Ranger vs Warrior

[Spud]

After reading through another thread about favourite guilds, I started thinking. I understand how some players would prefer a ranger over a warrior, but what makes them better? Like to hear what you's all think.

[Mean_Old_Bastard]

Rangers are pretty much the...I would say they can do the most things.

They are the most adapted to their enviroment.

[LoD]

In line with what the others said, it may be summed up like this:

If I want someone to fight toe-to-toe with no chance of retreat and limited movements (i.e. Arena, front line of a marching army) I'd want a warrior.

For almost all other situations, I'd likely want a ranger.

-LoD

[Moofassa]

When I look at Ranger vs. Warrior, I don't look at is as a selection of the per se, better, guild, but the guild which best suits my character. If my character is a rough and tough city guard, why would I pick ranger, it just wouldn't make sense. He'd have lived in the city his whole life, and would have little to none of the skills that someone who "ranged" the lands would have.

When picking guilds, I don't believe a guild should be picked based on it's superiority over the other guild, but should be picked based on which skill set best represents your character.

Picking a guild for it's advantages over another can, in my mind be very twinkish, unless it makes sense with the background.

-grumpy.

[Spud]

Calm down, I'm not saying I want to know for twinking reasons, I want to see why people think one way or the other about the guilds. They clearly have their own advantages and disadvantages, but some think one or the other is a super guild.

[Moofassa]

*flips humourously large twink-detector to "on" position, waving in front of %spud face*


I was just stating an opinion. Im allowed.

[Mook]

IMHO - A guild is a term used to describe the lifestyle which a person has selected.  Ranger skills involve hunting persons or animals, exceptional powers of observation, a strong aptitude for archery, and some moderate skill with weapons.

While apparently an astonishing array of abilities, rangers are far poorer at combat than warriors.  Unarmed combat, expert battle maneuvers such as disarming, the ability to hurl missiles, and the eventual expert use of bows and arrows are all part of a warrior's skills.

[Cenghiz]

Choosing a guild for its advantages is.. twinkish? For what else would you choose a guild? If I want fighting abilities, I choose a warrior because a warrior is much better than other classes. If I think I'll hunt for all my life, I choose a ranger because while hunting, ranger has it all. If I decide I could sneak upon people and use different ways to kill, I choose an assassin. If I think I'll spend my life away from fights and sneaky arts, I choose a merchant, so I can craft a thing or two when I'm bored and still become rich with ease.
We _do_ choose guilds for their advantages.

And.. answer to the question: It's simply in-city, in-desert for me. If I think I'll spend 75% of my life in the desert, I pick the ranger and I choose the warrior for the opposite situation.

[Moofassa]

We choose guilds for advantages yeah. But explain why a guardsman who has spent all of his live training with weapons and guarding people can track animals, and hunt?

[Larrath]

We choose guilds for advantages yeah. But explain why a guardsman who has spent all of his live training with weapons and guarding people can track animals, and hunt?

Who said a bodyguard's experience must be completely in the city?  If you know how to use a sword, you know how to use a sword.  A guard's most important duty is to intimidate and kill any attackers while protecting their charge, and anything else is mostly secondary to that.
Maybe the bodyguard spent most of his life hunting gith in the desert, and learned how to track them down that way.

[Mean_Old_Bastard]

Okay okay okay...

I am the twink? Everyone happy...okay.


Rangers are just c00ler. Anyways...

[Moofassa]

Maybe the bodyguard spent most of his life hunting gith in the desert, and learned how to track them down that way.

Exactly. Thats a good time to pick ranger. All I'm saying is, you shouldn't pick it FOR the advantages. Pick it to suit your characters life.

[Delirium]

Rangers that never leave the city bother me.  Badly.

[Moofassa]

Part of my beef against just picking rangers for their skillset. If you're not going to feckin' range, don't pick a ranger for kraths sake. Muk Utep.

Rangers that never leave the city bother me.  Badly.

Which has nothing to do with a thread about why people prefer ranger over warrior.

Keep it on topic.

[jstorrie]

I vastly prefer rangers for my solo characters because rangers have more coded options open to them, even if they're not as good at most of them as most of the other guilds who have them as 'primary' abilities.

If my character grew up in the wilds or has been a hunter or scavenger for some time, I will often opt for ranger over warrior, too.

Ironically ranger is often an underpowered choice for my characters, who tend to be city-dwellers even if they spent a good deal of time out hunting, travelling, etc. Warriors are a very 'powerful' class in purely coded terms. This doesn't bother me much, though.

[Delirium]

My comment was related to the comments that were right above my post, (i.e. picking skillsets for their percieved advantages instead of picking a skillset that suits your character) and with limited time, I neglected to ensure that it was precisely on topic.

Sorry.


ON TOPIC:

I have played both warriors and rangers which were fairly long-lived, and both were two of my favorite characters, ever.   Therefore it's difficult for me to choose, and ultimately I guess I back up the idea that it's the character that makes the experience, not the skillset.

When it comes to versitality and freedom to crawl the dunes, ranger rules.

When it comes to city combat roles and pure asskicking ability, Warrior is without compare.

[Spud]

What about desert combat roles, warriors can play those too. Then again, some will say it's bad to chose a warrior if you plan on playing a hunter who spends most their time in the wastes. Perhaps they were a mercenary though, then it could go either way.

[Kankman]

To me, a warrior is the most versatile guild you can pick. You can be a hunter, a guard, an assassin, a thug, even a travelling merchant (that doesn't craft a bazillion things).

Rangers have always had a certain level of intrigue that warriors don't in my mind. I've never lived very long with a ranger, but they've always been plenty fun.

If I had to pick one, I'd pick a warrior because then you can just plain kick ass. Tell me this, who doesn't want to kick ass?

[Angela Christine]

If I had to pick one, I'd pick a warrior because then you can just plain kick ass. Tell me this, who doesn't want to kick ass?

The man with ingrown toenails who lives in the land of the hardasses.  But that is really off topic.

Rangers are pretty good at many things.  Warriors are really, really good at one thing, but it is one thing that matters a lot when it comes up.

In general rangers are more convienent for hunters, especially if you hunt alone and might want to log out in the wildnerness abruptly.  But if you want to go kill scrabs in your pathetic newbie-money purchased armor right from day one, you have much better chance of being successful with a warrior.  Long range bows are nifty for hunting, but as a newbie you probably can't afford a good bow or enough arrows to be useful, so both rangers and warriors start out relying on melee combat, and warriors are better at that.

Out of the cities a ranger can be a pretty good criminal, but so can a warrior, and in the cities warriors have a definate advantage.



Warriors are good at fighting, all kinds of fighting.  They are good at beating things up.  They are good at defending themselves.  They are good at defending other people.  They are good at fighting when they have been surprised or ambushed.  They are good at reatreating without getting killed.  Even if you wind up in a non-combat role, it gives you a warm feeling inside to know that you have a surprise waiting for any would-be mugger or assassin.

Rangers are good at scratching a living from the wilderness.  Rangers are good at riding.  Rangers can become pretty good at fighting.  Rangers can become pretty good at healing (though nobody is pleased to see a newbie ranger advancing on them with a bandage).  Rangers are a good pick for the indecisive player who likes to write a background and then let the character loose on the world without a particular goal for the future, because rangers can be pretty good at a lot of things.  A ranger who becomes confined to the city throws away his most defining abilities (archery is nearly useless in town, quitting out won't come up, he won't have the oportunity to search for edible roots and fungi, he won't need to ride anywhere, there aren't many opportunities for skinning things, etc.) he can do ok as a city character but there are much better choices available.  A ranger restricted to the city is like a half-crippled assassin or pickpocket, but they don't bother me because they aren't hurting anyone but themselves.  A 'rinth ranger can work surprisingly well, the rinth is like a heavily populated wilderness in many ways, but a city guild would probably work even better.


Warriors and rangers are both very versitile guilds, which is why they are often recomended to new players.  Assassins fight about as well as rangers in generic melee combat, but their other skills are much better suited to the urban environment.  An assassin/hunter has the worst of both worlds, he fights like a ranger but rides and skins like a warrior.     Burglars and Pickpockets are both excellently suited to all facets of city life, even if they never do a single shady thing in their entire lives -- they have some combat ability and a variety of useful skills, but they don't travel well.  Merchants can't fight their way out of wet burlap sack, but if they can avoid combat they can become money making machines, well suited to life in the city and none too shabby at travel cross-country.  I don't think there are any super guilds, just guilds that are more or less suited to particular roles.


Angela Christine

[Anonymous]

I'm surprised a lot of comments about why rangers are so much better than warriors have left out bash and disarm.  To me it's more than just how warriors from the get go seem to be better at straight up melee than rangers, but those two commands can absolutely ruin a fight for a more skilled opponent who lacks them.

My point is that saying warriors are better than rangers at combat is understating it a little.  Rangers are really good at setting the situation to be in their favor and taking advantage of it but out of their element or with the odds stacked against them a ranger won't do as well as a warrior will.

I prefer rangers because I play outdoorsy types, but warriors can be really fun in their own right.

[Rhyden]

I prefer ranger because they can do most things a warrior can do, at a lesser degree but can also do much, much more. I think I mainly love rangers for their many coded advantages compared to other guilds. Call me simple if you will, but that's pretty much the only reason.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

I've played both pretty much equally, and thoroughly enjoy the unique strengths of each. When I do end up selecting a ranger, however, it's likely because I'm going through a busy time IRL and they have the ability to quit out practically anywhere.
A stupid reason, perhaps, but it's a real boon to busy people like me.

[HardCarbon]

I prefer ranger because they can do most things a warrior can do, at a lesser degree but can also do much, much more. I think I mainly love rangers for their many coded advantages compared to other guilds. Call me simple if you will, but that's pretty much the only reason.

And lets not forget not getting lost in storms...

[Battle Kank]

A warrior can often beat the snot out of a more experienced ranger. Toe-to-toe, a warrior/hunter can take down prey a ranger would become dinner for. Of course, rangers can survive, win, and take advantage of many encounters that a warrior probably wouldn't.

All in all, I find the two well balanced, and both seem to give players plenty of options for variations upon a theme. In a contest of simplicity, I find warriors easier to play, but less versatile.