Ranger vs Warrior

[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.