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

Animal Companion should be a series of talents, not a class. (Feedback on the Ranger)

feedback suggestions ranger animal companion pet talents

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1
Alweth

Alweth

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 79 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Not surprisingly, I thought the ranger was prett lack-luster.

Although I don't think the ranger's in danger of winning any overpoweredness contests, I actually didn't think the ranger was too weak.

The ranger is really just the pet-owner class. Other than the fact that D&D also had (and struggled with) animal companions, the class barely feels like a ranger at all. This wouldn't be a huge problem if it didn't mean that, in the end, there's almost nothing to do with the ranger in both character building and combat.

In my opinion, the ranger would make more sense (and probably be a lot more fun) as a series of talents available to any character. (Think about it: then Sagani could be a rogue!) That's a pretty dire verdict on a class.

 

I'm not joking though. At this point, if I had to fix the ranger I would just get rid of it completely and allow any character to buy into the ranger pet through a series of talents (starting with something weaker, of course, since a whole ranger pet would be a bit OPed for just one talent). The remaining abilities could be divided among other classes as made sense.

I'm not being hyperbolically negative here either. I actually think this would be a nice improvement to the game--allowing characters to be distinguished by the fact that they have an animal companion rather than defined by the fact they have an animal companion. The fighter with a pet wolf would feel a lot different than one without, both mechanically and from a storytelling perspective. Same for every other class.


Edited by Alweth, 26 April 2015 - 06:22 AM.

  • ChloelovesEder likes this

#2
WebShaman

WebShaman

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 179 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
I would have preferred a Musketeer Class with the ability to dual wield pistols.

Archer and Ranger should have been done with skills and talents.

My last post on these boards.
  • ChloelovesEder likes this

#3
Alweth

Alweth

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 79 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I would have preferred a Musketeer Class with the ability to dual wield pistols.

Archer and Ranger should have been done with skills and talents.

My last post on these boards.

 

As I understand things, the real benefit of early firearms was not their effectiveness in contrast with archers, but their relative ease of use. Being a good archer required years of rigorous practice. If that's true, it would make more sense to have an archer class than a musketeer class. To balance things, bows would have to have a higher DPS than guns (and crossbows) but guns could have a really high per-shot damage. Guns would be the weapon of choice for the non-specialist.



#4
b0rsuk

b0rsuk

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 592 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I want a llama animal companion.

Llama spit

1/encounter

Range: 5m

Blind vs Reflex


  • ChloelovesEder likes this

#5
Lightzy

Lightzy

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 59 posts

If rangers had the option of unsummoning that godawful pet and investing in interesting CHARACTER abilities, like flaming shot, "arrow to the knee" (haha), split shot, barrage, power draw, acid arrow etc, it would be so much more fun.

Also dual wielding



#6
b0rsuk

b0rsuk

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 592 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

You are just bad at micromanagement. If animal companion is fighting next to Eder and there's no one else on the frontline, no wonder it gets knocked out. In my Hard game, it doesn't. Don't use animal to guard a flank, there's a reason why flanks were considered the most honorable positions in a greek phalanx. Go after a single enemy. It's totally possible to build a bow-focused ranger, there's a skill or two on each level.


Edited by b0rsuk, 26 April 2015 - 07:31 AM.


#7
View619

View619

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 575 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I would have preferred a Musketeer Class with the ability to dual wield pistols.

Archer and Ranger should have been done with skills and talents.

My last post on these boards.

 

You can make a Musketeer already. Equipping multiple pistols and switching between them to get multiple shots (maybe take talents for quick switch and additional weapon slots) isn't good enough? You would still have to deal with reloading, so not sure what this would change. Also, the "Archer" role is already handled by the talents you choose, it was never really class-oriented.

 

Regarding the OP, if you take away the Ranger's pet and allow any class to use it then is there any point in having the class? Maybe the class name should be changed to emphasize the importance of the pet to its play-style? I've personally always thought of a Ranger as the Hunter, not necessarily the Archer.

 

Regarding the (frequent) complaint that animal companions are too weak/fall in battle all the time, you're not using it properly. Unless you build a defensive bear, it was never meant to hold the line.


Edited by View619, 26 April 2015 - 08:09 AM.


#8
Gromnir

Gromnir

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 7729 posts
  • Location:Sleeping in my office.
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

Not surprisingly, I thought the ranger was prett lack-luster.

Although I don't think the ranger's in danger of winning any overpoweredness contests, I actually didn't think the ranger was too weak.

The ranger is really just the pet-owner class. Other than the fact that D&D also had (and struggled with) animal companions, the class barely feels like a ranger at all. This wouldn't be a huge problem if it didn't mean that, in the end, there's almost nothing to do with the ranger in both character building and combat.

In my opinion, the ranger would make more sense (and probably be a lot more fun) as a series of talents available to any character. (Think about it: then Sagani could be a rogue!) That's a pretty dire verdict on a class.

 

I'm not joking though. At this point, if I had to fix the ranger I would just get rid of it completely and allow any character to buy into the ranger pet through a series of talents (starting with something weaker, of course, since a whole ranger pet would be a bit OPed for just one talent). The remaining abilities could be divided among other classes as made sense.

I'm not being hyperbolically negative here either. I actually think this would be a nice improvement to the game--allowing characters to be distinguished by the fact that they have an animal companion rather than defined by the fact they have an animal companion. The fighter with a pet wolf would feel a lot different than one without, both mechanically and from a storytelling perspective. Same for every other class.

few starting observations:

 

the animal companion has been problematic from the start o' beta.  the ranger were envisioned as a ranged heavy-hitter.  the rogue and ranger were s'posed to be the weapon-based heavy-hitters (not our label, obsidian's.)  

 

so then, remove animal companion from the ranger and you got a class that is very similar to the rogue.  is the major obstacle we see.  developers consider it important to give the different classes unique gameplay.  a rogue that has a few abilities that is a bit more ranged focused is likely not the kinda uniqueness obsidian were envisioning.

 

am agreeing that the animal companion don't work... at least they don't work for Gromnir, but am not seeing an easy solution.  we recommended dumping the ranger multiple times during the beta.  we also noted that the best way to improve the ranger were to exorcise the animal companions from the class.  even so, we can't offer an alternative to the ranger that that is less fundamental than scrapping it and starting over from square one.  the animal is what makes the ranger different.  the animal is what makes the ranger the only class we have zero interest in playing.

 

HA! Good Fun!



#9
Ink Blot

Ink Blot

    Incorrigible Mountebank of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1231 posts
  • Location:Some Backwater in the Orion Arm
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I've yet to play a game that has a 'ranger' class that is actually any good or fun to play. *shrug* I just pop them in the same pile as Monks: avoid (I hate Monks) and play other classes.



#10
b0rsuk

b0rsuk

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 592 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

So does anyone have constructive ideas what else could rangers have ? And don't even mention bonuses to dual wield. Stealth and Survival are skills available to everyone. Setting traps is Mechanics. How does removing the animal companion help ?

 

I hope you played with a ranger other than Sagani. Hunting Bows are the least damaging ranged weapon.


Edited by b0rsuk, 26 April 2015 - 12:51 PM.


#11
Gromnir

Gromnir

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 7729 posts
  • Location:Sleeping in my office.
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

get rid of animal and give the class a resource called prestige or glory or ego.  give prestige points for... whatever: score a crit hit, kill an opponent, receive damage over X points (+some additional amount per level so as to scale), etc.  create a finite list o' prestige point possibles.  next, create a list o' feats that the musketeer, swashbuckler, whatever could spend those points on in a fight.  would work a bit like the cipher, but the range o' possible abilities would likely be closer to what the current paladin has.  

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!



#12
b0rsuk

b0rsuk

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 592 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

What abilities would you rather see on a ranger instead of animal companion ?


Edited by b0rsuk, 26 April 2015 - 01:46 PM.


#13
Gromnir

Gromnir

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 7729 posts
  • Location:Sleeping in my office.
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

What abilities would you rather see on a ranger instead of animal companion ?

that is the problem.  unless you do something complete different, changing the abilities won't have much impact.  the ranger and rogue is heavy-hitters.  rogues get sneak attack mechanic and then stuff such as reckless assault and a whole bunch o' other passive and active crit and damage increases.  is sneak attack that is the focus o' the rogue and how to exploit sneaks that is the focus o' playing the rogue.

 

a ranger, w/o an animal companion, is a weapon using heavy-hitter w/o sneak attack?  the abilities and talents is gonna be familiar and different mostly cosmetic, 'cause they is all gonna magnify the weapon damage o' the ranger.  mechanics o' poe only has so many ways to increase weapon damage.  sure, call your ranger a vermin warrior who can change into a giant rat... give his "weapons" a corrode effect or some such would make him look different, perhaps, but is gonna play similar to the rogue.  still got same weapons and still got same core mechanics.  

 

animal companion is what makes ranger different.  instead o' sneak attack and maximizing situations in which attacked foes is suffering status effects, our ranger gots the animal companion.  remove animal companion?  square one.

 

HA! Good Fun!



#14
mazeltov

mazeltov

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 341 posts

What abilities would you rather see on a ranger instead of animal companion ?

 

I wouldn't. AC is an interesting feature for the class, akin to Rigger drones in Shadowrun Returns. Not especially powerful in their own right, but useful for complementing the overall offensive or defensive strategies of the party.

 

ACs can be used offensively, in battles with room to maneuver them onto a backline squishy, while the Ranger combos with Stalker's Link. That's risky, though, since the AC is likely to draw proximity aggro and go down, giving the Ranger a personal offense penalty for the rest of the Encounter.

 

I prefer to use ACs defensively, acting as a second layer of defense for the backline (including the Ranger), in case adds work around the front or aggro toward the back for any reason. ACs become very proficient at this after getting Takedown/Brutal Takedown, though they can intercept and and tie up opponents before taking them. An optional Ranger class ability to heal the AC 1/e or X/r would be welcome, in addition to the tweaks to AC stats and talents which are likely being considered for the balance patches.



#15
LeBurns

LeBurns

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 78 posts

Honestly I just wanted someone who was really good with a bow and survival type skills.  The animal companion seems more of a chore than a help.  Especially if it gets knocked out and suddenly your bow suffer for it.


Edited by LeBurns, 26 April 2015 - 04:32 PM.


#16
Gromnir

Gromnir

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 7729 posts
  • Location:Sleeping in my office.
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

Honestly I just wanted someone who was really good with a bow and survival type skills.  The animal companion seems more of a chore than a help.  Especially if it gets knocked out and suddenly your bow suffer for it.

you can play a rogue and take colonist background.  suggestion: choose the adventurer weapon focus talent to get war bows.  at that point it becomes difficult to build a bad archer, and you can get 12 survival if you wish.

 

HA! Good Fun!



#17
anameforobsidian

anameforobsidian

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1174 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Sagani kinda sucks for most of the game.  Personally, I wouldn't mind the ability to trade in pets for a dps bonus (but smaller than the dps you get from having a pet out).  That gives you a nice static dps character (not everyone needs to be active dps).

 

Rangers could also throw out "traps" to create zones of control.  It would be unique from other classes and still be interesting.



#18
Ink Blot

Ink Blot

    Incorrigible Mountebank of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1231 posts
  • Location:Some Backwater in the Orion Arm
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

A few thoughts on this:

 

1) Since it seems inevitable that Rangers are tied to animals for some reason, perhaps the ability to charm or disable any single non-humanoid creature when in combat. This creature obviously fights as an ally when charmed. Have it last for a specific time period. Perhaps if not charmed, the creature flees the battle. So, a guaranteed ability, but depending on the roll (and the Ranger's skill/level as well as the level of the creature), it either charms or forces the creature to flee. Obviously, there would be a few very high level creatures that are immune. Perhaps have them be stunned/disabled or suffer a malus for a short time period instead.

 

2) Give the Ranger the ability to set a trap or traps (possibly tied to the Mechanics skill of the character) while in combat.

 

3) In 'natural' areas (underground, wilderness) give the ranger either a bonus to accuracy or a bonus to spot traps. Or both.

 

4) Perhaps give the Ranger a chance to harvest extra ingredients from 'natural' sources (animals, plants).

 

Just a few things off the top of my head, and I'm sure others could come up with something better or improve on these. But something to throw in the mix, at least.



#19
Alweth

Alweth

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 79 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Regarding the OP, if you take away the Ranger's pet and allow any class to use it then is there any point in having the class?


Umm... no... that would be why I suggested getting rid of the class completely.

#20
Alweth

Alweth

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 79 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Guys, most of what's being described here makes perfect sense for the rogue class. Mechanically and thematically, a ranger is just a rogue with survival skill. A rogue is just an urban ranger. This is extra true given that in PoE pickpocketing isn't a thing, and lockpicking is class independent. Even the definition of the word "rogue" makes some sense for a ranger, "an elephant or other large wild animal driven away or living apart from the herd and having savage or destructive tendencies."

 

What rogues and rangers have in common: sneaky, good at searching for stuff, good at stalking, can use bows (optional for rogues, but still within flavor), know how to survive the night outside, traps, tend to be loners, stay away from polite society.

Animal Companion should be a talent tree for any class. Rangers should be a variety of rogue. If you need to, you can relabel the rogue to "maverick." Fixed.

 

I'd probably make the more exotic animal companion options require a certain level of survival skill.


Edited by Alweth, 26 April 2015 - 07:10 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: feedback, suggestions, ranger, animal companion, pet, talents

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users