Proposal for a New Ranger Class

Feedback, bugs, and general gameplay related discussion.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Proposal for a New Ranger Class

Postby Sarvis » Sun Jan 04, 2004 4:54 pm

Rangers. What can we say about these eternal guardians of 3w? Well, many say they are useless. This isn't entirely true, however. The problem is the lack of a niche within a group, a niche which makes group leaders actually desire rangers along. Some do, but mostly rangers only get groups through being friends with people in that group.

It has long been thought that rangers were, and should be, damage dealers. I've begun to reconsider that. That slot has always been, and probably always will be, by various other classes. First it was monks, then invokers, even rogues can deal damage nearly comparable to a ranger. Even then, this made rangers fairly one dimensional despite being a class famed for it's versatility.

If you think about it, it really does make sense for a ranger to NOT be a primary damage dealer. A warrior _should_ be able to cause more damage than a ranger, fighting is what he lives for. An invoker _should_ be able to far out damage a ranger, fiery bursts of doom are what he lives for! The ranger cannot sensibly argue for more damage capability than either of those, although I readily admit I have argued for such things in the past.

A new direction is needed, one that is not so limiting and one which is useful while not being needed. I'm proposing a nearly complete reworking of what the ranger class should be. The concept is that of a skirmisher, someone who outthinks his opponents rather than simply outfighting them. Instead of merely trading blows, he seeks to disrupt his opponents' ability to fight effectively.

The new class's ability to do damage is still there, but supplemented by skills which hinder an opponent making him less dangerous to the ranger and to his group. There are several completely new skills involved, which I think I balanced out by making their use a tradeoff for the ranger?s normal damage. I've also trimmed the spell list slightly.


SKILLS

1st level: kick, rescue, mount, offense, 1h bludgeon, 1h
slashing, 1h piercing, 1h misc, 2h bludgeon, 2h
slashing, 2h misc, range specialist, archery, swimming,
bandage, forage, tame mount, wilderness sneak, woodcarving,
speak with plants

5th Level: Defense, Feint

8th Level: Called Shot: Leg, Called Shot: Arm


10th Level: dual wield, meditate, quick chant, clerical spell
knowledge, sorcerous spell knowledge, spellcast
generic, spellcast invocation, spellcast
healing, spellcast teleport, spellcast summoning,
spellcast protection, spellcast divination,
spellcast nature, spellcast spirit, blindfighting

12th Level: Dodge, Unbind

14th Level: Parry, Blade Slap

15th Level: Awareness

20th Level: Double Attack, Track

25th Level: Unbalance

30th Level: Stop Thrust

35th Level: Engage

46th Level: Distracting Shot

50th Level: Pressure Points

Feint (melee only): Use all your attacks for one round to confuse an opponent's defenses, so that in the next two rounds his defensive skills will have a penalty. This penalty would increase with each attack during that round, and the effect lasts for two rounds. Each attack made during a feint is automatically considered to be parried.

Called Shot: Leg (Archery Only):
The ranger shoots an opponent in the leg, hampering his movement and disrupting his ability to dodge almost completely for two rounds. The shot only does half normal damage, however, since it is not being aimed for any vital area.

Called Shot: Arm (Archery Only): The ranger shoots an opponent in the arm, greatly lowering his strength and all but eliminating any chance of double attack due to the pain of each swing. After two rounds the enemy will likely recover from the shock and his abilities will return to normal.

Blade Slap (Melee Only): The ranger cuts at an enemy?s blades in an attempt to disrupt his fighting rhythm. The ranger expends all of his attacks in that round to accomplish this, and each successful attack adds to the penalty conferred. However, none of the attacks do damage.

Unbalance (Melee and Archery) : The ranger turns his attention to his opponent's legs and feet, doing anything he can to trip them up and generally ruin her balance. When successful, the opponent will have a difficult time positioning herself for a bash for two rounds. The she can still bash, she will be a lot less effective than normal. Each successful attack only does half damage, and adds to the bash penalty.

Stop Thrust (Melee and Archery): The ranger carefully studies his opponents timing and fighting style for one round, and on the next round can attempt to anticipate each attack and stop it from landing. Usually by stabbing the opponent's arm as each swing begins, forcing the motion to stop. Each successful Stop Thrust causes half the damage of a normal attack, and the ranger gets no other attacks that round. He also gets no attacks during the round spent studying his opponent.

Engage (Melee Only): The ranger charges an opponent and unleashes with a flurry of wild, dangerous and powerful attacks, each designed as much to gain the opponents attention as to actually hurt the opponent. If the ranger is successful, the opponents attention will be focused on the ranger and he will not attempt to switch to any target accept the ranger. The opponent will also not attempt to rescue anyone while so engaged. All of the rangers attacks suffer a large penalty to hit, but do 25% more damage if they do land.

Wreck Spell (Melee and Archery): The ranger expends all of his attack to foul up a spell as it is being cast. Shooting a hand to ruin a gesture, kicking the caster in the throat, and putting a hand over their mouth to silence the opponent are all considered fair play, and can easily ruin the spell. Each attack during the round has it's own small chance to ruin the spell, which is to say it is not cumulative like most of the other ranger skills, and does only half damage.

Distracting Shot (Bow Only): The ranger fires arrows at areas which may not cause much vital damage to an opponent, but can cause a great deal of pain or distraction. A shot may thud into the nostril of a dragon, and while it's only likely to make him sneeze, he won't be breathing fire or wing buffeting while he's sneezing an arrow out! Each shot fired using this skill reduces the chances of an opponent using any skill or ability by a small amount, and is cumulative. However, the affects of each shot only last for 4 rounds each. Unlike the other skills, it takes a lot of time to aim each shot, so the ranger can only fire one arrow per round instead of his normal amount. That arrow will do only a small amount of damage as well.

Pressure Points (Melee and Archery): Through long study and fighting countless opponents, the ranger has learned the pressure points of anything with nerves. With this knowledge the ranger can wither an opponent's strength, cause a mind numbing headache, or even induce sleep. Some pressure points are more difficult to hit than others, of course. Hitting a pressure point with a bow is also far more difficult than hitting with a sword, though it can be done.

Any specific stat can be lowered drastically with this skill. These are the easiest pressure points to hit. Sleep would be the next most difficult, and then paralysis. I don't think there should be a death pressure point, however. Like Distracting Shot, you use this with one shot. It does do damage, but not very much damage as it's primary effects are to weaken some attribute of the opponent.


SPELLS

1st circle: vigorize light, shillelagh

2nd circle: goodberry, cure light, sense life

3rd circle: detect invisibility, faerie fire, vigorize serious, bless

4th circle: cure serious, faerie fog, invisibility, summon insects

5th circle: vigorize critical, protection from animals, create spring

6th circle: barkskin, dust devil, sleep

7th circle: strength, nature's blessing

8th circle: minor paralysis, cure critic

9th circle: transport via plants

10th circle: pass without trace, control weather


These changes would at least make the ranger look good for !bash mobs. Or just free up a warrior for other duties, rather than bashing one annoying switching mob you can just have a ranger engage it.

Anyway, that's my Ranger Proposal (tm). If you like it, show some support. I mentioned giving rangers skills like this in one post and the thread promptly died. This could be a sign that people liked the idea enough to not argue against it, or that they just ignored it completely. I'd like to know which. ;)

Edit: removed bash reference from idea, since all warriors will just be narrow minded and focus on that.
Last edited by Sarvis on Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<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
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Re: Proposal for a New Ranger Class

Postby thanuk » Sun Jan 04, 2004 6:26 pm

Sarvis wrote:Big Crazy Idea:

Remove bash from the game.

Doesn?t it strike anyone as an overpowered skill? It is one skill that can basically completely disable any abilities of any mob. Everything the ranger skills above accomplish is already accomplished by bash, except for Distracting Shot and Called shot. Removing bash would give rangers a solid position of disabling any given dangerous mob ability, one at a time. We end up seeing a ton of !bash mobs in high level zones, because if they could be bashed they would be too easy.



Warriors only have 1 skill thats even remotely useful besides rescue, lets remove it from the game!
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'
Dalar
Sojourner
Posts: 4905
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Dalar » Sun Jan 04, 2004 6:59 pm

moan, can we get people who don't want to completely tweak out their class with unbalancing skills?
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'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:03 pm

Dalar wrote:moan, can we get people who don't want to completely tweak out their class with unbalancing skills?


What? Like bash?
<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
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:16 pm

Thanuk: Warriors are one of the most needed classes on the MUD. You may, _may_, only have 2 useful skills *coughbullshitcough* but that does not reduce in any way the importance of warriors.

Rangers, however, don't really have any skills that are useful. Well, they do... but they are only rarely useful to the class. Bash and rescue are useful to a ranger on very rare occasions, compared to always being useful for a warrior.


I'll start a separate thread about bash though, since the ranger thread can stand on it's own even with bash in the game. I should never have mixed the two together, and then enabled voting. heh.

What do you think of the ranger proposal, without bash being involved?

Dalar:

Except for Pressure Point and Distracting Shot, all of these skills are already covered by Bash. If I'm asking for anything "overpowering" then warriors must be the most powerful class ever, since they can already do _all_ of those things with one simple command! With this setup, if rangers wanted to bash you would need like 6 rangers working together to get the useage of one current bash command.

Overpowering indeed.

If you are taking issue with Distracting Shot or Pressure Point, state so and then offer ideas to better balance them. I envision pressure point as having fairly low success chances, and it _is_ a level 50 skill so I think it should be powerful. Distracting Shot will have very little effect as well, maybe a dragon will fail to use _one_ wingbuffet in an entire fight because of it or osmething like that. But that is numbers balancing, and really has no bearing on the idea itself. The staff are the only ones who can really balance that sort of thing, since they are the only ones who can look at all the numbers.
<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
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Sun Jan 04, 2004 8:28 pm

Snicker ........
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."

-Italian Proverb
Mplor
Sojourner
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Phoenix

Postby Mplor » Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:01 pm

Sometimes the grander points of an expansive proposal can obscure some smaller, realistic possibilities.

For example, feint might have potential. I'd imagine it differently: as a separate command that's available as often as circle rather than something that interrupts normal melee combat. When successful it grants the ranger a bonus to hitroll for one subsequent round of combat. The bonus might scale with level from 2 to 5 at maximum level.

I can't really tell you what's a great idea these days but maybe it's one to consider.

Mippy
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:27 pm

I just think its funny how easy it is to pick out someone who plays a mage in the melee thread. They're the ones saying downgrade one melee class to upgrade the other. Its fairly obvious that casters have significantly more abilities than melee classes, be it damage, stopping spells, or stopping skill usage, they have the market cornered. So instead of just reshuffling what little skills belong to melee as a whole among the different classes, its time to take some abilities away from caster classes and make them melee skills.

What if only rangers could stun? What if only rangers could silence? You'd see alot more rangers in zone groups, thats what. But god forbid you take something away from a casting class and give it to a melee class, then mages might actually have to group to do something other than a highlevel zone. Nope, better downgrade an already underpowered class to give the completely useless class something to do, so as not to disrupt the stunning/buffing/debuffing/damage dealing of mages.
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'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:38 am

Mplor:

What I'm trying to do though is change the ranger's role i na group to one that isn't already taken up by several other classes. Making feint only affect the ranger's next round of attacks is counter productive to that goal, since it increases the ranger's damage potential, and really does nothing for the group itself that another invoker cannot do! If it just lowers the mob skills for a round or two, it increases the damage potential of the entire group!

Thanuk:

:snicker: Wow! I mean... wow...

That's the first time anyone has ever accused me of being a caster. I mean, I'm not around much lately and I was never one of the old highbies or anything. Most of the high level players at least know who I am though. Anyone who reads the BBS regularly should know how much I argue about rangers and how often I point out that ranger is pretty much the only class I play!

The highest level caster I have ever had was a shaman, and he got to his mid 20's on TorilMUD. The second highest caster I've had is a level 3 invoker. I really just don't enjoy playing casters much.

You might also notice that I wanted stun chances lowered as well, which would take a bit of utility away from casters would it not? Frankly, I'd like to see casters get a lot of downgrades, but I don't think it is going to happen.

Get over the bash comment for now Thanuk, I've already dropped it from the thread anyway. I may suggest it later again, but only _if_ these changes go in. If they don't then bash is absolutely necessary to have around.
<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
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:14 am

It was more than a general statement than directed at you Sarvis, but the point still stands. And no, I don't know who the hell you are.

As for the rest of what you said, all those skills would be nice and all, but except for the dragon thing with the arrow, they all just mimic the effects of one spell or another. And as we all know, spells are generally much more reliable than melee skills to reach a desired effect: See shieldpunch vs. illusionist stun. So unless you yank those abilities from the caster classes and make the ranger skill use of it close to no-fail, its not going to accomplish what you are looking for.
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'
Ensis
Sojourner
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR 97219
Contact:

Postby Ensis » Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:38 am

Maybe you should just change the class name to "Ninja"

Rangers are a subclass of warrior, Warriors should get fixed and established before you start tweaking a class that is based on Warriors.

Drive thru.
Teyaha
Sojourner
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Teyaha » Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:07 am

i dont usually pipe into threads when it's a class i havent played. i'm still not as i have no opinion one way or another..

but every game like this ever made has at least one class that will be like our rangers. a class that does a lot of things well, but no one thing exceptionally, and if it has one thing it's not a mandatory-to-get-to-the-next-level thing.

i think we have to accept the fact that rangers and bards, battlechanters to some extent, paladins, anti paladins...they just arent core classes. every class in this game is fun in some way to play but there are times when they are not so fun. i love playing my chanter in groups hate her solo. i love my necro solo but dont much enjoy trying to manage my pets when in a group.

i hope something can be added to the class to make it more fun, but i think we should all accept the fact that rangers (hell rangers in any game that has rangers that i've run across) just wont be a go-to class. this is not bad though.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:55 pm

Thanuk:

Hmm.. this could be my lack of experience with casters talking, but I don't know of any spells that keep mobs from switching, bashing, rescuing or which interfere with the use of defensive skills or which can prevent an entire round of attacks.

Except, of course, for the stun effect. Which is, like bash, overpowered in that this _one_ effect can negate all casting and all active skills. Even those, however, don't stop double attack or parry/dodge/shieldblock from working.

Ensis:

No, if I were making a Ninja class a lot more of his abilities would be based on stealth. The pressure point thing can be considered fairly monk-like though, I guess.

Are warriors not established? They have a pretty clear and necessary role in groups, that of tank. They may not be the most fun class to play because of their lack of skills... but rangers are even more capable of being run with macros, and don't have any truly useful spot in a group.



If warriors do need fixing, then start a thread suggesting fixes for that class. But that really has no bearing on rangers.

Teyaha:

Not being a go-to class _is_ bad. As an enchanter, about how long after you log on do you start getting group offers? I can tell you as a ranger I _never_ get any, unless Vigis is around... and not busy. I have to ask every group leader to get a group, and often am told the group is full or something. Why? Because rangers have nothing anywhere near as valuable as enchanters do, so they are not desired. Friendly group leaders will let me tag along, but they usually don't expect me to add much to the group. Hell, once I was going to sit and go AFK, and my leader said I should just set up an assist macro while I was gone.

Any idea how depressing it is to have your class reduced to a single macro?
<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
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:19 pm

The class is what you make of it.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:45 pm

Sarvis wrote:Thanuk:

Hmm.. this could be my lack of experience with casters talking, but I don't know of any spells that keep mobs from switching, bashing, rescuing or which interfere with the use of defensive skills or which can prevent an entire round of attacks.

Uhm, blind? Para? Comeon dude.


Sarvis wrote:Any idea how depressing it is to have your class reduced to a single macro?

cough.
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'
Teyaha
Sojourner
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Teyaha » Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:37 am

Sarvis wrote:
Teyaha:

Not being a go-to class _is_ bad. As an enchanter, about how long after you log on do you start getting group offers? I can tell you as a ranger I _never_ get any, unless Vigis is around... and not busy. I have to ask every group leader to get a group, and often am told the group is full or something. Why? Because rangers have nothing anywhere near as valuable as enchanters do, so they are not desired. Friendly group leaders will let me tag along, but they usually don't expect me to add much to the group. Hell, once I was going to sit and go AFK, and my leader said I should just set up an assist macro while I was gone.

Any idea how depressing it is to have your class reduced to a single macro?


um..never?

dont need more t han one chanter in a group. there are usually three other evil race chanters on when i'm on, plus a few neutral/evil humans. why take a poorly eq'd drow when someone's uber l33t 8th alt is on atm?

i feel what you are saying. i played a druid on toril. druid was pretty much useless till well. at least once a day i heard 'you arent a druid till 46' because druids then were defined by only one ability.

condolences, and hopefully something can be done without unbalancing the game.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:54 am

Hmm... maybe it's an evil thing then. I know I've had group leaders saying we could do better exp if we could just find a chanter all the time. :shrug: Though not as often as they wanta cleric... heh.
<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
amolol
Sojourner
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:01 am

Postby amolol » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:02 am

first thank grow a brain kthnxbye

second im all for this... its a bit abstract from what rangers were supposed to be but instead of the other ideas that we have had it leaves both archery and melee in the same class instead of seperating them... good compromise... it adds a bit of a spot for rangers to be in a group... like the idea and i hope that this one actually goes through but it will be alot of coding (get on it shev :P).
i dont know what your problem is, but i bet its hard to pronounce

myspace.com/tgchef
Sesexe
Sojourner
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:13 am

Postby Sesexe » Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:36 pm

Sarvis,

When I first started reading your ideas, I thought you were going to suggest the Ranger becomes a debuff class like necro/lich, which I felt would be pointless. Then I read on. It seems to me you could sum up the majority of your ideas, that is your new Ranger theme, into two words.

Specialize Stun


As someone who has not played a Ranger, I cannot actively comment on what the class requires or could use on an individual class basis by itself. I can only remark on active rolls various classes play in a zone grouping enviroment. So therein lies the question:

Do groups need, or want, a stun class?

I'm uncertain to this answer atm, and would need to give it some thought. Ultimately, if the answer is 'no', then I'm not sure such changes to the Ranger class would improve their current situation on the MUD. If the answer is 'yes', then this could be a step in the positive direction for them.
gimaki
Sojourner
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:46 pm

Postby gimaki » Thu Mar 25, 2004 5:44 pm

Good point Sesexe. You summed up basically all the suggestions. I'd prefer to have some of the previous ranger suggestions looked at before this. Course melee itself is the bigger issue atm.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:13 pm

This thread is funny. From the getgo Servis mentioned something to the ftune of "even rogues do as much damage as rangers"
I hate to disappoint, but they outdamage rangers like 2-1 with khanjari.

The entire class is rather flawed from the getgo. I could go so many different directions from here. What do you want this class to be? melee
or ranged specialist? from the level 1 range specialist skill, i'd say ranged.
why then would they get all of these skills in melee?

Overall it seems that the defenseive abilities of this class are pretty
significantly disabling. Mobs are already too weak in a lot of cases.
We don't need to make things EASIER for the pc's currently.

As far as the "go-to" class argument, there is currently no feasible way
of making every class a "go-to" class. The combined skills of a group containing the benefits of all of the classes is borderline too powerful
as is. Adding this would further imbalance things. Rangers have endured
as long as they have with the skills they have for a reason. They are
a warrior sub-class, and one that specifically has some knowledge in the
archery and outdoors. If the end-goal was to totally re-vamp the class,
forget about it, just remove it and make all the rangers warriors.

The prime reason we have these non "go-to" classes is we already
have too many classes. Ultimately i think the most intelligent suggestion
was already stated: Wait for melee/warrior balance, THEN you can
worry about balancing sub-classes.

For now, removing bash from rangers and giving them trip would be
a significant improvement. There are some niches for rangers currently.
I see them all the time in CC and SF groups. I play an anti, and you don't
see me bitching about being a non go-to class. Deal.


EDIT: While we are at it, lets add the skill of:
"Bitching and Moaning about our class WE chose at the start screen"
You get it at the "master" level of 99 beginning at level 1.

NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO PLAY A RANGER.
Sesexe
Sojourner
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:13 am

Postby Sesexe » Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:51 pm

NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO READ RANGER THREADS FROM THE GETGO.
Dalar
Sojourner
Posts: 4905
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Dalar » Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:07 pm

actually, it's the circle that makes rogues deal 2-1 ratio compared to ranger.
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'
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:22 pm

Sesexe wrote:NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO READ RANGER THREADS FROM THE GETGO.


and by that logic,

NOBODY FORCED YOU TO REPLY TO MY POST.

Now unless you have a comment or suggestion, plz stop wasting space!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:30 pm

Sesexe:

Well, a lot of mages seem to have a lot of stunning power, so I assume there is a demand for it. If you then took a lot of that stunning power away from casters I do think a stunning class would be desireable.


Delmair:

What exactly is the logic behind removing a class people _want_ to play? I like playing ranger... it just gets really boring sometimes when no one wants you around. Removing the class would just suck, so why not fix it instead? I mean, hell... I keep hearing people complain that warriors are underpowered... should we remove them too rather than fixing it?

Also, it is worth noting that this doesn't necessarily make mobs easier. When you remember that I wanted stun removed...

Hrm... just realized that nothing in my original proposal suggests taking stun effects away from casters. I thought I had added that, maybe that explains a little of Thanuk's earlier ire. For the record, I think this would work best if mages lost a good portion (not necessarily all) of their stun ability.

Anyways, with stun removed (or lessened) mobs will actually be quite a bit harder. I can keep one from switching to our casters, but not keep him from bashing them at the same time.
<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
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:11 pm

I suggest you re-read my post Sarvis. i specifically said "If the end-goal was to totally re-vamp the class,
forget about it, just remove it and make all the rangers warriors".

Re-vamping the class entirely would stray from what they were intented to do. i don't think that we should just remove them outright. i only suggest this if the only other option is complete re-vamp. Rangers aren't that shitty that they need to be completely re-done. A few changes here
and there would make them useful. Also, they will most likely be affected
positively in the melee modifications that are coming in the ?future?.

Yes, stun does currently make the game less difficult also. But ultimately,
i think now probbably isn't the right time to start making changes on
assumptions. Bah, work calls... will be back to do post more later.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:18 pm

I am suggesting this as a complete re-vamp.

The problem with saying we would stray from the original intention is that it doesn't seem there _was_ an original intention. Well, maybe 1w guardian, but that isn't all that exciting in game terms! ;)

You could say the original intention was melee damage, but I pointed out in my first post that there have always been classes that outdamage rangers. Not to mention that if you wanted rangers to reclaim that niche, we'd still be doing pitiful damage compared to invokers, and we'd at best become equal with rogues... only rogues would have more useful zone skills.

I'm basically trying to create a niche, and then shove rangers into it.
<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
gimaki
Sojourner
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:46 pm

Postby gimaki » Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:19 pm

Silence would need to be changed drastically to make stun much use to any melee class. Shieldpunch, never heard of it. *scratch*

As Delmair and may others pointed out, trip and bash should be switched
for a Ranger, other than that we should wait to see where things come out after the melee changes. I think adding things like outdoor hide, ambush, flurry, would really help round out the class, but first thing is first, melee upgrades!

Rangers will never be, and should never be required like other classes. We are and will always be an auxillary class, although it would be nice that at some point it would be desirable to bring a ranger/pal/anti over your 4th invoker;).

Someone fix the password retrieval here! (it doesn't send an email).
Belle
Gormal
Sojourner
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: A Whale's Vagina
Contact:

Postby Gormal » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:24 pm

This thread is over 3 years old... wow.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:59 am

fairly drastic dont you think?

if you rip everything out and redo it, doesnt that put you pretty much back at square one in terms of balance?

maybe we could just have rangers do 50% more damage in nature and rogues 25% more in urban settings?

or we could give them the area melee damage niche maybe 1 arrow per target per round.

and we could make it so that a successful arrow hit has a 10% chance of disrupting a !wraith's spell (1% against dragons) if casting but dealing nominal damage (30% to disrupt a cast per round). Couple this with an area 1 arrow per target attack could make rangers in numbers able to prevent a whole group from from casting, but only able to maybe stop 1 solo at a cost of damage.

Unfortunately, I kinda believe that there is already way too much spell prevention even though bash is the only effective (yet limited) melee based spell prevention (i heard sp works, but i just never gotten to use it since im busy rescuing... sp 90).
and tonights winner in the Toril EQ lottery is demi belt and skull earring!
Kegor
Sojourner
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: St. Cloud, MN
Contact:

Postby Kegor » Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:06 am

I have too limited knowledge of the ranger class to add anything of great significance, but it seems to me that they could use a little more damage. If for no other reason, to stop the theads about rangers once and for all. Seems to me that there must be a problem with them of some kind though, or people wouldn't be writing these posts.

Ahh yes, it probably is time to rant about bash again. Not on this thread though. :)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:16 am

Jaznolg, since this would be an almost entirely new class you have about as much knowledge of the class as anyone. Knowledge of the _current_ ranger isn't really important, but do you see this class proposal as overpowered, possibly fun to play, just bad in general?

Upping current ranger damage potential is probably the most common suggestion, yet that won't solve anything as there will still be classes that outdamage us. It also wouldn't do anything to take the class out of the one-macro realm. ;)
<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
Kegor
Sojourner
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: St. Cloud, MN
Contact:

Postby Kegor » Fri Mar 26, 2004 10:46 am

Honestly, I really don't know what to make of it all. I don't have a D&D ranger kit to cross reference your ideas, as I have never really been interested in rangers at all. I have always felt strongly that this mud should be as close to D&D as it can be. I do recall rangers being very special in D&D though. One of the only classes with true ambidextarity for dual wielding. And of course archery. Seemed like more fun in D&D didn't it?

What I really think might fix rangers is to do shooting arrows justice in the damage dept. If this means make them do more damage than most casters, so be it, since that is probably what is replacing them in zone groups at this time anyways.

Also, make single skillshots that would do a significant amount of damage with thier arrows from a room or two away. Regulate this by a timer of some sort so you can't just unload. One shot per 15 seconds or something. Sure it might be considered a little twinky if someone actually took the time to sit there and kill level 55 sentinal mobs from a different room, but it would take a while if the time rate between shots was calculated right. No different really (except it would take a little longer) from how a skilled enchanter, elementalist, illusionist, necromancer, or shaman might go about doing things without taking any damage. Just make the archery skill really hard to notch, and hit/miss ratio from a room or two away highly dependant on that skill.

This might require extra code to see that mobs in a group that get agro would then have thier leader track (if the leader of said mob group is flagged a tracker) to the source of the arrow, or any agressive actions from any player towards one of the followers of said mob group as well. Would be a useful piece of code to have anyways, regardless of rangers.

More code would be required to upgrade the racial ability of certain nasty mobs (dragons, demons, etc) to be more resistant to arrows to regulate the twink.

Maybe on top of that, enhance an existing ability or give some kind of new one (from the ranger kit possibly?) other than the nifty archery tagging method, that would be useful in a group of 15 as well.

I have always thought archery should be a special thing, as should rangers per D&D etc etc. The code would be worth the effort for them imo. But then again, I am not the one that has to write it.

Just my thoughts. Disregard as desired.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:09 pm

Whic hD&D do you want them to be like? They are pretty close to 2E originally, since about all 2E rangers could do was dual wield. Of course, they could only do so in leather armor or lighter and could not do much else. I think they could hide and sneak as well, witha 50% penalty in !nature areas.

In 3E they were the only class which got dual wield for free, however any class could take the feats required and therefore also dual wield. The biggest problem with that was that ranger dual wield feats were "virtual." This meant they had the limitation of only being useful in light armor, while any class that bought the feats could use them in ANY armor. This basically meant you could build a better ranger class by multiclassing warrior/rogue or warrior/druid. In ieither case you'd only lack one ranger ability, that being spells or sneakiness... but you'd gain much more in the other ability.

Now there's 3.5E, in which they actually decided the ranger of old was no good. They changed the basic theme of the class from woodland warrior to woodland rogue, at least in my opinion. They dropped ranger hit dice from d10 to d8, gave them more skill points and gave them a free feat tree option. They could either choose free dual wield feats, or free archery feats. The only problem is, the other feats the class automatically gets (ie. Hide in Plain Sight ) seem to largely favor archery. Well, that and sneaking around avoiding fights at all costs.

So yeah, 2E decent class, and pretty much what we have now.
3E horribly underpowered.
3.5E much stronger class, but completely different theme for it.

My idea actually completely takes us away from the D&D concepts I guess, but this MUD doesn't seem to share a whole lot with D&D really. I mean, 90% of our skills would have to disappear in order to bring us in line with D&D...
<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
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:14 am

The beauty of the ranger feats of ambidexterity and dual wield are
that you get them for FREE. that means you are free to pick up other
feats, and can get things like whirlwind attack and other neat maneuvers
much sooner than the combined warrior/rogue you offered. You can
always take the feats as your regular feats to remove the penalty of
having to wear light or better armor. Rangers will have their niche. just
be a little more patient. i realize they've been jacked in the past, but
this mud is work in progress, as are most.
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:50 am

Sarvis wrote:In 3E they were the only class which got dual wield for free, however any class could take the feats required and therefore also dual wield. The biggest problem with that was that ranger dual wield feats were "virtual." This meant they had the limitation of only being useful in light armor, while any class that bought the feats could use them in ANY armor. This basically meant you could build a better ranger class by multiclassing warrior/rogue or warrior/druid. In ieither case you'd only lack one ranger ability, that being spells or sneakiness... but you'd gain much more in the other ability.


No, the biggest problem with the ranger dual wield feats was that you got them at just level 1 of ranger, meaning that any class could get the two related feats for free, plus track, just by dabbling for one level. Rogue builds often included one level of ranger for this. The armor restriction was largely meaningless since the high dexterity requirements of the real feats mean that light armor is still preferable for many characters going this route. In any case, the dual wielding for other classes isn't anything new. 2nd edition had rules for using a weapon proficiency and nonweapon proficiency slot to negate the penalties for other classes, something that the thri-kreen greatly benefited from.

Now there's 3.5E, in which they actually decided the ranger of old was no good. They changed the basic theme of the class from woodland warrior to woodland rogue, at least in my opinion. They dropped ranger hit dice from d10 to d8, gave them more skill points and gave them a free feat tree option. They could either choose free dual wield feats, or free archery feats. The only problem is, the other feats the class automatically gets (ie. Hide in Plain Sight ) seem to largely favor archery. Well, that and sneaking around avoiding fights at all costs.


The only thing warriorish the 3.5 version took from the 3.0 was an average of 1 hp per level. Clerics and psionic warriors have been surviving quite well in melee with a d8 hit dice (and for that matter, the warrior NPC class also gets by with d8 hit dice) so it's not a large downgrade to combat ability, especially in light of getting Improved TWF at level 6 instead of 11 and greater TWF at level 11. The extra skill points just let a 3.5 edition ranger get all the skills needed to replicate a 2nd edition ranger's abilities, the skills to replicate some of the 1st edition ranger's anti-surprise abilities, and then some other suitable ability for that particular ranger. Hide and move silently equates to the the stealth of the 2nd edition ranger, survival to the tracking, listen and spot bring back the alertness of the 1st edition (in addition to reflecting rangers often being good scouts), and climb, swim, handle animal, or knowledge (nature) all are pretty much all skills that 2nd edition rangers could acquire through non-weapon proficiency slots. I had a lot of frustration trying to emulate a 2nd edition ranger under 3.0 with 4 skill points per level without int bonuses, especially with wild empathy being a seperate skill requiring points to purchase.

The theme of the 3.5 ranger (and what the 3.0 TRIED to do) was general combat prowess backed up by skills. Unfortunately, much of those skills wouldn't really be relevant to the MUD. Better inspiration would be from some of the prestige classes often associated with rangers IMO.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Mar 27, 2004 9:04 am

Ugh... really don't wnat to get into a 3.5E ranger argument here, but...

The largest problem with the ranger as a melee combat class was surviving a fight with lower AC than your warrior brethren. Lowering their HP, even by an AVERAGE, of one HP per level just worsens that problem. Clerics do just fine in combat because of their heavier AC and buffing spells, which rangers do not have. Not to mention that dual wield isn't all that powerful in D&D anyway. If you want more damage, you are better off using a 2h weapon, if you want to have decent defense you use one sword and a shield. The only advantage to dual wield is having different spell effects on each blade, much like having dual procs here. However that's not much of an advantage until higher levels when actually get those weapons, and no advantage at all in a low magic campaign. Overall the 3.5E ranger is so much better of taking archery it isn't even funny. It's definately a step in the rogue direction though.



Anyways, what do you think of my class proposal? :poke:
<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
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Sat Mar 27, 2004 9:38 pm

With a good dexterity (ie, 16+, just 1 over what you'd need for TWF for a non-ranger anyway) and a chain shirt, your AC in light armor isn't going to be any worse compared to most armors, with only full plate and breastplates offering a better combination of AC and dex bonus (and the latter no longer offering better AC if you have an 18 dex). On top of that, TWF allows you to get the Improved Shield Bash feat to let you retain a shield bonus while making offhand attacks with a spiked shield, though that build isn't as strong in 3.5 since they lowered the damage shield spikes do. Plus, you retain better manueverability to better get to where you're needed in a fight (and also can outrun Mr. Tin Can if the fight goes bad).

Two weapon fighting itself definately doesn't come into its own for anyone until after a few levels though. It's very feat intensive and equipment intensive for anyone besides rogues since it pretty much relies on non-strength based damage bonuses or effects to really be effective and favored enemy bonuses aren't really something you can always depend on. Outside of energy damage properties and poisons, it's really exotic weapons and prestige classes that really allow TWF to shine for fighters and rangers. The core classes just don't really allow enough specialization to really make such a specialized style stand out against raging with a greatsword.

Anyway, as for your class proposal, I didn't read the whole thing (I'm technically supposed to be working on a project right now, heh), but I certainly agree with the principle of it, that being that rangers should have something proactive to do to disrupt mob strategy as an offense oriented class. I don't really see this as a complete overhaul either, just a bunch of possible ways that it could be done. Specifics about each ability's viability and desireability would need to wait until melee balance is finished and there's a clearer picture of where rangers are meant to go (along the melee and archery line specifically), and hopefully after I get this weight balanced BST up and running.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:15 pm

The core classes just don't really allow enough specialization to really make such a specialized style stand out against raging with a greatsword.


So you agree that even 3.5 rangers are far better off using archery, since dual wield isn't even viable unless you go into a PrC. However if you go with the archery tree, you are fine pretty much no matter what. This is exactly my point.

Anyway, as for your class proposal, I didn't read the whole thing (I'm technically supposed to be working on a project right now, heh), but I certainly agree with the principle of it, that being that rangers should have something proactive to do to disrupt mob strategy as an offense oriented class. I don't really see this as a complete overhaul either, just a bunch of possible ways that it could be done. Specifics about each ability's viability and desireability would need to wait until melee balance is finished and there's a clearer picture of where rangers are meant to go (along the melee and archery line specifically), and hopefully after I get this weight balanced BST up and running.


I don't think we need to wait for a clearer direction on rangers, I think we need to make one. Every time we've let the imms do it the class has fallen short of what we would like... heh.

BST... Bull Sh*t Tree? ;)

Don't remember what BST is, but good luck with it anyway.
<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
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Mon Mar 29, 2004 2:34 am

Sarvis wrote:So you agree that even 3.5 rangers are far better off using archery, since dual wield isn't even viable unless you go into a PrC. However if you go with the archery tree, you are fine pretty much no matter what. This is exactly my point.


They can still be just as viable if you don't go the traditional dual short swords or handaxes IMO, but that requires more feats and forethought. Archery style is much more simple to get a good effect from. Exotic weapons, spiked shield optimization, and double weapons can be fitted into a core ranger quite readily, as can some of the weapon style feats from Complete Warrior that let you pull off fun manuevers with the right set of weapons (ie, a free disarm attempt if you hit with both a sword and dagger).

I don't think we need to wait for a clearer direction on rangers, I think we need to make one. Every time we've let the imms do it the class has fallen short of what we would like... heh.


I agree that we need to make one, but even among ourselves we can't fully agree yet. A lot depends on how well the melee balance goes as to deciding on how much offense vs. utility the class should be. And discussions about melee vs. ranged also are dependent on what, if anything, the staff would be willing to do to fix the numerous problems with ranged. Heck, I can't even agree with myself about whether or not to try to fix ranged or just let it die (and mind you, this is coming from the first one to snag a tia quiver off the treasure pile. Wey's had to be given after the fact by a god).
gimaki
Sojourner
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:46 pm

Postby gimaki » Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:44 pm

Sarvis wrote:I don't think we need to wait for a clearer direction on rangers, I think we need to make one. Every time we've let the imms do it the class has fallen short of what we would like... heh.


We've been posting suggestions for 3 years now. They can choose to incoporate or ignore. We don't have any say in how this comes out, its basically up to the whims of the imm staff that may or maynot have the intrest of Rangers in mind.

I have been pretty clear that pushing us towards archery is a mistake. Hopefully we will see some more of the melee changes soon (its been awhile and rangers got screwed) and then work from there.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:23 am

More like 7 years, man :) Forage is great though, don't get me wrong.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:28 am

I only open this thread to clear the little red thingy :(
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."



-Italian Proverb
Dalar
Sojourner
Posts: 4905
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Dalar » Tue Mar 30, 2004 7:42 am

imho, they need a skill while arching so they can deal equivalent damage to a rogue right? give them something like circle. called shot or something.
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'
Arilin Nydelahar
Sojourner
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Virginia Beach
Contact:

Postby Arilin Nydelahar » Tue Mar 30, 2004 8:53 am

Ambar wrote:I only open this thread to clear the little red thingy :(


Me too. And i'm a ranger :P
Shevarash OOC: 'what can I say, I'm attracted to crazy chicks and really short dudes'
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Tue Mar 30, 2004 11:20 pm

Dalar wrote:imho, they need a skill while arching so they can deal equivalent damage to a rogue right? give them something like circle. called shot or something.


For that to work, they'd have to do a lot with archery not make it less of a PITA to use and balance against tank skills.
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Tue Apr 27, 2004 5:32 pm

In my opinion, further archery tweaks should be scrapped. Too much work for too few coders. Let them all work on melee, fix rangers in that regard and in the process balance all other classes.

Sarvis:

Your spell list is exactly the same as the ranger list now. . .and I think that is one of the weakest points of the class. Other than barkskin and NB, the spells rangers have are weak and/or useless. One reason that is is because of the casting times. I heal more hps in the time I sleep than I do casting cure crit 3X and rememing =P

Alot of the skills youve suggested focus on 'disrupting' spells and other mob skills. That's already covered quite completely by spells, other class skills, etc. We already have way too many ways to stop spells. Heck, we're all surprised when we get our butts a little toasted by a cloud these days.

And unfortunately I disagree with switching the focus of rangers away from damage to support. Take away damage and rangers really do have nothing. Rogues still have infinte versitility (support) over rangers, even adding on all of the skills you've mentioned. Where in traditional RPG's are rogues the supreme damage dealers? Nowhere I know of. They can strike devastating blows with backstab/sneak attack but other than that they're pretty weak. How they got to be so powerful here I have no idea.

There are hundreds of ranger ideas on the boards. . .but in short, here's what a few things I would do to fix rangers and balance melee:

give rangers a haste spell
lower casting times on all ranger spells to 1
have double attack function on off hand attacks
raise double attack to 99
give warriors triple attack when wielding 1h and using shield
lower 1h weapon dice a bit
raise 2h weapon dice alot
remove missile shield from the game.
remove escape from the game (Result: more rangers used for luring)
replace bash with trip on the ranger's skill list
give rangers disarm/parry/riposte to 99
Give rangers a skill that gives a very high chance to parry/rip a riposte attack
Allow certain warrior skills to be used while in other skill 'lag' (like rescue). Warriors can barely use any of their semi decent skills now because they've always got to be 'available' for rescuing.

That is just a short list. Many if not all of these changes would be extremely easy to do in code and wouldn't eat up alot of coding time. Of course I could go on and on but I have already done so in many threads =)

Oh, and PS - rangers dodge skill? only 10 better than a clerics. hahha!

Anyway, Enjoy your respective days =)

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

Postby Sarvis » Tue Apr 27, 2004 5:50 pm

Actually I did leave the spell list the same, but I took out a few spells from it. I don't remember what spells exactly at the moment, but I basically thought the other skills I suggested would need to be counter-balanced by losing some spells.

I kind of like the ranger spell list. You are right about some spells taking too long to cast, but with a decent quick chant you can get some spells off between rounds. I even _occasionally_ get Cure Crit off between rounds. If that were reliable it would actually get used when the fight is a little too close for my comfort. So that's support for slightly increasing our quick chant skill...

I also didn't want rangers damage ability to be reduced for this build. If a ranger sits there not using any of his skills he should do the same damage he does already. This is an addition of support utilities to make the class more useful.

I understand that a lot can already be done with spells, which is part of the reason I suggested removing stun effects from a large portion of spells, and suggested removing bash. Though that got edited out because certain warriors couldn't get past that part. ;) Even without the removal of those, however, this class would still be useful against mobs that are immune to those other skills or when you just can't find someone to blind, stun or bash. That's mostly going to be during lower level exp... but still useful.

Basically I just don't think rangers will ever be able to survive if they are _just_ damage dealers. That's what we've tried to make rangers be for the last 10 years, and it has never worked.
<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
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:01 pm

See, that's where I also disagree.

No attempt has ever really been made to make rangers the melee damage elite. First, there were monks (rangers in the back seat) and now there are rogues (this time rangers getting dragged around behind the car)

No serious attempt to make the class work as a melee damage class has ever been implemented. The largest nod to that effect was given to them early this wipe by granting them a 99 offense. Rangers never could get a 99 offense before this incarnation.

Quickchant already goes to 90. . .not much more a 99 is going to do for casting times =(

Unless significant skills/etc are added to the ranger class alone, when melee in general is balanced you'll see the rogues being just as far ahead, if not farther.

Anyway.

The Lost
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:17 pm

So give them all the same defense skills as a warrior, with the exception of shieldblock. but then make riposte better than everyone elses? gee. thought rangers were supposed to be damage, not tanks.

Reduce spellcasting to 1 each? laughable at best.

Definately increase parry/riposte to somethin decent, and dodge as well.

Replacing bash with trip, great idea. been stated before, will state again.

Leave escape in the game. makes sense for rogues.

Instead of a spell, give rangers haste type skill. can release a flurry (1-3 extra attacks for a round with a cost of movement). If a haste spell is offered for gods sakes make it self only, 10th circle.

Rest sounds decent

Return to “T2 Gameplay Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest