Curse

Epinephrine · Jun 14, 2005, 06:58 PM // 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan montegarde

I'd like to have a gun of some sort. Like, a flintlock musket. Slow reload time, fast flight time, lots of damage, misses a lot, and pierces all armor.

Never happen. Weapons with lots of damage and long reloads (crossbow, gun) can't work because people will fire them once to start combat and then switch to a fast weapon.

Bows are fine as they are, if they tweak them I wouldn't mind seeing a bow off another attribute, Expertise or (possibly) Wilderness Survival.

Miss Puddles · Jun 14, 2005, 07:02 PM // 19:02

pub darts maybe? lol

suzumebachi · Jun 15, 2005, 11:59 AM // 11:59

most realistic would be a hunting knife or something similar for wilderness survival. it would offset the range advantage you get from marksmanship, so it wouldn't be unfair. it could have low damage (similar to that of a wand/staff) and fairly fast attack rate. and in your second slot you could use focii/shield depending on your secondary class.

as far as beast mastery goes.. i have no idea. some kind of bo staff maybe. 2 handed, medium damage and attack rate. WATAH. *WHACK WHACK*

and those of you that say there are too many kinds of bows... exactly how many different types of swords are there? fiery dragon swords, flamberges, short sworts, long swords, etc, etc, etc

RTSFirebat · Jun 15, 2005, 12:05 PM // 12:05

Give beast mastery a whip

funbun · Jun 15, 2005, 12:17 PM // 12:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by tazmaniac

I noticed a lacking in the ranger class...

I agree. Dart guns and blow guns sound cool. Even a slingshot would work. How about Ninja weapons like:

http://www.allcombat.com/ninjasupplies.html

Grapping hooks, shogees, chains, daggers, throwing stars, hand claws and foot pikes for melee, batons, etc.

Jijimuge · Jun 15, 2005, 01:32 PM // 13:32

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of having some new weapons for rangers based on the beast mastery or wilderness survival attribute.

Maybe spears or perhaps whips (smirk)...or even staves as long as the staves are clearly druidic ones and are in a different style to the current caster ones. Clearly they wouldn't do as much damage as bows, and would (I suggest) be identical in damage to typical caster staves.

One can go for a ranger that's more of a druid than an archer (note the name of the armour set), and I would enjoy it more if the weapons allowed for that possibility a little more than they do at present.

tazmaniac · Jun 15, 2005, 02:39 PM // 14:39

Thats what we need! An entire new class! Ninjas!

Epinephrine · Jun 15, 2005, 02:57 PM // 14:57

On a serious note (as opposed to the ninjas comment) there is a thread on Ranger foci, which would at lest be an option aside from the bow for a druid/beastmaster/trapper type.

funbun · Jun 15, 2005, 03:56 PM // 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by tazmaniac

Thats what we need! An entire new class! Ninjas!

YES! A solid Ninja/Assasin/Rouge character is much needed.

Ytrill · Jun 15, 2005, 04:00 PM // 16:00

Rangers can use swords....and bows. And you shouldn't have to be a r/w to do it....Even then, one of the such is a skill around 4 or so.

The Ages · Jun 24, 2005, 04:53 AM // 04:53

I Think they should do with bows as they do Warriors and Sheilds, The Best Shilds use Tatics but you can still find some good Str ones.

I Think Expertise should be linked to some bow, But yet the best ones needed a high Marksman ship.

EdgeOfNight · Jun 26, 2005, 03:22 AM // 03:22

Ranger's weapons are limiting for two simple reasons-

1) They require marksmanship and ONLY marksmanship. Either add a weapon that uses expertise or beast mastery or wilderness survival (such as tonfa (?) sticks, bullwhips, and gauntlet-mounted claws, respectively), or make the bows that do exist require a certain skill from that set (example, dead bow is a wilderness survival requirement, longbow is a marksmanship, etc, with some crossover bows just to be safe).

2) Oh dear GOD give us something to use in the other hand, or an appropriate counter-balance to go with the inability to use that hand. For example, why can't rangers use a bucker strapped at the elbow of the hand used to steady the bow? That's an outstretched arm anyway. Or why not add arm guards as an option? Make it so that they enhance attack time or make arrows travel faster or assist in skill recharge or reduce energy cost or SOMETHING. I fail to see why I can use a shield with my sword, a foci with my wand, but not a skill-enhancing armguard with my bow.

If that is unfeasible to stomach by many, why not try this? Give rangers THREE components to their weapons.

For example- an archer can choose the grip, the string, and the kind of material the bow is made from. For example, an Oak Poisoner's Deadbow of Warding would have further range, while an Evergreen Poisoner's Deadbow of Warding would have faster arrow travel time. Sure it's a pain in the ass to say, but it's at least an original idea, and still performs the function that an off-hand item would.

Just pitching suggestions around.

drowningfish999 · Jun 26, 2005, 03:34 AM // 03:34

Actually, I think there should be a type of shield useable by rangers. I've seen lots or games/movies/etc. that included archers using a small shield attacked to their wrists, or even a large tower sheild used during reloading(mainly crossbows though). Obviosuly the shields wouldn't be as great as a warriors, but at least they would add an offhand item for rangers.

funbun · Jun 26, 2005, 10:52 AM // 10:52

Quote:

Either add a weapon that uses expertise or beast mastery or wilderness survival (such as tonfa (?) sticks, bullwhips, and gauntlet-mounted claws, respectively)

I like this suggestion. These weapons would be great for close combat situations. A two hand fighting staff wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Also, what about mechanical crossbows?

Dumachum · Jun 26, 2005, 01:40 PM // 13:40

I do not want to see crossbows or blow guns, or darts or any such thing. Would be too much redundancy, especially the crossbow.

I am VERY for getting atleast an expertise line of bow or a beastmastery whip. I would almost go as far as saying this will have to be mandatory if I am going to continue to support this game. Rangers sorely need an expertise line of weapons.

However, I REALLY like the bow material idea as a trade off too. This would REQUIRE that composite bows be eliminated though for logical reasons.

EdgeOfNight · Jun 26, 2005, 07:42 PM // 19:42

Part of the problem is the multiple weapon categories for the other physical damage dealing class, namely warriors.

Warriors have axes, hammers, and swords. It then gets broken down further so that they have runic hammers, pickaxes, pickhammers, wingblade swords, fellblades, fiery dragon swords, etc etc. Rangers have bows. So right there, they're working with 1/3 of the categories of weapons as warriors have. Yes, warriors may not have as many swords, hammers, or axes in each separate categories as rangers have bows, but that's because warriors don't have JUST swords. If warriors did have JUST swords, they'd probably have as many different swords as rangers have bows.

The other part of the problem is, yes you can use weapons from your secondaries, however, rangers practically REQUIRE high ratings for three skills- wilderness survival, expertise, and marksmanship. All max damage bows seem to have a req. 11 rating. In addition, preparations and traps (which many self-respecting rangers use) are pretty much worthless if you have less than 10 AP in Wilderness Survival. If you're using a pet, you'd probably not need Wilderness Survival but instead beast mastery at a rank of 10. And while you can get by with a low expertise, it's going to be much more difficult because rangers don't have high energy ratings and really NEED that mitigation that expertise provides. So when you take these minimum 10 skills, you really can only have a 5/5 AP cut between two other skills from your secondary profession. That's too low for many of the weapon requirements. Besides that, it's rather silly to have a ranger go from firing arrows from a bow to firing energy bolts from a wand.

Seth Oriath · Jun 26, 2005, 08:22 PM // 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdgeOfNight

Part of the problem is the multiple weapon categories for the other physical damage dealing class, namely warriors.

Warriors have axes, hammers, and swords. It then gets broken down further so that they have runic hammers, pickaxes, pickhammers, wingblade swords, fellblades, fiery dragon swords, etc etc. Rangers have bows. So right there, they're working with 1/3 of the categories of weapons as warriors have. Yes, warriors may not have as many swords, hammers, or axes in each separate categories as rangers have bows, but that's because warriors don't have JUST swords. If warriors did have JUST swords, they'd probably have as many different swords as rangers have bows.

Do the runic hammers, pickaxes, pickhammers, wingblade swords, fellblades, etc., have different stats to them? As in more DPS? I'm sorry, but we also have shortbows, longbows, recursive bows, composite bows, flatbows, horn bows, ivory bows, etc. All of these have different stats to them, whereas your swords, axes, and hammers don't.

Quote:

The other part of the problem is, yes you can use weapons from your secondaries, however, rangers practically REQUIRE high ratings for three skills- wilderness survival, expertise, and marksmanship. All max damage bows seem to have a req. 11 rating. In addition, preparations and traps (which many self-respecting rangers use) are pretty much worthless if you have less than 10 AP in Wilderness Survival. If you're using a pet, you'd probably not need Wilderness Survival but instead beast mastery at a rank of 10. And while you can get by with a low expertise, it's going to be much more difficult because rangers don't have high energy ratings and really NEED that mitigation that expertise provides. So when you take these minimum 10 skills, you really can only have a 5/5 AP cut between two other skills from your secondary profession. That's too low for many of the weapon requirements. Besides that, it's rather silly to have a ranger go from firing arrows from a bow to firing energy bolts from a wand.

While I agree with what you are saying, a ranger has many different types of bows that actually broaden their weapon type more than any other class. You want DPS? Shortbow. You want length? Longbow or Flatbow. What classes can do that? NONE!

Also, read the Fansite Friday for this week.

I'm going to have to say that there's plenty of options as a ranger in regards to weapon choices. If you just use whatever weapon you have and don't pay attention to what its stats are, of course you're gonna be disappointed with its performance in certain areas. Why do you think any self-respecting ranger wouldn't carry around just one bow type? I carry four of them around for whatever the situation calls for.

EdgeOfNight · Jun 26, 2005, 10:02 PM // 22:02

Did you even read what I posted? Nowhere did I say how bow weapon choices were lacking. Many rangers DO carry around more than one bow. That's part of the problem. Warriors can carry a sword, an axe, and a hammer, AND ALSO any weapons from their secondary. And since they only need a high Strength and whatever weapon type they prefer, they can slam spare points into their secondary profession. Rangers need a combination of three skills, so their secondary usually suffers. Being able to functionally wield weapons from your primary and secondary is a huge advantage that warriors have as a physical damage dealer that rangers lack. Rangers are the only other physical damage dealers in the game, and, as such, weaponry should play roughly as large a role as with Warriors, but it doesn't. Some bow types are worthless, IE horn bow, dead bow, etc. Why not get rid of some bow types and give us bullwhips and quarterstaffs and other sensible ranger weapons.

PieXags · Jun 26, 2005, 10:06 PM // 22:06

I think rangers are fine as it is.

We've got loads of different bows, loads of different skills that allow us to add yet more variations to our attacks via conditions that we can add, and there are different pros and cons to each bow, you know, short bow/long bow differences and what not.

Sure you need marksmanship to fire a bow...but why the hell WOULDN'T you need marksmanship to fire a bow? How in the world could you fire a high level bow if you're not a marksman? Is your "beast mastery" going to teach you how to fire a bow? Of course not. The fact that marksmanship is the attribute you need is just fine. If you're a R/E and you want to use staves, then find one for your elementalist attribute and don't complain because you've nothing in marksmanship. It only makes sense people...you need some in marksmanship to be a marksman. Expertise is the ranger-only attribute so you can't make bows with that, beast mastery doesn't make any sense at all, and wilderness survival is related to non-direct bow attacks. So marksmanship is the only thing that makes sense. Also keep in mind that marksmanship is the only attribute for rangers that increases their bow damage to my knowledge, so you'd be weaker anyway if you didn't use it.

Rangers weapons are fine.

Massassi · Jun 26, 2005, 10:35 PM // 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by PieXags

I think rangers are fine as it is.

We've got loads of different bows, loads of different skills that allow us to add yet more variations to our attacks via conditions that we can add, and there are different pros and cons to each bow, you know, short bow/long bow differences and what not.

Sure you need marksmanship to fire a bow...but why the hell WOULDN'T you need marksmanship to fire a bow? How in the world could you fire a high level bow if you're not a marksman? Is your "beast mastery" going to teach you how to fire a bow? Of course not. The fact that marksmanship is the attribute you need is just fine. If you're a R/E and you want to use staves, then find one for your elementalist attribute and don't complain because you've nothing in marksmanship. It only makes sense people...you need some in marksmanship to be a marksman. Expertise is the ranger-only attribute so you can't make bows with that, beast mastery doesn't make any sense at all, and wilderness survival is related to non-direct bow attacks. So marksmanship is the only thing that makes sense. Also keep in mind that marksmanship is the only attribute for rangers that increases their bow damage to my knowledge, so you'd be weaker anyway if you didn't use it.

Rangers weapons are fine.

Not everyone wants to be a marksmanship ranger and not everone wants to use their secondary class. Just like not everyone wants be be a death magic necro or a fire magic ele or hammer warrior; The problem is that the poeple are being forced to use marksmanship even if they realy want to focus on maybe beast mastery and wilderness survival.