Forums » The Ranger

Archery thoughts

    • 101 posts
    December 9, 2016 10:51 PM PST

    I know the community for Pantheon is divided on whether a ranger should be a melee, archer, or hybrid.  I can only see the hybrid path as the only way to not divide the class other than to create a completely new class of the archer.

    With that said, as a hybrid melee/ranged DPS class, I think that there should not be a huge difference in the DPS output if a ranger chooses melee over archery and vice versa.  There should be advantages and disadvantages to choosing one over the other for encounters.

    Choose to melee: you chance pulling aggro, are in the area of effect radius, are unable to easly leave combat. Since we'll have animals, melee should have special abilities available when both you and the animal are melee. 

    Choose to range: line of sight issues, lesser chance to hit mobs if they are moving, animals are basically dots on mobs due to no "combo" fighting.  You'll be out of AoE range as well as the casters and you'll have a much less chance of pulling aggro.  You'll consume arrows and need to maintain a good supply.

    Can even expand on a type of World of Warcraft dual spec if that is the route that VS is going for all classes. Encounters can also be tweaked with mobs being susecptible to piercing or other weapon types like EQ did with Gates of Discord (the first livestream of Pantheon showed that this was already in place).

    Obviously the ideas I've put out can be greatly expanded and added upon.  I just see this as a chance for the ranger to not be stuck in one type of role because of a huge DPS difference in choosing one playstyle over another.  Please make the ranger class use a bow or melee as a matter of personal preference, not a DPS choice except in very rare occurences.

    • 270 posts
    December 12, 2016 9:29 PM PST

    I would like ranged and melee to be equal and the choice of which to use based on personal preference and strategy for the encounter. i like the idea of using ranged on fleshy mobs (piercing dmg) and a blunt weapon on hard/scaled/bone up close. if im forced into being bow heavy with minimal melee ill probably role a different class (have always roled rangers, but get extremely bored if its bow heavy). might as well play a caster if i cant melee. bow heavy ranger would be of limited use to a group. cant split mobs like a monk. dps wouldnt be as high as a rogue. most likely wont have very many utility spells. only thing a bow heavy ranger with a pet would be good at is soloing

    • 101 posts
    December 12, 2016 11:03 PM PST

    I agree with you.  I personally like melee but I also like to use my bow on occasion.  Having, for the ranger class, the option to use a bow or melee based on personal preference and not DPS would be the best way to resolve the melee vs archery debate.  Some mobs or encounters that benefit from using one skill over another is a great way to mix things up on occasion.  Being forced into one playstyle over another due to a huge DPS difference is not the way the ranger class should be. Let archers be archers and fighters be fighters.

    • 4416 posts
    December 13, 2016 3:44 AM PST

    I would be endlessly confused if Rangers were a "melee class" and just used a bow every once in a while to pull a mob or whatever. That makes literally no sense in my mind. Then they'd just be tree-hugging Warriors. EQ was the only game I've played where Rangers spent any significant amount of time in melee. And I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was unintentional. The devs didn't necessarily intend for that the be the popular playstyle - someone just discovered that they could do more damage dual wielding and well, people will do whatever it takes to do max dps. I'd like to see Rangers in Pantheon be the premier ranged damage dealers. Of course they should also be able to do viable melee damage when the situation calls for it. But they should first and foremost be masterful marksman.

    Anyway, it may be interesting for Rangers to have a variety of different abilities in their arsenal, but some of them can only be used with a bow and some of them can only be used with a melee weapon. I think that would help make Rangers feel more unique. It might even be interesting if it was most effective to be alternating between melee and ranged several times within a fight. In my mind, a Ranger should constantly be moving around the battlefield to get the best angle on his opponent. Kinda like a Ranged rogue. I think a lot less people would find the ranged playstyle to be boring if it required you to be more active than just standing in the same place the whole time shooting arrow after arrow after arrow. Many games struggle to give Rangers a unique identity in the world. I think being a hybrid where your abilties are directly affected by the type of weapon you have equipped (or maybe even the climate you're in? or your distance from your target?) would help that. I think Joppa is creative enough to make Rangers more than just another form of dps. Rangers are resourceful by nature (pun intended) and should therefore feel very versatile.

    I also think you have made several faulty assumptions. Why would you have less of a chance of pulling aggro from range? It'd be just like a Wizard's nuke getting the mob's attention. Fundamentally, it's about your damage threat, not your positioning. And who's to say mobs won't have ranged AoE's? And also, who says Rangers can't have combos? A real basic example off the top of my head would be a "Hunter's Mark" that when cast on a mob causes that mob to take increased damage from certain sources for a period of time.

    EQ did Rangers wrong imo. It's too early to worry that they will be anything like that in Pantheon.

    P.S. Also, I just want to clarify that Rangers won't always have animals by their side like in WoW. Brad has said that Rangers will not be forced to have pets, but will have viable ways to charm animals and such that they come across in the wild.

    • 270 posts
    December 13, 2016 4:28 PM PST

    To each their own. The ranger is a scout. Not an archer. Eq designed Rangers as melee. The Ranger epic(s) were dual swords. Earthcaller and SwiftWind. Epic jr was Raincaller

    Im all for people have options. I just get annoyed when games portray Rangers as pure archers. They're not.  

    • 10 posts
    December 14, 2016 11:56 AM PST

    My personal taste for rangers is to go the archery heavy route but I also would like to see rangers have the choice of going melee or ranged without a significant DPS loss for choosing one over the other. I'd like to see rangers be something like a sustained physical DPS type class with classes like the rogue being burst damage with some low points while they wait on CD's to come up. My feelings are that it won't really matter what style a ranger plays, be it ranged or melee, if the dps doesn't compete with other striker type classes then it will just be like the early days of EQ1 all over again where rangers were basically a huge joke and those of us that played them had to hope for that 6th (throw away) spot in a group.  I know there will always be the argument that "pure dps" classes should always out damage "hybrids" and I agree to a certain degree but in order for that to really hold true they are going to have to give rangers something that actually makes worthwhile in a group as well. I mean calling a class a hybrid because they get a low level nearly completely useless heal or buffs and a couple really bad DOT spells that nobody will use because the casting time will actually lower your DPS makes no sense to me. What two roles would they end up filling? In my experience rangers pretty much end up filling one role and that's DPS (yes there are always exceptions in situations but that can be said of almost every class.)

    I'd like to see rangers get some great mob splitting abilities like the monk's Feign Death. Rangers are scouts and woodsmen it makes sense to me that they'd be the ones sent out to find and lure in the bad guys. Without making them too similar monks/rangers could fulfill a "puller" role with Monks getting abilities that would make them the better option for indoor zones and Rangers being the go to guy for outdoor play.  I also like the idea of charming animals as use for temporary pets. As much as I would love to see rangers getting a viable permanent pet like the WoW Hunter class I can understand that many don't care for that style of play. I think that for a "charm animal" ability to be worth it though it would have to be on the level of being able to charm any NPC with the "animal" archetype so long as that their level doesn't exceed the caster's. (Kind of like how they did in EQ2 with Enchanters) Anyway, I can see that I'm starting to ramble on into other others things now and this was an archery thread so I'll stop here. Again these are all based on my own preferred style of play and I by no means feel that this is just the way a Ranger "should" be played, to each their own!


    This post was edited by YungMasta at December 14, 2016 11:58 AM PST
    • 293 posts
    December 15, 2016 6:38 PM PST

    Hello everyone. Rangers can be both. Melee and ranged. Also, you can decide to lets say, specialize in one style (AD&D, archery style, two handed style, two weapon style etc). Rangers are scouts, they track, they sneak, hide, ambush, make traps etc. If option was given to specialize beyond say level 10 or 20, melee or range, thats great. Otherwise its a ranger who can melee and range but without heavy armour. Role playing wise, my ranger would specialize in range after certain level (if any) and progress, refine my skills to range. Bonus on range vs melee. Likewise, specialize on melee, bonus on melee instead of range. But able use both. Or simple...ranger that can melee and range with no bonus or negatives. Track, hide, use band aid, cook smoked bear meat. And most important, looking for group or res.

    • 474 posts
    January 4, 2017 8:30 AM PST

    I think everyone is focusing too much on the DPS side of the Ranger. Hybrids like the Ranger (the way VR has been talking about the ranger and the knight classes makes it sound like they will be hybrid warrior/priest/caster classes so I am thinking along the lines of the EQ style Ranger) is SUPPORT/UTILITY. The Ranger should be equally skilled in all fighting styles, but not the master of any. A Ranger should be able to use ANY weapon in the game. They are a mix between the offensive side of a warrior and druid. Weapon choice should make no difference for the Ranger as they do not lean towards one style over another. Rather they are more fluid and would use whatever they have at their disposal and whatever is best for the situation. They are survivalists, tacticians, opertunists. 

     

    Where as any class can use any weapon type, others will lean towards a single type. Rogues for instance might lean towards daggers for their special abilities. Monks will want to use hand to hand type combat due to their fast, light, agile combat style. I see Rangers as taking everything that a Warrior can do and watering it down, then adding the offensive side of the druid to the mix to boost it back up. Buffs that will bring the martial abilities back in line to a warrior's level, add in some minor debuff and CC (root/snare only), and slipping in some very minor defensive priest ability in the form of minor heals (very minor) to make an all around offesnive focused protector that the Ranger should be viewed as.

    If a Ranger uses dual swords, then he will inch out some extra DPS over a Ranger with a shield.

    The Ranger with a shield will handle damage taken better than the Ranger with two swords.

    The Ranger with a bow will do just as much damage as a Ranger with dual swords over the same amount of time, but maybe is a little better in front loaded damage while the dual swords is better in sustained damage. Both have their roles.

     

    The only thing I want to see for sure is that archery is as viable a choice as the melee options for a primary weapon. If the fight mechanics doesn't favor one over the other then they should both perform equally over the same duration. That is all. Not THE option, or the better option, but AN option. Archery may not even be the best option in every situation. It might be good to have melee weapons at the ready as well as my primary bow. Thats the beauty of the Ranger. Versitility.

     

    My hope is that they handle weapon skill the same way EQ did. Its just a skill that gets better with use. No specializations, no single route to choose. If I want to use a sword, then I will need to get a sword and use it to gain skill. Once I skill up I can use a sword as effectively as I can any other weapon I hav trained up. Allowing me to use any weapon I find throughout my journey at any time in any combination I choose. As can any other melee centric class throughout the game.

    • 153 posts
    January 4, 2017 9:54 AM PST

    I am definitely going to play a ranger at some point

    I would love to see rangers be able to adapt to their encounter as opposed to either being an archer that can only range, or a melee ranger than can only CQB and is weak in archery. If a player wanted to specialize as an archer, maybe that could be a thing, but they'd be giving up some CQB a little in order to gain that more ranged DPS in a raid and visa versa if you want to specialize your ranger to be more CQB oriented?

    Archer-Ranger as a sort of specialization does sound appealing

    • 474 posts
    January 6, 2017 1:18 PM PST

    I still do not want to see specilizations. Just skill numbers that can be increased by using that weapon. Those skill modifiers affect to hit, dmg, crit rate, etc when using that weapon. This way I can become skilled in ANY weapon. Maybe some classes have a bit less skill than others. Like Rogues could become more highly skilled in the user of daggers than could any other class, warriors could becomes more skilled in ALL weapon types than any other class (except rogues with daggers, maybe slightly less or on par), monks could become more highly skilled with hand2hand than any other class, but knights can only skill up specific weapons to levels below the warrior, but on par with a ranger (remember the knights are defensive while rangers are offensive, Knight could get 1handed weapons and shields maybe?) while rangers can become skilled in all weapons up to a point just below warriors.

    This would play quite nicely into the overall feel of the classes.

    Rogues tend to use stabby things and have the skill to prove it.

    Monks are light, hand2hand fighters and make good on that.

    Warriors are the all around war machines, both skilled in offense and defense equally.

    Knights are skilled in defensive combat and can take a hit just as good as a warrior, but just don't have the offesnive ability.

    Rangers are the little brother to the warrior. Just as mean, but just hits a little lighter and goes down a bit easier.

    • 10 posts
    January 6, 2017 8:44 PM PST

    kellindil said:

    Rangers are the little brother to the warrior. Just as mean, but just hits a little lighter and goes down a bit easier.

     

    That line just basically says that rangers are nothing more than sub par warriors...

     

           As I've already stated here my play style would favor archery heavy combat for the ranger; that being said I agree with others that would prefer a numbered weapon skill progression over a single path chosen at some point in the ranger's career.  I also agree that it would be great that depending on the situation that certain fighting styles and or weapons would be better than others not so much because one style is ALWAYS better but just because it happens to give an advantage in specific types of encounters.

          I could continue on with more opinions and or rebuttals to some of the comments left above but I'll keep it short and try to stick to keeping it as close to the original topic as possible which was our thoughts on archery.

    • 193 posts
    January 7, 2017 8:44 AM PST

    In my opinon, rangers are should never be thought of as a sub-warrior class. Warriors traditionally are from the tank classes, they control battles, generate large agro and are a damage soak and their dps is (generally) intended to keep attention on themselves rather than out and out blizt on the ememy.

    Rangers traditionally are pure dps and should always out dps the front lines. Because they dont wear plate, they have to be the opposite of generating agro and can never take large damage. So there is no straight comparrison, they compliment the true front line roles.

    IMO, they should be thought of as a party utlity class that should be able to deal significant damage as melee or ranged (in equal amounts) and the rangers method should change depending on the situation. Cramped areas and/or ranged mobs, then the ranger goes melee. Open spaces and/or melee mobs, go ranged. Use tactics with this class and dont limit it to either ranged or melee. I think a mixed fighting style class is much more interesting, fun and useful. I think too much specialisation in either bow or in melee limits the use of a Ranger in a party.

    • 4416 posts
    January 9, 2017 5:54 AM PST

    YungMasta said:

    kellindil said:

    Rangers are the little brother to the warrior. Just as mean, but just hits a little lighter and goes down a bit easier.

     

    That line just basically says that rangers are nothing more than sub par warriors...

     

           As I've already stated here my play style would favor archery heavy combat for the ranger; that being said I agree with others that would prefer a numbered weapon skill progression over a single path chosen at some point in the ranger's career.  I also agree that it would be great that depending on the situation that certain fighting styles and or weapons would be better than others not so much because one style is ALWAYS better but just because it happens to give an advantage in specific types of encounters.

          I could continue on with more opinions and or rebuttals to some of the comments left above but I'll keep it short and try to stick to keeping it as close to the original topic as possible which was our thoughts on archery.

    Yeah I always find it strange when people compare Rangers to Warriors. Especially if the comparison is basically "Rangers are like warriors, except less useful." No one would ever play a Ranger. Rangers are their own thing. Not only do they have nature-based snares, heals, buffs, but Rangers should be even more versatile than Warriors when it comes to having a weapon for every situation. I would like to see Rangers employ throwing axes and throwing daggers more often as well.

    • 474 posts
    January 9, 2017 8:07 AM PST

    Bazgrim said:

    YungMasta said:

    kellindil said:

    Rangers are the little brother to the warrior. Just as mean, but just hits a little lighter and goes down a bit easier.

     

    That line just basically says that rangers are nothing more than sub par warriors...

     

           As I've already stated here my play style would favor archery heavy combat for the ranger; that being said I agree with others that would prefer a numbered weapon skill progression over a single path chosen at some point in the ranger's career.  I also agree that it would be great that depending on the situation that certain fighting styles and or weapons would be better than others not so much because one style is ALWAYS better but just because it happens to give an advantage in specific types of encounters.

          I could continue on with more opinions and or rebuttals to some of the comments left above but I'll keep it short and try to stick to keeping it as close to the original topic as possible which was our thoughts on archery.

    Yeah I always find it strange when people compare Rangers to Warriors. Especially if the comparison is basically "Rangers are like warriors, except less useful." No one would ever play a Ranger. Rangers are their own thing. Not only do they have nature-based snares, heals, buffs, but Rangers should be even more versatile than Warriors when it comes to having a weapon for every situation. I would like to see Rangers employ throwing axes and throwing daggers more often as well.

     

    Rangers are just Warriors that are less powerful, if you are speaking of melee prowess ONLY. Rangers are hybrids. So on top of that less powerful Warrior melee prowess is the utility of the priest class. Which adds in those snares, heals, etc. Which is what makes a Ranger and builds the class as a whole into a SUPPORT class.

    This thread was more about the physical DPS piece of the Ranger, which is why I said Rangers = Less Powerful Warrior. They are. They are also a less powerful Druid (when speaking in the context of the EQ Ranger which is a hybrid which is where it sounds like VR will take the class). So a less powerful Warrior mixed with a less powerful Druid will create a powerful and versitile Ranger. A support class that can take on almost any role if needed, but will not be the best at any of them.

    • 4416 posts
    January 9, 2017 9:20 AM PST

    kellindil said:

    Bazgrim said:

    YungMasta said:

    kellindil said:

    Rangers are the little brother to the warrior. Just as mean, but just hits a little lighter and goes down a bit easier.

     

    That line just basically says that rangers are nothing more than sub par warriors...

     

           As I've already stated here my play style would favor archery heavy combat for the ranger; that being said I agree with others that would prefer a numbered weapon skill progression over a single path chosen at some point in the ranger's career.  I also agree that it would be great that depending on the situation that certain fighting styles and or weapons would be better than others not so much because one style is ALWAYS better but just because it happens to give an advantage in specific types of encounters.

          I could continue on with more opinions and or rebuttals to some of the comments left above but I'll keep it short and try to stick to keeping it as close to the original topic as possible which was our thoughts on archery.

    Yeah I always find it strange when people compare Rangers to Warriors. Especially if the comparison is basically "Rangers are like warriors, except less useful." No one would ever play a Ranger. Rangers are their own thing. Not only do they have nature-based snares, heals, buffs, but Rangers should be even more versatile than Warriors when it comes to having a weapon for every situation. I would like to see Rangers employ throwing axes and throwing daggers more often as well.

     

    Rangers are just Warriors that are less powerful, if you are speaking of melee prowess ONLY. Rangers are hybrids. So on top of that less powerful Warrior melee prowess is the utility of the priest class. Which adds in those snares, heals, etc. Which is what makes a Ranger and builds the class as a whole into a SUPPORT class.

    This thread was more about the physical DPS piece of the Ranger, which is why I said Rangers = Less Powerful Warrior. They are. They are also a less powerful Druid (when speaking in the context of the EQ Ranger which is a hybrid which is where it sounds like VR will take the class). So a less powerful Warrior mixed with a less powerful Druid will create a powerful and versitile Ranger. A support class that can take on almost any role if needed, but will not be the best at any of them.

    All true. I suppose I just think of them more as Rogues (or sub-par Rogues) in that sense then.

    • 251 posts
    January 9, 2017 9:54 AM PST

    Bazgrim said:

    Yeah I always find it strange when people compare Rangers to Warriors. Especially if the comparison is basically "Rangers are like warriors, except less useful." No one would ever play a Ranger. Rangers are their own thing. Not only do they have nature-based snares, heals, buffs, but Rangers should be even more versatile than Warriors when it comes to having a weapon for every situation. I would like to see Rangers employ throwing axes and throwing daggers more often as well.

     

    The comparison comes from the implementation of the ranger class in dungeons and dragons.  Rangers were a fighter variant.  They weren't sub-par warriors, they were a type of warrior (same hit dice, they could wear plate--though they couldn't take advantage of some of their skills in heavy armor).  They were required to take certain specializations like archery and in return for having less customization they were given other boons like tracking, limited spell-casting ability and a few rogue-like skills.  Over time the class evolved some.  I think later editions had the class take more of a scout/archer bend.  I read something recently that said that the current 5th ed. ranger isn't even the master of the bow--apparently that distinction is currently for warriors who choose to speciallize in it.  It sounds like current AD&D rangers are more like 'horde-fighters' speciallizing in fighting large groups of enemies but being weak against large boss-type mobs.  I'll post the link to the summary of the class evolution in AD&D if I can find it again.

     

    • 101 posts
    January 10, 2017 7:25 PM PST

    Rangers are hybrids in Everquest, this is Pantheon.  There is no reason to have the ranger be a hybrid of two diffferent classes.  We can and should be a class all unto ourselves.  With that said, because we shouldn't be a hybrid, I don't mind seeing how Pantheon defines us.  There are a lot of game examples as to what a ranger type of class is or can be.  If we stick to a mold of a certain type like an EQ ranger or WoW hunter, then our options are limited.  I have always played as an EQ ranger and would like to see some of that in this new class, but a cookie cutter of the EQ ranger would be boring.

     

    People harp a lot about DPS and there is a reason for it.  DPS is going to probably be the main factor as to whether our class will be wanted in groups.  Sure there is utility, but if the class has like one or two utilities that are greatly bneneficial to groups, you can bet down the line that there will be different versions for another class and then that leaves the ranger out in the cold.  A lot of older EQ players remember the times when rangers were only wanted for snares in groups or DTs in raids.  Then other classes with better utilities started taking over snare duty and rangers were left to solo fear kite or root and shoot for XP. 

     

    What I would really like to see is for someone, not me, to create a list of things that we rangers want to see in our class.  Be realistic though.  We aren't getting uber heals, slows, or badass aoe CC (I wish).  If the majority of the ranger community can agree on a core set of abilities and characteristics, I don't see why the development team wouldn't seriously take those into consideration. 

     

    We all have an image of what we believe a ranger should be, and believe it or not, a lot of our images are basically the same.  Would be nice if we could create some polls to see what abilities/spells/proficiencies we all would like to see.

    • 10 posts
    January 11, 2017 8:41 PM PST

    Radamus said:

    What I would really like to see is for someone, not me, to create a list of things that we rangers want to see in our class.  Be realistic though.  We aren't getting uber heals, slows, or badass aoe CC (I wish).  If the majority of the ranger community can agree on a core set of abilities and characteristics, I don't see why the development team wouldn't seriously take those into consideration. 

     

    I think this thread basically sums up what you're asking for: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/2138/what-i-d-like-to-see-from-the-ranger-class

     

    I also agree with you Radamus that it would be kinda nice to see some sort of completely new spin on the ranger here in Pantheon so long as it still stays true to the overall feel of a woodsman type loner that has been established ever since LotR introduced it.  

    Throwing axes and knives would also be very cool. I think I'd lean more towards axes though as for whatever reason in my head I think of of throwing knives as a rogue thing /shrug.

    Kellindil said:

    This thread was more about the physical DPS piece of the Ranger, which is why I said Rangers = Less Powerful Warrior. 

    I concede that there has been a lot of other things discussed here but I do believe this thread was supposed to be about archery. I do agree with you that making the ranger a SUPPORT class would be a cool idea so long as the class could bring something specific and highly valued to the party that made them sought after.  I guess my biggest fear is that when I shout Ranger LFG the reaction a party will have is: "Well here's a sub par Druid/Warrior thats LFG maybe we should just wait on a class that can FULLY fulfill its role..." 

     

    • 79 posts
    January 16, 2017 8:55 PM PST

    Kilsin said:

    DanF said:

    A Bard was not really how I interpreted what the OP wrote.  A Bard strikes me as more Utility/Support.  I read the OP as DPS.  Though, I will admit I am bias as I want a Warrior/Mage Hybrid (thinking Arcane Duelist/Spellsword) not a Singer/Entertainer, Jack of all Trades, Support Character which is how I see Bards.  Oh well, I can always hope for an Expansion Class sometime in the future.....

     

    Bard is still lightweight melee dps with Rogue, Monk and Ranger, they just give up some of their dps to share it with other plus have a bit more utility.

     

    This quote was taken from this thread https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3457/one-more-close-quarters-combatant-dps-class

    I noticed Kilsin stating that Ranger is included in their lightweight melee dps line up.. to what end is still unknown but from what I gather from that quote is Ranger is considered melee. 

    • 474 posts
    January 23, 2017 11:33 AM PST

    xaices said:

    Kilsin said:

    DanF said:

    A Bard was not really how I interpreted what the OP wrote.  A Bard strikes me as more Utility/Support.  I read the OP as DPS.  Though, I will admit I am bias as I want a Warrior/Mage Hybrid (thinking Arcane Duelist/Spellsword) not a Singer/Entertainer, Jack of all Trades, Support Character which is how I see Bards.  Oh well, I can always hope for an Expansion Class sometime in the future.....

     

    Bard is still lightweight melee dps with Rogue, Monk and Ranger, they just give up some of their dps to share it with other plus have a bit more utility.

     

     

    This quote was taken from this thread https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3457/one-more-close-quarters-combatant-dps-class

    I noticed Kilsin stating that Ranger is included in their lightweight melee dps line up.. to what end is still unknown but from what I gather from that quote is Ranger is considered melee. 

     

    I think it would be safe to assume that in most people's minds when one says "Melee" they really mean "Physical". Archery would be included in the "Melee" DPS camp.

    • 54 posts
    January 26, 2017 2:08 PM PST

    I'd like the ranger to be the classical bow-guy. Sorry.


    I also have an idea for the basic mechanic of that class (yeah I'm throwing around a lot of those in the other forums).

    How about this: Every attack you have has different effects on the enemy, depending on how strong you draw the arrow while executing it.

    So, let's say you have a poison arrow. Classic. if you just press it shortly, and do a quick shot, it's a dot on one enemy, no news here. But if you decide to draw it fully (hold the button down for a couple of seconds), it will explode in a gas cloud on impact and hit multiple targets in the area or even creates a puddle that slows everyone in it additionally, dunno.

    Or you may have a blunt arrow. with normal quick fire, it just does crushing damage and maybe gives an armor debuff. With a full draw, it will make more damage and knocks the enemy down.

    I know, you could also just have two attacks for that, but this would create a unique feeling to the class that also makes sense. I'm all about these little things and differences. In many mmos, I have the feeling of just having other icons on my skillbar, but basically, all melees and ranged classes feel very alike in the end.

    I would love for Pantheon to change that.

    • 4416 posts
    January 27, 2017 2:47 AM PST

    sebbulba said:

    I'd like the ranger to be the classical bow-guy. Sorry.


    I also have an idea for the basic mechanic of that class (yeah I'm throwing around a lot of those in the other forums).

    How about this: Every attack you have has different effects on the enemy, depending on how strong you draw the arrow while executing it.

    So, let's say you have a poison arrow. Classic. if you just press it shortly, and do a quick shot, it's a dot on one enemy, no news here. But if you decide to draw it fully (hold the button down for a couple of seconds), it will explode in a gas cloud on impact and hit multiple targets in the area or even creates a puddle that slows everyone in it additionally, dunno.

    Or you may have a blunt arrow. with normal quick fire, it just does crushing damage and maybe gives an armor debuff. With a full draw, it will make more damage and knocks the enemy down.

    I know, you could also just have two attacks for that, but this would create a unique feeling to the class that also makes sense. I'm all about these little things and differences. In many mmos, I have the feeling of just having other icons on my skillbar, but basically, all melees and ranged classes feel very alike in the end.

    I would love for Pantheon to change that.

    That's definitely a good idea, but there's no denying the fact that Pantheon will have auto attack combat and the mechanic you described does not fit with AA. That would be much cooler in an action combat game. I think Rangers will automatically be unique in that they will have the highest auto attack DPS at range. Other classes will either be primarily melee that have to be right in the action to get their dmg in, or casters that deal dmg from a distance, but rely on mana to do so. But the Ranger is the only one that can do sustained high auto attack dmg from a distance. (at least that's what I'm hoping) Of course I'm sure warriors and other classes will at least be capable of using a bow. and auto attacking from a distance. but the Ranger will presumably be the best at it. more range and more damage.

    • 54 posts
    January 27, 2017 3:09 AM PST

    I think it would make the class even more interesting with auto attack. You would auto attack and have to decide if the current situation is worth it to fully draw your next ability for a specific effect or if the standard shot is the better choice.

    In the end, it's more a cosmetic change than anything. it would just feel more natural, and you'd basically cut the amount of buttons to use in half.

     

    • 167 posts
    January 27, 2017 10:32 AM PST

    I usually pick rangers as one of my 1st toons because I enjoy the ranged aspect.  But ranged damage usually cannot keep pace with melee damage, and this game won't be any different.  In VG, I went dex/str/con on my ranger for stat priority.    But with encumbrance I will flip str and dex.  So my ranger will end up a melee class over a ranged because I want to be able to carry more loot to sell to make money.  Unless there is a way to be able to move the dropped loot off my character without leaving a group so I can slowly walk back to town, I dont see how it won't happen. 

    edit  I am assuming encumbrance will be in game, but I don't think anything official has been said yet.  If it isnt, then most of my entire post is useless.   


    This post was edited by Gragorie at January 27, 2017 10:41 AM PST
    • 474 posts
    January 27, 2017 10:56 AM PST

    Gragorie said:

    I usually pick rangers as one of my 1st toons because I enjoy the ranged aspect.  But ranged damage usually cannot keep pace with melee damage, and this game won't be any different.  In VG, I went dex/str/con on my ranger for stat priority.    But with encumbrance I will flip str and dex.  So my ranger will end up a melee class over a ranged because I want to be able to carry more loot to sell to make money.  Unless there is a way to be able to move the dropped loot off my character without leaving a group so I can slowly walk back to town, I dont see how it won't happen. 

    edit  I am assuming encumbrance will be in game, but I don't think anything official has been said yet.  If it isnt, then most of my entire post is useless.   

    There have been many games in which ranged dps was as viable if not more so than melee. If designed from the ground up with ranged dps equated in the combat system can make it work.

    As for your reason for choosing stats, thats a problem you would need to sort out. If stats work the way you assume, and you want to be ranged dps, you will need to choose the correct stat placement. It depends on your priorities. I have never done anything as you described. I always choose my stats based on how I intend to play the class. If that means I can't carry as much, so be it. Eventually that will be a non issue once gear is obtained.


    This post was edited by kellindil at January 27, 2017 10:57 AM PST