So, is it agreed? Rangers are the only class clearly needing a buff?

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

 

It always pissed me off how the rogue would basically ring-fence a bunch (if not all) the essential non-combat adventuring skills and sit there picking it's snotty little nose saying "But its MY niche!!!!  WAAH WAHH!!"  Stealth should be a skill considered essential for all adventurers, sure you may have people even better skilled at it, but when infiltrating ruins you can't afford someone who can't pull their weight in such an essential area.  Even Conan the Barbarian film (the original Arnie one) had him (and the entire party) sneaking about and ninj-ing people, and the Rob E Howard books he does it even more. 

 

Everyone is happy to acknowledge that every class should have some degree of combat capability as essential adventuring skill, why not other skills too?  Why can't I have a mage engineer who can go invisible and pick a lock while the rest of the party fights?  Why can't the warriors sneak in and back up the rogue in case things go **** up or to get into position for an ambush?  I believe the reason why people think combat is essential for all but not things the rogue hoards like a self-centred prick is because tabletop RPGs started off as pretty much wargaming through a sequence of rooms where the monsters in the next room sit picking their noses waiting for their turn.  In many systems the rogue class should be smashed into the ground, grinded up as he squeals and his stuff divided amongst the rest of the party, and I say this as someone who is currently playing a rogue in Pillars, but then the rogues there are not defined by denying other classes things.

 

A.  I have no problem with anyone using stealth.  To me, stealth is an exceptionally generic skill. THAT SAID, I don't like how in PoE, the armor you were has no effect on your ability to use stealth effectively.  To me, it's utterly ridiculous that characters with equal amounts of stealth skill should be equally stealth when wearing plate as opposed to wearing no armor at all.  It seems to me that trying to be stealthy while wearing plate armor is tantamount to be trying to be stealthy while dragging along a bunch of empty cans like those that get strung behind a just married couple's car.  Clunkity-clunkity-clunk!!!!  It just shouldn't be possible, or not at least without a massive penalty.  For that matter, DEX should probably also modify one's Stealth.  After all, a graceful, light-footed character is more likely to be a skillfully stealthy person than a heavy-footed, clumsy character.

 

B. It also seems to me that Mechanics skill ought to be modified by DEX when trying to disarm traps and open locks (it's kind of hard to do those things when you're a fat-fingered, clumsy sort of person), and the Searching functions should probably be modified by Perception (obvious reasons). 

 

 

Of course, having attribute based skill modifiers would probably necessitate rebalancing things, so it likely won't happen.  But the advantage of having such modifiers is that it would cause the characters who were meant to be seriously capable in certain skills to be built along certain lines.  Extremely stealthy characters would be fairly dextrous.  Good traps, locks, and hidden searchers would be dextrous and perceptive.  Those were true Lore masters would probably be rather intelligent.  Athletes would probably have some combination of good Might, Con, and Dex scores.  And Survival?  Not sure.  Perhaps INT, or maybe CON.  Yes, maybe CON.  I say CON, only because the most functional usage of the Survival skill is in extending potion/food durations, rather than things like tracking or knowledge of the wilderness, which could seem more INT based.  CON doesn't have much value, so this would be one way to give it "some" value, even if it's still not much.

 

 

As for your "wah! it's my niche" rant, well I could say the same thing about Fighters.  Why are fighters hogging all the skill in weapons, i.e. weapon specialization and weapon mastery?  Hmmm?  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

A.  While wearing any armour will make stealth harder, plate armour is nowhere near as noisy as you make out.  On the contrary, you know all the clanking you hear in films and TV from people wearing plate?  Added in by special effects, because they find that people are so attached to the idea of noisy plate that they won't accept it unless they add in the noises.  Stealthing in plate is possible, ambushes in plate was done all the time, and actually it's leather armour that makes a lot of noise, it squeaks.

 

B.  It might seem like that to you, but it's more modified by quick thinking and understanding.  Pillars deliberately avoids basing skills on attributes because in real life your skill at something is modified by a collection of different attributes.  Being dextrous is by no means a guarantee that you will be good at being stealthy and being someone who is patient, observant, methodical, and knowing what they are doing is more effective than being nimble at stealth.  Pillars deliberately did not want to force people into specific builds to use certain skills, because there is always a different way of justifying it.

 

And as for the 'fighters hogging al the skill in weapons", ahem no they don't and thanks for proving me right!  Fighters may specialise in combat but if you read my post you'd have realised that I stated that all classes are traditionally expected to be able to fight to some degree: rogues can still usually wield weapons and even have special backstab and sneak attack skills, wizards can blow stuff up and fall back to knives when necessary, etc.  If you had a system where only the Fighters could fight, you'd complain right?   So why not the same for other skills?  There are many systems where the rogue is the only one who can do these essential skills, but name a system where only the fighters can fight?

 

EDIT: In fact, this brings me to another point: you say fighters hog all the combat skills but they don't.  Not only do rogues get combat skills but if I don't want to bring a fighter along there is usually other options, I could take a Barbarian or Paladin for instance.  If I don't want a mage I can take a sorcerer.  But very rarely do you get an alternative to the rogue: in NWN 2 for instance I realised that I needed to have at least one character with a level in rogue in order to detect the traps, due to the Detect Traps talent only rogues got. 

 

 

In all honesty, Flint, I disagree with just about everything you say above right down the line.

 

I will say that perhaps PoE made a decision to go a certain direction, but frankly I think that that direction was wrong.  I think that certain mixes of attributes SHOULD impact skill effectiveness.  I think that doing otherwise is silly and nothing more than trying to ram square pegs into round holes with a warhammer.

 

I didn't say that fighters hog all the combat skills.  Read more carefully please.  I said that they hog the WEAPONS skills.  They're not the same thing.  I'm not talking about those fighter abilities like knockdown or stances, etc.  Just weapons skills.  And while I wouldn't be horribly bothered if non warrior classes couldn't reach higher levels of skill in weapons, it bugs me that classes like paladin, rangers, and barbarians can't gain higher levels of skill in weapons.  Why shouldn't a paladin be just as skilled with a greatsword as a fighter?  Why is it that a Ranger can't have mastery in ranged weapons when they've been constructed to be such supposedly highly skilled ranged combatants?  And, OK, maybe barbarians might not be quite as highly skilled as more highly trained fighters.  OTOH, couldn't they at least gain "specialization" in their weapons?  (Darn, I hate that term "specialization".  Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization sound so utterly dorky.  Weapon Mastery is fine.  But couldn't they have come up with less dorky terms for the first and second level of weapons group skill?  Jeez.)

 

You are free to disagree with me just as I am free to think everything you say is wrong and based on preconceptions.  Think we have both made our points and there is nothing else to say, other than I'm glad Pillars did not go in the direction you wanted.

 

And your issue with fighters is irrelevant to the point I was making then.  Non-fighters can still be good with weapons, they can still fight in most systems, they have applicable abilities to use in fights, but unless you are a rogue you get cut out of evening attempting certain basic adventuring things in many systems.  Want to disarm traps in AD&D 2nd ed as a fighter?  Nope, sorry you can't, and if you wanted to do it in D&D 3rd ed you better have taken a level of rogue at least.  Want to fight as a rogue in either of those editions?  That's fine!  Just grab your shortsword and dive in.  Sure a fighter gets certain weapon skills you can't but you get a nice sneak attack skill! 

[Certus]

As for priests, exactly why do you have a priest wearing nothing more than a robe? Sure, you can do that, but I certainly wouldn't. I guess that I'm stuck in the cliche of the DnD battle cleric who wears fairly heavy armor, and while he may not be a true 110% front liner, he's not unwilling or incapable of helping to hold the line if necessary. Maybe I'm not getting the most of our priest spellcasting by playing this way, but it's the way I'm used to running clerics .... er, priests. So I stick with it. Then again, I'm not one of these all or nothing min-maxers who believes that the front liners should never be in anything less than full plate and everyone else should never wear anything but regular clothes. I try to put characters in what I think they'd want to be wearing if they were thinking rationally. But that's just me.

I guess I can't really find a role that suits me for them. If they are buffing they need to get the buffs out fast, they are slow as it is as the main battle (mage/priest killing) is usually done by then, and it is usually a case of mopping up the stragglers, melee. Some of their seals are pretty good but their only awesome spell, withdraw, needs to be cast ASAP. Too late due to armour lag is really too late. I guess that doesn't suit my play style. I'm not going to tank them, interrupts are a pain when you rely on them on front lines. So what is their role exactly? Tank? no. Off tank? Preferably not for reasons outlined above. Squishy johnny come lately, prolly pretty good in that role.

 

Look I know a lot of people have success with them and I'm glad for it. I personally would happily swap a squishy priest for a squishy offensive caster any day however. Ironman is really where priests would shine I think.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Certus

[MunoValente]

I think you have to be careful to choose the right skills with a ranger. If you do that, they can be pretty powerful. No complaints here.

 

The main thing is to avoid the animal skills, most of them are bad, the only one I like is takedown, although I haven't tried master's call much, it might be ok, although stunning shots at 11 is likely much better.  The ones that just boost pet damage are all weak though.  The ones that boost the ranger like swift/vicious aim, marked prey, wounding shot, driving flight, stunning shot are all pretty good.  The problem is that the animal skills take up a lot of your options, so the class probably isn't as flexible as it could be.

[Uni]

The main thing is to avoid the animal skills, most of them are bad, the only one I like is takedown, although I haven't tried master's call much, it might be ok, although stunning shots at 11 is likely much better.  The ones that just boost pet damage are all weak though.  The ones that boost the ranger like swift/vicious aim, marked prey, wounding shot, driving flight, stunning shot are all pretty good.  The problem is that the animal skills take up a lot of your options, so the class probably isn't as flexible as it could be.

 

The damage reduction one is also worth a point. A bear with that is by no means as sturdy as full tank fighter, but will hold enemies quite well considering it as almost a free add on for already reasonable ranged dps class.

[Silent Winter]

EDIT: In fact, this brings me to another point: you say fighters hog all the combat skills but they don't.  Not only do rogues get combat skills but if I don't want to bring a fighter along there is usually other options, I could take a Barbarian or Paladin for instance.  If I don't want a mage I can take a sorcerer.  But very rarely do you get an alternative to the rogue: in NWN 2 for instance I realised that I needed to have at least one character with a level in rogue in order to detect the traps, due to the Detect Traps talent only rogues got. 

 

Well, mages/sorcerors had 'Find traps' (disables all traps in range too) and 'knock' (opens all pickable locks in range).

Sorcerors didn't even need to prep them beforehand.

I always ditched the rogue companion in the OC because I was forced to take other companions.

 

On topic - playing a ranger now - so far so good.

Took Sagani in a previous playthrough too - she was great.

[tinysalamander]

The damage reduction one is also worth a point. A bear with that is by no means as sturdy as full tank fighter, but will hold enemies quite well considering it as almost a free add on for already reasonable ranged dps class.

 

Isn't that the one which adds… 3(!) DR? Doesn't matter much at level 12.

[luzarius]

I've been reading through the class wars on reddit/obsidan.net/gamefaqs and such, and I've seen all kinds of wonky but effective builds for just about any class a person might be struggling with, but I'm not seeing any love for rangers. Personally I heard the wolf companion tears things apart, but that was not my experience, and I'm still playing on normal difficulty.

 

You my friend are in luck.

 

Ranger is one of the best classes especially for POTD on Trial of Iron.

 

here is a link to the build with lots of screenshots - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78315-ranger-build-path-of-the-damned-trial-of-iron-81-dmg-crit-at-level-4/

 

[taek]

What direction would you buff them? I don't think they should outdamage Rogues or Barbs or other melee DPS builds. I don't think they should even be even given these other classes have to risk damage and KO to be in melee range.

 

I don't think pets should out-tank tank classes.

 

 

In RPGs, pets + ranged are usually the safest ways to deal damage and in a balanced system deal the least damage.  

 

IMO the reward needs to match the risk, and a pet+ranged damage dealer is on the far end of the low risk spectrum.

Edited June 10, 2015 by taek

[Nexus0]

Ranger is one of the best classes especially for POTD on Trial of Iron.

 

 

Yeah, just got The WItcher 3, and eight gigs of ram. Maybe when I get back to POE i'll give that a go.

[Tennisgolfboll]

This has nothing to do with balance exactly, but the reason I hate rangers is the pet. I do not want to micromanage two chars for the price of one. An option to exhange your pet for something else at char creation would be great.

I like this idea

 

Or allow the pet to be sacrificed in the blood pool for a massive boost.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Tennisgolfboll

[Crucis]

 

As for priests, exactly why do you have a priest wearing nothing more than a robe? Sure, you can do that, but I certainly wouldn't. I guess that I'm stuck in the cliche of the DnD battle cleric who wears fairly heavy armor, and while he may not be a true 110% front liner, he's not unwilling or incapable of helping to hold the line if necessary. Maybe I'm not getting the most of our priest spellcasting by playing this way, but it's the way I'm used to running clerics .... er, priests. So I stick with it. Then again, I'm not one of these all or nothing min-maxers who believes that the front liners should never be in anything less than full plate and everyone else should never wear anything but regular clothes. I try to put characters in what I think they'd want to be wearing if they were thinking rationally. But that's just me.

I guess I can't really find a role that suits me for them. If they are buffing they need to get the buffs out fast, they are slow as it is as the main battle (mage/priest killing) is usually done by then, and it is usually a case of mopping up the stragglers, melee. Some of their seals are pretty good but their only awesome spell, withdraw, needs to be cast ASAP. Too late due to armour lag is really too late. I guess that doesn't suit my play style. I'm not going to tank them, interrupts are a pain when you rely on them on front lines. So what is their role exactly? Tank? no. Off tank? Preferably not for reasons outlined above. Squishy johnny come lately, prolly pretty good in that role.

 

Look I know a lot of people have success with them and I'm glad for it. I personally would happily swap a squishy priest for a squishy offensive caster any day however. Ironman is really where priests would shine I think.

 

 

What's the role of a cleric .... errr .... priest?  Support, medic, jack of all trades.  Are they as strong as a real offensive caster?  No.  But who do you turn to if you need a quick healing spell, or a resurrection (or whatever it's called that revives an unconscious character) spell?  Not the wizard, that's for sure. 

 

So while one doesn't strictly NEED a priest in a party, IMHO, a well rounded party definitely should have one.

[Nakia]

I am currently playing a Priest of Berath.  I gave her "Pallid Hand", The Great Sword Justice, the Sun Touched Mail Armour and she is doing quite well as a Battle Priest supporting Eder.  I do have a ranged weapon in the second weapon slot although Mace would be the other bonus weapon with Pallid Hand.  I have no problem RPing a medieval battle priest plus PoE priests are not pacifies t Christians.

 

Durance is currently playing a support role and also has mail armour but is mainly ranged.  Sagani surprised me by having the most crits.  Rangers are great, love them.

[tinysalamander]

What direction would you buff them?

 

More things to do, not necessary more damage.

 

I've got some ideas back in April, not all of them actually increase things you can actively do, though %) https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78570-animal-companion-should-be-a-series-of-talents-not-a-class-feedback-on-the-ranger/page-2?do=findComment&comment=1676769

[evilcat]

I played with Sagani with warbow in my party and it was fun. Hard to fully evaluate Rangers since cant check pet dps (maybe it is greater than rogue, but we just cant see that), also without AI greatest impact have companion you pay most attencion to (Not one staying around doing nothing). However the fun part:

- Penetrating shot brings dmg to interesting level

- Warbow from the Twelve is great

- Pet knock out and Ranger stuns gives extra layer

 

Problems:

- Wizards/Cipher/Druid brings more to party

- Pet dies more than other party member, using Paladin lays and resurent for keeping AC rolling does not feels right.

 

There is also path with Quick Aim and Soldier ranged, probably should be more dps, but adventurer kit suit better to Sagani from RP reasons.

Firearms have more synerg with wounding shot.

 

Things i wish:

Talent: Sturdy Companion which will kick up Pet defenses even more if we wish so and just want it to stop dying.

Talent: Herbal Balm, which heals over time both Ranger and Pet at the same time (only these two) so there will be less dead pets.

Talent/ability: Apex Predator,  Each Animal COmpanion attack recovers part of dmg done.

Talent/ability: Annoying Pest: Animal Companion attacks distrupt target lowering his Accuracy and Concentracion.

Talent/ability: Natural recover, pet heals over time as fighters do.

Ability to resurect your pet in combat to full health (Paladins can do that). Basicly i was using Paladin healing mostly for ranger pet, so just giving it to ranger would mae it easier while not making class more significant or ourshinning. Just ease of use.

Wurm animal companion for double ranged fun. Dracarys! (it could be balanced by lower attack values than melee pets)

More tricks for AC. LIke "For the Eyes (Boo)" blinding the target. Or Savage attack (temporary boosting pet attack speed and dmg).

More good bows. DR penetracion, crit shot or DoT is the way to go. ;-)

More crit stuff to use that Acuraccy bonus.

Edited August 11, 2015 by evilcat

[wanderon]

I'm playing a ranger/bear atm and while the pet does die fairly often it doesn't lose any health for dying and since I'm mostly doing ranged attacks the penalties for pet dying aren't generally a factor in completing the battle - just sort of annoying. But then I don't calculate this stuff out so it could be I'm really getting screwed and I am just oblivious to it. 

[DragonKingReborn]

It's strange, I remember reading after I'd started my first (as yet, incomplete) playthrough about how weak rangers were and thinking I might need to start over, but for me, in the early levels in particular, having that ever loyal bear around as an extra body and generating aggro and dealing damage was the only thing that saved me.  More than once the bear was the only 'companion' left standing in an encounter.

 

I love the ranger...but would never say no to a buff!

[Katarack21]

 Or maybe some sort of "nature's berzerker" ability that enhances the ranger's melee accuracy, melee damage, and attack speed for perhaps 20-30 seconds, maybe once per rest.

 

HEART OF THE BADGER, MOTHER****ERS! *rage out*

[Kilburn]

I found ranger to be pretty boring and lacking in build diversity.

 

A dual wielding specialty line of abilities would make the class more interesting.Or allow their ranged abilities to also be used in melee. 

 

Right now he is just "guy with a bow" kind of a thing, and you cant really deviate at all from that.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Kilburn

[evilcat]

Right now he is just "guy with a bow" kind of a thing, and you cant really deviate at all from that.

But... it is all we ever asked. (

This dual wield stuff sounds dndish.

 

Having "guy with a bow" is ok, since some players just like to pew pew. And pet is a tool to body block/cc badies from your squishy.

There are other classes and many of them could be dual wielding in various flavors up to personal taste.

 

Also the guy with the bow itself opens several build options:

- You concentrate on tanking with pet or dps pet or minimal pet

- Yo concentrate on CC with either pet or own bow

- You concentrate on steady dps or single target burst

- More single target or more aoe

 

So there are options, and there are already abilities/talents allowing to go for it.

However there could be more, and some important are missing (one connected with healing animal companion since that things takes a lot dmg).

 

If someone MUST play ranger 2wf can always pick 2wf talents (there is not as many of them) and pick pet based/utylity abilities. Start combat with pistol wouding shot and switch to dual sabre/stilletto with Hunter Mark.

Edited August 11, 2015 by evilcat

[Kilburn]

 

Right now he is just "guy with a bow" kind of a thing, and you cant really deviate at all from that.

But... it is all we ever asked. (

This dual wield stuff sounds dndish.

 

Having "guy with a bow" is ok, since some players just like to pew pew. And pet is a tool to body block/cc badies from your squishy.

There are other classes and many of them could be dual wielding in various flavors up to personal taste.

 

Also the guy with the bow itself opens several build options:

- You concentrate on tanking with pet or dps pet or minimal pet

- Yo concentrate on CC with either pet or own bow

- You concentrate on steady dps or single target burst

- More single target or more aoe

 

So there are options, and there are already abilities/talents allowing to go for it.

However there could be more, and some important are missing (one connected with healing animal companion since that things takes a lot dmg).

 

If someone MUST play ranger 2wf can always pick 2wf talents (there is not as many of them) and pick pet based/utylity abilities. Start combat with pistol wouding shot and switch to dual sabre/stilletto with Hunter Mark.

 

 

 

So? A lot of their "class flavor" shall we say is lifted from DnD anyways.

special Dual wielding abilities would be interesting and add build diversity.

 

You're happy with "select next bow ability and shoot stuff", that's ok. For me that is not thought provoking or interesting. 

 

Maybe give the ranger lesser sneak attack, allow wounding shot to be activated with a melee weapon, etc.

 

The class is boring ATM. And Drizzt is cool. I mean they already lifted "pale elves", might aswell lift ranger dual wield also.

[wanderon]

Nothing stopping the ranger from dual wielding now I went with arms bearer and currently have pistol, bow, club/ax equipped - haven't decided on a weapon focus yet - using the best available atm - open with pistol then switch to bow then enter melee as opportunities arise - you could easily go for more melee if you wish once the companion and tank are in position. 

[Kilburn]

Nothing stopping the ranger from dual wielding now I went with arms bearer and currently have pistol, bow, club/ax equipped - haven't decided on a weapon focus yet - using the best available atm - open with pistol then switch to bow then enter melee as opportunities arise - you could easily go for more melee if you wish once the companion and tank are in position. 

 

 

Nothing stopping it. Nothing cool making me want to do it either. It's just crappier generic dual wielding guy.

 

I only play on POTD, so im not sure how it is in other settings. But the animal companion doesnt do very much?

Edited August 11, 2015 by Kilburn

[wanderon]

 

Nothing stopping the ranger from dual wielding now I went with arms bearer and currently have pistol, bow, club/ax equipped - haven't decided on a weapon focus yet - using the best available atm - open with pistol then switch to bow then enter melee as opportunities arise - you could easily go for more melee if you wish once the companion and tank are in position. 

 

 

Nothing stopping it. Nothing cool making me want to do it either. It's just crappier generic dual wielding guy.

 

 

With companion and ranger perks that no other class offers

[Tuckey]

What would be more interesting than a buff would be a different way to achieve success. Something that requires different tactics.

[svartelric]

The last I played, Druid was the class that suffered the most for me in terms of incoming damage... Disclaimer: I like building my characters in a functional way, but I also like to put in some flavour, which means I don't like to min/max stats and so on; granted, that makes things a bit harder in early stages of the game, still it's just a matter of perseverance and every obstacle can be overcome.
I had a good experience with Rangers so far, especially combining them with Cyphers and Priests. I haven't tried to solo the game on any class, though, so I can't really make a class by class comparison.

Oh well, just my two cents, I guess.