Boy Kid Wonder Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Regardless of the fire lance I'd still go ogre or feral. Not many opponents have one and if they do, so what? You got staff and pugil. You hit them more than they hit you because of pets. If you take tracker your can get the jump and lag them. If archery then you got hit and run. Beastmaser, well you'd simply outdamage them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designated_Driver Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 I'd take a good Ogre Warrior or Halfling Blademaster over a ranger any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-D&Der Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 It's because of the changes to rangers. Tracker, beastmaster, archer are all much stronger than the old 1.0/2.0 rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Which is good, because the old rangers were so weak I remember. Didn't they have to form a clan called nature just to protect themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister E Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Id roll a stone giant ranger just because no one plays stone giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy Kid Wonder Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 I loved my stone ranger. Baedrok barbarian Elder. My second ranger. My fav class hands down is ranger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-D&Der Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 I don't think they were weak, but the new ones are stronger. There were some very strong rangers in 1.0. Andolini, Lothakoth, Druggin. I also think Nature was about more than that--it did become Watcher, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magick Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Which is good' date=' because the old rangers were so weak I remember.[/quote'] Rangers were very weak. So weak in fact that they had to make the ranger paths to buff them up. Hell, noone even bothered to roll rangers save those who were just learning the game.[/sarcasm] Apparently you've never fought Andolini. While 'weak,' most never played them to thier full potential. The paths were made to make them replayable. Edit: *Mutters something about Ex-D&Der beating him to the punch.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 I'm not talking about WMs like druggin with luut cabal skills, I am talking about rangers more like from 2.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 [ Half ] (WANTED) Nyofeld the Vengeance of the Forest [ Feral ] Thonabence Reglum the Vengeance of the Forest [ Bhmth ] (OUTLAW) (WANTED) Kronit the Vengeance of the Forest [ Ogre ] Olkenharn Sheradon the Vengeance of the Forest [ Ogre ] [WATCHER] (OUTLAW) (WANTED) Bragh the Vengeance of the Forest [ Avian ] [WATCHER] (OUTLAW) (WANTED) Nhaudamiel Windeye the Scourge of the Battlefield nice group range Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pieman Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Warrior pugil = 7 attacks Ranger pugil = 5 attacks Not really true Warrior pugil = 7 attacks Ranger pugil = 5 attacks...oh ya, plus an extra 6 more, maybe 9 from their pets, 6 more plus a crazytalk strike from a crazytalk bow that is hitting their vuln with it's arrows, or 6 plus a vuln hitting object that also lags. Uhh ya, warriors are totally better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 I was talking about just their attacks from their weapon. Obviously other attacks come in to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pieman Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Last but not least, all rangers can RUIN stormies FOR FREE. Blast you wood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calron Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 I may be totally wrong about this, but I thought I heard somewhere that stormies don't have a damage vuln to wood, they just can't pick it up and whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magick Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Just one way to find out what vulns a race has. If you have a vuln, you can't pick it up. If you don't, you're fine and will be able to pick it up. Try picking up fire with a Feral. You'll come to the same conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-3000 Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Then why mithril is not a vuln for drow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deykari Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 I believe those types of vulns (mithril for drow, wood for storm etc.) cannot be hit directly with those types of weapons. As in, a mithril weapon won't hit a Drow's vuln, but if it does a wrath attack the wrath attack will, or it can be thrown to hit the vuln. Other vulns, like fire/feral and water/dwarf/duergar, can be hit directly with attacks/spells. Dey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 I believe the way it works is only elemental vulns are what counts. Fight a FG with Ice. With a Feral with Fire. Fight an Undead with Light (holy) Fight an Ogre with any elemental Fight a Dwarf/duergar with Water Fight an Avian with Wind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deykari Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 More than likely. The rest can be hit with throws or those special wrath attacks or similar I think. Dey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magick Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Then why mithril is not a vuln for drow? Unless it's changed, and I don't think that it has, they still have the vuln to mithril/silver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tassinvegeta Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Warrior pugil = 7 attacks Ranger pugil = 5 attacks...oh ya, plus an extra 6 more, maybe 9 from their pets, 6 more plus a crazytalk strike from a crazytalk bow that is hitting their vuln with it's arrows, or 6 plus a vuln hitting object that also lags. Uhh ya, warriors are totally better. Not to mention a skill that heals them and cures some mals, plus being able to always get the jump on people with camo. And a spell that targets aff. And being able to flee and use the reingage tactics is also a killer. I always wondered how those ogre rangers were able to go two to toe with those vamps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deykari Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 They won't be doing any of that when that Ogre Warrior laglocks them. Dey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Unless they are an Ogre ranger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deykari Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Yes, quite true. In that case, I place my shoe in my mouth (Yet there may still be a way; would an enlarged Ogre warrior be able to bash a bog-standard sized Ogre Ranger? Wouldn't work anyway if the Ogre Ranger enlarged themself). Dey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister E Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 If he enlarges, shrink yourself and trip him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.