Dark Legacy MUD Forum
http://forums.dark-legacy.com/phpBB3/

Druids and Rangers
http://forums.dark-legacy.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=41		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  Quintos [ Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Shapeshift seems like more of a druid spell I think. I really like my ideas more. :P
Author:  Avestifal [ Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:26 am ]
Post subject: 
your idea's? you ganked the first two from me :P you just added superfluous words to them :P
Author:  Quintos [ Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:42 am ]
Post subject: 
Avestifal wrote:
your idea's? you ganked the first two from me :P you just added superfluous words to them :P


It's the American way ;)
Author:  Vogar Eol [ Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:09 am ]
Post subject: 
The main problems with Rangers seem to revolve around the fact that over time, their skills and spells have only been taken away from them. Only major addition I remember for rangers is the config for tracking.

They have had picklock taken away. They have had detrap reduced to 50%. Some of their spells went away (detect hidden). In the same time period, rogues, paladins, druids, and psionists gained spells and/or skills. Why then would ANYONE want to be a ranger?

Personally I feel that rangers need to be discussed seperate from druids, and druids seperate from rangers. If they are so darn close to one another that they are spoken of together, then one class should be deleted. I will continue my discussions under topics on Druids and Rangers seperately.
Author:  Skeletal [ Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:45 am ]
Post subject: 
To the people saying that Rangers shouldnt have a good sword %, Havent you ever seen LotR? Legolas POWNED with those swords of his, right now the % is only 80 and i believ it should be 90, and bow should also be 99. I agree with the multi shot idea and the poision/fire arrows as well. Its about time rangers can hold there own in PvP combate. :)
Author:  Chavez [ Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:46 am ]
Post subject: 
Have you ever read LotR? The movie is full of mistakes and doesn't mention alot of details (which is logical), but you only notice them when you've read the book... First of all, Legolas is a Wood Elf, a prince from Demsterwold, his father is king Thranduil. Second, Aragorn on the contrary IS a ranger who is the rightful heir to the throne of Gondor, but chooses not to claim it (at first).
But these things are details, and your point about the ranger is correct, they are underappreciated (if that word exists :p)
Author:  lingolas [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
i would like to see rangers overpowered from a distance, but get screwed up close. Basically, turning them into archers. Maybe we should give them powerful offensive long range offensive skills. Those skills wouldbe useless when the enemy is up close.
Author:  Chilliwack [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
i just really want to see bows being useful, atm, theyre pointless... they really dont do much damage... like, i mean getting a shaft with a big metal head stuck in you (grow up) would kinda hurt... more than the 20-40 damage ive seen on bows
Author:  Quintos [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Bows are powerful as they currently are, but I would like to see them changed. Keep weapon percents as they are, but have the range on a bow be decided by a new skill. Rangers would get this skill the highest followed by rogues and warriors. A ranger with this skill maxed should have a max range of 360 (lich-bone crossbow of speed's range, if I'm not mistaken). I would also suggest a minimum range for ranged weapons to be used. Start with ranged weapons only useful from 100 to 150 feet, at closer ranges, an unskilled bow user cannot effectively track his or her target. This number should get smaller and go down to either 25 or 10 feet for a ranger. At very close range, melee should be forced, unless Celeborn adds in a new archer class that relies on ranged weaponry as their only weapon.
Author:  lingolas [ Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
It would be nice if bows and arrows cause bleeding. Also, if an archer were to aim at a player's leg and successfully hit it, it would cause cripple and reduces the enemy's advancing speed. If both legs are crippled, the advancing speed is reduced to 4x. I think that archers are not really suppposed to be doing alot of damage, but they are supposed to be annoying. They are supposed to hit and run as in real life. Once the the cavalry catches up to them, they are royally screwed. However, if you are their optimal range, you're screwed.
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/