Ranger vs Warrior

[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.