Ranged Fighter, How viable is it?

[Crucis]

Offensive spec'd fighters do very well with an initial ranged volley before switching to melee. They have the highest base  accuracy, weapon focus, spec and mastery for +6 accuracy and +25% damage (which only fighters can get).

 

Coastal amaumau would let you fire two volleys of heavy ranged firearms before switching to melee. Pick soldier (arquebus and arbalest), ruffian (pistol and blunderbuss), knight (crossbow) for a big hit with slow reload. Since you will fire each weapon once the reload does not matter.

 

Going full time ranged would make the most durable backliner but would be limited to auto-attacks. Might be too boring, but would be able to hang till the end of the fight, or even beyond with the self rez ability.

 

Wood Elf

Might - 18

con - 8

dex - 20

per - 19

int - 3

res - 10

Talents/abilities -

Disciplined barrage - per encounter +10 accuracy buff

Weapon focus - +6 accuracy to weapon group Knight - crossbow have good interrupt and enough damage to not need penetrating shot

Confident aim - graze>hit to increase damage, plus 20% minimum damage to help bypass DR

Marksman - +5 accuracy for ranged

Weapon spec - +15% damage

Gunner - +20% reload

Armored Grace - -16% armor penalty

Weapon focus - +10% damage

Critical Defense - crit>hit, hit> graze

interrupting blows - +15% interrupt

unbreakable - self rez

open pick - quick switch, dual wield, two handed style,

 

Might be boring but would be durable and a good interrupter.

 

1. IIRC, it's the Island version of Aumaua who get the extra weapons slot, not the Coastal version.

 

2. I honestly wouldn't commit to a 110% ranged-only fighter, particularly if that meant wearing no armor whatsoever, though that's personal preference.  I think that a better choice would be for a balanced ranged and melee build, perhaps a little skewed to ranged by going with Wood Elf for starters.  A balanced fighter would probably be no less capable at range, except perhaps for a slightly slower overall rate of fire, due to armor recovery speed.

 

I'd probably suggest wearing something between, say, scale and padded armor to get some DR in case you need to switch to melee without sacrificing RoF too greatly.  The amount of armor would probably be dependent on how often you chose to switch to melee without actually being forced to do so.

 

As for the weapon group choice, I think that some of that depends on how you envision using the character in melee.  I'd suggest Ruffian if one wanted to go with a single handed weapon (saber or club) and shield, or even dual wielding.  I'd suggest Soldier, if you wanted to use a Pike and hide behind the front line tanks and stab away using them as your meatshield.  Or one might choose Soldier if you wanted to use a 2H great sword in melee.  Not sure that I have a particularly good reason for using Knight.  For whatever reason, far too many of the good battleaxes and crossbows don't show up until much later in the overall story, so this weapons group can seem uninspiring until then, unless you're willing to use generic enchanted weapons.

 

As an aside, I don't like the adventurer group at all.  Oh, I like warbows just fine.  But the rest of the weapons group seems like a total mish-mash with no clear theme.  Heck, I wonder if it'd be better if this group was dumped and the weapons were spread across the remaining weapon groups.  Maybe Estoc and Poleaxe to Knight.  Maybe Warbow to Peasant.  Maybe Flail to Soldier.  And Wand to Noble.  Off the top of my head, these larger groups seem to make more sense.  (Well, I'd rather put warbow with a different group, but the other groups already have more than enough weapons. And bows just don't seem like a knightly or noble sort of weapon.  Soldier maybe.  Ruffian or Peasant are also reasonable.  But Noble or Knight, not so much.)

 

 

EDIT:  Also, above, you listed the +10% damage as weapon focus, when I think it should really be Weapon Mastery.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Crucis

[dudex]

again discipline barrage doesn't stack wit other spell effects unlike stalkers link this bonus. If u want accuracy go with rangers.

 

With stalkers torc u get 20% damage also.. so yea there isnt any reason to go fighters unless u just want something different.

[Sking]

An Orlan Fighter with Confident Aim, Penetrating Shot, Interrupting Blows, and a Lead Spitter is like my second favorite character.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

Honestly ranged Rogue and Ranged Rangers aren't all that exciting ranged. Unless you are casting spells no class really has enough per encounter abilties Ranged to make it not 80% auto attack anyway. A Ranged Ranger you will be controlling the pet more then the Ranger basically. Most of the abilities that help Rogues and Rangers in ranged are all passive anyway.

 

Since there are several other threads bashing the Ranger I wont repeat. But Obisidian should have just made the class an Archer class or some kind of Arcane Archer with Pet. Like Rangers in Divinity Original Sin. Almost as fun to play as the wizard classes because they have so many magical arrows for every occasion and every fight. And then like a handful of ranged abilities.

[Crucis]

Honestly ranged Rogue and Ranged Rangers aren't all that exciting ranged. Unless you are casting spells no class really has enough per encounter abilties Ranged to make it not 80% auto attack anyway. A Ranged Ranger you will be controlling the pet more then the Ranger basically. Most of the abilities that help Rogues and Rangers in ranged are all passive anyway.

 

Since there are several other threads bashing the Ranger I wont repeat. But Obisidian should have just made the class an Archer class or some kind of Arcane Archer with Pet. Like Rangers in Divinity Original Sin. Almost as fun to play as the wizard classes because they have so many magical arrows for every occasion and every fight. And then like a handful of ranged abilities.

 

I don't see the need for a class to have special per-encounter or per-rest abilities for said class to be "fun".  But that's just my opinion. 

[b0rsuk]

Honestly ranged Rogue and Ranged Rangers aren't all that exciting ranged. Unless you are casting spells no class really has enough per encounter abilties Ranged to make it not 80% auto attack anyway. A Ranged Ranger you will be controlling the pet more then the Ranger basically. Most of the abilities that help Rogues and Rangers in ranged are all passive anyway.

 

Because it's inspired by D&D, Pillars of Eternity still falls into the trap of giving many more abilities to casters than any other kind of class. Fighters get a few and it's MUCH more than the 0 they have in Baldur's Gate. Monks are a bit better (if you like micromanagement), can use their abilities more often, but ultimately don't have that many active skills.

 

I wouldn't like a cliched Archer class with abilities like hail or arrows, triple arrow, fire arrow, blinding arrow... That's trying too hard. Those are arrow spells, not abilities an archer could learn and use effectively. Ultimately an archer is just someone who shoots a bow and all you can really do is aim better.

[Raven Darkholme]

You don't need abilities to maximize ranged rogues damage though, there are so many ways to constantly keep your enemies afflicted. Not only have casters got countless ways to do so and the cipher can do so every encounter, also you just need to flank an enemy, bang sneak attack until he's dead.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

You don't need abilities to maximize ranged rogues damage though, there are so many ways to constantly keep your enemies afflicted. Not only have casters got countless ways to do so and the cipher can do so every encounter, also you just need to flank an enemy, bang sneak attack until he's dead.

 

A ranged fighter could basically be getting +45% damage on every attack while the rogues sneak attack is +50% but it needs a modifier. The fighters would not. True the rogue gets the bonus a lot earlier than the fighter.

 

Would just need to test the fighter crit percent to see how often he can grit with his much higher accuracy then the rogue with his +20% crit chance.

[Crucis]

You don't need abilities to maximize ranged rogues damage though, there are so many ways to constantly keep your enemies afflicted. Not only have casters got countless ways to do so and the cipher can do so every encounter, also you just need to flank an enemy, bang sneak attack until he's dead.

 

While it is true that casters do have a lot of ways to keep enemies afflicted, I'm also noticing that if you're constantly having casters only pay attention to casting afflicting spells to support a rogue's sneak attacks, it seems that they're losing out on casting more damaging spells. 

 

So in the end, is your party more effective or more efficient by having the casters supporting a Rogue, or by having those casters doing what they'd normally do if there wasn't a rogue that needed some "affliction support"?

[Crucis]

 

You don't need abilities to maximize ranged rogues damage though, there are so many ways to constantly keep your enemies afflicted. Not only have casters got countless ways to do so and the cipher can do so every encounter, also you just need to flank an enemy, bang sneak attack until he's dead.

 

A ranged fighter could basically be getting +45% damage on every attack while the rogues sneak attack is +50% but it needs a modifier. The fighters would not. True the rogue gets the bonus a lot earlier than the fighter.

 

Would just need to test the fighter crit percent to see how often he can grit with his much higher accuracy then the rogue with his +20% crit chance.

 

 

Jimmy, this is a good observation.  That 5% isn't a big difference.  And other than an opening salvo sneak attack, or the rogue setting himself up for flanking shots, it seems that the rest of the sneak attack afflictions require someone to create an afflicting condition before the rogue can trigger a sneak attack.... which means that a caster is having to cast a support spell, or some other character has to expend a special ability.  I'm not sure that that's worth the extra 5%. 

 

Now, I won't argue against the fact that the rogue will certainly have other special abilities that are stacking on top of his attacks that are also increasing damage.  Obviously they do.  But are they that much better than this fighter?  One thing you can get out of this fighter is that unless one has gone completely over the top to make a ranged fighter, chances are pretty good that you may have a reasonably well balanced fighter who can go into melee when necessary and probably still hold his own better than a ranged rogue, in part because if you're picked a weapon focus, specialization, and mastery, you have a fighter who's pretty nasty with his preferred weapons, ranged or melee.  Maybe throw in Constant Recovery, Defender, and Wary Defender, and you probably have a pretty good 2 way Fighter. 

 

[Kaigen42]

If none of the casters in your party are inflicting any debilitating effects on the enemy, what on earth are they doing in the first place? If Sneak Attack isn't enabled, that means your Cipher isn't using Mental Binding, your Wizard is ignoring Slicken and Chill Fog, the Priest is passing on Repulsing Seal, and/or the Druid is giving Sunbeam a miss, to say nothing of the multitude of higher level spells that inflict debuffs. Many of those spells inflict debuffs while doing damage. Debuffing is something you do as a matter of course, especially if you're playing on PotD.

 

I'm also not sure where the +45% damage for the Fighter is coming from. Are you counting Confident Aim as a 20% damage bonus? Because that only applies to half the damage range, so it's more like a +10%. Honestly, I'd rather build a melee fighter than can switch to ranged when needed than a ranged fighter who might switch to melee sometimes.

[Crucis]

If none of the casters in your party are inflicting any debilitating effects on the enemy, what on earth are they doing in the first place? If Sneak Attack isn't enabled, that means your Cipher isn't using Mental Binding, your Wizard is ignoring Slicken and Chill Fog, the Priest is passing on Repulsing Seal, and/or the Druid is giving Sunbeam a miss, to say nothing of the multitude of higher level spells that inflict debuffs. Many of those spells inflict debuffs while doing damage. Debuffing is something you do as a matter of course, especially if you're playing on PotD.

 

I'm also not sure where the +45% damage for the Fighter is coming from. Are you counting Confident Aim as a 20% damage bonus? Because that only applies to half the damage range, so it's more like a +10%. Honestly, I'd rather build a melee fighter than can switch to ranged when needed than a ranged fighter who might switch to melee sometimes.

 

Not every spell that casters can cast is a spell that is a sneak attack triggering affliction spell, for crying out loud.  Let's see.  A wizard might be casting Magic Missiles or Fireballs or Chain Lightning or Confusion or god knows whatever other spells that have no affliction affects.  Spell casters don't exist for the sole and only purpose of supporting Rogues and their sneak attacks.

 

[Exoduss]

Why would you cast fireball if you can apply sneak attack for your rogue is a question that you should ask , or why the **** would you use magic missiles those are terrible so is chain lighting , to kill something with fireball you need to burn 4 of them and go to rest after that , that just makes no sense because fireball is clearly trash clearing spell in PoE , so you just cast 1 chill fog and let your rogue 1shot everything without rest penalty , on POTD with 2 rests its all about saving time and avoiding as many loading screens as you can . 

 

An Orlan Fighter with Confident Aim, Penetrating Shot, Interrupting Blows, and a Lead Spitter is like my second favorite character.

 

Seems kinda useless build to be honest , and it coming from developer.. its obvious noone gave a **** about combat when making PoE

Edited May 14, 2015 by Exoduss

[Crucis]

Why would you cast fireball if you can apply sneak attack for your rogue is a question that you should ask , or why the **** would you use magic missiles those are terrible so is chain lighting , to kill something with fireball you need to burn 4 of them and go to rest after that , that just makes no sense because fireball is clearly trash clearing spell in PoE , so you just cast 1 chill fog and let your rogue 1shot everything without rest penalty , on POTD with 2 rests its all about saving time and avoiding as many loading screens as you can . 

 

An Orlan Fighter with Confident Aim, Penetrating Shot, Interrupting Blows, and a Lead Spitter is like my second favorite character.

 

Seems kinda useless build to be honest , and it coming from developer.. its obvious noone gave a **** about combat when making PoE

 

Are you even capable of holding a civil conversation without the use of obscenities, for crying out loud? 

 

Stop assuming that everyone wants to play the same way you do.  Not everyone plays wizards as rogue support casters.  Some people prefer to play them as nukers, for example.

 

As for the Dev's Orlan fighter, what is it with you?  So what if the guy likes a build you don't like?  Not everyone is looking to create the absolutely most OP build possible.  And frankly, given how mediocre some of the companions can appear at first glance, it's entirely possible to build less than optimal characters that can be successful and enjoyable to play.

 

[Jimmysdabestcop]

Fighter gets talents that increase weapon category damage by 45% Weapon Specialization on 5th level and I think you can take Mastery as early as 6th level.

 

So a fighter should be getting pretty damn close to Rogue's Sneak Attack without any afflictions being needed.

 

The only real question is can a Ranged Fighter get as many Critical Hits as a Rogue? A fighter has higher accuracy, elf gives another +5 accuracy and you can equip a +10 accuracy gauntlet on the fighter. +5 for marksman talent. An Elf Fighter can have  +10 accuracy at range over a Melee fighter.

 

Armored Grace makes fighter 16% faster then a Rogue at level 7. Hold Wall enhanced to superb and with lash would get speed mod. Curious to see what damage could be done with the Wendgär that has speed mod and +10% critical chance.

 

Now I'm even curious about Ranged Fighter vs Ranged Ranger. Ranger will be able to reload faster and fire faster but single target damage still goes to the fighter. And even accuracy would go to the fighter.

[peko]

Weapon Specialization + Mastery only gives you +25%, where does the last +20% come from?

[JONNIN]

Factor out the common stuff when you list all the junk.  Everyone can get marksman, everyone can be a wood elf or orlan hearth or whatever.  If everyone could try to keep it focues on the differences that are class-only it would be a lot easier to evaluate.  But even so, its not too difficult to evaluate: the fighter is sub par damage as a ranged build.

 

Again, it comes down to rate of fire.  The ranger's ability to reload and fire faster will out damage a ranged fighter all day long.   The ranged fighter's role is to put a second tank in the back of your group to defend your casters/rangers/whatever if something gets back there to kill them.  Whether or not your group and level of skill at the game need, want, or could make use of this varies greatly, but it is a FINE approach for a first playthrough.  The comments in most threads are all about expert players doing max-mins and going on about level 10+ builds for doing late-game bosses.    The ranged fighter has no place in any of that high level of play party building.    The ranged fighter is for first-time players or folks trying a harder difficulty for the first time who may want a second tank in the rear of their party to handle things when their casters get rushed while doing average damage.   That is all it is good for, really, and that honestly is not much of a role.  I tried it and my final evaluation is that the character was a mistake and it is a fairly ineffective build.

Edited May 14, 2015 by JONNIN

[Kaigen42]

Not every spell that casters can cast is a spell that is a sneak attack triggering affliction spell, for crying out loud.  Let's see.  A wizard might be casting Magic Missiles or Fireballs or Chain Lightning or Confusion or god knows whatever other spells that have no affliction affects.  Spell casters don't exist for the sole and only purpose of supporting Rogues and their sneak attacks.

 

Of course they don't, but they do a fantastic job of doing it while they're doing their job. All of those spells I mentioned are bread and butter spells that I use even when there isn't a Rogue in the party. I use Slicken and Repulsing Seal because Prone enemies can't hurt my party and are easier to hit. I use Chill Fog and Sunbeam because Blind is a nasty debuff that dramatically lowers enemy accuracy and deflection. And I use Mental Binding because it's a fast casting long duration Paralyze that can be used repeatedly and also inflicts Stuck on enemies in the vicinity. That all of those debuffs would also enable sneak attacks if I happen to have a Rogue around is icing. That is why I have no issue with considering the Rogue's sneak attack damage as a given.

 

@Jimmysdabestcop; I just did some testing in game. Armored Grace doesn't seem to be able to reduce the recovery penalty below 0. Two 20 Dex characters in Clothes, one with Armored Grace, one without, attack at the exact same rate, with or without Penetrating Shot active. If you put the one with Armored Grace in Robes, they still attack at the exact same rate. So a ranged Fighter can wear Robes and maintain the same attack speed as a Rogue in Clothes, but can't get faster.

[Crucis]

Factor out the common stuff when you list all the junk.  Everyone can get marksman, everyone can be a wood elf or orlan hearth or whatever.  If everyone could try to keep it focues on the differences that are class-only it would be a lot easier to evaluate.  But even so, its not too difficult to evaluate: the fighter is sub par damage as a ranged build.

 

Again, it comes down to rate of fire.  The ranger's ability to reload and fire faster will out damage a ranged fighter all day long.   The ranged fighter's role is to put a second tank in the back of your group to defend your casters/rangers/whatever if something gets back there to kill them.  (snip)

 

I agree that factoring out the common stuff is necessary when trying to make comparisons.  Oh sure, you could keep them in, but it simplifies things to stick to the things that aren't common between the two things being compared.  Not having looked at the game or the wiki or whatever, are you sure that a ranger has a faster rate of fire than a fighter, assuming that they have the same stats and are wearing the same armor (or none)? 

 

Furthermore, I kinda disagree with your claim that the role of a ranged fighter is to defend the backlike squishies.  IMO, that could very well be described as a role of rangers as well.  Just because one's primary role is to use ranged weapons to pump out constant fire doesn't mean that one can't switch to being an effective body guard for one's casters when necessary.  That said, short of going all on to create a ranged fighter at the complete expense of melee capability, I could see a (what I prefer calling) a balanced fighter being more of a chartacter who fills multiple roles.  A body guard for the squishies, yes.  Someone who can provide some ranged fire support, even if not as well as a ranger or ranged rogue.  And someone who could go into melee if necessary, if not quite as well (and well protected) as a full-on, fully-armored fighter.

[JONNIN]

the ranger has a talent that I *assume* one would take to increase speed of reloads and shooting.  I forget its exact name, its a toggle that hurts accuracy a little and a later talent negates this effect -- or being a wood elf practically negates it with racial.   So it effectly zero-sums the penalty and provides the faster rate of fire, which dramatically improves damage output.   

 

Without this talent which is not available to fighters or rogues etc, they shoot and reload at the same rates, all *other* stuff being identical.

 

Ok, all things being equal (armor, stats, etc, everything except talents, then..)

I agree with you.  The ranger if wearing armor can swap to a shield and defend just fine.  But in that much armor, with presumably some defensive stats (not a 20 dex 20 might build type wearing a robe..)  it will be gimped for damage but still out damage the fighter set up for ranged combat by a margin of around 25% or more.    But here is the point of what I was trying to say... the ranger in the back is the choice for dealing damage, and probably should be built for that, which means it would be a rather poor defender of the wizard.   The fighter in the back, even naked with 20 dex/might, still will be doing only modest damage,  and is better off just being armored and set up in a role of defender than trying to wing it as s pseudo-damage-dealer.     So what I am saying is that all things here should not be equal --- pick the role you want the character to be best at (defender or damage dealer) and then select the class to fill it, rather than trying to force fit the wrong class here.    And, again, IMHO the role of defender is --- really most useful to less experienced players, and of dubious value for elite teams.

[KDubya]

the ranger has a talent that I *assume* one would take to increase speed of reloads and shooting.  I forget its exact name, its a toggle that hurts accuracy a little and a later talent negates this effect -- or being a wood elf practically negates it with racial.   So it effectly zero-sums the penalty and provides the faster rate of fire, which dramatically improves damage output.   

 

Without this talent which is not available to fighters or rogues etc, they shoot and reload at the same rates, all *other* stuff being identical.

 

Ok, all things being equal (armor, stats, etc, everything except talents, then..)

I agree with you.  The ranger if wearing armor can swap to a shield and defend just fine.  But in that much armor, with presumably some defensive stats (not a 20 dex 20 might build type wearing a robe..)  it will be gimped for damage but still out damage the fighter set up for ranged combat by a margin of around 25% or more.    But here is the point of what I was trying to say... the ranger in the back is the choice for dealing damage, and probably should be built for that, which means it would be a rather poor defender of the wizard.   The fighter in the back, even naked with 20 dex/might, still will be doing only modest damage,  and is better off just being armored and set up in a role of defender than trying to wing it as s pseudo-damage-dealer.     So what I am saying is that all things here should not be equal --- pick the role you want the character to be best at (defender or damage dealer) and then select the class to fill it, rather than trying to force fit the wrong class here.    And, again, IMHO the role of defender is --- really most useful to less experienced players, and of dubious value for elite teams.

 

A fighter will have the following advantages that no other class can get:

 

1.) Armored grace - reduces armor penalty by 16%. A fighter in robes will be as fast as anyone else naked. A fighter in leather will be faster than anyone else in robes.

 

2.) Weapon spec and mastery - together will add 25% damage to all weapons in the same weapon group.

 

Every fighter will have the above abilities. This will deliver more damage than a ranged rogue without sneak attacks who only has the 20% hit to crit talent and deep wounds to increase ranged damage. Compared to a ranger with swift aim a fighter will fire slower but hit harder with more accuracy, or fire faster with less accuracy compared to a ranger with vicious shot.

 

Taking the defender and wary defender will greatly enhance the already superior defensive characteristics of the fighter. Going all in for offensive would get you confident aim for a 20% graze>hit (with 35% graze it would go to 28% graze and increase of 50% damage to 7% of attacks or a 3.5% increase to average damage) plus a 20% increase to minimum damage for a total of 13.5% increase to average damage. Either approach will also apply to melee attacks.

 

Fighters are a lot more powerful than many here give them credit for.

[Crucis]

the ranger has a talent that I *assume* one would take to increase speed of reloads and shooting.  I forget its exact name, its a toggle that hurts accuracy a little and a later talent negates this effect -- or being a wood elf practically negates it with racial.   So it effectly zero-sums the penalty and provides the faster rate of fire, which dramatically improves damage output.   

 

Without this talent which is not available to fighters or rogues etc, they shoot and reload at the same rates, all *other* stuff being identical.

 

Ok, all things being equal (armor, stats, etc, everything except talents, then..)

I agree with you.  The ranger if wearing armor can swap to a shield and defend just fine.  But in that much armor, with presumably some defensive stats (not a 20 dex 20 might build type wearing a robe..)  it will be gimped for damage but still out damage the fighter set up for ranged combat by a margin of around 25% or more.    But here is the point of what I was trying to say... the ranger in the back is the choice for dealing damage, and probably should be built for that, which means it would be a rather poor defender of the wizard.   The fighter in the back, even naked with 20 dex/might, still will be doing only modest damage,  and is better off just being armored and set up in a role of defender than trying to wing it as s pseudo-damage-dealer.     So what I am saying is that all things here should not be equal --- pick the role you want the character to be best at (defender or damage dealer) and then select the class to fill it, rather than trying to force fit the wrong class here.    And, again, IMHO the role of defender is --- really most useful to less experienced players, and of dubious value for elite teams.

 

The talent you're thinking of is "Swift Aim".  It just occurred to me as I read your post.

 

I absolutely agree that all common things being equal, the Ranger will be a much better ranged damage producer than a ranged Fighter.  That said, I don't think that creating a fighter who is 100% absolutely focused on trying to emulate Ranger damage output is a particularly great build. 

 

As I've been saying in previous posts, I'd think that a more balanced ranged vs melee build would be more useful.  Why bother trying to match a ranger with a fighter when it's not possible?  Why not try for a build that has some effectiveness at range, but is also effective in melee as well?  With this sort of build, you're accepting the reality that you can't out-ranger with a ranged fighter, and you decide to take a different route, a different role.  Is this a necessary role?  Perhaps not.  But why do people have to play according to a single formula with their parties?

 

Would this character qualify as a DPS fighter?  I don't know.  I don't think in meta-gaming terms.  I see the character as someone who is as comfortable using ranged weapons as with melee weapon.  For the build, I think that the character would probably pick a single weapon focus group and then add specialization and mastery.  Perhaps add Defender and Wary Defender for the defensive benefits.  Pick other talents and abilities that would work well both ways, and probably avoid others that don't.  (Defender and Wary Defender seem too good to ignore though.)  Seems like a potentially interesting character to me, but who knows.  Could also be a dud.

 

 

 

 

[Crucis]

 

the ranger has a talent that I *assume* one would take to increase speed of reloads and shooting.  I forget its exact name, its a toggle that hurts accuracy a little and a later talent negates this effect -- or being a wood elf practically negates it with racial.   So it effectly zero-sums the penalty and provides the faster rate of fire, which dramatically improves damage output.   

 

Without this talent which is not available to fighters or rogues etc, they shoot and reload at the same rates, all *other* stuff being identical.

 

Ok, all things being equal (armor, stats, etc, everything except talents, then..)

I agree with you.  The ranger if wearing armor can swap to a shield and defend just fine.  But in that much armor, with presumably some defensive stats (not a 20 dex 20 might build type wearing a robe..)  it will be gimped for damage but still out damage the fighter set up for ranged combat by a margin of around 25% or more.    But here is the point of what I was trying to say... the ranger in the back is the choice for dealing damage, and probably should be built for that, which means it would be a rather poor defender of the wizard.   The fighter in the back, even naked with 20 dex/might, still will be doing only modest damage,  and is better off just being armored and set up in a role of defender than trying to wing it as s pseudo-damage-dealer.     So what I am saying is that all things here should not be equal --- pick the role you want the character to be best at (defender or damage dealer) and then select the class to fill it, rather than trying to force fit the wrong class here.    And, again, IMHO the role of defender is --- really most useful to less experienced players, and of dubious value for elite teams.

 

A fighter will have the following advantages that no other class can get:

 

1.) Armored grace - reduces armor penalty by 16%. A fighter in robes will be as fast as anyone else naked. A fighter in leather will be faster than anyone else in robes.

 

2.) Weapon spec and mastery - together will add 25% damage to all weapons in the same weapon group.

 

Every fighter will have the above abilities. This will deliver more damage than a ranged rogue without sneak attacks who only has the 20% hit to crit talent and deep wounds to increase ranged damage. Compared to a ranger with swift aim a fighter will fire slower but hit harder with more accuracy, or fire faster with less accuracy compared to a ranger with vicious shot.

 

Taking the defender and wary defender will greatly enhance the already superior defensive characteristics of the fighter. Going all in for offensive would get you confident aim for a 20% graze>hit (with 35% graze it would go to 28% graze and increase of 50% damage to 7% of attacks or a 3.5% increase to average damage) plus a 20% increase to minimum damage for a total of 13.5% increase to average damage. Either approach will also apply to melee attacks.

 

Fighters are a lot more powerful than many here give them credit for.

 

 

Good observation on the Armored Grace.  The Weap Spec and Mastery is rather obvious, but still worth noting because it will be useful both ways, not just for ranged.

 

As I've said previously, I probably wouldn't try to match the Ranger at his own game.  I'd try for creating the best mix of melee and ranged that felt possible so that the character could try to be equally useful both ways.  I don't think that I'd give up Defender and Wary Defender as they seem too good to pass up, and I'm not sure that the alternatives would be better offensively than they are defensively, or whether it'd be worth the cost of not having D and WD in the character's tool kit.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

This entire thread is like the exact opposite of the Ranger threads. The truth is Obisidian shouldn't have shoe horned any class into any specific combat role. Meaning this class is ranged and this class is melee. Even the casters should be able to do both.

 

Now I'm not saying all the classes need to do the job equally as well. But every class should have some kind of talent/abiltity that pertains to both ranged and melee.

 

Even some of the specific class abilities/talents are just combinations of generic talents all classes get. I mean if we have a fighter aka Warrior aka Soldier class shouldn't they at least have some type of ability for heavy ranged weaponry? It could easily make sense story universe wise that a Fighter is better at heavy weapons or a ranger better with bows or a rogue better at firearms etc.

 

Obisidian can probably change this problem but having subclasses in a DLC. Or they could have avoided it by making a handful of classes really unique and really flexible insteads of adding a 11 classes with some only being good at 1 type of combat.

 

A ranged fighter while possible is slightly lacking and it doesn't need to be Ranger status but it could be at least unique. A reason to actually have that character in your party beyond the reason of just wanting it in there to be different.

[Crucis]

This entire thread is like the exact opposite of the Ranger threads. The truth is Obisidian shouldn't have shoe horned any class into any specific combat role. Meaning this class is ranged and this class is melee. Even the casters should be able to do both.

 

Now I'm not saying all the classes need to do the job equally as well. But every class should have some kind of talent/abiltity that pertains to both ranged and melee.

 

Even some of the specific class abilities/talents are just combinations of generic talents all classes get. I mean if we have a fighter aka Warrior aka Soldier class shouldn't they at least have some type of ability for heavy ranged weaponry? It could easily make sense story universe wise that a Fighter is better at heavy weapons or a ranger better with bows or a rogue better at firearms etc.

 

Obisidian can probably change this problem but having subclasses in a DLC. Or they could have avoided it by making a handful of classes really unique and really flexible insteads of adding a 11 classes with some only being good at 1 type of combat.

 

A ranged fighter while possible is slightly lacking and it doesn't need to be Ranger status but it could be at least unique. A reason to actually have that character in your party beyond the reason of just wanting it in there to be different.

 

No, it's not a "truth".  It's your opinion.  Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion, but it's still an opinion.