Curse

Kyten · Aug 27, 2005, 04:18 AM // 04:18

is it only me who has noticed this, but im pretty sure that some classes are biased to having one atrib for something the main class affected by this is rangers

Marksmanship, why are all their weapons requiring marksmanship? why cant we have wilderness survival for daggers, beast master for whips maybe,or even crossbows, just to make it fair i dont like the fact that it seems like as a ranger im required to put points into marksmanship.
i see a problem with warriors too

Tactis and shields

im pretty sure that all the warrior shields require tactics, this seems only fair to the hammer warriors, who cant use shield, but what about swordsmen and axe users?what if they want that extra armor? what if they want all their points into strength and axe/swords huh? maybe give bucklers for swords and bracers for axes, its mostly fair for the other classes, eles got it all under control, mesmers im pretty sure, monks-no idea i think so tho,necros im pretty sure. so how bout it? who would like to put this into the game, i know i would.
PS: realised that rangers are RANGErs so instead of a dagger maybe throwing knives or a crossbow (whips can be long)

Kyten · Aug 27, 2005, 04:18 AM // 04:18

sorry bout odd grammar in first sentence...and double post

Son of Mooky · Aug 27, 2005, 04:28 AM // 04:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyten

is it only me who has noticed this, but im pretty sure that some classes are biased to having one atrib for something the main class affected by this is rangers

Marksmanship, why are all their weapons requiring marksmanship? why cant we have wilderness survival for daggers, beast master for whips maybe,or even crossbows, just to make it fair i dont like the fact that it seems like as a ranger im required to put points into marksmanship.
i see a problem with warriors too

Tactis and shields

im pretty sure that all the warrior shields require tactics, this seems only fair to the hammer warriors, who cant use shield, but what about swordsmen and axe users?what if they want that extra armor? what if they want all their points into strength and axe/swords huh? maybe give bucklers for swords and bracers for axes, its mostly fair for the other classes, eles got it all under control, mesmers im pretty sure, monks-no idea i think so tho,necros im pretty sure. so how bout it? who would like to put this into the game, i know i would.
PS: realised that rangers are RANGErs so instead of a dagger maybe throwing knives or a crossbow (whips can be long)

Shields can use tactics or strength

Kyten · Aug 27, 2005, 04:31 AM // 04:31

oh wee....well what about the rangers (ive never played a warrior and im not gonna waste my time trying)

PS: what about those ?/w's hmm

Racthoh · Aug 27, 2005, 05:51 AM // 05:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyten

oh wee....well what about the rangers (ive never played a warrior and im not gonna waste my time trying)

PS: what about those ?/w's hmm

My warrior can't use the offhand requiring divine favor, or the one that requires soul reaping.

If you're a /w then you're not going to have same benefits on a full-fledged warrior. You'll have to use a tactics shield just like I have to use a healing prayers ankh, or a blood magic idol.

I do agree that rangers should have some other kind of weapon. Although I'm not sure how they would directly relate to say Beastmastery or Wilderness Survival.

Rhunex · Aug 27, 2005, 06:36 AM // 06:36

well, to the OP about rangers weapons requiring marksmanship, i think it's pretty obvious that if you're going to be picking a ranger you're choosing a character this isnt supposed to use weapons like swords, wands and staves. You're choosing a character that specializes with bows, and marksmanship increases your skill with using a bow. so, i agree with what racthoh says, that they should have more weapons, but i dont see any way they could make that a reality when rangers have attributes like beastmastery

Red Sonya · Aug 27, 2005, 09:23 AM // 09:23

and since beastmastery suks for the most part it's a wasted attribute as well. Single pets are so easy to kill, in fact I use them to gain hit points and energy with my build if anything they are helpful to the opposing team that has my certain build. Then I go whoop up on the Ranger hehe. Pets should be given some type of inherent interupt or knockdown like in Neverwinter Nights, no skill required, but, ever so often they would activate it.

Kyten · Aug 27, 2005, 04:22 PM // 16:22

err, whips relate to beast mastery, you gotta tame it, and wilderness survival,not sure how a crossbow would work with that ,id be happy if they just made a wilderness survival bow or beast mastery bow, and jsut because beast mastery sucks to some people doesnt mean they shouldnt pay any attention to it

Flame · Aug 27, 2005, 09:29 PM // 21:29

Crossbows would definantly be a Marksmanship weapon. Daggers could be implemented under Wilderness Survival, but a new line of Preparations would be helpful to make them of more use.

I think that if you don't want Marksmanship, you shouldn't make a Ranger. Short and simple.

Thomasuwoo · Aug 27, 2005, 10:45 PM // 22:45

If you don't like ur bow just give em a weapon from ur secondary class. You'd be surprised how adeptable ranger as a primary really is.

Born · Aug 27, 2005, 10:57 PM // 22:57

There has been alot of posts about this, including the one I made a while back.

Probably the biggest reason that bows are linked only to markmanship is because a person like me would make a warrior/ranger with max sword/axe/hammer for close range and max wilderness (if a bow req wilderness) and have both close range and far range attacks plus be able to have 2 ways to heal myself (troll + healing sig).

Could also do this with war/ranger and beast mastery using tigers fury+ bow (linked to beast) and sword/axe/hammer for close range.

Both builds above could be over powering in the right hands, the way it is now its not over powering because bows are linked only to marksmanship.

----------example----------------------------------------------------------------
If you have a ranger/warrior you could use a sword/axe/hammer and be effective with 10-12 points in say "sword mastery" and rest in ranger skills (dont need to use markmanship).

If you picked a ranger/monk and went with healing prayers at 10-12 you could still use 2 ranger attributes and be effective using a healing wand/staff
weapon (dont need to use markmanship).

You do have options just like other classes do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RotteN · Aug 27, 2005, 11:22 PM // 23:22

basically, the "fighter" classes have to invest certain points into an attribute that improves their skill with their weapon. For Warriors that's axe/hammer/sword, for rangers it's marksmanship. It's not that hard to accept imo.

Yes, casters (ele/monk/necro/mesmer) don't have such "weapon" attributes yet they get most of their damage output out of spells ... you do more damage with a "fighterweapon" but you'll need to invest attribute points in it to be able to use it effectively ...

johnnylange · Aug 28, 2005, 08:14 AM // 08:14

Sounds like a noobish rant to me.

tear · Aug 28, 2005, 09:38 AM // 09:38

A dagger would be the exact opposite of what a ranger would use... Ranger = Archer. Archers use bows.

Perishiko ReLLiK · Aug 28, 2005, 10:06 AM // 10:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnylange

Sounds like a noobish rant to me.

Quoted for the truth.

This topic has been discussed many times before. And you people still dont get it... Besides the fact that rangers are fine the way they are (i now have two ascended and both play completely different.) hint, one doesnt use a bow... but a ranger doesnt have to use a bow to be usefull (as long as you know what you're doing)

Heremod · Aug 28, 2005, 10:42 AM // 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by tear

A dagger would be the exact opposite of what a ranger would use... Ranger = Archer. Archers use bows.

English isn't my mother toungue, but still I'm quite sure you are wrong with that conclusion. Word range has really very little do with word ranger. Ranger means like forest quard or similar. Marines aren't blue either.

Kyten · Aug 28, 2005, 08:40 PM // 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by tear

A dagger would be the exact opposite of what a ranger would use... Ranger = Archer. Archers use bows.

Did you even read my "PS" at the bottom of the first post? it freakin' said i realised daggers werent ranged gosh! man my threads all get burned and die

One and Two · Aug 28, 2005, 08:49 PM // 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perishiko ReLLiK

Quoted for the truth.

This topic has been discussed many times before. And you people still dont get it... Besides the fact that rangers are fine the way they are (i now have two ascended and both play completely different.) hint, one doesnt use a bow... but a ranger doesnt have to use a bow to be usefull (as long as you know what you're doing)

You are quoted

Anti-Theory · Aug 28, 2005, 08:52 PM // 20:52

I dunno, they make a good point about how rangers only use one weapon, which effectively makes is Bows are to Ranger as Axe/Sword/Hammer is to Warrior. It would be the same as increasing one trait.

Maybe you can put crossbows in expertise, so only ranger primaries can use them.

Jigs · Aug 28, 2005, 09:04 PM // 21:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyten

err, whips relate to beast mastery, you gotta tame it, and wilderness survival,not sure how a crossbow would work with that ,id be happy if they just made a wilderness survival bow or beast mastery bow, and jsut because beast mastery sucks to some people doesnt mean they shouldnt pay any attention to it

err, you are a ranger, you tame animals and make friends with them. If you use whip to tame them you are like the summit dwarves, taming the beast by force to serve them. I don't think whip is a good weapon for a Ranger(guardian of the forest). It's not ranger like.