Bow Damage

[sigtrent]

Re to Strakeln

I've spent some time doing SCA combat (midevil recreation stuff) and similar home brew stuff when I was a teen. I've also coggitated a on a number of gaming systems trying to realisticaly capture the essense of real martial combat in a game.

Melee and ranged are really two seperate beasts!

Ranged combat is all about the attacker being accurate and and how much energy the weapon projects and how it interacts with the target. So step one is lining up a good shot including all the conditions. The human brain is very well adapted to doing these calculations, especialy with training. It's much easier to simply throw a ball accurately than do all the calculation on paper to figure out at what angle it should be thrown and with X ammount of force. So while aiming is hard, its something we are good at to a certain degree. Most projectiles are so fast that you can not dodge or block them. (some are like thrown weapons or an arrow from a weak bow (I've faced these myself) but most are simply too fast to stop <see appropriate mythbusters shows if you don't beleive me> bows and crossbows canot generaly be deflected unless you predict the shot before it happens)

Melee combat is different. It's easy to whack something with a stick. The difficulty comes in the thing you are whacking getting out of the way or fighting back. It boils down to a comparison of martial prowess with your opponent. This means melee combat has little to do with how accurately you can swing a stick at a given point in space. Generaly two things are at play. The speed and control you have over the weapon and the mind game of attacking in a way your opponent did not anticipate or is unable to react to. I've beaten people by raw speed (whack em on the head with a greatsword before their guard is up) and by trickery (faking an attack to the leg and then hitting them in the head when they block low.) Fatige also plays a big part in real combat. you get tired and your muscles slow down and your brain starts getting foggy crippling your abbility to fight.

D&D uses the same mechanic for ranged and melee and in that way (among many others) is not a good simulation. But its still a good "game". Game's don't need to be good simulations to be fun, just good enough that the rules don't seem outright silly.

[Strakeln]

D&D uses the same mechanic for ranged and melee and in that way (among many others) is not a good simulation. But its still a good "game". Game's don't need to be good simulations to be fun, just good enough that the rules don't seem outright silly.

Agreed. Realism is not what I'm really trying to get at, it's the baseline of the discussion I was presented with ("Actually ranged damage should cause as much damage. I know this is a game but it's based on some real world ideas.").

Sticking strictly to the world of DDO, from a gaming perspective: ranged combat should not do as much damage as melee, since the AI limitations provide little defense (as well as very little counter-offense) against ranged attacks. It comes down to balance (of the game)... let me use some made-up percentages to exemplify what I mean:

Melee Attacker: 95% chance of hit, 99% chance of having to deal with a counter-attack (that may or may not land)
Ranged Attacker: 95% chance of hit, 10% chance of having to deal with a counter-attack (that may or may not land)

(The 99% chance is because you're standing right next to the mob and he's ****ED, the 10% chance is because you're 50 yards from the mob, running away from it).

Now, if ranged attackers could dish out damage (DPS) as fast as melees, would that be balanced? Easy to say "no". Would it be fun? Certainly for the ranged combatants .

Perhaps instead of arguing against suggestions I feel go too far, I should state where I stand: I think ranged combat needs a boost to DPS, albeit a small one. It also desperately needs the upcoming fixes courtesy of Codog. However, ranged combat DPS should not equal melee DPS... at most it should be around 80% of melee DPS.

In my mind, the easiest way to accomplish this is to change manyshot. I'm not particularly attached to any specific change, but here's a couple of possibilities that I think might work (just examples, I'm open to a lot of ideas on this):
- Bump the manyshot duration to 25 seconds, drop the cooldown to 1 minute, OR
- Change manyshot to a stance with a significant penalty. I have two ideas for this penalty: -10 to-hit; OR a stationary position requirement (doesn't work when you run). The idea here is that the penalty needs to be significant enough so that it creates times where it is to your advantage to disable manyshot.

That last penalty is pretty rough, and would probably be best if combined with changes to make power attack/CE something you want to turn off once in a while.

Who knows... with the introduction of a 5th attack and superior TWF/THF, maybe I'll change my tune. A big part of the DPS discrepancy relates to how ranged attacks don't scale up with BaB. When the 5th attacks comes in, things may go so far out of whack that I start screaming for ranged DPS to be increased

[QuantumFX]

OP: If it makes you feel any better my 30 STR ranger can hit stuff at range for 100pts on a crit (d10 +3 Ammo +2 Good Hope +2 Elf +10 STR +6 FE) x3 and then there's the holy damage...

[5footStep]

hrm.. ill have to post up a screenshot here at some point.. but i can get crits with my throwing axes around 120 points (with no additional effects added on.. just pure hit). This is with a seeker 10 in offhand. I have never been able to get above that with a pure hit in damage so far. *goes and looks for a screenshot*

[5footStep]

hrm.. ill have to post up a screenshot here at some point.. but i can get crits with my throwing axes around 120 points (with no additional effects added on.. just pure hit). This is with a seeker 10 in offhand. I have never been able to get above that with a pure hit in damage so far. *goes and looks for a screenshot*

Here is a screenie i quickly popped off showing the combat log and weapon. I can get higher numbers on other weapons that have elemental or other special effects.

Ranged Throwing Damage Screenie

[Puke]

A good many people look down on Rangers and think it would a gimp group if there were more than one Ranger included. Some people won't even invite one solitary Ranger to group. Why? Because bow fighting in this game severely lacks behind melee fighting. (Actually, my Rangers actually TWF 95% of the time because melee is better and there are just so many better weapons on the melee side of the fence.)

A couple people brought up the idea of replicating real-world more. If that is the case, I'd say you then have to look at armor and not just a "to-hit." It is my understanding, for example, that some slashing weapons like longswords aren't all that great against say plate mail. Actually, I think slashing weapons should actually get a negative modifier to damage against such armor. I think slashing mostly just dents plate and will soften any blow to actual flesh and bone. But in this game a hit is a hit and damage is damage. However, I understand that piercing weapons such as arrows historically worked great against plate mail. In fact, I think piercing does pretty well against most armors. But then, I think a system taking this into account could get pretty unwieldy, but who knows.

However, ranged fighting lags behind melee fighting in DDO a very good deal. This is a fact. Fact, fact, fact. The proof of this fact can be seen in a party's makeup. This is why it's incredibly rare to see more than one Ranger in a six-man group. Taking Rangers in lieu of your melee types just plain softens the damage potential of the group. (I'm talking your regular to good players and not your "I live online playing DDO 24/7 and have every piece of uber loot in the game" players. These Rangers are in a special class.)

I think ranged fighting is made softer because the Ranger has spell points and can buff. ( (and yeah, the Ranger is the class you most see actually playing the bow-weidling type and I am well aware other types can take bow feats.) But shoot, the Ranger already has a lower Hit Die and is restricted in armor and I figure that right there would sort of make up for him having spell points.

I don't think the give-and-takes will ever be perfect. But fact is that most won't take more than one Ranger in a group and many won't even take that one. I wish Turbine would look into that fact a little.

$.02

[5footStep]

But fact is that most won't take more than one Ranger in a group and many won't even take that one. I wish Turbine would look into that fact a little.

$.02

I think this trend follows the same trend where the mindset is our group must have: A cleric/sorc/haste-spammer/tank/ddoorwizzy. Really what I have found that makes a sucessful group is teamwork rather than group composition. Rangers seemed to have gotten a bad rep early on in the game from the beginning just due to the way the class was initially setup and having alot of ppl who chose to either run ahead and aggro mobs and die while screaming for help.. or running away from the party and kiting mobs while we all screamed.. stop running! LOL

For you rangers out there.. there are some awesome quests to run with all ranger groups.. Yeah I said it.. all ranger... I have formed a few of these groups and they have been a blast. All ranger group in Stormcleave on elite has been my favorite run so far. The majority of the time we used ranged attack (cept sometimes on mephits). You can heal self, heal each other, range, dual wield, wild empathize, buff. There were so many projectiles in the air the mobs never got within 30 yards of us most of the time. Just takes some teamwork. Everyone targets same foe.. thwap thwap thwap .. enemy does an impression of a pincushion and dies.. move onto next.

[Puke]

I think this trend follows the same trend where the mindset is our group must have: A cleric/sorc/haste-spammer/tank/ddoorwizzy. Really what I have found that makes a sucessful group is teamwork rather than group composition. Rangers seemed to have gotten a bad rep early on in the game from the beginning just due to the way the class was initially setup and having alot of ppl who chose to either run ahead and aggro mobs and die while screaming for help.. or running away from the party and kiting mobs while we all screamed.. stop running! LOL

Good points, but I disagree with one. The one that Rangers got a bad rap for zerging ahead. From my experience, that's 90% of those who play the Fighter class and they aren't impacted in a negative light whatsoever by it.

As for kiting, it's a valid tactic. My Armor Class is infinite if I keep out of melee range while running circles turning my opponent into a pin-cushion. Because of the design of melee vs ranged, it's a slower kill but it's safer too. (The Ranger isn't typically stacked in HP or AC.) Unless the Ranger is asking for help, I'd let that Ranger have fun killing his opponent his way. Saying this, I TWF 95% of the time anyway. Melee is faster, the melee weapons available smoke the stupid bows Turbine have come up with so far, and the quests are basically designed for melee anyway. (Can't find safe spots to hide like up on a rock to keep out of range of a rushing Troll while you range. What sniper in his right mind would ever snipe out in the open?)

The only all-Ranger group I was involved with was a PoP elite run and it didn't go very well at all.

Your perfect group only included five characters though most include the full compliment of six. I understand that the quests are designed for four characters and I'm sure glad, being that I play Rangers, they allowed for an extra two characters to be included in a group or I would never get into one. Still, given a choice of a Fighter and Ranger trying to get into a group, the vast majority would take the Fighter and just laugh at the Ranger. The Ranger just fills that last extra spot, if the group will even accept one at all.

$.02

[5footStep]

Good points, but I disagree with one. The one that Rangers got a bad rap for zerging ahead. From my experience, that's 90% of those who play the Fighter class and they aren't impacted in a negative light whatsoever by it.

$.02

hehee! I was thinking back to game release where there was just overall zaniness and that really was something I heard in groups. something to the effect of "no dont get a ranger.. I will just end up burning wands and carrying ranger soulstones all night". It was the same kind of misinformation backlash that kind of occurred on those who played warforged. Anyone remember the /petition against warforged by wizards on the forums? LOL! Heeehee! That was what I was referring to was that it seems like an outdated stereotype of a class that is applied across the board based on early bad (or singularly bad players) experiences. It was one of the reasons I put off making a ranger for a very long time. Now I love them and am wondering why I waited all that long to try em out.

[sigtrent]

hrm.. ill have to post up a screenshot here at some point.. but i can get crits with my throwing axes around 120 points (with no additional effects added on.. just pure hit). This is with a seeker 10 in offhand. I have never been able to get above that with a pure hit in damage so far. *goes and looks for a screenshot*

That's a great trick I never though to try. Do you get the TWF penalties when donig that? (I'll try it myself but I'm sure others are curious as well)

[5footStep]

That's a great trick I never though to try. Do you get the TWF penalties when donig that? (I'll try it myself but I'm sure others are curious as well)

whatchya mean Sig? You mean when I have a +10 seeker in my offhand and a throwing axe in my main hand? I don't recall that the seeker 10 longsword affected my to hit on my primary hand vs having say a seeker 10 dagger instead. I remember checking but I dont' recall that there was a difference.. it was soo long ago when i checked and plotted it out. I believe I have a seeker 10 dagger on another toon I use for TWF. My WF rogue wields a seeker 10 dagger of righteousness in offhand and a heavy pick in primary. (grins at nasty backstabbing critting x4)

anyhow not sure if that is what you are asking.

as far as seeker in offhand for TWF... yah the seeker 10 stacks the same way .. you just have a lower to hit due to TWF vs onehanded fighting.
That is what I do with my WF rogue. I give up some damage of course by wielding a dagger.. BUT.... I make up for it bigtime with the crits and my impr. crits that i worked in with feats etc.. .. in addition to backstab bonus.

[Strakeln]

As for kiting, it's a valid tactic. My Armor Class is infinite if I keep out of melee range while running circles turning my opponent into a pin-cushion. Because of the design of melee vs ranged, it's a slower kill but it's safer too.

Perhaps this is the thing. "Slower and safer" doesn't jive with the "zerg-fast-ZERG" style that is pervasive throughout the game. There have been times, however, where ranged combat ("slower and safer") was king... back in the early days of DQ1 and 2, I remember groups of 5 sitting around looking for a ranger (for either quest!). I saw the same thing with the Abbott when the exploit was rampant.

But most of the time, we want to zerg. Ranged combat does not fit in well with this approach.

[EinarMal]

Sticking strictly to the world of DDO, from a gaming perspective: ranged combat should not do as much damage as melee, since the AI limitations provide little defense (as well as very little counter-offense) against ranged attacks. It comes down to balance (of the game)... let me use some made-up percentages to exemplify what I mean:

Melee Attacker: 95&#37; chance of hit, 99% chance of having to deal with a counter-attack (that may or may not land)
Ranged Attacker: 95% chance of hit, 10% chance of having to deal with a counter-attack (that may or may not land)

(The 99% chance is because you're standing right next to the mob and he's ****ED, the 10% chance is because you're 50 yards from the mob, running away from it).

Now, if ranged attackers could dish out damage (DPS) as fast as melees, would that be balanced? Easy to say "no". Would it be fun? Certainly for the ranged combatants .

So how do you reconcile Sorc/Wizard/Cleric killing power from range and safety? That is where these types of arguements fall apart in my opinion. We already have ranged killers in the game they just use spells instead of a bow. And no spell points aren't really that much of a limitation anymore in most quests.

Plus who wants to watch someone kite mobs around all over the place. Ranging like you say with no risk is not generally group friendly and doesn't work out as well as you seem to imply.

Currently you are almost always better off in 90+% of the quests taking a melee character over someone using a bow. The bow guy just cannot compete in DPS, now sure if they have some uber effect bows like a wound-puncturing repeater or something but just with a straight DPS type bow they will barely kill anything. That is why most Rangers end up dual wielding most of the time which is an sure indication to me that it is not balanced correctly.

[sigtrent]

So how do you reconcile Sorc/Wizard/Cleric killing power from range and safety? That is where these types of arguements fall apart in my opinion. We already have ranged killers in the game they just use spells instead of a bow. And no spell points aren't really that much of a limitation anymore in most quests.

Spell points are still a valid limitation but you make a good point. Spell damage is stronger than melee as is, you just can't sustain it as long. I think at high level ranged damage would be plenty balanced. At low level it might get a bit out of control since it is already pretty decent. I'd say up ranged damage but do the same for raged monsters. Makes them more interesting anyhow.

[GrayOldDruid]

So how do you reconcile Sorc/Wizard/Cleric killing power from range and safety? That is where these types of arguements fall apart in my opinion. We already have ranged killers in the game they just use spells instead of a bow. And no spell points aren't really that much of a limitation anymore in most quests.

Plus who wants to watch someone kite mobs around all over the place. Ranging like you say with no risk is not generally group friendly and doesn't work out as well as you seem to imply.

Currently you are almost always better off in 90+&#37; of the quests taking a melee character over someone using a bow. The bow guy just cannot compete in DPS, now sure if they have some uber effect bows like a wound-puncturing repeater or something but just with a straight DPS type bow they will barely kill anything. That is why most Rangers end up dual wielding most of the time which is an sure indication to me that it is not balanced correctly.

I kill plenty with my bow, and I can take down an enemy in 10 shots that a melee would take 10 shots to kill... problem is my 10 shots will take twice as long. And, where as an enemy will stand face to face with a melee and swing away, it now seems that the same enemy will try go get behind me and my bow...

I would have no problem if normal, un-feated, bow shooting took 75% longer for 10 shots... and with feats you could get down to 25% longer... but always at twice as long?? Either let us shoot as fast or make our arrows hurt a lot more than their sword/axe/stick. I don't have the shards and plat and time to go trade out Rapid Shot and see if it actually makes a difference, but from when I took it, I couldn't tell there was any effective increase.

[Strakeln]

So how do you reconcile Sorc/Wizard/Cleric killing power from range and safety?

Eventually, they will run out of mana. While the same argument technically applies to rangers, it's on a completely different order of magnitude (caster will run out of mana long before a ranger will run out of arrows).

Plus who wants to watch someone kite mobs around all over the place. Ranging like you say with no risk is not generally group friendly and doesn't work out as well as you seem to imply.

This may be part of the problem. Instead of watching someone kite mobs, why don't you go find a mob to kill? I get what you're saying, but counter with this: The problem is not that ranging is not group-friendly... the problem is that groups are generally not ranging-friendly.

Currently you are almost always better off in 90+% of the quests taking a melee character over someone using a bow. The bow guy just cannot compete in DPS, now sure if they have some uber effect bows like a wound-puncturing repeater or something but just with a straight DPS type bow they will barely kill anything. That is why most Rangers end up dual wielding most of the time which is an sure indication to me that it is not balanced correctly.

Hypothetical situation: if there were no wands or potions in the game, would that first line (almost always better off with a melee in 90+% of the quests) still apply?

When I play my ranger, I dual wield on most things. But the second I run up against something that would cream me, I whip out a bow and teach it who is boss. Another example: if my ranger stepped foot into the PvP arena with a sword, she'd get stomped by the first melee she ran across... but with a bow, the same melees would be crying in general chat and grumbling about reporting.

How is that not balanced? I can use a bow to kill that which would kill me with a sword.

One final example: take a melee combatant and a ranger into DQ1 elite (bring your cleric if you have one). Let the fighter have a go at her first. Count the heals and rez's, and note the amount of damage dealt to the queen over some period of time (2 minutes?). Now let the ranger take over. You will find yourself to be one very bored cleric... yet her HP will be dropping faster (perhaps the same if you had a super-AC fighter).

Ranged combat is extremely powerful, but it is not the be-all-end-all solution to every fight. Nor should it be.

[sigtrent]

whatchya mean Sig?

as far as seeker in offhand for TWF... yah the seeker 10 stacks the same way .. you just have a lower to hit due to TWF vs onehanded fighting.
.

I was wondering if your attack with the thrown weapon was affected by having an off hand weapon equipped. I wasn't sure if the TWF attack penalties were applied simply because you had the weapon equipped even though you were throwing and thus not making off hand attacks. I'd just never tried it and always had thrown weapons equipped with a shield in my hot bar.

[Yaga_Nub]

Yaga, I don't know where to start with you. For example:

70# pull bow, 30" draw, 350 grain (22.68 grams) arrow. Speeds ot 270-315 feet/second.
...compared to...
.45 cal ACP, 165-230 grain (10.69-14.9 grams). Muzzle velocity of 850-1060 feet/second (inverse to the weight).

Do the force calculations and tell me how well your "facts" work out. I love it when people present "facts" where numerical values are readily available, but they can't be bothered to actually verify.

Strake: You got me, even though I did TRY to verify the numbers, I screwed up the calculation. I used a 230 grain .45 bullet and a 230 grain arrow to keep it similar. 230 grains is equal to .0149 kg. I used 885 ft/sec and 270 ft/sec which converts to 269.75 m/s and 82.30 m/s respectively.

The formula I used is E = .5 * m * v^2. m is in kilograms and v is in meters per second.

Looking over my paper that I was writing on I screwed it up because I used .0149 kg for the bullet but for the arrow I used .149. The number come up roughly 542 J for the bullet and 504 J for the arrow using those numbers. 40 J is close enough for me to say that are basically the same. What it should work out to is 542 J for the bullet and 50.4 J for the arrow giving the bullet roughly 10 times more stopping power than the arrow when using the same grain.

I probably shouldn't even bother to argue against you any further, given that these are the kinds of "facts" you will use in your argument. But I can't help it, I'm easily trolled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with this. Take a broomstick and try to hit a stationary object from a distance of 2 feet. Now compare it to trying to hit the same object from 200 feet with an arrow. Yeah, you may be a good shot, but common sense SCREAMS that you will miss more often with a bow than with the stick. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand... it's something you can easily prove to yourself, over and over and over.

I completely agree with you that ANYONE can hit a stationary object from 2 feet more than a stationary object from 200 feet. But that to-hit penalty is built into the current ranged system because ranged combat doesn't get the +5/+10 for multiple attacks. On successful swings it gets easier and easier to attack with melee combat. I guess this is where I would definitely agree that not having a decreasing attack modifier is bad. I can swing a sword 4 times in a row in a short span of time much more accurately than I can nock, draw and fire multiple arrows in the same time span.

My point was clear: ranged damage may not be sufficient, currently (this is what Gray and I were talking about, in part - he thinks an arrow should smart a lot more than it appears to in DDO, and I have to say he's probably right). But ranged accuracy is inflated to godlike abilities. Sure, you can't DPS like a melee fighter (save those manyshot bursts)... but the exchange of being out of range of any serious threats more than makes up for the reduced DPS. To increasing ranged DPS, I say no (well, okay, maybe a wee bit). To increasing ranged damage, I say okay, but balance out the to-hit.

Ranged accuracy is inflated to god-like abilities? Can you give an example? I'll go look on my 14th level elven ranger and see what his to hit is and post it after I get home but what to-hit number would be considered god-like? 30 base, 35, 40? There are melees (completely different I know) that hit numbers like that aren't there? So why can melee have god-like to-hits and not archers?

Why in god's name does my suggested change of "-5 to your to-hit when you are moving" bring out all the "you already get a -4 to your to-hit" monkies? I explicitly mentioned SoTR in the same sentence so you goofs would figure out that I was well aware that there is already a -4 penalty (I mean, sheesh, the SoTR feat does ONE thing, which is to eliminate that penalty...).

I only bring that up because there is already a rule for it that has worked for a long time. Why change it to -5 compared to -4? So that all ranged combatants have to take SoTR? I guess I don't see what that extra -1 is for. If archers have god-like to-hit scores shouldn't be -8 or -9 to really have an impact if that's what you are trying to do?

I love how the person who claims that you can't hit what you can't see also has the gall to come on here and question my skills as a ranged combatant. Try this: target something, back up til it is no longer on your screen (but in your focus orb). Fire. Let me know what happens. Right back at ya: If you don't play DDO then I understand, if you do play DDO then...

That's after you target them and keep them targeted. What I'm trying to get at is that if you don't know they are there you can't just fire and automatically hit them. Yes, if you get close enough to target, move out of sight, and then attack you will still hit them if there is nothing in the way. Actually what I think should happen to even things out a bit is to lose the target once they move or are out of sight for a small period of time. Is that any more clear about what I mean when I see you can't see the target?

Hmmm... after further reviewing some of your posts, looks like you really have a misunderstanding about a lot of things. Like this:

A crit on the low end of the 150's? For a barbarian? Did you make this post back in mod 2? Let's ask a third party: Shade, when was the last time you saw a crit anywhere near as low as 150, when using your build as it was meant to be used?

I don't play a barb at all, what I was trying to explain that barbs to much higher damage and that I know of barbs that have at the very least done 150 points per crit and that is most likely at the low end of what they can do. I think it was very clear. You yourself obviously understood what I said since you are saying that 150 isn't anywhere near the low end. Feel free to go give a more appropriate range if you think it's that wrong. Using a greataxe which is x3 on crits, I would guess that a barb might have somewhere around +50 to damage with barb rage, rage pots, madstone rage, 38 str or more, +6 seeker, etc. So at the low end (meaning rolling a 1 for damage) it would be around 150 right? Okay so maybe it's actually like 153 or something but it's close enough unless taking 1 +50 and multiplying it by 3 isn't the correct way to calculate a critical hit.

See comments above.

[Talon_Moonshadow]

A good many people look down on Rangers and think it would a gimp group if there were more than one Ranger included. Some people won't even invite one solitary Ranger to group. Why? Because bow fighting in this game severely lacks behind melee fighting. (Actually, my Rangers actually TWF 95% of the time because melee is better and there are just so many better weapons on the melee side of the fence.)

A couple people brought up the idea of replicating real-world more. If that is the case, I'd say you then have to look at armor and not just a "to-hit." It is my understanding, for example, that some slashing weapons like longswords aren't all that great against say plate mail. Actually, I think slashing weapons should actually get a negative modifier to damage against such armor. I think slashing mostly just dents plate and will soften any blow to actual flesh and bone. But in this game a hit is a hit and damage is damage. However, I understand that piercing weapons such as arrows historically worked great against plate mail. In fact, I think piercing does pretty well against most armors. But then, I think a system taking this into account could get pretty unwieldy, but who knows.

However, ranged fighting lags behind melee fighting in DDO a very good deal. This is a fact. Fact, fact, fact. The proof of this fact can be seen in a party's makeup. This is why it's incredibly rare to see more than one Ranger in a six-man group. Taking Rangers in lieu of your melee types just plain softens the damage potential of the group. (I'm talking your regular to good players and not your "I live online playing DDO 24/7 and have every piece of uber loot in the game" players. These Rangers are in a special class.)

I think ranged fighting is made softer because the Ranger has spell points and can buff. ( (and yeah, the Ranger is the class you most see actually playing the bow-weidling type and I am well aware other types can take bow feats.) But shoot, the Ranger already has a lower Hit Die and is restricted in armor and I figure that right there would sort of make up for him having spell points.

I don't think the give-and-takes will ever be perfect. But fact is that most won't take more than one Ranger in a group and many won't even take that one. I wish Turbine would look into that fact a little.

$.02

And I say these people are missing out.....
I've been in groups where 4+ people were ranged based and things went great! Most baddies fell before they even got within melee range......and the rest ran back and forth toward the last guy that hit them and died before actually hitting anyone in our group!

Also, I've seen rangers tank great too....but that's a slightly different topic.

granted no group should be a one trick pony, but ranged combat is sorely underappreciated....especially in mass!

[Talon_Moonshadow]

Perhaps this is the thing. "Slower and safer" doesn't jive with the "zerg-fast-ZERG" style that is pervasive throughout the game. There have been times, however, where ranged combat ("slower and safer") was king... back in the early days of DQ1 and 2, I remember groups of 5 sitting around looking for a ranger (for either quest!). I saw the same thing with the Abbott when the exploit was rampant.

But most of the time, we want to zerg. Ranged combat does not fit in well with this approach.

One of my favorite ranged safer examples is the named beholder near the end of VON3. he won't enter the room near the shrine and I swear i am the only player in this game who realises you can shoot around corners in the game.

I watch the rest of the group get fried by this guy over and over again.....especially the zerging barbs.
even the other ranged lovers die trying their move back and forth to shoot tactic.....
While I just slowly but surely hit with from safety.......might take several minutes to kill him my way, but I don't die and he does.

But I guess I should be thankful that not enough people use this tactic.....if they did I'm sure the Devs would nerf it somehow.

So you zergers just keep hating ranged toons if ya want to.