Rangers

Could make the reliability of camo affected by size, and quiet movement by dex.

Look at what Aulian said - he used only staff.

Cap pugil at 3 attacks per round if you have dex <20. You can always dual wield if you want more attacks.

L-A

Look at what Aulian said - he used only staff.

Cap pugil at 3 attacks per round if you have dex L-A

This is a very good idea, I think. What this would do is make non-giant Melee's more effective overall. I think this is ... wow ... genius.

a-g

This is a very good idea, I think. What this would do is make non-giant Melee's more effective overall. I think this is ... wow ... genius.

a-g

Its not really my idea- someone said something about it long ago.

In fact, this wouldn't actually solve the issue of Aulian's ranger able to beat up anyone using one of three staffs. Perhaps pugil gets limited to 4 attacks maximum and the chance of the 4th attack if you have <20 dex gets put very, very low eg 5%? This cuts back the giant sized melees (who can easily dual wield if they want more attacks) and reigns in all the pint sized pugillists.

L-A

Are we really sure halfling rangers are overpowered? It looks like Dumela did have some deaths at retirement.

Rangers. After reading this and hearing everyone say they are overpowered (I'm not sure I agree) here are some possible solutions, mix and match 'em however you want.

1. Remove staves.

2. Remove two of the pets and give them a more reliable lag. They are warriors of the forest. Also, redo the beast master path.

3. Remove control weather.

4. Remove all pets, give them the last weapon(s), and TWO reliable lag abilities.

1. Remove ogres (not stone giants, they're natural to this) and add slith.

2. Give them a different form of thunderstorm than druids/invokers/whoever else gets it if anybody.

3. Give them some skill that makes them effective against mages if you in anyway tamper with pets.

This made me laugh.

This made me laugh.

If you're thinking warrior, no. The myriad possibilities for creating unique lag abilities has barely been scratched. However, rangers are warriors of the forest, as I have said, and as such should be somewhere between the berserker and the warrior, if not on par with the warrior in some ways.

And maybe raise the cap on that pugil a bit? Three seems a little low. Unless by three you mean their regular three checks plus three more?

just take ogres away from ranger class = ranger problem solved. it's really not a hard question. stone rangers are just fine, since since they suck so hardcore as a race. how many ultra-domineering ogre rangers does this MUD need to happen to show it that ogre rangers are a no-go?

just take ogres away from ranger class = ranger problem solved. it's really not a hard question. stone rangers are just fine' date=' since since they suck so hardcore as a race. how many ultra-domineering ogre rangers does this MUD need to happen to show it that ogre rangers are a no-go?[/quote']

Why don't you post something resembling a well thought out, structured argument as to why ogre rangers are so 'broken' as oppose to stone and/or halflings (after Dumela).

As I've said - I think the class is too easy with pets, healing and almost warrior like melee ability. Changes to pugil helps some of this (weakens the preponderance to go staff at 103% and rely on call lightning spam vs melee). Rangers will ALWAYS be strong vs those without good melee defenses due ot the pets and number of attacks, however, I have personally fought a ranger for 10 rounds recently and got hit only twice by his pets. To be honest, that isn't going to turn the tide of the battle.

L-A

Its not really my idea- someone said something about it long ago.

In fact, this wouldn't actually solve the issue of Aulian's ranger able to beat up anyone using one of three staffs. Perhaps pugil gets limited to 4 attacks maximum and the chance of the 4th attack if you have L-A

IIRC, a nerf to pugil was already put in some time ago; I recall convincing Irumeru (who also hated pugil) to cap the max attacks to a relatively rare 5, with 3-4 attacks being much more likely. I'm not sure if additional nerfing is necessary; also, that would be (indirectly) a boost to a certain qclass which probably doesn't need more boosting (and DK's, to a lesser extent).

That being said, I do feel that the ranger class has perhaps too much survivability considering its offensive output potential (and other perks); or, vice versa, that it has too much offensive output potential, considering its high degree of survivability. Note; I am not saying they are necessarily overpowered. I am saying that I do feel that their offense/survivability is out of whack, and that they trade off relatively little offense for much greater survivability. This is a beef I've had with evil clerics and with battlemages in the past, and rangers, to a certain degree, in the here and now.

1. Remove enhanced damage from rangers.

2. Slightly increase ranger pet damage.

3. Nerf thunderstorm, give druids call lightning. I'm actually not too wise on all the differences between these spells, but, I think this works.

Fixed. I know it doesn't make too much sense RP-wise for rangers not to have enhanced damage, but it would be a quick and dirty fix to the fact that they rely on their own damage way too much. By placing the emphasis on pets, you make them much more necro-ish, and that's a weakness.

IIRC, a nerf to pugil was already put in some time ago; I recall convincing Irumeru (who also hated pugil) to cap the max attacks to a relatively rare 5, with 3-4 attacks being much more likely. I'm not sure if additional nerfing is necessary; also, that would be (indirectly) a boost to a certain qclass which probably doesn't need more boosting (and DK's, to a lesser extent).

That being said, I do feel that the ranger class has perhaps too much survivability considering its offensive output potential (and other perks); or, vice versa, that it has too much offensive output potential, considering its high degree of survivability. Note; I am not saying they are necessarily overpowered. I am saying that I do feel that their offense/survivability is out of whack, and that they trade off relatively little offense for much greater survivability. This is a beef I've had with evil clerics and with battlemages in the past, and rangers, to a certain degree, in the here and now.

Maybe, maybe not on the viability of gimping pugil upping other certain things.... I don't like 5 attacks (which happens a lot more than a little from my experience, but I'd have to go log dredging to better idea...) with a staff at all. The weapon is just too defensible to give such a high number of attacks. Even if the weapon itself isn't very 'offensvie' - the truth is that if you get can four or five attacks a round out of it vs, say, a polearm (high defense 2h weapon) that you get three out of, you are getting between 33% and 66% more offense. Its the same principle that sees polearm wielding warriors fall to dual weilding ninjas - the actual number of attacks swings the percentages so far against you that you lose.

The above notwithstanding - pugil could simply be removed from the ranger class skill set totally eliminating the ability for the class to be defensive with a large number of attacks without dual wielding.

L-A

Easy, change the Herb cure thing, from Plague to Poison.

That will greatly aid Pet removal.

Also rethink some of Tracker Abilities.

Things like immunity to Isolate and Pet's fleeing with owner are to big of a bonus.

Also rethink some of Tracker Abilities.

Things like immunity to Isolate and Pet's fleeing with owner are to big of a bonus.

Those aren't tracker abilities.

I always thought rangers needed the extra offense from pugil to balance the defense (monk/warrior) or offense (dark-knights/berserkers) of other melee classes. My only pinnacled rangers were normal sized (elf and feral) and didn't do too good, but that is probably because I did not get the hang of the class. And because giant sized fire lancers would spam bash.

I've always felt that one or two powerhouse characters of a certain class gets it nerfed and still manage to be overpowered while the rest of the players suffer instead.

On the other hand... it takes a lot of skill to play a ranger to its fullest capability, as has been demonstrated by Knight, Tribunal, Watcher and Nexus ogres (and the occasional halflings/werebeasts/ferals). A scroll negates the archer skillset. Beastmaster is decent. Tracker hardly makes the ranger stronger in combat at all.

The more I think about it the more cabals seems to be nasty.

Ive pointed that out before in exactly the same argument.

Elite players will get the class nerfed where other players only do reasonably well with the same class. EG: Triathix in comaprison to Ghar. (no offense, just two examples.)

How would we feel about individual nerfing?

AKA:

Malch goes down to Triathix (example only) and says hey, you're way to beef with this class combo compared to anyone who would remotely have a chance to beat you. So we're going to gimp you a little as a badge of honor.

Its not a punishment, more of a "hell you're that good we need to tone you down individually so others can even compete."

What you reckon?

Apart from a few examples (Ogre Ranger Trackers are one) I really don't think there are that many Overpowered Combos. The reason certain characters become over powered is more equip related than anything else, and this is what I still think needs tweaking.

Better equipment should ALWAYS give an improvement in the character, and someone with the time, knowledge and effort should ALWAYS get an edge. However it should be that the better equipment you have, and the more elite your set becomes that you get diminishing returns as the equipment gets better, whereas now the "God" equipment is not only the best equipment, but the gap between it, and the next level down is also one of the very biggest.

I've always felt it should be contantly diminishing returns ie.

None-rare best set - 80% Effectiveness

Basic rare set - 90%

Better rare set 95%

Best rare set 98%

God set 100%

Obviously those figures are just made up as an indication, but I think thats more the problem with elite overpowered characters, rather than the class/race/combo.

I think it's more a matter of enforcing roleplay. I have no problem with a cabal leader being more powerful than a typical uncaballed normally equipped character, so long as they are using their cabal powers to enhance the role-play experience for all. So far as I can see this is in fact the case for Triathix, so I don't see a problem.

Those aren't tracker abilities.

They aren't ? Dammit, rangers should have a sign over their head stating their path.

Which is quite a good idea. What if they had custom titles to each Path like Crusaders ?

However it should be that the better equipment you have, and the more elite your set becomes that you get diminishing returns as the equipment gets better,

This already happens, don't think that your Fire zerk with 120 Damroll get's treated the same as my Elf warrior with 30 Damroll.

All normal eq bonus get nerfed in high numbers.

Saves, hit/dam, AC. Even spell level has a cap.

Yes Mya I know that, thats not the point i'm making.

Its not that the High numbers give you increasing returns - is that the better equip set gives increasing returns. Having god equipment is a bigger gap over a good rare set, than the good rare set is over average rare set, or an average rare set is over a non-rare set. Better equip should give you an edge, but it the edge you get should diminish each time you upgrade, not increase when you get certain uber pieces.