Forums » The Ranger

The Ranger - maybe not.. More like the Hunter/Archer

    • 26 posts
    September 22, 2019 2:24 PM PDT

    For better or worse - it looks like they want an Archer class or at the very least an Archer/R.A Salvatore ranger hybrid. Momentum is a really cool idea but to pigon hole the melee portion of this class into a Drizzt role is really sad. Are we going to narrow it down even more to blades or maybe short swords only? Have you removed the option to have a long and short sword? How about a mace or an axe? 

     

    Still very early so not giving up yet on this class but this is not a great start imo. Will be interesting to finally get into Alpha at somepoint and help the vision... 

     

    Edit:

    Noticed they took two handed weapons away from Warriors too...


    This post was edited by Sabatour at September 22, 2019 2:31 PM PDT
    • 3 posts
    October 31, 2019 7:01 PM PDT

    I don't see them limiting rangers to just a short sword or just a sword. They have expressed in past videos that different weapons will be needed for different types of armor on NPC's. I feel rangers should definitely be able to wield swords, axes daggers, maces, and whips. That is just personal opinion, but from the past videos I do not believe rangers will be limited to just swords. 

    • 539 posts
    November 1, 2019 5:12 AM PDT

    Even on the main site it's written: Bows, Crossbows and MOST one-handed weapons. But as you've pointed out yourself - it's still pretty early on, so everything may change.

     

    Edit: When did they took 2-h weapons from Warriors? It's just many of their abilities require shield and their main role is as a tank, but it's not like you can't make warrior wielding 2-h sword with strictly offensive set of abilities.


    This post was edited by Hegenox at November 1, 2019 5:17 AM PDT
    • 92 posts
    November 1, 2019 8:37 AM PDT

    VR has stated the Ranger will be weaving in and out of ranged and melee, and Joppa stated it would still be viable if someone wants to play strictly ranged or melee.  I don't think this will be an issue, and there are still a ton more skills/abilities that have not been revealed yet across the board.  I didn't get the impression of only swords from the videos either, but yes everything is still early and under wraps.


    This post was edited by Geoffrey at November 1, 2019 8:45 AM PDT
    • 343 posts
    January 29, 2020 10:29 AM PST

    Seems like a Ranger to me, in EQOA and EQ2, the Ranger's primary source of damage was with a bow.

    • 4362 posts
    January 29, 2020 12:54 PM PST

    Hegenox said:

    Edit: When did they took 2-h weapons from Warriors? It's just many of their abilities require shield and their main role is as a tank, but it's not like you can't make warrior wielding 2-h sword with strictly offensive set of abilities.

    They didn't... It seems like the OP might be misreading some things. The class description for Warrior specifically says "All weapons." Warriors will probably find it best to alternate between 2H and S&B situationally to be as effective as possible.

    • 906 posts
    January 29, 2020 4:46 PM PST

    My advice is to try to enjoy the game as its own creation instead of comparing the classes to other games.  This is what I had to do in order to accept the fact that some of the classes are named and even modeled after other games in some respect while others are very different.

    The class names don't really mean a whole lot if comparing to them to other games.  A lot of the class identities are subjective:
    -Bards  (by definition: lore keepers/story tellers/performers) yet melee combatants wearing full plate armor (like EQ except for the available classes)
    -Druids in most other games use shapeshifting or summoning natural beast companions to fight for them as their primary strength - this Druid can do neither (like EQ except for the available classes)
    -Shaman being about ancestral knowledge/spirituality and yet not playable by isolated races obsessed with their ancestry like Dark Myr and instead accessible to the short lived and highly civilized Humans, and for some reason get a permanent wolf or bear pet even though the Druid and Ranger don't.  (like EQ except for the available classes)

    With the exception of the Dire Lord, I think that a lot of inspiration for the classes get their flavor from EQ.  Dire Lord is probably the only unique/new class "name" in PRotF that can't be subjected to opinion based solely on its name.

    So if you really want to enjoy the Ranger, just play it for what the game makes it out to be because comparing it to other games/lore may only dissapoint you.

    • 343 posts
    February 26, 2020 10:23 AM PST

    Darch said:

    So if you really want to enjoy the Ranger, just play it for what the game makes it out to be because comparing it to other games/lore may only dissapoint you.

     

    I think this is the best approach. Give VR a chance to make the class fun, unique, and valuable before you rip them apart for not cloning the ranger from EQ1.

    • 26 posts
    June 6, 2020 12:49 PM PDT

    Darch said:

    My advice is to try to enjoy the game as its own creation instead of comparing the classes to other games.  This is what I had to do in order to accept the fact that some of the classes are named and even modeled after other games in some respect while others are very different.

    The class names don't really mean a whole lot if comparing to them to other games.  A lot of the class identities are subjective:
    -Bards  (by definition: lore keepers/story tellers/performers) yet melee combatants wearing full plate armor (like EQ except for the available classes)
    -Druids in most other games use shapeshifting or summoning natural beast companions to fight for them as their primary strength - this Druid can do neither (like EQ except for the available classes)
    -Shaman being about ancestral knowledge/spirituality and yet not playable by isolated races obsessed with their ancestry like Dark Myr and instead accessible to the short lived and highly civilized Humans, and for some reason get a permanent wolf or bear pet even though the Druid and Ranger don't.  (like EQ except for the available classes)

    With the exception of the Dire Lord, I think that a lot of inspiration for the classes get their flavor from EQ.  Dire Lord is probably the only unique/new class "name" in PRotF that can't be subjected to opinion based solely on its name.

    So if you really want to enjoy the Ranger, just play it for what the game makes it out to be because comparing it to other games/lore may only dissapoint you.

     

    I hear ya it just seems a semi simple thing to allow skills to work with other weapon choices.. Multiple examples of rangers using 2 handed only out there in the fiction world. I get that Ranger might be the hardest class to nail down for any IP included WOTC..  They did it best (well TSR did) imo in first edition where your class choice was partly decided by your rolled attributes. This would be a cool idea here as well even tho you would just reroll till you got what you wanted but its still fun especially when you get super lucky.. Kind of like the old dragon lance games on early PCs.. 

     

    IMO Rangers should deal more damage up front with a specific weapon set over warriors - more specialized with more "tricks" or more finesse over a warrior. Tanking shouldnt be an option that should be left to the plate folks and overall weapon skills should go to the warrior as well. Like they can use a wider range good but a ranger is excellent on what his chosen path is. Rogues can stay in the shadows and blow people up from behind or confuse / distract etc..  Only "weaving" in and out of combat with a bow seems weak and maybe a bit lazy (not a slam sorry)... 

    • 730 posts
    June 8, 2020 11:49 AM PDT
    Well DLs aren’t a plate class so there is that haha. But I agree that tanking should be left to those specific classes.
    • 22 posts
    June 18, 2020 2:35 PM PDT

    For me, Plane of Time geared EQ Ranger balance would be good.

     

    - Melee with occasional spells best DPS - a bit worse than DPS specialists but better than all non DPS specialists

    - Archery less DPS , but still viable and reduces agro/aoe damage - DPS on par with the best non specialist classes

    - Good pulling / crowd control

    - Great agro control paired with ability to offtank in an emergancy (i.e. significantly better than healers/mage, but worse than tanks)

    - Some powerful emergancy abilities that short term allow Rangers to complete with Tanks / DPS specialists from range.

    - Decent buffs and some things to lower downtime (heals)

    - Tracking

     

    Wouldnt mind too much if rangers lost most of the spell type abilities as long as utility maintained.

     


    This post was edited by Galden at June 18, 2020 2:39 PM PDT
    • 20 posts
    July 2, 2020 8:47 AM PDT

    Mordecai said: Well DLs aren’t a plate class so there is that haha. But I agree that tanking should be left to those specific classes.

    If you notice, monk is actually listed as DPS, Off-Tank, Utility (I think that's how it was written) and Ranger is just DPS, Utility.  That said, while DL's aren't a plate class they are the only class to wear mail (other than plate classes) and we really don't know - esp top end gear, just how much of a difference will exist AC wise between plate and mail.  If you look every other "mail" class can only wear "Light Mail".  I have to assume that there's a significant difference between tank level mail, and light mail used by the DPS classes (otherwise why have that distinction.)

    • 730 posts
    July 2, 2020 10:23 AM PDT
    That’s a good point Thecklos. Now I’m even more curious about those differences.
    • 686 posts
    July 2, 2020 12:39 PM PDT

    Sabatour said:

     IMO Rangers should deal more damage up front with a specific weapon set over warriors  

    Only "weaving" in and out of combat with a bow seems weak and maybe a bit lazy (not a slam sorry)... 

    As a class, all DPS are expected to deal more damage than Tanks. There's no reason I know of to expect otherwise for Rangers.

     

    I wasn't a fan of the jumping between ranged and melee at first, though I've started to see potential for fun in it. I'm still glad that the current plan is to let a Ranger be a useful DPS even if he sticks to Bow, so I have that option if I decide I don't like the 'weaving' system.

    That said, I don't see how alternating between melee and ranged will require LESS skill. If anything it should require more skill, so I don't agree with the 'lazy' part.

    • 1804 posts
    July 2, 2020 2:32 PM PDT

    I do hope Ranger dont get changed into some kind of arrow turret. I'd like melee and ranged to be comparable at least in different situations.

    • 730 posts
    July 3, 2020 4:28 PM PDT
    @MauvaisOeil agreed. Loved EQ1 ranger due to mainly melee. When they introduced AAs for ranged I loved that too but wasn’t sold on ranged dominate. I say this in regards to Pantheon is putting it 50/50. In and out melee/ranged. That sounds fun. That said if Ranger is “best” ranged? I’ll probably roll a different class.