Another Fired Weapons Idea

Instead of having the number of arrows fired depend on the bow, it would be tied to the user's DEX?

Instead of having the number of arrows fired depend on the bow' date=' it would be tied to the user's DEX?[/quote']

Negative,

Thread Ended

I actually somewhat like this idea... keep a limit on how many arrows are fired, or make it so only archers get this bonus? After all, there are ways to get around fired weapons at 50.

Negative,

Thread Ended

Thanks for all the constructive critcism! Dobson, you are a member of the community and you are entitled to your opinion, but you aren't an Imm or an Imp, so you've no right to just shoot down the thread.

I actually somewhat like this idea... keep a limit on how many arrows are fired' date=' or make it so only archers get this bonus? After all, there are ways to get around fired weapons at 50.[/quote']

I agree, the max numbers of arrows could be limited by the bow, while the number able to be shot would depend mostly on DEX. Maybe archers get an extra arrow shot from their expertise?

I just think it would give the high-dex, low-str ranger races a bit of a tone-up. I guess all in all, I just don't see a stone giant being able to shoot just as many arrows as accurately as a human, let alone an elf.

I like it. It means that an Ogre Warrior/ranger, for example, would be relying moreso on their damage output melee-wise, where a Halfer warrior/ranger could utilise their bow that bit more effectively.

Saying that though, Halfer/Feral/human rangers can be incredibly strong. One of the melee classes that can fare very well with a low-str/high-dex race. It might tip the balance a bit there, maybe? I don't know.

Dey

Saying that though, Halfer/Feral/human rangers can be incredibly strong. One of the melee classes that can fare very well with a low-str/high-dex race. It might tip the balance a bit there, maybe? I don't know.

Dey

I agree that halfer/feral/human can be very strong, but with low str, and smaller size, these races have a much harder time matching the damage output of the ogre. edit: They do, however, make fantastic tanks.

From experience with halflings, they are made more to fight C/C's and don't quite match up to melee classes, ie bash or slamlock really ends the fight.

Honestly, have there been any VERY successful halfling/feral/human rangers lately?

Not really that lately. But Dunalain? He was tough.

Saying that though, he WAS played by Aulian, and let's face it, Aulian has never played anything other than rangers/druids.

Dey

There was a feral ranger warmaster a bit ago that ripped people apart, but as I recall he didn't last very long.

There are two main balance issues concerning dex-based firing amounts that I can see right away.

First is that ogres have decent dex. This change wouldn't hurt them so much as it would hurt the already rare stone giant ranger. If the ogre dex was lower, this would part would be fine.

Second, fired weapons are pre-determined on the number of arrows they can hold. This is really pointed out when you compare similar skills (throw) and items thrown. You need a lot of cards to do the same damage as a few daggers. With bows, this can cause huge variance in damage. For example, if you had some weapon that normally used 3 ammunition to fire, and the elf got a bonus, you might be able to fire 5 times. Some fired weapons are very powerful (certain neutral cabal one in particular)...adding even one shot per firing would boost the damage a HUGE amount. Whereas in other cases, it would do practically nothing. Unless the amount of ammunition was dependent on fired weapon type (all bows fire 1 arrow at a time) and standardized and rebalanced to account for variable ranger shots (so we can see the average dam bonus intended) this change could have some very bad side trails. It is must simplier to just give the high dex races a bonus to damage or proficiency (or just tie fire weapons damage directly to dex) than to actually make them fire more times, which as you can see is quite complex.

The main problem with playing non-ogre rangers is the unblockable damage. Feral suck as tanks, even with their great dex/defenses, because they have comparatively low hp and regen (not to mention str). Any mob that bashes or does any sort of unblockable damage cuts through non-ogres/giants (relatively). Once again, this isn't a global problem so much as an ogre problem. High HP + regen is a lot more powerful than a lot of people realize I think. As the average player skill increases, ogres aren't so much an elite race as a standard/easy race now.

There are two ways you can fix the ranger race problem. You can give benefits to lesser used races (like elf prof) or you can give flaws to more commonly used races (balancing ogres).

Keep in mind, the idea presented here doesn't specify if this would actually boost or hurt fired weapons. Presumably, it would make fired weapons better for high dex AT THE SAME TIME AS making them worse for low dex.

Basically I see this evolving into three tiers because of the ranger dex variance:

Good shooters (bonus):

Elf

Feral

Average shooters (no change?):

Human

Werebeast

Ogre

Bad shooters (penalty):

Stone giant

A good start, but we want to help the bottom and top both ideally.

Thanks for all the discussion everyone. I l ike the idea of changing damage to be based on Dex, but I think most damage is decided by how many arrows hit.

In the case of the three tiers, couldn't we have Good shooters (halfers, etc.) be able to shoot 3 arrows/whatever (up to what the bow could handle), Average shooters; 2 arrows, and so on. Also, you could put Ogres in with the Bad shooters, to lower their fired weapons ability.

Then, if you picked the archer path, you'd have bonuses, such as being able to shoot an extra arrow, bonus to damage, or something like that.

Fiere, it's Senrail you're thinking of.

People just don't listen...

I SAID IT WAS OVER, now look what you went and did.

Maybe make it so that with their large size (and comparatively large fingers), ogres are somewhat clumsy shooters? (RP reason to have it dropped?)

Well, then again... I suppose the flipside you could argue is they'd just use bigger bows/arrows and therefore should do even more damage... damn. I destroyed my own argument.

And also, again that would have to gimp the storm giants, too.