One thing I cant stand... Is a warrior shooting 9 rooms (returning my fire) and doing more damage then my fully trained ranger.
This happens pretty much 100% of the time because any decent warrior has stronger arrows then a rangers created ones.
Building on MindFlayers and LA's Ideas: Returning Fire
... Didn't that get fixed? I mean what is the point of having a RANGEr if any bow wielder can hit you back at the distance you should be getting free shots from?!? Also...I thought ranger homemade arrows were better than anything else...guess I am wrong?
On a funny side note, have you ever shot at a blm in kyousanken and have him deflect it back at you while he is meditating, quite hilarious. Talk about VIGIL!
Yeah, I agree that is pretty nuts Aulian. I mean, I could see if maybe certain bows allowed you to shoot longer ranges to return the fire, but with horrible accuracy if you're not an archer, but come on, every shot returned, kind of defeats the point of being an archer for the range. I think maybe it should be more than one room, but maybe two max, beyond that the accuracy cuts into 1/4 for the returned fire.
I still hate ranged combat.
Having not played a warrior in quite some time, this situation in news to me. I would be inclined to believe the imms are going to look into this, as being able to shoot nine rooms away is a bit much for the warrior.
Having not played a warrior in quite some time' date=' this situation in news to me. I would be inclined to believe the imms are going to look into this, as being able to shoot nine rooms away is a bit much for the warrior.[/quote']
It's not that they can shoot at nine rooms on a whim, but rather that they automatically return fire, regardless of how far an archer ranger is when the shoot. So if an archer is 6 rooms away and they fire at a warrior, the warrior will automatically return fire.
I agree with the notion that the distance return should be limited, but not taken away. Perhaps two or three rooms.
It's not that they can shoot at nine rooms on a whim, but rather that they automatically return fire, regardless of how far an archer ranger is when the shoot. So if an archer is 6 rooms away and they fire at a warrior, the warrior will automatically return fire.
I agree with the notion that the distance return should be limited, but not taken away. Perhaps two or three rooms.
That was what I was referring to, the returning fire at such a distance.
That was what I was referring to' date=' the returning fire at such a distance.[/quote']
Well then.
I think you all are looking for ways to abuse mechanics too much. Rangers are already too strong IMHO.
No one is forcing you to shoot at a warrior/ninja etc. If you do I think YES they should always return fire. Otherwise they get put in the 'berzerker boat' with being unable to play this game ie no missile immunity, no chance to shoot back. I was actually pleasantly surprised on my current character that I returned fire not allowing cheap shots to go unpunished. If - and only IF - I have top shelf arrows do I gain any short of substantial advantage. Keeping top shelf arrows stocked isn't the easiest thing to do... Of course, my opponent has that option available to them as well.
Also, no one is FORCING you to use 'weak' (and I don't for one second believe ranger arrows are weak) arrows that you create. You have just as much access to stronger arrows as, say, a warrior. The special affects of ranger arrows alone make it worth it. The range of an archer is only one of the advantages they have. Great ammo on demand etc is the other. Just because you can't outright win via arrows doesn't mean it needs to be changed. It means you need to step up and realise you can't shoot everyone to death.
L-A
I think you all are looking for ways to abuse mechanics too much. Rangers are already too strong IMHO.
No one is forcing you to shoot at a warrior/ninja etc. If you do I think YES they should always return fire. Otherwise they get put in the 'berzerker boat' with being unable to play this game ie no missile immunity, no chance to shoot back. I was actually pleasantly surprised on my current character that I returned fire not allowing cheap shots to go unpunished. If - and only IF - I have top shelf arrows do I gain any short of substantial advantage. Keeping top shelf arrows stocked isn't the easiest thing to do... Of course, my opponent has that option available to them as well.
Also, no one is FORCING you to use 'weak' (and I don't for one second believe ranger arrows are weak) arrows that you create. You have just as much access to stronger arrows as, say, a warrior. The special affects of ranger arrows alone make it worth it. The range of an archer is only one of the advantages they have. Great ammo on demand etc is the other. Just because you can't outright win via arrows doesn't mean it needs to be changed. It means you need to step up and realise you can't shoot everyone to death.
L-A
/golf clap
On a funny side note' date=' have you ever shot at a blm in kyousanken and have him deflect it back at you while he is meditating, quite hilarious. Talk about VIGIL![/quote']
Ever charged a Sleeping Blademaster and had his spring and counter it ?
Ever charged a Sleeping Blademaster and had his spring and counter it ?
I think that's blm only isn't it? I haven't had time to test if they can counter you while blinded....
L-A
I think that's blm only isn't it? I haven't had time to test if they can counter you while blinded....
L-A
I tested this extensively - they can't. They can still predict (don't know about spellkill or snakespeed), but regular countering is out for everyone when blind.
Predict while blind is a bit ...
Paladins cannot Flamestrike then Charge.
Predict while blind is a bit ...
Paladins cannot Flamestrike then Charge.
If what Pali says it true, why not?
L-A
Predict while blind is a bit ...
Paladins cannot Flamestrike then Charge.
Yes, they can. You just need to add a "flee" step between the flamestrike and the charge. EDIT: AFAIK, charge is not predictable.
Actually, if I recall correctly from my time as Perival, charge IS predictable.
Hmm... must've just been that all the blms I fought never bothered to predict it. 
EDIT: On the flipside, a blm who is dual wielding and predicting is going to be getting hammered by a paladin's spells and can't critical strike, so it's a hell of a tradeoff to make either way for them. In my experience, a paladin's one of the hardest things for a blm to fight, even if they've got mastery of your anatomy.
Superior Hit/Dam, LagLock...
To get things a little back on topic, I do feel that rangers are quite balanced at this point. As annoying as it may be, killing someone with arrows is and should be a viable kill. Now that is not to say that berserkers should not be looked at in needing a potential consumable to allow them to not get pelted to death all the time. However, everything needs a balance. Berserkers are able to dish out a significant amount of damage to not just the character, but to any of the rangers pets. This creates a situation where it is up to the individual players as to how the battle will go. If I were playing a berserker, I would not fight a ranger in a very open area, or in the forest if I could help it. Doors will be your friend and limit range and maneuvering, allowing the berserker to better keep the ranger in battle which is definitely not what they want to do.