I'm going to possibly make or renew some enemies here, but I'd like to ask why rangers don't get this skill?
My logic behind asking is:
1) We're the only melee class that doesn't get disarm. Yes we get dust devil to serve as a kind of disarm, that is blocked by globe.
2) Rangers are the masters of using two swords in unison. (Rogues specialize with stabbers). It takes a lot of dexterity and skill to be able to wield two swords in unison. I can't see rangers not being able to apply that skill to taking an enemy's weapon away from them.
Possibly the largest reason I can see not giving rangers disarm is the movement loss. Rangers are the only melee class that receive the vigorize spells, allowing rangers to step aside the downside of losing your movement.
I'd like to hear some feedback about this - from mortal and of course immortal sources. I'll happily discuss/debate the merits/cons of rangers getting this skill. Please don't make it a flame war, and trust me when I say that I am WELL aware of probably everything a ranger can do. So please don't just say "Rangers got enough stuff already".
Sylvos Winteraven
Ranger Disarm
A very important thing to keep in mind is that disarm is a melee skill, meaning that a ranger obviously can't use archery. Taking an approximately 20% or greater hit to damage is a significant penalty for using a melee skill like disarm.
------------------
You fire a black-shafted elven arrow to the east at Gormal's pet goat with masterful shooting that does lethal damage!
You receive your share of experience.
------------------
You fire a black-shafted elven arrow to the east at Gormal's pet goat with masterful shooting that does lethal damage!
You receive your share of experience.
totally agree rogues (goooooooooooooo stabby!!).. but why rangers??
arent you RANGERS ??? what RANGER would be that close to its foe??? close armed combat is a side advantage for rangers ... imho they shouldnt get skills that are !nature based ... rescue, disarm, bash ... off the top of my head...(just as druids spells are more effective in nature flagged rooms)...
------------------
Ambar -= Beloved Matron =- Crimson Coalition
arent you RANGERS ??? what RANGER would be that close to its foe??? close armed combat is a side advantage for rangers ... imho they shouldnt get skills that are !nature based ... rescue, disarm, bash ... off the top of my head...(just as druids spells are more effective in nature flagged rooms)...
------------------
Ambar -= Beloved Matron =- Crimson Coalition
Here's my thought.
As it stands, Rangers are essentially a melee fighting class with perks... namely, spells and archery. As the game is played right now, Rangers are primarily geared toward melee rather than archery. Their combat skills are melee oriented (bash, kick, rescue) and the vast majority of the fun Rangeresque weapons in the game are swords. There's a proc bow, yes, but for the most part, the beefiest weapon code still belongs to slashers.
So all this leads me to view Rangers as a class that is still focused on melee. Disarm fits with that theme. I've never had a character who could disarm and was high enough level to use it, so I won't get into whether it's a good idea balance-wise. I simply believe that as the Ranger class looks right now, disarm wouldn't be out of theme.
If someone on the staff states that Rangers are going to be pushed in the archery direction in the future, then I'll agree that disarm is out of character. I would completely be willing to change my perspective of the class if bash, kick, and rescue were swapped out for some bow-related skills. Until then though, I don't see an issue with adding disarm to the character template.
------------------
- Ragorn
Jenera says 'i managed to match a little, ragorn's outfit is hideous.'
As it stands, Rangers are essentially a melee fighting class with perks... namely, spells and archery. As the game is played right now, Rangers are primarily geared toward melee rather than archery. Their combat skills are melee oriented (bash, kick, rescue) and the vast majority of the fun Rangeresque weapons in the game are swords. There's a proc bow, yes, but for the most part, the beefiest weapon code still belongs to slashers.
So all this leads me to view Rangers as a class that is still focused on melee. Disarm fits with that theme. I've never had a character who could disarm and was high enough level to use it, so I won't get into whether it's a good idea balance-wise. I simply believe that as the Ranger class looks right now, disarm wouldn't be out of theme.
If someone on the staff states that Rangers are going to be pushed in the archery direction in the future, then I'll agree that disarm is out of character. I would completely be willing to change my perspective of the class if bash, kick, and rescue were swapped out for some bow-related skills. Until then though, I don't see an issue with adding disarm to the character template.
------------------
- Ragorn
Jenera says 'i managed to match a little, ragorn's outfit is hideous.'
Ragorn sums it up perfectly. As it currently stands, rangers are a melee class that is slowly evolving into something else. But rangers have been a melee class for SO long, that I would expect it to take at least another year+ before archery becomes the primary combat method for rangers while zoning.
I call your attention to Miax's Ranger Upgrades thread in Announcements (http://www.sojourn3.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000042.html). In there he states that long-term, the plan is to give rangers a choice to specialize in one or another mode of combat. Perhaps including disarm would be well suited to the melee specialization.
As to the method of disarm, there's two ways to look at it. Either you just smash the damn thing out of your opponents hand (strength) or, with a few deft twists of your blade on your enemies', you loosen their grip and send the weapon flying(dexterity).
Sylvos Winteraven
I call your attention to Miax's Ranger Upgrades thread in Announcements (http://www.sojourn3.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000042.html). In there he states that long-term, the plan is to give rangers a choice to specialize in one or another mode of combat. Perhaps including disarm would be well suited to the melee specialization.
As to the method of disarm, there's two ways to look at it. Either you just smash the damn thing out of your opponents hand (strength) or, with a few deft twists of your blade on your enemies', you loosen their grip and send the weapon flying(dexterity).
Sylvos Winteraven
Why dont you rangers just roll rogues???
Next youll want disarm trap too, cause lord knows a ranger has great dex and should be able to get his fingers into small places to remove traps or even pick locks!
While your at it, If Rangers think they should be given Disarm Weapons, why not give Rogues parry skill. Isnt it logically that an assassin can parry a blade in a fight?
If you rangers want disarm, us rogues should get parry.
*snicker*
Nilan
Drow Assassin
aka
Stabby
*tormentor of silly rangers*
Next youll want disarm trap too, cause lord knows a ranger has great dex and should be able to get his fingers into small places to remove traps or even pick locks!
While your at it, If Rangers think they should be given Disarm Weapons, why not give Rogues parry skill. Isnt it logically that an assassin can parry a blade in a fight?
If you rangers want disarm, us rogues should get parry.
*snicker*
Nilan
Drow Assassin
aka
Stabby
*tormentor of silly rangers*
ok, wrote my rant and deleted before posting. I'll just say this to you Nilan.
Make your own damn thread asking for a rogue upgrade. Do not post here just because you are jealous or feel you need to 'defend' rogues places in groups. Disarm is hardly a rogue exclusive skill - as I pointed out it is shared by EVERY melee class but rangers. Yes you can make this point about several skills, and by all means do so in your own bloody thread.
You can keep your disarm traps and pick locks. There is absolutely no way I would suggest, support or condone rangers getting any skill of this sort because it has no place in a ranger's way of life.
Let go of your jealousy. Or curl up with your dagger that has no proc and never will, and take your jealousy back into the Underdark.
Sylvos Winteraven
[This message has been edited by Sylvos (edited 07-22-2002).]
Make your own damn thread asking for a rogue upgrade. Do not post here just because you are jealous or feel you need to 'defend' rogues places in groups. Disarm is hardly a rogue exclusive skill - as I pointed out it is shared by EVERY melee class but rangers. Yes you can make this point about several skills, and by all means do so in your own bloody thread.
You can keep your disarm traps and pick locks. There is absolutely no way I would suggest, support or condone rangers getting any skill of this sort because it has no place in a ranger's way of life.
Let go of your jealousy. Or curl up with your dagger that has no proc and never will, and take your jealousy back into the Underdark.
Sylvos Winteraven
[This message has been edited by Sylvos (edited 07-22-2002).]
/useless trivia mode
"As to the method of disarm, there's two ways to look at it. Either you just smash the damn thing out of your opponents hand (strength) or"
That's more along the lines of either trying to attack your opponent's weapon or idiocy, depending on whether you're doing it or having it done to you. Many weapons are balanced towards the hilt so trying to get them to drop by hitting the blade will just make the wielder's wrist and forarm rotate a bit and leave your chest/abdomen open for a counterattack.
"with a few deft twists of your blade on your enemies', you loosen their grip and send the weapon flying(dexterity)."
And that would be crap you see in stage fighting at Renaissance fairs
Not so unrealistic with rapiers and thrusting swords, but questionable with others.
The most common method of disarming I've seen/learned about involves attacking an opponent's forearm attempting to sever the muscles and tendons that control the closing of the fingers to render the hand useless. If done with enough force and a weapon that cuts well enough, it can quite literally disarm the opponent. Since the target's forearm is likely to be in motion as they attack you during the fight, the key factor is perception of an opening (misjudging and cutting their bicep as they run you through is bad), though after that the precision to hit the area is vital.
/end useless trivia mode
Nilan:
h disarm
DISARM
Applied skill.
Syntax: disarm victim object
Aggressive: Yes
Class/Level: Rogue 10th, Warrior/Paladin/Anti-Paladin 22nd
"Disarm" provides a chance of knocking an opponent's weapon (or other
object) from its hands. The chance of success is exceedingly small
when applied to mobs, and larger when used against player characters.
If you successfully disarm your opponent's weapon, it will drop the
weapon and fight in hand-to-hand combat.
I see no indication that disarm is some sort of rogue skill. Stop posting crap in every ranger thread you see unless you have some sort of meaningful argument. Your a fun guy to talk to, but this is getting old.
Finally, something else I think should be added. Rangers technically already can disarm through the use of dust devil. This is in many ways more of a thematic change then any sort of balancing change. However, rangers fall under the fighter class grouping so there's no reason why it should rely on a spell to accomplish something that martial prowess would without the aid of magic. Dust devil doesn't fit as well as the disarm skill would, and as such should be removed in favor of said skill IMO. You wouldn't make paladins have to cast a spell in order to switch opponents and likewise there's no reason a ranger should have to cast a spell to do something that every other fighter class can.
------------------
You fire a black-shafted elven arrow to the east at Gormal's pet goat with masterful shooting that does lethal damage!
You receive your share of experience.
[This message has been edited by Treladian (edited 07-22-2002).]
"As to the method of disarm, there's two ways to look at it. Either you just smash the damn thing out of your opponents hand (strength) or"
That's more along the lines of either trying to attack your opponent's weapon or idiocy, depending on whether you're doing it or having it done to you. Many weapons are balanced towards the hilt so trying to get them to drop by hitting the blade will just make the wielder's wrist and forarm rotate a bit and leave your chest/abdomen open for a counterattack.
"with a few deft twists of your blade on your enemies', you loosen their grip and send the weapon flying(dexterity)."
And that would be crap you see in stage fighting at Renaissance fairs
Not so unrealistic with rapiers and thrusting swords, but questionable with others.The most common method of disarming I've seen/learned about involves attacking an opponent's forearm attempting to sever the muscles and tendons that control the closing of the fingers to render the hand useless. If done with enough force and a weapon that cuts well enough, it can quite literally disarm the opponent. Since the target's forearm is likely to be in motion as they attack you during the fight, the key factor is perception of an opening (misjudging and cutting their bicep as they run you through is bad), though after that the precision to hit the area is vital.
/end useless trivia mode
Nilan:
h disarm
DISARM
Applied skill.
Syntax: disarm victim object
Aggressive: Yes
Class/Level: Rogue 10th, Warrior/Paladin/Anti-Paladin 22nd
"Disarm" provides a chance of knocking an opponent's weapon (or other
object) from its hands. The chance of success is exceedingly small
when applied to mobs, and larger when used against player characters.
If you successfully disarm your opponent's weapon, it will drop the
weapon and fight in hand-to-hand combat.
I see no indication that disarm is some sort of rogue skill. Stop posting crap in every ranger thread you see unless you have some sort of meaningful argument. Your a fun guy to talk to, but this is getting old.
Finally, something else I think should be added. Rangers technically already can disarm through the use of dust devil. This is in many ways more of a thematic change then any sort of balancing change. However, rangers fall under the fighter class grouping so there's no reason why it should rely on a spell to accomplish something that martial prowess would without the aid of magic. Dust devil doesn't fit as well as the disarm skill would, and as such should be removed in favor of said skill IMO. You wouldn't make paladins have to cast a spell in order to switch opponents and likewise there's no reason a ranger should have to cast a spell to do something that every other fighter class can.
------------------
You fire a black-shafted elven arrow to the east at Gormal's pet goat with masterful shooting that does lethal damage!
You receive your share of experience.
[This message has been edited by Treladian (edited 07-22-2002).]
-
Gromikazer
- Sojourner
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 5:01 am
I think rogues should get parry and rangers should get disarm. Makes no sense than they each of the classes is lacking either disarm or parry..
It boggles my mind that warriors would have disarm and not rangers. After all parrying is more of a finnesse skill..
Oh, and I think warriors should be able to specialize.
Dornax
Jurdex
------------------
The Raven of Wisdom
Est Sularus Oth Mithas
"My Honor is My Life"
It boggles my mind that warriors would have disarm and not rangers. After all parrying is more of a finnesse skill..
Oh, and I think warriors should be able to specialize.
Dornax
Jurdex
------------------
The Raven of Wisdom
Est Sularus Oth Mithas
"My Honor is My Life"
ROFL
Boy can i piss you rangers off *bow*
I never said disarm was a rogue only skill. I never mentioned a proc on a weapon. Tsk Tsk, who is the defensive one now? *grin* I, like you, post what i see, and I see lil rangers wanting more more more
I think there is a reason why certain classes get certain skills and certain classes don't. Could it be class balance maybe? If ever class had the same skills why would we need any separation of classes?
I assume rogues did not get the parry skill because of class balance. Maybe rangers dont get disarm for a similar reason. Maybe? Every class on the game could make up reasons why they should get skills of all other classes.....
I bet you could make up reasons justifying why rangers could have ever skill a warrior has. I could make up reasons why a rogue should have every melee skill a ranger has...an invoker could make his pitch for every spell a enchanter has....and so on and so on etc....
Like your rant Sylvos and Treladian, it was enlightening to read. *snicker*
Entertain me more,
Nilan
Drow Assassin
Boy can i piss you rangers off
*bow*I never said disarm was a rogue only skill. I never mentioned a proc on a weapon. Tsk Tsk, who is the defensive one now? *grin* I, like you, post what i see, and I see lil rangers wanting more more more
I think there is a reason why certain classes get certain skills and certain classes don't. Could it be class balance maybe? If ever class had the same skills why would we need any separation of classes?
I assume rogues did not get the parry skill because of class balance. Maybe rangers dont get disarm for a similar reason. Maybe? Every class on the game could make up reasons why they should get skills of all other classes.....
I bet you could make up reasons justifying why rangers could have ever skill a warrior has. I could make up reasons why a rogue should have every melee skill a ranger has...an invoker could make his pitch for every spell a enchanter has....and so on and so on etc....
Like your rant Sylvos and Treladian, it was enlightening to read. *snicker*
Entertain me more,
Nilan
Drow Assassin
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nilan:
<B>Entertain me more,
Nilan
Drow Assassin</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't believe there is anything else to say between us Nilan - in game or out.
I find it amusing that a reasonably phrased request - does anybody honestly dispute this? - has been automatically classified as a whine because it came from a ranger source. Use some logic or objectivity - not immaturity please.
Sylvos Winteraven
<B>Entertain me more,
Nilan
Drow Assassin</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't believe there is anything else to say between us Nilan - in game or out.
I find it amusing that a reasonably phrased request - does anybody honestly dispute this? - has been automatically classified as a whine because it came from a ranger source. Use some logic or objectivity - not immaturity please.
Sylvos Winteraven
"I think there is a reason why certain classes get certain skills and certain classes don't. Could it be class balance maybe? If ever class had the same skills why would we need any separation of classes?
I assume rogues did not get the parry skill because of class balance. Maybe rangers dont get disarm for a similar reason. Maybe? Every class on the game could make up reasons why they should get skills of all other classes.....
I bet you could make up reasons justifying why rangers could have ever skill a warrior has. I could make up reasons why a rogue should have every melee skill a ranger has...an invoker could make his pitch for every spell a enchanter has....and so on and so on etc...."
Which would be why we get a spell that can disarm creatures bigger than what the disarm skill can handle, can use on mobs we're not targetting, can be used in ranged combat, and can be used more times in a row against a rogue mob before it flees than you can with the disarm skill. Yes, obviously the gods didn't intend rangers to have disarm for balance reasons
Reread what I said about dust devil. Both the skill and the spell have their advantages and disadvantages and dust devil is probably better able to bring its advantages to bear in tons of situations. But having the skill instead of the spell still makes more sense no matter what kinds of neat tricks I've played using dust devil in Musp.
------------------
You fire a black-shafted elven arrow to the east at Gormal's pet goat with masterful shooting that does lethal damage!
You receive your share of experience.
I assume rogues did not get the parry skill because of class balance. Maybe rangers dont get disarm for a similar reason. Maybe? Every class on the game could make up reasons why they should get skills of all other classes.....
I bet you could make up reasons justifying why rangers could have ever skill a warrior has. I could make up reasons why a rogue should have every melee skill a ranger has...an invoker could make his pitch for every spell a enchanter has....and so on and so on etc...."
Which would be why we get a spell that can disarm creatures bigger than what the disarm skill can handle, can use on mobs we're not targetting, can be used in ranged combat, and can be used more times in a row against a rogue mob before it flees than you can with the disarm skill. Yes, obviously the gods didn't intend rangers to have disarm for balance reasons
Reread what I said about dust devil. Both the skill and the spell have their advantages and disadvantages and dust devil is probably better able to bring its advantages to bear in tons of situations. But having the skill instead of the spell still makes more sense no matter what kinds of neat tricks I've played using dust devil in Musp.
------------------
You fire a black-shafted elven arrow to the east at Gormal's pet goat with masterful shooting that does lethal damage!
You receive your share of experience.
Bump
I didn't weigh in on this earlier, but I really felt, and still do, that it's been pretty well stated. The only potential problem I see with it is that rangers are about the only class who could regularly get use out of it, since we are about the only ones that doesn't have much else to do in a fight. But maybe that in itself is the problem. We have no active skills that come into play in most fights(the rare rescue or even rarer bash excluded) and none of our spells get cast in combat very often.
I didn't weigh in on this earlier, but I really felt, and still do, that it's been pretty well stated. The only potential problem I see with it is that rangers are about the only class who could regularly get use out of it, since we are about the only ones that doesn't have much else to do in a fight. But maybe that in itself is the problem. We have no active skills that come into play in most fights(the rare rescue or even rarer bash excluded) and none of our spells get cast in combat very often.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ambar:
<B>totally agree rogues (goooooooooooooo stabby!!).. but why rangers??
arent you RANGERS ??? what RANGER would be that close to its foe??? close armed combat is a side advantage for rangers ... imho they shouldnt get skills that are !nature based ... rescue, disarm, bash ... off the top of my head...(just as druids spells are more effective in nature flagged rooms)...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ranger = warrior that ranges around.
Not ranged combat specialist, necessarily.
Mind you, this is according to an English dictionary. YMMV.
------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
<B>totally agree rogues (goooooooooooooo stabby!!).. but why rangers??
arent you RANGERS ??? what RANGER would be that close to its foe??? close armed combat is a side advantage for rangers ... imho they shouldnt get skills that are !nature based ... rescue, disarm, bash ... off the top of my head...(just as druids spells are more effective in nature flagged rooms)...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ranger = warrior that ranges around.
Not ranged combat specialist, necessarily.
Mind you, this is according to an English dictionary. YMMV.
------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
"waelos does so much damage melee that its not even funny:P he has no reason to ever use bow except to lure!"
Valhalla does kinda throw things out of balance to put it mildly. Crystal sword isn't too shabby either, but much more reasonable. The proc arrows that were planned to be implemented long ago and are now MIA could help even the gap somewhat seeing as how one proc weapon doesn't quite equal the two best 1h handed ones in the game. One single item totally shifting the nature of the class is indicative of another problem that needs to be considered on its own and not something that accurately reflects even most of the top tier rangers IMO.
------------------
You fire a black-shafted elven arrow to the east at Gormal's pet goat with masterful shooting that does lethal damage!
You receive your share of experience.
Valhalla does kinda throw things out of balance to put it mildly. Crystal sword isn't too shabby either, but much more reasonable. The proc arrows that were planned to be implemented long ago and are now MIA could help even the gap somewhat seeing as how one proc weapon doesn't quite equal the two best 1h handed ones in the game. One single item totally shifting the nature of the class is indicative of another problem that needs to be considered on its own and not something that accurately reflects even most of the top tier rangers IMO.
------------------
You fire a black-shafted elven arrow to the east at Gormal's pet goat with masterful shooting that does lethal damage!
You receive your share of experience.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests