Enhancements: Event #1 – Dev Q&A

[patang01]

If you read some of the info about this game, it states a simple fact about rangers:

Rangers were granted access to both Ranged combat and Two Weapon fighting instead of being granted a pet.

Now, which are you going to give up: Two Weapon Fighting or All ranged feats? I'm perfectly fine with them not getting a pet, I'm none to fond of the druid and arti pets as is.

I will say though, I wouldn't mind mounts in the game but it's currently not expansive enough to justify needing to move like that

I agree - I rather do both as a ranger so that rangers can be competitative in dps, then a gimp pet like my Arti's. It's a cute idea but giving up ranger versitility for something with limited functionality seems silly.

[Missing_Minds]

1 - Rangers DO get pets as PART OF THEIR CLASS! Just like Artificers. Just like Druids. Get over it.
Negative. Not like. Half level. They also don't get both combat styles either. Fair trade off.

2 - Paladins get mounts as PART OF THEIR CLASS. We have yet to see mounts OF ANY KIND.
No disagreement, nor is there anything extra they get in turn for not getting their mount.

3 - Sorcerers and Wizards get familiars as PART OF THEIR CLASS. We have yet to see those either.
True, however, wizards get an extra meta magic feat, and sorcs get shorter spell timers.

So your wish to keep the "pet classes" to a minimum has already been over-written by THE PLAYER'S HANDBOOK and Turbine would be stupid to keep promising these additions only to never add them (I do however remember a promise of the Warlocks coming to the game 4 years ago that still has yet to materialize).

I remember no such promise of warlocks ever. A lot of player hope, but no such promise of warlocks. Nor have they ever promised to add the above. Again, a lot of player hope and want.

[Cernunan]

And even if it did: I'd cheerfully give up ranged feats. Give me a perfectly valid reason to never pull out a bow on my Tempests. And 98% of AAs never switch to melee anyway. As long as the individual ranger got to choose which line to take, that would be perfectly acceptable... for a full-leveled pet, at least.

I would just like to say that I would NOT be happy to give up the feats. 6 ranger deep splash in today's end game environment is an extremely worthwhile investment for those of us who understand the current multi class system.
Of corse that may change with today's revamp, but until I see what is coming, I am firmly in the camp of no useless half class level gimp pet trading for top end DPS splashing.

[Uska]

Here's the thing:

1 - Rangers DO get pets as PART OF THEIR CLASS! Just like Artificers. Just like Druids. Get over it.

2 - Paladins get mounts as PART OF THEIR CLASS. We have yet to see mounts OF ANY KIND.

3 - Sorcerers and Wizards get familiars as PART OF THEIR CLASS. We have yet to see those either.

So your wish to keep the "pet classes" to a minimum has already been over-written by THE PLAYER'S HANDBOOK and Turbine would be stupid to keep promising these additions only to never add them (I do however remember a promise of the Warlocks coming to the game 4 years ago that still has yet to materialize).

In pnp rangers have to chose between ranged and melee here they don't its what they got instead of a half strength gimp pet.


And they never promised or even gave a hint of adding warlocks though a lot of people have asked for them but an equal number or more are against them

[Uska]

I was about to post a similar response, but noticed he was talking about pets having to buy evasion even though they are 'considered' rangers.


And personally, the less pets there are in the game the happier I am.

Oh I did get that and had zero idea that pets are considered rangers I thought they just were annoying

[Archangel666]

In pnp rangers have to chose between ranged and melee here they don't its what they got instead of a half strength gimp pet.

And in PnP players don't fight 200+ enemies in the space of an hour, To-Hit isn't rolled on a d100 and then converted to d20 for show, AC works and so on.

What's your point? (Other than you simply don't want Rangers to have Animal Companions).

[Uska]

ACTUALLY, there is no rule anywhere in D&D that states you cannot follow both paths as a Ranger. You only get the feats for one of them for free, but you can still take the feats for the other as selected feats.

I would say that it is high time Turbine went to a strict 3.5 edition stance. Half-Elf Dilettante is NOT part of 3.5, it was introduced in 4th edition. So at BEST what we have now is some amalgamated bastardized half-breed that truly fits nowhere in either game. Is it playable? Yes. Is it D&D? Not so much.

I understand changes and "compromises" have to be made to bring it to a video game equivalent, but Neverwinter managed to do it WITHOUT compromising the game mechanic structure that made it D&D in ALL 3 of their incarnations! Turbine could take a lesson.

Sorry NWO is a terrible game and isn't rally based on 4E it uses a modified CO engine

[Uska]

Yes.

If they did I would never play a ranger again or accept one in any of my lfm's I hesitate to accept Druids now because of their pets Artie's I take because they more than make up for their annoying pets which most of the smart ones don't even pull out

[Archangel666]

If they did I would never play a ranger again or accept one in any of my lfm's I hesitate to accept Druids now because of their pets Artie's I take because they more than make up for their annoying pets which most of the smart ones don't even pull out

That's fine. I feel no overwhelming desire to run with you anyway, so let's go for it.

Just out of curiosity, how many Rangers do you currently run? (And I don't count 6 levels of Ranger/14 levels of anything that's not a Ranger, as a Ranger).

[Paleus]

I'd like to second the call for text showing how enhancements are supposed to work.

All of my worst professional experiences with systems developers have been dealing with people who can't or won't document their work.

My take on this is that its likely the developers have documented their work internally. However, when it comes to testing its probably better that players don't have that documentation, at least for the first round of lammania. When the system goes live the majority of players in game don't bother reading the forums so their experience with the system would not include carefully reading through documentation released on the forums, but rather straight up messing with the system in game. The system therefore needs to stand on its own merits inside the game. So if people in lammania look over the system without the aid of documentation and come back going "my gods, what have you wrought this is incomprehensible," that would be better information than having them go in with documentation that helps them figure out the system better.

[Mercureal]

Just a comment here. A text version of what they *should* be doing would be very useful.

We can all log in and read tool tips, and we can go look at the effects using them. But its a virtual certainty they will not all work as described. And some will probably work in a completely different way because we are using an older version of stuff you guys have already changed internally.

...<snip> ...And the sooner we know what to watch for the better quality things will be in the end.

Hopefully, thanks.

Well said. A very articulate and contructive comment. Hopefully the discussions in the days to come will look more like this, and less like the pointless arguments that forum threads so often become...

[Matuse]

What's your point? (Other than you simply don't want Rangers to have Animal Companions).

Existing full strength pets are almost completely useless. Why would you want to give up anything to get a pet that operates at half that level?

For giggles, I summoned a Hezrou and took it into elite kobold assault. It took it FIVE HITS to kill a single kobold. That's the mighty offensive power of a level 9 spell pet.

You want something far worse than that? Why?

[Archangel666]

Existing full strength pets are almost completely useless. Why would you want to give up anything to get a pet that operates at half that level?

For giggles, I summoned a Hezrou and took it into elite kobold assault. It took it FIVE HITS to kill a single kobold. That's the mighty offensive power of a level 9 spell pet.

You want something far worse than that? Why?

Short answer? Because it fits my playstyle.

Could Pets and Summons use a buff? Of course they could, but them needing a buff doesn't invalidate their potential use.

The more I play on my Druid, the more I feel that Rangers should have them.

[Grosbeak07]

If they did I would never play a ranger again or accept one in any of my lfm's I hesitate to accept Druids now because of their pets Artie's I take because they more than make up for their annoying pets which most of the smart ones don't even pull out

Just shows you know nothing about those classes in DDO honestly. The pets are useless, the classes are not. So you don't take a class because of the pet? Really?

[Scraap]

Existing full strength pets are almost completely useless. Why would you want to give up anything to get a pet that operates at half that level?

For giggles, I summoned a Hezrou and took it into elite kobold assault. It took it FIVE HITS to kill a single kobold. That's the mighty offensive power of a level 9 spell pet.

You want something far worse than that? Why?

I'd kinda like to see em take a hard look at the underperforming aspects of gameplay, myself so that there is an expanded variety of approaches for replay value purposes. So things like summons, offensive traps, debuffing cost/rate ect. Guess we'll see how much system vs number-twiddling has gotten done thusfar shortly.

[Xanstrollinoax]

Edit:

If your having the start issue this may work.

1. Uninstall Pando
2. Stat the regular ddo client BUT don't log in.
3. Start the lamannia downloader...pando should start.

Hope this helps.

[Xanstrollinoax]

Edited my last post with help for my fellow pando start bug sufferers. Best of luck to all and I hope this is as awesome as we hope .

[rdasca]

For those arguing about Ranger pets, I suggest you listen to the PAX interview Steiner-Davion did, you might be surprised as to the answer to that question (and the one about Wizard familiars.)

Interview part is the last 40 minutes or so:

http://www.ddocast.com/2013/03/ddocast-275/

[LrdSlvrhnd]

Your wrong on evasion rangers get it for free at level 9

And if you had read my post instead of blindly rage-negging me (and don't try to deny that you were the one who neg-repped my post) you'd've realized that that particular comment? Was replying to druid pets, who're labeled as rangers. But don't get evasion for free, but instead get it as a purchasable enhancement at level 13. Hence my "some rangers they are" comment.

Just because *you* don't want them doesn't mean they're automatically useless. Get over yourself, please.

[SilkofDrasnia]

In pnp rangers have to chose between ranged and melee here they don't its what they got instead of a half strength gimp pet.

*snip*

Just curious but what did paladins get instead of mounts?