Rangers need love

[Brennie]

I don't think rangers need a real boost to their damage vs. FEs. They have other benefits to make up for still being slightly behind even in their ideal situations from that perspective, which is why I didn't suggest the Ram's change.

I agree. Against Favored Enemies, my AA melees like a champ. Its great, and doesn't really need more power behind it.

Or even just give Ranger's summons a really big boost in power. Give their summons a big bonus to their stats so that they're really worth using. I've heard some good things about the Pale Master skeletal summons, though I haven't bothered with any after the first set, and even those I wasn't totally impressed with (though they were kind of useful while leveling). Perhaps Ranger summons could be buffed to be in that range of usefulness? Or better perhaps, since they have more limited SP and fewer ways to further buff their pets.

I disagree. Keep in mind Ranger summons are the same as Druid summons. Druid summons should probably be slighlty more powerful than their Summon Monster counterparts, but a large increase to range summons would mean a 7th level druid can summon a super powerful Natures Ally 4.

And yes, I am telling myself druids will be in the game if i just wait another week... and then another... and then maybe one more...

Also, since wizards now have the ability to have "undead companions", i don't see any reason why Rangers couldn't have "Animal companions" in addition to summons. Granted, they should be slightly underpowered, since, again, Druids will gain more powerful version of this ability. I figure it should feel the same as Cleric turn undead vs. Paladin turn undead.

Note that I don't think summons are the way to increase Ranger power though, since many many situations are actually made worse by having summoned creatures around.

Almost any other melee-capable character would be better to take along for something like VoN 3, since it's unlikely a ranger will have FE: Elf, and only semi-likely they'll have FE: Construct. VoN 6? What rangers are taking FE: Dragon? And they aren't going to get any bonuses vs. the djinn on the bases, and have no to-hit bonuses to aid them in hitting the rather high AC on these enemies. Chains of Flame? Who's taking FE: Gnoll?

Another option, from giving rangers more FEs, would be to do so by proxy, folding several related favored enemies together. Now, we wouldn't want too many condensed, since part of the balance to their bonus is in their occasionally having to fight non-FEs, and there should still be a real choice, but right now the number of FEs is problematic. This isn't quite as big a deal in PnP because you usually have a DM that will likely cater adventures to your strengths, at least a little bit. For example, you're unlikely to have a DM that throws 3 dragons at you, ever, after you've taken FE: Dragon. I know that I'd probably be sure to include more half-dragons, dragonkin, Children of Bahamut, Spellscales, Dragonwrought Kobolds, etc... Not so for DDO.

Here i agree again, whole heartedly. infact, earlier in my very colorful post i made a similar suggestion. Favored Enemy in DDO seems to be built around PnP translation and lore, while not even attempting to be balanced for gameplay purposes.

Rangers should get favored enemy "Packages" instead of singular favored enemies. Examples: Favored Enemy: Outsiders (Includes All lawful, evil, chaotic outsiders, Tharaak hounds, and Tieflings), Monster-type Humanoids (Monsterous humanoids, plus gnolls, orcs, goblinoids, and possibly plants), Reptilian (Kobolds, Trogs and Dragons... though this seems a bit sparse), Beast (Animals, Vermin, Magical beasts), Elemental (Elementals, Mephits, Djinn, Efreeti), Humanoid (Elves, dwarves, humans, Halflings and Gnomes. Yes gnomes, darnnit), etc. Some extra monsters, like Plants and oozes, i find difficult to categorize, and may need to be rolled in with some of the least robust Favored Enemy packages

This is my top suggestion above everything else (Except to fix frikkin ranged combat!) that i think would make Rangers a much better balanced class, with better balanced favored enemies.

[sephiroth1084]

I disagree. Keep in mind Ranger summons are the same as Druid summons. Druid summons should probably be slighlty more powerful than their Summon Monster counterparts, but a large increase to range summons would mean a 7th level druid can summon a super powerful Natures Ally 4.

And yes, I am telling myself druids will be in the game if i just wait another week... and then another... and then maybe one more...

There's no reason for the druid to receive the same boost to their summon spells. For one, they'll likely end up with excellent spellcasting (probably slightly weaker offensively than clerical casting simply due to losing Blade Barrier), the ability (somehow) to Wildshape, healing comparable to that of clerics, and likely a few other benefits (including probably better buffs for their pets) to offset the need for the buffed summons, on top of the fact that they'd occupy a different niche in DDO.

Also, since wizards now have the ability to have "undead companions", i don't see any reason why Rangers couldn't have "Animal companions" in addition to summons. Granted, they should be slightly underpowered, since, again, Druids will gain more powerful version of this ability. I figure it should feel the same as Cleric turn undead vs. Paladin turn undead.

Giving them an underpowered animal companion won't do anything to help the ranger's situation. In PnP, many rangers ditch their companions altogether since the weaker version ends up being too far behind the curve to be useful in melee (even druid base companions end up in that situation later on, and often need to be traded up to a stronger base animal), or used for other purposes (as a mount, or for scouting, retrieval, alarm, etc...) that don't translate to DDO.

Note that I don't think summons are the way to increase Ranger power though, since many many situations are actually made worse by having summoned creatures around.

I included a comment on this when I made the proposal, but the situations in which a summoned creature hurts a situation are relatively few, and rangers tend to have selected FEs for most of the major bosses in the game (Velah being a large exception).

Rangers should get favored enemy "Packages" instead of singular favored enemies. Examples: Favored Enemy: Outsiders Keep these separated as there are enough evil, chaotic and lawful outsiders to make the 3 choices worth considering separately (with evil winning considerably), but a few that fall outside these bounds. Include something like neutral outsiders as a new category to cover mephits and djinn , Monster-type Humanoids (Monsterous humanoids, plus gnolls, orcs, goblinoids, and possibly plants) I'd actually leave Monstrous humanoids as it counts now (minotaurs, gargoyles...not sure what else) and add some other category that covers gnolls, orcs and goblins and bugbears, Reptilian (Kobolds, Trogs and Dragons... though this seems a bit sparse) that looks good, and provides bonuses for the whole game, Beast (Animals, Vermin, Magical beasts) keep Magical Beasts separate, but limp Vermin and Animals together, Elemental (Elementals, Mephits, Djinn, Efreeti) Elemental is already strong enough to stand on its own; see comments above on outsiders for the rest, Humanoid (Elves, dwarves, humans, Halflings and Gnomes. Yes gnomes, darnnit) too dense. Maybe humans, near-humans (elves, dwarves...?), mini-humans (halflings, gnomes...?), etc. Some extra monsters, like Plants and oozes, i find difficult to categorize, and may need to be rolled in with some of the least robust Favored Enemy packages Ooze and Plant seem kind of lacking, but leaving them separate might be reasonable, especially if we start seeing more of each. Living Spells are interesting, and less purely annoying than other oozes since they don't break weapons and actually pose a significant threat. If we saw more of these, and of greater variety outside of one section of the Sub, this could be worth taking. If we got more plant monsters, and a few plant bosses, this could be worthwhile, but maybe lump plant in with elemental.

This is kind of what I had in mind, but you've condensed them too much. That's only 6, maybe 7 favored enemies, when we should be seeing about 10 (vs. the list of around 25 we have now).

[Brennie]

There's no reason for the druid to receive the same boost to their summon spells. For one, they'll likely end up with excellent spellcasting (probably slightly weaker offensively than clerical casting simply due to losing Blade Barrier), the ability (somehow) to Wildshape, healing comparable to that of clerics, and likely a few other benefits (including probably better buffs for their pets) to offset the need for the buffed summons, on top of the fact that they'd occupy a different niche in DDO.

Summoning animals/elementals/natures allies is one of the Key abilites for druids, especially after 3.5 came along and boosted the summons while giving Druids spontanious summoning abilities. From a PnP standpoint, Druid summons should be slightly (Not significantly) but slightly better than Summon Monster. However, that would, of course, have to be balanced to DDO. If Druids are so good they don't need more powerful summons, then thats fine

Giving them an underpowered animal companion won't do anything to help the ranger's situation. In PnP, many rangers ditch their companions altogether since the weaker version ends up being too far behind the curve to be useful in melee (even druid base companions end up in that situation later on, and often need to be traded up to a stronger base animal), or used for other purposes (as a mount, or for scouting, retrieval, alarm, etc...) that don't translate to DDO.

I was going off the "Some bonus is better than no bonus" principle, where even a 2HD battle-squirrel would still add some more damage every encounter, and thus be better than nothing. However, I agree that its not something Devs should waste time on, just to give Rangers another ability to sit on their hotbars unused.

Heres some more nitpicking for the "Consolidate Favored Enemy" discussion. My initial post wasn't well thought out, just sort of an "heres the basic premise" post. What i was generally attempting to do was create several groups of attractive Favored Enemies, without having leftover enemy types that were as unattractive as a lot of the Favored Enemy groups are now. In my mind, this involves the most popular FEs gaining one or two more enemies in their fold, and the least popular gaining a ton.

Rangers should get favored enemy "Packages" instead of singular favored enemies. Examples: Favored Enemy: Outsiders Keep these separated as there are enough evil, chaotic and lawful outsiders to make the 3 choices worth considering separately (with evil winning considerably), but a few that fall outside these bounds. Include something like neutral outsiders as a new category to cover mephits and djinn

Evil Outsiders don't really need the boost, I agree. However, no Ranger ever takes Lawful or Chaotic outsiders. I'm fairly sure that if every non-evil-outsider Outsider was lumped together, Rangers wouldn't take that either (Although tieflings, mephits, and the occasional djinn/efreeti wouldn't be bad, just wouldn't be as good as other options). If we decide Evil Outsider shouldn't be any more inclusive, I don't have a good suggestion for the leftovers.

Monster-type Humanoids (Monsterous humanoids, plus gnolls, orcs, goblinoids, and possibly plants) I'd actually leave Monstrous humanoids as it counts now (minotaurs, gargoyles...not sure what else) and add some other category that covers gnolls, orcs and goblins and bugbears

One of the things i was thinking when i types this up was "This might be a bit much for one category". I see you agree with my internal monologue ^_^. I like Gnolls, Gobs and Orcs getting their own category, but I would feel like that would still leave Monsterous Humanoids and "the New Goblinoids" as both mediocre. I really wanted to spice up monsterous humanoids a bit, since they seem like a contender for the coveted "Top 5" for Ranger Favored Enemies... but unless you run a lot of VoN/Fens Epics, they just dont' quite make it.

Reptilian (Kobolds, Trogs and Dragons... though this seems a bit sparse) that looks good, and provides bonuses for the whole game,

Still feels Sparse to me. And again, seems like something very few, if any, Rangers woudl take a second look at.

Beast (Animals, Vermin, Magical beasts) keep Magical Beasts separate, but limp Vermin and Animals together

Now this comment i don't understand at all. While vermin, animals, and magical beasts are all common, they are never more than a minor inconvenience. I actually feel like this category is a little light. Having Magical Beast as its own category (Which includes what... Worgs and Frost Wolves?) would be as unusable as it is today.

Elemental (Elementals, Mephits, Djinn, Efreeti) Elemental is already strong enough to stand on its own; see comments above on outsiders for the rest

True, Elementals aren't extrodinarily common, but they are common enough and difficult enough to fit into the "Top 5". Mephits was more of a thematic combination, especially since Mephits are more of an Annoyance factor than a real threat. Djinn and Efreeti were just there because they are incredibly uncommon. I think Elementals and Mephits would be nice, but i can see both sides of the argument.

Humanoid (Elves, dwarves, humans, Halflings and Gnomes. Yes gnomes, darnnit) too dense. Maybe humans, near-humans (elves, dwarves...?), mini-humans (halflings, gnomes...?)

It is dense, but only due to the rarity and relative harmlessness of most humanoid enemies. Deurgar and Drow are the only really difficult bits of this package, and are lumped nicely with some semi-common fodder enemies. Again, I was shooting for a "What will make this group attractive enough to be a good alternative for a Top 5". I'm not sure having all of these together as "humanoid" would make my Top 5, but it would get close. Having human, semi-human, and "tiny" wouldn't even get a second glance from me.

Some extra monsters, like Plants and oozes, i find difficult to categorize, and may need to be rolled in with some of the least robust Favored Enemy packages Ooze and Plant seem kind of lacking, but leaving them separate might be reasonable, especially if we start seeing more of each. Living Spells are interesting, and less purely annoying than other oozes since they don't break weapons and actually pose a significant threat. If we saw more of these, and of greater variety outside of one section of the Sub, this could be worth taking. If we got more plant monsters, and a few plant bosses, this could be worthwhile, but maybe lump plant in with elemental.

After a bit of thinking, i think Plant and ooze would work well with Abberation.

I agree with your thinking that there can't just be 5 favored enemies that cover everything, but i disagree with your breakdown. I believe each favored enemy category should be held up against something like Favored Enemy: Undead, and if it doesn't compare well, it needs to be reworked til it does. Undead, for example, has: Enemies in all levels, found commonly, with a mix of tough enemies, easy enemies, complete fodder, and bosses. Some of your suggestions would still leave categories that don't hit many of these marks (Human, ooze, magical beast, etc), while leaving the dominant Favored Enemies still dominant. My suggestions aren't perfect mind you, Beast is still something no ranger would pick up, and Reptilian still feels lacking to me, but I feel they're a step in the right direction.

As for the count, there are several big categories i didn't even mention. If my plan were followed exactly we'd have: Humanoid, Monsterous Humanoid (not including Plant), Beast, Undead, Abberation (Including Ooze and Plant), Giant, Outsider (Or Evil Outsider/Other Outsider, since i do agree Evil Outsider probably shouldn't absorb all other outsiders), Elemental, Construct, Reptilian. I feel like I'm forgetting some, but thats 10 right there, and 11 if we split up the outsiders. This would still leave rangers with 50+% of the game off their favored enemies list, but would ensure that they see plenty of favored enemies, and that their favored enemies are everything from the scrub they wade through in mass droves, to the big tough enemies they fight two or three at a time, to bosses.

[sephiroth1084]

Summoning animals/elementals/natures allies is one of the Key abilites for druids, especially after 3.5 came along and boosted the summons while giving Druids spontanious summoning abilities. From a PnP standpoint, Druid summons should be slightly (Not significantly) but slightly better than Summon Monster. However, that would, of course, have to be balanced to DDO. If Druids are so good they don't need more powerful summons, then thats fine

My thought was that they wouldn't need the summons, just as wizards, sorcerers, clerics and favored souls don't, despite the druid's thematic link to using them.

I was going off the "Some bonus is better than no bonus" principle, where even a 2HD battle-squirrel would still add some more damage every encounter, and thus be better than nothing. However, I agree that its not something Devs should waste time on, just to give Rangers another ability to sit on their hotbars unused.

Some is only better than none if the some gets used. And I think boosting the summons would be a heckuvalot easier than giving them another ability. Plus, what ranger uses the summons much now? Two birds with one stone, that.

Heres some more nitpicking for the "Consolidate Favored Enemy" discussion. My initial post wasn't well thought out, just sort of an "heres the basic premise" post. What i was generally attempting to do was create several groups of attractive Favored Enemies, without having leftover enemy types that were as unattractive as a lot of the Favored Enemy groups are now. In my mind, this involves the most popular FEs gaining one or two more enemies in their fold, and the least popular gaining a ton.

I mostly agree.

Evil Outsiders don't really need the boost, I agree. However, no Ranger ever takes Lawful or Chaotic outsiders. I'm fairly sure that if every non-evil-outsider Outsider was lumped together, Rangers wouldn't take that either (Although tieflings, mephits, and the occasional djinn/efreeti wouldn't be bad, just wouldn't be as good as other options). If we decide Evil Outsider shouldn't be any more inclusive, I don't have a good suggestion for the leftovers. I think non-evil Outsider as a category would be worth considering for Djinn, (effreeti are evil in all cases I think), Mephits, teiflings are prevalent, and occasionally difficult.

One of the things i was thinking when i types this up was "This might be a bit much for one category". I see you agree with my internal monologue ^_^. I like Gnolls, Gobs and Orcs getting their own category, but I would feel like that would still leave Monsterous Humanoids and "the New Goblinoids" as both mediocre. I really wanted to spice up monsterous humanoids a bit, since they seem like a contender for the coveted "Top 5" for Ranger Favored Enemies... but unless you run a lot of VoN/Fens Epics, they just dont' quite make it.
I think minotaurs, sahaugin and gargoyles covers enough of the endgame (and much of the leveling process) to be attractive, while gnolls are everywhere, and orcs and goblins are prevalent enough to make the whole category worthwhile.


Still feels Sparse to me. And again, seems like something very few, if any, Rangers woudl take a second look at.Kobolds and trogs are prevalent for the entire game (remember that fiendish version count), though there aren't many in epics, and few are difficult, and dragons are worth hurting badly. If we had more dragons at endgame (WHERE THE **** ARE THEY?!) this would be a strong category, I think.



Now this comment i don't understand at all. While vermin, animals, and magical beasts are all common, they are never more than a minor inconvenience. I actually feel like this category is a little light. Having Magical Beast as its own category (Which includes what... Worgs and Frost Wolves?) would be as unusable as it is today.
For some reason I had thought there were more in this category. Nevermind.


True, Elementals aren't extrodinarily common, but they are common enough and difficult enough to fit into the "Top 5". Mephits was more of a thematic combination, especially since Mephits are more of an Annoyance factor than a real threat. Djinn and Efreeti were just there because they are incredibly uncommon. I think Elementals and Mephits would be nice, but i can see both sides of the argument.
Maybe add plants here?


It is dense, but only due to the rarity and relative harmlessness of most humanoid enemies. Deurgar and Drow are the only really difficult bits of this package, and are lumped nicely with some semi-common fodder enemies. Again, I was shooting for a "What will make this group attractive enough to be a good alternative for a Top 5". I'm not sure having all of these together as "humanoid" would make my Top 5, but it would get close. Having human, semi-human, and "tiny" wouldn't even get a second glance from me.
I feel like drow and humans appear in enough content that they could maybe stand to be separate, though I'm trying to think of difficult bosses of either type and coming up blank.


After a bit of thinking, i think Plant and ooze would work well with Abberation. Ooze, yes, plant, no.

I agree with your thinking that there can't just be 5 favored enemies that cover everything, but i disagree with your breakdown. I believe each favored enemy category should be held up against something like Favored Enemy: Undead, and if it doesn't compare well, it needs to be reworked til it does. Undead, for example, has: Enemies in all levels, found commonly, with a mix of tough enemies, easy enemies, complete fodder, and bosses. Some of your suggestions would still leave categories that don't hit many of these marks (Human, ooze, magical beast, etc), while leaving the dominant Favored Enemies still dominant. My suggestions aren't perfect mind you, Beast is still something no ranger would pick up, and Reptilian still feels lacking to me, but I feel they're a step in the right direction.

As for the count, there are several big categories i didn't even mention. If my plan were followed exactly we'd have: Humanoid, Monsterous Humanoid (not including Plant), Beast, Undead, Abberation (Including Ooze and Plant), Giant, Outsider (Or Evil Outsider/Other Outsider, since i do agree Evil Outsider probably shouldn't absorb all other outsiders), Elemental, Construct, Reptilian. I feel like I'm forgetting some, but thats 10 right there, and 11 if we split up the outsiders. This would still leave rangers with 50+% of the game off their favored enemies list, but would ensure that they see plenty of favored enemies, and that their favored enemies are everything from the scrub they wade through in mass droves, to the big tough enemies they fight two or three at a time, to bosses.

I'd forgotten about the others you hadn't mentioned (that's what I get for posting around 5 AM).

[Aalric]

when I was suggesting strengthening their summons 2 pages ago, I made a very simple calculation - why should a bard be able to have a better, more robust & useful summons than a ranger?

I'm not saying that making better summons would cure our problems - it might just slightly alleviate them.

Oh, & Sephirot is right on the money (imo) - atm, why would anyone want to take a ranger when they could take a class that does more dps or brings more to the table. Especially since it's so easy to mess them up.

Case in point: My ranger is now on the TR treadmill & is currently a monk. I was recently in a pug - 4 great guys, knew what they were doing, etc. 5th man is a ranger. Wont put away his bow, run's ahead, gets killed all the time, causes agro & loves to cast mass camo.

We finish the pug (despite the ranger) & kick him. We then do another quest and get another ranger. It's rinse & repeat. & as soon as the going gets tough he drops. Everyone by this time is saying in party chat that "never again" - rangers are idiots, why can't they use mellee weapons, etc. I point out that my character is actually a Ranger and that many rangers are actually very good. But I have to admit, it was embarressing & I wouldn't blame these guys from making a conscious decision never to group with rangers again.

THAT'S why Rangers need some love - true, it won't take away play stupidity but at least if we brought more to the table we wouldn't be worse than a fighter, barb or pally who act stupid & can still manage to get their job done, ie, killing stuff through dps.

Apologies if that sounded like a rant,

[Thucydides04]

I've seen this brought up a lot on this post. My question is - why something that benefits dex-based characters so much?

While it might be a nice boost for a different playstyle, it doesn't help all rangers equally and just pushes rangers toward getting more dex. It doesn't really add diversity to the game, but changes the dominant ranger build to something else no less specific.

Let me break this down for you since you clearly are not understanding the underlying concepts.

1. There WILL always be a max dps ranger build. If you need me to elaborate on the logical steps needed to arrive at this conclusion, I will be glad to help you out.

2. How people decide to rank their preferences with respect to dps and survivability in the class is a choice that only the individual making the choice can observe when building their toon.

3. I do not know how you define a different playstyle, but most consider Rangers to be built for one of two roles: melee or ranged. By the OP, melee, specifically twf is what he would like addressed. So, the focus of the thread has been centered on the melee playstyle. I suppose you could try and make a buff bot ranger or a hjealer ranger if you wanted to, but it seems like there are classes better suited for this role.

4. The issue grodon is addressing speaks to the issue laid out in the OP, twfing. Thus improving the class as a whole (wrt melee builds). All tempest 3s will benefit, some more than others, but every build will be improved by the changes. Users can still decide race/weapons/feats/ac/dps etc.

[grodon9999]

please please stop.

Rangers are not supposed to be primary dps or tanks, they never were.

Rangers are light fighters and skirmishers and occupy a role somewhere between support (through magic and ranged combat) and scout/scirmisher.

The only love rangers need in my opinion is a tuffness line as men of the woods and country would be healthy and hardy. Also a capstone that is non archery - the suggested favoured enemy one is nice.

Comparing a ranger to a 2WF kensai.
for aproximately 25% less DPS against non favoured enemies and a marginal 5 to 10% against favoured enemies rangers get a heck of a lot.
1. decent use with a bow which is a situationaly great weapon - in my experience the 'situation' usualy lasts less than the manyshot timer.
2. The ability to buff an entire party with resists, fom, barkskin(unique to ranger curently) and camo for any one who's interested in stealth - not to mention mass longstrider which can save a slot for a whole group. A well built ranger does infact have the mana to handle all these buffs for a party of 6 and some can handle raids. The mana this saves is very useful to the arcanes and clerics.
3. 4 more skill points a lvl than a fighter and a much nicer selection of skills.

Rangers are stealth capable - fighters are not, rangers are capable of self helaing through their classes inate abilites - fighters are not. rangers are capable of providing genuinely useful buffs for the party - fighters cannot.

The only problem with the ranger class is peoples perception of it, be that 'dps is god must have max dps' or the pew pew barny magrew types that dont know when to put the bow down.

ranger is a support class, a scout, a skirmisher, a stealthy lightly armoured warrior with a bit of spell casting thrown in for good measure - if you want to tear things appart in mele play a barb - or at least look to multiclass.

And the more dps the the less played classes have the more hp the mobs get and the more dps the true mele classes need and its just a vicious circle so as I said. please stop.

If this brought anything of value to the current end-game you'd have a point. I'd rather see the game de-stupideded but I don't see that coming.

[grodon9999]

Rangers should get favored enemy "Packages" instead of singular favored enemies. Examples: Favored Enemy: Outsiders (Includes All lawful, evil, chaotic outsiders, Tharaak hounds, and Tieflings), Monster-type Humanoids (Monsterous humanoids, plus gnolls, orcs, goblinoids, and possibly plants), Reptilian (Kobolds, Trogs and Dragons... though this seems a bit sparse), Beast (Animals, Vermin, Magical beasts), Elemental (Elementals, Mephits, Djinn, Efreeti), Humanoid (Elves, dwarves, humans, Halflings and Gnomes. Yes gnomes, darnnit), etc. Some extra monsters, like Plants and oozes, i find difficult to categorize, and may need to be rolled in with some of the least robust Favored Enemy packages

This is my top suggestion above everything else (Except to fix frikkin ranged combat!) that i think would make Rangers a much better balanced class, with better balanced favored enemies.

That'd work also

[AylinIsAwesome]

I think that Ranged combat needs to be redone, before any boosts to the PrEs are done. Then adjust the PrEs accordingly.

For Tempest, I think a melee-based capstone would be in order. Maybe something like +5 damage when dual-wielding.

[Brennie]

<lots of stuff>

Meh. You and i have very similar viewpoints that only differ on a couple specifics. I'd be happy if any of this was even ever seriously considered. But since none of these Favored Enemy changes will ever see their way into the game *anyhow*, I don't really see the point in banging out the details anymore

However, this discussion has helped me form a new Suggestion thread HERE, with more details on the Favored Enemy thing. Most suggestions are still a rather rough example, but you get the idea.

I think we've accomplished a lot of good ideas today

[sephiroth1084]

[quote=Brennie;3600573]Meh. You and i have very similar viewpoints that only differ on a couple specifics. I'd be happy if any of this was even ever seriously considered. But since none of these Favored Enemy changes will ever see their way into the game *anyhow*, I don't really see the point in banging out the details anymore [/wuote] One can hope.

However, this discussion has helped me form a new Suggestion thread HERE, with more details on the Favored Enemy thing. Most suggestions are still a rather rough example, but you get the idea.

I saw.

I think we've accomplished a lot of good ideas today

+1

[Hadrian]

Let me break this down for you since you clearly are not understanding the underlying concepts.

1. There WILL always be a max dps ranger build. If you need me to elaborate on the logical steps needed to arrive at this conclusion, I will be glad to help you out.

I didn't say that there is something inherently wrong with having an optimal min/max point. The fact that it's inevitable and that there is one currently was, in fact, a key part of the point I was making. If you failed to grasp that, you couldn't possibly have understood what I was saying.

2. How people decide to rank their preferences with respect to dps and survivability in the class is a choice that only the individual making the choice can observe when building their toon.

True, but changing the details can obviously change how current builds measure up, and they may no longer match the preferences of the owner. This is not a new problem to MMOs in general, and so I am assuming anyone reading my post has a basic understanding of the concept.

It's possible to make a choice that is more in line with the current build concepts to avoid the need for people to tweak their characters to take full advantage of this. It's a very simple, and I would presume, easily understood position to have on the topic. If you disagree with it, that's fine. Just discuss it in a reasonable and mature way if at all possible.

Your points 3 and 4 go off on some tangent that really has nothing to do with what I have been talking about. Simply having some idea what I said will adress those two concerns for you.

If you decide to make a response post adressing what I actually said rather than what you misunderstood my position to be, please have the courtesy to respond as an adult this time.

[Hadrian]

I don't think rangers need a real boost to their damage vs. FEs. They have other benefits to make up for still being slightly behind even in their ideal situations from that perspective, which is why I didn't suggest the Ram's change.

I didn't mean to include the Ram's Might suggestion as part of your discussion, or even a serious suggestion for a change. I meant it as an example of a change that doesn't favor one type of build over another.

I understand the complaint about Tempest III being an inferior choice to several splash builds, and I agree that it's a legitimate balance issue to consider. However, I disagree with the people who argue from the viewpoint of - since a ranger focused on DPS isn't a match for an equally focused barbarian or fighter, there is a problem.

[Khurse]

A well played, well equipped ranger is an asset to any party, including ones at endgame now.
They do not need anything added to them overall. (Or at least not until we have all the class and race PRE's, then balancing can occur as needed)

A poorly played,poorly equipped ranger with even more abilities than they have now, is not going to be an asset to a party at any stage.

Are there players prejudiced against rangers now? Sure. The same way you have players say you can't run Shroud with 3 (or more)casters because you don't have the DPS.

Rangers are fine as they are.

[sephiroth1084]

I didn't mean to include the Ram's Might suggestion as part of your discussion, or even a serious suggestion for a change. I meant it as an example of a change that doesn't favor one type of build over another.

I understand the complaint about Tempest III being an inferior choice to several splash builds, and I agree that it's a legitimate balance issue to consider. However, I disagree with the people who argue from the viewpoint of - since a ranger focused on DPS isn't a match for an equally focused barbarian or fighter, there is a problem.

I agree.

Honestly, I think Haste Boost causes a lot of problems when assessing the ranger's (Tempest's) niche. On the surface, the ranger has the fastest TWF attack speed, which is at it should be, given the costs, but fighters and rogues are right up there (maybe higher?), albeit for a rather limited amount of time. If rangers aren't at the top of the DPS chart vs. other TWFers, at the very least they should be the best at dishing out special on-hit effects, like vorpal, and I don't think that that is the case when including Haste Boost in the comparison (I could be mistaken).

[Khurse]

I agree.

Honestly, I think Haste Boost causes a lot of problems when assessing the ranger's (Tempest's) niche. On the surface, the ranger has the fastest TWF attack speed, which is at it should be, given the costs, but fighters and rogues are right up there (maybe higher?), albeit for a rather limited amount of time. If rangers aren't at the top of the DPS chart vs. other TWFers, at the very least they should be the best at dishing out special on-hit effects, like vorpal, and I don't think that that is the case when including Haste Boost in the comparison (I could be mistaken).

See this is what I don't get. (Not meaning to be rude or stupid sounding, but maybe I'll end up doing both)

How do you think that Rangers should be able to get self healing/self buffing, 2WF AC bonus(from a pre of course) AND be at or near the top of the TWF DPS chart vs other TWFers.

[sephiroth1084]

See this is what I don't get. (Not meaning to be rude or stupid sounding, but maybe I'll end up doing both)

How do you think that Rangers should be able to get self healing/self buffing, 2WF AC bonus(from a pre of course) AND be at or near the top of the TWF DPS chart vs other TWFers.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I didn't say they should be at the top of the DPS charts, but that they should be able to apply weapon-based effects better than anyone else, like Vorpal, Wounding, Paralyzing, Banishing, etc... What the hell are you paying 4 feats for to get Tempest if it isn't going to give you a really big boost, particularly when compared to the Haste Boost that every fighter and rogue are (should be) taking?

Ranger should probably be closer to the top (not at the top) of the DPS charts vs. their favored enemies, mostly because if they aren't, and are so much weaker vs. non-FEs, why bring one along at all? Although, I think that non-DPS boosts vs. favored enemies (such as a capstone that gives your attacks a chance to kill FEs outright) would be a better idea, or debuffs vs. FEs.

[Hadrian]

If rangers aren't at the top of the DPS chart vs. other TWFers, at the very least they should be the best at dishing out special on-hit effects, like vorpal, and I don't think that that is the case when including Haste Boost in the comparison (I could be mistaken).

The ability for anyone with enough ranger levels to break out a bow with effects on it and take advantage of manyshot and improved precise shot shouldn't be underestimated.

True, you can't get vorpal on a bow. You can get trap the soul, which can be useful in epic content. Also, against many types of non-epic trash, this tactic can be very powerful with a weakening bow of enfeebling.

For example, the renders in the HoX raid. A pack of 3 protectors and several normal flesh renders may roll over most melee builds. The ranger can have them all at zero strength in a matter of a few seconds and from a safe distance, then he can choose to close and melee if he wishes. This is without sacrificing anything in his build. It's all granted automatically other than the money to buy the bow.

[sephiroth1084]

The ability for anyone with enough ranger levels to break out a bow with effects on it and take advantage of manyshot and improved precise shot shouldn't be underestimated.

True, you can't get vorpal on a bow. You can get trap the soul, which can be useful in epic content. Also, against many types of non-epic trash, this tactic can be very powerful with a weakening bow of enfeebling.

For example, the renders in the HoX raid. A pack of 3 protectors and several normal flesh renders may roll over most melee builds. The ranger can have them all at zero strength in a matter of a few seconds and from a safe distance, then he can choose to close and melee if he wishes. This is without sacrificing anything in his build. It's all granted automatically other than the money to buy the bow.

While I agree that the ranger gains many tools, they are all kind of disjointed in DDO. Manyshot is good for 20 seconds out of 2 minutes.

It's hard to count that against other issues the ranger is facing, particularly since you then have to start weighing the Manyshot benefits against the DPS lost from swapping weapons, firing shots before/after Manyshot, carrying around numerous extra weapons in your non-primary attack category, Manyshot timing (did you just Manyshot one group just to have another, more dangerous group show up?) and the fact that Tempest is costed very steeply yet isn't returning the kind of investment one might expect when looking at what other characters are doing.

[Hadrian]

I said manyshot is a great debuffing tool that should not be overlooked. I don't know that worrying about DPS loss while switching weapons to debuff is any more of a concern for bows than it is for melee, if it's a concern at all against the benefits of my example of reducing difficult melee monsters to zero strength quickly. Did you want to debuff or not? It sounds like you're sort of changing what you want in the middle of the discussion.