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.

[spawnloser]

A skilled ranger can take down things a warrior couldn't hope to, too.  (shrug)  It's all situational really, as to which is better.  It's like, " Which is better?  Burglar, Pick Pocket & Assassin?"  I pick which one I'm going to pick based off what I think fits how my character would do things.  Would he be the straight-ahead, swords & armor kind of person, or the one who understands the land and animals and how to interact with/hunt them, often using somewhat less direct forms of combat like going all Rambo on the prey.

[Yokunama]

I like rangers a bit more, because they have that coded advantage that enables them to "quit" anywhere.

If I wanted to play a character that would ensure some time and roleplay under his/her/its belt, I'd go with a warrior. Most of the time, rangers do not live that long, really. Maybe, it is just me.

[moab]

Imagine if you could select groups of skills rather than classes?
That would be cool.

Rangers are too broad in their skillset.  There are several skills which should be removed from their tree, if you ask me.

The biggest advantage they have are:
ability to handle storms
ability to quit nearly anywhere outside.

Both of which should be part of a subguild (perhaps hunter, perhaps something else) as it makes no sense that a merchant growing up in the wilds wouldn't know how to camp just about anywhere they want.


Warriors do rock, however, when it comes to combat.  I remember (years ago now - maybe eight) someone complaining that their ranger couldn't land a blow against a particular warrior as the warrior kept parrying.  For hand to hand, nothing beats a warrior.

[Yokunama]

Both of which should be part of a subguild (perhaps hunter, perhaps something else) as it makes no sense that a merchant growing up in the wilds wouldn't know how to camp just about anywhere they want.

Merchants do not hunt and roam about in the wilderness. If they need to get anywhere around or from the wildeness, they'd hire -rangers- to do the job. I've seen a ranger or warrior play the role of a merchant it was interesting.

[Armaddict]

I don't really see the reason for either class to be 'toned down' or 'buffed up', really.  I've never regarded classes as something that needs to be balanced, due to the fact that although pkilling is uninhibited, this is -not- a pkilling mud, where that is the basis to play.  Some people can do certain things, and that's reflected by class.  You shouldn't be choosing a class so that you can be uber in this situation and kill everyone else, you should be choosing what fits your character concept most closely.

A 'Ranger vs. Warrior' discussion seems to be based on 'which is better and why?', with emphasis on which is more powerful.  I'd rather see which roles should be choosing which class more often.  For example...rangers who don't go out of the city.  Nothing -wrong- with it, though the template is more geared towards wilderness.  But playing a scout for a noble house, a ranger would probably make more sense...but in the all-around picture, you should see less rangers in noble guards than warriors.

So my take on it is:  Don't try to make it into a balance issue, where every class should have equal chance to fight off other classes.  If a class is overpowered, it's only for the situation that they're supposed to be powerful in.  Rangers are guides and wilderness assassins and hunters, and warriors are generally more soldierly-like.  If you took assassins and burglars, two separate classes, and said 'Burglars break into houses more easily than assassins, they're overpowered', that just sounds silly, doesn't it?  Same thing with Ranger vs. Warrior.

My 2 cents.

[Maybe42or54]

I agree with the above poster.

It never made sense to me why A house would want a guard that can't fight as good as the next guy, unless they knew OOCly that this guy was a ranger. But hey, you can be anything with any guild/subguild, except magickers, rangers, and sorcerers. Shrug.

Oh. I Will always favor Warriors, because well, everone picks ranger so they can use a little known OOC skill known as quitting everywhere and then on your mom.

Warriors get skills that Rangers can't get as good at. Like Bash, disarm, parry, (right off the bat.)

While Rangers get skills that warriors aren't as good at. You can't quit anywhere, but you can quit in a lot of places. You can move around in up to blindingly fast sands, archery insano.

[Anael]

The House might want to hire someone who is:

At least a bit skilled as a medic.
Able to make arrows for their unit.
Has knowledge of certain thing that is quite important for the House, and can serve as a guide there.
Has an experience within another military organization and is known for being a loyal and reasonable worker.
Has knowledge/talents that'd make him a good scout.

There's kazillion people who can swing a club, but they're not worth a bit as guards/other military types.

[Angela Christine]

It never made sense to me why A house would want a guard that can't fight as good as the next guy, unless they knew OOCly that this guy was a ranger.

ICly you don't know that one guy has a Destiny to become a great melee fighter while another guy will only be fair, because ICly you don't know that there are classes.  So you don't know the difference between a newbie warrior and a slightly skilled ranger, as far as you know both have the potential to become average combatants, or fantastic combatents.  A newbie merchant might be revealed as completely incompetent early on, he just doesn't have the knack to learn fighting, but a ranger or assassin is a reasonably good fighter, a guild warrior simply has the potential to be a remarkable or even legendary fighter.  The Warrior recruit is a little better than the Assassin and Ranger recruits, but all three of them suck compared to the vetern soldiers training them, and there is no IC reason to suspect that all three can't become fine soldiers with the right training.  There is IC reason to suspect that -any- healthy young character can not become a fine soldier with the proper training, even if that character is secretly a merchant or a mage  -- the fact that some people are doomed to fail because of thier guild is totally OOC.

In Armageddon anyone can try most things, with the exception of crafts, spells, and a few other commands.  In some games a cleric can not even try to wield a sword and a mage can not even try on armor -- here anyone can try to use a sword, but only someone with slashing weapons on their skill list will ever become a great swordsman.  Anyone can try to kick, bash and disarm, but without the skill on your skills list you will fail most of the time (but even with the skill a newbie is prone to failing quite often).  A ranger-impersonator can use the Hunt and Scan skills, they are simply unlikely to ever spot anything signficant, and if they try to Charge they are more likely to fall off their kank than to trample their target -- but all of that is true for an unskilled ranger as well.  You can even try impersonating a  Burglar and Peek at everyone you see and try to pick every lock in town, but I wouldn't recomend it.   :twisted:


I had a "secret" mage get recruited into the Kuraci Regulars once (they made her a deal she couldn't refuse).  In the sparring ring she was sufficiently bad that OOCly everyone must have guessed that she was not a Warrior, but they may not have guessed she was a mage, she wasn't all that much more awful than the other new recruits.  In actual melee she participated really hard, and there was enough "fog of battle" that most people didn't realize how few hits she actually managed to strike.  She had to bend or break the rules to sneak off and practice her dark arts, but luckily that was durring the mantis occupation of Luirs so sneaking off wasn't as hard as it would have been if stationed in the outpost.  I think she lasted about 2 years, and while a few people clearly thought she was nearly useless, no one ever accused her of being a magicker.  ICly they probably though that she was a slow learner, not that she was actually incapable of ever learning to fight well.  

ICly guilds don't exist, so there is no reason not to take on a recruit who happens to not be from the warrior guild.  New recruits are expected to suck.  Later on you might fire a non-warrior when they prove to be unable to grasp combat skills, but a ranger or assassin probably won't be sufficiently worse than a warrior to get fired on that alone.  The recruit period gives non-warriors a chance to prove their worth in other ways before it is revealed that they will never be the combat geniuses that a true warrior can become.


Angela Christine

[roughneck]

It's all about tactics, every guild has strengths and weaknesses.  Know your enemy and capitalize on your own guild's strengths, make it work for you.

I find rangers a lot more fun so I typically play them.

[Spoon]

I think people take for granted what warriors can do, mainly because they are so common.

At high levels, tactics are an issuse sure. Most the time though, even slightly competent warriors can take down things that are a sure death for other classes. They do exactly what their class indicates: kick ass just like there were the toughest mob you even imagined.

As for tactics, warriors are capable of very deadly things. Bash, kick an disarm are awesome spells. Also, archery and throw are often overlooked. Warriors can be very dangerous with both.

Edit: Shit, I fell for the necro! BURN THEM! BURN THEM ALL!!!

[Samira]

All other things equal, warriors dominate rangers in strictly-melee combat, though not by as large a margin as might be imagined.  Rangers can't defend themselves -quite- as well as warriors, and they obviously lack the more specialized combat and weapons skills that warriors have, but they have the inherent ability to hit as hard and nearly as often.

Also, rangers can find and use poisons readily, have the best archery in the game, and are now (with the recent code changes) pretty fearsome when fighting mounted.  For these reasons and others, rangers have a decided and significant advantage against warriors (and most other guilds) outdoors; since much if not most PC versus PC combat takes place outside of civilization, they have this advantage often.

[MeTekillot]

In summary:

Rangers > Warriors
In everything but melee, non-mounted combat. Provided that the ranger isn't using poison. And they're inside.

[Qzzrbl]

People seem to forget that warriors get pretty handy with mounted combat.... And archery, and thrown weapons, and a warrior with friends wouldn't have trouble getting ahold of poisoned weapons.

A warrior may not be able to do alot of the things a ranger can, but a warrior can in many instances be just as-- if not more prepared than a ranger.

Let's also not forget warriors get bandaging as well.

A fully decked out warrior would only be at a -slight- disadvantage against a ranger, imho.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's blocked many an arrow with maxxed shield-use.

I <3 warriors.

[deviant storm]

People seem to forget that warriors get pretty handy with mounted combat.... And archery, and thrown weapons, and a warrior with friends wouldn't have trouble getting ahold of poisoned weapons.

A warrior may not be able to do alot of the things a ranger can, but a warrior can in many instances be just as-- if not more prepared than a ranger.

Let's also not forget warriors get bandaging as well.

A fully decked out warrior would only be at a -slight- disadvantage against a ranger, imho.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's blocked many an arrow with maxxed shield-use.

I <3 warriors.

Remembering a certain warrior dwarf either blocking or parrying a thrown gith spear, picking up the spear and throwing it back at the gith and I think killing it. If I remember right.

I still love my warriors.

[Clearsighted]

In summary:

Rangers > Warriors
In everything but melee, non-mounted combat. Provided that the ranger isn't using poison. And they're inside.

In summary, Rangers > Warriors until they suddenly, devastatingly, aren't.

That said, most canny veterans can make a ranger that will eventually be able to go toe to toe with 90% of all warriors, without much stress.

[janeshephard]

One reason I pick ranger over warrior: warriors tend to dismount, draw their weapons, and then fight.

Rangers just CHAAAARRGEEE!!!

I always found it more fun to CHAAAARRRGEE!!! In fact one of my better known rangers would just tell people to CHARRRRGEEE!!

lol

[KankWhisperer]

In summary:

Rangers > Warriors
In everything but melee, non-mounted combat. Provided that the ranger isn't using poison. And they're inside.

In summary, Rangers > Warriors until they suddenly, devastatingly, aren't.

That said, most canny veterans can make a ranger that will eventually be able to go toe to toe with 90% of all warriors, without much stress.

Rangers you have to take severe beatings for a while then one day you go super saijain. Now you are tough from having your ass
beat for so long and drink warrior tears for sustenance. You'll know when.

[Dan]

In summary:

Rangers > Warriors
In everything but melee, non-mounted combat. Provided that the ranger isn't using poison. And they're inside.

In summary, Rangers > Warriors until they suddenly, devastatingly, aren't.

That said, most canny veterans can make a ranger that will eventually be able to go toe to toe with 90% of all warriors, without much stress.

I miss the days of seeing arrows parried from the air though. I've not seen that for a few years, since the defense bug fix.

[deviant storm]

I remember watching Sujaal doing that. The good old days, lol. Actually, I'm fine with warriors how they are now. But that was so cool.

[Sinna]

When I look at ranger versus warrior and consider the Known World, I wonder why the two classes aren't combined and subguilds used to define "wilderness" versus "city."

[Qzzrbl]

When I look at ranger versus warrior and consider the Known World, I wonder why the two classes aren't combined and subguilds used to define "wilderness" versus "city."

Eh, warriors and rangers have their tradeoffs.

While a ranger can survive in the wilds on their own with no help from anyone ever, and make decent coin selling off surplus-- a warrior just kicks ass all around and won't last all that long on their own. Not to say it's not possible for a lone warrior to work the wastes, but I'm sure we can all agree it's alot easier with a ranger.

[Hot_Dancer]

I enjoy playing a Warrior to protect newer members of the clan I'm in and increase everyone else's survivability a bit
via their guard/rescue/defense skills.

I enjoy playing a Ranger when I'm on the offensive in the wastes and in the process of enjoying my mobility/stealth skills
and chances at spotting that invisible witch before they spot me.

[Gunnerblaster]

Warriors are trained to die, Rangers are trained to survive.

[Clearsighted]

Warriors are trained to die, Rangers are trained to survive.

I know who said that

[Ashes]

If you're trying to analyze and figure out and decide which class, good luck, 'cause there are also racial and statistical considerations, as well as the tribe, clan, and area you're going to be most playing in.  Desert elf warriors, anyone?  Mulish rangers?

My advice is this: Forget which is "better," because in Arm there is no "better."  Just choose which MEANS you want to play the game through.  Guild doesn't even have to have any weight with your character's personality.  Skills are just every character's set of tools for meeting a given situation.  If it really comes down to it, flip a coin.

[Dakota]

If you're trying to analyze and figure out and decide which class, good luck, 'cause there are also racial and statistical considerations, as well as the tribe, clan, and area you're going to be most playing in.  Desert elf warriors, anyone?  Mulish rangers?

My advice is this: Forget which is "better," because in Arm there is no "better."  Just choose which MEANS you want to play the game through.  Guild doesn't even have to have any weight with your character's personality.  Skills are just every character's set of tools for meeting a given situation.  If it really comes down to it, flip a coin.

This..

(although a Mulish Ranger would be fun to play)

[Jo]

Warriors are trained to die, Rangers are trained to survive.

I know who said that

Me too. 

[RogueGunslinger]

I remember when... Some of the things said in this thread about skills would have immediately been smacked down and moderated by staff.

Or at least scolded at by players.

[Blackisback]

Ultimately, when it comes to fighting, a warrior and a ranger with equal stats and relatively equal skill levels, a warrior will come out on top. A disarmed ranger is a fleeing ranger.

[X-D]

And a warrior that allows the ranger to flee is soon full of arrows.

[spawnloser]

My guild choice has a bigger dick than your guild choice!

No, boys and girls, both classes have the same size dick when hard.  One's just a different color.

[Romy]

Hahahahaha Americans aaaaahahahahaha

That was funny =P

What color are they though? If one is white and one is black, I'm pretty sure there is a difference in size 

[Is Friday]

Hahahahaha Americans aaaaahahahahaha

That was funny =P

What color are they though? If one is white and one is black, I'm pretty sure there is a difference in size 

Sounds like someone is going to have a successful run on the GDB.

[Blackisback]

And a warrior that allows the ranger to flee is soon full of arrows.

Yeah, well, you wouldn't be able to shoot me because I have +5 platemail!

Seriously, this discussion is stupid and childish. I'm pretty sure the game isn't balanced towards PVP anyway, what with it being an RPI game and not World of Zalanthascraft Online.

[Qzzrbl]

And a warrior that allows the ranger to flee is soon has a shield full of arrows.

:3

[Potaje]

Thing to remember, in any instance, There is always someone more kick ass than you, no matter the guild.

[Dan]

Thing to remember, in any instance, There is always someone more kick ass than you, no matter the guild.

X-D once beat me in unarmed combat with a merchant. I was a 100 day warrior.

Malifaxis once scared me so bad my PC stabbed himself in the back.

For example.

[Clearsighted]

Thing to remember, in any instance, There is always someone more kick ass than you, no matter the guild.

X-D once beat me in unarmed combat with a merchant. I was a 100 day warrior.

Malifaxis once scared me so bad my PC stabbed himself in the back.

For example.

I refuse to believe that X-D has ever played a merchant.

Unless it was merchant of death.

[Qzzrbl]

What rangers and warriors both -really- should watch out for are assassins.

O:

[Nahara]

I enjoy playing a ranger because I get a wider variety of non-combat skills to tinker around with.

[Kryos]

The scope of this question is broad and I think most posts above focus on some singular aspect of a class comparison.  I'll list the categories of mechanics I think need be addressed and my personal feel on the classes, as I've played fairly high end versions of both classes:

Ranking:  S (best of the best, no one's ever going to take you down, oh yeah!) A B C D

Mobility:  Good luck, mister warrior.  Even with solid subguild selection, the ranger is simply going to be A rank to your B(and with bad subguild selection in respect to this catagory, straight D rank

Toe to Toe fighting:  I've played rangers, that with kick/disarm/etc spammed till content, have slaughtered similarly played warriors.  Its comparable, but even with this considered, I'd say toe to toe melee, A warrior A- ranger

Not Toe to Toe fighting:  The comments that warriors throw and archery well do not go unheeded.  They do it, and can do it well.  But they cannot deal with the ranger's other, complimentary skills that truly put them in a higher level.  Ranger A, Warrior B

Resources and preperation:  Ranger is A, warrior is C;  This one's easy.  Rangers can get everything but a very narrow margin of 'preparation' for themselves.  Warriors cannot.  Rangers can also engage in certain kinds of espionage warriors could only dream of.

Clan usefulness:  This is a tough and very nebulous area of concern, frankly, I think they are around dead even.  Each has a distinctive, valuable use.

Note there's no S's between them.  No one beats a magic user.  Sorry.

[Qzzrbl]

Toe to Toe fighting:  I've played rangers, that with kick/disarm/etc spammed till content, have slaughtered similarly played warriors.  Its comparable, but even with this considered, I'd say toe to toe melee, A warrior A- ranger

Clearly someone hasn't witnessed or experienced the horror and sheer destruction a fully branched and maxxed warrior can wreak....

[Rhyden]

Warriors can only really fight. Rangers are desert survivalist assassins. Nuff said.

[jhunter]

Toe to Toe fighting:  I've played rangers, that with kick/disarm/etc spammed till content, have slaughtered similarly played warriors.  Its comparable, but even with this considered, I'd say toe to toe melee, A warrior A- ranger

Clearly someone hasn't witnessed or experienced the horror and sheer destruction a fully branched and maxxed warrior can wreak....

[Kryos]

Clearly, you post in ignorance of what I've done/seen.

edited to add:  Besides the point anyway, I said warriors are a tier above.

[Rhyden]

Toe to Toe fighting:  I've played rangers, that with kick/disarm/etc spammed till content, have slaughtered similarly played warriors.  Its comparable, but even with this considered, I'd say toe to toe melee, A warrior A- ranger

Clearly someone hasn't witnessed or experienced the horror and sheer destruction a fully branched and maxxed warrior can wreak....

Clearly someone hasn't witnessed or experienced the horror and sheer destruction a fully branched and maxxed warrior ranger can wreak....

...but the only thing more badass than a ranger, is a maxxxed warrior/ranger duo. Trust me.

[Salt Merchant]

Desert elf ranger(s) with a bow. I've lost more than one character to them. Kiss goodbye any warrior that doesn't flee on mount back after the first arrow. Kiss them good bye after the first arrow, period, sometimes.

[Qzzrbl]

Clearly, you post in ignorance of what I've done/seen.

edited to add:  Besides the point anyway, I said warriors are a tier above.

To suggest a maxxed ranger attempt to kick/disarm/bash a maxxed warrior without any horrible fight-ending consequences doesn't exactly say, "Hey, I've played and/or fought against a warrior whose come close to mastering these skills."

So excuse any presumptions on my part.
>_>

[jhunter]

Clearly, you post in ignorance of what I've done/seen.

edited to add:  Besides the point anyway, I said warriors are a tier above.

To suggest a maxxed ranger attempt to kick/disarm/bash a maxxed warrior without any horrible fight-ending consequences doesn't exactly say, "Hey, I've played and/or fought against a warrior whose come close to mastering these skills."

So excuse any presumptions on my part.
>_>

Yeah, subguild versions of those skills have absolutely no comparison to the capability of a warrior in those areas.

[brytta.leofa]

The three main combat guilds (warrior, ranger, and assassin) are paper/rock/scissors balanced.  After the newbie stage, each can absolutely destroy the others in the right setting.  Out of the box, warriors have a strong advantage.

(The newbie stage is about the first 500 RL hours, right?)

[Clearsighted]

Paper, rock scissors is not a fair assessment of the dynamics between those guilds. More like all are rocks of varying size and jaggedness...

[spawnloser]

The point of brytta's post is that it's all situational.  They can all rock the others' socks in the right situation.  Warriors are beef machines that fight up close.  Rangers are more finesse, gods of ranged attacks.  Assassins are stealthy assholes that stab you when you're not looking.  All of them are fucking deadly.

[Marauder Moe]

Yeah, I'm not seeing this RPS balance either.

With roughly equal playtime/training, I think you pretty much need to "cheat" to beat a warrior.  Rangers and assassins both have skills to cheat with, though (archery, backstab, poison).  The risk is that if you don't kill or at least severely wound the warrior before hand to hand combat begins, he's likely to mop the floor with you.

But... balance isn't just about the ability to kill someone.  Role enjoyment ought not to be about balance either.  You want to kick ass and take names?  Play a warrior.  You want to roam the wilds and live off the land?  Play a ranger.

[spawnloser]

That's not cheating.  Archery or backstab are core skills to those classes.  It's WHAT THEY DO^tm.  If you're going to call this cheating, you may as call all the combat skills that warriors get as cheating too.

[Barzalene]

That's not cheating.  Archery or backstab are core skills to those classes.  It's WHAT THEY DO^tm.  If you're going to call this cheating, you may as call all the combat skills that warriors get as cheating too.

I don't think he means cheat at Arm, but rather cheat at the fight. As in in a fair fight, you don't bite or pull  hair or hid in a doorway with a knife.

And cheat was in quotes, so it wasn't cheat but rather "cheat."

[spawnloser]

In that spirit, disarming or kicking or bashing would have to be "cheating" too.  If you take away all forms of "cheating" you're left with characters that are homogenous lumps of offense/defense that would be evenly matched except for stats or training.  Honestly, and I'm not kidding, assassin and ranger weapon skills probably get to a better level than most people think.  The ONLY thing that sets warriors aside is they will get more weapon skills and they have all those combat skills... which are just as much "cheating" in a bar fight as using a bow, poison or a well-placed knife in the back.

[Synthesis]

Why is this thread still alive? 

[Nahara]

Why is this thread still alive? 

We haven't figured out what to talk about next.

[Marauder Moe]

OK wow, chill a bit.  I'm not calling the players of ranger or assassins cheaters.

[spawnloser]

Moe, , I think you're reading into what I'm saying a lot more than you should.  I'm not mad or angry or shouting.  We're just talking here.  I only asked you to explain how that was 'cheating' ?  If we're talking about the merits of one over the other, it seemed like you were trying to say that we should ignore these skills that this guild gets when doing so... not that using those skills was truly cheating like bug-using.

[Marauder Moe]

Sorry.  It's hard to tell in text, especially when you had a phrase in all caps tossed in there.

Anyway, a couple of things:
1) We're talking about murder in the land of Zalanthas.  Accusing someone of cheating, especially from an OOC standpoint, isn't really controversial or demeaning, is it?  (Heck, if you're an elf or a Tuluki, it's a compliment.)
2) Stealth is a form of deception and thus certainly fits the definition of cheating.
3) Poison, likewise, has always been considered an underhanded tactic.
4) Beyond those, rangers and assassins still need to manipulate the circumstances against a warrior both by timing and/or location.

Deceptive and underhanded tactics used to manipulate the circumstances in your favor sounds like cheating to me.  But still, remember that I don't mean that as an OOC insult in any way, and much of the time it wouldn't even be considered an IC one either.

[jhunter]

I think he means "cheating" as in "the use of things other than melee combat abilities to gain an advantage. Those warrior combat skills, in this context are not "cheating" as they are part of melee combat ability.

[X-D]

Nah, Disarm is "cheating" In game and out. It removes the other person from any real melee ability, hence the warrior is being just as underhanded in order to gain an advantage he might not have had otherwise. I mean really, how can you get lower then fighting an unarmed man?

Not that I don't use the hell out of it if I'm playing a warrior, unless for some odd reason I'm playing a honorable one...which I have.

[Spoon]

Fighting with a weapon is cheating. The human race invented them so we could beat those twinking bears, tigers and strong people.

[jhunter]

Nah, Disarm is "cheating" In game and out. It removes the other person from any real melee ability, hence the warrior is being just as underhanded in order to gain an advantage he might not have had otherwise. I mean really, how can you get lower then fighting an unarmed man?

Not that I don't use the hell out of it if I'm playing a warrior, unless for some odd reason I'm playing a honorable one...which I have.

I disagree. Disarming someone is a -part- of melee combat. Avoiding being disarmed, is also a -part- of melee combat. It is not the same as say, pulling a gun in the middle of a sword fight, or poisoning your opponent's food or drink before the fight. It is part of melee.

[Lizzie]

Why is this thread still alive? 

We haven't figured out what to talk about next.

This topic is now about pudding.

My favorite: dark chocolate mint.

[X-D]

And combat is an attempt to kill, so is poison, ranged etc, if one style is cheating then so is another.

And how is it not the same as pulling a gun in the middle of a sword fight? Pulling a sword in the middle of a fist fight is equal to pulling a gun in a sword fight, disarming somebody is the same as pulling a sword in the middle of a fist fight. You have, in all cases made the fight "unfair" Which in most peoples minds is indeed cheating. Now, if you then turn around and throw down your weapon as well then it becomes fair again.

Or, we can just agree that all is fair in love and war and nothing is cheating.

Oh, Tapioca. The real stuff, not that instant crap.

[brytta.leofa]

Banana cream.

I stand by my rock, paper, and scissors while agreeing with the content of what everyone here is saying.

- A warrior is uniquely vulnerable to rangers and assassins.
- A ranger is uniquely vulnerable to assassins and warriors.
- An assassin is uniquely vulnerable to warriors and rangers.

Any of them, under his preferred conditions, can handily off any of the others...not to mention the unready finger-wiggler.

[Nahara]

I'm going to have to throw my weight behind tapioca.

Any such thing as rules or a fair fight highly depends on circumstance ... a kick is hardly cheating in a kickboxing match, but a kick to the groin might be, however emphasized it is for self-defense.

(This post was mainly an excuse to daydream about tapioca pudding.)

[Marauder Moe]

I loathe banana pudding so much.  Tapioca is good too, but rice pudding holds a very special place in my heart.

Anyway, good lord... all this over one word I said.  I really don't understand it.  Let's just pretend I said something else?  "Prepare"?  Will that raise anyone's hackles?

Also, Brytta, I don't think you quite understand the rules of RPS.   

Rock is not uniquely vulnerable to paper and scissors.
Paper is not uniquely vulnerable to scissors and rock.
Scissors is not uniquely vulnerable to rock and paper.

What it comes down to is this: catch a warrior by surprise (and successfully land your arrows/backstab/poison/magick) and you might have a chance.  Otherwise, he has the advantage.  (Again, given relatively equal experience and equipment.)

[X-D]

I'm just bored Moe.

Rice pudding is good, again, only the real stuff, and So VERY easy to make from scratch, makes me wonder why anybody would get the instant.

Does Bread pudding count as pudding? If so thats my #3.

[Xeran Van Houten]

Black pudding anyone?

[Marauder Moe]

Ooooh... bread pudding... good call.

Well anyway, while I'm bored too, I'd prefer not to argue pure semantics.

Someone suggest that other classes were capable of achieving the same combat prowess of a warrior.  While yes, an experienced ranger can certainly out-melee a newbie warrior, warriors are generally the kings of combat, as well they should be.