Ranger innate tame

Archive of the Sojourn3 General Discussion Forum.
Kallinar
Sojourner
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:01 am
Location: C'ville Va.
Contact:

Ranger innate tame

Postby Kallinar » Sun Nov 04, 2001 11:33 am

Ok folks, Maybe I'm a bit out of the loop, and maybe this has been discussed before, but please bare with me on this, as I haven't been back to the world of Sojourn but for 4 months now since my days of Sojourn 1. I haven't played a ranger since Sojourn 1 either so I am very out of the loop on ranger updates and whatnot.

My Beef is with the fact that rangers can only tame mounts. Why is this? Is it because it is too much work to code mobs like the beagle, wolfhound, stag, ferret, ect so that they are able to be tamed? As I remember from my paper rp days, rangers could tame more than mounts as long as the creature was able to be tamed and whatnot. Please give me some feedback on this, and as I said, if I am just out of the loop on this and it has already been brought up hundreds of times, don't ostracise me too harshly Image
Turxx
Sojourner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Turxx » Sun Nov 04, 2001 12:30 pm

prolly would be ALOT of coding, but not a bad idea nontheless
Grungar
Sojourner
Posts: 967
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Somewhere on the east coast, usually.
Contact:

Postby Grungar » Sun Nov 04, 2001 5:32 pm

Actually, I think it has to do with the fact that mobs have an insane number of hitpoints, and people might be concerned with the impact on the group dynamic that this might have- a level 50 running around with a giant bear pet or something silly like that. I also remember hearing something about mounted archery, which would be kinda crazy if rangers had to go out and buy horses when their mounted combat counterparts, the paladins, get a skill to summon a mount 3 times per game week.

- Grungar "I hate genetics" Forgefire
izarek
Sojourner
Posts: 645
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Irvine, CA

Postby izarek » Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:40 pm

Hmm. Grungar that argument would be valid if the tamed animals could tank or if mounts were useful for anything. Ranger innate tame, as it is right now, is only useful to tame mounts for overland movement. Note that mounted horses lose mvs pretty quick. I havent used my innate tame for like 20 lvls (since they took out mounted combat). Thus, a tamed animal (not mount), would be useful only as a hitter.

I'm not saying rangers need a hitter companion. Although, that would make the class closer to the 2nd edition AD&D version of rangers. I'm just saying that pet hps dont matter here. As for mounted archery, it of course remains to be seen what impact this will have.

Izzy
Aderon
Sojourner
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2001 5:01 am
Location: NY

Postby Aderon » Mon Nov 05, 2001 11:00 am

Its not just for horses, I tamed a magic carpet and put it in the stables... GO ME!

Aderon
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Tue Nov 06, 2001 8:52 pm

Tamed mounts aren't even useful for overland travel for rangers. Most mob mounts have pretty crappy moves so for "practical" purposes, the innate is only useful when applied to paladin or antipaladin mounts. It has such a low rate of success that it's easier and more practical to just buy a horse or two when you're below level 21. After level 21, rangers have the vigorize critic spell and nothing else really worth having in their 5th circle slot. Once vig c becomes !fail, mounts are basically entirely useless and the innate is used only to tame interesting looking mounts.

Treladian, proud owner of a Greycloak Griffin
izarek
Sojourner
Posts: 645
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Irvine, CA

Postby izarek » Tue Nov 06, 2001 9:17 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Treladian:
<B>
Once vig c becomes !fail, mounts are basically entirely useless and the innate is used only to tame interesting looking mounts.

Treladian, proud owner of a Greycloak Griffin</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! How true! Man I'm so envious! I gotta get me a griffon. My best mount atm is my talking black unicorn named Sidney Image

Izzy
Rynlaeis
Sojourner
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Contact:

Postby Rynlaeis » Wed Nov 07, 2001 5:28 am

Not to directly contradict anyone for any reason other than just to clear this up so that people don't use it as a reason to not post, but it shouldn't take much coding at all. Presumably right now the tame innate checks to make sure a mob is flagged mountable, and it would just be a matter of taking out that check or coordinating it with something else (check for animal race or flag if they use it on Sojourn?).

I think it would be nice to have the tame innate a bit more useful though, I really haven't seen any use for it at all. I think upping the success rate and perhaps having it up the movement rates of the mobs that are tamed (better to just adjust the movement rates of all tameable mobiles but that's just too much work for such a little thing) so that they can move a little further.

It's great to have special innates like this, and I'm glad they exist, but every sort of innate should have at least some use, even if it's a relatively small one.

[This message has been edited by Rynlaeis (edited 11-07-2001).]
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Nov 07, 2001 1:14 pm

Everyone's picking on my skill... *sniff*

The problem isn't with tame at all. It works fine. The problem is that mounts aren't useful to _anyone_ except paladins. Just being mounted is supposed to make you hit harder and more often, which is great. But ranger's can't get mounted combat high enough to actually stay on a horse through and entire fight. If we could you'd never see us walking around without a horse! Think about it, even if mounted archery goes in will it matter? We still won't bother because after 2 rounds of fighting we'll just fall off the horse anyway... heh.

My suggestion, raise the cap on mounted combat for rangers so it's pretty high. But make the flankblock (and possibly charge) skill check for the class and just not allow it to activate for rangers. This way we could have a higher mounted combat skill, and might start using our horses for more than a museum of exotic creatures.

Which reminds me... I gotta get something cooler than a griffon... Image

Sarvis
Trewe
Sojourner
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Florida
Contact:

Postby Trewe » Wed Nov 07, 2001 5:09 pm

I had a cool mount.. a level 30 cleric mob.. not telling you what it is if you don't know, but it seems to be a global rareload.. It actually makes soloing some decent mobs possible.. Only found it 3 times though and if you rent it it's powers go poof!! Image

having a mount that vigs itself and can heal is damn handy Image

Trewe *the ranger formely known as Azder*
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Nov 07, 2001 5:21 pm

Hehe... I was riding that mount when I came up with the idea for tame. Really, really wanted to keep him. Didn't know he could do anything besides vig crit though...

Sarvis
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Wed Nov 07, 2001 8:26 pm

Ah, the black unicorn. Is there any ranger that didn't get one of those as a pet when they hit 26 and could tame it? Sadly, Mr. Ed is not as flashy as my griffon but he will be fondly remembered as the first mount that was really good for a laugh.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Nov 07, 2001 10:13 pm

I didn't... I don't think I ended up getting him until 27... heh. He's nota cleric mob though is he? I thought we were talking about the white unicorn...

Sarvis
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:41 am

bleh

so i guess being a warrior subclass means you get spells, pets, random innates and skills, class specific weapons, in addition to being better at tanking or hitting (or if your real lucky both). what is the price you pay for all this variety? wheres the balance in that?
Aderon
Sojourner
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2001 5:01 am
Location: NY

Postby Aderon » Thu Nov 08, 2001 7:28 am

The price you pay for variety is I die in two hits. I have under 400 hit points at level 46, casters have less but they don't need to wear hit/dam eq to be useful.

Aderon
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Postby Tasan » Thu Nov 08, 2001 9:15 am

Kiryan, yer dumb.

God I've been wanting to say that for a long while now.

If one more person tries to tell me that a rangers spells are worth having an entire new class for, they can shove it where the sun don't shine.

We have 1, count that now, 1 unique spell(to the best of my knowledge). We have 0, count them, 0 offensive spells that go through globe. We have many many, utility only spells which under the normal hack n slash world provide only a source of laughter when we're all sitting around the fountain.

Pets? what pets? mounts are f'in WORTHLESS to rangers. My mounted skill is 20, whoo freakin hoo, I'm probably gonna fumble my weapon and end up on the ground because of it. Great addition there.

Class specific weapons: WHOOP-DE-FREAKING-DO!, a single quest weapon that is NOT class specific, race specific yes! There are much better weapons available for any warrior though anyhow.

Better at tanking or hitting... don't make me laugh. We hit, therefore we... hrm... can't really end that can we. How replaceable can you possibly get. Any class other than a cleric can fill the role of a ranger. End of story. Tanking ability after level 15? Don't try it for more than 2 rnds, you will die.

Price paid for variety? How about lack of use. I personally think Rangers have been given too much utility, and haven't been quite focus'd enough to actually have a considerable role in the game as it is today.

If you need any realistic arguments, let me know. I have extensive thoughts, and proven records to back up those thoughts.

Cheers to those who hate on things they don't know.

Twyl "Playing in the forest with my *uber elite* spells and variety" Twinshadow
Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Postby Todrael » Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:47 pm

I think he meant paladins.

-Todrael
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:56 pm

Why would he bring up paladins in a thread specifically about a ranger innate skill?

Sarvis
Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Postby Todrael » Thu Nov 08, 2001 3:30 pm

Because he's been bringing up paladins in virtually every thread he posts in.

-Todrael
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Thu Nov 08, 2001 3:48 pm

Ummm the quest weapon kills a warrior when it procs, well takes you to 1 hp. So it is class and race specific. :P
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu Nov 08, 2001 6:16 pm

aderon: are you perchance grey elf? if you wanted hps i think you shoulda made a human.

btw, anyone know the difference between a 50 ranger grey hps and a 50 war grey hps? how about half ranger 50, human ranger 50, human war 50, paladin/anti 50?

sarvis: the only paladin specific thing in my post was the "(if your real lucky both)" meaning tanking and hittin, so i didnt really mention paladins, but i did take a shot at them. at least i didnt rant about mounted combat working in rooms you cant enter mounted (theres another one *lick*).

treladin: one of my points was why does every warrior subclass have each of the following pets, spells, innates, class specific spanky weapons, either tank better or hit better?

i can understand hitting or tanking better (but not both that reminds me of monks).
i can understand innates and skills
i can understand spells
i have no beef with class specific weapons, im just pointing out that it is cool to have them.

I can't understand why every warrior subclass has all of these things, then people complain because one or more or all of them is "weak" or "worthless" while still hitting or tanking better than the base class. the more variety, the weaker each individual skill.

Your comment on having too much utility and not enough focus is right on, every subclass has pets/spells/innate&skills/ and either better tanking or better hitting. theres no variety in that (since all the subclasses have all the same stuff) and there is shouldnt be any real power since there is such a variety in extras.

now some stuff that i disagree with you on, i wouldnt call your spells worthless, you may not have any unique ones, but bark, pwt, invis, di, sense life, vig, cure, dispel magic are definitely worth somethin. no offensive spells... ummm your meant to do damage via dualing and someday archery (or so i hear) damage via spells isnt really your realm is it?

Your comment on all you can do is hit i think is right on. your comment about being replaced by any class other than cleric i think is right on but i think you missed somethin. you are a subclass your not a core class, you arent supposed to be necessary in every/any group. you can be replaced easily. if you didnt want to not have groups you shoulda made a core class.

On the price paid for variety, you dont tank well but you hit better thats fair. im going to assume you picked grey elf who have the shittiest hps but great agility and int and charisma i think thats fair, not a good choice for a melee class since none of those attributes mean much to melee atm, but fair in terms of trade offs con for agility, str for int, ect... thats like an ogre shaman bitching about mem times, you choose grey elf, they are not known for hps. you also get a bunch of stupid tricks like ranger food and tame. the price you should pay for all that variety is being less effective in each discipline. you want some dam spells? you willing to give up offense ability for it (and im not just talking the rounds while your casting)?

btw some clarification for me please: windsong is race specific? grey elf warriors can use it? wow, how about grey elf rogues?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 08, 2001 6:40 pm

<i>"treladin: one of my points was why does every warrior subclass have each of the following pets, spells,
innates, class specific spanky weapons, either tank better or hit better? "</i>

Rangers do not have pets. We have personal museums of creatures that we can use to impress people with their shininess. But they hardly count as pets since they do less for us than the dogs you can buy in the pet store in WD.

<i>"I can't understand why every warrior subclass has all of these things, then people complain because one or
more or all of them is "weak" or "worthless" while still hitting or tanking better than the base class. the
more variety, the weaker each individual skill.
</i>"

We don't hit better than warriors. We only recently gained the ability to even master our 1h slashing skill... but we still need more hitroll to hit things. We do get more attacks on average, but only because we have no use for a shiel so we dual wield. A warrior willing to forgoe his shield fora good 2 handed weapon will do more damage than a ranger. A rogue, which is a core class, will do a lot more damage than aranger via circle and backstab as well.

<i>"Your comment on all you can do is hit i think is right on. your comment about being replaced by any class
other than cleric i think is right on but i think you missed somethin. you are a subclass your not a core
class, you arent supposed to be necessary in every/any group. you can be replaced easily. if you didnt want to
not have groups you shoulda made a core class. </i>"

Begin Rant:

God I'm sick of people saying that. Why should only the "core" classes get to have fun? In fact, I'm sick of rangers even being considered a subclass. We are a class not a subclass. We have our own skills, weaknesses and benefits. We are not a type of warrior, we are a type of Ranger. And we deserve to have fun just as much as every cookie cutter warrior, cleric, and enchanter out there.

End Rant:

Sarvis
Rynlaeis
Sojourner
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Contact:

Postby Rynlaeis » Fri Nov 09, 2001 1:59 am

I don't understand why any "complaining" or talking of overbalanced classes or "core" (?!!) classes is even being discussed here. The original point was that tame isn't useful. Then a few posts were made suggesting possible upgrades to tame. According to these suggestions, rangers will be able to tame a mount to ride around in the wilderness so that they don't use up as many moves. Else they tame a few unmountable things that could be used as tanks for a round or two. To quote an earlier post, "WHOOP-DE-FREAKING-DO." It's a nice little benefit, certainly not anything overbalancing or in any way uncalled for. It sounds right that rangers would be able to move further and easier in the wilderness anyway.
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Fri Nov 09, 2001 8:09 pm

To add on a bit to what Sarvis said . . .

First off, we're NOT a subclass of warrior. Warriors, paladins, antis, and rangers are a subclass of FIGHTER. A bard's not a subclass of a thief/assassin hybrid, a druid's not a subclass of cleric, a conjurer isn't a subclass of enchanter, etc. Secondly, the mud seems to be moving away from a core class/support class system. The gods have said that they are devoted to balancing all the classes and making them useful. This is not the same thing as making all of them required. This ultimately should make groups more flexible. There already have been some examples of this with illusionists getting a stone-like spell and necros having globes and hence being able to do some zones without an enchanter. It's not as effective as having an enchanter too, but it can be done. Likewise, many of the casting classes having damage spells added to their repitoire means that you can have lots of spell damage without an invoker, even if it would be more effective with one. Likewise, rogues were added to the list of classes focused on doing damage, which previously only included invokers and rangers last wipe, though previously a warrior wielding a 2hander could do more melee damage than a ranger due to the latter not being able to master offense and 1h slashing. Anyway, time to bring the thread back on topic.

I think cheesing could be prevented if the level limit for taming non-mount animals was much lower than what it is for taming mounts. Using a pet to tank for one or two rounds doesn't seem very rangerly to me, but being able to have some wolves or a bear helping with hitting in combat somewhat would be a good addition for flavor.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Sat Nov 10, 2001 6:03 am

omg subclass of fighter? i dont buy it, please explain to me what differentiates a fighter from a warrior. i can tell you the differences for paladins and antis and rangers from a warrior or fighter besides pets/spells/innates.

you are a subclass as warrior is the baseline and all others are balanced/compared against it, you dont want to call it a subclass fine i dont care what you call it.

why do the core classes get to have tall the fun? id much rather play a different class. ive always fancied paladins, but i choose core classes because i dont like being without groups. did you think ranger was a core class? you got to choose variety and fun, i choose mundane and required. we make our own choices.

again i wonder, did rangers roll thinking they were going to be the #1 melee dam or #1 tank? you dont get either of those roles rogue gets melee dam, warr/paladin/anti gets tank. your some sort of middle guy. things like this remind me of the grey melee folks who think they got a raw deal because all the stats they good at dont mean dick to melee. if you wanted the most hps pick barb/dwar war, if you wanted the best tank pick paladin/anti, if you wanted the most dam pick rogue. if you want tame, rangerfood, some misc spells, and windsong pick ranger.

rogues i thought were defined as the end all be all of melee damage they are supposed to do more damage than rangers but tank worse too, now i think that got backpedaled a bit into the end all and be all of consistent melee damage with rangers getting short spurts at the top where the can use archery. what you want equal dam output to rogues and tank better?

you have pets, they may not be as spanky as any other classes pets but you got pets. yes you can buy pets and summon pets with some items, but you have an ability that allows you to acquire pets. you also get ranger food, personally id rather buy it 100 at a time, but you do have ranger food. variety = weak, specialize = strong. at least thats my opinion on it (unless your a paladin then you get variety and power).

on no core class. so things are going the way of not really core classes but competenicies. Your still going to have core competenicies, healing magic, defense magic, offense magic, physical tankage, physical dam. you know what most zones you dont need physical dam. every zone got to have physical tankage, healing magic and defensive magic. most pretty much require offense magic. you change the words but in the end ranger still aint going to be a required class. will you not rest until rangers are required in every group? gonna be a long wait i think.

now another gripe/confusion of mine.
do rangers do more dam than warriors or not? in one thread its no we dont, in another thread is rangers do dam. i dont get it. my analysis is that a ranger dualing gonna beat the pants of a warrior dualing (dam that is). ranger with decent 1h s should out dam a warrior with a decent 2h (excluding procs). top end dunno how twilgiht stacks against windsong prolly depends on how early twilight procs and how often windsong procs.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Nov 10, 2001 6:50 am

Treladian is referring to the AD&D class system, which ours was originally based in as well. It is as follows from page 34 of the AD&D 2nd Edition PHB:

<pre>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color="#800000"> Warrior Wizard Priest Rogue</font>
Fighter Mage Cleric Thief
Ranger Illusionist Druid Bard
Paladin Other Other
</pre>

All the PHB says is there are 3 classes within the warrior group; ranger, fighter, and paladin. And that they are all well trained in weapons and fighting.

And stop trying to convince us that we shouldn't be allowed to have fun because we didn't pick your idea of a "core" class. We all chose ranger because we like being rangers. It's the one constant. We've all played rangers every wipe since we got here, no matter how badly they sucked in the past. We didn't choose it thinking we'd do more damage, and certainly not for any tanking ability. But that doesn't mean we need to be left out of your elitist little world where only "core" classes matter. "Support" class need to have fun too... otherwise there's no point in having more classes than the 4 basic groups, Warrior, Wizard, Priest and Rogue.

Sarvis

[This message has been edited by Sarvis (edited 11-10-2001).]
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Sat Nov 10, 2001 7:21 am

Shrug, Kiryan is just trying to up his post count. They say an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters will type the works of Shakespeare in an infinite amount of time.

Kiryan's posts could be covered by ten monkeys, one hour.

- Ragorn (Drunk)

[This message has been edited by Ragorn (edited 11-10-2001).]
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Sat Nov 10, 2001 10:46 pm

damnit ragorn you saw through my clever ploy

#add kiryanpostcount 1

and sarvis, your not having fun playing a ranger? if not you then other rangers, your not having fun? why is that because you dont get invited to groups because your not an uber tank or an uber hitter? seems that if your rationale for fun is dependent on getting groups you shoulda picked a class that is needed in every group, cleric comes to mind with enc/ill being close seconds and warr/pal/anti next.

if its because you cant solo anything, then i think your misguided since most classes cant solo effectively at all. if its because you dont have a strong enough role in a group, then exactly whose role you want since theyve all been dolled out. rogue got melee dam, pal/war/anti got tank, invo/lich got spell dam, cleric got heal, druid/squid got transport, ill/druid/shaman got misc utility... whose role do you want? if its rogue then your already there as you do more dam than a warrior but less than a rogue.

another thing, rangers aint never gonna be a required class you will always be able to do without them and i point to my breakdown of group roles above as evidence. you can get dam two ways physical and spell you dont really ever need melee dam unless your fightning mr mobs. what you got is a hodgepodge of skills and abilities that include pets, spells, melee dam, random innates and soem warrior skills.

i still think rangers do more dam than warriors due to extra attacks and bonuses/dam. if thats not the case, then id argue with you that rangers need to do more dual dam but less than rogues.

when are you going to have fun when rangers get conj size pets, rogue melee, paladin tanking, and druid spells? gah id have fun with that too, can you make me a ranger too?
Vipplin
Sojourner
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Hawaii

Postby Vipplin » Sun Nov 11, 2001 7:50 pm

Comparing damage between rangers and warriors...

From what I've seen, a warrior and ranger both with the same eq, using:

shield and 1h slasher - warrior does more due to better innate hitroll (better at double attack too? at least as good as ranger) WARR WINS

dual slashers - warrior better hitroll so hits better percent, but ranger gets more reliable second attack. MAYBE the ranger ends up doing more, but if the warrior is a barbarian or dwarf he's probably doing more due to strength and can wield a more powerful second weapon? *shrug* TIE? Ranger wins if hasted - more reliable extra 2attacks then.

2handed weapon- warrior rocks if both using them - higher skill and hitroll WARR WINS

Warrior with 2hander vs ranger dualling. warrior gets 2 attacks every round, ranger gets 3 we'll assume. The warrior's hitroll is better and damage is considerably more per hit. If the warrior is doing 50% more damage, which depends on his race and the weapons, then the warrior will do more than the ranger. TIE?

I'm guessing Twilight vs Windsong, Twilight wielder will win. WARR WINS

Now when hasted, 2h vs dualler, I think the ranger will win if similarly equipped because the warrior gets 50% (3 instead of 2) more attacks and the ranger gets 67% (5 instead of 3) more. RANGER WINS

Now, warriors usually are somewhat concerned with ac, so the ranger will actually usually be doing more damage in a fight just because they're going all-out hit/dam. But if a warrior keeps a 'hitter set' for appropriate use, they damn near do the same if not more than a ranger in melee.

In a fight where archery can be used, rangers will do more damage than a warrior.

If anyone thinks I'm wrong about any of those, please let me know and tell me why. I am interested to hear anything I may not realize.

So there you go, that's my useless contribution to the "Ranger innate tame" thread ;p


Vadian

P.S. Note that there is a large amount of warrior eq good for hitters that rangers can't wear because they're forcibly pure of heart. Warrior could also win due to superior eq.
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Sun Nov 11, 2001 9:36 pm

Directly from help classes:

<bold>Fighter</bold>
======
Warrior
Ranger
Paladin
Anti-Paladin

As to what differentiates a warrior from a fighter, a warrior is a broad term used to encompass anyone that fights while a fighter is the term used in fantasy games to describe a warrior that focuses soley on fighting technique, and generally straight combat vs. a paladin/antis mounted tactics and a ranger's guerilla tactics. It's learning technique over taking advantage of circumstances. But the simple answer is that Sojourn screwed up the names. They switched around the words warrior and fighter back when whatever iteration of the mud decided to base itself on D&D. I guess they thought warrior sounded cooler than fighter, and I'm inclined to agree.

Secondly, the warrior class is NOT the baseline for paladins, antis, or rangers. No ONE class is a baseline for the so called hybrid classes. All the hybrid classes have the traits of at least two classes AND abilities that are unrelated to ANY of the so called "core" classes. ALL of the spell casting classes have unique spells different from those thay they might be considered derived from (ie, group heal for shamans which combine mage and cleric) and all of the non spell casting classes have unique skills or abilities (ie, rogue steal).

Pets? These pets are about as useful as beagles from a pet store. They contribute NOTHING to the class. You can buy better stuff from shops than we can tame at the levels it is useful. This is like saying that the rogue class gets pets since they can steal money that can be used to buy a horse or beagle.

As for the rogue vs. ranger debate that's now a dead horse that's been liched, don't forget that rogues get several unique skills and rangers often tank worse than casters with hp gear on. An enchanter that's stoned themselves tanks better than most rangers. An unstoned cleric tanks better than a ranger. Saying that we tank better than a rogue is like saying that the Backstreet Boys have better music than N'Sync. Rogues even rescue better then us with dual backstab autoswitching mobs. But in any case I don't really give a shit about rogues. We have different roles in a group as it is.

I don't recall anyone saying that a ranger should be needed in every group. A ranger should be USEFUL in every group, as in they actually are useful enough to consider along with any other class. Class balance does not equal being needed, only worth of consideration. Oh, and stop putting your own words into other people's opinions.

Yes, a ranger SHOULD be able to outdam a warrior with a two handed weapon. That didn't happen previous wipes. A ranger's hitroll requirements were extremely high compared to a warrior's because we could not master any skill other than dual wield and archery. That meant that a 33 hitroll was the norm at level 50. That kills several points of damroll. The math discluded procs since it's debatable which 2 hander is uber, twilight, gythka, smasher, etc.

Finally, as to your "variety and fun" argument, sitting on your ass around the fountain is not fun unless you enjoy being a couch potato in a fantasy world. This is a GAME. We put many hours into our characters. We expect to have FUN. If a game you pick up off a shelf at a store doesn't provide you with fun after spending a few hours with it, it's a piece of crap. When we look at the mud, we're talking about putting in literally about half a month into a character to get from 1 to 50 if you somehow can always find a group and exp. If after that kind of investment you can't do crap and have fun, then it's not a game, it's work. Yeah, you could restart as another character/race combo, but that's like a game you get off the shelf deleting your saved game after 30 hours of play if you set the video options wrong when you first loaded it up.

[This message has been edited by Treladian (edited 11-12-2001).]
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Tue Nov 13, 2001 8:19 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Grungar:
<B>Actually, I think it has to do with the fact that mobs have an insane number of hitpoints, and people might be concerned with the impact on the group dynamic that this might have- a level 50 running around with a giant bear pet or something silly like that. I also remember hearing something about mounted archery, which would be kinda crazy if rangers had to go out and buy horses when their mounted combat counterparts, the paladins, get a skill to summon a mount 3 times per game week.

- Grungar "I hate genetics" Forgefire</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was I, sir. I wanted to see an imitation of Genghis Kahn's cavalry.
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Tue Nov 13, 2001 8:22 pm

Kiryan...

you said you chose warrior to get groups... why are you complaining then? I don't understand. You're getting more groups, they're having more fun. What's the big deal here?
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Tue Nov 13, 2001 9:30 pm

Very eloquent, Treladian. Sums up all the important points nicely.

- Ragorn
Kallinar
Sojourner
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:01 am
Location: C'ville Va.
Contact:

Postby Kallinar » Wed Nov 14, 2001 1:37 pm

Umm...I go away for a bit and come back to see everyone posting on my Topic! Image
Well as far as the core issue is concerned, This is my first ranger since Sojourn 1. I always previously played a warrior (Gulraex) and got tired of him. So I deleted him at level 30. (Sorry Seldrin and Bilraex, but you never play anymore). The spells I have suck ass and I take for freaking ever to mem them presently, but I do like the added extras to play with when I'm doing a little of the old ultra violence on a baddie.
My innate tame has yet to work. Image I started this to see why we couldn't have pets to help us tank. NEcros can make zombies ect. to tank around for em. Then the shamen(?) have the totem animals, the illusionists have wraiths, druids have trees, and not to mention conjurors heh. So why can't I tame a pet with my innate ability? I really wanna pet ferret dammit. Image
Maybe something can be added like innate tame (animal) that tames a random animal and it just pops right there on a successful tame, sorta like forage pops up all the various yummy food types for me.

*Shrug* I just want a damned ferret :P

Kallinar(Just want a ferret)

[This message has been edited by Kallinar (edited 11-14-2001).]
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:53 pm

Necros, Shamans and conjies get pets to tank because they are casters, and have no blocking skills and a lot less hp than we do. Rangers would be way overpowered if we had pets that could tank...

Sarvis
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2551
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Postby Yayaril » Wed Nov 14, 2001 4:21 pm

So, Kallinar, me droogy, your spells are only for the ultraviolence, and not for when you participate in a little bit of the old in and out?

Yayaril
Kallinar
Sojourner
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:01 am
Location: C'ville Va.
Contact:

Postby Kallinar » Wed Nov 14, 2001 9:33 pm

No my brother. My spells are not worth the old in and out.
As for my pets tanking, hell, I don't want a pet that can tank. I want one for +style points :P And if I were to summon a wolf to be my familiar for the day I'm pretty sure his ac and hit/dam wouldn't come close to mine. When I say pets I mean that as the literal word of pet. Realistically. A normal person wouldn't have a freakin ice bear as his pet. Thats just something reserved for hardcore fantasy....erm..oh wait..i'm defeating myself there. :P
I'm talking about a pet alligator or a pet ferret or as you get higher up in levels you can have something like a wolfhound or a grizzily bear, but nothing extreme as to destroy a mob for me without me tanking for it. I just want a pet ferret :P
Gort
Sojourner
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Ft. Collins, CO

Postby Gort » Thu Nov 15, 2001 3:47 pm

Ferrets are fun, little terrorists, but they stink! I've had them as pets, and you'd have to be a smelly ranger to want one :P


I agree w/ ya tho.

Toplack
Kallinar
Sojourner
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:01 am
Location: C'ville Va.
Contact:

Postby Kallinar » Thu Nov 15, 2001 8:01 pm

*sniffs armpits*

hrm...need more deoderant Image
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Fri Nov 16, 2001 3:49 pm

heh... by that logic, I can put in good case for rangers needing a charm animal spell... Heh, c'mere level 35 bear, tank for me... Image
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Sat Nov 17, 2001 4:59 am

warriors have like 25 things they can do including all their skills/spells.

how many do rangers get? close to 100? im counting each spell separately. no matter how you look at it rangers got a lot of shit, none of it doesnt make them uber or super powerful imo, but they still get it.

every time someone says rangers need soething new, im left thinking when does it end? ill point to the uber dam tank paladin as a case in point, without considering the new addition of the elemental class.

now rangers may need a dam upgrade, i dont see the numbers so i dont know, but improving the tame skill? to what ends? till it can tame you a 3k hp tank? or a pet with monk dam, cleric spells? i mean comeon, if you just want some little thing to play with, you already got it. (btw that unicorn is twink, some god fix that.) that and a shit load of spells and skills. your not having fun? you picked a class with an abundance of skills and spells if your not having fun, then im thinkign you picked the wrong character for your personality. you wont? i already knew, rangers tend to be loyal to the ranger class like its not funny.

i really think the ranger issue has less to do with the class and more to do with the people who play them. ill point to several muds that ive played where rangers are either the most uber class or rangers are always saying they need more.

we all choose our classes, i made my choice, you made yours. there seems to be no shortage of rangers though there is a conspicuous shortage of bards/bchanters/conjurers.
Grxx
Sojourner
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Grxx » Sat Nov 17, 2001 7:16 am

i didnt bother to read any of these posts, but ranger inate tame seems to make a whole lotta sense, like level based, say around level 4 or 5 you can tame squirrels and stuff, not that they would be usful in any way, just a little pet that follows you around, as you advance in in levels and the morw time you spend taming things the better you become at it, the bigger mobs you can tame, the more likely it will work, the more reasponsive the tamed animal will be.
i was also thinking, say you have a pet for a long time, it seems that a bond would develope, also it seems like a dog you had for a month would listen better and maybe have more skills than one you had an hour.
maybe give pets skills and levels.
so if one wanted to have a tight pet, maybe someone who prefers to solo, they could prac with it.
train dog rescue
train dog lunge
train dog switch mobs
train dog fetch...order dog north get sword south
train dog come...to call pet from 1 or maybe up to 5 rooms away, perhaps a good dog from anywhere within the zone.
im not sure but can you tog a pets wimpy?
other pets like bears, train bear bash
train horse kick
train horse bite
a good horse maybe can be given a path to follow and person to find.
give horse bag
order horse find Grxa give bag grxa consent grxa return
maybe im getting a little carried away here but i think pets are weak and should have some upgrades. horses need moves and stamina badly for one thing.
one other thing i think would be cool. say like when you die with a pet still there that pet could be used for a shift target, or itself be shifted.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Sat Nov 17, 2001 1:17 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by kiryan:
every time someone says rangers need soething new, im left thinking when does it end? ill point to the uber dam tank paladin as a case in point, without considering the new addition of the elemental class. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Son, you ALWAYS point to the dam tank paladin class, no matter what the thread is about or who it relates to. Please, give it a rest. We know you think Paladins are too powerful. Everyone is sort of tired of talking about it.

Innate tame ferret is completely useless for anything but amusement. Why are you fighting it so tooth and nail? Warriors are already on the block. Why do you have to oppose everything in every thread that doesn't directly enhance warriors? This thread is about two line change in the code that does absolutely nothing to change the balance of the game. Seriously, even bringing balance into this thread is asinine. Do you have a legitmate reason why Rangers should not be able to pick up level five wolves and birds as pets? I haven't seen you state one yet. Instead you're talking about 3k pets and monks and clerics or something. We're talking about ferrets, Kiryan, not taming dragons. Don't get all bent out of shape.

You sort of remind me of Lyt, who I swore logged onto the BBS and immediatey did a search for threads with "Ranger" in them, and mass posted "NO!!!" in all of them.

*pet Lyt*

- Ragorn
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Sat Nov 17, 2001 1:33 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ragorn:
<B>You sort of remind me of Lyt, who I swore logged onto the BBS and immediatey did a search for threads with "Ranger" in them, and mass posted "NO!!!" in all of them.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I ever mention that Lyt is my hero?

/Jegzed - Drow Ranger!
Galok Icewolf
Sojourner
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Galok Icewolf » Sat Nov 17, 2001 1:49 pm

Tests done, Rangers with windsongs with same basic eq as warrior with twilight, ranger wins EVERY time. Rangers do more damage. Thats why they are hitters.

Rangers = Hitter
Warrior = Tank
Paladin & Anti = Better Hitter & Better Tank

We rangers and warriors should whine about palas together!
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Sat Nov 17, 2001 3:52 pm

my point is 25 commands to 100. rangers get to do 4x as many different things as warriors. next ill be reading about how ranger food sucks and each rangerfood needs to have a common keyword (doh already read that one).

rangers have variety, your pets suck, they should you have a lot of skills. jack of all trades master of none. you want necro style pets? please tell me what kind of pet skill would make you happy.

i bitch about paladins and antis because at the moment, mounted combat has nearly no disadvantages and tanks better than warrior AND they hit harder than warriors. and that is before you even consider their myriad of skills/spells, most of which are more powerful than the skills rangers get. simply not considering spells, hit harder and tank better = no balance. hit harder and tank worse or tank better hit worse is balanced. anyhow ive shelved this topic in my mind until i see what elementalists bring to the table.

why dont you ask for real improvement to the class, stupid trick pets will not make you any more useful to a group. it might make you happy but its not gonna make you uber. if dam is an issue then rally behind that. dont encourage useless diversification of the ranger class or be happy with having shitloads of worthless skills and no role in groups.

and still im wondering whose telling the truth. is there a ranger dam problem or not. some leaders say no, some rangers say yes. galok posts windsong > twilight. whats the truth? alot of this i assume is coming from damroll comparisons which are uninformed imo. damroll is one contributer to the dam done from a single hit, but its the most obvious. a level 50ranger with 20 damroll and 30 warrior with 30 damroll may only be 4% difference in total dam done per swing. not to mention per swing was never the source of ranger dam, it was number of attacks.

i wonder how a ranger stacks up to a paladin/anti.
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Postby Tasan » Sat Nov 17, 2001 4:10 pm

25 things to do vs. 100?... hell, cut out all 75 *extra* things I can do, give me dual/double/bash/kick/rescue/switch opp/blindfight/parry/dodge/1h slash/1h pierce/riposte/track/offense/bandage
and let me be as crucial to a zone as a warrior, and I'll be happy.

It's not gonna happen, and your whining about pointless crap on this thread is seriously making me think you must seek therapy.

This is not a thread about an imbalancing quest item, not a question of damage, or anything of that sort. It deals with a small change to an already useless skill(we have 7 skills I have yet to use/notch), and doesn't do anything to make rangers uber.

The point of the game isn't "make every class have only what it needs and that's all". We suggest a change to a skill that makes sense, and should get some consideration thrown into it. If a warrior posts about something he thinks warriors need, I don't run in there and bitch about how they have shieldblock and we don't and that's unbalancing.

Stick to the damned thread, quit arguing about everything, and if you have nothing constructive to add, don't add anything.

Twyl take no m.i.a.
Kallinar
Sojourner
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:01 am
Location: C'ville Va.
Contact:

Postby Kallinar » Sun Nov 18, 2001 2:20 pm

Ya know all this talk about uber this and dam that, and how its worthless to have pets means absolutely nothing to me. I am talking about it for the "realism" of being a ranger. Yes it may be useless, but I, unlike some people here, actually like to ROLEPLAY my character. I'm not in the mud to run around trying to find out who can be the biggest hard ass. I'm not here to say HAY! Look at me! I'm better than you.

I'm here to rp. Look at my name if you ever see me on and take heed of the shiny white RP next to my name and pheer my rp skills. I'm 26 years old. I have been a self proclaimed D&D nerd since the age of 10. You wanna talk about skill? Lets talk about weather or not you know what the definition of a THAC0 is.

Don't berate me for wanting to better my personal gameplay with your petty arguments on why or why not I should be able to tame a ferret. As I said, I'm not looking for a tank, I have my tank whenever I need her. I like quality of gameplay.

I like some of your ideas too Grxx, but some nay sayers would say nay therefore its probably pointless.

Kallinar (Menace to Yogi Bear)
Cerlayne
Sojourner
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Portland, ME USA

Postby Cerlayne » Sun Nov 18, 2001 2:52 pm

i think the idea of pet ferrets is coooool... definately rp for a ranger... makes sense to me and i think gods should fix code to allow this kinda thingy.. btw i am NOT talking 3k hp ferrets... case anyone.. peer... thinks i am... oh and btw this lil warrior wielding twilight is not doin the same damage as a ranger of the same level.. now maybe thats cause i'm just a grey elf... btw no i didn't pick grey to be included on every group and be the bestest damn tank... i picked grey cause it's style.. anywho... anyone arguin against rangers havin lil ferrets runnin round after them and gettin into group members bags and eating the scrolls is twacked.. imho of course.. gawd i need sleep

Cerlayne tells Necasio 'ya damn ferret just ate my last id scroll again.. no more exp for him!!!'

ungroup ferret


Cerly "ponders changing to surly" L'ytria

[This message has been edited by Cerlayne (edited 11-18-2001).]
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Nov 18, 2001 3:39 pm

Heh... radical idea here. If you want to RP having a ferret, then RP having a ferret! You could emote things like *pulls a ferret out of his backpack and strokes it lovingly while pondering something.* An actual mob ferret would just constantly get left behind while you were running places anyway... heh. And I doubt the coders are going to want to recode tame just so you can RP owning a ferret that is completely and utterly useless. *shrug* Just my take on it...


Oh yeah, and as for the warrior/twilight vs. ranger/windsong thing... not all of us can use windsong!

Sarvis

Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests