Forums » The Ranger

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

    • 1670 posts
    April 19, 2015 1:57 PM PDT

    I agree, and - to me, a ranger has "prepper" characteristics and develops terrain knowledge, you know, has those nifty, low weight, multi-function, job specific tools that allow them to "make" shelter, food, sanitation, husbandry- real survivor type stuff. Knowledge of wild flower combinations for rudimentary pastes/salves/nutrition or bind wounds. Camoflage. Rangers -have- a "bug out bag" that others say " I wish I'd thought of that" half way through a dungeon crawl or camp. They don't command the animals, but they know not only their movements, but their behaviors and the things that influence/instigate those behaviors.- Like the use of lady-bugs to control the aphid population to allow he fruit bearing plants to thrive instead of destroyed by aphids- which could appear as magic, to the untrained eye. (Groot, and the fireflies kind of thing). Rangers don't have a poison deterrent, but they (I am making this up) have bear sweat that thwarts the stinging of bees; for bears freely rip open hives for honey, and are not bothered by the swarming and stinging bees.

    • 353 posts
    September 20, 2015 2:35 PM PDT

    I would love to see rangers as the ranged physical damage dealer. using a bow and arrow, throwing knives, and maybe a Bolo for snare/root. i agree with most of the above. especially that the ranger should not be a pet class. although i also think that maybe a ranger could use his skills to befriend animal companions.


    Befriending animal companions: this would be a fairly long process, but unlike charm it would be permanent. the companion would also permanently die when killed. but be able to level up with the ranger. maybe you must feed the animalto gain its friendship. and it would give specific benefits based on what kind of animal it is.


    Tracking: this is a staple of a ranger. ranger must have tracking skills.


    sneak/hide/camo: need to be able to move undetected. maybe even gain a small to-hit bonus when attacking while hidden.


    traps: i can take em or leave em, but they should be survivalist type traps. snares and pitfalls.


    Forage: the ranger should be able to scrounge food from his surroundings, but the things he finds should make sense. why would a ranger find a chicken leg in a graveyard? why would he eat something found in a graveyard? maybe forage is able to take meat from mob corpses.


    Reuseable arrows: i own a bow myself. i have reused the arrows many times. why are arrows in games unrecoverable? unrepairable i can see, maybe with each shot some have a chance of breaking and those are lost, but by and large i should be able to take the arrows out of the animal i killed and use em agian.

    • 29 posts
    October 15, 2015 4:49 PM PDT

    I'm not huge on the idea of any pet class for my personal tastes to be honest.  They always end up being gimp in some way.  If you make a pet a viable addition to the ranger, they're easily exploitable/OP, if you don't...then they're basically a hindrance and you're better off grouping with a straight damage dealer.

    • 26 posts
    January 11, 2016 10:29 AM PST

    Ranger does not mean ranged combat. 

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


    • 254 posts
    March 3, 2016 8:34 PM PST

    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!



    • 29 posts
    March 14, 2016 12:52 PM 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. 


    Eventually you have to choose, unless you want a class that can do a little evrything and none of it particularly well (been there, done that, no thanks)

    I don't care whether Ranger's go the way of WoW hunter, D and D ranger, or final fantasy long as there's another class that provides the alternatives.  If Rangers are going to be melee/ranged hybrids there needs to be a ranged focued class as well, etc. 

    Look to ffxiv's Bard for an idea of what NOT to do. 

    This post was edited by Kajidourden at March 14, 2016 12:54 PM PDT
    • 15 posts
    March 15, 2016 10:37 AM PDT

    I think you should be a mix of both. I do like the Ranger in EQ. Where you get special stuff for ranged combat, but you can also be useful in melee combat.

    I agree with the top 2 threads. They define classic rangers. Pets are more for a druid, although I would like to not see pets at all. Familiars are different than pets. And this is the ranger forum.  I would like to see maybe a debuff when in a metropolitan city. As this is not somewhere that you would normally see a ranger.

    • 26 posts
    March 16, 2016 1:08 PM PDT

    Kajidourden said:

    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. 


    Eventually you have to choose, unless you want a class that can do a little evrything and none of it particularly well (been there, done that, no thanks)

    I don't care whether Ranger's go the way of WoW hunter, D and D ranger, or final fantasy long as there's another class that provides the alternatives.  If Rangers are going to be melee/ranged hybrids there needs to be a ranged focued class as well, etc. 

    Look to ffxiv's Bard for an idea of what NOT to do. 


    Agree 100% and my point is that if someone wanted to spec out to a 2 handed Ranger that option should be just as viable as someone who feels like building an archer style ranger. But for the love of all that is holy please open a few books (internet) and research what rangers are and what archers are and the differences... 

    • 254 posts
    March 18, 2016 4:52 PM PDT
    A lot of it has to do with what a ranger is at its core. Traditionally they were a spin-off of the fighter class. They should remain much closer to the other tank classes than a dps class where they seem to get binned in most games these days. Unfortunately (for those of us who like the traditional ranger) the class has been morphed into something that's based solely on the differences that it had with the other fighter classes. Yes, a ranger was forced to specialize in one form of ranged weapon, bow or crossbow--but this didn't make them an archer. Yes, rangers were the only class that could dual weild without a penalty in chain and they had rogue-like abilities if they opted to wear lighter armor types--but they could perform in plate armor just like a warrior or a Paladin.

    However, rangers (and paladins, for that matter) were also overpowered by design and that doesn't really translate into good game design for a video game, so I agree with Kajidourden that some concessions need to be made.

    I think with the direction the devs are going with the colored-mana system the ranger can be designed in a way that both matches up with the traditional class and is aligned somewhat with what a lot of people are asking for from the more modern rangers.

    My wishlist would be for one specialization following a chain build. This would be the more melee-centric, dual-wielding light tank. Slightly higher dps, but not as sturdy as the conventional plate tanks.

    Then a leather build. More suited to range dps and stealth abilites.

    There are a lot of ways to make up for the short-comings of a less meaty tank and second-tier dps that can keep the class both balanced yet still desirable, like other utility (roots/snares/tracking) and balancing how the class performs synergistically with the other classes (since it appears that will play a role in Pantheon).
    • 35 posts
    March 22, 2016 7:38 AM PDT

    I have a novel idea for a ranger pet. Imagine that you have an animal companion that is very weak in a fight (or can not fight at all) but that you can send to scout and see thru its eyes. Imagine a ranger having a pet owl that he can send in the sky checking the surroundings. Or a pet rat stealthily checking out that dungeon.


    • 26 posts
    March 22, 2016 11:39 AM PDT

    @Elrandir so right out of the gate you are going to shove them into a dual wield box - sorry no. There is literally no reason why a Ranger should not be able to spec in two handed just as easy and 2 weapon. "A lot of people are asking for" do you have some stats to back that up or are we just throwing out blanket assumptions?  I like the chain idea for a little more survivability and maybe dip more into the leather and light armor to beef up DPS. If you are concerned about the class being OPed - just require more xp for each level to make up for the more damage they do (think back to ad&d with stat requirements). If they are truly making a throwback (harder) game - all the classes should require a bit more or less xp to level depending on what class. They could also throw in a bunch of different travel and raid abilities that the ranger could hit the group/raid with to inspire inclusion desire. Really there is a bottomless pit of things they could do that do not require them rebranding the Ranger into a millennial aged archer with some pet. Good discussion man - please dont read any hostility into this post. 

    @Humperding EQ ranger had an ability like that - it was a spell and it conjured some eye you could float around and scout with. 

    • 254 posts
    March 22, 2016 1:32 PM PDT

    Hey Sabatour.  No offense taken.  I think overall we're on the same page about what a ranger is, traditionally atleast.


    On dual-wielding, I wasn't trying to put rangers in a box.  But their enhanced ability to do to this was one of the characteristics that set them apart.  You're right, a ranger should be able to pick up a two-handed sword, or even a shield (something I used frequently in EQ) and be able to work with them.  I would just expect that some of our better melee abilities might revolve around dual-wielding.


    As far as the 'a lot of people are asking for' comment--that was based primarily off of the threads in these forums, which is a pretty small sub-population, I'll admit.  It wasn't intended to be taken as a statistical survey, and as I noted in a separate thread about the ranger epic 2.0's in EQ (changed from a bow to a sword due to an outcry from the ranger community), the ranger population at large probably has a much stronger interest in melee proficiency  (I certainly do).


    On overpowering the class and class balance in general, that's a huge concern for me.  The real issue is that a ranger was initially a warrior--and them some.  Reserved for those who were lucky enough with the dice to roll one.  The experience penalty doesn't really work.  They existed in EQ for years, but eventually people get to the end game and at that point the classes still need to be balanced, even if the journey to get there wasn't.  I'd hate to see a situation like what's occurred in EQ with the pet classes where they were hands-down more powerful than other classes for years.  Now they're trying to back-peddle on that, and it's a mess.  


    I think one of my biggest issues is that the class keeps getting binned as a dps class, which isn't true to its original inspiration.  The thread on the war archer is one of the only ones I've seen with actual developer input, and they seemed excited about it which I found a little discouraging.   At the end of the day though, they're going to put whatever unique spin on the class that they choose.  If the ranger ends up a squishy range-dps class I'll probably just roll a warrior or crusader instead, but it's impossible to know until we get more class information released.


    This post was edited by Elrandir at March 22, 2016 1:34 PM PDT
    • 35 posts
    March 23, 2016 12:25 AM PDT

    @Sabatour: No that was the mage having that eye. But you are right, it was similar. Imagine a really flying pet for scouting though... Wouldn't break anything (player still can't fly) but it would be ultra cool.


    • 26 posts
    March 23, 2016 6:30 AM PDT

    @Humperding Yeah I just went through the spell list and didnt see anyting listed so maybe I had an item that did that. Cant remember where that ability came from. 

    @Elrandir Rigth on - agree, yeah if they take the "easy" way out and just create some archer I will look elsewhere (probably monk) as well which is sad.  I think the xp idea would work if it was a decent gap. That would be a hell of a badge of honor getting a max level ranger or some other class that took almost x2 the xp to level.

    • 73 posts
    March 24, 2016 4:07 PM PDT

    I agree with a lot of what is said, not sure about the pets though. 

    Im going to jump on the EQ nostalgic bandwagon and say that the way it was done kunark through POP Rangers were a really fun class and had a ton of utility.

    If your group needed CC a ranger could pull that off, root or snare and pluck away with your arrows while the group took care of it.

    if they needed a slight tank or to grab aggro from a caster, the ranger came through.

    If DPS was needed the ranger could hold their own or pull out on top with discs and AA abilities.

    Overall, I liked the feeling of the EQ ranger. They felt very balanced which still allowed a tank to be a tank and a dps to be a DPs, with the ranger somewhere in the middle.

    if I feel anything would need to be added, it would be more towards a foraging/tinkering aspect and more terrain abilities since they are essentially woodsman.


    • 82 posts
    March 25, 2016 6:47 AM PDT

    I'm pretty much in accordance with everyone here.

    I am not a fan of having the Ranger as a pet class, but I like the idea of "Call of the Wild" in an outdoor situation (only) that they have (if desired training was taken) to call on animals in the wild for assistance.

    I'm really excited about the environment aspect that VR is bringing to the game. A Ranger in the wild would be exceptional to other classes, but would not be as helpful indoors perhaps.

    I think tracking is a must and no other class should exceed a Ranger in this area when outdoors. Perhaps the Rogue class can alternate with the Ranger in this respect. Meaning, a Ranger can track, find/disarm traps, and camo/pathfind better outdoors, but a Rogue can do the same while indoors. In essence they both can do either indoor or outdoor, but the specific class does one of them better than the other depending on the environment.

    I for one, enjoyed fletching arrows in EQ. I hope that is something that remains and hopefully exceeds what it was in EQ. Perhaps more combinations of materials offer different damages and effects on particular creatures. You can fletch arrows to mobs you frequently fight or enjoy hunting.


    • 113 posts
    July 17, 2016 3:10 PM PDT

    I'm all for a ranger having a pet! I'm used to a ranger being best with bow+nukes. In the emulator I played, they used ravens as pets, they were about as effective as a cleric pet- crap hp and crap dps.. However, it'd give the ranger bonus accuracy. the spell was only obtainable at a higher lvl, then the last pet was a quest to get and it still was not much better.


    If everyone is so against rangers having pets, my thoughts are.. if the ranger goes to a zone with an animal in it- kill the animal, or find a corpse of one. have the ranger call to the wild spirits to flow life from the wild back into the corpse making him your pet wherever you zone, but if it dies- you have to go back to a zone with an animal.

    This post was edited by Shayken at July 17, 2016 3:13 PM PDT
    • 259 posts
    August 8, 2016 2:53 AM PDT

    I like the idea of a ranger having a pet, but not in the attack sense. How about a utility pet that would be used in various, non combat roles. What about being able to sense what the animal is experiencing, so they could use them to scout. Or use them as sentinels, deploying them to warn the ranger of appraching dangers. Be able to sense scents and track better. This could all be a skill based thing which takes time to become expert in, also the risk of the beasts getting hit.

    Also the animals, depending on type could be involved in fights, but not as a dps role, but in a distracting, herding type role, almost crowd control, darting in and out, changing the focus of a mob, lowering its defences while being distracted, or to pull agro away from a support role until a tank regains the advantage.

    Maybe im just letting my imagination run a bit to far, but I would love to have a vary varied role as a ranger, not just a stand away from trouble and pew, pew mobs.

    • 514 posts
    August 11, 2016 7:10 AM PDT

    IMHO a ranger IS a ranged expert.  A bow IS a must and it really should be the primary weapon - regardless of range.  There should be no minimum range (think Legolas poking an orc in the eye with an arrow or using his bow to trip an orc).  I do think some change is needed from traditional gaming views though.

    A ranger uses light armor.  This is because the single most important aspect of a ranger is SPEED.  Even chain mail slows a ranger down.  Scale mail and above would be bad.  I am still on the fence about Brigadine.  Since his armor is so important to him, he would NEVER pick up a two-handed sword and wade into an encounter.  Thats for those lunk-headed warriors and crusaders.  I believe a change for Rangers should happen this way:  Rangers should not be duel wielding weapons.  No.  They should have something like a dirk, dagger, or spatha in their main hand, but their secondary hand should be used to specialize in minimizing enemy movement.  This means they should have bolos, nets, mancatchers, or maybe even some sort of tripping rod in their off-hand.  Desides, metal armor of ANY kind would never be worn by a ranger - it simply makes too much noise.

    The RANGER indeed refers the the RANGE that a ranger can cover swiftly.  He is an expert in movement in the wild.  Thusly he should get a speed bonus - IN the WILD ONLY.  Part of his appereance of speed include the REDUCING of those chasing him or those he chases.  This means yes, he is a sort of CC.  He SHOULD have traps - mostly ones that encumber or stop his targets.  He SHOULD have poisons - again, mostly the ones that encumber or stop his targets.  Persoanlly, I would like to see the same sort of de-buff as a shaman - but only about half as effective.

    Rangers should have the forage ability.  Thier skill at doing so should only ne outclassed by a Druid - who may very well be able to GROW fruits/veggies on the spot.  Rangers should get an inate crafting skill when it comes to getting extra meats and fhurs/hides from the creatures they kill.  Even if they kill a goblin.  I hear goblin hide is useful for transcribing low-level spells...

    The only one better at FISHING is a halfling.  And NOTHING is better at fishing than a Halfling ranger.

    Rangers do indeed commune with the creatures of the forrest.  They should have a pet or two.  Not something that will join the fight with them, but may effect the results of a fight in different ways.  A ranger would never pick a large pet that would ruin his stealth within the forrest - so bears are out.  While he may commune with the larger cats, there is still too much animosity between them to pick one as a companion.  Therefore large cats will not naturally attack them - but they will not be pets either.  Smaller cats might be - think lynx or bobcats.  I like the idea of falconry or owls as a night-time sentry.  I like the use of ferrets (see movie Beastmaster) or even racoons (make em useful for foraging up roots and plants for poultaces, poisons etc.).  I am not sure about the use of wolves for Rangers though.

    I also like the idea of Rangers and Druids haivng a chance to forage seeds used for a secondary crafting skill of farming.  There needs to be more relationships within the environment through flora.

    • 254 posts
    August 11, 2016 11:11 AM PDT

    Nephretiti said:

    IMHO a ranger IS a ranged expert.  A bow IS a must and it really should be the primary weapon - regardless of range.

    Rangers in D&D are actually required to take four weapon proficiencies:

    - Sword




    A few of their defining characteristics are that they are survivalist who use the right tool for the job, and they are protectors of civilization confronting threats before they ever make it to the castle walls.  The class should not be limited to being just a scout, or just an archer.

    The class was modelled around Aragorn, aka Strider or "The Ranger."  Another character from more modern litterature that is a textbook model of a D&D ranger is Jon Snow, leader of the rangers of the night's watch from "A Song of Ice and Fire."  You seldom see either with a bow in hand, and both are masters of armed combat who might wear leather if they're out scouting, but will have no trouble donning heavier armor when the need arises (ie once the threat is known and it's time to go into battle).  Rangers are highly versatile fighters who use the right tool for the job, whatever that job might be at the time.


     Edit:  I failed at reading and then quoted the wrong passage from your post.  Fixed now!


    This post was edited by Elrandir at August 11, 2016 11:26 AM PDT
    • 514 posts
    August 11, 2016 12:30 PM PDT

    Aye - notice that Aragorn doesn't don the heavier armor until he goes into a seige situation - when the "ranginess" of the situation is a moot point.

    • 254 posts
    August 11, 2016 12:57 PM PDT

    You are confusing the terms 'ranging' and 'scouting.'  Scouting is only one aspect of ranging, combat is every bit as much a part of being a ranger.  A ranger has a few rogue-like skills, but the class was born as a fighter variant.  Aragorn doesn't stop being a ranger when he puts on that heavier armor and charges into battle, the ability to do so is as much a ranger characteristic as it would be for any other figher class.



    • 259 posts
    August 12, 2016 1:43 AM PDT

    I can see this post running on and on, lol.

    Everyone has their very valid opinions and I respect each and every one of them. My take on a ranger is not solely for ranged damage dealing. Actually, thinking about it, if that is what people want, then maybe a new class should be introduced which has a lot of cross over with the ranger, but it is specific to dealing damage at range and is useless in melee combat making them as vunerable as a mage. Maybe an Archer class? Their time would be spent perfecting that skill at the expense of the more rounded skill set of a ranger? 

    Bows should be next to useless at very close quarters combat, unwieldy, and easy to snag. Very difficult to draw and release when a great sword is swinging to your head. In this situation, a bowman would naturally drop their bow and go for a sword. So I would always expect a bowman (of whatever persuasion) to be able to defend himself to some extent against an armour clad axe wielding torrent of death who is within striking range. A bow just wouldnt cut it (I suppose you could always forgo the bow and manually stick an arrow in your attacker, risky but when needs must).

    An archer class would have to be protected like a mage. A ranger should be able to switch between blade and bow at will and should be able to hold his own, in a crowd control manner, not dealing as much damage as a true melee, but tieing up individuals until a tank or mage can assist and get rid of the threat. Crowd control in an active way, darting in and out of range when the need arises to protect the more vunerable classes. This kind of role would really interest me.

    So in short, I think:

    An Archer class would wear light armour (padded material at most), very little melee defence, various powerful ranged attacks (stuns, snares, cripples, high damage). 

    A Ranger class would wear leather (maybe with chest chain?), very good defence, various ranged attacks (not as hard hitting as Archer, but has the utility side of attacks), ability to engage in hand to hand in a controlling manner.

    This might bring a new kind of play, being able to dart from target to target and retreat to range depending on the situation. This player would have to be very aware of what is going on around them. Where the threats are coming from, how to best position a mob for the tanks, how to attract attention from mobs that have broken through defenses. Thus would be more involved in the fight mechanics, rather than just damage dealing.

    This post was edited by chenzeme at August 12, 2016 1:47 AM PDT
    • 514 posts
    August 12, 2016 7:37 AM PDT

    Chenzeme - this actually sounds more like a warrior.  Warriors can use a bow for ranged attack and never close with the enemy.  Indeed there have been some raids in MMOs where ONLY the main tank closes with the target - while everyone else MUST range DPS.  My example of Aragorn donning heavier protection still stands:  yes - he CAN wear it - but it slows him down.  I am hoping this MMO aknowledges that speed is the Rangers biggest asset - he CHOOSES to never close with an enemy.  His best asset is to affect the targets ability to close with him while he continues to pound away from range with his bow.  Yes - a ranger WILL kite - and does so exceedingly well.  darting from target to target using the tools I described IS a viable CC point - agro the mobs - get them to follow you etc. while affecting their movement speed (whether it be stopped or heavily slowed).

    I don't warriors having the best bow in-game.  That's a bit OP.  I don't want Rangers having the best sord in game, again - OP.  I saw this go around - take the lons swords away from rangers and only let em have one. 

    You mentioned that using a bow in close range was useless.  Check out the close quarters combat between elves and orcs in Hobbit movie 2, and tell us what you think.  Even in Skyrim someone wielding a bow has the option to simply push out with the bow itself, pushing an attacker back a bit - thus gaining the "distance needed to draw and fire".  As for "defending yourself from an iron clad..) etc.?  That's the point:  rangers DONT close with those types of enemies.  They hamper their speed, back off, and fire a volley or two, then repeat.  What most likely happens in-game is that the tank gets agro and holds agro - and the ranger stands back by the spell-flingers and DPS's pretty soundly.  They should do MORE damage than tanks.  That's the trade-off - DPS vs. Armor.  If anything pops up to start messing with the mage/Enchanter/healer - it is the RAnger who is expected to handle THAT situation until the Enchanter mezz-locks the intruder, at which point the ranger goes back to nailing the main taget.  Rangers get lower armor for two reasons:  the trade off for higher DPS AND becasue they can do some minor healing to themselves. 

    I am hoping to see more armor types in this game.  The four used now are Cloth, leather, chain, and plate (in order of their toughness).  There are a lot of other types out there - scale and bragadine just being two of them.  I think lore-wise a ranger would not wear anything that makes the sound metal makes while rusting in the woods and running.  Brigadine is sort of like thin plate with every piece being covered by fitted leather covering.  Even THAT sounds too tough.

    In EQ monks originally were ALWAYS concerned with their weight.  It effected most of what they did.  I hope we have a weight system here and I hope that rangers get some heavy penalties for being overweight - whatever that weight may be.


    That last sentence you posted describes rangers perfectly.

    • 254 posts
    August 13, 2016 11:06 AM PDT

    I totally agree that rangers should have armor weight restrictions for their stealth-related abilities.  That is completely consistant with the pen & paper ranger, which is what the EQ class was largely emulating.  But donning heavier armor should come with an appropriate boost in defense and survivability as well.  This would be especially important for times when close-quarters combat are required, like dungeon-delving.  In EQ in places like Sol A/B, or Upper/Lower Guk, the class's effectiveness was greatly hampered by the loss of abilities like SoW and Harmony.  Archery wasn't a thing in early EQ, but later when it was, like during LDoN, archery wasn't practical because there was no space to get range on targets without training your group.  At times like this, donning heavier armor and forgoing stealth abilites to focus on durability and melee prowess makes perfect sense.


    As far as the archery thing goes, if someone wants to play their toon as an archer then that play style should be available to them.  But not all rangers choose to play as archers and pigeon-holing everyone into that specific playstyle would alienate a large group of people who identify with the ranger class.  Ideally, archery should be something that's highly situational.  There should be times when it's advantagous (like when hunting in wide open spaces) and times when the bow should be put away (like when dungeoneering).  Getting the most out of the class should be about knowing what skills to exploit for each unique situation.