Forums » The Ranger

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

    • 27 posts
    June 13, 2017 1:09 PM PDT

    A Ranger is a skilled combatant who also happens to be a expert outdoorsman. A Ranger is most comfortable in the wilderness.

    A Ranger tends to specialize in a particular style of combat weather that is duel wielding form, two handed weapon form or missile form....The form which a Ranger chooses to specialize in is quite unique to the Ranger class. A warrior using any of these forms fight very differently compared with a Ranger.

    Rangers tend to wear lighter armor for several reasons. First they specialize in a particular style of combat which requires mobility. Second many of their outdoor skills would be hampered in heavier armor. Its rare to find a ranger in anything heavier then a chain shirt. And in the case of missile specialists they tend to not wear anything heavier then a leather breast plate.

    A rangers outdoor skills vary on the region the ranger comes from but in general Tracking, particular wilderness survival skills and wilderness skill sets, Outdoor Stalking/stealth, herb lore, animal lore, plant lore.

    A Ranger is nothing like a Rogue. A rogue usually has a limited weapon skill set and a rogues combat skill sets are positional. A rogue skills are much different in scope as well disarm traps, open locks etc etc.

    • 94 posts
    June 13, 2017 6:29 PM PDT

    @Iviean Yeah, was talking current EQ rangers.  Back in the day, mobs would cross a full zone jut to kill me and not harm anyone else in my group.  Think rangers gave mobs double xp per kill.  I remember finally questing my Wakizashi of the Frozen Skies.  No tank wanted to group because I could not shed aggro once it proced.  We were aggro magnets but in current live EQ, we are the boss, hands down for getting and shedding it.  Rangers are some serious CC now with survivability, tankability, soloability, utility, and DPS.  Might play again while waiting for pre-alpha access.  Talking about EQ makes me miss it lol.

    • 6 posts
    July 11, 2017 1:51 PM PDT

     

    To me to be interested in an MMO it should have a viable Archer class. How they get there I don't care, but I feel many many many people feel the same way. 

    I'd like to see a ranger that"

    - Has the ability to move faster than others outdoors

    - Archery is primary DPS, all other weapons near equal but less DPS than archery

    - No magic

    - Invisibly the same as a rogue, always, no indoor vs outdoor

    - Track

    - Making bows and arrows (fletching) extremely important

    - Carry multiple types of bows and arrows (we will all carry more than is ever close to realistic.)

    - Poison making important for slows, roots, snared, dots, blinds ect...

    - Leather or cloth armor. Armor weight (not bag weight) makes you worse

    - No auto bow

    - All shots fired are like spells, you pick what arrow to fire

    - Collecting fired arrows after you kill an enemy (an amount of them)

    - Maybe some short use defensive ability

    The class should fill the role of a DPS class with useful personal utility.

    The debate is not really about what a ranger should be, it's about people that want Archery that is not pointless VS Devs that only give archery to a single class, and then make it sub par.

    I'd personally like to see rogues be the archer class, why should it matter if you do DPS with a dagger or a bow if you can't take a hit? That said I also feel rangers are really just rogues with no backstab, however in a game where if you are not top notch at either healing/tanking/DPS you are filler or worthless being a useless tank and a ok dpser will lead the class into the background in groups and raids.

    I don't get this idea that rangers need to charm animals as a DPSing pet, it's so silly and far left I can't stand that it's represented in the conversation... It's simply another way to water down the class and make it worthless because if it were strong at anything one thing it would be massively OP considering how much "other" stuff the class could do.

    It's always shocking to me how many, how vocal and how much input is given on a Archery using class a community goes and it seems to go ignored by Devs.

    In my eyes you could make an incredibly interesting class that people love, or we can see more of a class that leaves so many shaking their heads as to why the time was wasted even gluing so many weak abilities together.

     

    Mage is similar to Wizzy = Utility/DPS

    Druid is similar to Necro similar to Shaman = Utility/Dots (heals)

    Ranger similar to Rogue similar to Monk= DPS/Utility

    Pally similar to SK similar to War = Tank/Agro

    Cleric similar to Shaman similar to Druids = Heals/buffs/Utility

    Enchanter = OP!!!!

     

    Yes Sham/Druids are mentioned twice. Their Utility is usually the best, and because of that they can be less DPS than a pure DPS class and less of a healer than a Pure healer and still be very viable as a class.

     


    This post was edited by Avory at July 11, 2017 1:55 PM PDT
    • 191 posts
    July 14, 2017 9:26 PM PDT
    What you just described is an Archer, not a Ranger. That class has its place, but I would like to see them go a different route for the Ranger. I don't understand why people associate poisons and traps with rangers. Those are rogue traits. Traps I can understand, but they're rarely useful in MMOs.

    Regardless...I think the easiest way to solve this issue is to allow two paths and to allow each player to choose what they want to play.

    Rangers are scouts. I think they should have perception bonuses and some kind of exploration bonus. Stealth and movement speed should be high too.
    • 6 posts
    July 15, 2017 1:44 PM PDT

    Ashvaild said: What you just described is an Archer, not a Ranger. That class has its place, but I would like to see them go a different route for the Ranger. I don't understand why people associate poisons and traps with rangers. Those are rogue traits. Traps I can understand, but they're rarely useful in MMOs. Regardless...I think the easiest way to solve this issue is to allow two paths and to allow each player to choose what they want to play. Rangers are scouts. I think they should have perception bonuses and some kind of exploration bonus. Stealth and movement speed should be high too.

     

    I assume you are talking about me?

    First the topic is asking "what is a rangers is to you?" To me a ranger is not defined my one or more persons story. I also stated that I'm after an archer class and almost all MMO's that I know of attach archery to the ranger class and make it fully worthless for any other class. I'd be perfectly happy with a Archer class in pantheon, in fact I'd bet the "ranger" class would be almost nonexistent if there were a useful DPS Archer class in pantheon. Very few players I have met want to play a confused class with mid ranger skill/magic/utility sets as it's very hard to make a class relevant without making then OP.  

    To me it makes perfect sense to have poisons be important to a class like rangers, in fact it seems silly to limit something like poisons to a single class like rogues. Outside of that I'm not seeing how my list was "not a ranger" outside of if you are in the camp of Ranger = Archery, or the camp of Ranger = 1h/2h/shield set up.

     

    Anyways I'm not trying to argue, simply give my version of something I'd like to see in a game for me to be interested in that game. If rangers are the lost cause they were in EQ until PoP I have no interest. For the record Rangers in EQ were so horrible (yes fanboi rangers loved them anyway) until Luclin, however AA's were incredibly slow and almost no rangers had EQ and AM3 until the release of PoP. That's when rangers because an important class, when Archery mattered. Archery was nerfed and rangers hardly used the bow for a huge amount of years till Archery was made relevant again, and then Rangers started to matter once again.

    I started EQ Feb 1 2001 and played a ranger as my main since then, still even today. These are just my opinions and my experience. Whatever they Do in pantheon I won't know for some time, I simply wanted to have the opportunity to get my voice heard. They are allowed to do whatever they want and If I don't like it I won't complain, I'll just not play... But from the looks of it they will have enough subs without me so =)

    • 30 posts
    August 8, 2017 9:15 AM PDT

    I hope for a ranged (Bow & quiver) damage dealing dps class that can melee if needed

    snare/trap(root)

    track(maybe a pet hawk for tracking)

    stealth

    disarm(traps)

    daze or confuse or control wild animals to some degree

    move across terrain with ease and speed

    • 10 posts
    October 16, 2017 4:41 PM PDT

    Elrandir said:

    I would love to see a throw-back to more of an old-school 2nd Ed. D&D style of ranger. Basically a warrior that chooses to live on the fringe of society. More Aragorn than Legolas, I'd like to see a healthy mix of both offensive and defensive abilities. Some ideas taken from the 2nd Edition players handbook that could be simulated within Pantheon:

    Primary Terrain: Rangers chose a primary terrain with which they had a familiarity with and would see bonuses to skills when in those types of regions. For Pantheon, with the addition of the environments it would be really cool if rangers had an innate mitigation to the harmful environmental effects that occured near their starting cities. This would mean they would likely be race-dependent, with halflings (assuming they can be rangers) having a knowledge of hazards that occur near Wild's End. Humans might be familiar with conditions around Thronefast, etc.

    Species Enemies: Rangers were expected to choose a species enemy against which they got an attack bonus. As an example, for halfling rangers--wraiths would be an obvious choice just based off of the lore that's been revealed so far.

    I'm sure other traits of these classic rangers could be emulated in Pantheon as well.

    Just my 2cp!

    Elrandir

     

     

     I Agree with Elrandir and would love to see Rangers go old school like in D&D rangers where the only class to duel wield with out penalty and they lived on the fringe/outskirts they hated cities and built up public areas. They used bows but not as much as melee weapons but they were more specialized melee weapons focused on dex not str. Every attempt to build a Ranger in a game every game makes them useless and thinks they have to be ranged bow class which is not true. Only reason Rangers are good with a bow is because it was a dex based weapon in D&D prime example for lore and books one name says it all Drizzt Do'Urden.

    Please pantheon make the Ranger useful unlike in EQ Rangers. EQ Rangers where fun but no one wanted them they were not viable dps or tank so they had no fit so the class kinda died off. I played it still no matter what was just lucky i was in a guild that new I was a good player and I was an awsome Ranger in old school EQ days was a better puller outdoors than a monk thanks to harmony and snare :).

    And for all those I am talking Rangers before SOV, & POP

    • 275 posts
    October 16, 2017 5:06 PM PDT

    I feel this is a common misconception amongst eq players because of the jokes and mockery that was mad about rangers.  But rangers were always useful in eq.  A good ranger would have different gear if he was going to dps vs tank (and rangers could tank).  Good rangers tracked for your group, made amazing pullers and could very effectively cc (through snaring rooting and kiting). 

     

    Now obviously you wouldn't see a ranger tanking in a raid, bhut almost any exp group would succeed with a ranger just fine.

    • 10 posts
    October 16, 2017 6:41 PM PDT

    Another thought on Rangers they are not a hybrid of Warrior and Druid, they are a warrior they put society behind them and lived off the land aka survivalist. They should not beable to Main tank or even off tank but step in and temperarily tank in a pinch from skills and agility aka avoidance and weapon skills aka parry. As someone mentioned lord of the rings Aragorn when he fought he was not a meat shield nor did he wear heavy armor. Also, with a bow he was not as good as Legolas which was a bow master. Aragorn had a 2hand sword, dagger, knife and sword and a short bow. Everything he needed to live off the land he could carry. 

    Drizzt did not wear heavy armor either. base the Ranger class off those two characters and you will get it right in game :)

    And yes some of you all will complain that Drizzt had a pet well Guenhwyvar was a panther pet she was magical and came from a onyx figurine and she was from the astral plane. Drizzt did not get this because he was a Ranger He Aquired a magical figurine.

     

    XX

    • 10 posts
    October 16, 2017 7:47 PM PDT

    Porygon said:

    I feel this is a common misconception amongst eq players because of the jokes and mockery that was mad about rangers.  But rangers were always useful in eq.  A good ranger would have different gear if he was going to dps vs tank (and rangers could tank).  Good rangers tracked for your group, made amazing pullers and could very effectively cc (through snaring rooting and kiting). 

     

    Now obviously you wouldn't see a ranger tanking in a raid, bhut almost any exp group would succeed with a ranger just fine.

     

    I agree Rangers in groups were ok and just fine I did not have trouble getting groups and in the old days when fear and hate was a 4 to 6 hour clear and sky was a several day event clear. But you were going in at 46 to 50 since 50 was lvl cap. In fear I was reserved as puller not just for my guild but other guilds when harmony could not be resisted by any lvl mob, but that did not work in hate since it was an indoor zone. And in raids our dps was so mediocre, and some mobs could not be snared or rooted so we were weak dps but the community was great in EQ so you would always find a group or a raid or group. Track was always useful but then you had Druids and Bards that got track also and those to classes brought more to a raid or grp then a Ranger at End Game. Also Rangers could tank groups in low end dungeons or at lower levels but healers would go OOM if you tried tanking anything serious even just in a group non Raid and in a Raid you were a DT sacrafice but that boosted your DKP LOL. Even later in Raids with Discipline - WEAPONSHIELD at lvl 60 Parry all melee attacks from the front for 15 sec. reuse 72 min we were used to set melee bosses for tank to take over and most the time you died because it took no mana for a cleric to clicky rez you with there epic. But for any class it was always required to carry different gear for what ever raid you wereo n in the old days Naggy required fire resist and Vox requires cold resist and if you push it to expansions Track required disease and poison resist. I am talking old school EQ not new flavor EQ where stats are maxed with out thinking what you needed to do gear wise.  

    X

     

    X

    • 217 posts
    October 24, 2017 12:22 AM PDT

    Talinor said:

    Another thought on Rangers they are not a hybrid of Warrior and Druid, they are a warrior they put society behind them and lived off the land aka survivalist.

     

    This point often gets lost, I think... or atleast somewhat muddled.  EQ implemented the ranger class as a ranger/druid hybrid, but that didn't mean they were 50%/50% of each class.  In the early levels, 60 and below, I think the EQ ranger was pretty true to the pen & paper fantasy trope.  Another misconception that gets thrown around a lot is that the ranger is somehow like a rogue (I blame EQ2 and its' implementation of the class as part of a 'scout' archtype).

    In combat, the ranger play-style shouldn't rely on stealth or too heavily on magic.  It should play much closer to a warrior than any caster or rogue if the class is going to be true to its' roots.

     

    • 122 posts
    October 26, 2017 8:03 AM PDT

    Appears we've covered most of the ranger topics between this and the other threads. I think bottom line it comes down to making them more than a weak jack of all trades. They should be good dps (melee or ranged, but not as good as a rogue, wiz, etc), with high mitigation/offtank ability (not just a 7 second weapon shield off tank, like a real, doable offtank that won't suck a healer dry when things get dicey). Just something to actually make groups want them. That was the problem in EQ. Why take a ranger in your group when there are so many other pure classes that do its job better. Not to mention rangers were useless in EQ until EQ/AMD3. And even then you needed a good bow.


    This post was edited by Zuljan at October 26, 2017 9:08 AM PDT
    • 321 posts
    October 29, 2017 8:03 PM PDT

    I'd like to see the entire class built around bows and terrain negotiation, and maybe a pet as well (shamans or druids might take the animal pets from rangers).

    I just feel like giving rangers a full range of bow abilities, and then a full range of pet abilities, and then a full range of melee abilites, will just make it into a class that is only original in its ability to copy every other DPS/CC class at any given time. (like WoW Hunters).

     

    There are plenty of ways to fill out an entire class with just a bow and maybe a pet:

     

    1. I'd love a movie Legolas style who parries and jumps around and otherwise uses his terrain negotiation skills to stay moving while poking his foes full of arrow holes... (close ranged bowman)
    2. I'd really like an EQ1 style ranger who casts naturey/CC spells while doing fancy bow moves. (mid ranged bowman).
    3. You could have an interesting pet focused bowman who combos bow attacks with his pet (summoner+bowman).
    4. Itd be a bit boring in my opinion but you could have an elemental style who is a 'wizard with a bow' (long ranged bowman).
    5. If you didn't give it to rogue first, ranger could even have a bow class who focuses on stealth tactics+bow, and things like shooting enemies in the back. (tactical bowman)
    6. You could mix any of the above as well. (1 and 5 would go very well together imo)

     

     

    Leave Aragorn to the warriors/secret class, who may like an option besides Gimli/hulk and shieldwall.

    Leave dual wield Legolas to rogues/secret class, who may like a more in-your-face, jumpy option.

    Elrandir said:

    I would love to see a throw-back to more of an old-school 2nd Ed. D&D style of ranger. Basically a warrior that chooses to live on the fringe of society. More Aragorn than Legolas, I'd like to see a healthy mix of both offensive and defensive abilities. Some ideas taken from the 2nd Edition players handbook that could be simulated within Pantheon:

    Primary Terrain: Rangers chose a primary terrain with which they had a familiarity with and would see bonuses to skills when in those types of regions. For Pantheon, with the addition of the environments it would be really cool if rangers had an innate mitigation to the harmful environmental effects that occured near their starting cities. This would mean they would likely be race-dependent, with halflings (assuming they can be rangers) having a knowledge of hazards that occur near Wild's End. Humans might be familiar with conditions around Thronefast, etc.

    Species Enemies: Rangers were expected to choose a species enemy against which they got an attack bonus. As an example, for halfling rangers--wraiths would be an obvious choice just based off of the lore that's been revealed so far.

    I'm sure other traits of these classic rangers could be emulated in Pantheon as well.

    Just my 2cp!

    Elrandir

     

    While i love classes having their own niches, I feel like this would niche rangers a little TOO much.

    With a DM you can make your character however you please and trust a good DM to take your character into account in EVERY encounter, and have a reason for it every time they let you do particularly well or poorly. Pantheon, or any mass produced game, cannot do this near as well, running the severe risk of singling out one ranger over another much too often.


    This post was edited by BeaverBiscuit at October 29, 2017 10:50 PM PDT
    • 321 posts
    October 29, 2017 8:12 PM PDT

    i continue to be bad at posting.


    This post was edited by BeaverBiscuit at October 29, 2017 8:14 PM PDT
    • 74 posts
    October 29, 2017 10:43 PM PDT

    A few things I expect from The Ranger:

    It will be a hybrid melee/ranged fighter in medium to light armour. It typically serves as the group's scout, and have abilities or skills supporting that role. Being able to detect traps, or have better knowledge of wilderness/monsters (bonus to perception checks for those types of mobs). As far as utility skills are concerned, I'd like to see a temporary group movement speed buff, Evac (transporting nearby group members to the start of the dungeon (long CD)), as well as the ability to forage berries, functioning as a clicky for your team-mates to use for some life and mana.

    Example of damage abilities/debuffs:

    Expose Weakness -  locating a spot of weakness on your opponent, reducing their piercing resistance by X for Y seconds.

    Aimed Shot - A slow "casting", carefully positioned shot dealing huge damage. Requires the Ranger to stand still, and is easily interrupted by damage. 

    Augmented Arrows - temporarily augments your arrows with an element or status effect. You can target various group member classes for different effects. Wizard (Fire and Ice), Shaman (Disease and Poison), Cleric (Divine) and so on. If you're solo, the Ranger gets "Barbed Arrows" when using this ability.

    Leap Strike - The Ranger lunges in from range, dealing damage with both melee weapons.

    Evasive Manouver - The Ranger fires his arrow with such force from point blank range, propelling him backwards X distance.

     

    • 32 posts
    October 30, 2017 8:40 AM PDT
    Rangers in eq weren't as bad as the jokes, that being said they weren't fantastic either. Now take this for what it's worth I don't know currently how the ranger fair's as my experience stopped sometime around oow. Rangers could pull fairly well with harmony. We did good damage with bow and pretty close to the same melee. Now in a raid setting was where the ranger fell behind. You could not help pull with harmony. Raid mobs were above that. Your ranged damage was significantly behind equal geared casters. Also your melee damage was significantly behind rogues and Monks. So after a raid when you would look at a parse at you were hovering dmg with support classes ,I was quickly asked to switch to my bst raiding when that op class came out. I'm sure I'll have someone flame me that they were a ranger and they were top dps. I was in the top guild on our server at the time and We were well geared. It's fairly obvious you cannot have a class with Rogue level melee dps and caster level ranged dps. My opinion is ranger needs to be ranged dps killer with a bow with some melee ability but nothing that would make me have joust in and melee to maximize my class. I understand all these fantasy views and people want to have all these amazing abilities. But you also have to have a balanced class that fits into pantheons group setup not just people's romanticized view of what they want. I think a ranged class with snares and roots , a harmony skill to help pull, and maybe a short tanking ability that can help in a bind. Tracking and some other outdoor fluff, that should fit in fine.
    • 122 posts
    October 30, 2017 9:14 AM PDT

    Unless a lot of boss fights are designed with mechanics to force out the melee dps (or they give us some weird ability like the debuff in Vanguard), we will run into the same issue as we always do with a ranger; why take him over a pure dps, or even a pure hybrid (e.g. druid can actually give real heals while doing moderate dps, while our patch heals were as useless as our nukes etc). Track is fine and dandy too, but again, never enough for a group to want a ranger over a pure dps or hybrid (good/fast groups will just clear everything anyhow, and in highly contested/trafficked areas, there will be so many groups that someone will likely run into/check for the named before your group who is tracking it can even get there).

    Traditionally, they do play more like an Aragorn than a Legolas (they can wear chain/scail mail armor, shields, they get +10 con first level and a 1D10 constitution modifier on leveling etc). The problem in other games is the offtank ability had so much variance (especially if you get critted, crushing blowed, etc), along with strict gear requirement to be even remotely formiddable as an offtank, leaving people again asking themselves why they should take a ranger over the others. Some people mentioned pets, and while they go against the traditional lore, I also don't see what function they would even serve the ranger (it's just going to insta die to any AoE or any mob with cleave, dmg shield etc). So basically you're looking at a gimp DoT, which mathematically is just a function for dps. 

    They need to give us a real, impacting utility function. It shouldn't be bigger heals or bigger nukes, for that goes against the essence of the class and falls into druid territory. It can't be more dps, because then we're a gimped version of other dps classes (unless, as mentioned before, there are a large number of encounters that force melee dps to frequently disengage). It has to be some sort of offtank ability, debuff/synergy ability (maybe they work in tandem with atmospheres to somehow benefit the party), or something to give the group survivability during moments of imminent wipe (a "watchful eye" ability/buff to absorb damage or instantly take aggro from another group member(s) whom you casted the buff on). Or if they enhanced track, allowing us to see how many mobs are in a given area (or a spell/ability to let us pull 1 or 2 mobs even if they're in a group of 3). Even some version of "hide in plain sight" would be great (ideally we could cast it on a healer before the wipe, allowing them to rezz us, which would be a real, valuable utility function, or if used in tandem with an ability allowing us to pull, it would serve as an FD function when we make a bad pull).

    Maybe stances are an option (in DnD you had to choose at like level 3 which fighting style you wanted to specialize in: archery, tanking, and dual wielding). Instead of having to choose only one like in DnD, if they could make it to where we had to choose one of these 3 stance before or during combat (stances would need significant bonus/impact), it would give us a much more viable utility feel, requiring a good ranger to select the right stance for a given encounter as opposed to just giving us a slew of bonuses for free. 

    It's a tricky class to design, but the bottom line is groups want impactful, mathematically consistent utility from their hybrid classes. Quite simply, rangers have never offered enough of either to force people to actively seek one out for a group (on the contrary, they were usually the last pick if you couldn't find anything else, unless it's a raid or something obvious where our buffs/debuffs were needed). I feel a proper off tank utility is both easiest to execute and most impactful (keep in mind there isn't another offtank class to fill this void, unless they make paladins more of an OT, but that would make groups extremely slow at clearing unless it's an undead area they excel in or something). That or give us a mechanism to allow us to pull (I mean the game could use 1 more puller, since monks are pretty much the exclusive pullers along with Dire Lords, but their FD will have a higher % to fail I'm sure). Ideally, I'd like there to be stances for the ranger, but that takes a lot of time and resources, so I'm curious to see what they end up going with. I'm a ranger at heart and have always mained them given the opportunity, but if they go for a weaker jack of all trades design akin to EQ, I may be inclined to roll a rogue or monk main for the first time.


    This post was edited by Zuljan at October 30, 2017 11:27 AM PDT
    • 94 posts
    November 2, 2017 10:59 AM PDT

    This thread has submitted a lot of information as to what many of us consider is the perfect ranger.  There has been great input from the community.  I'm just wondering if there has been any official word, other than the small blurb in the class section, as to what Pantheon ranger is.  Pre-Alpha is over the horizon and I haven't seen anything on the class so I'm just wondering if I've missed anything revealed about the class or not.

    • 446 posts
    November 2, 2017 12:19 PM PDT

    I think there's going to be some disappointment here. So far, we have spellcasters, we have hand-to-hand dps, melee dps, healing, nature utility, and a sneaky class. 

    But not an archer class. 

    That is a niche that is going to be filled, and whether there is a consensus as to what type of weapon a ranger should use, I believe it will be used to fill that niche. 

    Not saying I don't agree with many of the posts here as to what a ranger *should* be. I'm talking about what it will be. You're all covering specialties that other classes already have. The one specialty that is not covered so far is archery. 

    Rangers will be archers. 

    • 596 posts
    November 2, 2017 3:42 PM PDT

    Tralyan said:

    I think there's going to be some disappointment here. So far, we have spellcasters, we have hand-to-hand dps, melee dps, healing, nature utility, and a sneaky class. 

    But not an archer class. 

    That is a niche that is going to be filled, and whether there is a consensus as to what type of weapon a ranger should use, I believe it will be used to fill that niche. 

    Not saying I don't agree with many of the posts here as to what a ranger *should* be. I'm talking about what it will be. You're all covering specialties that other classes already have. The one specialty that is not covered so far is archery. 

    Rangers will be archers. 

    I agree i said this like a year ago and i had a ton of people disagree with me, and some agree, but i basically had the same thought process you have basically everything is filled cept for the physical range class with probably limited melee abilities, and such for def more tuned toward range.

    • 122 posts
    November 3, 2017 7:22 AM PDT

    Riahuf22 said:

    Tralyan said:

    I think there's going to be some disappointment here. So far, we have spellcasters, we have hand-to-hand dps, melee dps, healing, nature utility, and a sneaky class. 

    But not an archer class. 

    That is a niche that is going to be filled, and whether there is a consensus as to what type of weapon a ranger should use, I believe it will be used to fill that niche. 

    Not saying I don't agree with many of the posts here as to what a ranger *should* be. I'm talking about what it will be. You're all covering specialties that other classes already have. The one specialty that is not covered so far is archery. 

    Rangers will be archers. 

    I agree i said this like a year ago and i had a ton of people disagree with me, and some agree, but i basically had the same thought process you have basically everything is filled cept for the physical range class with probably limited melee abilities, and such for def more tuned toward range.

     With respect, I wholeheartedly disagree. They were well aware of the aforementioned shortcomings of the EQ Ranger, so in Vanguard, they solved it by implementing 3 stances - but even that wasn't enough - so they also gave us that weird, low stamina raid mob debuff. Additionally, the max dps cycle was never simply archery/ranged. It was opening with the DoT/dmg arrow and then have a bunch of macros set up to change to melee stance to start stacking the melee chains/dots, rinse repeat. Then when tanks die, you have a macro set up to switch to tank stance (and often times a 2hander tank build was preferred at the time I quit). This is all because rangers were never an "archery class" in any rendition of lore. Even putting Aragorn on the back burner for a second, Legolas was almost, if not equally proficient with melee damage and high avoidance/tankability. Tolkien barely even goes into any detail about elven archery whatsoever (very tiny tidbits about old competitions etc in lore, and I don't even remember him specifically singling out Legolas being the best archer ever there was some other old name), in addition to DnD never traditionally limiting them to an "archery class" by any means. So yes, rangers will do more dmg with a bow, akin to monks doing more dmg with their fists than any other class, but that doesn't satisfy a function/specialty.

    Classes are designed to supplement their functions (pulling, healing, tanking, pure dps, etc). You mentioned archery as the only specialty/funtion other classes don't have; but again, unless this game or the mob mechanics play adversely different than anything we've ever seen, archery, mathetmatically, is a stunted form of dps (as it always has been), ultimately leaving us with no class function. Quite literally, there would be no reason to take a ranger over any other class if they strictly left us with "archery," and I honestly can't think of 1 single group/raid encounter across any MMO where our ranged phys dps was ever prioritized/needed over other pure dps classes (that's clearly a design imbalance in EQ which they later tried to address deep in AA trees and then finally in VG with the revamping of the class). 

    Apart from that, they don't limit class design by allowing only 1 class to possess a given function (referring to you saying that by giving us archery, they fill the last specialty/function). There are multiple tank classes for this reason, multiple magic dps classes, multiple healers/buffers, etc, so giving us a gimped version of ranged dps would still not satisfy a true functioning archetype. They fixed most of this in VG with their changes to adhere to lore, but the raid debuff just felt really inorganic/underwhelming compared to other class functions/staples (monks have FD, Wiz gets a huge nuke/teleport, rogues stealth/highest melee dps), which is why I'd rather see us more proficient at something, unless they give us more of a ground-breaking utility ability (I'd rather have something like an expose weakness debuff that increases total % damage output by the group on the target rather than the strange null magic debuff we had in VG).

    They will without a doubt give us off tanking, a weird but useful utility spell, or some pulling mechanism (And unless dire lords have an equally effective FD, why are monks the sole pullers? They already have decent dps, they can offtank, and they can pull...? feels a little too well-rounded if you ask me). They're like the inverse of the EQ ranger; jack of all trades AND the master of them. Honestly, even if they gave us off tanking, why take a ranger over a monk let alone druids or the other hybrids. Just grab a monk since he can pull/OT, then fill the ranger spot with a pure dps class or something with a real impact for the given run. I think the decision they make is going to take into account the other classes and how well they do their job (if monks weren't so versatile or at least have very strict gear requirements like the EQ ranger to tank, then we might be looked at differently, provided our dps was high enough or we are supplemented with another high impact utility spell).

    Because the ranger is so flexible in design/lore, I would unfortunately expect him or the pet class to be finished/revealed last, since you can basically create them at the end/singularly without having to influence the effiency/design of the other classes, whom are more interdependent of one another. I hope this thread gets some attention from devs. Ranger has to be one of the most difficult classes to design, and because it has never been regarded as an elite class or even a class that gives something irreplacable to the group, I wonder if some aspect of their design is sometimes taken for granted or overlooked. Though I suppose you could say the same about some of the pet classes, but at least they were able to solo/quad farm and even solo ridiculous named mobs (with the right gear) at higher levels. 


    This post was edited by Zuljan at November 3, 2017 8:35 AM PDT
    • 217 posts
    November 3, 2017 8:51 PM PDT

    Radamus said:

    This thread has submitted a lot of information as to what many of us consider is the perfect ranger.  There has been great input from the community.  I'm just wondering if there has been any official word, other than the small blurb in the class section, as to what Pantheon ranger is.  Pre-Alpha is over the horizon and I haven't seen anything on the class so I'm just wondering if I've missed anything revealed about the class or not.

     

    So far the only things I've seen confirmed are that rangers will be able to dual-wield and that they won't be a pet class.  Aside from that, there's been no real info from the devs that I've seen.

     

    Tralyan said:

    I think there's going to be some disappointment here. So far, we have spellcasters, we have hand-to-hand dps, melee dps, healing, nature utility, and a sneaky class. 

    But not an archer class. 

    That is a niche that is going to be filled, and whether there is a consensus as to what type of weapon a ranger should use, I believe it will be used to fill that niche. 

    Not saying I don't agree with many of the posts here as to what a ranger *should* be. I'm talking about what it will be. You're all covering specialties that other classes already have. The one specialty that is not covered so far is archery. 

    Rangers will be archers. 

    I would be a little surprised if rangers didn't have the option to play as archers, if that was their prefered play-style.  I would be far more surprised if they were forced to.  Rangers aren't archers.  They're required to know how to use a bow, but they aren't bound to one.  It also wouldn't be consistent with the spiritual predecessors to this game.

    One argument that people keep making is that 'physical ranged dps' is a void that needs to be filled.  That's like saying melee-based fire damage is a void that needs to be filled.  It simply isn't true.  As Zul pointed out, if physical ranged damage was a 'requirement' then it certainly wouldn't be handed out to only one class.

    • 321 posts
    November 4, 2017 12:54 AM PDT

    Elrandir said:

    I would be a little surprised if rangers didn't have the option to play as archers, if that was their prefered play-style.  I would be far more surprised if they were forced to.  Rangers aren't archers.  They're required to know how to use a bow, but they aren't bound to one.  It also wouldn't be consistent with the spiritual predecessors to this game.

    One argument that people keep making is that 'physical ranged dps' is a void that needs to be filled.  That's like saying melee-based fire damage is a void that needs to be filled.  It simply isn't true.  As Zul pointed out, if physical ranged damage was a 'requirement' then it certainly wouldn't be handed out to only one class.

    It's my belief that rangers ARE completely archers, who can use daggers in a pinch (much less efficiently than someone who trains with daggers, like a rogue) but otherwise keep their bow out. It's always weird to me when Aragorn is called a Ranger in LOTR.

    That said, it really doesnt matter what I, you, or anyone else here thinks about rangers. It's what VR thinks. If VR thinks ranger is an archer, than in Pantheon ranger is an archer.

    As an example I wholeheartedly feel that Pantheon Shamans should be renamed. I beleive real world shamans are not the war mongering, totem worshipping, hex happy, savages depicted by VR. However, VR will continue to name their Shamans Shaman. It's their game.

     

     

    Physical ranged dps is completely different from melee based fire damage. Fire damage is much more specific than physical damage. Most games have several classes based around physical damage only, whereas fire is only a small part of casters. I suspect this is because physical is the only thing non magical characters can do, and also because physical can still be split between different weapons and fighting styles. In addition, physical attacks use a different resource than spells do in many games, thus making a big different between physical ranged characters and magical ranged characters.

    My point-physical ranged IS a void that can be filled. Because VR has warriors, rogues, and monks covering all melee fighting style/weapons, it makes sense to me that rangers might then cover bows in Pantheon. We even have paladins and Dire Lords to fill in offensive/defensive spellcasting+physical melee.

    That's not to say rogues, warriors, paladins, and monks wont have physical ranged options as well, but all three have lots of gameplay footage now, and none of it shows them doing anything which hints at FOCUSING on ranged attacks.

    Thus, rangers are the only ones who can likely fill the bow void, as bow is a weapon which currently has no class focusing on it. Rogues/monks might eventually get a ranged focus as well, but ultimately there IS a huge void here. For both physical ranged, and physical ranged+defensive/offensive spellcasting. 

    I am not saying rangers can't have a melee focus, but I personally would prefer them to definately fill the bow void with at least two builds, and THEN MAYBE have a melee build. A ranged/melee hybrid build is o.k., but would need to have stringent requirements to switch between ranged and melee dps OFTEN in order to not alienate other physical classes.


    This post was edited by BeaverBiscuit at November 4, 2017 12:59 AM PDT
    • 122 posts
    November 4, 2017 9:20 AM PDT

    BeaverBiscuit said:

    Elrandir said:

    I would be a little surprised if rangers didn't have the option to play as archers, if that was their prefered play-style.  I would be far more surprised if they were forced to.  Rangers aren't archers.  They're required to know how to use a bow, but they aren't bound to one.  It also wouldn't be consistent with the spiritual predecessors to this game.

    One argument that people keep making is that 'physical ranged dps' is a void that needs to be filled.  That's like saying melee-based fire damage is a void that needs to be filled.  It simply isn't true.  As Zul pointed out, if physical ranged damage was a 'requirement' then it certainly wouldn't be handed out to only one class.

    It's my belief that rangers ARE completely archers, who can use daggers in a pinch (much less efficiently than someone who trains with daggers, like a rogue) but otherwise keep their bow out. It's always weird to me when Aragorn is called a Ranger in LOTR.

    That said, it really doesnt matter what I, you, or anyone else here thinks about rangers. It's what VR thinks. If VR thinks ranger is an archer, than in Pantheon ranger is an archer.

    As an example I wholeheartedly feel that Pantheon Shamans should be renamed. I beleive real world shamans are not the war mongering, totem worshipping, hex happy, savages depicted by VR. However, VR will continue to name their Shamans Shaman. It's their game.

     

     

    Physical ranged dps is completely different from melee based fire damage. Fire damage is much more specific than physical damage. Most games have several classes based around physical damage only, whereas fire is only a small part of casters. I suspect this is because physical is the only thing non magical characters can do, and also because physical can still be split between different weapons and fighting styles. In addition, physical attacks use a different resource than spells do in many games, thus making a big different between physical ranged characters and magical ranged characters.

    My point-physical ranged IS a void that can be filled. Because VR has warriors, rogues, and monks covering all melee fighting style/weapons, it makes sense to me that rangers might then cover bows in Pantheon. We even have paladins and Dire Lords to fill in offensive/defensive spellcasting+physical melee.

    That's not to say rogues, warriors, paladins, and monks wont have physical ranged options as well, but all three have lots of gameplay footage now, and none of it shows them doing anything which hints at FOCUSING on ranged attacks.

    Thus, rangers are the only ones who can likely fill the bow void, as bow is a weapon which currently has no class focusing on it. Rogues/monks might eventually get a ranged focus as well, but ultimately there IS a huge void here. For both physical ranged, and physical ranged+defensive/offensive spellcasting. 

    I am not saying rangers can't have a melee focus, but I personally would prefer them to definately fill the bow void with at least two builds, and THEN MAYBE have a melee build. A ranged/melee hybrid build is o.k., but would need to have stringent requirements to switch between ranged and melee dps OFTEN in order to not alienate other physical classes.

    In response to you beliving rangers are purely archers; you are completely entitled to your opinion; however, it must be at least taken into consideration (for the argument's sake) that no official tablature for ranger lore (DnD, LoTR, Dragonlance even) has ever considered rangers to be solely archers, nor has any iteration of the ranger (post early EQ days) ever made them exclusively proficient at ranged. And again, archery/ranged dps does not satisfy a class role (tanking, pure dps, pulling, healing)...

    We all know rangers are going to do the most dmg with a bow, the same way monks will do the most dmg with their fists, but you have to realize that isn't a class archetype/role (please read aforementioned examples above for an explanation on this). The abridged version is ranged phys dmg is simply a gimped version of phys dps (in a vacuum). The only way they could truly make rangers "only archers" is by making them a top dps class (which will never happen, because it's obviously too easy to sit back and auto atk ranged, while the top melee dps and wiz have to do a ton to not pull agro and to avoid cleaves etc).

    The discussion is about class roles and efficiency at the class role. As of now, rangers only satisfied role in past renditions is sub par dps and sub par tanking (save for the raid mob debuff they gave us in VG to get people to want us), which is clearly a class imbalance, so we are thinking of options/ideas they could implement to make us a more valuable class. If you look at other classes like a monk, and they can sufficiently pull, offtank, and do good dps, completely eclipsing the ranger in every way. A variety of these examples ojectively explain why we are generally the last pick in any group/raid and have never been regarded as an elite class. 

    • 32 posts
    November 4, 2017 11:52 AM PDT
    I'd have a hard time seeing rangers being completely archers. I think that should be their primary damage. But they need some sort of melee ability. Maybe a weapon shield like ability with a long reuse to short term tank. If rangers aren't going to be shooting to be a top damage class, the question does remain. What do they bring to the group then. I saw this struggle with eq2 with so many classes. So you had brigand and swashbuckler that had physical and offensive debuffs. If you go do that road it still gets messy as raids would still just have 1 of that class to debuffs and the rest just high damage classes or other classes that add more on a group level. The only thing I could come up with is some sort of group buff for a rangers group. Like a short term dmg increase or proc. Maybe a reduction to resistances or ac. But just for the rangers group not raidwide. I'm just brainstorming, nothing well thought out. If top damage ,pulling , off tanking aren't a rangers thing there will have to be something to give them pull for groups.