Ranger should get an overhaul

[mmcaulay]

Yes they are underpowered. The even bigger crime is they're just boring to play. Seriously. They lack abilities, no real spells, they are ranged generally so they also stand away from the action and just fire arrows. On top of that the AI is bad so sometimes after the enemy they are targeting dies, they don't switch to another and just stand there like a clown in a lawyers office looking all awkward. 

[Jimmysdabestcop]

I do agree what is missing is pet items. I mean why have a pet if you cant at least put a couple items on it. A collar at the very least. But you really need to make the pet a companion. Meaning upon level up you should have to go through a pet level up window. Picking talents and customizing etc.

 

 

As for ammo they could get around that by having it as a spell. The ammo gets blessed and for XX amount of time does XX amount of a specific damage type.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

A lot of classes need an overhaul to be honest. For a game striving for balance, PoE failed pretty badly at it with the release version.

As to Rangers...I think the problem is that they've split between two gimmicks, archery(I haven't used a Ranger with an implement or gun) and the companion, when it should have just been one. I believe that ranged abilities should be put into the general talent pool and that the class abilities should be focused solely on the companion and teamwork with the companion(the selling point of the class). IMO a melee ranger who flanks with the companion is a cool idea, but the current mechanics don't support it as well as they could.

And Sagani's fox is awful. Needs a CON and Deflection boost.

 

 

Small nit-pick; the Ranger doesn't have ranged combat as one of it's gimmicks. Actually, most of it's Abilities (all?) work with melee weapons as well.

I do agree with the sentiment that if a class has a gimmick that is supposed to be part of it's core concept (so, in essence, a major ability or class feature that is considered integral to the class) then the class should be focused upon that, and gameplay revolve around that in some major capacity. Otherwise, it's just going to be "something something plus".

In essence, the Ranger is a combatant like the Fighter or the Rogue... plus the pet. And with the pet as a tacked-on feature, not the focus of the class, it will be judged in relation to those other classes, the pet notwithstanding. It becomes very hard to balance and the class becomes unfocused, the choices unintuitive.

Aren't the modals ranged exclusive? Admittedly I've only used Sagani(respecd for War Bow), but I was under the impression that they are ranged exclusive.

[scrotiemcb]

The ranger definitely isn't underpowered. Maybe compared to a cipher, but what isn't?

 

The only problem is that it doesn't really feel fun. Fun and efficiency are two different things.

[Atheosis]

The ranger definitely isn't underpowered. Maybe compared to a cipher, but what isn't?

 

The only problem is that it doesn't really feel fun. Fun and efficiency are two different things.

 

Compared to cipher, fighter, priest, wizard (mid to late game), rogue, or chanter?  Yeah they're underpowered.

[scrotiemcb]

Disagree with rogue and fighter on your list. A lot of the rest is caused by the silly per-encounter spell mechanic.

[anameforobsidian]

Eh, on the one hand I wish they had a talent that sacrificed the pet for a damage boost, but on the other rangers have always been a mess of a concept that has never really gelled together.  The original concept was a ranger without a pet, but there was vociferous complaining from ranger fans.  The game probably would have been better for having a marksman class instead of a beastmaster class.

[mmcaulay]

I do agree this game doesn't really encourage you to try out different builds. You can basically dominate this game with a couple of fighters for the meat, a priest, and three chanters/and or ciphers.

[Luckmann]

 

The ranger definitely isn't underpowered. Maybe compared to a cipher, but what isn't?

 

The only problem is that it doesn't really feel fun. Fun and efficiency are two different things.

 

Compared to cipher, fighter, priest, wizard (mid to late game), rogue, or chanter?  Yeah they're underpowered.

 

 

Compared to Cipher and Chanter, maybe. To rogues? Very arguably. To Fighters? No. Mid-Game Priests/Wizards/Druids? Of course, but what isn't, with the ridiculous Bizarro-jumps in power at lvl 9 and 11?

 

I do agree this game doesn't really encourage you to try out different builds. You can basically dominate this game with a couple of fighters for the meat, a priest, and three chanters/and or ciphers.

And it's sad, too, because the game actually does build variety very well, and all the pieces are there, since the system is very modular.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Luckmann

[DocDoomII]

I'd like a Ranger without pet.

[Luckmann]

 

 

A lot of classes need an overhaul to be honest. For a game striving for balance, PoE failed pretty badly at it with the release version.

As to Rangers...I think the problem is that they've split between two gimmicks, archery(I haven't used a Ranger with an implement or gun) and the companion, when it should have just been one. I believe that ranged abilities should be put into the general talent pool and that the class abilities should be focused solely on the companion and teamwork with the companion(the selling point of the class). IMO a melee ranger who flanks with the companion is a cool idea, but the current mechanics don't support it as well as they could.

And Sagani's fox is awful. Needs a CON and Deflection boost.

 

Small nit-pick; the Ranger doesn't have ranged combat as one of it's gimmicks. Actually, most of it's Abilities (all?) work with melee weapons as well.

I do agree with the sentiment that if a class has a gimmick that is supposed to be part of it's core concept (so, in essence, a major ability or class feature that is considered integral to the class) then the class should be focused upon that, and gameplay revolve around that in some major capacity. Otherwise, it's just going to be "something something plus".

In essence, the Ranger is a combatant like the Fighter or the Rogue... plus the pet. And with the pet as a tacked-on feature, not the focus of the class, it will be judged in relation to those other classes, the pet notwithstanding. It becomes very hard to balance and the class becomes unfocused, the choices unintuitive.

Aren't the modals ranged exclusive? Admittedly I've only used Sagani(respecd for War Bow), but I was under the impression that they are ranged exclusive.

 

 

Swift Aim explicitly works for both Ranged and Melee weapons, while Vicious Aim only gives bonuses to Ranged weapons... for some reason. Would've expected some Hit-to-Crit conversion and +Crit.Dmg or something.

 

I'd like a Ranger without pet.

 

While it won't have the flavour, rogues essentially fulfil that function. Hopefully Fighters too, one day. Fighters could probably make a decent archery build even today, but could use some more support, I think. Disciplined Barrage and Confident Aim is probably good for it. But I'd like to have some more stuff. Way too much of the Fighter's ability is focused on defence.

[b0rsuk]

While we're on pets, it feels Wrong to put surplus pets in a chest at stronghold. It should be possible to release them in the stronghold where they could roam free, or even release them in the wild.

 

This forum doesn't have a Feature Request section, does it ? I have a few pages of notes in my notebook. I don't know where to post them.

[Ztirual]

I'd like a Ranger without pet.

Hear yeay, hear yeay, I totally agree with that. I don't find the ranger's pet that much fun, probably because I've always played a petless (st)ranger which uses bows for distance and a one-handed blade when the gap is closed. It should be an auxiliary, the pet that is, not a demand.

[Lightzy]

Ranger is sad to play.

I wanted legolas/drizzt and all I got was this lousy die-in-3-hits-wolf-making-my-ranger-miss-every-shot bull****.

 

I very much like the suggestion of giving the ranger a few druidic spells, as well as the suggestion to give the animal companion 1 equipment slot for a ring/amulet

 

Those two together would make ranger at least a bit of fun.

 

 

 

Also, nerf ciphers and chanters already. with those 2 u don't need any other class

[FlintlockJazz]

Ranger is sad to play.

I wanted legolas/drizzt and all I got was this lousy die-in-3-hits-wolf-making-my-ranger-miss-every-shot bull****.

 

I very much like the suggestion of giving the ranger a few druidic spells, as well as the suggestion to give the animal companion 1 equipment slot for a ring/amulet

 

Those two together would make ranger at least a bit of fun.

 

 

 

Also, nerf ciphers and chanters already. with those 2 u don't need any other class

Drizzt needs to die.  He needs to die horribly.  He was never an interesting character and was a complete Marty Stu scumbag who deserved to die screaming at my whims and his impact on the Ranger class completely screwed it up.  Thanks to him I have not been able to play my Aragorn-like Ranger or Jack the Giant Slayer type, bloody mother-****ing bastard, die die die!

 

Did I mention I think Drizzt should die?

[Molcho]

I find them to be relatively flexible, especially due to the way they are dependent on their pets in order to work. 

 

- Want to play a ranged style? Use your pet as a roadblock/disabler

- Want to go tanky melee? Get merciless companion and have your pet flank your enemies (the damage is really good - try it out).

- Want to go DPS on your PC? Let the bear/antilope tank for you. 

- Need aoe damage? Take the Stag.

 

The concept of a "tag team class" is kind of interesting in general and it plays out much differently than other classes (which is the point). If you only consider playing the ranger as a pure ranged DPS class with the pet being just cannonfodder, then of course it will feel lackluster, because the class isn't designed that way.

[DocDoomII]

We just don't like the pet.

[Molcho]

We just don't like the pet.

 

That's quite alright. I don't like milk, for instance.

[Chaos Theory]

Glad to hear I'm not the only one playing a melee ranger.  High dex/might w/12 con, and I avoid selecting the ranged-only abilities to instead focus on my pet, or melee-focused perks when offered.  It really isn't that hard to make a hybrid fighter/ranger this way for DPS in this system.  I'm quite happy after trying several other classes, and it's the character I decided to continue with.  

 

I dual-wield and switch to pistol when needed.  I'd go so far as to call it an off-tank build as she's very survivable on the front line.  Also my primary trap/chest person, so she fills several rolls.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[luzarius]

Ranger is great for higher difficulties because they can deliver consistent damage from a long distance. It's not about massive DPS, it's about having companions that can dish out a decent amount of damage while not being knocked out.  I will admit though, a ranger NEEDS a strong tank especially on POTD or hard difficulty. The pet tank is alright, but a fighter is much better. 

[Luckmann]

While we're on pets, it feels Wrong to put surplus pets in a chest at stronghold. It should be possible to release them in the stronghold where they could roam free, or even release them in the wild.

 

This forum doesn't have a Feature Request section, does it ? I have a few pages of notes in my notebook. I don't know where to post them.

 

Do what I did, post it in the General Forum.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Swift Aim explicitly works for both Ranged and Melee weapons, while Vicious Aim only gives bonuses to Ranged weapons... for some reason. Would've expected some Hit-to-Crit conversion and +Crit.Dmg or something.

Well damn, I guess I should test a ranger out.

 

Pets could still use some more beefing up, and IMO the Ranger modals should be moved to the general talent pool.

[Ardan Reddy]

All classes need to be put through the grinder (by Obsidian) as a solo character to see if they can make it through the game, at least on Easy mode. I can say with certainty right now that Ranger would not make it, being gimped every time his critter (easily) dies.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Ardan Reddy

[Livigy]

Make the pets a per rest summon (no timer lasts until death). Summon the right pet for the right situation and if your paper pet dies summon another after it.  That way rangers have greater tactical options (solves the boring aspect) and solves the issue of the pet being a handy cap that requires too much micro as the pets are more disposable. Also give a ranged pet so there is less micro or some magical mythical pets that could act as a healer, a dragon/wyrm for fire attacks etc. 

 

Although I could also agree with the get rid of all pets altogether and make a ranged specialist class.

[Mlatimudan]

I feel like people are not getting that the pet is an integral part of the ranger class in PoE, if you just want to play an archer without a pet take a rogue or a fighter, just because it doesn't say ranger on the tin doesn't mean you can't play as one with a different class if a ranger is just an archer to you.

 

As for the pet being easily killed, just don't send it into direct one on one(or one on many) combat have it annoy targets that are otherwise engaged and use the pet in tandem with your ranger not as just another meatshield, that even fits the whole animal companion theme, no way would a K-9 officer today send his dog to be gunned down that animal is his companion and partner not a weapon that he can easily replace if it breaks.

In my mind a PoE ranger is no different, you need to work with the companion and not just randomly leave it somewhere or send it to die expecting it to be as durable as a human warrior in armour.

 

Just like weapons armour and races PoE has it's own spin on the ranger, just give it a shot the way it's envisioned, a ranger with an animal companion, not with an animal weapon/servant