U31 Poor man's ranger

[BigErkyKid]

just to be clear, im not trying to be insulting with the whole "i can do more with some classes because i learned to play". and its not personal either. i think if you, like most anyone else (obviously, cause if i can do it, everyone can), put the time into trying to be better at the classes you think are worthless or overly difficult, you would find that you actually can succeed at them. ...
i personally think that the most important thing in this game is for people to do whatever is fun for them.

I agree. And I never felt insulted. Still not convinced that barb is in fact better than say fighter THF for raids, though ...

BTW, I come from running a LE tempest where a barb saved the day plenty of times while shuricannons were dying left and right. So yes, class mastery matters, as does metagaming.

I don't think it is contradictory with my statements above though.

As for the build I posted, in the OP, I stand by it very much. I think it is, within constraints, a well optimized ranger that can allow an easy entry into end game. Mostly right out of the box.

[the_one_dwarfforged]

I agree. And I never felt insulted. Still not convinced that barb is in fact better than say fighter THF for raids, though ...

BTW, I come from running a LE tempest where a barb saved the day plenty of times while shuricannons were dying left and right. So yes, class mastery matters, as does metagaming.

I don't think it is contradictory with my statements above though.

As for the build I posted, in the OP, I stand by it very much. I think it is, within constraints, a well optimized ranger that can allow an easy entry into end game. Mostly right out of the box.

whoa, im not saying barb is better than fighter now, i think fighter is going to be a lot better in raids specifically.

i would say that as far as melee is concerned, barb is easier for a new player to get into the current endgame with than a ranger, by a lot. just because of all the free hp and hamp meaning less work is needed to become survivable.

[BigErkyKid]

whoa, im not saying barb is better than fighter now, i think fighter is going to be a lot better in raids specifically.

i would say that as far as melee is concerned, barb is easier for a new player to get into the current endgame with than a ranger, by a lot. just because of all the free hp and hamp meaning less work is needed to become survivable.

I think that ranger, specifically DEX based elven dragon marked ranger, is likely to be a lot easier to play. A bit more squishy (still pretty good defense), but evasion, displacement, self heals, and still good damage. A barb rookie only healing with on hit and on kill is a soulstone pretty fast in end game (even not LE, just LH). Def not a recommendation on my end for anyone starting in the game. No offense, but I don't think you are in touch with new player;s reality.

And as for the fighter / barb, yeah, fighter is better. Which goes back to my point, right now in end game fighter > barb for most that matters. So to me that's a design fail. Stuff should be balanced as much as possible at all levels of the game.

That's not to say that barb cannot do well, or deal pretty great DPS. But it just seems inferior from most angles, which makes me sad considering how close we are to their pass.

[the_one_dwarfforged]

I think that ranger, specifically DEX based elven dragon marked ranger, is likely to be a lot easier to play. A bit more squishy (still pretty good defense), but evasion, displacement, self heals, and still good damage. A barb rookie only healing with on hit and on kill is a soulstone pretty fast in end game (even not LE, just LH). Def not a recommendation on my end for anyone starting in the game. No offense, but I don't think you are in touch with new player;s reality.

And as for the fighter / barb, yeah, fighter is better. Which goes back to my point, right now in end game fighter > barb for most that matters. So to me that's a design fail. Stuff should be balanced as much as possible at all levels of the game.

That's not to say that barb cannot do well, or deal pretty great DPS. But it just seems inferior from most angles, which makes me sad considering how close we are to their pass.

how exactly is ranger easier to play though, in the context of legendaries, for a new player? what is your rough projected hp for this build on a newish character? i doubt its going to be high enough to avoid oneshots completely despite the prr, and in fact oneshots or sudden deaths will remain common due to the much lower hp potential. add that to the fact that a new player is going to have to balance moving and not moving carefully due to the fighting style, while a barb can go thf and be much more effective at that while also being easier. also, your build does present greater avoidance than a barb will have, but even without displacement (honestly on my recent epic barb life, i barely even used displacement) for the barb, they are still very likely to have a blur or lesser displacement item, and is probably only about ~10% behind in dodge, so they have half of the avoidance values, plus being more mobile without creating difficulty dpsing, and comparable prr but more hp. the healing seems like kind of a wash, so it just seems to me that barb is a great foundation for a new player.


i think barb vs fighter is actually in a good place right now.

i dont know if barb aoe is still going to be massively superior to fighters because its basically more numbers against bigger numbers, but i think barbs will still be very competitive if not superior in aoe. very high gb dmg being procced and extra time every 3 seconds should not be underestimated.

single target is an easy win for fighter.

barbs definitely have an advantage in run speed, which isnt a big deal but is kinda nice.

hp should be a wash pretty much, highly dependent on build and itemization preferences.

prr is a win for the fighter.

healing, could be either a big advantage to the barb or basically even imo. if the fighter is a human, barb wins here easily. if the fighter is a robot, if think the heals are ultimately about the same. the thing is though, unprepared players are not going to be successful on human fighters (already seen two people on the forums talking about doing fighter in crusader, ugh...revolting), prepared players are still going to be at a disadvantage on human fighters, and robot fighters will have great easy button burst heals, but its not a perfect system as its likely to be very sp intensive, probably in an unpleasant extreme and lacks versatility and layering of heals, and it still has a cast time and cd even if theyre not huge.

so what i think the difference is, is that a barbarian is better for people who dont want to try, and fighter is better for people who do and/or are willing to spend money (+1 heart bs is annoying, cause i think im gonna do robot fighter...).

[BigErkyKid]

how exactly is ranger easier to play though, in the context of legendaries, for a new player? what is your rough projected hp for this build on a newish character? i doubt its going to be high enough to avoid oneshots completely despite the prr, and in fact oneshots or sudden deaths will remain common due to the much lower hp potential.

One shots don't happen outside of LE, and then even barbs when one shot, so I wouldn't say it is a huge difference. For a new player, HPs will be in the realm of 1k. My reference is the Divine cuisinart, as he typically posts 1-2nd life builds.

add that to the fact that a new player is going to have to balance moving and not moving carefully due to the fighting style, while a barb can go thf and be much more effective at that while also being easier. also, your build does present greater avoidance than a barb will have, but even without displacement (honestly on my recent epic barb life, i barely even used displacement) for the barb, they are still very likely to have a blur or lesser displacement item, and is probably only about ~10% behind in dodge, so they have half of the avoidance values, plus being more mobile without creating difficulty dpsing, and comparable prr but more hp. the healing seems like kind of a wash, so it just seems to me that barb is a great foundation for a new player.

Here is where I think you don't get right the new player. The ranger has easy on demand heals, whereas the barb doesn't. On a new player that is huge. In addition, without displacement the barb relies on killing fast, which often means boosting at the precise right spots. A couple abishais and a couple orthons in LE are likely to be a tough cookie for a rookie barb. "My" ranger will get hit far less and can get some nice heals on demand.

Furthermore, I contest that THF is easier than TWF for a new player. Maybe in korthos. But assume a new player joining vets in some LE run. Probably being able to stand against a hard hitting trash mob and dealing good damage is more of an attainable accomplishment than to cleave packs of mobs to death.

i think barb vs fighter is actually in a good place right now.

i dont know if barb aoe is still going to be massively superior to fighters because its basically more numbers against bigger numbers, but i think barbs will still be very competitive if not superior in aoe. very high gb dmg being procced and extra time every 3 seconds should not be underestimated.

single target is an easy win for fighter.

barbs definitely have an advantage in run speed, which isnt a big deal but is kinda nice.

hp should be a wash pretty much, highly dependent on build and itemization preferences.

prr is a win for the fighter.

healing, could be either a big advantage to the barb or basically even imo. if the fighter is a human, barb wins here easily. if the fighter is a robot, if think the heals are ultimately about the same. the thing is though, unprepared players are not going to be successful on human fighters (already seen two people on the forums talking about doing fighter in crusader, ugh...revolting), prepared players are still going to be at a disadvantage on human fighters, and robot fighters will have great easy button burst heals, but its not a perfect system as its likely to be very sp intensive, probably in an unpleasant extreme and lacks versatility and layering of heals, and it still has a cast time and cd even if theyre not huge.

so what i think the difference is, is that a barbarian is better for people who dont want to try, and fighter is better for people who do and/or are willing to spend money (+1 heart bs is annoying, cause i think im gonna do robot fighter...).

I think fighters are more defensive (probably effective HPs are higher, everything considered).

I also think AOE damage on melees is not that important in true end game. In a raiding contest, it is not like we are cleaving masses of mobs to death. I still wouldn't go for TWF in a fighter because the AOE would suffer excessively and we don't just raid...

And I disagree that healing is good on a barb in LE raids. The typical on hit and on kill aren't nearly enough, and when both are chugging SF pots, with the new hamp barbs are not so much ahead. Finally, as you said, robot fighters just kill the debate of heals (for burst heals).

I finally agree with you that optimized fighters would dominate barbarians, and that's what I found sad. I don't think we disagree on the bottom line.

[Grailhawk]

Math I've seen (not mine or I would post it) suggests TWF Fighter out DPS Ranger by ~1000, there is enough melee power in the Kensei tree that, that doesn't seam unfeasible (melee power is worth more to a TWF then Doublestrike is because it effects both hands equally Tempest is loaded with doublestrike more than anything else).

Any kind of healing issue that a fighter has is solved by Bladeforged, and the fact that the Fighter only really need one tree makes this affordable.

My thoughts are that once the dust settles Single Target DPS: Kensei > Tempest, AOE DPS: Tempest > Kensei, well see though could be wrong.

Going to take this back those numbers I saw originally had errors also were biased by giving the fighter a better gear layout (though that is realistic as the Ranger can't take advantage of the Celestial Avenger armor with out giving up Evasion).

The corrected numbers have TWF Fighter and Rangers close enough to call it a wash, with fighter having a slight edge do to better gear options (though if you put them in the same gear the ranger wins). (When I say slight edge and win I'm talking about less then 300 dps.

Both builds are coming out in the 5.5-8.5k range for realistic DPS (full buffs at 8.5k no buffs at 5.5k [buffs = short term hard to keep at 100% efficiency]) with both braking 10K DPS at max theoretical (+buffs that others add this could probably get pushed up further though).

[BigErkyKid]

Going to take this back those numbers I saw originally had errors also were biased by giving the fighter a better gear layout (though that is realistic as the Ranger can't take advantage of the Celestial Avenger armor with out giving up Evasion).

The corrected numbers have TWF Fighter and Rangers close enough to call it a wash, with fighter having a slight edge do to better gear options (though if you put them in the same gear the ranger wins). (When I say slight edge and win I'm talking about less then 300 dps.

Both builds are coming out in the 5.5-8.5k range for realistic DPS (full buffs at 8.5k no buffs at 5.5k [buffs = short term hard to keep at 100% efficiency]) with both braking 10K DPS at max theoretical (+buffs that others add this could probably get pushed up further though).

I wouldn't do a TWF fighter, seems a bit of a waste. But nice to know that even after massive MP the fighter does not come ahead.

I'd be interested in seeing how the ranger outdoes the 60MP available in the fighter trees though (full off hand must help a lot).