Forums » The Ranger

What a ranger is - what a ranger is not...

    • 4336 posts
    February 1, 2017 11:56 AM PST

    The more I think about it, I definitely agree that the spirit of the Ranger is in the fact that they are naturewalkers. They roam and protect the lands. More of an Aragorn than a Legolas. Tolkein's interpretation showed Aragorn wielding a 2H sword more often than a bow. But then again, this is not LOTRO. In my mind, a ranger would still carry a bow by default while traversing in a dangerous forest, for example. This would give the Ranger the advantage of being able to take down a wolf or bear from a distance before it had a chance to harm him. Of course a Ranger's leathers or chains would not offer much protection and he does not have enough magical power to kill it before it reaches him, so he must rely on snares and ranged weapons to survive. Now of course, sometimes the Ranger is going to get ambushed before he has a chance to use his bow and therefore must also be proficient in close quarters combat, such as a sword or maybe even a staff. I don't want to see Rangers in Pantheon standing toe-to-toe with a mob, shooting it pointblank with a bow while the mob slashes the Ranger. That just looks ridiculous and unrealistic imo. It would be nigh impossible to nock and draw a bow while somebody is in up in your face attacking you and interrupting you. So in that case, you would absolutely need to melee. When in a group, when someone else has aggro, it might be different. The ranger would probably have more of a choice about whether they want to use a bow or melee.

    So in general, if I feel like the bow should still be the default/primary weapon, especially when traveling alone. But they should definitely also always have a sword ready for when a bow is not practical. Maybe something like bow 70% of the time and melee 30% of the time. Or maybe 60/40, depending on how frequently you have aggro and can't kill a mob before it reaches you.

     

    • 474 posts
    February 1, 2017 12:51 PM PST

    Bazgrim said:

    The more I think about it, I definitely agree that the spirit of the Ranger is in the fact that they are naturewalkers. They roam and protect the lands. More of an Aragorn than a Legolas. Tolkein's interpretation showed Aragorn wielding a 2H sword more often than a bow. But then again, this is not LOTRO. In my mind, a ranger would still carry a bow by default while traversing in a dangerous forest, for example. This would give the Ranger the advantage of being able to take down a wolf or bear from a distance before it had a chance to harm him. Of course a Ranger's leathers or chains would not offer much protection and he does not have enough magical power to kill it before it reaches him, so he must rely on snares and ranged weapons to survive. Now of course, sometimes the Ranger is going to get ambushed before he has a chance to use his bow and therefore must also be proficient in close quarters combat, such as a sword or maybe even a staff. I don't want to see Rangers in Pantheon standing toe-to-toe with a mob, shooting it pointblank with a bow while the mob slashes the Ranger. That just looks ridiculous and unrealistic imo. It would be nigh impossible to nock and draw a bow while somebody is in up in your face attacking you and interrupting you. So in that case, you would absolutely need to melee. When in a group, when someone else has aggro, it might be different. The ranger would probably have more of a choice about whether they want to use a bow or melee.

    So in general, if I feel like the bow should still be the default/primary weapon, especially when traveling alone. But they should definitely also always have a sword ready for when a bow is not practical. Maybe something like bow 70% of the time and melee 30% of the time. Or maybe 60/40, depending on how frequently you have aggro and can't kill a mob before it reaches you.

     

    I kind of agree, but then I kind of don't.

    A Ranger is a combat specialist, again by definition, as well as a homeland protector. They would almost ALWAYS be above avragely skilled with a bow due to the lone wolf, stalking the wilderness lifestyle, but would be just as equally skilled in martial combat, whatever form that may take.

    I completely agree that standing toe-to-toe with an Orc, him slashing at me and me shooting him in the face with a bow is completely unrealistic and just plane makes no sense. In that case I would have to rely on martial combat skill. Otherwise, if I am not being directly attacked by physical damage I SHOULD be able to fire my bow, even at point blank range, at my target. Again, suspension of disbelief.

    Alternately, If one chooses to NEVER use a bow, opting for a pure martial combat style, then that should be completely and equally viable. Though, with two weapon fighting you may be able to riposte, while with a gigantic 2h sword you might not. Again it is a bit unrealistic to think that someone can parry and counter another fighter with a massive claymore, unless they were fighting another 2h weapon weilder. Though thinking about it that might end up being a bit off really.

    The point I would really like to drive home here is that NO One Weapon Defines The Ranger As A Whole. All should be equally affective and be no more or less appealing than any other weapon style.

    • 249 posts
    February 1, 2017 1:23 PM PST

    kellindil said:

    The point I would really like to drive home here is that NO One Weapon Defines The Ranger As A Whole. All should be equally affective and be no more or less appealing than any other weapon style.

     

    I agree with this for the most part.  The ranger should be a very flexible class and a master at adapting to the specific needs of most situations and environments.  I think that archery and melee should probably be equally 'viable', though not necessarilly equally effective in every situation.  Much the way they've said that the different plate tanks will tank 'equally well' though some might be better suited for certain mob types, I think you should be able to draw an analogy to rangers who choose to specifically focus on one weapon type:  in general, they'll be able to perform their role with it, but they might not be as suited to a specific mob or encounter as someone using a different weapon.  And only someone who goes out of their way to master all weapon types, and who has the experience to know what works best in any given situation, is going to be able to get the most out of the class.

     

    One thing the devs have talked about is needing to meet certain achievements or milestones to level beyond a certain point in addition to the regular experience requirements.  It seems like there would be some very natural requirements that could be imposed on rangers to ensure that at higher levels you are creating a well-rounded character.  For example, being required to earn a minimum skill in both archery and one melee skill to reach level (x).

    • 4 posts
    February 6, 2017 10:33 AM PST

    From the gameplay aspect I am hoping that the Ranger class is a bit more fast paced. While pre planning with traps is going to be important, I think a Ranger should be an archer as its main point of power and therefore speedy shooting and pre planning to deal lots of burst damage or DoT damage depending on the situation. I think permitting Rangers to be melee is appropriate but they should not be nearly as powerful as any other melee class (or ranged class). I guess I am really saying that they should be sort of a utility rdps class.

    • 82 posts
    February 7, 2017 7:59 AM PST

    I'd like to see the Ranger in Ranged/Melee DPS roles with the utility to scout and pull.  Similar to the EQ iteration of the class.  Toughened up a little so as being capable of off tanking an add long enough for the tank to finish off the current target or grab agro, I'd like to see Monks capable of that too.  Another idea would be to include a pet, but more of a questline that rewards you with a choice of non-combat familiar type companion.  The familiar could give you benefits such as scouting(Eye of Zomm type-mechanic), sentry type role (set it up to warn you when that pesky patrol is rounding the corner), nightvision, bonus to tracking, ect... Something that plays into our role well, without stepping on the toes of other classes. Dual wield is a must!

     

    • 474 posts
    February 7, 2017 8:09 AM PST

    lortex said:

    I'd like to see the Ranger in Ranged/Melee DPS roles with the utility to scout and pull.  Similar to the EQ iteration of the class.  Toughened up a little so as being capable of off tanking an add long enough for the tank to finish off the current target or grab agro, I'd like to see Monks capable of that too.  Another idea would be to include a pet, but more of a questline that rewards you with a choice of non-combat familiar type companion.  The familiar could give you benefits such as scouting(Eye of Zomm type-mechanic), sentry type role (set it up to warn you when that pesky patrol is rounding the corner), nightvision, bonus to tracking, ect... Something that plays into our role well, without stepping on the toes of other classes. Dual wield is a must!

     

    Two things here. First, the EQ Ranger was a fine off tank or main tank for group content through Luclin at the least. You just needed to gear for it like everyone else. Most people geared Rangers for DPS and didn't pay attention to AC. AC is king. But thats EQ.....

    Second thing is about the pet. I really don;t see the Ranger as a pet class. Even temp pets like these familiars. Now, I wouldn't mind an ability or spell that allowed you to "summon" a woodland creature to use as an Eye of Zomm type thing. With a short duration, outside only. Something like that makes sense.

    If they did get some kind of pet I think it should be much like the Enchanter pet in EQ. It's reactive only. No pet controls. Decent addition of dps in a group or solo but little else.

    • 190 posts
    February 8, 2017 3:56 PM PST

    kellindil said:

    lortex said:

    I'd like to see the Ranger in Ranged/Melee DPS roles with the utility to scout and pull.  Similar to the EQ iteration of the class.  Toughened up a little so as being capable of off tanking an add long enough for the tank to finish off the current target or grab agro, I'd like to see Monks capable of that too.  Another idea would be to include a pet, but more of a questline that rewards you with a choice of non-combat familiar type companion.  The familiar could give you benefits such as scouting(Eye of Zomm type-mechanic), sentry type role (set it up to warn you when that pesky patrol is rounding the corner), nightvision, bonus to tracking, ect... Something that plays into our role well, without stepping on the toes of other classes. Dual wield is a must!

     

    Two things here. First, the EQ Ranger was a fine off tank or main tank for group content through Luclin at the least. You just needed to gear for it like everyone else. Most people geared Rangers for DPS and didn't pay attention to AC. AC is king. But thats EQ.....

    Second thing is about the pet. I really don;t see the Ranger as a pet class. Even temp pets like these familiars. Now, I wouldn't mind an ability or spell that allowed you to "summon" a woodland creature to use as an Eye of Zomm type thing. With a short duration, outside only. Something like that makes sense.

    If they did get some kind of pet I think it should be much like the Enchanter pet in EQ. It's reactive only. No pet controls. Decent addition of dps in a group or solo but little else.

    There was no such thing as gearing for it in Vanilla.  You could only wear chain mail.  Armor had no attribute increases for the most part.  Generally you were one of the DPS.   I seem to remember dying fairy easily in small groups when trying to off tank.  The healer had to blow through a lot more mana to keep me alive then say a Warrior, Paladin, or Shadow Knight.  I'm not even sure Ranger tank makes much sense.  I think Rangers were only meant to off tank in the event of adds.  It fits with their lore a lot better.  They are more like the Rogues of nature with a more strict moral code IMO.

    Personally I would like to see archery improved a lot.  I think they should be a hybrid ranged/melee dps that can switch depending on the situation and possible tank one add here and there if needed.  I would also like to see them being able to cast some Druid spells including utility, CC, and small heals, small buffs, and small damage/damage over time.


    This post was edited by UnknownQuantity at February 8, 2017 3:59 PM PST
    • 249 posts
    February 8, 2017 6:26 PM PST

    UnknownQuantity said:

    There was no such thing as gearing for it in Vanilla.  You could only wear chain mail.  Armor had no attribute increases for the most part.  Generally you were one of the DPS.   I seem to remember dying fairy easily in small groups when trying to off tank.  The healer had to blow through a lot more mana to keep me alive then say a Warrior, Paladin, or Shadow Knight.  I'm not even sure Ranger tank makes much sense.  I think Rangers were only meant to off tank in the event of adds.  It fits with their lore a lot better.  They are more like the Rogues of nature with a more strict moral code IMO.

    Personally I would like to see archery improved a lot.  I think they should be a hybrid ranged/melee dps that can switch depending on the situation and possible tank one add here and there if needed.  I would also like to see them being able to cast some Druid spells including utility, CC, and small heals, small buffs, and small damage/damage over time.

     

    There were actually a number of decisions you could make with regard to gear choices if you were trying to increase survivability while tanking:

    --  As Kellindil mentioned, AC was king in Everquest, and while, yes, rangers were restricted from wearing anything heavier than chain visible pieces, they still had a number of non-visible slots that they could use to prioritize AC/dex/agi/sta.

    --  Weapon selection was extremely important:  riposte damage was a big deal and so a high delay two-hander would help to decrease incoming damage.  Sword and shield further increased survivability.

     

    From a lore standpoint rangers and rogues have almost nothing in common.  Rangers are almost always the ones that are described as being out on the periphery of civilization, locating and confronting the big threats before they reach the castle walls.  Rangers are fighters at their core.

    • 190 posts
    February 9, 2017 5:36 AM PST

    Elrandir said:

    UnknownQuantity said:

    There was no such thing as gearing for it in Vanilla.  You could only wear chain mail.  Armor had no attribute increases for the most part.  Generally you were one of the DPS.   I seem to remember dying fairy easily in small groups when trying to off tank.  The healer had to blow through a lot more mana to keep me alive then say a Warrior, Paladin, or Shadow Knight.  I'm not even sure Ranger tank makes much sense.  I think Rangers were only meant to off tank in the event of adds.  It fits with their lore a lot better.  They are more like the Rogues of nature with a more strict moral code IMO.

    Personally I would like to see archery improved a lot.  I think they should be a hybrid ranged/melee dps that can switch depending on the situation and possible tank one add here and there if needed.  I would also like to see them being able to cast some Druid spells including utility, CC, and small heals, small buffs, and small damage/damage over time.

     

    There were actually a number of decisions you could make with regard to gear choices if you were trying to increase survivability while tanking:

    --  As Kellindil mentioned, AC was king in Everquest, and while, yes, rangers were restricted from wearing anything heavier than chain visible pieces, they still had a number of non-visible slots that they could use to prioritize AC/dex/agi/sta.

    --  Weapon selection was extremely important:  riposte damage was a big deal and so a high delay two-hander would help to decrease incoming damage.  Sword and shield further increased survivability.

     

    From a lore standpoint rangers and rogues have almost nothing in common.  Rangers are almost always the ones that are described as being out on the periphery of civilization, locating and confronting the big threats before they reach the castle walls.  Rangers are fighters at their core.

    I'm not saying it didn't exist, but I don't believe there was any slots in vanilla EQ.  I don't reven remember it in future expansions like Kunark, Vellious, or Plains of Power.  I didn't see any slots on Equipment until I logged in recently and tried to play it for nastalgia.  It must have come in one of the later expansions.

    • 249 posts
    February 9, 2017 5:50 AM PST

    UnknownQuantity said:

    I'm not saying it didn't exist, but I don't believe there was any slots in vanilla EQ.  I don't reven remember it in future expansions like Kunark, Vellious, or Plains of Power.  I didn't see any slots on Equipment until I logged in recently and tried to play it for nastalgia.  It must have come in one of the later expansions.

     

    I think you're refering to augmentation slots.  Those weren't added in until LDoN.  When I said 'non-visible slots' I was refering to actual equipment pieces like neck, back, rings, earrings, etc.

     

     


    This post was edited by Elrandir at February 9, 2017 5:52 AM PST
    • 190 posts
    February 9, 2017 5:52 AM PST

    Elrandir said:

    UnknownQuantity said:

    I'm not saying it didn't exist, but I don't believe there was any slots in vanilla EQ.  I don't reven remember it in future expansions like Kunark, Vellious, or Plains of Power.  I didn't see any slots on Equipment until I logged in recently and tried to play it for nastalgia.  It must have come in one of the later expansions.

     

    I think you're refering to augmentation slots.  Those weren't added in until LDoN.  When I said 'non-visibles slots' I was refering to actual equipment pieces like neck, back, rings, earrings, etc.

     

     

    Ah

    Thank you

    • 14 posts
    February 21, 2017 4:23 PM PST

    The problem with Aragorn as the default basis for a ranger is that in the LotR story Aragorn really morphed into a combination of a Ranger and Warrior. 

     

    I think in terms of video games, Legolas more closely matches what a ranger should be, yes in the movies he was super proficiant with bow and arrow, but he was also super efficiant with his sword fighting as well, and was very adept at surviving in nature. You can't really have a class that is simultaneously a ranger and a warrior, a la Aragorn in the early vs later stages of LotR. Because there has to be distinction between other tanks and rangers. We already have 3 dedicated tank classes, adding a ranger into that would make it 4. And if it's just a half hearted tank, and a half hearted dps, then we are stuck in the middle. 

     

    I think a ranger class could go 1 of two ways... 

    1) Model it after legolas, but make the balance of ranged vs melee combat more in sync. Have ranged combat be half of the damage, and then require the rangers to get up close and strike the final blows. Very similiar to how legolas fights if you notice, he starts from a far but usually ends up killing his enemies up close. 

    2) Make the ranger class have 2 distinct paths where you have to chose as you level up which one to take. A path for those who enjoy ranged combat and a path for those who enjor melee combat. Make both choices roughly equivalent in terms of DPS with some role differences in terms of what they can and can't provide in a group / raid scenario. 

    • 249 posts
    February 21, 2017 5:37 PM PST

    droxxodia said:

    The problem with Aragorn as the default basis for a ranger is that in the LotR story Aragorn really morphed into a combination of a Ranger and Warrior. 

     

    This is actually backwards.  It's the ranger class that has largely morphed over time to accommodate the "Legolas" style of game play.  If you go back and look at a 1st or 2nd Ed AD&D handbook you'll see that rangers were in fact just a certain breed of warrior, just like paladins.

    • 14 posts
    February 21, 2017 6:34 PM PST

    Elrandir said:

    droxxodia said:

    The problem with Aragorn as the default basis for a ranger is that in the LotR story Aragorn really morphed into a combination of a Ranger and Warrior. 

     

    This is actually backwards.  It's the ranger class that has largely morphed over time to accommodate the "Legolas" style of game play.  If you go back and look at a 1st or 2nd Ed AD&D handbook you'll see that rangers were in fact just a certain breed of warrior, just like paladins.

    I didn't mean to dispute that LotR and D&D Rangers were more on the warrior side, I was talking more in terms of game classes. The warrior is the standard tank, and the warrior lore goes back to the beginning of time. Other classes such as Paladin, Dark Knight, Berserker etc... usually filling the role of tank plus some other small utility. Early Aragorn was more along the lines of nature based ranger, eg knew the lay of the land, could sneak around and use the land to his advantage. Later Aragorn was all just heavy armor and pure Warrior. 

    I think Ranger morphed into more of a DPS class for most games because we already have a lot of utility tanks like I mentioned, but not enough DPS roles with swords / bows outside of rogue. So if we wanted a ranger to be a tank, we would either end up with too many variations of tank early on, or we should scrap one of the other tank classes. 

    One thing I would note, is that Aragorn doesn't actually take over as the leader of the army until return of the king, and I look at tanks as leaders of an army. Elrond tells Aragorn to "put aside the ranger, become who you were born to be", at that point Aragorn becomes the King, a warrior leading the army. He basically stops being a ranger =)

    So having a ranger class, capable of light tanking maybe in a group setting but not capable of main tanking in a larger encounter, I think actually fits the Ranger class really well if based on LotR lore. Maybe the ranger class is a toggle based class where in group settings they can forego some DPS for tanking ability but are able to do more DPS when in a raid situation. 

    • 249 posts
    February 21, 2017 6:51 PM PST

    Actually, rangers as leaders is a common thread with a lot of 'ranger' lore, be that Aragorn in LotR, Jon Snow in Game of Thrones, the Grey Warden's in Dragon's Age, etc.  I don't think Aragorn becoming king emplies any sort of class change.


    This post was edited by Elrandir at February 21, 2017 7:02 PM PST
    • 14 posts
    February 21, 2017 7:02 PM PST

    I never played Dragon's Age, but Jon Snow is basically on the same story path as Aragorn. 

    He starts off not leading an army, but smaller groups. Displaying qualities we default to when thinking of Ranger, adept at nature survival, skilled with both sword and bow. But now, he has thrown away his title of Ranger, and is basically acting like a pure Warrior, leading an army. 

    All arguing aside though, I have played rangers in the past an would love to play one again, and all your ideas about what a Ranger could be sound great. I'm just not sure that we need Rangers to be main tanks with all the other tank classes. If starting a game from scratch, we could probably design a main tank Ranger.

    **Edited**

    Your avatar is Link, If we could have a link type Ranger, that would be awesome =)


    This post was edited by droxxodia at February 21, 2017 7:07 PM PST
    • 249 posts
    February 21, 2017 7:13 PM PST

    We already know that rangers will be a dps class in Pantheon.  While I do think 'tank' would be much more true to the origins of the class, I'm not really lobbying for that.  What I don't want to see is the class playing like a glass cannon, however.  That's just too much of a stretch for me.  Ranger's are fighters, guardian's of their range.  The class shouldn't play like a rogue at close range, or a wizard when at distance.

     

    • 14 posts
    February 21, 2017 7:39 PM PST

    I totally agree, Honestly I would love to play a group tank but capable DPS in raid situation type Ranger class. 

    My only concern is how do we balance that so that a warrior / paladin etc... isn't always prefered in group scenarios, and a wizard / rogue isn't always prefered in a raid scenario?

    • 249 posts
    February 21, 2017 10:38 PM PST

    I think the devs have already answered that.  Rangers are going to be dps--they will fill that role as well as any wizard or rogue.  Be it group or raid content, a warrior or paladin is going to always be a prefered tank.  But outside of that primary role, most classes are going to have varying degrees of ability to step into other classes shoes.  A warrior is likely going to have a fair amount of dps potential.  A paladin is going to be a healer to some limited degree.  Other 'fighter' classes, like the ranger and monk should definitely have some 'tank' in them.


    This post was edited by Elrandir at February 21, 2017 10:44 PM PST
    • 198 posts
    February 23, 2017 10:36 AM PST

    So after a fun discussion on ranger in the VoT discord I thought up of a in/out type of style to the ranger. Placing traps of different kind and staying at range trying to get the enemy into that trap, as the enemy triggers the trap they are to go in to melee and deal damage there till the effect of the trap (Could be CC or something increasing the melee damage the ranger does to them for a duration) wears off. That is when they want to get out and try and redo the whole thing, constantly weaving in and out of melee range. I think this would be an interesting way to play and a good way to differntiate the Rogue and Ranger playstyle.

    • 14 posts
    February 23, 2017 1:41 PM PST

    Youmu said:

    So after a fun discussion on ranger in the VoT discord I thought up of a in/out type of style to the ranger. Placing traps of different kind and staying at range trying to get the enemy into that trap, as the enemy triggers the trap they are to go in to melee and deal damage there till the effect of the trap (Could be CC or something increasing the melee damage the ranger does to them for a duration) wears off. That is when they want to get out and try and redo the whole thing, constantly weaving in and out of melee range. I think this would be an interesting way to play and a good way to differntiate the Rogue and Ranger playstyle.

    That is basically a more fleshed out version of what I was trying to get it with this... "

    1) Model it after legolas, but make the balance of ranged vs melee combat more in sync. Have ranged combat be half of the damage, and then require the rangers to get up close and strike the final blows. Very similiar to how legolas fights if you notice, he starts from a far but usually ends up killing his enemies up close. 

    "

    Weaving in / out. If the Ranger won't be a group tank build, and it's based on DPS mostly, I think that would be fun. 


    This post was edited by droxxodia at February 23, 2017 1:42 PM PST
    • 4336 posts
    February 24, 2017 3:51 AM PST

    droxxodia said:

    Youmu said:

    So after a fun discussion on ranger in the VoT discord I thought up of a in/out type of style to the ranger. Placing traps of different kind and staying at range trying to get the enemy into that trap, as the enemy triggers the trap they are to go in to melee and deal damage there till the effect of the trap (Could be CC or something increasing the melee damage the ranger does to them for a duration) wears off. That is when they want to get out and try and redo the whole thing, constantly weaving in and out of melee range. I think this would be an interesting way to play and a good way to differntiate the Rogue and Ranger playstyle.

    That is basically a more fleshed out version of what I was trying to get it with this... "

    1) Model it after legolas, but make the balance of ranged vs melee combat more in sync. Have ranged combat be half of the damage, and then require the rangers to get up close and strike the final blows. Very similiar to how legolas fights if you notice, he starts from a far but usually ends up killing his enemies up close. 

    "

    Weaving in / out. If the Ranger won't be a group tank build, and it's based on DPS mostly, I think that would be fun. 

    I could see that. A ranger as any sort of tank, even a group tank, kinda puzzles me. So I would much prefer this playstyle. That'd be pretty fun and unique. And would still "feel" like a Ranger.

    • 8 posts
    March 5, 2017 11:28 AM PST

    My idea of a ranger is a melee expert who is adept with a bow when circumstances permit.  A ranger could inflict good dps on the first ranged attack on any mob.  A ranger could also inflict good dps on any mob that is not currently agroing the ranger.  But any ranged attack on a mob that is currently agroing the ranger would inflict less damage and any ranged attack on a aggroing mob within melee range would be at a severe disadvantage.  The ranger would have a ranged one-shot kill that can only be used against same or below level mobs that have not yet agroed anyone.  The ranger would have utility ranged attacks such as snares, roots, stuns, knock-backs, etc.

    • 32 posts
    March 9, 2017 6:42 AM PST

    Sabatour said:

    Ranger does not mean ranged combat.  

     

    Ranger refers to 'ranging ahead', to scout wilderness areas, or survive therein as advanced scouts for another party (military, settlers, etc.).

    It has come to mean 'Ranged Attack-dude' in RPGs and MMOs largely because the utility of these weapon types in the hands of a scout.  A stealthy (or at least unexpected) attack from a distance, then a quick and stealthy move to another location, or vantage.  Prolonged attacks of this sort have become a standard go-to (( I bow-kited Plane of Fire (Tables) for HOURS of AA EXP)).

    All our eggs in one basket is great if you like large, messy, omelets; but, if it's what calls us out as a Class, why not just give ROGUES a decent skill-set with bows and we'll all pick pockets in our downtime and have plenty o' coin to buy the ammo materials we'll need?   :P

     

    Just an IMO moment.  :D

     

    Game On!

    • 6 posts
    March 12, 2017 3:13 AM PDT

    For starters, I agree with lots of what is said here. My two CPs:

     

    : I mentioned it elsewhere too. I am not a fan of range fighting only. For me, Ranger does note equal archer.... I would love to  have a fancy bow that does cool things to whip out every now and then, when the situation demands, but for the most part, I prefer melee fighting. 

    I am thinking along the lines of, let me snipe at 1 or 2 mobs at the start of the fight, maybe a caster I see or a especially a healer. Once I have shot off a few arrows, and the tank has aggro, let me run in and join the fun, either backing up the tank on his/her mob or trying to finish off the healer/caster that I already injured. Maybe give me some CC abilities via arrows, either stuns or snares, to use at the beginning...Really though, I always loved dual wielding personally. My preference is for a short sword and a hatchet. 

    My landladly said very clearly when I moved in.... "NO PETS"... I aim to listen. If  you want pets, play a pet class. Just because Drizzt was lucky enough to find the uber magical item that summons his panther, does not mean that EVERY SINGLE DARN ranger needs to have a pet....There are far better classes that can specialize in summoning pets. As a ranger, I work with what I find in nature. I don't want to "summon" anything really... Give me an ability tree that allows me to temporarily assume animal like attributes if you will, such as cat agility, bear strength, hawk eyes etc, but I don't want to have to worry about finding food to feed wally while I could enjoying a cold tankard of beer at the fire....

    Armor: this is actually a tough area, because it opens a whole can of worms. I prefer to be limited to lighter armor, such as leather, due to practicality and a little bit of realism (huh? whats that?). It would be amusing trying to traipse or "range" around the wilds silently in a full suit of heavy armor... that being said, we could have special abilities to allow us to have magicaly tough skin, from our druidic background, such as bark skin or rockskin etc. In my opinion  however, this should purely  be self only.

    Magic: Limited. As EQ aged, rangers became more and more magic-dependant. I would rather depend on what I found in nature than in sorcery. Think of the ranger as the ADHD version of a Druid. Too impatient to adventure instead of sitting around communing with nature, and therefore only able to use base druidic sorcery, rather than the advanced sort that would take years of development....

    examples: 

    1) previously mentioned bark/rock skin to improve self armor class

    2) given the weather, allow for a minor ability with variable results, but unable to change the weather. Maybe enhance a rainy day so as to blind a mob with fog, but unable to do so if not already cloudy.

    3) possible improved stats such as agility etc learned/taken from nature and animals...

    4) enhancement of damage type, dependant on climate/weather...

     

    Ability to track: loved this in EQ, not sure if it will be useful at all in Pantheon. If so, would love a good version of it.

    Damage: I don't need to be top dog. I do want to be useful enough for there to be a reason to bring me into a group besides friendship/pity...

    that said, I have an issue with tanks doing monster DPS. IMHO, that is not their role, and is a byproduct of devs working on aggro retention. Tanks should have diverse abilities to generate aggro, but their purpose is to try and maintain the attention of the mob, rather than be the one who is the master of damage. . That being said, warriors should do higher damage than magic-using tanks such as pallies, because while pallies were sitting around on their arzez thinking about how noble they were, or praying to whatever deity they thought might listen, the warrior was out working on their weapon skills, or, sitting in a pub working on their "social" skills, which is really the same thing of course....

    I never liked the idea in EQ1 that rogues were "pure" DPS vs. rangers who were a  hybrid. I think rather they should do similar damage levels, just in different ways. A rogue specializing in daggers should be more focused on fading out of combat and then either backstabbing or throat cutting, rather than standing behind a mob doing auto attack. Longtime EQ players may remember raids where if the tank turned the mob around, the whole rogue corps would be wiped out, because for the most part, they had gone AFK and were watching TV, due to the redundancy of their fighting. Standing there with autoattack on, clicking the Backstab button every 12 seconds or so...... painful

    Monks were another "pure DPS" class, but they were somewhat OPd imo, with their FD, pulling, and AC bonus etc due to agility.  I look forward to seeing how their incarnation turns out in this game...