Rangers OP or Just Right? Split from RAT

[hopeandsorrow]

Because it seems like it's breaking off in a discussion in its own right.
Here we can lovely argue about the OP or not so OP nature of Rangers with out effecting the random in RAT.

[BadSkeelz]

Rangers do seem to enjoy a much higher level and broader selection of skills than other guilds.

I'd like to see other guilds get as much versatility rather than rangers lose theirs.

[Majikal]

Zalanthan desert survival ain't no joke, those people designed to excel in it, they ain't a joke either. While there are a couple of classes I think could use some love, rangers are good at what they're supposed to do because it's hard to do what they do.

[lostinspace]

Zalanthan desert survival ain't no joke, those people designed to excel in it, they ain't a joke either. While there are a couple of classes I think could use some love, rangers are good at what they're supposed to do because it's hard to do what they do.

This is true, but being a pick-pocket, burglar, or assassin isn't easy. Crimcode adds an entire other level to the difficulty by itself, and when you factor in the lower skill caps on some pretty important skills it's unfortunate. I said it in the other thread and I'll say it again here, if I want my character to be able to assassinate someone, I'm not going to make an assassin, I'm going to make a ranger, because they're better at it.

[hopeandsorrow]

Ehh I can't formulate my thoughts on Rangers I Feel adequately besides if they nerf them too much, it becomes a useless guild.

They're a super friendly to causal players, off peak players.

I feel with a ranger I can just enter the world and just be, I've got a nice little skill set for it.

All the other classes are gimped beyond usefulness (Burglar)
OR way over specialized to be fun (Warrior/Assassin).

I'd dare to say over specialization is a problem with most the guilds.   It feels like you get your one Gimmick and outside of the one Gimmick, codely you're useless. 

[Marauder Moe]

Maybe they are.  So what?

[Patuk]

Compared to the other guilds out there, they really are. Buff city classes or nerf rangers and things'll be more balanced

[hopeandsorrow]

Compared to the other guilds out there, they really are. Buff city classes or nerf rangers and things'll be more balanced

I'm personally on the Buff the City Classes Platform.  I think Rangers are the formula of what makes a good guild. 

Everyone one else is a victim to over specialization. 

[Erythil]

I'd add a few extra toys to other guilds before I'd nerf rangers.  They're strong, but that's fine.

[Beethoven]

I agree with those who are saying the other classes should be given more utility in order to bring them up to the level of rangers. I haven't played much in the way of rangers but I do remember thinking that Arm felt less "gamey" when I was playing one, because my PC wasn't constantly having to make excuses for not being able to do this or that.

Also, to comment on the discussion that sparked this one, if you can roll up a noble that is guild ranger, you should be able to play a city-elf ranger.

[lostinspace]

I would honestly be fine if they rolled all off pickpocket, assassin, and burglar up into one. Assassins get a lot of what those two get, just at really low skill caps so they don't overshadow them. If assassins had burglar climb and pick, and pickpocket steal and sleight of hand, then they'd be close to rangers. The only thing at that point I think would be needed are the other two weapon skills, although I don't know if assassins have a lower weapon cap or not. I'd also like if scan was separated out into city and wilderness, because if the stealth skills are then detecting them should be as well.

[In Dreams]

Every class should be a lot more flexible like rangers are. Especially including warriors and merchants. Just from playing with them ingame and reading the helpfiles I've never wanted to play either one.

I'd honestly love to see almost every guild be able to do almost everything, with just your "specialty" determining the upper limit of where you can go with it or maybe how fast you learn things (warriors learn combat stuff a lot faster, et cetera). Our PCs are people. People can learn stuff! My PC might not be able to be the best football player ever, but she should be kick a football about without hurting herself!

EDIT: Also, not derailing, but everybody should get all weapon skills. Why can I only learn to use this particular thing and that particular thing even if I put the same effort into swinging and hitting things with both? That has like never made sense to me.

[Inks]

Of course they are overpowered comparatively, but the only thing they would need to be weaker at is city based things, as they are superior to the city based classes in combat and utitility.

Or just buff city based guilds. Burglar and pickpocket especially comes to mind, although assassin is still hard mode compared to ranger.

My ideas are thus:

Change pickpocket to mugger class and start it with sap that can reach master level. Also give it branched subdue.

Give burglar bludgeoning skill, branch scan from hide. Give it kick skill. Change the name to looter.

Give assassin branched archery from throw, up to advanced level. We will see more crossbow based assassinations this way. Which are badass.

Give warriors journeyman dsense.

This would give city based classes varied and interesting combat abilities.

[Dresan]

I think most of the things rangers get make sense. The level of some of the things they get are a bit much in comparison to what others get at times. That said, I don't think rangers need to get nerfed but other classes definately need some love.

These aren't all my ideas but ideas I've certainly liked:

• Warriors are masters of all forms combat, they should become good enough to fight on a mount without needing a subguild ride.
• Assassin should branch the other weapons skills in order to better defend against them, and some of their skill levels should be adjusted. They should have the very best eyes in the game.
• Pickpocket should merge with burgalar and renamed thief, losing backstab, poison and throw but keeping sap (the thief subguild should be renamed pickpocket). They should have the best ears in the game.

However, I thought guilds were going to get looked at after sub-guilds. Not sure what the status is of the sub-guilds, there seemed to be changes coming but feels like that lost some steam.

[lostinspace]

See, I would never want to take throw from burglar, even if it merged with another guild. It's an important tool in their kit, I agree with backstab and poison though. As for weapon skills, I'm not sure what the best course of action is. I like that some classes only get certain types because that's thematic to the guild. If ranger were to only get to have two weapon skills, what do you all think they should be? This also makes warriors much better because they can have all the skills and the defense buffs that go with them.

[Akariel]

The reason I don't like Rangers having two-handed is it's incredibly powerful, and therefore something I think is in the warriors wheelhouse more than anyone else. I'm fine with a low cap though.

But what about hunters using a spear in both hands?

[nauta]

As the advocate for Physicians everywhere (and to a lesser extent the poor Apothecary Subguild): what if we capped poison/brew on Rangers at some level -- then a ranger who wanted to dabble in that stuff would have to get the Subguild or find a friend.

[lostinspace]

The reason I don't like Rangers having two-handed is it's incredibly powerful, and therefore something I think is in the warriors wheelhouse more than anyone else. I'm fine with a low cap though.

But what about hunters using a spear in both hands?

I'd rather see dual wield get buffed and given only to warriors than see two-handed taken from rangers or given a low cap. I have a feeling it's so prevalent because dual wield was a ranger specialty in D&D and pretty famous because of Drizzt. I think if I had to hunt any dangerous creature I would take a long spear over a pair of daggers or swords any day.

[RogueGunslinger]

The reason I don't like Rangers having two-handed is it's incredibly powerful, and therefore something I think is in the warriors wheelhouse more than anyone else. I'm fine with a low cap though.

But what about hunters using a spear in both hands?

What I was trying to say here is that two-handed is out of line with dual-wield and maybe shield-use. And that if any class should get the more powerful combat style, it should be Warriors. I wasn't speaking froma  realism/roleplay standpoint at all. Wasn't trying to say that rangers shouldn't get two-handed even though that's how it sounded.

[lostinspace]

The reason I don't like Rangers having two-handed is it's incredibly powerful, and therefore something I think is in the warriors wheelhouse more than anyone else. I'm fine with a low cap though.

But what about hunters using a spear in both hands?

What I was trying to say here is that two-handed is out of line with dual-wield and maybe shield-use. And that if any class should get the more powerful combat style, it should be Warriors. I wasn't speaking froma  realism/roleplay standpoint at all. Wasn't trying to say that rangers shouldn't get two-handed even though that's how it sounded.

Ah see, I see dual wield as out of line with two-handed and shield+weapon as it seems much worse comparatively. Never do I think, oh this could be serious, better hold a dagger in my other hand.

[Majikal]

While I love where rangers are in terms of ability, I'll admit the reason I play rangers more often than not is because when I start making another class: Warrior, burglar, assassin I tend to immediately be disuaded by their lack of utility or their gimped utility in the face of what I'm looking at when I got a progressed ranger.

I would like to see the utility skills on some of those other classes go higher, or simply have more utility in general. The pickpocket rework from what I've seen looks to be lots better, so much better I actually consider them playable personally now. Burglar/assassin have some utility skills that I think should go a bit higher.

[Medivh]

I think rangers should keep the same broad selection of skills. Most of these are needed, or are very helpful for their basic concept, wasteland survival.

I do think ranger melee skills are capped too high. Their weapon skills match a warrior's weapon skills. (Unless that's changed since warriors got buffed guarding.) That's like having another guild match a ranger's ability to use a bow, skin an animal, or navigate storms. I'm fine with rangers being very capable, but I don't like that they are as good.
Warriors -can- branch advanced weapon skills, but that doesn't happen often at all. Rangers and warriors both get stuck at roughly the same level of weapon skill, for most characters.

Assassins get shafted in a lot of ways. I would like to see the skill caps of the skills related to reaching their target raised.
Their skills related to actually doing the killing are just fine, but their climb/hunt/scan/pick aren't.

I also like the idea of merging the buglar and peekpocket, but I haven't played one in ages. I don't know what the "new" pickpocket is like.

[RogueGunslinger]

The reason I don't like Rangers having two-handed is it's incredibly powerful, and therefore something I think is in the warriors wheelhouse more than anyone else. I'm fine with a low cap though.

But what about hunters using a spear in both hands?

What I was trying to say here is that two-handed is out of line with dual-wield and maybe shield-use. And that if any class should get the more powerful combat style, it should be Warriors. I wasn't speaking froma  realism/roleplay standpoint at all. Wasn't trying to say that rangers shouldn't get two-handed even though that's how it sounded.

Ah see, I see dual wield as out of line with two-handed and shield+weapon as it seems much worse comparatively. Never do I think, oh this could be serious, better hold a dagger in my other hand.

Yeah, I agree. But I said maybe shield-use because it has some cool utilities that aren't readily apparent that makes it more desirable than dual-wield.

[Norcal]

I do think ranger melee skills are capped too high. Their weapon skills match a warrior's weapon skills. That's like having another guild match a ranger's ability to use a bow, skin an animal, or navigate storms. I'm fine with rangers being very capable, but I don't like that they are as good.
Warriors -can- branch advanced weapon skills, but that doesn't happen often at all. Rangers and warriors both get stuck at roughly the same level of weapon skill, for most characters.

I don't think a Ranger can max any weapon skill. They can max some combat skills.

[hyzhenhok]

I could get behind a change that is nothing but putting rangers, assassins and pickpockets on the same playing field combat-wise. Basically, give them identical caps on parry, wield and weapon skills equal to what assassin gets now. Make each guild's branching pattern for those skills similar. It would be neat to have the non-warrior combat classes have rough parity with one another (not counting skills like archery, backstab and poisoning) rather than the ladder-like hierarchy we have now. And it gives us a way to tweak the ranger without messing with its skill portfolio which people are very vocal about not wanting to change.

I would not merge pickpocket and burglar. Burglar very much already has a place in the game and you see plenty of burglars around if you look for them. Pickpocket is almost good enough--I think it's a lot better than many players think. Burglar does not need to be buffed and pickpocket just needs a tweak. There's no need to merge them.