Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

What are they doing with rangers in deadfire?


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#41
Boeroer

Boeroer

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 14453 posts
  • Location:Bucharest, Romania
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

I don't no about misconception
 
maybe a better way of saying it is people don't generally like monks for role playing reasons.
 
no one dreams of being a smelly monk who doesn't shower who goes around kicking and punching people
 
vs
 
the elven ranger with his accurate longbow and superfast dual wielding


:lol:
 
Yes, I totally agree - that is a common "problem" of the monk in western RPGs. :) To be honest I also skipped monks for the first several PoE playthroughs because of that. 
 
However in PoE - if one can ignore that image - they can be a lot of fun. Now one of my most favored classes. Rangers - not so much I'm afraid. Doesn't mean they are bad - but they don't appeal to me because they are quite limited in the ways you can build them. I guess the subclasses in PoE will drastically change that.

Edited by Boeroer, 04 April 2017 - 01:12 AM.


#42
Regggler

Regggler

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 117 posts
  • Location:Sigil
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

I don't no about misconception

 

maybe a better way of saying it is people don't generally like monks for role playing reasons.

 

no one dreams of being a smelly monk who doesn't shower who goes around kicking and punching people

 

vs

 

the elven ranger with his accurate longbow and superfast dual wielding

 

Lice-infested tree-hugger too cowardly to face enemies head-on half the time and thus needs the help of an enslaved animal

 

vs

 

invincible master of universal inner peace who has honed his body into a weapon to such a degree that he is able to hold his own naked against armored and armed enemies.

 

It's all a matter of perspective :) I get that "monk" here means "oriental warrior monk", which doesn't click well with European "medieval" RPG settings thematically. But hey, my powers of suspension of disbelief run strong. I like both monks and rangers.


  • Bill Gates' Son, Heijoushin, gogocactus and 1 other like this

#43
firkraag888

firkraag888

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 318 posts

 

I don't no about misconception
 
maybe a better way of saying it is people don't generally like monks for role playing reasons.
 
no one dreams of being a smelly monk who doesn't shower who goes around kicking and punching people
 
vs
 
the elven ranger with his accurate longbow and superfast dual wielding


:lol:
 
Yes, I totally agree - that is a common "problem" of the monk in western RPGs. :) To be honest I also skipped monks for the first several PoE playthroughs because of that. 
 
However in PoE - if one can ignore that image - they can be a lot of fun. Now one of my most favored classes. Rangers - not so much I'm afraid. Doesn't mean they are bad - but they don't appeal to me because they are quite limited in the ways you can build them. I guess the subclasses in PoE will drastically change that.

 

as long as the sub classes allow for different talent selections upon level up then yeah that would be frickin awesome and change a lot of things

 

if the subclasses just offer minor differences and slight aesthetic changes I would be very dissapointed



#44
FlintlockJazz

FlintlockJazz

    White Rabbit of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1957 posts
  • Location:Pocket Domain in the Outer Astral Plane
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

What I really want to know is, can I finally build a ranger like this?

250px-ChipDaleLogo.jpg


  • gogocactus and tinysalamander like this

#45
Boeroer

Boeroer

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 14453 posts
  • Location:Bucharest, Romania
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
They said there's a cowboy hat in PoE2. ;)
  • FlintlockJazz likes this

#46
FlintlockJazz

FlintlockJazz

    White Rabbit of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1957 posts
  • Location:Pocket Domain in the Outer Astral Plane
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

They said there's a cowboy hat in PoE2. ;)

Primary character decided!



#47
firkraag888

firkraag888

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 318 posts
What about a power ranger

Go go power rangers
  • FlintlockJazz likes this

#48
DigitalCrack

DigitalCrack

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 405 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

That is a misconception. Monks are good with fists, but they are equally good or even better with weapons and especially with heavy armor in the earlier stages of the game. On-crit weapons with overbearing or stunning as well as weapons with spell chances work with the AoE cone of Torment's Reach for example. So like a barbarian you can deliver CC or other effects in an area of effect while doing a lot of damage.

I guess people think they have to play a monk as you described and are repelled by the "martial arts" thang. But you can easily play him in other ways and he will be as good or better.

May people found him to be too micro-intensive and it's true: the usual monk needs a lot of micromanagement to be effective - just like casters. But then he's the best melee class in my opinion.


See I loved the monks actives and general style was engaging to play. I just dont like monks ha and definitely was one of those people that was like "he's cool but.. eh, I like using equipment more." And I never really gave him a fair shake after that. I will have to go back at some point and try an equipment based monk. I actually wished all the other martial classes had more of an active roster of abilities. Thats why I ended up playing a melee cipher as my first main, he was what I wanted out of a frontline combatant.

#49
firkraag888

firkraag888

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 318 posts

yeah if I could rate classes in terms of fun factor cipher would definitely be at the top



#50
Heijoushin

Heijoushin

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1293 posts
  • Location:Japan
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

no one dreams of being a smelly monk who doesn't shower who goes around kicking and punching people

 

´╝Ěhat's this? People love the idea of a Zen Monk who kicks ass while spouting deep platitudes. I'd love to be a monk! I just... like meat too much... and women... and video games... but apart from that, the monk lifestyle is for me!

 

Okay, I admit, I didn't really roll them too often in PoE. But Zahua was an awesome companion. 10/10 for whoever wrote that guy.


  • Regggler and gogocactus like this

#51
draego

draego

    (7) Enchanter

  • Members
  • 885 posts
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Ye it just a RP thing Boeroer. I know monks they are super powerful. Maybe its is just a role thing for me. Since my last few runs have been as melee ranger dps i am jealous and dont want some companion to do a better job than me at my role. Which i know monks can do. 


Edited by draego, 04 April 2017 - 05:03 AM.


#52
DigitalCrack

DigitalCrack

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 405 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
But yeah really hoping with the addition of subclasses we can get some more active variants of the more docile classes if they decide to keep the "set and forget" type classes as such. Trying to get back on topic, Ghost Heart at least adds an active of summoning a ghost pet. Sounds like that subclass could end up swinging more the way of a caster type which would hopefully translate to more active abilities involving ghost.. stuff? Anyway curious to see where it goes. Which leads into me wondering how much subclasses will add or change from the base class in general?

#53
Regggler

Regggler

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 117 posts
  • Location:Sigil
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
I'd love to be a monk! I just... like meat too much... and women... and video games... but apart from that, the monk lifestyle is for me!

 

Don't worry, you can still be a "wine and meat monk" :)

 

Fun short article: https://sports.vice....ple-in-new-york

While Zahua typically is all about escaping live's "snares", he still exposes quite some qualities of a wine and meat monk, what with all the drugs and his cheerful disposition towards intoxication.


Edited by Regggler, 04 April 2017 - 05:34 AM.

  • Heijoushin and gogocactus like this

#54
Archaven

Archaven

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1498 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Does something magical happen once you have 6 party members? ;)

 

more than magic :p. hope what i prefer doesn't hurt anyone in the process lol



#55
FluxWing

FluxWing

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 28 posts
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

To solve the lack of active abilities, I would like to see something like a combo-system with your animal companion, that rewards a more active play-style if you chose to specialize for it with talents.

 

Simple Core abilities for both Ranger and Companion:

ex. (like from Fallout)

Ranger:

  • Aim for Leg
  • Aim for Arm
  • Aim for Torso

Animal Companion:

  • Go for Leg!
  • Go for Arm!
  • Go for Torso!

 

But when combined they add extra effect:

 

Combinations:

 

Go for Leg! + Aim for Leg = Target Pinned to the ground, (adds rooted X sec)

Aim for Leg + Go for Torso! = Lunge (target knocked down)

Go for Arm! + Aim for Torse = Ignores target's deflection bonus from Shield.

Aim for Arm + Go for Torso! = Go for throat (extra crit chance + extra crit damage)

...

 

 

 

So the Ranger and companion acts as a power resource, making each-other stronger.

Just like the Cipher builds focus, and Monk receives Wounds, but also more thematically for the Ranger's symbiotic bond with his Companion.

Nor does "Aim" overly represent melee or ranged weapon usage. It should work for a Legolas, Aragorn, Minsc or Drizzt type Ranger.


  • Silent Winter likes this

#56
rjshae

rjshae

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 5055 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

What I really want to know is, can I finally build a ranger like this?

250px-ChipDaleLogo.jpg

 

Can I get a rabid super chipmunk companion named Anklebite?


  • FlintlockJazz likes this

#57
CornyCarrot

CornyCarrot

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 11 posts

But yeah really hoping with the addition of subclasses we can get some more active variants of the more docile classes if they decide to keep the "set and forget" type classes as such. Trying to get back on topic, Ghost Heart at least adds an active of summoning a ghost pet. Sounds like that subclass could end up swinging more the way of a caster type which would hopefully translate to more active abilities involving ghost.. stuff? Anyway curious to see where it goes. Which leads into me wondering how much subclasses will add or change from the base class in general?

 

I think the Ghost Heart can offer a opportunity to have your cake and eat it too. At least for the people who want a more "Strider" type Ranger, but also like the pet concept (e.g. me).

 

As far as I know from the lore, the souls of Ranger and his/her Companion share a symbiotic bond. Perhaps that's why the Companion can still be summoned by the Ranger, as it cannot truly "move on" while its master is still alive? Anyway, you can easily justify, based on the existing lore, that the pair can utilize this bond even after one of them dies (hence the summoning mechanic). But then it can also be used in reverse - instead of allowing the Companion to help directly, the Ranger can draw upon its soul power to strengthen himself. Such Ranger would be considerably more powerful than his peers who haven't lost their animal friends, but would naturally lose this edge if he decides to summon his ghostly pet (because all that soulpower is spend on maintaining the summon).

 

From mechanics perspective this would translate into additional effects for the Companion upgrade talents/abilities. These would improve both the Ranger and the Companion, with Companion side being a bit weaker than its living counterpart. The catch is that the Ranger buffs would be suppressed while the ghostly Companion is up ad about. Additionally, the Ranger part of the talents would not just mirror the Companion's, but be their own thing with emphasis on more active effects (hopefully).

 

The end result would be a flexible Ranger that is much more powerful on their own, but has the option to summon his Companion when the situation requires less raw power and more numbers. The latter however, would not be on par with vanilla Ranger and his permanent ally, for obvious balance reasons (hence why slightly reduced buffs for the ghost pet).

 

As a side note, this also solves a minor inconsistency regarding the petless Ranger's power source (i.e. why is it called Bond if there is no pet, alive or otherwise). 

Anyway, they can take this subclass in many different directions, which is awesome.


  • DigitalCrack likes this

#58
MortyTheGobbo

MortyTheGobbo

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 567 posts

I've also never been a fan of rangers being shackled to an animal sidekick. But it's also true that they need something to set them apart from just being rogues or fighters who happen to hang out in the wilderness a lot. In PoE, this something is pets. I'm curious about the subclass that replaces the pet with a summon. We'll see how it does in play.



#59
DigitalCrack

DigitalCrack

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 405 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

But yeah really hoping with the addition of subclasses we can get some more active variants of the more docile classes if they decide to keep the "set and forget" type classes as such. Trying to get back on topic, Ghost Heart at least adds an active of summoning a ghost pet. Sounds like that subclass could end up swinging more the way of a caster type which would hopefully translate to more active abilities involving ghost.. stuff? Anyway curious to see where it goes. Which leads into me wondering how much subclasses will add or change from the base class in general?


I think the Ghost Heart can offer a opportunity to have your cake and eat it too. At least for the people who want a more "Strider" type Ranger, but also like the pet concept (e.g. me).

As far as I know from the lore, the souls of Ranger and his/her Companion share a symbiotic bond. Perhaps that's why the Companion can still be summoned by the Ranger, as it cannot truly "move on" while its master is still alive? Anyway, you can easily justify, based on the existing lore, that the pair can utilize this bond even after one of them dies (hence the summoning mechanic). But then it can also be used in reverse - instead of allowing the Companion to help directly, the Ranger can draw upon its soul power to strengthen himself. Such Ranger would be considerably more powerful than his peers who haven't lost their animal friends, but would naturally lose this edge if he decides to summon his ghostly pet (because all that soulpower is spend on maintaining the summon).

From mechanics perspective this would translate into additional effects for the Companion upgrade talents/abilities. These would improve both the Ranger and the Companion, with Companion side being a bit weaker than its living counterpart. The catch is that the Ranger buffs would be suppressed while the ghostly Companion is up ad about. Additionally, the Ranger part of the talents would not just mirror the Companion's, but be their own thing with emphasis on more active effects (hopefully).

The end result would be a flexible Ranger that is much more powerful on their own, but has the option to summon his Companion when the situation requires less raw power and more numbers. The latter however, would not be on par with vanilla Ranger and his permanent ally, for obvious balance reasons (hence why slightly reduced buffs for the ghost pet).

As a side note, this also solves a minor inconsistency regarding the petless Ranger's power source (i.e. why is it called Bond if there is no pet, alive or otherwise).
Anyway, they can take this subclass in many different directions, which is awesome.

thats actually a pretty cool idea to have abilities the Ghost Heart can use when the pet isnt summoned, like he feeds off its ghost powers while it isnt materialized but then he can summon and opt to forgo those powers (temporarily) to have a numbers advantage.

#60
injurai

injurai

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2301 posts
  • Location:Not the oceans
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

I've also never been a fan of rangers being shackled to an animal sidekick. But it's also true that they need something to set them apart from just being rogues or fighters who happen to hang out in the wilderness a lot. In PoE, this something is pets. I'm curious about the subclass that replaces the pet with a summon. We'll see how it does in play.

 

It's just unfortunate that pets were so lackluster in the past game. The fact that Rangers can depend on their whole party to put distance between them and the enemies, means pets feel kind of superfluous. They tend to not offer all that much utility, and what they do is pretty limited. I'd like to see far more options for building up pets. Some classes get so many spells, like druids. Rangers just felt sort of lame, and the pets even more so. Even Druids felt lackluster in animal form. But at least that didn't seem to detract from their base. Pets seem to detract from the base Ranger, but pets don't really add all that much imo. So the whole class was one of my least favorites.

 

I actually had to re-roll because I hated Ranger's so much. They were the first class I picked.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users