Heh... throughts on somerled's post. If you take minor create away make forage useable in more places. Especially roads, most of them are running through fields or forests, yet for some reason I can't find food? Also make it usable in caves... just as much chance of finding a rat in a cave as in a field... or maybe edible fungous or somethin.
Sarvis
Ranger Spell List
-
Saitcho
- Sojourner
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
- Contact:
am i the only one who thought the only thing bad about rangers was the group restricts? i thought our spells were fine, we did tons of damage, i am pretty sure i was outdamaging most warriors if i was hasted, unless the warrior was pimped out with twilight procing to 80+ damroll. but still, i mean, i had all kinds of fun with a ranger. the biggest gripe was just the group restricts. well and at the end having assassins get 5 attacks too kinda sucked ass. but anyway.. yeah so i didnt read all 50 replies but yeah, i think rangers were fine, we dont need pets or better spells, we just needed that silly group restrict taken out. so flame me or soemthing.
saitcho
saitcho
Heh... partly right Saitcho. I LOVE rangers as a class. Although I rarely had to deal with align restrictions cause I never really got that high... the problem is I never got offered groups much. *shrug* maybe just me and my crappy eq.. hehe.
Anywhoo... you reminded me of something I meant to say in my last post. I think rangers should be able to equal the damage an invoker can produce with area spells against a single mob. So lets say a voker casts inferno and it does 150 damage to each mob in the room, a ranger should be able to do 150 damage to a single mob in the same amount of time. That might make rangers not look so useless compared to 'vokers. *nods sagely*
Sarvis
Anywhoo... you reminded me of something I meant to say in my last post. I think rangers should be able to equal the damage an invoker can produce with area spells against a single mob. So lets say a voker casts inferno and it does 150 damage to each mob in the room, a ranger should be able to do 150 damage to a single mob in the same amount of time. That might make rangers not look so useless compared to 'vokers. *nods sagely*
Sarvis
The main bad thing I saw about rangers on Soj2 was the fact that the class was just so equipment-based.. and I agree that dodge should perhaps be made a little better. Also I'd definitely like to see some more woodland/outdoor skills and spells, especially things like pass without trace, as Somerled mentioned. Maybe instead of giving rangers a summon animal spell, give them some sort of tame skill that works on some animal mobs if they're a certain level lower than the ranger. This wouldn't be overbalancing and wouldn't take a spell slot, but might be fun.
Also I think rangers should use less move when going through wilderness, that seems logical.
Also I think rangers should use less move when going through wilderness, that seems logical.
Hey Saitcho ... the group restricts ARE going to be removed .. in an earlier post by Kris Kort on the Egroups SOS2 site regarding align grouping restricts, they are being removed completely with one exception ... Paladins and Anti Paladins cannot group together ... sort of a matter and anti matter combo ... bad thing .. heh ... but anyway ... the align restricts for grouping will be removed, Necros and Antis can enter evil and neutral aligned cities, ie. Necros and Antis can now enter WD and they are hard coding measures to prevent evil races from grouping with good races. This certainly removes a few barriers for both Paladins and Rangers.
Somerled
Somerled
Saitcho, I think most of us agree that overall the class doesn't have anything glaringly wrong with it. It's just some tweaks that might be nice even if they're not really critical. But since the staff is looking at each class, I think it's safe to assume that we will get some tweaks but I'd still play one and have even without them.
Heh, grouping with Nilan would be neat in theory, but I keep having this nagging feeling like the continuity police would drag me away if I did =p
Trel
Heh, grouping with Nilan would be neat in theory, but I keep having this nagging feeling like the continuity police would drag me away if I did =p
Trel
-
Galok Icewolf
- Sojourner
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Well, now I need to reply since almost everyone else did. :)
Rangers should blah blah blah. Rangers should also blah blah blah. Finally Rangers should blah blah blah. That's my opinion on the matter. I'm sticking to it.
I knew 1 ranger alot, and several other rangers a little. All of them were 36+. Paladins were technically outcasted from goodies for some reason *shrug*, so 90%+ of them were solo. I don't want to see that. I think rangers are good, people wouldn't play them alot. There spell list should be um revamped more toward druid type spells and prayed. Thats the only truthfull opinion I KNOW about rangers. (Not playing them hinders my judgement)
What I do know is before 41st level as a shaman I got into (1) zone group. (It wasn't even all of jot *sigh*, Touk just needed something to tank and there were no conjies on.) I may be wrong but do rangers have the same problem? Were they whored after for 1 spell basically? *chuckle* Before anyone says anything about a 1000 hp spirit, well in zones, I think I calculated it one time, I only needed to summon the spirit like 13% of the time or something like that. Oh well. My final thing is, Ragorn, Waelos, and Saitcho know what they are talking about, so if they say something is wrong I belive them, just as if I said something shamans needed they'd belive me. *shrug*
-Galok Icewolf
P.s. I lied, this is my last, you know shamans NEVER get a spell that goes through globe. Every other class does. (That uses spells as thier main source of damage, e.g. not rangers, paladins etc.)
Maybe I wrote too much?
Rangers should blah blah blah. Rangers should also blah blah blah. Finally Rangers should blah blah blah. That's my opinion on the matter. I'm sticking to it.
I knew 1 ranger alot, and several other rangers a little. All of them were 36+. Paladins were technically outcasted from goodies for some reason *shrug*, so 90%+ of them were solo. I don't want to see that. I think rangers are good, people wouldn't play them alot. There spell list should be um revamped more toward druid type spells and prayed. Thats the only truthfull opinion I KNOW about rangers. (Not playing them hinders my judgement)
What I do know is before 41st level as a shaman I got into (1) zone group. (It wasn't even all of jot *sigh*, Touk just needed something to tank and there were no conjies on.) I may be wrong but do rangers have the same problem? Were they whored after for 1 spell basically? *chuckle* Before anyone says anything about a 1000 hp spirit, well in zones, I think I calculated it one time, I only needed to summon the spirit like 13% of the time or something like that. Oh well. My final thing is, Ragorn, Waelos, and Saitcho know what they are talking about, so if they say something is wrong I belive them, just as if I said something shamans needed they'd belive me. *shrug*
-Galok Icewolf
P.s. I lied, this is my last, you know shamans NEVER get a spell that goes through globe. Every other class does. (That uses spells as thier main source of damage, e.g. not rangers, paladins etc.)
Maybe I wrote too much?
RANGERS READ THIS! :p
Ok here is the skinny on rangers people!
YOU HIT! you dual! nobody does it better than you. Settle for the reality that is you and move on. Minor upgrades and tweaks are all well and good, and I'm all for seeing you get what you 'need' ... but all this talk about summoning animals (beyond level 3 squirrels)and geting a heal spell, uh, thats more that upgrading, thats granting whims.
While I agree rangers suck in and of themselves, the special "ranger only EQ" makes up for it!!! I mean BLUR swords?? puhleeeeze! stop whining, nobody else gets eq specially suited to their class.
Nitania -Sick of most Rangers- Executioner
Ok here is the skinny on rangers people!
YOU HIT! you dual! nobody does it better than you. Settle for the reality that is you and move on. Minor upgrades and tweaks are all well and good, and I'm all for seeing you get what you 'need' ... but all this talk about summoning animals (beyond level 3 squirrels)and geting a heal spell, uh, thats more that upgrading, thats granting whims.
While I agree rangers suck in and of themselves, the special "ranger only EQ" makes up for it!!! I mean BLUR swords?? puhleeeeze! stop whining, nobody else gets eq specially suited to their class.
Nitania -Sick of most Rangers- Executioner
Ahh come on Ragorn, all you rangers are whiners! *wink* 
I honestly think that most of the complaining about the so called problems with rangers will vanish once most of the rangers are able to be more widely accepted in groups. The elimination of most of the grouping restrictions will let more rangers get groups (or so I think.)
It seems to me that what most rangers want is some great skill, which gives them a leg up and makes them almost a necessity in groups. Unfortunately not every class can have this. Other than the core AD&D classes (mage, warrior, cleric, and hopefully now thieves) the rest of us are accessories which are just there to compliment the "Core" group. We all can't have a certain great skill which makes every group a failure without us.
We all know darn well what we are getting when we chose which class we roll. I do. Believe it or not, conjurers don't get a lot of groups anymore, with the advent of the shaman totems. Most groups with the restriction on group size would rather have a shaman who has a totem and can group heal over a conjurer anyday. Do I complain? Nah. It makes me sad but hey that's life!
Wanna know the secret to how to get your way (for the most part) on the mud? LEAD! This way you always have a group Anyways I am sidetracked and starting to ramble.
Lyt -Alchemist- Order of the Wyrm
I honestly think that most of the complaining about the so called problems with rangers will vanish once most of the rangers are able to be more widely accepted in groups. The elimination of most of the grouping restrictions will let more rangers get groups (or so I think.)
It seems to me that what most rangers want is some great skill, which gives them a leg up and makes them almost a necessity in groups. Unfortunately not every class can have this. Other than the core AD&D classes (mage, warrior, cleric, and hopefully now thieves) the rest of us are accessories which are just there to compliment the "Core" group. We all can't have a certain great skill which makes every group a failure without us.
We all know darn well what we are getting when we chose which class we roll. I do. Believe it or not, conjurers don't get a lot of groups anymore, with the advent of the shaman totems. Most groups with the restriction on group size would rather have a shaman who has a totem and can group heal over a conjurer anyday. Do I complain? Nah. It makes me sad but hey that's life!
Wanna know the secret to how to get your way (for the most part) on the mud? LEAD! This way you always have a group
Anyways I am sidetracked and starting to ramble.Lyt -Alchemist- Order of the Wyrm
Alright Ragorn & Saitcho!
I would like to defend my "dopey and illogical" post about the needs of your class.
First of all, I DID play a ranger at one point. I soon came to realize that I could find a class better suited to me and dumped that char.
Secondly, NONE of the previously mentioned weapons/eq you posted that are suited for other classes can compare to Windsong. Its its got blur, Its pretty dang spanky. Even twilight wasnt found in the abundance windsong was. I cant tell you how many times I was asked to help with the quest, and would do so gladly.
As for being rude in my previous post, it was late, and well I was REALLY tired, but for the most part... nobody has ever accused me of being anything but blunt... the last person that did well how shall we say.. they didnt suffer much, I assure you *cackle* So in my round about way I'm apologizing. My previous post still stands! I dont belive Rangers need a big upgrade.
Nitania -As close to humble as you see me- Executioner.
I would like to defend my "dopey and illogical" post about the needs of your class.
First of all, I DID play a ranger at one point. I soon came to realize that I could find a class better suited to me and dumped that char.
Secondly, NONE of the previously mentioned weapons/eq you posted that are suited for other classes can compare to Windsong.
Its its got blur, Its pretty dang spanky. Even twilight wasnt found in the abundance windsong was. I cant tell you how many times I was asked to help with the quest, and would do so gladly.As for being rude in my previous post, it was late, and well I was REALLY tired, but for the most part... nobody has ever accused me of being anything but blunt... the last person that did well how shall we say.. they didnt suffer much, I assure you *cackle* So in my round about way I'm apologizing. My previous post still stands! I dont belive Rangers need a big upgrade.
Nitania -As close to humble as you see me- Executioner.
-
Ilshadrial
- Sojourner
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Atlanta
- Contact:
Err... Nitania, Windsong is nice... but only for elf rangers. And even then no class should be entirely based on ONE piece of eq.
Lyt... we aren't asking for anything to make a group a failure without us, we are asking for something to consider us as an option. Right now you might take Waelos along with his super spanky eq and Windsong, but I'd prolly just get laughed at with my gleaming holy ls that is all I could find at level 40.
And I've said before that I don't like leading... should I constantly have nothing to do because I don't want to lead?
Sarvis
Lyt... we aren't asking for anything to make a group a failure without us, we are asking for something to consider us as an option. Right now you might take Waelos along with his super spanky eq and Windsong, but I'd prolly just get laughed at with my gleaming holy ls that is all I could find at level 40.
And I've said before that I don't like leading... should I constantly have nothing to do because I don't want to lead?Sarvis
Well judging by the amount of responses in this thread I'd say that something does need to be done But I'm sure the admin are working on it anyway. I enjoyed my ranger like he was too, but it would have been nice if it was a bit less equipment based and if I had just a few more ranger-ish skills and spells or something.. whatever, I agree with Lithius on this, I'll play my ranger no matter what basically.
But I'm sure the admin are working on it anyway. I enjoyed my ranger like he was too, but it would have been nice if it was a bit less equipment based and if I had just a few more ranger-ish skills and spells or something.. whatever, I agree with Lithius on this, I'll play my ranger no matter what basically.Windsong isn't the super-weapon some of you guys make it out to be. It had a nice proc, but the amount of damage that proc did was dependant on your hit/dam. If you had a low hitroll, you'd proc whiff. If you had a low damroll, you'd hit a lot but do little damage. I blurred into a fireshield enough. The dice were pretty low.. 3d4 isn't really ultimate-weapon material.
The quest was long and drawn out, and it involved going to zones and planes that nobody did. It also required you to spend bids on quest items in hell and brass.
Hey, I loved my Windsong, and it was a big part of my roleplay. But it didn't make me BETTER than an Invoker, nor any more likely to get into a group. It was just a sword, and a class is not defined by one item.
If you go back and read my original post, you'll see that I'm proposing what can only be described as "minor tweaks". There's nothing in that post that says rangers need a skill that sets them apart from anybody else. I'd LIKE to have a niche in a group, but *shrug* I'll take what I can get.
- Ragorn
The quest was long and drawn out, and it involved going to zones and planes that nobody did. It also required you to spend bids on quest items in hell and brass.
Hey, I loved my Windsong, and it was a big part of my roleplay. But it didn't make me BETTER than an Invoker, nor any more likely to get into a group. It was just a sword, and a class is not defined by one item.
If you go back and read my original post, you'll see that I'm proposing what can only be described as "minor tweaks". There's nothing in that post that says rangers need a skill that sets them apart from anybody else. I'd LIKE to have a niche in a group, but *shrug* I'll take what I can get.
- Ragorn
Sometimes I really wonder if the non-rangers chiming in even read the previous 60 or 70 messages where all the mid to high level rangers keep saying that all they want are some tweaks here and there and overall the class is balanced and doesn't need anything super spanky added to it. Would the class still be worthwhile if it wasn't changed at all? Yes, not critical but still useful if you need another rescuer but not necesarily a basher (assuming said ranger has managed to notch the skill to usable levels) or if you need another hitter but are kinda low on globes or need a lurer that can also rescue, etc. But just tweaking a few things here and there to be a bit more useful (lightning bolt at level 41? I can honestly say that I'd get more use out of getting cure critical at 9th circle instead) and for rp would be nice.
Trel
Trel
Um. Again, why is every attempt at discussion of a class, especially the ranger class, always screamed about by a lot of people as 'whining?' In the name of the Black Archer, any concentrated discussion about ANYTHING no matter how small, can be seen as whining. We've what? 72 posts now, each containing ideas. Add every idea to the class, and yeah, you've got some problems. Simply look over the thoughts of each person, weigh them in the greater balance, add in the best two or three ideas and viola, this forum has served its purpose.
Personally I am so freaking tired of being called a whiner, etc, especially by people who obviously aren't quite sure what they're talking about.
Is the ranger 'fine' as a class? Um, if it stays exactly the same, and so do ALL the other classes, and the system...then yeah, the ranger is 'fine'. Is everything going to be exactly the same? Anyone who says 'yes' is frankly in need of some grey matter transplantation. And honestly, at the end of Soj2 there were going to be some balance issues that we had not yet run into yet because simply no one played the assassin class to its potential (save one or two people).
Someone somewhere, in a post stated something to the effect of 'Come on, you are freaking rangers, you dual and hit better than anyone' That statement is purely and ultimately false, as Assassins have 5 attacks per round, just as do rangers, with the same range skill potential, vital strikes and backstabs. And, I might add, that both of their THAC0's were if not identical, then within 2-4 points. I do NOT begrudge the assassins their upgrade...it was LONG coming and severely needed. However, it does put into question the role of the ranger who is obviously no longer the 'hitter' in the game.
To reiterate and polish a point: The game we're going into is NOT the same, and will NOT be the same. It will have balancing issues. What I think this post was trying to do was offer suggestions to the Imms of the mud as to how the possible balancing issues could be addressed, without knowing ourselves what they might be.
I also point this out: Rangers, as a class, were 'fine'. But did they make sense? Not really. Can anyone tell me why a high level ranger would have the want/need/time to find a wizard to teach him the ligntning bolt spell? Does it make sense that they memorize spells from a book? Does it make sense that they basically have nothing woodlands based as far as skills other than forage? Not really.
I think if anyone knows what the class is capable of, it is me (sorry, not meaning to sound arrogant). In no way did any of my suggestions, (and honestly I did not find the hint of this in any of the other's suggestions either) intend to give 'We rangers the super, uber edge we whine so incessantly about'. We just want the class to a) be usefull in this new incarnation of the mud, b) finally make RP sense in the skills/spells they possess and c) be fun and rewarding to play. That is all I think anyone ever intended for this thread, and to berate people as whiners for simply trying to voice opinions is not very constructive or very polite.
Oh, and yeah, every class had a 'special weapon' for it (Saitcho pointed some of these out nicely), sometimes more than one or ones that could cross over, but they were always there. If you didn't think that a particular class's 'special weapon' was very cool....well, I don't know what to tell you. But making the inane statement that 'your class rocks because of one weapon' isn't going to solve your issue with class weapons. A class should never have to rely on equipment to be a decent class. Never.
PS - Ilsha is correct, Windsong procs 4-6 times, no matter your race. If you perceive to gain more attacks with a proc, it is provided by the illusion of you getting the proc on an earlier attack. ie: You've attacked primary once, secondary once, primary your third attack, proc, gain 6 attacks you will finish with your second secondary and third primary and look like you are getting 8 attacks (total of 11). I've had windsong um, a long time, and played with it on greys and 1/2s. This formula Ilsha has is correct.
Waelos
Personally I am so freaking tired of being called a whiner, etc, especially by people who obviously aren't quite sure what they're talking about.
Is the ranger 'fine' as a class? Um, if it stays exactly the same, and so do ALL the other classes, and the system...then yeah, the ranger is 'fine'. Is everything going to be exactly the same? Anyone who says 'yes' is frankly in need of some grey matter transplantation. And honestly, at the end of Soj2 there were going to be some balance issues that we had not yet run into yet because simply no one played the assassin class to its potential (save one or two people).
Someone somewhere, in a post stated something to the effect of 'Come on, you are freaking rangers, you dual and hit better than anyone' That statement is purely and ultimately false, as Assassins have 5 attacks per round, just as do rangers, with the same range skill potential, vital strikes and backstabs. And, I might add, that both of their THAC0's were if not identical, then within 2-4 points. I do NOT begrudge the assassins their upgrade...it was LONG coming and severely needed. However, it does put into question the role of the ranger who is obviously no longer the 'hitter' in the game.
To reiterate and polish a point: The game we're going into is NOT the same, and will NOT be the same. It will have balancing issues. What I think this post was trying to do was offer suggestions to the Imms of the mud as to how the possible balancing issues could be addressed, without knowing ourselves what they might be.
I also point this out: Rangers, as a class, were 'fine'. But did they make sense? Not really. Can anyone tell me why a high level ranger would have the want/need/time to find a wizard to teach him the ligntning bolt spell? Does it make sense that they memorize spells from a book? Does it make sense that they basically have nothing woodlands based as far as skills other than forage? Not really.
I think if anyone knows what the class is capable of, it is me (sorry, not meaning to sound arrogant). In no way did any of my suggestions, (and honestly I did not find the hint of this in any of the other's suggestions either) intend to give 'We rangers the super, uber edge we whine so incessantly about'. We just want the class to a) be usefull in this new incarnation of the mud, b) finally make RP sense in the skills/spells they possess and c) be fun and rewarding to play. That is all I think anyone ever intended for this thread, and to berate people as whiners for simply trying to voice opinions is not very constructive or very polite.
Oh, and yeah, every class had a 'special weapon' for it (Saitcho pointed some of these out nicely), sometimes more than one or ones that could cross over, but they were always there. If you didn't think that a particular class's 'special weapon' was very cool....well, I don't know what to tell you. But making the inane statement that 'your class rocks because of one weapon' isn't going to solve your issue with class weapons. A class should never have to rely on equipment to be a decent class. Never.
PS - Ilsha is correct, Windsong procs 4-6 times, no matter your race. If you perceive to gain more attacks with a proc, it is provided by the illusion of you getting the proc on an earlier attack. ie: You've attacked primary once, secondary once, primary your third attack, proc, gain 6 attacks you will finish with your second secondary and third primary and look like you are getting 8 attacks (total of 11). I've had windsong um, a long time, and played with it on greys and 1/2s. This formula Ilsha has is correct.
Waelos
Hurrah for my tree-hugging bretheren! At long last Rangers will be less citified!
I'm hoping that in the remaking of rangers, Ranger spells are either separate from Druid spells, or slightly less powerful. (If not, what will Druids do?)
In response to another comment, I believe Rangers didn't get powerful healing for a reason; they weren't Paladins or Druids and thus didn't really learn the ways of Healing.
- Your friendly neighborhood Mori, who has played Druids and Rangers in all manner of funky permutation between elven and human.
PS- you mentioned a lot of warrior-type special weapons. Was there a Druidic one? Aside from like, Lithius's old quest staff, or the generic Mistys that clerics got?
I'm hoping that in the remaking of rangers, Ranger spells are either separate from Druid spells, or slightly less powerful. (If not, what will Druids do?)
In response to another comment, I believe Rangers didn't get powerful healing for a reason; they weren't Paladins or Druids and thus didn't really learn the ways of Healing.
- Your friendly neighborhood Mori, who has played Druids and Rangers in all manner of funky permutation between elven and human.
PS- you mentioned a lot of warrior-type special weapons. Was there a Druidic one? Aside from like, Lithius's old quest staff, or the generic Mistys that clerics got?
Okay, back to the idea of ranger spells I though up of two new ones.
Fireseeds: This lets you enchant arrows to do some fire damage in addition to the normal damage the arrows do. This is a druid spell in D&D but elves sometimes use the fireseeds created by it in special arrows and it also reminds me of back when archery was still new and the elven arrows from my elven bow would burst into flames when they hit the enemy. The amount of extra damage done should be balanced to how many arrows can be affected at once and how long the enchantment lasts.
Seeking: Another arrow related spell. It enchants the arrows affected to seek out a target and will basically cut down on or eliminate stray arrows, depending on how the gods want to implement it. It also might only prevent strays hitting mobs in other rooms with anything in the same room affected normally. Again, it should be balanced to the duration and how many arrows are affected at once since the risk of aggroing something else is one of the balances in ranged combat.
Trel
Fireseeds: This lets you enchant arrows to do some fire damage in addition to the normal damage the arrows do. This is a druid spell in D&D but elves sometimes use the fireseeds created by it in special arrows and it also reminds me of back when archery was still new and the elven arrows from my elven bow would burst into flames when they hit the enemy. The amount of extra damage done should be balanced to how many arrows can be affected at once and how long the enchantment lasts.
Seeking: Another arrow related spell. It enchants the arrows affected to seek out a target and will basically cut down on or eliminate stray arrows, depending on how the gods want to implement it. It also might only prevent strays hitting mobs in other rooms with anything in the same room affected normally. Again, it should be balanced to the duration and how many arrows are affected at once since the risk of aggroing something else is one of the balances in ranged combat.
Trel
Seeking:
Trel, isn't this the whole purpose behind having better range weap/archery skills? So you don't miss and send strays out? I could see seeking being a valid skill if it would track a mob for a small number of rooms. For example, you've been fighting a mob and it flees when it gets low, instead of disengaging when it moves to the new room, your arrows continue to follow it (although at a much lower tohit value) for up to a maximum number (3, maybe) of rooms.
Make sense, or am I on crack again?
Harthorm/Twiblin
Trel, isn't this the whole purpose behind having better range weap/archery skills? So you don't miss and send strays out? I could see seeking being a valid skill if it would track a mob for a small number of rooms. For example, you've been fighting a mob and it flees when it gets low, instead of disengaging when it moves to the new room, your arrows continue to follow it (although at a much lower tohit value) for up to a maximum number (3, maybe) of rooms.
Make sense, or am I on crack again?
Harthorm/Twiblin
You're always on crack Twibs. Perhaps hit once too many times by my stray arrows, eh? Anyhow, as to those two spells. The 'fireseeds' one is an interesting idea, although I wouldn't use that name (seeds part doesnt make much sense). 'Seeking' seems like overkill. Besides, what good is forcing a couple of arrows to hit in the grand scheme of a long battle? Instead I'd focus on improving arrow hits using spells like 'faerie fire', since that's what it's for.
Personally, though, I think archery is great, as long as it's comparable to 'voker dmg so rangers can get dmg slots in groups. Doesn't need anything more than that.
Personally, though, I think archery is great, as long as it's comparable to 'voker dmg so rangers can get dmg slots in groups. Doesn't need anything more than that.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by izarek:
Personally, though, I think archery is great, as long as it's comparable to 'voker dmg so rangers can get dmg slots in groups. Doesn't need anything more than that.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why should only our archery be equal to 'voker damage? I prefer using melee weapons... so why should I have to use my bow all the time because that's the only way I'm useful?
Sarvis
Personally, though, I think archery is great, as long as it's comparable to 'voker dmg so rangers can get dmg slots in groups. Doesn't need anything more than that.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why should only our archery be equal to 'voker damage? I prefer using melee weapons... so why should I have to use my bow all the time because that's the only way I'm useful?
Sarvis
Uh, one, it's a spell, not a skill =p
Assuming you meant to write spell and not skill, I could also argue that bless's effect on a PC is the point of having better weapon and offense skills, and other such info. The spell itself was something from the 2nd edition D&D complete book of elves. It has two functions actually if I remember correctly, one being that it lets you fire into melee combat without worrying about pegging something else (like a friend =p), the other lets it kind of chase a mob around obstacles and such, basically not letting it escape so easily. Either implementation would be neat really, I just think spells that affect our archery would be interesting in general =)
Treladian "Look out! It's coming right for us!" Silentwind
Assuming you meant to write spell and not skill, I could also argue that bless's effect on a PC is the point of having better weapon and offense skills, and other such info. The spell itself was something from the 2nd edition D&D complete book of elves. It has two functions actually if I remember correctly, one being that it lets you fire into melee combat without worrying about pegging something else (like a friend =p), the other lets it kind of chase a mob around obstacles and such, basically not letting it escape so easily. Either implementation would be neat really, I just think spells that affect our archery would be interesting in general =)
Treladian "Look out! It's coming right for us!" Silentwind
Sarvis: Bow...melee...don't matter to me. Point is, I want my ranger to contribute enough dmg to a group to be as worthwhile as a 'voker. I prefer hitting dmg over spells, that's why I played a monkie and then a ranger.
Tre: I figured 'fireseeds' was AD&D. That name has druid/nature written all over it. I've no problem with the name if the 'seeds' part is brought into the descript somehow. The idea of making fire arrows is kewl, anyhow. I agree some spells to enhance archery would be helpful. I just think 'seeking' is overkill. Make 'faerie fire' affect archery %. Simple as that.
Tre: I figured 'fireseeds' was AD&D. That name has druid/nature written all over it. I've no problem with the name if the 'seeds' part is brought into the descript somehow. The idea of making fire arrows is kewl, anyhow. I agree some spells to enhance archery would be helpful. I just think 'seeking' is overkill. Make 'faerie fire' affect archery %. Simple as that.
Izzy and Saitcho,
'Vokers will _always_ be churning out more dmg than a ranger. Remember a 'voker usually casts areas that will do ranger equivalent damage to everything in the room. A ranger can only concentrate his attacks on one mob at a time. In this way, even if ranger dmg was "equal" to 'voker's, it wouldn't displace 'vokers in a group.
Still, I don't think ranger dmg should even be that high. Perhaps close, but not quite that high. It should be high enough that a ranger is needed to handle hitting on that one or two (huge) mobs per fight that need dedicated damage while the 'vokers are memming. That should be enough to earn them a place in most groups.
Harthorm/Twiblin
'Vokers will _always_ be churning out more dmg than a ranger. Remember a 'voker usually casts areas that will do ranger equivalent damage to everything in the room. A ranger can only concentrate his attacks on one mob at a time. In this way, even if ranger dmg was "equal" to 'voker's, it wouldn't displace 'vokers in a group.
Still, I don't think ranger dmg should even be that high. Perhaps close, but not quite that high. It should be high enough that a ranger is needed to handle hitting on that one or two (huge) mobs per fight that need dedicated damage while the 'vokers are memming. That should be enough to earn them a place in most groups.
Harthorm/Twiblin
Okay, change the name of the spell to fireseed arrows then . . . =p
Since the spell in D&D enchants seeds to explode on impact and those seeds are then placed onto special arrows, I can't get past refering to them as fireseed arrows or something like that. The name doesn't really matter though, I just didn't want to call it fire arrow or flaming arrow since the latter is a different kind of spell entirely.
Trel
Since the spell in D&D enchants seeds to explode on impact and those seeds are then placed onto special arrows, I can't get past refering to them as fireseed arrows or something like that. The name doesn't really matter though, I just didn't want to call it fire arrow or flaming arrow since the latter is a different kind of spell entirely.
Trel
-
Saitcho
- Sojourner
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
- Contact:
once again, rangers should earn places in groups through merit and past actions, not because they are simply needed in to fill slot A in group 7. i dont think i was ever accepted into a group because a ranger was needed, but i had lots of groups. its more of a matter of just being a good player and a nice guy/gal. you'll get more groups as any class if you can do both of those.
saitcho
saitcho
Be a nice guy, or be the only full healer online? Which do you think is more reliable to get you into groups?
I would rather be useful than nice. The "he's a nice guy so let's bring him" delves into MUD politics, a subject we could all write volumes on.
Bottom line, if it comes down to politics to get groups again, I may go invoker instead.
- Ragorn
I would rather be useful than nice. The "he's a nice guy so let's bring him" delves into MUD politics, a subject we could all write volumes on.
Bottom line, if it comes down to politics to get groups again, I may go invoker instead.
- Ragorn
-
Saitcho
- Sojourner
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
- Contact:
the post i made isnt about the chance you have to get in a group, its about why rangers can get into groups without having voker damage. if you want to be in a group all the time, make a cleric and have fun. if you really want to play a ranger, and want to get in groups, its not much more difficult than playing a cleric and having that spanky full heal spell. you can get in the groups as a ranger, even if they didnt receive any new spells/skills/upgrades. it just takes a little bit more effort. i wont go into politics, but politics on a mud can rock at times, and at other times suck. but thats enough of that. maybe i'll start a new topic.
saitcho
saitcho
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Saitcho:
<B>vokers couldnt drop what they were doing and rescue that tank who was about to die, nor could they tank worth half a crap. if rangers equaled vokers in damage, what would be the point of vokers?
saitcho</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, vokers can't rescue... they just make everything in the room die so fast no one needs to be rescued. And if I were taking someone along just as a spare rescuer I'd want pally or warrior. I don't think a ranger doing the same damage to one mob as incendiary cloud does to 10 mobs in the same amount of time would really make vokers seem less useful.
Sarvis
<B>vokers couldnt drop what they were doing and rescue that tank who was about to die, nor could they tank worth half a crap. if rangers equaled vokers in damage, what would be the point of vokers?
saitcho</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, vokers can't rescue... they just make everything in the room die so fast no one needs to be rescued. And if I were taking someone along just as a spare rescuer I'd want pally or warrior. I don't think a ranger doing the same damage to one mob as incendiary cloud does to 10 mobs in the same amount of time would really make vokers seem less useful.
Sarvis
Well, you said Rangers *should* earn groups by being nice, threw me off a little
Shrug, just tired of hearing the "if you don't like the class don't play it" line. What rangers "should" do is get a few bonuses so you don't have to rely on politics to get you into a group.
We don't all have best friends who are major zone leaders *poke saitcho*
- Ragorn
Minor Zone Leader
Shrug, just tired of hearing the "if you don't like the class don't play it" line. What rangers "should" do is get a few bonuses so you don't have to rely on politics to get you into a group.
We don't all have best friends who are major zone leaders *poke saitcho*
- Ragorn
Minor Zone Leader
Saitcho, in an ideal world, you're right. I know I was extremely grateful when you let one of my rangers (Raevia, Raevin, Raevith, can't remember which) tag along on some adventures. Some of the best times I had and I certainly learned alot. However, not everyone is as nice a leader as you. I know I hope that sometime in the future, you'll find my company tolerable and let my lil ranger tag along and show em the ropes. I guess my comment above comes from the experience I had when I was mid-30s (I think) and was overlooked a few times for spirit raven (or similar) exp by people I'd grouped with at earlier levels. I'd ask to join up and often they'd say 'We got a voker.' Fortunately, I had other friends (Stilyx, Harthorm, etc) who took me in their groups no matter what. I know I wasn't the only ranger to deal with this, and that's why I think its a problem and the only reason I bring it up. It was frustrating to see some of my fellow mid-lvl rangers dealing with the same thing. If I thought it was just my problem, I wouldn't bother saying anything about it. Anyhow, I've beaten this dead horse long enough. I just wanted to explain my thoughts to Saitcho.
-
Saitcho
- Sojourner
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
- Contact:
ragorn - you're right. we dont all have best friends who are zone leaders. keep in mind though, that i didnt know anyone real well (even jurdex :P)on the mud till i was level 25+, so in essence, i made the friends i had, i just made the right friends. all i suggest is that you get groups firstly through friends, you'll have more fun if you ask me. but hey, play how you wanna play. personally i think rangers are fine how they are.
raevia - you were on the right track. you made a friend, got in a group, purely on being a nice likeable person, not because you were super needed to do x amt of damage to mob c.
saitcho the ranger who cant do anything right
raevia - you were on the right track. you made a friend, got in a group, purely on being a nice likeable person, not because you were super needed to do x amt of damage to mob c.
saitcho the ranger who cant do anything right
-
Galok Icewolf
- Sojourner
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
-
Galok Icewolf
- Sojourner
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests