Rangers

[Esivole]

Is it me or are rangers slighly gimped?
I know, they deal the most damage a round, blah blah blah....
However even with their powerful throw, their enemies still flee and get away. Unless of course you are a perfect tracker and never mess up on anything on the game at all.
hmm, and is it true rangers can't use pets in warlords? if not than ranger warlords are Really gimped.

[Malrakh]

No, they're not. Every class has a weakness...keeping Players in combat may be one of theirs.

As for a warloard ranger not being able to use pets, from a power-gamer point of view, maybe you may think that's gimped. Though from a RPer's point of view, it could be very fun.

[Esivole]

No offense, but even though you have to RP decently as a warlord, there record is there for a reason. You don't see 1-0 North Square Rp session, no you see 1-0 blah blah blah ( level 50 ) stuff.
Yes i admit this is a weakness and that all things have there weaknesses. However, some weaknesses are greater that others, like a Fire giants weakness is greater than a Storm giants weakness. Fire giants will get hurt emmensly by ice, while Storm just can't wear wood (yes i know this can hurt in some areas, but i personally would rather have a thing I can't wear than massive amounts of damage dealt to me.

[Malrakh]

Yes, but think of how much sweeter that record would be if people knew you didn't even use your pets.

[Nuonorp]

I think the ranger class is very well-rounded. They may not be the best PKers without lagging skills, but a prepared ranger can't be taken lightly, either. And they can deal out the pain really quickly. As for the Warlord thing, a ranger Warlord is not allowed to duel using his/her pets. It'd provide an "unfair" advantage from the point of view of warlords, though I imagine it might be possible if you wanted to fight a 2v1 or something. Well-bred Warlords are strong enough without mobs, they don't need a grizzly bear, a panther, and a color-changing dragon to dish out the damage and hurt. I like rangers, and I think that they're a fun class for beginners and experts alike, although I'm not sure about all these new elven rangers....they could get hurt.

[Dante]

Rangers are serously gimped in the fact if they want to be a warlord, because they cant use pets, there two spells, and herb. There isnt a really good ranger class now with enouph life to be effective without those besides if they had stone giants but sence they dont still more warriors im afriend cuase if you get a warrior that has a plus on polearm by favored weapon he double grips it and double enhanced damage to a two handed weapon unless you have a berserker that REALLY knows what he is doing he hasnt got a chance.

[Rezakhan]

Few points:
--Rangers in Warlord can use their herbs. Warlords just cant use herbs from non-Warlord rangers.
--Rangers, outside of Warlord, are in no way gimped. You think its hard tracking with a ranger, its even harder with a paladin or some other class that can neither lag nor blind.
--Ive been against the complete ban on pets in Warlords ever since I had my last ranger Warlord, which was a while ago and right when the ban was started. I think it would work fine to leave it up to the individual Warlord to decide if using pets would be too much of an advantage or not. For example, a Warlord ranger with pets and two flails/whips can eat an invoker without even trying, so not using pets against an invoker would be good. However, a ranger Warlord going against a warrior Warlord without pets would be at a serious disadvantage--herb and pathfinding and quiet movement are nice, but do not make up for lack of mace, berserk, fourth attack, polearm, lagging skills, etc. In that case, I think it would make sense to let both fighters use all their possible skills for an even fight.

[Amdorin]

[divsky]

Rangers are fine. Sure, they suck as warlords, which is acceptable as ranger warlords should be rare anyways. But rangers are far from being weak.

Wilderness areas are every bit as common as cities, which give rangers stealth abilities equal to a thief, while still maintaining combat abilities which allow them to go toe-to-toe with a warrior. They have one of the strongest curative abilities in the game, herb, which is second only to a monk's healing. They also have a small army of charmies to supplement their power in battle. And the recent changes also make them stronger by giving them bows, which are probably the most effective weapon in the game due to their relative rarity in terms of characters profecient with them (only 3 classes), their ability to change damage types with a single weapon, and their ability to absoloutly dominate in certain battle situations. And they are also one of the only 2 classes who supplement their bow use with the point blank skill. Top this off with a handful of miscellaneous skills (call lightning, campfire, butcher, throw) that make the ranger an easier class to play and slightly more diverse in their abilities.

All off this for the trade off of.. an extra attack, bash and trip?

No, rangers are far from being a weak class.

[Amdorin]

Well...then again...I'm forgetting lash .....so ...hmm that may affect the use of pets. Well..a pick and choose battle basically for pets.

[Nuonorp]

[Seryie]

Your bow % doesn't determine the parry rate. Otherwise they would be even more powerhouse than they already are.

[divsky]

What about with 2 handed weapons that can parry arrows?

[Avendin]

Also protective shield. I think Divsky's points about rangers are very valid. Especially in an extended fight, a ranger is very powerful.