Rangers OP or Just Right? Split from RAT

[bardlyone]

Rangers and assassins ARE on a par, w/regards to weapon skills, barring some change that gave rangers better weapons skills or assassins worse weapons skills in the last 4 years. And neither of the two are equal to a warrior. Though they are closer to that of a warrior with weapons skills, than they would be, say, a burglar. Again barring changes to their weapons/combat skills in the past few years, that I wasn't made to know of.

I can pretty much guarantee personally that anyone saying differently has never had the ability to see the fact based reality of where the guilds cap at in hard numbers, firsthand, without relying on it being a guess, an algorithm based assumption, or something similar. I have.

I think backstab would be better renamed to something like critical strike, if you want to take a path where guilds stay as they are.

If you want to subscribe to the combining stealth guilds (which I get), I'd round all 3 into 1. Essentially turning the mundane roles into: city survival, desert survival, combat, and creation, as the basic principles, of the guild. Yes, they'd all be pretty stacked with skills (especially if you gave warrior some extra toys, like poisoning with a low moderate cap, better scan, maybe their own unarmed skill so even with fists they'd be counted as armed, etc.), you'd have fewer choices, but a lot more variety for ideas and such within the realm of each.

[CodeMaster]

Making pickpockets/burglars better at combat, or even nerfing rangers (which are a lot of people's favorite!), seems like promoting a race to the middle.  (But if pickpockets were to get any combat boost that was guild-appropriate, I'd say it should be disarm ... how else can you steal a wielded weapon?).  But I'd rather see further diversification of the guilds.

A great albeit controversial example of a guild-diversifying skill is ranger's wilderness quit.  It's fun, OOCly convenient, and makes sense to me -- you can keep that character out in the wild for extended periods.  I would honestly take a ranger with half the melee abilities as long as I got to keep wilderness quit.

What about city quit for burglars?  If anyone's able to find a nook or cranny to crash for the night, it's these guys.  Maybe put a restriction on it that they have to be hidden before they can quit.

Pickpockets feel like they should be about enhanced mobility in the city.  What if they had a hurry command that gave them a temporary movement-speed boost (best combined with sneak)?

[In Dreams]

Rangers and assassins ARE on a par, w/regards to weapon skills

Not that I'm totally an expert, but at least in my experience this isn't even close to true, and at least from what I've read on these boards I think it has to do with assassins not having all of the weapon skills, which is something that bugs me. If you can fight I don't know why you can't learn how to fight with different weapons.

I'm not the most experienced in combat though because I find the skilling up of it incredibly boring.

[Mordiggian]

Examining the viability and opportunities of the various main guilds is in future plans.

[Desertman]

Rangers are OP in the desert. This is the only place they are OP. Seeing as how that is the entire focus of the Guild, I am fine with this.

Melee combat on Rangers is at best a joke, and at worst it's a last resort secondary "oh I just fucked up" measure.

Rangers are good at three things. Travelling, Hunting, and Strategic Desert Combat.

Travelling - I played a Merchant/Hunter AS a Ranger once, and had zero trouble doing it, so player experience can trump this feature of the Guild in reality. You know what player experience can't trump? Me getting my ass beat without landing a single hit against a Warrior in a fight who has 10% of my playtime on their PC.

Hunting - I played the same Merchant/Hunter above AS a Ranger. I hunted alone constantly. Same scenario. I found using my player skill made this surprisingly easy. I killed pretty much everything I would venture to kill as a Guild Ranger through archery. If you hunt using your melee skills on anything other than small game, in my opinion you are playing very risky as a Ranger. I still killed things like tregils and gimpka rats and skeet in melee with this Merchant. I used archery to hunt bigger things and regularly dropped carru/gortok/scrab/raptors....usually without ever losing a single drop of blood.

This Merchant was an old man named Takoda. My stats were shit because I started him old on purpose. I hunted alone all of the time. Killed things all of the time. Even went out and fought beside the Legion twice in the forest, and survived both times just due to my player experience. What finally got me? An assassin in the middle of a crowded tavern.

Strategic Desert Combat - Rangers are supposed to be able to dominate in this fashion. This is where they are supposed to be OP. I don't see an issue. If they aren't OP in this regard, the Guild isn't being used correctly.

If Rangers are OP, they are only OP in one regard....they can kill you in the desert.

They aren't any better at actually hunting, if you hunt intelligently as though you are afraid for your character's life and limbs, than a Merchant/Hunter combination.

Come to think of it....you can now play a Merchant/Outdoorsman....which would be leaps and bounds easier than when I did it.

What are we even complaining about?

[Refugee]

I think rangers are pretty much ok the way they are.  They're not much good in melee until they get parry, which is very difficult to do.  Even then they can't go toe to toe with a good warrior, and they shouldn't be able to.  Archery is where they become truly lethal...and that's how it should be too. 

A maxed out ranger is a scary thing in the wilds.  But a maxed out anything combat should be a scary thing. 

[Desertman]

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.

Because your PC is a person. People in real life have limitations and things they are good at and things they will NEVER be good at.

This is true with everything. I will be never an artist. If I was a "PC" and there was an "Art Skill", I assure you that Art would not even be on my skills list. It wouldn't even be novice. You could put me through four years of art class and let me waste hundreds of dollars in art supplies and I would still have the artistic ability of Koko the Gorilla's mentally handicapped second inbred cousin. (I did take four years of art. I am not pulling your leg. I am a fucking moron when it comes to art and always will be no matter how much work I put into it. It is a touchy subject for me. Anyone who wants to give me shit can go fuck themselves. I got dem feelings.)

This is the same way for combat. I see people roll into my gym regularly who have what we call, "Awkward body economy.". They don't know how to move their own bodies. I can watch someone for two minutes hitting a bag and tell you immediately their boxing skill will always be Novice. They will never get any better. They simply lack the ability to move their bodies.

Why is this related? Because if I put a sword in that guy's hands....I guarantee you he would chop his own fucking leg off. He can't even punch a heavy bag without looking like he has lead for ass cheeks. (It is also worth noting that most of the time these people have no idea they have awkward body economy and no amount of explaining it to them will ever make them realize it. You will just have to watch them painfully and ineffectually fuck around for the next few weeks until they quit. This however, is an unrelated rant.)

That's a hard concept for a lot of people. You get older and if you are wise you realize that you will never be good at some things. You simply are not smart enough, coordinated enough, or strong enough. No amount of motivation or hard work is going to make some people better at some things. Why? Because some people just aren't meant to be good at them. They will always suck. They will suck until the day they die.

I don't see why our characters should be any different.

From a playability standpoint and forgetting everything else about RL...having set Guilds instead of a world of "everyone can do everything" makes people depend on each other. It makes people seek other people out because they NEED them, because they can't do it themselves. They can't even do a half-assed job of it themselves. They HAVE to have someone else for it....and that promotes things like the economy, the lore, and just in general player interaction and gameplay.

[Suhuy]

If rangers are overpowered it makes sense anyway. Most of the Known World is a dusty scrap of land which only the most hardened and well trained of individuals can navigate, let alone survive in. All other skills would be seen as secondary and lesser compared to that of survival skills, making the "survivalist" (or ranger) the most powerful of them all.

Of course, I don't think anyone would complain if the other mundane guilds got a little love by implementing new skills to reflect their specific talents.

[hopeandsorrow]

Examining the viability and opportunities of the various main guilds is in future plans.

We Did It, GDB.

[RogueGunslinger]

It's been in plans for a while, actually.

[hopeandsorrow]

It's been in plans for a while, actually.

[Armaddict]

Those of you who talk about combining all three city crime guilds into one...

All I will say is the amount of crying will increase exponentially when I, on a whim, can effectively kill you anywhere you go, be it behind closed door, via spice planting or huge backstab or sudden sap.  Then I can turn around and manipulate your friend's inventory, poison all of your enemy's blades without fear, and never worry about the crime as I dance on rooftops and laugh at the PC soldiers trying to catch me.  Even combining just pickpocket and burglar...that's just...a city guild that is -mind-bogglingly- powerful.

You're talking about making a guild that -requires- a mage to put a stop to.  This is not a 'versatile guild', this is a ranger x5, since the city is where the majority of people are at all times.

Also...rangers -are- fine.  Pickpockets are fine, if you're wanting a character who can do inventory manipulation and who can defend themselves better than most people give credit for, -and- kill if they get the jump on someone.  Assassins are fine if you're playing a city ranger, where their skills are actually remarkably comparable to each other.  Burglars are fine, if you're wanting a character who can contribute to just about any situation except for combat.  Which they can still contribute to, but get left behind by other long-lived PC's.  The only 'non-viable guild' to me is Warrior, not because they're -weak-, but because they're -boring- to me.  All their skill support is in like...2% of their playtime (likely less), which is not my style.

[In Dreams]

This is the same way for combat. I see people roll into my gym regularly who have what we call, "Awkward body economy.". They don't know how to move their own bodies. I can watch someone for two minutes hitting a bag and tell you immediately their boxing skill will always be Novice. They will never get any better. They simply lack the ability to move their bodies.

Okay! So! Find someone who is an absolute pro at, say, using a club. This person can take a club and totally take out a baby seal of considerable size with one swing of even a club of meager viciousness. This same person can go fishing or hunting in their back yard with a spear and have enough food to feed their family for a week in a couple hours, because they are wow, really super impressive with a spear.

This same person cannot ever, even if they spend ten years doing it, learn how to, say, swing a sword well enough to hit pretty much anything that moves? If they took aim at a stick of butter on the kitchen counter they'd smash their microwave, chop their kid's head off, and a lot of precious china before they ever managed to slice buttery goodness?

Sorry, you can try your very best to explain that away, but we both know you'd just be rationalising and covering up for an arbitrary code limitation that's both silly on its own and one of the reasons rangers are better than everyone else: they can do everything!

Giving all weapon skills to all combative types would also go a long way towards squishing the fact that someone's weapon choices make their guild pretty obvious at all times.

[555]

Anyone who's tried to stop a maxed out burglar who sneaks and hides everywhere knows what a pain in the ass it is.

[hopeandsorrow]

That's why I feel scan should be location agnostic and warriors should get some ability.  Or there should be a mechanism to prevent "Le hide in empty apartment".  Like perhaps you can't insta scan some one out or don't have scan.  But a search command with a serious delay could route out a hidden elf in the bar full of humans, if they weren't smart enough to sneak out there.

But I could rant on why Stealth skills are like magic some days.  Still doesn't change my opinion that Burglar/PickPocket should be the same damn guild just good at theft.  Separating the two just seems like needless over specialization that in no way reflects a realistic representation of some one who lived such a life.

[Armaddict]

Rather than giving everyone all weapon skills, I'd be okay with people being able to choose their weapon skills (i.e. Burglars get a prompt in creation that says 'choose two').  Make backstab a passive critical strike skill that applies to all weapons with different damage modifiers for each type, and a growing % chance to critical hit out of stealth.  Something like that.  The bit with backstab/critical strike may be unnecessary, but I was thinking purely along the lines of no longer being required to use daggers as an assassin, though they'd definitely work better.

However, while I disagree with Desertman's 'awkward body economy' argument (Really dude?  No amount of training ever to get over what is essentially poor dexterity?  Naaaaah, some people take longer for certain, but everyone improve movements and ability), I do agree that not every character should just be able to pick up anything and get -proficient- with it, based purely off of not realism, but game design.  There are large deals that come with weapon skills just being on your skill list.  Even at novice, they're giving you more boons holding that weapon than I think you realize.  A person with slashing at novice, and a person without weapon skills but high offense and defense, those sort of boons of the skill come to be seen rather well.  The reason for not everyone having all of them is that it denotes that everyone has some sort of skill with everything, where the majority of Zalanthas, PC's included, doesn't really have a reason to think ahead to using those tools in combat.  They have what they use.  They use what they have.  That's that.

You can argue 'Anyone can learn it, though', but that's the way every skill in the game is, and undermines the entire skill system in place, demanding an overhaul on its entirety.  Applying that logic to some skills and not others is a faulty way of sticking to the inline code and maintaining the integrity of how the code and world act in tandem.  You can argue they might be preparing for a situation where they don't have their weapon, which is more of the same...we don't take into account that people prepare for wilderness survival because they are a city guild.  Likewise, we do not take into account that they may train enough to have novice proficiency in all weapons simply by existing.

I'm okay with warriors and rangers being the only ones with all four.  But I do agree with the 'boxed in' feel other guilds as far as weapons go, and am okay with the idea that they could choose different styles for themselves.  Who says that burglar doesn't like clubbing people in their house?  Not me!

[Armaddict]

That's why I feel scan should be location agnostic and warriors should get some ability.  Or there should be a mechanism to prevent "Le hide in empty apartment".  Like perhaps you can't insta scan some one out or don't have scan.  But a search command with a serious delay could route out a hidden elf in the bar full of humans, if they weren't smart enough to sneak out there.

But I could rant on why Stealth skills are like magic some days.  Still doesn't change my opinion that Burglar/PickPocket should be the same damn guild just good at theft.  Separating the two just seems like needless over specialization that in no way reflects a realistic representation of some one who lived such a life.

Still very stalwart disagreement on my part, knowing how powerful each of those classes actually gets.  It's not 'needless overspecialization', it's needed separation.  Combining their skills results in all elements of crime being performed by one class, very well.  There wouldn't even be a need to be an assassin anymore.  That other one can do -everything-.  Pickpockets are actually pretty decent in combat, to the point that they can keep up with most other classes into the mid-length character (not with warriors.  Starting with parry rather than branching it is a big boon).

I'm uncertain.  Have you guys played long lived characters of these classes?  I have not played a pickpocket in some time, but I have played -with- pickpockets.  The things each class does are nothing short of amazing.  Combining any two is bad.  Class reform, in my opinion, is more about making hybrids between the existing ones, rather than nullifying/combining any of them.

As far as representation of anyone who lived such a life...pickpocket is the guy up on stage taking things while people watch them, and not being caught.  Burglars are the guys who can often pull off lifts in a crowd, but still have to run away now and again.  Likewise, burglars are the guys in movies who scale walls, break safes and etc.  No one else really does it to that degree, but assassins learn some of those basics to get into positions they need.

I dunno, that feels very well formulated to me, and I feel that this discussion is more based off of people who have tried a couple times, grazed the surface, but not gotten -deep- into those character roles.  Each one really is -incredibly good- at what they do.

[RogueGunslinger]

I don't think anyone would argue that burglars aren't good at burgling and that warriors aren't good at fighting melee. What people are saying is only having one specific thing to be good at can get old pretty quick. Just because they're good at what they do doesn't mean they couldn't have more utility to be useful in more situations.

An actual trap skill, or caltrops, or flash bangs, or bashing doors or a "raise shield east" command that allows you to absorb most of the arrows while sacraficing durability on the shield quickly, or the ability for assassins to flee from a fight unnoticed. Literally a million cool suggestions have been made over the years for neat skills that might make mundane characters interesting and dynamic.

Things that aren't just "Youre a warrior and you're the best at melee, oh and we're going to give you max parry on top of that, and advanced weapons on top of that, and these combat skills on top of that and they're all going to make you even better at something you were already better at. Yay."

[Armaddict]

Shields already give a tremendous boost to defense against archery.  Huge.

The problem with that is that you're not asking for class revisions.  You're asking for a skill overhaul, and a change the way skills and classes work altogether.  That's not what the rest of this discussion is based around.  So while what you're asking about makes sense, and is not a lot of work, a lot of the other discussion that I'm replying to is not necessarily too much work, but doesn't make sense. (Edit for clarification: Making each class able to do more than a specialization is what this is talking about.  In a class-based system, specialization is the name of the game, and to step away from specialization requires a new conceptual redesign of balance, how skills and maxes are determined, and etc.  Subguilds serve this purpose pretty well, and are being worked on, so maybe this is the thing to keep an eye on.)

Not to mention...those ideas you're suggesting there don't change what your argument is.  That's further specialization in their area, which is also fine, but doesn't lead to any divergence from what you say gets old.  (Edit for clarifiation:  Here I'm not talking about the same thing as above.  Here I'm talking about the various skill ideas over the years, and how they, too, are oriented around the specialization that you said we want to move away from.)

[RogueGunslinger]

what you say gets old.

i'll fite you bro 

I know shield gives defense to archery. Having maxed the skill many times, it's not tremendous, but that may due to it being based on more things than shield use, and possibly the archers skill as well, so maybe I've been unlucky.

Also, I wouldn't call bashing a door for a warrior further specialization. Some of the ideas may be a little bit like that (stealth escape for assassins) but that's beside the point. There are more ideas out there. Surely better ones, that was all off the top of my head.

As for "class revision" vs "skill overhall". Both in the same wheelhouse if you ask me. It's not like it would have to be a whole list of new skills. 1-2 further branched skill for any one of these classes that makes sense for their guild would be all it takes to make them more dynamic and interesting. Like Rangers currently are.

[Armaddict]

For the record, RGS, I am not against further improvement of the classes, or new skills.

But some things in this discussion went to the point where they were alarming me.  Combining pickpocket and burglar really is just plain dangerous, so far as classes are concerned, where I think that an extended subguild on either one fixes the thing people say is the problem.

And you took that quote completely out of context!  I meant -you- said it gets old, not that what you're saying gets old!

As for "class revision" vs "skill overhall". Both in the same wheelhouse if you ask me.

I edited the previous post while you were posting.  Does my edit explain why I think that's different?

[wizturbo]

With extended subguilds, Rangers seem like they can be a jack of all trades that's 90% as good at everything as another class.  Maybe thst alone is ok, but the fact that they're also the BEST at so many things on top of that which feels imbalanced compared to the city guilds.

[555]

Give all city stealth characters dual stealth and city quit.

[hopeandsorrow]

For the record, RGS, I am not against further improvement of the classes, or new skills.

But some things in this discussion went to the point where they were alarming me.  Combining pickpocket and burglar really is just plain dangerous, so far as classes are concerned, where I think that an extended subguild on either one fixes the thing people say is the problem.

You can only use extended sub-guilds so often, one bad stroke of luck and its all for not.

I can't speak for everyone, but I personally don't play those classes because they're only ever going to be good at ONE thing.  No matter how awesome at RP you are, your skill sheet will limit you.  It doesn't help that in my experience most plots/conflicts/happenings, rarely require that one thing. So you're either tavern sitting spinning your wheels or just coming along to be dead weight.

If I compared them to Rangers.  Rangers can be hunters, treasure hunters, herbalists, desert guides, assassins, and soldiers.  Perhaps with various degrees of proficiency, but no other class has that many options.  I Feel they should.  I Feel warriors should be more than sacks of unperceptive meat with weapons attached.  I Believe that the stealth triangle needs to at lest share among it self the various skills it has, to a degree a Burglar can claim proficiency in something other than the one Gimmick of opening locks, or picking pockets, or stabbing people.

My experience, short of a spec app or extended sub-guild. You don't see Burglar's being much use out of burglary.  Or Pick Pockets being much use but as inventory specialists, or Assassins can claim the level of proficiency that warriors/rangers can with soldiering.

Outside of Social focused roles and spec apps, they're a very limited skill sheet.

I just want the other mundanes, the stealthy guys especially to enjoy the range of employment/varied skills that Rangers enjoy.  

Hell Rangers are the only guild that their job description isn't their guild name.

[Armaddict]

Assassin/outdoorsman is just as viable.  Perhaps moreso, since city stealth as a base is more valuable than desert stealth as a base (this may not make a difference, but in my experience it seems to, but at the very least, they are equivalent).

Rangers are the best at exactly two things, which is archery and riding animals.  Well, and skinning, if you want to count that.  Hunt is roughly equivalent to assassins, scan is roughly equivalent to assassins, poison is less than assassins.  Rangers are only very marginally better than assassins at combat, if at all, their only advantage being they can choose a weapon type.  They are not best at guarding or rescuing.  They are not capable of locking anything down without use of poisons (as warriors, assassins, and even pickpockets are).  They are not best at climbing, or listening.

Do they have a good skillset?  Yes.  Are they versatile?  Yes.  They are accomplished scouts for the military, but throw them into the city and they're not so hot.  I've gone at rangers with complete confidence with burglars.  They are the ultimate guild if your character wants to spend a good amount of time out of doors, or in a versatile role in a military clan, rather than a frontline role in a military clan.

Are there bound to be a lot of them?  Yes.  I'm okay with that, particularly with them -not- being anywhere near the top of the food chain in the city, but getting a good deal higher -if- they supplement with a city-based subguild.  Assassins are top of the food chain IN the city, nowhere near outside the city, but can go up a great deal by supplementing with wilderness based subguilds.  Warriors are consistent in both places.

This is normal.