Ranger Class: What direction will Pantheon take?

Gyva02

With every game I've played I always try and choose the bow and arrow class, it suits me and I enjoy it very much. I wonder if Pantheon's ranger is going to be more like EQ1's ranger or EQ2's ranger? I'm hoping it'll be more like EQ2's with more of a focus on ranged DPS and little melee. EQ1's ranger was pretty much warrior/druid. While in EQ1 you could kite mobs with your bow, it took a really long time to do so. And was a more enjoyable in EQ2.

As far as crafting goes i haven't come across a game yet that has a really cool and in depth crafting system for bows and arrows. I really hope Pantheon feels the same way and has a complex system in place for us. I hope there are bows and arrows that only master rangers can craft (not just woodworkers but Ranger woodworkers) and I hope some of those items can be sold to other players who wish to pull with those uber master crafted bows and arrows. I hope certain arrows do extreme damage to some mobs (Zelda's Gannon anyone) and I hope others do little damage to the same mobs. And in the same respect I hope they have similar systems for the other ranged classes. 

I really hope pantheon brings back tracking and I really hope its a utility that others will need from us. I also hope there is more of a system in place for tracking progression. Maybe at first its a small radius and only certain types of mobs but as you complete requirements and skill up, your radius grows and more mobs are able to be tracked. 

Every ranger wants his stealth so I hope they bring this back too. But I hope they keep the "see invis" "see stealth" totems or spells or what ever they will be called in proper proportion. Towards the end of my EQ2 days having stealth was getting pointless as everyone had the totems to see past it, they were inexpensive and the auction house was flooded with them, there really was no point in stealth anymore. (this mainly affected PVP naggy server) 

Now this is where everyone shouts RANGERS ARE OVERLY OP!!!! NERF THEM!!! lol (again PVP servers)... And I agree they are pretty cool with lots of tricks, but I also understand its all about the give and take and I hope this is properly balanced with rangers being very squishy. They should should be very mobile, very fast and agile glass cannons. If a meele class can get a hold of them they should die. Maybe certain armors will have awesome resists to a rangers certain arrows. Maybe he thought he could pounce on that warrior but ut.. ohh, the arrows are not hurting him ... ect... ect... 

Anyways looking very forward to the Ranger class reveal, what do you fellow ranger's hope for in Pantheon's ranger class? 

Scumm

I'm looking forward to some info on Pantheon Rangers as well.  I played as a Ranger when EQ started and I think the class has come a long way since then.  It's a tough class to balance but I felt that while the Bard was a jack-of-all trades, the Ranger was just a master-of-none.  

I like your ideas about specific Ranger woodworking skills.  I would love to see more variety come from a Ranger's quiver. Also, it would be nice to see traps play a bigger role.  Tracking is a must. Some kind of run speed buff would be great. 

Mostly I just want to see Rangers developed as an individual class rather than a poor version of 2 classes combined.  Want to give Rangers a minor heal?  Don't give them the level 1 Druid spell, allow them to forage medicinal herbs.  It could effectively work the same but it gives the class more character (I realize this was a carry over from the D&D days, but I don't think it translated well to MMOs). 

Does anyone know what Vanguard Rangers were like?  I didn't get a chance to play one.  I'm interested to see the progression from EQ1 to Vanguard. 

Scorchien

 Vanguard Rangers were pretty well done ... were great for Range and Melee , lots of good combos and reactive skills , Was one of the better Rangers i have played , and i have maxed lvl a Ranger in every MMO since UO ..

 Anyhow .. Silkyvenom was a goto for Vanguard and its still up ..


http://wiki.silkyvenom.com/index.php/Ranger
 
  bahh dam it .. browsin thru it makes me really miss Vanguard .. all the classes were extremely well done... shame .. real shame

  Hopefully Brads vision is influencing class design in that way again..

Hrimnir

I do think the EQ ranger was one of the big class failings of the game.  They were basically bad all around. They couldn't do as much DPS as a monk or rogue, they couldn't tank like a paladin or SK, they were basically just a gimped druid combined with a gimped warrior.

I do think it would wise to put more of a focus on being able to do proper ranged DPS.  That doesn't mean it needs to be purely a ranged / bow class, they should have the option of either. But it would be nice for them to be able to do proper ranged DPS.

Dullahan

Hrimnir said:

I do think the EQ ranger was one of the big class failings of the game.  They were basically bad all around. They couldn't do as much DPS as a monk or rogue, they couldn't tank like a paladin or SK, they were basically just a gimped druid combined with a gimped warrior.

I do think it would wise to put more of a focus on being able to do proper ranged DPS.  That doesn't mean it needs to be purely a ranged / bow class, they should have the option of either. But it would be nice for them to be able to do proper ranged DPS.

I'd like to see a ranger that you could specialize one way or the other, with all the gear and itemization to promote true diversity. I'd also like to see the capability to spec more towards either the warrior or the druid.

Either way, you're right, they need to be brought up to a place where they are useful, whether its by giving them stronger melee, ranged, caster or more utility and healing. Any and all those would make them viable to me, but sucking all around isn't an option.

ragz45

The Scout and ranger in DAOC were both really my favorite bow users of all time for MMO's.  Having played almost every AAA MMO to date, and quite a few indy, both the scout and ranger epitomized the bow user.

If you never played either class, you really did miss out on something amazing.

Lokero

I would imagine that it'd be good at both ranged and melee.  We all know that Brad is a ranger fan, so I'm sure it'll get plenty of love and utility/diversity/tools.

I just hate when they turn ranger types into pet classes.  I'm not a huge fan of that. 

I really liked the GW2 ranger's combat style, but the forced pets are always a letdown, both in functionality and playstyle.  Their evasive/agile combat style with the Sword/Dagger combo was pretty awesome, though.  And, they had the good sense to give Longbows a bit more range than all the other weapons.

Er, I guess point being, pets just become a liability due to bad pathing and other limitations.  The GW2 ranger got held back alot by its pet when balance changes came rolling around.  They were too pet-dependant.  WoW hunter was the same.

I wouldn't mind seeing utility pets, just for doing specific tasks like scouting, etc., but I hate seeing a ranger class turned into a pet's pet.

Well, to end that rant... I wouldn't mind seeing a player choice between archery spec/melee spec, but I'd rather just have the option to switch back and forth regularly and be effective with both.  Archery tends to get the short end in alot of games, which is a shame.

Sinist

Hrimnir said:

I do think the EQ ranger was one of the big class failings of the game.  They were basically bad all around. They couldn't do as much DPS as a monk or rogue, they couldn't tank like a paladin or SK, they were basically just a gimped druid combined with a gimped warrior.

I do think it would wise to put more of a focus on being able to do proper ranged DPS.  That doesn't mean it needs to be purely a ranged / bow class, they should have the option of either. But it would be nice for them to be able to do proper ranged DPS.

They were a hybrid. They were not supposed to be a DPS class, or a tank.

Their bows were a big problem at release, it made them completely impractical in use. There were some minor changes needed, but it was the "competition" with a role between classes that led to them becoming yet another hybrid gaining too much power.

Problem with hybrids is that you can't make them compete with any main focus or you make the main focus pointless. Primary vs Hybrid was a reoccurring theme throughout EQ and honestly, while some issues were legitimate, a lot of it was with people who just couldn't accept the power of a hybrid and wanted to be the best at something, but of course didn't want to give up all those hybrid abilities.

Benjola

I agree that EQ rangers were weak the first few years but they got revamped few times over the years and at some point (2005-2006) they were higher melee dps then monks in raids and just under the rogues and  had an awesome melee attack buff to boot.
Their bow dps was a bit lower then melee but still very good.
So on ranged raid fights (and there were many) rangers were the most usefull class.

Their uniqueness shined the most in solo or group play though because being able to track the oh so important nameds and raid targets in EQ was priceless.
And they had the best utility spell (by far) in game, SoW.

I wouldn't complain about EQ ranger really it was one of the most popular classes few expansions from launch.

Kajidourden

As long as I pew pew pew and not stabby stab stab I'm cool.  Minimal stab/slashing is ok too.
Also no pets. 

Amathe

Make it an archer class, or not. But please don't tease it as an archer class and then require 10 zillion AA points before that ever works. 

Vorthanion

I found the Vanguard Ranger vastly superior to the EQ version.  Foraging for arrow parts was simply genius.

Kiyoris

90% of my jokes don't work in games without a ranger class

Hrimnir

Sinist said:

Hrimnir said:

I do think the EQ ranger was one of the big class failings of the game.  They were basically bad all around. They couldn't do as much DPS as a monk or rogue, they couldn't tank like a paladin or SK, they were basically just a gimped druid combined with a gimped warrior.

I do think it would wise to put more of a focus on being able to do proper ranged DPS.  That doesn't mean it needs to be purely a ranged / bow class, they should have the option of either. But it would be nice for them to be able to do proper ranged DPS.

They were a hybrid. They were not supposed to be a DPS class, or a tank.

Their bows were a big problem at release, it made them completely impractical in use. There were some minor changes needed, but it was the "competition" with a role between classes that led to them becoming yet another hybrid gaining too much power.

Problem with hybrids is that you can't make them compete with any main focus or you make the main focus pointless. Primary vs Hybrid was a reoccurring theme throughout EQ and honestly, while some issues were legitimate, a lot of it was with people who just couldn't accept the power of a hybrid and wanted to be the best at something, but of course didn't want to give up all those hybrid abilities.

I understand that, my point was that Paladins and SK were also hybrids, but they performed a useful function in the game, being in that they could tank, they weren't quite as good as a warrior, but they were about 80-90% of the way there.  Rangers could neither tank, nor heal in any meaningful capacity, nor DPS well, they were in the 50 to 60% of something like a monk or rogue on damage.  They didn't have any meaningful utility either, a druid could do everything they could and then some. On the utility front, Bards were better in every way, they also did similar damage, in adddition to the having had way better buffs and utility.  

Rangers really had no impactful roll in the game.

Mardukk

Kiyoris said:

90% of my jokes don't work in games without a ranger class

This.  I picked a ranger in 2001 in EQ not knowing what I was getting into...lol.  The laughing stock of the game.  Dead in a couple hits and horrible ranged dps.  Ok melee but if you get two shot what is the point?

Hopefully there have been better ranger from other games they can look to for guidance.

Sinist

Hrimnir said:

Sinist said:

Hrimnir said:

I do think the EQ ranger was one of the big class failings of the game.  They were basically bad all around. They couldn't do as much DPS as a monk or rogue, they couldn't tank like a paladin or SK, they were basically just a gimped druid combined with a gimped warrior.

I do think it would wise to put more of a focus on being able to do proper ranged DPS.  That doesn't mean it needs to be purely a ranged / bow class, they should have the option of either. But it would be nice for them to be able to do proper ranged DPS.

They were a hybrid. They were not supposed to be a DPS class, or a tank.

Their bows were a big problem at release, it made them completely impractical in use. There were some minor changes needed, but it was the "competition" with a role between classes that led to them becoming yet another hybrid gaining too much power.

Problem with hybrids is that you can't make them compete with any main focus or you make the main focus pointless. Primary vs Hybrid was a reoccurring theme throughout EQ and honestly, while some issues were legitimate, a lot of it was with people who just couldn't accept the power of a hybrid and wanted to be the best at something, but of course didn't want to give up all those hybrid abilities.

I understand that, my point was that Paladins and SK were also hybrids, but they performed a useful function in the game, being in that they could tank, they weren't quite as good as a warrior, but they were about 80-90% of the way there.  Rangers could neither tank, nor heal in any meaningful capacity, nor DPS well, they were in the 50 to 60% of something like a monk or rogue on damage.  They didn't have any meaningful utility either, a druid could do everything they could and then some. On the utility front, Bards were better in every way, they also did similar damage, in adddition to the having had way better buffs and utility.  

Rangers really had no impactful roll in the game.

That was more of the result of the player community forcing their take on roles. They quickly started forcing classes into specific roles of usefulness and then proclaiming all others as useless if they did not neatly fit into that category. I ran into this constantly when I was forming my groups. It was silly as it was completely dismissive to the power of a hybrid class.

As I said, a rangers bow issues on release were a huge problem leaving them with only melee as a damage source. The solution was to make them viable in ranged ability similar to their melee ability, maybe even continue to expand on the utility of the class with special arrows that had utility function. Also, they could have allowed the Ranger to excel in damage, but only under specific circumstances using the concept from D&D like Favored Enemy. I think another issue was their spells were too far behind the curve of the druid which created problems with a utility spell being useful.

That said, the largest problem was the expectation that people had in a classes function. Bards suffered the same misconception, believing they were useless because they did not fit into a specific key role and so were useless. Support was a role in EQ, but often dismissed as useless by the masses because it didn't dazzle the expectations that a main role did.

What Sony did was to try and push them into the community created trinity roles to be "useful" and of course it made the ranger too powerful compared to the primary classes as they stepped on far too many toes.

The SKs/Pallys went through the same overpowered changes, complaining about not being "useful" to the extent of a main role and the result was warriors looking like a redundant role, or so specialized to a specific that the hybrids were constantly stepping on the toes of the warrior.

The fact is that people love the flexibility of a hybrid (their true power), but don't like the idea of someone doing better than them in a similar focus, which is why you had constant complaints about one focus to the next and why class wars were so ridiculous at times in EQ.

Xxerox

No pets , no traps. Just standart kill them before they reach you or they kill you.

Sinist

Mardukk said:

Kiyoris said:

90% of my jokes don't work in games without a ranger class

This.  I picked a ranger in 2001 in EQ not knowing what I was getting into...lol.  The laughing stock of the game.  Dead in a couple hits and horrible ranged dps.  Ok melee but if you get two shot what is the point?

Hopefully there have been better ranger from other games they can look to for guidance.

They lacked the avoidance of a monk, and were armored with the limitations of a druid. They were not supposed to be good in mitigation. Fixing the ranged weapon issues of EQ and putting it inline with their melee DPS, combined with some minor adjustments to spell levels, would have gone a long way to making the class balanced to the content.

They really had a lot of power when you considered the spread of their ability (snares, roots, healing, buffs, damage shields, cures, etc...), but as I mentioned previously, people forced all classes into specific roles and those that did not fit, were considered useless. They had their issues, but the claims of them being useless was over exaggerated.

EQs communities were such drama queens at times. We talk about how WoW has a terrible community and it does in its own way, but EQ was just as bad in some ways as well, especially with social gossip driving class opinion. Remember the monk nerf? It was all BS.

Benjola

Hrimnir said:

I understand that, my point was that Paladins and SK were also hybrids, but they performed a useful function in the game, being in that they could tank, they weren't quite as good as a warrior, but they were about 80-90% of the way there.  Rangers could neither tank, nor heal in any meaningful capacity, nor DPS well, they were in the 50 to 60% of something like a monk or rogue on damage.  They didn't have any meaningful utility either, a druid could do everything they could and then some. On the utility front, Bards were better in every way, they also did similar damage, in adddition to the having had way better buffs and utility.  

Rangers really had no impactful roll in the game.

This is somewhat true for the first few years of EQ.
By the time Planes of Power was out ranjas very pretty good solo, in groups and in raids.
McQuaid was gone by then but still, you are talking about balancing issues the EQ ranger had, not class design issues.
Everquest rangers didn't have design flaws they were fun to play as any other class, they only needed higher ranged dps and it was delivered through AAs and introducing more powerful bows, for the most part.

Adamantine

Well I havent played neither EQ1 nor EQ2, I only know the Vanguard Ranger.

I suspect / hope that the Pantheon ranger will be more a real ranger class, like it was in Vanguard, instead of just being a mix of warrior and druid.

That means, for example:

- dualweapon melee and archery focus,
- animal follower
- crafting your own arrows
- tracking
- snare spell
- runspeed and other buffs
- small heals (they've been really more of decorative nature)
- stealth
- medium armor

In Vanguard, one had to run forward away from the mob, turn back quickly to shoot the arrow, then turn instantly back to continue running. So yeah, it was a bit odd to kite with ranger. Much more comfortable with a Sorcerer or other class that had levitation, since levitated they could run backwards at full speed.

Scorchien said:

  browsin thru it makes me really miss Vanguard .. all the classes were extremely well done... shame .. real shame

Yes, 100% agreed, reading silkyvenom makes me go sad again every time again.

I love that this site is still up, as a small reminder of times gone by.

Sinist

Adamantine said:

Well I havent played neither EQ1 nor EQ2, I only know the Vanguard Ranger.

I suspect / hope that the Pantheon ranger will be more a real ranger class, like it was in Vanguard, instead of just being a mix of warrior and druid.

That means, for example:

- dualweapon melee and archery focus,
- animal follower
- crafting your own arrows
- tracking
- snare spell
- runspeed and other buffs
- small heals (they've been really more of decorative nature)
- stealth
- medium armor

In Vanguard, one had to run forward away from the mob, turn back quickly to shoot the arrow, then turn instantly back to continue running. So yeah, it was a bit odd to kite with ranger. Much more comfortable with a Sorcerer or other class that had levitation, since levitated they could run backwards at full speed.

That is an EQ ranger. In fact, a Ranger in EQ had more than what you mentioned (it had druid spells of cure, heal, snare, root,  invis, debuffs/buffs, damage shields, lull, damage spells, etc...).

Also, kiting became a common way for rangers to make exp.

The problem with Rangers in EQ was the way the bow worked, it was a dysfunctional design and made the skill all but useless. Aside from that and some issues of their spells being a little behind causing resist issues and the like, the class was a great class to have in a group. Personally, I always preferred having a group weighted more with hybrids than with primary classes due to the extreme flexibility you had with their spells and abilities. Hybrids were very powerful even before people made them the kings of MMOs.

Benjola

I agree that Vanguard classes were more refined and in-depth then Everquest classes , a true upgrade to EQ basically, which makes me very curious how Pantheon classes will turn out.
Vanguard class design is best I've seen so far in almost two decades of MMOs , can it be toped?
For Pantheon, I'm more then ok with 'on par' with Vanguard.
Like, even if McQuaid copy/pastes Vanguard classes in Partheon I wouldn't complain, at all.

EDIT: I just realized I posted this in ranger thread when there are few threads on class design going on.
Sorry for derail, carry on about ranja stuff.

Scumm

Here’s a long-winded post on some ideas for the Ranger:

Rangers should be masters of the outdoors.  They should be stronger in outdoor zones where there is more room to maneuver and they are closer to nature. 

I know it’s traditional, but I’m not a fan of Rangers having the same spells as Druids.  If they are spell casters at all, they should have their own unique line.  I would prefer it if any ‘magical’ abilities a Ranger has come from foraged ingredients or skills.

I see Rangers as primarily damage-dealers with some fair utility.  They should be effective at scouting and pulling too.  Some utility should provide a level of crowd control and Aggro control.    

Ranged DPS – A Ranger’s bread and butter.  Versatility can come through equipment.

• Arrows – Multi-shots, Rooting shots, Aggro reducing shots, elemental damage, poisons, etc. 
• Short Bow – Fast, short range, moderate damage (similar to a dual wield)
• Long Bow – Slow, long range, high damage  (similar to a 2h slashing)

Traps – A skill that allows the ranger to place a trap on the ground.  Allows for some level of crowd control.

• Snare – Slow enemy movement, but not stop them
• “Root” – Something that stops movement completely.
• Damage traps – Poison, elemental damage, Crippling, etc.  Could require consumables.   

Run Speed – Rangers are pathfinders, they should be able to help their party move quickly through outdoor zones.  Could have different run speed buffs for in-combat vs. out-of-combat.

Track – Rangers should have the most effective track by far. It would be nice to have the option to train in this skill.  High-level Track could show mob distance, level, approximate health, etc.  Also, tracking a corpse is a must.

Stealth – Outdoor only skill that allows a Ranger to scout and travel unseen when not in combat.  Slows movement speed.  Setting traps should not break stealth. 

• Personally I feel that Rangers should match Rogues for stealth, but only for outdoor zones.  It should actually be an effective skill. 
• The higher the skill vs. mob level, the closer you can get without being detected.

Animals – Rangers are in tune with nature and fauna.  I liked that in EQ Rangers and Druids were not KOS to animals. 

• Panic Animal – a fear for animals only (not humans or monsters, for example)
• Calm Animal – Reduce the agro of animals only
• Befriend Animal – Charm an animal pet
• Animal Companion – Call different animal companions.  Different animals can produce different results.  For example, a Falcon could essentially be a minor DOT that’s hard to hit (i.e. remove).  A Bear could be an agro drawing, limited meat-shield.  Each animal could be a quest-line skill that is difficult to achieve.

Forage – could provide a modest food source for the Ranger, but also the chance to find unique items such as ingredients for potions.

• Cure Poison/Disease, Minor Heals, Regen, Enduring breath, etc. – forage the right ingredients and use them on yourself or others.  They cannot be sold and used by non-rangers like a potion.
• Instead of being regulated by mana, this could be similar to The Witcher.  PC’s could have a limit on the amount of Ranger medicine they can consume at any given time.
• Infravision/Ultravision – Rangers could find tools to help their party see in the dark.
• Alchemy ingredients – While Rangers might not have the ability to concoct strong potions or poisons, they could be the source for finding the necessary ingredients.  This would increase interdependence

Other Utility

• Eagle Eye – telescopic sight.  Did anyone actually ever use this? It may be more useful now that graphics have improved.
• Bind Sight – See through the eyes of a mob or pc.  Not sure if this makes sense from a RP perspective, but it was in EQ.  Did anyone even use this either?
• Wolf Form – I would like to see this as a really challenging quest that high-level Rangers can complete.
• Jolt - Some kind of aggro control skill  

From my experience, Rangers are generally glass cannons with a bag of tricks.  Is that how most people view the class too?  

Sinist

Scumm said:

Here’s a long-winded post on some ideas for the Ranger:

Rangers should be masters of the outdoors.  They should be stronger in outdoor zones where there is more room to maneuver and they are closer to nature. 

I know it’s traditional, but I’m not a fan of Rangers having the same spells as Druids.  If they are spell casters at all, they should have their own unique line.  I would prefer it if any ‘magical’ abilities a Ranger has come from foraged ingredients or skills.

I see Rangers as primarily damage-dealers with some fair utility.  They should be effective at scouting and pulling too.  Some utility should provide a level of crowd control and Aggro control.    

Ranged DPS – A Ranger’s bread and butter.  Versatility can come through equipment.

• Arrows – Multi-shots, Rooting shots, Aggro reducing shots, elemental damage, poisons, etc. 
• Short Bow – Fast, short range, moderate damage (similar to a dual wield)
• Long Bow – Slow, long range, high damage  (similar to a 2h slashing)

Traps – A skill that allows the ranger to place a trap on the ground.  Allows for some level of crowd control.

• Snare – Slow enemy movement, but not stop them
• “Root” – Something that stops movement completely.
• Damage traps – Poison, elemental damage, Crippling, etc.  Could require consumables.   

Run Speed – Rangers are pathfinders, they should be able to help their party move quickly through outdoor zones.  Could have different run speed buffs for in-combat vs. out-of-combat.

Track – Rangers should have the most effective track by far. It would be nice to have the option to train in this skill.  High-level Track could show mob distance, level, approximate health, etc.  Also, tracking a corpse is a must.

Stealth – Outdoor only skill that allows a Ranger to scout and travel unseen when not in combat.  Slows movement speed.  Setting traps should not break stealth. 

• Personally I feel that Rangers should match Rogues for stealth, but only for outdoor zones.  It should actually be an effective skill. 
• The higher the skill vs. mob level, the closer you can get without being detected.

Animals – Rangers are in tune with nature and fauna.  I liked that in EQ Rangers and Druids were not KOS to animals. 

• Panic Animal – a fear for animals only (not humans or monsters, for example)
• Calm Animal – Reduce the agro of animals only
• Befriend Animal – Charm an animal pet
• Animal Companion – Call different animal companions.  Different animals can produce different results.  For example, a Falcon could essentially be a minor DOT that’s hard to hit (i.e. remove).  A Bear could be an agro drawing, limited meat-shield.  Each animal could be a quest-line skill that is difficult to achieve.

Forage – could provide a modest food source for the Ranger, but also the chance to find unique items such as ingredients for potions.

• Cure Poison/Disease, Minor Heals, Regen, Enduring breath, etc. – forage the right ingredients and use them on yourself or others.  They cannot be sold and used by non-rangers like a potion.
• Instead of being regulated by mana, this could be similar to The Witcher.  PC’s could have a limit on the amount of Ranger medicine they can consume at any given time.
• Infravision/Ultravision – Rangers could find tools to help their party see in the dark.
• Alchemy ingredients – While Rangers might not have the ability to concoct strong potions or poisons, they could be the source for finding the necessary ingredients.  This would increase interdependence

Other Utility

• Eagle Eye – telescopic sight.  Did anyone actually ever use this? It may be more useful now that graphics have improved.
• Bind Sight – See through the eyes of a mob or pc.  Not sure if this makes sense from a RP perspective, but it was in EQ.  Did anyone even use this either?
• Wolf Form – I would like to see this as a really challenging quest that high-level Rangers can complete.
• Jolt - Some kind of aggro control skill  

From my experience, Rangers are generally glass cannons with a bag of tricks.  Is that how most people view the class too?  

Well, what I think depends on how they approach design. If it is class to content balance, than I think it looks good, but if it is class vs class balance, it then depends on if the other DPS classes also have a very large amount of utility.

That is a rather large bag of tricks, in fact... it is essentially a Druid with a Bow for all intents and purposes (with maybe a bit of thief/Rogue thrown in). So, if this is a DPS class, then are all DPS classes filled with such utility? If not, why would anyone bother playing another DPS class? This is the hybrid designed to compete as a primary problem that existed in EQ before.

Now if every class in the game has a large array of utility such as this (in different ways), then it may work, but if you end up with primary classes (more finely focused, less utility, etc...), in the end... these hybrid classes will become dominate over them.

The problem with going the "everyone has a large array of utility" is that it can easily turn into "everyone can do everything" and you are right back to the problem of homogenized classes, each class having multiple roles, and then the whole idea of class interdependence becomes a mood point.

Scumm

There were a few things I was considering when writing this post

1. I was using my admittedly out-of-date knowledge of EQ as a base.  The last time I played was 10+ years ago and my memory has faded quite a bit.  Since Pantheon is a game from Brad, I figure it’s a good place to start for envisioning classes.
2. I am trying to get away from the idea of Rangers as hybrids.  If we consider the Ranger a hybrid of a Warrior and a Druid, does that make a Druid a ‘primary’ class?  A Druid has substantial heals, with DD spells, DoTs, Ports, Succor, forage/track, Sow, animal control, etc.  They do damage, they heal, they have utility.  If anything the Druid is a hybrid class.    
3. When thinking of these skills, I also used a Lore/Roleplaying perspective.  I thought, “What kind of skills would someone have after dedicating their life to survival in the wilderness?”  They may not be fair when compared to other classes, so I’m happy to see compromise.

I think a lot of the class v. class balancing could come from the amount of damage/healing the Ranger can do.  I picture the Ranger to do less damage than a Rogue or Wizard, but more than a Druid or Tank.  Probably on par with, or just below a Monk. 

As for healing, I picture it as the lowest form of healing available to a class and really only practical to reduce downtime.  It would also be dependent on what the Ranger is able to find. 

The stealth of a Ranger would be more for exploration, travel, and pulling, while a Rogue’s stealth could be used in combat to avoid agro and position attacks.  Druids generally get a similar camouflage spell anyway, although from a Lore perspective I think of Rangers as more stealthy.

Also, a lot of the Rangers strength comes from being outdoors and interacting with animals.  Inside a cramped dungeon fighting undead, they won’t really get the chance to shine.

Kiyoris

Mardukk said:

Kiyoris said:

90% of my jokes don't work in games without a ranger class

This.  I picked a ranger in 2001 in EQ not knowing what I was getting into...lol.  The laughing stock of the game.

Dead in a couple hits

You could weaponshield and save the day. By then all healers had gated out and the guild leader declared the raid a failure.but there was still a 1% chance you'd make it!