Without using comparable equipment, the test is silly. Why not strip the fighter naked and give him a staff while your ranger has -20 AC and a vorpal sword? Plus, no need to go to mplayer to try this out (I hope you already knew that) you can make your own game and import the chars.
Here's my point - The Rangers and Paladins cannot compete BETTER in hand to hand combat in the majority of cases (note my exceptions above) vs the pure fighter. The AD&D I used to play before most of you were born was d8X2 for rangers at level 1, warhorse for pally, and the cost was more xp to level. Their fighting abilities were identical (that was b4 specialization rules), just took them longer to progress and their attacks per round progressed a little later. My point is I used to LOVE playing pallys and rangers as my tanks, but in this version it makes more sense to take a straight fighter. It's an RPG, but there is a lot of strategy involved.
The only bard that seemed interesting to me was the jester. Those + bonuses are the same as "Defensive Harmony" and I don't have to waste a char to get that spell. The Jesters ability to cast confusion seems more intriguing. I was waiting for someone to respond on that bard sub-class...
|