Ranger Perks

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

I've been thinking about it recently, and it seems the ranger guild gets a lot of coded perks that are just not avaliable to anyone else... Period. Here are a few:
1. Being able to 'quit' out in almost any wilderness area.
2. Being able to 'always know where they are', as in being able to stumble around in darkness as though it was daylight.
3. Being (from what I'm able to understand) the only guild able to tame mounts.
4. Being the only guild able to forage for food.

It's nice to have one or two of those perks, fine, but I'm not sure if they're all neccasary, or if they should all be limited to rangers alone. Let's go with number 3 for example...
Rangers: Rangers are currently (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) the only guild able to tame mounts. This sort of make sense, I guess... But it seems a little Tolkeinesque for Arm at times, what with all rangers having this special rapport with animals. But I'm fine with it, so long as people aren't wishing up for a 'charm animal' skill, heh...
Warriors: I really think warroiors should be able to tame animals. They use mounts constantly (most anyways), whether for travel or even in combat, if they're part of a cavalry. I think being a ranger should have nothing to do with you when you try to tame a wild mount... It should be based solely on a check of your ride skill.
Merchants: Merchants should, by all means, be able to tame a mount as well. Now, I know what you're thinking... "How could a scrawny little merchant stand to be on top of a bucking kank?" Well, some merchants are caravaners, and most travel from one place to another, selling their wares, so they have experience with animals and riding. I think a merchant would gladly try and coax an erdlu or sunback lizard into submission, in hopes of selling it for a higher price.

Those are just some ideas for ways to spread out the ranger perks a little more, and blur the lines between different guilds just a tad. I could also see the foraging for food ability being spread... Maybe all d-elves should be able to forage for food, considering how they live most of their lives out in the wilds?

Anyways, these are just thoughts, and I might be completely wrong. I feel that rangers are 'useful' enough with their own melange of skills that showering upon them all these non-skill perks seems rather ostentatious. Feel free to disagree with me, however, via the poll or by posting comments. This is just something I've had on my mind for a while I would enjoy having clarified or rebuttled or, um... Something.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Ooops... Double posted the poll. Dang! Can some one fix that? Anyone? Hello... Please? :cry:

[creeper386]

First of all, I think rangers should keep their perks. Second, I think the perks should be spread out. Third, I think others should get their own unique perks.


And thats mostly it. Mainly the thing I think should be spread out more, is the ability to forage for food. If I want a northern cook, I normally go with a ranger, as if I can't buy food, I can hunt it, if I can't hunt it, I can forage it, and good stuff too. May not be the BEST at cooking, but... Acctually have some variety to play with.


Hmm... As for taming mounts, I think it does depend on the ride skill just rangers are the only ones able to get that good at riding, which personally seems odd... For the most part riding should be a general skill, maybe with rangers getting a bonus, but not getting a whole nother layer of skills because they have a higher cap. Riding is a universal thing. Well, some guilds might be limited... Pickpockets, burglars, assassins, at the top of my head, because they are more a city based area for the most part.

Creeper

[Eclipse]

If you ask me, things are rather well-balanced. For a ranger to become a good warrior, it takes dozens of days of playing time endlessly sparring (beyond 50-60 at least from what I hear). Warriors are exclusively the best fighters pretty much, you can't challenge one without a warrior unless you come across a 50-60 day ranger in which case, the warrior still has kick/bash/disarm on his side. A ranger can only make a good assassin out in the desert (makes sense as they're desert folk!) but in-city, their abilities in that field are completely useless. And it's not like they have backstab. A ranger can't be a burglar, plain and simple. The skills barely even come close.

As to the non-skill benefits, it makes sense for a ranger to be able to set up camp in the wilds. If you were a woodsman and you had to rest, would you ride all the way back to the city to sleep when you've spent a LOT of your time in the wilds or know how to establish a safe camp there? Doesn't seem to make sense. The being able to move in the dark benefit is highly over-rated. Only those that are rangers could follow up (I think) and you can't do anything but move in X directions which has severe limitations. Foraging food: Any other class is pretty much a city-dweller or inclined towards that end. Why in the world would you go foraging for food in a potentially deadly environment? A warrior can just go hunt for food given his immense combat skills while a ranger, if he tried that would likely get badly hurt.

This wasn't meant as a flame or anything though it probably sounds like that. I'm rather opinionated at the moment that the abilities and skills presently are fine.

[creeper386]

Of course rangers can't come close to warriors in pure combat ability against humanoids. Because they aren't warriors. And thats what warriors train to do. They do however have all sorts of other stuff that balances out their inability to fight against humanoids. All of which are skills.

As for going out and hunting animals? Take a new warrior and a new ranger and try it. Rangers are so much better at fighting animals then warriors. Because, thats their area. Not fighting against things with weapons beyond what natural gave them. This on it's own balances out not being able to fight with humanoids fairly well, but they also have good archery skills. As well as all other sorts of things which I'm not going into.

Saying those non-skill benefits balance out their inability to fight, isn't really a fair arguement when they have alot of other things that have already balanced it out.

Also... All their non-skill perks, seem to be for the most part a universal thing anyone with only slight intelligence, and for the most part only experience that isn't that difficult to get, although time consuming. Foraging for food? Basic knowledge of the land and what's edible. In Earth at least, even the most primitive of humans are able to do it. Taming mounts? Although it takes skill, it doesn't take anything too special beyond perhaps a fairly decent physical build, and the time spent around mounts. Most characters may not spend much time around mounts in their history... But when they start playing... It's hard to not be on a mount a good portion of the time. I beleive being able to tame mounts would be easier then succesfully fighting from kank-back or even riding without hands(Two weapons drawn).

Being able to quit in the wilderness... This is the one thing I think should be kept ranger only, because it's a powerful thing, and something that really makes rangers different from the rest. It makes them not have to rely on anything but themselves. And the wandering around in the dark part... I've not noticed with rangers having a good ability at doing that beyond anyone else... But thats just me. And over all, don't think anyone should have it for the most part. If it's dark, you can't see very well, most likely theres sand blowing around so you loose most your ability to feel whats around you(Like that wall close to your left shoulder, not like touching that wall with your hand) As well as everything else, it doesn't just shut down sight, but hearing, touch and abit of sixth sense as well.


Creeper

[EvilRoeSlade]

You forgot one.  They can eventually learn to ride without using their hands, thus being able to hold something in either hand.  Yes, it is possible to do this with other classes, but never under ordinary, non-twinkish circumstances.

I don't see any logic to your arguement.  A warrior should be able to tame mounts because they use mounts a lot?  A warrior's ability is combat, mostly melee, and to a much lesser degree ranged.  Warrior's are not designed to wander around, exploring and hunting.  If they want to do that anyway, there isn't anything stopping them, but I don't see any reason to make it easier for them to do that.  They have it pretty good already.  And besides, its not like the ability to tame mounts is any huge advantage.  I've tried to tame mounts numerous times with rangers, and it has always ended painfully.  Apparently, you have to be incredibly good at riding to be able to accomplish this feat.  I would actually agree with you that merchants could benefit from being able to tame mounts, but lets face it.  What merchant do you know that would actually USE that ability even if they had it?

As for the other abilities, I would say that there really isn't any other class or race that it would make sense to give them to.  I heard you mention desert elves and food foraging.  Perhaps this makes sense on the surface, but as it happens, desert elves already have a perk that makes it very easy for them to get food in the wastes.  If your having trouble feeding your desert elf character, than you must be doing something wrong.

Perhaps some people will say that being able to quit in the wilderness is an OOC convenience, and not an IC benefit.  I strongly disagree.  Think of the actuall IC implications behind being able to vanish for a week.  During the time your gone, your character is living off the land, getting food for himself, finding shelter, and avoiding dangerous creatures.  NO other class have the coded ability to accomplish this, unless they are near an oasis (and all oasis' I've seen are quit-safe).

In the past, people have complained that rangers are under-powered.  I disagree.  However, I do think that they need everything advantage over other classes they have at present to be able to stay on par with them.

[Ayashah]

All the classes have their own special 'quirks' that make them what they are. The imms have looked over them and they do make adjusts at times to even things out. Rangers are not the 'special' ones. With the use of subguilds, you can perk up almost any class with extra starting stuff.

Now, if you really wish to get realistic, perhaps those that chose subguilds that dont really go with their class just to make sid on the side, those should be restricted to certain classes. There is nothing worse than seeing someone whom is suppose to be a guard/militia person spending all their time crafting stuff to sell on the side instead of doing their job for the House/organization employing them.

This will probably raise a huge 'howl' of dissent but truthfully. I know I got told one time I wasnt spending enough time when I crafted 3 things in 45mins RL awhile back even though that was the profession my character was in. Only to see a guard craft almost endlessly, with the same character, and produce about 5xs what I would even dare to do in a RL week time. To me, that is very unrealistic as he was a 'guard/hunter' not a merchant/crafter. But with the subguilds, the lines fade on what is and what is not acceptable. I mean, really, the way things are now, people could all chose warrior/ranger and then a subguild to get hired therefore being a 'crafter' but then can go out hunting/fighting for kicks.

Subguilds are fine for providing the 'player' with something to do in the spare time. I like them alot really. But you get the 'code' lets me do it sorta go ahead to cross the line. Some might think I am just trying to kill their fun and that truly isnt the case. A favorite quote that I have heard over the years from higher up:

'Just because the code allows it doesnt mean it's realistic to do'

[Angela Christine]

I believe anyone with a high enough riding skill can tame mounts.  For the most part that means rangers and half-elves.  If you want a career as a Mekillot tamer but you don't want to be a ranger, then be a half-elf.  I'm not sure, but I think animals have varying degrees of difficulty to tame, with animals described as being vicious or carnivorous usually being harder to tame.  So a human non-ranger with excellent riding ability might never be able to tame an X, but could tame a Y 20% of the time.

As for elves, I've heard the arguement that desert elves should get a variety of ranger abilities because they both spend a lot of time in the wilderness.  Not all desert elves spend long periods of time alone in the wilderness, many stay in or near their camp at all times, some even have permanent or semi-permanent villages.  If you are the kind of elf that spends most of his time ranging the wilderness, be a ranger.  It's just that simple.  Most desert elves that are constantly on the move are probably rangers.  Elves, both the city and wilderness varieties, already get several bonus skills and non-skill abilities vs. the human standard, they don't -need- extra abilites.

Being able to walk in a straight line during inclement weather is cool.  Rangers have a better sense of direction than others, that is hardly an enormously powerful ability.  Handy, but not unbalancing.  I think (again I'm not sure) that people following a ranger also usually go in the right direction, which is what makes rangers useful as guides.  It makes more sense to stay inside or hunker down and wait it out than to wander around in a sandstorm anyway.

The ability to quit in the wilderness is a mighty useful ability if, like me, you often play until you are sleepy and stupid and realize that if you don't quit immediately you will probably get your character killed.    It wouldn't tear my heart out if everyone got this ability, because it's more of an OOC than IC thing.  But if it stays restricted, the only others that I think have a real need for it are some of the magicker classes that are mentioned in the docs as being prone to wandering in unfamiliar, isolated places.  Using magick to get yourself far away from all the quit locations you know about, then needing to quit urgently and not having the mana to help you get back to a familiar place would suck, but it also shows poor planning so it's kind of your own fault.  :roll:

I don't think rangers are over-powered.  They are good at what they do, but everyone else is also good in their own areas of expertise.  I'd like to see rangers have a few other abilities that make sense, like climb (there are plenty of climbable things in the wastes and it would be kind of silly for a burglar to be out there exploring) but I suppose rangers can live without it.  If rangers were significantly over-powered most PCs would be rangers, it's just human nature to grab power if it is available.  Rangers are very versital and have some useful abilities, but they aren't an ubur-class that needs to be toned down.

AC

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Actually, in the end, I find that the three combat classes are very well balanced. There are some flaws, but really, if the staff fixxed all the flaws that we see, we would never get interaction with them nor anything cosmetic. Humans invariably pick at the smallest things. I like the way the game is now. If you are a warrior, you are badass hand to hand. Assassin, you are badass in the city and unseen. Ranger, you are badass in the wilderness. Seriously, the game is very well balances all around.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Alright. I just thought I'd bring it up, because it always seemed a bit bizarre how rangers get all these non-skill abilities that other classes, simply put, can't have.

It does comfort me to know, however, that things like taming a mount or riding around with two weapons are based on the ride skill, as I think they should be. There's nothing wrong with giving rangers and half-elves a bolstered ride skill, so long as it's possible for my human warrior or dwarven merchant to do so too. If they have to work their hairy little buttocks off to do so, then so be it.

[spawnloser]

Okay, 5DMW...in response to your 4 things...
1: Perk
2: Perk
3: As already stated, function of a skill
4: Perk

Now, granted, those things are perks, but if all you wanted was to be a bad ass warrior that could hunt, play a warrior/hunter.  Hell, you can play an anything/hunter...if you want to be a wilderness guru, however, you play a ranger and get all the perks.  If you want to play a character that will be able to use all sorts of combat skills and have the potential to beat the piss out of people, you play a warrior.  It's all a matter of choice.

[Paladin of Dyrinis]

Alright. I just thought I'd bring it up, because it always seemed a bit bizarre how rangers get all these non-skill abilities that other classes, simply put, can't have.

Oh, come now.  Other classes get certain perks of their own.  Here, let me show you.

*incriminate monkeys*

[Anonymous]

While we are at it, can rangers get disarm, subdue and parry?

Thanks.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

:roll:

Look, I was never claiming that rangers were over-powered. I wasn't having a temper tantrum because my warrior can't quit out in the wilderness.

I just wanted to know why rangers had certain non-skill abilities. It just always seemed strange to me that rangers had those special perks. This is probably because I haven't played rangers (much), and I always assumed their coded abilities (archery, namely) would be enough to distinguish them. Apparently I was wrong, and the perks are there for game balance. I just thought I'd bring it up because this is, after all, a -discussion- board, and while I realize that Armageddon has been running long before I came to it, I'm always eager to look for new ways to improve it, balance it, whatever. Plus, I was just plain curious.

There's really no need to be sarcastic.

[DrunkenSalarr]

OK, here we go.

Yes, rangers get perks. So do every other guild in one form or another.

As to Does "<guild> get <skill>" questions, that is IC information and not to be discussed on this board.  Every once in a while the guild balance posts pop back up.  Although, I will say this is the first one I've seen with this much IC and game mechanics info.

Much of this information can be gained from the docs and help files.

~Drunken Salarr, who is way too tired to be posting and will probably post an appology post later because this post looks somewhat combustible.

[John]

I'd like to see the ability to forage for food given to a cook subguild or hunter. At the moment, it's impossible to play a cook who gets their own supplies unless your willing to kill animals (I personally don't like to play the hunter type. Not from anything but fear of death. But I can also see a cook desperately wanting those hard-to-get supplies and even paying mercenaries to guard them while they do) unless you play a ranger.

[Silent Bob]

I have been having a very hard time foraging.  I am new so I kind of was expecting to be bad.  Sometimes I find one or two things and other times I look so many times I wonder why I am looking in the first place.

[Callisto]

There's really no need to be sarcastic.

Don't worry take it too hard. If theres one subject that can drive people from zero to asshole in half a second, its the ranger vs <whatever guild> balance issue. It's been like that since long before I started playing and will continue until the staff gets sick of it and takes away some of the things that make rangers rangers, as opposed to 2nd class warriors with listen and a higher archery cap.

Of course if that happens, it will just start fresh with the other side of the debate going on the offensive whenever the subject comes up.

It all seems a little silly to me to get so fired up over stuff like this, since I don't think the staff pays it any attention at all and as such, these debates mean a sum total of zip... then some asshat starts to rip on my beloved kick skill. Thats when silly goes out the window as the flame thrower of justice comes in the door, heh.

We are all silly humans.