Hope?

[Diyon]

I could personally care less about artificers. However, there is one thing about them that has made me happy.

The construct companions.
The trainer seems to indicate that they can be trained and whatnot, which means that they (hopefully. PLEASE hopefully) will not be dead stupid summons that you can't bring some places because they'll screw it up, and aren't all that helpful in the long run.

But why, why would this matter to me if I don't really care about artificers?



Druid animal companions.

I'll keep on hoping, as whimsical as that may be.

[donfilibuster]

Hopefully the last step in developing animal companions, a rumour that was floating around the time they added palemaster skellies.
Some said skellies were testing for future pets, which was followed by various pet and hireling improvements.

[Musouka]

If they can make companions like this, then go back on Rangers, remove their dual spec and give them companions. As I remember, the dual spec was one of the bonuses for the lack of Animal Companions.

[Diyon]

If they can make companions like this, then go back on Rangers, remove their dual spec and give them companions. As I remember, the dual spec was one of the bonuses for the lack of Animal Companions.

In 3.5e this was not the case. They got animal companions at lvl4 and were counted as half their lvl for effective druid lvl for bonuses. They were not typically that strong especially in later lvls unless you specialized for it.

They got TWF specialization or archery specialization automatically regardless.

[Musouka]

In 3.5e this was not the case. They got animal companions at lvl4 and were counted as half their lvl for effective druid lvl for bonuses. They were not typically that strong especially in later lvls unless you specialized for it.

They got TWF specialization or archery specialization automatically regardless.

Actually they did not get both. They got one or the other. Level 2 still forced the decision.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Ranger

[Hollowgolem]

Yep.

It was 3.0 rangers who got both.

Ah, the good old days of 3.0.

[Diyon]

Actually they did not get both. They got one or the other. Level 2 still forced the decision.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Ranger

I said "or." What I said means this:

3.5e:
Animal companion and TWF spec

or

Animal companion and Archery spec

The get the animal always, and 1 spec. The spec being one OR the other, as I said.

[Musouka]

I said "or." What I said means this:

3.5e:
Animal companion and TWF spec

or

Animal companion and Archery spec

The get the animal always, and 1 spec. The spec being one OR the other, as I said.

Apologies.

[Diyon]

Apologies.

No worries.




I can't wait to see the implementation of this. As to rangers getting revamped for companions, I'd be okay with it, but I don't think its completely necessary. As I said before, in 3.5e pnp, ranger animal companions always seemed more a side note to the class and had nothing on a druid's animal companion.


Also, important information on animal companions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvo7U...eature=related

[Veriden]

If they can make companions like this, then go back on Rangers, remove their dual spec and give them companions. As I remember, the dual spec was one of the bonuses for the lack of Animal Companions.

Actually, rangers got to pick a path. Either archery or two weapon fighting at lvl 2. That choice would carry onto their lvl 6/11 benefits.

It might have been a house rule or the augmented rule in the complete warrior book that took a ranger's spells (not his animal companion if I recall correctly...the book is 10 ft away from me but at 1am I can't be bothered to get off my bed.)

[ainmosni]

If they can make companions like this, then go back on Rangers, remove their dual spec and give them companions. As I remember, the dual spec was one of the bonuses for the lack of Animal Companions.

do we REALLY want to turn this into a 'nerf rangers' discussion...?

[Musouka]

do we REALLY want to turn this into a 'nerf rangers' discussion...?

Are you saying Rangers are only viable with both?

[Talon_Moonshadow]

Are you saying Rangers are only viable with both?

The overwhelming opinion of the forum community is that a ranged only Rgr is not viable.


Also, many people (including me) think that melee Rgrs are subpar DPS right now too. (since the TWF nerf)

IMO, having both options currently makes Rgrs powerful. Taking away one of those severely gimps them.

(and many people already think they are gimped)

[ainmosni]

Are you saying Rangers are only viable with both?

absolutely not, rangers make outstanding melee capable toons, the ranged feats are a nice bonus, but the class would be decent enough without them.

rangers are absolutely NOT viable in the competitive powergaming world as strictly ranged toons.

manyshot+IPS make them GREAT burst dps toons.

their great self-healing ability and AC potential make them extremely survivable builds for levelling up and non-epic endgame (AC portion at least, healing amp + maximize + torc is still good for epic content)


if turbine were to do a true ranged combat pass in this game, then sure.... separate ranged rangers from twf'ers. i wouldnt be happy about it, but i could understand it.

as it stands now though, rangers are twf'ers who also happen to be the best at a situationally useful combat style.

[ainmosni]

and as a side note for the 'ranged-only toons are good dps' believers, how many dps charts exploit the ranger's Arcane Archer enhancements for max dps?

the prodigy, the exploiter, even the 12 x/6 ranger/2 x builds, ALL capitalize on the Ranger's melee goodness.


this the humble opinion of a guy who's going through 10-16 lives (depending on how burned out i am by number 9) to make my server's best Arcane Archer.... currently on life 4.


using a bow is cool, but restricting the class to having to choose one or the other would mean the death of arcane archers as anything other than well-geared pikers.