Things I've been waiting to do.

[RogueGunslinger]

Yeah, but I already wasted my specapps. I'd love if CGP were automated.


Edit: And even still, would much rather pick ranger + protector than warrior grebber.  Or any number of more powerful combinations than warrior/grebber.

[Clearsighted]

Yeah, but I already wasted my specapps. I'd love if CGP were automated.


Edit: And even still, would much rather pick ranger + protector than warrior grebber.  Or any number of more powerful combinations than warrior/grebber.

Grebber has been less attractive since all the extended subs were made 3 CGP. This is true.

[Synthesis]

Only a noob would roll a ranger/protector. 

Warrior/grebber is perfectly cromulent, if all you wanna do is go places and fuck shit up.

[RogueGunslinger]

Only a noob would roll a ranger/protector.  

Warrior/grebber is perfectly cromulent, if all you wanna do is go places and fuck shit up.

I'd like to hear your reasoning on why you think a ranger with parry and shield-use is bad? They're like the only two skills that really give warriors an edge in melee combat.

Warrior/grebber is like a marginally better warrior/anydirectionsensesubguild.

[BadSkeelz]

Having played one, the main objection is that protector doesn't give you much you don't already have as a ranger. Parry and shield use are both acquirable. You just start with them, and have a higher cap than normal. The only skill you really gain is Guard.

It makes for a pretty decent all-combat combo with ranger utility, but there's probably "Better" meta combinations.

[RogueGunslinger]

Rangers really don't need anything else though, except maybe a crafters subguild. Low cap shield-use is worthless, and low-cap forever to branch parry is like a dream most hunters will never see, and only a little effective.

Get them both near-maxed and you've actually got a 10-20 days played ranger who wont be getting beat up by newbie, day-1 warriors like how it is now.

[Synthesis]

Pfft, if your 20-day ranger is getting beat by a 1-day warrior, you must've spent 20 days sitting in the Gaj.  Parry isn't -that- difficult to branch, unless you never actually go hunting (e.g. you parked yourself in a crappy clan).

And Badskeelz is correct...protector doesn't give a ranger anything you wouldn't already branch, and shield use is (except for one scenario, maybe) -far- inferior to two-handed, in my opinion.

If you really want guard up front, the plain subclass guard would be a better choice, because then at least you get subdue, which can be useful.

It's not being "meta" about anything.  Overlapping skillsets completely defeat the point of having a subguild, unless your character concept really is "only does ranger stuff, ever."

[RogueGunslinger]

The point of the extended sub-guilds, in my experience, is to bridge the gap between main-guilds. What makes a warrior appealing to me is their prowess in melee combat, and that's pretty much it. If I want a warrior-like ranger, protector is pretty much the only option that is useful. Don't need bash from a mount with charge, disarm isn't that amazing when everyone has 10 weapons on them(god forbid you fumble), don't need kick when you have trample, the branched-weapons are not worth the time. So, not really anything appealing to me me from warrior-ext-subs except high level parry and shield-use.

For rangers there are only a couple other guild crossing extended subguilds that work better than choosing a different main guild. To me that would be thiefspy types and crafter types. And if you don't plan on doing either of those things, going warrior-mode is really the only non-magick ext-sub that makes sense to me. Ranger is such a robust and awesome skill-set that getting more skill bumps is sometimes more appealing than extended subguilds.

[Clearsighted]

Having played one, the main objection is that protector doesn't give you much you don't already have as a ranger. Parry and shield use are both acquirable. You just start with them, and have a higher cap than normal. The only skill you really gain is Guard.

Rangers can branch guard.

[Kismetic]

Can we all agree this has nothing to do with "Things I've been waiting to do"?  Word.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

I've been wanting to mastercraft <thing> for ages but I've simply been interested in playing other things.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

Pfft, if your 20-day ranger is getting beat by a 1-day warrior, you must've spent 20 days sitting in the Gaj.

Agree.

Only a noob would roll a ranger/protector.

Disagree. With warrior-level parry, the only thing a warrior has over a ranger/protector is disarm (mitigated by dual wield), kick/bash (countered by ride), and advanced weapon skills (countered by the fact that he hasn't branched them). Meanwhile, you've got sneak, hide, bandage, archery, poisoning, brew....

Where warrior/outdoorsman are great fighters and okay hunters, a  ranger/protector is every bit as good as a warrior at melee (better actually), and a ranger on top of that.

[Clearsighted]

Where warrior/outdoorsman are great fighters and okay hunters, a  ranger/protector is every bit as good as a warrior at melee (better actually), and a ranger on top of that.

Well, let's not get carried away. My theoretical warrior/outdoorsman would destroy my theoretical ranger/protector in a melee. But ranger/protector is a solid choice and has several advantages in the wastes.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

Where warrior/outdoorsman are great fighters and okay hunters, a  ranger/protector is every bit as good as a warrior at melee (better actually), and a ranger on top of that.

Well, let's not get carried away. My theoretical warrior/outdoorsman would destroy my theoretical ranger/protector in a melee. a sparring circle. But ranger/protector is a solid choice and has several advantages in the wastes.

Ftfy. Also, stats, gear, and play time being equal, it would be a close fight, slightly in warriors favor. No way it's a destroy situation.

[Clearsighted]

Where warrior/outdoorsman are great fighters and okay hunters, a  ranger/protector is every bit as good as a warrior at melee (better actually), and a ranger on top of that.

Well, let's not get carried away. My theoretical warrior/outdoorsman would destroy my theoretical ranger/protector in a melee. a sparring circle. But ranger/protector is a solid choice and has several advantages in the wastes.

Ftfy. Also, stats, gear, and play time being equal, it would be a close fight, slightly in warriors favor. No way it's a destroy situation.

I didn't realize pvp existed outside the sparring circle, these days. My bad.

Seriously, though... if I'm playing a warrior, then I'll be rocking an advanced weapon, no matter what atrocities I have to commit to get there, before I ever even consider trying to slug it out with anyone in a life or death situation. If I have any choice at all in the matter, and I usually do, as I've been playing long enough to be cagey about choosing my battles, or else fucking off in a hurry.

No ranger I fight, that has equal stats, gear and playtime, is going to stand a chance against me. I know this, because the principal way for a ranger to defeat a warrior in a melee is to have better stats, better gear and more playtime.

I'm not boasting. I'm just speaking of experience from countless such fights, on both ends. A warrior and ranger, all things being equal, a ranger will get demolished. All things must not be equal, for a ranger to win. There are many ways to swing this in the ranger's favor, and just so we're on the same page - my preferred guild is the ranger. So I'm definitely in the pro-ranger camp.

I should also note that Protector does not give equivalent parry/shield. The warrior equivalent is significantly higher. (Not hugely, but noticeably).

But this is not all to say that I disagree with you. You're 95% right, and a warrior mainly only shines in sparring circle-esque situations. It takes much harder work and knowledge to do well with a warrior in a real PK situation against any experienced opponent. But if someone's ranger decides to melee a knowledgable, maxed-out warrior, they'll probably die very quickly. I deleted some stuff out of this post, since it's going off-topic, but feel free to message me if you want to hear more of my thoughts on such fuckery.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

I've wanted to make an elf who shadows people into the Byn compound just to steal rations, but I'm not good at crime in general and find casual pickpockets hard to play.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

Fair enough Clearsighted. I was under the impression that protector caps were higher than they are. (My only sub-protector died prematurely to me actually testing this for myself.)

[Chettaman]

I've always wanted to call thick brown roots potatoes and papery skinned bulbs onions.
I've also always wanted to own a wagon.

[nauta]

I've always wanted to call thick brown roots potatoes and papery skinned bulbs onions.
I've also always wanted to own a wagon.

The papery-skinned yellow bulbs are ocotillo, at least judging by what you can craft from them, but IG ocotillo is not RL ocotillo, so, at the end of the day: you could be right that these are RL onions!

[Chettaman]

No doubts. I have none that they are onions. Just taste one, dood. TASTE IT!!!

[Saellyn]

Definitely onions.

[nauta]

So, if Zalanthan ocotillos are Earthling onions, does that mean Oashi wine is really onion wine?

Onion Wine.

Analyze wine:

Code Select Expand


That appears to be made from a thick brown root and a papery-thin yellow bulb and a water cask of Vivaduan water.


[Saellyn]

..... Huh...

[Chettaman]

Muahaha! I'm here to ruin your emersion!
or am I increasing it...?
Ocotillo, I believe are just red onions. IRL red onions are much sweeter than white onions.

On another note, I don't actually consider ocotillo to be onions. I consider them to be ocotillo because they've been named so in game. The papery skinned ones, however, have not. Nor have the thick brown potatoes. Or any of the other roots. We should remedy this. (Do it IC, though) If you ever describe a thing without a name. Give it a name.
Don't just say a lumpy white root. say something akin to, "lump-root". or something. You know...

or have the templars been keeping this secret from us as well!? Tune in IC...

[RogueGunslinger]

Ocotillo doesn't have a bulb in real life.

The papery-skinned bulbs are separate from ocotillos, at least in sdesc. Could be they are very similar to each-other. Maybe Ocotillo is just another name for onion, and they have a bunch of different types.

There's tons of forageable roots that need names.