Dual parry. No other hybrid gets this, not thieves, ninjas, pally's, dk's. I just dont see it as a ranger skill. I say if they want to dual wield let them lose a defense.
You forget Bards. Yeah, I'm nit-picking, but I also think bards have the potential for enormous power.
Tribunal and blms both have had balancing changes.
Cariousus's decline was due to another vamp multi-killing him over and over (Melkhoir?)...I don't even consider cariousus a dominating char at all...I'm not complaining about vamps 
As for psis...I had nothing to do with their post-introduction balancing...all I did was write the help files and make some of the illusion spells...all of it before even beta was started...so don't blame their balance on me! I don't agree with their current state of affairs either
i'd like to remind the playerbase' date=' IMMs to look at the PK history and pantheon of generally successful characters. and check for dominating rangers. other than ogre. i think the results (0) will point to no [i']major changes needed. rangers definately were a lame class before the renovation, please please please dont send this class back to the stone age again.
Senrail? There was a Watcher feral ranger whose name started with L that enjoyed moderate success. Also, Morathi had a feral ranger Syndicate that very well, just didn't last long. Semi-recent human ranger, name started with W, did well. Meric (Halfling Ranger Avatar Justice)? Baedrok (Stone Giant Ranger Warmaster)?
Senrail did good (but not so good!)...wrail didn't do anything at 50...meric condeathed (back in 2.0)...baedrok I don't even know..
you have to not only consider the strong characters, but their potential strength also.
Austa was a werebeast ranger...had he been an ogre, would have have dominated more or less?
He would have been dominated more, that's for sure. There were far too many skilled battlemages at that time to make an ogre ranger feasible.
you could say his success was due to cabal skills, not the class. and watcher cabal have had their skills looked at pretty intensly since they started making waves.
old psi's didnt have illusion spells. i played 2 1.0 psi's.
right-o, refering to our current ones
omfg so you were part of the plot to take psi's offline, or qclass.
Kinda...I wasn't really involved with the decision to make them a qclass or the majority of their spells...just made some of the spells and wrote most of the psi help files..had nothing to do with them since they were put online
On that note, let's turn this into a fix Psions and Berserkers thread, since they're the two classes that need the most attention.
This thread is amusing. Anyone remember back in 1.0, or even Beta when no one played ogres? Why? Because it was so well known that it took a very skilled, or at least semi-skilled player to be able to handle them proplery. Now we have a pbase that is all semi-skilled and the race has became the best in all three of their respective classes. Just amusing how the game now needs to be balanced due to the pk prowess of the current pbase, and is not all math.
It isn't all math? I think an improved playerbase reflects a more accurate picture of balance.
Right, my point. In 1.0 no one EVER said ogres were overpowered. I don't think the race has been touched since Beta. While warriors and zerks have fallen behind, and only rangers really gained any ground. One would of said ogres were balanced in 1.0, but now the arguement starts because of the improvement of the pbase.
Depends on your opinion, I guess. Think of it this way: If you have a bug in your MUD and nobody finds it in 1.0, but it is found in 2.0, does that mean 1.0 was bug-free? I say no.
a way to fix zerks and warriors is to branch them in the same vein as rangers. the branches will play off racial abilities not tied to STR, like an ogre. which is most of what he has going for him, other than the higher-than-giant dex too.
one branch can play off DEX. which will make elf, drow, gnome, halfling, human and slith. not that slith needs more but they'll have to just go along. this branch will have choices that accentuate a play style for them.
one branch can play off proficiences, fg's will get even more oomf for fire weapons, including not just extra damage. i guess storms will get moves for fighting on water. what do stone's do? i forgot if they have elemental or material proficiences.
the last branch will just be plain old warrior.
that's an vague idea. the general idea is that you can branch warriors in accordance to accomodate the highlights of general groups of races and their attributes. normal sized races will have their DEX play a key in the specialization. giants will have their elemental proficiencies amplified. whoever doesnt want to play along can be a plain old warrior. except the plain warrior path will have standard doublesheath and hellstream.
Wow, and here is a perfect example of why you don't argue with woman.
If a man says something in a forest, and a woman isn't around to hear it, is he still wrong?
The problem with non-ogre melees is that they don't heal anywhere near the speed an ogre does. It makes it a whole lot more difficult when that battlemage has a pile of non-perishable curing consumables (scrolls, staves, wands), and you're sleeping for 50 hp an hour.
And against melees, ogres out-regen any other race/class combos. So you have to keep them in battle, or just flat out destroy them quickly.
Well.. warriors..
I always thought warriors should specialise in either blunt, slashing or piercing. Blunt weapons would be mace, staff and flail. Slashing would be axe, polearm and whip. Piercing would be sword, dagger and spear. You would have to put your experts and mastery in your specalisation weapons, and gain three lore choices from your specalisation. Exotic would be available to everyone. I kind of think this would make warriors more versatile, allowing them to try different strategies with different weapons.
Right now it seems every warrior at 50 picks weaponlock as lore. 
I love serks as they are just my opinion though
