Rangers

Archive of the Sojourn3 Ideas Forum.
Gormal
Sojourner
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: A Whale's Vagina
Contact:

Rangers

Postby Gormal » Thu Jan 03, 2002 11:07 pm

Let rangers choose between spec archery and spec blades at level 25 or 30.

i personally think that every ranger arching is BORING. Variety is where its at. Arrows are expensive, make the random ones hit more stuff so they have a disadvantage...but give a melee ranger awesome parry/dodge.

arching rangers cant tank but do massive damage...blademasters do ok damage but have more tanking ability/versatility in close combat.
Zen
Sojourner
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Zen » Fri Jan 04, 2002 12:08 am

Awesome idea.

-Zaryn
Nazan
Sojourner
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2002 6:01 am
Location: okinawa japan

Postby Nazan » Wed Jan 09, 2002 9:07 am

i second this idea, well third if you wana get picky, but you would think that your char would have a choice of what skill he wants to have
Ensis
Sojourner
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR 97219
Contact:

Postby Ensis » Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:43 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gormal:
<B>Let rangers choose between spec archery and spec blades at level 25 or 30.

i personally think that every ranger arching is BORING. Variety is where its at. Arrows are expensive, make the random ones hit more stuff so they have a disadvantage...but give a melee ranger awesome parry/dodge.

arching rangers cant tank but do massive damage...blademasters do ok damage but have more tanking ability/versatility in close combat.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't think that'd go along with their Ranger/Rogue dynamic.

Ideally Rogues should be doing as much damage in Melee that Rangers do, but I'm not quite sure thats the case atm.

As far as tanking goes, except maybe low level, I've seen very few rangers tank long term. Not to downplay that they can tank or rescue, but they're always on my rescue list, and for the most part I consider them around for backup resc. No mountblock/shieldblock kinda makes life rough for them.

You want a slicer and dicer make a rogue, you want a archer make a ranger, think thats the way they wanted it when they imp'd the new code.

Rangers are good mang, upgrade Warriors/Clerics Image

E

[This message has been edited by Ensis (edited 01-09-2002).]
Gormal
Sojourner
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: A Whale's Vagina
Contact:

Postby Gormal » Wed Jan 09, 2002 4:02 pm

Rogues are all about their insane skills...straight up damage rangers should be a touch better imo....unless rangers can garrote pick steal backstab poison trip evade etc.

comparing rogues to rangers is still hillarious...as rogues kick the crap out of rangers.
Ladorn
Sojourner
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Rockville, MD

Postby Ladorn » Wed Jan 09, 2002 9:40 pm

*sigh* I can't believe I am agreeing with Gormal, but he is absolutely correct.

Ranger melee should me _slightly_ more than rogue melee, due to the number of skills rogues have that are unique and/or accel in.

I'm tired of lobbying for ranger upgrades and would not want any to occur, before elementalists were put in and maybe some bard, warrior tweaks, but we ought to be next on the list. Archery just make rangers more one dimensional and imo less "fun" Even though rogues are mostly hitters, they can hide and scout, use poisons, pick locks, peek into inventory, steal, evade, shadow, garrote, poisons, backstab, etc...

Yes I am jealous, but regardless of what happens I'm a hardcore ranger 'til the end!
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Postby Yayaril » Wed Jan 09, 2002 10:03 pm

I agree, rangers should do more straight up damage in normal melee rounds. Rangers should be superior at toe to toe hacking matches. However, rogues should shine through when backstabbing and with poison damage if they decide to pull that wildcard.

Yayaril
izarek
Sojourner
Posts: 645
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Irvine, CA

Postby izarek » Wed Jan 09, 2002 11:25 pm

Yaya said:

"I agree, rangers should do more straight up damage in normal melee rounds. Rangers should be superior at toe to toe hacking matches. However, rogues should shine through when backstabbing and with poison damage if they decide to pull that wildcard."

I believe that is the case, or at least the way its supposed to be. Rogues out-do ranger dmg when they add in their skills like circle, assasination, poison, etc.

BTW assassination is too powerful, dg it!
*razz rogues*

Seriously though, archery is freakin awesome and I LOVE it. I think its more exciting than melee. I disagree that it makes rangers more one dimensional. Its a choice, and a pretty fun one at that. I also think that this will be helped when proc bows and arrows are found and used. Too bad no one seems to be able to find it.

If I were to change anything about rangers, it would be to add some kind of special melee attack (to break the monotony) or to increase defensive skills like parry (for that drizzt like feel)

Raev
Galkar
Sojourner
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Providence, RI

Postby Galkar » Thu Jan 10, 2002 1:03 pm

I've returned to playing rangers to see what the feel of archery is now, compared to what it used to be. I like it. But at the same time, if I get switched to during combat while using archery, I have to immediately switch to swords. Is there anyway to allow a ranger to switch to sword *and* shield when this happens? That'd be a nice addition, especially if you're fighting something that would wax you if yer dualing, or if you need to do an emergency rescue. Shields may not add that much, but they add enough to matter. This could give rangers that extra twist between archery and melee maybe. Just a thought.
Vipplin
Sojourner
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Hawaii

Postby Vipplin » Thu Jan 10, 2002 1:48 pm

I'm not sure how rogues and rangers damage do compare right now, but this is what I'd like to see if it isn't this way already:

Toe-to-toe no special attacks, ranger a bit better (w/similar level of eq)
Toe-to-toe rogue w/vital+circle, better than ranger melee
Ranger using archery, better than that.
Rogue dumping poisons prolly beats that.

This must keep in mind that we go from +5/+4 about while dualling to +2/+2 w/bow since I haven't seen a good bow yet to compare with other 2h weapons that get like +4/+4.

As for specialization, I think that would be cool, but I'd want to see it be that if you specialize in one area you have a corresponding penalty in the other area. This way you'd be able to choose archery, melee, or balanced (as it is now) and still be viable.

As for archery being more one-dimensional, I'd agree with that if you do nothing but archery. I currently use both so I don't feel that way at this point.

Bow -> 1h + shield in combat? Nah. Warriors are the shieldmasters and they can't even wear shields during combat. Maybe that would be a good warrior upgrade.

Vadian
Galkar
Sojourner
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Providence, RI

Postby Galkar » Thu Jan 10, 2002 2:08 pm

Shouldn't warriors technically already be wearing the shield if they are tanking? This just made sense to me, since Rangers should be quick and agile. Scenario.....

Warrior tanking, ranger shooting, casters casting. Warrior somehow dies, caster switched to, ranger rescues and switches to sword/shield (could even be small shield only) to temp tank while everyone flee.

Same peeps. Big mob. Warrior miss bash, lags, gets bashed, whatever. Mob switches to ranger, ranger has to stop firing and take the punishment until warrior rescues (don't want casters dead). In this case, make more sense if ranger could whip out his sword and a small shield to defend himself.

Warriors already are masters of shield, shieldblock and punch. This wouldn't take anything away from warriors, since most all warriors always wear shields. Just wanted to clarify what I was thinking Image

[This message has been edited by Galkar (edited 01-10-2002).]
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu Jan 10, 2002 2:30 pm

drizzt is a drow. he didnt learn is parry skills in ranger school either.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Thu Jan 10, 2002 3:22 pm

Drizzt is a mythical hero with god-like luck on his side and an author's penchant for surprise "saves" for him whenever he is in a tight spot. Your character dies. Drizzt will never die because he makes too much money for his creator. When you become a cash cow for your creator, then your ranger might become like Drizzt... I just hope you're never that predictable.

As for the actual topic... why not a specialization? Who said you had to increase the damage they do now for a specialization? Heck, decrease the damage they do slightly, then give them the option of specializing for the increase.
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Thu Jan 10, 2002 3:57 pm

Appreciate the idea, but honestly I would not want to sacrifice the once real diverse element of the ranger.

Archery will never be prudent 100% of the time, nor should it be. Rangers have melee / tank skills for a reason. I don't think we should be forced into choosing one skill or the other.

Since rogues seem to be the barometer we're all using, I will continue along that vein. (and please note that I do not believe that rogues should be downgraded). Also, I'm not going to use equipment or race as part of the factor either. Side note: Frankly, I think that windsong as we know it should be removed from the game. Now that your jaws are on the floor. . :

Combat Comparison:

Standard rogue at 50: 5 attacks / round
Standard ranger at 50: 5 attacks / round

Both classes have weapons doing around 3d4 damage (Im guessing. I don't know dagger stats other than the GCD which is 3d5)

That looks equal to me!

Now factor in skills able to be used whilst the classes are dualing (in full damage mode)

Ranger: kick

Rogue: backstab, circle, poisons, vital strike, assassinate, trip, disarm.

Advantage: rogue

Commentary: rogues, quite simply, beat ass in melee. not only do they do significantly more damage in regular melee, they have the chance to paralyze, blind, slow oppoents as well as simply outright kill them with one blow. And though it is not uber reliable, trip works far far far more often than dual bashing does

Non-Combat comparison -(factors that make one class or another needed/wanted for a zone group):

rangers: (spells usefull for group members: barkskin, detect magic. I would add pass without trace, but it is not unique to the class and its use is limited to one or two high level zones). Bark and DM are available to other classes as well.

-Note: ranger spells have their uses, but I believe they're mosting beneficial for solo exploration. Groups don't rely / benefit from them to the degree where they're integral to a group.

rogue: hide/sneak, pick lock, find/remove trap

hrmm. Rogues are the ultimate scouts. . . and CR machines. Can't count the number of times rogues have saved the day. Critical to any group. Also, there are zones that are specifically designed to be uncompletable without a rogue. (locked doors and traps)

Miscellaneos:

Ranger: Archery

Rogue : (coming soon) thrown weapons

Currently, rangers have the advantage of being able to lure non missile shielded mobs. Damage is greater than hasted melee. which is good! =) I've heard it compared to monk damage. . . but, c'mon. we all know that isn't close to truthfull =) I've seen monks. I've seen rangers. =) 7d5 +50X7 is not archery =) (hell, feel free to make it thus!)

Thing is, rogues will get range in some capacity too.

Overall, to coin a phrase, rogue > ranger.

This isn't to say rangers suck. Those that play the class to its fullest aren't disappointed. . .but in the end, there are only so many tools to work with.

What I'd like Shevy and the staff to keep in mind as they balance out the classes is that remarkably most classes have a unique, desired skill / spell / use for all groups. . . however the ranger does not.

The game does, however, lack a pure physical damage source the way Toril had. Without coming up with new skills to help make a class unique (which is already difficult in that we're seeking to do so for Elementalists and Bards).

Rangers could be in that slot, so to speak. Dealing alot of phsysical damage in a variety of ways depending on the situation. Archery is one step in that direction. Adding a called shot feature to archery would round this out. Syntax / use:

Much like rogue backstab (usable only as a first action, not any time in a fight) rangers could call a shot to the eye / throat / chest of a creature. These called shots would be usable X times of day (skill / level dependent): Effects:

eye: blind
throat: silence
chest : knockdown

oh yeah, need to Change missile shield to a stoneskin like spell (really, it should block no more than 10 arrow shots. . .we only carry 100 in a quiver) =) will flesh that out nicely.

I would like to see rangers get their double attack skill applied to their off hand. This, I believe, would put them on par with rogue melee, without the status effect bonuses, of course.

This way rangers have utility in their damage dealing capabilities, and have some usefull battle effects!

Um, hope this all makes some sense!

Lost
Jurdex
Sojourner
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: New Orleans, La, USA

Postby Jurdex » Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:21 pm

Well said.

Dornax
Jurdex
Galkar
Sojourner
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Providence, RI

Postby Galkar » Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:25 pm

Excellent idea Waelos. Guess no one likes my idea.... *sniff* Thought it was pretty nifty myself. I'd have used it too.
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Postby Yayaril » Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:27 pm

Reminds me of an idea I posted during Sojourn2 when they wanted to give assassins some kick. I thought it would be neat if vital strike had a few more outcomes, with random debilitating procs on them, along the lines of what you said. I think it would be pretty neat if rangers got some sort of vital strike like skill for use whilst shooting a bow. Something random would be the best, with random outcomes. Also, toss on some more different effects on rogue vital strike. =9

Yayaril
Gormal
Sojourner
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: A Whale's Vagina
Contact:

Postby Gormal » Fri Jan 11, 2002 2:06 am

except things dont sound absurd when waelos says them. Good bid to steal his thunder tho yaya!
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Fri Jan 11, 2002 6:12 am

arent rogues defined as the pure physical damage source? the game lacks the monks of old, but they were removed because the forgers wanted to go in a different direction. why would they bring it back now?

thought i read on the bbs about someone having a 250 or 350 arrow quiver.

I dont like the idea of making the skill command type. anything you can count on command proc is something that can be twinked. change your skill to passive like vital strike, knockdown work a bash with similar % to pforce, change silence to chance to interrupt spell (or maybe just effect like sp) with the same success rate that shieldpunchers have for stopping spells (2-3 rangers hopefully wont be able to keep a mob from casting an entire fight). As for blind, give it the same % as GCD. Give rangers a bow that procing blind similar to ebony. I dont think rangers should come into the world with a significant blind proc. Perhaps this skill could be broken up into 2 or 3 skills awarded at different levels. Bash at 15, blind at 25, abort at 35... all passive and work only under archery. The skills could be tuned independently and be awarded at appropriate levels.

The way to figure out if this new skill is effective and balanced is that groups will start saving spots for a ranger or 2. If its too effective youll start seeing 3 or 4 rangers in a group and zones getting raped. If you look back at the thread on perfect group, youll notice that most group rogue and ranger together to fill the group out (which is 2 slots in an ideal group or prolly about 6 total melee slots in an average group). If ranger becomes > rogue, rogues are going to be sol for groups. As it stands, the perfect groups barely felt it necessary to include a rogue let alone multiple rogues. And all of this is pre elementalists and effectively pre-bard/bchanter.

is rogue 5 attacks plus procing weapons and skills > than ranger 5 attacks with windsong? is windsong > archery? dunno, any comments?
Gormal
Sojourner
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: A Whale's Vagina
Contact:

Postby Gormal » Fri Jan 11, 2002 6:31 am

im so tired of windsong getting factoered into damage....you are a joke if you play a human ranger. pretty stupid imo. just make it ranger only remove the elf part
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Postby Yayaril » Fri Jan 11, 2002 7:08 am

Actually Gormal, when I posted about the different effects on vital strike, I think Waelos told me that if rogues got that then rangers should get third circle inferno. Maybe it wasn't Waelos, but it was some high level ranger. =)

Yayaril
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Fri Jan 11, 2002 7:11 am

Im not a high level ranger ! I play bard now, what you talking about ? hehe
Vipplin
Sojourner
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Hawaii

Postby Vipplin » Fri Jan 11, 2002 9:15 am

I think a ranger with Windsong probably does about the same damage as with archery? Not sure. Anyway, Windsongs aren't issued to rangers when they make level 10 or something, there is a long-ass quest that must be done. It takes awhile, let me tell you! Image (I am nowhere near having a Windsong at level 46 now)

Quivers - there may be some quivers that hold more than 100 in the game, but I think nobody has found them yet (at least that I've heard). The one 300+ one that was posted about a while back was 'fixed' and is now 100.

I like the idea of making archery special effects random times and random effects like a modified vital strike. That would be !twink and still fun. I still like the idea of called shots in some form, though! Image

Vadian
Galok Icewolf
Sojourner
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Galok Icewolf » Fri Jan 11, 2002 11:34 am

The only thing I don't like is that arrows seem to crit 3/4th of the time. Im not saying change the damage, im just saying just like in melee, you don't want to fearsomly slash yer opponent 50 times before he actually dies.
Mithil
Sojourner
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Sweden

Postby Mithil » Fri Jan 11, 2002 1:47 pm

Archery crit rate was decreased a few days ago. As a level 46+ ranger I used to crit about 50% of the hits. Don't think it was ever as high as 3/4.

Right now crit rate is at most 20-25% probably even less. I will make some archery stat triggers tonight so I can check it better.

Mithil
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Fri Jan 11, 2002 2:52 pm

i dont think we should ignore windsong just because its quest. i also agree with gormal in thinking it should be available to human rangers. it owns too hard. wonder how much bitching we'd hear if human rangers got something > windsong or if windsong was !elf !halfelf.
Sylvos
Sojourner
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada
Contact:

Postby Sylvos » Fri Jan 11, 2002 5:18 pm

Archery Damage > hasted windsong damage w/34 dam roll.

I have played around with it, and unless windsong goes apeshit and fires off a LOT, archery damage will be consistently greater

Sylvos
Gormal
Sojourner
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: A Whale's Vagina
Contact:

Postby Gormal » Fri Jan 11, 2002 6:52 pm

there is still a bug with archery that each consecutive hit does at least as much damage as the first hit...and if one arrow crits every following arrow crits. intentional or not its why archrey does so much damage atm. I'd like to see that fixed so all the arrows are more random. it would fix the crit problem too.
Sylvos
Sojourner
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada
Contact:

Postby Sylvos » Fri Jan 11, 2002 6:56 pm

Granted I haven't tested it that much, but I've had plenty of rounds where I only score one critical hit in the round, on the 1st or 2nd shot. Are you sure Gormal?

Sylvos
Calinth
Sojourner
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Calinth » Fri Jan 11, 2002 9:11 pm

Granted, this isn't a very big sample(I just got the triggers going last night) but this is at level 41/42

Total Shots: 752 Total Hits 603 Total Crits 95
Archery Hit Percent: 80 % Crit rate 12 %


As you can see, I'm nowhere near 50% on crits, and I'd wager that you'll find crit rate to be about 15% or so for any ranger. Though crits do seem to come in groups, if the percentage of them is fine, I don't see too big a problem.

Calinth
Zrax
Sojourner
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairborn, OH, USA
Contact:

Postby Zrax » Fri Jan 11, 2002 9:16 pm

yeah 4-5 times the amount of critical hits scored in melee seems fair as long as evils get 8 armed ogres in the near future.
Calinth
Sojourner
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Calinth » Fri Jan 11, 2002 9:28 pm

If ranged crits did the same multiplier to damage that melee crits did, I'd agree with you Zrax. But as I understand it, the rate of crits was increased with archery, while the increase in damage was reduced to even it out.

Calinth
Zrax
Sojourner
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fairborn, OH, USA
Contact:

Postby Zrax » Sat Jan 12, 2002 12:31 am

Well if thats true then ok, i hadnt heard that. Actually I just really wanted to play an 8 armed ogre named Heft.
Teyaha
Sojourner
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Teyaha » Sat Jan 12, 2002 3:05 am

rangers are hybrids right? druid/warrior?

they shouldnt excel at anything above a warrior/druid in those skills.

their uniques are exceptional dual wield skill and archery.

rogues are not hybrids, they are rogues.
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Sat Jan 12, 2002 5:24 am

Rangers aren't hybrids here. Take a look at the Wizardry, Might and Magic, or other old school computer RPG series if you want to find real hybrid classes. If you take a look at the skills that D&D based (yeah, we're only loosely based on D&D, but this still applies here) rangers, paladins, and antis get, they're more biased towards the fighter skills but all take it in a different direction then warriors. Additionally Ranger spells are generally useless aside from trying to soloing at low-mid levels, except for a few utility spells like dm, di, invis, and bark for the tanks. You'll note that only one of those is a druid spell. Rangers are much more dependent on their skills then spells. Paladins and antis are the same way, though they do have a better spell list and innates to help out. Warriors obviously get more skills instead (though how useful they are is something highly debatable but that's another thread). Basically, nothing here is really a hybrid despite outward appearances. Tolkien sure as hell wasn't thinking "I'll make a hybrid of a knight and a Celtic pagan priest" when he came up with Aragorn, neither were the people that created D&D after "borrowing" some of Tolkien's ideas, and by the same vein rangers as implemented on here and many other muds aren't really a mix of druid and fighter (I used to get beaten down a lot on EM back years ago when I thought I was a hybrid between the two Image). They've got some druid spells for flavor, an innate that emulates a rogue skill, some of the common warrior skills, and their specialty warrior skills. Remember, they're subclassed under fighter and not both fighter and priest.

And given your comment about rogues, I'm curious about what you consider a bard to be Image
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Sat Jan 12, 2002 10:03 am

originally in dnd i think

bard was a rogue warrior mage emphasis on rogue

ranger was a warrior mage with outdoorsy skills and bows
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Sun Jan 13, 2002 12:39 am

Edit: Looked through the book that did have the info in it before packing it away at my old house, fixed some of the info.

Nope Kiryan. 1st edition rangers were essentially as follows (all based from memory, my book with the info isn't here with me):

Level 1 hit dice: 2d8
Hit dice for levels 2-11: 1d8

Rangers started with more hitpoints since they were supposed to be hardy, but got smaller die rolls for hit points per level compared to warriors and paladins. But they got more total die rolls to make up for it since warriors and paladins stopped rolling die for hp at level 10.

Extra damage to monsters like ogres, trolls, giants, orcs, etc. equal to the ranger's level.

Ability to track outdoors with chance of success depending on a variety of factors, lower % underground (ie dungoens).

No more then 3 could be in a group at any one time due to their independent nature.

Started getting spells around level 15. Eventually received mage spells up to 2nd level, druid spells up to 3rd level.

Only a 1 in 6 chance of being surprised and surprised opponents 50% of the time.

Starts attracting followers at level 8.

Must maintain good alignment.

Cannot have more wealth then can be carried.

Cannot have followers or henchmen before level 8.

Optional rule from Unearthed Arcana: Required to have proficiency in a sword, a bow or light crossbow (choice must be made at first level), a spear or axe, and dagger or knife by a certain level.

1st edition rangers were basically a warrior class specialized in taking out certain monsters due to their damage bonus and ability to catch stuff by surprise for a free round of combat. No special abilities in ranged combat, minimal magic abilities. Stuff like two weapon fighting was added in 2nd edition with the extra damage against savage humanoids exchanged for a hated spieces (though the Giantkiller kit for the class reinstated a version of the damage bonus against giants), mage spells dropped and list of spells further reduced, tracking made more standardized in terms of how success was calculated, weapon requirements dropped, the number restriction dropped, and hit dice brought in line with the other warrior classes.

------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."

[This message has been edited by Treladian (edited 01-14-2002).]
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Sun Jan 13, 2002 2:34 am

It would be interesting if rangers got a slight melee damage bonus vs. "racial foes" (as I think the DnD term was.)
Vipplin
Sojourner
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Hawaii

Postby Vipplin » Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:44 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gormal:
there is still a bug with archery that each consecutive hit does at least as much damage as the first hit...and if one arrow crits every following arrow crits. intentional or not its why archrey does so much damage atm. I'd like to see that fixed so all the arrows are more random. it would fix the crit problem too.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I think I mentioned that in another thread as questionable. There are a couple of possibilities.

1. It is a bug.
2. The ranger homes in on his target with consecutive shots, thus after the first shot, you see where it went and adjust accordingly for wind, distance etc. on subsequent shots. If you've shot a bow much IRL you'll know this is realistic.

As for the crits, Sylvos, I'm not sure. It seems like the come in bunches when they do, and usually they are either all 3 crits, last 2 crits, or last 1 crit. I can't remember if I've seen just #1 or #2 crit.

Anyway, as long as the total damage output is in the range the gods want, the rest is cosmetic.

Vadian pets his longbow lovingly.
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Wed Jan 16, 2002 4:59 am

It could also be a bug with the feedback from ranged. We know that it's had it's share of problems, such as returning a list of keywords instead of normal name for a mob (and might still be doing this. Ashiwi said it was a few nights ago but it's looked fine from my end but it might have something to do with tog condense). While it's hard for me to imagine what would cause an error in the damage being reported from my experience coding, it's even harder for me to figure out why a random number generator wouldn't be able to spit back a number lower then one it previously generated.

------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Wed Jan 16, 2002 5:01 am

Oh yeah, I've seen just the first or second crit on a number of occasions. They usually clump together though.

------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
Xirixxiss
Sojourner
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Xirixxiss » Wed Jan 16, 2002 11:41 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Treladian:
<B>Cannot have more wealth then can be carried.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hahah ya, dont let rangers use the bank anymore. Image

Xir
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Wed Jan 16, 2002 1:40 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xirixxiss:
<B> hahah ya, dont let rangers use the bank anymore. Image

Xir</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't let Ogres and Trolls with less than "average" intelligence read signs and boards anymore Image

- Ragorn
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu Jan 17, 2002 12:16 pm

along the same lines dont let ragorn read the bbs
Ensis
Sojourner
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR 97219
Contact:

Postby Ensis » Thu Jan 17, 2002 3:40 pm

What if there were a couple more options for firing using archery?

Right now there is what, the luring factor and then rapid fire while not tanking right?

What about a "called shot" mode, that only fires one arrow, but has the possibility of doing more damage with a random effect?

ie: blinded hit in the eye, fumbled hit in the hand, silenced hit in the throat, hitting a vital spot just multiplies damage, etc.. but

Just some ideas Image

E
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Thu Jan 17, 2002 3:40 pm

Can we ban kiryan from every thread with "Ranger" or "Paladin" in the title plz? k thx.

- Ragorn
Galkar
Sojourner
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Providence, RI

Postby Galkar » Thu Jan 17, 2002 4:43 pm

To add to Ensis' post.... how about make there be a chance every few rounds that one shot hits a critical spot that has an adverse effect... blind, fumble, stun, etc. Don't make it often enough that rangers can rely on it for these effects, just something that would add a nice twist during fights.

Your shot hits a troll in a critical spot!
The troll screams out in pain while grabbing at his crotch!
A troll falls over dead!
R.I.P.
You recieve your share of experience.

Tilez -Fight fair? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.-
izarek
Sojourner
Posts: 645
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Irvine, CA

Postby izarek » Thu Jan 17, 2002 5:27 pm

IMHO, special effects from things like skills, poisons, and spells are just too common now. If rangers get access to these it should be through expensive proc/poison arrows...not be a skill.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Fri Jan 18, 2002 1:36 am

interesting point izarek.

poison tipped arrows would be interesting but i think the idea stems from being hit by an arrow rather than magical property of arrows. perhaps they could get some sort of sp type effect (% similiar to trip per fight basis?) on arrows and an uber rare blind % (GCD blind success rate) for physical realism.

But give them some sort of skill for applying blind/poison dam type poison to arrows for practical applications (ebony % rate per fight basis?)? Could you imagine coating 500 arrows with poison and shooting upwards of 4 arrows a round? The skill would have to be mostly self sufficient rather than store bought, maybe tie it in to their scrounge skill for reagents then a apply poison skill.

then again theres supposedly proc'ing bows in the game. id rather not see archery have any more innate ability.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Fri Jan 18, 2002 2:36 pm

Give rangers apply poison???
I won't even say anything about that, that should tell you how flabbergasted I am at the idea.

Return to “S3 Ideas Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests