So Paladins and rangers..

[cambam33]

Everytime i come onto to forum people are talking about how bad these two classes are and that they need work and even more complaining about wizards getting all this attention in the new 1.05 patch.

 

I was just wondering if anyone knew what the devs plans were for these two classes?

are they currently being worked on at the moment and not just ready?

 

 

[luzarius]

Ranger is one of the most powerful classes, ideal for path of the damned difficulty in trial of iron mode.  Check my link for a ranger guide. It shows how powerful the class is. Just keep in mind, it's actually more fun to discover the power of a ranger yourself. The journey in learning how to ranger is a lot of fun, so my guide could be considered a spoiler.  A lot of the classes require this journey of learning how to use properly.

 

On a side note, POE has one of the best combat systems I've seen in a game.

Edited May 7, 2015 by luzarius

[kaiki]

Rangers in a fantastic shape as is. Nothing really needs to get done with them past 1.05.

[bonarbill]

Everytime i come onto to forum people are talking about how bad these two classes are and that they need work and even more complaining about wizards getting all this attention in the new 1.05 patch.

 

I was just wondering if anyone knew what the devs plans were for these two classes?

are they currently being worked on at the moment and not just ready?

 

People are just exaggerating.  Both classes are fine and they don't need any changes.  Some people (like Loneknife) have this MMO mentality where EVERYTHING has to be equal.

[Lightzy]

Rangers and paladins suck. They're awful.

They're so boring it's mind numbing

 

To have a semi-usable ranger you need to meta the game to **** (take 3s on multiple stats and max speed/might like a munchkin), can't really play a character that can be perceived as "normative")

[luzarius]

Rangers and paladins suck. They're awful.

They're so boring it's mind numbing

 

To have a semi-usable ranger you need to meta the game to **** (take 3s on multiple stats and max speed/might like a munchkin), can't really play a character that can be perceived as "normative")

 

You have to ask yourself why I took a 3 in constitution and a 3 in resolve on my ranger.  Do I really need all that extra constitution with a bear companion who serves as an off tank? If I'm rp'ing a character who has such deadly aim, wouldn't that come at the expense of being vulnerable to being interrupted? There is a method to the madness that is ranger and once you figured it out, you'll love the class.

 

You mentioned the word BORING.  That automatically means you need to do the following:

 

1) up the difficulty

2) turn on trial of iron

 

You won't be bored anymore and it will increase your immersion ten fold.  Boredom stems from not being challenged.

 

I'm against meta-gaming to the highest degree which is why I strive to beat games in blind no death play throughs.

 

I'm not sure about the paladin though.

Edited May 7, 2015 by luzarius

[Psychevore]

I'm currently running a Paladin with 3 constitution as my only tank.

 

Paladin's are fine as they are. Faith and Conviction (+Deep Faith) is a beast of a skill.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

Ranger is one of the most powerful classes, ideal for path of the damned difficulty in trial of iron mode.  Check my link for a ranger guide. It shows how powerful the class is. Just keep in mind, it's actually more fun to discover the power of a ranger yourself. The journey in learning how to ranger is a lot of fun, so my guide could be considered a spoiler.  A lot of the classes require this journey of learning how to use properly.

 

On a side note, POE has one of the best combat systems I've seen in a game.

 

 

It doesn't matter if the Ranger is one of the most powerful classes. Or what you have done in PotD or even what a Ranger can do in PotD.

 

Especially when a lot of players are just using the Ranger as an Archer. Ranger Does Not Equal Archer. Those words are not synonymous. They aren't the same thing.

 

These are Two problems people see with the Ranger class.

1. Micro managin the pet

2. It doesn't play as a the classic Ranger just an Archer (lack of melee abilities both passive and active)

 

And Paladins there is a 17 page discussion about them now. If there wasn't some kind of problem there wouldn't be that gian discussion. Plus NPC Paladins don't get Faith and Conviction. Which is what Paladins are all about. So all non PC Paladins are gimped.

 

So yes there are problems with both classes. Thats why there are so many discussions about it currently. I dont see 17 page discussions on whats wrong with fighters or priests.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Especially when a lot of players are just using the Ranger as an Archer. Ranger Does Not Equal Archer. Those words are not synonymous. They aren't the same thing.

 

These are Two problems people see with the Ranger class.

1. Micro managin the pet

2. It doesn't play as a the classic Ranger just an Archer (lack of melee abilities both passive and active)

 

So how are Rangers meant to fight?  What melee abilities do you feel they are missing that are required for a ranger?

Edited May 7, 2015 by FlintlockJazz

[eubatham]

Paladin's are fine as they are. Faith and Conviction (+Deep Faith) is a beast of a skill.

 

Faith and Conviction is an automatically learned skill at level 1, almost every ability you can spend class points on is close to terrible (unless you decide to run with no other buffing class in your group). Also, running at 3 con as a tank is nothing special. Con is a worthless stat for almost everyone in every roll.

 

And NPC Paladins? They don't even get Faith and Conviction.

[rheingold]

 

Ranger is one of the most powerful classes, ideal for path of the damned difficulty in trial of iron mode.  Check my link for a ranger guide. It shows how powerful the class is. Just keep in mind, it's actually more fun to discover the power of a ranger yourself. The journey in learning how to ranger is a lot of fun, so my guide could be considered a spoiler.  A lot of the classes require this journey of learning how to use properly.

 

On a side note, POE has one of the best combat systems I've seen in a game.

 

 

It doesn't matter if the Ranger is one of the most powerful classes. Or what you have done in PotD or even what a Ranger can do in PotD.

 

Especially when a lot of players are just using the Ranger as an Archer. Ranger Does Not Equal Archer. Those words are not synonymous. They aren't the same thing.

 

These are Two problems people see with the Ranger class.

1. Micro managin the pet

2. It doesn't play as a the classic Ranger just an Archer (lack of melee abilities both passive and active)

 

And Paladins there is a 17 page discussion about them now. If there wasn't some kind of problem there wouldn't be that gian discussion. Plus NPC Paladins don't get Faith and Conviction. Which is what Paladins are all about. So all non PC Paladins are gimped.

 

So yes there are problems with both classes. Thats why there are so many discussions about it currently. I dont see 17 page discussions on whats wrong with fighters or priests.

 

Nonsense, just because it doesnt play like what you imagine a ranger should does not mean it's not a ranger.

The counter to that silly argument is that all Obs would have to do to "fix" the class then would be to change it's name. So then the class would be perfect no?

This game with all it's classes is a different take to the old D&D games. And it's a good thing - there are other games where I can take a "real" ranger.

[Blovski]

Rangers and paladins suck. They're awful.

They're so boring it's mind numbing

 

To have a semi-usable ranger you need to meta the game to **** (take 3s on multiple stats and max speed/might like a munchkin), can't really play a character that can be perceived as "normative")

No more so than with any other class. Rangers have the best aim of any class and some cool skills and with the AC fix and marked prey having no recovery time I think they'll be more useable than ever.

 

I find Paladins a bit hard to really enjoy and some of their class skills (especially revive) and the kit abilities are very odd in their design. Also, kinda leans towards Paladins being a PC with the way Faith and Conviction work.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

This thread is just a repeat of 2 current threads so I wont say much more.

 

Typically rangers were dual wield at least in D&D. But even in LoTR the ranger is a master at the sword.

 

Or just look up say Robert's Rangers. That is what all current military rangers are based on and they are from around like 1750. And themselves were made to take best parts from the Native American fighting style. Rangers being rangers would hit and run, counter attacks, use their favored environment as a weapon. And were just as deadly in melee as in range. But PoE most of all their abilities and passives only have to do with Range. Classes need flexibility to allow the player to decide and have equal fun at playing range or melee.

 

Take the wizard you can play either path. Ranger you can play melee but he plays much like a fighter auto attacking just with no real passives that help.

 

Rangers have the exact opposite problem of Barbarians. Since mostly all Barbarian abilities are melee only. Having melee or ranged is not a cRPG. Those choices have to be left up to the player to decide. Classes should have abilites to go down either path. Maybe going down one path cancels the other one out.

 

D7D and the IE Games you were limited in classes. You could have Ranged Fighter and a melee thief. For the most part PoE has class flexibility. But ranger and barbarian do fall short.

 

No one complains the Barbarian cant go ranged in PoE because he is so much of a DPS machine. But that doesn't mean that class is balanced or flexible.

 

nuff said here can't have repeat of 2 threads here.

[FlintlockJazz]

This thread is just a repeat of 2 current threads so I wont say much more.

 

Typically rangers were dual wield at least in D&D. But even in LoTR the ranger is a master at the sword.

 

Or just look up say Robert's Rangers. That is what all current military rangers are based on and they are from around like 1750. And themselves were made to take best parts from the Native American fighting style. Rangers being rangers would hit and run, counter attacks, use their favored environment as a weapon. And were just as deadly in melee as in range. But PoE most of all their abilities and passives only have to do with Range. Classes need flexibility to allow the player to decide and have equal fun at playing range or melee.

 

Take the wizard you can play either path. Ranger you can play melee but he plays much like a fighter auto attacking just with no real passives that help.

 

Rangers have the exact opposite problem of Barbarians. Since mostly all Barbarian abilities are melee only. Having melee or ranged is not a cRPG. Those choices have to be left up to the player to decide. Classes should have abilites to go down either path. Maybe going down one path cancels the other one out.

 

 

Rangers were dual-wielders because that's what Drzzt was and he popularised the style, before him rangers were more like Jack the Giant Slayer or Aragorn from Lord of the Rings (two-handed swords and bows).  Making all rangers dual-wielders pisses me off as much as making them all ranged pisses you off, I always wanted to play ranger in NWN2 for instance but my choices were "dual wield like that **** Drzzt" or go archer, neither of which appealed (since there were no guns).  You can go melee ranger in this, and you can do it without being restricted to dual wielding which is a huge step up for me.  Does it lack options for it?  Maybe, but it does not pidgeon hold you as much as D&D did.

 

Ranger has historically always had issues defining itself, as it's basic concept is just 'wilderness warrior'.  They tried to make them dual-wielders in D&D when that ****-face Marty Stu Drow came along in order to differentiate them somewhat (though ironically it just made ****-face clones), but it didn't help and in 2nd edition particularly it meant you either went two-weapon or you lost out on the only class advantage for weapon styles and going ranged got you nothing (you had to wait until they brought out the kits for that).  What ranger needs is better defining for what it is in the world, it currently has better definition in this game than many others as to it's role as pet-guy, it just needs more fleshing out and a wider range of concepts covering.  And the ritual sacrificing of ****-Face, but that goes without saying.

[Dudraug]

Everytime i come onto to forum people are talking about how bad these two classes are and that they need work and even more complaining about wizards getting all this attention in the new 1.05 patch.

 

I was just wondering if anyone knew what the devs plans were for these two classes?

are they currently being worked on at the moment and not just ready?

hmm, what is wrong with rangers? It is very-very strong class.

[Dudraug]

And one important point... Developers will not cange anything in base class concept I guess. It is worng solution. Probably they can change somthing in PoE-2 but not in current game and even in DLC. Changes for wizzards (in 1.05) and other classes is small. They are just balance changes, nothing more. 

[View619]

Rangers fulfill the role of adept wilderness fighter with animal companion just fine. They have high accuracy on the level of a Rogue with much better survivability and bonuses in the form of a link with another unit. If you want a range-focused, melee-focused or hybrid then you can make any with the use of talents. If you want less of a hybrid class and more of a straight damage dealer then pick a Rogue, since fantasy rangers (even Drizzt) have always been hybrids.

 

They may not be the best melee or ranged class, but they are unique and viable. I'm pretty sure that was the idea during class creation.

Edited May 7, 2015 by View619

[Blovski]

This thread is just a repeat of 2 current threads so I wont say much more.

 

Typically rangers were dual wield at least in D&D. But even in LoTR the ranger is a master at the sword.

 

Or just look up say Robert's Rangers. That is what all current military rangers are based on and they are from around like 1750. And themselves were made to take best parts from the Native American fighting style. Rangers being rangers would hit and run, counter attacks, use their favored environment as a weapon. And were just as deadly in melee as in range. But PoE most of all their abilities and passives only have to do with Range. Classes need flexibility to allow the player to decide and have equal fun at playing range or melee.

 

Take the wizard you can play either path. Ranger you can play melee but he plays much like a fighter auto attacking just with no real passives that help.

 

Rangers have the exact opposite problem of Barbarians. Since mostly all Barbarian abilities are melee only. Having melee or ranged is not a cRPG. Those choices have to be left up to the player to decide. Classes should have abilites to go down either path. Maybe going down one path cancels the other one out.

 

D7D and the IE Games you were limited in classes. You could have Ranged Fighter and a melee thief. For the most part PoE has class flexibility. But ranger and barbarian do fall short.

 

No one complains the Barbarian cant go ranged in PoE because he is so much of a DPS machine. But that doesn't mean that class is balanced or flexible.

 

nuff said here can't have repeat of 2 threads here.

There is a certain amount of circular logic here and the obsession over 'flexibility' as a matter of ranged vs. melee is completely in the way of practically balancing the class as is. Currently, the real choices for rangers are between a personal focus on ranged combat or on having a stronger animal companion or something in between.

 

The ranger has a load of excellent and meaningfully specialising talents and choices on the ranged combat side (Swift Aim vs Vicious Aim, stunning shots or not, guns or bows) but the Animal Companion talents don't really stack up a lot of the time, simply because the AC's survivability doesn't really enable them to and because, put together, they don't add up to a specialised Animal Companion, rather a slightly tougher generic one. In a game where specialists are more important than all-rounders, this is the balance issue that actually needs fixing, not just letting Rangers do the exact same thing they do now but with clubs.

 

I'd love to see the AC feats provide substantial benefits based on what the Animal Companion chosen is, though I accept that might not be easy to do. Lions gaining a better/more frequent roar, Bears getting a bit tougher, Antelope secondary defences shooting up, etc. would all result in a real increase in flexibility in a Ranger build.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Blovski

[JONNIN]

Everytime i come onto to forum people are talking about how bad these two classes are and that they need work and even more complaining about wizards getting all this attention in the new 1.05 patch.

 

I was just wondering if anyone knew what the devs plans were for these two classes?

are they currently being worked on at the moment and not just ready?

 

Paladin is *excellent* for its intended purpose.  It is a tank.  It can heal, "resurrect",  buff the party with auras, and be virtually immortal.  It is not a high damage class and expert players are able to make the higher damage classes tough enough, making the class less desirable amongst the more hard core players.   Folks that just want to play the darn game once, casually, might love to have such a durable character that can bring the priest or mage back up mid fight.   I have had one in several parties and there is not a thing wrong with it.

 

Ranger has a major flaw in that  loss of the pet has too big an impact on its performance.   If that were fixed the class would be fine.  Even with this flaw, it does strong dps from a distance, which has a lot of merits.  Its not a bad class, it just has a flaw.  

 

Honestly, worst class award for me goes to the wizard.  Small subset of spells in each book makes knowing a bunch of spells moot, and having to rest to recover them stinks,  it lacks endurance, it lacks accuracy (making many spells easy to resist), and it lacks for punishing damage dealing magic; you are usually better off to just use debuffing spells to enable melee attacks because magic damage is too low.

[Crucis]

 

Everytime i come onto to forum people are talking about how bad these two classes are and that they need work and even more complaining about wizards getting all this attention in the new 1.05 patch.

 

I was just wondering if anyone knew what the devs plans were for these two classes?

are they currently being worked on at the moment and not just ready?

 

Paladin is *excellent* for its intended purpose.  It is a tank.  It can heal, "resurrect",  buff the party with auras, and be virtually immortal.  It is not a high damage class and expert players are able to make the higher damage classes tough enough, making the class less desirable amongst the more hard core players.   Folks that just want to play the darn game once, casually, might love to have such a durable character that can bring the priest or mage back up mid fight.   I have had one in several parties and there is not a thing wrong with it.

 

Ranger has a major flaw in that  loss of the pet has too big an impact on its performance.   If that were fixed the class would be fine.  Even with this flaw, it does strong dps from a distance, which has a lot of merits.  Its not a bad class, it just has a flaw.  

 

Honestly, worst class award for me goes to the wizard.  Small subset of spells in each book makes knowing a bunch of spells moot, and having to rest to recover them stinks,  it lacks endurance, it lacks accuracy (making many spells easy to resist), and it lacks for punishing damage dealing magic; you are usually better off to just use debuffing spells to enable melee attacks because magic damage is too low.

 

 

Paladins:  I don't see them as "excellent" as is.  They may be decent at what they do, but in all honesty, I think that the real flaw with them is the concept of paladin as "DnD Warlord".  I'd rather paladins be more of a Holy Warrior class where their abilities focused entirely on making them more capable combatants, not in making allies better.

 

Rangers: Agree.  If that death of the AC penalty was removed or severely reduced, it'd be a great improvement.

 

Wizards:  Oh, boo-hoo.  Wizards have to rest to get their spells back, and they have to be a little more circumspect about using the spells they do have, rather than being able to dump their entire bunch of spells each and every engagement.  Boo-frickin'-hoo.

 

 

 

[JONNIN]

 

 

Everytime i come onto to forum people are talking about how bad these two classes are and that they need work and even more complaining about wizards getting all this attention in the new 1.05 patch.

 

I was just wondering if anyone knew what the devs plans were for these two classes?

are they currently being worked on at the moment and not just ready?

 

Paladin is *excellent* for its intended purpose.  It is a tank.  It can heal, "resurrect",  buff the party with auras, and be virtually immortal.  It is not a high damage class and expert players are able to make the higher damage classes tough enough, making the class less desirable amongst the more hard core players.   Folks that just want to play the darn game once, casually, might love to have such a durable character that can bring the priest or mage back up mid fight.   I have had one in several parties and there is not a thing wrong with it.

 

Ranger has a major flaw in that  loss of the pet has too big an impact on its performance.   If that were fixed the class would be fine.  Even with this flaw, it does strong dps from a distance, which has a lot of merits.  Its not a bad class, it just has a flaw.  

 

Honestly, worst class award for me goes to the wizard.  Small subset of spells in each book makes knowing a bunch of spells moot, and having to rest to recover them stinks,  it lacks endurance, it lacks accuracy (making many spells easy to resist), and it lacks for punishing damage dealing magic; you are usually better off to just use debuffing spells to enable melee attacks because magic damage is too low.

 

 

Paladins:  I don't see them as "excellent" as is.  They may be decent at what they do, but in all honesty, I think that the real flaw with them is the concept of paladin as "DnD Warlord".  I'd rather paladins be more of a Holy Warrior class where their abilities focused entirely on making them more capable combatants, not in making allies better.

 

Rangers: Agree.  If that death of the AC penalty was removed or severely reduced, it'd be a great improvement.

 

Wizards:  Oh, boo-hoo.  Wizards have to rest to get their spells back, and they have to be a little more circumspect about using the spells they do have, rather than being able to dump their entire bunch of spells each and every engagement.  Boo-frickin'-hoo.

 

 

Paladins, again, are excellent at staying alive and providing a secondary healing capability.   One can argue how much that is needed, but that is what they are very good at doing.   I would say it is perfect for the guy that just plays the game thru one time on normal and then moves on.  

 

Wizards: its the package deal.   Any one of these issues is indeed a lame thing to whine about, but the total package is weak.  It has no redeeming qualities compared to the cipher until very late game, and then only on 2 or 3 endgame boss fights where you do indeed drop all the spells (from a tailored set for that boss) in the one fight.   If it could use any spell known but only a few per rest, that would make it more of a useful choice vs a cipher.  As it stands, though, the cipher is simply more useful -- I can clear 2 maps without a rest with a cipher.  The wizard lasts about 1/3 as many fights, assuming that I cast 1-2 spells per fight regardless of which caster is in the group.   The resting aggravation could be changed and that would be fine -- instead of having to have these mysterious consumed items (what are they, disposable tents??)  make it 1 rest per 24 hour period, but do it anywhere you like as much as you like.   Trucking back to town because you used your tent up for the wizard is just a timewasting mechanic of extreme annoyance.

[Blovski]

 

 

 

Everytime i come onto to forum people are talking about how bad these two classes are and that they need work and even more complaining about wizards getting all this attention in the new 1.05 patch.

 

I was just wondering if anyone knew what the devs plans were for these two classes?

are they currently being worked on at the moment and not just ready?

 

Paladin is *excellent* for its intended purpose.  It is a tank.  It can heal, "resurrect",  buff the party with auras, and be virtually immortal.  It is not a high damage class and expert players are able to make the higher damage classes tough enough, making the class less desirable amongst the more hard core players.   Folks that just want to play the darn game once, casually, might love to have such a durable character that can bring the priest or mage back up mid fight.   I have had one in several parties and there is not a thing wrong with it.

 

Ranger has a major flaw in that  loss of the pet has too big an impact on its performance.   If that were fixed the class would be fine.  Even with this flaw, it does strong dps from a distance, which has a lot of merits.  Its not a bad class, it just has a flaw.  

 

Honestly, worst class award for me goes to the wizard.  Small subset of spells in each book makes knowing a bunch of spells moot, and having to rest to recover them stinks,  it lacks endurance, it lacks accuracy (making many spells easy to resist), and it lacks for punishing damage dealing magic; you are usually better off to just use debuffing spells to enable melee attacks because magic damage is too low.

 

 

Paladins:  I don't see them as "excellent" as is.  They may be decent at what they do, but in all honesty, I think that the real flaw with them is the concept of paladin as "DnD Warlord".  I'd rather paladins be more of a Holy Warrior class where their abilities focused entirely on making them more capable combatants, not in making allies better.

 

Rangers: Agree.  If that death of the AC penalty was removed or severely reduced, it'd be a great improvement.

 

Wizards:  Oh, boo-hoo.  Wizards have to rest to get their spells back, and they have to be a little more circumspect about using the spells they do have, rather than being able to dump their entire bunch of spells each and every engagement.  Boo-frickin'-hoo.

 

 

Paladins, again, are excellent at staying alive and providing a secondary healing capability.   One can argue how much that is needed, but that is what they are very good at doing.   I would say it is perfect for the guy that just plays the game thru one time on normal and then moves on.  

 

Wizards: its the package deal.   Any one of these issues is indeed a lame thing to whine about, but the total package is weak.  It has no redeeming qualities compared to the cipher until very late game, and then only on 2 or 3 endgame boss fights where you do indeed drop all the spells (from a tailored set for that boss) in the one fight.   If it could use any spell known but only a few per rest, that would make it more of a useful choice vs a cipher.  As it stands, though, the cipher is simply more useful -- I can clear 2 maps without a rest with a cipher.  The wizard lasts about 1/3 as many fights, assuming that I cast 1-2 spells per fight regardless of which caster is in the group.   The resting aggravation could be changed and that would be fine -- instead of having to have these mysterious consumed items (what are they, disposable tents??)  make it 1 rest per 24 hour period, but do it anywhere you like as much as you like.   Trucking back to town because you used your tent up for the wizard is just a timewasting mechanic of extreme annoyance.

 

Wizards... eh I disagree. Wizard spells are a bit more versatile than cipher spells (Eldritch Aim, Chill Fog, Fan of Flames etc.), tend to target a wider range of defences, are less contingent on having well-positioned allies to stick them on and with the 1.05 change, Ciphers are no longer just going to be able to drop all the bombs at the start of the fight, and if you're rolling on POTD, you're going to have to rest when your frontliners run out of health anyway, at least for the early game, if you're taking challenging fights.

 

I mean, Ciphers are glorious and are going to continue to be so but Wizards are really good. The spell rationing may not sit well with some but I think that's a playstyle thing rather than a problem with the class. 

Edited May 7, 2015 by Blovski

[b0rsuk]

Luzarius, I'm afraid Marked Prey is working as intended in 1.05. Which means it adds a +20% damage lash instead of +40% damage lash. Yes, it's instant now, but damage went down.

[Crucis]

 

 

 

Everytime i come onto to forum people are talking about how bad these two classes are and that they need work and even more complaining about wizards getting all this attention in the new 1.05 patch.

 

I was just wondering if anyone knew what the devs plans were for these two classes?

are they currently being worked on at the moment and not just ready?

 

Paladin is *excellent* for its intended purpose.  It is a tank.  It can heal, "resurrect",  buff the party with auras, and be virtually immortal.  It is not a high damage class and expert players are able to make the higher damage classes tough enough, making the class less desirable amongst the more hard core players.   Folks that just want to play the darn game once, casually, might love to have such a durable character that can bring the priest or mage back up mid fight.   I have had one in several parties and there is not a thing wrong with it.

 

Ranger has a major flaw in that  loss of the pet has too big an impact on its performance.   If that were fixed the class would be fine.  Even with this flaw, it does strong dps from a distance, which has a lot of merits.  Its not a bad class, it just has a flaw.  

 

Honestly, worst class award for me goes to the wizard.  Small subset of spells in each book makes knowing a bunch of spells moot, and having to rest to recover them stinks,  it lacks endurance, it lacks accuracy (making many spells easy to resist), and it lacks for punishing damage dealing magic; you are usually better off to just use debuffing spells to enable melee attacks because magic damage is too low.

 

 

Paladins:  I don't see them as "excellent" as is.  They may be decent at what they do, but in all honesty, I think that the real flaw with them is the concept of paladin as "DnD Warlord".  I'd rather paladins be more of a Holy Warrior class where their abilities focused entirely on making them more capable combatants, not in making allies better.

 

Rangers: Agree.  If that death of the AC penalty was removed or severely reduced, it'd be a great improvement.

 

Wizards:  Oh, boo-hoo.  Wizards have to rest to get their spells back, and they have to be a little more circumspect about using the spells they do have, rather than being able to dump their entire bunch of spells each and every engagement.  Boo-frickin'-hoo.

 

 

Paladins, again, are excellent at staying alive and providing a secondary healing capability.   One can argue how much that is needed, but that is what they are very good at doing.   I would say it is perfect for the guy that just plays the game thru one time on normal and then moves on.  

 

Wizards: its the package deal.   Any one of these issues is indeed a lame thing to whine about, but the total package is weak.  It has no redeeming qualities compared to the cipher until very late game, and then only on 2 or 3 endgame boss fights where you do indeed drop all the spells (from a tailored set for that boss) in the one fight.   If it could use any spell known but only a few per rest, that would make it more of a useful choice vs a cipher.  As it stands, though, the cipher is simply more useful -- I can clear 2 maps without a rest with a cipher.  The wizard lasts about 1/3 as many fights, assuming that I cast 1-2 spells per fight regardless of which caster is in the group.   The resting aggravation could be changed and that would be fine -- instead of having to have these mysterious consumed items (what are they, disposable tents??)  make it 1 rest per 24 hour period, but do it anywhere you like as much as you like.   Trucking back to town because you used your tent up for the wizard is just a timewasting mechanic of extreme annoyance.

 

 

Wizards:  I'd say that the thing about wizards is learning how to use your spells in a measured way.  Don't simply cast spell after spell after spell every battle because you will go through your available spells rather quickly.  Learn the value of using your wand, etc. while biding your time for when another spell casting seems necessary.   Heck, there are many battles where a wizard doesn't necessarily need to cast a single spell.  I'm content to win low grade battles without having Aloth cast a single spell.  It extends the time I can go between pit stops ... I mean, rests.

 

 

The problem is that some people just cannot get past the idea that they want and need to cast spells as much as THEY want to cast spells, and if they can't cast them as fast as THEY want to do it, there's something wrong with the game, rather than there being something wrong with how they're playing the game.

 

 

[Crucis]

Wizards... eh I disagree. Wizard spells are a bit more versatile than cipher spells (Eldritch Aim, Chill Fog, Fan of Flames etc.), tend to target a wider range of defences, are less contingent on having well-positioned allies to stick them on and with the 1.05 change, Ciphers are no longer just going to be able to drop all the bombs at the start of the fight, and if you're rolling on POTD, you're going to have to rest when your frontliners run out of health anyway, at least for the early game, if you're taking challenging fights.

 

I mean, Ciphers are glorious and are going to continue to be so but Wizards are really good. The spell rationing may not sit well with some but I think that's a playstyle thing rather than a problem with the class.

 

 

I entirely agree with you, Blovski.  Wizards do seem more versatile, and can pump out more spells in a shorter period of time than Ciphers.  Ciphers can dump out a number of "spells" in a short time, but once they expend their Focus pool, it's going to be a while before they can pump it back up.  And if you drop a big level 6 cipher spell on the enemy, that's going to suck the Focus right out of your cipher in a hurry.

 

OTOH, the Wizard might have a supply of 20-25 spells in his grimoire that he can use without much limit until you've used them all up.  Oh sure, once they're used up, it's time for a rest.  But until then, that's a pretty ample supply of spells to work with.