The Forgotten Melee Class: Rangers revisited

Feedback, bugs, and general gameplay related discussion.
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

The Forgotten Melee Class: Rangers revisited

Postby Joth » Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:43 am

Well Malia beat me to this subject, but going to post it anyway P-), so it doesn’t get lost in that thread.

My friends and I were talking about what to do give ranger a real niche. And we came up with “Called Shot”, but the skill name could be called "Vital Shot".

However, this skill would be similar to a command that you would type in over and over, like bash, or circle, so you can choose your target. The primary ability of this skill is to stun the target for a couple of rounds, similar to spook, maybe 2 or 3 rounds. In addition it success would be like around 40-60%, so the mob wouldn’t stay stunned the whole fight, in turn not making it as effective as spook. But this skill would make ranger able to stun non-intelligent mobs, or stun targets that spook spell or other stunning spells could not. And if it fails it still does considerably damage. I find it odd that a warrior class that doesn't have the ability to stun, with this skill though they primary niche/ability would be effective stunning, better then any other melee class.

With the addition of this skill you would see rangers start user archery more and more, and also create greater diversification of the melee class in what they are wielding.
Rangers = Bow
Rogues = Dual wielding
Paladins/Antis= Two-handing
Warriors = Sword and Shield.

If the ranger runs out arrows that class can always go back to Dual wielding. But with this additional skill, rangers will be seen more and more as the Archery class, and the bow the weapon of choice. This would not adversely affect the Rogues role in the group, from damage concept (even the though rogues are brought primarily for other reasons) to their many other skills.
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Re: The Forgotten Melee Class: Rangers revisited

Postby belleshel » Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:12 am

Joth wrote: But with this additional skill, rangers will be seen more and more as the Archery class, and the bow the weapon of choice.


No thanks, archery was always supposed to be a component of the ranger, but wasn't supposed to 'make' the ranger.
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

Postby Joth » Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:20 am

Well there are times when things just have to change, and I think more and more people are come to realize that the archery skill as a defining skill for the niche class would be great, and most importantly it fits in theme wise as a class.

It is time to think outside the box, and provide an ability that no other class can do as well as the ranger, and a reason why a group would think of bring a ranger.

And the days of rangers doing the MOST DAMAGE, should NOT be thought of as the blueprint to start with; since there are invokers, and rogues want the title of most melee damage. But again rogues get group for other reasons primarily.

It maynot be for you, and you may not like archery, however others may like the idea, and gameplay wise help the revitalization of the ranger class.
Last edited by Joth on Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:51 am, edited 3 times in total.
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:29 am

Those 'more and more people' aren't rangers.

See:

http://www.torilmud.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=13203
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

Postby Joth » Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:35 am

That doesn't invalidate their ideas even though they are not rangers, it is still HIGHLY contructive. Is your reason because you play a Ranger, that what you say should be set in stone? I played a ranger before so have many other people, you have more experience playing the Ranger class, but that still doesn't take away or invalidate the ideas and comments of others. Hell even other rangers agree about overhaul of the class, who have played just as long as you have.
Reyek
Sojourner
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 3:04 am

Re: The Forgotten Melee Class: Rangers revisited

Postby Reyek » Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:51 am

belleshel wrote:No thanks, archery was always supposed to be a component of the ranger, but wasn't supposed to 'make' the ranger.


The idea could be a melee weapon skill "stunning strike" or something instead of an archery based skill.

One thing to consider for rangers who are fond of comparing and contrasting themselves with rogues is that rogues are NOT really brought for damage. If they did 1/2 the damage (or less) they do they would still brought to zones for their other skills. Therefore if rangers want a damage upgrade to be clearly superior to rogues in damage then they are looking at the situation wrong. You should be comparing yourselves to invokers if you want to be strictly a damage dealing class OR you should be trying to find some "other reason" to bring a ranger.

This is one such other skill. If rangers could stun even somewhat consistantly while doing the damage that they do now they would be more desirable.

If you just want people to want you for damage you should be asking for a 300% increase in melee damage or for rangers to do area damage.


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

Postby Joth » Wed Dec 31, 2003 5:01 am

Well the main reason why I and others focused on Archery was to bring more "FLAVOR" to the mud with a class using bows.

But the stunning strike skills works just fine. As well. I even suggested a stunning kick ability P-), in this thread called: Forgetten Melee Classes: Paladins/Antis, and Rangers

http://www.torilmud.org/phpBB2/viewtopi ... highlight=

But what Reyek's comment is correct and insightful as well.

You could even change it to where Elven Rangers can stun effectively with Bows, where as Human Rangers can stunning effect with 1 handed weapons P-). Bring back the HUMAN RANGER. And half-elven rangers get to make a 1 time choice. But Archer does more damage P-), over dualing.
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Wed Dec 31, 2003 5:24 am

I agree with Bel. Archery was not intended to be a class defining ability (rogues were given the same skills with knives). Right now it isn't even an ability that is worth using at high levels (see: Magic Missile for invokers). If it is given a huge overhaul, then it could be made a viable *component* of the class, but no way should it define the class. Archery completely nullifies 95% of all of the skills a ranger has. Rescue, bash, kick, all of the 1h skills, dual wield, double attack, offense, defense, parry, dodge, etc. Not even close to a solution. Forcing a ranger to use archery alone as their 'niche' would be like rogues being forced to only have pick lock. Ranger is not, and should not, be a one dimensional class.

I feel a good mix of archery tweaks, skill additions (see other thread) and a general melee upgrade will do the ranger good. Their spells could be looked at, mostly the casting times. The spells take too long to case Imho.

Anyway, if you want to look to people who know the ranger in and out, current and past look to Bel, Trel, Sylvos for those whom I know are active now. No offense Rag, yer older school but I haven't seen yer butt in zones in a few days ;) Overhaul might be needed, but I strongly feel that the ranger should have diversity.

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

Postby Joth » Wed Dec 31, 2003 5:39 am

Archery completely nullifies 95% of all of the skills a ranger has. Rescue, bash, kick, all of the 1h skills, dual wield, double attack, offense, defense, parry, dodge, etc.



I think I and others feel that it the archer stunning skill wouldn't nullify the skills you stated. Hell dual wield nullfied Bash P-). The ranger can always choose to dual wield. But again, it does matter what the skill is called or does as long as it stuns for a good duration and you can do it again, similar to bash or circle. The skill could be archery base as other has suggested, or 1 handed weapon base, or even kick base like I suggested before.

And majority of all those skills stated that the ranger does, other classes can do them better, and are brought along for that reason IE: Bash, Rescue, parry dodge.

People just want the Rangers to get a "groupable" skill like stunning, that would add greater "Flavor" to the mud: archery. But again doesn't have to be. Finally a number of skills were suggested in the other ranger thread, that really gave benefit to the ranger only. A number of folks need to start discussing skills that the GROUP can benefit from which the ranger preforms. And it should NOT be just DAMAGE P-).
Pheten
Sojourner
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Pheten » Wed Dec 31, 2003 10:16 am

One really simple fix they could start off with is giving the rangers skill caps in certain skills ie bash rescue mounted combat an large increase, after talking to rangers at 50 about what their caps are it about floored me, no excuse for them to be THAT low.

Also make archery good again but only when the ranger is mounted, up the mounted combat skill so they can use it, and then you effectivly add a twist to the class. If they got a horse they can arch for a good amount of damage but if they loose it they go melee. whatever you get the drift.

-phet
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Postby Disoputlip » Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:32 pm

A bonus I like in AD&D 2nd ed. with rangers is the hated enemy thing.

It could be like a specialization, or just a fixed set of races.

Example:
-Giants (Incl Titans)
-Trolls
-Orcs
-Demons and Devils
-Undead

Then against these they would fight with some bonus. (+10 +10 at lvl 50 mabye)
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:54 pm

Joth wrote:People just want the Rangers to get a "groupable" skill like stunning, that would add greater "Flavor" to the mud: archery. But again doesn't have to be. Finally a number of skills were suggested in the other ranger thread, that really gave benefit to the ranger only. A number of folks need to start discussing skills that the GROUP can benefit from which the ranger preforms. And it should NOT be just DAMAGE P-).


I'm not sure how adding an ability that almost every class has, is adding 'flavor'. This mud already has way too much 'stunning'.
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Wed Dec 31, 2003 10:15 pm

Man there are alot of darn ranger threads...

Rangers aren't in terrible shape, they just lack a little something. I'm working off of old numbers here, but here goes. Your average level 50 warrior does about 150 hps damage a round? Rangers with their 5 attacks (assume hasted) do roughly 250 damage a round? If the necessary "to hit" is lowered for rangers, they could then either go more hps or more damage resulting in them being more useful to a group.

Another nice addition might be more ranger specific nature spells. Of course make them 2*'s so that with skill they can cast it and not lose a round of combat.

In summary, lower the "to hit" necessary and low casting time spells.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Wed Dec 31, 2003 10:46 pm

Imis9 wrote: Your average level 50 warrior does about 150 hps damage a round?


Wow those are old numbers dude:)

Yeah from what I can tell, im the only warrior who even bothers to wear hit/dam. Most warriors are about 12/20, i go about 24/28. Plus my 2d7 sword, and lets say the chanter is bored and hastes me. Even with perfect dice every time, id be 14+28=42x3=126 damage a round. Gotta think in terms of rangers and rogues these days, warriors aren't even in the same universe anymore.
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'
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Thu Jan 01, 2004 5:17 pm

thanuk wrote:
Imis9 wrote: Your average level 50 warrior does about 150 hps damage a round?


Wow those are old numbers dude:)

Yeah from what I can tell, im the only warrior who even bothers to wear hit/dam. Most warriors are about 12/20, i go about 24/28. Plus my 2d7 sword, and lets say the chanter is bored and hastes me. Even with perfect dice every time, id be 14+28=42x3=126 damage a round. Gotta think in terms of rangers and rogues these days, warriors aren't even in the same universe anymore.


You forgot the mob shieldblocks, dodges, or parries at least 1 of those attacks, so realistically your doing closer to 70 a round;)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jan 01, 2004 9:23 pm

Here's another idea working off of the whole "called shot" theme.

Make it so rangers have a few skills they can use that prevent a mob from using a skill. Like if we are fighting a mob who bashes a lot we could use Pin Shield, which keeps his shield tied up with blocking so he can't use it to effectively bash. Engage could be used to prevent a mob from switching, or rescuing... or maybe both. Stab Hand could be used to quickly interrupt a spell as it's being cast...

Much more fun and tactical than simply stunning, would give rangers things no other class can do and wouldn't be dependent on archery.

Only problem might be balance, but I don't think that's too much of an issue here. You might keep one mob from bashing, but there could be another one around to take over the responsibility. Also, it wouldn't be 100% reliable either... just good enough so it's actually useful.


Waelos:

I don't even rate a mention? :pout: ;)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sylvos
Sojourner
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada
Contact:

Postby Sylvos » Thu Jan 01, 2004 10:15 pm

Ultimately there's a conflict in the direction of the MUD and the strength of rangers. The ultimate strength of the ranger class is its diversity. The direction of the MUD however, has been a headstrong rush towards specialization, one task for a class. Warriors/Knights tanking, invokers, enchanters, illusionists. All specialized. Rogues... well they're specialized in doiing everything else that needs to be done in any given circumstance. Diversely specialized :P

Yeah, I'll say it up front now, I'm with a lot of rangers that I am offended at the massive array of skills that Rogues have. Now I've said it, you don't need to call me out on it or bitch at me about it. That's not what I'm posting about.

The thing the rangers need to the choice to specialize in one of their aspects of diversity and be good at it, have it be worthwhile. If they want, like MOST rangers want, to be a melee ranger they need their melee to matter some, and have the other options in combat be worthwhile. If they want to be *gag* an archer, then they need the diversity of choice of things to do while arching.

Sound convoluted? Yeah, probably is. But I've given it some thought, the conflict between people who want archery and most rangers who don't like it. Give us the ability to specialize melee or archery, and make those specializations worthwhile.
Joth
Sojourner
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairfax

Postby Joth » Thu Jan 01, 2004 11:53 pm

belleshel wrote:If you make melee a much more important part of the game, there is plenty of reasons to bring both;). Rogue can scout, lure, garrote, assasinate, pick locks, trip, do damage, poison. But no matter how the ranger changes it will never be a 'needed' class. It shouldn't be a needed class, its an auxillary class, always should be. They would be much more usefull if melee was balanced thou.


belleshel wrote:Zones shouldn't require rangers imho, they should just be a nice addition. I have always been an advocate of having MR work like you said thou. MR90 - 90% damage reduction.


After reading those statements I realize this is will be my last ranger upgrade thread post. If some feel that the class should not be "needed", then fine. Most of the classes have a type of specialization where people in groups and zone leaders say hey, I think we need such and such class, to do this. It doesn't mean you need it all the time, just certain situations or certain zones it is nice to bring that particular class along. And every class, expect for rangers, fulfills a function in the group, or a function that aids another class in the group.

Archery is the only skill that the ranger have that no other class has, so it makes "SENSE" to improve upon that skill. I think a melee class who is an effective stunner, similar to that of an illusionist, but doesn't rely on spells, would be very welcome into a group, to the point where you might want even 2 RANGERS IN group P-).

Rogue skills are fine, they fit the class, and the theme of the mud, the CR ability, scouting, garrote are the primary factors. It is just up to people to come up with creative ideas, that are just as helpful to the class that fits and the class theme wise.

I do think the choice of specialization is great idea, we were just thinking what abilities to get the ranger focus, but still keep its diversity similar to that of other melee classes. However though I think there should be greater benefits to those who specialize in Archery to make it a VIALABLE OPTION, and you don't have all carbon copy rangers going melee. Moreover, for balance reason, we didn't think it would be correct for rangers to have that stunning ability and still have all their tanking skills in effect, hence the reason why the Archery skill was choose so they couldn't parry.

Finally I don't believe overall melee upgrade will benefit the rangers that people invision. If you do overall effect ranger will benefit from melee but Warriors, Knights, Rogues will benefit just as much if not more, and these classes do not have a problem getting into a group general.

Return to “T2 Gameplay Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests