Ranger Archive
Thread: Give Rangers a loyal pet
Oh, and a couple of corrections to other post here:
Rancors are level 50 pets, not level 60. CHs WILL continue to have those 9k HAM pets as they are opting for capping CHs at a total of 60 levels worth of pets instead of nerfing pets. Meaning I can havea Rancor and a level 10 pet out, 3 level 20 pets, or 2 level 30 pets. But they will remain at their full potency as the level capping is the trade off nerf instead.
Its cool because I can still have my level 50 Rancor with 11k HAM, but now I can't have 75 levels (25 player times 3 pets) worth of pets out. Non CHs should really learn to appreciate this because if they nerfed pets then you would need a group of Carbine users to repatedly use knockdowns to take anything down. I was in a 7 person group last (plus my 2 pets) and my pets did ALL of the tanking so they could sit back and learn easy pistol xp.
Anyhow, back on topic...
CH = solo fighting profession
Ranger = solo Exploring profession and group support for wilderness (and currently missing tons of features - tracking, conceal, better functionality in camps, group harvesting, etc)
Oh boy Waeyness, where to start...
First on other CHs requesting Ranger stuff... whelp Ill for those ideas getting thrown out just as much as I vote for idea of Rangers getting pets thrown out.
Second, what your propoising is just that... a pipe dream. If you want a pet then it only cost you 6 skill points to invest for it.
Third, all though Rangers have to Master Scout, the total xp requirement to reach Master Ranger vs Master CH is simply comparisson. (140,000 xp for a level 4 CH box vs 40,000 (80 for Frontiering) for level 4 Ranger box).
Fourth, your an idiot if you don't seeasking for pets as a hinderance for Rangersrather then a benefit. Again, if youwant a pet then pick up some CH skills which are right there. Why clutter up Ranger skill boxes with this too? You should be asking for Tracking, the return ofConceal, Lure, and other things instead.
Fifth, I am here because I am a Ranger/CH because I enjoy exactly what you are trying to propose... AND I happily and fairly paid the skill points to have. So "your" boards are "my" boards.
To top all of this off, you can still get your hands on a pet anyhow after they finish the changes to CH. CL 15 pets I hear at that... just what kind of pet are you hoping for that is better then this that isgoing to fit into the Ranger profession, and not take away from CH???
Segolas, while I agree with you, I would think that by now you would know better than to compare apples and oranges.
You CANNOT compare the xp requirements for CH vs Ranger. They ARE NOT the same. CH's earn CH exps quite differently than Rangers earn Scouting, Survival and Trapping exps. Thus the far different amounts required to Master each profession.
I see your Schwartz is as big as mine... "Segolas,
First off, who are you to call anyone on this board an idiot?
These boards are for people to discuss things on their classes with their peers. They are NOT for you to feel better about yourself by demeaning others.
Secondly, you are entitled to your opinion, as are others. Respect other's opinions and they will - maybe, respect yours.
If you would have bothered to read all of Wayness' post you would have saw that she said she was both a Ranger and a CH, so your 'just spend the points' argument isflawed. She DID spend the points, and agrees with the original poster...
How would a low powered pet - or ANY pet - for that matter affect you personally?
I agree completely that profession A should not be given an ability that duplicates what someone in profession B spent many skill points for. Thus...
1. If Rangers want pets, pick up CH (for which we already have the prerequisites).
2. The future creation and sale of mounts should be the domain of Bio-engineers, not CHs. If CHs want to sell mounts, pick up Organic Chemistry and BE. CHs are already a low-prerequisite combat profession with few operating expenses. They should be given a lucrative commodity to sell too? No, that is the proper domain of the pet-selling commerce profession, Bio-engineers. As CHs are fond of saying when the issue of pet nerfs is brought up, CH is a COMBAT profession. Ergo, it's not a commerce profession.
Personally, I think there are too many pets in the game already, at least of the sort that skew combat balance. A mount, on the other hand, is something I can see going very well with being a Ranger, and is something I'm looking forward to.
> we're not the typical fantasy ranger
Nor are we the typical US Army Ranger. About the closest non-SW:G Ranger parallel I have been able to come up with is Park Ranger. All we need is a little horticulture and conservation expertise, ability to drive a poorly-maintained 4x4 and lower rewards from the mission terminals to reflect the salary conditions, and we'll be set to show school children the local wildlife.
Well, I am also of the "If you want a pet, go CH." We can get minor pets like any other. There are more interesting things to get added to our class. Though I think CH's should have enough Creature Knowledge Skill to see the CL of a creature. So either lower the skill so that a Hunter can see the CL or spread out a +10 bonus to the skill in the CH profession. The should know CLs since they are about to be limited by them.
I do think that someone who is both a Ranger and a CH, should have some type of bonus on their pets. Maybe some type of attack bonus for any pets in a group with a Ranger.
-gustavef
After the big patch, will permanently novice CHers be any better off than non-CHs who have their pets handed to them?
Obedaia Jetletter
Ranger et al.
Wanderhome
I don't want a fricken pet... I'm not a CH...
Rangers should not have pets..... you are just proposing a small band-aid for a bigger problem...
Give Rangers the ability to defend themselves and others in combat (as the manual states) and we won't need any probots or pets to keep us alive.
- Zarn