They seem far and away the weakest class. Seems like everything they do another class can do better. Any help?

Edited June 25, 20187 yr by Verde

They have the best (stack-able) accuracy bonuses in the game, something like +20 - 30
They have Driving-Flight ricochet attack that proc weapon skills, i.e with frost-seeker you will hit second target with 3 additional projectiles 
They have +15 stack-able defenses against any AOE attack 
They have +8 defense against ranged attack
Ghost Heart can summon his companion something like x12 ~ x13 times per fight (With empower)*


Everything else is garbage, in summary they really good as second class and really bad as pure class

Edited June 22, 20187 yr by mant2si

I love ghostheart rangers but as mant2si said they are for multiclassing

They seem far and away the weakest class. Seems like everything they do another class can do better. Any help?

 

they are quite powerful for me. but in patch 1.1 they nerfed the accuracy ring to become +4 instead of +8. and devotion of the faithful. you can still stack them up and invest in alchemy using deadeye. make sure you have high PER.. i recommend 20 PER (which only nets you +10 ACC). if anything ranger is by far the easiest for me early game

Ah well I singled classes Maia and she is garbage so that makes sense. Oh well.

I went single class Maia and she seemed perfectly fine. You have a very cheap, very reliable escape from ever getting engaged on, a permanent 6th model in combat and the amazing interrupting shots ability.

They work really well with a paladin imo. A ton of full attacks and (especially kind wayfarer) the paladin has better pet heal abilities. 

I feel that the level 8 Wizard spell Caedebald's Blackbow makes Rangers feel redundant. They have high accuracy yes, they have a pet yes, they have stunning shots and bouncing arrows. Caedebald's Blackbow is so strong that it continuously terrifies enemies that aren't immune to it and it bounces like the ranger skill.

 

That aside I think Rangers are pretty strong. They don't have huge damage buffs like Rogue or Barbarian, but they can always hit the enemy and create synergy with their pet. I think that's where their true strength lies. I think that more afflictions would fit into their kit. Right now they feel average because other classes can do something similar and some even better individually than a Ranger.

 

I also think that they should have more "hunter" styles skills such as damage bonusses or affliction bonusses vs certain type of enemies that they can focus on. I know this is how D&D does it, but I think there's a good thought process behind this. Rangers are used to the wilds, they hunt, they can track. All those things are not in the PoE Ranger kit and that's the most confusing part.

 

I wouldn't call them weak though.

Edited June 22, 20187 yr by AeonsLegend

The explodey frost bow may be able to compete with the blackbow. The ranger does have the advantage of active abilities to use along side it. 

I went single class Maia and she seemed perfectly fine. You have a very cheap, very reliable escape from ever getting engaged on, a permanent 6th model in combat and the amazing interrupting shots ability.

 

Maia has unique class, that interrupt on hit, this make a sense with one hand AOE weapon, this fact make her little bit viable 

 

I feel that the level 8 Wizard spell Caedebald's Blackbow makes Rangers feel redundant. They have high accuracy yes, they have a pet yes, they have stunning shots and bouncing arrows. Caedebald's Blackbow is so strong that it continuously terrifies enemies that aren't immune to it and it bounces like the ranger skill.

 

That aside I think Rangers are pretty strong. They don't have huge damage buffs like Rogue or Barbarian, but they can always hit the enemy and create synergy with their pet. I think that's where their true strength lies. I think that more afflictions would fit into their kit. Right now they feel average because other classes can do something similar and some even better individually than a Ranger.

 

I also think that they should have more "hunter" styles skills such as damage bonusses or affliction bonusses vs certain type of enemies that they can focus on. I know this is how D&D does it, but I think there's a good thought process behind this. Rangers are used to the wilds, they hunt, they can track. All those things are not in the PoE Ranger kit and that's the most confusing part.

 

I wouldn't call them weak though.

Their accuracy bonuses works with spells, classes that mix rangers can have over 130 - 150 acc and hit bosses with 170 fortitude

 

You can combine blunderbuss.frostseeker with mutli shot + Storm and get around ~ 100 - 150 damage for two 2  targets

 

The explodey frost bow may be able to compete with the blackbow. The ranger does have the advantage of active abilities to use along side it.

Maybe, but you could have a Wizard instead of the Ranger with more abilities. And Wizard is stronger than Ranger. If it is on equal footing and Ranger doesn't outshine the Wizard in its own strength then there is no reason to choose Ranger over Wizard. Which was my point.

 

 

I went single class Maia and she seemed perfectly fine. You have a very cheap, very reliable escape from ever getting engaged on, a permanent 6th model in combat and the amazing interrupting shots ability.

 

Maia has unique class, that interrupt on hit, this make a sense with one hand AOE weapon, this fact make her little bit viable 

 

I feel that the level 8 Wizard spell Caedebald's Blackbow makes Rangers feel redundant. They have high accuracy yes, they have a pet yes, they have stunning shots and bouncing arrows. Caedebald's Blackbow is so strong that it continuously terrifies enemies that aren't immune to it and it bounces like the ranger skill.

 

That aside I think Rangers are pretty strong. They don't have huge damage buffs like Rogue or Barbarian, but they can always hit the enemy and create synergy with their pet. I think that's where their true strength lies. I think that more afflictions would fit into their kit. Right now they feel average because other classes can do something similar and some even better individually than a Ranger.

 

I also think that they should have more "hunter" styles skills such as damage bonusses or affliction bonusses vs certain type of enemies that they can focus on. I know this is how D&D does it, but I think there's a good thought process behind this. Rangers are used to the wilds, they hunt, they can track. All those things are not in the PoE Ranger kit and that's the most confusing part.

 

I wouldn't call them weak though.

Their accuracy bonuses works with spells, classes that mix rangers can have over 130 - 150 acc and hit bosses with 170 fortitude

 

You can combine blunderbuss.frostseeker with mutli shot + Storm and get around ~ 100 - 150 damage for two 2  targets

 

Yeah, but that's abusing the broken multiclass system. Most classes gain 50% strength by multiclassing. You argument is not in favor of the Ranger class itself. There's no reason, except for stunning shots maybe, to go full Ranger.

Edited June 22, 20187 yr by AeonsLegend

You could try the Deadfire Tweaks Mod, his Ranger tweaks are reasonable and he add's some fun new actives which I think they sorely need:

 

https://www.nexusmods.com/pillarsofeternity2/mods/72

 

 

Reduced Bond cost by 1 across the board

Improved Thorns Damage (normal and upgraded) and now they are AoE as per Beta Patch 1.1

Improved Wounding Shot Raw damage from 20% to 40% per 3.0 sec

Reduced Casting and Recovery times for Pet Heals and Thorns

Improved Evasive Roll and Fire duration to 20 seconds

Improved Concussive Shot and its upgrade by adding Penetration (Both) and Damage bonus (Upgrade only)

Resilient Companion scales +1/8 Levels and +2 Health/Level

Vicious Companions scales damage +5%/5 Levels and +1 Penetration at level 13

Changed Pet Attack Recovery to Fast (3.0 seconds) and "Attack Speed" to Fast (0.5 seconds).

Changed Pet damages to:

Bird: 8-12 damage with 7 Penetration (Slash Damage unaltered)

Bear: 18-24 with 6 Penetration (Slash/Piece) and Attack Recovery 4.5 seconds

Wolf: 13-19 with 6 Penetration (Slash/Piece)

Other pets: 10-14 with 6 Penetration (Slash/Piece)

 

Ranger Rebalance Spells:

 

Lesser Insect Swarm: 3 Raw Damage / 3.0 Sec and Immunity to Concentration for 30 Sec. 1.5m Radius

Nature's Heal: 1.5m AoE 20 Health Points

Minor Moon's Light: 8.0 Health every 3.0 Sec for 12.0 Sec

Writhing Tentacles: Summon 3 Writhing Tentacles

Explosive Arrow: +5 Acc Ranged Primary Attack + 1.5m Burn AoE 25-40 Damage on Impact

Double Shot: Lesser version of Twinned Shot at Power Level 5 with -25% Damage

 

Ranger Sharpshooter:

 

Bonus Hit to Crit conversion when attacking targets greater than 4m away.

Bonus Penetration when attacking targets greater than 4m away.

Reduced the deflection penalty to -5.

Added a +3 Ranged Accuracy bonus.

Added a -3 Melee Accuracy bonus.

Added a +10% Ranged Damage bonus.

Improved the range of all ranged weapons (+20% range).

 

 

He has some good weapon's modal changes too. I like this mod + deadly deadfire a lot, esp cause you can pick which ones you think are balanced (some are a bit much imo)

 

They seem far and away the weakest class. Seems like everything they do another class can do better. Any help?

 

they are quite powerful for me. but in patch 1.1 they nerfed the accuracy ring to become +4 instead of +8. and devotion of the faithful. you can still stack them up and invest in alchemy using deadeye. make sure you have high PER.. i recommend 20 PER (which only nets you +10 ACC). if anything ranger is by far the easiest for me early game

 

I don't get that accuracy thing. +8 ACC seems even pretty underwhelming, why nerfing it?

Agree rangers are a nice multiclass, Maia as a Scout is pretty solid. Are any of the martial classes good pure though?

 

 

 

They seem far and away the weakest class. Seems like everything they do another class can do better. Any help?

 

they are quite powerful for me. but in patch 1.1 they nerfed the accuracy ring to become +4 instead of +8. and devotion of the faithful. you can still stack them up and invest in alchemy using deadeye. make sure you have high PER.. i recommend 20 PER (which only nets you +10 ACC). if anything ranger is by far the easiest for me early game

 

I don't get that accuracy thing. +8 ACC seems even pretty underwhelming, why nerfing it?

 

 

1 acc is a bit over 2% DPS in most cases, plus the benefits of hitting with effects, ACC is extremely good. A +6 Might ring would look pretty overpowered compared to other items, and from a DPS standpoint a +8 acc ring is as good (or possibly better if youre stacking a lot of %dmg).

if anything ranger is by far the easiest for me early game

 

The easiest PotD run through the Port Marje chain I've had was a Devoted Brawler (Fighter/Monk). I did blunderbuss because I was trying out the build but I just used fists early. Flurry + Disciplined Strikes + Confident Aim + Devoted penetration on fists means you're at mid-game damage levels and lets you quickly burst down fights to a manageable number of enemies. I also had a fairly easy time on Beckoner Chanter (Wyrms are strong), Kind Wayfarers Votary (lots of aoe heals), and the Rangers. What makes rangers slightly more difficult and monks easier is the frequency of skeletons.

 

I'll mention that I hire a Cipher immediately when getting into town and stealth my way through the two hard fights (I've done them but don't think they're worth the effort). If you're doing the harder fights something else might be better.

Agree rangers are a nice multiclass, Maia as a Scout is pretty solid. Are any of the martial classes good pure though?

 

 

 

They seem far and away the weakest class. Seems like everything they do another class can do better. Any help?

 

they are quite powerful for me. but in patch 1.1 they nerfed the accuracy ring to become +4 instead of +8. and devotion of the faithful. you can still stack them up and invest in alchemy using deadeye. make sure you have high PER.. i recommend 20 PER (which only nets you +10 ACC). if anything ranger is by far the easiest for me early game

 

I don't get that accuracy thing. +8 ACC seems even pretty underwhelming, why nerfing it?

 

 

1 acc is a bit over 2% DPS in most cases, plus the benefits of hitting with effects, ACC is extremely good. A +6 Might ring would look pretty overpowered compared to other items, and from a DPS standpoint a +8 acc ring is as good (or possibly better if youre stacking a lot of %dmg).

 

That statement doesn't make any sense. Accuracy works like this: You either have enough to get a hit or you don't. Having 70 accuracy and hitting an enemy is no different from having 80 and hitting. In no situation does 1 accuracy add 2% dps. The only thing that adds dps is attack speed and actual damage.

I'm in love with Ranger class since playing it on PoE1 on the PS4.

 

But..

 

I felt that they were underwhelming in comparison to other classes. It took a minute to get the Animal Companion up to speed via talents and the talents I wanted for range. After that, I'm pretty satisfied. I just have tell to myself that my Animal isn't a full fledged companion on par with the rest of the cast..plus investing into my animal is one of the reasons for playing a Ranger.

 

I usually let my other party members do what they want while controlling my ranger and animal. I try to get the talents to stay active like the increased damage to same target, increased damage while under DOT, ect. I didn't play on PoTD, and on PS4, it already went thru all the patches before release so I didn't see the Ranger in the beginning.

 

I haven't played Deadfire but I think I'd enjoy all the subclasses for one reason or another.

 

I agree that they feel weaker overall and other classes pretty much cover any Ranger's bases better. If Ranger isn't your flavor of RP, it really doesn't stand out. I, of course, will play a Ranger but I just focus on my class. If I start thinking about "well, this class could've done this, ect" while playing, I usually stop that playthrough until I'm back in the mood.

 

They should beef Ranger up. I'm not talking about just statistics or Bonded Grief. I'm thinking just a overview of the skills and what they could add or change to give them a better niche in the game.

Edited June 22, 20187 yr by XEternalXDreamsX

I'm in love with Ranger class since playing it on PoE1 on the PS4.

 

But..

 

I felt that they were underwhelming in comparison to other classes. It took a minute to get the Animal Companion up to speed via talents and the talents I wanted for range. After that, I'm pretty satisfied. I just have tell myself that my Animal isn't a full fledged companion on par with the rest of the cast..plus investing into my animal is one of the reasons for playing a Ranger.

 

I usually let my other party members do what they want while controlling my ranger and animal. I try to get the talents to stay active like the increased damage to same target, increased damage while under DOT, ect. I didn't play on PoTD, and on PS4, it already went thru all the patches before release so I didn't see the Ranger in the beginning.

 

I haven't played Deadfire but I think I'd enjoy all the subclasses for one reason or another.

 

I agree that they feel weaker overall and other classes pretty much cover any Ranger's bases better. If Ranger isn't your flavor of RP, it really doesn't stand out. I, of course, will play a Ranger but I just focus on my class. If I start thinking about "well, this class could've done this, ect" while playing, I usually stop that playthrough until I'm back in the mood.

 

They should beef Ranger up. I'm not talking about just statistics or Bonded Grief. I'm thinking just a overview of the skills and what they could add or change to give them a better niche in the game.

Yes and it shouldn't be buffing damage, but make the class more unique and give them "ranger" styled stats and skills. I mean right now anyone can do tracking and has survival skill and such. There is no reason or advantage to choose the ranger for being a ranger.

 

I'm in love with Ranger class since playing it on PoE1 on the PS4.

 

But..

 

I felt that they were underwhelming in comparison to other classes. It took a minute to get the Animal Companion up to speed via talents and the talents I wanted for range. After that, I'm pretty satisfied. I just have tell myself that my Animal isn't a full fledged companion on par with the rest of the cast..plus investing into my animal is one of the reasons for playing a Ranger.

 

I usually let my other party members do what they want while controlling my ranger and animal. I try to get the talents to stay active like the increased damage to same target, increased damage while under DOT, ect. I didn't play on PoTD, and on PS4, it already went thru all the patches before release so I didn't see the Ranger in the beginning.

 

I haven't played Deadfire but I think I'd enjoy all the subclasses for one reason or another.

 

I agree that they feel weaker overall and other classes pretty much cover any Ranger's bases better. If Ranger isn't your flavor of RP, it really doesn't stand out. I, of course, will play a Ranger but I just focus on my class. If I start thinking about "well, this class could've done this, ect" while playing, I usually stop that playthrough until I'm back in the mood.

 

They should beef Ranger up. I'm not talking about just statistics or Bonded Grief. I'm thinking just a overview of the skills and what they could add or change to give them a better niche in the game.

Yes and it shouldn't be buffing damage, but make the class more unique and give them "ranger" styled stats and skills. I mean right now anyone can do tracking and has survival skill and such. There is no reason or advantage to choose the ranger for being a ranger.

I agree 100%. I think the only thing really unique is that you have a constant "summon" creature (by Ghostheart, actual summon minus Grief) that can be upgraded. I understand why, but they need to look at the Ranger himself/herself to actually to see what they can do to improve their role (personal talents, ect)

 

1 acc is a bit over 2% DPS in most cases, plus the benefits of hitting with effects, ACC is extremely good. A +6 Might ring would look pretty overpowered compared to other items, and from a DPS standpoint a +8 acc ring is as good (or possibly better if youre stacking a lot of %dmg).

That statement doesn't make any sense. Accuracy works like this: You either have enough to get a hit or you don't. Having 70 accuracy and hitting an enemy is no different from having 80 and hitting. In no situation does 1 accuracy add 2% dps. The only thing that adds dps is attack speed and actual damage.

 

His quote make sense because he considers attack hit rolls into dps calculation. Not sure 2% increase per 1 acc as there are more factors to consider.

 

The fringe cases are when the bonus acc is huge enough to render the 1d100 roll inconsequential in miss/graze/hit/crit consideration (ie Acc - Save > 99 such that all attack rolls are crits ignoring external conversion effects) or vice versa.

Edited June 22, 20187 yr by mosspit

 

 

1 acc is a bit over 2% DPS in most cases, plus the benefits of hitting with effects, ACC is extremely good. A +6 Might ring would look pretty overpowered compared to other items, and from a DPS standpoint a +8 acc ring is as good (or possibly better if youre stacking a lot of %dmg).

That statement doesn't make any sense. Accuracy works like this: You either have enough to get a hit or you don't. Having 70 accuracy and hitting an enemy is no different from having 80 and hitting. In no situation does 1 accuracy add 2% dps. The only thing that adds dps is attack speed and actual damage.

 

His quote make sense because he considers attack hit rolls into dps calculation. Not sure 2% increase per 1 acc as there are more factors to consider.

 

The fringe cases are when the bonus acc is huge enough to render the 1d100 roll inconsequential in miss/graze/hit/crit consideration (ie Acc - Save > 99 such that all attack rolls are crits ignoring external conversion effects) or vice versa.

 

With such large rolls it only matters if that particular 1 accuracy would have made a graze a hit and a hit a crit. It has to do with the value towards deflection. There is no direct relation to accuracy affecting dps at all.

Edited June 22, 20187 yr by AeonsLegend

 

 

 

1 acc is a bit over 2% DPS in most cases, plus the benefits of hitting with effects, ACC is extremely good. A +6 Might ring would look pretty overpowered compared to other items, and from a DPS standpoint a +8 acc ring is as good (or possibly better if youre stacking a lot of %dmg).

That statement doesn't make any sense. Accuracy works like this: You either have enough to get a hit or you don't. Having 70 accuracy and hitting an enemy is no different from having 80 and hitting. In no situation does 1 accuracy add 2% dps. The only thing that adds dps is attack speed and actual damage.

 

His quote make sense because he considers attack hit rolls into dps calculation. Not sure 2% increase per 1 acc as there are more factors to consider.

 

The fringe cases are when the bonus acc is huge enough to render the 1d100 roll inconsequential in miss/graze/hit/crit consideration (ie Acc - Save > 99 such that all attack rolls are crits ignoring external conversion effects) or vice versa.

 

With such large rolls it only matters if that particular 1 accuracy would have made a graze a hit and a hit a crit. It has to do with the value towards deflection. There is no direct relation to accuracy affecting dps at all.

 

I believe most here will include hit resolution into dps, and not just consider it in a vacuum where it is "Damage Per Second of when only all grazes/hits/crits have landed".

Edited June 22, 20187 yr by mosspit

 

 

 

 

1 acc is a bit over 2% DPS in most cases, plus the benefits of hitting with effects, ACC is extremely good. A +6 Might ring would look pretty overpowered compared to other items, and from a DPS standpoint a +8 acc ring is as good (or possibly better if youre stacking a lot of %dmg).

That statement doesn't make any sense. Accuracy works like this: You either have enough to get a hit or you don't. Having 70 accuracy and hitting an enemy is no different from having 80 and hitting. In no situation does 1 accuracy add 2% dps. The only thing that adds dps is attack speed and actual damage.

 

His quote make sense because he considers attack hit rolls into dps calculation. Not sure 2% increase per 1 acc as there are more factors to consider.

 

The fringe cases are when the bonus acc is huge enough to render the 1d100 roll inconsequential in miss/graze/hit/crit consideration (ie Acc - Save > 99 such that all attack rolls are crits ignoring external conversion effects) or vice versa.

 

With such large rolls it only matters if that particular 1 accuracy would have made a graze a hit and a hit a crit. It has to do with the value towards deflection. There is no direct relation to accuracy affecting dps at all.

 

I believe most here will include hit resolution into dps, and not just consider it in a vacuum where it is "Damage Per Second of when only all grazes/hits/crits have landed".

 

Sure you can use math to make a point that doesn't exist. If people want to think that way then I can't help that.

 

 

 

 

1 acc is a bit over 2% DPS in most cases, plus the benefits of hitting with effects, ACC is extremely good. A +6 Might ring would look pretty overpowered compared to other items, and from a DPS standpoint a +8 acc ring is as good (or possibly better if youre stacking a lot of %dmg).

That statement doesn't make any sense. Accuracy works like this: You either have enough to get a hit or you don't. Having 70 accuracy and hitting an enemy is no different from having 80 and hitting. In no situation does 1 accuracy add 2% dps. The only thing that adds dps is attack speed and actual damage.

 

His quote make sense because he considers attack hit rolls into dps calculation. Not sure 2% increase per 1 acc as there are more factors to consider.

 

The fringe cases are when the bonus acc is huge enough to render the 1d100 roll inconsequential in miss/graze/hit/crit consideration (ie Acc - Save > 99 such that all attack rolls are crits ignoring external conversion effects) or vice versa.

 

With such large rolls it only matters if that particular 1 accuracy would have made a graze a hit and a hit a crit. It has to do with the value towards deflection. There is no direct relation to accuracy affecting dps at all.

 

I believe most here will include hit resolution into dps, and not just consider it in a vacuum where it is "Damage Per Second of when only all grazes/hits/crits have landed".

 

 

Yes exactly. This is based on a DPS spreadsheet I made looking at average damage dealt modeling the miss/graze/hit/crit mechanics. Accuracy's effect on DPS is of course on average over a large number of attacks. More accuracy means you'll get less misses/grazes and more hits/crits and thus do more DPS. 

 

The spreadsheet also understated the benefits of accuracy because I did not spend the time to model crits giving +50% penetration, only factored the 25% dmg increase. 

Edited June 23, 20187 yr by aimlessgun

In a way Rogues are similar. Single class Assassins are good, vanilla is ok, Streetfighters and Tricksters don't make much sense.

 

But multi...oh boy. A world of possibilities. Sounds like its similar with Rangers. What sorts of Ranger multis have you guys been playing with?