Forums » The Ranger

The Opinion of One... Ranger Talk

    • 1007 posts
    January 24, 2018 12:34 PM PST

    Below is just some opinions of mine, but overall I'm excited to see where they go with the Ranger. I'm hopeful for a Vanguard style Ranger myself :).

     

    Since first looking into Pantheon I've been thinking hard about the class I would like to play, and why. Right now the 3 main classes that I believe I'm most interested in are: Ranger, Cleric, and Shaman. Now we have a little information on both the Shaman and Cleric, but not so much the Ranger. With Rangers being a class that can go very different ways and fall under very different play-styles I see it as the "Wildcard class". The reasons I say that is because of the unknowns around a ranger. Topics like what is their DPS compared to others, do they use bows as primary weapons, and do they have pets? Are just a few major questions and each one can change the Ranger Class completely, so I wanted to give my opinion on these questions and ask the one question that I believe is most important. Will Rangers be valuable to a group?

     

    Ok here is my opinions on Rangers - (Yes I use the word "should", but please understand I don't make the decisions and am just here to share a opinion.) 

    1. Ranger Melee DPS should be equal to a Warriors. 
    2. Rangers Ranged DPS should be slightly higher due to enhanced abilities such as Flame Arrow, Frost Arrow, Poison Arrow, Holy Arrow, etc... However ranged attacks require arrows. 
    3. Rangers should be able to gain an animal companion. Rangers companions should be tamed, and only as loyal as they are happy. To make them happy they must be feed and cared for. I'd like Rangers to have an abilities such Pet, Feed, and Play with Companion to increase their happiness. These Companions can die, and if they do must be Revived by the Ranger. These pets act more as a DoT then an additional person meaning they have no additional abilities, IE - can't taunt, but only provide additional DPS to make it so a Rangers overall DPS is closer to a true DPS class. Think of this like a Shaman Pet, where it attacks to provide extra damage, but requires work to keep at full strength and DPS output.  
    4. Rangers should have Traps they can place to impale mobs. To place the Trap the Ranger must make the Trap and place it on the ground. IE - it would take a 2 second cast time to place the trap, and then the mob must cross over the trap to be impaled. This could work for blocking passage ways mobs may come from as a form of CC or even work for CC as a Ranger would pull a mob to him and have it Impaled then go back to attacking the main target. Traps last 20 secs and take 2secs to deploy. These could offer many uses as a way to kite mobs, or chain CC mobs. Traps will do Damage when hit, however X% of damage done to a mob while trapped will break the trap or X amount of time. 
    5. Rangers should have camouflage. This allows them to blend into the environment safely. Movement will break this effect. 
    6. Rangers should be able to create campfires and torches. Chef's can use the fire for cooking, and Rangers can use an arrow with a piece of cloth to make a Temporary Torch. 
    7. Rangers epic quest should result in two 1-handed Axes that provide +10 to the Woodcutting. Allowing them to gather more wood for arrows from less trees. 
    8. Rangers should never have an endless supply of arrows. Due to arrows providing them their greatest DPS output they should be something that are used with consideration.

     

    My overall Idea behind a Ranger is to make them valuable to a group, but require a lot of maintenance. Sure a ranger can use Melee only without a pet, but there damage out put will be impacted and abilities be limited. Instead for a Ranger to be most effective they must be a care taker to there pet, and constantly gathering resources for arrows. A ranger will have to take time to prepare for the fights ahead of time, and if all their abilities are used to the max can put out DPS almost equal to a Rogue, or Wizard. Sure Rangers won't be the highest DPS, but theirs skills such as Traps, Ability to pulling mobs from extended distance with arrows, and campfires should make them a valuable team member to have in any group or raid. 

     

    A little more on pets / companions: 

    - Wild pets must be tamed / broken / imprinted. This would require the animal to be pulled with food. Rangers would have an ability to place food on the ground and call the animal over to it. If the animal likes the food type it will eat it. Depending on the quality of food, animal level, and what the animal aggro's to you will determine how much food you must feed the animal to make it happy. Once happy you have the ability to "Imprint" on the animal. Once you "Imprint" the animal will stay by your-side Happy or not, however there DPS output will be impacted by there status. A hungry unhappy pet will never leave once imprinted, but may walk instead of run and do far less damage or not attack at all if not taking care of. 

    - Rangers will not have Stables or places to keep additional pets. You will be loyal to one at a time and it will be loyal to you. 

    - You can abandon pets, and they will flee upon the action. 

    - You can tell your pet to hide, and then call it back with a spell. (Similar to Dismiss and Summon)

     

    I know my opinions don't match meany others, but thats ok. We all have so many great opinions, so hope you can respect mine as I respect yours! Enjoy!

     


    This post was edited by Saicred at January 24, 2018 1:32 PM PST
    • 474 posts
    January 25, 2018 9:01 AM PST

    Saicred said:

    Below is just some opinions of mine, but overall I'm excited to see where they go with the Ranger. I'm hopeful for a Vanguard style Ranger myself :).

     

    Since first looking into Pantheon I've been thinking hard about the class I would like to play, and why. Right now the 3 main classes that I believe I'm most interested in are: Ranger, Cleric, and Shaman. Now we have a little information on both the Shaman and Cleric, but not so much the Ranger. With Rangers being a class that can go very different ways and fall under very different play-styles I see it as the "Wildcard class". The reasons I say that is because of the unknowns around a ranger. Topics like what is their DPS compared to others, do they use bows as primary weapons, and do they have pets? Are just a few major questions and each one can change the Ranger Class completely, so I wanted to give my opinion on these questions and ask the one question that I believe is most important. Will Rangers be valuable to a group?

     

    Going to break it down here with my opinions on your opinions...

    Ok here is my opinions on Rangers - (Yes I use the word "should", but please understand I don't make the decisions and am just here to share a opinion.) 

    1. Ranger Melee DPS should be equal to a Warriors. 
    2. Rangers Ranged DPS should be slightly higher due to enhanced abilities such as Flame Arrow, Frost Arrow, Poison Arrow, Holy Arrow, etc... However ranged attacks require arrows. 
    3. Rangers should be able to gain an animal companion. Rangers companions should be tamed, and only as loyal as they are happy. To make them happy they must be feed and cared for. I'd like Rangers to have an abilities such Pet, Feed, and Play with Companion to increase their happiness. These Companions can die, and if they do must be Revived by the Ranger. These pets act more as a DoT then an additional person meaning they have no additional abilities, IE - can't taunt, but only provide additional DPS to make it so a Rangers overall DPS is closer to a true DPS class. Think of this like a Shaman Pet, where it attacks to provide extra damage, but requires work to keep at full strength and DPS output.  
    4. Rangers should have Traps they can place to impale mobs. To place the Trap the Ranger must make the Trap and place it on the ground. IE - it would take a 2 second cast time to place the trap, and then the mob must cross over the trap to be impaled. This could work for blocking passage ways mobs may come from as a form of CC or even work for CC as a Ranger would pull a mob to him and have it Impaled then go back to attacking the main target. Traps last 20 secs and take 2secs to deploy. These could offer many uses as a way to kite mobs, or chain CC mobs. Traps will do Damage when hit, however X% of damage done to a mob while trapped will break the trap or X amount of time. 
    5. Rangers should have camouflage. This allows them to blend into the environment safely. Movement will break this effect. 
    6. Rangers should be able to create campfires and torches. Chef's can use the fire for cooking, and Rangers can use an arrow with a piece of cloth to make a Temporary Torch. 
    7. Rangers epic quest should result in two 1-handed Axes that provide +10 to the Woodcutting. Allowing them to gather more wood for arrows from less trees. 
    8. Rangers should never have an endless supply of arrows. Due to arrows providing them their greatest DPS output they should be something that are used with consideration.

     

    1. I can agree with this assuming Warriors will be dual wielders and have average DPS. Remember we don't really know how the Warrior will shape up at this point either.
    2. I don't like the idea of one weapon choice being more DPS than another. I would rather spells be used instead of specialty arrows so that the dps add comes in the form of a proc that could be added to both melee and ranged weapons. Traditionally Rangers would be highly skilled in both melee and ranged weapons equally. As even a Ranger who prefered melee would be highly skilled with a bow due to the lifestyle of a Ranger (protector of his homeland, out on the range living off the land almost entirely)
    3. I don't like the idea of the Ranger being a pet class. The ability to summon a compaion that is temporary (meaning the pet is on a timer and only lasts say 30 minutes with a cool down timer of maybe an hour... duration/recast TBD. Else i'd like to see a temproary charm spell instead. I'd love to see different animal types have their own abilities, like a tanky bear that will taunt or a cat that is basically a rogue.
    4. I really don't like the trap idea. I would really rather see the Ranger with spells akin to that of a druid (traditional druid as we again know nothing of what the Pantheon Druid will be) like snare, root, DoTs, etc.
    5. I agree with this except I would say that camo would not break on movement, but is only able to be used outdoors. 
    6. I'm good with Rangers making an improvised camp fire, maybe that adds a buff or helps with regen during downtime and can be used for cooking and such. The torch doesn;t strike me as exclusively Ranger-ish. Any fool can wrap a rag around a stick, but whichever...
    7. I don't like the idea of pigeon holing the Ranger as a woodworker. I'd rather keep crfting/gathering skills off epics lest the bonuses make the item unapealing to some over others. Plus, I don't like axes, prefer swords or bows....
    8. 100% agree, not because the bow is more DPS as i've stated my issue with that, but because it's more realistic and Ranged combat is in most cases "safer" than melee. I don't see an issue with the extra cost of arrows vs melee.

    My overall Idea behind a Ranger is to make them valuable to a group, but require a lot of maintenance. Sure a ranger can use Melee only without a pet, but there damage out put will be impacted and abilities be limited. Instead for a Ranger to be most effective they must be a care taker to there pet, and constantly gathering resources for arrows. A ranger will have to take time to prepare for the fights ahead of time, and if all their abilities are used to the max can put out DPS almost equal to a Rogue, or Wizard. Sure Rangers won't be the highest DPS, but theirs skills such as Traps, Ability to pulling mobs from extended distance with arrows, and campfires should make them a valuable team member to have in any group or raid. 

     

    I agree with the sentiment, but not the execution. I don't want to be locked into having a pet to be efficient. I think a pet should be a short term utility bonus. Either to boost DPS or off tank in a pinch depending on what pet you have "charmed". Instead of traps the same utility would be gained from spells and would grant the same sustained boost to dps for yourself and for the raid/group with the added CC/Utility. If the Ranger with all his buffs and boosts active were stacked up against a rogue with nothing but his own abilities at hand, then yes they should more or less be equal. A Ranger and a Rogue in a group together where they are both raid buffed and the Rogue gets the benefit of the Ranger's group buffs as well, then the Rogue should inch out the Ranger fairly noticably in strait DPS. I see the Ranger as being more utility than the Rogue and there should be a trade off for that in the form of lesser DPS. Not so much as to make the Ranger pointless, but enough so that the Rogue is still valuable in a raid. The Ranger would still be valuale based on their utility and ability to boost other DPS classes around them.

    A little more on pets / companions: 

    - Wild pets must be tamed / broken / imprinted. This would require the animal to be pulled with food. Rangers would have an ability to place food on the ground and call the animal over to it. If the animal likes the food type it will eat it. Depending on the quality of food, animal level, and what the animal aggro's to you will determine how much food you must feed the animal to make it happy. Once happy you have the ability to "Imprint" on the animal. Once you "Imprint" the animal will stay by your-side Happy or not, however there DPS output will be impacted by there status. A hungry unhappy pet will never leave once imprinted, but may walk instead of run and do far less damage or not attack at all if not taking care of. 

    - Rangers will not have Stables or places to keep additional pets. You will be loyal to one at a time and it will be loyal to you. 

    - You can abandon pets, and they will flee upon the action. 

    - You can tell your pet to hide, and then call it back with a spell. (Similar to Dismiss and Summon)

     

    I know my opinions don't match meany others, but thats ok. We all have so many great opinions, so hope you can respect mine as I respect yours! Enjoy!

     

    I just really don't want to see the Ranger get muddled down with pets. As a short term utility option for a DPS boost or to have a tank in a pinch to save the groups ass, or as a charm spell I can deal with, but I really do not want to see the pet as core to the class.

     

    Overall, I wouldn't be driven off by your cocept of the Ranger. It seems fairly close to what I want for the class in concept, just the execution is a tad different. Can't wait to actually see more info on the class and how it will shape up in game. However that might be.


    This post was edited by kellindil at January 25, 2018 10:59 AM PST
    • 15 posts
    January 25, 2018 8:50 PM PST

    No offense, and I hear you are just giving your opinions but... I can't imagine me even being slightly into that as a Ranger class. After playing everquest and a few other MMO's mainly in betas as they simply were not worth playing past that, there seems to be some simple rules you are not following. 

    Games like Everquest and assembly Pantheon have 4 archetypes to work with, Healer, tank, DPS and last and most disliked by people, Utility. If a class is not near or top of one of those that class fades into absolute uselessness. You didn't seem to create a Ranger class that fits into one of those roles. Now, realize that you can have a mixture of the archtypes, and in fact all classes are a mixture of them, but the best classes ALWAYS fill a role better or as good as others that fill that role. A rogue and a Wizzy can both be top end DPS on the same level and both be great classes, but if you drop the rogue's DPS down so you can give them some personal utility that class starts to fade.

    Why would I play a bad tank with low DPS no real heals and some awkward utility? It's not that your idea for the class is bad (imo), it's that you seem to be creating a class that is spread to thin, Little tanking, little DPS, some spells and a pet... utility that is "meh." 

    I only have interest in the Ranger class, possibly a bard for who knows what reason... If I log in towards the end of Beta and rangers don't fill a role at or near max of other classes filling that role I will log out and never look back, no second chances as that's why we have alphas and betas. That being said, if rangers are a melee dom class I again will leave and never look back. many people want an Archer class and Rangers are at this point the only known archer class in Pantheon, so if the Devs decide to destroy the class by dilution (melee/archery/spells) for DPS I'll lol at all the people wasting their time on a useless class as I again I leave and never look back. 

    I'd like to say I have faith in the dev team but honestly I'm just not a fanboi, it either IS or it IS NOT done in a way that works well with the rest of the game. Some of this team created the horrible joke (actual joke) that was in Everquest, they also made that other game that I did beta for and I remember after a very short time in beta I knew that game was doomed, and it flopped hard... I'm here to help make a great game, I have no interest in winning fake points by having faith or telling people off that are critical of what is being done. 

     

    I do like hearing peoples input, this is simply my responce, plz don't take myt bluntness as an attack =)

    • 474 posts
    January 26, 2018 7:33 AM PST

    Avory said:

    No offense, and I hear you are just giving your opinions but... I can't imagine me even being slightly into that as a Ranger class. After playing everquest and a few other MMO's mainly in betas as they simply were not worth playing past that, there seems to be some simple rules you are not following. 

    None taken! We are just discussing our different opinions. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. My intention here is not to change your mind or tell you you're wrong, just to discuss and friendly debate. The Ranger is a great love of mine and I like to hear other people's take on the class and how it should work.

    Games like Everquest and assembly Pantheon have 4 archetypes to work with, Healer, tank, DPS and last and most disliked by people, Utility. If a class is not near or top of one of those that class fades into absolute uselessness. You didn't seem to create a Ranger class that fits into one of those roles. Now, realize that you can have a mixture of the archtypes, and in fact all classes are a mixture of them, but the best classes ALWAYS fill a role better or as good as others that fill that role. A rogue and a Wizzy can both be top end DPS on the same level and both be great classes, but if you drop the rogue's DPS down so you can give them some personal utility that class starts to fade.

    Why would I play a bad tank with low DPS no real heals and some awkward utility? It's not that your idea for the class is bad (imo), it's that you seem to be creating a class that is spread to thin, Little tanking, little DPS, some spells and a pet... utility that is "meh." 

    Here I disagree, let me explain why. In Everquest this was almost exactly how the Ranger was built. It was THE jack-of-all-trades class. The Ranger did not fill any single role at the top of the list. You are correct about that, but thats what made the class so fun, not it's wild DPS abilities or it's Tankishness no, it was its pure utility and how versatile the class was. The Ranger could literally fill ANY role in a pinch. The Ranger didn't really shine until the **** hit the fan. When the Monk made a bad pull and FD failed and the group got several adds and the enchanter hits the AE mez and BAM resisted or, even worse, they mez themselves and now you have a dead monk most likely and a dead enchanter and a couple extra adds. That Ranger pops off a flame lick on each add and has INSTANT aggro, he should have SoW so he can move around quick, pop a root on an add after moving it away from the group, now the group has some breathing room. The Ranger can slap a heal on the rest of the group allowing the healer to focus on keeping the tank up. Once everyone is topped off and the adds under control the Ranger can rejoin the melee.

    Very few other classes in EQ could pull something like that off. This is where most people, imo, made their mistake when it came to the Ranger. It wasn't a core class. It wasn't supposed to fill one role really well. It was meant to fill almost ALL roles adaquately. Thats why I loved the Ranger. I hated Raiding as a Ranger because there was nothing for me to do. DPSing is boring as ****. Doing nothing but watching numbers scroll by is boring. Give me a swiss army knife and let me play McGuyver and save the day when things are at their worst.

    THATS the Ranger I describe.

    I only have interest in the Ranger class, possibly a bard for who knows what reason... If I log in towards the end of Beta and rangers don't fill a role at or near max of other classes filling that role I will log out and never look back, no second chances as that's why we have alphas and betas. That being said, if rangers are a melee dom class I again will leave and never look back. many people want an Archer class and Rangers are at this point the only known archer class in Pantheon, so if the Devs decide to destroy the class by dilution (melee/archery/spells) for DPS I'll lol at all the people wasting their time on a useless class as I again I leave and never look back.

    To this, all I can say is that I think it's a shame to be so closed minded on the class. I agree with you on the archery as a main weapon choice for sure. I want a Ranger that can use a bow for DPS and not feel gimped vs a Ranger with DW. I also know there are a LOT of people who want to have a melee Ranger and not feel like they are gimped vs a Ranger with a bow, and I can totally understand that. The class really should be balanced between the weapon choices. One should be able to use a bow or two swords/daggers/etc and perform more or less the same.

    The class having spells doesn't mean it's DPS capabilities would be weak or the class would be diluted. The spells add utility to the class and make it valueable to the group without the need to be "The Best" in a single role. Spells that are self only and buff the Ranger's natural ability for DPS would add flavor and an identity to a class that would otherwise just be a Rogue without critical stirkes. Thats what it really comes down to. Finding the Ranger's identity. DPS isn't an Identity. 

    I'd like to say I have faith in the dev team but honestly I'm just not a fanboi, it either IS or it IS NOT done in a way that works well with the rest of the game. Some of this team created the horrible joke (actual joke) that was in Everquest, they also made that other game that I did beta for and I remember after a very short time in beta I knew that game was doomed, and it flopped hard... I'm here to help make a great game, I have no interest in winning fake points by having faith or telling people off that are critical of what is being done. 

    As a Ranger in EQ for the past 18 years or so I have a very different opinion. Not sure how much you played EQ but the only real issue with the Ranger was back in Vanilla when tanking was very dependant on gear and the Ranger had some hefty penalties that were removed pretty quickly after the game launched. The Ranger was a very valuable class, if played correctly. Most people just didn't know how to play a Ranger. (and still don't as one can see from the TLP servers on current EQ).

     

    I do like hearing peoples input, this is simply my responce, plz don't take myt bluntness as an attack =)

    I don't take anything here personal, as long as you'll do me the same. :)

    • 15 posts
    January 26, 2018 11:45 AM PST

    I played EQ for 17 years and currently raid in Triton as of today. Rangers are in many respects a much better class than the early ranger class was but that is true of most classes. I believe the main issue is that Rangers shifted into a utility class and while we can do a pretty impressive amount of things making us very versitile all you have to do is play other claases and you realize so can they. My pally can simply grab 6 mobs and disc tank them rather than CC with snare, roots, flusterbolts and mezzes from other classes. It's actually alot easier to AE taunt and disc tank than to try and CC imo.

     

    I'd like to be more focused than spread out on abilities. In groups you can get away with less concentraded abilities, once you raid you are defined by your best ability, and if you lack high end tankability, healing, DPS or utility... well... sucks to be you. 

     

    We seem to agree on plenty and thats a good start =D

     

     

     

     

    • 474 posts
    January 26, 2018 12:45 PM PST

    I'd like to be more focused than spread out on abilities. In groups you can get away with less concentraded abilities, once you raid you are defined by your best ability, and if you lack high end tankability, healing, DPS or utility... well... sucks to be you. 

    This is why I hope VR stays true and does NOT focus on raid content. If they keep raid content to an absolute minimum then this issue shouldn't be too bad. They should focus on group content like their mission statement says they want to and the utility Ranger wouldn't be a red headed step child.

    I would rather group content decide the fate of a class than raid.

    Either way, unless they completely **** up the Ranger from head to toe i plan on maining the class. And I mean they'd have to go full on WoW Hunter clone to kill it for me.

    • 1007 posts
    January 26, 2018 1:11 PM PST

    Avory said:

    No offense, and I hear you are just giving your opinions but... I can't imagine me even being slightly into that as a Ranger class. After playing everquest and a few other MMO's mainly in betas as they simply were not worth playing past that, there seems to be some simple rules you are not following. 

    Games like Everquest and assembly Pantheon have 4 archetypes to work with, Healer, tank, DPS and last and most disliked by people, Utility. If a class is not near or top of one of those that class fades into absolute uselessness. You didn't seem to create a Ranger class that fits into one of those roles. Now, realize that you can have a mixture of the archtypes, and in fact all classes are a mixture of them, but the best classes ALWAYS fill a role better or as good as others that fill that role. A rogue and a Wizzy can both be top end DPS on the same level and both be great classes, but if you drop the rogue's DPS down so you can give them some personal utility that class starts to fade.

    Why would I play a bad tank with low DPS no real heals and some awkward utility? It's not that your idea for the class is bad (imo), it's that you seem to be creating a class that is spread to thin, Little tanking, little DPS, some spells and a pet... utility that is "meh." 

    I only have interest in the Ranger class, possibly a bard for who knows what reason... If I log in towards the end of Beta and rangers don't fill a role at or near max of other classes filling that role I will log out and never look back, no second chances as that's why we have alphas and betas. That being said, if rangers are a melee dom class I again will leave and never look back. many people want an Archer class and Rangers are at this point the only known archer class in Pantheon, so if the Devs decide to destroy the class by dilution (melee/archery/spells) for DPS I'll lol at all the people wasting their time on a useless class as I again I leave and never look back. 

    I'd like to say I have faith in the dev team but honestly I'm just not a fanboi, it either IS or it IS NOT done in a way that works well with the rest of the game. Some of this team created the horrible joke (actual joke) that was in Everquest, they also made that other game that I did beta for and I remember after a very short time in beta I knew that game was doomed, and it flopped hard... I'm here to help make a great game, I have no interest in winning fake points by having faith or telling people off that are critical of what is being done. 

     

    I do like hearing peoples input, this is simply my responce, plz don't take myt bluntness as an attack =)

     

    This toward my post or Kell's :)?

    • 1007 posts
    January 26, 2018 1:52 PM PST

    kellindil said:

    This is why I hope VR stays true and does NOT focus on raid content. If they keep raid content to an absolute minimum then this issue shouldn't be too bad. They should focus on group content like their mission statement says they want to and the utility Ranger wouldn't be a red headed step child.

    100% - I'm hoping Rangers have value in a group setting first and foremost as I believe its going to be the focus of Pantheon, or so I think as of now :). Which is why I focused on DPS with small amounts of possible CC in my view. I'd like them to compete with others like a Wizard or Rogue for top DPS if they use all their skills and abilities effiectly. Just make it so they have a higher skill cap to achieve these numbers. 

    As far as an off tank - I'm not a fan at all. I'd play a War/Pal/DL if I was looking to tank at all because they will most likly be much better for the role 99% of the time. And if thats the case I'd most likely never invite a Ranger to a group to off either unless its a last resort option. 

    As Avory was saying before I also hate when games try to make certain Classes the "jack of all trades"... IMO it just turns out in them being a second rate class that only gets invited due to being a good friend or because they were a last resort. Even in group settings I'd pick better DPS for DPS, and better Tanks for Tanking and off-tanking. If Rangers only have "Track" to make them useful or give them value then I'll only need one in my group if I'm hunting down a Rare or World Boss. Otherwise, why waste a spot on someone who can't do anyone role great. 

    Pet's - I love them, but understand not all do. I'm ok with that. If they aren't part of the Ranger class like they were in VG then thats fine :). 

    Melee vs Ranged - Arrows cost and take time to make. I'd love to see that matter. If Melee and Ranged DPS are the same why would I ever waste Money, Time, and Resources on making or buying them vs just hitting a mob with my sword. Just like EVERY other pyshical damage dealing class in the game. Yay we all the same... :/

    Spells - I'd love to see Rangers have a few spells, but not many and not the focus on the extra damage. I just feel like I'd play a true caster if I wanted spells to be the focus of my damage.

    Overall it doesn't really matter what I want haha, I just enjoy talking Pantheon and love the idea of playing a VG type Ranger in Pantheon. Sure I put some of my own twist on it, but really it just come down to I would love to see a Ranger more toward VG style vs EQ. 

     

    • 249 posts
    January 28, 2018 1:45 PM PST

    Saicred said:

    As far as an off tank - I'm not a fan at all. I'd play a War/Pal/DL if I was looking to tank at all because they will most likly be much better for the role 99% of the time. And if thats the case I'd most likely never invite a Ranger to a group to off either unless its a last resort option.

    One could just as easily argue that if you want great range dps, you should be rolling a wizard and not a ranger.  The fact of the matter is that the actual ranger class is very 'tankish.'  Similar hit-dice to a warrior (the way rangers hit die worked, they had the same 'expected' hit points of a warrior with a smaller standard deviation) and while many abilities were restricted by armor type, the class itself did not have those restrictions, ie a ranger was perfectly capable of wearing heavy armors as they are, in-fact, hardened fighters.  And the EQ class actually reflected a lot of this.  When the AC calculations were revealed, rangers had the highest soft-cap outside of the three plate tanks, and the highest return over cap aside from those same three classes.  The monk was the only class with similar durability as they had a better selection of defensive abilities and better evasion with their staff-block.

     

    Having some sort of archery build is fine, for people who are fans of that.  But hopefully range-dps is handled very differently in Pantheon than it was in EQ.  For one, classes like rogues and warriors should be capable of putting out decent numbers with a bow or crossbow as well.  If people really believe this argument that 'physical range damage' is some sort of necessity (I don't) then like anything else, such as tanking, cc, or healing, it can't be relegated to a single class.  If encounters existed that relied on that ability, then there would need to be redundancies in the classes so that people wouldn't *need* a ranger alone to tackle certain types of content.

     

    • 1007 posts
    January 28, 2018 1:55 PM PST

    Elrandir said:

    One could just as easily argue that if you want great range dps, you should be rolling a wizard and not a ranger.  The fact of the matter is that the actual ranger class is very 'tankish.'  

     

    One could just as easily argue that if you want a great off tank, you should be rolling a Warrior, Paladin, or Dire Lord and not a Ranger. I believe we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm excited to see if Pantheon goes more VG Ranger or not with Pantheon myself. 

    http://vanguard.wikia.com/wiki/Ranger


    This post was edited by Saicred at January 28, 2018 1:58 PM PST
    • 249 posts
    January 28, 2018 2:11 PM PST
    My primary concern is just "class-drift." Rangers are light fighters, and should remain as such. I never played Vanguard, but looking at the list of skills in the link you just posted, it appears they had a very diverse array of weapons options at their disposal, as well as skills for close-quarters combat.
    • 474 posts
    January 28, 2018 7:57 PM PST

    From the posted link, the Vanguard Ranger looks like a more focused version of what the EQ Ranger was. It still has much of the utility found in the EQ Ranger, but with much better focus on how the Ranger should perform in battle. It's clear the class is a rogue-ish nature based DPS class, but there remains a bit of the "warrior" class in the build. Abilities that boost defensive capabilities in the form of evasion and abilities that allow you to come to the aid of an ally in the form of a shielding ability to shield them from damage. It retains the minor CC abilities like root and snare and has self and group buffs that are centered around combat. It has abilities that are spread across both ranged and melee combat.

    I would be happy with this vision of the Ranger in Pantheon. It keeps the utility but seems to spread the class a little less thinly across the various roles. It allows for the class to have a focused DPS role while still being that "save our ass in a pinch" gameplay I loved from EQ.

    As Elrandir said, the Ranger is a light fighter just like the monk and rogue classes. So far, it seems the monk class will end up with some off-tanking ability. The Ranger could have this as well. A Warrior is a heavy fighter. The term fighter does not equate to DPS. A light fighter can pull defensive abilities just as much as offensive abilities from the base class "Fighter", just to a lesser degree as they are light and do not have the bulk to soak up damage. They are light on their feet so their defensive capabilities would come from their mobility.

    Having a Ranger have some tanking ability seems right on target for the class. No class drift to be seen.

    • 249 posts
    January 28, 2018 11:27 PM PST
    I think you're articulating where I'm coming from much better, Kellindil. One of my favorite aspects of the eq ranger was being able to pull groups out of a bad situation in a pinch. The EQ class was amazing for being able to jump in and tank for a minute if the warrior dropped unexpectedly. Or throw a few heals out, if the cleric was running oom, or casting a few roots when the enchanter got dropped on a bad pull. It wasn't the best in any of those rolls, by a long shot, but in the group game the ranger was a valuable insurance plan against the unexpected.

    I will agree with Avory that this fell apart in the raid game, however. The problem there is that at the raid level, most ranger abilities didn't pass muster. Weaonshieild was the only off-tanking ability we had, which lasted less than 30 seconds. And our dps burns were on much longer timers than other dps classes. Couple that with the fact that most of the utility that we brought to the group game (roots, snares, tracking, etc.) was irrelevant in raid scenarios, and I fully agree that the class was left feeling short-handed throughout many expansions. (For reference, I raided mid-tier from Luclin through Profecy of Ro and later end-game from House of Thule through Call of the Foresaken).

    This is one reason that I'm hopeful that Pantheon doesn't have the same focus on raid content that EQ did in it's later years. But if it does end up that way, I think finding a way to translate the rangers group benefits into raid scenarios is a better solution for the class than morphing it into something that it's not.
    • 1007 posts
    January 29, 2018 6:19 AM PST

    kellindil said:

    From the posted link, the Vanguard Ranger looks like a more focused version of what the EQ Ranger was. It still has much of the utility found in the EQ Ranger, but with much better focus on how the Ranger should perform in battle. It's clear the class is a rogue-ish nature based DPS class, but there remains a bit of the "warrior" class in the build. Abilities that boost defensive capabilities in the form of evasion and abilities that allow you to come to the aid of an ally in the form of a shielding ability to shield them from damage. It retains the minor CC abilities like root and snare and has self and group buffs that are centered around combat. It has abilities that are spread across both ranged and melee combat.

     

    I can agree with this. I like the VG Ranger much more myself, and would be happy with one as they were. Of course this doesn't give all the information on a Ranger, but give a good idea of them. The focus is key here where they actually have a role in the group that has value and meaning. I like that thought :)

    • 268 posts
    February 8, 2018 10:43 AM PST

    Melee damage and A PET?! Dear lord no, please don't butcher my beloved Ranger class.

    • 126 posts
    February 20, 2018 1:07 PM PST

    Rangers have never been one dimensional ie all great archers.... some are great melee combatants. Their is not reason their couldn't be two different specialization paths one focusing on ranged combat the other on melee. Both paths are dps oriented.

    So a basic ranger when one starts has basic ranged and melee abilities plus all the trappings of a fine outdoorsman. At some point they may specialize in ranged combat or melee combat. Both of which are dps focused. The play style obviously is different but both have retained their primary role as dps class. Its really quite simple. What i do not want to see happen is where you are pigeon holed into a primarily ranged dps class. All the finger twitchers fulfill that play style. I also do not want to see a ranger which is has sub par dps because he is a good archer and a good melee. let them choose to be an exceptional archer or an exceptional duel wielder.