Expand Weapons for ranger

Epinephrine

Epinephrine

Master of Beasts

Join Date: Mar 2005

Ottawa, Canada

Servants of Fortuna [SoF]

14 Jun 2005 at 18:58 - 41
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

Miss Puddles

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Jun 2005

California

Shiverpeaks Search And Rescue [Lost]

Me/

14 Jun 2005 at 19:02 - 42
pub darts maybe? lol

suzumebachi

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2005

New Mexico

Mas Chingon [VATO]

R/N

15 Jun 2005 at 11:59 - 43
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

RTSFirebat

The Humanoid Typhoon

Join Date: May 2005

UK

Servants of Fortuna [SoF]

R/

15 Jun 2005 at 12:05 - 44
Give beast mastery a whip

funbun

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Apr 2005

I forget. Really. I don't know.

Mo/

15 Jun 2005 at 12:17 - 45
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

Academy Page

Join Date: May 2005

15 Jun 2005 at 13:32 - 46
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

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jun 2005

15 Jun 2005 at 14:39 - 47
Thats what we need! An entire new class! Ninjas!

Epinephrine

Epinephrine

Master of Beasts

Join Date: Mar 2005

Ottawa, Canada

Servants of Fortuna [SoF]

15 Jun 2005 at 14:57 - 48
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

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Apr 2005

I forget. Really. I don't know.

Mo/

15 Jun 2005 at 15:56 - 49
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

Ytrill

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jun 2005

FL

Warlords of Team Bonzai

W/N

15 Jun 2005 at 16:00 - 50
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

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jun 2005

24 Jun 2005 at 04:53 - 51
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

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: May 2005

26 Jun 2005 at 03:22 - 52
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

drowningfish999

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: May 2005

Awakened Tempest [aT]

26 Jun 2005 at 03:34 - 53
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

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Apr 2005

I forget. Really. I don't know.

Mo/

26 Jun 2005 at 10:52 - 54
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

Dumachum

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2005

Florida

na

R/E

26 Jun 2005 at 13:40 - 55
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

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: May 2005

26 Jun 2005 at 19:42 - 56
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

Seth Oriath

Academy Page

Join Date: May 2005

Alabama

Guild Of The Adrenaline Vault [AVF] - Guild Leader

R/Me

26 Jun 2005 at 20:22 - 57
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

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: May 2005

26 Jun 2005 at 22:02 - 58
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

PieXags

Forge Runner

Join Date: May 2005

The Infinite Representation Of Pie And Its Many Brilliances

26 Jun 2005 at 22:06 - 59
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

Massassi

Academy Page

Join Date: May 2005

kneeling at the feet of Grenth.

26 Jun 2005 at 22:35 - 60
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.

PieXags

PieXags

Forge Runner

Join Date: May 2005

The Infinite Representation Of Pie And Its Many Brilliances

28 Jun 2005 at 06:13 - 61
You have more than enough attribute points to have marksmanship, wilderness survival, and beast mastery all at 10+. Right now I have marksmanship, expertise, and wilderness survival all at 11+ so why in the world does it matter if you don't want to use your secondary?

Ashley Twig

Ashley Twig

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: May 2005

germany

Guild Of Openhearted Deeds

R/Mo

28 Jun 2005 at 12:39 - 62
It's sort of funny to see who real-world life affects roleplaying.

There's always somebody complaining about something.

If you don't like to use bows don't play a ranger.
A ranger comes with limitations and his/her part is in the back, as far aways from the foe as possible and as close as needed.
If that role is not suitable for somebody s/he should pick some other character.

We can't be all equal, though this is a dream a lot of people like to see come true one day.

We all play our parts and we should pick the charakter that suits us best, instead of complaining that something's wrong with the charakter we choose.

Andy06r

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: May 2005

28 Jun 2005 at 13:23 - 63
I can whole heartedly agree with this. My char is BM 16, expertise 10, domination 9. I gave up my bow for a line of pet attacks and hexes. Im experimenting and I kinda like this (for pve), but im forced to take a high domination so I can use a decent staff. I'd much rather take points off domination and use wilderness, but I simply can't afford to w/o breaking the build (I actually use quite a lot of mana)

Feli

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2005

28 Jun 2005 at 13:56 - 64
It is kinda funny to see where these suggestions come from.
It is the typical LOTR Uber Ranger Wish. You know, seeing that gay (of course i am speaking of happy) Legolas. Shooting his bow like a god, then grabbing his sword and killing some more.
Thats it what you want, no? Or is it the typical D&D Trend***** Ranger? Two weapons, low armor but insane attack rate and insane damage, woohooo... Or is it the typical WoW Druid? You know, about Beast Mastery and Stuff. You want a staff to jump around like Furion, calling animals and trees to your help.


Well, wake up please. This is neither LOTR, WoW nor D&D. It is Guildwars. And in Guildwars the Ranger is a BOW Lover. Nothing else. Yep, that is right... he is no Druid waving around his sickle, giving potions to his fellow fighters. He is no Uber Elven Warrior, dishing out serious rampage all ways. He is no dual hand Trend*****. He is just a ranger, grabbing his bow (which vary A LOT), putting a lot of Upgrades on it and then engaging in combat.

Leave the rangers as they are, they are a mighty fine class and balanced in all means. If you start tweaking them out, they will get superior to all other classes. And trust me, they put the Markmans only req there for a reason. And that reason most probably is, that any other requirement would have seriously overthrown the balance.

Epinephrine

Epinephrine

Master of Beasts

Join Date: Mar 2005

Ottawa, Canada

Servants of Fortuna [SoF]

28 Jun 2005 at 14:09 - 65
Posts like the above are examples of narrowmindedness. Rangers aren't "Rangers" in GW, remember? They are Ranger/X and X/Ranger. And they have 1 line with NO bow skills, one line which is largely non bow skills, a bow line and a primary line with bow-support and non-bow skills.

The argument against expanding ranger weapons is summarized as follows :

"I like a bow and think rangers don't need anything else", which is basically just that you are content playing a ranger in one way.

The reasons for ranger weaponry expanison have been listed in many threads, and are fair and not seeking an advantage over other classes - in fact, I have specifically argued against adding a bow to the wilderness line as it might unbalance rangers to have access to both bow preparations and a new bow type within the same attribute.

Argue facts, not your personal satisfaction with the game.

Rangers have one attribute line with a weapon, and none with a focus. A ranger focus in BM and WS as well as a staff in these would put them on equal footing in choice of skill line as the other professions.

Mat Thirteen

Mat Thirteen

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jun 2005

Illinois

Cheyenne Social Club

E/N

28 Jun 2005 at 14:33 - 66
I think something needs to be done for rangers.. i.e. pet infusion or something like that. But i definately dont think we need to have new weapons for rangers. Programming new weapons is like giving someone whos starving to death a dixie cup of water. Its nice of you but it doesnt really help them at all.

Epinephrine

Epinephrine

Master of Beasts

Join Date: Mar 2005

Ottawa, Canada

Servants of Fortuna [SoF]

28 Jun 2005 at 15:00 - 67
There is no doubt that other aspects of rthe ranger need to be addressed (Pets in particular, and it has been said that ANet is looking into the pet issue) but currently it is difficult to run a ranger as anything but a bow user, and it is a forbidding secondary to many classes as they don't wish to sacrifice their energy for a bow, but may not have an offensive weapon in their discipline (Healing for example) - thus they must invest in either a third attribute like smiting to get a weapon, or invest in markmanship for a bow - an imbalance does exist in that any build of elementalist will have a staff and wand/focus avaiable for them, while only one type of build for rangers allows a weapon - it must include marksmanship. No other profession is as restricted in how they play. A Wilderness and or Beastmastery staff would help those rangers who wish to use two of the non-bow lines - trapping and beastmastery.

Andy06r

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: May 2005

28 Jun 2005 at 15:17 - 68
Here is an idea...make short bows expertise based (dexterity over strength), long bows marksmanship based (strength and accuracy over dexterity), and add a quarterstaff based on wilderness that can be like all the other staffs in the game. Beast mastery doesnt need anything imo because i think a whip would go against the ranger's "stand back and shoot" mentality and if you have a high bm, you probably have a high expertise, wilderness, or if R is your secondary, a primary attribute, to provide your weapon.

bobrath

bobrath

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2005

Texas

Scouts of Tyria

28 Jun 2005 at 18:25 - 69
Alternative thought:

Don't add new weapons, just allow wilderness survival and pet mastery to appear as requirements on the current stave/rod & focus sets. You already can have a staff with healing/blood magic/domination requirements, why not just add the ranger "caster" skills to that list?

This would enable a ranger (primary or secondary) who wanted to use the non-bow based skill sets to be able to benefit from a weapon slot that wasn't a bow - thereby removing the forced marksmanship attribute spending.

This leverages the existing economy and model since staffs and staff upgrades have been tested and work just fine....

Epinephrine

Epinephrine

Master of Beasts

Join Date: Mar 2005

Ottawa, Canada

Servants of Fortuna [SoF]

28 Jun 2005 at 18:29 - 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobrath
Alternative thought:

Don't add new weapons, just allow wilderness survival and pet mastery to appear as requirements on the current stave/rod & focus sets. You already can have a staff with healing/blood magic/domination requirements, why not just add the ranger "caster" skills to that list?

This would enable a ranger (primary or secondary) who wanted to use the non-bow based skill sets to be able to benefit from a weapon slot that wasn't a bow - thereby removing the forced marksmanship attribute spending.

This leverages the existing economy and model since staffs and staff upgrades have been tested and work just fine....
That's exactly what has been suggested.

bobrath

bobrath

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Jun 2005

Texas

Scouts of Tyria

28 Jun 2005 at 18:33 - 71
Seems like it would be a simple code change...

Course its the playtesting to see what it does to balance that's hard.