Ranger pets and talents are sooo bad :(

[Crucis]

The thing I don't like about Rangers is that have no melee talents at all. If you want your Ranger to melee it is pretty boring. You can use swift aim and throw cautious attack on him and the speed penalty actually get suppressed.

 

So in essence you are getting +!0 deflection for -2 accuracy. I mean you would figure there should be some kind of special dual wield ranger ability. I mean that has been pretty standard in D&D since what like pre 1984. Well before they introduced kits and specialized rangers.

 

All of the Ranger talents do something for ranged alone. Figure there should be opposing talents so you could either build him melee or ranged focused or combo. I think that is a waste right now. I kind of like a 2H Ranger myself say with like a quarterstaff, real woodsy type of character.

 

And the annoying thing about pet is they are always active. And there are no scripts or options for the pet. I mean if you could just make the pet guard or attack only when melee attacked by enemy it be great. Now you have to micro that pet or it will die.

 

Read the freakin' description of the Ranger class.  The class is all about ranged attacks and their animal companion.  These are not DnD rangers who might be melee combatants as much as they might be snipers.  PoE Rangers are Snipers with Pets.  Period.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

If they are all about ranged attacks why have higher endurance and higher deflection then a rogue? Why make some of their abilities effect melee attacks then? Doesn't make sense.

 

No other class is really locked into range or melee. I mean you can even melee a rogue, wizard, druid, or cipher. I have no problem making my Ranger melee but it does feel lacking by 1 or 2 abilities.

 

You never want the game to force you into playing a character a certain way. Every class needs that flexibility. Look at patch 1.05 if you think Obsidian doesn't want classes to melee or range.

[Crucis]

If they are all about ranged attacks why have higher endurance and higher deflection then THAN a rogue? Why make some of their abilities effect AFFECT melee attacks then? Doesn't make sense.

 

No other class is really locked into range or melee. I mean you can even melee a rogue, wizard, druid, or cipher. I have no problem making my Ranger melee but it does feel lacking by 1 or 2 abilities.

 

You never want the game to force you into playing a character a certain way. Every class needs that flexibility. Look at patch 1.05 if you think Obsidian doesn't want classes to melee or range.

 

 

I haven't read the patch 1.05 notes closely, nor really intend to at this time.

 

As for saying that no other class is really locked into melee, I think that you're off base on that.  I don't recall monks nor barbarians having any ranged class talents.  Ditto for Fighters and Paladins.  This isn't to say that they can't do ranged combat, only that they don't have class ranged talents or abilities, which tells me that they are rather locked into melee combat.   So frankly, I see nothing wrong with a class that's skewed toward ranged combat, such as Rangers.

 

(And learn the difference between "then" and "than", and "effect" and "affect".)

[Jimmysdabestcop]

Fighters weapon abilities increase damage for the entire weapon group including ranged weapons.  Disciplined Barrage still works while ranged. Confident Aim works while ranged. Even Guardian Stance still works while ranged for other ranged characters nearby. Vigorous Defense works while ranged. As well as unbending, armored grace, critical defense and unbroken all still work while ranged. Now some of these abilities help melee characters out more but they still work while ranged as well. Choice is yours if you want to fully optimize the abilities by going melee.

 

The barbarian still has Frenzy, Barbaric Yell, Savage Defiance, Blooded, Bloodlust, Brute Force, Thick Skinned, Vengeful Defeat that all work at range.

 

Paladin I'm not even looking at them since that class is currently broke and only works for the PC since faith and conviction does not work for party members.

 

Even the Monk has a lot of abilities that technical can work from range it just be really hard to get wounds. Possible, yes. Worth it? I doubt it. So I will give you Monks have the built in need for melee because of their wound system.

 

Now all the other classes can do both melee or range and get benefits of class abilities. Now some classes are more efficient at either melee or ranged but that is left up to to the player to decide. 

[Hassat Hunter]

And Rangers got the pet for that...

 

I still don't see the issue... it's like saying 'Mages got NOTHING, not counting their spells of course'...

You can't argument they don't have melee when we point in your face that they have, but you just whisk it away because... reasons?

[Jimmysdabestcop]

Having a pet melee is no different then using a summon for melee. Its not the same thing as the actual character having a melee focused ability. The point is the rangers have no specific melee ability for themselves. I mean the pet isn't the ranger so yes pets get melee abilities through the Ranger but that is completely different then a Ranger getting a melee ability for himself.

 

Plus Rangers historically in cRPG's or P&P or novels helped to start the dual wield trend. To ignore it seems like a mistake. And an easy to fix mistake by adding 1 more talent.

 

90% or more of the Ranger class is good. Its just missing the nod to dual wielding or just a specific melee ability.

[Sanctuary]

Having a pet melee is no different then using a summon for melee. Its not the same thing as the actual character having a melee focused ability. The point is the rangers have no specific melee ability for themselves. I mean the pet isn't the ranger so yes pets get melee abilities through the Ranger but that is completely different then a Ranger getting a melee ability for himself.

 

Plus Rangers historically in cRPG's or P&P or novels helped to start the dual wield trend. To ignore it seems like a mistake. And an easy to fix mistake by adding 1 more talent.

 

90% or more of the Ranger class is good. Its just missing the nod to dual wielding or just a specific melee ability.

Did they really?  I mean that as a serious question too.  The only Ranger that I know of in popular fiction that did this was Drizzt.  But he didn't start out a ranger at all.

Rangers in D&D mostly ended up with the generic, general "melee" feats too for dual wielding anyway didn't they?

Edited May 3, 2015 by Sanctuary

[Jimmysdabestcop]

Drizzt did kind of set off the dual wielding in Novel format. But it was introduced in D&D 2nd edition. Where they had thief "lite" abilities and dual wield with no penalty while in light armor. 1st Edition and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons basically used Aragorn as the ranger model. Rangers in that edition also got bonuses every level against giants and humanoids. And I think it was only humans and elves who could be rangers originally. Since elves got bonuses to bows a lot of rangers would also have a bow secondary weapon. And some chose to go primary.

 

Players handbook 2nd edition I think said rangers were based on Robin Hood and Jack the giant killer. Then 2nd edition had kits where rangers could focus on different areas. Like dessert, mountain, city etc. And then they got some pretty strong animal followers. The less followers the more powerful they were.

 

3rd edition was pretty similar except for companions and enemies. Now 3.5 is where Rangers were finally able to specialize in dual wielding or archery. Basically before that they were always "Warrior" class and melee fighters. Think Aragorn the master of the sword etc. Cant remember if the "Eastern" Ranger kit was 2.5 or 3.5 where it basically was a dual wielding Samurai with katana and wakizashi.

 

When BG1 came out they couldn't really have dual wield in the engine so they gave Rangers in light Armor a free second attack to simulate it. I think it was the BG2 engine and IWD2 that allowed real ranger dual wield. Then by 3/3.5 D&D every class could take dual wielding proficiencies but the Ranger always got both for free in light armor.

 

Now PoE Ranger Description:

Ranger
Rangers are warriors of the woodlands and masters of the hunt. They
have learned how to live in the wilderness and adapt their unique
skills in civilized contexts their survival instincts contribute to martial
prowess, and the savagery cultivated while living among beasts
can be harnessed to devastating effect. Rangers select an animal
companion during character creation. This follower stays with the
ranger their entire life.

 

Know where does it state Rangers are "ranged combat" only. That is directly from the PoE manual. So I'm not sure what description people are talking about when they are saying Rangers are suppose to gunners/archers only.

[Crucis]

Paladin I'm not even looking at them since that class is currently broke BROKEN and only works for the PC since faith and conviction does not work for party members.

 

 

 

Having a pet melee is no different then THAN using a summon for melee. Its not the same thing as the actual character having a melee focused ability. The point is the rangers have no specific melee ability for themselves. I mean the pet isn't the ranger so yes pets get melee abilities through the Ranger but that is completely different then THAN a Ranger getting a melee ability for himself.

 

 

[Hassat Hunter]

I always think of Rangers as ranged... dunno what a stupid system would make them melee dual-wield.

If it's only D&D you probably should complain to them, not Obsidian.

 

But otherwise let me know what other systems are oblivious to the role of a Ranger.

 

Almost reminds me of how people think "Rogue" is a 'DPS class' due to modern RPG's handling them like that rather than proper freakin' rogues. Adjusting rogues everywhere to fit that definition would be foolishness at it's finest.

[luzarius]

I'll say this again, for a POTD, TOI, blind play through, ranger is the best class.  Someone please PROVE ME WRONG.

[Crucis]

Almost reminds me of how people think "Rogue" is a 'DPS class' due to modern RPG's handling them like that rather than proper freakin' rogues. Adjusting rogues everywhere to fit that definition would be foolishness at it's finest.

 

I'd also say that part of the problem is players who think in terms of "DPS" or "decoys" and so forth, rather than just playing rogues or rangers, or wizards or fighters or paladins, and so forth.

 

And regardless of whether some classes do have abilities that "can" be used in melee or at range, I'd suggest that most of those classes have a strong predisposition towards them being melee combatants.  I still have no problem with the idea of a class whose primary focus is ranged physical combat.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

If PoE is suppose to be a throwback and IE spiritual successor then Rangers should also be melee. It wasn't until these modern MMO's that all of a sudden rangers always equaled archers. Being a Ranger does not equal being an archer. Could a ranger be an archer? Yes. But not every ranger 100% of the time.

 

A ranger was like a fantasy realm commando who protected his favored environment and worked from the shadows. Sure a lot of Elf Rangers used a bow because they got bonuses with all bow weapons. But Human Rangers were just as good dual wielding a long and short sword. Take Minsc from BG1 he could be adapted for dual wield, 2 handed, or bow.  They always had stealth and some rangers even had thief backstab "lite" abilities.

 

I give Obsidian credit for the Pet/Companion the concept works well. However Obsidian is still missing 1 or 2 melee related abilities for the ranger. Or just a  re-balancing of their current abilities to work ranged or at melee distance. It is that simple.

 

I don't see the big deal. More flexibility in a class just allows better role playing by the player.  One player wants an archer ranger, ok cool. Another might want a 2 handed and another still might want to dual wield. And currently you can still do that in the game you just get bare minimum benefit from ranger abilities.

[Blovski]

If PoE is suppose to be a throwback and IE spiritual successor then Rangers should also be melee. It wasn't until these modern MMO's that all of a sudden rangers always equaled archers. Being a Ranger does not equal being an archer. Could a ranger be an archer? Yes. But not every ranger 100% of the time.

 

A ranger was like a fantasy realm commando who protected his favored environment and worked from the shadows. Sure a lot of Elf Rangers used a bow because they got bonuses with all bow weapons. But Human Rangers were just as good dual wielding a long and short sword. Take Minsc from BG1 he could be adapted for dual wield, 2 handed, or bow.  They always had stealth and some rangers even had thief backstab "lite" abilities.

 

I give Obsidian credit for the Pet/Companion the concept works well. However Obsidian is still missing 1 or 2 melee related abilities for the ranger. Or just a  re-balancing of their current abilities to work ranged or at melee distance. It is that simple.

 

I don't see the big deal. More flexibility in a class just allows better role playing by the player.  One player wants an archer ranger, ok cool. Another might want a 2 handed and another still might want to dual wield. And currently you can still do that in the game you just get bare minimum benefit from ranger abilities.

Minsc couldn't dual wield in BG 1. Ranger kits came in with BG 2. The whole Dual Wielding thing was largely a byproduct of those Drizzt pulp novels. At a certain point you then get to the 'why isn't deflection as good as fighters so they can tank?' and suddenly all the combat classes become awfully similar in a system like POE where equipment isn't class limited and everyone levels at the same rate.

[Tigranes]

BG1's Ranger companion was Kivan, the most Legolasian sharpshooting machinegunning "gonna kill half of you before you get close" Archer there ever was. 

[CriticalFailure]

Dual wield or not, Jimmy's point is that rangers shouldn't be limited to archery. Fine, you can just ignore the archery talents, but then you aren't getting anything special from the class (I think; I haven't played much with rangers) except for the animal.

 

Minsc is hardly a good example of a typical ranger, anyway. He was a ranger because there were no barbarians in BG1, and BG2 just kept his class consistent with the first game.

[MoxyWoo]

Ranger works fine in melee I noticed, in fact, its probably easier to use than ranged due to how ranger can engage, and then the pet can flank or similar.  Worst case if its built as an "offtank" you don't care the pet dies for stalker's link.

 

Wounding Shot > Weapon Focus > Swift Aim > Swift/steady > Stalker's Link gives you +8 accuracy, possibly Frighten via Lion, 20% attack speed and one of the better scroll users due to better base accuracy.  Unlike a rogue with all stats being equal, its 5 to 15 deflection up than them, and later on Cautious attack's penalty can be negated via Swift.  Of course, after these levels, it all becomes the same for both classes to me as items are more readily available to build choices don't matter as much.

 

Pets also have 2 engagement slots, and ranger can have up to 3, so they are actually as good as fighters for that mechanics (tho how worth it depends on your playstyle and willingness to let a pet tank).

 

Edit to add:  Rangers can safely dump INT as well as stunning shots is a long ways away in this build and higher PER/RES helps for tanking.  Later on, Wounding shot + Combusting wounds + Blunderbuss is a pretty neat gimmick.

Edited May 4, 2015 by MoxyWoo

[Crucis]

Dual wield or not, Jimmy's point is that rangers shouldn't be limited to archery. Fine, you can just ignore the archery talents, but then you aren't getting anything special from the class (I think; I haven't played much with rangers) except for the animal.

 

Minsc is hardly a good example of a typical ranger, anyway. He was a ranger because there were no barbarians in BG1, and BG2 just kept his class consistent with the first game.

 

Minsc would have probably been better suited to being a Berzerker fighter kit than a true Barbarian.

 

As for Jimmy's point, I'm not buying it because frankly, nearly every other non-spellcasting class is aimed, however loosely, at being melee combatants.  So I see not one bloody thing wrong with rangers being skewed towards ranged combat.

[b0rsuk]

Think Rangers are inflexible ? Try ranged Barbarian ! Almost none of their skills and talents work with ranged. Ranged paladins are better. You might try a Barbarian with Dangerous Implement, but good luck dropping to 50% endurance that way, even if you leave Constitution at 3.

Edited May 4, 2015 by b0rsuk

[CriticalFailure]

Minsc would have probably been better suited to being a Berzerker fighter kit than a true Barbarian.

 

As for Jimmy's point, I'm not buying it because frankly, nearly every other non-spellcasting class is aimed, however loosely, at being melee combatants.  So I see not one bloody thing wrong with rangers being skewed towards ranged combat.

 

 

I do see him as a barbarian, but no kits in BG1 anyway, so the point stands.

 

Having an archer class is fine and I can live with rangers as they are, but I don't envision the concept of a ranger as necessarily married to a bow, that's all. It's not about game balance.

 

On the other hand, I find it harder to envision a raging barbarian pew pew-ing enemies with a magic rod in a murdering rampage, as in b0rsuk's example. Everything's possible, I suppose, but let's just say I'd find it more unusual than a melee ranger.

[B4nJ0]

Point is that a melee off tank / hybrid with a pet would be an amazing concept.

 

Problem? As usuall feats sucks in this game and you got 0 costum choices.

 

The Swift Aim ability also, it's NOT worth it imo. Why the hell should I pick 1 ability AND 1 feat to counter Cautios attack?

 

Cmon it's 2 talents and 1 ability to have a grand total  of+10 deflection -3 precision,,,,,,,,,,,,,, WOW!

 

I would like to see an almost total revamp of the pets, better talent for them and at least 2 decent option for melee style rangers. 

 

 

And stop trash talking about classes difference. Almost ALL the talents and abilities atm are not worth taking. This is why class variance sucks and the main problem of this game.

[b0rsuk]

Why would you pick Cautious Attack in the first place ?? "Off-tank" suggests you already have a primary tank. You really can handle a stray enemy or two not caught by your tank without using Cautious Attack.

[Crucis]

Point is that a melee off tank / hybrid with a pet would be an amazing concept.

 

Problem? As usuall feats sucks in this game and you got 0 costum choices.

 

The Swift Aim ability also, it's NOT worth it imo. Why the hell should I pick 1 ability AND 1 feat to counter Cautios attack?

 

Cmon it's 2 talents and 1 ability to have a grand total  of+10 deflection -3 precision,,,,,,,,,,,,,, WOW!

 

I would like to see an almost total revamp of the pets, better talent for them and at least 2 decent option for melee style rangers. 

 

 

And stop trash talking about classes difference. Almost ALL the talents and abilities atm are not worth taking. This is why class variance sucks and the main problem of this game.

 

Last I noticed, there were plenty of armors and more than a few different sets of robes and clothes to wear, so there's hardly any lack of "costumE" choices. 

[JONNIN]

The chanter is the pet class.  His pets scale with level and do not invoke a penalty when they die.   Hmm, a bear with 10 DR that does 5 damage per hit or a PAIR of ogres or a dragon?  Which, if they actually die in a combat, can be replaced?  And the chanter may not have the ranged abilities of a ranger but you can sure build an elven one that can do reasonable ranged dps.  

 

The ranger is unplayable for me because of the pet death penalty.  The stupid pets die nearly every other fight and penalize the ranger for it.   Get rid of that, I can live with the weak pets.   Or beef them up .. to say at *least* 1 ogre status, by level 7 or so?   

 

Here is a perfect example of how to understand how bad the ranger pets are: a simple little duel you can do at home in about 10 min.  

Step 1: roll a ranger with a bear pet; difficulty only on NORMAL.  Feel free to take any level up pet enhancements you want.   

Step 2: work your way thru the intro and to the bear cave in the area before the first city.  

Step 3: duel   the bear in the cave with your bear.  do not help the bear, just duel bear on bear.

step 4: reroll to a working class after seeing how the level 2 bear enemy destroyed the level 2 bear pet. 

 

I am NOT saying the pet should kill or significantly damage or anything else the enemy here.  But the NPC will ONE SHOT the pet, unscathed.   The pet should be able to at least hold him there for, I dunno, 3 or 4 shots with a bow?  It can't do that. 

Edited May 4, 2015 by JONNIN

[Atchod]

Think of your bear at lvl 2 as a Young Bear , roll on easy difficulty there will be 1 Young Bear in the cave and test then , i think bear pet vs young bear will do just fine

Edited May 4, 2015 by Atchod