According to the TR in the feed back thread the path is <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> with out IPTC and is to slow that paths is getting just as much hate as the HR even though the thread is not big enough to support that fact. But i will state my opinion i feel good about the HR playstyle its just the nerf to dmg that's worrisome the TR is def the class has a melee strict path and then there's a strictly ranged path. For HR you have to bounce in between the two hence thers a slightly higher skill cap to the HR class as it take a bit of time getting use to.
That is easy to explain. People like easy mode - gameplay. They have gotten so used to it, that they are or have become unable to embrace the hard work, the devs have put into new skills/feats etc. Ok i agree, that some skills may not be as powerful as the first paragon path's equivalents, but they are far from being useless. People just have to find/figure out new ways to utilize them to their full potential. This can include, stat changes, item changes, gem changes and much more.
I have no intention to offend anybody, i just don't want to see the devs hard work getting dragged into the dirt, for nothing. Cut them some slack.
I not hating on the TR path but when you go that path it seem you be come a highly mobile mid ranged TR the path seems to lean towards perma stealths TR. I am not saying the HR is perfect by any mean it just to me the class seem to hit the right niche of ranged and melee its still atwills and encounters needs work.
Here I'd agree with you but although HR has great range capability in design it's not truly a viable option. HR would be better taking the Whisperknife role with an increase in range. Say maybe 40-50ft as range focus with a singular long range skill, either a weak At-Will puller or a powerburst Encounter to knock down the door.
HR has potential, don't get me wrong but the powerful attacks require time to use unlike the TR. Give the HR a means to get that time in order to use them.
I think the thing that bothers me most about the dual-stance Hunter Ranger is the fact that the game already has that class.
They simply call it the Trickster Rogue.
With it's "Cloud of Steel," "Whirlwind of Blades," "Path of Blades," and "Blitz," the TR has ranged abilities. Granted they're short range, but still ranged. (And much more useful than many of the HR's skills.)
The TR's melee skills far outshine the HR's, their interrupts, stealth, and other skills make the HR look like a really bad TR with a name change.
The ranger should be different from any other class, not a mangled rehash of another class.
Go for the eyes, Boo!GO FOR THE EYES!!! (Where's a Miniature Giant Space Hamster when you need one?)
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
In other words, we begged for a ranger, they created a monstrosity, slapped the ranger name to it, shoved it down our throats, and we have to take it or leave it?
I don't use bows on a ranger if I have a choice so what you call a monstrosity because you can't opt to play a complete ranged version is actually more in line with my experience and expectations of a ranger which is bows at range and melee in close combat and is also exactly what's defined in the player handbook, using both to gain an advantage in combat.
This is your interpretation. Your preference.
You want an Archer Ranger. This isn't the Archer Ranger.
Just like the Devoted Cleric isn't a Battle Cleric, the Trickster Rogue isn't a Brawny Rogue, the Control Wizard isn't the War Wizard. They all have very different playstyles. You can play any class in a variety of ways focusing on different aspects but the general playstyle is predefined by the subclass that the game grants you.
The Hunter Ranger is a hybrid fighter. Not an archer and not a melee fighter. You can focus more on one than the other and do fine but it is still designed and balanced to be a hybrid. If you don't like it than ask for an Archer Ranger but just because you incorrectly assume rangers are archers or prefer the Archer Ranger doesn't by any means negate that this class is very true to the dynamics of the Hunter Ranger's (and rangers in general) role. The Archer Ranger was a very strict subset of rangers and not in any way the end all and be all.
Rangers are not by definition archers. Never have been. Never will be.
Even in First Edition that role was clearly defined as an "Archer" and not as a "Ranger."
I don't see the class as being bad, it's just not what a lot of people apparently expected. I'm sure it'll go through some balancing iterations but those will be aimed towards making it perform as designed, and not suddenly diverted onto something else.
The fault for al this lays either with people who didn't read the telegraphing from Cryptic about how the class would work, assuming there was any of that in advance (I don't know, I don't follow it that closely) or with Cryptic for not managing players' advance expectations for the class. I think it's obvious a lot of players were expecting a class that could reasonably be played as a pure archer. They've waited months for that, and now that it's nearly here and is something entirely unexpected, they're sorely disappointed.
I must whole-heartily agree. Having said that:
1). I think that the melee skills are just about perfect as they are now.
2). The ranged skills need a bit more speed in their execution. Many are far to slow atm.
3). The ranged skills need to do a bit more damage than they currently do.
4). While the dual stance is becoming viable, allowances need to be made for those who don't like it.
5). The dodge ability needs to have it's range increased. (I really hate getting cramps in my hands!)
6). Seismic Shot and Grasping Roots need to have some affect on boss'. In my aforementioned battle with the "Wraith Eidolon" they were a complete, and deadly, waste of time.
I am a bit curious, we, the players, have been begging for a Ranger since before the game went live. And most of us who have, are used to, and expected an either/or Ranger. (either Dual-Wield or Ranged)
In other words, we begged for a ranger, they created a monstrosity, slapped the ranger name to it, shoved it down our throats, and we have to take it or leave it?
I think the thing that bothers me most about the dual-stance Hunter Ranger is the fact that the game already has that class.
They simply call it the Trickster Rogue.
With it's "Cloud of Steel," "Whirlwind of Blades," "Path of Blades," and "Blitz," the TR has ranged abilities. Granted they're short range, but still ranged. (And much more useful than many of the HR's skills.)
The TR's melee skills far outshine the HR's, their interrupts, stealth, and other skills make the HR look like a really bad TR with a name change.
The ranger should be different from any other class, not a mangled rehash of another class.
I don't use bows on a ranger if I have a choice so what you call a monstrosity because you can't opt to play a complete ranged version is actually more in line with my experience and expectations of a ranger which is bows at range and melee in close combat and is also exactly what's defined in the player handbook, using both to gain an advantage in combat.
This is your interpretation. Your preference.
You want an Archer Ranger. This isn't the Archer Ranger.
If you had read my previous posts, which I've quoted here, you would discover that what I want is an either/or ranger, not a dual-stance only ranger.
If we had an EITHER/OR Ranger, folks who want to play dual-weapon only can, folks who want to play ranged only can, and folks who want to play dual-stance can.
My gripe is with making a dual-stance ONLY ranger, where the ONLY way to play it IS dual-stance.
Go for the eyes, Boo!GO FOR THE EYES!!! (Where's a Miniature Giant Space Hamster when you need one?)
If you had read my previous posts, which I've quoted here, you would discover that what I want is an either/or ranger, not a dual-stance only ranger.
If we had an EITHER/OR Ranger, folks who want to play dual-weapon only can, folks who want to play ranged only can, and folks who want to play dual-stance can.
My gripe is with making a dual-stance ONLY ranger, where the ONLY way to play it IS dual-stance.
Thats how its designed to be played omg this thread has run its course it was a good idea but Lord almighty.
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]
You did it again. You are telling me what to play. Ranger is what I want to play. Being forced into a certain style is not fair as the other classes are not being forced to. If I want to play a pure range style with the HR I should not be hindered in doing so. As the HR stands right now with the big cuts to damages, that is what I am being forced to do.
Even if the other player isn't capable of telling you what to do, there are limitations.
I don't play GF because I don't like the shield and I don't care for the block mechanics. Should I go and gripe about the GF they designed to make it suit my personal wants, which would be drop the shield, throw in a dodge mechanic and let me keep my one-handed sword and defense?
"Every adventurer has two things in common: they don't like dying, and they love getting paid. The rest is just semantics." Brecken, famed mercenary of Baldur's Gate
mod note: just a reminder of some of the forum rules of conduct...
Section I - Respect
. . . . We're here to have fun and to share information with each other. With so many different personalities gathered in one place, clashes are bound to happen now and then. But how one conducts oneself during these situations makes all the difference. While opinions are valued on the forums, please remember to respect each other and have discussions and not arguments. If you find yourself disagreeing with another member, think first and then calmly compose your words. Treat each other how you would like to be treated.
Rule 1.01 - Personal Attacks are Prohibited
. . . . Any attack or degradation of another person or opinion will not be tolerated. General rule of thumb: if you think that what you are about to post is insulting, don't post it.
Rule 1.02 - Trolling is Prohibited
. . . . Do not attempt to attempt to incite others into anger, frustration or grief. Any action which the moderators or staff deem as an attempt to instigate others into violating rules is strictly prohibited. To call someone a Troll is considered Trolling in itself.
let's remember to focus on the topic and not on each other. it's okay to disagree but attacking every opposing opinion is considered power posting and that is a form of trolling.
please do not respond to this post or discuss it. instead, send a PM to the community moderators or community managers.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
If you had read my previous posts, which I've quoted here, you would discover that what I want is an either/or ranger, not a dual-stance only ranger.
Bingo!
It's not either or. It's both. Hybrid.
You need to use both to play the class to the full potential it is balanced to be played at.
You can't play it as an Archer Ranger or as a Dual Weapon Ranger and play the class to the full potential. You have to play it as a Hunter Ranger which uses both.
Use both. Not one or the other. The class is a hybrid ranged/melee class. I can't say this any clearer.
The Hunter Ranger is not an Archer Ranger. It's not meant to be an Archer Only.
I don't use bows on a ranger if I have a choice so what you call a monstrosity because you can't opt to play a complete ranged version is actually more in line with my experience and expectations of a ranger which is bows at range and melee in close combat and is also exactly what's defined in the player handbook, using both to gain an advantage in combat.
This is your interpretation. Your preference.
You want an Archer Ranger. This isn't the Archer Ranger.
Just like the Devoted Cleric isn't a Battle Cleric, the Trickster Rogue isn't a Brawny Rogue, the Control Wizard isn't the War Wizard. They all have very different playstyles. You can play any class in a variety of ways focusing on different aspects but the general playstyle is predefined by the subclass that the game grants you.
The Hunter Ranger is a hybrid fighter. Not an archer and not a melee fighter. You can focus more on one than the other and do fine but it is still designed and balanced to be a hybrid. If you don't like it than ask for an Archer Ranger but just because you incorrectly assume rangers are archers or prefer the Archer Ranger doesn't by any means negate that this class is very true to the dynamics of the Hunter Ranger's (and rangers in general) role. The Archer Ranger was a very strict subset of rangers and not in any way the end all and be all.
Rangers are not by definition archers. Never have been. Never will be.
Even in First Edition that role was clearly defined as an "Archer" and not as a "Ranger."
Again the attack on wanting a more defined range role in the HR by claiming it's a hybrid. I'm really frustrated in trying to explain that the current style of HR is NOT a hybrid but a melee with some longer range capabilities. With the exception of Marauder's Escape and a "lifesaver" Daily there is no viable means to garner enough time and/or space to use either a casting time delayed or long range improved damage skill outside of the initial combat start. That alone makes the "hit-and-run" concept of a hybrid role totally void.
I don't see the class as being bad, it's just not what a lot of people apparently expected. I'm sure it'll go through some balancing iterations but those will be aimed towards making it perform as designed, and not suddenly diverted onto something else.
The fault for al this lays either with people who didn't read the telegraphing from Cryptic about how the class would work, assuming there was any of that in advance (I don't know, I don't follow it that closely) or with Cryptic for not managing players' advance expectations for the class. I think it's obvious a lot of players were expecting a class that could reasonably be played as a pure archer. They've waited months for that, and now that it's nearly here and is something entirely unexpected, they're sorely disappointed.
I agree. While I'm not terribly interested in a class that is hybrid and requires so much more work than usual, I can't say it's a bad design. Just not what *I* would choose.
My choice for a ranger would be a sneaky bow and pet combo, specifically.
The developers were pretty clear with their wording, both in the previews and in the descriptions. HR is a hybrid class, MEANT to be played as a hybrid and not allowing successful play with only one or the other. I caught on to that pretty quick, and while I don't disagree that it's not what I want, and I've offered my suggestions for the class, I won't be 'betrayed' or 'upset' about it if it goes live like this.
"Every adventurer has two things in common: they don't like dying, and they love getting paid. The rest is just semantics." Brecken, famed mercenary of Baldur's Gate
Again the attack on wanting a more defined range role in the HR by claiming it's a hybrid. I'm really frustrated in trying to explain that the current style of HR is NOT a hybrid but a melee with some longer range capabilities. With the exception of Marauder's Escape and a "lifesaver" Daily there is no viable means to garner enough time and/or space to use either a casting time delayed or long range improved damage skill outside of the initial combat start. That alone makes the "hit-and-run" concept of a hybrid role totally void.
This I feel may be a legitimate complaint. It is more melee focused, mainly because the snares don't allow a ranger to keep range for any period of time.
Even if they maintained the damage output currently in the build (may need a slight buff to keep the 'striker' title, but not like before), they need some more buffer abilities thrown in.
That's a legitimate concern, in my opinion.
"Every adventurer has two things in common: they don't like dying, and they love getting paid. The rest is just semantics." Brecken, famed mercenary of Baldur's Gate
You need to use both to play the class to the full potential it is balanced to be played at.
You can't play it as an Archer Ranger or as a Dual Weapon Ranger and play the class to the full potential. You have to play it as a Hunter Ranger which uses both.
Use both. Not one or the other. The class is a hybrid ranged/melee class. I can't say this any clearer.
The Hunter Ranger is not an Archer Ranger. It's not meant to be an Archer Only.
I guess I'll just stick with the TR, it's a much better hybrid than the HR, IMHO.
Go for the eyes, Boo!GO FOR THE EYES!!! (Where's a Miniature Giant Space Hamster when you need one?)
2 bad that tr makes better range class than "ranger"
HR is not a strictly ranged class soo... CW are a better ranged class and TR sacrifice a good bit to be ranged from the whisperknife tree unless your perma stealth a GF GWF and CW will eat you as whisperknife rouge speaking from a pvp standpoint.
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]
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
This I feel may be a legitimate complaint. It is more melee focused, mainly because the snares don't allow a ranger to keep range for any period of time.
Even if they maintained the damage output currently in the build (may need a slight buff to keep the 'striker' title, but not like before), they need some more buffer abilities thrown in.
That's a legitimate concern, in my opinion.
There's a fine line between making a ranged aspect powerful and making melee too weak to be used.
The changes they put in last week were quite obviously in response to the ranged being so superior that the melee was considered too weak and was not used enough. Could they have gone too far? Maybe.
Think of it this way, attacking at a distance always has an advantage over melee combat off the get go. The key is to balance the melee combat's risk vs reward. But this class is not a ranged class or a melee class. It's both. So I would expect that the ranged option will be more survivable and have better sustain damage but the melee combat will deal more burst damage.
HR is not a strictly ranged class soo... CW are a better ranged class and TR sacrifice a good bit to be ranged from the whisperknife tree unless your perma stealth a GF GWF and CW will eat you as whisperknife rouge speaking from a pvp standpoint.
ranger without range is like great weapon fighter running around with a standard sized spoon as a weapon
ranger without range is like great weapon fighter running around with a standard sized spoon as a weapon
The hunter ranger has ranged though lolz its ranged is just intertwined with its melee mode its not better at one or the other but they synergize with one another synergy is a amazing concept and is what the HR is all about. Only problem atm is they skill need to be rebalanced because their dps is quite low atm.
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]
There's a fine line between making a ranged aspect powerful and making melee too weak to be used.
The changes they put in last week were quite obviously in response to the ranged being so superior that the melee was considered too weak and was not used enough. Could they have gone too far? Maybe.
Think of it this way, attacking at a distance always has an advantage over melee combat off the get go. The key is to balance the melee combat's risk vs reward. But this class is not a ranged class or a melee class. It's both. So I would expect that the ranged option will be more survivable and have better sustain damage but the melee combat will deal more burst damage.
Agreed that the initial HR I made did have the feel of succeeding solely as an archer style and melee was a last resort effect to the build. I'll also agree that without careful consideration it's easy to make a survivable archer so overpowering that melee would still be ignored by many but that is easily fixed by not allowing the HR to remain outside of melee range for a majority of combat time, but can still be done while allowing such a retreat much more often than currently available. DON'T discount gripes for a more potent archer as a demand for a sole archer build just because you prefer a melee style of play.
Now that we understand that we're looking for a true hybrid class, while a single target striker is a nice idea (I love the thought of a sniper personally) to make longer range abilities viable after getting into melee combat the HR will need more of a crowd control role instead of DPS so that you truely swap between the two, by doing it the other way around you're leaning towards a choice between styles of play. Single target snares won't allow for legitimate retreat when facing larger mobs.
Your suggestion of high melee DPS with ranged DoT is nothing short of chosing between another melee striker or a ranged supporter.
Marauder's Escape should be a melee skill to get out of danger, Marauder's Rush should be a range skill to get into the fray to lay out some crowd control for example.
So I would expect that the ranged option will be more survivable and have better sustain damage but the melee combat will deal more burst damage.
u got it the wrong way around, ranged should be long casts, bursty to blow off trash, clearing the fight for going melee, in melee ranger should be smth like tr, but atm tr is better at melee AND better at ranged though not the same build, so if u expected/wanted a ranged class - play tr, he blows ranger out of the water at range, now if they only would make a feat that improves charges(either regen speed or number) for impact shot and cloud of steel for whisperknife then they might as well delete ranger
will have to get my tr to lvl 60 and max recovery for expansion
OK, so:
1) The D&D Ranger specializes in single-target damage. Favored Enemies, Hunter's Quarry, all of these speak to a specifically focused character on single-target damage. Sure, you'll have some AoEs but this isn't its primary role. I have to say that this is one thing that would have been a nice addition; perhaps a paragon path could be made along these lines?
2) The 4E D&D Ranger is meant to focus on one OR the other. A Ranger in 4E who focuses on the bow, for example, tends to stink in melee, and vice versa. There are certainly exceptions to this in earlier editions, but they are quite rare.
3) I strongly disagree with the contention that this was built to be a "true hybrid class" or even built to be a good DPS melee'r with some ranged trinkets. Here's why:
* Both At-Wills are (essentially) area-effect (8' blast, 2' cylinder) so when they do come down on you in bunches so you can damage all of 'em, not just one.
* Several of the encounter powers are designed around the ranged ranger *even in melee mode*. Hindering Strike applies grasping roots *so you can get the hell away from melee*. Boar Charge is a knockdown; Split the Sky's Throw Caution adds to damage if you hit it before you go ranged. Just about every melee encounter power essentially revolves around getting away, buffing that applies to ranged (as well as melee), etcetera. Sure, they do more damage than ranged, but not significantly enough that you'd really WANT a ranger as a melee striker supported by range; they seem to me to be built exactly the other way around.
* The Hunting Hawk Companion (not yet released, but created for the Hunter Ranger Booster Pack) gives you an active bonus to ranged attacks based on how far your target is away from you. I don't see a concomitant companion that helps the ranger out in melee being released.
* Buff Tree feats increase run speeds, snare durations and grasping roots. Hell, even the Melee tree has a feat that lowers *all* ranged cooldowns on a hit whilst the Archery tree has one that increases the damage on *your next single* melee attack.
Nope, this class certainly looks to me that it isn't built to do only-melee; in fact it looks to me that it was *completely* designed around doing primarily archery whilst at the same time giving the class more survivability in melee than a CW when the bad guys get close.
Does the ranger as it currently stands on test actually succeed in its goal of making an awesome ranged striker with survivability? No--but I think there're enough people who played it before this "nerf" who can see that it was a bit OP. Now they're dialing back to underpowered, to gauge both community reaction and how far they *can* nerf it before it becomes useless; and in the end I think they'll do their best to strike a happy medium.
Split Shot is a time delayed AoE, been to long since I tried Electric Shot to say if that also has a time delay in using it.
Hindering Strike and Boar Charge are both single target so that you're not actually gaining time to escape unless you're facing a single target or have another player actively aggroing a mob away from the HR. Weak Grasping Roots did little in actually assisting in escaping a mob even before the nerf and it's primarily laid out as a single target aside from Split the Sky where it's applied when a foe deals damage.
You might be correct in Cryptic testing how far they can sway in one direction or the other but I would prefer them to look at making a viable hybrid and not some half baked wannabe that the community is willing to grudgingly accept.
Agreed that the initial HR I made did have the feel of succeeding solely as an archer style and melee was a last resort effect to the build. I'll also agree that without careful consideration it's easy to make a survivable archer so overpowering that melee would still be ignored by many but that is easily fixed by not allowing the HR to remain outside of melee range for a majority of combat time, but can still be done while allowing such a retreat much more often than currently available. DON'T discount gripes for a more potent archer as a demand for a sole archer build just because you prefer a melee style of play.
Now that we understand that we're looking for a true hybrid class, while a single target striker is a nice idea (I love the thought of a sniper personally) to make longer range abilities viable after getting into melee combat the HR will need more of a crowd control role instead of DPS so that you truely swap between the two, by doing it the other way around you're leaning towards a choice between styles of play. Single target snares won't allow for legitimate retreat when facing larger mobs.
Your suggestion of high melee DPS with ranged DoT is nothing short of chosing between another melee striker or a ranged supporter.
Marauder's Escape should be a melee skill to get out of danger, Marauder's Rush should be a range skill to get into the fray to lay out some crowd control for example.
I honestly feel in a dungeon/skirmish environment people will be able to spend 90% of the time in ranged stance if they so choose. Perhaps the leveling needs some fine tuning, but that is usually the smaller period of playing a character. Also, once geared, solo play will be decimation at a distance. Leveling is harder to balance I think, and personally feel it is less important than final gameplay. Funny thing is I usually have more fun leveling than end game, but that might be because of the novelty.
I followed your lead and played a skirmish on my melee ranger. In the lag fest that is the preview server it was very hard to stay alive with all the mobbing and red areas. Our defenses are very weak. Still, I managed to do half the damage of the first placed gwf. Considering he was well geared and i am in blues with barely rank 5s, I think it is no so far off. I did notice that at range I got bothered much less, but my damage just was not there since I am melee spec. It is by far the most intense class to play, and I do welcome the change of pace.
Damage output aside, I am surprised that no one mentioned that the combat systems' heavy reliance on auto-target/hard locking on mobs puts the HR in more dangerous situations with the charge-up of something like the split shot or even using the plain old rapid fire jumping on different mobs if they are further away when you have a swarm charging down on you. On the other hand, while it is not necessarily as prominent on stuff like the GWF or even a CW (both I have capped at 60 on live) as their abilities fire off quick or AoE in such a way that the clunkiness can be worked around much easier.
If we had more control over the how of combat rather than absolutely needing a target for so many of our skills (I hate firing off at something, and get the "you need a target" error when the mob is quick-pathing to my side when I get surrounded in a flash) it would make the lower damage a little more tolerable and would require less of an adjustment back up since the swing down was rather severe.
So yeah, the scaling of the skills seems to be too front-loaded for the lower levels, but once the higher levels get hit, I would venture 45+. the pinch gets felt in a bad way and only gets worse as the level goes up.. keeping gear and enchants up to date is fine, but comparing the HR to the other classes at an even level progression, the HR seems to fall behind in the key moments of damage much less mitigation.. you can only Shift so much before you are spending most of your time dodging and not attacking lol...
I know that a combat revamp won't happen (as much as I would love to see it become more fluid), so maybe a review of how everything spans from the mid-range up to cap when compared to the other classes might make things easier for future HRs lol.. take this major front-loading of power from the lower range and add to the back end where its sorely needed.
I honestly feel in a dungeon/skirmish environment people will be able to spend 90% of the time in ranged stance if they so choose. Perhaps the leveling needs some fine tuning, but that is usually the smaller period of playing a character. Also, once geared, solo play will be decimation at a distance. Leveling is harder to balance I think, and personally feel it is less important than final gameplay. Funny thing is I usually have more fun leveling than end game, but that might be because of the novelty.
I followed your lead and played a skirmish on my melee ranger. In the lag fest that is the preview server it was very hard to stay alive with all the mobbing and red areas. Our defenses are very weak. Still, I managed to do half the damage of the first placed gwf. Considering he was well geared and i am in blues with barely rank 5s, I think it is no so far off. I did notice that at range I got bothered much less, but my damage just was not there since I am melee spec. It is by far the most intense class to play, and I do welcome the change of pace.
I can understand wanting to balance for PvP/group play but the class needs to be just as survivable and versitile in solo play so you aren't playing two completely different characters. It's broadly anounced that solo play is doable outside of skirmishes and dungeons and is the main reason I actually came to play. I enjoy playing with a group occasionally but prefer not having to hassle with the min/maxers who think there's only one way to correctly play a certain class or the players that have no idea of what they're supposed to do, both of which seem to flood any mmo. Focus should be first to balance a class for solo play, if that is offered in the game, AND THEN balance it for group/PvP not the other way around.
It's already clear that Cryptic wants HR to be using both range and melee skills and I can accept that concept but that said...
A skillbar swap is nothing new for me, I already know it from the other fantasy mmo I play, GW2. It's not something I use unless I get a good synergy combo from it like bonfire/whirlwind axes to throw flaming axes in an AoE. Mandating this type of play in only 1 out of 6 classes offered just to survive I find defeating the game balance between classes. No other class demands use of the TAB feat in order to survive so the balance between range and melee will be all the more difficult in achieving in order to not mandate such a feature.
Maybe instead of swapping weapon styles using TAB could grant a Hunter's Lunge and remove the Marauder's Escape Encounter. Like Stealth with the TR Hunter's Lunge would need to be recharged before use again so as to prevent spamming. There are many ways to build a hybrid class and Cryptic seems to have chosen the most difficult to balance.
It's already clear that Cryptic wants HR to be using both range and melee skills and I can accept that concept but that said...
A skillbar swap is nothing new for me, I already know it from the other fantasy mmo I play, GW2. It's not something I use unless I get a good synergy combo from it like bonfire/whirlwind axes to throw flaming axes in an AoE. Mandating this type of play in only 1 out of 6 classes offered just to survive I find defeating the game balance between classes. No other class demands use of the TAB feat in order to survive so the balance between range and melee will be all the more difficult in achieving in order to not mandate such a feature.
This is not entirely true i play ranger ele guardian and war in GW2 and balance is kinda meh every thing is geared towards zerker in that game and every class beside warriors scream there underpowered take a look at there ranger forums and every one will QQ about the low dmg the class dose btw ranged dmg is GW2 is utter <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> and longbow is only used to stack vuln back on topic.This is from a PvE standpoint
GWF spam there tab a lot so do CW TR stealth and and DC divine power the only class that doesn't is GF. TR and HR tab to survive or engage/disengage saying no class uses their tab is very untrue.
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]
Comments
That is easy to explain. People like easy mode - gameplay. They have gotten so used to it, that they are or have become unable to embrace the hard work, the devs have put into new skills/feats etc. Ok i agree, that some skills may not be as powerful as the first paragon path's equivalents, but they are far from being useless. People just have to find/figure out new ways to utilize them to their full potential. This can include, stat changes, item changes, gem changes and much more.
I have no intention to offend anybody, i just don't want to see the devs hard work getting dragged into the dirt, for nothing. Cut them some slack.
Have a good evening.
Here I'd agree with you but although HR has great range capability in design it's not truly a viable option. HR would be better taking the Whisperknife role with an increase in range. Say maybe 40-50ft as range focus with a singular long range skill, either a weak At-Will puller or a powerburst Encounter to knock down the door.
They simply call it the Trickster Rogue.
With it's "Cloud of Steel," "Whirlwind of Blades," "Path of Blades," and "Blitz," the TR has ranged abilities. Granted they're short range, but still ranged. (And much more useful than many of the HR's skills.)
The TR's melee skills far outshine the HR's, their interrupts, stealth, and other skills make the HR look like a really bad TR with a name change.
The ranger should be different from any other class, not a mangled rehash of another class.
(Where's a Miniature Giant Space Hamster when you need one?)
I don't use bows on a ranger if I have a choice so what you call a monstrosity because you can't opt to play a complete ranged version is actually more in line with my experience and expectations of a ranger which is bows at range and melee in close combat and is also exactly what's defined in the player handbook, using both to gain an advantage in combat.
This is your interpretation. Your preference.
You want an Archer Ranger. This isn't the Archer Ranger.
Just like the Devoted Cleric isn't a Battle Cleric, the Trickster Rogue isn't a Brawny Rogue, the Control Wizard isn't the War Wizard. They all have very different playstyles. You can play any class in a variety of ways focusing on different aspects but the general playstyle is predefined by the subclass that the game grants you.
The Hunter Ranger is a hybrid fighter. Not an archer and not a melee fighter. You can focus more on one than the other and do fine but it is still designed and balanced to be a hybrid. If you don't like it than ask for an Archer Ranger but just because you incorrectly assume rangers are archers or prefer the Archer Ranger doesn't by any means negate that this class is very true to the dynamics of the Hunter Ranger's (and rangers in general) role. The Archer Ranger was a very strict subset of rangers and not in any way the end all and be all.
Rangers are not by definition archers. Never have been. Never will be.
Even in First Edition that role was clearly defined as an "Archer" and not as a "Ranger."
The fault for al this lays either with people who didn't read the telegraphing from Cryptic about how the class would work, assuming there was any of that in advance (I don't know, I don't follow it that closely) or with Cryptic for not managing players' advance expectations for the class. I think it's obvious a lot of players were expecting a class that could reasonably be played as a pure archer. They've waited months for that, and now that it's nearly here and is something entirely unexpected, they're sorely disappointed.
If you had read my previous posts, which I've quoted here, you would discover that what I want is an either/or ranger, not a dual-stance only ranger.
If we had an EITHER/OR Ranger, folks who want to play dual-weapon only can, folks who want to play ranged only can, and folks who want to play dual-stance can.
My gripe is with making a dual-stance ONLY ranger, where the ONLY way to play it IS dual-stance.
(Where's a Miniature Giant Space Hamster when you need one?)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Even if the other player isn't capable of telling you what to do, there are limitations.
I don't play GF because I don't like the shield and I don't care for the block mechanics. Should I go and gripe about the GF they designed to make it suit my personal wants, which would be drop the shield, throw in a dodge mechanic and let me keep my one-handed sword and defense?
"D*mn wizards," said Morik the Rogue.
Learn what a GWF and GF really are: The History of Fighters
let's remember to focus on the topic and not on each other. it's okay to disagree but attacking every opposing opinion is considered power posting and that is a form of trolling.
please do not respond to this post or discuss it. instead, send a PM to the community moderators or community managers.
Bingo!
It's not either or. It's both. Hybrid.
You need to use both to play the class to the full potential it is balanced to be played at.
You can't play it as an Archer Ranger or as a Dual Weapon Ranger and play the class to the full potential. You have to play it as a Hunter Ranger which uses both.
Use both. Not one or the other. The class is a hybrid ranged/melee class. I can't say this any clearer.
The Hunter Ranger is not an Archer Ranger. It's not meant to be an Archer Only.
Again the attack on wanting a more defined range role in the HR by claiming it's a hybrid. I'm really frustrated in trying to explain that the current style of HR is NOT a hybrid but a melee with some longer range capabilities. With the exception of Marauder's Escape and a "lifesaver" Daily there is no viable means to garner enough time and/or space to use either a casting time delayed or long range improved damage skill outside of the initial combat start. That alone makes the "hit-and-run" concept of a hybrid role totally void.
I agree. While I'm not terribly interested in a class that is hybrid and requires so much more work than usual, I can't say it's a bad design. Just not what *I* would choose.
My choice for a ranger would be a sneaky bow and pet combo, specifically.
The developers were pretty clear with their wording, both in the previews and in the descriptions. HR is a hybrid class, MEANT to be played as a hybrid and not allowing successful play with only one or the other. I caught on to that pretty quick, and while I don't disagree that it's not what I want, and I've offered my suggestions for the class, I won't be 'betrayed' or 'upset' about it if it goes live like this.
"D*mn wizards," said Morik the Rogue.
Learn what a GWF and GF really are: The History of Fighters
This I feel may be a legitimate complaint. It is more melee focused, mainly because the snares don't allow a ranger to keep range for any period of time.
Even if they maintained the damage output currently in the build (may need a slight buff to keep the 'striker' title, but not like before), they need some more buffer abilities thrown in.
That's a legitimate concern, in my opinion.
"D*mn wizards," said Morik the Rogue.
Learn what a GWF and GF really are: The History of Fighters
I guess I'll just stick with the TR, it's a much better hybrid than the HR, IMHO.
(Where's a Miniature Giant Space Hamster when you need one?)
HR is not a strictly ranged class soo... CW are a better ranged class and TR sacrifice a good bit to be ranged from the whisperknife tree unless your perma stealth a GF GWF and CW will eat you as whisperknife rouge speaking from a pvp standpoint.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
There's a fine line between making a ranged aspect powerful and making melee too weak to be used.
The changes they put in last week were quite obviously in response to the ranged being so superior that the melee was considered too weak and was not used enough. Could they have gone too far? Maybe.
Think of it this way, attacking at a distance always has an advantage over melee combat off the get go. The key is to balance the melee combat's risk vs reward. But this class is not a ranged class or a melee class. It's both. So I would expect that the ranged option will be more survivable and have better sustain damage but the melee combat will deal more burst damage.
ranger without range is like great weapon fighter running around with a standard sized spoon as a weapon
The hunter ranger has ranged though lolz its ranged is just intertwined with its melee mode its not better at one or the other but they synergize with one another synergy is a amazing concept and is what the HR is all about. Only problem atm is they skill need to be rebalanced because their dps is quite low atm.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Agreed that the initial HR I made did have the feel of succeeding solely as an archer style and melee was a last resort effect to the build. I'll also agree that without careful consideration it's easy to make a survivable archer so overpowering that melee would still be ignored by many but that is easily fixed by not allowing the HR to remain outside of melee range for a majority of combat time, but can still be done while allowing such a retreat much more often than currently available. DON'T discount gripes for a more potent archer as a demand for a sole archer build just because you prefer a melee style of play.
Now that we understand that we're looking for a true hybrid class, while a single target striker is a nice idea (I love the thought of a sniper personally) to make longer range abilities viable after getting into melee combat the HR will need more of a crowd control role instead of DPS so that you truely swap between the two, by doing it the other way around you're leaning towards a choice between styles of play. Single target snares won't allow for legitimate retreat when facing larger mobs.
Your suggestion of high melee DPS with ranged DoT is nothing short of chosing between another melee striker or a ranged supporter.
Marauder's Escape should be a melee skill to get out of danger, Marauder's Rush should be a range skill to get into the fray to lay out some crowd control for example.
u got it the wrong way around, ranged should be long casts, bursty to blow off trash, clearing the fight for going melee, in melee ranger should be smth like tr, but atm tr is better at melee AND better at ranged though not the same build, so if u expected/wanted a ranged class - play tr, he blows ranger out of the water at range, now if they only would make a feat that improves charges(either regen speed or number) for impact shot and cloud of steel for whisperknife then they might as well delete ranger
will have to get my tr to lvl 60 and max recovery for expansion
1) The D&D Ranger specializes in single-target damage. Favored Enemies, Hunter's Quarry, all of these speak to a specifically focused character on single-target damage. Sure, you'll have some AoEs but this isn't its primary role. I have to say that this is one thing that would have been a nice addition; perhaps a paragon path could be made along these lines?
2) The 4E D&D Ranger is meant to focus on one OR the other. A Ranger in 4E who focuses on the bow, for example, tends to stink in melee, and vice versa. There are certainly exceptions to this in earlier editions, but they are quite rare.
3) I strongly disagree with the contention that this was built to be a "true hybrid class" or even built to be a good DPS melee'r with some ranged trinkets. Here's why:
* Both At-Wills are (essentially) area-effect (8' blast, 2' cylinder) so when they do come down on you in bunches so you can damage all of 'em, not just one.
* Several of the encounter powers are designed around the ranged ranger *even in melee mode*. Hindering Strike applies grasping roots *so you can get the hell away from melee*. Boar Charge is a knockdown; Split the Sky's Throw Caution adds to damage if you hit it before you go ranged. Just about every melee encounter power essentially revolves around getting away, buffing that applies to ranged (as well as melee), etcetera. Sure, they do more damage than ranged, but not significantly enough that you'd really WANT a ranger as a melee striker supported by range; they seem to me to be built exactly the other way around.
* The Hunting Hawk Companion (not yet released, but created for the Hunter Ranger Booster Pack) gives you an active bonus to ranged attacks based on how far your target is away from you. I don't see a concomitant companion that helps the ranger out in melee being released.
* Buff Tree feats increase run speeds, snare durations and grasping roots. Hell, even the Melee tree has a feat that lowers *all* ranged cooldowns on a hit whilst the Archery tree has one that increases the damage on *your next single* melee attack.
Nope, this class certainly looks to me that it isn't built to do only-melee; in fact it looks to me that it was *completely* designed around doing primarily archery whilst at the same time giving the class more survivability in melee than a CW when the bad guys get close.
Does the ranger as it currently stands on test actually succeed in its goal of making an awesome ranged striker with survivability? No--but I think there're enough people who played it before this "nerf" who can see that it was a bit OP. Now they're dialing back to underpowered, to gauge both community reaction and how far they *can* nerf it before it becomes useless; and in the end I think they'll do their best to strike a happy medium.
Hindering Strike and Boar Charge are both single target so that you're not actually gaining time to escape unless you're facing a single target or have another player actively aggroing a mob away from the HR. Weak Grasping Roots did little in actually assisting in escaping a mob even before the nerf and it's primarily laid out as a single target aside from Split the Sky where it's applied when a foe deals damage.
You might be correct in Cryptic testing how far they can sway in one direction or the other but I would prefer them to look at making a viable hybrid and not some half baked wannabe that the community is willing to grudgingly accept.
I honestly feel in a dungeon/skirmish environment people will be able to spend 90% of the time in ranged stance if they so choose. Perhaps the leveling needs some fine tuning, but that is usually the smaller period of playing a character. Also, once geared, solo play will be decimation at a distance. Leveling is harder to balance I think, and personally feel it is less important than final gameplay. Funny thing is I usually have more fun leveling than end game, but that might be because of the novelty.
I followed your lead and played a skirmish on my melee ranger. In the lag fest that is the preview server it was very hard to stay alive with all the mobbing and red areas. Our defenses are very weak. Still, I managed to do half the damage of the first placed gwf. Considering he was well geared and i am in blues with barely rank 5s, I think it is no so far off. I did notice that at range I got bothered much less, but my damage just was not there since I am melee spec. It is by far the most intense class to play, and I do welcome the change of pace.
If we had more control over the how of combat rather than absolutely needing a target for so many of our skills (I hate firing off at something, and get the "you need a target" error when the mob is quick-pathing to my side when I get surrounded in a flash) it would make the lower damage a little more tolerable and would require less of an adjustment back up since the swing down was rather severe.
So yeah, the scaling of the skills seems to be too front-loaded for the lower levels, but once the higher levels get hit, I would venture 45+. the pinch gets felt in a bad way and only gets worse as the level goes up.. keeping gear and enchants up to date is fine, but comparing the HR to the other classes at an even level progression, the HR seems to fall behind in the key moments of damage much less mitigation.. you can only Shift so much before you are spending most of your time dodging and not attacking lol...
I know that a combat revamp won't happen (as much as I would love to see it become more fluid), so maybe a review of how everything spans from the mid-range up to cap when compared to the other classes might make things easier for future HRs lol.. take this major front-loading of power from the lower range and add to the back end where its sorely needed.
My 2 cp
I can understand wanting to balance for PvP/group play but the class needs to be just as survivable and versitile in solo play so you aren't playing two completely different characters. It's broadly anounced that solo play is doable outside of skirmishes and dungeons and is the main reason I actually came to play. I enjoy playing with a group occasionally but prefer not having to hassle with the min/maxers who think there's only one way to correctly play a certain class or the players that have no idea of what they're supposed to do, both of which seem to flood any mmo. Focus should be first to balance a class for solo play, if that is offered in the game, AND THEN balance it for group/PvP not the other way around.
A skillbar swap is nothing new for me, I already know it from the other fantasy mmo I play, GW2. It's not something I use unless I get a good synergy combo from it like bonfire/whirlwind axes to throw flaming axes in an AoE. Mandating this type of play in only 1 out of 6 classes offered just to survive I find defeating the game balance between classes. No other class demands use of the TAB feat in order to survive so the balance between range and melee will be all the more difficult in achieving in order to not mandate such a feature.
Maybe instead of swapping weapon styles using TAB could grant a Hunter's Lunge and remove the Marauder's Escape Encounter. Like Stealth with the TR Hunter's Lunge would need to be recharged before use again so as to prevent spamming. There are many ways to build a hybrid class and Cryptic seems to have chosen the most difficult to balance.
This is not entirely true i play ranger ele guardian and war in GW2 and balance is kinda meh every thing is geared towards zerker in that game and every class beside warriors scream there underpowered take a look at there ranger forums and every one will QQ about the low dmg the class dose btw ranged dmg is GW2 is utter <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> and longbow is only used to stack vuln back on topic.This is from a PvE standpoint
GWF spam there tab a lot so do CW TR stealth and and DC divine power the only class that doesn't is GF. TR and HR tab to survive or engage/disengage saying no class uses their tab is very untrue.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]