Rangers OP or Just Right? Split from RAT

[wizturbo]

Making citystealth and wildstealth 4 separate skills would strengthen city sneaks while weakening superstealth rangers 'cause they have a thief subguild or whatever. It just means rangers would be as citystealthy as their subguild.

+1

I'm okay with scan being both city and wilderness.  Even though, perhaps, they're also different skills...  But you shouldn't have any class that's great at stealth in both settings. 

[CodeMaster]

Making citystealth and wildstealth 4 separate skills would strengthen city sneaks while weakening superstealth rangers 'cause they have a thief subguild or whatever. It just means rangers would be as citystealthy as their subguild.

At some point in the past it used to be this way -- Sanvean posted that a pickpocket choosing hunter would get city hunt or something along those lines, but not wilderness sneak.  Somewhat more recently this changed, so now you get cross-environmental stealth skills instead.

[Medivh]

Rangers capping at advanced weapon skills is hardly a nerf when most people get stuck in Journeyman.
It would satisfy the people who are upset about warrior weapon skills being matched, I think.

[CodeMaster]

I had a thought that it might be nice if warriors (and warriors only) had an easier time advancing their weapon skills than they currently do.  Maybe they could get tiny skillbumps for each day they live, a practice command that exercised the currently-wielded weapon, or perhaps the rare skill-up from a successful hit.  Whatever.

That way if you were a non-warrior and you wanted to get good, you might be better off finding an actual warrior to train with and use teach on you, thereby making the warrior guild a bit more attractive as a support role in that sense as well.

[Armaddict]

More casual thought on this topic today.  Decided I'd be completely content with mixing some ranger skills with warriors, and overall reducing ranger combat effectiveness (i.e. removal of parry?), if there were a simultaneous move towards larger detriments to the outdoors.  I disagree with most of the ideas so far, because as noted I am generally resistant to change, particularly in areas where I do not feel the weakness that others are pointing to.  However, if we shift -everything- towards that wilderness capability, we could make the ranger less about combat, and more about survivalism, and something more oriented towards supporting those better at combat than someone just as good at a different kind of combat.

-Make sandstorms harsher, not just a way to get lost.  However, have this be negated/minimized by appropriate clothing, not a ranger skill.  Have a ranger skill of shelter-crafting, starting with personal shelters and moving up to larger ones.
--Change the weather command so that weather is determined 1 or 2 'time periods' before it happens.  Make weather sense part of direction sense, and make only ranger get it to master, with other subguilds getting it to at most advanced.  Make this allow them to discern weather patterns and see what's coming ahead of time, so that they can help their buddies hunker down if need be.
--Remove Direction Sense from warriors.

-Make forage food better.  Extend it to trapping, so that you can snare small virtual lizards and various desert/scrub beasties that can be cooked for a real hearty meal.  We've had discussion about returning traps for hunting to the ranger.  Instead of implementing the skill, just make forage food more valuable and more exclusive.

-Change ride as suggested to make it more viable for warriors (lower skill required for mounted combat.  Not sure about the charge, though).  Lower mount endurance, make high level ride lower movement cost of follower's mounts, or some other group-boon.

-Give listen...some sort of wilderness utility?  Something?  Right now it's pretty much a city-skill.  This could, honestly, be removed from rangers altogether, with this line of thinking.

Things of that nature.  Notice the theme here is 'Okay, give people what they want as far as other classes, but further specialize the ranger in return, to solidify the need for at least one in a group'.  At the same time, make it so that having 5 rangers traveling around is inefficient, due to their weakened combat.  They can survive alone just fine.  They can hunt just fine.  As a hunter, they are more than capable.  But in terms of military, they fall very short compared to a warrior, while the warrior is likewise very dependent on having a good unit to facilitate their prowess.

Of course all this requires coding.  But that's kind of where I think classes are at.  Blurring them all together makes for less variety and specialization, which is not generally a good thing in a class-based system.  But I -am- trying to think of ways that things could be mixed up in a way that promotes your changes but also maintains that 'specialness' of the wilderness master/experienced survivalist, and makes it a strong supporting role for clans instead of primary role, to boot.

Or this could all be completely retarded, since I've just been playing a lot of Long Dark.  But I was thinking about it and felt like sharing.  So take that!

[Medivh]

Weather sense is kind of a thing you can already do by watching storm patterns in IG areas.

Shelter-crafting is interesting, and I like it. Make small half-tents that give a bonus to resting on, and masters could make bigger ones you can enter maybe. Have it take a good while, and require carrying the extra weight of materials. Maybe give them a limited life span, like torches.

I haven't played a food forage PC in a while, but I remember it being a huge help in saving money. I don't think it's weak.
You can even make coin off of it.

I'm not sure on how I feel a ride change would go.

[Saellyn]

Storm..... patterns? What pattern exactly?

[Hauwke]

As a general rule areas should be subject a specific weather state. And at varying times it should be either 'slightly better' or 'slightly worse' I mean thats just one of things I guess. It makes sense in my head sorry if it sounds confusing or some other shit.

[Medivh]

Just speculation
Sandstorms roll into/out of areas. Day1 is clear. Day 2 is gritty. Day 3-5 is tremendous Day 6 is gritty. Days 7 Is clear.

[Riev]

I like the direction you're going, Armaddict. If we're going to continue with a class-based system, each class should have its own very specific specialties. If you're playing a Merchant, Coin and Crafting is your specialty. If you're a warrior, straight up fighting and taking a beating. Assassins, subterfuge and shadow striking. Rangers? Outdoor suitability in any weather condition or beast population.

Things of that nature. Thats why I struggle with the idea of the increased melee skills a ranger has, because if you ever ask "Why warrior, when I could ranger this character" then the classes are too similar. "Why mainline melee combat when I can mainline melee AND ranged". Make it more that your ranger could be "comparatively" as decent as a Warrior in combat but it takes a LOT longer, or bases itself more off the offense/defense of the class.

Really, can someone explain to me why someone who PRIMARILY in the Arm Universe is fighting scrabs, and jozhals, and carru and spiders (read: primarily) branches the ability to use their weapon to counter-move and counter-strike humanoids?

[Armaddict]

"The winds are picking up in this area, but the sands will stay settled."
"The winds are picking up in this area, and conditions will be taking a turn for the worse."
"The storm will start to break soon."

So on and so forth.  Yes, you can learn these patterns over time.  I'm saying make it so that a Ranger can observe it directly.  Have them have the heads up, 'a few hours' in game ahead of time.

Eh.  Probably no bueno.  Like I said, I've been playing Long Dark where it is just you and the elements in survivor mode, and it made me think of the 'easiness' of outside the gates right now.  With complaints such as this, it made me think 'sure, change it up a bit.  But make outside the gates more inhospitable by far, and make the ranger the thing that is weaker, but actually needed out there.'

Makes them very relevant outside the gates, still capable of solo/indy hunting, and promotes others staying in the city unless they're in a caravan/group.

But hey, I'm still fine with how things are as is, so *shrug* meh!

[Alesan]

I like the direction you're going, Armaddict. If we're going to continue with a class-based system, each class should have its own very specific specialties. If you're playing a Merchant, Coin and Crafting is your specialty. If you're a warrior, straight up fighting and taking a beating. Assassins, subterfuge and shadow striking. Rangers? Outdoor suitability in any weather condition or beast population.

Things of that nature. Thats why I struggle with the idea of the increased melee skills a ranger has, because if you ever ask "Why warrior, when I could ranger this character" then the classes are too similar. "Why mainline melee combat when I can mainline melee AND ranged". Make it more that your ranger could be "comparatively" as decent as a Warrior in combat but it takes a LOT longer, or bases itself more off the offense/defense of the class.

Really, can someone explain to me why someone who PRIMARILY in the Arm Universe is fighting scrabs, and jozhals, and carru and spiders (read: primarily) branches the ability to use their weapon to counter-move and counter-strike humanoids?

Surely there are some creatures with parry-able attacks. Surely. Right? Am I wrong?

I'm not all that invested in this discussion, but taking parry completely away from rangers seems weird when in my mind, there ARE attacks that can be parried that come from non-humanoids. I don't care if the proficiency is lowered, but taking it away altogether seems silly.

[Armaddict]

I was contemplating parry removal as well, but decided against it, though it did lead me to the 'What about listen, though?' line of thought.  It seemed like too drastic of a change.  But all of these changes are pretty drastic, because the discussion has gone towards 'everything is weak except ranger'...which is just very untrue, it's just that rangers do very well in the wilderness, and are very utilitarian to have around for in-city clans since most activity takes you outside the city.  People argue that subguilds can be taken to make rangers stronger inside the city as well, which makes me kind of furrow my brows and ask 'So....just like any other class, using a subguild to augment it makes it better at other things.'  I'm curious why assassin/outdoorsman gets no love.

Also, because this is irritating me.  Why is there the insinuation that warrior combat skills are somehow a detriment?  People are talking about 'oh, but it has a delay'...as if having things to do to press the attack in melee is somehow detrimental.  Yeah.  Maybe at 2 days played.  After training?  No.

Parry-
Sure, other classes get it.  Usually a very long time into their career.  Warriors start with it.  Piddling at the beginning, this is the skill that they quickly max and branch into other useful skills that get to acceptably high levels.  By that time, it is also the skill that allows warriors to be the only class to take a big hit, and have justification in thinking 'Whoa, that was a lucky hit.'  Anyone else who takes a big hit pre-parry has to immediately acknowledge that that kind of hit will probably happen again and start trying to bug out.  With the flee changes, that's sometimes scary.  Likewise, parry is also the skill that, because it rises quickly, allows you to make other attacks that give you a delay and not worry that said delay will lock you out of needing to escape.

Kick-
The ability to just...do damage.  Some delay, but after training it is relatively risk free.  No good for holding someone in place, but a pair of good warriors working -together- puts this to good use.  Do not understate how strong it is to be able to throw 8-15 damage out, once you work on this skill.  It's not a small deal.

Bash-
While this is improperly and strongly set to height, that hardly takes away what this skill is.  You don't want to bash giants, obviously, but with work, this skill stops failing.  If everyone in the game trained to max this out and everyone had it, it would lose its utility for dwarves.  Luckily that is never the case.  It does reach a point that even without a shield, it doesn't fail often.  And the delay it incurs on the target is real.  It is (or was) longer than the delay incurred by being charged by a mounted rider.

Disarm-
The risk of dropping your weapon steadily falls.  It has the shortest delay of any combat-oriented command in the game, including kill.  Warriors literally used this as their initiation move for a few years, because of it, but it stopped when the ability to drop your weapon was added despite it being relatively small risk.  Even if you drop your weapon, such is really only a big 'oh nooooo' when you're using a two handed weapon.  'Oh, they just draw another weapon.'  I've never seen a mentality where you steadily and consistently remove your opponent's ability to defend and attack looked down on for such a silly reason.  Yes.  They do draw another weapon.  Even if they're holding knives all over their person, this is still you pressing a serious advantage that both gives you short periods of time of your combat advantage being made larger, and lowers the amount of time your opponent can count on sticking around in the engagement, even if they are superior in weapon skills to you by a small-mediocre amount. 

Calling these lackluster is like calling ranger archery lackluster because it starts with high stamina cost and doesn't do enough damage.  Develop it and they become very strong tools that very firmly secure the warrior's position atop the pedestal of combat.  Defeating them -requires- the other classes to use gimmick shenanigans that you, atop your pedestal, should see coming and prepare for, i.e. Archery, backstab, and poison.  If any of those gimmick shenanigans fail or you hesitate or etc, and you find yourself locked in battle with that strong warrior...you now have Walter pointing a 1911 in your face.  "A world...of pain."

Anyway.  I felt like putting that out there.  Because I really am okay with things as is.  With that, and having good archery and throw to boot, as well as augmentation with subguilds to make them more versatile than just the combat...I feel like the idea that warriors are somehow fucked right now is exaggerating just weeeee bit.

[Riev]

Warriors are just used for the combative nature of Rangers as a counterpoint. I flipping love warriors and probably half my PCs are that guild. Again, they are a counterpoint to the melee capabilities of an outdoor ranged master.

We could talk about how assassins are supposed to be the masters of close range unseen combat, but I think warriors with Sneak/Bash got that covered. We could talk about the idea that a magicker could waste the crap out of a ranger with preparation, but thats obvious. Guilds don't need to be -balanced- compared to others, I think they just need to be specialized. Pickpocket/Burglar being combined is great and all, but Rangers are not as specialized as it would seem, they're the broad utility class because they can do almost anything in the game. Which doesn't specialize them to outdoor combat, which I would think they COULD. Hell, drop their parry to a lower cap and give all rangers tentmaking. I'd be for that. That would feel like a step in the right direction.


But the idea that people are picking ranger "because ranger quit" is just laudable.

[hopeandsorrow]

Warriors are just used for the combative nature of Rangers as a counterpoint. I flipping love warriors and probably half my PCs are that guild. Again, they are a counterpoint to the melee capabilities of an outdoor ranged master.

We could talk about how assassins are supposed to be the masters of close range unseen combat, but I think warriors with Sneak/Bash got that covered. We could talk about the idea that a magicker could waste the crap out of a ranger with preparation, but thats obvious. Guilds don't need to be -balanced- compared to others, I think they just need to be specialized. Pickpocket/Burglar being combined is great and all, but Rangers are not as specialized as it would seem, they're the broad utility class because they can do almost anything in the game. Which doesn't specialize them to outdoor combat, which I would think they COULD. Hell, drop their parry to a lower cap and give all rangers tentmaking. I'd be for that. That would feel like a step in the right direction.


But the idea that people are picking ranger "because ranger quit" is just laudable.

Ranger quit is like 50% of the reason I pick rangers.

They're the parent friendly class.  (So damn convenient when my 3 year old attempts one of her 1 am heists of the fridge).  If I had use OOC quit every time I quit out staff would have quiet a few questions about me and perhaps the insomnia my children and I share.

[nauta]

Not a derail (related to OP):

What I like about rangers (besides Wilderness Quit) is that they have all these neat little craft skills, which keep you busy during the off-hours (and some are actually useful).  I was only partly joking about pickpockets getting master floristry -- after all they get to master this other skill which is pretty surprising.  I suspect the economy of the game couldn't handle it, though, without some serious thought put into the idea of giving other guilds little flavor craft skills.

I also wish there were a 'Dumb Guild/Subguild Combinations' list out there.  I seem to always pick the dumb ones (i.e., where the guild already has most of the subguild's skills).  (That's just me being lazy, since the information is there.)

[RogueGunslinger]

Warriors are just used for the combative nature of Rangers as a counterpoint. I flipping love warriors and probably half my PCs are that guild. Again, they are a counterpoint to the melee capabilities of an outdoor ranged master.

We could talk about how assassins are supposed to be the masters of close range unseen combat, but I think warriors with Sneak/Bash got that covered. We could talk about the idea that a magicker could waste the crap out of a ranger with preparation, but thats obvious. Guilds don't need to be -balanced- compared to others, I think they just need to be specialized. Pickpocket/Burglar being combined is great and all, but Rangers are not as specialized as it would seem, they're the broad utility class because they can do almost anything in the game. Which doesn't specialize them to outdoor combat, which I would think they COULD. Hell, drop their parry to a lower cap and give all rangers tentmaking. I'd be for that. That would feel like a step in the right direction.


But the idea that people are picking ranger "because ranger quit" is just laudable.

Ranger quit is like 50% of the reason I pick rangers.

They're the parent friendly class.  (So damn convenient when my 3 year old attempts one of her 1 am heists of the fridge).  If I had use OOC quit every time I quit out staff would have quiet a few questions about me and perhaps the insomnia my children and I share.

I use quit OOC all the damn time for any damn excuse I can think of. Staff don't give a fuck. They should really make it usable multiple times in a row.


Armaddict, I could not disagree more about your perception of combat skills. It really seems like you're grasping at straws in your defense of them. But, I suppose that's obvious. I've already had my say on why I think the skills are lackluster.

[Armaddict]

Okies.  I'll warrior next.

I'm not sure how any of that is grasping at straws, but okay.

[BadSkeelz]

I think some of the perception that the combat skills that make up much of a warrior's unique skill list (kick, bash, disarm) are weak is that an inordinate amount of combat in Arm takes place mounted, where rangers are definitely superior. Outside of apartments or cells, any foot-fighting my warriors have done has been during RPTs where I don't dare risk kicking or bashing something lest the group combat code focuses on me and I need to flee in a hurry.

Disarm also (seemingly) has the weird quirk where using it at Master level is likely to fail than at Advanced, and the best thing to do is simply wait for other people to try and disarm you. This turns it from an active skill into a passive one.

[WanderingOoze]

r
I also wish there were a 'Dumb Guild/Subguild Combinations' list out there.  I seem to always pick the dumb ones (i.e., where the guild already has most of the subguild's skills).  (That's just me being lazy, since the information is there.)

Id like this, for the opposite reason. I always tend to pick guild/subguilds that seem to me like they'd be the "average guy/bumbling idiot" combination of skills. But turn out to actually be quite good.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

I think some of the perception that the combat skills that make up much of a warrior's unique skill list (kick, bash, disarm) are weak is that an inordinate amount of combat in Arm takes place mounted, where rangers are definitely superior. Outside of apartments or cells, any foot-fighting my warriors have done has been during RPTs where I don't dare risk kicking or bashing something lest the group combat code focuses on me and I need to flee in a hurry.

Places I use disarm / bash:
a) Sparring
b) Fights I have absolutely no fear of losing anyways.

On the other hand, archery is just the opposite where it can be used to win fights you have absolutely no chance of surviving in the melee.

I don't think that means that we have to turn RANGERS (a militarily originated term) into HUNTERS (a non-military term) completely. I would be fine if they were just taken down 10 or 15 points in the etwo / dual wield / parry areas to be more on line with assassins. They still remain distinctive, they remain balanced, and above all they remain PLAYABLE.

Though I would still simply prefer that, instead of nerfing rangers, other classes got a smidge more lurving. I'm also starting to rethink my original stance that rangers were as combat effective as warriors because it's only true of very high end warriors/rangers. For the first 30-40 days of your life, there's a noticable difference. And after that, you kind of deserve to be a bad-ass.

Also, I don't think it should be said that rangers can't melee because they already ranged so well. Any ranger who claims that they used "shoot" more than "kill" is a liar. Sure, using archery outdoors is insanely effective as PK tool, but I don't think it's necessarily a great argument for saying that rangers only need that. The problem with using PK as a yardstick is that, in the right scenario/circumstance, almost any class can merc any other class. That is to say, if you're the aggressor (and are being smart about it) you should have the upper hand. But having master archery, ride, sneak, and hide won't matter much when my warrior spots you first, covers 3 screens/leagues in 3 seconds IRL, and drops you to half health before you manage to flee. (Okay, it will probably help you flee and bandage back up, but you must admit that a non-ranger can catch a ranger with their pants down outdoors almost as easily as the other way around.)

[roughneck]

The only balance issue I see is with mounted combat. Give warriors the ability to pull an opponent off their mount, and don't make mounted combat such a huge advantage for rangers.

Giving bash this utility, or a separate skill that branches off bash makes sense to me.

Or, at least give bash a defensive utility against charge, where the higher the skill levels give you a chance of dodging a charging mount.

Hell, I'd even love to see a chance for mounts to take damage or become incapacitated. Rangers should have to rely on their real hunting skills, not simply their ride skill and the giant rampaging lizard they are precariously perched upon.

[Hauwke]

I for one find ride quite ridiculous at higher levels. I mean I have noticed in game that some people actually fight better while mounted because they somehow do basically a fuck ton more damage. Could just be me but that is definately how it seems. I mean sure people can learn to fight better while mounted sure. But not to the degree of: Lol my big ass sword bounced cos I was on foot. To lol I one shot a scrab on its leg with my sword cos I was mounted


Rant over.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

I mean I have noticed in game that some people actually fight better while mounted because they somehow do basically a fuck ton more damage. Could just be me but ...

It's not just you. We call these manly men (and womenly women) rangers!

Give warriors the ability to pull an opponent off their mount, and don't make mounted combat such a huge advantage for rangers.

Giving bash this utility, or a separate skill that branches off bash makes sense to me.

This is a swell idea, and falls in line with "buff warrior, don't nerf Ranger." It would be great if bash could target mounted opponents. Maybe mounts give you a huge bash defense boost, so that it would really only become useful by high advanced bash.

On a side note, if you're a beefy warrior, you can usually disable a mount in 3-4 rounds... just saying. Not even sure if the ranger can stay mounted or flee his mount if you go that route, but it's definitely an option.

On a side-side note, there was a great 2nd hand story in the Song of Ice and Fire novels where a knight was sent to assassinate Bron, Tyrion's old quintessential merc pal. The knight, being knightly, decided to challenge Bron to a joust because it was honorable, and Bron had absolutely no training with a lance, which was a good bet. Except Bron aimed his unwieldly lance at his opponent's enormous horse instead of it's rider. Love that tactic.

[Ender]

I for one find ride quite ridiculous at higher levels. I mean I have noticed in game that some people actually fight better while mounted because they somehow do basically a fuck ton more damage. Could just be me but that is definately how it seems. I mean sure people can learn to fight better while mounted sure. But not to the degree of: Lol my big ass sword bounced cos I was on foot. To lol I one shot a scrab on its leg with my sword cos I was mounted


Rant over.

Mounted combat is historically pretty powerful.  Look at the Mongols or cavalry units in any medieval army.  That being said, warriors can and do get good at mounted combat.