Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Ranger Status - Pre Launch


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#21
mutonizer

mutonizer

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 307 posts

One thing that would be kinda nice though is various Circle sizes for pets.

Bear/Stag with bigger circles, Lion with normal character like sizes and Wolf/Antelopes with small circles. 



#22
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
It used to be like that, but they made them smaller because of area transition problems - which I believe they fixed, but they haven't increased the circle sizes back.

I agree somewhat, but I don't think ANY unit should have smaller circles than characters.

Edited by Sensuki, 20 March 2015 - 10:09 PM.


#23
GreyZ

GreyZ

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 30 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Yeah must say they make good ranged dps as well, those modals that they get give them an advantage over any other class except the rogue. I did a crossbow/gun build and he was quite wicked, you can keep penetratrating shot up and use either the speed or damage modal. Nice. High dex and gunner and nothing will come close, in terms of speed. They also have some other nice features which makes the decision between ranged rogue/ranger a matter of choice:) I'm not saying that they will out damage a rogue, but they are pretty good at range if as mutonizer says you take advantage of the companion. They are high maintenance though, maybe that's what people don't like. Still probably going to go rogue for my first play since none of the companions are rogues.

Yeah and quite frankly if you are diligent with keeping debuffs up on enemies, a rogue will out damage any other class, be it ranged or melee if they are specced for it :)

 

And actually in a prolonged larger engagement a ranger doesn't stack up too bad against a rogue. Since you are not dependent on debuffs to max out your damage, you have some fantastic modals, you can have driving flight which passively gives you even more damage and you have an encounter ability that gives +100% damage on an attack (albeit over an insanely long duration).

That all adds up to some respectable sustained dps.

 

Granted alotta fights can be solved by instagibbing most of the enemy force wth quad blunderbuss, no argument against that, but some of the bigger encounters that I've seen do profit from having a solid sustained damage instead of just burst.

 

For me it's also personally a toss up between the two, but I think I might end up going with the ranger. I just enjoy the micro of the pet and the uility you get through it. Plus I like having my wolf right from the start of the game until the very end as my permanent companion, I'm just sentimental like that :D


Edited by GreyZ, 20 March 2015 - 10:26 PM.

  • morhilane and rheingold like this

#24
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Well at least Sagani probably won't be completely crap at combat then, that was my main concern.

#25
GreyZ

GreyZ

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 30 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Well at least Sagani probably won't be completely crap at combat then, that was my main concern.

Is there any information on if they level scale when you recruit them or if they come with preset talents? (ie do you risk picking up gimped versions if you do not recruit them asap)



#26
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Not sure man. I wouldn't be surprised if there was something in there that kept them to a minimum of level-1 though.
  • GreyZ likes this

#27
GreyZ

GreyZ

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 30 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Not sure man. I wouldn't be surprised if there was something in there that kept them to a minimum of level-1 though.

I reaaaally hope so, one thing I dont need from IE games is the equivalent picking up companions at a higher level and having them be stuck with low hp rolls and terrible weapon proficiences and terrible thief skill distributions  :p


Edited by GreyZ, 20 March 2015 - 10:39 PM.


#28
Sock

Sock

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 207 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I agree with the sentiment that rangers make excellent tanks. Take Weapon and Shield + Hold the Line, have a Fighter companion with a 2H weapon and the defender modal. You then have 7 engagement slots, and can lock down a battle field. 2 engagement slots are the pet, and it's not great for withstanding two things at once, so you have 5 reliable slots. 

 

With the pet granting a massive +20 bonus to accuracy, they have the ability to really maximize on crits. It's also worth mentioning that the pets (wolf at least) can easily manage 20-30 damage hits, and I have seen crits up to 42. The pets are capable of significant damage in their own right, which really benefits using them for flanking/dps while the ranger itself tanks. 

 

Are they the most effective single tank for the entire party? No, but pair them with any other strong off-tank, and they really shine as the perfect hybrid of offense and defense, so long as you can keep your pet alive.



#29
rheingold

rheingold

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1085 posts
  • Location:Cape Town
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
Well courtesy of this thread I just rolled another a ranged ranger. Some thoughts
- it's a very understated class, and a case where the stats don't tell the whole story.
- the pet is VERY useful, a full time summons with knockdown and a minor sneak attack. It also runs interference and acts as a minor tank. It works beautifully with a dual wield rogue, it's quick, flanks, sneak attacks and tanks for the rogue. All the while the ranger is steadily plinking away with his bow/gun.
- a couple of reasons why people think it sucks.
- there is no radical change in the characters power because you have to share talents with the pet and it's hard to quantify how much they add to the party. For this reason many people won't like it, you end up having to give talents away in order to make your character stronger.
Overall it's a very useful add to the party, has good ranged abilities, does good damage and has a great summon. It's by no means the weakest class, maybe it's not overpowered, but weak, I doubt it. Frankly it's a unique take on an old class.
BTW I probably won't even play one, I prefer Druids and rogues and I like the idea of the ranger companion.
  • pandore likes this

#30
Frog Man

Frog Man

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 310 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
So if you are disagreeing with others on this thread by saying it is 'by no means' the weakest class, then who is?

#31
wolfstriked

wolfstriked

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 110 posts
  • Deadfire Backer

My oh my fighter just doesn't sound right for a character that is just a tank and not good at dealing damage.Lineman sounds better to me and that took 5 seconds.Guards,shields etc,something better than fighter can give a better feel to what they actually do.



#32
mutonizer

mutonizer

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 307 posts

My oh my fighter just doesn't sound right for a character that is just a tank and not good at dealing damage.Lineman sounds better to me and that took 5 seconds.Guards,shields etc,something better than fighter can give a better feel to what they actually do.

 

Fighters can be DPS as well, not a problem and afaik they are the only ones who can get weapon masteries.



#33
dukefx

dukefx

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 341 posts

In terms of DPS fighter > ranger. As a matter of fact, if you build both as offensively as possible, the fighter will deal more than twice the amount of damage than the ranger. So much for the ranger being a heavy hitter. If you factor in defense the fighter can hold his own while the ranger is toast if you fight teleporting mobs. Both are able to clear out Dryford Village solo (ranger with pet ofc, but no other party members) but the fighter will do it so much faster.

 

@Sock

Where are you getting that +20 accuracy from? Afaik there's only a -20 penalty when your pet goes down. My fully offensive fighter has 80 something acc (can't remember exact values since I don't have beta access and I can only test stuff occasionally at a friend of mines), while the ranger has near 100, but the ranger has vicious aim on and is an elf with distant advantage, so that's +15 acc compared to the fighter. Seems about right... there's no +20 acc out of nowhere.



#34
morhilane

morhilane

    Chanter and Keeper of Truth of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1128 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

@Sock

Where are you getting that +20 accuracy from? Afaik there's only a -20 penalty when your pet goes down. My fully offensive fighter has 80 something acc (can't remember exact values since I don't have beta access and I can only test stuff occasionally at a friend of mines), while the ranger has near 100, but the ranger has vicious aim on and is an elf with distant advantage, so that's +15 acc compared to the fighter. Seems about right... there's no +20 acc out of nowhere.

 

Stalker's link was changed to +20 accuracy when the Ranger is attacking the same target as his pet...it's a passive.


Edited by morhilane, 21 March 2015 - 07:10 AM.


#35
Odd Hermit

Odd Hermit

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 643 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Wolf best pet IMO for the potential kiting and to get on squishy targets fast.

 

If your wolf goes around harassing casters you can often have it run around while they fail AoE spells @ it because it's moving too fast. For hard hitting melee enemies you can of course just run in circles.

 

Ranger is a very, very micro-heavy class 'cause it's like 2 characters - even though they don't have a ton of abilities the pet's strength is distraction.

 

Most of my experiences with ranger have been quite poor but they get relatively better when you build them for path of the damned due to accuracy being a much stronger bonus against the higher deflection enemies, and because the pet has much more application when you're micromanaging fights more carefully.

 

I've had a similar experience with Wizard, as their Eldritch Aim spell is amazing on PoD and a lot of their debuffs are more substantial since you actually want/need to lower enemy defenses more rather than simply nuking first and then mopping up survivors after.



#36
mutonizer

mutonizer

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 307 posts

In terms of DPS fighter > ranger. As a matter of fact, if you build both as offensively as possible, the fighter will deal more than twice the amount of damage than the ranger. So much for the ranger being a heavy hitter. If you factor in defense the fighter can hold his own while the ranger is toast if you fight teleporting mobs. Both are able to clear out Dryford Village solo (ranger with pet ofc, but no other party members) but the fighter will do it so much faster.

 

  • You need to count the pet (and proper utilization of it) with the ranger and if so, in a pure DPS fighter vs a pure DPS ranger, the ranger will completely cream the fighter. Ranger class talent and pet bonds are really good when used properly. This of course is offset by the fact that without the pet, DPS rangers just can't do anything, while the fighter is easy maintenance and will just keep going, and going, and going. To each his own.
  • Fighter has 5 more base DEF than the ranger. A DPS fighter will have 5 more DEF than a ranger, that's it. A Tank based fighter will tank a wee bit better, but will get creamed by a tank based ranger, because the fighter won't hit anything ever, while the ranger (and the pet) will hit him constantly.
  • Fighter tanks are great because they can really ultra specialized as tank and gain a good boost to engagements but the main issue usually is that they just can't do anything else whatsoever. Meanwhile ranger tanks are slightly less specialized, but are more versatile.
  • Clearing something solo at level 4 means nothing really. As said, rangers are high maintenance characters, that's how they "balance out" in a way.

Finally, any non PotD difficulty doesn't really mean anything when discussing classes to me because enemies ACC and DEF stats are just irrelevant. You can play on Easy to Hard with anything doing whatever and it doesn't matter, Josh clearly demonstrated that a couple times (and no, his party wasn't over leveled) and you can try it out yourself in BB. If you start specializing builds on these difficulties (both defensively and offensively), you'll immediately end up with blind clickfests mowing down everything on sight. Of course this is as it is currently, it could be very different at release but I doubt it.


  • Sock and rheingold like this

#37
rheingold

rheingold

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1085 posts
  • Location:Cape Town
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

So if you are disagreeing with others on this thread by saying it is 'by no means' the weakest class, then who is?


I don't know, I suspect there are a few classes who are bunched together, and then you have the overpowered classes. But ranger is not far off the others. I suspect the problems people have with it are more related to gameplay and style. If you play it as it was envisaged it's actually a good summoner class. Obsidan are partly to blame because by calling it a "heavy hitter" people are comparing it to a rogue. Nothing compares to a rogue damage wise. But a ranger does really good damage - but you have to add the damage of the pet to get the full potential. It also has serious utility as well.

#38
Gromnir

Gromnir

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 7710 posts
  • Location:Sleeping in my office.
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

 

I think it would be good to look at them again in the expansion like what happened in D&D 3.5E 

 

oddly enough, many o' the ranger 3.5 improvements were available much earlier.  sure, they weren't official wotc, but given that d20 were ogl that were kinda irrelevant. monte cook, a guy who had worked on d&d 3e, came up with a ranger alternative. 3.0 were 2000.  monte cook' released revised ranger earlyish (maybe) in 2001. 3.5 weren't released til 2003.  

 

yeah, crpgs is different.  am understanding that it takes more for obsidian to make wholesale changes to a poe class than it does for a pnp gm to do something similar.  given all the re-balancing and bug fixing that will inevitably require obsidian attention in the coming months, one realizes that there will be a need to allocate resources efficiently, and a substantial re-tool o' the ranger seems unlikely given what one must assume is gonna be an otherwise full workload for the developer.  even so, the ranger is currently the one class we got 0 interest in playing, and that is unfortunate.  it is the one class we feel is bordering on being broken. we would hope that improvements to the ranger would be a high priority, even if we can't get a monte cook kinda fix in the near future.

 

...

 

monte cook's ranger may actual be a verboten subject on these boards given the iwd2 issues.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!



#39
dukefx

dukefx

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 341 posts

 

In terms of DPS fighter > ranger. As a matter of fact, if you build both as offensively as possible, the fighter will deal more than twice the amount of damage than the ranger. So much for the ranger being a heavy hitter. If you factor in defense the fighter can hold his own while the ranger is toast if you fight teleporting mobs. Both are able to clear out Dryford Village solo (ranger with pet ofc, but no other party members) but the fighter will do it so much faster.

 

  • You need to count the pet (and proper utilization of it) with the ranger and if so, in a pure DPS fighter vs a pure DPS ranger, the ranger will completely cream the fighter. Ranger class talent and pet bonds are really good when used properly. This of course is offset by the fact that without the pet, DPS rangers just can't do anything, while the fighter is easy maintenance and will just keep going, and going, and going. To each his own.
  • Fighter has 5 more base DEF than the ranger. A DPS fighter will have 5 more DEF than a ranger, that's it. A Tank based fighter will tank a wee bit better, but will get creamed by a tank based ranger, because the fighter won't hit anything ever, while the ranger (and the pet) will hit him constantly.
  • Fighter tanks are great because they can really ultra specialized as tank and gain a good boost to engagements but the main issue usually is that they just can't do anything else whatsoever. Meanwhile ranger tanks are slightly less specialized, but are more versatile.
  • Clearing something solo at level 4 means nothing really. As said, rangers are high maintenance characters, that's how they "balance out" in a way.

Finally, any non PotD difficulty doesn't really mean anything when discussing classes to me because enemies ACC and DEF stats are just irrelevant. You can play on Easy to Hard with anything doing whatever and it doesn't matter, Josh clearly demonstrated that a couple times (and no, his party wasn't over leveled) and you can try it out yourself in BB. If you start specializing builds on these difficulties (both defensively and offensively), you'll immediately end up with blind clickfests mowing down everything on sight. Of course this is as it is currently, it could be very different at release but I doubt it.

 

 

Pets don't do much damage, they do less than the ranger itself, have an insanely slow attack speed and when I say the fighter does more than twice the damage that's still twice even if you add that tiny amount of pet damage. Tested with dual sabres (because I like sabres - no other reason) fighter with weapon spec/mastery vs a ranger with a war bow (because I like bows and the hunting bow is terrible). Stats were the same on both and if you look at sabres and war bows, they are both the middle ground, so I'm not compaing apples to oranges. Tested with level 12 characters.

 

Fighters will tank better due to critical def., constant recovery, higher base def., higher base HP/Endurance, and armored grace allowing them wear 1 category higher armor while maintaining the same speed. I'm not even counting other skills like defender and such.

 

@morhilane

Ah, that... I didn't factor in situational stuff. If you count on that, you can also count on the -20 when the pet dies making it actually a -40.



#40
mutonizer

mutonizer

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 307 posts

So...you compare two classes, remove 50% of what defines one of them, and decide that the other is obviously better? :)

 

"Look, I just compared fighter and wizard DPS and wizard just plain sucks! I mean, I didn't factor in situational stuff like wizard spells but if you count on that, then you need to count the fact that they need to rest for them"

 

Look, it's simple. Ranger are very high maintenance because of the pet. If that's fine with you and you manage it proper, he'll out DPS other DPS classes by far, apart from maybe the Rogue (which is very high maintenance as well) and Monk (not only very conditional, but also high maintenance).

Fighters are very stable, which is their strength really. They (and barbarians, and paladins) are perfect low maintenance melee DPS, you click on a mob, and they'll keep going without you even needing to look at them. It'll be slower, but that's the price to pay I guess and how it all brings "balance".

 

Same is true for tanking. Fighters (and Paladins) are very low maintenance tanks, who can't do anything else apart from a couple abilities. They won't kill anything, ever. Ranger tanks are very high maintenance tanks who, while slightly less well off than what Fighter and Paladin tanks can be, will actually kill what they tank, sometimes pretty fast while providing very nice (but again, high maintenance) utility via their pet.

If that doesn't matter for you, just go Paladin/Fighter. If that matters and you want to handle the maintenance, Ranger's a good pick.

 

As a note, pets actually do pretty decent damage on their own, no idea where that idea came from. And not combining ranger with his pet is just silly, they are one class.


Edited by mutonizer, 21 March 2015 - 09:38 AM.

  • forgottenlor, Lychnidos and rheingold like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users