Forums » The Ranger

  • Wig
    • 173 posts
    June 7, 2017 9:45 AM PDT

    I know, I know..pets are a very touchy subject when it comes to rangers. Just unequip your torches and pitchforks for just a few. I just finished watching Voices of Terminus episode on rangers (I know I'm a bit late to the show). Besides some of the parts in the show making me want to rage and bite infants heads off, they had some decent ideas about pets. I liked the idea that, if rangers do get pets, to have their own talent tree so we can spec them way we would like. This brings more customization to a class and allowing for a broader playstyle. However, their opinion on whether a pet is permanent or temporary was a bit hazy. I know Brad stated rangers won't be a pet class. Has this information changed? Who knows. When he says not a pet class, we have no pet at all? Or we get temporary pets? Who knows. My question to you is do you want pets? Permanent? Temporary (Charmed)? Not at all? If you do want pets, how would you like them to work? 

    • 465 posts
    June 7, 2017 11:07 AM PDT

    I honestly don't know where all this pet talk came from. I don't remember anyone from VR saying Rangers will have pets. They haven't released any info on the Ranger yet at all. Maybe someone can link a source (from VR).

    Rangers in D&D (which is confirmed to be the inspiration for all the classes VR has planned) were not a pet class but at a high enough level could opt to have a companion. Usually a wolf, big cat, bear, or bird. These were just animals that tagged along. They had no real special abilities. Being wild animals they were not always around thus they were more of a temporary pet.

    If Rangers do get some kind of pet, this is how i'd like it to work.

    At a specific level, mid to higher level preferably, you can select a companion by quest. This would be a special ability granted. You would pick, via the quest, to befriend a choice of animal. The ability would be usable once a day (game day) and would last a half day (again game day). The pet should be controlable to the exstint of /attack target, /stop attack, /guard (stay in an area and attack anything hostile that comes within range), and /hold (take absolutely no actions unless told). The pet would have an "aura" that would grant a small buff depending on the type of animal (bear gives more stamina or defense what have you, wolf might buff str or atk, etc). This would affect the entire group.

    Thats it. If it doesn't work something along these lines (an ability to summon or a befriend animal spell) then I'd rather not see Rangers with pets. I am not a fan of spec trees for either pets or players. Play styles should be handled through skills chosen to level and equipment. If you want to be more tanky then you'd find gear with the most Ac/Def/Sta/Whatever stats tanks need in game. If you want to be melee DPS you'd maybe find gear with Str and ATK and the like. If you want to be Ranged DPS you'd look for gear with Dex and Ranged ATK modifiers (because ranged and melee atk strength should be different stats IMO). All this mized with quested special abilities like special melee or ranged attacks or defensive cool downs and the like.

    The pet, if at all, should just be a slight boost to DPS (via the pet attacking and any boon they might grant).

    • 13 posts
    June 7, 2017 1:35 PM PDT

    I don't think pets should be on any sort of long timer.  This happened in FFXI with dragoon, they could call their wyvern once per hour, if it died in the first 5 minutes they went 55 minutes without it.  Now anytime a pet can be out, devs have to calculate that into the dps of the player, because of this, the dragoon with no pet was now a gimp dps or liability to the party until their cooldown reset.  You could say that most groups wouldn't mind, but deep down, lots of folks are a-holes that just want to maximize their groups and would pass over dragoons for that reason.  I liked how WoW originally did their hunter pets, before they added pet talent trees.  If you got a bird, it was fast, attacked fast, but didn't hit too hard, snakes would poison, boars could charge, that sort of thing, what you tamed determined what you got, also the longer you fought with your pet, you raised it, the more loyal or better it got, I think they could have expanded on that more though.

  • Wig
    • 173 posts
    June 7, 2017 4:09 PM PDT

    Like I said, I'm getting this from the Voices of Terminus episode I watched, which is a bit dated. As for the talent trees, I agree I don't want them for characters (creates cookie cutter specs) but for pets it could work..maybe? I think AA's could work as well to help give your pet more damage or survivability. I do like the idea of finding what pet does what as mallanb81 stated I.e. Cats are dps, bears are tanks. But again, Brad stated ranger isn't a pet class. However, you could interpret that in a few ways. Possibly combat pets are out for ranger, but non combat pets that resemble familiars? Just something for us to ponder while awaiting the Ranger reveal :)

    • 162 posts
    June 11, 2017 4:43 AM PDT

    kellindil said:

    Rangers in D&D (which is confirmed to be the inspiration for all the classes VR has planned) were not a pet class but at a high enough level could opt to have a companion. Usually a wolf, big cat, bear, or bird. These were just animals that tagged along. They had no real special abilities. Being wild animals they were not always around thus they were more of a temporary pet. 

     


    I'd be fine with a companion that just tagged along and didn't help in combat, as long as I'm not forced to use a bow.

    • 465 posts
    June 11, 2017 9:07 AM PDT

    If they force anyone to use any specific weapons over another i will be increadibly disapointed. I want to use a bow as a primary weapon, but I do not support locking a classes gameplay to a single weapon choice. Melee should be equally viable as a bow and vice versa.

  • Wig
    • 173 posts
    June 11, 2017 4:38 PM PDT

    I agree. I think melee and ranged should both be viable options. Allow the player to decide how to specialize via AAs.

    • 262 posts
    July 10, 2017 9:00 AM PDT
    There will not be AA's at launch, no one from VR has said anything about Ranger's being a pet class, and Rangers will most likely be the only class to master the bow. Let's just accept this and move on.
    • 264 posts
    August 16, 2017 8:55 PM PDT
    I liked the way WoW did pets tbh. One of the few things I enjoyed. I liked having a companion in the wild
    • 9 posts
    September 11, 2017 9:46 AM PDT

    I'd like a ranger pet to be like the EQ AA Pack Hunt where your summon wolves. Maybe you need to do a quest to get this AA in order to learn how to do it. At first you're only able to summon one wolf but you can very slowly upgrade it to give you more wolves.


    This post was edited by Utica at September 11, 2017 9:47 AM PDT
    • 122 posts
    October 26, 2017 7:51 AM PDT

    Considering the ranger classes in Pantheon are pretty attuned with nature, I would be fine with having a pet or pets, for simple mechanics, such as if you have your owl summoned, you can use him to go scout around a corner or something. Or if you summoned a wolf, maybe he would increase your foraging or tracking via sceant (just thinking outloud). Unless it's an AA, the pets for a ranger should not be a source of dps in my opinion.

    • 1 posts
    October 26, 2017 8:38 AM PDT

    Im a long time ranger and lurker here.  Im not sure why you cant have three options.  Sort of like WoW, gasp, was at one point.  Let the ranger choose a specialization, melee, ranged or pet. IF you have a seperate skill tree for each with the dps being similar then everyone will be able to play the way they like.  In my vision melee or ranged have no pet, except maybe a temp uncontrolled summone wolf type dot really thing.  I personally really enjoyed the wow hunter and before they screwed up all the classesand i had a couple of em. one melee and one ranged focused. 

    • 465 posts
    October 26, 2017 8:50 AM PDT

    Rokchewer said:

    Im a long time ranger and lurker here.  Im not sure why you cant have three options.  Sort of like WoW, gasp, was at one point.  Let the ranger choose a specialization, melee, ranged or pet. IF you have a seperate skill tree for each with the dps being similar then everyone will be able to play the way they like.  In my vision melee or ranged have no pet, except maybe a temp uncontrolled summone wolf type dot really thing.  I personally really enjoyed the wow hunter and before they screwed up all the classesand i had a couple of em. one melee and one ranged focused. 

     

    NO SKILL TREES!!!!!

    This is one of THE reasons I hate WoW. One will always be the best and you end up forced into a specific spec.

    Keep anything and everything WoW-ish out!!

    • 122 posts
    October 26, 2017 9:00 AM PDT

    Rokchewer said:

    Im a long time ranger and lurker here.  Im not sure why you cant have three options.  Sort of like WoW, gasp, was at one point.  Let the ranger choose a specialization, melee, ranged or pet. IF you have a seperate skill tree for each with the dps being similar then everyone will be able to play the way they like.  In my vision melee or ranged have no pet, except maybe a temp uncontrolled summone wolf type dot really thing.  I personally really enjoyed the wow hunter and before they screwed up all the classesand i had a couple of em. one melee and one ranged focused. 

     

    To your defense, I do hope the ranger is designed to where it can viable to use melee or ranged dps. The good thing about EQ and VG, is you didn't need a skill tree to be able to have these different "specs." If you spent enough time playing, you would gain enough AA points to level up Endless Quiver, AMD3, or a bunch of melee enchancing abilities (albeit in EQ ranged was the way to go with a ranger). As sort of mentioned above, every top guild theorycrafts (create mathematical combat formulas for optimization) and there will always be one spec used in a raid during a given expansion period. With intelligent design from devs, we won't have to bottleneck ourselves into 1 spec; rather, we will have it all at our disposal, leaving it up to the skill of the player to know which kind of dps he/she should use in a given situation.

    The WoW hunter was fun (I mained him from day 1 until Burning Crusade, switching to rogue), but it did not follow the traditional design of a ranger (dungeons and dragons, which is what Brad would often pull inspiration from in the past, where rangers don't have pets with any impact on combat). Again to your point, however, VR has taken "their own approach" to the fantasy setting (i.e. new takes on halflings, gnomes, ogre druid etc), so it's not out of the realm of possibility we see them with a pet, though I believe only druid lore contained any direct information regarding pets.


    This post was edited by Zuljan at October 26, 2017 9:09 AM PDT
    • 42 posts
    March 31, 2018 7:58 PM PDT

    I would really freaking hate to see rangers turned into a pet class. I think guildwars is just awful in that regard. doesnt wow have something like that too? Yuck

    • 15 posts
    April 4, 2018 10:56 AM PDT

    I'm in the camp of Rangers that would like to see Archery as our main form of DPS and also the class being a mainly DPS/utility class. Utility is that grey area where it's nice and it helps but almost everyone gets some version of utility so it's kind of harder to make someone OP with utility. Utility is of course the first thing about any class would give up to be better at tanking/dps/healing. 

     

    The idea of a Pet for Rangers can be used for some utility, permanate or temporary. In the end I could support a utility pet that can gather things, help track, lookout or something like that but ultamatly none of that should be very useful unless everyone and their class or most everyone else can do the same thing but maybe in a different way. A pet as a offtank or DPS basically make Rangers more like Beastlords or maybe even druids, and I just don't see the two major factions of Rangers (melee VS Archery) as wanting more dilution. 

     

    A token silly fun pet seems well.. fun... But someday a group of people we want that pet to do more, and if it becomes more than fun it mean the class can easily become OP. Historically games like these won't take away something like this to help bring ballance, instead they nerf other areas of yoru class or as expansions are released areas of your class are left to stagnate. 

     

    If there were 3 versions of the Ranger I'd be ok with a pet. basically you "spec" your toon out to be a tank-lite class with some DPS abilities and lite utility. You spec your toon out to be a Archery that is competitive with other high end DPSers and decent amount of personal utility... Or maybe a Pet class, all about utility and a pet mini tank/minor DPS.

    Bascially you have to fill a role, and fill it well or the class is doomed to sucking or being OP. I'd be pretty upset if Rangers were some pet class when other pet classes will undoubtably be far better than a Ranger pet class.

     

    Just my thoughts~ 

    • 9 posts
    November 3, 2018 9:12 PM PDT

    I like the idea of a pet.  It reflects what most people experience in this world, animal companionship.  Whether a dog owner, cat owner, or some other animal as a pet, many people have them and they are part of their family.  Rangers and Druids would make the most sense for a pet.  This is an idea I am very partial to; especially if time must be spent raising the pet.  It carries a sense of attachment for another living thing, and when you solo, you don't really feel alone.


    This post was edited by Thalrin at November 3, 2018 9:13 PM PDT