i think it'd be fun if rogues could throw daggers again. however, put limitations on it wouldn't be as powerful or useful as archery.
these would be:
1. damage far less than archery
2. cannot be thrown into the next room
3. far less accurate than archery
4. daggers dice and hit/dam lower than arrows
the basic point would be so that rogues could damage shielded mobs. also, if unhasted, it would not deal more damage than normal rogue unhasted melee.
it'd be fun for rogues to start collecting ranged projectile weapons like rangers do and then lose them to crash :)
reimplement range weapons for rogues?
Last I heard, and keep in mind this was a LONG time ago from Miax, there was some bug that was affecting thrown weapons preventing their implementation. I've got no idea how long it's been since anyone has actually tweaked the ranged engine so I no longer know if this is the case or if there's been a conscious decision to scrap thrown weapons for players.
Kossuth responds to your petition with 'You are no match for elemental pants!'
Rogues don't need ranged, and we certainly don't need it the way it is. Rogue abilities are already more than enough for the class, and we really don't need anything added to us to keep us playable. If anything, there are a few things that could be taken away, or downgraded. If you want to play with ranged, my suggestion would be to roll a ranger, but if you want more than enough skills to keep you happy, stick with rogue.
And if the rogue doesn't have enough skills to keep you happy, might I suggest Elementalist? ::halo::
And if the rogue doesn't have enough skills to keep you happy, might I suggest Elementalist? ::halo::
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'
Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'
Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'
Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'
Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Actually, no... ask the long-term Rangers about their most desirable zoning skills, and "ranged" isn't going to be an answer you'll hear. I can still lure as well as a Ranger in almost all circumstances, even without the ranged skill.
Notice I said "almost." There's a couple of situations in the game where Ranger lure is much preferable, but it's not that frequent.
Notice I said "almost." There's a couple of situations in the game where Ranger lure is much preferable, but it's not that frequent.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'
Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'
Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'
Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'
Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
i'm not sure if you guys even read my post, heh
my suggestion would only give rogues the option of damaging shielded mobs. this would have very limited use similiar to that of kick for warriors.
it wouldn't be used for luring or effective damage like archery. mostly it would be for fun and roleplay purposes. it wouldn't take anything from rangers, nor their uniqueness, if you read the limitations i had suggested initially.
it would not overpower rogues. the only time they would even use it is probably in zones for a few rounds against shielded mobs before they got globed/warded. they wouldn't use it for exp (ala archery fire and flee) since it would do less damage than normal attacks with escape/return/double backstab.
if a rogue wanted to fight a shielded mob solo, they would just paralyze it and wait for shield to drop.
if a rogue wanted to lure, they would just use a scroll or tag it with an attack. i mentioned in my idea that daggers can't be thrown into the next room for luring purposes.
if you guys don't want rogues to have more flavor, that's one thing. but please don't confuse my idea as giving rogues archery capabilities.
again, just an idea for _fun_ with no real effect on balance.
my suggestion would only give rogues the option of damaging shielded mobs. this would have very limited use similiar to that of kick for warriors.
it wouldn't be used for luring or effective damage like archery. mostly it would be for fun and roleplay purposes. it wouldn't take anything from rangers, nor their uniqueness, if you read the limitations i had suggested initially.
it would not overpower rogues. the only time they would even use it is probably in zones for a few rounds against shielded mobs before they got globed/warded. they wouldn't use it for exp (ala archery fire and flee) since it would do less damage than normal attacks with escape/return/double backstab.
if a rogue wanted to fight a shielded mob solo, they would just paralyze it and wait for shield to drop.
if a rogue wanted to lure, they would just use a scroll or tag it with an attack. i mentioned in my idea that daggers can't be thrown into the next room for luring purposes.
if you guys don't want rogues to have more flavor, that's one thing. but please don't confuse my idea as giving rogues archery capabilities.
again, just an idea for _fun_ with no real effect on balance.
Last edited by kitze on Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 7:05 pm
- Location: so fuggin_fast
If they can't be thrown into the next room, then they can't be used for luring.
There's the issue, if you can't arch into the next room, then there's really not much point in having it. Rogues are already so overpowered, with so few downsides, that I'd be awfully unwilling to support much of anything that removes what little risk we already have. I've argued against anything that took away the risk of fighting shielded mobs, and that seems to be the point of this suggestion. You can't really use thrown weapons solo, because the mob will aggro you in melee as soon as you hit it. Also, if there's any potential for applying poison to a thrown weapon (and it wouldn't make sense to me if you couldn't) then we absolutely don't need it.
I understand why you want thrown weapons, but I've always kind of considered the problem with shielded mobs to be the price rogues paid for their other skills.
There's the issue, if you can't arch into the next room, then there's really not much point in having it. Rogues are already so overpowered, with so few downsides, that I'd be awfully unwilling to support much of anything that removes what little risk we already have. I've argued against anything that took away the risk of fighting shielded mobs, and that seems to be the point of this suggestion. You can't really use thrown weapons solo, because the mob will aggro you in melee as soon as you hit it. Also, if there's any potential for applying poison to a thrown weapon (and it wouldn't make sense to me if you couldn't) then we absolutely don't need it.
I understand why you want thrown weapons, but I've always kind of considered the problem with shielded mobs to be the price rogues paid for their other skills.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'
Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'
Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'
Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'
Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
I did notice you said no out of room range which would not undermine ranger/dires unique ability to lure from multiple rooms away.
However, your suggestion would eliminate a liability in a class that is already regarded as powerful and complete.
the basic point would be so that rogues could damage shielded mobs. also, if unhasted, it would not deal more damage than normal rogue unhasted melee.
mobs that can cast fire/cold shield can cast missile shield. If rangers are largely thwarted by it, how do you imagine rogues would fare better?
still... Archery is hella fun, hard to say a class so focused on damage shouldn't have additional fun.
However, your suggestion would eliminate a liability in a class that is already regarded as powerful and complete.
the basic point would be so that rogues could damage shielded mobs. also, if unhasted, it would not deal more damage than normal rogue unhasted melee.
mobs that can cast fire/cold shield can cast missile shield. If rangers are largely thwarted by it, how do you imagine rogues would fare better?
still... Archery is hella fun, hard to say a class so focused on damage shouldn't have additional fun.
and tonights winner in the Toril EQ lottery is demi belt and skull earring!
just remove rangers and rogues and upgrade warriors mightily
Dornax says 'And for the right amount of information ye might get some nookie out of Nokie..'
Nokie wiggles his bottom.
Teba tells you 'let me do my job you volo twinker!'
Bobidibble GCC: 'yeah i admit gura is a better warrior then i am, no shame in it... perhaps someday i shall be as pimp'
Nokie wiggles his bottom.
Teba tells you 'let me do my job you volo twinker!'
Bobidibble GCC: 'yeah i admit gura is a better warrior then i am, no shame in it... perhaps someday i shall be as pimp'
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests