Truth is that with my DC (Righteous spec) when leveling and still in solo zones I would pop divinity up then drop Chains of Light or Glow and wipe an entire mob of weak critters; eg Zombies in Ebon Downs or the 2 weak Redcaps in Sharandar.
With my CW I would drop Chill Strike and then just DPS down the few mobs that were left with no problems.
So that's the 2 direct comparisons to the ranged HR.
For the HR its; THorn Ward, Split, Man-at-arms to hold them, shoot them some and then finally get better dps by breaking out the melee.
Sorry I can expect to kill the mobs with less difficulty than I have had with the latest round of nerfs to the HR.
Feedback: Damage The damage of Ranger At-Wills seems ok at the moment, however the problem is that while you have been reducing the at-will DPS you have been simultaneously reducing the Encounter DPS, this now needs to be moved back up to bring the class back in line with the other ranged classes (CW would be the target - note the buff Scorching just got!).
Feedback: Constricting Shot Where did the melee side of this power go?
I know what other classes are capable of, having leveled my CW to 60 back in OB as well. The main difference between those powers is that they are Fire and Forget Burst Spells where all of the HR AoE spells are Sustained Damage.
Desidus@Xtraordinary91
19.9k PvP Control Wizard
<Complaints Department>
I know what other classes are capable of, having leveled my CW to 60 back in OB as well. The main difference between those powers is that they are Fire and Forget Burst Spells where all of the HR AoE spells are Sustained Damage.
but the HR sustained aoe's are not a wide enough area and do not last very long... you compare the damage in the same amount of time... HR longest aoe last 8 seconds. their single target thorns last 10... at 100 to 200 per hit and 3 seconds between hits... thats nothing less damage than your at will can do. seriously do not not get that the time it takes for a encounter cooldown or a daily to fill up you can do more damage with your at wills? its like a HR has NO SKILLS at all right now.
Oh Atari how I miss you!
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
I don't play melee. I play RANGED. I should NOT be forced to use both. Ranger primary is ranged not melee hence the name Ranger
As for the Hunter part. Even hunters have to shoot things at distance.
Your definition of a ranger and D&D's definition of a ranger is a bit different.
Here's the summary from the Fourth Edition Player's Handbook
Rangers are watchful warriors who roam past the
horizon to safeguard a region, a principle, or a way of
life. Masters of bow and blade, rangers excel at hit-and run
assaults and can quickly and silently eliminate
foes. Rangers lay superb ambushes and excel at avoiding
danger.
As a ranger, you possess almost supernaturally keen
senses and a deep appreciation for untamed wilderness.
With your knowledge of the natural world, you
are able to track enemies through nearly any landscape,
using the smallest clue to set your course, even
sometimes the calls and songs of beasts and birds.
Your severe demeanor promises a deadly conclusion to
any enemy you hunt.
When you catch sight of your quarry, will the transgressor
perish by swift bow shots from a distance, or
by the twofold blades that glint and glitter in each of
your battle-scarred hands?
And the "role" as defined by the Fourth Edition Player's Handbook.
Role: Striker. You concentrate on eitherranged attacks
or two-weapon melee fighting to deal a lot of
damage to one enemy at a time. Your attacks rely on
speed and mobility, since you prefer to use hit-andrun
tactics whenever possible.
Rangers in D&D have a few main influences including Aragorn from Lord of the Rings who is simply a swordsman which has a deep understanding of the wilderness and the military's light infantry units.
Think range as in a land for both wild and livestock to roam on. 'Home, home on the range, where the deer and the antelopes play...' combined with a 'Forest Ranger' as somebody who polices the land. It has absolutely nothing to do with weaponry.
"Ranger" as in using a bow is an MMO term; not a D&D term. In D&D if you want to define something as a ranged class it would more often than not, especially when D&D was first created, be called an "Archer."
As such the entire 'Rangers have to use bows' is just inaccurate. In fact it's more the other way around. When you take a look at notable rangers in D&D hey are typically melee fighters.
Drizzt - Dual Scimitars
Dove Falconhand - Longsword
Mooshie - Sword and Board
Misc - Defaulted and quite clearly designed as a melee combatant. Defaults to 2H Weapons.
Now there are of course rangers who do prefer the pure Archer Focus but stating that rangers have to use a bow is completely innacurate. My rangers have always been melee fighters who only use a bow at a distance whether it was second, third or now fourth edition.
This ranger seems designed to reward players who master both aspects. I would expect refusing to use either will hinder your effectiveness because this is not the Archer Ranger or the Dual Weapon Fighter Ranger.
Your definition of a ranger and D&D's definition of a ranger is a bit different.
Here's the summary from the Fourth Edition Player's Handbook
And the "role" as defined by the Fourth Edition Player's Handbook.
Rangers in D&D have a few main influences including Aragorn from Lord of the Rings who is simply a swordsman which has a deep understanding of the wilderness and the military's light infantry units.
Think range as in a land for both wild and livestock to roam on. 'Home, home on the range, where the deer and the antelopes play...' combined with a 'Forest Ranger' as somebody who polices the land. It has absolutely nothing to do with weaponry.
"Ranger" as in using a bow is an MMO term; not a D&D term. In D&D if you want to define something as a ranged class it would more often than not, especially when D&D was first created, be called an "Archer."
As such the entire 'Rangers have to use bows' is just inaccurate. In fact it's more the other way around. When you take a look at notable rangers in D&D hey are typically melee fighters.
Drizzt - Dual Scimitars
Dove Falconhand - Longsword
Mooshie - Sword and Board
Misc - Defaulted and quite clearly designed as a melee combatant. Defaults to 2H Weapons.
Now there are of course rangers who do prefer the pure Archer Focus but stating that rangers have to use a bow is completely innacurate. My rangers have always been melee fighters who only use a bow at a distance whether it was second, third or now fourth edition.
This ranger seems designed to reward players who master both aspects. I would expect refusing to use either will hinder your effectiveness because this is not the Archer Ranger or the Dual Weapon Fighter Ranger.
thus the word HUNTER ranger... hunters do use ranged weapons... what hunter do you know of that wonders through the woods with a knife trying to kill a deer with it? can you name hunters that hunt with swords and knives? what hunter do you know of that has a bow uses a knife to kill its prey ignoring its bow completely? what other game in fact has a hunter that doesn't use a bow?
in the true keeping with all D&D games including the most recent a ranger should be able to be built either way... ranged or melee. currently a range build still has melee more powerful even with the feats and boost to all ranged attacks... which is stupid.
I know what other classes are capable of, having leveled my CW to 60 back in OB as well. The main difference between those powers is that they are Fire and Forget Burst Spells where all of the HR AoE spells are Sustained Damage.
Yes thats also one of our problems, we dont have ANY burstskills now, Hawk Shot was okish due to its rnd dmg scaling but now its awful. Aimedshot shows that it is intended that our class should have burst potential, but giving our only burst an at-will that's awful to use,is terrible.
I would change the dmg from aimedshot to Hawkshot, remove the interrupt when u take dmg...which is the most <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> thing ever, just reduce the dmg it does by 5% each time u take DIRECT dmg while casting it and we would have a reliable burst encounter! First problem fixed.
And yes we ONLY have sustained dmg, very low sustained dmg.
0
werealchemistMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
This ranger seems designed to reward players who master both aspects. I would expect refusing to use either will hinder your effectiveness because this is not the Archer Ranger or the Dual Weapon Fighter Ranger.
as much as i agree with this i beliecve that since there is an entire feat tree devoted solely to archery it should remain a valid playstyle, and right now it's not.
This ranger seems designed to reward players who master both aspects. I would expect refusing to use either will hinder your effectiveness because this is not the Archer Ranger or the Dual Weapon Fighter Ranger.
I can agree with you completely, most player's I know play melee rangers and actually in 3.5 the fighter class was the more potent archer. But "it seems to be designed to reward players who master both" is fully inaccurate, currently it punishes players who cannot/do not wish to master both.
Lol funny that you bring Aragorn up, he isn't a true ranger. I don't remember ever see him use a bow. I would have to watch the movies again to be sure. I have a lvl 75 ranger in the game based off of those movies. I don't use melee there either, I am skill spec'd for range only.
I want to use range only here and not be gimped. As it stands I am gimped now.
Role: Striker. You concentrate on either ranged attacks
or two-weapon melee fighting to deal a lot of
damage to one enemy at a time. Your attacks rely on
speed and mobility, since you prefer to use hit-andrun
tactics whenever possible.
Somehow my ranger misses exactly that!
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
thus the word HUNTER ranger... hunters do use ranged weapons... what hunter do you know of that wonders through the woods with a knife trying to kill a deer with it?
The bows are there to use. You are highly encouraged to use them.
You are also highly encouraged to use the melee weapons.
If I had my choice I wouldn't touch a bow. I don't like using a bow on my rangers, period. However the class was designed to benefit from using both. I'm not sure how effective or ineffective the class is while staying in a single mode but I know that if you want the class to play to the full potential that it was designed to reward players who switched between both and that works fine for me.
You may be able to play heavily ranged or heavily melee and be perfectly fine but insisting on being one or the other is simply not going to work to the full potential and the class is most obviously balanced with the intention of players using both settings.
This is not the Archer Ranger.
It's not the Dual Weapon Ranger.
And most importantly a ranger in D&D does not in any means pertain to the weapon used. Ever.
Lol funny that you bring Aragorn up, he isn't a true ranger. I don't remember ever see him use a bow. I would have to watch the movies again to be sure. I have a lvl 75 ranger in the game based off of those movies. I don't use melee there either, I am skill spec'd for range only.
I want to use range only here and not be gimped. As it stands I am gimped now.
Aragorn doesn't use a bow which is the point. There is nothing in the rules which dictates rangers have to use bows. Not a single thing.
Complete and utter misinterpretation of the class.
Many rangers are adept at both. Some rangers are adept at one or the other.
But this class that you are handed isn't one or the other. It's both.
Role: Striker. You concentrate on either ranged attacks or two-weapon melee fighting to deal a lot of damage to one enemy at a time. Your attacks rely on speed and mobility, since you prefer to use hit-and run tactics whenever possible.
As it stands with the HR right now, this doesn't apply to it cause they have gimped us either way from this role.
EDIT: Also, for additional info, IIRC, Aragorn carried his bow (and made use of it), up til he was ambushed by the Worgs riders in the way to Helm's Deep. After recovering from falling of the ravine, he barely had his pants on (Ok, this part may not match what really happened :rolleyes:).
Leanan Sidhe(not "The Dresde Files" fairy!)- NW Legit Channel Moderator
Role: Striker. You concentrate on either ranged attacks
or two-weapon melee fighting to deal a lot of
damage to one enemy at a time. Your attacks rely on
speed and mobility, since you prefer to use hit-andrun
tactics whenever possible.
Somehow my ranger misses exactly that!
Agreed. I cannot currently concentrate on one fighting style, I don't deal a lot of damage and with my damage dealing attacks I'm definately not relying on speed or mobility in order to perform hit-and-run tactics.
The bows are there to use. You are highly encouraged to use them.
You are also highly encouraged to use the melee weapons.
I'm not sure how effective or ineffective the class is while staying in a single mode but I know that if you want the class to play to the full potential that it was designed to reward players who switched between both and that works fine for me.
.
I agree with u that this class MAY have the most potential if u use both melee or range, but why on earth does ur dmg scales on the max distance to our target, which is dumb how ranger is designed with both melee and range kills. Also our hawkshot does 188!!dmg at lvl 60 with t1 gear and r10s/perfect against a DUMMY, while we stay close to it. Such a nonsense.
0
werealchemistMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Role: Striker. You concentrate on either ranged attacks
or two-weapon melee fighting to deal a lot of
damage to one enemy at a time. Your attacks rely on
speed and mobility, since you prefer to use hit-andrun
tactics whenever possible.
Somehow my ranger misses exactly that!
This. Exactly this.
Role: Striker. You concentrate on either ranged attacks or two-weapon melee fighting to deal a lot of
damage to one enemy at a time. Your attacks rely on
speed and mobility, since you prefer to use hit-andrun
tactics whenever possible.
If you want a melee/range combo class with emphasis on both styles then play a Whisperknife. There you deal damage with your ranged attacks while within 20ft of your target and are still close enough to switch to melee quickly. The HR has it's focus for ranged attacks on distance, long distance.
If you want a melee/range combo class with emphasis on both styles then play a Whisperknife. There you deal damage with your ranged attacks while within 20ft of your target and are still close enough to switch to melee quickly. The HR has it's focus for ranged attacks on distance, long distance.
...long distance and still does less range dmg than a tr on range
Right now a tr's impact shots crits for around 16k maybe even higher against dummys with perf. vorpal/r10s, is not depending on its range and it has 3 charges and some kind of cc!
My highest dmg encounter on max range does like 9k with perf. vorpal/r10s and tasty 400crits in melee range! (full archery so RANGED specced, including 20% extra dmg on max range)
But u have to use ur melee encounters to get the full potential of the ranger class, even when ur encounters end up with 400dmg!
Atleast the hawkshot meleebuff looks solid now, atleast a flat 200dmg buff on our next attack, that alone increases the dmg on hawkshot by 50% !!!
Such an amazing buff!
Lol funny that you bring Aragorn up, he isn't a true ranger. I don't remember ever see him use a bow. I would have to watch the movies again to be sure. I have a lvl 75 ranger in the game based off of those movies. I don't use melee there either, I am skill spec'd for range only.
I want to use range only here and not be gimped. As it stands I am gimped now.
Actually he did use a bow from time to time.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited November 2013
I love how the deductive reasoning has come to full light.
Any benefit by nature will be a punishment for not partaking in said benefit.
You wouldn't believe how many times the tables are turned and it's me trying to argue the benefits are a punishment. Kudos.
This Ranger is designed to be both. It rewards players who use both. As such it will punish those who do not.
That's the class. This isn't the "Default Ranger" class from the PHB1. It's not the "Archer Ranger." It's not the "Dual Weapon Ranger."
It's the Hunter Ranger. A type of ranger which focuses on both aspects.
Nobody is here saying 'why do I have to use ranged!?' and I promise you the class is no less 'gimped' when trying to use melee only. That's because, again, the class is balanced to use both at least some of the time.
I am guessing 20-80 could be enough to take the edge off but sticking to one or the other the entire time will not be fruitful.
This isn't the default ranger that I cited from the PHB1 just like the Guardian Fighter is not the default Fighter Class. In Pen and Paper you can use Sword and Board and/or 2H but in Neverwinter you have to choose one or the other. The Hunter Ranger is a bit different because instead of saying you have to stick to one or the other it is designed to use both. If you don't use both then you will not play to the point that the class is balanced to play at.
And that will be my last response on the matter. I'm sorry but I simply don't see the point in trying to make an Archer Ranger out of a class that is so obviously skewed to rewarding the use of both mechanics. To me that's like refusing to use the rogue's stealth because you don't like the way it is designed. I can respect not liking the way it is designed but that's not the same as saying the class is broken because it was designed to play a certain way and you chose not to.
Atleast the hawkshot meleebuff looks solid now, atleast a flat 200dmg buff on our next attack, that alone increases the dmg on hawkshot by 50% !!!
Such an amazing buff!
We are being forced to play a certain play style and that isn't fair to the players that don't want to play that way. And just so you know, on another account I have TR that I have never used stealth on. Also I have a lvl 60 GF that I never used it's shield function. Just because it is there doesn't mean we have to use it.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited November 2013
Now let me say I'm not saying the class doesn't need a buff. I'm completely impartial on that and without playing in group content I won't comment on that.
My stance is purely from reading comments regarding the nature of players trying to force the class to play in a way which is most obviously not optimal and giving negative feedback based on that. The class is designed to use both at least some of the time. I'm sure you can use primarily a bow and be fine or vice versa but basing arguments off of trying to force the character into an "Archer Ranger" role isn't a point to be complaining from.
At least some of that is self-gimping because that's not the way the class is designed to be played.
We are being forced to play a certain play style and that isn't fair to the players that don't want to play that way. And just so you know, on another account I have TR that I have never used stealth on
I'd like a two weapon fighter. That exists in 4E. It even exists in some of the NPCs such as drow.
However it's not offered yet.
The class isn't an archer. Sorry.
And trying to make it an all in one will result in an imbalanced class.
I'm sure there could be an Archer Ranger down the road as well as a Dual Weapon Ranger. But that's not this class as much as I would love to never touch the bow.
Now let me say I'm not saying the class doesn't need a buff. I'm completely impartial on that and without playing in group content I won't comment on that.
My stance is purely from reading comments regarding the nature of players trying to force the class to play in a way which is most obviously not optimal and giving negative feedback based on that. The class is designed to use both at least some of the time. I'm sure you can use primarily a bow and be fine or vice versa but basing arguments off of trying to force the character into an "Archer Ranger" role isn't a point to be complaining from.
At least some of that is self-gimping because that's not the way the class is designed to be played.
I respect your position on this but as it stands now the ranged portion is so weak that it has had more benefit (for me) to open with a single ranged attack and switch straight to melee. This is not rewarding me for the use of both mechanics nor is very fun to have so many abilities that could be potentially useful be so useless.
0
slambitMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 282Bounty Hunter
edited November 2013
that is a personal choice, just like me i rarely use stealth either, but aint nobody forcing me to play that way, nor will they force you to play ranged only, that would be your and i admit most likely my choice.
Any way moving on the class seem to have scaling issues and a few skills need to do more dmg other wise the playstyle is fine
Gang Busters PvP Guild Recruiting When Mod 6 goes live Pm Me for more Info If you have any Paladin question Message Me and i will get back to you ASAP
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I love how the deductive reasoning has come to full light.
This Ranger is designed to be both. It rewards players who use both. As such it will punish those who do not.
.
So pls explain me, why i should use both when our dmg is based on our distance AWAY from the target?
To make ur statement work we would need feats like ur rangedmg gets increase while u are within 10 feets
of ur target, i dont see anything like that.
Or maybe u are the first person that thinks that 188dmg on a range encounter at lvl 60 is amazing while u are close to ur target.
Right now switching to melee is just a pure dps loss and we ONLY do it to stay alive. This has nothing to do with potential.
To me that's like refusing to use the rogue's stealth because you don't like the way it is designed. I can respect not liking the way it is designed but that's not the same as saying the class is broken because it was designed to play a certain way and you chose not to.
Even if you pull out of the discussion, the difference in you're attempt at ratifying the mechanic with the rogues stealth is inaccurate. I CAN play the rogue in PvE WITHOUT stealth. I might not be as deadly as somebody that does play with stealth but I can easily survive without it. Currently I cannot survive without mixing range and melee and not as a "Oh sh--! I need to swap for a finishing blow." but a very active swap with lots of kiting.
I don't mind if somebody wishes to play a HR with major melee focus and I wouldn't scream to loudly if the class was melee only (although I doubt I'd play it then), but don't try to tell me you're offering a class with potential to play both and then make focusing on one particular style a non-viable option.
Comments
I know what other classes are capable of, having leveled my CW to 60 back in OB as well. The main difference between those powers is that they are Fire and Forget Burst Spells where all of the HR AoE spells are Sustained Damage.
19.9k PvP Control Wizard
<Complaints Department>
but the HR sustained aoe's are not a wide enough area and do not last very long... you compare the damage in the same amount of time... HR longest aoe last 8 seconds. their single target thorns last 10... at 100 to 200 per hit and 3 seconds between hits... thats nothing less damage than your at will can do. seriously do not not get that the time it takes for a encounter cooldown or a daily to fill up you can do more damage with your at wills? its like a HR has NO SKILLS at all right now.
Your definition of a ranger and D&D's definition of a ranger is a bit different.
Here's the summary from the Fourth Edition Player's Handbook
And the "role" as defined by the Fourth Edition Player's Handbook.
Rangers in D&D have a few main influences including Aragorn from Lord of the Rings who is simply a swordsman which has a deep understanding of the wilderness and the military's light infantry units.
Think range as in a land for both wild and livestock to roam on. 'Home, home on the range, where the deer and the antelopes play...' combined with a 'Forest Ranger' as somebody who polices the land. It has absolutely nothing to do with weaponry.
"Ranger" as in using a bow is an MMO term; not a D&D term. In D&D if you want to define something as a ranged class it would more often than not, especially when D&D was first created, be called an "Archer."
As such the entire 'Rangers have to use bows' is just inaccurate. In fact it's more the other way around. When you take a look at notable rangers in D&D hey are typically melee fighters.
Drizzt - Dual Scimitars
Dove Falconhand - Longsword
Mooshie - Sword and Board
Misc - Defaulted and quite clearly designed as a melee combatant. Defaults to 2H Weapons.
Now there are of course rangers who do prefer the pure Archer Focus but stating that rangers have to use a bow is completely innacurate. My rangers have always been melee fighters who only use a bow at a distance whether it was second, third or now fourth edition.
This ranger seems designed to reward players who master both aspects. I would expect refusing to use either will hinder your effectiveness because this is not the Archer Ranger or the Dual Weapon Fighter Ranger.
no logic allowed, this is an online game forum
thus the word HUNTER ranger... hunters do use ranged weapons... what hunter do you know of that wonders through the woods with a knife trying to kill a deer with it? can you name hunters that hunt with swords and knives? what hunter do you know of that has a bow uses a knife to kill its prey ignoring its bow completely? what other game in fact has a hunter that doesn't use a bow?
in the true keeping with all D&D games including the most recent a ranger should be able to be built either way... ranged or melee. currently a range build still has melee more powerful even with the feats and boost to all ranged attacks... which is stupid.
Yes thats also one of our problems, we dont have ANY burstskills now, Hawk Shot was okish due to its rnd dmg scaling but now its awful. Aimedshot shows that it is intended that our class should have burst potential, but giving our only burst an at-will that's awful to use,is terrible.
I would change the dmg from aimedshot to Hawkshot, remove the interrupt when u take dmg...which is the most <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> thing ever, just reduce the dmg it does by 5% each time u take DIRECT dmg while casting it and we would have a reliable burst encounter! First problem fixed.
And yes we ONLY have sustained dmg, very low sustained dmg.
as much as i agree with this i beliecve that since there is an entire feat tree devoted solely to archery it should remain a valid playstyle, and right now it's not.
I can agree with you completely, most player's I know play melee rangers and actually in 3.5 the fighter class was the more potent archer. But "it seems to be designed to reward players who master both" is fully inaccurate, currently it punishes players who cannot/do not wish to master both.
I want to use range only here and not be gimped. As it stands I am gimped now.
or two-weapon melee fighting to deal a lot of
damage to one enemy at a time. Your attacks rely on
speed and mobility, since you prefer to use hit-andrun
tactics whenever possible.
Somehow my ranger misses exactly that!
The bows are there to use. You are highly encouraged to use them.
You are also highly encouraged to use the melee weapons.
If I had my choice I wouldn't touch a bow. I don't like using a bow on my rangers, period. However the class was designed to benefit from using both. I'm not sure how effective or ineffective the class is while staying in a single mode but I know that if you want the class to play to the full potential that it was designed to reward players who switched between both and that works fine for me.
You may be able to play heavily ranged or heavily melee and be perfectly fine but insisting on being one or the other is simply not going to work to the full potential and the class is most obviously balanced with the intention of players using both settings.
This is not the Archer Ranger.
It's not the Dual Weapon Ranger.
And most importantly a ranger in D&D does not in any means pertain to the weapon used. Ever.
Aragorn doesn't use a bow which is the point. There is nothing in the rules which dictates rangers have to use bows. Not a single thing.
Complete and utter misinterpretation of the class.
Many rangers are adept at both. Some rangers are adept at one or the other.
But this class that you are handed isn't one or the other. It's both.
As it stands with the HR right now, this doesn't apply to it cause they have gimped us either way from this role.
WAIT WHAT!? I just read Rhoric saying Aragorn ISN'T a true Ranger? And cited the MOVIES instead the BOOKS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aragorn "Aragorn was a RANGER of the North(...)" (in the second line)
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Aragorn_II_Elessar "Aragorn, RANGER from the North(...)" (in the verse)
EDIT: Also, for additional info, IIRC, Aragorn carried his bow (and made use of it), up til he was ambushed by the Worgs riders in the way to Helm's Deep. After recovering from falling of the ravine, he barely had his pants on (Ok, this part may not match what really happened :rolleyes:).
Agreed. I cannot currently concentrate on one fighting style, I don't deal a lot of damage and with my damage dealing attacks I'm definately not relying on speed or mobility in order to perform hit-and-run tactics.
I agree with u that this class MAY have the most potential if u use both melee or range, but why on earth does ur dmg scales on the max distance to our target, which is dumb how ranger is designed with both melee and range kills. Also our hawkshot does 188!!dmg at lvl 60 with t1 gear and r10s/perfect against a DUMMY, while we stay close to it. Such a nonsense.
and also this
...long distance and still does less range dmg than a tr on range
Right now a tr's impact shots crits for around 16k maybe even higher against dummys with perf. vorpal/r10s, is not depending on its range and it has 3 charges and some kind of cc!
My highest dmg encounter on max range does like 9k with perf. vorpal/r10s and tasty 400crits in melee range! (full archery so RANGED specced, including 20% extra dmg on max range)
But u have to use ur melee encounters to get the full potential of the ranger class, even when ur encounters end up with 400dmg!
Atleast the hawkshot meleebuff looks solid now, atleast a flat 200dmg buff on our next attack, that alone increases the dmg on hawkshot by 50% !!!
Such an amazing buff!
Actually he did use a bow from time to time.
Any benefit by nature will be a punishment for not partaking in said benefit.
You wouldn't believe how many times the tables are turned and it's me trying to argue the benefits are a punishment. Kudos.
This Ranger is designed to be both. It rewards players who use both. As such it will punish those who do not.
That's the class. This isn't the "Default Ranger" class from the PHB1. It's not the "Archer Ranger." It's not the "Dual Weapon Ranger."
It's the Hunter Ranger. A type of ranger which focuses on both aspects.
Nobody is here saying 'why do I have to use ranged!?' and I promise you the class is no less 'gimped' when trying to use melee only. That's because, again, the class is balanced to use both at least some of the time.
I am guessing 20-80 could be enough to take the edge off but sticking to one or the other the entire time will not be fruitful.
This isn't the default ranger that I cited from the PHB1 just like the Guardian Fighter is not the default Fighter Class. In Pen and Paper you can use Sword and Board and/or 2H but in Neverwinter you have to choose one or the other. The Hunter Ranger is a bit different because instead of saying you have to stick to one or the other it is designed to use both. If you don't use both then you will not play to the point that the class is balanced to play at.
And that will be my last response on the matter. I'm sorry but I simply don't see the point in trying to make an Archer Ranger out of a class that is so obviously skewed to rewarding the use of both mechanics. To me that's like refusing to use the rogue's stealth because you don't like the way it is designed. I can respect not liking the way it is designed but that's not the same as saying the class is broken because it was designed to play a certain way and you chose not to.
I got a good chuckle out of this.
My stance is purely from reading comments regarding the nature of players trying to force the class to play in a way which is most obviously not optimal and giving negative feedback based on that. The class is designed to use both at least some of the time. I'm sure you can use primarily a bow and be fine or vice versa but basing arguments off of trying to force the character into an "Archer Ranger" role isn't a point to be complaining from.
At least some of that is self-gimping because that's not the way the class is designed to be played.
I'd like a two weapon fighter. That exists in 4E. It even exists in some of the NPCs such as drow.
However it's not offered yet.
The class isn't an archer. Sorry.
And trying to make it an all in one will result in an imbalanced class.
I'm sure there could be an Archer Ranger down the road as well as a Dual Weapon Ranger. But that's not this class as much as I would love to never touch the bow.
I respect your position on this but as it stands now the ranged portion is so weak that it has had more benefit (for me) to open with a single ranged attack and switch straight to melee. This is not rewarding me for the use of both mechanics nor is very fun to have so many abilities that could be potentially useful be so useless.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
So pls explain me, why i should use both when our dmg is based on our distance AWAY from the target?
To make ur statement work we would need feats like ur rangedmg gets increase while u are within 10 feets
of ur target, i dont see anything like that.
Or maybe u are the first person that thinks that 188dmg on a range encounter at lvl 60 is amazing while u are close to ur target.
Right now switching to melee is just a pure dps loss and we ONLY do it to stay alive. This has nothing to do with potential.
Even if you pull out of the discussion, the difference in you're attempt at ratifying the mechanic with the rogues stealth is inaccurate. I CAN play the rogue in PvE WITHOUT stealth. I might not be as deadly as somebody that does play with stealth but I can easily survive without it. Currently I cannot survive without mixing range and melee and not as a "Oh sh--! I need to swap for a finishing blow." but a very active swap with lots of kiting.
I don't mind if somebody wishes to play a HR with major melee focus and I wouldn't scream to loudly if the class was melee only (although I doubt I'd play it then), but don't try to tell me you're offering a class with potential to play both and then make focusing on one particular style a non-viable option.