I am sure most people would agree that rangers need a bit of a boost. They have nothing at all that they can call there own. Skills and spells have only been taken away from them over the years, and none have been given in replacement. Only thing rangers have is Track, and hardly anyone uses that anymore.
Rangers are rogues that can't hide, sneak, or picklocks anymore. They also had detrap taken down to 50%.
Rangers are warriors that can't spin, and don't get equilibrium, or headbutt.
Rangers are Druids that don't have anything near the magic ability, nor do they get the druid only spells.
Rangers are Paladins that have no divine complexty or paladin spells, and can't use holy avengers.
Rangers are Mages without any real offensive magic, and without the complexities.
Rangers are Clerics without the ability to use defensive magics well.
Rangers are Psionists without the complexities.
Rangers are Bards that can't sing.
That is all a ranger is currently. They are EVERY class, but in an inferior way. Rangers are the guys no one wants to be. How do we fix this?
Rangers Only (no Druids allowed)
Started by Vogar Eol on Dec 02, 2004 · 59 posts in thread
Vogar Eol (#1)
Vogar Eol (#2)
Now that I have decided that Rangers need a little boost. I should probably tell you what I would do to help them.
Give rangers back detrap to 100% (rangers hunt in the wilds, and would both make, and disarm traps)
Give them the ability to sneak around, without needing to hide. (Don't give them the hide ability)
Raise their abilities in all ranged weapons to 99%, decrease their basic melee weapons (swords, dagger, ect...) to 90% or lower.
Change the way missiles and quivers are crafted. Make quivers simple containers, and have each individual missile crafted by itself. Higher the level, higher the damage. Higher the quality, less chance the arrow will break on a hit or miss. (arrows stay in corpses, so they would be reusable).
Allow individual missiles to be combine with vials, to do various things on impact. Since it would take one vial per missile, it would be costly to do, but missile are salvagable from corpses if they weren't the "Death blow" missile.
Change "shoot" to work like: shoot <ammo> (mob) <target>. This would allow you to choose which missile in your quiver or inventory to use.
Increase the number of sockets on bows to four sockets, to match that of staffs. After all, they call them "Bow Staves" don't they?
Allow missile weapons to be used as melee weapons (poor ones) via jab, thrust, and lunge. This should do blunt damage, but be inferior to all other blunt weapons.
Increase the power of crossbows, and the lag they create. Arbalists sometimes had 900 pound pulls or better. Compare that to your 125 pound pull on a good longbow. Which would take longer to load? Which would do more damage?
Make loading crossbows a seperate mechanism.
shoot mob
Your crossbow is currently not loaded.
Load crossbow bolt
You begin winding the gears to load your crossbow.
You a crossbows cable slips into its notch.
You place a bolt inside a crossbow.
This would allow you to carry a loaded crossbow for a quick shot, but would take a lot of time to load in battle. This would be an appropriate balance for a large increase in power over what they have now.
I also think that Rangers and Rogues should get a skill called "Throwing" which allows them to decrease the lag they have on thrown items and weapons.
Those changes, in my mind would make rangers useful, and an interesting class that is unique.
Give rangers back detrap to 100% (rangers hunt in the wilds, and would both make, and disarm traps)
Give them the ability to sneak around, without needing to hide. (Don't give them the hide ability)
Raise their abilities in all ranged weapons to 99%, decrease their basic melee weapons (swords, dagger, ect...) to 90% or lower.
Change the way missiles and quivers are crafted. Make quivers simple containers, and have each individual missile crafted by itself. Higher the level, higher the damage. Higher the quality, less chance the arrow will break on a hit or miss. (arrows stay in corpses, so they would be reusable).
Allow individual missiles to be combine with vials, to do various things on impact. Since it would take one vial per missile, it would be costly to do, but missile are salvagable from corpses if they weren't the "Death blow" missile.
Change "shoot" to work like: shoot <ammo> (mob) <target>. This would allow you to choose which missile in your quiver or inventory to use.
Increase the number of sockets on bows to four sockets, to match that of staffs. After all, they call them "Bow Staves" don't they?
Allow missile weapons to be used as melee weapons (poor ones) via jab, thrust, and lunge. This should do blunt damage, but be inferior to all other blunt weapons.
Increase the power of crossbows, and the lag they create. Arbalists sometimes had 900 pound pulls or better. Compare that to your 125 pound pull on a good longbow. Which would take longer to load? Which would do more damage?
Make loading crossbows a seperate mechanism.
shoot mob
Your crossbow is currently not loaded.
Load crossbow bolt
You begin winding the gears to load your crossbow.
You a crossbows cable slips into its notch.
You place a bolt inside a crossbow.
This would allow you to carry a loaded crossbow for a quick shot, but would take a lot of time to load in battle. This would be an appropriate balance for a large increase in power over what they have now.
I also think that Rangers and Rogues should get a skill called "Throwing" which allows them to decrease the lag they have on thrown items and weapons.
Those changes, in my mind would make rangers useful, and an interesting class that is unique.
lingolas (#3)
i do agree that something needs to be done to help out our rangers;however, i do not want to see a ranger who can pick lock as well as a rogue or detrap as well. I do not want to see a ranger who can fight as well as a warrior. I do not want to see rangers able to hide and sneak like a rogue either. These are skills that define rogues and make them unique.
We should give rangers some skills that make the unique in their own way. I suggest giving them improvement with arrows and bows.
also extra damage vs normal beasts if the skill hunting is high.
also give them a new skill called "trap." this will allow a ranger to set traps. This will greatly counter the rogue's detrapping skill.
I understand that this is illogical. if you can make a trap why cant you detrap it? but for the purpose of balance among classes i think that it will work out fine.
what do you guys suggest?
We should give rangers some skills that make the unique in their own way. I suggest giving them improvement with arrows and bows.
also extra damage vs normal beasts if the skill hunting is high.
also give them a new skill called "trap." this will allow a ranger to set traps. This will greatly counter the rogue's detrapping skill.
I understand that this is illogical. if you can make a trap why cant you detrap it? but for the purpose of balance among classes i think that it will work out fine.
what do you guys suggest?
Vogar Eol (#4)
One small thing, NEVER did I say give rangers "hide" nor the skill "pick lock".
Sneaking around silently _IS_ one of the things Rangers do. For purposes of balance I left out Hide, so that Rogues would be better. Sneaking into a room is all well and good, untill the mob looks at the room, or another enters the room and clobbers you. It would be sneak without the ability to hide.
Why do rogues have the detrap skill? Do rogues set traps against animals? No. Rangers do, and as such should have the skill to take them appart. Rogues are commonly thought of as thieves and tomb raiders, thats why they have the skill. Its also why they have lockpick.
Rangers already can detrap, but only to 50%. When its that low, it basically down to "Do I cut the red wire? Or the Blue wire?" chance of setting even the easiest traps off. Don't even think of taking appart a complex trap. This skill should either be increased to 99% or removed from rangers. I vote increased, as there is no reason they shouldn't be able to detrap. It takes nothing away from the usefulness of Rogues.
Why not give Rangers lockpick too? Because where have you ever really seen locks in the untamed wilderness? Rangers should be completely ignorant of the ability to pick locks.
Limiting improvements to arrows and bows is foolish. All that would do is make the other missile weapons decorations for your citadel. All missile weapons should be the same for Rangers. It should be the rangers choice as to which one he perfers most. Rangers are to Missile weapons, what Warriors are to melee weapons.
If your still worried about rangers getting sneak, and detrap, consider basic smaug. Rangers had: Hide, Sneak, Detrap, AND Lockpick. Yes, I know that DL is not basic smaug.
The way I see it, Rangers shouldn't have multistrike. Rogue's purpose to to add more to the exotic/dagger/talonous melee skills. Ranger's should be to add missile weapons, and range based skills. Does Warrior share its Spin skill with its caster cousin the Paladin? The why should Rogue share its Multistrike with its cousin the Ranger?
Sneaking around silently _IS_ one of the things Rangers do. For purposes of balance I left out Hide, so that Rogues would be better. Sneaking into a room is all well and good, untill the mob looks at the room, or another enters the room and clobbers you. It would be sneak without the ability to hide.
Why do rogues have the detrap skill? Do rogues set traps against animals? No. Rangers do, and as such should have the skill to take them appart. Rogues are commonly thought of as thieves and tomb raiders, thats why they have the skill. Its also why they have lockpick.
Rangers already can detrap, but only to 50%. When its that low, it basically down to "Do I cut the red wire? Or the Blue wire?" chance of setting even the easiest traps off. Don't even think of taking appart a complex trap. This skill should either be increased to 99% or removed from rangers. I vote increased, as there is no reason they shouldn't be able to detrap. It takes nothing away from the usefulness of Rogues.
Why not give Rangers lockpick too? Because where have you ever really seen locks in the untamed wilderness? Rangers should be completely ignorant of the ability to pick locks.
Limiting improvements to arrows and bows is foolish. All that would do is make the other missile weapons decorations for your citadel. All missile weapons should be the same for Rangers. It should be the rangers choice as to which one he perfers most. Rangers are to Missile weapons, what Warriors are to melee weapons.
If your still worried about rangers getting sneak, and detrap, consider basic smaug. Rangers had: Hide, Sneak, Detrap, AND Lockpick. Yes, I know that DL is not basic smaug.
The way I see it, Rangers shouldn't have multistrike. Rogue's purpose to to add more to the exotic/dagger/talonous melee skills. Ranger's should be to add missile weapons, and range based skills. Does Warrior share its Spin skill with its caster cousin the Paladin? The why should Rogue share its Multistrike with its cousin the Ranger?
weems (#5)
Yes, vogar, but giving rangers lockpick/detrap to 99% is the same as giving a Paladin equilibrium to a warriors max percent. i dont see that happening either.
Vogar Eol (#6)
Once again, let me state that I NEVER said to give rangers lockpick.
They did use to be able to pick locks. That is what I stated. A lot of old rangers PICKED the class because they could hide, sneak, and lockpick. Detrap wasn't even a slightly useful skill at that time.
They CAN currently detrap at 50%. That is completely and utterly useless. That means even on the easiest traps its down to "Do I cut the red wire, or the blue wire?".
Its not going to unbalance the game if rangers can suddenly detrap at 100%. All the good stuff in Epics is locked anyway, or can be carried away to be detrapped in a safe room. Why not give a ranger a useful skill then instead of half of one?
They did use to be able to pick locks. That is what I stated. A lot of old rangers PICKED the class because they could hide, sneak, and lockpick. Detrap wasn't even a slightly useful skill at that time.
They CAN currently detrap at 50%. That is completely and utterly useless. That means even on the easiest traps its down to "Do I cut the red wire, or the blue wire?".
Its not going to unbalance the game if rangers can suddenly detrap at 100%. All the good stuff in Epics is locked anyway, or can be carried away to be detrapped in a safe room. Why not give a ranger a useful skill then instead of half of one?
Isabelle (#7)
if your going to make rangers better, you cant do it by giving them other classes skills, i'm all for hide, but it cant be hide like a rogue.
i'm against picklock and detrap
as long as multiclasses exist, rangers will never be able to be given their full uniqueness.
we could give rangers the ability to charm creatures with racepools of 'beast' or 'animal' allowing them to make like their own tanks or something, it would be a skill, that needs to be concentrated upon, with the animal either failing or succeeding the check, succeeding means it attacks the ranger immediately.
one charmed creature max.
they could also get bonuses when fighting in 'material leather' - from crafted leather armor.
rangers would continue to get bonuses to ranged weapons, and would get weapon skills comparable to a warriors.
(but the warrior would still get the advantage as far as brute force goes)
--->
rangers could also get new skills, which depend upon the use of ranged weapons, such as skills which allow the customization of arrows, such as arrows with specific attack or damage bonuses, and/or arrows which do a specific type of elemental damage.
- this would be a ranger only set of skills, which would only be fully effective at level 50.
i would press the fact that i would not want any loopholes existing which could allow the ranger from giving these specially crafted/enchanted bows/arrows to other non-ranger players for use. It would have to be /solely/ ranger use only.
i'm against picklock and detrap
as long as multiclasses exist, rangers will never be able to be given their full uniqueness.
we could give rangers the ability to charm creatures with racepools of 'beast' or 'animal' allowing them to make like their own tanks or something, it would be a skill, that needs to be concentrated upon, with the animal either failing or succeeding the check, succeeding means it attacks the ranger immediately.
one charmed creature max.
they could also get bonuses when fighting in 'material leather' - from crafted leather armor.
rangers would continue to get bonuses to ranged weapons, and would get weapon skills comparable to a warriors.
(but the warrior would still get the advantage as far as brute force goes)
--->
rangers could also get new skills, which depend upon the use of ranged weapons, such as skills which allow the customization of arrows, such as arrows with specific attack or damage bonuses, and/or arrows which do a specific type of elemental damage.
- this would be a ranger only set of skills, which would only be fully effective at level 50.
i would press the fact that i would not want any loopholes existing which could allow the ranger from giving these specially crafted/enchanted bows/arrows to other non-ranger players for use. It would have to be /solely/ ranger use only.
Navith (#8)
a skill similar to multistrike, except with a (X)bow would also make sense on a ranger, fire more then 1 arrow/bolt at once. Multishoot, same advantages and disadvantages as multistrike, maybe one or 2 less shots since there's already the ranged advantage.
-Arcane Ranger
-Arcane Ranger
Isabelle (#9)
i'll disagree with the multistrike arrows/bolts
melee weapons maybe, but not arrows/bolts
melee weapons maybe, but not arrows/bolts
Kiasyn (#10)
why?
Isabelle (#11)
because its a bad idea, you cannot fire a bunch of bolts or arrows at once
those who would argue with me need to pick up a bow and try it out
(p.s - make sure no-one is within 180 degrees of your line of sight)
those who would argue with me need to pick up a bow and try it out
(p.s - make sure no-one is within 180 degrees of your line of sight)
weems (#12)
nor can you attack 4 times at once, or 8 times at once with different monsters. pick up a sword and try it out. you also cant conjure up fireballs and fling them at people, or make super portals that hold 5997 items.
realism pretty much goes out the window with any mud, isabelle.
realism pretty much goes out the window with any mud, isabelle.
Isabelle (#13)
yup, but thats magic, magic defies common logic.
skills which are implemented into a mud, from real life are generally used with real life rules, to allow a person to relate to it.
(which is why we have humans, and creatures with arms and legs, and eyes and such)
multistrike is a skill i would change for only rapiers (which /is/ possible to use)
but i have no say over that, so, all i can do is try to point out newly submitted ideas, which i do not like, and i dont like the idea of 10 arrows being fired from a bow at once, every 3 seconds.
or even 2 arrows
skills which are implemented into a mud, from real life are generally used with real life rules, to allow a person to relate to it.
(which is why we have humans, and creatures with arms and legs, and eyes and such)
multistrike is a skill i would change for only rapiers (which /is/ possible to use)
but i have no say over that, so, all i can do is try to point out newly submitted ideas, which i do not like, and i dont like the idea of 10 arrows being fired from a bow at once, every 3 seconds.
or even 2 arrows
weems (#14)
It is NOT possible to attack somebody 4 times within one tenth of one second, even with a rapier. I have taken fencing lessons before for kicks, and watched professional fencing matches. Sure, they are fast...
But not THAT fast.
I say screw the attempts at realism. EMBRACE THE UNREALITY!
But not THAT fast.
I say screw the attempts at realism. EMBRACE THE UNREALITY!
Isabelle (#15)
i would replace multistrike with just 'big swishy attack' that does more damage, but thats me.
and.. my friend Don teaches the rapier, he can move that thing pretty damn fast, i do remember blinking once, and missing his fight
i wont disagree that 10 attacks severing off limbs is silly
but slashing someone up real bad in like a second or two, thats possible
Edit: don't you need two weapons for multistrike anyways?
So right off, two attacks at once seems possible to sever at least two limbs)
and.. my friend Don teaches the rapier, he can move that thing pretty damn fast, i do remember blinking once, and missing his fight
i wont disagree that 10 attacks severing off limbs is silly
but slashing someone up real bad in like a second or two, thats possible
Edit: don't you need two weapons for multistrike anyways?
So right off, two attacks at once seems possible to sever at least two limbs)
Kiasyn (#16)
Specially designed bows that allow you to fire two arrows at once
Navith (#17)
well i can understand your logic isabelle, but i agree with weems. that's what i made my idea based on, the in-game multistrike.
or as kiasyn said, new bows specifily made to shoot multiple projectiles(there's definitely xbows in rl for that), but that's a different topic.
or as kiasyn said, new bows specifily made to shoot multiple projectiles(there's definitely xbows in rl for that), but that's a different topic.
Vogar Eol (#18)
Isabelle, you are aware that rangers DO have Detrap. They get it to 50% ( a completely and utterly useless bonus ). They also have multistrike ( a skill that was given to a different class to boost it ).
I am not saying to give rangers Detrap, so much as to increase their skill in detrap to make it a useable skill. If you would rather take it away and given them something else, fine. BUT actually give them somethings else. Rangers have only lost skills over the years. Only major thing they gained was Multistrike, and rogue got that too.
I am not saying to give rangers Detrap, so much as to increase their skill in detrap to make it a useable skill. If you would rather take it away and given them something else, fine. BUT actually give them somethings else. Rangers have only lost skills over the years. Only major thing they gained was Multistrike, and rogue got that too.
Isabelle (#19)
yup, but i'm saying they shouldnt have it at all - i dont see the logic in them getting the ability to remove bombs from chests, it doesnt make sense. I wasn't aware that bomb removal was a normally primary ability of a person who spends their time hunting woodland creatures
however, in place of total removal of detrap, i would propose giving them a 'trap skill'
which could be something you might use in epics, setup some traps, call in the aggressive mobiles, and watch them get caught, taking damage, maybe a range of different traps, with different elemental types of damage.
- and each different type of trap would require certain resources for them to first work right, like a piece of mitrill ore, and a few strange herbs, maybe the meat of some uncommon beast.
- all of which would be consumed when creating the trap
however, in place of total removal of detrap, i would propose giving them a 'trap skill'
which could be something you might use in epics, setup some traps, call in the aggressive mobiles, and watch them get caught, taking damage, maybe a range of different traps, with different elemental types of damage.
- and each different type of trap would require certain resources for them to first work right, like a piece of mitrill ore, and a few strange herbs, maybe the meat of some uncommon beast.
- all of which would be consumed when creating the trap
Vogar Eol (#20)
Alright.... so Rangers can make bombs but not take them appart? But a Rogue can take bombs appart, but not put them together? I really don't see your logic there at all.
I could see something like this:
Class, Trap, Detrap
Ranger, 100%, 50%
Rogue, 50%, 100%
That makes much more sense. Also, you refered to traps in DL as "Bombs" yet most of them have to do with much more simple things:
Closing of exits
Snarring
Ring of bells
Zapping of Wands
Shattering of Jugs (holding elementals)
Release of Deadfalls
Release of Blades under preasure
Any woodsmen that can trap animals can certain understand how to take such things as the above appart. Unless of course the woodsmen does not use anything but the simplest pre-made traps he bought at the trading post. But then is he really a woodsmen?
I could see something like this:
Class, Trap, Detrap
Ranger, 100%, 50%
Rogue, 50%, 100%
That makes much more sense. Also, you refered to traps in DL as "Bombs" yet most of them have to do with much more simple things:
Closing of exits
Snarring
Ring of bells
Zapping of Wands
Shattering of Jugs (holding elementals)
Release of Deadfalls
Release of Blades under preasure
Any woodsmen that can trap animals can certain understand how to take such things as the above appart. Unless of course the woodsmen does not use anything but the simplest pre-made traps he bought at the trading post. But then is he really a woodsmen?
Isabelle (#21)
my idea was not to be limited to how things are tho vogar
but rather to make a distinction between what is happening
i like rogues picking locks, and disarming strange mechanisms, i also like them using poisons (at varying levels of strength and difficulty)
making traps? while i might agree, with the help of a blacksmith, i'm sure they /could/ make a trap, in dark legacy, i think having cool poisons would be quite fair enough
i like rangers making strange traps designed to snare creatures or people, but not to create complex mechanisms, not to make locks, and not to be able to pick locks, and not be able to pick the traps from strange mechanisms.
Unless you make traps have two classifications
1) made by a rogue (most epic traps)
2) made by a ranger (traps which involve some sort of ensnarement)
let rogues be able to disarm rogue traps
let rangers be able to disarm ranger traps
but rather to make a distinction between what is happening
i like rogues picking locks, and disarming strange mechanisms, i also like them using poisons (at varying levels of strength and difficulty)
making traps? while i might agree, with the help of a blacksmith, i'm sure they /could/ make a trap, in dark legacy, i think having cool poisons would be quite fair enough
i like rangers making strange traps designed to snare creatures or people, but not to create complex mechanisms, not to make locks, and not to be able to pick locks, and not be able to pick the traps from strange mechanisms.
Unless you make traps have two classifications
1) made by a rogue (most epic traps)
2) made by a ranger (traps which involve some sort of ensnarement)
let rogues be able to disarm rogue traps
let rangers be able to disarm ranger traps
Jorelani (#22)
Plz add stats an m4d l00tZ 2 rangr!!!!!!111
Quintos (#23)
Just an idea, perhaps rangers should get a skill which does one of the following:
Improves balance regeneration like equilibrium
Slows balance drain like inner peace
Raises attackroll
Raises mobility
I would opt for either an equilbrium style skill, possibly equilibrium at a lower percent than warrior, or a skill to raise attackroll. I would think that they would be able to gain their balance rather quickly from the skills of running through the woodlands, probably running up partially-fallen trees and going up into the canopies to get a good shot at their prey. I would also think they would work on their precision with weapons in order to hunt. I would most likely save a mobilty raising skill to rogues, although they already have one...in a sense...tumble. A slower balance drain could also come from their great endurance that they would gain from moving through the forest.
Any of these skills would make rangers a much stronger class, especially a melee support class.
Improves balance regeneration like equilibrium
Slows balance drain like inner peace
Raises attackroll
Raises mobility
I would opt for either an equilbrium style skill, possibly equilibrium at a lower percent than warrior, or a skill to raise attackroll. I would think that they would be able to gain their balance rather quickly from the skills of running through the woodlands, probably running up partially-fallen trees and going up into the canopies to get a good shot at their prey. I would also think they would work on their precision with weapons in order to hunt. I would most likely save a mobilty raising skill to rogues, although they already have one...in a sense...tumble. A slower balance drain could also come from their great endurance that they would gain from moving through the forest.
Any of these skills would make rangers a much stronger class, especially a melee support class.
Jorelani (#24)
Then pick a class that has these types of benefits. Just because you want RNG/MAGE/CLERIC doesn't mean Ranger should get all the skills it's missing out from not choosing WAR as one of your classes.Quintos wrote:Just an idea, perhaps rangers should get a skill which does one of the following:
Improves balance regeneration like equilibrium
Slows balance drain like inner peace
Raises attackroll
Raises mobility
You people seem to think that because one class lacks the skills another does, some compensation should be made.
Get real. If you want a fighting machine, pick warrior; want the diversity of a ranger, pick a ranger and lose out on some hard-core battle skills. Simple as that. If you want an ass-kicking ranger, pick warrior as another class. Don't ask to be handed the skills a class doesn't normally get.
If every class were exactly comparable to each other, what would be the point of multi-classing? Seriously? Tri-avs are already incredibly powerful, and you want more? This needs to be dropped, because quite frankly, all classes are whacky and picking them apart one at a time is a waste of time (and counter-productive)... much less the 'stimulating' arguements brought on by it.
Quintos (#25)
Err...I don't play a ranger and I don't plan on it, but from what I've heard they're severely underpowered. I was just giving possible ideas for what they could get.
Arureal (#26)
Now just to get this straight, my next class will be ranger, whether it is changed or not. That said, here are my thoughts on rangers.
Disarming Traps is a skill that rangers would have, but not to the extent of a rogue would, as a ranger’s experience with traps is more limited in scope. A score of 65 to 75 tops would reflect this well. They do have an understanding of many types of traps like deadfalls, trip wires, snares, pits, just not as much as ye old rogue.
Picking locks is a skill that rangers would possess little to none of, perhaps a score of 20 to 25 max, if that, and then only because so many people are used to rangers having this skill.
On the subject of the rangers’ ability move stealthy. Unlike a thief, their skill is related to the outdoors, not cities and dungeons. To reflect this they should have fewer random encounters on the world map, and a reduced movement cost as opposed to other classes.
When it comes to melee, I have no complaints with the class; it is about where it should be. I do like the idea put forth that quivers should be containers that will hold the arrows of your choice. I also like the concept of crossbows doing more damage, and then they must be reloaded. Very realistic, and brings some strategy to missile weapons. Bow use should not be speeded up, it takes several tenths of a second to draw an arrow from its quiver, and several more to draw and release it. Only a few archers in the world have been proficient in this fast of a shot, even Howard Hill had his limits, people watch too many movies. But these last ones are not just ranger issues.
I will await more comment before I continue as I am suffering from sleep deprivation at the moment.
Arureal
High-Lord of Lowbies
Disarming Traps is a skill that rangers would have, but not to the extent of a rogue would, as a ranger’s experience with traps is more limited in scope. A score of 65 to 75 tops would reflect this well. They do have an understanding of many types of traps like deadfalls, trip wires, snares, pits, just not as much as ye old rogue.
Picking locks is a skill that rangers would possess little to none of, perhaps a score of 20 to 25 max, if that, and then only because so many people are used to rangers having this skill.
On the subject of the rangers’ ability move stealthy. Unlike a thief, their skill is related to the outdoors, not cities and dungeons. To reflect this they should have fewer random encounters on the world map, and a reduced movement cost as opposed to other classes.
When it comes to melee, I have no complaints with the class; it is about where it should be. I do like the idea put forth that quivers should be containers that will hold the arrows of your choice. I also like the concept of crossbows doing more damage, and then they must be reloaded. Very realistic, and brings some strategy to missile weapons. Bow use should not be speeded up, it takes several tenths of a second to draw an arrow from its quiver, and several more to draw and release it. Only a few archers in the world have been proficient in this fast of a shot, even Howard Hill had his limits, people watch too many movies. But these last ones are not just ranger issues.
I will await more comment before I continue as I am suffering from sleep deprivation at the moment.
Arureal
High-Lord of Lowbies
Isabelle (#27)
everything you posted Arureal seems to be fair.
i have no problem with any of those above mentioned ideas.
i like the less encounters on worldmap idea
i have no problem with any of those above mentioned ideas.
i like the less encounters on worldmap idea
weems (#28)
Realism doesn't matter.
Quintos (#29)
It doesn't!? Come on, can't we all fly and breath fire at people while distorting time and space them and warping their form just before they come at us and spin around in circles 5 times in a second, cutting off all of our limbs?weems wrote:Realism doesn't matter.
weems (#30)
You are my hero.Quintos wrote:It doesn't!? Come on, can't we all fly and breath fire at people while distorting time and space them and warping their form just before they come at us and spin around in circles 5 times in a second, cutting off all of our limbs?weems wrote:Realism doesn't matter.
Vogar Eol (#31)
Arureal....
I am completely surprised you actually know who Howard Hill is. Howard Hill was the first well known archer of his time to go back to the longbow, and the use of wooden arrows. He did however perfer to use compressed wood for the shafts. He even has taken down elephant with a longbow. That aside, lets talk about what you stated about weapon speed for bows.
First, you do realise that mud time is NOT real time? The mud day is only eight hours long. Taken into account that the average missile weapon has a fire rate of about 4 to 5 seconds, thats about 12-15 seconds per shot. That is more then enough time for even a beginner to aim and fire. 150 pound longbows were NOT held that long.
And yes, bows were made to be atleast 150 pounds if they were ment to pierce armour. Skilled archers were able to put two arrows into the target at one time, one via shooting the arrow in a high arc, the other dead on. Since the first arrow to a longer route both hit at the same instant, one from the front, one from above. Both arrows can not effectively be blocked.
Now if archers that trained all their lives to use a bow can put a two arrows on a target at the same instant, how long do you think their aim to fire time is? Did they take and wet a finger, stick it in the air? Did they grab a little dust and sprinkle it? Did they then carefully notch the arrow, draw it slowly, carefully hold that 150 pound bow for about 5 more seconds, then release it? Did they repeat this whole thing for the second shot? Or did they draw, pull and release all as one motion, trusting to years and years of practice?
I am completely surprised you actually know who Howard Hill is. Howard Hill was the first well known archer of his time to go back to the longbow, and the use of wooden arrows. He did however perfer to use compressed wood for the shafts. He even has taken down elephant with a longbow. That aside, lets talk about what you stated about weapon speed for bows.
First, you do realise that mud time is NOT real time? The mud day is only eight hours long. Taken into account that the average missile weapon has a fire rate of about 4 to 5 seconds, thats about 12-15 seconds per shot. That is more then enough time for even a beginner to aim and fire. 150 pound longbows were NOT held that long.
And yes, bows were made to be atleast 150 pounds if they were ment to pierce armour. Skilled archers were able to put two arrows into the target at one time, one via shooting the arrow in a high arc, the other dead on. Since the first arrow to a longer route both hit at the same instant, one from the front, one from above. Both arrows can not effectively be blocked.
Now if archers that trained all their lives to use a bow can put a two arrows on a target at the same instant, how long do you think their aim to fire time is? Did they take and wet a finger, stick it in the air? Did they grab a little dust and sprinkle it? Did they then carefully notch the arrow, draw it slowly, carefully hold that 150 pound bow for about 5 more seconds, then release it? Did they repeat this whole thing for the second shot? Or did they draw, pull and release all as one motion, trusting to years and years of practice?
Quintos (#32)
After looking up a couple facts on Howard Hill I found that he set a record of shooting an arrow 391 yards. This is well over 1000 feet. Seeing as how he felt modern bows took away the fun from archery, I would assume this was using a longbow. In the game, we can only shoot a longbow from only 300 feet. I am aware that his record of over 1000 feet was probably without great accuracy due to its arnge, but why can't we effectively shoot arrows up to 500 feet if we are highly skilled rangers?
Arureal (#33)
Vogar Eol…
First let me say first that I agree with everything you said, latter I will explain why I said what I did in my prior post. The reason I know who Howard Hill is because I am an old fart; he was one of my childhood heroes. I am a certified gunsmith in the state of Kentucky, which means I had to be a machinist first. I was in the SCA from the mid 70’s to mid 80’s. Started playing D&D in the 70’s and started being a DM in 1980. I am an ex Marine, my unit was the Thundering Third Herd 3/155 2nd F.A.G. 2nd Mar. Div. it was disbanded not long after the Vietnam conflict ended. We have a lot in common. Howard Hill did a lot of research with materials for bows. He was also very fond of a laminate with Yew wood at the core and Japanese bamboo for the rest. He even started a plantation for these materials to be grown in the U.S. for his use. Howard Hill took all the Big 5 of Africa and still holds most of the world records with a bow. Most of the bows he used for this ranged from 145lb’s and up in draw weight. Most were also special designs that allowed an overdraw so arrows of +40 inch’s in length could be used for greater penetration. Other than big game hunting, he used more standard bow’s designs from 120lb’s to 175lb’s draw weight. His style of bow use did not hold the bow back at full draw but for the briefest instant, the style I use, its all done in one smooth motion.
So yes shots can be made like you said, even that lob 1 arrow and the next straight at the target so they both hit at once, and at a faster rate of fire than we now have. A look at English history will show how effective well trained longbowmen can be. But I did not state this view, why?
A look at English history will also show that this level of skill was hard to maintain due to the long hours of practice needed. They even had to pass laws requiring archers to practice in order to try and keep them at this level of skill. It did not work. I am not the shot I used to be either.
Because the Ranger is not a pure melee class, I did not feel they had the time to maintain this degree of skill with a bow. If someone were to propose a pure melee class Archer, it would be a whole different story. They would have the time to devote in bow use to reach and maintain these skill levels.
Arureal
High Lord of Lowbies
First let me say first that I agree with everything you said, latter I will explain why I said what I did in my prior post. The reason I know who Howard Hill is because I am an old fart; he was one of my childhood heroes. I am a certified gunsmith in the state of Kentucky, which means I had to be a machinist first. I was in the SCA from the mid 70’s to mid 80’s. Started playing D&D in the 70’s and started being a DM in 1980. I am an ex Marine, my unit was the Thundering Third Herd 3/155 2nd F.A.G. 2nd Mar. Div. it was disbanded not long after the Vietnam conflict ended. We have a lot in common. Howard Hill did a lot of research with materials for bows. He was also very fond of a laminate with Yew wood at the core and Japanese bamboo for the rest. He even started a plantation for these materials to be grown in the U.S. for his use. Howard Hill took all the Big 5 of Africa and still holds most of the world records with a bow. Most of the bows he used for this ranged from 145lb’s and up in draw weight. Most were also special designs that allowed an overdraw so arrows of +40 inch’s in length could be used for greater penetration. Other than big game hunting, he used more standard bow’s designs from 120lb’s to 175lb’s draw weight. His style of bow use did not hold the bow back at full draw but for the briefest instant, the style I use, its all done in one smooth motion.
So yes shots can be made like you said, even that lob 1 arrow and the next straight at the target so they both hit at once, and at a faster rate of fire than we now have. A look at English history will show how effective well trained longbowmen can be. But I did not state this view, why?
A look at English history will also show that this level of skill was hard to maintain due to the long hours of practice needed. They even had to pass laws requiring archers to practice in order to try and keep them at this level of skill. It did not work. I am not the shot I used to be either.
Because the Ranger is not a pure melee class, I did not feel they had the time to maintain this degree of skill with a bow. If someone were to propose a pure melee class Archer, it would be a whole different story. They would have the time to devote in bow use to reach and maintain these skill levels.
Arureal
High Lord of Lowbies
weems (#34)
Celeborn, give ranger multishot.
And Arureal, realism doesn't matter.
[/thread]
And Arureal, realism doesn't matter.
[/thread]
Isabelle (#35)
celeborn, ignore weems
weems (#36)
Yeah, instead he can either...Isabelle wrote:celeborn, ignore weems
A. Rework every single skill in all of DL to be realistic, while adding new Ranger skills that meet the same realistic requirement.
or B. Make the Rangers skills realistic, completly ignoring the fact that no other class's skills are.
Come on Isabelle.Why not just add in the skills that make sense on a fantasy role playing game level? A major theme in all such games is that we can accomplish feats that are impossible in real life. Like, for example, breathing fire on dragons and killing them. Or spinning around in a blur and attacking every monster all at once.
Quintos (#37)
*Spins around and around with 2 large axes, gets dizzy, disembowels himself, but manages not to hit any monsters*
Silvanos (#38)
I think if D&D is using multishot or the same principle in their games, i dont think well be crossing the line on DL Arcane Archer - Hail of Arrows feat.
🖼 Archived external image reference (wizards.com/44208_C1_arcanearcher.jpg)
Arcane Archer - Hail of Arrows feat.🖼 Archived external image reference (wizards.com/44208_C1_arcanearcher.jpg)
Vogar Eol (#39)
In all truth a "multi-shot" that fired two arrows would be completely authentic, just so long as it was described as two arrows hitting at once, and not two arrows fired at once.
Could you fire more then one arrow from a bow? Sure you *could*, but it would not be accurate beyond point blank. Arrows flex under the preasure of release, and two or three arrows fired as shown in that picture would have a shotgun effect at the best. Not to mention it would hurt power.
Now concidering how ranger has nothing what-so-ever going for them. I feel they ARE the archers of this game. Why? Because we can multiclass. If I want a traditional ranger character I would need to go Warrior/Rogue/Archer to get the end result that the class RANGER does not give me.
Personally, the way things are going I think the ranger class should be changed into a completely ranged weapons class. Let the ability to multiclass make up for any thief and magic user skills.
Could you fire more then one arrow from a bow? Sure you *could*, but it would not be accurate beyond point blank. Arrows flex under the preasure of release, and two or three arrows fired as shown in that picture would have a shotgun effect at the best. Not to mention it would hurt power.
Now concidering how ranger has nothing what-so-ever going for them. I feel they ARE the archers of this game. Why? Because we can multiclass. If I want a traditional ranger character I would need to go Warrior/Rogue/Archer to get the end result that the class RANGER does not give me.
Personally, the way things are going I think the ranger class should be changed into a completely ranged weapons class. Let the ability to multiclass make up for any thief and magic user skills.
Arureal (#40)
Changing ranger to a completely ranged weapon class and using multi-classing to gain thief and magic skills would be a good solution under the current system. Doing that or making a new class is the only way to truly represent missile use without adversely affecting game balance.
Voice your thoughts now. Should we change ranger to a missile weapon specialist, or start a new class. Vote now or forever hold your piece.
P.S. Thanks for mentioning arrow flex and its affect on accuracy, and the problems with shooting more than one arrow at a time Vogar Eol, in this day and age that is not common knowledge.
Arureal
High Lord of Lowbies
Voice your thoughts now. Should we change ranger to a missile weapon specialist, or start a new class. Vote now or forever hold your piece.
P.S. Thanks for mentioning arrow flex and its affect on accuracy, and the problems with shooting more than one arrow at a time Vogar Eol, in this day and age that is not common knowledge.
Arureal
High Lord of Lowbies
Kiasyn (#41)
remember, for each new class you have to think up a whole new set of epic names
Isabelle (#42)
there are ways to make them more powerful without giving them multiple shots per round. They arent firing a Gatling Gun, it's a bow
elemental arrows, arrows which do specific damage types, (poison, fire, etc etc) more damage on arrows.. theres many many ideas, and by limiting those things to solely the ranger class, it becomes useful.
a bard can't hit people for tons of damage per round, yet people still like making them.. whats my point? It's that you dont need to turn a class into a super fighter character that breathes fire and crushes entire armies with a wave of their hand, there are non-lethal ways to make the class desirable.
elemental arrows, arrows which do specific damage types, (poison, fire, etc etc) more damage on arrows.. theres many many ideas, and by limiting those things to solely the ranger class, it becomes useful.
a bard can't hit people for tons of damage per round, yet people still like making them.. whats my point? It's that you dont need to turn a class into a super fighter character that breathes fire and crushes entire armies with a wave of their hand, there are non-lethal ways to make the class desirable.
Gilgolad (#43)
OK then, i say we keep it as a ranger, and give them all the ranged weapons, and let them keep the stuff one would expect them to have like detrap.
Isabelle (#44)
or.. not give them detrap, but rather make new traps for rangers, and make these traps 'detrapable'
ranger traps would be things like snares, doing different types of damage.
i dont want them picking chests and doors, i want them doing nature stuff
ranger traps would be things like snares, doing different types of damage.
i dont want them picking chests and doors, i want them doing nature stuff
Gilgolad (#45)
Right, that's the kind of trap stuff i was thinking about. I should have been more specific. My knowledge and basic mental immage of rangers comes entirely from LOTR, i'm reading the first one right now actually, and whenever i think of a ranger i think of someone that looks, acts, and posesses knowledge like Aragorn does.
Yeah yeah, LOTR is not the only thing most fantasy stuff is based on but it was one of the first major works in fantasy Lore and alot of the other stuff derives from it though.
Yeah yeah, LOTR is not the only thing most fantasy stuff is based on but it was one of the first major works in fantasy Lore and alot of the other stuff derives from it though.
Dunadan (#46)
I like the idea about the special arrows that only Rangers could use, would make rangers better with bows. Or maybe give them some kind of spell that lets them make bows/arrows better, kind of like holy avenger but with bows and rangers instead .
.
weems (#47)
Retreating Shot (or some other name, can be called anything).
A skill that allows rangers to fire an arrow, or bolt (whatever), and retreat at the same time. The retreat would function just as a normal retreat would, or maybe half distance depending on how powerful it turned out to be. The speed of the attack would depend on whether they performed a 'jab' 'thrust' or 'lunge'.
A skill that allows rangers to fire an arrow, or bolt (whatever), and retreat at the same time. The retreat would function just as a normal retreat would, or maybe half distance depending on how powerful it turned out to be. The speed of the attack would depend on whether they performed a 'jab' 'thrust' or 'lunge'.
Guest (wizoch) (#48)
Heres my thought, rangers can make traps they can also detrap they're own traps because you know they can detrap it unless they make a mistake and get choped up by they're axe but whatever back to my point.They should be able to make traps and detrap them ,but no one elses.I agree on the multishot but the chance of hitting should be lowered like 25%.I think instead of sneaking you could hide you know because like in some movies people are trying to get food they set up a trap and go hide in the bushes and wait for something to come by.
Quintos (#49)
'Jab' 'thrust' and 'lunge' are really missing from bows...adding comparable commands (suggestion in my new class thread) would help a bit in this area. Might not make them great, but it could be nice.weems wrote:Retreating Shot (or some other name, can be called anything).
A skill that allows rangers to fire an arrow, or bolt (whatever), and retreat at the same time. The retreat would function just as a normal retreat would, or maybe half distance depending on how powerful it turned out to be. The speed of the attack would depend on whether they performed a 'jab' 'thrust' or 'lunge'.
weems (#50)
I realize that, and that was part of the idea, and the reason I quoted them. I think bows should have varying strengths of attacks as well, just for the added versatility.Quintos wrote:'Jab' 'thrust' and 'lunge' are really missing from bows...adding comparable commands (suggestion in my new class thread) would help a bit in this area. Might not make them great, but it could be nice.weems wrote:Retreating Shot (or some other name, can be called anything).
A skill that allows rangers to fire an arrow, or bolt (whatever), and retreat at the same time. The retreat would function just as a normal retreat would, or maybe half distance depending on how powerful it turned out to be. The speed of the attack would depend on whether they performed a 'jab' 'thrust' or 'lunge'.
Vogar Eol (#51)
Alright, why not give rangers increased missile weapon skill (to 99% in bows, 90% in the others).
Next we give them a spell called "enchant missile" which allows racial and elemental runes. It would then allow us to give an effect simular to Feyswatter to a quiver, and also give elemental damage. It would then become a ranger only quiver with racial and elemental damage.
In example, I could enchant with enchant missile + Ey + Fir
+2.0 dmg vs Fey | +0.9 dmg vs everything other then fey| Fire arrow
Next we give them a spell called "enchant missile" which allows racial and elemental runes. It would then allow us to give an effect simular to Feyswatter to a quiver, and also give elemental damage. It would then become a ranger only quiver with racial and elemental damage.
In example, I could enchant with enchant missile + Ey + Fir
+2.0 dmg vs Fey | +0.9 dmg vs everything other then fey| Fire arrow
Quintos (#52)
I believe it was just a typo, but I think you meant *2.0 and *0.9 dmg, correct?Vogar Eol wrote:In example, I could enchant with enchant missile + Ey + Fir
+2.0 dmg vs Fey | +0.9 dmg vs everything other then fey| Fire arrow
Vogar Eol (#53)
Yes, same as adding racial runes to weapons. I am sure most people know what I intended. Forgot my color in the post too
Quintos (#54)
That's what I figured, but I don't use racial runes in weapons much so I wasn't sure...thought that seemed a bit weak though.
zhequan100 (#55)
now i know that rangers is the most difficult character to train 
Aardgon (#56)
maybe rangers should just get xp bonuses for soloing because they are supposed to be a very lone person who likes to be on their own... make it like a skill you get at level 15 that u have to improve to like 90% where at 90% u gain 10% more xp when leveling alone i think this would balance this class a little better with the rest. make it called solitary solitary (the art of being alone and finding ones self in order to overcome surmountable odds against you)... i dunno something like that.
Arureal (#57)
Aardgon: Cool idea, I like the solo exp. bonus concept. Of course I would because I solo all the time. Fewer encounters on the world map, a greater sight distance on the map. Little things like this would add RP value to the class. I am a RP player, and have chosen the ranger class for several alts. Minor changes to the class like this should not upset balance, and still provide something unique for this class.
Arureal
High Lord of Lowbies
Arureal
High Lord of Lowbies
Chilliwack (#58)
i know this post is kind of late for some of the posts made earlier in the topic about making them non-magic, but i like their magicallness, their summoning abilities really helps, especially now that jugs are one-sip/open per ... jug...
summon wolf with a few fecs is just like a jug-ele, and a summon bear, pretty nice...
plus theres a way to get alot of summons, but im not sure if its common knowledge so ill keep it to myself
summon wolf with a few fecs is just like a jug-ele, and a summon bear, pretty nice...
plus theres a way to get alot of summons, but im not sure if its common knowledge so ill keep it to myself
Chilliwack (#59)
oh, also, commenting on people saying that rangers should get a better bows bonus, since bows are weapons, and rangers get SOME magic theyre considered "mainly melee" so they cant have any weapon skill above 80
