Forums » The Ranger

Make ranger a RANGED class, with some melee ability..

    • 13 posts
    April 21, 2018 11:19 AM PDT

    Please keep the ranger as it was in eq and eq2... more of a ranged class with the ability to melee...  Maybe make your epic weapon quest choice decide if you focus on melee or ranged but ranged needs to be a legit option or i'd just play a rogue...

     

    • 1319 posts
    April 21, 2018 12:06 PM PDT

    EQ ranger until the disapproved Luclin Era, wasn't a ranged with melee abilities, but a melee with ranged abilities. EQ2's concept was roughly the opposite of the assassin, but I only played the latter so I can't judge it.

    I'm fine with a spell weaver melee with bow shot from time to time, but making it a sole archer ? There are already numerous posts about this, however, and creating one isn't gonna make anything change more or less.

    • 973 posts
    April 22, 2018 9:16 AM PDT

    Let's try to hold off a few weeks and see if we get any additonal information on the class before jumping into too much. I do hear you on the "Why would I be a Melee Ranger when a Rogue is better Melee DPS most likely". However I trust there will be a conbination of reasons one would enjoy playing a Ranger over a Rogue, and will try to wait patitently to see if we hear more on those soon enough. 

    • 1319 posts
    April 22, 2018 10:56 AM PDT

    Saicred said:

    Let's try to hold off a few weeks and see if we get any additonal information on the class before jumping into too much. I do hear you on the "Why would I be a Melee Ranger when a Rogue is better Melee DPS most likely". However I trust there will be a conbination of reasons one would enjoy playing a Ranger over a Rogue, and will try to wait patitently to see if we hear more on those soon enough. 

     

    That's a point, but I don't think the game is meant to favor one melee dps over an other. Then why beeing a monk if a rogue will be a better melee DPS ? Why beeing a ranged DPS if the wizard will be a better DPS ? Where is the summonner in that scheme ? Why bring a bard over an enchanter for the control role ?

    Multiples classes for the same role, and if tanks are meant to be balanced, it will be the same for dps wether in melee or in range, and heals too. Making the rogue the "only viable melee DPS" is far from beeing the option they favor, and I bet the difference will be in flavour and what they bring to the teams outside of their DPS. Scouting ? Pulling ? Corpse running ? Emergency hard control ? Buffs ?

    • 820 posts
    April 25, 2018 11:22 AM PDT

    Lodoz said:

    Please keep the ranger as it was in eq and eq2... more of a ranged class with the ability to melee...  Maybe make your epic weapon quest choice decide if you focus on melee or ranged but ranged needs to be a legit option or i'd just play a rogue...

     

     

    I think you and I played a different EQ...

    • 124 posts
    May 1, 2018 3:30 PM PDT

    the big difference between a rogue and a ranger that melee is the rogues damage is positional while a rangers is not. If the rogue is able to use his positional spike dps he will do more damage but some monsters may have rear attacks which stun or knock down so in some cases the ranger may out dps a rogue. Both classes have a lot of utility. The rogue utility is based on humanoid made traps, locks, secret doors etc while the rangers utility is usually outdoor related like traps made by creatures and animals, tracking etc etc.

    • 298 posts
    May 10, 2018 6:32 AM PDT

    Cynwulf said:

    the big difference between a rogue and a ranger that melee is the rogues damage is positional while a rangers is not. If the rogue is able to use his positional spike dps he will do more damage but some monsters may have rear attacks which stun or knock down so in some cases the ranger may out dps a rogue. Both classes have a lot of utility. The rogue utility is based on humanoid made traps, locks, secret doors etc while the rangers utility is usually outdoor related like traps made by creatures and animals, tracking etc etc.

    Agreed. Also, in EQ a ranger could tank and hold aggro if needed (they had taunt, etc). Rogue not so much. So even if the ranger is more melee than ranged, I don't think it will be completely inferior to a rogue -- they have very different skill sets.


    This post was edited by Wellspring at May 10, 2018 6:32 AM PDT
    • 2 posts
    May 15, 2018 9:50 PM PDT

    Yep, EQ Rangers were always primarily melee.  I can't speak for EQ2, but Rangers are traditionally a melee class in lore. With EQ, only craftable PoP bows out-performed lower tier melee weapons. Equal tier, melee weapons were always far superior for dps in most situations. Heck, even Vex Thal melee weapons from Luclin were slightly better than the PoP bows in DPS. Problem was, you had players with crappy or lower tier gear buying crafted bows that were far superior to anything they owned or were able to get.  EverQuest had a majority of players and guiilds that were always 1-2 expansion in content behind.  Melee is/was superior.  This was the case from release all the way until I quit in Seeds of Destruction.  I don't know if it changed after that, but I doubt it.


    This post was edited by Barnard at May 15, 2018 9:50 PM PDT
    • 1319 posts
    May 15, 2018 11:29 PM PDT

    Barnard said:

    Yep, EQ Rangers were always primarily melee.  I can't speak for EQ2, but Rangers are traditionally a melee class in lore. With EQ, only craftable PoP bows out-performed lower tier melee weapons. Equal tier, melee weapons were always far superior for dps in most situations. Heck, even Vex Thal melee weapons from Luclin were slightly better than the PoP bows in DPS. Problem was, you had players with crappy or lower tier gear buying crafted bows that were far superior to anything they owned or were able to get.  EverQuest had a majority of players and guiilds that were always 1-2 expansion in content behind.  Melee is/was superior.  This was the case from release all the way until I quit in Seeds of Destruction.  I don't know if it changed after that, but I doubt it.

     

    Was that with the Archery mastery 3/3 AA ? Just wondering out of curiosity. Back when I played, during the Pop-OoW era, rangers switched to bow everytime they could once AM & EQ mastery reached, with acrylia elemental arrows or so.

    I do think bow were easier for spell weaving, as dual wield sometime gave some weird attack timer, or simply too fast with haste.


    This post was edited by MauvaisOeil at May 15, 2018 11:30 PM PDT
    • 246 posts
    May 16, 2018 12:36 AM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    Was that with the Archery mastery 3/3 AA ? Just wondering out of curiosity. Back when I played, during the Pop-OoW era, rangers switched to bow everytime they could once AM & EQ mastery reached, with acrylia elemental arrows or so.

    I do think bow were easier for spell weaving, as dual wield sometime gave some weird attack timer, or simply too fast with haste.

     

    That was an itemization thing.  With the exception of a Trueshot burn, if you had access to top end weapons melee still out performed archery even with EQ/AM3.  However, elemental bows during the PoP era were easy to come by, unlike high-end 1-handers, so most rangers who weren't raiding the end-game were pushed into archery during that era.

     

    • 69 posts
    May 18, 2018 3:17 AM PDT

    Rangers are traditional flexible characters that primarily were melee DPS but were capable with a bow.  They were usually masters with most martial weapons.  I think VR have captured the essence of a Ranger perfectly maybe a little overzealous with the animal skills depending who you ask).

     

    Why take a Ranger instead of a Rogue?  Flexibility, the Rogue is positional based to be effecive, so in ideal conditions he is great but is also limited.  The Ranger has freedom to move around the battlefield as required, continually doing damage even as he moves away to place a trap to take an unwanted add out of the equation.  In heavy AOE fights he has the ability to back away and continue to contribute without being a drain on the healer. 

    He has the ability to move mobs around the field via shots to help better position them, they have the potential to interrupt spellcasters and their attacks can improve the team's overall DPS via attacks making mobs more vulnerable to physical attacks (something a Rogue in the gorup would appreciate greatly). 

     

    Basically, the Ranger brings a different toolkit to the party, which is why people may want one.

    • 75 posts
    December 7, 2018 6:04 AM PST

    Heh, going to stir this up again :P

    I wanted to point out that the Ranger, end game and I mean basically the very end (after EQ/AM3, around GoD), Rangers switched back from bow to melee as their AAs and late level spells made them better melee fighters than bowmen.

    Personally, I prefer Brad's vision of a Ranger, being a dual wield specialist, but as there is no true archery class other than ranger, I suppose they should fill the role. Not sure having a ranger being exceptional at both melee and archery is very balanced, but making them average at both will not work either. They likely should be exceptional at one or the other. As there is no archer, they probably should fill this role, and just be good at melee.

    Part of me wishes there was a class that was just an archer and all the abilities were centered around the bow/crossbow, then the Ranger could be designed around dual wield master with bow abilities to supplement.

     

    • 422 posts
    December 17, 2018 8:07 AM PST

    Its my understanding that the devs intend on the Ranger being a skirmishing hybrid melee/ranged phys damage class, that in order to be utilized to its full potential requires the character to constantly switch between ranged and melee by gap closing with a melee atk, and then disengaging with a vaulting ranged atk.  If the ranger can just sit back and use range, or stand still and not use ranged they will not perform well compared to other DPS.  I would suggest that if you want to be exclusively ranged DPS you may want to look into the wizard, or if you are just looking to have a ranged auto attack and pepper some abilities in now and then maybe look into the summoner.

    • 14 posts
    February 16, 2019 7:01 AM PST

    I think it is interesting how this conversation about Rangers is always ... lets make them Ranged dps ... in classic everquest though it was melee first till AA came into it (Kunark) we could kite mobs, infact i soloed quite a bit kiting the mobs .. Snare, Root, Immolate (our little dot) and /auto range attack. However Ranged did come viable in Kunark with The bow of whirlwind or something dropped off guy in Seblis that also dropped the Lamentation Blade, it had a 12 second reload and a cool effect. 

     

    But Ranges in ADD version 2, they were wardens(protecting the wildlife, a druid/warrior hybrid), only with World of Warcraft, Everquest 2, ADD 3 and other games did the philosophy change, the one thing i loved about my EQ1 range even in my last expansion was i could do the same dps melee, or ranged in a 52 man raid environment. To do that took a crap ton of AA however. 

     

    In Vanguard i think they took the Ranger to the next level, and with Pantheon if it is a skirmish class, i will be very happy with it, having to make a decision to flash out or jump in or use the draw the monster in get incredible amount of momentem then unleash a melee frenzy, the concepts for this take is great. 

     

    So with all that said, if you want to be a Longbowman or Yeomen class you can with a ranger, it is just slower .. Trueshot was an amzing dps ability in EQ and some of the abilities the character had in Vanguard made it very enjoyable, i have faith in the adaptation they will put in place here. 

     

    Regardless ranged or melee, a rangers life is for me ... "Loading please wait"

     

    Artorus Giltanus

    Ranger

    • 1961 posts
    March 6, 2019 3:29 PM PST

    I will, as I often do, take a completely different approach. 

    I understand how rangers worked in D&D and AD&D. And for that matter EQ and EQ2. But I consider all of this to be  the next best thing to irrelevant.

    The issue as I see it is simple. How much value does having a mostly melee ranger add to the other melee classes that Pantheon will have?

    How much value does having a mostly ranged ranger add to the other ranged classes that Pantheon will have?

     

    If having it as a ranged class doesn't add value make it melee. If having it as a melee class doesn't add value make it ranged. Abundant lore over many games supports either approach.

    If it isn't any more needed one way or the other make it 50-50 or let Brad flip a coin.

    • 30 posts
    March 11, 2019 9:34 AM PDT

    I hope Ranger is a mobility class with benefits for jumping into melee combat bouncing back out to ranged combat throughout encounters.