Please make Rangers work like they do in PnP

[Doxmaster]

If your not going to say anything useful (whether its for or against the idea) don't bother posting

It is his right to participate in this forum, as the private organization that runs it sees fit to allow him to whether we like what he posts or, in this case, dislike it. If he was H4x0r, you'ld be reported 8 ways to Sunday...

[rover223]

I can remember when no one played rangers because they were under dps and low hp and armour, everyone played either fighters or barbarians in the melee. (Paladins were also poor dps during that time.) The current ranger build works pretty well in my opinion.

[Gremmlynn]

If your not going to say anything useful (whether its for or against the idea) don't bother posting

I'm sorry if you don't find someone pointing out the huge gaping holes in the idea as useful.

Hows this. As it stands Rangers can be good ranged and viable melee combatants, or the can be good melee and viable ranged combatants. The proposal is to make the ranged rangers better at all ranges by making a bow a hybrid ranged/close combat weapon while making melee speced rangers next to worthless vs targets at range.

A better proposal would be to give the ranged PrEs (and others who pay for those feats, rather than getting them as a freebie) improved versions of the various feats while adding incentives to not use ranged weapons in close combat. That way ranged specialists can be improved independent of non-specialists and the game can maintain a semblance of balance and suspension of disbelief.

Also the proposal did a nice job or cherry picking which PnP rules should be enforced by leaving out any sort of equivalent for PnP's attack of opportunity against anyone who can't seem to figure out a bow is a poor choice at melee range.

[Talon_Moonshadow]

Your suggestion would pick up the Rgr class from the boot print, spit incrusted dirt it is currently in because of bad treatment from other players......and bury it in a common grave without ceremony.

[azrael4h]

Your suggestion would pick up the Rgr class from the boot print, spit incrusted dirt it is currently in because of bad treatment from other players......and bury it in a common grave without ceremony.

No.

This suggestion would rape Rangers, torture them for three weeks, and then toss the dessicated corpse into a ditch to rot and be eaten by buzzards.

[Mister_Peace]

Also a note to some people: A melee character that uses manyshot than goes back to meleeing is NOT a ranged character so stop telling me that ranged is fine the way it is.

Your suggestion is something to consider. After all, in PnP Manyshot does not have a cooldown.

Edit: apparently it does have something of a cooldown. Manyshot is used as a standard action, thus can be performed once every round.

[NaturalHazard]

Your suggestion would pick up the Rgr class from the boot print, spit incrusted dirt it is currently in because of bad treatment from other players......and bury it in a common grave without ceremony.

yep.......... there for not /signed. hells no!!!

[Kominalito]

Awesome suggestion broseph. But no. As a pure ranger. No. For reasons that everyone else has eloquently pointed out.

[Memnir]

This is one case of Turbine getting a house-rule right.

Maybe, maybe, they could change things if/when they get all aspects of Ranged combat working better - but certainly not one moment before that.



.
.
.

[Failedlegend]

Maybe, maybe, they could change things if/when they get all aspects of Ranged combat working better - but certainly not one moment before that.
[/COLOR]

Yeah I guess I should have clarified things better I meant they should probably changed it when the do their viability pass on ranged because the way rangers work now if both styles become viable they may become crazy OP due to this so instead of limiting themselves due to this they should change it if this is the case instead of saying...oh well guess we cant fix ranged cause Rangers & Manyshot would be OP.

JUst to clarify this is what I mean by viable...not durrr ranged must be 100% what melee does.

Legend:

• PrE - mean PrE that will be specialization in combat style
• Specialization - mean specialist feats line for one combat style (Ranged, THW, TWF).
• No specialization - No feats and no PrE in proper combat style.
• Worse or better - all talk in DPS meaning

Ranged combat style:

• Specialization and PrE: Little worse then Specialized and PrE melee
• Specialization and PrE: Little better then Specialized melee
• Specialization and PrE: Much better then non Specialized melee
• Specialization only: Average worse then Specialized and PrE melee
• Specialization only: Little worse then Specialized melee
• Specialization only: Little better then non Specialized melee
• No specialization: Much worse then Specialized and PrE melee
• No specialization: Average worse then Specialized melee
• No specialization: Little worse then non Specialized melee

That why with both combat style in Ranger class, you might consider overpowered. Especially when you will take AA or DS PrE (I assuming that when they change ranged combat style, AA and DS will be complete PrE). With this PrE you will be little worse then Spec and PrE melee, and in the same time you will be still specialized in Melee same as any other class without PrE.

And BTW: What Turbine must do to balance ranged combat? Lots of work (and I know that this is only beginning):

• Nerfs: Manyshoot, Ranger Capstone, Slaying Arrow
• Improve: Ranged combat RoF, damage and to-hit when stand still, Point Blank Shot (optional)
• More work on: complete AA and DS PrE, More unique ranged weapons, Shoot on the run feat.
• Optional ides: Anything that nerf kitting (Slower movement rate, bigger to-hit penalty. 5% of autotrip ect.)

After that, we can speak about Ranger combat styles

[Arsont]

I still have to say I like rangers the way they are.

To the people who say that improving ranged combat while letting rangers keep both sets of feats would make them overpowered, I ask "How so"? I honestly don't see it. Sure, they'll be more versatile, but a melee spec'd will still do better melee than ranged, and a ranged spec'd would still do better ranged. So I could use a little elaboration.

[donfilibuster]

@Devs: Please fix the weird way ranged shots cause aggro I've tested this with a few buddies before I was on my repeater rogue and they ran up (a pure WF barb, an pure WF FvS and a Monk) I waited until he was at about half health...fired ONE volley (3 bolts if it didn't bug) and it charged me like the other 3 didn't exist.

This was from update 5 or so when the monsters were made to react to attacks at distance.
The release notes only had that if the monster saved vs. a spell the caster would still get the attention.

But a lot of players noted changes in all the aggro mechanic as a whole, it is clear that *something* changed.
Since then it is very difficult to keep melee aggro without intimidate and very easy to grab aggro with spells and ranged.

[Brennie]

Yeah I guess I should have clarified things better I meant they should probably changed it when the do their viability pass on ranged because the way rangers work now if both styles become viable they may become crazy OP due to this so instead of limiting themselves due to this they should change it if this is the case instead of saying...oh well guess we cant fix ranged cause Rangers & Manyshot would be OP.

JUst to clarify this is what I mean by viable...not durrr ranged must be 100% what melee does.

I still don't see the issue.

In the post you quoted, it even states that a Ranged-Specced Ranger should be better DPS with ranged than with their own non-specialized Two Weapon Fighting. In that sense, it would actually be UNDERpowered for them to whip out TWF in all but special situations (Such as enemies that have DR that cannot be broken by ranged weapons, for example). Likewise, a TWF focused ranger would probably only pull out a bow if there was something they simply couldn't get to with melee. And yes, TWF Rangers will probably be better at getting those un-meleeable enemies than a Greataxe Kensai with a throwing dagger, but so what? An AA or caster will still put them both to shame.

Rangers will probably never be as powerful as Barbs or Fighters, and will instead rely on their versatility to be their greatest asset. Being able to pull out a bow when Melee isn't an option, or being able to Two Weapon Fight a beatdown on a giant skeleton or clay golem, only makes Ranger better at being the swiss-army knife character that is already is.

I will sign this only when Rangers can use archery and TWF AT THE SAME TIME. Otherwise, i cannot fathom how being able to switch to a lower DPS fighting style as backup for rare circumstances when its more useful could ever be considered overpowered.

[Memnir]

Also, just to mention it (not sure if it's been mentioned in this thread yet) - the Devs mentioned a long, long time ago that they gave us both weapon options to make up for the loss of Animal Companions. So, that'd be one more thing they'd have to add to the game - in addition to ungimping Ranged combat - before changing the current way of doing things.

And really... looking at Summons and Hirelings - just like Familiars, I can do without Animal Companions till the fix a lot of pre-existing conditions.


It works just fine as-is. I don't see how decreasing any classes' combat options is a good or desirable thing.

[Gremmlynn]

It works just fine as-is. I don't see how decreasing any classes' combat options is a good or desirable thing.

That's because you don't have OAM (Obsessive Archer Mindset) where you consider ranged combat exclusively the archer's job and the archer's only job.

[doubledge]

[Failedlegend]

image fail

Preview Post is your friend

[Musouka]

I disagree that they need to add the separation. Rangers thrive on being versatile multi-functional characters, rather than being single purpose. Removing options from the ranger arsenal does *not* help them in any way, and frankly they are not strong enough to handle any more setbacks to their functionality.

It would be devastating. As an Arcane Archer Ranger, you are forced to spend 3 of your 7 feats on AA. If you want to be a GOOD AA, you will most likely also take Improved Crit: Ranged and Toughness. If you want any kind of half-decent melee capability, chances are you also want Improved Crit: Slash or Pierce and Power Attack. Please show me how to fit in the three Two Weapon Fighting feats without a dramatic loss in either ranged combat, melee combat, or survivability?

Your supposed "Fix" to Slayer Arrow would make it one of the worst abilities in the game. A once-per-rest save or die arrow (Which can miss, by the by, either by rollign low on your attack or an enemy simply moving out of the way) to replace the only AA ability that gives any reason to even PLAY a high level Arcane Archer woudl be catastrophic. *Even if* it was was bumped up to be on a relatively short cooldown, similar to True Strike Arrow, it would still be entirely useless against any enemy who cannot be outright killed, making Ranged Rangers useless against every boss ever.

Rangers get spells, they get wild empathy, they get favored enemies, they get evasion, choosing to make them have to use feat slots for melee if they specialize in ranged would not totally disrupt the functionality of a Ranger. I do agree though, that changing the slayer arrows would totally diminish a lot of their damage functionality. The argument about rangers not doing high damage, because they are a distance away from the melee, still stands. They don't have to do HIGH damage, because they shouldn't be sucking down any of the healer's SP as they should not be getting hit. It is possible to be in a group where you actually have a tank that will draw aggro, or even intimidate, away from the rest of the party. Doing this would push people to actually create balanced groups, instead of just a couple powerhouses and a healer.

However, I do digress. Memnir pointed out that Rangers don't have their animal companions. So, this is a makeup for it. I wonder what they're going to do for Druids to make up for that matter.

[Failedlegend]

However, I do digress. Memnir pointed out that Rangers don't have their animal companions. So, this is a makeup for it. I wonder what they're going to do for Druids to make up for that matter.

Well maybe along with Druid specific spells and shapeshifting they'll give us animal companions too...we can dream :P

[FlyingTurtle]

I will sign this only when Rangers can use archery and TWF AT THE SAME TIME.

OMG Idea

Dual wielding bowswords! PewSlashPew!