Big Request

[Thilindel]

Make Rangers rescue/bash to par with a 'fighter' type class?

[teflor the ranger]

50 rescue/bash skill is already far higher than any non-warrior class could achieve. I find Teflor's bash to be fairly decent with a good shield. The rescue is not bad for as much as rangers should be rescuing (and hence, tanking).

[Disoputlip]

I have been missing the "upgrade ranger" threads.

I think there has been a lot of debate on how to balance rangers, and what the purpose of rangers is.

What we have now is a class that can tank, but not amazingly, and then instead can do a lot of damage when someone else is tanking.

If you want a ranger that can tank better but damage less I suggest wearing a heavy shield, wear hp etc.

Most rangers would proberly say they prefer to do damage over tanking.

[teflor the ranger]

Even when I dress Teflor out in Kobob's gear, he makes a fantastically horrible tank. Rangers aren't meant to tank, the rescue skill limit speaks to that.

Rangers do, however, do a good job of making sure some of the weaker but perhaps more essential casters get rescued when the warriors miss. Sure, we probably die if no one rescues US after we rescue, but face it, in most situations, Rangers are expendable.

[Delmair Aamoren]

Coming out of BBS retirement to make a quick point here. Look at the skillset of a ranger. Rangers are part warrior, small part rogue, and part mage/cleric (kinda a hybrid really). This makes them a jack of many trades, master of none. The multitude of pseudo-tank hybrids this mud has had (merc, monk, ranger, pal, antipal, dire) makes it difficult to find a place for all of these classes all of the time. While EQ can offset the hp difference, nothing can offset the skillset difference. Mounted tanks at least have a few higher defensive skills, and mounted combat to assist them. Warriors have shieldblock, defense, and the highest parry/dodge of the tanks and pseudo tanks.

Asking a ranger to be able to do these core warrior things as well as these other classes, when their main point is truly archery or dual-wielding is just plain silly. Rangers have their niche (especially VS dragons right now), and will continue to have their niche even if it is as the token supplemental class.

For all of you rangers that wish to bitch about damage vs other "psuedo tanks", take a look at the number of attacks you get and the dice of your 1h weapons and damroll. Compare this to the # of attacks warrior/anti/dire get, and the terrible dice on most 2h weapons, and i think you'll agree that rangers truly do more damage even with melee over pseudo tanks. And even MORE damage with archery. True the damage pales in comparison to rogues, but you tank a heck of a lot better than a rogue also.

Plain and simple, even with +hp, save, ac, etc. pseudo tanks will NOT tank as good as a warrior with the same EQ. Occasionally due to lack of warriors, or the group leaders desire to diversify (or even bonds of friendship, etc) these classes are invited to do things other than just EXP. I for one, enjoy every trip i take with any zoning group, even if i don't win anything. As an anti, i feel lucky just to be chosen, and if i get EQ, bonus.

The same argument could be made for the spellcasting classes. Some of you may remember in previous incarnations of toril there were conjurers necros and sorcerers. Sorcs spec'd in either enchantment or invocation. What you spec'd in at level 20 determined if you were a stoner or a nuker. There were no invokers/enchanters/illusionists/elemantalists. If anything, making all these different classes has caused the greatest diversity and disservice to melee classes in groups. Because of the soloability of an elementalist or necro, they regularly miss out on grouping. They also are less desireable in most groups for most zones. If spellcasters were brought back into a less specialized form, we would have more slots in groups for other pseudo-tank and melee classes.

Not entirely certain how things will be balanced in 2.0. DnD 3.5 has its own issues. I have a feeling its going to tie things together a bit better. Hopefully it doesn't make everyone clones and still allows for the diversity we have here, with fewer shortcomings.

[teflor the ranger]

Part rogue? The traditional problem of the ranger is not that the ranger is a jack of all trades, but he is half a hack of all trades. Not only is the ranger not a master of anything, the ranger barely makes a pass at doing anything else.

These days, rangers are known for archery damage. That's their master trade, so the traditional arguments are really no longer the issue.

[Ambar]

Things that should be obvious:

Not every Ranger is the same .. As an enchanter I knew to haste Sylvos all the time, before he was permahaste that is .. I'd haste any ranger with BS swords in fact .. Any ranger I know will output the damage that a haste will aid .. to say their melee damage is negligible is negligent in my opinion, especially since the advent of BS swords.

I totally agree with the jack of all trades, master of none

What is wrong with that? Ranger i a good, fun HYBRID class ... as has been stated before, archery was broken for how long before we started actually using/abusing it? Ranger rescue has been laughed about in the past, but personally, my elf butt has been saved by many a ranger in zone when the tank was rescue lagged or whatever .. While leveling up Aerisia, my most abused tank was Thalidyrr, after that Pava who doesnt count in this discussion :P

-Just my humble unranger playing opinion.

[Delmair Aamoren]

Part rogue? The traditional problem of the ranger is not that the ranger is a jack of all trades, but he is half a hack of all trades. Not only is the ranger not a master of anything, the ranger barely makes a pass at doing anything else.

These days, rangers are known for archery damage. That's their master trade, so the traditional arguments are really no longer the issue.

I disagree entirely. The traditional arguments still are the issue, and the reason you are having such an issue right now. The traditional arguments began with rescue/bash/parry/etc not being par with warriors. Not sure what "BS" swords are, but perhaps i was a little hasty in saying their damage pales in comparison to a rogue.

The fact remains that rangers are a hybrid and will NEVER be as good as a core class at its defining skills. I thought i did a good job of explaining some history and a little insight as to why i feel this way above. I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

Del

[Botef]

What I find particularly hilarious about the rescuing comments is that so many mages have -100 ac that even if you fail a rescue on first round the mages still have damn good odds of survival.

Out of all the times I see a mage or priest get thwacked by a melee, its almost always because of a large number of walk-ins getting the initiative, not because of a switch. In those situations any rescue is probably going to be too late.

As for bashing, I dont see much point for rangers to be bashing melee and there is enough back-up options to bash for casters that its rather mute. Spook, nightmare, quake, trip, etc.

Seriously, if we're going to do something to rangers lets do something other than make them into warriors that shoot arrows.

[flib]

about.. what delmair said about rangers vs dragons, it's true :) but.. I suggest it should be nerfed.. and here's why.. dragon's have scaley skin the arrows should a good bit of the time not go through the flesh.. kinda like mr but it would be pr.. physical resistance.. also suggest highten the mr of dragons a bit to allow classes that can't kill dragons as well as they used to.. be able to... kill drAGons

[Thilindel]

and while not understanding D&D at all in most cases, it seems silly that any dagger would remotely cause damage to some beast the size of buildings