Ranger Discussion

[Hormalakh]

By allowing the ability to upgrade your pet over time, this doesn't make the pet "as powerful as a normal character." The point is to show the growth of the pet as the character grows over time. Having step-wise changes in the pet over time, shows that the pet, as the character, grows into a more powerful creature, parallelling the growth in the ranger character.

 

Mechanically, it also plays better because as the game continues on, it would not be good for the once-useful ranger pet to now become a liability. It seems the ideas that a "weak" or "low hit-point" pet is due to this. As the difficulty increases over time in the game, it doesn't make sense to continue to use the same "tool" that you did initially. You wouldn't keep using the sword you found in the first chest if you couldn't refine or enchant it. Why would you keep using the "old pet" that hasn't increased in power?

 

What was once a cool mechanic becomes nothing more than a liability in combat.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think the Ranger is hurt by the focus on ranged combat. IMO, the Ranger would've worked better if its abilities were tied to use of the Animal Companion only, instead of Animal Companion and ranged attacks. As it is, I find Rangers to be fairly boring to play and less versatile than other classes.

 

Rather than allow animal companion upgrades(perhaps it should be considered in the future though), have the Animal Companion specific bonus apply to both thew Ranger and Companion.

[Kjaamor]

Personal preference would be to have the Ranger be a primary DPS character and if the animal dies, then to lose a proportion of their DPS. The current build effectively leaves the Ranger a medium DPS front line character by way of their animal companion.

 

I don't agree with the suggestion of increased micromanagement in a class with, in my mind, inherent simplicity in...er...mind.

 

 

 

 

(Edit: First of many adjustments to mitigate my failed alcohol save)

Edited September 20, 2014 by Kjaamor

[Guest 4ward]

i see there’s no flying animal companions, would have liked a hawk getting into scout mode and scouting the area in a given radius which could grow with level and attacking with his claws. Or bats disrupting the enemy. Also, other classes should go like ‘what’s that, a bow? Ieeeek!’ and don’t allow casters to increase their target range. The ranger could also gain additional progressing feat when using the bow, like he’s used the bow 100 times on an enemy he gets better, 200 hits with arrows used with the same bow and he already knows how to shoot 2 arrows at once. Sticking to the same bow could allow the ranger to improve it, gain a bonus..

[Sensuki]

This isn't The Elder Scrolls though.

[Falendor]

Unknown / Possibly Cut Abilities

• Predator's Sense - The ranger's animal companion gains a damage bonus on any creature suffering from a continuous damage effect.
• Takedown - The ranger's animal companion will knock the target Prone with a Fortitude attack.
• Defensive Shooting - When using ranged weapons against any target that is Engaging the ranger, the ranger's Accuracy is increased by 20 and his or her Interrupt rating is improved by one category.
• Master's Call - animal companion will immediately move back to him or her at increased speed, gaining a +20 bonus to Concentration and defenses against Disengagement Attacks. Any enemy it comes within 1m of is automatically attacked and knocked Prone if the attack succeeds.

Here are some of my ideas:

 

I think that the Ranger could stand to perhaps have some modal auras that only apply to the Ranger and his animal companion. Intellect AoE would then increase the size of the aura, allowing the Ranger to gain more of a benefit from AoEs. These modes could then be switched over given different situations in combat. Swift Aim and Defensive Bond could become modal auras, and there could also be a couple of more offensive ones (more could be bought by the Talent system). This would make the Ranger more fun to play, in that you can tactically switch out your auras depending on the situation - If your companion is getting pounded on, flick to defensive bond (which could give a deflection and reflex increase, instead of a bonus against AoEs, which usually target Reflex), if they aren't - flick to speed or damage.

 

All Animal Companions need at least one active ability by default, as well as one passive. 

 

Rangers could be given options to give the Ranger OR the companion more active abilities. They could focus on making their companion a complete boss in combat, or focus on themselves. This would also make the Intellect Ranger build more viable.

 

I think the focus should be on the link between the Ranger and the Animal Companion.

(cut down OP to point out what I like)

 

1. all of the cut ability's would be great I would like to see any one or all of them added to the ranger.

2. At first having module auras the ranger uses to buff himself and his pet sounds like a great way to make INT relevant to the class, but I think in play this would prove very annoying every time your bear inches out of the aura and gets beet on for it.

3. Every animal companion should have one activated ability and one passive ability, 100% true IMO.

4. Both ranger and companion should gain ability's, making you pick which one gets an ability will make people FEEL like there playing half a character (even though there closer to playing two). almost all abiltiys should alter how the animal companion and the ranger interact though, and some might focus on one more than the other.

5. the focus should totally be on the animal companion. without the animal companion the ranger is just a ranged focus hippy version of a rogue.

[Corto81]

Without going too much into the depths of what makes a Ranger fun to play (in RPGs I usually play a Rogue, with my 2nd character nearly always being a ranger - except in the Souls series, melee combat is too good to pass on there):

 

- I like the idea of an animal companion

- I'd prefer synergy (something akin to Lone Druid skills in Dota)

- a mobile Ranger with some CC and decent damage (something like Windrunner in Dota)

- at least 2-3 clicky skills, autoattacking alone really isn't all that exciting

[Seari]

What's with the Bioware colors

[gkathellar]

Personal preference would be to have the Ranger be a primary DPS character and if the animal dies, then to lose a proportion of their DPS. The current build effectively leaves the Ranger a medium DPS front line character by way of their animal companion.

 

Right. As it is, the Ranger is less of an expert in ranged combat, and more of a Beastmaster who is forced to use their bow at melee range.

 

I'm fine with having a Beastmaster class, but I'd like the Ranger to actually function like a ranged character.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I'm not sure this class will totally work or have any real "happy-medium". If making the animal companion even half a good as a regular PC, then the Ranger class is now 1.5 to any other class being 1.0. Inversely, splitting the power equally between the two would likely mean that each is underpowered. I think the biggest hurdle with the class is to accept that the animal companion cannot tank. Participation in melee != tank. A bear, while tough, is no hardened fighter in full plate with a shield. It's difficult to imagine a balance between the Ranger and its animal companion where either are not relatively over nor underpowered, but I believe that balance can be more easily achieved if the pet isn't regarded as a meat shield. That was the whole point of the shared HP pool. I can't say that I care for it, but I'm not sure how to go about it without redesigning the class.

[Namutree]

I'm not sure this class will totally work or have any real "happy-medium". If making the animal companion even half a good as a regular PC, then the Ranger class is now 1.5 to any other class being 1.0. Inversely, splitting the power equally between the two would likely mean that each is underpowered. I think the biggest hurdle with the class is to accept that the animal companion cannot tank. Participation in melee != tank. A bear, while tough, is no hardened fighter in full plate with a shield. It's difficult to imagine a balance between the Ranger and its animal companion where either are not relatively over nor underpowered, but I believe that balance can be more easily achieved if the pet isn't regarded as a meat shield. That was the whole point of the shared HP pool. I can't say that I care for it, but I'm not sure how to go about it without redesigning the class.

Right now the Ranger is under powered. Making the class better by slightly improving the talents or health/stamina per level would be an easy remedy to the balance issue. If we are to accept that for some reason the Ranger cannot be in the middle; than the Ranger needs to be a bit OP. Josh has said more than a few times that there should not be any weak classes, and so no matter what the Ranger needs a buff.

[Hormalakh]

A great way to buff would be to buff the pet.

[Namutree]

A great way to buff would be to buff the pet.

It would be at least.

[Fiebras]

Rangers suck?

What?

They are the best class in the game man. No other class gives you tank, DPS and what amounts to one additional free adventurer all in one. For just mindless DPS-ing and Tanking you could have 4 rangers and with the chanter buffs and summons you basically have a small army. They are just buggy atm and limited to a single target (which is fine).

 

But in all honesty, I do think they require a bit more work. The shared health pool can make sense as a more prevalent and more benign version of D&D´s "your animal companion/familiar dies you suffer huge permanent penalties". I get it: Your bond with your companion gives you several bonuses but has this drawback. I like the idea of it.

 

I agree that animal companions and ranger skill pool do feel underwhelming. As it is now they are more passive than the Fighter and Rouge. Probably the mos passive "Illjust autoattack forever" clas in the game atm.

 

The animal companion probably should get some unique front-line skills but not enough that it becomes a second adventurer. One or two actives and passives are good enough. Otherwise the animal companion ends up becoming  the real character and the ranger is just there as an accesory.

As it is right now the only companions I see myself getting are the Bear for its DT as the single skills of the rest of the companions make me think of them as exclusively meatshields, of which the Bear is the best at this.

 

Regarding the Ranger itself im not sure. The whole purpose of the class seems to be sustained single-target DPS which is fine but the Rogue and Cipher also give you this. If you want to attack two targets at once (one with companion other with ranger) you miss out on your passive and active class bonuses/abilities/talents so you are sorta restricted to single-target damage despite not being the best at it.

If you want to get beefy and have your animal companon tank then there are better tank classes out there, some which can even heal themselves. So your companion ends up being an off-tank at most. And even then if you have low CON (because you try to maximise your role as a DPS dealer) then your companion cant realy tank.

 

So the advantage of having two units to control is narrowed down to the role of "DPS/TANK". The Ranger is an all-rounder class, not really meant to excell as either DPS or TANK but to sorta fill up the holes of your party compasition should those roles be ocupied by only one character each maybe more. You basically get half a rouge/cipher and half a Fighter/monk/barbarian for the price of one.

I think this is a fine role for the Ranger. Not every class must be super-specialized for one role like the Fighter. I rather very much like the Ranger.

But I would like to see more tactical options available for the ranger so they can build themselves into more specialized roles should they want to.

 

 

 

PS: DPS/TANK are very narrow-minded terms and arent 100% apropiate to use I think but they serve here for lack of better vocabulary.

 

PS2:If possible Id love some more amphibian companions. We are always fightning lizards and toads but with a fish-people race we should maybe get amphibian companions. This is just personal preference.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Fiebras

[Namutree]

Rangers suck?

What?

They are the best class in the game man. No other class gives you tank, DPS and what amounts to one additional free adventurer all in one. For just mindless DPS-ing and Tanking you could have 4 rangers and with the chanter buffs and summons you basically have a small army. They are just buggy atm and limited to a single target (which is fine).

 

Rangers make terrible tanks and aren't great at DPS. With four Rangers you would have a small army, but it would be very weak. I don't know if you've been playing them, but they are clearly too weak. 

[wanderon]

I just played through the fights in Dyrwood - some beetles, wolves, some spiders and the Ogre with a ranger and found with some work they can be effective - the combo of the rangers attacks plus the animal attacks is certainly more effective than the ranger would be on it's own - I chose the the antelope this time and it would crit for decent damage (unless the target was protected from piercing)

 

The animals DO get some abilities - one showed up when we leveled at the ogre cave - I forget what it was but it pops up over the ranger when you select the animal.

 

I gave the ranger the Arquebus when we got it - it was slow but often did good damage (he's in padded armor) and I took Peasant weapon prof and plan to give him the Blunderbuss now that we have it - when the animal was getting low on stamina I just kept it out of the fight and the ranger in the back row.

 

I think this class is going to end up being fine once they finish tweaking it. You would have to expect it to be getting some love since one of the companions is a ranger.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'd like the animal abilities separate from the ranger's abilities. Have the animal gain an ability say every four levels, so by level 12 it's gained it's third ability.

[wanderon]

I'd like the animal abilities separate from the ranger's abilities. Have the animal gain an ability say every four levels, so by level 12 it's gained it's third ability.

 

Pretty sure it already is - the one I got was a sort of knockdown - forget what they called it but your animal doesn't have a portrait so when you click on the animal itself their ability shows up above the ranger portrait - by itself - the ranger abilities do not show.

 

Now if you have the whole party selected and you mouse over the ranger then I think the animal ability shows up ABOVE the ranger abilities so it's obvious it's separate - in fact I think that was my first clue it was there.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

What I mean is when you get to level 4, you pick a ranger ability for your ranger and an animal ability for your animal. At the moment, you have to choose between upgrading your ranger or animal. I'd like to see both. Or is that the case now? I can't remember since I haven't played the ranger for ages.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[wanderon]

What I mean is when you get to level 4, you pick a ranger ability for your ranger and an animal ability for your animal. At the moment, you have to choose between upgrading your ranger or animal. I'd like to see both. Or is that the case now? I can't remember since I haven't played the ranger for ages.

 

You don't get to pick the animal ones they just get certain ones at certain levels (I assume) - I've only seen this once.

 

Edit: well there are ranger abilities that effect the animals but this is not one of them

Edited September 22, 2014 by wanderon

[Fiebras]

 

Rangers suck?

What?

They are the best class in the game man. No other class gives you tank, DPS and what amounts to one additional free adventurer all in one. For just mindless DPS-ing and Tanking you could have 4 rangers and with the chanter buffs and summons you basically have a small army. They are just buggy atm and limited to a single target (which is fine).

 

Rangers make terrible tanks and aren't great at DPS. With four Rangers you would have a small army, but it would be very weak. I don't know if you've been playing them, but they are clearly too weak. 

 

Read the rest of the post before replying.

[Racker]

 

I don't know if being an effective animal killer would be very useful though because animals won't be that challenging in most cases I wouldn't think and you would face them very often.

 

Marked Prey could make them pretty good boss killers though, it may just not be strong enough of an ability atm.

I would include enemies like the beetles and spiders as animals, and they are a pain.

 

Also, almost all hunters have an animal companion. Rangers themselves are like hunters. What do hunters do? They associate with nature, usually have tracking skills, and kill with projectiles like a bow or firearm. Often with an animal with them. Sounds like a Ranger to me.

 

 

 

I like this idea, especially since Josh seems to want to get away from the Tolkien/DnD stereotype of a ranger and make them more like a ranged-weapon specific class.  Hell, I'd be up for it if they wanted to rename the class 'Hunters' and give them various breeds of canine as a pet rather than bears and such (of course that's out of the question), and perhaps even give the choice of firearm specific skills. 

[Hellraiser789]

So, I havent played the beta, but from videos and reading stuff, I think the ranger is a cool class, and these improvements would benefit very much.

 

Personally, I think stamina/endurance should be split independently. Health pools can be shared to develop that bond idea, but I think it would improve survival if they had their own stamina/endurance pools.

 

Animals should also grow and develop (if they dont already - im not sure) so they do not become a liability, as mentioned before. Because of this, I do not think giving them armor is necessary, but a couple abilities (passive active and maybe modal?) would be fine. Additional abilities that improve coordination between the ranger and his companion are fine to me.

 

Also, I am fine with the ranger being purely range combat - if you want your ranger to fight in melee, that is what the animal is for (or a rogue, fighter, etc). I am fine with giving the ranger a specific role, since that is how fighters and other classes are defined too. Also, this would give choosing the animal more tactical purpose, as they would be given different roles (bear = tank, wolf = dps, etc).

 

Preferred enemies could be a talent or something, but I dont think it is required, and I like the idea of picking a specific target in battle better anyway. 

 

I think that ranger should focus on ranged combat + animal companion. Other than that, I like some of the ideas posted here. I dont know enough about combat to know exactly what abilities they need however. 

[Xienzi]

TBH I'm not really digging the shared health pool. I don't really have a pet idea on how to fix it. Get rid of the shared pool and give Mr. Bear only stamina so his pool tops up between fights, but have Ranger get an Injury if Mr. Bear goes down in a fight?

 

It makes them much more fragile than they ought to be. At least give us the option to armor up the animal companion for some more protection. Your ideas on making the abilities into auras would certainly help.

 

Your ideas are fine and would make it more interesting and active, but I'm not sure how much I'd enjoy playing it anyway. But then again, that's why there are so many classes to pick from.

 

Companion barding would be pretty cool, but that seems like it would take quite some time to implement.

[Vinidesigner]

The game looks awsome with that feauteres!