List of Subclasses as we learn about them.

[Osvir]

What about an animal companion with no ranger?

Ooooh! Mounted Ranger! nvm, would be too odd and wonky looking (but fun )

 

A Beast Master sub-class would be cool too. Having more than 1 animal companion. Could require Whips as a weapon type though, to get the full theme/concept rolling.

 

EDIT: What about a Ranger sub-class that becomes the animal companion? No, not like Spiritshift, but rather, infuses their own soul into the animal companion, and their body enters a trance-like/channeling state, leaving them open to attacks? But in turn, the animal becomes stronger in every aspect/gets active abilities?

 

I'm thinking somewhat of something like "Feign Death" (Heroes of the Storm, an ability that renders Rexxar invurnable for a short period of time, and you get to control Mischa, his bear companion, for a duration of time).

Edited July 14, 2017 by Osvir

[draego]

The vanilla Ranger from BG wasn't any better at archery than any other warrior class. Really, they were just Figthers with a different XP progression, giving up weapon specialization for some tricks and spells. In BG2, they also got dual-wielding, for... some reason.

 

The problem with petless rangers is that once you take away the pet, what makes a ranger different than a fighter or rogue who likes to hang out in the wilds? They need something to set them apart, and in Pillars, it's the animal companion. We could wish they had another gimmick, but it's too late for that.

 

I could see a melee ranger subclass. It's already possible to play a ranger as melee, just a bit counter-intuitive. The game plays up their ranged capabilities, but you can pick those abilities that work with melee weapons. A dedicated subclass could work with that.

 

I love the animal companion and being a melee ranger but ye even with no pet there are lots of abilities others dont have. Wounding Shot (there is similar for others but not same), marked prey, swift aim, vicious aim, arrow sense, driving flight, binding roots, Stunning Shots, twinned arrows, powder burns. I wouldn't call these nothing or that fighter is same. I personally dont like the new ghost heart subclass because ye petless ranger misses the point but there are others to choose from so that is fine. 

Edited July 14, 2017 by draego

[DigitalCrack]

we shouldnt need a melee subclass for rangers.. melee should have a place already in the class. At its base the ranger should have been a melee/range hybrid along with having a pet and skills that play into him being a versitile combatant. Ranger should have basically been the Macgyver of PoE.

[Baltic]

we shouldnt need a melee subclass for rangers.. melee should have a place already in the class. At its base the ranger should have been a melee/range hybrid along with having a pet and skills that play into him being a versitile combatant. Ranger should have basically been the Macgyver of PoE.

I wouldn't have a problem with it but why should it be this way?

[Quillon]

 

we shouldnt need a melee subclass for rangers.. melee should have a place already in the class. At its base the ranger should have been a melee/range hybrid along with having a pet and skills that play into him being a versitile combatant. Ranger should have basically been the Macgyver of PoE.

I wouldn't have a problem with it but why should it be this way?

 

 

Cos its called ranger not archer? Tho in games its usually allowed to be melee ranger but not supported as well as ranged ranger, which sucks. Now someone will come and say "actually you can be a pretty good melee ranger in PoE or in X game" but I can be much better at melee with some other class and/or have easier time with it. I think devs should either go with ranged ranger or real hybrid, not a ranged ranger with half-as* melee viability("which you can make great if you know what you are doing!" - I know I know).

 

ed: So a melee oriented ranger subclass with all the abilities revised for melee would be most welcome.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Quillon

[Baltic]

 

 

we shouldnt need a melee subclass for rangers.. melee should have a place already in the class. At its base the ranger should have been a melee/range hybrid along with having a pet and skills that play into him being a versitile combatant. Ranger should have basically been the Macgyver of PoE.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with it but why should it be this way?

 

Cos its called ranger not archer? Tho in games its usually allowed to be melee ranger but not supported as well as ranged ranger, which sucks. Now someone will come and say "actually you can be a pretty good melee ranger in PoE or in X game" but I can be much better at melee with some other class and/or have easier time with it. I think devs should either go with ranged ranger or real hybrid, not a ranged ranger with half-as* melee viability("which you can make great if you know what you are doing!" - I know I know).

 

ed: So a melee oriented ranger subclass with all the abilities revised for melee would be most welcome.

But why can't it be a more ranged focused subclass, why does it have to be a hybrid?

[Quillon]

But why can't it be a more ranged focused subclass, why does it have to be a hybrid?

Cos there are more than 1 sublass, one of them being melee oriented would be nice, as well as another being ranged oriented.

[Baltic]

 

But why can't it be a more ranged focused subclass, why does it have to be a hybrid?

Cos there are more than 1 sublass, one of them being melee oriented would be nice, as well as another being ranged oriented.

For a subclass it wouldn't be a bad idea but DigitalCrack was talking about the base class.

[Quillon]

Well, if you are reluctant to do it in base class, better do it in a subclass.

 

Btw. what I mean with melee oriented is that many abilities are ranged weapon specific, arrow of X and hail of arrows etc especially high level abilities don't have a melee counterpart to them, there should be; if won't be able to use hail of arrows with a sword then give me flurry of blows or something as alternative.

 

Anyway, this might be a nitpick. If I won't like a class there are 10 more/and their sublasses.

[Baltic]

Why does their need to be melee alternatives? This is getting slightly off my original point which was asking why the ranger class should have been built around being a hybrid character.

[Quillon]

Why does their need to be melee alternatives? This is getting slightly off my original point which was asking why the ranger class should have been built around being a hybrid character.

Cos its called ranger not archer.

A ranger should be versatile, should be effective with many weapons including melee and ranged but game makers tend to make them mostly about ranged weapons.

[DigitalCrack]

 

Why does their need to be melee alternatives? This is getting slightly off my original point which was asking why the ranger class should have been built around being a hybrid character.

Cos its called ranger not archer.

A ranger should be versatile, should be effective with many weapons including melee and ranged but game makers tend to make them mostly about ranged weapons.

 

Ranger does not mean Archer as Quillon said.. the animal companion does more than enough to make the class unique and not just a "woodsy fighter".  Also PoE was made with the philosophy of playing classes how you want to play them except for Rangers which were DESIGNED to be ranged only.  Its only by the creativity of the community (and mercy of devs for not patching it out) that we have melee ranger builds.  A Ranger is the fantasy Macgyver, and should be capable of more than just firing ranged weapons.  Almost his entire PoE1 ability\talent list are all either ranged buffs or pet buffs... (Melee aside) No traps, snares, or natural remedy style abilities which are all things that could have been capitalized on and would fit the class.  Heck even the pet actually having some learn-able active abilities of its own would have helped make the ranger less of a passive ranged snooze fest to play...  The community melee builds are by far more interesting to play than how the class was actually intended to be played.

 

EDIT: I shouldn't have to resort to playing a subclass (or have devs waste a subclass slot) just to get access to melee, AT ALL, for the Ranger class.  No other base class got pigeon holed to melee only or ranged only.

Edited July 14, 2017 by DigitalCrack

[fiddlesticks]

The devs actually patched in Stunning Shots working  with melee weapons at some point, so they clearly liked the idea of melee-focused Ranger builds.

[Quillon]

https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/162996465861/all-classes-have-one-defining-characteristic

 

Nice

[draego]

https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/162996465861/all-classes-have-one-defining-characteristic

 

Nice

 

Ye i thought he had mentioned the stalker before and i couldnt remember where.

Edited July 15, 2017 by draego

[smjjames]

 

https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/162996465861/all-classes-have-one-defining-characteristic

 

Nice

 

Ye it though he had mentioned the stalker before and i couldnt remember where.

 

 

 

Pretty sure the stalker subclass hasn't been mentioned before. I wonder if the questioner was reading the discussion on melee ranger or no-companion ranger, or maybe Josh Sawyer was, or both.

 

Also, stalker/rogue anybody? Seems like a nice combination of a multiclass.

[DigitalCrack]

https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/162996465861/all-classes-have-one-defining-characteristic

 

Nice

Awesome! Like that the melee issue is already taken care of in a satisfying way.

[Baltic]

 

 

Why does their need to be melee alternatives? This is getting slightly off my original point which was asking why the ranger class should have been built around being a hybrid character.

 

Cos its called ranger not archer.

 

A ranger should be versatile, should be effective with many weapons including melee and ranged but game makers tend to make them mostly about ranged weapons.

Ranger does not mean Archer as Quillon said.. the animal companion does more than enough to make the class unique and not just a "woodsy fighter". Also PoE was made with the philosophy of playing classes how you want to play them except for Rangers which were DESIGNED to be ranged only. Its only by the creativity of the community (and mercy of devs for not patching it out) that we have melee ranger builds. A Ranger is the fantasy Macgyver, and should be capable of more than just firing ranged weapons. Almost his entire PoE1 ability\talent list are all either ranged buffs or pet buffs... (Melee aside) No traps, snares, or natural remedy style abilities which are all things that could have been capitalized on and would fit the class. Heck even the pet actually having some learn-able active abilities of its own would have helped make the ranger less of a passive ranged snooze fest to play... The community melee builds are by far more interesting to play than how the class was actually intended to be played.

 

EDIT: I shouldn't have to resort to playing a subclass (or have devs waste a subclass slot) just to get access to melee, AT ALL, for the Ranger class. No other base class got pigeon holed to melee only or ranged only.

Why does the ranger have to be a fantasy Macgyver in Pillars of Eternity? You can easily play it melee in the first game. None of the abilities explicitly call it out but neither the barbarian or monk classes are focused on being ranged. Why can't the ranger be the opposite?

 

 

https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/162996465861/all-classes-have-one-defining-characteristic

 

Nice

 

 

Ye it though he had mentioned the stalker before and i couldnt remember where.

It has been mentioned before but we only knew its name. Edited July 15, 2017 by Baltic

[Boeroer]

Although the ranger can use some of his abilities in melee in PoE1 (some he can't, like Vicious Aim), the stuff that makes him stand out and makes him powerful is for bows and firearms. So he clearly is focused on being ranged.

He can be viable in melee, but it's nothing special and feels a bit generic unless you use very special build ideas ( https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/83435-class-build-riptide-the-pit-fright-dps-offtank-melee-ranger-double-team-supreme/ ).

 

So a subclass that focuses on melee as well as a subclass that has no permanent animal companion are both fine. That leaves two classes (original and another subclass) that might be focused even more on ranged combat. Don't understand why it's a bad thing if players have a wider variety to choose from. Nobody needs 4 ranger classes who are all ranged experts.

 

I would have liked to see a big game hunter as a subclass, having bonuses when the enemy is large and powerful, making better use of traps and using heavy hitting weapons.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Boeroer

[DigitalCrack]

@Baltic. Its not that you coldnt play them melee. As Boeroer said just looking at the names of abilities is enough to know that the intended design was for them to be used as ranged, even though you can use most abilities (at least partially) with melee weapons. Anyway just glad to see for PoE2 that the base class is actually getting melee on its own aside from the melee focused stalker subclass.

[Baltic]

Evidently I have mangled my point quite a bit so I shall try and clear it up. I was trying to say that can you can build somewhat decent melee rangers. No the class is it focused on that, but is that such a problem when there are classes that are not focused on being ranged such as the monk or the barbarian.

I would also like to clarify that I have no problem with the ranger having a melee focused subclass or even the class as a whole being focused on being a melee-ranged hybrid character. I just don't see why it's a necessity that the class is designed to be this way.

[DigitalCrack]

Evidently I have mangled my point quite a bit so I shall try and clear it up. I was trying to say that can you can build somewhat decent melee rangers. No the class is it focused on that, but is that such a problem when there are classes that are not focused on being ranged such as the monk or the barbarian.

I would also like to clarify that I have no problem with the ranger having a melee focused subclass or even the class as a whole being focused on being a melee-ranged hybrid character. I just don't see why it's a necessity that the class is designed to be this way.

Cause for a game that was designed around not being as restrictive as BG series ranger was the one class that really suffered (at first) from a narrow design concept that left no room for anything other than being a ranged combatant. The Barbarian and Monk were and are currently not nearly as restrictive as the ranger was.

[Boeroer]

Barbarian an monk are actually pretty bad in ranged combat (besides The Long Pain which works with most of the monk's "melee only" abilities - unlike other ranged weapons). It's a lot easier to build a feasible melee ranger than a ranged barbarian or monk.

 

Even the fighter is not very great at that. Some of his abilities don't work with ranged weapons - but maybe a ranged fighter is comparable to a melee ranger.

 

So if Obsidian's goal was to make classes like the barbarian also suitable for ranged combat they miserably failed.

 

Not that this is a problem for me though - I like barbarians and also monks a lot.

 

Just sayin'...

Edited July 15, 2017 by Boeroer

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think the Ranger should be built around cooperation with the animal companion while being agnostic to ranged or melee. So I'm happy about the Stalker option and hopefully most of the ranged stuff goes into general abilities.

[MortyTheGobbo]

I'd say PoE 1 rangee is better at melee than a fighter is at shooting... it's not impossible to make a ranged fighter, but you'd be really swimming upstream.

Edited July 15, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo