Forums » The Ranger

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

    • 5 posts
    March 12, 2017 8:06 AM PDT

    Ryven, I agree with most of what you said.  But I don't believe Rangers should be affiliated with Druids.  Yes, I know AD&D's Ranger was a fighter/druid hybrid but I always thought that was wrong. 

    • 267 posts
    April 9, 2017 4:56 AM PDT

    Sabatour said:

    Ranger does not mean ranged combat. 

    Two handed weapon ranger should be just as viable a weapon choice as a short, long or crossbow. 

     

    I'm sure a lot of people want to see a class that is a primary physical long range fighter, with limited close combat abilities to make them different from any class out there, if they are a combat class this high dps and use traps and such, their fighting styles wouldn't be much different than a rogue using poisons/or some kind of alchemy that they said they had, in my honest opinion anyway, so i believe they should be more focused in range to make them completely different than any other class and not feel like they are played almost the same way as another class.

    • 210 posts
    April 9, 2017 9:05 AM PDT

    Riahuf22 said:

    if they are a combat class

     

    It's not a question of 'if.'  Rangers are a combat class.  Turning them into archers just to set them apart would basically be redefining what a ranger is.  It would be like turning a paladin into an exclusive healer, or a shadownight into a pure necromancer.  A knowledge of bows is one small piece of what a ranger is.  Making that the cornerstone of the class makes no sense, and wouldn't yield a unique playstyle either.  That essentially just makes them a wizard that deals physical damage rather than arcane/elemental--there's nothing unique about that.

     

    • 267 posts
    April 9, 2017 11:33 AM PDT

    Elrandir said:

    Riahuf22 said:

    if they are a combat class

     

    It's not a question of 'if.'  Rangers are a combat class.  Turning them into archers just to set them apart would basically be redefining what a ranger is.  It would be like turning a paladin into an exclusive healer, or a shadownight into a pure necromancer.  A knowledge of bows is one small piece of what a ranger is.  Making that the cornerstone of the class makes no sense, and wouldn't yield a unique playstyle either.  That essentially just makes them a wizard that deals physical damage rather than arcane/elemental--there's nothing unique about that.

     

    But making them be close combat and using spells, isn't much different than a rogue when he will be using poisons are everything in his arsenal, honestly dps is dps when writing it on a piece of paper but if one is physical but hitting it from afar, and another is stabbing him in the back the feel of what your class is doing actually feels different and if you don't want to be the guy just casting a few times in each fight, would feel a lot different than shooting your bow and using your skills to dispatch your target, for one you could probably move and shot at the same time, which im sure a wizard could not move and cast.


    This post was edited by Riahuf22 at April 9, 2017 11:33 AM PDT
    • 210 posts
    April 9, 2017 11:46 AM PDT

    Riahuf22 said:

    But making them be close combat and using spells, isn't much different than a rogue when he will be using poisons are everything in his arsenal, honestly dps is dps when writing it on a piece of paper but if one is physical but hitting it from afar, and another is stabbing him in the back the feel of what your class is doing actually feels different and if you don't want to be the guy just casting a few times in each fight, would feel a lot different than shooting your bow and using your skills to dispatch your target, for one you could probably move and shot at the same time, which im sure a wizard could not move and cast.

     

    If the wiki is accurate, it's probably a moot point as rangers will have their choice of whether they play as archers or melee combatants.  I'll agree that a melee ranger shouldn't play as a rogue though.  Rogues should be more evasive whereas a ranger should have a much hardier/defensive bend to them.  Rangers are warriors that fight out in the depths of the wild whereas rogues rely much more heavily on stealth and cunning to do their job.

     

    • 267 posts
    April 9, 2017 12:22 PM PDT

    Riahuf22 said:

    Elrandir said:

    Riahuf22 said:

    if they are a combat class

     

    It's not a question of 'if.'  Rangers are a combat class.  Turning them into archers just to set them apart would basically be redefining what a ranger is.  It would be like turning a paladin into an exclusive healer, or a shadownight into a pure necromancer.  A knowledge of bows is one small piece of what a ranger is.  Making that the cornerstone of the class makes no sense, and wouldn't yield a unique playstyle either.  That essentially just makes them a wizard that deals physical damage rather than arcane/elemental--there's nothing unique about that.

     

    But making them be close combat and using spells, isn't much different than a rogue when he will be using poisons are everything in his arsenal, honestly dps is dps when writing it on a piece of paper but if one is physical but hitting it from afar, and another is stabbing him in the back the feel of what your class is doing actually feels different and if you don't want to be the guy just casting a few times in each fight, would feel a lot different than shooting your bow and using your skills to dispatch your target, for one you could probably move and shot at the same time, which im sure a wizard could not move and cast.  And to be honest Making a ranger into a archer is nothing like an Shadow Knight being a Necromancer, or a Paladin turning into pure healer, for the simple fact that that SK's would make terrible necros and pallies are gimp healers, as for rangers are the best archery class in the game, or at least are in the games i play.

    • 210 posts
    April 9, 2017 12:33 PM PDT

    Riahuf22 said:

    And to be honest Making a ranger into a archer is nothing like an Shadow Knight being a Necromancer, or a Paladin turning into pure healer, for the simple fact that that SK's would make terrible necros and pallies are gimp healers, as for rangers are the best archery class in the game, or at least are in the games i play.

     

    It's the same in so much as you're taking one aspect of the class and blowing it up out of proportion, essentially defining the class by that one single trait.  Many people who play rangers don't have a lot of interest in archery, and making the class dependent on it would be a really bad idea as you'd be alienating a very large portion of the ranger community.

     

    • 5 posts
    April 9, 2017 12:55 PM PDT

    Anyone who has ever played AD&D, which invented the ranger class, knows that rangers do not necessarily primarily use a bow.  Same with EverQuest...at least for the first few years.  Aragorn did not primarily use a bow and he was the original ranger.  Legolas, on the other hand, did primarily use a bow and he was a elf archer, not a ranger.

    • 85 posts
    April 10, 2017 2:49 AM PDT

    Current EQ ranger is a melee class with situational bow use during some raids or soloing.  Melee is at least 4x ranged DPS without discs.  Either/or is a good way to balance the ranger.  We shouldn't have to be stuck in one or the other based solely on DPS.  Bow or blades depending on the situation is probably the best way to let all rangers experience both playstyles.

    • 267 posts
    April 10, 2017 5:02 AM PDT

    Deleted message accidently quoted myself


    This post was edited by Riahuf22 at April 10, 2017 5:06 AM PDT
    • 267 posts
    April 10, 2017 5:03 AM PDT

    Riahuf22 said:

    Elrandir said:

    Riahuf22 said:

    And to be honest Making a ranger into a archer is nothing like an Shadow Knight being a Necromancer, or a Paladin turning into pure healer, for the simple fact that that SK's would make terrible necros and pallies are gimp healers, as for rangers are the best archery class in the game, or at least are in the games i play.

     

    It's the same in so much as you're taking one aspect of the class and blowing it up out of proportion, essentially defining the class by that one single trait.  Many people who play rangers don't have a lot of interest in archery, and making the class dependent on it would be a really bad idea as you'd be alienating a very large portion of the ranger community.

     

     

    I did say to have limited combat abilities so he wasn't completely useless in a combat situation, merely just trying to make them not look like rogues which they will if we make them combat melee dps, which will be get behind the target swing weapon and use spell, compare to a rogue get behind target, swing weapons, apply poisons and use his abilities, sounds the same to be does it to you?


    This post was edited by Riahuf22 at April 10, 2017 5:08 AM PDT
    • 30 posts
    April 10, 2017 8:19 AM PDT

    I'm just laughing at all the back and forth and assertion of D & D as "the bible" or something.  Rangers in mmos are by and large bow using ranged class, and in every game where they are "hybrids" they're usually gimp at both.

    As far as Pantheon is concerned there is no ranged physical damage class right now so this will more than likely end up filling that need.  Unless all ranged is magic-based in Pantheon.

    • 5 posts
    April 10, 2017 8:44 AM PDT

    Kajidourden said:

    I'm just laughing at all the back and forth and assertion of D & D as "the bible" or something.  Rangers in mmos are by and large bow using ranged class, and in every game where they are "hybrids" they're usually gimp at both.

    As far as Pantheon is concerned there is no ranged physical damage class right now so this will more than likely end up filling that need.  Unless all ranged is magic-based in Pantheon.

     

    Laugh all you want, but Tokien invented the ranger, which was the inspiration for the D&D ranger class.  Before D&D there were no RPG's or MMO's or a ranger class.  Just because the devs of some MMO's decided to make their ranger class solely a ranged class, doesn't make it the right thing to do.   In EverQuest and Vanguard Saga of Heroes, Brad McQuaid gave rangers melee and ranged combat, so I'd say it's a good bet they will be in Pantheon also.

    • 30 posts
    April 10, 2017 9:08 AM PDT

    Flynn said:

    Kajidourden said:

    I'm just laughing at all the back and forth and assertion of D & D as "the bible" or something.  Rangers in mmos are by and large bow using ranged class, and in every game where they are "hybrids" they're usually gimp at both.

    As far as Pantheon is concerned there is no ranged physical damage class right now so this will more than likely end up filling that need.  Unless all ranged is magic-based in Pantheon.

     

    Laugh all you want, but Tokien invented the ranger, which was the inspiration for the D&D ranger class.  Before D&D there were no RPG's or MMO's or a ranger class.  Just because the devs of some MMO's decided to make their ranger class solely a ranged class, doesn't make it the right thing to do.   In EverQuest and Vanguard Saga of Heroes, Brad McQuaid gave rangers melee and ranged combat, so I'd say it's a good bet they will be in Pantheon also.



    If they do it will be

    A) OP
    or
    B) Gimp
    or
    C) Better at one or the other and only played one way

    My main point was the second one I made though.  If not rangers, then what else fills that role? (assuming there ARE ranged physical damage combatants)

    • 184 posts
    April 14, 2017 1:18 PM PDT

    Ranger to me should absolutely be the ranged combat expert. Physical dps, less than the Rogue, but with more utilitarian abilities. NO PET! Leave that to Summoners and Necros. Turning the Ranger into a pet class would absolutely ruin it for me. Ranger is my favorite class, but I'm not a fan of pet classes.

    • 22 posts
    April 19, 2017 2:22 AM PDT

    As a ranger i dont want a pet, but i do feel the ranger should have nature-like powers. Here me out, so you are looking for someone or something in an area. You sneak up on some critter, or bird and cast a spell with similar effects as charm and it follows you around a bit and sniffs things out or whatever its designed to show. You could possess a bird or something and look through its eyes to look around and mark things. Then it goes away. Instead of having to lay down traps you would need to build or drop bear traps or whatever out of thin air, you can create vines or brush that when an enemy touches ensares or slows, etc. tracking skills to place your hand on the ground and your ear close to listen for enemies, resources, etc. I've never liked dual wielding in any game but i dont want a rogue and ranger to both be able to dual wield. Just give the ranger one dagger and let his other hand glow green with nature magic or something. if other classes will be able to move and melee, then rangers as well. you can shoot while moving but you do so at a reduced speed for normal dmg. stand still for a bit more dmg, and then for the strong abilities have them be charged or something. I dont think they need a full on stealth like rogues, but maybe they blend in with their environment if hey dont move and it breaks if they do. Ive always thought rangers as men of the wild, and whats a more open way of showing it then having them use nature magic. idk, just trying to think about it from a different persepective. 

    • 85 posts
    April 21, 2017 3:42 PM PDT

    Someone stated that every MMO ranger is an archer.  Wrong.  Even the granddaddy MMO EQ ranger is a melee class with archery as a situational tool.  Using a bow does not make one a ranger otherwise any class that could equip a bow would be a ranger.  Want a class that only ues a bow? Create an archer.  A ranger is a self-sufficient explorer type that is great with a variety of weapons but wears lighter armor for mobility.  Easiest way to kill the class would be to make it specialize in only using a bow or only being melee.

    My 2 cp: Weapon variety, self-sufficiency (not meaning solo-centric), mobility, and utility...now that's a ranger.  I want to explore new and interesting places and then search those places for my corpse.

    • 267 posts
    April 21, 2017 4:33 PM PDT

    Radamus said:

    Someone stated that every MMO ranger is an archer.  Wrong.  Even the granddaddy MMO EQ ranger is a melee class with archery as a situational tool.  Using a bow does not make one a ranger otherwise any class that could equip a bow would be a ranger.  Want a class that only ues a bow? Create an archer.  A ranger is a self-sufficient explorer type that is great with a variety of weapons but wears lighter armor for mobility.  Easiest way to kill the class would be to make it specialize in only using a bow or only being melee.

    My 2 cp: Weapon variety, self-sufficiency (not meaning solo-centric), mobility, and utility...now that's a ranger.  I want to explore new and interesting places and then search those places for my corpse.

    Well i have no idea who said that but i was mainly saying it would be nice to have a Physical range class, instead of all psyical being melee becuase if you make them melee they wouldn't be much different than a rogue, i granted they will use spells instead of poisons but all in all bout the same but if they were range than they would one of the most unique classes in the game since they would be range and psyical and no other class fits that better than a ranger, and also rangers after Luclin were basically range cept for when it came to raid targets past OoW.