, but as an all-around utility player, he is fantastic. I often switch over to my regular Ranger AA, and when I'm running with my buddy, I forget that Web and my holds aren't available. If you put a little investment into AM, what you lack in WIS for the arrow effects, you make up in in spades with Enchantment bonuses. The ONLY downsides I have, really, are no self healing (I could have gone PM but decided against that for no specific reason), and I don't think I'll get Improved Precise Shot. And, honestly, I don't really miss it that much.

This was my third attempt at an AA variant from Ranger. I wish AA for the Elf tree wasn't 4 points, but it is what it is. And he is really fun to play.

[Kaboom2112]

I'm just saying Fighters do more DPS whatever the choice of weapon. ..

Wrong.

[Kaboom2112]

Rangers are glas canons

Wrong

[lyrecono]

Wrong

How so?
From a melee perspective
The fighter is 60 prr and mrr ahead of a ranger, has acces to 20% extra hp if he picks up the right enh, feats and platemail.

Edit:
I'm ofcourse talking about the harder content, on high skull reaper, i see melee rangers bite the dust faster then the fighter, they both had equal amount of reaper points.
Plenty of mobs use AoE attacks, so staying on a mobs backside isn't always working.

If you're just talking about heroic normal or hard then yes, rangers can be fine in melee range.

[ariellyn]

Ok; Let's calculate this number...

The epic tempest ranger is attacking more then 1ce per second. Each attack doublestrikes and offhands automatically (100% chance of each) and without pastlives has 35% chance to produce offhand doublestrike. So we're looking at more then 3.35 attacks per second; per target. Over 10 seconds and 4 targets; that's 134 attacks.

Now; you think that cleave + greatcleave + whirlwind attack even comes close? None of these doublestrike; offhandstrike or ofhand doublestrike. If you aren't an unarmed monk whirlwind attack doesn't even get bonus attacks (and you aren't because you're a fighter). So against 10 targets your rotation hits 3x10 = 30 attacks.

But; the fighter's attacks might do a little more damage and get some bonus +[w] on them; so let's be generous and count it as 40 attacks. The ranger is doing 3 times more AoE damage. It's not even close.

Reference (besides math): I've played dual wielding builds with cleaves and dual wielding builds with dance of death. You can feel the difference; especially when you step into EE and higher.

Are you saying a cleave attack (of which whirlwind attack is one) has a maximum of 10 targets? Have I been fighting in red alert for nothing? The information source I use is DDO wiki. There the information provided mentions all targets within the arcs of the cleave attacks. If there is another source in addition to DDO wiki I should be viewing I wouldn't mind a link. I haven't been fighting only 10 opponents at a time with my melees. I've been fighting under conditions of not being able to walk faster than a snail. Herd and Burn tactics from the City of Heroes days. Just now the Burn part has been melee most of the time.. though I have also found appeal in the heavy armored lich wizard.

[ariellyn]

Using kill counts to prove DPS should be a DDO meme, and not part of serious character building or build comparison discussions.

There are games where "last hitting" is a perfected skill as it helps win games. I could get a diamond level LOL player in here and (s)he would dominate kill counts, having the worst DPS character in the group.

We might be onto something here though. The use of these terms interchangeably may just be a large part of the reason real character balance in this game flew the coop.

We were aware of last hit counts and avoided fighting in the same areas. In some places that required moving through twice to find best times reaching goals.

[Ausdoerrt]

I often switch over to my regular Ranger AA, and when I'm running with my buddy, I forget that Web and my holds aren't available.
But you have paralyzing arrows and IPS! You could also possibly make Entangle work (never tried it, so dunno how useless it is).


I could have gone PM but decided against that for no specific reason
You should try it, it works better than one would think. What you lose in DCs from AM you can make up partially via the AA tree.


I don't think I'll get Improved Precise Shot. And, honestly, I don't really miss it that much.
You don't know you miss it until you get it. Honestly, after running 3-4 lives without IPS, it's like a breath of fresh air.

[AbyssalMage]

But you have paralyzing arrows and IPS! You could also possibly make Entangle work (never tried it, so dunno how useless it is).

Hmmm...interesting question. Most people scoff at entangle because basically it has been a dead spell in DDO.

Transmutation - Dead School in DDO
Reduces, doesn't stop, specific NPC's movement
Duration 30 sec - Doesn't last nearly long enough
Level 1 spell - Requires Heighten to function in difficult content (raising the SP cost)

It may be a flavor build only. You are burning at least 2 feats, possible 3 (completionists/Wizard PL), for very little gain for it to work in EE content. But it is probably possible now at least to be a "DC" ranger.

[ariellyn]

So you admit this statement of yours in the first post was incorrect?

No, I don't. I see all the Whirling Blades Ranger tempest enhancements a Fighter doesn't get reaching +7 damage. The archer Fighter focuses Kensei on a bow, of course, and lacks then the damage bonuses to melee weapons.. from enhancements. For using 15 feats the Fighter still gets all the fancy stuff modifying bows and +4 damage and +8 weapon power from feats a Ranger doesn't see. Oop.. 16 feats.. I forgot to count weapon focus twice while counting twice for weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization, greater weapon focus and superior weapon focus (once for bows and once for swords). A fighter may be built so.. to still do more damage with bow and sword. I just don't build a fighter/archer with so many more feats dedicated to enhancing melee damage of basic attacks. I like the cleaves too much.

[Ausdoerrt]

Hmmm...interesting question. Most people scoff at entangle because basically it has been a dead spell in DDO.

Transmutation - Dead School in DDO
Reduces, doesn't stop, specific NPC's movement
Duration 30 sec - Doesn't last nearly long enough
Level 1 spell - Requires Heighten to function in difficult content (raising the SP cost)
I saw someone use it recently, that's why I asked. Granted, it was in heroics. I can see it used on chokepoints like doors to slow mobs coming through while you kill those in fromt. 90% slow should be enough for that, if the spell works in practice. Should probably try it out one of these days.


But it is probably possible now at least to be a "DC" ranger.
Yeah, you can go Falconry and focus on Wisdom. The Enchantment DC bonuses from AA are nothing to scoff at, either.

[Coffey]

I saw someone use it recently, that's why I asked. Granted, it was in heroics. I can see it used on chokepoints like doors to slow mobs coming through while you kill those in fromt. 90% slow should be enough for that, if the spell works in practice. Should probably try it out one of these days.

Its cheap to cast and you can use it very quickly with no cool down. Its like laying sod while back pedaling. :p

[Trig_of_Cowtown]

I see a lot of claims, however I don't see a build which backs them up...

Me neither. I'd really like to see how a warrior specialized in bows stacks up against a ranger with an arcane archer/deep wood sniper build stacks up.

I'd attempt to compare the two myself; but, as everyone knows, my builds are bad. :D

So, what is the best archer build in the game? Also, which race?

[Ausdoerrt]

So, what is the best archer build in the game? Also, which race?

For pure ranger, probably halfling with max dex and heavy focus in both AA and DWS (AA core6, DWS T5 for best sustained DPS).

For multiclasses, no idea if monkchers are still useful since the nerfs to Manyshot. Not much in the monk enhancement trees synergizes with bows.

[Kaboom2112]

How so?
From a melee perspective
The fighter is 60 prr and mrr ahead of a ranger, has acces to 20% extra hp if he picks up the right enh, feats and platemail.

Edit:
I'm ofcourse talking about the harder content, on high skull reaper, i see melee rangers bite the dust faster then the fighter, they both had equal amount of reaper points.
Plenty of mobs use AoE attacks, so staying on a mobs backside isn't always working.

If you're just talking about heroic normal or hard then yes, rangers can be fine in melee range.

240 PRR (Blitzing), 2000+ HP in reaper =/= Class cannon.

[barecm]

In the last iteration of Lamannia I did a compare on this exact subject and found the pure human ranger (for 1 extra feat) to be far superior. Fighter will not have access to deepwood which has a ton of usefulness with Horizon Shot cap and Improved archer's focus giving you +25 ranged power. Heavy Draw and Strikes like Lightning are also must haves. Then, factor in the dex to damage and killer also in the tree... along with a few others... I am not sure how it is even close. And, when building on lamannia, it wasn't. If dps is what you want from a bow using ranger, which still can use paralyze somewhat effectively, go pure ranger and T5 with cap in deepwood. In LD with all the buffs I could get, I was at ~358 ranged power and doing 500-1200 on 1st number regular damage... from 1500-4000 or so on a crit and on a 19 or 20 it was pushing 14K, but usually around 9-12k. And yes, in LD not Fury Shot ****. I did use pin for helpless.


I built the fighter with the same goal in mind and was not nearly as effective. Damage was capping out around 6K and never could get my ranged power as high.


Additionally, I was using Void and built for cold spell power... was doing quite nicely for damage with that as well.

[Ausdoerrt]

I'm going to go with aasimar kensai + falconer due to synergy with DCs from falconer and BoGW/Mass Frog. And, uh, having a bird.

So without any investment into AA? I somehow really, really doubt that.

[unbongwah]

So, what is the best archer build in the game? Also, which race?
The best archer builds are always some flavor of monkcher, because - even if you refuse to use shurikens and fight with bows only - Ten Thousand Stars (http://ddowiki.com/page/Ten_Thousand_Stars) is too good to pass up. And now we have two ways of getting WIS to damage - Silver Flame Favored Soul or Falconry tree - which has obvious synergies with Terror/Paralyzing Arrow DCs. Though you can't just dump-stat DEX, as you still need it for your ranged feat pre-reqs.

If you plan to use the racial AA tree, then you need to pick elf, half-elf, or sun elf (Morninglord). If you don't, then you have a lot more flexibility with race, with the obvious caveat that you won't be able to take the last two AA cores, so factor that into your build decisions.

[ariellyn]

Me neither. I'd really like to see how a warrior specialized in bows stacks up against a ranger with an arcane archer/deep wood sniper build stacks up.

I'd attempt to compare the two myself; but, as everyone knows, my builds are bad. :D

So, what is the best archer build in the game? Also, which race?

Kinda just skimmed through, ya? The thread does have a build posted.

[ariellyn]

The best archer builds are always some flavor of monkcher, because - even if you refuse to use shurikens and fight with bows only - Ten Thousand Stars (http://ddowiki.com/page/Ten_Thousand_Stars) is too good to pass up. And now we have two ways of getting WIS to damage - Silver Flame Favored Soul or Falconry tree - which has obvious synergies with Terror/Paralyzing Arrow DCs. Though you can't just dump-stat DEX, as you still need it for your ranged feat pre-reqs.

If you plan to use the racial AA tree, then you need to pick elf, half-elf, or sun elf (Morninglord). If you don't, then you have a lot more flexibility with race, with the obvious caveat that you won't be able to take the last two AA cores, so factor that into your build decisions.

I don't usually buy and addition from the DDO store until I see a sale price. The Falconry tree, however, is immediately appealing to me just for its capability of adding wisdom to attack and damage for an action point cost 12. I've been using that many points in the Harper tree to assist heavy armored wizard builds with two levels of rogue, switching to light armor for evasion. With the feat Insightful Reflexes so much works from just one attribute: intelligence. Recently I've modified the build with just 1 level of rogue and 1 level of fighter to free up 3 feat slots used to gain heavy armor proficiency. Without the evasion one attribute still powers so much; attack, damage, spells, skill points enough for keeping up rogue and wizard abilities (without a tome I had to ignore open locks).

One more step I'd like to see: wisdom modifier applied to reflex saves.

I've never looked into the skuriken build for preferring a different style. I have seen a star thrower in action in reaper 1 Vale. The character mowed down everything fast. .. One target at a time but still fast enough melees didn't have many chances to move to a new target and activate and attack before watching enemy death animations.

[Chai]

We were aware of last hit counts and avoided fighting in the same areas. In some places that required moving through twice to find best times reaching goals.

Its still a last hit race.

Even if the original claim in the OP is correct, kill counts arent really convincing. If you scroll through about 20 posts claiming kill counts mean anything you'll see why they dont get taken seriously.

What fighter really is, is a blank template, compared to most other classes having feat slots built in. You might be able to tailor a circumstance or two where the fighter is higher raw DPS, but this wont happen in all circumstances. An example would be Kensai TWF heavy blades. Even if you win the DPS race on crittable low fort mobs, youd be low on the list on damaging skellys.

[Selvera]

Are you saying a cleave attack (of which whirlwind attack is one) has a maximum of 10 targets? Have I been fighting in red alert for nothing? The information source I use is DDO wiki. There the information provided mentions all targets within the arcs of the cleave attacks. If there is another source in addition to DDO wiki I should be viewing I wouldn't mind a link. I haven't been fighting only 10 opponents at a time with my melees. I've been fighting under conditions of not being able to walk faster than a snail. Herd and Burn tactics from the City of Heroes days. Just now the Burn part has been melee most of the time.. though I have also found appeal in the heavy armored lich wizard.

I was using the example "I'll surround myself with 10 targets". If you think that 10 targets isn't enough (and really... there's few heroic quests in which you really need to kill more then 10 at once or can group that many into the AoE of a cleave...). But heck; if you want double the number of enemies. Maybe you're fighting ants and you can fit 20 into the AoE of a cleave attack.

You still do way more damage over the duration with dance of death.

[Thrudh]

No, I don't. I see all the Whirling Blades Ranger tempest enhancements a Fighter doesn't get reaching +7 damage. The archer Fighter focuses Kensei on a bow, of course, and lacks then the damage bonuses to melee weapons.. from enhancements. For using 15 feats the Fighter still gets all the fancy stuff modifying bows and +4 damage and +8 weapon power from feats a Ranger doesn't see. Oop.. 16 feats.. I forgot to count weapon focus twice while counting twice for weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization, greater weapon focus and superior weapon focus (once for bows and once for swords). A fighter may be built so.. to still do more damage with bow and sword. I just don't build a fighter/archer with so many more feats dedicated to enhancing melee damage of basic attacks. I like the cleaves too much.

The ranger has MORE feats than the fighter at level 12.

A fighter can be good with a bow OR a sword at level 12, not both.

A ranger will be good with both. And have evasion and self-healing.

You're completely wrong. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[droid327]

Sniper shot alone makes me consider 6 ranger for any ranged build.

Last I played one*, max DPS over time bow ranger is not T5 AA, it's DWS if you are not in fury. AA just excels at getting big burst when combined with fury.

I won't argue that a fighter is not a higher DPS choice for many weapon spec, but that's not really a bad thing. You give up a lot of other stuff that other classes have.

* just throwing this in b/c I haven't played a pure bow ranger in a while and gear power creep has been heavy... so it's possible this shifted though I doubt it.

Yeah sniper is one of the best enhancement attacks period. It's not like AA and DWS exclude each other so a ranger could be AA and have sniper for 11 AP.

[Coffey]

In the last iteration of Lamannia I did a compare on this exact subject and found the pure human ranger (for 1 extra feat) to be far superior. Fighter will not have access to deepwood which has a ton of usefulness with Horizon Shot cap and Improved archer's focus giving you +25 ranged power. Heavy Draw and Strikes like Lightning are also must haves. Then, factor in the dex to damage and killer also in the tree... along with a few others... I am not sure how it is even close. And, when building on lamannia, it wasn't. If dps is what you want from a bow using ranger, which still can use paralyze somewhat effectively, go pure ranger and T5 with cap in deepwood. In LD with all the buffs I could get, I was at ~358 ranged power and doing 500-1200 on 1st number regular damage... from 1500-4000 or so on a crit and on a 19 or 20 it was pushing 14K, but usually around 9-12k. And yes, in LD not Fury Shot ****. I did use pin for helpless.


I built the fighter with the same goal in mind and was not nearly as effective. Damage was capping out around 6K and never could get my ranged power as high.


Additionally, I was using Void and built for cold spell power... was doing quite nicely for damage with that as well.

Enlightening, thanks for posting this!

[Trig_of_Cowtown]

The best archer builds are always some flavor of monkcher, because - even if you refuse to use shurikens and fight with bows only - Ten Thousand Stars (http://ddowiki.com/page/Ten_Thousand_Stars) is too good to pass up. And now we have two ways of getting WIS to damage - Silver Flame Favored Soul or Falconry tree - which has obvious synergies with Terror/Paralyzing Arrow DCs. Though you can't just dump-stat DEX, as you still need it for your ranged feat pre-reqs.

If you plan to use the racial AA tree, then you need to pick elf, half-elf, or sun elf (Morninglord). If you don't, then you have a lot more flexibility with race, with the obvious caveat that you won't be able to take the last two AA cores, so factor that into your build decisions.

Thanks for the expert answer! It's been a question on my mind since I started playing DDO.

[ariellyn]

The ranger has MORE feats than the fighter at level 12.

A fighter can be good with a bow OR a sword at level 12, not both.

A ranger will be good with both. And have evasion and self-healing.

You're completely wrong. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Do you pull this level 12 out of thin air or just from when I previously said I stopped playing my fighter archer at level 12? You've been around a while. Have you not played fighters as archers yet? Or is that join date just forum attendance having nothing to do with actual game play?

Stop embarrassing myself? Pay attention to the original point. Perhaps at level 12 had my friend and I competed on dps with swords she would have slain more in the same time. The topic is bows. I returned comment on swords as reply to others. When I spoke of being good with both I had not said at what level. The level 12 of which I spoke was the level at which competition with BOWS ended. My reply to your last post mentioned 16 feats a fighter would use that a ranger doesn't get (except for weapon focus) compared to Ranger enhancements a Fighter would not get. How's a Fighter going to have all the bow modifications and sword modifications at level 12? Embarrass myself? I'm not the one who assumed level 12 was for both swords and bows at the same time. I don't see how you could have if you knew how many feats were available to a Fighter at that level.

[ariellyn]

I was using the example "I'll surround myself with 10 targets". If you think that 10 targets isn't enough (and really... there's few heroic quests in which you really need to kill more then 10 at once or can group that many into the AoE of a cleave...). But heck; if you want double the number of enemies. Maybe you're fighting ants and you can fit 20 into the AoE of a cleave attack.

You still do way more damage over the duration with dance of death.

Read completely. My example didn't stop with "10 targets". That was ".. 10 targets.. a score". Meaning; if you can hit 20 opponents in Dance of Death Duration then I'll just herd up a mob of 30 myself. If you hit 30.. I'll gather more.

I can fit 20 into the AoE of a cleave attack. Mind, great cleave and whirlwind attack are cleave attacks. Maybe I'm fighting ants? Maybe you're now just grasping at straws.

Had to edit before that 20 is solidified in thought. I can fit 20 and more in the AoE of a cleave attack.

[ariellyn]

Its still a last hit race.

Even if the original claim in the OP is correct, kill counts arent really convincing. If you scroll through about 20 posts claiming kill counts mean anything you'll see why they dont get taken seriously.

What fighter really is, is a blank template, compared to most other classes having feat slots built in. You might be able to tailor a circumstance or two where the fighter is higher raw DPS, but this wont happen in all circumstances. An example would be Kensai TWF heavy blades. Even if you win the DPS race on crittable low fort mobs, youd be low on the list on damaging skellys.

um.. huh? If I'm shooting at something in the east and my friend is fighting in the west how does either one of us last hit the other's targets? Same for If I time myself slaying through a set of opponents then she times herself through the same set after I'm done.. how is a last hit race being applied?

[Ausdoerrt]

Yeah sniper is one of the best enhancement attacks period. It's not like AA and DWS exclude each other so a ranger could be AA and have sniper for 11 AP.
I'd even say, any self-respecting (pure) ranger SHOULD have both.


If dps is what you want from a bow using ranger, which still can use paralyze somewhat effectively, go pure ranger and T5 with cap in deepwood. In LD with all the buffs I could get, I was at ~358 ranged power and doing 500-1200 on 1st number regular damage... from 1500-4000 or so on a crit and on a 19 or 20 it was pushing 14K, but usually around 9-12k.
Over in the Strimtom's Acid Arrow build thread, Strimtom argues that it's actually advisable to go T5 in DWS, cap in AA. Now, I haven't tested this, yet, but it stands to reason that +20% DS is better than +20 RP, especially if your RP is already that high. And that's not counting the extra damage you'll be getting from elemental arrow, which doesn't scale with RP. You'll lose a bit from SA, but again, I don't think that'll compare to the +20% DS from AA cap.

On a different note, thanks for confirming with real experience / numbers that LD is a good destiny for archers. I'm also curious about SD, please let me know if you plan on testing it (and I'll try to remember to post if I do first).


Read completely. My example didn't stop with "10 targets". That was ".. 10 targets.. a score". Meaning; if you can hit 20 opponents in Dance of Death Duration then I'll just herd up a mob of 30 myself. If you hit 30.. I'll gather more.
You're the one trying to grasp at straws here, setting up fairly unlikely scenarios just not to admit you're wrong. Also, proper DPS tests should be done under same / similar conditions, not trying to set up favorable conditions for what you want to prove.


There are games where "last hitting" is a perfected skill as it helps win games. I could get a diamond level LOL player in here and (s)he would dominate kill counts, having the worst DPS character in the group.
Funny you say that, I used to play DOTA / LOL and I still use some of those skills on occasion :P

[IlmerSilverhilt]

I am doing racial lives for the AP on my Kighter build (see sig), but its going slowly. Im part of a static sunday group but off for the summertime.
The build Im using is funny enough a ranger build but for endgame I prefer the fighter monkcher. I havent tried pure in heavier armor, I used robe/outfits
and also havent specced into kensei much, exept for Strike With No Thought to test. I was initially going for No Mercy in Ninja Spy but thats avaliable in
the new Falconry tree. Might even try to be wis based then. But in short I like fighter too for the feats.

Ilmer

[ariellyn]

[QUOTE=Ausdoerrt;6118243]I'd even say, any self-respecting (pure) ranger SHOULD have both.

You're the one trying to grasp at straws here, setting up fairly unlikely scenarios just not to admit you're wrong. Also, proper DPS tests should be done under same / similar conditions, not trying to set up favorable conditions for what you want to prove.


What unlikely scenarios? I consistently herd mass mobs so with my melees. Favorable conditions? Yes.. I do set up those conditions.. in actual game play. Do you not gather mass mobs.. I mean freakishly mass.. with any of your melees? Do you think this unlikely for not being able to do it thus have never seen it?

[barecm]

Over in the Strimtom's Acid Arrow build thread, Strimtom argues that it's actually advisable to go T5 in DWS, cap in AA. Now, I haven't tested this, yet, but it stands to reason that +20% DS is better than +20 RP, especially if your RP is already that high. And that's not counting the extra damage you'll be getting from elemental arrow, which doesn't scale with RP. You'll lose a bit from SA, but again, I don't think that'll compare to the +20% DS from AA cap.

I like that build, but honestly I get more out of the doubleshot build I had as well as this newer dps build I am working on. I understand Strimstrom's wanting to do balanced, but I either go full doubleshot and hit around 95% or full ranged power and can max out fully buffed over 350. Just my preference and the point of the build test was to see how much damage I could actually do. Plus, with Void now being in the game where it wasn't when the Acid build was developed, I think I am getting more elemental damage from mine now as well. Albeit cold damage which is more resisted by mobs.

Anyway, to answer your point on the AP spending into AA, you cannot do everything AND still be able to pick up Know the Angles as well. So, for me and what I am seeing damage-wise, it is more efficient and effective to invest 41 points into Deepwood since I am taking more from that, and only 31 into AA to get the crit bonus from Shadow Arrows. Then 9 into Harper for Know the Angels. You can use your racial APs to boost damage if you are human with the human versatility damage boost as well as healing amp.

My damage numbers when I tested on Lamannia back up what I am saying. However, it is gear dependant (not super hard to get but there are raid items involved) and maybe not as solo reaper friendly as my paralyze / doubleshot build. And, you need to start worrying about agro management where I have not had to worry about it in my doubleshot build and not having reliable crowd control is forcing me to adapt my playstyle a bit.

I am currently at level 28 on the live servers with this build and can do a quick update when I hit 30 and pick up on last piece of Baba raid loot, but so far I am seeing much higher damage levels than I am used to seeing.

[Coffey]

Thanks for posting this thread ariellyn. The damage may not be the same and probably higher in some cases but it must be good in ways you can only experience if you actually play it.

I guess the only thing im wondering about the Fighter AA is how well does it do in Reaper parties, how well can it tank when the going gets tough?

What would ultimate Fighter AA armors/equipment and bonuses look like for this build?

[Selvera]

Thanks for posting this thread ariellyn. The damage may not be the same and probably higher in some cases but it must be good in ways you can only experience if you actually play it.

I guess the only thing im wondering about the Fighter AA is how well does it do in Reaper parties, how well can it tank when the going gets tough?

What would ultimate Fighter AA armors/equipment and bonuses look like for this build?

Fighter AA can easily wear heavy armor and take the stalwart defender stance (6 points); therefore it will have good PRR. If you have some racial AP or make some tradeoffs it can also get the 20% HP. In terms of defense it can be pretty solid. In my experience; it's saving throws suck and not having evasion doesn't help that side of things much. Also trying to self-heal as a fighter in reaper is pretty cancerous.

I did feel like my damage was fairly on-point, especially compared with other bow builds. Although there are things to be said about not having any good options for bows at cap or for shuriken just being better dps then bows in general at cap.

[Coffey]

Fighter AA can easily wear heavy armor and take the stalwart defender stance (6 points); therefore it will have good PRR. If you have some racial AP or make some tradeoffs it can also get the 20% HP. In terms of defense it can be pretty solid. In my experience; it's saving throws suck and not having evasion doesn't help that side of things much. Also trying to self-heal as a fighter in reaper is pretty cancerous.

The list of AA characters you have played is very impressive. I have read a lot of your posts and am looking forward to the Paladin Archer build.

I was wondering if you are planning on going Strength Charisma with the build?

[Chai]

um.. huh? If I'm shooting at something in the east and my friend is fighting in the west how does either one of us last hit the other's targets? Same for If I time myself slaying through a set of opponents then she times herself through the same set after I'm done.. how is a last hit race being applied?

Kill count is a last hit contest. No manipulation of semantics changes this.

Timed run -vs- timed run tests alot more than DPS, and while I do like this type of test better, it still doesnt prove better class/build in a literal sense. If player A has economy of movement mastered and player B does not, player A can win the timed run scenario on a character with less DPS.

This is before we discuss how using the terms DPS and Game Balance synonymously has already resulted in a horribly unbalanced and restricted META.

[barecm]

Just to chime in on builds... Finished off my newest pure ranger and I am liking it on live servers. Capped out with all buffs at ~400 RP (I think it was 403?) and 76% doubleshot I think. My standing RP is close to 200 or so??? Have to double check that. Was in on LH Baba raid last night and my fully buffed shots were hitting first number damage only... 700-800 and crits over 5-7K since helpless is not achievable. Bonus, I finally got echo of ravenkind so I think I am finally done with the gear on this guy... until I decide to change things around of course.

While I would agree in principle that doubleshot over RP would matter more, I am not noticing a huge drop off in doubleshots hitting, but I am noticing the higher damage.

For anyone interested I will be updating my build in the ranger forum at some point this week.

Also, thought I would mention that I was around 160ish PRR. MRR was low though....

[LT218]

Kill count is a last hit contest. No manipulation of semantics changes this.
Barring intentional kill stealing or fighting mobs that can be one-shotted by the lowest DPS member of the group in question, no amount of willfully ignoring math changes the fact that the toons doing the most DPS are statistically the most likely to get the last hit, either. Especially when averaged over hundreds and thousands of kills.


Higher DPS comes from one of two things or a combination of the two. To do more DPS than the average, you have to either hit harder and/or faster. 1) If you attack at the same speed as everyone else, you have to do more damage per hit or 2) If you hit for the same damage as everyone else, you have to hit faster. Obviously there are combinations of hit harder + hit faster but in the end, DPS boils down to average damage per hit and average hits per unit of time.


If you're hitting at the same speed but harder than everyone else in the group, you have a larger "final hit HP range" and thus, are statistically more likely to get that final hit.


Similarly, if your per hit damage is the same as the rest of the party but you're hitting faster, you will statistically get more chances at getting that final hit then the other party members.


Of course it is possible to be hitting both harder and faster than the rest of the party, which will give you an even higher likelihood of getting the final hit due to the extended "final hit HP range" and the higher number of chances at it.


So again, barring any sort of intentional shennanigans to "steal kills", the toon doing the most DPS will statistically get the most kills over time.


This becomes more readily apparent in high-skull reaper missions where it takes more hits to kill each mob. In easier difficulties, well-played, lower DPS builds can somewhat hold their own versus the min/max'd DPS toons because most mobs die in a few hits so the per kill sample size is smaller. Take those same toons and put them in a 10-skull run and suddenly the disparity in DPS and KC becomes are more obvious.

[Selvera]

All things being equal; kill counts will be higher on average for the build with higher dps. But this doesn't take into account a whole ton of possibilities. Some might call some "intentional kill stealing" but really they're just running the quest as fast/effectively as possible.

Let's look at a few flaws with kill count metrics on a character build perspectives:
1) The feat "first blood" deals bonus damage; therefore increasing a character's dps. But it will never increase said character's chance at getting the last hit on an enemy.
2) Various execution attacks (Mercyful shot/strike, A good death, execute, etc) can vastly increase the chance to get the last hit on an enemy while increases dps by proportionally a much lower amount.
3) Instant kill abilities (Assassinate, Coup-de-grace, finger of death, destruction, wail of the banshee, etc) guarantee the kill on a target (if it lands) without guaranteeing that the target was at full health (and thus worth 100% of a kill from a dps perspective) when it landed.

Now let's look at it from a completely different perspective. Let's have Vet McFighter and Green McBarb partying together. Green McBarb is a newer player who can run up to an enemy and cleave, greatcleave and surpreme cleave for 300 damage each. Vet McFighter is higher level with better gear and more pastlives and/or just a better build, dire charge, cleave and greatcleave for 500 damage each.

Now let's throw them into a dungeon with enemies averaging 2,100 HP. Typcially, Vet McFighter will dire charge into a group so that he draws their attention away from the newer squishier player; then cleave/greatcleave to deal his damage to all those enemies. Each attack does 500 damage; so most enemies will end up at 600 HP left. (Ignoring misses and averaging crits here). Green McBarb then catches up to the mob (which he had to run to) and unleases his 3 cleaves for 300 damage each; killing most/all the enemies.

Was Green McBarb trying to steal those kills? No; he was just running the quest in the most efficient way. Was Green McBarb doing most of the damage? No. Did Green McBarb get most of the kills? Yes.

Edit: This is why some people use DPS test kobolds, Bruntsmash or other such mobs with high HP to test the dps of a character, and not kilcounts.
Of course; neither killcounts nor dps are a definitive comparison of what a class/build/player can bring to a party. There's a lot more to take into account when building or playing a character then just how much dps they can do.

[barecm]

All things being equal; kill counts will be higher on average for the build with higher dps. But this doesn't take into account a whole ton of possibilities. Some might call some "intentional kill stealing" but really they're just running the quest as fast/effectively as possible.

Let's look at a few flaws with kill count metrics on a character build perspectives:
1) The feat "first blood" deals bonus damage; therefore increasing a character's dps. But it will never increase said character's chance at getting the last hit on an enemy.
2) Various execution attacks (Mercyful shot/strike, A good death, execute, etc) can vastly increase the chance to get the last hit on an enemy while increases dps by proportionally a much lower amount.
3) Instant kill abilities (Assassinate, Coup-de-grace, finger of death, destruction, wail of the banshee, etc) guarantee the kill on a target (if it lands) without guaranteeing that the target was at full health (and thus worth 100% of a kill from a dps perspective) when it landed.

Now let's look at it from a completely different perspective. Let's have Vet McFighter and Green McBarb partying together. Green McBarb is a newer player who can run up to an enemy and cleave, greatcleave and surpreme cleave for 300 damage each. Vet McFighter is higher level with better gear and more pastlives and/or just a better build, dire charge, cleave and greatcleave for 500 damage each.

Now let's throw them into a dungeon with enemies averaging 2,100 HP. Typcially, Vet McFighter will dire charge into a group so that he draws their attention away from the newer squishier player; then cleave/greatcleave to deal his damage to all those enemies. Each attack does 500 damage; so most enemies will end up at 600 HP left. (Ignoring misses and averaging crits here). Green McBarb then catches up to the mob (which he had to run to) and unleases his 3 cleaves for 300 damage each; killing most/all the enemies.

Was Green McBarb trying to steal those kills? No; he was just running the quest in the most efficient way. Was Green McBarb doing most of the damage? No. Did Green McBarb get most of the kills? Yes.

Edit: This is why some people use DPS test kobolds, Bruntsmash or other such mobs with high HP to test the dps of a character, and not kilcounts.
Of course; neither killcounts nor dps are a definitive comparison of what a class/build/player can bring to a party. There's a lot more to take into account when building or playing a character then just how much dps they can do.

Here is how you determine the better dps in builds... you get some screen shots of you attacking an enemy. You get screen shot of the other build attacking the same enemy on the same difficulty level, etc... you see who's floaty numbers are higher. Kill count is overrated and very, very subjective as you have pointed out.

[Forzah]

All things being equal; kill counts will be higher on average for the build with higher dps. But this doesn't take into account a whole ton of possibilities. Some might call some "intentional kill stealing" but really they're just running the quest as fast/effectively as possible.

Let's look at a few flaws with kill count metrics on a character build perspectives:
1) The feat "first blood" deals bonus damage; therefore increasing a character's dps. But it will never increase said character's chance at getting the last hit on an enemy.
2) Various execution attacks (Mercyful shot/strike, A good death, execute, etc) can vastly increase the chance to get the last hit on an enemy while increases dps by proportionally a much lower amount.
3) Instant kill abilities (Assassinate, Coup-de-grace, finger of death, destruction, wail of the banshee, etc) guarantee the kill on a target (if it lands) without guaranteeing that the target was at full health (and thus worth 100% of a kill from a dps perspective) when it landed.

Now let's look at it from a completely different perspective. Let's have Vet McFighter and Green McBarb partying together. Green McBarb is a newer player who can run up to an enemy and cleave, greatcleave and surpreme cleave for 300 damage each. Vet McFighter is higher level with better gear and more pastlives and/or just a better build, dire charge, cleave and greatcleave for 500 damage each.

Now let's throw them into a dungeon with enemies averaging 2,100 HP. Typcially, Vet McFighter will dire charge into a group so that he draws their attention away from the newer squishier player; then cleave/greatcleave to deal his damage to all those enemies. Each attack does 500 damage; so most enemies will end up at 600 HP left. (Ignoring misses and averaging crits here). Green McBarb then catches up to the mob (which he had to run to) and unleases his 3 cleaves for 300 damage each; killing most/all the enemies.

Was Green McBarb trying to steal those kills? No; he was just running the quest in the most efficient way. Was Green McBarb doing most of the damage? No. Did Green McBarb get most of the kills? Yes.

Edit: This is why some people use DPS test kobolds, Bruntsmash or other such mobs with high HP to test the dps of a character, and not kilcounts.
Of course; neither killcounts nor dps are a definitive comparison of what a class/build/player can bring to a party. There's a lot more to take into account when building or playing a character then just how much dps they can do.

These are some pretty hypothetical events, which typically average out over the course of a quest. Obviously, dps and kill count are highly correlated. Kill count therefore provides a reasonably accurate measure of relative dps in most quests. It's not perfect, but it's by far the best we have.

[SerPounce]

These are some pretty hypothetical events, which typically average out over the course of a quest. Obviously, dps and kill count are highly correlated. Kill count therefore provides a reasonably accurate measure of relative dps in most quests. It's not perfect, but it's by far the best we have.

It doesn't "even out" when trends are based on behavioral preferences. Play style as a major impact on kill count. Do you tend to kill the held mobs, or go after the caster who's still slinging spells? Do you prioritize boss DPS or trash killing in boss fights? Do you have other jobs like healing or CC that divides your time? Do you zerg into every encounter cleaving, or do you take a more measured approach?

Timing DPS on a redname like brunksmash is so, so much better at measuring DPS. The fact this even has to be argued is pretty sad.

And I say that as someone who usually has an inflated kill count because I zerg like a maniac a lot of the time.

[Forzah]

It doesn't "even out" when trends are based on behavioral preferences. Play style as a major impact on kill count. Do you tend to kill the held mobs, or go after the caster who's still slinging spells? Do you prioritize boss DPS or trash killing in boss fights? Do you have other jobs like healing or CC that divides your time? Do you zerg into every encounter cleaving, or do you take a more measured approach?

Sure, I already said it's not perfect, but it's still the best we have. If you do jobs like healing or cc, then your dps is lower.




Timing DPS on a redname like brunksmash is so, so much better at measuring DPS. The fact this even has to be argued is pretty sad.

And I say that as someone who usually has an inflated kill count because I zerg like a maniac a lot of the time.

This test quite accurately tells you how good your raw dps is on a single target. However, it does not accurately reflect what happens during a quest (fighting multiple targets, playing together with other players, downtime for cc/walking/healing). A specialist at multi target dps will perform relatively bad in the dps test, but its actual performance in game will be much better.

Kill count does take into account everything that happens during a quest, and is therefore the superior measure, imo. I prefer a somewhat flawed measure that applies everywhere over an accurate measure that only applies situationally.

[barecm]

S

Kill count does take into account everything that happens during a quest, and is therefore the superior measure, imo. I prefer a somewhat flawed measure that applies everywhere over an accurate measure that only applies situationally.

Kill count is a measure of how many kills you have, not dps. If you want to measure dps between two builds, you have to do a controlled test or it is flawed regardless of how you think you are measuring things. That is why you see the same mob used often like Sobrien. A relatively stationary named mob with enough HPs to do a test again. This way, you are controlling the test environment. Kill count is pretty useless as a measure of anything beyond how many times you dealt the final damage to a mob.

[LT218]

Timing DPS on a redname like brunksmash is so, so much better at measuring DPS. The fact this even has to be argued is pretty sad.
Wrong. Bruntsmash and dojo kobold tests just show is which builds have the highest short-term burst DPS under perfect, lab-style conditions before their action boosts and short term buffs fade. Unless of course you're really trying to claim that all the DPS players spend 30s applying every possible short-term buff, clicky, boost, etc. before fighting each individual mob in a mission?

It also has no way to account for AoE DPS. For example, who's going to clear a pack of ten 10k-hp mobs faster, a 20k DPS kobold racer build with no AoE capability or an AoE build that does 10k DPS to all ten mobs simultaneously? The math says the 20k kobold racer will take ~5 seconds to kill the horde. The 10k AoE DPS build would do it in ~1 second.

Nor does it have a way to account for the what the differences in various builds' survivability and incoming damage mitigation contribute to their overall DPS output over the course of entire missions. It's easily possible to build an extreme min/max'd DPS glass cannon build that will put up amazing numbers on Bruntsmash. Drop that glass cannon into R10 and, as the saying goes, a soul stone is zero DPS.

There is a vast difference between a stars-aligned-every-possible-boost-and-buff-30s-max-DPS-burn against a stationary target's backside and the in-game reality of multiple moving targets, buffs fading, glass-cannons having to run or stop and heal, not being able to maintain 100% sneak attack uptime, etc. What test is best depends entirely on what you want to measure. In the end, there is no single *best* test. All of the generally accepted DPS measurements and tests in DDO have biases towards specific scenarios. You just have to decide which scenarios you want to measure.

If you only care about 30s of perfect-scenario, single-target burst DPS to see the absolute upper limits of a build's potential, sure, Bruntsmash and kobold dojo are the tests for you. Don't kid yourself though, that test doesn't resemble the reality of DDO missions in any way.

If you care about actual in-game performance across as variety of changing variables and scenarios, mission completion times and KCs are more relevant indicators, even if they too are not perfect.

I will point out though that the bulk of time spent in most missions is on trash, not red-named fights. Thus, for me, mission completion times and consistently high KCs are a better metric of my builds' performance since I don't play DDO to kill Bruntsmash as fast as possible for the thousandth time.



Kill count is a measure of how many kills you have, not dps. If you want to measure dps between two builds, you have to do a controlled test or it is flawed regardless of how you think you are measuring things. That is why you see the same mob used often like Sobrien. A relatively stationary named mob with enough HPs to do a test again. This way, you are controlling the test environment. Kill count is pretty useless as a measure of anything beyond how many times you dealt the final damage to a mob.
DPS is what gets kills. More DPS = higher chance of getting the kill shot (on average).

You don't seem to understand how statistical averages work across a large sample size.

[Selvera]

These are some pretty hypothetical events, which typically average out over the course of a quest. Obviously, dps and kill count are highly correlated. Kill count therefore provides a reasonably accurate measure of relative dps in most quests. It's not perfect, but it's by far the best we have.

Said scenario is fairly hypothetical; but I certainly have seen it on both ends before. Even in groups where both I and the other melee have dire charge it can be advantageous to hold off on dire charge until the first one is almost done so as to refresh the stun.

While Gardak tests are not perfect since they don't account for AoE dps, In my experiance AoE dps gets less relivant the higher difficulty your group is running because your party is more likely to have an instakiller if you're running that difficulty (who will just leave deathwarded enemies left; often not enough for AoE to get a significant advantage over single target builds); and because you can't survive as large of a group of enemies; so you pick off smaller fights at once.

But if you want to test dps in a mob-environment for what your melee can reasonably solo/lead PUGs through; kill count is still not ideal due to how it averages towards some builds and play styles as mentioned in my post. Timing how long it takes to solo a quest (or part of a quest) would be a better measure. For example... maybe time how long it takes to kill the giant in the tracker's trap starting the timer at the beginning of the quest (when you pickup the note).

[barecm]

DPS is what gets kills. More DPS = higher chance of getting the kill shot (on average).

You don't seem to understand how statistical averages work across a large sample size.

I understand fully. It is you who does not understand that when comparing two builds, controlling the environment gets you a more accurate assessment. Having a high kill count could be very accurate... it could also not be. Controlling the variables as much as possible eliminates statistical anomalies. Not really debatable, but proven scientific methods.

[LT218]

I understand fully. It is you who does not understand that when comparing two builds, controlling the environment gets you a more accurate assessment. Having a high kill count could be very accurate... it could also not be. Controlling the variables as much as possible eliminates statistical anomalies. Not really debatable, but proven scientific methods.
Nope, you still don't understand. If you did, you wouldn't keep suggesting a testing method that isn't even remotely close to majority of in-game conditions.

How do the bruntsmash and kobold tests account for AE DPS builds vs single-target DPS builds? They don't.

How do the bruntsmash and kobold tests account for builds that can DPS nonstop throughout a mission due to significantly higher defenses vs glass-cannon kobold racer builds that would have to stop DPSing and heal, (or move away and wait on heals) every 3rd mob? How does it account for the time a glass cannon build would spend as a soul stone in difficult content vs a sturdy build? They don't.

How do the bruntsmash and kobold tests account for mobs/fights that take longer than 30-45s? They don't.

The list of ways the bruntsmash and kobold tests fail to mimic and account for actual in-game conditions is substantial and thus makes it a bad test for measuring anything beyond which toon has the highest possible single-target burst DPS in ideal conditions. For everything else, there's KCs, mission completion times, etc.

Uncontrolled variables in the actual missions and gameplay are exactly what statistical averages with large sample sizes accounts and compensates for.

[Chai]

Barring intentional kill stealing or fighting mobs that can be one-shotted by the lowest DPS member of the group in question, no amount of willfully ignoring math changes the fact that the toons doing the most DPS are statistically the most likely to get the last hit, either. Especially when averaged over hundreds and thousands of kills.


Yep - damage per hit and damage per second are not the same thing. Its easy to build a damage per hit character and snipe kills.

True story - save for the fact that you also have to include the player. One major issue here the OP continues to talk past is their "friend" is likely a worse metagamer than they are. You can give a 6 month player an optimized top DPS meta build, and a 12 year player a middle of the road build, and the 12 year metagamer who understands economy of movement and has the entire quest memorized kills the total number of mobs in the instance first.

Another factor not largely considered in DDO is skill floor. One of the reasons people demanded nerfs of shiradi and warlock were not due to the power of the builds themselves, but due to the low skill floor needed to actually get results in high end content. People with potatoes for hands on characters with a few TRs were making the nerf demanders come in second place on the kill count list even when playing their triple completionist character. Hilarity ensued.




How do the bruntsmash and kobold tests account for AE DPS builds vs single-target DPS builds? They don't.

How do the bruntsmash and kobold tests account for builds that can DPS nonstop throughout a mission due to significantly higher defenses vs glass-cannon kobold racer builds that would have to stop DPSing and heal, (or move away and wait on heals) every 3rd mob? How does it account for the time a glass cannon build would spend as a soul stone in difficult content vs a sturdy build? They don't.

How do the bruntsmash and kobold tests account for mobs/fights that take longer than 30-45s? They don't.

The list of ways the bruntsmash and kobold tests fail to mimic and account for actual in-game conditions is substantial and thus makes it a bad test for measuring anything beyond which toon has the highest possible single-target burst DPS in ideal conditions. For everything else, there's KCs, mission completion times, etc.

Uncontrolled variables in the actual missions and gameplay are exactly what statistical averages with large sample sizes accounts and compensates for.

This I agree with. The danger of balancing a game based on those types of tests reared its head in full, and any suggestion of backing out of these mistakes which caused the current hilariously obvious META will be shouted down by self proclaimed math heads who will skew the results heavily in the favor of the agenda they are trying to push rather than present any truth. Attempt test 15 times, post best result and claim it was the only time they ran it on thing they want nerfed, then do the same thing but post the worst result on the things they want left alone.

[LT218]

Nope - due to damage per hit and damage per second not being the same thing. Its easy to build a damage per hit character and snipe kills.
You failed at reading. Try to consider sentences and paragraphs in their entirety rather than taking one sentence fragment completely out of context. Doing so will help you debate better and be wrong less.

Here's a hint, the key part that you ignored in my previous statements is "Barring intentional kill stealing or fighting mobs that can be one-shotted by the lowest DPS member of the group in question". I already said that and what do you go and do? You propose the exact scenario I said was excluded... This is like me saying "Traffic is terrible except on Tuesdays" and you responding "You're wrong! The traffic was great on Tuesday!".

Think about that, then when you get ready to post yet another out-of-context counter argument that won't make sense or that has already been addressed, stop. Then reread the whole paragraph. Think about it some more. Then repeat those steps until you understand the thing as a whole.

[unbongwah]

Oh, we've hit the inevitable "'politely' insulting other posters" stage of every DPS flame war. Predicting thread lock in 3...2...

[Domince]

You failed at reading. Try to consider sentences and paragraphs in their entirety rather than taking one sentence fragment completely out of context. Doing so will help you debate better and be wrong less.

Here's a hint, the key part that you ignored in my previous statements is "Barring intentional kill stealing or fighting mobs that can be one-shotted by the lowest DPS member of the group in question". I already said that and what do you go and do? You propose the exact scenario I said was excluded... This is like me saying "Traffic is terrible except on Tuesdays" and you responding "You're wrong! The traffic was great on Tuesday!".

Think about that, then when you get ready to post yet another out-of-context counter argument that won't make sense or that has already been addressed, stop. Then reread the whole paragraph. Think about it some more. Then repeat those steps until you understand the thing as a whole.

Dont want to assume but do you think kill count is a good measure of dps?

[SerPounce]

Here's a hint, the key part that you ignored in my previous statements is "Barring intentional kill stealing or fighting mobs that can be one-shotted by the lowest DPS member of the group in question". I already said that and what do you go and do?
That's a bigger caveat than you think though. It's not just about consciously deciding you're going to go sniping kills. Once you decide that kills is an accurate estimate of effectiveness it's going to affect how you play.

Does kills positively correlate to DPS? Probably slightly, but it's very weak. It's mostly a silly mini-game that strongly favors certain builds and play styles and is easily and frequently gamed to get skewed results.

People measure boss DPS against certain red names because most people who really care about DPS care about single target red name DPS at cap. If you care about something else you could set up other controlled time trials (how fast you can clear a certain room or series of rooms). I have a feeling people don't want to do that not because they really disagree with the idea of controlled trials, but because they like how kill count can be manipulated to make a player feel good about their toon and abilities. Actual DPS trials often come with unwelcome results.

[LT218]

That's a bigger caveat than you think though. It's not just about consciously deciding your going to go sniping kills. Once you decide that kills is an accurate estimate of effectiveness it's going to affect how you play.

Does kills positively correlate to DPS? Probably slightly, but it's very weak. It's mostly a silly mini-game that strongly favors certain builds and play styles and is easily and frequently gamed to get skewed results.

People measure boss DPS against certain red names because most people who really care about DPS care about single target red name DPS at cap. If you care about something else you could set up other controlled time trials (how fast you can clear a certain room or series of rooms). I have a feeling people don't want to do that not because they really disagree with the idea of controlled trials, but because they like how kill count can be manipulated to make a player feel good about their toon and abilities. Actual DPS trials often come with unwelcome results.
Long on opinions and imprecise, emotional words. Short on actual facts.

think
decide
probably
slightly
mostly
care
could
feeling
really
like
feel

[Chai]

You failed at reading. Try to consider sentences and paragraphs in their entirety rather than taking one sentence fragment completely out of context. Doing so will help you debate better and be wrong less.

Here's a hint, the key part that you ignored in my previous statements is "Barring intentional kill stealing or fighting mobs that can be one-shotted by the lowest DPS member of the group in question". I already said that and what do you go and do? You propose the exact scenario I said was excluded... This is like me saying "Traffic is terrible except on Tuesdays" and you responding "You're wrong! The traffic was great on Tuesday!".


Nope. I think you need to re-read what I posted. Kind of ironic making accusations of cherry picking after only quoting one sentence yourself.

The self proclaimed math heads who continue to banter that kill count has a high DPS correlation, who somehow also convinced the devs to implement your "balance" agenda using these types of tests are in large part responsible for one of, if not THE least balanced metas in all MMOs currently available for play. Disagree? What other game can two people build capped characters where one is multiplicitively more powerful then the other?

Whats worse, is many of you continue to overplay your hand based on inertia from previous meta(s) and have zero idea whats really powerful in the current meta. This is what happens when people are too busy simulating spreadsheets to actually play the real game. Heck, many of you are still trying to get warlocks nerfed, demonstrating how out of date your game balance position has become.


Think about that, then when you get ready to post yet another out-of-context counter argument that won't make sense or that has already been addressed, stop. Then reread the whole paragraph. Think about it some more. Then repeat those steps until you understand the thing as a whole.

I dont need to post a counter argument. You lost any debate that could be had when you claimed a high correlation between DPS and kill counts.

"Kill counts as a measuring stick" is a meme in the gaming world - and not a positive one. Attempting to lecture anyone else on what they need to learn before they can discuss game balance, after blindly defending using kill counts as a measuring tool, is the true irony here.

You can keep Sobrien and Bruntsmash - I'll play the rest of the game.

[LT218]

Nope. I think you need to re-read what I posted. Kind of ironic making accusations of cherry picking after only quoting one sentence yourself.
I don't even... Do you type these posts with a straight face?


I literally quoted the entire paragraph where you proposed the exact scenario I acknowledged was the exception that would provide skewed results. How you think that's cherry picking, I have no idea. I quoted exactly what you said. The whole paragraph.


To reiterate:


Barring intentional kill stealing or fighting mobs that can be one-shotted by the lowest DPS member of the group in question, no amount of willfully ignoring math changes the fact that the toons doing the most DPS are statistically the most likely to get the last hit, either. Especially when averaged over hundreds and thousands of kills.
Yep - damage per hit and damage per second are not the same thing. Its easy to build a damage per hit character and snipe kills.


So again, this is akin to me saying "It rained every day except yesterday" and you responding "Nope! It didn't rain yesterday."


Regarding the math heads, it's interesting how they list facts and math to back up the facts while the naysayers can only respond with opinions and strawman and red herring fallacies.

[Forzah]

I dont need to post a counter argument. You lost any debate that could be had when you claimed a high correlation between DPS and kill counts.

The high correlation between DPS and kill count is an evident fact. Your counterclaim that this is not the case is akin to claiming the earth is flat. In other words, it is you who lost the debate by claiming this.



"Kill counts as a measuring stick" is a meme in the gaming world - and not a positive one. Attempting to lecture anyone else on what they need to learn before they can discuss game balance, after blindly defending using kill counts as a measuring tool, is the true irony here.

The claim is that kill count gives a better idea of relative dps than a single target dps test. Caveats and problems with kill counts have been stated and acknowledged, so that's certainly not blindly defending it. Nor did anyone say game balance should be based purely on kill counts. Here we go again: you made two strawman arguments in one sentence! The true irony here is you using multiple strawman arguments to make your points, while often blaming others for doing that.

[barecm]

DPS is what gets kills. More DPS = higher chance of getting the kill shot (on average).

You don't seem to understand how statistical averages work across a large sample size.

I do, but how are you arguing against a more accurate test? Too many variables in using kill count. The large sample size you refer to has variables in:

-mob type
-different players
-different dungeons that can cause some players to take different actions (one person has to pull a lever or something while the rest kill mobs. One person needs to tank a red named while another kills trash, etc...
-different build being compared

I am sure I could find more if I wanted to spend more than 15 seconds thinking about how ridiculously wrong you argument is. Controlled test environments are scientifically proven to be the best means of getting the superior test results. You simply cannot argue against what we already know is factual. Or maybe, you simple cannot accept this proven fact of scientific testing? I am not saying kill count is not a measure at all, I am saying it is not as accurate as a controlled dps test. It simply isn't. Not sure why that is not getting through.

[Forzah]

I do, but how are you arguing against a more accurate test? Too many variables in using kill count. The large sample size you refer to has variables in:

-mob type
-different players
-different dungeons that can cause some players to take different actions (one person has to pull a lever or something while the rest kill mobs. One person needs to tank a red named while another kills trash, etc...
-different build being compared

I am sure I could find more if I wanted to spend more than 15 seconds thinking about how ridiculously wrong you argument is. Controlled test environments are scientifically proven to be the best means of getting the superior test results. You simply cannot argue against what we already know is factual. Or maybe, you simple cannot accept this proven fact of scientific testing? I am not saying kill count is not a measure at all, I am saying it is not as accurate as a controlled dps test. It simply isn't. Not sure why that is not getting through.

Controlled tests do indeed lead to superior test results. However, conclusions from the test about reality only hold true if the test environment accurately represents reality. The problem with the single target dps test is that it is not very representative for what actually happens during quests. The results apply only in settings that are similar to the controlled test environment (beating a single target, alone).

The choice here is between using a flawed measure in the true environment (kill count), or an accurate measure in a flawed environment (dps test). Both are imperfect, and it's really a matter of preference. However, I don't think you can dismiss either measure out of hand.

[Chai]

The high correlation between DPS and kill count is an evident fact. Your counterclaim that this is not the case is akin to claiming the earth is flat. In other words, it is you who lost the debate by claiming this.

Its obvious we're playing two different games here. You guys can keep Bruntsmash & Sobrien Online. I'd rather play the old Dungeons & Dragons Online. That game was different and unique. I'll take economy of movement over kill count zip thudding any day of the week.

[barecm]

Controlled tests do indeed lead to superior test results. However, conclusions from the test about reality only hold true if the test environment accurately represents reality. The problem with the single target dps test is that it is not very representative for what actually happens during quests. The results apply only in settings that are similar to the controlled test environment (beating a single target, alone).

The choice here is between using a flawed measure in the true environment (kill count), or an accurate measure in a flawed environment (dps test). Both are imperfect, and it's really a matter of preference. However, I don't think you can dismiss either measure out of hand.

I am not dismissing the idea of kill count as a method of testing, I am dismissing that kill count is the preferred means of dps testing. Additionally, I am dismissing the idea that I do not understand how 'samples' work in testing.

[Chai]

Regarding the math heads, it's interesting how they list facts and math to back up the facts while the naysayers can only respond with opinions and strawman and red herring fallacies.

Not on these boards they dont. They run the same test ~15 times and post the best result for that which they want nerfed, then do the same thing for the thing they want left alone, but post the worst result instead.

We have verified this in quite a few scenarios. Video files have a file header and some other embedded metadata where the original name of the file that was uploaded to YouTube can be garnered with a small amount of work. Software and firmware will often use a naming convention when the human doing the recording names every file the same way.

When you upload Bruntsmash Test(12) or Kobold DPS(14) and claim it was the only time you ran the test, we die laughing, our ghost hands you the L, and we move on, refraining from posting in the thread knowing full well what it will (d)evolve to if we expose people for doing this at the time they are doing it. We have aggregated 61 instances of this over the years. Its blatantly obvious the self proclaimed "math heads" who claim to be "scientific" are skewing numbers in order to push their agenda.

[Forzah]

I am not dismissing the idea of kill count as a method of testing, I am dismissing that kill count is the preferred means of dps testing. Additionally, I am dismissing the idea that I do not understand how 'samples' work in testing.

Sure, it's good to point that out. I think it's probably best to use both types of tests concurrently and always keep in mind their flaws. And then hope that one day the total damage done per player during a quest is tracked, so we have one measure to rule them all :)

[Forzah]

Not on these boards they dont. They run the same test ~15 times and post the best result for that which they want nerfed, then do the same thing for the thing they want left alone, but post the worst result instead.

We have verified this in quite a few scenarios. Video files have a file header and some other embedded metadata where the original name of the file that was uploaded to YouTube can be garnered with a small amount of work. Software and firmware will often use a naming convention when the human doing the recording names every file the same way.

When you upload Bruntsmash Test(12) or Kobold DPS(14) and claim it was the only time you ran the test, we die laughing, our ghost hands you the L, and we move on, refraining from posting in the thread knowing full well what it will (d)evolve to if we expose people for doing this at the time they are doing it. We have aggregated 61 instances of this over the years. Its blatantly obvious the self proclaimed "math heads" who claim to be "scientific" are skewing numbers in order to push their agenda.

All assumptions, no facts. From a video number you cannot conclude how many times the test has been repeated on the same character. The number may include incorrect takes, dps tests from other characters, and tests done at a different moment in time. A video number also gives no information about whether the best or worst run has only been shown. Moreover, you can just watch the videos and see whether there are any anomalies. If you want, you can even repeat the test yourself. I'd say it's a fairly transparent procedure.

In any case, I don't see any evidence for your conspiracy theory, which could easily be proven by repeating the tests and showing the results are flawed. It also doesn't help your case to give a very specific number of occurrences which is not transparant and cannot be checked.

[Chai]

All assumptions, no facts. From a video number you cannot conclude how many times the test has been repeated on the same character. The number may include incorrect takes, dps tests from other characters, and tests done at a different moment in time. A video number also gives no information about whether the best or worst run has only been shown. Moreover, you can just watch the videos and see whether there are any anomalies. If you want, you can even repeat the test yourself. I'd say it's a fairly transparent procedure.

It isnt a video number a human typed into field. Its a naming convention hard coded into the hw/sw/fw - which disproves everything you claim here.

The "incorrect takes" is a euphemism - meaning "this one doesnt support the agenda so it wont get posted."


In any case, I don't see any evidence for your conspiracy theory, which could easily be proven by repeating the tests and showing the results are flawed. It also doesn't help your case to give a very specific number of occurrences which is not transparant and cannot be checked.

Hint: The minute you said "video number" you exposed the fact that you havent done the homework needed to have this discussion.

I'll even throw you a bone here. Out of the 61 instances, this metadata has exposed videos that were shot pre nerfs in a multi nerf scenario 28 times.

Order of operations as follows.

Class is revamped
Nerf demanders demand it to be nerfed
It is nerfed once
Nerf demanders claim it wasnt enough and its still too powerful
Nerf demanders post pre-nerf videos claiming this is the current power level post nerf. (videos were encoded pre-nerf but uploaded post-nerf)

Anyone who does not see the flaw in this scenario is not being objective, and is likely exhibiting negative bias toward the same usual subjects.

[Forzah]

It isnt a video number a human typed into field. Its a naming convention hard coded into the hw/sw/fw - which disproves everything you claim here.


My main points still stand. From metadata you cannot prove how many times an experiment has been repeated and that only the best and worst runs have been shown. Moreover, the results are transparent: you can check the video for anomalies and repeat the experiments yourself to check whether the results are correct.



I'll even throw you a bone here. Out of the 61 instances, this metadata has exposed videos that were shot pre nerfs in a multi nerf scenario 28 times.


This is different from what you explained earlier and quite a serious issue if done on purpose. It's stronger to post this in the thread where the video is shown, though.

[Chai]

My main points still stand.

No they really dont.


From metadata you cannot prove how many times an experiment has been repeated and that only the best and worst runs have been shown. Moreover, the results are transparent: you can check the video for anomalies and repeat the experiments yourself to check whether the results are correct.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of file encoding can prove how many times this was done, especially when cross referencing with other data (one method demonstrated in my previous post). We just dont, due to the obviously biased nature of a subset of the community who lobbies and filibusters this in. We did attempt to point these things out twice in the past, and it ended up in the same rules lawyering word parsing fest where the usual suspects talked past every point that did not support their agenda. No reason to continue feeding that pattern.

No one in that subset wants a real discussion or debate around these parts. They want to ensure their agenda is pushed, favoring tactics which allow their team to declare victory rather than actually being scientifically correct.


This is different from what you explained earlier and quite a serious issue if done on purpose. It's stronger to post this in the thread where the video is shown, though.

Its not different at all actually.

TL;DR: "Cannot prove" and "not compelled to discuss due to obvious pattern based decade long historical biases" are two completely different things. When there is an objective arena to have this discussion where each point will be addressed in a non biased fashion, our crew has actually made some headway. When there is not....well....you've seen what happens.

[Kaboom2112]

Chai: point blank, how do YOU measure a toon's DPS.

[Chai]

Chai: point blank, how do YOU measure a toon's DPS.

Not by counting kills. :p

[Kaboom2112]

Not by counting kills. :p

Enlighten us with your better ways.

[Chai]

Enlighten us with your better ways.

Log parser.

In the games that have this built in, its an easy data mine exercise to pull up a DPS metric of all (insert class here) when playing (insert quest here) for (insert date range here).

Part of this is understanding your community - who runs the optimal rangers, fighters, barbarians, optimal melee multi-class, etc. In many games with competitive play the top end players are usually revealed by the time beta rolls around, as they have been crushing everyone else since alpha. In PVE only games the top end players can easily be determined through data mining their statistics throughout the game's history.

Been doing this in MMOs since mid 90s, and one thing I can tell you FOR_SURE - is the top end last-hitters, are typically not the top end DPS-ers. This metric is also more skewed when the game exposes this data to the populace, as a subset of players will play to dominate in any statistical data the game keeps track of. When player 1 brags about highest kill counts, the replies from players 2-6 indicate they didnt know we were racing in the first place.

This really isn't difficult, and is also not new. The fact that the usual doubters even ask these kinds of questions is telling.

[Kaboom2112]

Log parser.



Can you share your DDO log parser with us that lets you acurately calculate DPS in THIS game?

[Chai]

Can you share your DDO log parser with us that lets you acurately calculate DPS in THIS game?

We dont use this in DDO, as we dont test DDO. You should ask those who have access to the testing environments for this information.

Your combat tab does keep track of this information if you wanted to make use of it however.

[Rykka]

We dont use this in DDO, as we dont test DDO. You should ask those who have access to the testing environments for this information.

Your combat tab does keep track of this information if you wanted to make use of it however.

Is there a way to scrape combat log info? Well I'm sure there's some ocr screen reader...

[Kaboom2112]

We dont use this in DDO, as we dont test DDO. You should ask those who have access to the testing environments for this information.

Your combat tab does keep track of this information if you wanted to make use of it however.

In other words you have no idea what you are talking about.

[lLockehart]

Jeebus Christe, this thread is still going.

Here's my (not so swift) take on it.

Kills do count as a measure to test Dps as they're a consequence of it, is it all we need to test Dps? no but dismissing it completely is just silly.

It's rare to have yourself in a situation where it's not a reliable metric, you can have a character specced in heavy helpless damage and your party is running a Wiz Hold monster spammer, well, it's going to skew the damage in their favour, much like having an Instakiller which flat out outDps's everyone since not only do they one-shot things, they're "stealing" your damage opportunities.

But this doesn't happen that often and we have our Bruntsmashes which... do the job entirely? I'd love to have a testing kobold or an actual combat log that lists Dps made, healing received and given, Damage taken, etc - that would be cool.

But like, why such a fuss over a bruntsmash? I really don't get it. Even if you're trying to compensate for Monks since most of the damage is buffed up from mobs being helpless which is a big factor, it's still easy to math it out to have a strong empirical idea of where your Dps is at. You can also multiply damage outputs to have an idea of your Aoe damage. An actual tool would be worlds better but this is mighty fine with me, especially in a Pve game. /shrug.


As for the thread itself... It really depends on the semantics of what's an Archer for the OP.

If we're talking about a vanilla Archer that's supposed to kill things with Bow & Arrow, Ftr does come ahead, especially while manyshotting with the 18th Core going on but it's still so bad that no one does it (understandably)

Which leaves us with Ranger imbues that are a much better fit if someone's opting to play Bow & Arrow if they're keen into playing the support role with some neat moments where you shine with constructs, burst scenarios, etc but it's still so bad and unintuitive that I'd also advice against it.

If someone's looking for a ranged fix, I would advice them to look into an Arty, a shuriken build, a Mechanic or even a Vistani thrower - that's how bad Bow & Arrow is. Plus, look at the *Iiiiiinferno Sniper!!!* it's like they're trolling us with horrible bows on purpose now.

[Niminae]

Your combat tab does keep track of this information if you wanted to make use of it however.

Not really. Even removing as much non-combat 'noise' from the combat log as is possible there is still a lot of really useless information sent to the tab and the buffer is so very small that there's no way to collect a meaningful amount of data before it is pushed off the page. There are also no timestamps, and so no real way to measure DPS even if you had a significant amount of relevant data to work with.

[Forzah]

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of file encoding can prove how many times this was done, especially when cross referencing with other data (one method demonstrated in my previous post).


Bluff failed. A video's metadata does not contain information about the content of other videos. Even when you "cross-reference" two videos by the same author, you simply cannot know what's been recorded in other videos you haven't seen :p. This is so obvious that it shouldn't even have to be pointed out.

[Chai]

Bluff failed. A video's metadata does not contain information about the content of other videos.

I already pointed out a specific circumstance where they do. You continue to talk past it. This happens in every single time you try (and fail) to challenge something Ive stated. The lengthy history of this is aggregated and referenced, regularly.




Even when you "cross-reference" two videos by the same author, you simply cannot know what's been recorded in other videos you haven't seen :p. This is so obvious that it shouldn't even have to be pointed out.

Not only does this reinforce what I previously stated, but youre late by about 4 years. We've already exposed this agenda. I simply bring it up now in order to outline some of the straight down the checklist, first ballot hall of fame disingenuous material that has been presented in order to lobby in nerfs.

Time to premise up. Whats your premise in relation to the OP?

[Chai]

Not really. Even removing as much non-combat 'noise' from the combat log as is possible there is still a lot of really useless information sent to the tab and the buffer is so very small that there's no way to collect a meaningful amount of data before it is pushed off the page. There are also no timestamps, and so no real way to measure DPS even if you had a significant amount of relevant data to work with.

Not convenient enough and not willing to do the work to parse it =/= information doesnt exist.

There are people for over 9 years now that have done the work to parse it.


There are also no timestamps, and so no real way to measure DPS even if you had a significant amount of relevant data to work with.

Cast a short buff, it displays a time ticking downward. The oldest video Ive seen for DDO where they use this is from ~2009.

People are falling all over each other to deny what others have been doing for almost a straight decade now. Some of this stuff (like buffs displaying time) is common knowledge and used regularly. This is again due to being concerned not with being able to actually perform the tests or be "scientific" (claim often seen, results rarely seen) but being more concerned with ones polarized side of the discussion "winning" the discussion.

[LT218]

I do, but how are you arguing against a more accurate test? Too many variables in using kill count. The large sample size you refer to has variables in:
No, you really don't. You keep claiming you understand statistical averages then immediately follow up with statements which contradict that. Perhaps you know the definition of statistical averages, but you don't seem to understand when/why/where you should use them.

Of course kill count has a lot of variables in it. That's the point. Do you not realize that compensating for variables you don't know about or can't control is the main reason to use statistical averages? By design, using statistical averages minimizes the impact of the variables, outliers, and exceptions to the average and gives you a reasonably good baseline that is representative of the whole.


I am not dismissing the idea of kill count as a method of testing, I am dismissing that kill count is the preferred means of dps testing.
You pretty much are dismissing KC as a viable metric though. You have done so repeatedly.

If the point of any of these metrics is to measure in-game DPS performance of various builds, any such metrics, by necessity, have to account for the wide range of variables found in the quests. Any tests that don't will not give you results that accurately represent real, in-game performance.

DDO missions aren't a series of single-target bruntsmash style fights one after the other. The brunstmash test may controlled, but the scenario it is testing in no way resembles the reality of normal, in-mission gameplay, so the only thing it is testing, and thus giving you results for, is perfect-condition, single-target, short-term burst DPS. Being aware of how test results from a controlled lab environment translate into the real world is key and it seems that such awareness is severely lacking here.

If it is such an accurate testing method, how does it account for builds that do AE dps to all mobs within range? How does it account for long-term performance when short term buffs and action boosts fade? Difference in builds that are spec'd for helpless damage versus ones that are spec'd for raw damage, regardless of helpless state? How does it account for builds that have higher better defenses not having to stop doing damage to heal or be healed? You know, all those variables that actually are part of real missions?

Consider this example - Assume we have the following builds:


2HF DPS spec'd that has a no-fail Dire Charge and AE via cleaves and glancing blows that registered 6k DPS on Bruntsmash.
SWF DPS spec'd with no AE and no way to inflict helpless on mobs that registered 12k DPS on Bruntsmash.


Using the bruntsmash results as the primary, *most accurate* metric, clearly the SWF build is the way to go. It doubles the DPS of the 2HF.

Now run both of those builds through an identical mission that requires clearing 100 trash mobs with 12k HPs each that appear in groups of 5 and 2 red-named bosses with 120k HP each. Let's *control* for the variables and assume all else is equal between the builds and mission variables.

Bruntsmash math indicates that the SWF build would take 120s to kill everything if we remove non-fighting time. It also tells us that the 2HF build would take 240s to do the same.

Real-world math tells us that the SWF build would take 120s to clear all the mobs. The SWF would still be at 12000 DPS. That lines up with bruntsmash math, so far, so good.

The 2HF build on the other hand has a way to initiate helpless states on the trash and can hit 5 trash at once. Therefore, it would only take ~56s to clear everything. The 2HF AE Helpless spec'd build would have an effective 25565 DPS in that mission. Uh oh, bruntsmash testing just got hulk smashed.

In that scenario it is literally off by more than 400% simply because it cannot account for the variables present in builds and virtually every mission. So tell me again how superior and accurate the bruntsmash test is for evaluating in-mission performance builds...

Assuming equal player skill and no deliberate kill stealing shenanigans, would anyone actually expect the 2HF build to not consistently rack up a higher kill count than the SWF bruntsmash racer over the course of hundreds of missions? Sure, KC isn't a perfect metric to evaluate DPS, but when averaged out across many missions, it's a more realistic indicator than bruntsmash tests.

[LT218]

Not on these boards they dont. They run the same test ~15 times and post the best result for that which they want nerfed, then do the same thing for the thing they want left alone, but post the worst result instead.


We have verified this in quite a few scenarios. Video files have a file header and some other embedded metadata where the original name of the file that was uploaded to YouTube can be garnered with a small amount of work. Software and firmware will often use a naming convention when the human doing the recording names every file the same way.
Red herring fallacy combined with a Chewbacca defense.

Facts and math were posted. Nobody cares about you blathering on about metadata and headers. It changes nothing in regards to the math and verifiable facts that were posted.

You're stacking red herrings on top of red herrings at this point.


When you upload Bruntsmash Test(12) or Kobold DPS(14) and claim it was the only time you ran the test, we die laughing, our ghost hands you the L, and we move on, refraining from posting in the thread knowing full well what it will (d)evolve to if we expose people for doing this at the time they are doing it. We have aggregated 61 instances of this over the years. Its blatantly obvious the self proclaimed "math heads" who claim to be "scientific" are skewing numbers in order to push their agenda.
Straw man in an attempt to prop up the red herring.

[Hydian]

Sure, KC isn't a perfect metric to evaluate DPS, but when averaged out across many missions, it's a better indicator than bruntsmash tests.

I'm beginning to think that you simply don't understand what DPS means. By your reasoning, the EQ bard has the highest DPS of any class in any game ever. I have killed entire zones full of mobs with my bard in a few short minutes. My DPS was terrible though.

DPS is an apples to apples measurement to see how much damage a build, weapon, etc can put out against a target per second. It is not meant to account for banshee wails, 32 mobs clustered in around you, or other situational elements to be extrapolated to a general indicator. Barring having a training dummy that you can run through an entire minute or two combat sequence with, combat logs against a known, common mob are the next best way to figure this out. DDO is neither new nor special when it comes to measuring DPS. There isn't some unknown secret that nobody has ever heard of. We, as a gaming community, have been measuring DPS since around 1999. I think that we've pretty much got it down by now.

The point of DPS is to have a number that is measurable against others so that you can make comparisons. It is math-theory and not intended to be a real world indication of a build's overall capabilities or even an indicator of how a build will do against a particular mob.

Kill count is an impossible method to measure DPS as it doesn't indicate how much damage you are doing per second which is the entire point of the exercise. It isn't even a good way to measure relative DPS as there is no way to filter out other kill methods, lucky last hits, etc. A well built DC caster with no DPS could potentially find themselves on top of your testing. What you are advocating is something other than DPS testing and you are catching flak because you are calling what you are testing DPS when it is, in fact, not DPS.

Don't get me wrong, DPS is grossly overvalued by the DDO community. There are a lot of other factors that are also important. I just don't see the real utility in kill count as a metric, I guess. IMHO, You're better off speed running a dungeon solo or just with a healbot hire where you must kill everything (or whatever the standard is set at) and comparing times. It still isn't anywhere close to perfect, but it is a much better test than kill count.

[Fivetigers33]

...
Consider this example - Assume we have the following builds:


2HF DPS spec'd that has a no-fail Dire Charge and AE via cleaves and glancing blows that registered 6k DPS on Bruntsmash.
SWF DPS spec'd with no AE and no way to inflict helpless on mobs that registered 12k DPS on Bruntsmash.
...

I'm not saying you don't have a point, but which of these 2 builds do you want in your Strahd group? Baba Group? Riding the Storm Out group? Shroud group?
There's a reason people test DPS on Bruntsmash, even if it doesn't take into account every facet of DPS in DDO.

[Chai]

Facts and math were posted. Nobody cares about you blathering on about metadata and headers. It changes nothing in regards to the math and verifiable facts that were posted.

.

Bolded would be incorrect. Posting pre nerf tests and claiming it as post nerf character power in order to lobby a nerf in, changes things. You of course will dismiss it as "nobody cares" due to no way to address it without poking so many holes in the nerf agenda the only thing being nerfed at that point is the nerf agenda itself.

The math in the threads we exposed this in years ago was skewed in order to come close to the actual time in the DPS test, and the errors in that math were pointed out as well, being picked apart by multiple posters.

If nobody cared about it, the usual suspects would not be last wording me days after this was brought up. :p

Actions > words.

[Chai]

I'm not saying you don't have a point, but which of these 2 builds do you want in your Strahd group? Baba Group? Riding the Storm Out group? Shroud group?
There's a reason people test DPS on Bruntsmash, even if it doesn't take into account every facet of DPS in DDO.

The issue in the posted example is the gap between the two examples. It demonstrates how far off the rails game balance has gone, and the increasing irrationality in continually defending the methods used to balance the game.

100% increase in one situation and 400+% increase the other way in a different situation - most games will nip and tuck nerf something that is overperforming by +15% to something less than +5% if it is supposed to perform a similar role. Here in DDO we are comparing Volkswagon Beetles to Sherman Tanks, while people hilariously defend the methods used to arrive in such a state.

[LT218]

Bolded would be incorrect. Posting pre nerf tests and claiming it as post nerf character power in order to lobby a nerf in, changes things. You of course will dismiss it as "nobody cares" due to no way to address it without poking so many holes in the nerf agenda the only thing being nerfed at that point is the nerf agenda itself.

The math in the threads we exposed this in years ago was skewed in order to come close to the actual time in the DPS test, and the errors in that math were pointed out as well, being picked apart by multiple posters.

If nobody cared about it, the usual suspects would not be last wording me days after this was brought up. :p

Actions > words.
More chewbacca defense.

[LT218]

I'm not saying you don't have a point, but which of these 2 builds do you want in your Strahd group? Baba Group? Riding the Storm Out group? Shroud group?
There's a reason people test DPS on Bruntsmash, even if it doesn't take into account every facet of DPS in DDO.
Are Strahd and Baba raids a good representation of the average mission or even what most people spend a majority of their DDO time doing?

I'm fairly sure most people spend far more time in group missions than they do in 2 raids with 3 day cool down timers. I'm also fairly sure that the majority of combat time in missions involves killing groups of trash. Which means most people spend more time clearing trash than they do on red-named fights.

I've never said the bruntsmash test is invalid or a terrible test. I just said that the results it provides ONLY shows max, single-target burst DPS potential and should not be held up as a shining example of the end-all, be-all DPS test for DDO.

To actually answer your question, I'd want several of each build in my raids. Even though the raids you listed have a higher than average number of big, single-target fights, they still have portions where you end up fighting multiple mobs at once.

In my non-raid groups though, I'll take a group full of AE monsters that still have passable single-target DPS all day long because that's what gives you the ability to do missions at runspeed. Whatever additional amount of time they will spend killing the couple red-nameds is more than made up for by the speed at which proper AE builds melt entire groups of trash.

[LT218]

The issue in the posted example is the gap between the two examples. It demonstrates how far off the rails game balance has gone, and the increasing irrationality in continually defending the methods used to balance the game.

100% increase in one situation and 400+% increase the other way in a different situation - most games will nip and tuck nerf something that is overperforming by +15% to something less than +5% if it is supposed to perform a similar role. Here in DDO we are comparing Volkswagon Beetles to Sherman Tanks, while people hilariously defend the methods used to arrive in such a state.
Good job quoting an completely theoretical (aka made up) scenario that was used solely to highlight the mathematical shortcomings of the supposed "best test" to try and make a point about yet another red herring.

That's a terrible use of that example and just shows you really didn't understand the point of it.

[Chai]

Good job quoting an completely theoretical (aka made up) scenario that was used solely to highlight the mathematical shortcomings of the supposed "best test" to try and make a point about yet another red herring.

That's a terrible use of that example and just shows you really didn't understand the point of it.

I predicted you'd say this.

If the example doesnt exist in game, then the point you made with it also doesnt exist in game.

The fact that stuff that doesnt exist in game is often and loudly argued on purpose in order to push whatever agenda is going to knock the game even further out of balance is an issue I have been pointing out for quite some time now.

[Chai]

More chewbacca defense.

More like Chewbacca offense. Your position just had its arm torn out its socket. :p

New strategy. Let the wookie win.

[J-mann]

Good job quoting an completely theoretical (aka made up) scenario that was used solely to highlight the mathematical shortcomings of the supposed "best test" to try and make a point about yet another red herring.

That's a terrible use of that example and just shows you really didn't understand the point of it.

Kill counts are a very meh way to measure dps in ddo, but one of the better methods I guess. I will point out though, that Rate of Fire has almost as much a correlation to kill count as does dps as long as they are in similar ball park numbers depending on the dps to hp ratios. For example, if you have one build that does 1 attack/second for 1k damage and one build that does 900 attacks at 1 damage a second, against sub 900 hp mobs the later build would win the kill count. against mobs with more than 1k hp the later build would also win. There is probably a break even point later on where the 1k guy wins out (not going to bother with figuring it out) but you can see my point. Kill count has a lot more factors going into it than simple dps.

[LT218]

Kill counts are a very meh way to measure dps in ddo, but one of the better methods I guess. I will point out though, that Rate of Fire has almost as much a correlation to kill count as does dps as long as they are in similar ball park numbers depending on the dps to hp ratios. For example, if you have one build that does 1 attack/second for 1k damage and one build that does 900 attacks at 1 damage a second, against sub 900 hp mobs the later build would win the kill count. against mobs with more than 1k hp the later build would also win. There is probably a break even point later on where the 1k guy wins out (not going to bother with figuring it out) but you can see my point. Kill count has a lot more factors going into it than simple dps.
It was already pointed out earlier in the thread that KC metrics are bad if you're fighting mobs that the lowest DPS toon in the group can 1-shot. In that scenario, KC indicates how many times a given player got the first (only hit on a mob since they're 1-shots.

You are incorrect regarding attack speed. If DPS is equal, a build that hits 1 time per second for 10k will statistically get the kill shot just as often as a build that hits 10 times per second for 1k over the course of a large enough sample size. Once the mob drops below 10k hps, either toon will kill it within the next second.

[LT218]

If the example doesnt exist in game, then the point you made with it also doesnt exist in game.

The fact that stuff that doesnt exist in game is often and loudly argued on purpose in order to push whatever agenda is going to knock the game even further out of balance is an issue I have been pointing out for quite some time now.
The amount of things you just proved you don't understand in this thread and with logic in general by those two sentences is impressive.


More like Chewbacca offense. Your position just had its arm torn out its socket. :p

New strategy. Let the wookie win.
The irony in this statement is likewise impressive, yet I suspect it is lost upon you.

For reference, from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense :
The Chewbacca Defense is any legal or propaganda strategy that seeks to overwhelm its audience with nonsensical arguments, as a way of confusing the audience and drowning out legitimate opposing arguments. It also has, intentionally or unintentionally, the effect of confusing the opponent so that they will stop arguing with you. If they are too chicken to continue the argument, the point they are trying to argue must be equally flimsy, right?

You literally just suggested that I stop arguing (aka "New strategy. Let the wookie win.") with you after throwing up a bunch of nonsensical statements (aka "More like Chewbacca offense. Your position just had its arm torn out its socket.")...

Given your long standing history of this sort of thing, it's likely within the bounds of reason to start referring to the Chewbacca Defense as the Chai Defense instead, at least on the DDO forums.

[Chai]

The amount of things you just proved you don't understand in this thread and with logic in general by those two sentences is impressive.


The irony in this statement is likewise impressive, yet I suspect it is lost upon you.

For reference, from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense :
The Chewbacca Defense is any legal or propaganda strategy that seeks to overwhelm its audience with nonsensical arguments, as a way of confusing the audience and drowning out legitimate opposing arguments. It also has, intentionally or unintentionally, the effect of confusing the opponent so that they will stop arguing with you. If they are too chicken to continue the argument, the point they are trying to argue must be equally flimsy, right?

You literally just suggested that I stop arguing (aka "New strategy. Let the wookie win.") with you after throwing up a bunch of nonsensical statements (aka "More like Chewbacca offense. Your position just had its arm torn out its socket.")...

Given your long standing history of this sort of thing, it's likely within the bounds of reason to start referring to the Chewbacca Defense as the Chai Defense instead, at least on the DDO forums.

You only get to speak for yourself here, and no one else. You being confused =/= the other poster intentionally trying to confuse. This is where you claim of Chewbacca defense is incorrect.

Objective readers have found zero issues with actually addressing the ACTUAL CONTENT in posts they quote. Its just the same few usual suspects who try to play armchair psychologist rather than address whats in the quoted post. This typically happens when their position has run out of ammo, and they cannot continue to reply with disagreement without exposing the flaws in their position.

No need to expose the agenda any further. At this point, its already fully transparent. All retained and aggregated, in order to cite that history if needed, of course.

As far as your position in the "argument" goes, the moment you defended kill counts as accurate data to balance a game on, anyone disagreeing with you on that "won the argument" sans replying.

Have a good weekend.

[Chai]

You are incorrect regarding attack speed. If DPS is equal, a build that hits 1 time per second for 10k will statistically get the kill shot just as often as a build that hits 10 times per second for 1k over the course of a large enough sample size. Once the mob drops below 10k hps, either toon will kill it within the next second.

Not true. Its well known that players will compete to get higher displayed stats (if game exposes stat such as kill count there will always be a subset in the community who views it as a competition, even if for only bragging rights). Its far easier to snipe kills on a max damage per hit character than it is on a max hits per time unit character. In player groups who are "not competing" the stats will be the same on both sides, but once even one player who views it as a competition enters the arena, they will build the best character for sniping kills and use it to do so. This will skew the stat in favor of damage-per-hit characters.

In DDO we have also seen people build for high HP - right after the patch happened that exposed HP to everyone in the group, then make sarcastic comments to others in the group with lower HP regarding their play skill or lack thereof (a metric which couldnt possibly be determined by HP, but some players still viewed it as a competition nonetheless).

[LT218]

You only get to speak for yourself here, and no one else. You being confused =/= the other poster intentionally trying to confuse. This is where you claim of Chewbacca defense is incorrect.

Objective readers have found zero issues with actually addressing the ACTUAL CONTENT in posts they quote. Its just the same few usual suspects who try to play armchair psychologist rather than address whats in the quoted post. This typically happens when their position has run out of ammo, and they cannot continue to reply with disagreement without exposing the flaws in their position.

No need to expose the agenda any further. At this point, its already fully transparent. All retained and aggregated, in order to cite that history if needed, of course.

As far as your position in the "argument" goes, the moment you defended kill counts as accurate data to balance a game on, anyone disagreeing with you on that "won the argument" sans replying.

Have a good weekend.


Not true. Its well known that players will compete to get higher displayed stats (if game exposes stat such as kill count there will always be a subset in the community who views it as a competition, even if for only bragging rights). Its far easier to snipe kills on a max damage per hit character than it is on a max hits per time unit character. In player groups who are "not competing" the stats will be the same on both sides, but once even one player who views it as a competition enters the arena, they will build the best character for sniping kills and use it to do so. This will skew the stat in favor of damage-per-hit characters.

In DDO we have also seen people build for high HP - right after the patch happened that exposed HP to everyone in the group, then make sarcastic comments to others in the group with lower HP regarding their play skill or lack thereof (a metric which couldnt possibly be determined by HP, but some players still viewed it as a competition nonetheless).
https://i.imgur.com/JdcTFQn.jpg

[FlavoredSoul]

https://i.imgur.com/JdcTFQn.jpg

ah the classic "when losing an argument, accuse your opponent of making a Stawman, even if it isn't true" tactic.

[LT218]

ah the classic "when losing an argument, accuse your opponent of making a Stawman, even if it isn't true" tactic.
Ahh, another claim of something being true or untrue without any really proof. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

[LT218]

ah the classic "when losing an argument, accuse your opponent of making a Stawman, even if it isn't true" tactic.
Evidence, proof, supporting facts? No? Ok. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

[FlavoredSoul]

Ahh, another claim of something being true or untrue without any really proof. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.


Evidence, proof, supporting facts? No? Ok. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

The evidence is the post I quoted, you responded to Chai's argument with a stupid "lol strawman" meme instead of addressing anything he said, it's clear at this point that you're arguing in bad faith.

[LT218]

The evidence is the post I quoted, you responded to Chai's argument with a stupid "lol strawman" meme instead of addressing anything he said, it's clear at this point that you're arguing in bad faith.
Quoting someone else isn't evidence nor any sort of explanation for your statement. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

His post was another strawman. The meme addressed it 100%. You've yet to post any evidence to the contrary. Since you're having trouble, I'll spell it out plainly.

Just because someone posts a wall of irrelevant text doesn't make it "evidence". His overly wordy response was yet another attempt to interject something beyond the scope of the main point into the conversation so that he could use it as an argument against the main point. Worse, that point had already been discussed and acknowledged as an outlier. It's a classic strawman, which the "stupid lol strawman" meme I posted accurately described.

The main reason I'm responding to him with memes is that he continues to go in circles using the same old fallacies. Not going to waste my time typing in-depth responses to them over and over. Memes are quick, easy, and accurately describe what he is doing, so it's a far more efficient use of my time.

Anything to offer beyond opinions and unsubstantiated statements?

[Chai]

Evidence, proof, supporting facts? No? Ok. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

A debate means two or more sides both stated a premise and both then presented evidence and have equal onus to defend their point.

When only one side does this and the other side does nothing more than throw out challenges for evidence from the peanut gallery while providing none of their own, this one sided onus is called a lecture.

Furthermore, in order to prove strawman, you would have actually have had to make a specific point, then show the thing being attacked by the accused is something different. Since no premise was stated in relation to the topic on your part, there can be no strawman either.

Thank you for attending this lecture.

Have a nice weekend.

[FlavoredSoul]

Quoting someone else isn't evidence nor any sort of explanation for your statement. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

His post was another strawman. The meme addressed it 100%. You've yet to post any evidence to the contrary. Since you're having trouble, I'll spell it out plainly.

Just because someone posts a wall of irrelevant text doesn't make it "evidence". His overly wordy response was yet another attempt to interject something beyond the scope of the main point into the conversation so that he could use it as an argument against the main point. Worse, that point had already been discussed and acknowledged as an outlier. It's a classic strawman, which the "stupid lol strawman" meme I posted accurately described.

The main reason I'm responding to him with memes is that he continues to go in circles using the same old fallacies. Not going to waste my time typing in-depth responses to them over and over. Memes are quick, easy, and accurately describe what he is doing, so it's a far more efficient use of my time.

Anything to offer beyond opinions and unsubstantiated statements?

You should follow your own advice, you seem to hold everyone else to a much higher standard than you hold yourself to.

[LT218]

You should follow your own advice, you seem to hold everyone else to a much higher standard than you hold yourself to.
Oh, you've switched to an Ad Hominem now eh? Sorry to tell you, but that's still a logical fallacy.

No facts, proof, or supporting evidence. Just more unsubstantiated opinions.

[Cordovan]

If folks are resorting to fighting over argument tactics, the discussion is over.