Posted by Dural on July 19, 2000 at 20:49:14:
In Reply to: Counter counterpoint posted by Someone on July 19, 2000 at 19:00:39:
Sorry, but this is going to come across as a flame (and it sort of is)...
My comments are based on your rating system of the ranger skills/spells below.
Its readily apparent that you are interested in playing a certain 'way'. It leads me to believe that you would play any class in this way. For an example, I would say you would play a high con warrior class and try to deal damage. If it was an invoker, you would shoot for gnome and pick off the races based on vulnerability. The mage example isn't as clear as it seems obvious, but you could argue the same as the warrior...the point being, you seem to favor a straight forward, no frills approach.
The validity of this is left as an excercise for the reader. Now, for me, I would definitely take issue with all of your ratings...basically, I can't see why you would even want to play a ranger (and maybe you don't)...because to you they suck. After Takashimi con-died, I thought long and hard on what I wanted from my next character. I liked the taste of anonymity that hide provided, plus I liked the ability to be somewhat self-sufficient. This lead me to choose the ranger class (and cloud giant as a race mainly because I grew to hate quicksand as Tak and secondly because I can't remember the last time I had a cloud character).
As a ranger, my only complaint is that I think things like find water and butcher should be level 1 (though I guess there would need to be a restriction on player corpses)...I love the idea that they can be totally sufficient. Basically, I didn't need anyone for anything more than cutting my ranking time down. It was ridiculously easy to PK with camo/creep/ambush and if I was feeling lazy, a call lightning to finish them off. By making the effort to ensure that *I* chose the location for my fights, I could easily make my odds even for killing you and 99.99% that I would survive. Sure, the idea that preparation means everything in a PK is true for everyone, but in wilderness areas a ranger is frightening. Anyone who doesn't think so isn't playing them correctly. I mentioned the only thing I needed was a group to cut down ranking time: quite simply with one or two items as preparation, I could rank all night on elite storms solo from 35+.
The point is, the ranger class is unorthodox (running second behind Druids in this category). All of their skills and spells can be put to use (even armor and barkskin). Sure, it might not be the use equal to bash, drum, or whatever you like but that can be fixed simply be adjusting your attitude and expectations about the class.
> My first comment is that classes have been mostly balanced lev vs lev, and xp penalties haven't been touched. Second - Almost all of the 0 penalty classes have been totally overhauled, in most cases making them at least on a par with the 'multi-talent' classes. Third - races have been balanced out(his example of cloud is a good one) - but again, the xp penalty hasn't been touched.
> > Ranger:
> > Armor
> Whoop de do. Anyone that practices armor should be spanked.
> > Barkskin
> See above.
> > Butcher
> Mystical? I think not. Useful? Rarely. Worth even a single point of xp penalty? Given a choice, I'd lose the skill.
> > Call Lightning
> I suppose - but again, given a choice, I'd lose the skill.
> > Camp
> Mystical? No. Nice? Yes.
> > Control Weather
> See 'call lightning'
> > Dark Vision
> On a par with butcher.
> > Entangle
> Got me there.
> > Fashion Staff
> Mystical? No. Useful? Only for a felar. Worth an xp penalty to a felar? Nah.
> > Find Water
> See butcher.
> > Herbs
> Mystical? No. Worth a tiny penalty? Maybe.
> > Imbue Staff
> Got me there, but even to a felar if it would mean a smaller xp penalty I'd lose both skills.
> > Protection Heat Cold
> See herb.
> > Snare
> Mystical? No.
> > Tame
> Snare, camp, entangle, the staff skills, herb - and the unmentioned: camo, creep, ambush, waylay, serp, bearcharge, backrake(worthless). Vs, oh, say, a warrior:
> fourth attack, trip, bash, more weapons, and two sets of specializations - not to mention being useful in all enviroments.
> I'd say that's pretty balanced. Wouldn't you? Well, it was MEANT to be pretty balanced when rangers were overhauled, wasn't it? But, uh, why do rangers still have an xp penalty?
> > Assassin:
> > Bindwounds
> Not significantly mystical - and i meantain that 'mystical' is a stupid qualification for xp penalty. ORIGINALLY the penalties were a carry over of 'what can you do that a warrior can't? AP.. well, no dodge, no fourth attack, but you get a BIG ASS PILE of offensive spells. Paladin? No dodge, no fourth attack.. but a BIG ASS PILE of defensive spells - plus, conditionally, the best damage spell in the game. Back before there WAS such a thing as specialization, or even dual wield... giving rangers a small penalty(camo, ambush, bears) made sense considering all they lost was bash/trip/fourth. Keeping that in mind, I'm going to stop going through the skills one by one. Hell, I'm going to stop going through the rest of the email. In my not so humble opinion, the classes are - by and large - balanced. Thieves need an overhaul. That's it. They've been designed that way. They've been implemented that way. But the xp penalties never changed. They made sense, back before dual wield. AP? Well, you're nearly as good as a mage.. but you also have shield block, enhanced, third, bash, and trip. Pal? Nearly as good as a cleric(well, ok, not really :p), and you're a decent fighter. My vote would be to nix xp penalties on classes entirely. Give *all* non-humans a 200 or 250 penalty(there needs to be some incentive to play a human, and their stats just aren't that great.) Hell. Penalties in general are a lot less meaningful since defense skills aren't level dependant - and a lot of spells are entirely save based(anyone remember when you could only sleep people your level or lower?) - they're just plain annoying. Beyond that, without penalties, you could then give spellcraft, saves, etc a lot more meaning.
> > Blindness Dust
> > Dark Vision
> > Endure
> > Heightened Awareness
> > Mark
> > Locate Mark
> > Owaza
> > Poison dagger
> > Poison Darts
> > Poison Smoke
> > Tiger Claw
> > Vanish
> > You can argue that these aren't mystical, but by the definition that I presented they are mystical. They have spell like effects. Some other of their skills COULD be included too, but these are the ones that really stand out.
> > One could say that the Races are more balanced than before with their new Vulns and such, and perhaps some of them can be relooked at, but Cloud Giants get resistance to weapons, large size, dual-wield two handed, fly, and great warrior-type stats. Their vulns are rough, but not as rough as say Felar or arial. Clouds aren't out of line.
> > Of course we can go back in "I'm right, you're wrong" all day but I'd greatly prefer we didn't. I posted this as one example of "Immortal Point of View" and not to argue about it. You can be sure that things like this are often reviewed, and sometimes they fall behind things like the recent Paladin upgrade and other things to come.
> > Now... if your point was that the changes of Conjurers and Invokers have changed the value of some racial Vulns... that is a more intersting topic. Looking at how Arials and Felars are harder to play now with the rise in magical attacks that hurt them is a quite interesting debate point. Of course I could argue that Arials at least were overpowered until this point, especially with the rise of Specialization... but that's another arguemnent.
> >
> > > Both extracost for classes and races are just obsolete.
> > > they came from 1 Age
> > > A lot things changed but extracost.
> > > These two categories mystical/physical
> > > were an excuse in 1 or 2 age
> > > Let's say assassins don't have too many mystical skills
> > > as well as rangers
> > > I have heard yet another explanation
> > > like offensive/defensive classes.
> > > Those who are in both categories have extra cost
> > > this don't work well now too
> > > (for example conjurers)
> > > Considering extra cost for races:
> > > well, you may agree with 500extra to old clouds
> > > but current clouds aren't that tough (and still have
> > > the same extra cost), etc
> > > Extra costs are just obsolete and should be reconsidered
> > > (or maybe removed with some minor balancing).