3.5ize Rangers

Submit and discuss your ideas for the MUD.
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

3.5ize Rangers

Postby moritheil » Mon May 16, 2005 11:32 pm

Okay, let's see if I have the basic idea behind rangers down.

They should be capable of melee damage, somewhere in the vicinity of rogues (not considering backstab/poison), but they should also be capable of tanking a little better than rogues in a stand-up fight - just enough to do in a pinch if a main tank gets paralyzed or something.

Taking my cue from 3.5, they make rangers there less than real tanks (fighters/barbs) by placing pretty significant restrictions on their armor - if they wear heavy armor, they lose their "virtual feats" and abilities.

How can we do this in Toril mechanics? The answer will stun you with its simplicity and paralyze you with hate.

We make them nonfighters.

Specifically put, we reflag the ranger class so that it is not a fighter class. Rangers will be unable to use most of the heavier armors. The ranger class can now be either classified rogue (fighter-rogue aspect) or priest (fighter-druid aspect); either way, the result is a change in the type of items usable by rangers. Of course, rangers would keep all their skills regardless. Bows would have to be reflagged so that they were usable by whatever new overall category rangers fit into.

One other change is also needed. Rangers are far too frail in zones, and while this was addressed somewhat by addition of Nature's Blessing, that doesn't get at the meat of the matter. Essentially rangers have low hit points because they aren't supposed to tank as well as warriors. Well, with the change to what they can wear, they won't be able to wear the best items or get great AC, so it won't be a concern. We can therefore give rangers warrior hit points to offset their loss of AC. A poorly armored ranger with lots of hit points will be more zoneable than a decently armored ranger with very few hit points.

The main problem I can see with this proposal is that there just is not as much hit/dam gear out there that is usable by non-fighter types as there is for fighter types.

If rangers became able to use all rogue gear, that would open up the khanjari and some rogue-only weapons for them to use. Their damage output would stabilize at below that of rogues, but with their ability to use ranged weapons, they'd have some slightly different tricks. If they became able to use all priest gear, that would open up the door for them to wear lots of + hit point and save gear, which would make them die in zones less often, and potentially be more useful, although in a very different way.

That's all I've got. Pick it apart.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Nekelet
Sojourner
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:54 pm

Postby Nekelet » Mon May 16, 2005 11:54 pm

Lorsalian
Sojourner
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:01 am

Re: 3.5ize Rangers

Postby Lorsalian » Tue May 17, 2005 2:09 am

moritheil wrote:Okay, let's see if I have the basic idea behind rangers down.

They should be capable of melee damage, somewhere in the vicinity of rogues (not considering backstab/poison), but they should also be capable of tanking a little better than rogues in a stand-up fight - just enough to do in a pinch if a main tank gets paralyzed or something.



Already there. I don't pretend to be able to tank 10-15 mobs for minutes at a time, but I can handle 2-3 for a round or two after rescuing the mage (until the bash/shieldpunch lag lets the warrior rescue me), or I can bash and let the warriors do all the rescuing, but due to my focus on damage and the ignorance of this ability (despite repeated postings and occasional tells that could only be considered boastings) I am rarely asked to do so.

As for the unsaid dodge/riposte/parry argument, warriors most certainly outscore -- by design. That design is not the topic of this rebuttal, however.

We can therefore give rangers warrior hit points to offset their loss of AC. A poorly armored ranger with lots of hit points will be more zoneable than a decently armored ranger with very few hit points.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but rangers already have that. I'm currently unable to make a direct non-race-based comparison, but I out-natural hps an elven warrior of the same level (and my CON isn't at max natural notch (I'm willing to give the score if asked game-side, but I'll not post it)).

It was close, though .. a difference of 60 hitpoints. Not enough to be a mere difference in CON.

I wait for a comparison of warrior vs ranger hps that doesn't pit barbarian vs half-elf or grey elf.

The main problem I can see with this proposal is that there just is not as much hit/dam gear out there that is usable by non-fighter types as there is for fighter types.

If rangers became able to use all rogue gear, that would open up the khanjari and some rogue-only weapons for them to use. Their damage output would stabilize at below that of rogues, but with their ability to use ranged weapons, they'd have some slightly different tricks. If they became able to use all priest gear, that would open up the door for them to wear lots of + hit point and save gear, which would make them die in zones less often, and potentially be more useful, although in a very different way.


Which save category are you referring to? Spell (-18 unspelled) or Petr/rod/breath?i (rarely stoned, so i concentrate on spell and hit/dam)

As for the comments about rogues, I admit to ignorance about rogue eq, but I was to believe a fair bit of it to be evil-only. The neckwear from moon temple, for an example.

As for cleric eq, I somehow have visions of rangers wearing hoods, rosewoods, thryms, and other +max_wis ... which doesn't seem quite right.


In any event, Eq would need to be looked at and redone (possibly falling back on the individual class bits (anti-druid, anti-bard -- the ones that single out single classes), which, in the middle of other balancing, would seem to be a poor path.

And I, of course, would despair of losing a certain sword it literally took me years to acquire, but that is personal.

That's all I've got. Pick it apart.


As requested.


As for the OotS reference, I draw your attention to the strip where Belkar is guarding the casters. Only when he sneaks into the enemy camp to backstab (well, frontstab, but you get the point) the caster do the ghouls break through.
Thanuk OOC: 'thats 6 years of hard work, come to fruitition in 1 single statement'
Was Felton Orm the "Wizard of Auz" ?

Lorsalian Silvermist -- Seeker of the Complete MUD Cookkit
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Tue May 17, 2005 4:53 am

There are problems with rangers that arent problems at all.

One of these is the hp/tank issue.

#1 Instead of wearing 250 hps in gear they wear another 8-10dam roll or 30 hitroll. You are a fool if you dont wear hps in the fingers, cloak, and one of the many max con items. A grey can achieve 700 eqd hps -150 ac with bark and still be 10/40 and prot fire/cold/acid with good saves.

#2 Instead of using archery, they further handicap themselves by using swords which require additional hitroll eq, haste and globe. You need 0 hitroll to use archery so you can wear more hps. You will never do yourself 150 damage in a round cuz you weren't globed with archery. The only reason you ever need to put your bow down is if you need to wear a shield and bash or run out of arrows

#3 a warrior can't tank mobs without scales and blur, why would you expect rangers too?

#4 No cleric will consider you a valid fheal target, no enchanter will waste a scale ora blur on you. shamans and druids never cast targetted heals. its hard enough to get these spells even if you are a warrior (non MT). Watch who gets healed in a group, its the people with the biggest reputations regardless of what class they play. I don't think I've ever fhealed a druid/ele other than lilithelle cuz i dont consider them a crucial element in a fight, but lily gets fheals from me cuz shes lilithelle.

This is partially explains why the legendary rangers are legendary, people actually respected them enough to cast spells on them.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue May 17, 2005 10:45 am

Funny that most ranger 'skills' are actually handicaps, most of which Kiryan has pointed out. This thread was ill-timed for me, since I'm in the middle of dissecting the Ranger class.

Kiryan wrote:I don't think I've ever fhealed a druid/ele other than lilithelle cuz i dont consider them a crucial element in a fight, but lily gets fheals from me cuz shes lilithelle.


This is to be expected. It's ridiculous the expectations some people have when we strike out into zones. Personally, I wouldn't take most rangers and carry a bag full of my own spells (potion form). (Which actually has been pretty handy, saving the group with stones when the enchanter falls, etc. etc.)

Other strategies for Rangers include following around the ghealers. If you notice a bard and a shaman wander out of the fight, I follow them out until either one of them returns or I feel I have the hp buffer to continue.

As for other enchantment spells, the only thing that can be done as a Ranger (other than providing for yourself, which is my preference), it to make sure you get spells before entering any fights, and don't count on getting any during.

Looking forward to our next "upgrade with a downgrade,"

Teflor
Salen
Sojourner
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Salen » Tue May 17, 2005 12:08 pm

I beg to differ Kiryan, I do indeed consider some rangers to be both valid Fheal/vit and Scale targets. They are however very few and far between since I pretty much only do that if I think they will be tanking (Weylarii is a good example). As for tanking ability, given spells and not a ton of mobs, the right ranger can stand in a fight for a loooooong time.
emote Rescuepractice
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Tue May 17, 2005 1:07 pm

kiryan wrote:There are problems with rangers that arent problems at all.

One of these is the hp/tank issue.

#1 Instead of wearing 250 hps in gear they wear another 8-10dam roll or 30 hitroll. You are a fool if you dont wear hps in the fingers, cloak, and one of the many max con items. A grey can achieve 700 eqd hps -150 ac with bark and still be 10/40 and prot fire/cold/acid with good saves.

#2 Instead of using archery, they further handicap themselves by using swords which require additional hitroll eq, haste and globe. You need 0 hitroll to use archery so you can wear more hps. You will never do yourself 150 damage in a round cuz you weren't globed with archery. The only reason you ever need to put your bow down is if you need to wear a shield and bash or run out of arrows

#3 a warrior can't tank mobs without scales and blur, why would you expect rangers too?

#4 No cleric will consider you a valid fheal target, no enchanter will waste a scale ora blur on you. shamans and druids never cast targetted heals. its hard enough to get these spells even if you are a warrior (non MT). Watch who gets healed in a group, its the people with the biggest reputations regardless of what class they play. I don't think I've ever fhealed a druid/ele other than lilithelle cuz i dont consider them a crucial element in a fight, but lily gets fheals from me cuz shes lilithelle.

This is partially explains why the legendary rangers are legendary, people actually respected them enough to cast spells on them.


1, 2, 3 all very good points. 100% dead on imo. #4, is probbably directly
related to 3. If you're not scaled/blur'd why bother healing? you'll be
dead before the spell goes off. Hp's aren't that different as lorsalian
pointed out. The type of eq worn by a ranger tends to be the biggest
weakness. Some would say this is required to wield melee. I see it
similar to kiryan. Bow does considerably more damage when you have
some decent arrows.

Overall the "problem" with melee rangers (high hitroll needed, etc) could
be solved in one way by making them a rogue type class. The eq is
geared towards hit/dam and saves. Wouldn't be much of an issue
with the exception of !good items. The real problem comes with the
addition of the hp. Just wear hp gear. rogues do, and survive quite well.
Overall this change isn't really needed as has been mentioned by
Lorsalian above, and the revelations made by kiryan regarding the true
issues with the class.

Weylarii used to tank jot all the time. With scales and blur he was
ALMOST as effective as i was mounted against those giants. He tanked
other things too, just too long ago for me to remember it. It can be done,
but like any other tank, it requires ac, hp, and spells.
Nekelet
Sojourner
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:54 pm

Postby Nekelet » Tue May 17, 2005 4:13 pm

Salen wrote:I beg to differ Kiryan, I do indeed consider some rangers to be both valid Fheal/vit and Scale targets. They are however very few and far between since I pretty much only do that if I think they will be tanking (Weylarii is a good example). As for tanking ability, given spells and not a ton of mobs, the right ranger can stand in a fight for a loooooong time.


Actually I think you are agreeing... Kiryan closed with:

Kiryan wrote:This is partially explains why the legendary rangers are legendary, people actually respected them enough to cast spells on them.


Different way of saying the same thing...

Back to the subject (sort of)...
<in retrospect> - bunch of pointless drivel deleted :P </edit>
Lorsalian
Sojourner
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:01 am

Postby Lorsalian » Tue May 17, 2005 11:47 pm

kiryan wrote:There are problems with rangers that arent problems at all.

One of these is the hp/tank issue.

#1 Instead of wearing 250 hps in gear they wear another 8-10dam roll or 30 hitroll. You are a fool if you dont wear hps in the fingers, cloak, and one of the many max con items. A grey can achieve 700 eqd hps -150 ac with bark and still be 10/40 and prot fire/cold/acid with good saves.


What primary are you using to eq (inflamatory, yet more appropriate term omitted) this ranger? As for the +hit, if I drop 5 +hit, my number of misses rises signifigantly (its 27 w/o nat bless)

Only a +10 hit is the foolishness. If you miss, what does it matter that you would have done even a million points of damage? You missed.

You counter this point partially with your #4. If one is never stoned, what is the point of sv_pet beyond avoiding the few petrification effects?

As for the 'foolishness' it boils down to a simple cost/benefit probability analysis. If you only tank x% of the time, and during those times you never fall below 200 hps, why wear something that will increase that to 250-300 hps -- when you can wear something that will accent the function that you spend (100-x) % of the time doing?

#2 Instead of using archery, they further handicap themselves by using swords which require additional hitroll eq, haste and globe. You need 0 hitroll to use archery so you can wear more hps. You will never do yourself 150 damage in a round cuz you weren't globed with archery. The only reason you ever need to put your bow down is if you need to wear a shield and bash or run out of arrows


Unless there is a multiplier to archery that I am unaware of, average archery damage begins to inch out blades only when you reach the level of ravens -- and this analysis is NOT taking into account haste nor melee procs.

Just as you say below that most ppl don't consider non-MTs to be valid targets for spells, I have found very few people worthy of the possible losing of this level of arrows. (see response to #1, above) I've seen at least a minor improvement in this, as a qualifier to this statement.

That said, I do have an 'archery' partial set that I carry to swipe out a few items to boost +dam while keeping sv_spell and AC roughly equal, to guard against areas and the switching.

Personally, the lack of bash/kick and any ability to do real damage post-rescue, in addition to the socio-economic and mathematical issues, tend to turn me off of archery. While bash is still possible, it becomes at least down to 70% w/o the shield; and kick is coded to not work for archery.

Do not base any rebuttal arguments about archery on the Imix, and I'll not bring the sheer spam-quality of my blade's proccing. Besides, I refuse to wield something that is designed to burn things down -- but that is purely a personal issue.

#3 a warrior can't tank mobs without scales and blur, why would you expect rangers too?


pass

#4 No cleric will consider you a valid fheal target, no enchanter will waste a scale ora blur on you. shamans and druids never cast targetted heals. its hard enough to get these spells even if you are a warrior (non MT). Watch who gets healed in a group, its the people with the biggest reputations regardless of what class they play. I don't think I've ever fhealed a druid/ele other than lilithelle cuz i dont consider them a crucial element in a fight, but lily gets fheals from me cuz shes lilithelle.

This is partially explains why the legendary rangers are legendary, people actually respected them enough to cast spells on them.


This is not an issue to be solved with additional code, as it is social in nature. If a class has skills that are unused by a player (often by way of faulty perception of the masses) to their detriment, it would not be good to 'reward' them with additional 'fixes'

As a closer, you seem to be in the camp that views archery as the sole worthy trick, and based your entire equipage on this view -- and to put down any other view as 'foolishness'. If this is true, I withdraw the '+10 hit is the foolishness' comment above, as, as you said, for archery you don't need it.

I could go on about the views I see in the post that I _do_ take exception with, but such would become too much of a tangent. Also, my own configuration is available on request, butI see no reason to post it here.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Wed May 18, 2005 1:10 am

Rangers in 3.5 suck just as bad as they did in 3.0.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed May 18, 2005 6:30 am

Delmair Aamoren wrote:Weylarii used to tank jot all the time. With scales and blur he was ALMOST as effective as i was mounted against those giants. He tanked other things too, just too long ago for me to remember it. It can be done, but like any other tank, it requires ac, hp, and spells.


Actually, I get the idea that race plays to this more than class. Grey Elf AGI is much higher than human, and it is possible elves get some sort of bonus vs. Giants.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed May 18, 2005 6:32 am

Lorsalian wrote:What primary are you using to eq (inflamatory, yet more appropriate term omitted) this ranger? As for the +hit, if I drop 5 +hit, my number of misses rises signifigantly (its 27 w/o nat bless


I believe Kiryan is saying Rangers should arch, and I agree. For archery we need jack for +hit.
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Wed May 18, 2005 6:58 am



Well, what I'm really suggesting is that we look at 3.5 flavor to see if there's anything we can seize and use to make rangers more useful.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'

Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'

Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Wed May 18, 2005 10:34 pm

If weapon sizes vs mob sizes were a factor then 1h vs 2h weapons could be addressed, swords vs daggers would close the gap between warriors and rogues some, and rangers using archery would gain some additional ground.

I'm not saying we should do anything, but its an idea.
kitze
Sojourner
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:01 am

Postby kitze » Thu May 19, 2005 12:08 am

kiryan's idea to go straight archery won't work unless archery gets overhauled. if a ranger went zoning with a 40 damroll and +300 hp eq and focused on archery, they'd still be completely useless. their damage would still be less than that of a rogue, and they'd serve no other purpose. also, forced to use high level arrows to get past missile shield, once u lose 80 to a spank/crash, i'm sure you'd never want to use archery again.

i think we should make rangers focused on melee damage. i had previously suggested giving them disarm and a form of hitall that hit twice per target. i also think we should give them some high bonus to riposte that fires as often as shieldblock does for warriors so that they could tank very decently and remain offensive in nature. also, give them some sort of advanced crit, like vital strike, that could perhaps stun the mob. and increase rescue cap. this would make them pretty fun to play i think.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu May 19, 2005 2:02 am

kitze wrote:kiryan's idea to go straight archery won't work unless archery gets overhauled. if a ranger went zoning with a 40 damroll and +300 hp eq and focused on archery, they'd still be completely useless. their damage would still be less than that of a rogue, and they'd serve no other purpose. also, forced to use high level arrows to get past missile shield, once u lose 80 to a spank/crash, i'm sure you'd never want to use archery again.


A level 50 ranger without haste using fiery bow with 2d7 1/1 arrows does more damage than a rogue dualing uncursed khanjaris with haste. Circle with cursed khanjari's puts rogues over the top a little, mob wearing a shield or having extra high agility/defensive skills or stone puts the ranger on top by a lot. You can buy 4d6 1/1 arrows and you can also acquire 4d6 4/2 arrows which do 90% damage through missile shield.

I've got several thousand kills on the same mob with both ranger and rogue first hand and second hand experience as evidence to back up the first part of my claim. What is your evidence?
kitze
Sojourner
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:01 am

Postby kitze » Thu May 19, 2005 4:07 am

kiryan, i'm not trying to say you're wrong, just that it doesn't make sense to bring along a ranger whose role is limited to single target damage while a rogue can do lots of other things besides superior melee capabilities (poisons, vital strike, trip, garrote, assassinate), like hold zone pop, cr, scout, etc. which is why i said archery would have to be overhauled - to have more uses (even invoker damage spells can have side effects) and to be less cumbersome (arrow loss, switching to melee).

mori's original idea to let rangers wear cleric eq wouldn't be useful, and i don't think its necessary to give them rogue eq because warrior eq (besides khanjari) is probably better.

but my dream vision of rangers is still to make them very offensive dual wielding semi-tanks with area melee capabilities =)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Thu May 19, 2005 5:57 pm

ic, i jumped to conclusion regarding your post and meaning.

if rangers did 10x invoker single target damage they would always enjoy group slots. so while diversity is an answer to the ranger dilemna so is additional specialization.

and really, while rangers are very limited in their group offering (damage only), they are still a viable zone character right now with their present abilities. It is as much a publicity issue as it is a class balance/ability issue. Rangers like amolol who didnt know anything about archery helped give rangers the bad reputation they have today.

----

I've never been a fan of the idea of rangers having a area attack, I'd prefer that areas be very limited in the game and that it remain the sole domain of casters. I'm also not a fan of adding "effects" to their shots, id rather see this implemented on proc bows, but it does make sense.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu May 19, 2005 6:03 pm

kitze wrote:kiryan's idea to go straight archery won't work unless archery gets overhauled. if a ranger went zoning with a 40 damroll and +300 hp eq and focused on archery, they'd still be completely useless. their damage would still be less than that of a rogue, and they'd serve no other purpose. also, forced to use high level arrows to get past missile shield, once u lose 80 to a spank/crash, i'm sure you'd never want to use archery again.


So is that a ranger issue, or a code issue? I personally think that any item
that can so easily be lost to a crash should be relatively easy to get. As it is
GOOD arrows are hard to find. Need to find some way of coding it so the
arrows aren't lost due to crash, only to breakage. Perhaps this shouldn't
apply to non-magic arrows or something to help control the arrow demand,
but it is quite obviously the rangers best way of dealing damage (besides dualing valhalla scepters) so lets let em use it.
Lorsalian
Sojourner
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:01 am

Postby Lorsalian » Thu May 19, 2005 11:36 pm

Kiryan, without getting into stats, you are partially correct on the lowbie arrows vs non-proccing khanjari.

In a comparison negating +dam eq, !haste, !proc. Where the rogue 3/attacks per round, as does the ranger ...
The max is one higher for the ranger, but the average damage is one higher for the rogue.

Nevermind, just looked at your post again. You specified haste for the rogue. Rogue wins.

I can pm you my math if you wish, but I won't post stats here.

It is not my overall intention to place archery or melee as pre-eminent, but to place one or the other as the damage to end all damage would be incorrect in my opinion. You specified an overly high comparison. Vs normal melee weps, in a situation where you have

* Commitment of the leader to finish the fight and thus allow for arrow retrieval
* No mshields, or friendly magi to lance/dispel mag/etc, (which the ranger could try also, but since most mobs at high end are 50+, this is unlikely where the spell circle is better spent elsewhere)
* No need for the skills that you lose when you wield that bow (bash/kick, those offensive spells that mean little in a big group, but all in a small one)

Then archery has its place.


Diversity as a solution ... don't get me into that. Bash/Rescue/Minor healing/minor sneak/tvp/bless/di/ ... name a skill, odds are there is a ranger skill/spell/tactic that can do it (not quite as well, perhaps, but can do it -- and within reason. glbash vs a casting incorp mob is obviously impossible). Taking a bit of load off of the primaries to do what they do with lag, and/or do better.

I've long thought that the long bemoaned (by others, mostly) "Ranger Issue" is more social than anything else.

What was the original point of this thread again? Seems to have gone WAY off-topic.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Fri May 20, 2005 7:22 am

boggle i am not partially correct I am absolutely right. your math doesnt mean jack, do the stats in game. I had someone come to me today and state that he had been skeptical of my claim but had tested it himself and found my statements to be at least very close to accurate if not exactly so.

Your mention of additional dynamics regarding archery are correct. there are drawbacks and situations not to use it. you do not however need a friendly mage or dispel magic when facing missile shield, switching to 4 hitroll arrows will give you 90% damage until you manage to "pop" missile shield and while there are still arrow issues (crash loss, and low count as zone rewards) you can be very viable with eq in game.

And just to clarify I am talking about a level 50 Rogue (efhr) in decked eq with ENCHANTED khanjaris and haste and vital striking (melee has bonus damage when mob is bashed) vs a level 50 grey ranger in decked eq with crappy 2d7 1/1 arrows.

And I will make the claim that archery is vastly superior to other melee in the average group/fight. It ignores defensive skills, stone, doesnt need haste or globe.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Fri May 20, 2005 8:06 am

kiryan wrote:Rangers like amolol who didnt know anything about archery helped give rangers the bad reputation they have today.


Rangers had a bad reputation before amolol ever rolled a character on this mud. The problem with the class is not one of reputation, it's one of utility. The class is "designed" as an archery class, but all of their combat skills are melee-based. That's Problem One. Problem Two is that melee damage as a whole is relatively inconsequential compared to area spell damage (and in some cases, Invoker single-target damage). So you have a class whose function is to shoot arrows, but they have no skills which facilitate that role.

Expecting a Ranger to deal damage through archery is like expecting a Cleric to tank. You can put all the fancy equipment on them you want, and they'll be half workable at best, but they simply don't have the proper skills to do the job correctly.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Fri May 20, 2005 7:56 pm

rangers deal quite a bit of damage through archery and I find the skill to be quite effective with very few drawbacks. I consider the skill so good that it is quite possibly broken in some regards.

Also, there is at least one high end zone where bringing 4-5 melee damage (rogues or rangers) makes the zone significantly faster and safer than bringing 4-5 invokers.
Lorsalian
Sojourner
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:01 am

Postby Lorsalian » Sat May 21, 2005 2:48 am

kiryan wrote:boggle i am not partially correct I am absolutely right. your math doesnt mean jack, do the stats in game. I had someone come to me today and state that he had been skeptical of my claim but had tested it himself and found my statements to be at least very close to accurate if not exactly so.


(discussions MUD-side)

There is nothing wrong with the math.

I agree I may have made too many assumptions, and thus there is a problem with the model, but I stated this.

You could have been more diplomatic with your objection. Also, your "someone come (sic) to me today and ..." doesn't logically lend any credence to your claim either.

If any are willing to learn the way I came up with the number originally, send a tell -- it is quite useful for melee weapon comparison, if not for other modelling efforts.
Thanuk OOC: 'thats 6 years of hard work, come to fruitition in 1 single statement'

Was Felton Orm the "Wizard of Auz" ?



Lorsalian Silvermist -- Seeker of the Complete MUD Cookkit
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Sun May 22, 2005 11:47 pm

With all due respect, all I have seen and tested points to Lorsalian being correct.

Archery is not all you think it is. It has some uses, but for straight up damage it is slightly better than unhasted melee. Hasted melee blows it out of the water (at least, for me.) I have to add that caveat as I've only done testing with my own ranger. I expect different results for other people, but not vastly. I'm in no way saying that what you have seen/tested is invalid, Kiryan, but rather that I have seen/tested the same issue and come up with different results. It could be the way we interpret or did the testing. . .But I believe that many of us (rangers) have found that archery is not as effective or as useful as melee. Sure, you can call us all hacks and that we don't know jack about playing the class, etc. . . but I think you'll find that many of us are fairly accomplished in rangering =)

I've done tests ad nauseum with this, and you'll rarely see me pick up a bow and use it. I will use the bow only when I do not have a globe or when I am in a small group against mobs with shieldblock. (By the way, mob skills degrade just like PCskills do when they're "tanking" multiple people. The more folks swinging on a mob, the more their skills get degraded and the less they will block/parry/dodge/etc. - Just make sure you're one of the last people the game is calcuating attacking the mob and the better results you'll get).

I will be glad to do more tests with whomever, but the last I checked the damage heirarchy went like this: Rogue melee>ranger melee>archery.

I have a quiver full of +3, +4 and +5 arrows too.

Anyway, I wanted to touch on a few of Kiryan's points about Hp/tanking:

#1
I always wear enough hps to stay alive. Knowing what that number is took a long time to figure out, and varies from group to group. Generally 550 without vit is enough for a grey ranger to (if equipped properly) survive and even tank from time to time. I would suggest staying around 30/40 to be effective (with good saves too). 10 hit is ridiculous unless you're going to be using all archery . . and if you are, that is (imho) absolutely making your ranger ineffective. (see more on this below)

"#2"
Archery is a handicap. If you stray, you lose an arrow unless it is safe to go get the arrow or the group will take the time to go find it. If the group moves off before the arrows are collected, you've lost your arrows unless it is safe to go back. If it crashes, you lose your arrows unless an Imm is on to fix things. If a mob flees or you are unable to kill the mob, your arrows are lost. All of the secondary (primary?) skills that a ranger has for combat are not able to be used while using archery. It does not do as much damage as melee (at least, if you're equipped well. Archery will do more damage if your character is naked, of course.). There are so many drawbacks to archery it is not effective for "every round" use (in my book). Rangers are all about versitility (more on that below) and "focusing on archery" is a foolish single minded view that will neuter what little effectiveness the class has.


"#3"
I don't think anyone expects any class to tank without spells. Certainly some classes can tank well enough without spells, if the fight is something like a single Jot troll, or whatever.

#4 and "This is partially explains why the legendary rangers are legendary, people actually respected them enough to cast spells on them."

Where do you think that respect comes from? Certainly I'm sexy, funny and share my cookies but that doesn't get me spells in zones. Respect for an individual in a class comes from knowing the limitations of that class and playing it to its fullest. I make sure I have -150 ac in zones. I make sure I have enough hitpoints and agility to tank. I make sure my tanking skills are as good as the class allows and I make sure I save the asses of people in my groups when the warriors are too lagged or busy doing hitall (Gormal!) or whatever to save the cleric or enchanter. You eat a lot of unnecessary deaths saving people before people realize that "hey this guy 's rescue does work, he does know when to use it (he's not rescuing warriors or 5 people and tanking 10 mobs and just getting himself killed in stupidly), and its saved me enough times that if I take that extra 2 seconds to blur him he might last long enough to prevent a spank". I can't count the number of times it was down to my ranger and a single warrior, or just my ranger hanging tough in a critical fight where the rest of the tanks got blasted (due to no fault of their own. . .crits sometimes just suck). And I'm positive there are lots of rangers with similar stories.

All that being said, my major point is that being an effective ranger (it is hard) means balancing all the aspects of the class. Do I use archery? Sure, when it is necessary. Will I drop all my hitroll and overinflate my hps to use archery exclusively? No, that would be (IMHO) stupid. What happens if I need to tank and still provide damage? oops, SOL there, I can't hit with a 10 hitroll. Can't change clothes in battle! I gear myself for all situations that my character may need to face, and make sure I can face them to the best of the classes ability. Part of that is making sure that if I'm not getting spells, I provide them for myself. I carry haste potions, vit potions, stone potions, etc. all just in case. The ranger sure does need some help in becoming more useful and balanced. . . but I think we should remember what makes the ranger to begin with: Versitility and the balancing of all of those skills into an efficient package.

Mori - I appreciate your logic, and think it has some sort of merit. . . but honestly, I don't think you can accomplish what you desire through the method you've posted. I know of so many mages and clerics that have -100+ AC. . .if you restricted rangers to that kind of eq, they'd still have the AC . . . just with different Ansi. Don't forget also that rangers have barkskin. . . which is 30+ ac right there.

First thing that has to happen is melee vs. spell damage needs to be balanced. Then the classses that are designed to do melee damage need to be reevaluated. Rogues are the best at that right now, and should not be, imho. They have a ton of other skills that benefit groups and should sacrifice something (melee damage).

In my opinion, rangers should do the most melee damage of all classes. That is how they were designed from jumpstreet. They're the "best" dual wielders in the realms (or so the help file says. . . hah!). I also believe that Anti paladins and paladins need to be looked at once melee is balanced. Antis should be right up there. Probably doing the same amount as rangers, but with 2h (having 2 weapons has its own advantages over 2h, so that would balance). Paladins are more defensive, so they should be better tanks/other stuff. Really, I think warriors should do more damage in melee. They're strapped down with a shield (need it to tank!) and don't have the luxury of switching and using other types of combat. . . so, why not give them triple attack? Let them have 3 or 4 (hasted) attacks per round. Warriors should never be at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to melee damage. I did a whole work up on this somewhere here so I won't go into it. . . but here's the proposed damage heirarchy: ranger/anti, warrior/paladin, rogue, bard.

How that is accomplished, is another thread entirely!

Back to the rangers thing. . .after melee is balanced I think rangers will be closer to being balanced. I think that archery needs to be tweaked into being more user friendly. Keep it at the same level as melee damage, allow it to be affected by haste (to keep up with melee), give it a few more 'perks' (meaning skills to use with it). . .this allows it to be integral to the class, without being "THE" defining characteristic. Lower the chant times on many of their spells (cure crit is what, 8 *s? gag!), rework their spell list a bit (a self only haste would be nice, of course). Take vital strike from rogues, give it to rangers, increase double attack to 99, remove kick and replace with trip. . . and a few other minor tweaks and I think we have a balanced class.

OK, I've prattled on long enough. I really had no intention of offending anyone, so I apologize if I did. I've been doing this ranger thing for a while, and I really, really think I have a good idea (in my opinion!) of what the class could use to make them balanced. . . again, all my opinion.

Hope to see something done sometime soon. Hehe. Anyway, anyone want to test stuff gimme a shout!

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

Postby kiryan » Mon May 23, 2005 7:16 pm

Sorry Lorsalian, I am not very diplomatic.

Waelos,

I use range exclusively, but I also focus on damage as my role in a group. I think you should rerun your numbers, because rogue melee > ranger melee > archery is not what i see at all. Try to clear DS with a hasted rogue for damage and a ranger for damage and see how it goes. Or just ask turg since he's been doing a lot of exp lately with both rogues and rangers.

I'm not too worried about the damage I'd miss out on if I happened to end up tanking with 10 hitroll because if I am tanking there is a problem. If I'm tanking I'd prefer to be wearing an extra 250 hps over 20 more hitroll because at that point there exists a deficiency in tanking that I am attempting to assist with not a deficiency in damage. Very rarely have I needed to rescue/tank, and in those cases the extra hps and -150 ac has been more than adequate. Even in the rare situation that your group doesnt have enough tanks and you are reguarly expected to tank, why wouldn't you dress like a tank all hps and ac?

The middle ground between tanks and damage dealers is a hard animal to nail, and in this era of highly specialized classes, why would you attempt to walk down the middle?
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Mon May 23, 2005 9:40 pm

Kir -

Lets get together in game some time. . . we'll line up a mob, have someone tank it and we'll run some tests with ranger melee vs ranger bow.

It may just be a difference in opinion on how the ranger can and should be played. Certainly I've found that the middle ground can be walked upon. . . it isn't easy, and probably not the best choice for a lot of rangers. Typically I'm able to field a character with 550 hps, 30/55, -10 or higher on spell/breath and good agility. I believe that being a grey elf has a lot to do with my tanking ability, so that may skew the results (also, may skew test results as that extra racial attack with melee may contribute to melee damage (though it is almost impossible to track when that attack is kicking in for me).

As far as the damage you're missing out on while tanking. . . I've seen a good number of situations where extra damage where you're the last person in a fight (or one of the last) can put you over the top. (Ever see that log of Mplor at around 2 hps, last person in the fight with Tiamat at awful and he gets that last dragonpunch or springleap off and manages to kill her? (Great stuff!) That is usually why I try to hold an ace up my sleeve "just in case" (damage proc cloak, holding back on swiftwind, etc.)

And as a counterpoint, I'm not too concerned about the little bit (if any, testing still to resolve!) of damage I might be missing out on while doing melee instead of archery. The procs and freedom to use other skills is well worth it (again, if archery is indeed better damage (which it isn't for me, last test.).

-150 AC is absolutely cake to get as a ranger. With barkskin and good agility you're well on your way. The hit point issue is a good one to discuss. I think there is a point of "overkill" with hitpoints, but it is up to the individual person to find that "sweetspot". There is a diminishing return in there somewhere. 100 hps vs 2 dam? take the 100 hps. . .100 hps vs 10 dam? ah, see if you can get a little of both!

I guess all that I'm saying is that archery (in my experience and of course we'll test this as soon as we catch eachother with free time on line!) isn't so much better (if at all) that the rest of the class should be abandoned. Or, perhaps it is better to say that there may be more than one way to play your ranger, and that archery isn't necessarily the end-all-be-all of the class.

I would really like to see the class upgraded in such a way that it does not cause either "type" to suffer for their style choice. That being said, I also hope that general changes to melee also allow other melee classes more fredom in their weapon choices!

Lost
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Mon May 23, 2005 10:25 pm

Waelos wrote:Mori - I appreciate your logic, and think it has some sort of merit. . . but honestly, I don't think you can accomplish what you desire through the method you've posted. I know of so many mages and clerics that have -100+ AC. . .if you restricted rangers to that kind of eq, they'd still have the AC . . . just with different Ansi. Don't forget also that rangers have barkskin. . . which is 30+ ac right there.

Lost


Quite true. It is my experience from playing a druid that there is a tradeoff of hps vs. AC, however, and I wanted to bring that into play. Of course, I can still get decent AC, but I deliberately rolled for decent agi, and also as a druid my barkskin is worth somewhere around 50ac. Still, I wonder if some sort of hit point boost to rangers would be worth further nerfing their barkskin, and thereby reducing their effectiveness when EXPing while increasing their survivability in zones.

Another, perhaps more important side effect of priest flagging would be the somewhat better saves. It's quite often that we lose rangers to area spells; indeed, that was the entire basis behind putting in Nature's Blessing, and from what I hear from rangers, that hasn't entirely fixed the problem. Feel free to disagree if your experience bears a different story.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'

Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'

Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Mon May 23, 2005 11:50 pm

Mori -

Actually I have to say that my experience is quite different. . . Since nature's blessing came into the game I rarely am the first to die due to an area spell. I think that has a lot to do with being elven and having nature's blessing. I believe that elves have a sort of innate spell damage reduction. Couple that with a further reduction with NB and a beefy spell save (and prots vs. elemental damage) and you've got quite a nice defense vs spells. In fact, most clouds do 50-100 points to Weylarii. (which is a far cry from the 200+ average I used to take as a half elven ranger!). Times might have changed but I think that is significant.

If we're trying to make the ranger more 3.5ish, then I think we need to make the ranger more rogueish (which is what the developers at WOTC seem to have done). . . they get evasion at some point, in addition to most of the skils (and more skill points) that a rogue does (hide, sneak, etc.).

I think the answer to what you're trying to do is to impose a weight limit to equipment much like the monk had back in the day. If your load is above light, you lose certain abilities, or have penalties to your combat skills. If your worn equipment goes over a total (25?) or individual eq is over a certain number then the same penalties can be applied. That will prevent them from wearing "heavy" armor.

However, certain ridiculously weighted items would need to be changed (windsong, swiftwind? weight 14 scimitars?! boggle).

So, I think the premise is good. . . and would have to come with a heck of a lot of "benefit" if you're going to restrict the equipment like that. . . but overall I like the concept =)

Would certainly make equipping a grey elf ranger more difficult due to them being weaklings!


Lost

Return to “T2 Ideas Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests