Ranger pets and talents are sooo bad :(

[Raven Darkholme]

Ofc rogue outdamages ranger.

[constantine]

Ranger needs more options. I am not the one to say if they need buffing, compared to the other striker classes.

 

One thing is for sure, they are not a bad choice or useless.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

A Ranger is not suppose to be a "Fighter Lite" that is the problem PoE makes. It is becasue PoE strips a ranger of everything he does different then a fighter. Rangers typically would have rogue like abilities which gives them their unique fighting style different from a fighter.

 

Ranger is a sneaky fighter who uses his environment against the enemy. That is also what sets him apart from the Rogue. The ability to use different things in thew environment for help. A Ranger is actually a druid/fighter/rogue hybrid. That's why Rangers usually got druid spells to simulate their environment bonuses. But you could even have an urban Ranger. Rangers typically could even have snares and traps based upon their environment.

 

Like I said before think of commandos as how Rangers should play. I mean animal companions aren't even a Ranger only thing. Paladins were always able to get a war beast as a pet at high level.

 

I do agree I don't want my Ranger in full plate fighting like a Fighter. I've never stated that.

 

Look if you aren't going to have different flavors of classes in PoE then the classes should be made as flexible as possible. I dont want a Ranger to just be ranged. But I also don't want him to fight in melee like a fighter or melee like rogue. Rangers should have their own unique style. Just as a Ranger and Rogue currently have different ranged styles in PoE.

[the streaker]

Ofc rogue outdamages ranger.

The other way around, ranger out damages rogue in ranged combat. But picking pet talents is nearly useless and theres basically one good ranger build (with slight variations) so it's not an exciting class at all.

[MoxyWoo]

Luzaris' tactic works really well.  Rogues have survival issues on the PotD difficulties to me when using reckless assault, due to how the AI works and will get past your front line usually, the ranger has more accuracy and can reliably use stalker's link with a priest backup.

 

So for when "accuracy" does matter only, the ranger comes out ahead.

 

In terms of preference, I'd rather take another wizard than a rogue for dps, cc, and even general beat sticking now that they have uber summon weapons or similar tactics.

 

So, taking that middle ground of a ranger that provides the 3 man wall that is optimally good enough is a great thing, along with the damage they provide closer to being barbarian lite with driving flight.  

 

I guess the group dynamic if looked at should be on PotD...

 

Ranger + Pet (tank lite) +  2 tanks + Priest + 2 dps/cc  > Rogue + 2 tanks + Priest + 2 dps/cc

 

Because having a 3rd tank type in is usually good, while all hard or below difficulties 2 tank types is fine.

[Crucis]

A Ranger is not suppose to be a "Fighter Lite" that is the problem PoE makes. It is becasue PoE strips a ranger of everything he does different then a fighter. Rangers typically would have rogue like abilities which gives them their unique fighting style different from a fighter.

 

Ranger is a sneaky fighter who uses his environment against the enemy. That is also what sets him apart from the Rogue. The ability to use different things in thew environment for help. A Ranger is actually a druid/fighter/rogue hybrid. That's why Rangers usually got druid spells to simulate their environment bonuses. But you could even have an urban Ranger. Rangers typically could even have snares and traps based upon their environment.

 

Like I said before think of commandos as how Rangers should play. I mean animal companions aren't even a Ranger only thing. Paladins were always able to get a war beast as a pet at high level.

 

I do agree I don't want my Ranger in full plate fighting like a Fighter. I've never stated that.

 

Look if you aren't going to have different flavors of classes in PoE then the classes should be made as flexible as possible. I dont want a Ranger to just be ranged. But I also don't want him to fight in melee like a fighter or melee like rogue. Rangers should have their own unique style. Just as a Ranger and Rogue currently have different ranged styles in PoE.

 

Actually, I always looked at Rangers as "Fighter Lite" in BG1 and BG2 (when using a vanilla ranger).  There was really nothing special about rangers in combat in BG1/2, except for BG2's Archer kit.  That's where my "Fighter Lite" phrase comes from.

 

As for the spells, I never liked Ranger spells.  They came too late and were generally too uninteresting.  Oh, if one was playing IWD2 in HOF mode, their animal summoning spells could be darned useful, but that was rather situation.   I also never really liked paladin spells either.  Rangers with spells just seemed like a Druid Lite, just as Paladin spells made them feel like Cleric Lite.  Neither held much value for me.  I'd just prefer some improved constant or limited use abilities to druid or cleric spells on both Rangers and Paladins.

 

I don't need to see a Ranger as some sort of forest (or some other environment) warrior.  I'd prefer them to be "light fighters" (not meaning the same thing as "Fighter Lite", BTW).  And for a melee ranger, they should have abilities that encourage a totally different style of combat thAn your average plate wearing tank of a fighter.  Abilities that encourage a more light, quick style of combat that favors speed, DEX, and deflection over armor.  Arguably, this could end up being some sort of middle ground between fighters, rogues, and even barbarians.  Rangers probably shouldn't care about increasing the number of enemies engaged.  That's something that Fighters and perhaps Paladins in their nice shiny plate armor would care about.   Melee rangers might favor increased disengagement deflection so that they can get in, hit hard, then fall back.  One might even make a case that perhaps they could use a sneak attack ability, though if they did, the overlap between Ranger and Rogue might become so great that the differences would become blurred.

 

 

[Jimmysdabestcop]

Actually, I always looked at Rangers as "Fighter Lite" in BG1 and BG2 (when using a vanilla ranger).  There was really nothing special about rangers in combat in BG1/2, except for BG2's Archer kit.  That's where my "Fighter Lite" phrase comes from.

 

As for the spells, I never liked Ranger spells.  They came too late and were generally too uninteresting.  Oh, if one was playing IWD2 in HOF mode, their animal summoning spells could be darned useful, but that was rather situation.   I also never really liked paladin spells either.  Rangers with spells just seemed like a Druid Lite, just as Paladin spells made them feel like Cleric Lite.  Neither held much value for me.  I'd just prefer some improved constant or limited use abilities to druid or cleric spells on both Rangers and Paladins.

 

I don't need to see a Ranger as some sort of forest (or some other environment) warrior.  I'd prefer them to be "light fighters" (not meaning the same thing as "Fighter Lite", BTW).  And for a melee ranger, they should have abilities that encourage a totally different style of combat thAn your average plate wearing tank of a fighter.  Abilities that encourage a more light, quick style of combat that favors speed, DEX, and deflection over armor.  Arguably, this could end up being some sort of middle ground between fighters, rogues, and even barbarians.  Rangers probably shouldn't care about increasing the number of enemies engaged.  That's something that Fighters and perhaps Paladins in their nice shiny plate armor would care about.   Melee rangers might favor increased disengagement deflection so that they can get in, hit hard, then fall back.  One might even make a case that perhaps they could use a sneak attack ability, though if they did, the overlap between Ranger and Rogue might become so great that the differences would become blurred.

 

Ok now we are talking. That is what I have been trying to say for like 5 pages. I agree some kind of say counter attack or ambush type attack or a specific flank attack would help the Ranger to have his own identity. And would make him different from a fighter, rogue or barbarian.

 

And yeah in D&D from the IE era you probably wouldn't have a straight Ranger without a kit or dualed to a Cleric. BG2/IWD you could go archer or stalker or beastmaster. Stalker would be the melee path. Getting thief abilities plus several Wizard spells (Haste, Protection from Missiles, and Spell Deflection). And they get the thief backstab ability. Archer is basically the ranged version. And beastmaster being the weakest unless you dual classes to a Cleric. Original games you would then have access to all Druid and Cleric spells once your Ranger got the Druid spells. And you could either dual wield clubs. Go 2 handed quartstaff or use slings via range.

 

Stalkers could be just as good in melee as archers were in ranged. Stalkers are basically always hasted in combat. And in IWD high level Stalkers level 22 get Iron Skins. Since they get higher Druid Spell level. BG2 rangers were capped at level 3 divine spells. Which are kind of weak.

 

And Obisidian can easily fix this just by changing ranger abilities to make them matter in melee and range. If it makes faster reloading then melee could have faster recovery etc.

[Crucis]

 

Actually, I always looked at Rangers as "Fighter Lite" in BG1 and BG2 (when using a vanilla ranger).  There was really nothing special about rangers in combat in BG1/2, except for BG2's Archer kit.  That's where my "Fighter Lite" phrase comes from.

 

As for the spells, I never liked Ranger spells.  They came too late and were generally too uninteresting.  Oh, if one was playing IWD2 in HOF mode, their animal summoning spells could be darned useful, but that was rather situation.   I also never really liked paladin spells either.  Rangers with spells just seemed like a Druid Lite, just as Paladin spells made them feel like Cleric Lite.  Neither held much value for me.  I'd just prefer some improved constant or limited use abilities to druid or cleric spells on both Rangers and Paladins.

 

I don't need to see a Ranger as some sort of forest (or some other environment) warrior.  I'd prefer them to be "light fighters" (not meaning the same thing as "Fighter Lite", BTW).  And for a melee ranger, they should have abilities that encourage a totally different style of combat thAn your average plate wearing tank of a fighter.  Abilities that encourage a more light, quick style of combat that favors speed, DEX, and deflection over armor.  Arguably, this could end up being some sort of middle ground between fighters, rogues, and even barbarians.  Rangers probably shouldn't care about increasing the number of enemies engaged.  That's something that Fighters and perhaps Paladins in their nice shiny plate armor would care about.   Melee rangers might favor increased disengagement deflection so that they can get in, hit hard, then fall back.  One might even make a case that perhaps they could use a sneak attack ability, though if they did, the overlap between Ranger and Rogue might become so great that the differences would become blurred.

 

Ok now we are talking. That is what I have been trying to say for like 5 pages. I agree some kind of say counter attack or ambush type attack or a specific flank attack would help the Ranger to have his own identity. And would make him different from a fighter, rogue or barbarian.

 

And yeah in D&D from the IE era you probably wouldn't have a straight Ranger without a kit or dualed to a Cleric. BG2/IWD you could go archer or stalker or beastmaster. Stalker would be the melee path. Getting thief abilities plus several Wizard spells (Haste, Protection from Missiles, and Spell Deflection). And they get the thief backstab ability. Archer is basically the ranged version. And beastmaster being the weakest unless you dual classes to a Cleric. Original games you would then have access to all Druid and Cleric spells once your Ranger got the Druid spells. And you could either dual wield clubs. Go 2 handed quartstaff or use slings via range.

 

Stalkers could be just as good in melee as archers were in ranged. Stalkers are basically always hasted in combat. And in IWD high level Stalkers level 22 get Iron Skins. Since they get higher Druid Spell level. BG2 rangers were capped at level 3 divine spells. Which are kind of weak.

 

And Obisidian can easily fix this just by changing ranger abilities to make them matter in melee and range. If it makes faster reloading then melee could have faster recovery etc.

 

 

I didn't particularly like the spells for Stalkers, not that those wizzy spells couldn't be useful.  But spells aside, Stalker is probably thematically speaking the closest to what I was thinking in terms of for a melee ranger that has a unique fighting style.  In theory, I suppose that they could use 2H'd weapons, but part of me tends to see them as warriors who would prefer a faster slash and run style of fighting, and that doesn't really seem to me to synergize well with big, slow, two handed weapons.  And much as I don't like being stuck in forced stereotypes dumped on us by D&D novels, two weapon fighting or even single 1H weapon fighting may be more preferable for a slash and run style of warrior.

 

All that said, I vastly prefer my stereotypical ranger as archer (and I do mean Archer, not Rifleman).  So sue me.  It's a stereotype I enjoy in these games. 

[JONNIN]

A Ranger is not suppose to be a "Fighter Lite" that is the problem PoE makes. It is becasue PoE strips a ranger of everything he does different then a fighter. Rangers typically would have rogue like abilities which gives them their unique fighting style different from a fighter.

 

Ranger is a sneaky fighter who uses his environment against the enemy. That is also what sets him apart from the Rogue. The ability to use different things in thew environment for help. A Ranger is actually a druid/fighter/rogue hybrid. That's why Rangers usually got druid spells to simulate their environment bonuses. But you could even have an urban Ranger. Rangers typically could even have snares and traps based upon their environment.

 

Like I said before think of commandos as how Rangers should play. I mean animal companions aren't even a Ranger only thing. Paladins were always able to get a war beast as a pet at high level.

 

I do agree I don't want my Ranger in full plate fighting like a Fighter. I've never stated that.

 

Look if you aren't going to have different flavors of classes in PoE then the classes should be made as flexible as possible. I dont want a Ranger to just be ranged. But I also don't want him to fight in melee like a fighter or melee like rogue. Rangers should have their own unique style. Just as a Ranger and Rogue currently have different ranged styles in PoE.

 

Well, the defination of ranger is a tough one.  BG games were using the D&D rules and the D&D ranger paradigm.   But ranger means everything from LOTR where it is a race/lineage,  to D&D where it is a fighter-druid hybrid,  to other games that took the root word "range" to mean "ranged weaponry user"  which is what POE has done, along with some other more exotic concepts of the class/term.

 

This game isnt BG based and it isnt D&D based.  The ranger here is just a ranged weapon specialist with a pet.   That is OK.  

I agree they should have their own unique style, and they sort of do: ranged attacks.   But its a little bland, for all that. 

 

as for WS -- noble offers 2 ranged weapons, secpter and rod, which might make an OK build.  Most folks seem to be loading up on the slowest, hardest hitting stuff, and those are middle of the road but they do offer ALL THREE damage types (pierce, slash, crush) so one could make a solid build from it. 

[Crucis]

 

A Ranger is not suppose to be a "Fighter Lite" that is the problem PoE makes. It is becasue PoE strips a ranger of everything he does different then a fighter. Rangers typically would have rogue like abilities which gives them their unique fighting style different from a fighter.

 

Ranger is a sneaky fighter who uses his environment against the enemy. That is also what sets him apart from the Rogue. The ability to use different things in thew environment for help. A Ranger is actually a druid/fighter/rogue hybrid. That's why Rangers usually got druid spells to simulate their environment bonuses. But you could even have an urban Ranger. Rangers typically could even have snares and traps based upon their environment.

 

Like I said before think of commandos as how Rangers should play. I mean animal companions aren't even a Ranger only thing. Paladins were always able to get a war beast as a pet at high level.

 

I do agree I don't want my Ranger in full plate fighting like a Fighter. I've never stated that.

 

Look if you aren't going to have different flavors of classes in PoE then the classes should be made as flexible as possible. I dont want a Ranger to just be ranged. But I also don't want him to fight in melee like a fighter or melee like rogue. Rangers should have their own unique style. Just as a Ranger and Rogue currently have different ranged styles in PoE.

 

Well, the defination of ranger is a tough one.  BG games were using the D&D rules and the D&D ranger paradigm.   But ranger means everything from LOTR where it is a race/lineage,  to D&D where it is a fighter-druid hybrid,  to other games that took the root word "range" to mean "ranged weaponry user"  which is what POE has done, along with some other more exotic concepts of the class/term.

 

This game isnt BG based and it isnt D&D based.  The ranger here is just a ranged weapon specialist with a pet.   That is OK.  

I agree they should have their own unique style, and they sort of do: ranged attacks.   But its a little bland, for all that. 

 

as for WS -- noble offers 2 ranged weapons, secpter and rod, which might make an OK build.  Most folks seem to be loading up on the slowest, hardest hitting stuff, and those are middle of the road but they do offer ALL THREE damage types (pierce, slash, crush) so one could make a solid build from it. 

 

 

I'm not at all sure that I'd say that PoE isn't BG/IWD or D&D based.  Oh sure there are differences.  But the similarities are rampant and often blatantly obvious.  Often painfully so.  You have weapon focus, weapon specialization, and weapon mastery for fighters (though they are for groups rather than specific weapons).  Even the terminology is the same.  Weapon SPECIALIZATION.  Weapon MASTERY.  Looks like a direct copy to me (from IWD2), IIRC.  There are a considerable number of wizard spells that seem like near direct copies from their BG or IWD counterparts.  And the list goes on and on. 

 

Heck, I'm not even sure that the number of differences is greater than the number of similarities when it comes to the overall rules set, etc.

 

As for the definition of "ranger", I agree.  I personally don't mind the PoE version of ranger as ranged combatant, though I could do without the animal companion.  But I could also see a version of Ranger as "Light Fighter" (not "Fighter Lite"), as I described previously, which could cover both melee and ranged combat.  The old BG2 Stalker kit is probably the closest match, but not perfect, with the idea being that this style of ranger is about stealth, speed, hit and run, and so forth, rather than wearing the heaviest armor and slugging it out, toe to toe with the enemy.  The problem I see here is that such a character/class could very easily be seen to overlap with the Rogue class and possible make Rogues irrelevant.  

 

Also, I suppose that one could also argue that there's no hard and fast reason why you couldn't make a "stalker" style "light fighter" character using the Fighter class. Of course, such a character wouldn't have any rogue like abilities, but given that skills aren't limited by class, there's no real reason you couldn't build a decent stealthy light fighter from a Fighter class, if one chose abilities and talents that fit the theme as best as possible. 

[Hassat Hunter]

So here I come in with a crazy idea...

 

How about instead of making the ranger a clone of other classes so there's boringness all around to just look at it's pro's (range/pet) and work on building off on that.

You know, make classes more unique and different rather than less.

 

So what if you want a melee one... it's not like there's every single other class out there for you to do so already. Really... What's the ranged hate?

[Raven Darkholme]

I'd like him to be ranged but pls without garbage pet.

[Hassat Hunter]

But... I like the pet... :/

Why kill off something unique like that? What would that add to the game?

[Crucis]

But... I like the pet... :/

Why kill off something unique like that? What would that add to the game?

 

If the AC was an option to be taken at creation, it'd be much better.  Not everyone wants to drag along a useless pile of fur.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

Classes shouldn't be ranged or melee. That is like EA Dragon Age Inquistion nonsense. Obisidian should be capable enough to either make all class abilities/talents enhance both range and melee or make multiple abilities/talents so the player can decide.

 

Obisidian obviosuly did that with the Wizard class. And if a freakin Wizard can go melee and have abilties and spells for melee then a Ranger should. That's the bottom line.

 

Honestly cRPG's need to let the player decide on how to play the class. I could say the same thing with the Barbarian Class. It is basically the same problem but reversed as they are all melee based. Why shouldn't a player be able to have war bow barbarian and still have abilties that make that combat fun and exciting instead of just focusing on melee.

 

These are the specific details that make a great game into a legendary game. And I think PoE is really good right now. And its not that these classes suck or aren't balanced or powerful its just the developer has really designed 1 true way to play them and that is the sucky part.

[MoxyWoo]

Classes shouldn't be ranged or melee. That is like EA Dragon Age Inquistion nonsense. Obisidian should be capable enough to either make all class abilities/talents enhance both range and melee or make multiple abilities/talents so the player can decide.

 

Obisidian obviosuly did that with the Wizard class. And if a freakin Wizard can go melee and have abilties and spells for melee then a Ranger should. That's the bottom line.

 

Honestly cRPG's need to let the player decide on how to play the class. I could say the same thing with the Barbarian Class. It is basically the same problem but reversed as they are all melee based. Why shouldn't a player be able to have war bow barbarian and still have abilties that make that combat fun and exciting instead of just focusing on melee.

 

These are the specific details that make a great game into a legendary game. And I think PoE is really good right now. And its not that these classes suck or aren't balanced or powerful its just the developer has really designed 1 true way to play them and that is the sucky part.

 

Yeah, I like versatile classes, or least some classes that can fill the other role as needed.  Unfortunately, due to how PoE is somewhat limited to 6 slots, stats unmovable once created, etc, its better to have specialists to bring synergy rather than try to make some good generalists.

 

Paladin and ranger are good examples of this, besides the specific Darcozzi, ranger isn't effective as an offtank/dps like the monk or barbarian can be as they require a lot of micro on a pet that can die quickly or without setup to keep em up.  And even Darcozzi just have one trick of good accuracy giving versus the other paladin orders that make it decent to pull around, but even then, I'd say using inspiring radiance is good enough and helps the entire group.  

 

From what I read in beta threads, the ranger pet was too "tanky" or something and had 40 dmg per hit, now it can't tank (without setup) and deals like 20 dmg per hit on a slower attack speed (at lvl 1), even upgrade numbers seem off like +1.5 DR (why not 2?).  Roughly, it was cut in 50% effectiveness along with Stalker's Link dropping to 10.... so... i should have been more like 25% unlike 50% that Obs had done with most nerfs.  That happy middle ground would be easy enough to implement I would think, and give rangers much more viability without pet micro and they still have to worry about other stuff.

 

Other than that, blunderbuss + driving flight bug, and the ranger would feel pretty complete as a class despite kind of being boring or using just wounding shot for melee, because the pet becomes an asset more than a liability and the ranger is still the middle ground between barbarian/rogue then.  Or give the pet focused talents more use, etc.

Edited May 9, 2015 by MoxyWoo

[Hassat Hunter]

If the AC was an option to be taken at creation, it'd be much better.  Not everyone wants to drag along a useless pile of fur.

Pick another class?

 

I mean; I figured that was the use of having different classes, so they're all unique in their own way.

Not having 12 flavours of icecream... oh but they're all chocolate just cause.

And then there's that chocolate-vanilla, and here swoops in the 'delete the vanilla immediately cause I want chocolate!' without, you know, acknowledging you already got 11 of those or so.

 

IMO allowing Wizard to also melee properly is beyond stupid, but that's me.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Hassat Hunter

[b0rsuk]

I just don't agree animal companions are so weak. They don't scale well, but with Pallegrina / Aura of Endurance and his own Resilient Companion, Itumaak can hold two darguls (level7, Hard playthrough). I'm using Lay on Hands on him very often, and I only had him knocked out once in the last 3 levels of Endless Paths. I have a party of monk, Kana, and Pallegrina on the front plus Itumaak. My Itumaak can survive being paralyzed. Paladin/Ranger has nice synergy. I can't wait to see how Reviving Exhortation/Monk combo works - do they keep their wounds ?

[Crucis]

 

If the AC was an option to be taken at creation, it'd be much better.  Not everyone wants to drag along a useless pile of fur.

Pick another class?

 

I mean; I figured that was the use of having different classes, so they're all unique in their own way.

Not having 12 flavours of icecream... oh but they're all chocolate just cause.

And then there's that chocolate-vanilla, and here swoops in the 'delete the vanilla immediately cause I want chocolate!' without, you know, acknowledging you already got 11 of those or so.

 

IMO allowing Wizard to also melee properly is beyond stupid, but that's me.

 

 

No, because Ranger has always been just about my favorite class in the IE games, and PoE.  But I just don't like the animal companion feature.    I wasn't overly fond of the spells that were part of the Ranger mix back in the old DnD IE games, but if I didn't want to use them, I could do so without any penalty nor require any additional micromanaging due to not using them.  But with the AC, you have no option to not use it and you need to micromanage it to prevent it from dying too quickly and nerfing the snot out of the Ranger's accuracy.

 

 

 

And what's a "chocolate just cause"?  Many causes are just, and many are unjust.  But what's chocolate, rangers, or classes have to do with just causes?

[Crucis]

I just don't agree animal companions are so weak. They don't scale well, but with Pallegrina / Aura of Endurance and his own Resilient Companion, Itumaak can hold two darguls (level7, Hard playthrough). I'm using Lay on Hands on him very often, and I only had him knocked out once in the last 3 levels of Endless Paths. I have a party of monk, Kana, and Pallegrina on the front plus Itumaak. My Itumaak can survive being paralyzed. Paladin/Ranger has nice synergy. I can't wait to see how Reviving Exhortation/Monk combo works - do they keep their wounds ?

 

I can see where the Zealous Endurance aura would be nice for an AC.  Yet at the same time, ZE wouldn't be my preferred Zealous aura to be choosing.  I prefer the Accuracy enhancing one, generally speaking.  Of course, I'm also not a fan of wasting any ability or talent points on the AC, though I suppose that Resilient Companion (bonus to DRs) isn't utterly horrible.  And yet it seems so much less valuable than any of the talents that would enhance the Ranger's own offensive abilities, and thus a wasted talent selection. 

[MadDemiurg]

Pets are pretty bad overall, but they have 2 nice gimmicks: 

• They seem to have an incredible stealth score so they are the best scouts. They are also nice to initiate combat in combination with cipher because of this (Amplified wave ambush). Maybe there are other uses for this I didn't think of
• They fully restore health after combat, and their health is pretty high. This can be quite OP in combination with unlimited healing since it gives you like 800 endurance tank at high levels in each encounter. i haven't found the best heal synergy though. Wasting priest/druid spells on them is too costly, cipher's painblock is not bad but he also usually has smth better to do. LoH is only 1/encounter. Put them in a moonlike party? Dunno. So it's theoretically useful, but i haven't found the best use for it yet.

 

For anyone having trouble keeping the pet alive - at level 9 priest casts withdraw per encounter, turning it into a static invincible wall .

Edited May 10, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[b0rsuk]

Pets are pretty bad overall, but they have 2 nice gimmicks: 

• They seem to have an incredible stealth score so they are the best scouts. They are also nice to initiate combat in combination with cipher because of this (Amplified wave ambush). Maybe there are other uses for this I didn't think of
• They fully restore health after combat, and their health is pretty high. This can be quite OP in combination with unlimited healing since it gives you like 800 endurance tank at high levels in each encounter. i haven't found the best heal synergy though. Wasting priest/druid spells on them is too costly, cipher's painblock is not bad but he also usually has smth better to do. LoH is only 1/encounter. Put them in a moonlike party? Dunno. So it's theoretically useful, but i haven't found the best use for it yet.

 

For anyone having trouble keeping the pet alive - at level 9 priest casts withdraw per encounter, turning it into a static invincible wall .

 

1) This is not exactly true. They do have some stealth, but you just don't see their stealth marker. I think it's a bug. If you move the animal closer to enemies, after a few seconds combat will be initiated out of nowhere ! That said, they seem to NEVER trigger traps in stealth mode (not sure about normal mode). They can walk over Death Ring traps.

2) Even Pain Block can be good. It depends on situation. When I miscalculate and 4-5 darguls gang up on Itumaak, having Pain Block on him can be a smart idea. They're too stoopid to disengage, so they're stuck. My other companions are free to cast area spells, Torment's Reach on lined up daruls, etc.

Actually, Lay on Hands is good on AC because in my party AC tends to be wounded the most. Pallegrina, Kana with shield, my Dex/Con/Per monk often don't get hurt enough to benefit from healing (Endurance aura!). Ancient Memory might just heal that, so I'm essentially taking health damage but no endurance damage. Monk can counterstrike very hard. In my last encounter I had him stuck in the middle of dargul group, with red health, and he kicked butt so hard it wasn't even funny.

What I'm trying to say is that in some parties AC takes the most damage, and benefits the most from LoH as well.

[Crucis]

Pets are pretty bad overall, but they have 2 nice gimmicks: 

• They seem to have an incredible stealth score so they are the best scouts. They are also nice to initiate combat in combination with cipher because of this (Amplified wave ambush). Maybe there are other uses for this I didn't think of
• They fully restore health after combat, and their health is pretty high. This can be quite OP in combination with unlimited healing since it gives you like 800 endurance tank at high levels in each encounter. i haven't found the best heal synergy though. Wasting priest/druid spells on them is too costly, cipher's painblock is not bad but he also usually has smth better to do. LoH is only 1/encounter. Put them in a moonlike party? Dunno. So it's theoretically useful, but i haven't found the best use for it yet.

 

For anyone having trouble keeping the pet alive - at level 9 priest casts withdraw per encounter, turning it into a static invincible wall .

 

The Withdraw thing is a good point.  Also, I'd suggest trying to keep the AC next to whomever might be wearing the boots that have the Consecrated Ground spell bound to it.  And/or next to any front line Moon Godlike.  Any of those could help keep the AC on its feet.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

I don't think Obisidian should have went Pet without scripts. Scripts would solve mostly all problems with pets. Should have made Pets per rest or per encounter summons. Not magical like he calls them from woods or something. Instead one 1 pet it could auto generate based upon location. I think that would have been better.

 

Obisidian pet idea is strong its just without scripts you can't control the pet like how it needs to be.

[JONNIN]

 

I'm not at all sure that I'd say that PoE isn't BG/IWD or D&D based.  Oh sure there are differences.  But the similarities are rampant and often blatantly obvious.

 

Of course.  Honestly it looks like old school D&D (advanced era, not current, the 1990s heyday stuff) changed just enough to avoid paying any royalties or being accused of infringement.    But the ranger is one of the major differences... its not a fighter derived class (D&D ranger had strong health and melee skills) and gets no spells (not that ranger spells ever mattered.... hey I have 179 hit points at level 10 and can now cast cure light wounds once to heal 5 of them..?!).  its obvious as well that chanters are a bard-like concept,  that ciphers are the psionic (and kinda similar to the NWN warlock),  and that xarips are kobolds with a twist,  and the list goes on and on...    But there are so many major differences too -- no dual classing,  combat mechanics (the chance to hit things and crit things are both nuts compared to D&D which was often a long battle of miss, miss miss..)  the idea of health that can't be healed by healers... might on spellcasters....   its different enough that my first 2 characters had to be deleted they were so bad due to the differences.