Truth about Rangers

The truth about rangers is that they are screwed like no other class. I think I figured out why. It basically boils down to the Rangers attribute system. No other class is required to throw as many attribute points into two defined attributes like the ranger is. ALL rangers must throw an ungodly amount of attribute points into both Expertise and Markmanship. This hinders them from doing any 1 thing effectively. Combine this with there screwed up skill tree and you have created a recipe for disaster. I'll cite an example for you. The skill Tiger's Fury. This is a stance that can create some fun for an archer. Yet it is attributed to the Beast Master attribute. Why? Is it listed under Beast Master because it is called Tiger's Fury? It has nothing to do with pets. Yet if a ranger wants to use it effectively he has to throw points into Beast Mastery. What a waste. Most effective combinations of rangers require you to use alot of Wilderness Survival too.

To sum up. You've put most into Expertise and Marksmanship. You've split the rest between Wilderness Survival and Beast Mastery. You now have no room for your secondary proffesion. I think most rangers will agree. There are alot of neato combinations to be mixed with the secondary proffesions. I think that's what arenanet intended for rangers. But by screwing up the primary class skill tree we can never get to those combinations.

During Beta I played Ranger, never had problems with my attributes being stretched too thin.

I play a Me/N and Me/Mo and I can manage to spread my attributes out quite nicely on my Me/N to be extremely effective without a 12 in that attribute. So Im sure a ranger can escape with a 6 or 7 in expertise and a 8 or 9 in marksmanship, which gives them enough attributes to spread elsewhere.

Rangers are very versatile from what I remember playing of them, and I never had this attribute problem you speak of. I'm not saying your arguement is wrong, but I've had a ranger build exclusively made up of marksmanship, expertise, wilderness and the Warrior skill Frenzy and loved it. With 100+ skills in their repitoire, I think even if Ranger's limit themselves to Ranger only skills, they are just fine except beastmastery which is in need of a boost.

I don't have a single point in Marksmanship and my Ranger rocks. The problem with most people is that they think they have to do a lot of damage with their bow to be effective. WRONG.

My secondary is monk and that's just so I have rez. In beta was a Ranger only. Don't have power for anything else. Screw the second.

I'd have to agree with the Rangers being fine as they are. Sure, some skills are a little screwed, but nothing class breaking.

And to be honest, I'm having a great time being only a Ranger, with Monk secondary for rez... I doubt Warriors or Monk, or hell, any class alone has the versatility of a Ranger. Would I want my Ranger to be better? sure. This doesn't mean I think there's anything major wrong with him right now tho.

The truth about rangers is: They're perfectly fine. YOU are spreading yourself too thin.

Prioritize. You dont put points into both axe and sword as a warrior, do you?

You are not required to use all four. Someone, a day or so ago, said this exact same thing: If you've ever played D&D, you realize that GW is a min-maxer's dream.

Yeah they're not by any means stretched too thin, you could forget entirely about wilderness survival for the most part if that's not what you're going for, and you don't need a single point into beast mastery unless you want to...master beasts. I personally couldn't care less about a pet or anything like that. I mean hell, you have to pick and choose attributes like with most classes, with my mesmer you can sure as hell bet I'd LIKE to be able to put all my points into 2, but I can't, that's the point of having points and refunds, to learn which attributes you need to build up for a good character that fits your style of play.

With the exception of a couple weird builds, many rangers go Expertise, Marksmanship, Wilderness Survival. I do so myself (mostly cause I can't complete my other build cause of the crappy capture system). Rangers aren't a bad class at all, quite the contrary, but they are rather confined to a specific set of skills and combos.

Comparison to a Warrior is not quite correct. Some of the most vital Ranger skills are tied to your bow, even if they are not tied to the Marksmanship attribute. However, since bows have minimun Marksmanship requirements (8 for a good bow) you are pretty much forced to put points into marksmanship if you want to carry a bow and have it be much use even for low-damage bow skills. With no points in Marksmanship, you are probably better off carrying a wand/staff, as these will do just as much damage. Unfortunately, this shuts you out of a huge number of Ranger skills.

My main bow has req markmanship 3,
9-13 lightning damage, 10% penetrate armour, +1 to markmanship 10%.
Currently lvl 16 and have no need for a better Bow.
Use Apply Posion and pets and the Dot means creatures Die very very quickly.
When I hit level 20 then I may need a better bow, but so far I have not found one even those with req 6-9

To be honest, we need to further look at the skills that NECCISTATE a bow. The vast majority of ranger skills that I would reccomend using outside of marks for your bow are either in Marks or Expertise, both of which any ranger that means to use a bow aught to have high levels in.

While I agree that some of the skills are placed oddly, The fact is most ranger players simply try to spread themselves too thin. Particularily in the example of tiger's stance, there are other speed stances available to you, especially if you use a secondary profession's attributes.

What I would next suggest is that we actually get a list together of skills that REQUIRE the use of a bow, regardless of attribute, and check them against usefullness/irreplacability.

I think on one hand the poster is right, i think ranger is the only class where you NEED to put points in at least Marksman and experise (well marksman not neccisarrily but hten you need wilderness survival), which means u arent left with much points for anything else... especially since the best ranger skills are spread over all of the 4 attibutes:

Beastmastery: Tigers Fury
Wilderness Survival: Preparations, traps
Marksman: about all damage skills

And you always need Expertise as a ranger because without you run out of energy after like 2 skills...

So he is right on that part...

----

On the other hand that makes ranger taht much more interesting, as you have to make some tough chooices and that also means there are a LOT of different rangers out there...

If you take warrior i dont know how many, but im sure ive seen hundereds of (almost) the exact same warriors with a hammer or sword (axe is rarer) and monk as secondary....

ATM i dont really mind as it is because i can use my ranger fairly well, though it COULD be something thats looked into.

Why would you pick a class as a primary and not want to put points into at least 2 attributes? Warrior, Elem, and Monk are also classes you will want 2 attributes, although you can be more flexible as to which two you put them in. But why would you pick a primary and want to use only one attribute?

Your missing the point of the thread. In order for Rangers to be effective as a Ranger, they must spend there attribute points on all 4 attributes. If they instead opt to put some into their secondary proffesion they have gimped themselves considerably. This shouldnt be the case. Putting points into your secondary proffesion should strengthen your primary in some way. I read all kinds of posts "well im a level 13 ranger..." or "my level 8 rng/mnk is slammin damage!". This means absolutely nothing when your level 20. I myself, am a level 20 rng/mnk. Scrollin down the Monk skill list I see all kinds of skills I would like to use, but I cant use any of those without gimping down my already gimpy ranger. So like 99% of at least ranger monks, some form of Ressurect is the only monk skill on my skill bar. All the way at the end there.
Judges Insight is a popular monk spell that some rangers use. But thats pretty gimpy too, because they dont have the attribute points left to put into smiting prayers. Expertise should of never been an attribute. It should of either been inherent to the class. Example, for every two levels gained, you gain 4% expertise. Or, there should of been a 5th Ranger attribute available. Example, something like a "Duel Wielding" line. Rangers are the "Jack of all Trades" as described on the official website. If Warriors get a choice of 3 weapons to specialize in and casters can only use 1, shouldnt the "Jack of all Trades" have been given 2 choices for weaponary? Giving us another attribute line would have actually helped us define where we wanted those attribute points to go. Unfortuanatly, Arenanet has pretty much told us where they go. This limits the class.

:P They have debilitating shot for that reason alone!

EDIT: I agree with the post, but I'm not sure Anet should rush into fixing this. Yes, currently, the ranger is probably undisputed as the most item-heavy character (no other character NEEDS a superior rune THAT bad, stupid giants nerf), not even warriors or elementalists can claim that over a ranger.

A side note on why rangers are so confined to marksmanship is their own innate attributes. Wilderness survival unless used by a trapper (which is already not noob friendly), is completely support. Beast mastery is a joke at the moment, with pets having an IQ of 2, and no confirmation of them not sucking. They also require hefty slots to carry out their attacks (I personally liked calls, since while not promoting variety, at least got the job done).

It sucks trying to have 14 expertise for energy conserving (considering our max energy is low as well), then at least 12 marksmanship to gain the full 100% weapon damage, and to be able to use the bows, and then wilderness survival for not only traps and preparations, but more importantly, Troll Unguent. Considering that is the only healing spell I have, I'm pretty much forced to put in points so I can have some healing power. Even using runes and all of that, I can end up spending like 5-8 points for a secondary class, that's when I put 0 into beast mastery as well (so no tiger's fury).

I almost agree, however you dont need to put anything into beast mastery, BUT yes, the other 3 are pretty essential. Marksmanship so that while energy regens your bow damage doesn't suck. Wilderness Survival for Troll Unguent as already said, plus things like Ignite Arrow etc, and Expertise simply coz if you don't go for something that reduces energy used, you're daft

The ranger I played in Beta didn't have any points in Marksmanship. He's job wasn't to do damage most of the time, but to stop others from doing damage. A Ranger like any other class in this game can be used traditionally by putting out a lot of damage with their bow. Or they can be used in a way most folks overlook. Like using their skills to slow down a group of others, or used to stop others from slowing down you're team. They are a great anti-caster class if setup right.

I started off thinking I'd take a different path and not put points into marksmanship and instead focus on beastmastery. The pet can be fun at times, but it comes with some serious handicaps that probably outweigh the benefits of spending points on the skill. First and foremost, you have to give up two skill slots just to have the pet present at your side. This is one skill for the pet's simple existence (charm animal) and one skill to bring the pet back if it dies, since allied healers cannot resurrect it (comfort or revive animal). But just having the pet present hardly justifies the use of these skill slots. Since the pet has no inherent skills, without the use of further beastmastery skills, it is nothing but a low-level DOT effect, one which can prove a significant liability (death, aggro, etc.) and which is worthless if you are not also dealing a significant amount of damage (which you won't be if you have no points in marksmanship). Why can't Comfort Animal or Revive Animal be tied to the pets continued presence? Why can't allies resurrect your pet?

Now your pet can be made into a fairly effective fighter through additional beastmastery skills, but these skills take up alot of space. Think of it this way: if you go with your pet as a weapon, you will have to use 4 skill slots just to have access to two simple attack skills, skills which are typically less powerful than player attack skills. Basically, to make your pet the equivalent of a single basic warrior attack skill (i.e. PC warrior of the same level repeatdly using on attack skill), you need to use at least 4 skill slots on your bar (charm, resurrect, a buff and an attack skill), if not 5. When you combine this with the complete lack of control over your pet and the pet's rather abyssmal AI, why in the name of god would you choose to invest points here?

Needless to say, I dropped the pet and put the points into marksmanship. Despite its problems, my bow never gets stuck on the terrain.

I think one way to improve the Ranger class would be to add some weapon alternatives. For example, why not have a spear tied to wilderness survival or a whip tied to beastmastery? Pure warrior weapons would still be more effective damage dealers, but you could allow rangers to break away from the bow and explore some of the other attributes as specializations? Casters all have weapon options that are tied to different specializations (i.e. an "air" staff, a "domination" cane, etc.).

I am yet to see any argument in favor of the flexibility of Rangers to invest points in attributes instead of Marksmanship or Expertise that would not be an even stronger argument in favor of taking Ranger as a secondary class.

I'd love to see ArenaNet overhaul the pet system. I love having a pet at my side, but not when it's a liability. Sadly, this is the case for most games (Diablo 2 is the rare exception; the Druid's animal companions are extremely effective!).

Ranger works well as a secondary when you use a caster class to address energy needs. This is a workaround solution though to an issue that has a much easier solution than creating new attribute lines: Expertise-based bows.

There were plenty of rumors flying around that this would make it into the game but I still haven't seen one. This would save attribute points by not forcing rangers to specialize in both Expertise AND Marksmanship. Every other class has their weapons available across at least 2 different attributes....usually more.

The most abused and pigeon-holed class though is definitely the monk. Anyone who goes primary monk has to be a healer and to do so, has to specialize Divine Favor. Expertise pales in comparison to how Divine Favor has narrowly defined the monk.

I agree that the ranger could use some tweaking. I have a few suggestions:

1) Increase the base energy for Rangers to 30. This would reduce the need for so many skill points in Expertise. Alternatively, increase the effectiveness of Expertise to reduce energy costs 6-8% per level.

2) Reduce the number of skill slots required to maintain a pet. Just having "Charm Animal" on a skill slot sucks, you NEVER click it! Then you add "Comfort Animal" to heal him. It would be nice if placing only "Comfort Animal" automatically brought your pet with you, so you can leave "Charm Animal" at home until you want to go out seeking a new pet.

By the way, do pets get better the longer you use them? Or are they just tied to your current level?

Also, has anyone with an Ithas Bow have a problem where the damage delivered is only minimal until you un-equip and re-equip it? (Yes, my marksmanship is above 10.)

Dwig

Actually my beastlord pet in EQ1 with his buffs, focus, & rune he'd often times outlast me. Throw in some AA's at level 70 to make him put out some damage and I'd say you had quite the affective companion.

Actually, now that I think about it, the proper way to handle Expertise would be to have the % reduction scale with cost. It makes no sense that going from 44% to 48% cost exponentially more than going from 4% to 8% (20! points for the former, 2 points for the latter). Why does a 4% increase cost 10 times more at a higher level?

Pet level is tied to your current level. If they are behind your current, they will increase to your current level (lagging behind a half level if you are increasing). I'm fairly certain they are capped at 20 also.

My pet is 14th level. I'm 15th level. At one point early on my pet was actually a higher level than I was but it looks like I overtook its levelling.

I totally disagree with the poster on this. I'm a W/R just for the record.

The reason I disagree is that the poster is trying to be good at EVERYTHING, which is totally against how this game is. That'd be like saying a Warrior needs points in Strength, Swords and Tactics to be any good and that leaves no stats for secondaries.

Or saying Elementalists suck because you can't have points in air, water and fire.

The way a ranger is is so that you HAVE to make choices. Making choices is what causes balance. If all you want to do is deal a ton of damage with your bow, put all your points in Marksmenship and Expertise and do that, but if you want to be an awesome damage dealer that way, you won't have good traps or pets. It's all a trade off.

The Ranger is the 'jack of all trades.' You could put even points in all 4 of your skills and you'd have a ton of functionality, but wouldn't be able to do massive damage in any. That's a trade off. I personally think that pets are totally under valued by most Rangers. Of course they suck if you put 1 point there. I think traps are awesome, especially in PVP where you can trap choke points all to hell and watch people run over them and get severely damaged. You don't need to do massive damage with your bow if your traps have already taken people down to 1/2 life.

Simply put, ALL of the professions force you to make choices. If you choose to be a damage dealer, you are gimping yourself in other areas. That's a choice. To me, people put too much value in doing 'maximum damage' builds because that isn't what teamwork is about. You could do average damage and play your class well and totally dominate.

I agree with the posters who say that the class is spread a bit thinly - but not horribly thinly either - they are more limited than a warrior, as a warrior can get away with a bit less in strength and still be an effective damage dealer, freeing up attribute points for elsewhere, while the ranger needs as much in expertise as they can get, due to the way the costs are reduced (for example, there is a 33% reduction in the cost of 5 energy spells going from 12-13 in expertise; that allows 1.5 times as many oof them to be used with a given energy supply, which is a huge bonus. The drop from 6 cost to 5 cost for a 10 energy skill at the 11-12 breakpoint is also nice, it's a 16.6% reduction in cost - the big reductions all occur late in the table, by the mechanism involved.).

This means that a ranger dramatically imporves his efficiency by pumping for the top few ranks of expertise, and marksmanship likewise needs a number of points to be useful. A Warrior on the other hand gets a flat bonus from strength, which while useful is not improving drastically with the upper ranks. It's not a huge difference, but it's enough to be noticeable, and I think that's the issue - a warrior can lose a rank or two in strength without seeing a huge reduction in his damage, freeing up attribute points for a secondary.

Yes, but a warrior does not have to have points in axe mastery in order to use skills in sword mastery, nor does an elementailist have to put points into fire to make his water skills effective. For example, for sword wielders there are only two sword attack skills located outside of the sword mastery (in tactics). For the Ranger, however, over half of your Expertise skills are tied directly to using a bow, as are 7 out of 24 Wilderness Survival skills. Beastmastery is the only skill set that really doesn't rest on you using a bow, but I've already detailed why a pet is really nothing more than an inferior ranged weapon.

I'm not sure if Undertaker read the entirety of this thread, but it was explicitly stated that the player wasn't trying to master everything--but that they NEEDED TO spread their points like that to actually be effective.

The mechanism does not lead to bigger reductions later in the table. For example, going from rank 1 to 2 produces 2 1-point reductions, as does going from rank 10 to 11. Also, stating that going from 12-13 gives you a 33% reduction in the cost of 5-point skills is somewhat misleading, as going from 10 to 11 and 11 to 12 has no effect on 5-point skills. Benefits are linear, as with all other attribute increases.

No they aren't, the reduction is linear, but the benefit isn't.

Edit to clarify: If you look at the benefit as being the number of skills you can activate based on X energy, the benefit is non-linear. In fact, if extended, the table would eventually allow free skills. In that way the benefit is very non-linear. The reductions are linear at a glance, but because taking 1 from the cost of a 5 cost skill differs from taking 1 from the cost of a 4 cost skill there is a real difference in how effective expertise gets.

But everyone spreads their points is my point. Spreading across 2 or 3 skills is common place. You don't HAVE to have points in Marksman/Expertise/Wilderness, just like a Warrior doesn't HAVE to have points in Tactics, Strength and Swords. Just because you can't use some of the skills you have doesn't mean you're gimped. If that was the case, the default PVP classes would all die instantly and I've only played default PVP classes and have been very successful.

Yes, rangers are heavily bow-centric. No doubt about that. If you want to be bow-centric uber damage, I don't think points in 3 skills is a big deal. You could still up a skill or two half-way decently in a secondary, but I still contend that it is not the rangers position to be a heavy damage dealer, a ranger is a secondary damage dealer and thus, if you think of it that way, you could use your points in a different manner and be extremely valuable. It's not all about who can get the biggest per-hit damage number like everyone makes it out to seem.

If reductions are linear, why did you say:

All attribute changes lead to linear increases in benefits, but the small numbers that are generally involved in energy reductions make this cumulative increase over time less apparent. Saying that this linear increase is somehow more significant with Expertise is disingenious. A cumulative, linear increase is just that, but you see more jumps when smaller, rounded numbers are used. The same can be seen in the increase for DOT spells that have changes calculated by small number multipliers, i.e. health degeneration of 2 vs health degeneration of 3. Furthermore, since energy reductions only apply to certain skills, the benefits have to be evaluated in relation to skills/classes unaffected by Expertise.