The Ranger, by a very old one

Submit and discuss your ideas for the MUD.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

The Ranger, by a very old one

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:10 am

I started playing Adriorn Darkcloak, human ranger, towards the end of Sojourn Alpha. That was many, many years ago. Since then, I have been playing Adriorn Darkcloak, human ranger, with the exception of the last two years that I took off to spend time with my wife and our newborn baby. There is no class I will ever prefer playing than the Ranger. There is no class that is as lacking, or completely lacking a niche, as the Ranger.

Since Sojourn Alpha I have played every single class on the goodie side except for the Anti-Paladin (excuse me). All those characters were either 50 or in the high 40s, with the exception of my warrior (excuse me). I was in Legion of Chaos, Crimson Sigil, Riders of Twilight, and The Company, among others. So to try to be what I believe to be a good essay writer, I try to back the opinions, feelings and facts that I have to express with some credentials. I also feel the points I try to make here are taken loosely, but seriously. Before commenting on any point, please try to think hard and remove yourself from emotion when commenting. Though someone who enjoys having fun while zoning and rping, I do take this seriously, for what it's worth, and hate trifle points or discussions on the matter. I also understand that this is a topic, like Ragorn has mentioned, that is brought up every x-amount of days, so I ask that you excuse me from being or seeming cliche, since I have only once before made such a post.

If we take all the 4 basic classes of the ADND/mud (Fighter, Priest, Mage, Rogue) and break them down into their offensive capabilities, in regards to their original INTENDED purpose, we COULD get something like what follows. This isn't what they currently do, it is what they SHOULD do, if you perceive it as a stereotypical view of the class.

The Warrior/Paladin/Anti-Paladin does the most damage per swing.
The Ranger does the most damage per round.
The Priest heals the most damage period.
The Mage (Invoker) does the most damage PERIOD, as long as he is prepared.
The Rogue does the most damage on his first attack.

Of course, some people might have different opinions on the matter. Of course, some people also believe aliens live aboard comets. As we see in today's version of the MUD, the warrior obviously does not do the most damage per swing (although he used to, post-monk), but these are just concepts of what the classes are, from there one can begin to design the class.

If you type 'help ranger' while on the mud, the first sentence that will appear reads as follows: "Rangers are good aligned woodland survivalists who excel at dual-weapon combat." The last sentence one reads is the following: "They receive benefits in exchange for the hardships they face, but they are not recommended for new players." As a part-time cynic, breaking out in mad laughter at the final point would obviously follow.

But notice that description, which leads me to the main point I am trying to make on the subject. When archery was being put in, thus of us that helped to try out spoke with Lloth about the subject. His idea was to create a style of fighting against mobs in which only a certain number of PCs (let's say 4) could engage in melee in a fight against mobs (loosely explained, but you get the idea). The point of archery was to give rangers a BONUS (BENEFIT) that would permit them to engage the enemy WHEN THEY COULDN'T MELEE. This current notion that Rangers = Archery is one made out of ignorance (not bad ignorance) and/or personal views of what a Ranger is (Robin Hood vs. Aragorn). Hopefully Ragorn or some other Ranger that ptested archery can clarify this further if I made some kind of mistake.

Archery exists as a tool for Rangers to use to deal damage while not in melee combat due to a style of fighting that is not in the game. So the WHOLE PURPOSE behind archery is non-existant. Once again, "Rangers are good aligned woodland survivalists who excel at dual-weapon
combat." DUAL-WEAPON combat, meaning we are the non-spell damage. There SHOULD be NO comparison of melee damage like the Ranger. Period.

'Help rogue' : "Rogues are crafty, agile persons who make their living by stealing, killing, and getting into places other classes can only dream of. The rogue's primary tools are: sneak, hide, pick locks, and evade. Their more dangerous skills are backstab, garrote, instant kill, shadow, and apply poison. These skills improve as the rogue gains levels and experience."

THINK about the IDEA, the concept, the stereotype, the schema, of the thief, or assassin, or rogue, or whatever you wish to call it. It is a class that exists and whose whole purpose in 'fighting' is to COMPLETELY avoid it. The rogue will do EVERY possible thing to completely kill his enemy WITHOUT engaging him in combat. If he does, the rogue is dead. If you have a different opinion or vision on the matter, that is fine. But according to the more-accepted classical views of the rogue, that is what he is. A pickpocket that tries to steal my wallet while I'm in the metro will not stop to fight me if I catch him, but will run, Lola, run. A murderer, or hitman, that enters my home to kill my family will not let me hear him coming or permit me to acquire some type of weapon to defend myself. He will make sure I don't even know he is coming, and will kill me in one deadly shot, so that I might have no chance to retaliate.

The rogue is not a fighter, a hitter, a damage-dealer. The rogue is a class with an extreme amount of skills, all with the purpose of disabling his enemies, or avoiding his enemies, and even with the offensive purpose of instantly killing his foe quickly, and quietly, before his foe even sees him.

Rangers do not need any extra skills, nor do we need any more hitpoints, spells, power, damage...nothing. We just need the mud/administration/players to realize that rogues do not need double attack, nor do they need weapons that would previously have been considered Artifacts. Rangers do not need for archery to be increased in damage, or this or that. Archery is there as another means of damaging our enemy, period, just like the rogue can choose to backstab his enemy or poison his enemy, or garrote his enemy, etc, etc.

I will say, however, that in order for the rogue to be MORE useful in his true form, there needs to be some greater need for a rogue to steal/DISARM TRAP/pick pocket, etc., WHILE ZONING. If you think of ADND, which the mud is based on, how can you not think of a dungeon completely filled with traps, locked doors, etc.

Please understand however, if I can finally end this long post, that I have no hatred or contempt against the Rogue class. This is just about trying to set things to their 'rightful' place. Some might have different viewpoints on the matter, or visions of what each class should be, but the IDEA, the stereotype, the classic ADND view, should be taken strongly into consideration to maintain the mud as such. Let not our feelings of what we would LIKE each class to be interfere with what each class is.
If you break down each of the 4 basic classes, you will see that each one has different variants, and usually one "all-around" utility class, per se. Rogues have Bards, which are excellent all around and very much needed in zones. Priests have Shaman, which again, the same can be said. Mages have the Elementalist, again, excellent. Warriors have Rangers...

And finally, if I can be permitted to express my feelings of hatred about something I despise and that at the same time saddens me, why must I be even MORE limited as a Ranger and have at least 2 very good weapons (Swiftwind and Windsong) that I, as a human Ranger, cannot use? If there were equivalents of such I would understand, but there aren't. And I will not reroll an elven Ranger, like so many others have done with regards to certain Rogue weapons, just to acquire a weapon.
Please excuse this last little tirade, but it is something that I truely cannot comprehend and that is very personal to me.

Thank you for listening, and I hope that I MIGHT have clarified certain things for some people, and I truely hope that any comments, or criticisms, on things I have said are positive and constructive.

Thank you.

Adriorn Darkcloak
Warder of the Realms
~
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:39 am

The ranger, as a class is a complete and abject failure.

Attempts to fix this class has resulted in further confusion and devaluation.

Recent changes to melee have worsened the situation.

Append to help file to advise that most ranger players recommend that you don't bother rolling one.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:33 pm

I generally agree.

however, citing the help files is kinda like the cart pulling the horse... help files should reflect the general idea and direction of a class, but are written AFTER the class is designed and implemented not BEFORE and often lag behind development.

invokers are area damage not the best damage period. their single target damage curve MAY be slightly better for the first 20-25 rounds but it takes a sharp nosedive afterwards (even when you factor out magic resistance). Both rogue and ranger (with archery) easily outpace spell damage long term.

the excerpt about a combat style that doesn't exist I think is very insightful and would be the kind of change that would make archery make more sense however it still would fail to create a niche as single target spell damage would also compete.

Also, while the original plan with this alternate combat style was never fulfilled, archery is still a very different and unique type of combat compared to melee with several compelling attributes on its own. dual wielding and melee on the other hand is plain and tired... procs are the only thing that ever made melee interesting.
fotex
Sojourner
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 12:23 am

Postby fotex » Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:19 pm

kiryan wrote:invokers are area damage not the best damage period. their single target damage curve MAY be slightly better for the first 20-25 rounds but it takes a sharp nosedive afterwards (even when you factor out magic resistance). Both rogue and ranger (with archery) easily outpace spell damage long term.


Maybe we need more 100000hp mobs to make this difference more evident. If someone could write a zone that required at least 5 rangers, that would be cool.
Sarell
Sojourner
Posts: 1681
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: brisbane, australia

Postby Sarell » Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:42 am

BC rocks with a pack of rangers.

Great post Adriorn!!!!! I reall ylike your vision of rogues doing big damage at the start and rangers taking over from there. The khanjari, is a great weapon, and helps to balance the massive ripostes rogues get in melee, and has other good effects aswell. It is great fun. I would like to see rangers be able to out damage rogues in melee and outdamage that even with archery.

Make arrows not get lost. Make more cool weapons! Restore swords to old dice, 3d6 4 4 and stuff! Still so silly an earring can give more hit/dam than most swords. Heck, I'd even like swords to be like 8d6. Double em all across the board, make way for more sword, make more human ranger swords :)
Arishae group-says 'mah sunray brings all the boys to the yard'
Shadow Scream
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:33 pm

if i didn't communicate it in my first post, i generally agree with adriorn and it is a great post.

i also agree with sarell

i also agree with fotex. there are not many zones that favor melee based groups just like there arent as many zones that favor druids (outdoors) as invokers. think of the # of evil zones verus # of good zones... many game features are under utilized because of lack of diversity in another area.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Interesting

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Sat Aug 06, 2005 2:04 am

who ranger s
Listing of the Staff
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<None>

There are 0 visible staff member(s) on.

Listing of the Mortals!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[50 Ran] Lorsalian Silvermist (Half-Elf)
[50 Ran] Adriorn Darkcloak - Warder of the Realms (Human)
[50 Ran] Irifen (Grey Elf)
[50 Ran] Teflor Lyorian, the Wanderer (Human) (AFK) (RP)
[41 Ran] Telaerin (Grey Elf)
[17 Ran] Falthara (Half-Elf)
[ 1 Ran] Necerec (Half-Elf)

There are 7 mortal(s) on.

Total visible players: 7.
Record number of players on this boot: 67.

< 608h/608H 119v/119V >

who ungroup ranger s
Listing of the Staff
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<None>

There are 0 visible staff member(s) on.

Listing of the Mortals!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[50 Ran] Lorsalian Silvermist (Half-Elf)
[50 Ran] Adriorn Darkcloak - Warder of the Realms (Human)
[50 Ran] Irifen (Grey Elf)
[50 Ran] Teflor Lyorian, the Wanderer (Human) (AFK) (RP)
[41 Ran] Telaerin (Grey Elf)
[ 1 Ran] Necerec (Half-Elf)

There are 6 mortal(s) on.

Total visible players: 6.
Record number of players on this boot: 67.

There were 52 players when I did this little check.
Always glad we are protecting the forests :)

Adriorn Darkcloak
Warder of the Realms

~
Abbayarra
Sojourner
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2001 5:01 am
Location: San Diego

limitation of archery

Postby Abbayarra » Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:09 pm

I love my ranger. These are some thoughts.
Dual wielding has the advantage of using all the combat skills.

Archery has lure and more damage, because of few defensive skills.
What archery needs is a complimentary skill.
I say remove trap(a rogue skill) and replace with fletchery.
It would be a skill, intelligence based.

This skill would be on a timer, the timer being reset based on the + of the arrow and what the skill was used for.

Allow this skill to repair broken arrows with no cost but based on the + of the arrow, so a 99 skill would allow to repair the best arrows. This would make the skill unusable for say something like 8 minutes.

Make the skill allow the ranger with the proper components to "dupe" the arrow of the rangers choice. A ranger could copy a +1 arrow every few minutes with low cost. If the skill check is failed the components are lost. For instance a + 8 arrow could be copied every 24 minutes and would cost something like 800 platinum. A +1 arrow could be copied every 2 minutes and cost 1 platinum. Failure of the skill would mean a loss of the components.

Allow fletchery to add effects to arrows. A + 1 arrow could have no effects added. With the proper components additional damage(acid?), perhaps even things like slow, fear, blind, or perhaps major paralysis could be added. This of course could be expensive and still fail. When the effect on the arrow occurs the arrow stands a good chance of breaking and the effect is lost.

The ranger needs additional commands.
The ability to sort arrows to allow arrows to fired in a certain order, this should be displayed when the ranger looks in the quiver. Also allow rangers to gather their broken arrows.

Replace bash with trip.

Allow the ranger to have a specific 10th circle spell to enchance archery, something like cat's grace that would add a 4th attack to archery.
All I'm saying is added complimentary skills to archery to make it more than a tool.

Return to “T2 Ideas Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests