Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers

[HoonDing]

I cannot BELIEVE that there are so many people in this thread who actually think that a series of games where mages couldn't hold swords

[MasterPrudent]

 

I cannot BELIEVE that there are so many people in this thread who actually think that a series of games where mages couldn't hold swords

 

Oh he was doomed anyway.

 

(Seriously though, the more pertinent example would be a dual/multiclassed character.)

Edited January 30, 2014 by MasterPrudent

[anameforobsidian]

I always thought the ranger class had some pretty huge inconsistencies in later additions.  Basically, they're trying to combine three wildly different archetypes into one class: Aragorn, who knows lore that is similar to magic and is something of a stealthy fighter; Drizzt, who's a dual-wielding fighter with an ani-pal and is really good at fighting goblins; and Robin Hood, who's just a greater hunter, archer, and stealth character.  Even the D&D team has recognized the ridiculousness of this in a system of firm class based archetypes, and deprecated the arrow using side of ranger to Avengers.

 

I think these archetypes would be better served by either talents in a completely classless system, separate sub-classes on fighter, or by just dropping some of the roles.  I would say drop the magic, put dual-wielding and favored enemy bonuses as talents, and you're left with a (wo)man of the woods.  Even though I never liked the ani-pal mechanic, it's at least thematic.

[JFSOCC]

I always thought rangers were based on feudal groundskeepers of the kings forests, not just hunters for the king, but also wardens against poachers, and rustlers to give their lords an easier time during the hunt.

[Clean&Clear]

Josh: For those of us old enough to have gone through all D&D versions, we do remember (more or less vaguely), the class changes and how they first often upset us, and then usually became bearable, only to become great later on.

 

 

The classes I "want you to play" are ones that are good in combat and are distinctive from other classes.  Core RAW rangers and rogues in 3E are distinctive, but they aren't great in combat.  We've said from the beginning (or near the beginning) that we're not making "skill classes".   The main difference between a PoE swashbuckling rogue and a core/RAW 3E swashbuckling rogue is that the PoE will be much more effective in combat (if about as fragile -- not sure where you got the idea that they tank).  Sneak attack is at the core of the idea of rogues as vicious combatants, even in 3E.  In Pathfinder, this goes further, with additional combat-oriented Talents opening up as they gain levels.  I don't think expanding this concept makes rogues "not roguey", unless being bad in combat is essential to one's concept of what a rogue is.

 

And classes good in combat and distinctive from other classes are great starting points. I, personally, don't demand any full recognition of earlier implementations of classes in CRPGs (especially in D&D, even if it's nice with some kind of fuzzy similarity), but I do wish for as much diversity as possible. The new info you just revealed about the rogue makes it a versatile class, it seems. But I simply must ask: Will there be further divisions via choices after a few levels where there are subclasses or prestige classes of these "distincitive classes". And if so, can you give us an example or two?

 

Cheers!

I think "personalization" of your characters will hapen mainly through talents, which, as Josh mentioned, are not yet designed. And, of course, through stats, because if the concept of "no dump stats" turns out well (I really hope it does), you will have plenty of posibbilities how to combine them resulting in viable characters. I still wonder whether in time the character gets all of the skills that are listed in the update or the skill pool will be bigger and we'll have to choose some of them over the others. But I guess that will happen with talents and every character will get all the skills listed for his class.

 

Anyway, thanks for the answers Josh, really dispeled my doubts!

[FlintlockJazz]

 

There is something I do no understand from what I read here: "Rangers are not good enough at fighting". Errrrr..... In IE games a good ranger was IMO not a good fighter, if you wanted a good fighter you just better had to take a barbarian - even an halfling one. Remember Valygar or Kivan, they were useful for other stuff than just tanking an enemy fighter, they could not do it. But give Kivan a good ol'composite bow, some magic arrows (who said explosive ?)  and you will see if he is not a heavy hitter.....

Judging the Ranger class based on a couple of pre-built Bioware NPCs will not give you an accurate picture. Kivan was an archery beast because Archery itself was unusually powerful in BG1. Ironically though, Kivan was good at archery despite the fact that he wasn't optimally built for it. (didn't he only have 16 Dex?) As for Valygar, well, he was a beastmaster. One of the more difficult kits to play in BG2. They're not that great at anything.

 

But Minsc was a good tank. Especially in the second game. 18/93 STR; you get him nice and early so you can fully control his level advancement; He can wear Heavy armor; Favored Enemy is Vampire (very useful in BG2), and he just so happened to start the game with a double proficiency in maces (for the mace of disruption...ahem... vampires) and 2-h swords. But even he wasn't optimally built. The player can build a far better ranger.

 

Actually, Valygar was a Stalker, which is arguable the best Ranger kit, play him as a backstabber and he was damn effective.  Kivan had a dex of 17, which was damn good except that he was an elf and could have had a dex of 19 instead but had one of the highest strength scores in the game, meaning that he could wear the heaviest armour as well to compensate somewhat for the fact that he didn't get a constitution bonus to his hit points.  Was not the best archer or tank you could get but he could switch between range and melee and inflict lots of damage either way (with the reach of his halberd Kivan could stand behind better AC charaacters and deal a lot of damage still).  None of these things were abilities granted by his ranger class however.

 

Rangers have had the problem in the D&D of not really knowing who they were.  In 2nd ed they kinda got hijacked by that bastard Drzzt who turned them all into his dual wielding clones, making it awkward to play the more Aragorn sort, and this carried over to 3rd ed too where they were made even less able to tank in 3.5 and made more bits of everything (stealthy like a rogue but without the trap detection feats, a bit of druid with the spells but a normal druid was better for that role, their animal companion feature they had in 2nd edition was not only given to the druid as well in 3rd but the ranger got the weaker version of it too) which, like the bard, made them a jack of all trades which in a party game isn't that great.

Edited January 30, 2014 by FlintlockJazz

[FlintlockJazz]

I always thought rangers were based on feudal groundskeepers of the kings forests, not just hunters for the king, but also wardens against poachers, and rustlers to give their lords an easier time during the hunt.

I've always wanted to play this kind of warden/ranger in tabletop myself actually. 

[ItinerantNomad]

Everyone wants to play a fighter with a different name in this thread.

 

Josh, I'm fine with the way you described the ranger as is. Ranged-oriented and all. If I want a melee fighter with high damage, I'll play a rogue.

[Stun]

 

I cannot BELIEVE that there are so many people in this thread who actually think that a series of games where mages couldn't hold swords

 

Not only that. But in the IE games, Mages could, in fact, wield swords, And spears, and morning stars, and bows. You could multi-class in the IE games, remember?

 

And of course in IWD2 mages could wield swords without multi-classing.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Stun

[Kissamies]

Ah rangers. This has been discussed before so I can't say I didn't see it coming. In my mind, the range is primarily a scout/hunter/special forces guy who is good at surviving and being efficient with with minimal equipment. Tends to use light and practical armor and weapons that are easy to carry around and maintain. Can cover lots of ground even on difficult terrain. The ranged-oriented I can live with because I guess they are practical hunter's weapons, but I never liked the animal companion being the central class feature. I guess when the focus is in combat, it's easier to make the ranger unique that way, though.

 

Well, I can always play a rogue with lots of survival skill and call him the ranger if it bothers me too much.

[Infinitron]

Not only that. But in the IE games, Mages could, in fact, wield swords, And spears, and morning stars, and bows. You could multi-class in the IE games, remember?

 

 

 

...at which point they stopped being purely mages.

 

An optional multi/dual-classing mechanic that the majority of players probably ignored is a pretty poor substitute for making the classes themselves fundamentally more flexible.

 

But that's just one example. What about the fact that there are no dump stats and fighters can benefit from high Intellect? What about the fact that everybody can be stealthy and pick locks if they invest in the appropriate skills? What about the fact that every class gets the same amount of skill points and additional max health per level? These are things that you and other people in this thread have probably complained about, things that make the classes LESS rigid and distinct, not more. You can't have it both ways.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Infinitron

[teknoman2]

fighters are warriors who specialize in melee combat, rangers are warriors who specialize in ranged combat. i dont see the problem there

[jvires]

So excited for this game to release. As I read more about the classes, I'm getting so many possible party synergies popping into my head. We've got some info on damage classes, how about some Buff love since the party will NEED to have some way of maintaining forward momentum and not resting on a regular basis to regen health.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Well, I can always play a rogue with lots of survival skill and call him the ranger if it bothers me too much.

This.  Pretty much the definition for a ranger has traditionally been wilderness warrior, with the non-combat skills being taking takeable by anyone the things that distinguish the classes now is mainly how they fight.  If I want to play a 'ranger' who fights with two handed swords and travels around hunting enemies of the wilderness using martial strength then I'd pick a fighter or quite possibly a rogue or barbarian  instead and take the appropriate skills.  I have no problem with the way they have done the ranger here and actually I think the animal companion part takes it back to it's roots somewhat.

[jvires]

I have a question for everyone. Have they announced how many can be in your party at one time? Assuming that there will be a limit of 4 or 5 per party, a ranger will allow to have an additional character since he has his own minion. That's an extra 25% of characters dishing out the pain during fights plus potentially another source of tanking depending on the companion and its abilities. I hope that there will be different companions with different traits instead of a "one size fits all" type of creature since this would mean that your choice of partner will impact how you play. Also, make it difficult or impossible to change what pet you have while out in the field.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I have a question for everyone. Have they announced how many can be in your party at one time? Assuming that there will be a limit of 4 or 5 per party, a ranger will allow to have an additional character since he has his own minion. That's an extra 25% of characters dishing out the pain during fights plus potentially another source of tanking depending on the companion and its abilities. I hope that there will be different companions with different traits instead of a "one size fits all" type of creature since this would mean that your choice of partner will impact how you play. Also, make it difficult or impossible to change what pet you have while out in the field.

Party of 6.

 

I don't think the animal companion can be considered a full party member, as it will likely not be able to use weapons and will die if the Ranger dies.

[Stun]

 

Not only that. But in the IE games, Mages could, in fact, wield swords, And spears, and morning stars, and bows. You could multi-class in the IE games, remember?

 

...at which point they stopped being purely mages.

 

An optional multi/dual-classing mechanic that the majority of players probably ignored is a pretty poor substitute for making the classes themselves fundamentally more flexible.

 

But that's just one example. What about the fact that there are no dump stats and fighters can benefit from high Intellect? What about the fact that everybody can be stealthy and pick locks if they invest in the appropriate skills? What about the fact that every class gets the same amount of skill points and additional max health per level? These are things that you and other people in this thread have probably complained about, things that make the classes LESS rigid and distinct, not more. You can't have it both ways.

 

You claimed rigidity in combat roles of the classes in the IE games, citing the weapon choices of mages as an example. But the fact that those games gave you Multi-classing capability and dual classing capability proves otherwise. Literally. And so does the entirety of IWD2's character generation system, where any class can use any weapon-type even without multi-classing.

 

If you want to now shift focus to non-combat skill rigidity, go right ahead. But it's a different subject.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Stun

[tajerio]

 

 

Not only that. But in the IE games, Mages could, in fact, wield swords, And spears, and morning stars, and bows. You could multi-class in the IE games, remember?

 

...at which point they stopped being purely mages.

 

An optional multi/dual-classing mechanic that the majority of players probably ignored is a pretty poor substitute for making the classes themselves fundamentally more flexible.

 

But that's just one example. What about the fact that there are no dump stats and fighters can benefit from high Intellect? What about the fact that everybody can be stealthy and pick locks if they invest in the appropriate skills? What about the fact that every class gets the same amount of skill points and additional max health per level? These are things that you and other people in this thread have probably complained about, things that make the classes LESS rigid and distinct, not more. You can't have it both ways.

 

You claimed rigidity in combat roles of the classes in the IE games, citing the weapon choices of mages as an example. But the fact that those games gave you Multi-classing capability and dual classing capability proves otherwise. Literally. And so does the entirety of IWD2's character generation system, where any class can use any weapon-type even without multi-classing.

 

If you want to now shift focus to non-combat skill rigidity, go right ahead. But it's a different subject.

 

 

Except for IWD2, that argument doesn't hold water.  The individual classes themselves were incredibly rigid.  So multiclassing was in to provide the flexibility that each specific class was almost entirely incapable of providing.

 

If you want to argue that the flexibility provided by multiclassing is better than that provided by the more inclusive classes of PoE, go right ahead.  But it's a different subject. 

[Stun]

Except for IWD2, that argument doesn't hold water.  The individual classes themselves were incredibly rigid.

I guess IWD2 doesn't count as an IE game then. LOL And you're wrong anyway. Rangers could wield and thrive with melee weapons in all the IE games. And mages had spells like phantom blade, black blade of Disaster etc. to get their sword-wielding fix. not to mention spells they could use in tandem with the above to make them good in melee (tensors transformation, haste, improved haste, stoneskin, spirit armor etc.)

 

But really, dismissing the multi-classing/dual-classing argument as something that "doesn't count" or "doesn't hold water", will not make it go away. The ability to dual or multi-class IS there to give the player near unlimited build choice options within the class system, yes. The fact that there are cleric and mage spells specifically designed to enhance specific multiclass combinations is just further proof.

 

If you want to argue that the flexibility provided by multiclassing is better than that provided by the more inclusive classes of PoE, go right ahead.  But it's a different subject.

The hell it is. If I'm building a melee mage in POE, will the build be flexible enough to hold its own in melee with a warrior? Because you could do that in the IE games. Because everything was less rigid. Edited January 30, 2014 by Stun

[Bwe]

 

There is something I do no understand from what I read here: "Rangers are not good enough at fighting". Errrrr..... In IE games a good ranger was IMO not a good fighter, if you wanted a good fighter you just better had to take a barbarian - even an halfling one. Remember Valygar or Kivan, they were useful for other stuff than just tanking an enemy fighter, they could not do it. But give Kivan a good ol'composite bow, some magic arrows (who said explosive ?)  and you will see if he is not a heavy hitter.....

Judging the Ranger class based on a couple of pre-built Bioware NPCs will not give you an accurate picture. Kivan was an archery beast because Archery itself was unusually powerful in BG1. Ironically though, Kivan was good at archery despite the fact that he wasn't optimally built for it. (didn't he only have 16 Dex?) As for Valygar, well, he was a beastmaster. One of the more difficult kits to play in BG2. They're not that great at anything.

 

But Minsc was a good tank. Especially in the second game. 18/93 STR; you get him nice and early so you can fully control his level advancement; He can wear Heavy armor; Favored Enemy is Vampire (very useful in BG2), and he just so happened to start the game with a double proficiency in maces (for the mace of disruption...ahem... vampires) and 2-h swords. But even he wasn't optimally built. The player can build a far better ranger.

 

I think biggest flaws in IWD 1 & 2 were their linearity and combat-only gaming experience.

True, but what they did, they did really, really well. Encounter design in IWD1 was absolutely superb, and IWD2's Chargen was bar none the best of pretty much any game I've ever played. You want virtually unlimited Build choice options? Look no further than Icewind Dale 2.

 

 

I agree with you, neither Kivan nor Valygar were perfect Rangers, but here is my point: don't try to transform a ranger in a "fighter + spells + bow + sneak + animal buddy" unless it is your main character in the BG series. Let's say that a not-son-of-Bhaal ranger would have to choose between all these traits and try to specialize in one or two aspects of the job. ( I personally played a ranger the first time if I remember well !) Additionally, in BG, re-rolling your character stats for half an hour during creation also helps to have a better ranger ^^

 

I also have to recognize that IWD2 Talent/Feats system was very good, and that character creation or evolution was definitely very rich. Even if I humbly prefer the dual or multi-class system than the IWD2 class level.

 

To keep speaking about IWD2 feats and skills, I think survival was not so useful there. After a couple of game, you would not need the "it seems that big hairy creatures live in that area" kind of info.... More info on that kind of skill would be nice.

[Tsuga C]

You can't have it both ways.

Using the classic letter grading system (A-B-C-D-F with C as an honest average right in the middle of the bell curve), I'll be pleased if you can make a wizard into a C+/B- fighter, a cleric into a C+/B- rogue, etc... If the classes are any more "flexible" than that, then I'd have to question why Obsidian even bothered with a class system to begin with if character class doesn't mean all that much in terms of what you can do with a particular player character of a given class.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Tsuga C

[anameforobsidian]

 

If you want to argue that the flexibility provided by multiclassing is better than that provided by the more inclusive classes of PoE, go right ahead.  But it's a different subject.

The hell it is. If I'm building a melee mage in POE, will the build be flexible enough to hold its own in melee with a warrior? Because you could do that in the IE games. Because everything was less rigid.

 

 

Could you do that without significant pre-fight buffing and an item advantage?  If the wizard comes in buffs up, that's a significant time advantage and not really an even contest.  Could you do it on your first attribute roll?

 

It's possible that dual classing allows for more flexible character creation, but I don't buy it.  For a D&D based game, flexibility can be split into attributes, abilities, and skills.  PEs attributes are looking far more flexible.  AoE barbarian being the prime example.  In IE games, you were lucky if your character used three ability scores.  Then, there's skills.  PEs skills seem to have about the same amount of importance, maybe a bit more, and they're far more flexible.  A druid or paladin who can pick locks is a great example of this.  Finally, there's abilities.  PE may be less flexible with abilities since dual classing allows a pretty wide array of abilities, but even then, more classes have more abilities, leaving it a toss up.  Is a system that allows a gun toting cleric really less flexible than one that allows a self-hating mageslayer mage?

 

Furthermore, is it really fair to compare the flexibility offered by six games to the flexibility offered by one?

[tajerio]

 

Except for IWD2, that argument doesn't hold water.  The individual classes themselves were incredibly rigid.

I guess IWD2 doesn't count as an IE game then. LOL And you're wrong anyway. Rangers could wield and thrive with melee weapons in all the IE games. And mages had spells like phantom blade, black blade of Disaster etc. to get their sword-wielding fix. not to mention spells they could use in tandem with the above to make them good in melee (tensors transformation, haste, improved haste, stoneskin, spirit armor etc.)

 

But really, dismissing the multi-classing/dual-classing argument as something that "doesn't count" or "doesn't hold water", will not make it go away. The ability to dual or multi-class IS there to give the player near unlimited build choice options within the class system, yes. The fact that there are cleric and mage spells specifically designed to enhance specific multiclass combinations is just further proof.

 

If you want to argue that the flexibility provided by multiclassing is better than that provided by the more inclusive classes of PoE, go right ahead.  But it's a different subject.

The hell it is. If I'm building a melee mage in POE, will the build be flexible enough to hold its own in melee with a warrior? Because you could do that in the IE games. Because everything was less rigid.

 

 

I'm not trying to dismiss the multiclassing argument.  I think it's perfectly valid.  But the multiclass argument muddies the water when talking about the flexibility of individual classes.  That's all I'm saying.

 

I agree that saying all the classes of the IE games were incredibly rigid was a bridge too far on my part.  But I think it can't be denied that the classes were immensely asymmetric in how flexible they were.  Compare mages to fighters in that regard.  Multiclassing for most classes was basically de rigeur if you wanted a character to perform a role that wasn't optimal for the initial class.  And of course in IWD2 and all 3e influenced games, flexibility was also achieved by having a panoply of feats.

 

Basically, that's ensuring flexibility through complexity, which makes eliminating clearly optimal choices pretty difficult.  Josh seems to be ensuring a different kind of flexibility by giving each class a broader initial range of capability to occupy, then having the player modify that through attribute allocation and talent choices, of which I doubt there will be hundreds.  And that speaks to his design goal of trying to make player choice more meaningful by eliminating objective superiority of certain choices.  

 

I understand you hate that with a fiery passion, but that's pretty clearly a central mission here, so debating its merits may be interesting but is also ultimately fruitless.

[Lephys]

I'd like to know how the balancing is going to work with and without the Ranger and pet in your party. The difference in balancing between 6 or 7 in your party.

 

If you choose a 6 person party without a Ranger, you only have 6 in your party.

If you choose a 6 person party with a Ranger, you have 7 in your party including the pet.

If you go to the Adventurers Hall and create an all Ranger Party, you have 12 in your party. Looks like an all Ranger party is overpowered.

It only looks like they're overpowered if you're not comparing 12 apples to 6 oranges. A Ranger's animal is an inherent part of that class. It's not 2 entire individual characters; one character, two entities. It's not like for every talent/ability another class gains, the Ranger AND his companion BOTH gain a new talent and ability and skill points. It's the same with Wizards and their familiars; Familiars don't just get a whole 'nother Wizard worth of Health and Stamina and spells and attack damage. They simply function as a sentient tool of the Wizard's.

 

So, between the fact that they share health/stamina pools (which we don't even know will be any larger than any other class's pools, just that they'll be split between 2 entities), and the fact that many of the abilities just listed in this update require the coordinated efforts of both the Ranger and the animal companion, I'd say the basic framework is for them to be very much not-overpowered.

 

Of course, they could end up being overpowered, but it won't simply be because there are 2 entities instead of 1. If the dev team didn't think of that 3 seconds into the Ranger design, I dare say they wouldn't have had the capacity to make ANY intelligent design decisions thus far, and we'd all have formed a huge disgruntled mob after like... Update #5 or something.

 

 

Also, I get all the concerns over supposed restrictions like Rogues being melee-specialists, and Rangers being Ranged specialists, but, Josh and co. haven't figured it all out yet and carved it into stone. Personally, I don't mind if, say, Rangers are about 60/40, ranged-to-melee, and Rogues are vice versa. In terms of overall "build-a-bility." In other words, if you want to specialize SOLELY in melee, as a Ranger, you suffer just a little bit (you don't quite get perfect trade-off options for what you'd get with ranged stuff). This way, you can still be like 90% melee, and still use a ranged weapon as a backup, and take strategic advantage of some spiffy ranged abilities/benefits without at all having to focus on "ranged" as the core of your build.

 

As long as those ratios aren't much higher than that, I don't mind if it's not 50/50. Don't wanna see any 85/15... "You CAN build a Ranger who uses a sword, but, *chuckle*... man you're gonna suck!"

 

And Josh has replied here saying that he's going to make sure they give melee capability its fair share of consideration for Rangers, so, that's quite comforting.

 

That's the kind of stuff I've seen them doing from the beginning of the project, which is why I keep encouraging people to simply point out things they feel might not be getting enough consideration, rather than assuming they just don't care about it and that they just want to tell us how to play their game.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

It's possible that dual classing allows for more flexible character creation, but I don't buy it. For a D&D based game, flexibility can be split into attributes, abilities, and skills.  PEs attributes are looking far more flexible.  AoE barbarian being the prime example.  In IE games, you were lucky if your character used three ability scores.  Then, there's skills.  PEs skills seem to have about the same amount of importance, maybe a bit more, and they're far more flexible. A druid or paladin who can pick locks is a great example of this.  Finally, there's abilities.  PE may be less flexible with abilities since dual classing allows a pretty wide array of abilities, but even then, more classes have more abilities, leaving it a toss up.  Is a system that allows a gun toting cleric really less flexible than one that allows a self-hating mageslayer mage?

Furthermore, is it really fair to compare the flexibility offered by six games to the flexibility offered by one?

 

 

If you're going to turn your druid or paladin into a quasi-thief, then aren't you just dual or multi-classing that character? Druid/Thief, Paladin/Thief. How is that different to what you can do in D&D? Also in the IE games, there were some things that could open locks. Paladins could attempt to bash, Mages could use Knock.

 

Maybe Obsidian should have got rid of classes altogether. Create character at start of game and select any skills you want and make that character into anything you want. Depending on skills and Feats chosen, the end result could be a Paladin/Thief, Druid/Thief, and any number of various combinations. Maybe some people won't have pre-conceived notions that their Ranger, Rogue or any other class doesn't fit the mold that they're used to.

 

Depending on Feats and Skills chosen, the game then can assign a class to you which can change when Feats/Skills are selected when levelling up. eg. Selected Fighter skills at level 1 and game assigns the 'Fighter' title to me, selected Thieving skills at Level 2 and the game then either changes my title to either Fighter/Thief or Rogue depending on which skills predominate. Similar with selecting mage sills at level 1 and then selecting fighter skills at level 2 and now the game has given me the Fighter/Mage title.