RANGERY

Submit and discuss your ideas for the MUD.
alvathair
Sojourner
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 6:01 am
Location: sydney

RANGERY

Postby alvathair » Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:37 am

i've noticed an abundance of posts and mentions of the problems facing this class..it's been in effect for a long time, people have bitched about it for a long time..actually..i think for as long as i've been here i can remember bitch posts about rangers... so thats like..i dunno 10 years or so.. that's a lot of bitching! so... what i'd like to see is a whole lot of constructive input put in by everyone on ideas for making this class zoneworthy... i have a fairly new ranger and i'm lovin it... but that doesn't change the reality that for a zone, he's likely to be about as popular as someone farting in an elevator..etc. so... i'll start the ball rolling, and try and post anything that u think might help make the ranger class more viable.

Ideas.

1. From what i can see, the only advantage a ranger may have is from combat skills. Archery does decent damage, even melee in some cases...(obviously kitted out) seems to do not too badly. however in comparison to 9 outta 10 khanjarirogz, it doesn't rate a mention. awesome for so many to have these amazing items now btw, however i thought a rogue was more the sneaky sneak master, as opposed to the eat my amazing damage master. in terms of melee fighting, a ranger should have advantages over all other classes.....

BLADEMASTERY
not sure how to make this work, but more attacks, fancy sword maneuvers, disarming? common... u know that image in your head that u have when u think of drizzt etc, whirling blades, the enemy dazzled by swordplay etc. put some thought into it. rogues can make their oponents fall to their knees, some can hamstring them, cut off spellcasting etc etc etc.. a ranger can... make them a canoe. maybe. flick of the wrist sends the oponents weapon high, allowing for a crippling blow across the gut.... something! NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING DOWNGRADE ROGUES. in the past the answers / reforms that come into play here are in the form of downgrades to another class, item whatever. that's not what we want at all. i'm just saying add a little variety! what about if you had (gods forbid) TWO RANGERS in a group? two blademasters who's concerted attacks have increased frequency, damage, critical likelihood, confuse an opponent, etc etc.

2. New Quest arrows.
Not just +hit +dam arrows. very boring! how bout arrows with spell effects on them? u do the quest, u get some arrows? standard debuffs? dragon slaying arrows? (ok not slaying persA, but extra dam to dragon?), arrows that have a chance to stun? etc etc... sounds like poisons doesn't it? damn right it does. Other interesting proccing bows in game? i can think of 3?



Rangers are never going to be viable as spellcasters in any way, nor should they. they will never tank anywhere near as well as warrior, anti, pally etc. nor should they. they will never heal as well as the healing classes.... u get my drift. the one area a ranger should excel at is melee (and archery of course). we had a melee expert class here once upon a time. they were yanked. perhaps a little bit of thought needs to go into this?


so yeah..some ideas to start u off... everyone throw your 2 cents in plz, and lets see if we can give the admins some ideas on how to fix this old old problem.

tai, loshe, caran.
grundar
Sojourner
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:03 am
Location: vt inn
Contact:

Postby grundar » Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:48 pm

give them the flurry skill from homeland.. or whatever it was called, swashbucklers had it.... it basically disarmed the mobs on its own with every time it kicked in.. not sure about the extra effects of the skill tho i only played swash for like a week so maybe someone who knew the class/skill better can explain better than me
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Postby Disoputlip » Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:49 pm

Are you making a comparison about a medium equipped ranger vs. a khanjari rogue?

Well equipped (khanjari level) rangers can be asked to almost all zones.

The problem may be that high eq is hard to come by. I am all for removing break on arrows, and 100% tie arrows to players so you always will get them back. Those you loose arrows because you fire them will go to your quiver when you log. This would mean rangers always will use their best arrows in all battles.

Another upgrade could be to make other classes worse at lure. Once upon a time ranger lure was good, but today most classes with dim, or warrior etc. don't mind luring.
alvathair
Sojourner
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 6:01 am
Location: sydney

Postby alvathair » Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:02 am

no no, dis... obviously the comparison would be between rangers and rogues of the same eq levels etc. i don't know whether i would agree about the zone comment tho... sure..well equipped rangers can be asked to zones.. but with one major exception, they don't. and that's a problem with the class.. not the eq set.

further ideas..

1. A class that specialises in wielding 2 weapons should be BETTER (if at least equal) at parrying oponents attacks. seriously. Can't tell one end of a shield from another, but boy do i know swords.... etc. same goes for riposte, and disarm.

2. in line with the blademastery business, different sword maneuvers become available at different levels. (hawk strike i mentioned before, others like the double cross down that some may have read about in salvatores books, whirlwind attack as opposed to hitall, something akin to vital strike?)...

3. Called / Precise shot - instead of standard afire *puppy* etc. how bout a command like precise shot *puppy*. it's a skill, if it works u stun the target and perhaps do a little extra damage. is the spellcasting puppy distracted enuff to lose concentration ? yes he is. how bout precise shot with an area of the bod? precise shot eyes puppy , a puppy is blinded? precise shot throat puppy, stops casting? precise shot legs puppy, falls over for a round or 2?

4. Quest bows. Anyone ever read the pool of radiance etc series? how bout that quest bow with ioun stones in it.. mmmm...quest bows... possible ideas ; buffs you some..added strength / damage, fancy proc once in a while, sweet dice... . Not saying a bow that could A)Haste you B)Vit you, & C)Add a whole crapload of damage to your attacks.... that'd be a stupid idea!! (could call it like LongBow of the Wankari ?).... jk. Actually i will add a whole heap of quest bow abilties shortly... there are stacks that would be sweet. not all have to be damage related! a bow of true sight? a bow of expeditious retreat? PWT, TVP / a day? A bow of free movement (fly, !para etc, !entangle etc). A bow which could fire 1 more arrow a round than the others but with shittier added dice? shrug..plenty more where these came from..


5. Arcane archer idea from D&D.. energy damage added to arrows? sacrifice some health for extra damage again.



i'm just putting all this down as i think of it...but the response i've been getting from folks in game is great! more ideas people!
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:20 am

rangers arent ask to groups because most rangers don't play their ranger effectively. they make themselves a nusiance by requiring globe and haste rather than using archery and die because they don't wear enough hp/ac/saves.

more emphasis on their single UNIQUE skill, archery, less suggestions about improving their melee.

situational arrows (like proc arrows) create a need for tedious quiver management. A more elegant approach for sure, but perhaps just adding more proc bows would be a more practical solution. Also you can lose arrows, when was the last time you fumbled and lost a bow.
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:12 am

Springleap (Basternae skill) = ranger bash

Blur (or flurry) = ranger (also Basternae) SPELL that allows the ranger to have a certain number of EXTRA hits , racial based (yes, a certain weapon has this proc, I know ... possibly(?) nature only (would go well IF the druid idea goes thru where the druid can make a room nature flagged temporarily)

random ranger's movements become a blur as he/she/it bursts into a flurry of moves .. (mmm Lithellen)

Rangers dont always LIKE to use archery, some have honed their eq to be that of a hitter .. why not let them! Rangers are hunters, the warriors of the forest .. in close areas, forests especially, archery would be silly and close combat a must.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:38 pm

Ambar wrote:Rangers dont always LIKE to use archery, some have honed their eq to be that of a hitter .. why not let them! Rangers are hunters, the warriors of the forest .. in close areas, forests especially, archery would be silly and close combat a must.


With all due respect, this is the same logic as letting a cleric play battlecleric in a zone and foregoing their vits and full heals.

If you invite someone to a zone--no matter who they are or what class they are--they take orders from you, no questions asked (although suggestions are always helpful). You're doing them the favor of inviting them, so if you ask a ranger to arch and/or ask them to stop whining for haste and globe you have every right in the world to be pissed off when they throw a fit. And, as a ranger, if you don't like to arch, mention it when you're invited and turn down the invite if the leader insists on having you arch.

It's not rocket science.

Some of these ideas are pretty good, IMHO. I would also add that someone mentioned giving rangers the guard skill in the 5 code requests thread. That's a GREAT way to get rangers invited to a zone and should be considered rather seriously instead of laughing at the idea.
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:06 pm

I offer another alternative to archery in zones .. sometimes archery is NEEDED and WANTED , luring CC anyone? Of COURSE if they are in your group, they have to abide by your rules .. I am a FULL proponent of doing as you are told when you are told in zones .. Comparing a melee ranger and a cleric is like comparing apples and oranges to be honest :) You take a cleric for heals and vits ... silences and/or quakes when needed .. you take a ranger for a variety of other things .. IF you take them :P

Be nice to have a little melee damage other than rogues, wouldn't it?
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:54 pm

Ok, not to try to discourage constructive conversation, but this thread has been beat to death. Done at LEAST a couple dozen times. Please scour the S3 and other threads for ranger ideas, as i highly doubt anyone has anything more to add that hasn't been touched on before!


The horse is dead, beaten to a bloody pulp, buried and exhumed a dozen times, beat some more, and laid to rest.

The real problem is melee as a whole. Hopefully something that will be addressed in the near future, but certainly something that doesn't appear to be a large priority to the staff.

(imho, fixing game mechanics would be more important than tia, etc. But its not my game.)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:32 pm

Ambar wrote:Springleap (Basternae skill) = ranger bash
Rangers dont always LIKE to use archery, some have honed their eq to be that of a hitter .. why not let them! Rangers are hunters, the warriors of the forest .. in close areas, forests especially, archery would be silly and close combat a must.


I'm going to agree with birile. A rangers job in a group is damage and ranger melee is not doing their utmost to contribute damage.

and if you really want to melee and have kitted out for it, fine take the 30% damage reduction and melee to your hearts content. Its not like you can't melee, its just not nearly as effective as archery or rogue damage.

if you want to increase ranger melee to rogue melee level, then i would expect to see archery damage increase proportionally to maintain its dominant place in the rangers skillset.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:46 pm

Ambar, my post was in response to you saying "why not let them?" as if to say, "If someone wants to do whatever they want to in a zone, let them!" Thus, I equate that to letting a cleric kitted out in hit/dam and high ac gear to playing a battlecleric in a zone. It's not quite apples and oranges. Had you said "it's an alternative" in your initial post (as you did when you backtracked in your second post) I wouldn't have commented. But you did make the comment of "sometimes rangers don't LIKE to use archery" etc. as a seeming argument for letting them melee if they wanted to. :wink: I understand that may not have been what you meant precisely, though!
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:51 pm

correct, not what I meant .. *hug*
alvathair
Sojourner
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 6:01 am
Location: sydney

Postby alvathair » Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:06 am

i think i'll just stop reading your post at after the wanting to be constructive part del. seriously, take a happy pill or something.


i'm not sold on the idea of improving rangers simply via upping archery. i think it has to be a more holistic approach... their melee skills are a part of that. lil mentioned in another thread that surely someone wielding larger weapons would be more effective in some circumstances (larger mobs for example) than someone with an enchanted toothpick..

ambar..thanks hun for your contributions..i have no idea about the homeland or basternae stuff... but the more ideas we can throw into one single thread to improve the class here, the more options the admins have to think about..

i have a number of further melee and archery suggestions which i'll put up in a tic..
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:04 am

Delmair is right. You can post your ranger suggestions if you want, but believe me, we're all quite blue in the face over the subject.

The Ranger class has undergone a unique cycle on Sojourn/Toril. First people argued they were balanced. Then everyone pretty much came to understand that the class had some problems. Then everyone talked about it for a few months, threads with hundreds of responses were traded back and forth. Then everyone got tired of hearing about it, and Ranger Upgrade threads became a cliche on the boards. Then Rangers went past that phase, and even mentioning the Ranger cliche became a cliche. Now, every few weeks, someone starts a new Ranger thread and it generates 30 replies and a lot of heated discussion by people who didn't take part in the other 50 identical threads. Agreement is reached that Rangers need an upgrade, the post stops getting replies, it falls off the bottom of page 1, and three weeks later someone else posts it again.

The Ranger class is fundamentally and irrevocably broken as long as the majority of their skills are melee-related, but their primary focus is archery-related. Until that core discrepancy is fixed, no amount of band-aid fixes will make the class viable.
- 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.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:23 pm

ragorn is right to a large degree, hundreds of threads, no actual changes in a number of years.

however, i believe that rangers do not need to diversify (further) and can be viable as a highly specialized damage class just like invokers. Obviously a diversified ranger class would be less susceptible to unceremonious gimping by any changes in the future, however, diversified tends to mean weaker in everything and this is a mud of high specialization and needing to be dominant in a particular niche or have a particular game breaking skill in order to be viewed as useful.

One of the real problems rangers face is no one agrees what a ranger is. When was the last time you heard a group leader say, hmm we have 2 clerics 1 enchanter a shaman 3 tanks 2 invokers a rogue a lich and hmm we are missing "something". Lets get a ranger.

How can you consider ranger for a group slot when you don't really know what one is. Its obviously not a healer or a defensive caster it might be a tank but a poor one... its most likely damage but some rangers do good damage others are ineffective or dieing constantly and people on the bbs constantly complain that rangers don't do damage.

so wtf is a ranger?

ranger is arcery is damage
ranger is arcery is damage
ranger is arcery is damage
ranger is arcery is damage
ranger is arcery is damage
ranger is arcery is damage

agree with me and we'll get much closer to fixing the ranger problem.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:40 pm

I've switched up Teflor's gear towards +dam and +hps and have been gathering arrows.

It's been effective in an ineffective way.

Archery does more damage than you'd believe.

But there's still no need for rangers.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:50 pm

there is what 4-5 slots for damage in a group? sure some zones you need area damage, but thats not every zone.
Calan
Sojourner
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Calan » Sat Jul 02, 2005 3:20 pm

Please look at these and consider these points as well. I have played

CALAN FOR
Playing time: 46 days / 3 hours/ 13 minutes
and would like to play him again

http://www.torilmud.dyndns.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=13369&highlight=

http://www.torilmud.dyndns.org:8080/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=13255

ALSO how about putting in traps
Nokar
Sojourner
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: kokomo, in, usa

Postby Nokar » Sun Jul 03, 2005 1:53 pm

I guess I'm happy to see that some of the people bashing warriors getting something new are proponents of rangers replacing warriors with all kinds of fancy new skills, eq, spells, etc.

Yep... Some of the same people even said my few idea would unbalance the classes or make them 'broken'

Yet some of these people are on this thread saying basically, 'hell yeah.. screw warriors. lets give rangers even more damage, more spells, more skills.'

Bah!
When I am looking for damage for xp or smaller zones I use rangers just as much as I use rogues. SIMPLY BECAUSE OF ARCHERY!!! They deal a whole helluva lot of damage already.


Yep.. makes a whole lot of sense.

L8r,
Latreg
Sojourner
Posts: 481
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: Roanoke,Va

Postby Latreg » Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:47 pm

I like the dire raider class, the immetiate focus should be on gear for the ranger classes, like others have said more bows, arrows etc. the pickings are slim at best. Either you have the high end bow or junk, there is really no middle of the road stuff like there are swords and other weapons. This would be a great help to the class imo.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:32 pm

Dire raiders need a better selection in 1h weapons that they can dual. Their focus is more on dual wielding mounted offensive rather than bow/arrows (although they are very effective with bows).

Something as profound as what windsong did for rangers 9 years ago or khanjari for rogue.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Pril » Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:37 pm

Kiryan, Dires CAN wield Windsong, they just have to go neutral or good alignment wise :p

Pril
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:52 pm

Pril,

Dire Raiders are not Rangers even though they archer very well. I would say that Dire raiders are supposed to have more emphasis on melee compared to a ranger because of the "strafe" and the hell hound "howl" debuff.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Pril » Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:49 am

Kir,

Right so dires are more melee focused, and they can technically wield windsong, what's the problem (given they need a better weopon than windsong but still)

Pril :p
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:00 pm

Pr,

i am a moron
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Pril » Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:21 pm

Kir,

Seconded! :p

*ruffle* *duck*

Pril
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:29 am

Just adding my 2 cents again, so you don't think silence is agreement.

Rangers should never be an archery dependent class. At the very most, there should be specialization options at whatever levels.

The only reason people keep trying to nail us into that stupid square hole is because what we're supposed to be great at is currently being filled by rogues.

No offense, rogues, but y'all shouldn't be the best melee damagers in the game. Doesn't make any kind of sense in any fantasy genre.

Put rogues where they should be, tertiary in melee damage (not including Backstab, etc. that is their bread and butter and that shouldn't go away) and masters of stealth and poison. Give the ranger the mantle of "damage master" with melee and/or ranged weapons (These should do the same amout of damage, with different applications).

Really hate to talk like this, but don't rogues already have enough?

Back to the ranger thing. Yea. Archery isn't the answer. Those who want to make the ranger into a one trick pony class are severely misguided and are ignoring the fact that some classes are overstepping their niches.

Thanks.

Lost
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:01 am

So you'd like to cripple the rogue class by making us a pure CR class and have rangers take over the melee area? That would make playing a rogue 100% retarded...just as retarded as it is playing a ranger now. Here's an idea...just take one of the classes out so we don't have to have this constant battle for melee superiority.

Seriously, take away a rogues damage and we're illusionists that can't cast...So then it would be rogues taking second to illusionists in the cr department and rangers in the damage department. Oh, I forgot we have poisons...which kinda help in zones...er, no, wait...they don't. yeah.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:14 am

Kifle,
I have seriously seen an enchanter over LFGC say that they needed a rogue with Khanjari's to do 2 man DS. Somebody asked if a bard with glaives and heal song would be enough and was told no. Somebody else asked if they could bring warrior and voker and was told no.

You really think that rogues are an endangered class?

Hell, ask the high level players in the game if they have or have had a high level rogue, I'll be one of the few that says no. Rangers doing more damage than a rogue will in no way shape or form detract from a rogue's desirability for a group. Rogues can CR, rogues can Assas, rogues can backstab, rogues can poison, rogues can sneak, rogues can save an entire zone just by hiding in it, and sooooooo much more.

Rangers need something. They used to be cool (when Lloth/Miax played one) now they get brought to zones to shoot arrows at stuff. (If I remember correctly there have been a few threads about ranged weapons for rogues too).

I might be a stupid bastard, but I just don't ever see rangers bumping rogues out of their wonderful world of easy xp tables and massive zone appeal.
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:33 am

So, Kifle. . . you're saying the primary nich for rogues is and should be melee damage?

You can see no other merit in the rogue class? Poisons? backstab? circle? Vital Strike? Instant kill assassinate? Garrote? Trip? Hide+sneak? Track? Escape?

All of those varied (and save for track, unique) skills wouldn't keep rogues from becoming 'illusionists that can't cast' ?

Rogue melee damage should come from their skills of stealth and knowledge of anatomy; thus their circle and sneak attack abilities. Getting as many attacks (or more!) per round as the "dual weapon masters" (that rangers are, at least according to the game text), is overkill.

And as far as poisons go ? Magma plane would have been impossible if it was not for smart use of rogue poisons.

So yea, I am asking that rogues be "crippled" in that they not be the ultimate in so many categories. The ranger deserves to be "top" in one niche, and that is non-spell damage. Following that, Anti's and warriors should be better at melee damage than rogues too, if we want to be fair. Hell, maybe anti's should have the top spot along with rangers, albiet getting to it via 2h rather than dual wielding.

In the end, rogues have too much. They had all the skills of two classes compressed into one, and given new skills and abilities on top of what they already gained. That is imbalance. To fix the imbalance and also elevate a class that has been 3rd rate for 10+ years now would be a great thing indeed.

Lost

Return to “T2 Ideas Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest