Rangers OP or Just Right? Split from RAT

[Dresan]

Primitive axes were very useful for hunting actually. I mean the moment you attach a sharp stone to a stick it practically became the first axe, which is much more effective than just any club. It would be more useful for finishing off prey after you shoot it down, and then chopping into the carcass and going through those larger bones and joints.

All I'm saying is that it would be a better weapon for them to know than swords. Oh and in the north, all my rangers were lumberjacks. Granted in the south they are mostly miners now with pickaxes.  

[IAmJacksOpinion]

Are zalanthan rangers hunters though? Or are they raiders? Or some other kind of military scout?

And who says they specialize in archery? Obviously they have the highest cap, but does that mean they should only shoot things? How does this work out when bows cost about half of your starting coin, and it takes about 20 arrows to down weak prey? And we all play in the south where bow and arrow prices are hiked up.

I could get behind a SMALL melee nerf, but what I'm hearing here is "gut the class."  I'll point out that journeyman weapon skills" is like burglar / pickpocket level... And even pickpockets get parry, so taking that away is just cold.

[Majikal]

Has the discussion rolled around to taking weapon styles away from rangers? Wtf.

[Riev]

Has the discussion rolled around to taking weapon styles away from rangers? Wtf.

My only question was why they have all the skills that they do, looking for a justification. Zalanthas is a harsh world, even harsher in the desert. Rangers are ranged specialists. Not a single person can deny that. Assassins are specialists at backstabs and attacking from the shadows and waiting for the right moment. Neither of these things DEFINES the class, and people can perfectly use an assassin skillset and not use backstab a single time.

The question is, DO rangers need access to all the weapon skills they have? Does it make sense that someone specialized to the outdoors is using a sword? Or that they are potentially AS GOOD with that sword as a trained gladiator? Rangers can be a simple hunter, or they can be Special Ops, but the fact  that they do everything that two other classes can do and are AS GOOD at it, is a little concerning.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

I'll deny it Riev. They have highest cap, but that doesn't mean that it should be their main / only mode of combat. Just because you're hung like a horse doesn't mean you have to do porn.

And frankly, the term "Ranger" is more militaristic than it is outdoorsmany. They're not called "hunters" or "archers."

[RogueGunslinger]

Rangers's best, most powerful and deadly tool is their bow. Archery itself is more powerful than many form of magick. Arguing that they're not a ranged specialist seems pretty silly, as we're not discussing the roleplay opportunities of the ranger, we're talking about their skillset.

[Delirium]

Um... no. Magick is way better than archery. And apprentice weapon skills? What are they now merchants?


Jeez you guys. Let's make other classes more fun instead of making rangers miserable.

[RogueGunslinger]

Facepalm.



edit: This facepalm is because I, and almost everyone, would rather other classes get buffs instead of ranger get nerfs. And because of course magick is stronger than archery.

[Riev]

I'll deny it Riev. They have highest cap, but that doesn't mean that it should be their main / only mode of combat. Just because you're hung like a horse doesn't mean you have to do porn.

And frankly, the term "Ranger" is more militaristic than it is outdoorsmany. They're not called "hunters" or "archers."

Were we playing a game wherein our skills were a bit more fluid, I would be apt to agree with you. But we're talking about an entire set of skills and whether or not they make this one guild more powerful/interesting/overpowered than others in a general sense.

Frankly, I have less a problem with the code of it, and more the RP of it because, as I said earlier, there isn't enough humanoid vs humanoid combat that REQUIRES units like Byn Mercenaries and Tor graduates. 90% of the combat in came is vs beast-type mobiles, and the humanoid combat is mostly NPC gith. If there were more of a reason for bashing, and disarming, and rescuing and all that, Warriors would definitely shine. But the time in which they shine is VASTLY overshadowed by the time in which Rangers shine. THAT is my problem. Rangers are good in just about every situation you drop them in and are AS. CAPABLE. as other classes which are supposedly specialized to those situations.

[Delirium]

That's very authoritatively stated but I disagree with you on the simple principle that my experience proves you wrong. Warrior tactics have a ton of use and if you're well trained in group/mass combat - which yes takes ic and ooc practice - I would bet on the group that has a mixed unit rather than the group that just has rangers. And I loved having warriors in my unit.

Let's be real - the reason rangers get so much love is because they have direction sense and wilderness quit. You level out the wilderness quit situation, spice up the warrior skill set to give them limited observation and climb skills, and I can't see any more room for complaint save from those that just don't understand how to make combat work for them.

[Majikal]

How many years now and suddenly rangers OP?  Meh.

[Delirium]

How many years now and suddenly rangers OP?  Meh.

About my feelings. I don't understand the notion of taking a class so many love and trying to "fix" it. The far more logical solution is to consider why it is so well loved and bring the other classes up to par.

[Case]

Give rangers wilderness backstab

[Bushranger]

Give rangers wilderness backstab

This is archery!

[RogueGunslinger]

Bash the gicker, disarm the gith, and rescue people being beaten on.

Bash people who drop their weapon.

Bash people who might run.

Pray your opponent isn't riding.

There you go, warrior tactics everybody.


Subdue should disarm the person subdued, like it does the subduer.

[hyzhenhok]

There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

[Case]

There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

Well not really, as it doesn't matter if it says master or not, or if it's the coded cap. If they're higher than basically every other PC, which they are and will be, they'll still be just as warriory. Why's the focus always on maxing out?

[Dresan]

That's very authoritatively stated but I disagree with you on the simple principle that my experience proves you wrong. Warrior tactics have a ton of use and if you're well trained in group/mass combat - which yes takes ic and ooc practice - I would bet on the group that has a mixed unit rather than the group that just has rangers. And I loved having warriors in my unit.

Let's be real - the reason rangers get so much love is because they have direction sense and wilderness quit. You level out the wilderness quit situation, spice up the warrior skill set to give them limited observation and climb skills, and I can't see any more room for complaint save from those that just don't understand how to make combat work for them.

I suppose shield and rescue is nice in a mass combat situation, but so is a two-hander and charge half the time. Ranger/protector is sweet i think for those leadership roles.

Unless sneak and hide got nerfed recently, I am not sure why scan even at ranger level scan on a warrior would matter? Climb? Meh. I've mentioned this before but climb is a funny skill that won't actually save your life when the time comes even if mastered, its nice getting out holes that you survive with less hassle i suppose.

As I said I think warriors only need hands free ride, this will open up some more sub-guild choices for warriors. You can pick stuff like warrior/rogue and still join the byn. Sure you will need to be led around during storms but you'll fight like a beast on mount or otherwise when you get there.

Now if you really want to make warriors OP....then let them branch direction sense alongside blindfighting. If they got ride AND eventually branched direction sense (you know since the helpfile says they often find themselves chosen to be leaders of groups) then it would be a really really hard choice between ranger or warrior (for me at least).

[RogueGunslinger]

There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

Well not really, as it doesn't matter if it says master or not, or if it's the coded cap. If they're higher than basically every other PC, which they are and will be, they'll still be just as warriory. Why's the focus always on maxing out?

It can just as easily apply to dual-wield, kick, bash and others.

[BadSkeelz]

Why warriors, whose "skills involve only the many aspects of fighting" don't already get 2hand ride and charge is beyond me. If you want to be a heavy-cavalry-type PC, you either need to take ranger/protector (or just get massive skilled up) or be a warrior+riding subguild. And I'm not sure they get charge even then.

A warrior+riding is also pretty much just a dude who can beat stuff in melee while mounted as well as afoot, while a ranger's a... ranger, with all their fun skills to play with.

[Case]

There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

Well not really, as it doesn't matter if it says master or not, or if it's the coded cap. If they're higher than basically every other PC, which they are and will be, they'll still be just as warriory. Why's the focus always on maxing out?

It can just as easily apply to dual-wield, kick, bash and others.

I've never struggled to get up dwield kick bash or anything from the Combat Skills list, no, and I'm like the laziest skiller ever

[RogueGunslinger]

Don't your characters last for real-life years?

Maybe you prioritize wisdom.

[hyzhenhok]

There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

Well not really, as it doesn't matter if it says master or not, or if it's the coded cap. If they're higher than basically every other PC, which they are and will be, they'll still be just as warriory. Why's the focus always on maxing out?

You don't have to be focused on maxing out to realize that no, when everyone gets stuck around apprentice/journeyman on their weapon skills, warriors do not actually commonly get their weapon skills better than everyone else.

[Case]

There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

Well not really, as it doesn't matter if it says master or not, or if it's the coded cap. If they're higher than basically every other PC, which they are and will be, they'll still be just as warriory. Why's the focus always on maxing out?

You don't have to be focused on maxing out to realize that no, when everyone gets stuck around apprentice/journeyman on their weapon skills, warriors do not actually commonly get their weapon skills better than everyone else.

Tons of guilds have no or few weapon skills.

Maybe everybody is ranger? I mean shit, I got a PC to branch a weapon skill through a minimum amount of fighting just this year

[Saellyn]

Then that isn't normal and you should look at how you were able to do that, because most people who play warriors and start at their baseline skills experience an incredibly painful grind to get their weapon skills to move up.