So rangers...

[zered]

How are they in this game? I didn't play the beta so I don't know much about how they work. Are they any good compared to other classes? Is an ranged elven ranger any good? From what I've seen on the forums their animal companions suck but is the class any good apart from that?

[View619]

It looks like Rogues are better at range than Rangers, so Rangers are bad even without the pet consideration. That's what I get from the beta discussions.

[gkathellar]

The animal companion is basically the entire point of the class, so no, not really. If you want to play an effective archer, rogue is probably your go-to class.

[Kjaamor]

Such Paladins?

[etagloc]

I have no doubt that you will be able to complete the game, even on hard with a ranger.

And a wood elf ranger is probably you best best on a good racial.

from what i'v played of the beta, they can also dish out decent damage. I think the main problem is, that you are mainly a ranged hero. who takes damage if you animal is hurt.

But I see no reason as to why you should not pick an elven ranger if that is what you wish to RP as.

who really cares if its not the most powerful.. you can always make those characters in another playthough
 

Edited March 15, 2015 by etagloc

[zered]

Ah good! Elf ranger with muskets. Can't wait!

[CaptainMace]

you are mainly a ranged hero. who takes damage if you animal is hurt.

 

They changed that, now when the pet goes down during the fight, the ranger gets afflicted by a malus to damage and precision (things like that) until the end of it.

But yeah rangers are about their pet, and their pet is weaker than conventional characters after some xp cap, making the ranger, I guess, a very good early option but lacking in the last levels. Might be wrong about that.

[etagloc]

 

you are mainly a ranged hero. who takes damage if you animal is hurt.

 

They changed that, now when the pet goes down during the fight, the ranger gets afflicted by a malus to damage and precision (things like that) until the end of it.

But yeah rangers are about their pet, and their pet is weaker than conventional characters after some xp cap, making the ranger, I guess, a very good early option but lacking in the last levels. Might be wrong about that.

 

thats nice, I just tested it.. I like the idea that the penalty only occurs when it gets downed. 

I don't see any reason not to pick a ranger now.

[Luckmann]

It should be noted that a sword-and-board ranger - or any melee ranger, really - is very viable. The animal companion is still terrible, and a terrible liability, but as a melee ranger, you have a better chance to synergize with your animal companion. So paradoxically, rangers are actually better in melee than at range.

That being said, we're still talking beta here. A lot of things in the game is very unintuitive, still; Rogues do benefit more from Might than Dexterity, Barbarians should have as high of an Intelligence as possible, Resolve is largely a dump stat for Paladins, and Rangers do better in melee than at range.

Things may yet change before release.

[morhilane]

Unless you super hate having the pet (which you control like another party member), they are not bad. I had an easier time in the current beta with a ranger as character in the 5 men party than will using a Monk, Cipher, Rogue or Barbarian.

 

Also, you are not stuck with ranged weapons, a few of the classes talents might even work better in melee. I used a primary ranged build in my tests though.

[forgottenlor]

I'm at least glad they've fixed a number of the problems with this class. Not all classes have to be equally good, but it would be sad if one class was a terrible liability to play.

[etagloc]

It should be noted that a sword-and-board ranger - or any melee ranger, really - is very viable. The animal companion is still terrible, and a terrible liability, but as a melee ranger, you have a better chance to synergize with your animal companion. So paradoxically, rangers are actually better in melee than at range.

 

That being said, we're still talking beta here. A lot of things in the game is very unintuitive, still; Rogues do benefit more from Might than Dexterity, Barbarians should have as high of an Intelligence as possible, Resolve is largely a dump stat for Paladins, and Rangers do better in melee than at range.

 

Things may yet change before release.

hmm. I tried to build a dual wield ranger in the beta.

but all his modal's and alot of his skills ranged only, right?, like wounding shoot etc.

Seemed like a waste.

 

how would you do it?.

Edited March 18, 2015 by etagloc

[Baleros]

I watched the playthrough with Josh Sawyer, and noticed that the ranger pet goes down almost every fight.  Is that supposed to be that way?  Because if so, I'm not really sure I understand the class concept.

 

I mean the pet should be a perk not a hinderance, right?

[Voss]

Class concept is 'Rangers were a thing in d&d, so we have to have one. Box checked, moving on.'

[Luckmann]

 

It should be noted that a sword-and-board ranger - or any melee ranger, really - is very viable. The animal companion is still terrible, and a terrible liability, but as a melee ranger, you have a better chance to synergize with your animal companion. So paradoxically, rangers are actually better in melee than at range.

 

That being said, we're still talking beta here. A lot of things in the game is very unintuitive, still; Rogues do benefit more from Might than Dexterity, Barbarians should have as high of an Intelligence as possible, Resolve is largely a dump stat for Paladins, and Rangers do better in melee than at range.

 

Things may yet change before release.

hmm. I tried to build a dual wield ranger in the beta.

but all his modal's and alot of his skills ranged only, right?, like wounding shoot etc.

Seemed like a waste.

 

how would you do it?.

 

 

I'm the wrong man to ask because I haven't done it myself, but I've seen it done and it's been discussed in the forum. I'm sure someone will chime in with some suggestions.

[kangaxxter]

It's been a staple of cRPGs since time immemorial and while the initial implementation was flawed, the way it's been done in the more recent BB version (I'm talking about the debuff if your pet goes down version, not the you die if your pet dies mechanic) is about as good as it's going to get. Even in the old IE games, Rangers were worse at all forms of combat than Fighters were, and in IWD2 when they actually had a clear advantage in dual-wielding, that perk diminished quickly overtime. Rangers are a class that has been traditionally hard to implement and balance, and in most IE games they got the short end. If they're weaker than other classes in most areas but have a few unique perks in Pillars, then I would be completely fine with that, because that's par for the course.

 

 

Class concept is 'Rangers were a thing in d&d, so we have to have one. Box checked, moving on.'

lol

 

But, on a serious note, the class concept for the Ranger is simply a warrior specialized at ranged fighting, which uses a pet to run distractions, which is a fun and interesting playstyle. Either way, the game is not worse for having more classes, even if some classes are esoteric.

 

[Starwars]

While I don't think the class *feels* really good to use, I think it's also important to note that the pet fills a purpose that isn't just the "pure damage output" purpose. Just having an extra party member (though of course much weaker than a "real" party member) is a boon of its own, like the above post says.

 

I wish there was something more though, it just doesn't feel all that fun to me.

[bronzepoem]

I think the main problem about Ranger is not underpower,but boring.

This class only have a few range abilities,Their pets almost have no ability.

No melee abilities, no tracking abilities,no animal friend abilities, no various tactics,it's only a archer with a boring pet.

 

It's easy to tweak a underpower class, but it's hard to change a not interesting class.

[Voss]

 

 

Class concept is 'Rangers were a thing in d&d, so we have to have one. Box checked, moving on.'

lol

 

But, on a serious note, the class concept for the Ranger is simply a warrior specialized at ranged fighting, which uses a pet to run distractions, which is a fun and interesting playstyle. Either way, the game is not worse for having more classes, even if some classes are esoteric.

 

 

 

I'm going to disagree with you entirely.  The class concept for the ranger has changed randomly over time (from, basically an Aragorn and Jack the Giant Slayer mashup, to ridiculous maniac waving two scimitars around, to dude with a second body that occasionally bites people instead of the actual dude swinging a sword).  And sometimes uses a bow, and every so often remembers there is a nature theme clumsily attached, so has is contractually obligated to utter Captain Planet dialogue.    The pet mechanic is, at various points during all this, non-existant , woefully overpowered or woefully underpowered to the point of being entirely sad.  At no point was it fun or interesting, and 'non-existant' was definitely the most common case.    And definitely worth pointing out that the computer games PoE is intentionally aping do *not* highlight rangers as a ranged class or having a combat pet.

 

And yes, wasting time on terrible classes (not esoteric ones, since all are straight up out of D&D even if the bard and psion use different mechanics) does hurt the game.  The time and effort could have gone to something worthwhile instead.

 

Also, I was entirely serious.

 

Additionally... time immemorial doesn't mean what you think it means.  I was there for the first cRPGs.  The ranger usually wasn't, 

Edited March 18, 2015 by Voss

[Tartantyco]

And definitely worth pointing out that the computer games PoE is intentionally aping do *not* highlight rangers as a ranged class

 

Except, you know, the Archer kit.

[gkathellar]

 

And definitely worth pointing out that the computer games PoE is intentionally aping do *not* highlight rangers as a ranged class

 

Except, you know, the Archer kit.

 

 

Which, aside from the Cleric/Ranger multiclass (i.e. Druid+), was the only ranger worth playing.

[Voss]

 

And definitely worth pointing out that the computer games PoE is intentionally aping do *not* highlight rangers as a ranged class

 

Except, you know, the Archer kit.

 

Yes, you could be a ranged character as ranger.  Good for you.  Also as a fighter or rogue, or even bard.    Highlight has a meaning, and it isn't just 'can exist, if you'd like to exercise one of a couple dozen options.'

 

Also... only in one game.

[Tartantyco]

Having a dedicated kit, as opposed to just being able to choose a ranged weapon, is considerably different, Voss. I'd say that highlights this aspect of the Ranger archetype considerably.

[Voss]

Having a dedicated kit, as opposed to just being able to choose a ranged weapon, is considerably different, Voss. I'd say that highlights this aspect of the Ranger archetype considerably.

It is entirely on equally footing (for the one game that had it) with the backstabbing murderer who could cast haste  and... that other kit no one took.  I wasn't even aware that the former was an archetype.  Though the hide and stab guy actually had a lot more traction since it was on one of the better companions in the game who could also use one of the better weapons in the game.  

 

But still... 1 of 20-odd kits for 1 of 5 games is pretty much the exact opposite of highlighting something. You could build an equally good archer (with none of the disadvantages) with Khalid, Mazzy or a random fighter in IWD.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Voss

[Tartantyco]

But still... 1 of 20-odd kits for 1 of 5 games is pretty much the exact opposite of highlighting something. You could build an equally good archer (with none of the disadvantages) with Khalid, Mazzy or a random fighter in IWD.

 

lol. I think you've pretty much conceded with this statement.