Rangers

Okay, so I've been debating whether or not to make this post for some time now...and I'm gonna do it.

I think rangers have too much, given, I haven't played on in a couple months, but they haven't changed much. I'm not going to say they're overpowered, because if they were, they wouldn't ever die. But here is my thoughts on it.

Ranger is considered a rogue-ish class. They have to ability to hide from everyone except other rangers and druids(camo).

I want to compare rangers to the other rogues: thief, ninja, bard.

[comparison]

Weapons: Rangers blow them out of the water. Everything except mace and polearm vs the other three having 4 weapons each. Plus rangers get fired weapons, although bard and ninja both have them as well.

Defenses: Dual parry and two handed, only the bard has these two. Shield block too.

Blind Fighting: Don't see any other rogues with this.

Staves: Given that the rest get scrolls, but when you think of it, you can get a lot of things on staves that you can on scrolls, AND in multiple charges without multiple items.(I'm not sure whether bard gets this...)

Hide: Thieves and ninjas can see one another, and bards, only rangers/druids can see one another.

Pets: Two pets equal to your level. This makes a lot of c/c fights quit a bit easier, not including the fact that they can rescue you.

[/comparison]

Less useful but good stuff...

Ranger staff: Other melees have to go out and find weapons, you get a great weapon for free. Re-equipping with only a staff and a pet is easy-peasy.

Herb: No other melee/rogue gets such a good healing ability. Gets rid of mals and heals you 5xlvl, also usable every 8 or 12 hours(can't remember exactly).

Pugil: More attacks is good, especially coupled with the fact that you shouldn't ever be without a staff of some sort.

Camp: Super regen, and if you're camoed in an out of the way place, without pets, you're good to go.

Ambush: Great damage, if you can get it off. Almost guaranteed running opponent.

Barkskin: Huge AC boost. Closest any other melee gets is chii-no competition.

Insect Swarm: Maledictive awesomeness.

Weapon Expertise: Only warriors and zerks get this.

Spells: Unblockable damage from an already huge damage output class.

Now, the only thing I can see a ranger has given up, in terms of other melees is reliable lag(and a good weapon; polearm). This list does not even include the ranger paths, which I think that a ranger can survive and do well, even without.

I have a few thoughts in terms of balancing them(if they do, in fact, need it), but I wanted to get the ball rolling. Feel free to disagree, any of you who've played rangers more extensively than me, especially at 50, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

As you said, a ranger is a "rogue-ish" class, neither entirely melee nor rogue. Therefore by comparing them to simply rogue classes alone with exception of bard which is the jack-of-all-trades, only presents one side of the picture. If you were to compare them to warriors and blademasters, rangers would not necessarily have the advantage.

Remove thunderstorm. I always hated that rangers had it. Never 'felt' right.

I consider ranger a rogue, because of the simple fact that they can camo. They are somewhere between a thief/ninja and warrior, and they have a lot of the best stuff.

Remove thunderstorm. I always hated that rangers had it. Never 'felt' right.

How about removing control weather instead? They can use the elements, but not control them.

Rangers do not have overwhelmingly superior melee or casting ability. Just because they're survivable due to camouflage doesn't mean they're broken.

Rangers don't have **** on dual backstab or assassinate. They have their fair share of banes (Paladins, Battlemages, etc.). I think they're fine.

However, I do vote that we tone down Triathix individually. Because he is too uber for his own good.

Don't forget an automatic mount.

a-g

edit: I've always felt they were overpowered to a degree. Simply because I've never been killed on any of mine. Never had one past 40, so my opinion isn't valid to many players here. I don't consider Ranger's rogues, anyways, I consider them Melee's. A ranger should never die, period, with their skill set. I can't think of a weakness to them that can't be remedied easily. As for a hard time against paladins and battlemages, I can't figure that one out (if anyone would care to explain this one to me, please.)

However, I can't really post anything constructive on how to "fix" them or change them, as I don't have any ideas on how to do it.

1.Rangers do not have overwhelmingly superior a.melee or b.casting ability. Just because they're survivable due to camouflage doesn't mean they're broken.

2.Rangers don't have **** on dual backstab or assassinate. They have their fair share of banes (3.Paladins, 4.Battlemages, etc.). I think they're fine.

However, I do vote that we tone down Triathix individually. Because he is too uber for his own good.

1a. Compared to thief/ninja/bard(the only other hiding classes) yes they do. b. Druids are lot better casters, obviously.

1. Ambush is still pretty darn good.

2. I will agree with you here...partially. There is a lack of good no-disarm polearms for goods, so that's an option. Plus the fact that paladins don't get blind fighting. On the same token, a paladin will(due to their inability to lag in battle or keep the ranger from camoing) have a tough time finishing said ranger. Paladins know mace and polearm, which rangers don't know, but rangers have flail, axe, spear, dagger and whip to use against pallies.

3. Battlemages are tough for any melee.

Generally speaking a ranger is very vulnerable to anyone with a higher hit/dam and a reliable lag.

They are also very vulnerable to thieves and anyone with charm type spells.

Smaller rangers are very vulnerable to getting the crap bashed out of them by DKs with charmies.

Also it is really hard to kill a cleric with a ranger, except with thunderstorm. So if it's raining, don't stay in the fight. You want to land a minister and then attrition them (haven't tried this since the change to minister on either end). However if you get your hit/dam up and you're an ogre, you can really hurt a cleric and make them run. Shamans can also be deadly.

It is hard to find a ranger if they absolutely refuse to fight but the usual methods will work on any caballed ranger. Also psychological warfare will often shame a ranger into fighting.

That said, if you're uber-decked, an ogre, and in a cabal, you're going to be a problem. Still a Syndicate vampire, or halfling ranger should be able to kill him. When all else fails, bounty the ****er.

All that said I do sort of sense the tracker skillset is a bit much. Some of these abilities were effectively cabal and tattoo abilities before.

I wouldn't take away thunderstorm or control weather, however, as these are just basics of the class and can be nullified.

They're not really rogues so much as warriors, so they should be compared to other hybrids such as DKs and Paladins.

1. Ex-D&Der is right.

2. The only way to cause change is to abuse it. If you think it should be fixed, roll one up and spank people.

I have to say I agree with the overpoweredness idea of rangers.

On my last one I only carried three staffs, a bone cane, nature spirits and aquatic souls and there were only a handful of people who I couldnt spank.

When a class can rely on a single weapon and do incredibly well in both defense and offense, then something isnt right in IMO.

And dont even get me started on

I don't think that rangers themselves are over-powered.. But I definitely think that their beasts are. If anyone has played a caster such as an invoker vs a ranger without pets and then vs on with pets you can see a massive difference. On my previous invoker I vs'd an ogre ranger where I would be taken from 900hp to 200hp in about 3 rounds if he had his pets.. And the few times I fought him without his pets, I went atleast 6 rounds and only losing about 300-400hp.. I wasn't dirted most of the time.

I don't think that rangers themselves are over-powered.. But I definitely think that their beasts are. If anyone has played a caster such as an invoker vs a ranger without pets and then vs on with pets you can see a massive difference. On my previous invoker I vs'd an ogre ranger where I would be taken from 900hp to 200hp in about 3 rounds if he had his pets.. And the few times I fought him without his pets' date=' I went atleast 6 rounds and only losing about 300-400hp.. I wasn't dirted most of the time.[/quote']

So if the ranger checks half of his offense at the door, you survive more? How interesting...

Well obviously. I'm just saying that maybe thats a bit much? I'm not saying he was weak on his own, just that his beasts over compensated. Even without them he would have most probably been able to take me down, his beasts just made it ridiculous. I'm all for rangers having beasts and all, but maybe give them a little tone down?

Low defense class are where ranger pets are designed to pack a punch. Ranger pets are effectively useless against any class using 3 defenses. And invokers can kill ranger pets extremely fast as well.

Rangers need beasts at their rank. No lagging abilities (except throwing trackers) except the trips by their pets. Ambush isn't as good as dual backstab...you can't do anywhere you want like DB plus DB does a lot more damage. Their sleep skill can be nullified not only by poison but by scrolls. Pets give your location away just as much as they help out offensively (except trackers...I just realized I really want a tracker.). Pets also fail pretty hard when it comes to defending themself. Pets just aren't something you gimp on rangers (having lost them on a ranger in the past it sucked super hard). Change something else...but not pets. Maybe make camo only work in actual forests as opposed to forests + some other choice terrains.

I will join the discussion. I agree, Rangers have too much. Not only are they MUCH less eq reliant than any other melee, they can also outmelee a melee.

A ranger vs. a warrior, all things being equal with equipment and the like. The ranger will have huge advantages over the warrior. Personally, I don't think a ranger should ever be able to outmelee a warrior in this situation.

Thunderstorm does a LOT of damage for a very small amount of armor. -250 was doing ** DEMOLIS through sanctuary.

I will add more as the discussion continues and I think of it.

EDIT: Hah! Remembered something. I have played a warrior, wielding a polearm against a ranger. Roughly even eq. The staff wielding ranger out-meleed me. What kinda crap is that? Staffs should be no where near as defensive AND offensive as they seem to be these days, at least not in the hands of classes like ranger.

1. Ex-D&Der is right.

2. The only way to cause change is to abuse it. If you think it should be fixed, roll one up and spank people.

It's been done. Multiple times.

Calron says : And invokers can kill ranger pets extremely fast as well.

HAH!

I will join the discussion. I agree, Rangers have too much. Not only are they MUCH less eq reliant than any other melee, they can also outmelee a melee.

A ranger vs. a warrior, all things being equal with equipment and the like. The ranger will have huge advantages over the warrior. Personally, I don't think a ranger should ever be able to outmelee a warrior in this situation.

Thunderstorm does a LOT of damage for a very small amount of armor. -250 was doing ** DEMOLIS through sanctuary.

I will add more as the discussion continues and I think of it.

EDIT: Hah! Remembered something. I have played a warrior, wielding a polearm against a ranger. Roughly even eq. The staff wielding ranger out-meleed me. What kinda crap is that? Staffs should be no where near as defensive AND offensive as they seem to be these days, at least not in the hands of classes like ranger.

I agree that rangers are too powerful at this stage - however, I don't have the time to write something about it right now as I'm at work.

With regard to ranger vs warrior though - do you have the log of the fight? Do something for me: Go and count the number of attacks you get and the number of attacks the ranger gets. Post it up here and I'll do some analysis of it to put things in perspective....

I suspect you'll find you lost on pure number of attacks, NOT because of ranger power.

L-A