392 - Significant problems: The Ranger and Light Weapons

[PrimeJunta]

As I've mentioned elsewhere I'm really impressed by the progress the game's made and am actually enjoying 392 a lot. It's fun, finally. 

 

However, there are a number of mechanical issues that I think result in just the kind of thing Josh wanted to avoid -- either dominant or "false" choices. Rather than bury them in the 392 discussion thread, or log them as bug reports, I thought I'd discuss them here.

 

I've now put significant time into 392 as a ranger, fighter, rogue, and druid, with some Adventurers' Hall Chanter thrown in.

 

Light/fast/slashing/low DT bypass weapons are not a good choice

 

Weapons with poor DT bypass currently are a poor choice overall. They're almost useless against armored enemies like the beetles. Weapons which do have DT bypass, however, remain effective against enemies where they would be beat out by light weapons. Two-handed weapons are seriously more effective overall.

 

This means that when choosing what weapon to equip, and with two weapon sets, given a choice I'll always pick either a mace + shield (mace for DT bypass, shield for the extra Deflection) or a two-hander (estoc for the DT bypass or pike for the reach) in one slot, and a slow ranged weapon with maximal DT bypass in the other (arbalest or firearm). 

 

In other words, an entire specialization (double-wielding), and entire categories of weapons (bows, daggers, swords...) become unattractive choices. This can't be the intention.

 

Fixing this is mostly a numbers issue and I don't have the time or inclination to run them. However, those numbers do need to be adjusted so that light/low-DT-bypass weapons become viable choices again. They should be less effective against armored enemies, just not so nearly completely ineffective. After all, a great many enemies—and, notably, a great many of the tougher enemies—are armored.

 

As a possible solution, I would suggest giving crits on these weapons DT bypass. This would also give a picture of an arrow finding a gap in the armor, and would make it possible to build, say, a lethal archer, by investing in talents that increase accuracy and crit range on bows.

 

The Ranger

 

The Ranger is not fun. The main problem is the shared health pool, but there are others as well. It is particularly affected by the problem discussed above, at least if you pick the classic ranger weapon, the bow.

• It just feels wrong. Having hits on one toon drain the health of another is... not right. It would be fine as a temporary spell effect (e.g. wizard extending his soul to 'summon' a melee combatant), but as a general mechanic for a mostly non-magical class it just 'feels wrong.'
• It favors durable animal companions. Since the animal companion's main purpose is to pin down an enemy for the ranger to shoot down (and most of the class abilities support this), its only really vital function is to stay standing while engaging enemies. A less durable companion really has to have ridiculously powerful special abilities to make the tradeoff worthwhile.
• Logically, enemy ranged units should almost always target the ranger first, since being less armored he's a soft target and taking him down takes two units out of the fight.
• It locks the class into a small and rigid set of tactics. One of the main advantages of a ranged unit is that it can switch targets across the battlefield quickly. Since the ranger is pretty much locked into working together with Mr. Bear, this choice is as good as removed: if he shoots at anything other than the toon engaged by the companion, his efficiency is drastically reduced and he puts himself and Mr. Bear at great risk.

I would suggest the following changes to address these issues, which ought to be doable even this late in development:

• Replace the shared health pool with a split one. Have both the animal companion's and the ranger's health be adjusted by the ranger's Constitution, and have the choice of animal companion define how it's split. Healthier animal companions mean scrawnier rangers and vice versa. I don't think it could be an even split because it would leave both too fragile, but something along those lines.
• Add a penalty for the Ranger if the animal companion is knocked out. Say, one of those 'wounded' statuses you get from a CYOA pane gone wrong. (But what to do if poor Mr. Bear dies...? New one wanders in after a rest?) 
• Give the Ranger abilities for quickly repositioning the companion, safely breaking its engagement, at least for the more agile companions. The antelope, for example, could "bound" up to 4 meters without triggering disengagement.

 

[Fen(rir)tastic]

I definitely agree with what you said about the shared health pool of the ranger and pet feeling wrong or in my mind not balanced and overly punitive. Your idea about changing the health split is a cool idea but might cause a few balance issues. Separating the health and implementing a wound effect to reduce the rangers effectiveness would be great and fairly easy (i think). Even just making the pets have higher defensive stats might be a solution.

In the current state i don't think i will play a ranger unless there is a trick i am missing to unlocking the fun...

[Sensuki]

Add a penalty for the Ranger if the animal companion is knocked out. Say, one of those 'wounded' statuses you get from a CYOA pane gone wrong. (But what to do if poor Mr. Bear dies...? New one wanders in after a rest?)

Josh Sawyer said on Something Awful that they've been considering this.

[PrimeJunta]

Good, it would help. The ranger would probably still not be my first choice, but it would at least be more viable. So if for example there's an interestingly-written ranger companion (Sagani?) I wouldn't kick her out of the party for mechanical reasons.

[Sensuki]

That's one of the reasons I'm concerned as well. Just flat out wouldn't use because **** class.

[Luridis]

Glad I'm not the only one seeing the problems with the ranger.

 

Biggest gripe: How are they supposed to be used? What role?

 

How are pets supposed to engage? The bear is obvious, but what about the lion, wolf, boar? Do I move these like I would a rogue? And the other two, are these just supposed to be parked near the ranged or something?

 

I'd rather not have a pet and have it function like the D:OS ranger, or have pets and have it function like the NWN2 ranger. Thus far it feels like they're handing me a fish head and saying this will help... How?

[Falkon Swiftblade]

I totally agree the mechanic's currently with the Pet and Ranger don't mesh well. I'm 100% with you in that taking you out kills 2 birds with one stone and it's just not implemented well. What if they treated pets similar to how a druid or mage would summon creatures, except the Ranger maybe blows a horn or whistles which bring's in 1-3 animal beasts for that encounter? Or maybe they last for x amount of time and runs away.

 

Maybe that could also be part of the game mechanic. I haven't played the Chanter, but it sounds like that mechanic could transfer over to the Ranger in a similar way with their pet to maintain a Spiritual bonding. Possibly there's a chance of moral failure or loss of "spirit connection" (call it whatever you want.) where the pet runs away during the fight. I also think that the pet should be customizable for the type of damage they perform. Such as claw attacks or horn attacks, and biting may all have a specific kind of damage they perform that could make them more unique. Maybe one causes bleeding over time, one may bruise or hobble the movement speed, or stun the enemy, etc. 

[Karkarov]

Sounds to me like you have it in for Mr. Bear Junta.  That said, yeah, Ranger needs some help.  I have no doubt they will get adjusted before release.  I think the shared health works okay, as long as you set a catch 22 rule that the pet always "falls unconscious" at 75% endurance.  That way the last 25% you gotta deal with the ranger themselves.  Also maybe make some rules like if both ranger and pet are caught in an aoe they only take the damage once not twice.  If health falls to 25% or below the pet is permanently laid out until resting to recover.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Karkarov

[Sensuki]

I think the shared health works okay, as long as you set a catch 22 rule that the pet always "falls unconscious" at 75% endurance. That way the last 25% you gotta deal with the ranger themselves

How on earth would that be an improvement? It would make Rangers even worse than they are now.

[PrimeJunta]

@Falkon Swiftblade I like those ideas. They would all be better than the current system.

 

If they just had a more or less "ordinary" companion perhaps with some special features mostly for flavor, all they'd need to do to balance it is adjust its damage output and hit points/DR. This system is just annoyingly gimmicky.

[Sensuki]

Light/fast/slashing/low DT bypass weapons are not a good choice

- varying with builds, this has been the case throughout the entire beta. Monks fists and Rogues dual wielding are the exception to the rule.

[PrimeJunta]

Yes, it has. That's one reason I brought it up; I was hoping they had addressed it by now. It feels like such a waste with all those Exceptional sabers...

 

Will try a rogue rocking stilettos with Vulnerable Attack next.

[Nakia]

In fantasy games I have never played very much with rangers.  I personally don't think modern people understand them.  What are they and what is their function?  Scouts?  Light weight paramilitary?  Daniel Boone, Jim Bowie?  People who understood the wilderness, who eventually came to act as conservationists in more modern times?  Who were more at home away from towns and cities who were at their best out in the wilds.  In fantasy I think they would have some kind of bound with their animal companions and the loss of that animal would cause a penalty to the ranger.

 

I think they would be "free souls" not adhering to the morality of "normal" society but not being immoral either.  Having their own morality.  In D&D terms maybe chaotic good.  Sorry for the rambling but I think the problem with creating a good ranger build is we don't understand them because they don't fit a known mold, they aren't soldiers, rogues, wizards, priests.

 

edit:  Their very name says it to me.  They range even if a unit it would not be a tight knit one but a ranging unit, spreading our, stealth I think would be important, maybe having some of the skills of the assassin.  Special forces?

Edited December 31, 2014 by Nakia

[PrimeJunta]

@Nakia Something like that.

 

In this context though the morality and social function are kind of irrelevant; the problem is that the class doesn't really work mechanically.

 

When I think "ranger" I think of a solitary or small-unit warrior trained for forward scouting or special operations deep in enemy territory. He knows how to survive in the wild, how to blend into the local population, how to stay out of sight, and how to kill quickly and discreetly when necessary. Trouble is, there isn't much call for those "survival in the wild" skills since food, cold, water, and orienteering aren't gameplay elements in this type of thing. Take that out and what's left is, mechanically speaking, a rogue, perhaps with a little less aptitude for lockpicking and pickpocketing than you'd usually expect.

 

You can build just this with the P:E rogue, and in most editions of DnD the ranger is, basically, a rogue who can fight but can't pick locks or pockets. So what's left for the actual ranger class? A pet, which is ATM mostly an annoyance -- I'd rather not have it at all and just be a seriously badass archer.

[Nakia]

@PrimeJunta, I agree with you.  The reason I mention morality is you have to build a background for the class i.e. why would someone become a monk?    Why would someone become a ranger?  A killing machine, an assassin, if wilderness skills are not important then those are the important skills I think.  Delta Force, Bruce Willis ?  The companion animal is actually IMO not a pet but a partner just as a dog in a Canine unit is a man;s partner.  Another weapon but there is a bound between the two.

 

I agree why bother with rangers when other classes can fill the void?  Tradition?  Because players expect someone with an animal companion?  Maybe it is time to break with tradition.

[drunetovich]

I agree why bother with rangers when other classes can fill the void?  Tradition?  Because players expect someone with an animal companion?  Maybe it is time to break with tradition.

 

I agree, let's get rid of a rangers entirely, we can do with only 3 classes anyway, tank class, healer class, and dps class is all that needed.

[PrimeJunta]

:can't tell if sarcastic:

 

I'm all for more classes at least... if you have classes at all, that is. All of the ones in P:E are between "competent" and "excellent" so far IMO, except the ranger.

 

Thing is, IMO classes should be clearly differentiated. They should have unique strengths, or unique ways of doing things, or both. This is clearly exactly what Josh has attempted here. The problem is that in attempting to make the ranger clearly different from the monk, fighter, barbarian, paladin, and rogue, he's ended up with a gimmick that doesn't really work all that well.

 

I.e. I think @Nakia has a point. P:E has six "combat" classes and five "caster" classes. It's clearly easier to differentiate five classes than six, all the more so because magic inherently leaves more room to do things imaginatively than finding yet new ways to hit things, shoot things, and stay standing while others are attempting to do it to you. Maybe the Ranger really is redundant. If that's the case, then I think it'd be better to make like DnD and embrace it. Remove the gimmicks and just make it a slightly different type of fighter/rogue that people will pick for the flavor rather than the mechanics.

 

As an aside, I can think of one way of making a differentiated ranger that at least pays lip service to some editions of DnD. Make it a light ranged/fast fighter with limited priest-style spellcasting, but single-target rather than area-effect. And a summonable animal companion, if you insist.

[Luridis]

In fantasy games I have never played very much with rangers.  I personally don't think modern people understand them.  What are they and what is their function?  Scouts?  Light weight paramilitary?  Daniel Boone, Jim Bowie?  People who understood the wilderness, who eventually came to act as conservationists in more modern times?  Who were more at home away from towns and cities who were at their best out in the wilds.  In fantasy I think they would have some kind of bound with their animal companions and the loss of that animal would cause a penalty to the ranger.

 

I think they would be "free souls" not adhering to the morality of "normal" society but not being immoral either.  Having their own morality.  In D&D terms maybe chaotic good.  Sorry for the rambling but I think the problem with creating a good ranger build is we don't understand them because they don't fit a known mold, they aren't soldiers, rogues, wizards, priests.

 

edit:  Their very name says it to me.  They range even if a unit it would not be a tight knit one but a ranging unit, spreading our, stealth I think would be important, maybe having some of the skills of the assassin.  Special forces?

 

That depends on the implementation. Sometimes they're implemented as a DPS warrior of sorts, ranged or melee, like NWN/D&D. They aren't as defensive as warriors, but they have a few natural spells and a light pet.

 

In D:OS they're implemented as pure ranged DPS + utility.

 

In WoW, the closest class is the hunter and in DAoC they were called Druids, as the buffer/healer/caster for the same race was the Warden, or at least I think that's how it went.

 

In Elder Scrolls they were like assassins or something before they dumped the class system. Or really any of them that used stealth and archery.

 

Might and Magic had something called an Archer, but it wasn't really the same. They had spells too, but they could wear non-natural armor and their spells were arcane. You could think of them as utility + ranged nukers. But, that's they closest that franchise had to rangers.

 

Here in Texas, they're an elite branch of the State Police that hunts down more dangerous criminal types. :D

 

So, woodsman warrior who typically uses stealth and is usually given the option of sword or bow specialization, sometimes with a pet and/or natural magic. They're loved in PnP settings because of their hunting, tracking and general survival non-combat capabilities. They have creative ways of keeping the party alive in deep and hostile wilderness.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Luridis

[PrimeJunta]

Gotta mention SoZ at this point. Rangers really came into their own in that.

[dukefx]

I've voiced my opinion about rangers and possible solutions (if they want to stick to the shared health pool) in the general discussion section quite some time ago.

[Nakia]

 What I get from Luridis' post is that there actually isn't any such class as Rangers.  It is an umbrella name for someone who primarily uses a ranged weapon and may or may not have an animal companion.

 

The only game I have played where I thought Rangers had a useful and intelligent part was Fallout/NV.

 

As PrimeJunta has pointed out the wilderness skills are of little or even no use in PoE.  If Josh Sawyer has his heart set on a Ranger class I suggest pulling it from the game and restructuring it for the expansion.

 

Personally I like this suggestion of Prime's:

 

As an aside, I can think of one way of making a differentiated ranger that at least pays lip service to some editions of DnD. Make it a light ranged/fast fighter with limited priest-style spellcasting, but single-target rather than area-effect. And a summonable animal companion, if you insist.

 

 

[PrimeJunta]

Gotta roll back some of my criticism. War bows at least are entirely viable and actually pretty badass. Combined with the talent that gives 5 DT bypass they're pretty damn effective even against those damn beetles. Stilettos also do kind of OK. Will try experimenting with sabres and daggers next.

[Osvir]

Imo, I think the Animal Companion would fit much better as a "Chosen Talent" rather than a "Class Core" ability. I know this thread is about the Ranger Class, but it has some issues I feel is relatable to the Druid as well.

Again, I feel the exact same thing about the Spiritshift ability for the Druid. I think it would be better as a talent.

Which brings me to Priests, and Druids, and spell gain when leveling up...

*shrug* These are my 3 main issues with the classes, in general, Priest, Druid & Ranger, at the moment.

Animal Companion, I'd rather want it to be a Talent (Beastmaster Path)
Druid Spiritshift, I'd rather want it to be a Talent (Shapeshifter Path)
Priest & Druid Spell Gain, I'd rather want it to be gained like a Wizard, Cipher or Chanter (Pick a few at level up, rather than getting all of them)

 

Probably not happening (because balance), might be able to mod in.

[morhilane]

Glad I'm not the only one seeing the problems with the ranger.

 

Biggest gripe: How are they supposed to be used? What role?

 

How are pets supposed to engage? The bear is obvious, but what about the lion, wolf, boar? Do I move these like I would a rogue? And the other two, are these just supposed to be parked near the ranged or something?

 

I'd rather not have a pet and have it function like the D:OS ranger, or have pets and have it function like the NWN2 ranger. Thus far it feels like they're handing me a fish head and saying this will help... How?

 

They were presented as DPS and that is what they are, especially once you get the pet synergy going. Think of them as nature themed rogues that comes with two parts: one ranged and one melee. The pets are not designed to tank, they are designed to increase the Ranger's contribution to damage.

[PrimeJunta]

I tried again with a Ranger. I still don't like it. Did a damage-optimized build, with Pooh Bear as the animal companion. Only defensive talent I took was Resilient Companion for even more DR. Used a War Bow and tried to play to my strengths.

 

It was viable, and easier than with some other party compositions I've tried, but not really fun. The shared health pool just doesn't do it for me, and the animal companion connection also feels gimmicky and forced.

 

Bear was clearly more viable than antelope though; played the meat shield role much better.

 

Oh, and there was also a bug, which I will log presently.