Curse

William of Orange · Mar 28, 2005, 03:59 AM // 03:59

I'm too lazy to do any actually research right now, otherwise I'd have just done this on my own. But just looking at sheer damage inflicted, would it be better to go with a Warrior/Ranger build, or a Ranger/Warrior build? Intuition says W/R, just because Warrior is the primary, but I would think that if you had a 4 attribute spread, using the minimum amount of Marksmanship required for whatever bow I have, Expertise jacked up, Swordsmanship at whatever is required, and then pumped Tactics/Strength, that a Ranger/Warrior switching between Bows and Swords would do just as much damage as the Warrior/Ranger would.

Bgnome · Mar 28, 2005, 04:05 AM // 04:05

you need to max the attribute tied to the weapon in order to do 100% damage. even if you met the minimum requirement, you would only be doing a fraction of the damage listed on that weapon. best to stick with 1 weapon, be it sword or bow.

lllCo2lll · Mar 28, 2005, 04:06 AM // 04:06

Hmmm wouldn't really know until it happens. you could give it a shot and trial and error

don't just stick to a mindstate "oh this will definitely suck." It won't.

William the Silent · Mar 28, 2005, 04:07 AM // 04:07

There's no way to really prove the benefits either way in theory so I'd suggest using both for this next BWE if you have the time. You may just do the first couple missions with both and see how each feels and whether you're particular to one or the other.

Though on paper something might look good there really isn't much else to do but battle test each.

William of Orange · Mar 28, 2005, 04:09 AM // 04:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bgnome

you need to max the attribute tied to the weapon in order to do 100% damage. even if you met the minimum requirement, you would only be doing a fraction of the damage listed on that weapon. best to stick with 1 weapon, be it sword or bow.

I was under the impression that, say, you had a Sword which required Swordsmanship of 8 or above, that if you had the level at 8, you would do whatever the normal damage for that Sword was? That's what I meant by minimum if I just confused you...

William the Silent · Mar 28, 2005, 04:27 AM // 04:27

This is a little off-topic but it still pertains to which primary to choose. I'm not sure if this has been posted somewhere else and I've missed it but are there any benefits armor-wise with just basic general upgrades? (i.e. those first upgrades for an elementalist, not a pyromancer relative to other initial upgrades for different char types).

tastegw · Mar 28, 2005, 04:30 AM // 04:30

as far as i know, if you equip an item that you dont meet the requirements for it, its benifits are cut in half

example that i know is true.

using a focus with 12 energy that requires +8 to divine favor or whatnot, used on a warrior without any divine favor, this focus now only gives 6 energy to the warrior.

i would imagine that it works the same way with shields

a 16 armor shield that requires 10 tatics would only give 8 armor if you dont have 10 into tatics.

weapons however could be another story. say a 10-20 weapon requires 10 into whatever field of attributes, could mean you only get the benifi of 5-10. ya, thats a huge difference.

William of Orange · Mar 28, 2005, 04:33 AM // 04:33

I know about what happens if you're under the requirement, but if you have the Requirements met, then the damage/bonuses should equal what the armor/weapon states it should be?

Scaphism · Mar 28, 2005, 08:40 AM // 08:40

Check out Ensign's excellent Treatise on Combat Mathematics.

It's not that hard to read, and I bet you'll thank me after you put in a little time to do so.

For the part relevant to this discussion, scroll down just past the first page. You'll see a table titled "Effect of Attributes on Weapon Damage" listing the effectiveness of using a weapon at different attribute levels.

To put it bluntly, without regard to skills, every warrior wants a 12 in their weapon attribute, be it swords, axes, or hammers, and every ranger wants 12 in marksmanship. You continue to get some benefit going beyond 12, but the reward is greatly diminshed, and it's compounded by the fact that attribute levels have scaling costs.

In essence, you can't use a bow and a melee weapon effectively. The only way to do it would be putting a 12 each attribute- and then you leave almost nothing from your third attribute, and you gain almost nothing as well. If you're a warrior, just bring a skill like sprint to let you get close, or make sure you have a snare to keep your enemies from running. If you're a ranger, make sure you have expertise, so you can continue shooting bow skills at reduced energy. Check out another excellent and informative table from Ensign, Expertise Costs.

So, in summary:
For a pure damage dealing build, against casters, there isn't a huge level of difference between rangers and warriors. I'm inclined to say rangers have the edge when fighting casters because of their numerous options for shutting down casters, but for pure damage, it's a toss up.

When you're fighting heavily armored opponents, there is no question, warriors reign supreme. High damage, armor piercing attacks are the order of the day, and strength is only available on warrior primaries. On top of that, the Ranger skill meant for punching through armor, Penetrating Attack, was nerfed pretty hard last BWE, amidst very little fanfare. I was sad to see it go, it was an excellent skill usable at no attribute investment.

In short:
vs. Casters: Take your pick.
vs Warriors: Another warrior.

Peace.

MoldyRiceFrenzy · Mar 28, 2005, 07:34 PM // 19:34

hmm ya i was going to make a ranger/w so i could switch from bow to sword when fighting melee and for defensive purposes , but now im sorta confused....

(\_/)
(^^)
o(")(")

Badenstein · Mar 28, 2005, 09:18 PM // 21:18

Good Question. I was wondering if the larger energy the Ranger brings to the build would help in any way? By this I mean, would the additional energy a Ranger gets enable the Ranger/Warrior some benefits that the Warrior/Ranger wouldn't. I would think the R/W could get off a skill or two more in the same time the W/R would. I realize the added HP and Armor of the Warrior has some distinct advantages, but what could the Ranger leverage in this build question?

Zarconis · Mar 28, 2005, 09:49 PM // 21:49

Ranger/w gets the added benefit of more skill points and less cost per skill used if you invest in expertise. You could use a stance like Flurry or Discipline stance. That's what I love about the game, if you can think creatively (like the Me/W build posted) I think you can really create an entirely awesome and unique character. The whole Tactics line of skills are great for Rangers, or at least appear so.

Scaphism · Mar 28, 2005, 09:53 PM // 21:53

*sigh*

There are at least 3 other topics up on this very forum discussion Ranger/Warrior builds. They are a popular idea, although there is only one useful application for them in my mind: a Ranger with high expertise using energy-based sword attacks. The change to pure strike making it energy based in probably the major reason for this boost in popularity.

Since most people seem too lazy to search the forums, I'm definitely feeling too lazy to come up with an original response to every thread like this that pops up.
Instead, follow this link to my thoughts on the R/W combo, written two days ago.

In the future, I strongly encourage people to use the search function, especially on build ideas. Chances are if you've thought of the combo, then someone else has as well, and already posted it. There are only 30 combos in the game.

Bgnome · Mar 28, 2005, 09:57 PM // 21:57

the ranger definitely has better energy management due to the extra pip and expertise. this is balanced by the fact that ranger skills tend to cost more energy than warrior skills.

however, that is what the adrenaline mechanic for warriors is for. all adrenaline skills have no energy cost, but they do require you to charge them up by attacking. given that bow firing rates are considerably slower than swinging a sword or axe, you likely will not be using a bow for melee.

the choice depends basically upon your style. if you want to swing a sword, use a warrior primary. if you want to shoot a bow, use a ranger primary. if you want a ranger that swings a sword, you may still be effective, but you are limiting yourself to much fewer options.

Madness · Apr 19, 2005, 09:28 PM // 21:28

You guys talk about Warrior/Ranger as though it sucks or unusable I found it to be alot better then other combos people are doing Warrior/Element with knock down or the designers prebuilt stuff Ranger/Mezzer extra...

You guys all ack like Rangers Expertise is the best thing in the universe and I realize str skill is not that good penetration is pretty much worthless from what I could tell but if you forget the penetration factor. And realize you have a skill line in Strength as well ... and the fact that your Warrior / Ranger can forget TACTICS, since most of you guys have your mind set on using that..... You realize you can make a warrior ranger with 2 types of 0 cost HEALING SIGNET from warrior & Ranger Healing, 4 Attack skills your choose <=10 mana or Adrn skills, 1 Rez, 1 Adrn Speed GEN for faster attacks. While at the same time you get armor bonus which helps against 75% of magic attacks and >90% of Melee attacks. And if you don't use try to put dumb things in your bar like >15-20 MANA Skill sets, you could hurt someone constantly with your skills using Warrior ADR SKILLS and low cost BOW attacks and Wilderness skills for healing or traps.

I used RANGER's bow
STR (X) <10
Marksmen 12
Wilderness (X) <10
Tatics <5 rest left over

Another way is to go for more PET based stealing energy abilities
lowering other skill attributes then start putting them into Beast Mastery.

It takes 2-4 tanks (palidin, necro based) or one devote mezzer healed by monks to kill me just like any other warrior would fall.

Of course there are better builds for Warrior
WARRIOR / MONK(best), WARRIOR / MEZZER(good),
WARRIOR /NECRO(good) & Ranger/anything else...LOL
but you can make it work just got to think outside the box, but most people
should just get a PREBUILT Palidin or RANGER / X and be done with it LOL.

That being said the WARRIOR/RANGER or RANGER/WARRIOR one would think you should be able to make two melee chars work together without tought in otherwords with ease.

That is NOT the CASE without thought. Seems it is easier to make a dumb warrior be able to become a intellectual going to magic school and be able to able to cast magic then EVER being able to pickup and use a BOW.

I THINK THAT IS RATHER IRONIC that a Melee char has to be more MAGICAL then two melees classes capable of working together in any decient easy way.

Nevertheless it is possible to make that build with better results and alot better explaination of what your true issue is MANA for the bow skills. Then in order to be helpful in any way or form you must take advanatage of your Warrior side else what's the point.

aka. Mike Waterfall

Kyraith Mentara · Apr 20, 2005, 02:15 AM // 02:15

Why would you want 2 different types of weapons? bow and sword? Your just splitting what skills you can chose and making it so you do mediocre damage with few skills with two weapons.

I perfer Ranger/Warrior because of expertise, purt 10 points into it and all your 5e attack skills cost only 3e, so you can use more skils then a Warrior primary, plus Throw Dirt is better then most deffensive stances.