Ranger: Deepwood Stalker Changes

[DevilYouKnow]

Joking, right? The problem with warpriest and EK is their ter 5's aren't up to par with most of the other 'dps' trees, and also the fact that they're not real DPS trees: they're support, not in the sense that they're a filler tree, but in the sense that they're not full DPS. You wouldn't call cleric's radiant servant or paladin's sacred defender a DPS tree. Having taken both of those trees to tier 5 and capstoned on various characters, they're not made for all-out DPS. Warpriest is a frontline healer, sacred defender is a tank's tank, radiant servant is a true healer, and eldritch knight is a defensive caster.

Now, I got words with you on spellsinger. You might like all of these multiclass or 'spellsinger with a rapier and swashbuckler enhancements' builds, but when built pure and as a spellcaster, a spellsinger is arguably the best in the game when it comes to crowd control/enchantment and party support. I've built entire characters around being an end-game spellsinger, done perfectly well in CCing end-game EE's, healing raids, and providing respectable damage in the form of sonic spells in quests on EH.

Think first before you go spouting this nonsense about filler trees. Not everybody likes nothing but left clicking and damage.

Support tree = filler tree, as stated before by the developer himself. End of story.

[DevilYouKnow]

And i just dont get the people who want to see this as the next OP, FotM, Steamroll all content. Yes improvements are needed but not a copy of all the other trees that already making the game to easy

Yes rangers need to be buffed but no way should they all be going the Barb etc route, its riduculous. As for the bolded part, the community makes it OP then next month complaints begin about how easy it is

Not sure how its worse than before, my friend is ranger, no monk levels, rarely dies in EE and always is up there with DPS, maybe people need to actually start playing properly instead of expecting everything to be Warlock-esque where 1 or 2 buttons wipes everything out.

SS or it didn't happen.

Sorry but currently there is no such thing as ranger without monk levels.

The dev team is fully aware of that, that is why it needs to be properly adressed.

[legendkilleroll]

SS or it didn't happen.

Sorry but currently there is no such thing as ranger without monk levels.

The dev team is fully aware of that, that is why it needs to be properly adressed.

I dont have one and even if i did i wouldnt give you it

Some players can just perform whatever they play, others just want it all easy.

[DevilYouKnow]

I dont have one and even if i did i wouldnt give you it

Some players can just perform whatever they play, others just want it all easy.

Because it is not true. Have a nice day.

[Qhualor]

SS or it didn't happen.

Sorry but currently there is no such thing as ranger without monk levels.

The dev team is fully aware of that, that is why it needs to be properly adressed.

I know for a fact one guy in this thread plays a pure ranger and is very good. Won't say who unless he speaks up.

The problem is someone creates a good build and players follow that build. They think because it performs very well that all other builds are not as good. This is completely false, as long as all things being equal.

[Faltout]

So the proposed changes add more melee power, more PRR, more hit points basically. And then there are some exceptional abilities like Head Shot, Mark of the Haunted, etc.
Why doesn't this tree tie more damage and EFFECTS with sneak attacks instead of just adding to the general power? How is this tree supposed to be unique compared to the other trees and classes? Or you don't care about uniqueness and just want to be equal in power with the OP rogue mechanic or OP paladin KotC (like some players here are suggesting)?

What about poisoned arrows? What about hamstring (with stunning DC) upon each shot? What about kill shots (with assassinate DC)? What about an entangle SLA? How about a smoke screen attack? How about buffs for summons/charmed monsters? How about an attack that does not do damage but applies web to every enemy hit?

Why is every update mainstreaming the classes instead of adding unique abilities?

[the_one_dwarfforged]

All the melee stuff in this tree is dex only.
We havent seen tempest yet, but even live version is giving dex stuff, and only str related thing is choose dex or str, you get dex to hit, dex to damage, dex capstone, and if they will add anything its DC will be dex based, and I can bet any money on that.

Ranger is obligated to be dex only class, and using alternate stat for damage is SUPERIOR not suboptimal, because STR does ONLY to hit/damage, while dex adds relfex and AC, so you only gain and don't lose anything, and you don't have anything boosting str based builds in trees, which is extremally stupid because rangers get str to damage with bows, so its logical that they should get some str stuff, or str/dex selectors at least.

agreed, this needs attention. my main character is entirely geared out for str from lvl 1-28, but i have very minimal investment into dex items, and stunning blow and trip are str based dcs. id prefer to be able to sue any ranger dc enhancements without having to sacrifice stun and trip. i dont see any reason to force this when the main appeal of the game is choice...such as it is...

also, i think holy sword should be put into kotc t5s and/or limited to only weapons that actually are swords (or straight bladed swords, so that greatswords besides esos would have some use). the power of holy sword, and the source of the build disparity it causes, is how unrestricted it is. it doesnt really need too much of a direct dps nerf, just a nerf to how easy it is to get given how strong it is. making a change like this to holy sword, which was mentioned as something that was going to happen, will make it a lot easier to make tempest competetive without going over board on the cores.

head shot as it currently is (just an auto crit and chance to blind) is not something id spend points on. chance to blind simply isnt that appealing, because it doesnt do anything except make 1 trash enemy run around like a headless chicken for 2 seconds until its dead. and auto crits are pointless, considering the prevalence of crit enhancing buffs and abilities, and the sheer number of attacks we make in this game. honestly auto crit may as well not be there.


regarding upcoming tempest and a tree changes:

i hope that for tempest you focus on adding a lot of on hit effects (for example, all attacks now cause the target to bleed (with similar power to ninja poison, not the awful 1d6 bleeds littering the scene), and deal 1d6 [some naturey dmg type} that scales with melee power, possibly more if needed) and furthering the double strike and offhand double strike theme of the tree. currently t3 of a thousand cuts is not very good, because unless you are a first life character, you are going to be wating a lot of that 90% double strike. either tone it down, but have it add offhand double strike as well, or put into the tempest 18/20 core that exceeding 100% double strike allows you to triple strike. also make the up time better, or create additional enhancements like this, either clickies or passives that trigger on crit or when attacking a bleeding target or some mechanic like that. adding some melee power and some alacrity to the tree would probably round it out very nicely, and assuming the numbers were right balance the tree against barb and pally dps without resorting to "rangers now have +19 crit range and +2 crit multiplier with all weapons".

for aa, i would like to see it becomes much less of a passive tree, and more of an active one. add to each of the elemental imbues an active shot themed with each element that is based on a str/dex/wis dc + ranger level + gear, and write them with intent to combo with each other. for example, if you take frost arrows, you now have an ability that allows you to fire and arrow which upon a successful dc check freezes an enemy in place (just like any other freeze currently in game, grants addy dr and helplessness). now with the flaming arrows stance, you gain another attacking called exploding or detonating arrow or something. if fired at a frozen or petrified enemy it rolls another save against your dc and if it fails it shatters. making changes like this to banishing, smiting, terror, and force arrows as well would make them a lot more interesting. i also have to agree 100% that the changes to ranged rangers should coincide with any changes to manyshot, otherwise youre just shooting yourselves in the foot and wasting time.

[ValariusK]

Bottom lines:
Ranger has comparable utility to a paladin, but MUCH worse defense. They should therefore do more damage per unit time than a paladin, probably by at least 20%. If the pass does not do this, it has failed. If that's too much dps, you need to nerf paladins such that they do an amount that you can comfortably add 20% to for a ranger.
The amount of damage that holy sword adds is extremely large, taking an SOS from 30%/3x (60%) to 40%/4x (120%). That's 60%, and that 60% is more than effectively 60 Melee power or 60 ranged power. In fact it's closer to 120 ranged or melee power because we all know the most common power build is LD, which has melee power well over 100 when blitz is running, which it ALWAYS is when it matters.
This is why 14P/6 ranger or 15 P/5 ranger is presently the best Ranger, in the sense that a ranger is a hybrid 2wf/bow combatant with self-healing and some utility. To change that you're going to need to pack a lot into Tempest---or alternatively you could tone down paladins and barbarians.
Here's the DPS hierarchy as it SHOULD be:
Fighters---on top because they have no decent self healing (not even extra heal amp or wand/scroll mastery) and no party utility to speak of
Barbarians---beefy with ok self healing and no party utility and Rangers---brittle but some party utility and also ok self healing, also Rogues (brittle like rangers, substantial utility but poor self heals)
Paladins--excellent defense some party utility and excellent self heals

Right now its like this:
Barbs and Pallies
Rogues in actually the right spot
Rangers and fighters

[salmag]

NOTE TO SEVERLIN

I just read through this entire thread and if what Sev said is true about Deepwood Stalker being second fiddle to Tempest, then it looks like my ranger will remain shelved.

THAT is just bad business, Sev. You should want anyone to spend 40+ points in any tree they want AND for that tree to be viable. Saying that DWS is NOT a main tree option ruins the class, and pigeon-holes them away from level 20.

Please re-consider your position on this matter AND make DWS something players should want to focus on.

I agree completely with this quote (please re-read it):

barecm

The question then becomes why don't other classes have a support / complete waste tree? I get that there are limited resources for development, but putting something completely useless out there like this pile of steaming you know what, is offensive. Couple that with the fact that they have been waiting on ranger to be revamped for over 2 years, and this garbage is what they come up with? Please. Put this type of support nonsense tree in a caster class or barb and/or paladin and see what type of reaction you get. I am not sure who thought this was a good idea, but listen to the community on this one. it stinks badly. It is a waste of your development time and will basically make the class worse than it was before. What happened to the idea of getting folks to not just use ranger as a splash class? This is making it even more so. The devs really got it wrong with this one. Bad, bad, bad. Kiss ranger class goodbye. Rangers will now have 2 underpowered trees and one useless one. Good work! We need some new blood in the decision making process because this is awful.

No increase ROF/Attack speed
No crit range expansion
No expanded vorpal range.

All you had to do is look at what other classes are getting and you have the blue print right in front of you. Paladin and Barb both have crit expansion. Rogue is still way better at ranged combat than a ranger. How is that even remotely ok with you guys? I am completely at a loss on how badly you handle the ranger class. I just don't get it.

[DevilYouKnow]

Bottom lines:
Ranger has comparable utility to a paladin, but MUCH worse defense. They should therefore do more damage per unit time than a paladin, probably by at least 20%. If the pass does not do this, it has failed. If that's too much dps, you need to nerf paladins such that they do an amount that you can comfortably add 20% to for a ranger.
The amount of damage that holy sword adds is extremely large, taking an SOS from 30%/3x (60%) to 40%/4x (120%). That's 60%, and that 60% is more than effectively 60 Melee power or 60 ranged power. In fact it's closer to 120 ranged or melee power because we all know the most common power build is LD, which has melee power well over 100 when blitz is running, which it ALWAYS is when it matters.
This is why 14P/6 ranger or 15 P/5 ranger is presently the best Ranger, in the sense that a ranger is a hybrid 2wf/bow combatant with self-healing and some utility. To change that you're going to need to pack a lot into Tempest---or alternatively you could tone down paladins and barbarians.
Here's the DPS hierarchy as it SHOULD be:
Fighters---on top because they have no decent self healing (not even extra heal amp or wand/scroll mastery) and no party utility to speak of
Barbarians---beefy with ok self healing and no party utility and Rangers---brittle but some party utility and also ok self healing, also Rogues (brittle like rangers, substantial utility but poor self heals)
Paladins--excellent defense some party utility and excellent self heals

Right now its like this:
Barbs and Pallies
Rogues in actually the right spot
Rangers and fighters

Just wait until they get tempest done. I have got my hopes up for this specific tree.

[azrael4h]

The problem is someone creates a good build and players follow that build. They think because it performs very well that all other builds are not as good. This is completely false, as long as all things being equal.

There's also the problem that for many, if it is not top-DPS then it is worthless. This thinking is prevalent among the most vocal of forum goers, which is why we now have massive increases to DPS (and mitigation) on several classes.

Rangers hit this wall back post U5, after Tempest was nerfed into oblivion. However, they still had solid dps, I had an Exploiter, so I'm well aware of what one was capable of. Whereas I couldn't out dps a comparably geared Barbarian or Fighter Kensai of the day, I could survive spell damage that would cause them to die and cry like little children who got spanked. I also healed the chew toy in an elite HoX once when the cleric got bees and died, until the pups were charmed and I could raise said cleric. Then I healed myself and two others on one side while we let the pups do their thing. That character could handle every trap in the game as well. During the Great Blades Debacle, I could jump out, hit manyshot, and continue to DPS Harry while the Barbs and Fighters pew pewed with throwing weapons. The survivability and versatility was great, and that exploiter was probably my favorite character from Pre-MotU days. In a group makeup, when we were running 20 content, she was my go-to because she could fill any needed role in a pinch; spot healing, trapping, dps, support, etc... Yet I only got groups because people knew the character's name, and also knew I had two healers, and was a good raid healer back then, good enough that I could solo heal any raid in the game on elite, except Abbot, which I still have never ran. And I blacklisted for refusing group entry to Rangers and Paladins (or any class). Healers were difficult to find back then, to the point that I stayed on timer for most raids constantly, and got tells constantly asking to come heal this ToD or that VoD. So ****ing one off was not a smart decision.

IMO, what Sev or whoever is making decisions for DDO this week needs to do, is sit down and create a vision of what each class should be, in DDO and in a group dynamic. Then balance all classes based on that. What is a Ranger to DDO? What is a Ranger to the group? While the design of the game has rendered DPS the primary factor of success, with PRR and MRR being a close second because of design, just giving everyone top DPS and top healing and easy 90+PRR/MRR just means we all have mildly different flavors of the same class.

So stop the ad hoc revamps briefly, and decide what each class is to be, and what each class brings to the table. And then rework all of them based on that.

As far as this tree, others have already said my feelings on different aspects so I'll refrain from making this post into a John Grisham novel. I can sum it up in a three letter word though. Meh.

[Axeyu]

NOTE TO SEVERLIN

I just read through this entire thread and if what Sev said is true about Deepwood Stalker being second fiddle to Tempest, then it looks like my ranger will remain shelved.

THAT is just bad business, Sev. You should want anyone to spend 40+ points in any tree they want AND for that tree to be viable. Saying that DWS is NOT a main tree option ruins the class, and pigeon-holes them away from level 20.

Please re-consider your position on this matter AND make DWS something players should want to focus on.

I agree completely with this quote (please re-read it):

Please don't listen to the nay sayers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with DWS not being a top DPS tree. It's not unfair or bad that every tree isn't exactly as good in every situation. There is nothing wrong with a tree that is designed to be at it's strongest for multiclasse, for example.

A tree that is "meant to add Versatility and DPS that stacks well on top of other trees" sounds really great and interesting from a character customizaion perspective.



How exactly does it ruin the class? There is a melee tree and a ranged tree, are you really saying that the third tree must be something specific or the whole class is ruined? That is ridiculous!

[DevilYouKnow]

Please don't listen to the nay sayers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with DWS not being a top DPS tree. It's not unfair or bad that every tree isn't exactly as good in every situation. There is nothing wrong with a tree that is designed to be at it's strongest for multiclasse, for example.

A tree that is "meant to add Versatility and DPS that stacks well on top of other trees" sounds really great and interesting from a character customizaion perspective.



How exactly does it ruin the class? There is a melee tree and a ranged tree, are you really saying that the third tree must be something specific or the whole class is ruined? That is ridiculous!

I totally agree on this ! Well done, sir ! Please move on to tempest as quick as possible devs !

[Vellrad]

agreed, this needs attention. my main character is entirely geared out for str from lvl 1-28, but i have very minimal investment into dex items, and stunning blow and trip are str based dcs. id prefer to be able to sue any ranger dc enhancements without having to sacrifice stun and trip. i dont see any reason to force this when the main appeal of the game is choice...such as it is...

Another thing, I simply can't understand why bother with dex melee ranger.
The main (if not only) draw of ranger for melee builds is TWF feat line without dex requirement- allowing to actually dump dex entirely and still get TWF feats.
Why would anyone want to build ranger based on stat they can safely ignore? If you got this dex, get different class and get feats instead, and you will be better.

[mezzorco]

A tree that is "meant to add Versatility and DPS that stacks well on top of other trees" sounds really great and interesting from a character customizaion perspective.

What versatility does exactly DWS add? Lesser vigor 5/day? Or are you talking about -25% fort 5/day? Please.

It would be ok for me if it were a more support tree, adding healing and survivability.
But it doesn't do this either. It just gives 12 prr to a melee class in light armor, and not a single point of dodge.
It does not add healing spells or SLAs.
It does not give you a tanky pet, that would have been a very flavourful way to take off melee pressure from yourself, thus directly adding to survivability.

The problem here is not that its goal isn't top dps, the problem is that THIS TREE DOES NOT FULFILL ANY MAYOR GOAL.

It's just a heap of "put it in the garbage collector tree".

[Axeyu]

What versatility does exactly DWS add? Lesser vigor 5/day? Or are you talking about -25% fort 5/day? Please.

It would be ok for me if it were a more support tree, adding healing and survivability.
But it doesn't do this either. It just gives 12 prr to a melee class in light armor, and not a single point of dodge.
It does not add healing spells or SLAs.
It does not give you a tanky pet, that would have been a very flavourful way to take off melee pressure from yourself, thus directly adding to survivability.

The problem here is not that its goal isn't top dps, the problem is that THIS TREE DOES NOT FULFILL ANY MAYOR GOAL.

It's just a heap of "put it in the garbage collector tree" .

So maybe the focus of the thread should be that instead of "boho filler tree".

[Grailhawk]

Please don't listen to the nay sayers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with DWS not being a top DPS tree. It's not unfair or bad that every tree isn't exactly as good in every situation. There is nothing wrong with a tree that is designed to be at it's strongest for multiclasse, for example.

A tree that is "meant to add Versatility and DPS that stacks well on top of other trees" sounds really great and interesting from a character customizaion perspective.



How exactly does it ruin the class? There is a melee tree and a ranged tree, are you really saying that the third tree must be something specific or the whole class is ruined? That is ridiculous!

I agree with this in general but I feel the Tier 5's and/or the Core 20 should be something interesting. IMO changing Headshot to an insta-kill would do that It would give the tree something unique that other ranger trees don't have. Or maybe had both headshot and the capstone be insta-kills If its not going to be the top DPS i could at least offer a fun and different play style, instead of just being gimp.

[DevilYouKnow]

I agree with this in general but I feel the Tier 5's and/or the Core 20 should be something interesting. IMO changing Headshot to an insta-kill would do that It would give the tree something unique that other ranger trees don't have. Or maybe had both headshot and the capstone be insta-kills If its not going to be the top DPS i could at least offer a fun and different play style, instead of just being gimp.

Not trying to be funny. But maybe it is supposed to be gimp ?

[Grailhawk]

Not trying to be funny. But maybe it is supposed to be gimp ?

Hey sev is he right is the intention for the tree to be gimp and uninteresting? Is this guy right?

[salmag]

Originally Posted by Axeyu

How exactly does it ruin the class? There is a melee tree and a ranged tree, are you really saying that the third tree must be something specific or the whole class is ruined? That is ridiculous!

I should have said that it ruins it for me, at least.

Look at the trees of other classes. Basically, all of them could be main focuses, except for DWS. DWS is pretty much a splash only. So, why not make all classes have a melee, range and splash option? Would you be ok with that? I'm wouldn't.

All trees for all classes should be viable options, not just splashes.

SO NO TO SPLASH TREES.