I cant see why it wouldnt - ranger without a pet is like a dwarf without a beard
Since *all* PC's, regardless of class, gain access to companions, it can be said that there are no pet classes in this game, because at the end of the day, *everyone* is a pet class. If, when ranger type classes are instituted in game, you go with animal companions rather than people type companions, you have what you're looking for.
Why adding another dual wield class? I know there are here on the forum, fans of Drizzit who can't wait to play that archetype but we already have the rogue class who is a dual wielder. They should better focus on better archetypes like a true blast mage or a warlock. I agree with all of you that this game need an archer class.
In fact the is a 4th type of ranger in 4th edition : the skirmisher ranger. He uses a combination of melee attacks and ranged attacks made with thrown weapon (javelin, throwing axe, etc...). An that one has nothing to do with pets either.
I was just taking another look at one of the martial power books today, and there's another type, the Marauder who focus' on hit and run tactics and maneuvering.
Drizzt has nothing to do with wanting to dual wield, and I find it a little odd that Rogues were made to be dual wielder's in this game when traditionally they single wield. It was pretty easy to make them dual wielders in 3rd and 4th editions, even be pretty good at it, but if we're going for archetypes that wasn't their shtick. In PnP their thing was high accuracy and damage with a bit of control, and the TW ranger all about the onslaught of damage.
But in this game they are the dual wielder class to counter part the 1h class ( guardian ) and the 2h class ( weapon fighter). They don't seem to be so much interested in old archetypes, instead they classified classes for role; another melee damage is not what they need actually if there's much to counterpart. Did they started with the classic mage or a flavoured warlock? No. They started with a CONTROL wizard just because they want their role classes.
Hardly! Blood Elves are where the action is, nothing like being a female belf and laughing like one of those rich ivy league prep girls at someone after you mutilated them as a rogue or ranged class.
You keep using that elf. I do not think it means what you think it means.
jagedtigerMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 6Arc User
edited March 2013
I ask the same question... No Archer class? WTF! I was pretty hyped after watching all the videos for this game, and something was nagging at my subconcious... Something was missing. Then it hit me, No Archer class. I love Ranger/Hunter classes and prefer to play them over everything else. So until it is incorporated I won't be playing. I had actually gotten the go ahead from my wife to pre-order the Hero of the North pack. Not anymore! :mad:
0
iquaaaadMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 2Arc User
As to Ranger in 4e, the big change is as you described, you have to choose to specialize either in dual wield or longbow.
I share your exact desire to play a ranger but I am thinking we will both be disappointed.
So far, Cryptic has kept to a policy that each build released will only equip weapons of one archtype. For example in 4e, the cleric whether a devoted cleric or a battle cleric, can wield a mace. In NWO though devoted cleric can not, and I assume eventually a battle cleric will drop, who can.
In 4e any Ranger, regardless of specialization, can wield a bow and a sword. In NWO however, unless they break pattern, eventually 2 ranger builds will be released, one a dual sword wielder (no bow), and the archer ranger wielding a bow (no sword).
I very much hope I am wrong and would love to be corrected. Its a class breaking development decision for this class ( for me not speaking for others).
Instead of a ranger main I am starting to think maybe scourge warlock, and archer alt. Just don't want to play the 5 they are releasing, will fool around with rogue til these others appear.
A Ranger, incapable of shooting an arrow with a bow. In a D&D game. Who woulda thunk it.
I honestly like the dual ranger thingy, but I LOVE the archer ranger. I'm hoping that they do something where you get a melee attack as a skill but other than that nothing. Like a dagger of some sort, they get to close SHIV EM!
I don't expect to see a Dual ranger for a LONG time. Seeing as they already have the trickster rogue for the dual wielder DPS. I actually hope not to because that means we will see the Archer ranger in the upcoming update instead. I like the trickster rogue but I really wanna shoot something with a bow....
Who knows, maybe Ranger will be a pet class. Wishful thinking but that would be great.
Otherwise, yes patience. A bit of info about potential timing would be nice too, I mean this is not the Manhattan Project we are talking about.
As far as a role the archer seems a bit one trick, can't wait to see how they build it. Striker, single target DPS, maybe some buffs for proximity based on the ruleset. A squish who needs to be close range to max damage and who will be pinned while doing so. Or maybe it will be all evasiony and stealthy. Ah well I'm sure they will get it right. I still would like to build one myself.
GOD NO!!! Agh! To many bad memorys from playing LOTRO! Don't ruin the ranger by making him a pet class! AGH GOD NOOOOOOOO!
{QUOTE=brockp24;1242671]I'm the same as I'm sure a lot of you. I am going to either play the Great Weapon Fighter or the Trickster Rogue at Launch then when they release the Archer Ranger version I'm going to switch. (As long as they have a daily power called "Split the Tree".) I would dominate with that power!! [/QUOTE]
I think by night elf opener means dark elf. Maybe non-official campaign telling the story when Arunshaee was still beautiful and not known by her spider name.
I think he means the moon elf in the official NWN2 campaign.
I don't think the archer will come before the melee ranger, mostly because it's easier to design in less time a melee class (because everyone besides the Mage and perhaps the Cleric are melee). Also it's harder to balance. Ranged in almost all games is overpowered.
I really hope not, they don't need another melee. They need a archer.
Does anybody know enough about how 4E does Rangers?
In 4e, Powers generally have a primary attribute and a secondary attribute. They use the primary attribute for the attack and damage bonus, and the secondary attribute is anything from increasing the number of targets affected, number of bonus moves you can take, or just plain damage. (The Basic Melee Attack and Basic Ranged Attack are additional At-Will Powers that everyone gets, and use Strength and Dexterity respectively for the primary attribute.)
Note that Powers determine what action you can take. Holding a weapon in each hand does absolutely nothing. It literally gives no benefit other than a choice of which weapon you use when using a Weapon Power. You need specific dual wielding Powers for it to be relevant, and those Powers require that you be dual wielding.
(As an aside, I don't recall any dual wielding Rogue variants. The Trickster Rogue is all about mobility by effectively negating Opportunity Attacks and adding lots of Shifting to their Powers, so the teleporting around makes sense. The combat stealth/invisibility is really more the Gloaming(?) Rogue's trick.)
Classes also have features you can choose at creation, which tend to favor a certain play style and secondary attribute. That's what the others are referring to when they mention the Marauder, Skirmisher, Two-Weapon, etc. variants of Rangers. All those variants are still Rangers, and have access to the same pool of Ranger Powers. Certain Powers have additional bonuses for specific variants, for example a ranged Power may have additional bonuses if you're an Archer Ranger.
With that in mind, all Ranger powers use Dex for the attack and damage bonus (unless I'm forgetting something), but the ranged Ranger powers tend to have Wisdom as the secondary attribute while the melee Ranger powers tend to have Strength as the secondary attribute. The secondary attribute determines things like the magnitude of applied Ongoing damage.
In general, you wouldn't want to switch weapons. If you're a melee Ranger, you're probably heavily into Dex/Str. If you're a ranged Ranger, you're probably heavily into Dex/Wis. As such, while the melee Ranger can pick up a bow and the ranged Ranger can draw a sword, you would probably be defaulting to the Basic Ranged/Melee Attacks. It would be a waste of your Power slots to mix them, and the Archer Ranger doesn't need to melee. They have a ton of Shifting built into their powers to avoid provoking Opportunity Attacks, and Rangers also have a ton of Reaction Powers (such as one which Immobilizes an enemy if they approach you, and then it lets you shift away). They also have a really nice low-level Interrupt Power that can be activated when an Enemy attacks, dealing damage and inflicting a penalty to their attack.
I'm curious as to how that dynamic portion of Archer Rangers, who have a ton of reactive and interrupt abilities which take place when the enemy tries to do something, will be reflected in NWO.
Comments
Isn't it, though...
Since *all* PC's, regardless of class, gain access to companions, it can be said that there are no pet classes in this game, because at the end of the day, *everyone* is a pet class. If, when ranger type classes are instituted in game, you go with animal companions rather than people type companions, you have what you're looking for.
I was just taking another look at one of the martial power books today, and there's another type, the Marauder who focus' on hit and run tactics and maneuvering.
Drizzt has nothing to do with wanting to dual wield, and I find it a little odd that Rogues were made to be dual wielder's in this game when traditionally they single wield. It was pretty easy to make them dual wielders in 3rd and 4th editions, even be pretty good at it, but if we're going for archetypes that wasn't their shtick. In PnP their thing was high accuracy and damage with a bit of control, and the TW ranger all about the onslaught of damage.
You keep using that elf. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I honestly like the dual ranger thingy, but I LOVE the archer ranger. I'm hoping that they do something where you get a melee attack as a skill but other than that nothing. Like a dagger of some sort, they get to close SHIV EM!
I don't expect to see a Dual ranger for a LONG time. Seeing as they already have the trickster rogue for the dual wielder DPS. I actually hope not to because that means we will see the Archer ranger in the upcoming update instead. I like the trickster rogue but I really wanna shoot something with a bow....
GOD NO!!! Agh! To many bad memorys from playing LOTRO! Don't ruin the ranger by making him a pet class! AGH GOD NOOOOOOOO!
I agree completely but what does... mean?
I think he means the moon elf in the official NWN2 campaign.
I really hope not, they don't need another melee. They need a archer.
In 4e, Powers generally have a primary attribute and a secondary attribute. They use the primary attribute for the attack and damage bonus, and the secondary attribute is anything from increasing the number of targets affected, number of bonus moves you can take, or just plain damage. (The Basic Melee Attack and Basic Ranged Attack are additional At-Will Powers that everyone gets, and use Strength and Dexterity respectively for the primary attribute.)
Note that Powers determine what action you can take. Holding a weapon in each hand does absolutely nothing. It literally gives no benefit other than a choice of which weapon you use when using a Weapon Power. You need specific dual wielding Powers for it to be relevant, and those Powers require that you be dual wielding.
(As an aside, I don't recall any dual wielding Rogue variants. The Trickster Rogue is all about mobility by effectively negating Opportunity Attacks and adding lots of Shifting to their Powers, so the teleporting around makes sense. The combat stealth/invisibility is really more the Gloaming(?) Rogue's trick.)
Classes also have features you can choose at creation, which tend to favor a certain play style and secondary attribute. That's what the others are referring to when they mention the Marauder, Skirmisher, Two-Weapon, etc. variants of Rangers. All those variants are still Rangers, and have access to the same pool of Ranger Powers. Certain Powers have additional bonuses for specific variants, for example a ranged Power may have additional bonuses if you're an Archer Ranger.
With that in mind, all Ranger powers use Dex for the attack and damage bonus (unless I'm forgetting something), but the ranged Ranger powers tend to have Wisdom as the secondary attribute while the melee Ranger powers tend to have Strength as the secondary attribute. The secondary attribute determines things like the magnitude of applied Ongoing damage.
In general, you wouldn't want to switch weapons. If you're a melee Ranger, you're probably heavily into Dex/Str. If you're a ranged Ranger, you're probably heavily into Dex/Wis. As such, while the melee Ranger can pick up a bow and the ranged Ranger can draw a sword, you would probably be defaulting to the Basic Ranged/Melee Attacks. It would be a waste of your Power slots to mix them, and the Archer Ranger doesn't need to melee. They have a ton of Shifting built into their powers to avoid provoking Opportunity Attacks, and Rangers also have a ton of Reaction Powers (such as one which Immobilizes an enemy if they approach you, and then it lets you shift away). They also have a really nice low-level Interrupt Power that can be activated when an Enemy attacks, dealing damage and inflicting a penalty to their attack.
I'm curious as to how that dynamic portion of Archer Rangers, who have a ton of reactive and interrupt abilities which take place when the enemy tries to do something, will be reflected in NWO.