Posted by The Cyclone on February 13, 2000 at 22:04:39:
In Reply to: Last beef about rangers. posted by Ranger on February 12, 2000 at 18:40:35:
> I think the change made to rangers was actually One, I do not understand why the creep skill
> good but they are still lacking what I think
> would be a more well rounded and option character.
Well, this has LONG been a concern of mine,
since rangers are my favorite class. I think
with the way they are, they are definitely
well-rounded, and they could stand to up to
most anyone FAIRLY well. Before all the recent
changes. The proliferation of damage reduction
in so many ways has even further beaten warrior
classes down. It's true, the warrior specs
are somewhat able to even that out, but some
classes are still in serious pain. Assassins
are more than fine- I still think they're
somewhat overpowered the new way. Thieves
are cannon fodder like they've been since
some genius completely screwed backstab,
although I have seen some better recently.
Paladins, hmmm.... I think they're doing
fine. Rangers are doing somewhat better, but
I would like to see a couple of things happen
with them.
is so mediocre. If thieves and assassins, no
less ELVES, can move (this is important-->)
U N N O T I C E D through the cities *and*
forests at a normal pace, why can't a master
woodsman move his normal walking speed while
staying behind the cover of the forest? Creep
is semi-worthless. It CAN be used, but not
with a great efficiency. Snare and waylay
I do like. Ranger spells, on the other hand,
are another mediocre facet of the class. The
best rangers are rager warriors, so either
remove their spells entirely, (see assassin
revamp) and make them truly warriors of the
wilds, or give them enough complementary spells
(honestly, ARMOR?) to make it worthwhile,
(see Rolemaster). Just a couple of thoughts
on the class.
The Cyclone