Ranger pets and talents are sooo bad :(

[Schyzm]

 

 

The pet gets you a disposable per encounter damage sponge.

 

Send it in first to take the alpha strike, use it as a focus for AoE attacks. If the pet is still alive at the end of the fight you are not using it right

 

Even when the pet dies your ranger with vicious aim and higher base accuracy is still as accurate as a ranged rogue and has higher base endurance and deflection to survive any ranged attacks that target your backline.

 

All of the damage that the pet soaks up is damage that your frontline does not need to endure, it reduces the attrition style losses to health that forces rests and risks perma death (if playing without maimed).

 

For my playstyle I like to have a ranger in the party. I like per encounter, steady state type groups that are heavy on durable melee that can dish out damage while outlasting the enemy rather than a massive nuke fest with five glass cannons and one super-tank. For me the ranger dishes out dependable, accurate ranged damage and gives you a disposable suicide soldier that bounces back fresh every fight.

My front line just doesn't take damage?

 

 

That is a much larger problem with AI, and combat mechanics.

 

If you design a super-tank that through stacking skills, attributes and equipment achieves near unhittable defense, and then combine that with abusing the AI mechanic of the enemy bunching around instead of disengaging and going after your backline, you will have in effect broken the game.

 

If that is your playstyle then a ranger is useless for you, in fact anything other than a super-tank and a team of ranged glass cannons would be useless for you.

 

To fix that they'd have to:

 

1.) Have monsters disengage from your non-damaging super-tank, eat a disengagement attack and then mob your glass cannons.

 

2.) Have more monsters have a teleport ability to get past your super-tank and hit the glass cannons.

 

3.) Give monsters an ability to teleport your backline into melee range like the high level fighter ability can.

 

4.) Give monsters an alternate ranged weapon set and have them focus fire down your backline.

 

5.) Players could self regulate and not use builds and tactics that trivialize encounters.

 

Since, I believe, that someone has soloed the game with every class on PotD, the tools are in the game to overcome all challenges posed by the AI if the player goes all out to win, even without using a full party. Based on this the only sure way to address the problems are option 5 and self regulate.

 

 

self-regulation has a long history in these types of games and I practice it to some extent, but to propose it as a solution is an inferior way to conceptualize things. games should (and are mostly) getting better at becoming more balanced and shaving off things that are really abusable, and people should demand games be even more balanced in the future (like say poe 2). I think there are a number of ways to cut down pretty massively on the current nature of the abuses, not to say there won't be some left, but fewer is still better.

[luzarius]

A ranger's bear companion serves three powerful & versatile purposes:

 

1. Extra meat in a shield wall - Eder, Bear & Kana form a shield wall then have Durance put down consecrated ground, followed by armor of faith. This wall protects aloth & your ranger in the back while they destroy everything.

 

2. Off tank - The bear moves VERY fast and can actually hold aggro with his movement speed alone. You can literally use the bear to run around and hold aggro of a few mobs while the bear doesn't take any hits.

 

3. Flanker - The bear can be used to get that flanking bonus which reduces enemy deflection by 10, this is EXTREMELY important because it increases the chance of landing your wounding shot which is an extremely powerful ability.

 

How to avoid the bear from getting knocked out?

- Durance's consecrated ground & armor of faith which not only helps the bear, but your entire party anyways.

Edited May 7, 2015 by luzarius

[Raven Darkholme]

How to avoid the bear not getting knocked out: Don't bing a ranger.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

I agree I don't like micro managing the pet at all. Wondering why they didn't make it a per encounter summon based upon character level? Say 60-90 seconds.  Or even once per rest and have it last 12 hours. At least that way if it died there be a big penalty and would force you to rest. Now pet get KO'ed its just annoying for 15-30 seconds. The Summon would allow you not to always have to bring it to every single engagement. You could still have talents that buffed it on level and you would be free to pick them if you wanted.

 

And since the Pet wasn't 100% always activate Obsidian could add f*ing melee abiltiies for the Ranger to balance the pet not being out 100% of the time.

[Faerunner]

I agree I don't like micro managing the pet at all. Wondering why they didn't make it a per encounter summon based upon character level?

 

The impression I got from pre-release updates was that the idea of classes in this game aren't 100% based on gameplay. They're also based on in-universe lore and story.

 

Lore-wise, the ranger was basically conceived as a skilled, cunning hunter who has an animal companion who is basically your life partner. The ranger and animal companion share a very deep bond (so deep that when one falls in battle the other is severely grieved), and assist each other on the hunt and in battle. I think the devs even said they wanted to avoid the animal companion feeling like "a glorified summon."

 

As such, the combat mechanics reflect this. I think the idea was that rangers were supposed to be the massive DPS ranged class (along with ranged rogues) with the "unique to the class" animal companion. I think the combat was intended to revolve around the ranger shooting from the distance while the animal companion provides free melee and tanking.

 

Unfortunately, it didn't work out so well. From what I hear, both ranged attacks and animal companions aren't as strong as they should be. I often hear how the rogue greatly outclasses the ranger in terms of ranged damage, and the animal companion is so weak it often/always dies and removes too huge a chunk of the ranger's Accuracy. Not only that, but I keep hearing how the ranger class itself is too dull build-wise and tactics-wise for combat micromanagement fans (not too many interesting abilities to take as you level up or buttons to press during combat), and the animal companion's frailty has left non-micromanagement fan displeased (since they don't want to have to keep moving the animal around to keep it from getting killed).

 

I think it was a good idea that just wasn't properly executed. My guess is they were afraid of making the ranger's ranged attacks TOO strong and the animal companion TOO good a melee/tank since that would make the ranger game-breakingly powerful. (Imagine if they were the undisputed ranged DPS champions like how many consider the ranged rogue now AND basically provided an extra regular companion with a warrior/tanking animal, making the "ranger" basically powerful classes all in one.) But in scaling them down, they unintentionally made the ranger a jack of all abilities, masters of none. Not the best ranged, not a very good melee/tanking animal companion, not interesting enough for micromanagement fans but too difficult for non-micromanagement fans.

 

I hope they can sort this out. I still love the ranger in theory (and adore my Piggy!), and want it to be a well-regarded class.

[rheingold]

You can't have it both ways with micro management. Complaining that the Ranger doesn't offer any oppurtunity for micromaniging - it's a boring class and then in the same post, complaining that the pet requires heavy micro managing...

There is not much wrong with rangers at the moment - if you don't like the way they play, that is a completely different matter. I personally don't like Ciphers. Does that make them a bad class? Hardly. If you don't like them take another class. There are people who do enjoy playing them. And for the umpteenth time - they are not weak, they may not be the most powerful class around but they are good.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

You can't have it both ways with micro management. Complaining that the Ranger doesn't offer any oppurtunity for micromaniging - it's a boring class and then in the same post, complaining that the pet requires heavy micro managing...

There is not much wrong with rangers at the moment - if you don't like the way they play, that is a completely different matter. I personally don't like Ciphers. Does that make them a bad class? Hardly. If you don't like them take another class. There are people who do enjoy playing them. And for the umpteenth time - they are not weak, they may not be the most powerful class around but they are good.

 

I think the only thing wrong with Rangers at the moment is that it feels like Obisidian is leading you towards being ranged as the ranger. While that should be the players choice. The players needs to decide what path to take. Not the developer.

 

Rangers aren't weak at all. They are pretty strong. Melee or Ranged. Just a lot better in range then melee currently. Way better passives. And if a ranged rogue beats the ranger its really by not much that a ranger needs a boost.

 

I just think the ranger should have both a melee and a ranged path. And that pet is still a pain in the arese haha

[rheingold]

If you don't like the pet then don't play a ranger, take a fighter or rogue instead. It's not difficult to understand. Really, the way the class was designed, the pet is integral to it. If they took it away it wouldn't be a POE ranger anymore. I like good old fashioned D&D paladins but I'm not a fan of the POE version. That doesn't make them a bad class, it just means that I don't like them. BTW I am not suggesting that Paladins are either good or bad, I have zero experience playing with them - I'm just making the point that personal preferences or preconcieved ideas do not affect the mechanics of class in any way. It just impacts on whether you like them or not. Anyways, I've been fighting this since the BB so I'm done. We will just have to agree to disagree.

And I am looking forward to my post 1:05 patch ranger playthrough!

[koski]

You can't have it both ways with micro management. Complaining that the Ranger doesn't offer any oppurtunity for micromaniging - it's a boring class and then in the same post, complaining that the pet requires heavy micro managing...

There is not much wrong with rangers at the moment - if you don't like the way they play, that is a completely different matter. I personally don't like Ciphers. Does that make them a bad class? Hardly. If you don't like them take another class. There are people who do enjoy playing them. And for the umpteenth time - they are not weak, they may not be the most powerful class around but they are good.

 

If you add the pets damage, possible flanking bonus and the bonus for ranger attacking the same target together, you should have ranger doing a lot more damage than a ranged rogue would. People think of the pet and ranger as a separate entity way too much. The pet is one of the features that makes the class, you cant just calculate their damage and ignore the pet altogether. Its like comparing wizards damage to cipher but then tell cipher they can't use their abilities and announcing wizard as the winner.

 

So yeah, they might actually be one of the most powerful classes around. They just have drawbacks in that power just like wizards have limited number of spells and ciphers need to generate focus every now and then. For ranger that drawback is having to manage their pet and make sure it does not die while still gaining the benefit of its presence (flanking & other bonuses).

 

As for the topic at hand. Lets take vicious aim versus merciless companion. Vicious aim might be bad for a ranger using a hunting bow or war bow since you'd rather want to use Penetrating Shots modal, rendering most ranger Talents useless to you (as you can only have one modal on). Instead you can have a talent that increases  your pets damage output. Now you're comparing a talent that does nothing (unused modal) to an ability that increases the companions damage a little. To me it sounds like the animal companion talents are actually useful. Are they as powerful as other talents (such as arcane veil from wizard)? Probably not. But they're quite good compared to some other things ranger has to offer. Then there is also the talent that increases accuracy when you're attacking the same target as your pet. Thats bound to give a decent bonus to any rangers damage output and it increases the pets damage too. Together those bonuses should make the talent quite good. Better overall damage than say, blinding shot from rogue etc.

Edited May 7, 2015 by koski

[luzarius]

Don't you guys have a pet dog or something? Micro managing a pet dog is the best feeling in the world. I've taught my dog to do three point scouting in my house. If anybody comes around my home, my dog will tell me about it. You need to have a ranger's spirit deep inside you to understand this class.

 

That pet companion is going to save you from dying on trial of iron on POTD difficulty, SHOW SOME RESPECT MAN.

 

That bear will die for you, if you just watch out for him, he'll watch out for you.

 

NONE of you understand trial of iron. It makes me angry.

 

*angry rant* *angry rant that would rage a normal gamer....* *angry rage* *anger that you would never understand* *anger from*...

Edited May 7, 2015 by luzarius

[luzarius]

Rheingold when I eventually get banned from this forum, just remember that there were hardcore gamers out there, once upon a time.

[Francis Ironwood]

 

 

If you add the pets damage, possible flanking bonus and the bonus for ranger attacking the same target together, you should have ranger doing a lot more damage than a ranged rogue would. People think of the pet and ranger as a separate entity way too much. The pet is one of the features that makes the class, you cant just calculate their damage and ignore the pet altogether. Its like comparing wizards damage to cipher but then tell cipher they can't use their abilities and announcing wizard as the winner.

 

So yeah, they might actually be one of the most powerful classes around. They just have drawbacks in that power just like wizards have limited number of spells and ciphers need to generate focus every now and then. For ranger that drawback is having to manage their pet and make sure it does not die while still gaining the benefit of its presence (flanking & other bonuses).

 

As for the topic at hand. Lets take vicious aim versus merciless companion. Vicious aim might be bad for a ranger using a hunting bow or war bow since you'd rather want to use Penetrating Shots modal, rendering most ranger Talents useless to you (as you can only have one modal on). Instead you can have a talent that increases  your pets damage output. Now you're comparing a talent that does nothing (unused modal) to an ability that increases the companions damage a little. To me it sounds like the animal companion talents are actually useful. Are they as powerful as other talents (such as arcane veil from wizard)? Probably not. But they're quite good compared to some other things ranger has to offer. Then there is also the talent that increases accuracy when you're attacking the same target as your pet. Thats bound to give a decent bonus to any rangers damage output and it increases the pets damage too. Together those bonuses should make the talent quite good. Better overall damage than say, blinding shot from rogue etc.

 

 

You can actually use Vicious Aim and Penetrating Shots at the same time... I also don't think the talent that gives +10 accuracy when attacking the same target as your pet is that strong because quite often the pet can't actually get to the target you want to attack (like the enemy wizards). It's still a pretty good talent, but it's just doesn't translate into a +10 accuracy bonus unless you use some really suboptimal targeting.

[JONNIN]

If the only way to keep the pet alive is to run around avoiding hits with cheezy kite tactics or to burn per-rest spells --- well, the advice and tips are appreciated but I am not terribly keen on this type of play.    It just proves the point of the thread...  when a melee pet can't melee and is instead expected to kite, that is flawed.  When you need to burn per-rest spells every encounter to keep a weak party member alive (normally, I only use priest spells for the biggest, toughest fights) there is a problem.   I guess the best bet is keeping it out of combat entirely and avoiding the "whole party group up" button even on  trash. 

[Crucis]

 

You can't have it both ways with micro management. Complaining that the Ranger doesn't offer any oppurtunity for micromaniging - it's a boring class and then in the same post, complaining that the pet requires heavy micro managing...

There is not much wrong with rangers at the moment - if you don't like the way they play, that is a completely different matter. I personally don't like Ciphers. Does that make them a bad class? Hardly. If you don't like them take another class. There are people who do enjoy playing them. And for the umpteenth time - they are not weak, they may not be the most powerful class around but they are good.

 

I think the only thing wrong with Rangers at the moment is that it feels like Obisidian is leading you towards being ranged as the ranger. While that should be the players choice. The players needs to decide what path to take. Not the developer.

 

Rangers aren't weak at all. They are pretty strong. Melee or Ranged. Just a lot better in range then THAN melee currently. Way better passives. And if a ranged rogue beats the ranger its really by not much that a ranger needs a boost.

 

I just think the ranger should have both a melee and a ranged path. And that pet is still a pain in the arese haha

 

 

Learn the difference between then and than, for crying out loud.

 

 

 

As for the rest, I think that if rangers were balanced between melee and ranged, they'd end up being a LOT weaker overall.  To me, rangers were always the weak sister of the warrior classes (i.e. fighter, barbarian, paladin, ranger), except in BG2 when you could choose the Archer kit.  The Archer kit finally created a Ranger who was actually good.  The non-Archer kit rangers were stuck with only 2 weapon slots, couldn't get a fighter's advanced combat skills, and had no other ranger specific combat skills.  And they got some generally weak spell casting fairly late in their advancement. 

 

Now, I suppose that the PoE devs could dump the AC and the AC related class abilities/talents, dump the melee accuracy penalty, and replace the AC related class abilities and talents with melee ones.  But I'd half expect that they'd also drop the class's overall accuracy down to "Average".  I suspect that they let the Ranger have a high (30) base accuracy only because it was a ranged only accuracy, and the melee accuracy was 15 points below the ranged accuracy.  And if the class was going to have the same base accuracy for melee and ranged, then I just expect that they'd reduce that overall base accuracy.

 

Additionally, say that you've got rangers with both ranged and melee abilites.  What's setting them apart from the warrior classes?  What makes them different from a Fighter?  To me, the idea of slapping plate on a Ranger and sending him into melee is just wrong.  All you've done is turn him into "Fighter Lite" (i.e. a Fighter without all the nice Fighter bells and whistles).  I'd much rather that the Ranger class have a flavor that stands far apart from the Fighter class.  Rangers ought to be "light fighters", by which I mean that a ranger in melee should be seen as one who isn't about standing around in the heaviest armor, slugging it out with their enemies, but rather should be more lightly armored, relying more on DEX for fast attack speeds, and high DEFL to quickly engage their targets and evade damage.  Sort of the way that they'd hunt a bear.  They wouldn't stand in front of the bear and trade them blow for blow.  They'd make a thrust with a weapon, and pull back and evade the bear's paws and claws, and rinse and repeat as necessary.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with a ranger in melee.  But if they're nothing but a "Fighter Lite" class, what's the point?  Just play a fighter.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Crucis

[Crucis]

If the only way to keep the pet alive is to run around avoiding hits with cheezy kite tactics or to burn per-rest spells --- well, the advice and tips are appreciated but I am not terribly keen on this type of play.    It just proves the point of the thread...  when a melee pet can't melee and is instead expected to kite, that is flawed.  When you need to burn per-rest spells every encounter to keep a weak party member alive (normally, I only use priest spells for the biggest, toughest fights) there is a problem.   I guess the best bet is keeping it out of combat entirely and avoiding the "whole party group up" button even on  trash. 

 

Please tell me what this "kiting" means.  I don't speak gamer geek.

 

As for keeping the AC alive.  I don't so much worry about keeping him alive as much as I don't want him instantly charging into melee and dying in the first couple of seconds of battle and causing my ranger to be gimped almost instantly with the accuracy penalty.  Holding the AC back for a bit before letting it go in is usually good enough.

[Crucis]

 

You can't have it both ways with micro management. Complaining that the Ranger doesn't offer any oppurtunity for micromaniging - it's a boring class and then in the same post, complaining that the pet requires heavy micro managing...

There is not much wrong with rangers at the moment - if you don't like the way they play, that is a completely different matter. I personally don't like Ciphers. Does that make them a bad class? Hardly. If you don't like them take another class. There are people who do enjoy playing them. And for the umpteenth time - they are not weak, they may not be the most powerful class around but they are good.

 

If you add the pets damage, possible flanking bonus and the bonus for ranger attacking the same target together, you should have ranger doing a lot more damage than a ranged rogue would. People think of the pet and ranger as a separate entity way too much. The pet is one of the features that makes the class, you cant just calculate their damage and ignore the pet altogether. Its like comparing wizards damage to cipher but then tell cipher they can't use their abilities and announcing wizard as the winner.

 

So yeah, they might actually be one of the most powerful classes around. They just have drawbacks in that power just like wizards have limited number of spells and ciphers need to generate focus every now and then. For ranger that drawback is having to manage their pet and make sure it does not die while still gaining the benefit of its presence (flanking & other bonuses).

 

As for the topic at hand. Lets take vicious aim versus merciless companion. Vicious aim might be bad for a ranger using a hunting bow or war bow since you'd rather want to use Penetrating Shots modal, rendering most ranger Talents useless to you (as you can only have one modal on). Instead you can have a talent that increases  your pets damage output. Now you're comparing a talent that does nothing (unused modal) to an ability that increases the companions damage a little. To me it sounds like the animal companion talents are actually useful. Are they as powerful as other talents (such as arcane veil from wizard)? Probably not. But they're quite good compared to some other things ranger has to offer. Then there is also the talent that increases accuracy when you're attacking the same target as your pet. Thats bound to give a decent bonus to any rangers damage output and it increases the pets damage too. Together those bonuses should make the talent quite good. Better overall damage than say, blinding shot from rogue etc.

 

 

It would be nice if the AC's damage was added to the Ranger's own, OR it was calculated, stored, and included separately in your ranger's damage stats on the personal data page.  It'd would be nice to know how much damage the AC was doing on its own.

 

Still, I'm not a fan of AC's, nor was I one who was clamoring for AC's back in the old IE games.  The life long animal buddy thing just doesn't do it for me.  I'd rather rangers focused more on their own personal combat abilities.  That said, I wouldn't mind if AC's were a selectable class ability so that people who did want an animal buddy had the choice to have one.  I just wish that I had the choice to NOT have one.

 

[Crucis]

You can't have it both ways with micro management. Complaining that the Ranger doesn't offer any oppurtunity for micromaniging - it's a boring class and then in the same post, complaining that the pet requires heavy micro managing...

There is not much wrong with rangers at the moment - if you don't like the way they play, that is a completely different matter. I personally don't like Ciphers. Does that make them a bad class? Hardly. If you don't like them take another class. There are people who do enjoy playing them. And for the umpteenth time - they are not weak, they may not be the most powerful class around but they are good.

 

Every class has the opportunity for micromanaging.  The problem is that the people who want to do a lot of micro managing equate micromanaging with having a lot of active abilities that you have to click to trigger.  I, OTOH, equate micromanaging with constantly picking and choosing a character's targets and positioning.  Such a character might not have any active abilities that need triggering and yet still be entirely capable of being micromanaged to maximize its combat efficiency.  And I don't equate a lack of need to MM with boring.

 

And for what it's worth, I'd say that a ranged rogue probably need more micromanaging than a ranger, because if you want to maximize the rogue's chances of taking sneak attack shots, you need others in the party to be doing things that create the sneak attack afflictions, whether it's a fighter knocking down an enemy, or spellcasters hitting enemies with afflicting spells, or whatever, and then you have to have the rogue shooting the specific target or targets who are properly afflicted.  Sounds like a lot of MM right there for a rogue who desires a lot of sneak attack shots.

 

Of course, as I've said before, I don't mind at all having some people in my parties who don't need me to babysit them constantly.  Rangers (aside from their AC's) are nice this way.  You can just let them aim and shoot at whomever they want and they'll just pile up damage.  Or if you're willing to put a little bit of MM into them, you aim them at a specific target, like an enemy spellcaster or archer, and let them deal with that enemy while you're off babysitting your party's own spellcasters.

 

Anyways, I agree that Rangers are not weak.  They may not be uber-powerful, but they're not weak.  Their ability to provide a solid amount of consistent long range fire support is a very useful thing to have, at least in my parties.

[JONNIN]

 

If the only way to keep the pet alive is to run around avoiding hits with cheezy kite tactics or to burn per-rest spells --- well, the advice and tips are appreciated but I am not terribly keen on this type of play.    It just proves the point of the thread...  when a melee pet can't melee and is instead expected to kite, that is flawed.  When you need to burn per-rest spells every encounter to keep a weak party member alive (normally, I only use priest spells for the biggest, toughest fights) there is a problem.   I guess the best bet is keeping it out of combat entirely and avoiding the "whole party group up" button even on  trash. 

 

Please tell me what this "kiting" means.  I don't speak gamer geek.

 

As for keeping the AC alive.  I don't so much worry about keeping him alive as much as I don't want him instantly charging into melee and dying in the first couple of seconds of battle and causing my ranger to be gimped almost instantly with the accuracy penalty.  Holding the AC back for a bit before letting it go in is usually good enough.

 

 

Kite is an object which flies in the air attached to a string.

Kiting in a game is similar :  the enemy is on an invisible "string" (it wants to go in a straight line toward the player and attack it).  So the idea is to move around in a way that the enemy is always chasing but never able to catch you, exploiting the game mechanics to never take a hit while slowly killing the enemy with ranged attacks.  The strategy is often used in MMO type games to exploit kill enemy that normally take a group of players, using one one player and a great deal of patience.  

 

You can, of course, google any term you are unfamiliar with.  I am not sure the term is really hard-core gamer geek.  I leave you with a video to explain the tactic:  www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aW9-wv6gGg

Edited May 7, 2015 by JONNIN

[constantine]

Problem with the Ranger is you don't have many options. But they shine in ranged combat.

 

-Equip Arquebus. In 2nd slot equip a War Bow for its speed.

 

-Get Weapon Focus for Arquebus, War Bow. Vicious Aim always active.

 

-Start combat with a high-dmg volley with Arquebus. You can apply Marked Prey on target for +20% dmg (since 1.05 MP will not have cooldown, will be an instant activation ability). You can also wait a few secs and send the animal companion engage the target- this way with Stalker's Link Talent you get another +10 to Acc.

 

Attack with Wounding Shot. Most likely with that high Acc you'll crit for heavy dmg, also heavy DoT.

 

-Then switch to the War Bow. Try to attack targets engaged by the animal companion (it must attack for Stalker's Link to apply the bonus)

 

8 out of 10 attacks will be crits

Imagine the added benefit should you get a Bow that applies special effects on crits :D

 

-You need to be careful the aggro is not on the animal companion, your melee must keep it on themselves. Or else the animal will die soon and you'll get no more bonuses from SL.

 

-You may also get the Utility Talent that lets you equip an additional weapon set if you want to release 1 more heavy shot with another Arquebus before switching to the Bow.

 

 

But this is pretty much it. Rangers are not good dpsers in melee, animal companion talents are not good. That is the prob, they get very few options.

Edited May 7, 2015 by constantine

[Crucis]

Problem with the Ranger is you don't have many options. But they shine in ranged combat.

 

-Equip Arquebus. In 2nd slot equip a War Bow for its speed.

 

-Get Weapon Focus for Arquebus, War Bow. Vicious Aim always active.

 

-Start combat with a high-dmg volley with Arquebus. You can apply Marked Prey on target for +20% dmg (since 1.05 MP will not have cooldown, will be an instant activation ability). You can also wait a few secs and send the animal companion engage the target- this way with Stalker's Link Talent you get another +10 to Acc.

 

Attack with Wounding Shot. Most likely with that high Acc you'll crit for heavy dmg, also heavy DoT.

 

-Then switch to the War Bow. Try to attack targets engaged by the animal companion (it must attack for Stalker's Link to apply the bonus)

 

8 out of 10 attacks will be crits

Imagine the added benefit should you get a Bow that applies special effects on crits :D

 

-You need to be careful the aggro is not on the animal companion, your melee must keep it on themselves. Or else the animal will die soon and you'll get no more bonuses from SL.

 

-You may also get the Utility Talent that lets you equip an additional weapon set if you want to release 1 more heavy shot with another Arquebus before switching to the Bow.

 

 

But this is pretty much it. Rangers are not good dpsers in melee, animal companion talents are not good. That is the prob, they get very few options.

 

 

Honestly, using an Arquebus for an opening shot then switching to a warbow is a tactic that I think is better suited to a Rogue, so that he can get in a high damage shot while the battle opening sneak attack is active.  Since Rangers don't get a sneak attack in the first 2 seconds of a battle (nor ever), I don't much see the point of doing it. But I suppose that that's a matter of personal preference.

 

As for taking weapon focus for both the warbow and arquebus, not a chance (at least for me).  I really dislike taking more than one weapon focus, with rare exceptions. I'd rather spend those very limited talent points on other things.  And much as I love warbows for rangers (sue me, I love the longbow using ranger stereotype!), I loathe the WF Adventurer group of weapons.  In my last party, I had my ranged rogue custom NPC not pick a single WF because I didn't want her to be tied to any single WF group, and be able to use whatever ranged weapon she wanted without feeling tied to a WF group.  WF groups just don't seem to work very well for characters who intend to be ranged combat specialists, unless you intend to always use a single ranged weapon type, which can be very limiting and doesn't encourage much experimentation.  It's too bad that there wasn't a WF composed strictly of ranged weapons, perhaps without the magical implements.

 

 

 

 

 

[constantine]

Sagani crits with fine arquebus (marked prey- vicious shot) for 60+ dmg. Since it's a wounding shot, she carries that dmg over 10+ seconds (17 if WS effect crits).

 

And that is Sagani. You can annihilate a high-threat target at the start of combat with a custom ranger.

 

Weapon Focus Talents are among the most useful general talents, i don t see the reason you don t like them (especially for a ranger, who has so few options).

Edited May 7, 2015 by constantine

[Crucis]

Sagani crits with fine arquebus (marked prey- vicious shot) for 60+ dmg. Since it's a wounding shot, she carries that dmg over 10+ seconds (17 if WS effect crits).

 

And that is Sagani. You can annihilate a high-threat target at the start of combat with a custom ranger.

 

Weapon Focus Talents are among the most useful general talents, i don t see the reason you don t like them (especially for a ranger, who has so few options).

 

WF's.  They're a waste for a ranged combatant if you want to carry more than a single type (i.e. from different WF groups) of ranged weapon, since you can only use a single ranged weapon at any one time.  There are other talents that give plenty of value that you lose out on by expending a talent on another WF. 

 

Put another way, WF's don't stack with each other.  You can stack Marksman with any WF bonus.  Or you can stack a WF acc bonus with Envenomed Weapon (synergize may be a better verb to use here), or probably most any other ranged focus that's not another WF.  Multiple WF's just mean that you have a wider array of weapons that you're skilled in.  And if you're a ranged weapon specialist, you're wasting talent points taking more than one WF because each of those WF groups isn't just about a single weapon.  It's about a group of weapons.  But you're only taking it for the single ranged weapon.  (Well, maybe 2 ranged weapons if you chose Ruffian or Soldier.)  I just see it as an egregious waste of talent points to take more than a single WF for a ranger.

 

OTOH, for someone like a Fighter or some other melee combatant, I *can* see value in taking a second WF group to widen the number of weapons that you're skilled in.  Actually, this may be of more value to someone like a non-Fighter class melee combatant than a Fighter, because a Fighter may want to spend a talent point on mastery of a single weapons group than on skill in a larger number of weapons.  Non-fighters don't have access to weapon master, so they don't have the choice of a narrow mastery or a skill in more weapons, thus making skill in more weapons a rational choice.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Crucis

[Crucis]

Sagani crits with fine arquebus (marked prey- vicious shot) for 60+ dmg. Since it's a wounding shot, she carries that dmg over 10+ seconds (17 if WS effect crits).

 

And that is Sagani. You can annihilate a high-threat target at the start of combat with a custom ranger.

 

 

The problem with your argument here is that the ranger has to crit to get this incredible damage, whereas with a ranged rogue, they only have to get any sort of hit to get their Sneak Attack bonus.  IMO, the concept of having a character carry a high alpha weapon for a first strike is far better suited to a rogue than a ranger for this very reason. On top of that, the rogue could get in a crit on that sneak attack and stack those damage bonuses.   And IIRC, the Rogue could also use a similar type of DoT shot for this first strike and pile on even more damage, though at some point, it may be a waste to expend a limited use attack in this situation, due to potential overkill on the target.  (Target type dependent, of course.)

 

 

 

BTW, for what it's worth, I'm not trying to rag on you or diss you, Constantine.  I just have some different opinions on the matter. 

Edited May 7, 2015 by Crucis

[constantine]

Tbh, I have no idea what Rogues can do My point was on what you can make out of a Ranger.

 

Does a Rogue surpass a Ranger in ranged combat ? I cannot answer that.

 

 

Btw, you mentionted that Rangers need to crit to get that extra dmg. Well, they crit a lot:

 

-very high base acc

-+10 ranged acc from vicious shot

-+6 acc from WF talent

-+10 acc from Stalker's Link

-+x acc from weapon quality

.

.

.

(Sagani is a boreal dwarf, she gets +15 acc against 2 enemy types)

 

All of these stack.

[Crucis]

Tbh, I have no idea what Rogues can do My point was on what you can make out of a Ranger.

 

Does a Rogue surpass a Ranger in ranged combat ? I cannot answer that.

 

 

Btw, you mentionted that Rangers need to crit to get that extra dmg. Well, they crit a lot:

 

-very high base acc

-+10 ranged acc from vicious shot

-+6 acc from WF talent

-+10 acc from Stalker's Link

-+x acc from weapon quality

.

.

.

(Sagani is a boreal dwarf, she gets +15 acc against 2 enemy types)

 

All of these stack.

 

I don't know if ranged rogues can surpass rangers.  Let's just say that they're comparable.

 

I agree that rangers do crit a lot.  OTOH, when a rogue fires a ranged shot in the first 2 seconds of combat it is (IIRC) 100% certain to be a sneak attack, in addition to whatever chance there might be for a hit to crit.  And it's worth noting that rangers and rogues start with the same base accuracy.  So when it comes to a battle opening (i.e. first 2 seconds) alpha strike, Rogues should out damage Rangers simply because of the Sneak Attack damage bonus.  That's why I favor rogues over rangers as a class to use the arquebus for the first shot, bow for rest of the shots tactic.