Preparing to sink even further into my Foundry... if ranger is next class, the game will be spammed with new characters, ranging from Drist D'rden (spelling intentional) to Lagles Grenlef (yet again, intentional)... because there are so many people that cannot possibly use their own imaginations, are uber fans of rangers even though in almost all cases they really weren't that cool in the books...
For instance:
Drizzt was a ranger (we all know that) but spent most of his time being either very "roguish" and sneaking around, "barbarianish" and going nuts in combat, or just plain "fighterish" and resorting to tricks he learned in swordplay when he was 'young' from one of the best fighters ever... very rarely is he ever acting like a 'ranger' according to D&D (2nd or 3rd edition where he spent most of his time) and communing with nature, protecting the wild life, etc... even the whole "I worship Mielikki" thing is downplayed past when he decides to worship her! His own goddess becomes merely a decoration of his character (and amulet) and in Forgotten Realms, that is VERY weird... Gods show up in almost EVERYTHING and sometimes even physically show up... so for his to be just a detail of his character?? Not very rangerly...
Legolas... the movies made him way more famous than the books ever would lol... in the books he was so much the trivial minor character that I am surprised he was a member of the fellowship, and often forgot he was there... his highest point was when he and Gimli had their contest at Helm's deep... beyond that? He did NOTHING really... no drinking contest where he outdrank the dwarf, no skipping around shooting people off the Oliphant (spelling?) and then gracefully sliding down its trunk as it died... none of that... and btw, what he DID do, was very rangerly... in the Hobbit he protected the woods, in the rings trilogy he constantly mourned not being in the woods, and when he was told if he ever saw the ocean, he'd never see the woods again, it pained him so much, I'd almost say it was like death to him... THAT is a ranger...
But then, I played Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and then 4th... so most of my thoughts of how classes properly act, is based on the majority, so basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd... in 4th, they are martial YAY... whatever... but everywhere else they were primal (basically, even if it didn't exist yet), and were protectors of the forest... they were the 'paladins' of the woods...
What most people see as rangers, are really just "rogues with bows" or dual wielding fighters... that just happen to wear a lot of green and brown...lol, they are overly popular, so much that every fanboi out there HAS to play one if it shows up, and will give it the next iteration of the two most popular rangers out there, so much that the only real competition becomes, "Who has more rangers... Drizzt or Legolas? Oh, watch out, I am starting to see some Aragorn's showing up too!!"... It really IS very disappointing and ruins the whole context of an MMO for a lot of people...
And worse, when they start getting refused groups, either due to naming, or due to pure number of them... they will start making threads about how underpowered they are, and give as proof, just like the GWF threads (which GWF prolly DO need some buffing), "Rangers Need Buffing!!" : "I've seen so many rangers not getting groups!! So, we must be underpowered!!"... and the devs may even listen to it, since there are SO many of them and so many of those threads, that soon the Ranger becomes the #1 DPS, and no one plays rogues OR the poor GWF anymore at all... the game becomes 4 classes...
Sorry, if that seems longwinded, and if it seems like I've gone off the deep end... but having played more than 10 MMO's, where this tends to be the case early on for all of them... I can say, I am not just coming up with a possibility of the future, I am only repeating what has happened in the past... several times
Hopefully they might improve GFW a bit at the same time, otherwise I recon alot would jump to Ranger, admittedly I am not any where near 60, but at 28 I find I am not doing the dps I expected, though it ight change in the 30-35 levels? ie control wizard and cleric where out damageing me in dungeons and I had a pretty decent weapon and ok armor. I expected to be below a rog and a bit above a cleric, possible the same or alittle more than a CW. (some where lower level than me and most did not seem to have much better stuff)
I'm level 26 on my GWF and frequently come in 1st/2nd on the damage charts. I'm focusing my gear on crit and armor penetration and grabbing crit and damage feats.
So far I'm happy with it, even though my single target DPS is a little low.
0
mustgofartMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 25Arc User
Doesn't mean much, though. Means we'll have "primal" classes at some point, but that's about it. I mean, they've had the kit around for ages, but GWF was added first after the initial 4, IIRC. Also, I double-checked the 4e handbook, and apparently Rangers count as a martial, not primal class. But who knows, it's all speculation anyway.
The kits aren't associated with power sources at all.
Rogue and fighter are both martial, yet they use different skills.
I have little doubt that ranger will be the next class, and even less that they will have kit-free access to the nature nodes.
They are generally using the trained skills as the foundation for the profession nodes. Clerics (and paladins) automatically get religion, rogues get thievery, and wizards get arcana.
They have given fighters dungeoneering, though they got nothing comparable in the PnP game. Since this is the system that they decided to use for professions, every class has to have something, so they gave dungeoneering to the fighters.
Warlords are like fighters in that regard. It seems like a safe bet to say that warlords, when/if they are introduced, will also use dungeoneering.
Warlocks have no automatic trained skills, either, but they have options to choose from arcana, religion, or thievery. Seems a safe bet to me that warlocks will be placed squarely into the arcana camp when/if they appear.
Rangers automatically know either dungeoneering or nature. Given that no one is using the nature nodes yet and that fighters (and I believe eventually warlords) are using dungeoneering, nature seems like the (much) better bet.
The fact that nature kits are in the game points to ranger being the new class, since their magic is nature based.
3rd edition thinking... in 4th Rangers are purely martial, no magic at all... well, aside from the type of magic that fighters use to do their moves... But, I agree, rangers would be nature. I would think it would be great if they added 2 classes at a time, instead of 1. Add Rangers and Druids... Then add something like Warlock and Hexblade (or something similar)... add a caster and a melee each time!
I was flabbergasted when I first learned of this game and it's classed to find there was no archer class!
It's a fantasy staple, and IMO Neverwinter is in desperate need of its addition. The game will feel more well-rounded and more "whole" with the archer ranger's inclusion.
Its in more desperate need of not ****ty writing, Fighters that dont suck, and decent dungeon design. But those dont distract idiots like a new class does.
I am waiting for warlocks as well but with the pic that they posted on twitter yesterday (of what appeared to be a ranger) coupled with the fact that they placed the word "ranged" in quotes I am going to have to sigh, pick my head up and say it will be ranger.
Plus if they are creating a Scourge Warlock I doubt it will be considered a true ranged class since they are a CON-based caster that prefers to be in the thick of battle. At least that is what I gather from the 4e wiki.
Maybe they will give us BOTH. *puppy-dog eyes* Please!
I wasn't watching twitter the other day but would anyone happen to have a link to the pic they posted? Thank you very much. I really hope it's archer ranger or arcane archer.
I'd love to make an archer! *_* It's what I'm looking forward to the most. Secound would be a more varied spellcaster with more aim towards damage than character control(cc), I want a sorceress!! T_T
Actually i would prefer not to have a ranged class...ok, tbh, at least not a pure dps ranged class. It would make PvP a nightmare for squishier ranged based classes like Control wizards or Clerics - only advantage (strong side) that my CW has and that lets me survive and contibute in pvp is that i can pretty much keep other classes at a distance most of the time - if they get close all i can do is pop a quick cc (if any is up) and run away, run away...Otherwise i just start seeing red numbers popping into thousands in a couple of secs (especially if a rogue gets close). I fear to imagine what would happen if a ranged class would be able to do damage anywhere close to that - it would be a utter nightmare. I am already being haunted by visions of archers siting atop those stone towers in Hotenow domination map, pounding everyone like there would be no tomorrow...
Ok, enough with the doom and gloom - i always enjoy seeing new stuff, but i hope Cryptic wont forget about the game's balance and that they will make the ranged class (if it is indeed "ranger") more clever than, "shoot arrow at 1358 m to enemy for 7865403 damage"
Cheers!
0
ausdoerrtMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
What role would a Warlock serve if there's already a ranged DPS class? Is it another control class?
There's no ranged DPS class. CW is control and DC is leader. Warlock is/would be an arcane striker class, though not sure how exactly they'd implement that.
There's no ranged DPS class. CW is control and DC is leader. Warlock is/would be an arcane striker class, though not sure how exactly they'd implement that.
I meant after Ranger is released. What role would the Warlock serve?
A rich rogue nowadays is fit company for any gentleman; and the world, my dear, hath not such a contempt for roguery as you imagine. - John HAMSTER
There's no ranged DPS class. CW is control and DC is leader. Warlock is/would be an arcane striker class, though not sure how exactly they'd implement that.
Depends how Cryptic decides to implement the Scourge Warlock. Because it is a CON-based warlock that will probably want to be near or at the front line of battle; perhaps some range. I'm guessing they will have powerful point-blank spells and limited ranged attacks. But I do not own a Player's Handbook for 4e so just going by what the wiki says online.
"Preferring raw power to subtlety, scourge warlocks are tougher than the average warlock, possessing a powerful constitution, which often supercedes their intellect and charisma.
Scourge warlocks foster this capacity for endurance purposefully, channeling their vitality into the deadly invocations they wield. This comes at the cost of often endangering oneself, either in close combat or through the sheer lethality of their powers, but scourge warlocks are typically more than capable of wielding their dangerous spells safely.
Most scourge warlocks are beholden to devils or horrors of the Far Realm, though exceptions exist." -Forgotten Realms wiki
"Beware the engineers of society, I say, who would make everyone in all the world equal. Opportunity should be equal, must be equal, but achievement must remain individual."
- Drizzt Do'Urden
― R.A. Salvatore
0
ausdoerrtMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited May 2013
Hm, interesting. Perhaps they'll make em into a melee class. Off-tankish with DPS focus? Or perhaps DPS with a debuff flavor.
I think that given time there will be more classes added to this game.
So if your favorite class isn't the first maybe it will be next in line.
After all DnD was pretty well rounded in the day.
Hmmm ... would take a while to integrate all the code needed I guess ... lol
Comments
A character who fires magic through a bow... cool. Dibs on the name "Uryū Ishida".
I thought anybody playing WoW was a HAMSTER.
Silverblade (60 TR), Silver (60 DC), SilverShield (60 GF), SilverStorm (60 CW), Ultimate (60 GWF)
For instance:
Drizzt was a ranger (we all know that) but spent most of his time being either very "roguish" and sneaking around, "barbarianish" and going nuts in combat, or just plain "fighterish" and resorting to tricks he learned in swordplay when he was 'young' from one of the best fighters ever... very rarely is he ever acting like a 'ranger' according to D&D (2nd or 3rd edition where he spent most of his time) and communing with nature, protecting the wild life, etc... even the whole "I worship Mielikki" thing is downplayed past when he decides to worship her! His own goddess becomes merely a decoration of his character (and amulet) and in Forgotten Realms, that is VERY weird... Gods show up in almost EVERYTHING and sometimes even physically show up... so for his to be just a detail of his character?? Not very rangerly...
Legolas... the movies made him way more famous than the books ever would lol... in the books he was so much the trivial minor character that I am surprised he was a member of the fellowship, and often forgot he was there... his highest point was when he and Gimli had their contest at Helm's deep... beyond that? He did NOTHING really... no drinking contest where he outdrank the dwarf, no skipping around shooting people off the Oliphant (spelling?) and then gracefully sliding down its trunk as it died... none of that... and btw, what he DID do, was very rangerly... in the Hobbit he protected the woods, in the rings trilogy he constantly mourned not being in the woods, and when he was told if he ever saw the ocean, he'd never see the woods again, it pained him so much, I'd almost say it was like death to him... THAT is a ranger...
But then, I played Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and then 4th... so most of my thoughts of how classes properly act, is based on the majority, so basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd... in 4th, they are martial YAY... whatever... but everywhere else they were primal (basically, even if it didn't exist yet), and were protectors of the forest... they were the 'paladins' of the woods...
What most people see as rangers, are really just "rogues with bows" or dual wielding fighters... that just happen to wear a lot of green and brown...lol, they are overly popular, so much that every fanboi out there HAS to play one if it shows up, and will give it the next iteration of the two most popular rangers out there, so much that the only real competition becomes, "Who has more rangers... Drizzt or Legolas? Oh, watch out, I am starting to see some Aragorn's showing up too!!"... It really IS very disappointing and ruins the whole context of an MMO for a lot of people...
And worse, when they start getting refused groups, either due to naming, or due to pure number of them... they will start making threads about how underpowered they are, and give as proof, just like the GWF threads (which GWF prolly DO need some buffing), "Rangers Need Buffing!!" : "I've seen so many rangers not getting groups!! So, we must be underpowered!!"... and the devs may even listen to it, since there are SO many of them and so many of those threads, that soon the Ranger becomes the #1 DPS, and no one plays rogues OR the poor GWF anymore at all... the game becomes 4 classes...
Sorry, if that seems longwinded, and if it seems like I've gone off the deep end... but having played more than 10 MMO's, where this tends to be the case early on for all of them... I can say, I am not just coming up with a possibility of the future, I am only repeating what has happened in the past... several times
I'd much rather see some other class show up...
So far I'm happy with it, even though my single target DPS is a little low.
It's taking too long, I don't want to be a heavy tin can or fashion show midget.
No, it's been known for months the next 2 classes are Archer Ranger and Scourge Warlock.
To play the new ranged class with cost you 300,000 and AD and you must have the Elite Uber of the North pack ($500).
Dont forget about the Shaman class, I saw someone earlier state that the game lacked primal classes.
Shaman?
Archer Ranger, then Scourge Warlock. Was already datamined and found in files, and was stated during CB.
Well Sweet beans!
The kits aren't associated with power sources at all.
Rogue and fighter are both martial, yet they use different skills.
I have little doubt that ranger will be the next class, and even less that they will have kit-free access to the nature nodes.
They are generally using the trained skills as the foundation for the profession nodes. Clerics (and paladins) automatically get religion, rogues get thievery, and wizards get arcana.
They have given fighters dungeoneering, though they got nothing comparable in the PnP game. Since this is the system that they decided to use for professions, every class has to have something, so they gave dungeoneering to the fighters.
Warlords are like fighters in that regard. It seems like a safe bet to say that warlords, when/if they are introduced, will also use dungeoneering.
Warlocks have no automatic trained skills, either, but they have options to choose from arcana, religion, or thievery. Seems a safe bet to me that warlocks will be placed squarely into the arcana camp when/if they appear.
Rangers automatically know either dungeoneering or nature. Given that no one is using the nature nodes yet and that fighters (and I believe eventually warlords) are using dungeoneering, nature seems like the (much) better bet.
3rd edition thinking... in 4th Rangers are purely martial, no magic at all... well, aside from the type of magic that fighters use to do their moves... But, I agree, rangers would be nature. I would think it would be great if they added 2 classes at a time, instead of 1. Add Rangers and Druids... Then add something like Warlock and Hexblade (or something similar)... add a caster and a melee each time!
Its in more desperate need of not ****ty writing, Fighters that dont suck, and decent dungeon design. But those dont distract idiots like a new class does.
I wasn't watching twitter the other day but would anyone happen to have a link to the pic they posted? Thank you very much.
Ok, enough with the doom and gloom - i always enjoy seeing new stuff, but i hope Cryptic wont forget about the game's balance and that they will make the ranged class (if it is indeed "ranger") more clever than, "shoot arrow at 1358 m to enemy for 7865403 damage"
Cheers!
Dare I say... drizztards? XD
There's no ranged DPS class. CW is control and DC is leader. Warlock is/would be an arcane striker class, though not sure how exactly they'd implement that.
I meant after Ranger is released. What role would the Warlock serve?
Depends how Cryptic decides to implement the Scourge Warlock. Because it is a CON-based warlock that will probably want to be near or at the front line of battle; perhaps some range. I'm guessing they will have powerful point-blank spells and limited ranged attacks. But I do not own a Player's Handbook for 4e so just going by what the wiki says online.
"Preferring raw power to subtlety, scourge warlocks are tougher than the average warlock, possessing a powerful constitution, which often supercedes their intellect and charisma.
Scourge warlocks foster this capacity for endurance purposefully, channeling their vitality into the deadly invocations they wield. This comes at the cost of often endangering oneself, either in close combat or through the sheer lethality of their powers, but scourge warlocks are typically more than capable of wielding their dangerous spells safely.
Most scourge warlocks are beholden to devils or horrors of the Far Realm, though exceptions exist." -Forgotten Realms wiki
- Drizzt Do'Urden
― R.A. Salvatore
Lots of possibilities here.
So if your favorite class isn't the first maybe it will be next in line.
After all DnD was pretty well rounded in the day.
Hmmm ... would take a while to integrate all the code needed I guess ... lol