The Forgotten Melee Classes - Paladin, Anti-Paladins, Ranger

Archive of the Sojourn3 Ideas Forum.
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

The Forgotten Melee Classes - Paladin, Anti-Paladins, Ranger

Postby Joth » Fri Aug 22, 2003 9:33 pm

The Forgotten Melee classes (Paladins/Antis – Rangers)

In attempt to make Paladins, Anti-paladins and Rangers more groupable, and not looked over by zone leaders. My friends, others, and I have discussed a number of ideas to help alleviate the issue of these classes being looked over when leaders are starting to create a zoning group.

Currently most leaders would agree the ideal zoning melee class group would consist of:
3 Warriors and 2 Rogues, then after which can’t find these classes to fill them with paladin/anti for the warriors, and for damage purpose only, a ranger for a rogue.

The suggestion or proposals that we came up with was to create a well-rounded zoning-group of melee classes of 2 warriors, paladin/anti, rogue, and a ranger. These suggestion are just as similar when I suggest shield block for warriors in the past.

In order to achieve this, we came up with these proposals:

Ranger:
Remove bash ability from this classes and let them get the new skill of tripping. In addition to this, rangers should have some type of stunning ability like the other warrior classes. Warriors have shieldpunch, headbutt; and paladins and antipaladins have charge when mounted. I believe if rangers had the ability stun a mob as long as or short duration as sheldpunch that they as a class would be incorporated more into zoning groups not JUST FOR DAMAGE, because rogues and invokers can do this as well.

The skill for this is still a question, an idea would be the ranger’s “kicking” skill would become so effective that when kicked in the solarplexes or groin that it will stun the mob for a short duration.

This would in no way affect the role of the rogue in the group such as corpse retrieval, scouting, garrote and other rogue skills.

Paladins and Anti-Paladins:

The issues with these two classes it is the lack of tanking skills as compared to warriors.
The suggestion that we came up with is Clerics of the same alignment, or belief in the same deity, would be able to bestow the blessings of the deity upon the paladin or anti-paladin.

The new spells would be called Divine Bestowment or Divine Personification. This spell could only be cast on paladins and anti-paladins only; in addition, this would also help out those clerics who are evil or good align a greater role-playing effect and bring the two classes closer.

The abilities of this spell is as follows:
1. Increase hit points – either being able to go into the extra hp or being able to go into deep negatives like –100 to –150.
2. Soulshield effect – This aspect of the spell does two things, first it is similar to fire/cold shield, and it also grants the recipient an extra defense check. This check would be in the form of: Crayla’s deity deflects attack by <MOB NAME> from inflicting damage upon Aedaris. This would be similar to shield block, but less effect maybe three/fourths or half.


Finally the spell can only be cast on person at a time, having an extend duration period, and will only effect mobs of the opposite align.


Another idea that we had was a necromancer/lich spell turning an anti-paladin into a Death Knight for an extend duration of time. Again there would be added benefits but we are still working this out.
Dalar
Sojourner
Posts: 4876
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Dalar » Fri Aug 22, 2003 10:48 pm

ideally you would have only one rogue and the rest invokers
It will be fixed in Toril 2.0.
Aremat group-says 'tanks i highly suggest investing 20 silver in training weapons from cm to cut down on the losing scales to shield'
Ihazim
Sojourner
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ihazim » Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:04 am

i dont see a problem with the way anti-paladins and paladins can tank mounted or dismounted : ). what's the point of having different classes if they are all on the same level. and to a degree, they are on the same level because the job gets done regardless of the tanks class.
Stamm
Sojourner
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Stamm » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:11 am

Paladin or anti is already better than a warrior in a small group.

Joth's buff spell from clerics would mean that they would be better than a warrior in a big group too.

Not that I'm saying paladins and antis are perfect, no... but the answer isn't just to make them better than warriors, which is what his suggestion means doing.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Sat Aug 23, 2003 1:27 pm

Healer + Anti or pala = dead DS giants. Stoner + Anti or pala = dead DS giants. Warrior + healer = 24 hour killing marathon with a slight chance of killing DS giants. Warrior + stoner = Can kill one or two DS giants (maybe), but prepare for the never ending sleeping spree afterwards.

Antis/palas/rangers are powerful hitters with some pretty descent defensive skills (especially when mounted). Tanks like Delmair and Aedaris rescue well and provide a good amount of damage at the same time and get some descent spells. Good rangers also provide alot of damage, rescue well (yes, some have good hps), and can bash with a descent amount of accuracy.

I agree that the classes aren't perfect. Rangers could stand a tweak of some kind because as of now (with a few exceptions and you people know who you are) I don't often look to put rangers into groups. They're like rogues and warriors except not as helpful as either. I'd rather just have the extra warrior or rogue.

Antis/paladins are pretty darn good the way they are imho. I gladly look for them to join my groups and have found them to be a great addition. Except for Delmair because he smells funny!
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

Postby Joth » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:33 pm

Stamm,

I am not sure, your analysis is right. You should talk to more zone leaders, like I have and just other people in general. If a paladins is mounted they get similar tanking ability, and that usually happens in small groups. But the added addition of bestowment spell wouldn't make them better, due to warriors would still have better tanking skills( the extra denfese check is not as good as shieldbock). In addition warriors have an elementalist that can make warriors into fire elemental which if very similar to the effects of the spell. And this in no way would make warriors not looked at first because the warriors ability to for reliable bash, shieldpunching.

On another note, this cleric spell would be a quest spell for clerics as well.

To ihazim comment, the classes would still be different fill up different roles in the group. And they are many times a paladin/anti cannot get the job done in a zoning group.

It would be very interesting to see the statistics, on how many paladins they are, and how many actually play, then see how many are invited to zoning group. I believe this would EASILY PROVE THE POINT.

As to rangers if they have the role of primary melee stuner it there would great a role in a zone group, where warriors can focus on tanking/bashing, or rangers can help with shieldpunch of warriors.

So in role melee classes would you have this:

Warrior: Tanking 10, Bashing 10, shieldpucnhing(Stunning) 10, rescue 9
Paladins/Anti: Tanking 9, rescuing 10, damage 6 (while 2handing)
Rogues: Tripping 10, garroting 10, damage 10, scouting/cr 10
Ranger: Kicking (Stunning) 9, Tripping 9, damage 10, luring 10 (while dualing)

There has been many a times where the warrior has to choose between rescue and bashing and both cause major problems. With the new roles and traditional roles the group will become more balance and incorportating more classes for usefulliness.

Finally warrior classes should in no way feel intimated by this because it doesn't make them less usually and you would still probably want atleast 2 warriors in a group, but certain zones like CC maybe want more then just 2.
Last edited by Joth on Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:54 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

Postby Joth » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:40 pm

Damn can't delete this post.
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:27 pm

I think Joth has some good ideas and suggestions here. While I'll agree with Stamm that paladins are better in a small group (particularly xp) than warriors, in zoning situations their weakness is apparent due to limitations with their mount.. it gets nuked from areas rather fast, or they can't mount or take their pet in certain rooms etc.
The spell suggestion for clerics to cast on a pal/anti is an interesting idea and gives a cool rp benefit for alignment choice. I don't see paladins replacing warriors, but they might be taken more often as a group member.

Ranger suggestions are trickier... I'd say to wait until the eq changes, since melee is supposed to get a good boost from that.
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

Postby Joth » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:53 pm

I believe even with the melee damage upgrade, rangers will still be in the same boat, because the rogues will benefit as well. The dynamic of the equations hasn't change then, because over all damage will be increase.

What the rangers need is a >>ROLE<< in a zoning group. Assiting in tripping, because there is NO WAY ANY PERSON WOULD WANT TO BRING A RANGER FOR BASHING :). Finally they would be more in the fore-front for melee stunning. If this ability came about it would pretty much help the class secure a role in a zone group.

Finally I don't think rogues would like the roles reduce to being a primary melee damage class as well.
Stamm
Sojourner
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Stamm » Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:11 pm

Hmm, aside from the lack of damage I think rangers are a nice valid class.

If they were doing significant damage, then there would certainly be good cause to take a ranger rather than an extra warrior, because the ranger can rescue casters, and bash at a push... Zones where 3 warriors are present... how often are the three warriors really stretched all at the same time?
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:20 pm

Depending on how much melee damage is upped, its possible groups will dump a caster for a ranger. Personally I think melee heavy groups are more fun.
Salen
Sojourner
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Salen » Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:56 pm

Nope, not doing another quest spell, so don't ask me to bestow.
Zen
Sojourner
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Zen » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:05 pm

Giving Anti-Paladins and Paladins more of a role in the group is a simple as addressing the issues with their mounts. Right now, mounts die too easily to clouds, flee seperately from their riders on roar and can only be ridden in rooms that are flagged outdoors. Granted there needs to be some drawbacks to mounted combat but atm it is quite vulerable, and a ranger out tanks an unmounted knight. (Never underestimate the effect of elven agility.)

As for rangers, they really don't _need_ anything. Myself I would love to have trip instead of bash and the choice to be a swordsman or an archer with some type of specialization, but the fact remains that Rangers are not a core class. If you look at the truly sucessful rangers out there, you will find that by and large the people who excell at them are self motivated people who make things happen rather than wait around for zone invitations. If you want to suceed as a ranger, you need to be willing to step up to the plate so to speak. Myself, I'm okay with that, and that versitility factor is really why I'm playing a ranger again after all this time. It's fun being able to contribute to the group in a lot of various ways, and it puts a lot of emphasis on your skills as a player over the strengths of your class.

-Llandrien
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

Postby Joth » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:27 pm

I don’t think rangers “lack” in damage, as it stands right now they perform similar melee damage output with rogues. Moreover the premise to take a ranger over a warrior is not suitable, due to the fact that they are/will be use for different roles, within a zoning group.
The comment of bashing at push is not ideal, because 100% of rangers would rather dual wield or use archer; and not wear a shield, since other class can do it better. This is very similar to economics of competitive advantage, but instead of goods and services we are talking about services/skills a class can bring to a group. And I know a number of zones where 3 warriors are stretched P-).

To Rylan:
I might be valid that they might replace a caster class; however as it stands right now and with addition of increase melee damage why would take a ranger over a rogue with they will still do similar damage; in addition it wouldn’t be right for the rogue to get a slight downgrade to damage compared to the ranger. Again you need to give the class a competitive advantage when zoning. Now would a ranger replace an invoker? Would a ranger/rogue do more damage to a single mob then an invoker? Who knows we have to wait for the change J. But the skill for ranger of tripping for bashing is better for them. Finally they should be able stun mobs like the other warrior classes can and that should be the main competitive advantage.

Core Class: As it stands there are really only 3 core classes, or what my friends like to term as teir 1 classes. The teir doesn't mean class are better then on class to the other just that they are needed/wanted more often or not to zone.

Teir 1 Classes: Warrior, Cleric, Enchanter
Teir 2 Classes: Shamans, Invokers, Illusionist, Elemenalist, Druids, Rogue
Teir 2.5: Necromancers/Bards (Depending on who you talk to, but improvement to bards I would start putting them into zone group specially after their damage gets upped!
Teir 3 Classes: Rangers, Paladins, Anti-Paladins

Ideally you would want their classes to be move up into teir 2 class through a competitive advantage.

And the comment that a ranger out "tanks" and unmounted knight due to elven agility? Zen you might want to reexamine that comment. I don't know about you, but I rather have a unmounted paladin/anti tank then a ranger :) for tankingme, as would most other zone leaders or even doing small groups of exp/questing. Again it all about competitive advantage for classes.

With the change I would see an ideal group of:
Group 1: 2 Warriors, 1 Paladin/Anti, 1 Rogue, 1 Ranger, 2 Clerics, 2 Shamans, 1 Druid, 2 Invokers, 1 elementalist, 1 illusionist, 1 enchanter

Group 2: 2 Warriors, 1 Paladin/Anti, 1 Rogue, 1 Ranger, 2 clerics, 1 or 2 shamans, 1 Druid, 1 Bard, 1 invoker, 1 Lich/Necromancer, 1 elementalist, 1 illusionist, 1 enchanter

Finally Recap on the cleric spell:

Divine Bestowment: *8th Circle Quest spell
Provides:
1. Bestowed target can go down too –100 hp instead of –10
2. Extra defense check – Cralya’s deity deflects a blow from <Paladin>
This check is not nearly as good as shield block would be as ½ to ¾ effectiveness
3. Soulshield – damage to opposite align mob.
Rihesesassixiz
Sojourner
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 2:51 pm

Postby Rihesesassixiz » Sat Aug 23, 2003 9:13 pm

Psionicists are teir 1.9. Yep.

They basically = Invokers.

However, in longer fights they are generally better because of the constant damage. Invokers have to mem and such.

My opinion of course.. ^_^
Gormal
Sojourner
Posts: 3914
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: A Whale's Vagina
Contact:

Postby Gormal » Sat Aug 23, 2003 9:29 pm

Does every class have to nessecarily be powerful based on some straightforward skill or spell? The variety of skills open to rangers and anti/paladins make them pretty versatile, as well as open up a broad range of uses for the skilled player. Not every class has to fit into the 15-man Bronze Citadel group schematic.
In so many situations; rangers and un/holy knights can become valuable tools. They are all a blending of multiple classes, and can usually fill in for other classes when the need arises. Who hasn't had a paladin help heal when the clerics are dead/frozen, or the ranger whisper sweet words to a tree when you need some soft bark to wipe with?
As with many things, these classes are as much about the person behind the character as the character itself. Variety is good, even if it means that some things are "lesser" then others.
Wargo
Sojourner
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: New York, N.Y., USA
Contact:

Postby Wargo » Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:32 pm

What's up with the 2 cleric group dynamic? I am an advocate of increasing clerical versatility. Clerics should get more offensives! So that, at least for some certain zones, clerics can be used a nukers. I would like to see a group with more than 2 clerics. With only 1-2 of them dedicated to healing, the rest can start nuking.

As it stands, clerics just can't do much by themselves. Their primery skill is healing and that is only needed when someone is hurt. It's kinda boring to keep doing the same thing over and over. Rangers, on the other hand, have a great variety of abilities to choose from: luring, scouting, rescuing, bashing, tanking, damaging. If a ranger is allowed for upgrade to someday replace a voker in group dynamic then clerics should also be allowed for upgrade to someday replace a voker for zones with lots of undeads and demons, such as CC or avernus.

Yssilk
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

Postby Joth » Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:45 pm

Gormal: Your point is valid if that is what the coders of this game intend that certain classes in the game to be more of novelty.

Wargo: Hehe, I am not sure if you joking, but if you are not, cleric has a very suitable role within a zoning group.

As to "versatility", you can have a greater number of skills but if they don't aid or help out the over group goal, or those skills are not unique not really worth it. Plus, you can be the type to know a great number of skills, but never be a master or primary user of that skill.
Sylvos
Sojourner
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada
Contact:

Postby Sylvos » Sun Aug 24, 2003 12:54 am

I'm sorry Joth, but you don't know what you're talking about.

A ranger is saddled with the responsibility to create their own role within a group. They do this by being as versatile and flexible as they can, and adapting to the different circumstances. Ranger damage is not on par with rogue damage, but ranger backup/auxilliary tanking is much superior to a rogue's.

Rangers have the safest means of luring opponents in the game.

Rangers can serve as spellcasting interruption for bashable targets. It does cut drastically into their damage ability, as neither archery nor dual wielding is truly available when they have to bash. But the ability is there. And with every spellcasting class having the ability to prevent spellcasting, this really is a moot point.

Rangers can serve as scouts, especially in nature focused zones like Jot, Muspelheim, Elemental Tower grid. They can become untrackable and have a form of dimension door that is reliable.

In a battle, rangers can serve as that critical tertiary tank while the warriors do their work. If there are 8 switches to that squishy invoker in a gatehouse, your three warriors aren't going to be enough to save him. Throw in a ranger who rescues, and you've gone from 3 rounds before the invoker is clear to two. Areas? Don't even feel them most of the time, between Ancestral Shield, Nature's Blessing and saving throws.

I can't speak for the mounted classes. I've never played one seriously. But if you choose not to bring a ranger along, then that's YOUR loss. There's a lot we can bring along. The biggest fix required for rangers is a fix for all melee; the damage imbalance compared to spells.

Fix that and we're in the clear.

Sylvos
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

Postby Joth » Sun Aug 24, 2003 2:55 am

Sylvos:

You are corrent that rangers do have the safest luring, I even showed that as a role that would do.

But to the other aspects, they can be argued.

In the role of scouting: You are correct that ranger can do this in the zones you state. But with this zoning group that I am with right now:
869/854 hit, 118/132 move, 0/0 psp Lilithelle
588/447 hit, 133/133 move, 0/0 psp Weylarii
788/751 hit, 132/132 move, 0/0 psp Dranix
920/757 hit, 117/117 move, 0/0 psp Zolth
896/748 hit, 134/134 move, 0/0 psp Fotex
377/379 hit, 2/126 move, 0/0 psp Klosh
Allaria
1231/1006 hit, 130/130 move, 0/0 psp Turji
639/589 hit, 123/123 move, 0/0 psp Kiros
767/600 hit, 124/124 move, 0/0 psp Lonel
910/869 hit, 120/120 move, 0/0 psp Stamm
711/616 hit, 109/113 move, 0/0 psp Pidibeple
894/843 hit, 2/120 move, 0/0 psp Joth
742/722 hit, 149/149 move, 0/0 psp Bilraex
784/764 hit, 124/124 move, 0/0 psp Oteb

In the zones that it was not the ranger weylarii, but scouting was preformed by both rogues.

With the comment of rescue you have that point, and also stated this point to others.

As to Bashing, there a number of rangers that say they would rather have tripping skill instead. In addition , it not that I don’t know what I am talking about because I got consensus from both non-rangers and people who play rangers, that they would rather see rangers tripping and having the ability to stun. So these people and myself are in titled to their opinion just as you are :).

Finally I am not saying that rangers suck, just these addition would a nice add boost, as mentioned by a number of others who have heard of the idea. And if you need the name of rangers who believe in these proposal I be happy to name them because alot of them you know well :)
Abbayarra
Sojourner
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2001 5:01 am
Location: San Diego

Not all rangers are built the same

Postby Abbayarra » Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:40 am

There are 3 races of ranger. The half-elf is usually argued to be the best choice for the class. But a ranger can tank in a pinch, especially a human ranger with their better strength making their defensive skills stronger. I just did XP with my 38th level ranger last night. I was the tank on the second floor of monestary. I rescued and bashed well all evening. All that was in the group at the start was me, another half-elf ranger who rocks with his damage and a bard who kept me topped off with hps. It was a lot of fun and everyone gained a lot of xp. Later a cleric with vits and a rogue joined and xp was gained by all. What I am trying to say is equipment and race can make or break a ranger. If you are going to tank take AC and hp equipment. If you want damage go with a bow or dual wield with a haster. It was great that I was able to tank so well!
Sylvos
Sojourner
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada
Contact:

Postby Sylvos » Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:05 am

Joth,

It's true, your proposal would give rangers a new toy to fiddle with. Giving rangers trip in place of bash would be great, I'd love it cause I hate having to strap on a big bloody shield to knock mobs down. Stunning is so overdone, but yeah if rangers had a skill to do it hey, I'd enjoy it.

The root of the problem is that with one spell, force missiles, an invoker can probably top out about 5+ rounds of a hasted, superbly equipped ranger to single target. Areas we can't even try to compare.

It's that imbalance in power that is the crux of the issue. Giving more toys now just means they need to be taken away when/if the melee damage issue is resolved.

As for the scouting, I'm going to step on every rogue's toes here and state that hide is broken. This is my opinion, I KNOW it's shared by others. But having a rogue be the superior scout in a hilly wilderness over a ranger or a druid is stupid. A true scout would have to AVOID the sentries, rather than just casually walking into their area, checking them out and gallavanting on their way again. It's broken, and not a true representation of scouting.

Hey, maybe hide should taken like 20x as many mv points to walk around, since it SHOULD be harder to walk around while hidden.

Oh well, sorry don't wanna hijack yer thread for other class downgrades. I stick to my opinion that granting rangers more toys now are just toys that have to be downgraded or removed when the melee issue is sorted out.
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2551
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Postby Yayaril » Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:25 pm

8)

As a leader of zones, I don't prefer a rogue over a ranger for damage, and I don't prefer a warrior over a paladin or antipaladin for tanks. However, I do often prefer one rogue over another rogue, based on the player, and I often prefer one ranger over another ranger for the same reasons. And following that, I often prefer a rogue over a ranger, or a ranger over a rogue, based on who the said ranger or rogue is. So in the end, I've come to the conclusion that who the player is matters more than their class or race. The end.
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Sun Aug 24, 2003 10:41 pm

Sylvos: Thanks for reminding me of a skill idea I had LONG ago but never got around to typing up.

I have to agree with Sylvos about rogues being the sole best scouts being silly. It's a title that should be shared by rogues, rangers, AND dire raiders IMO. I'd love to see a skill or ability that lets a ranger or dire see multiple rooms in a direction they choose to look in instead of just one room away. This would be a useful tool to scout and reduce some of the annoyances of having to drag a group through multiple rooms to find where that stray arrow from a zone landed.

It would also be nice if rangers and dires got a spell that temporarily let them see in darkness, basically temporarily giving the benefits of Ultra without the Too much light! aspect. Duration wouldn't need to be very long, even a 10 second or less duration would be useful if coupled with an ability to see further out.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Mon Aug 25, 2003 4:05 am

I think sylvos is right about rangers being okay, but melee damage needs a fix.

Paladins/anti's on the other hand...

Anyway, a while back I had an idea that i dont feel like looking up right now, but basically its like this. Antis/paladins are pretty good, everyone agrees, but they have a real hard time because they can't take their mounts to good places. That's really the only drawback, because a mounted paladin/anti is pretty bad ass, its just when they are off the horse that they lose a little something.

Rather than change the class, i think that they should add mount equipment, in the form of saddles. Some saddles could give prots, some could give things like fly and waterbreath, others could do other things. Basically a piece of eq you could put on a horse to bring it to a zone with you. The drawback is that you have to keep track of the saddle when you get spanked or when the horse dies. Basically different saddles for different zones which would let pallys/antis take their mounts more places and get better use out of them.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Mon Aug 25, 2003 7:13 am

Ideal group

1 Elementalist
2 Shamans
2 Clerics
1 Enchanter
1 Rogue
1 Illusionist (Can swap with rogue i guess, but pick locks can be useful i hear)
7 Invokers
Shevarash OOC: 'Muma on Artificial Intelligence - Muma OOC: 'someday the quotes really will just become AI and then i'll talk to the AI and be like, hey you come from me, but it will get angry at me and revolt and try to kill me or something heheheh. like in the movies''
Colje
Sojourner
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Tønsberg,Norway

Postby Colje » Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:50 am

Daz wrote:Ideal group

1 Elementalist
2 Shamans
2 Clerics
1 Enchanter
1 Rogue
1 Illusionist (Can swap with rogue i guess, but pick locks can be useful i hear)
7 Invokers

and who's gonna rescue? The 2 spirits? DOH

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

Postby Yayaril » Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:04 pm

8)

Exalted Focus
Bloodrider/Ranger/Antipaladin/Paladin skill level 40
Syntax: Focus (player)

This power allows one to bring to bear greater powers from the deity through use of a focus religious figure. Rangers can gather power from druids, paladins from good clerics, antipaladins from evil clerics and bloodriders from shaman. The priest acts as a lense for the god or goddess to send power to the fighter of his or her cause. During the period this is active, the fighter gains additional hitpoints, armor class, hitroll, and damroll. However, if the two ever become separated while the power is in effect, the fighter receives a nasty jolt as his or her deity's power is ripped from his or her body in an abrupt fashion. The priest must consent the fighter in order for this union to be achieved. This process is exhausting to the priest, who expends movement points rather quicker while acting as said lense.
Zen
Sojourner
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Zen » Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:09 pm

Joth wrote:And the comment that a ranger out "tanks" and unmounted knight due to elven agility? Zen you might want to reexamine that comment. I don't know about you, but I rather have a unmounted paladin/anti tank then a ranger :) for tankingme, as would most other zone leaders or even doing small groups of exp/questing. Again it all about competitive advantage for classes.


I have a level 50 rogue, warrior and paladin, and a ranger who's working on getting there. I think I would know what I'm talking about somewhat. Without a horse, a Knight takes a huge hit to their tanking abilities. Take the horse away and a ranger lasts longer with similar gear and spells.

Sylvos hit the nail on the head when he said that it's up to a ranger to make their own role in groups. It's about the players, not the classes or levels. My personal philosophy is that you can beat any zone with nearly any combination of classes and levels so long as you have good players who are having a good time zoning.

-Llandrien
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Mon Aug 25, 2003 2:38 pm

Me and Lili... or me and Inama.

The things she could do left me in the dirt, but put the two of us together and we could two-man some pretty unbelievable stuff. It's not the class as much as it is the person behind the keys.
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

Postby Joth » Mon Aug 25, 2003 4:56 pm

To Zen comments:
Your comments of a dismounted paladin/anti tanking less effectively then a ranger would actually support the proposal that we have state about paladins/anti paladins. You are entitle to your opinion, however I know a number of people would disagree with you due to healing, and higher notching in defense skills. For this thread there is no need to bring this issue up again.

Yayaril and Ashiwi:
The comments dealing with people behind the character class, is outside the realm of this discussion. We are talking in theoretical terms and a number of constants involved, i.e.: The people behind the characters can successfully play the class with equal ability; and the condition of anonymity is in effect, due to people grouping players on terms of friendship and guilds relationships. This was not mention before; nevertheless there is no need to bring this aspect in the topic back up and to focus on the primary debate.

Thanuk, Rylan, Sylvos:
I will concede to you all have a valid point about melee damage upgrade; because in the realm of this discussion, I and others cannot full predict what change in the dynamics will occur. The veiw point that we are debating though is this:

If melee damage equipment is a variable called: Equipment (hit/dam)
And you have the variables of a Rogue and Ranger, and to compute damage you have this.

Rogue * Equipment = Damage
Ranger * Equipment = Damage

If rogues currently do similar or more damage then a ranger as it stands now, if the equipment variable is changed globally won’t rogues still do more damage?

Furthermore, I think there is also a misconception on the skills the rangers can do with versatility, and >>what ACTUALLY HAPPENS in the mud<<. In addition, the was a comment Weylarii stated, “A class shouldn’t be define by its equipment but its skill.”

A number of us view, that replace trip with bash, and ranger mastering the kick skill to the point where it has a chance to stun would give the ranger class a competitive advantage. Now, if it is the case that the administrators of the mud do not intend this then there is no need to pursue this discuss in regards to rangers. However, with the class make-up I bet that this is what they are trying to achieve.

For paladins, Thanuk and another comment about the mounts of the paladins/antis. We also looked at this, and we did say it was a viable option. The equipment thing would be a problem if the mud crashes or what ever. But while we were talking we did state they paladins/antis could quest for an upgraded mount, like a unicorn and nightmare. It would have extra hp, innate magic resistances (5-20%), and some innate protection from certain elements. In addition when a mount is separated from the paladin/anti they can RESUMMON the mount back. Another idea is to have paladin/anti REMOUNT while engage in combat, losing 1/2 their moves or something.

Clarification of the aspects of Divine Bestowment

1. Soul shield effect (similar to fire shield)
2. The extra defense check (50%-75% of the effectiveness of shield block)
3. Extra 50-100+ hp, in addition to being able to go to –100
4. 8th circle cleric quest spell

Now for the actually clarification, if the paladin is mounted they will not get that extra defense check, it would just be flank block. I think a few people believe that if a paladin was mounted that they would get FOUR DEFENSIVE CHECKS. That is not the case :).

In addition I like the idea of the “LINK” ability of the proposed spell of Exalted Focus; yet I know a number of people don’t believe that the added hit and damage of the spell is needed. But it is cool to have a detriment to the spell if the cleric dies :) for RP reasons.

Finally these proposal/discussion is try to address the actually reality with in the mud, that PALADINS, Anti-paladins, and Rangers are not effectively grouped.
Last edited by Joth on Mon Aug 25, 2003 10:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2551
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Postby Yayaril » Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:39 pm

8)

You can give rangers 50 extra hitpoints, innate +3 hitroll and damroll and the ability to stun with a double bladed attack similar to shieldpunch. That won't force people to take the ranger in the group. No matter how weak a class is, it's the person behind the class that's going to be the deciding factor in if they get a group or not. So I can hardly see how you can just take this point lightly and just throw it out. I'll reiterate: as a zone leader of some moderate experience, I have no preference between rogues and rangers, or between warriors/antipaladins/paladins. I see no difference in damage between the rogues and rangers and see no big difference in tanking ability between the others. However, I will pick a number of hitters and tanks, based upon the person playing them. For instance: In my opinion, the tank should try to be a good tank, and not be a good hitter, so I will take a tank with proper tank gear and tanking stance over one that is packed to the gills with damage gear. When choosing a rogue, I try to get one who has actually practiced skills such as sneak, hide, pick lock, and track. When taking a ranger, I would rather have one who has taken a bit more hp gear over hitter stuff, so that he doesn't die when riposted or areaed. Of course, in the end, it often depends on what's available to me, over what I would want, so I often get people who fall into the grey areas. Such is life.
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:54 pm

Yayaril: I agree with you in that the player makes or breaks a class, but I think in actuality you're off the mark.

I can't count the number of times people asked me to make an alt, roll up a 'useful' character like a rogue, warrior, enchanter, etc.

There are a large number of rangers who've gone down that road as well (Ladorn, Sylvos, Kaitos, Mithil, and more) have rolled alts and hardly ever are asked to play as their ranger. Why? Generally, no matter how good a player is, that skill is limited by the class they are playing.

Lost
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

Postby Joth » Mon Aug 25, 2003 9:34 pm

Yayaril,

I haven’t been in a group with you when you are leading a zone so I cannot comment on your leading style, but I don't find you to be a typical zone lead or player :). Your opinions and preference are yours alone and it is fine. What would happen though if the circumstances where to come up where you DO NOT KNOW the ability of the players that are log on? We have already concluded the point that person behind the character does matter; however, again it is out of the SCOPE AND REALM of this discussion. If you wish to continue stating this it might be more constructive to create another thread.

Waelos’s point is valid because a number of people in the mud have state this comment many times, both jokingly and seriously. Finally we are also trying to provide ideas and suggestion that will be constructive addition to the mud, and the classes at hand, not the players behind them :).
omrec
Sojourner
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Santa Monica, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby omrec » Mon Aug 25, 2003 10:33 pm

Re: Pals/Antis. Only problem with these classes are mounts. Fix mounts dying to areas/fleeing separately and you've made all mounted classes happy. No need to add extra spells to the already overworked clerics.

Rangers: Damage should be on par with rogues. Rangers are backup tanks, and should also be backup bashers. Currently, being backup basher severely hampers their damage ability, which should be looked at. I'm in favor of giving rangers a tackle ability, or a sword bash ability.

Both class types will fare better with melee fixes, if/when they come. The way things are, I rarely want any melee damage, if there are enough vokers on..:)
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2551
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Postby Yayaril » Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:41 pm

Joth wrote: What would happen though if the circumstances where to come up where you DO NOT KNOW the ability of the players that are log on?


Then I would ask whoever was on to join and it would make very little difference if it was a rogue or a ranger. I might choose the ranger because I need some luring done with archery or I might choose the rogue if there are locks or traps to get past. Most of the time I don't need archery or locks/traps negated, so I would just try one at random- probably go for the higher level one. Then after grouping with them, I could form an opinion.

Waelos: People may have asked you to roll up an alt because, even though you were useful to them as a ranger, sometimes you just need a specific class to get a zone done. Doing a zone cleric-less is pretty tough, and people have come to expect those resses at the end of the night. Enchanters always make things easier, although not nearly as necessary as the cleric. Then there's the problem that there are very few people who find these classes 'fun', so there is always a need for them, it seems. On the other hand, almost everyone seems to find the hitter classes fun, so there is a huge glut of rogues and rangers on, almost every night. People seem to fancy being the one doing the damage and engaging the mob in melee or archery. I've noticed this especially in my DnD games I run: players favor the non-casters. I've never once had an all caster party, but on more than one occasion I've had a party consisting of nothing but fighter-types with a rogue-type tossed in. Waelos, I find you to be a very good ranger, however, the only time you were truly satisfied with the class was when there was that bug with archery that caused it to do massive amounts of damage and kill level 50+ mobs in one hit.
Ensis
Sojourner
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR 97219
Contact:

Postby Ensis » Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:50 pm

I thought of a bunch of different ways to write this but I'm sure its stuff you all know. So I'll just go with my experiences.

I'm a paladin, I tank plenty of zones, a lot of exp, and have done it mounted and dismounted. Losing a mount is a pain in the ass, but truthfully I have lots of hitpoints, good AC, and prots so I can take it if I'm on foot. I've never NOT completed a zone just because I didn't have a mount.

There are so many factors its almost impossible to sift through. Take a paladin and a warrior to see who the better tank is. If they are both 1handed and using a shield, the warrior will probably win-- Shieldblock VS Lay on Hands. If they are both using two handed weapons, the Paladin will probably win--2handed bash bonus for pally, lay on hands. Put a mounted Paladin against a shielded warrior and it'd be comparable, only the paladin would be doing more damage since he has the 2h weapon.

Rangers are scoffed at as tanks because they're stuck with the "hitter" tag. They have Parry, rescue, bash, etc. Going up levels with Ensis I spent plenty of time trading off as tank with Sylvos.

Labelling a ranger as anything is the first problem. They CAN be a hitter, they CAN be a tank, they CAN be a scout, the problem is they aren't necessarily the best at any of those things. Is that versatility a blessing or a curse?

Im biased because I'm melee, but the usefulness of spell over sword is pretty extreme. There are things that you can do with a caster only group that you couldn't dream of in a melee only group. Spells have defenses that negate damage and warriors/rangers/rogues only have hitpoints to fend off death. Skills do a little to stave it off but for the most part, spells are the ultimate barrier, and casters have hitpoints..so melee isn't always that necessary. As far as offense, damage output from melee isn't even comparable to spells. So for the most part warriors/(a)paladins/rangers/rogues have been minimized into buffers or backups to what is superior. We can only compete amongst ourselves for what is better at offense or defense because we aren't even on the same level as spell users.. Sorry for the guilt trip, no need to break out the violins but seriously :)

E
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:56 pm

Yayaril wrote:8)

So in the end, I've come to the conclusion that who the player is matters more than their class or race. The end.


If only :)
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Sylvos
Sojourner
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada
Contact:

Postby Sylvos » Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:57 pm

The problem also with having rolled a cleric, is that I wound up being really good at it. Being really good at two classes means that the more necessary class gets requested a lot more.

I compensate by sometimes refusing and playing whom I want, but there isn't anybody here who'd rather have a very skillled ranger over a very skilled cleric. Just the way things are :P Much as it irks me.
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2551
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Postby Yayaril » Tue Aug 26, 2003 3:23 am

8)

When I rolled a chanter, everyone wanted my chanter around. Why? Because chanters are much rarer than rogues. This is just how it goes and is unfortunate if you enjoy playing a rogue or ranger better than a cleric or enchanter.
Iaiken Toransier
Sojourner
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Oakville, ON, CA
Contact:

Postby Iaiken Toransier » Tue Aug 26, 2003 4:20 pm

Ensis has it totally correct,

The sooner you accept that !caster classes are the real support classes, the better. With my elementalist, I tank things that even a level 50 troll warrior wouldn't dream of. Pretty much, with regards to melee mobs, if I can blind it, even temporarily, I can kill it. Casters, if I can get off a silence, I should kill it in one pass. I've seen enchanters and patient clerics pull off much the same. Let's not forget Druids. ;)

My paladin wouldn't dream of tackling some such foes without one of the above classes to 'back him up', but concidering the above, who is doing the backing?

Yes there are specific circumstances where melee is the only option, but rarely is melee the best route.

Problem with the rogue/ranger/invoker situation is that rangers/rogues should be pin-point damage. They should be the class that focuses in on one opponent and riddles them with holes/arrows, while the invoker creates a huge swath of destruction with his arcane might, blasting everything before them with raw power.

I'm not saying that invokers should lose spells like force missiles, just that they should be more focused on area effect damage. A group leader should have to ask him self, 'Do I need to kill everything in the room or would it be best to focus in on certain opponents?' This alone will give rangers and rogues a larger niche, for example, in manscorps you just want to blast the hell out of whatever is in the room. Whereas against a single larger opponent the damage would add up faster using rogues/rangers. As well, a room with !agro mobs would be better to leave the rain of destruction happy invoker at home.

Just some thoughts.
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

Postby Joth » Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:10 pm

I like to thank those who gave some very good input in this thread and stayed on topic.

I believe the paladin/anti issue could be resolve with out the spell like others state if mounts are properly addressed. If the paladins/antis could remount while engage or tanking that would help out the sitution;in addition to their mounts getting an upgrade to become more resilent, such as a quest to aquire new mount like a unicorn or nightmare maybe.

As to rangers I am not 100% sure that the eq melee equipment will get them a role over the rogues, except maybe luring or unless they start doing more damage then that class. We still believe that the skills tripping instead of bashing would be a nice change, furthermore their kicking ability being able to hit master and having a similiar chance to stun mobs like shield punch.

Finally I think the spell Divine bestowment would still be a nice spell for clerics to quest for, it just wouldn't have the extra defense check, and it would help compenstate for not getting embodiement so they still mount.
Last edited by Joth on Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Tue Aug 26, 2003 7:40 pm

I think rangers should get trip instead of bash, and i think rangers should be better at tripping than rogues. I think trip is a perfect skill for the ranger class. Rogues should keep it, but they should get it capped at like 70 or so, because rogues have enough stuff as it is.

Also, I like it when Tanji gets downgraded. But then, I also like it when Twyl gets downgraded. So how about rangers dont get trip, and rogues get the trip cap lowered to like 15, and then i can point and laugh and all will be right with the mud.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Vandic
Sojourner
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed May 02, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Nashville, TN USA
Contact:

Postby Vandic » Tue Aug 26, 2003 8:00 pm

thanuk wrote:I think rangers should get trip instead of bash, and i think rangers should be better at tripping than rogues. I think trip is a perfect skill for the ranger class. Rogues should keep it, but they should get it capped at like 70 or so, because rogues have enough stuff as it is.

Also, I like it when Tanji gets downgraded. But then, I also like it when Twyl gets downgraded. So how about rangers dont get trip, and rogues get the trip cap lowered to like 15, and then i can point and laugh and all will be right with the mud.


I believe Nukkie here has made true the cliche of "killing two birds with one pwn."

-V
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:57 pm

Thanuk both tripped and bashed my mom last night (That post felt empty!).
Nisa
Sojourner
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 4:43 pm

been awhile

Postby Nisa » Fri Aug 29, 2003 4:47 pm

Hi,

Just trying to catch up on all the changes. I remember one of the biggest reasons for taking Paladins in a group was there Holy Avenger's , have they been removed? The HA paladins abilty to rescue and self stone was a huge asset.

P.S. It also helped that I could max out damage because Paladins needed virtually no to-hit while 2h ( has that changed ? )
Last edited by Nisa on Fri Aug 29, 2003 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hyldryn
Sojourner
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Maryland

Postby Hyldryn » Fri Aug 29, 2003 5:11 pm

Avengers proc stone, which is worse than dscales and stone which has been casted by an enchanter. Avengers also proc area dispel magic every so often, which is not a good thing. Dispelling all the buffs on a mob does not outweigh dispelling a major para or silence that a group member had landed on the mob.

Yes, the horse humpers don't need much hitroll and need even less while mounted. So, it is possible for an anti to hit/push 60 damroll and still hit.

Yes, horse humpers can rescue, warriors can rescue just as well. Rangers, rogues (BS), and pets can also rescue.

People don't like horse humpers cause they... well... hump horses and that's just wrong.
Nisa
Sojourner
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 4:43 pm

Postby Nisa » Fri Aug 29, 2003 5:22 pm

horse humpers can rescue, warriors can rescue just as well. Rangers, rogues (BS), and pets can also rescue.


I thought Paladins were the only ones who could master rescue? Mine was pretty much no-fail....owell

thanks for the reply
Hyldryn
Sojourner
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Maryland

Postby Hyldryn » Fri Aug 29, 2003 5:26 pm

Warriors and horse humpers can master rescue. However even at 99 rescue you will notice a failed rescue every so often.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Pril » Sat Aug 30, 2003 12:58 pm

Another thing that needs to be considred for paladins is when we get dscales our avengers don't proc anything no heals no armor no bless nothing. It just keeps trying to stone us. And due to the dispel magic proc i for one rarely if ever wield my avenger when i zone.

Pril

Return to “S3 Ideas Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests