Ranger Archive

---

Rooks wrote:

Also, where was it EVER stated that Ranger was a support class?

U got me. But I'll ask u, where was it stated that RAnger is a combat PROFESSION in this game?

Why is a support class one of 4 classes able to wear mando Armor if we are JUST support?

That is an irrelevant to this discussion. Besides are the professions that can wear mando BH, Commando, Ranger and Squad Leader? Are u goign to tell me Squad leader isn't mostly support as well? (but they are a hybrid so...)

Some reason someone started this RUMOR/MYTH that Rangers are support, we are not. We get creature bonuses, we have traps that do combat affects, we have abilities that CAN be useful in combat. All we need is a weapon with some basic stats to make us equal to Marksman or Brawler.

yes the traps count as combat support as they do NO DAMAGE, any other creature bonuses we get only complement our combat profession. If we got our own weapon, then answer this for me: Why would we need creature bonuses?

BTW are u telling me that u was to spend 140 to be equal to Marksman or Brawler? Geez man... No comment.

There is not a single Game, Book, or Movie that has Ranger as a support role, it has always been combat and everyone knows it.

The truth comes out. This is SWG, lets just stick with that.

Titling this class Ranger and expecting it to be support only is stupid and a waste of a great Title.

If we really are Support, then change the Class name to something that IS support, and build the REAL Ranger combat class.

Uh no... Again you really should stop using the word class as I truly believe it destroys your understanding of how SWG operates. No one profession is meant as a standalone profession except for the hybrids with exceedingly high skillpoint costs. Understanding this is key. Making rangers a combat support profession gives the individual ranger freedom in how he/she chooses to engage in combat. As we are not all US Army Rangers, we don't have all the same Army ceritified weapons. Some of us may choose to lie in wait, taking out prey from afar while others like to get to know our prey up close and personal. Making ranger a combat profession limits the diversity in which we choose to express ourselves.A wire mesh trap is specifically for a melee combatant to use while glow juice is for a ranged combatant. We choose what is useful to us as individual rangers as we are all different.

The issue now is that we need more skills to make us more efficient at everything we do. Simply giving us weapons is a noncreative move that undermines the diversity anduniqueness we could achieve. The trap system quite simply needs to work better AND we definitely needhelp in our defense area. With that said.we are NOT a combat profession.

Please be honest. If u want to makeranger a combat profession then fine. But do not argue that it is a one now that is simply broken. Seriously is doctor a "broken combat profession" as well?

---

---

DaveG wrote:

I totally agree with how Rooks has refocused the context of the debate.

I think u should reread Rooks argument before u agree with him. He is saying that Ranger is essentiallya independent of any combat elite and that eliteshould besimply a bonus whereas now our combat is our primary damage inflicter. The problem with his argument is thatits premise makes the Ranger a broken combat profession. I doubt the devs agree with this. Surewe need alot of bang for our buck but lets go to TH with a realistic and justifiable planasopposed to "Hey devs, why didu make a combat profession without any combat skills that is stupid!!! Give us a weapon!!!"

I strongly disagree with those who say ranger is not a combat profession, because to say so is only half true. The ranger profession as it stands may not be a direct combat profession, but it does however require a combat profession to complement and utilise it. A rangertemplate without a combat profession is almost a useless template. Therefore, the ranger profession should give more than it does to suppliment the complmentary combat profession.

Just because we have to be involved in combat does not make us a combat profession. Ask yourself: Is Squad Leader a combat profession? No. They are a hybrid that primarily serve as combat support. If anyone gets a weapon, they should get one simply because of their Marksman prerequisite. BTW a ranger template without a combat profession is not useless. You can choose to be a group combat supporter (Ranger/Squad Leader) or you could choose to be a true field scientist (Ranger/BE). Most rangers choose to be hunters (Ranger+combat of your choice).

The most logical step forwards for my money is to broaden the use of traps. Make them usable in any situation. From a roleplay point of view, it is simply illogical to have traps that only work on wild animals, but not humanoids or even pets. Just think what the combat medics would say if they were limited on how many types of targets they could use their poisons on!

Furthermore, we should have our defences beefed up (similar to doctors but better since being a doctor doesn't have to involve combat, whereas being a ranger does). Talking of defences, this is another way to think of why we should be able to use our traps on everything: traps don't deal damage, only state effects which reduce the targets combat effectiveness, i.e. traps are a defensive measure, not offensive.

I would say traps are offensive combat support but that is a matter semantics. At any rate I agree with everything u say here. Spending 140 sp does not justify getting a weapon (imo). It does justify us getting SOMETHING. So far it seems that our lack of useful skills is the only real argument as to WHY we should get a weapon. Personally I just don't see that being a good reason for a weapon SPECIFICALLY. Again we need something but I do not see it in the devs vision for us to have a weapon. That is some EQ ish not SWG.

To summerise, to think of Ranger as anything less than a quasi-combat profession is naive. In everyday life, being a ranger means you have to be a combatant. Therefore, to justify the 140 skillpoint cost, the ranger profession should augment whatever combat profession the player chooses far more than it does now. It would do this by means of increased innate defences and unilateral use of traps. Further perks such as more useful camps, and other things which have been discussed (natural remedies to poisons/diseases, etc) should be considered too.

Please as I said to Rooks, lets stick to SWG. I agree that in RL a ranger is generally is a combatant although if u really want to go there, no not all RL rangers are combatants. Are park rangers combatants? So please that blows that theory out of the park (pun intended). If u want to pull material into the debate not currently in SWG then just use the extended Star Wars universe version of rangers. 95% of them are soldiers of some sort. Generally they are paramilitary groups. However using SWG logic, your combat profession is as much apart of your character as any non-combat profession u have. If we saw a ranger in one of the movies with a T-21 does that mean all rangers should carry a T-21? No it just means that that particular ranger uses a T-21 as his combat weapon of choice. That is what the profession system means in SWG. It is not a class-based system where your class always determines your weapons (hybrids and jedis excluded). As the SWG system dictates "ranger" is purely combat support thatMUST be paired with a combat profession if u so chooseto be a combatant. Some people may choose to be a pacifist rangerand couple it with BE.While u may not be a combatant, ranger still supports the individualthru skills that avoid combat and heal oneself while not in combat. It also offers combat support measure for you to be successful without defeating your enemy (adhesive mesh +tn+burstrun efficiency).

---

Message Edited by Rooks on 09-20-2004 12:46 AM

---

Rooks wrote:

You mentioned the other classes able to wear the Mando armor.

ALL of them have weapon skills except Ranger.

Even Squad leader has basic marksman.

All the ones with weapon skills branch off of Marksman and/or Brawler (well, only commando uses brawler). And I don't know if you've ever seen a Squad Leader try and kill something. If you are arguing that Ranger should have the offensive power of a Squad Leader then I'm happy with that. But I'd say we are already there with traps and a CDEF.

We have nothing.

Traps are meant to help in combat. They don't work nearly as well as they should but that is their purpose.

You say my analagy of a Ranger/Tailor is useless to the argument yet it is the CORE of the argument.

Simply explain to me how a Ranger/Tailor template can Hunt creatures, gather creature resources and support combat characters with just ranger/Tailor.

If you can explain that to me, Ill stop.

It's called a group. The only way for me to currently go out and hunt/harvest is to drag along a group (at least for serious hunting). My weapon happens to be other players. There is nothing stopping a Tailor/Ranger from grabbing a group and harvesting their kills. They can even help out a bit by tracking, trapping, camoing, and setting up camps. Currently those skills leave a lot to be desired. But they are meant to be useful in a multiplayer game. Ranger is a profession in a multiplayer game. My Squad Leader skills do help out when I hunt but so do my Ranger skills. After we finish killing something, I go and track. While we are killing something I will occassionally throw traps and even rescue people on the rare occassion they bite off more than they can chew (yes, I actually do use rescue a reasonable amount although it is usually followed by a burstrun--yay for burstrun efficiency). A pure support profession can survive in this game if you playit as the Devs envision and not as the players play (i.e. solo groups).

Point is, we have no weapon skills that do damage, period and that makes a profession that is geared towards creature hunting useless on its own.

Now, you say get a second class, fine, but we HAVE a second class already, Scout.

See, for 140 SP we have absolutely ZERO combat skills and weapons.

Only 5 other professions have MORE SP than Rangers and that is BH, Commandoes, Smugglers, Doctors and CM. 4 of them have some form of Combat skill or attack except Doctor, and that is because they are the Ultimate in Healing.

And 4 of them have a combat skill prereq. BH needs Master Marksman, Commando needs Master Marksman and Unarmed 4, Smuggler needs Pistols 4 and Unarmed 4, and CM needs Ranged support 4. All professions with the ability to kill branch off of Marksman or Brawler (unless you count sample killing from BE, but they can't harvest the corpses). A Creature Handler does not gain the ability to kill (he gains the ability to control pets which can then kill for him). And just ask any CH how good his pets are at killing stuff (they are usually good at tanking but very few are good at killing). And if you argue that the CH can kill something without investing any skills in Marksman or Brawler then I direct you to your nearest weaponsmith to pick up a CDEF. Doctor is the most applicable profession to compare with as it has the same skill point costs and a basic prereq from a support profession. Doctors without combat skills cannot kill anything. But they add a lot to a combat profession.

All we want as Rangers is something to hunt with, that plain and simple. IF i want to be a Ranger/Tailor I should be able to hunt the same as a MArksman with a simplified Ranger weapon.

Why? If you CHOOSE not to take any combat skills then you shouldn't have any. All the Ranger skills can be used without actually killing the creature yourself. They might not be as useful but you CHOOSE how you want to play.

For the SP we use, we get squat in return.

This is the problem as I see it. We don't get much for picking up Ranger. We should. But why should that be a weapon? Why not some useful and unique skills? There are plenty of them out there.

That is what the whole debate about Weapons is about, it is one of several ideas we have come up with over the year to enhance, increase and help the Ranger Profession as a whole.

Is a Ranger weapon a quick fix that will end all the problems? No, but it will help.

Considering the majority of our traps affects do not even work on creatures, we ahave absolutely ZERO combat support as well. TH and other Devs have stated on record that Dizzy and Stun do NOT work on Creatures, only NPCs and since our traps do not work on NPCs we have 1 Ranger trap that works on creatures. That is it. A stupid Ranger weapon would NOT hurt any other class at all.

But why not fix traps? Traps should be our "weapon". Using traps should be like a doctor using buffs or stims. They should make combat easier but they shouldn't replace a combat profession.

As for me being a kid, not likely.

Message Edited by Rooks on 09-20-2004 12:46 AM

---

---

BlakkStar wrote:

---

DaveG wrote:

I totally agree with how Rooks has refocused the context of the debate.

I think u should reread Rooks argument before u agree with him. He is saying that Ranger is essentiallya independent of any combat elite and that eliteshould besimply a bonus whereas now our combat is our primary damage inflicter. The problem with his argument is thatits premise makes the Ranger a broken combat profession. I doubt the devs agree with this. Surewe need alot of bang for our buck but lets go to TH with a realistic and justifiable planasopposed to "Hey devs, why didu make a combat profession without any combat skills that is stupid!!! Give us a weapon!!!"

I strongly disagree with those who say ranger is not a combat profession, because to say so is only half true. The ranger profession as it stands may not be a direct combat profession, but it does however require a combat profession to complement and utilise it. A rangertemplate without a combat profession is almost a useless template. Therefore, the ranger profession should give more than it does to suppliment the complmentary combat profession.

Just because we have to be involved in combat does not make us a combat profession. Ask yourself: Is Squad Leader a combat profession? No. They are a hybrid that primarily serve as combat support. If anyone gets a weapon, they should get one simply because of their Marksman prerequisite. BTW a ranger template without a combat profession is not useless. You can choose to be a group combat supporter (Ranger/Squad Leader) or you could choose to be a true field scientist (Ranger/BE). Most rangers choose to be hunters (Ranger+combat of your choice).

As I said elsewhere, I wasn't convinced about Ranger getting a dedicated weapon. What I was saying however is that I do not think one can simply say that Ranger is not a combat profession, because I think this is only half true. However, I think you were commenting on my post one paragraph at a time, and replied to that paragraph before you realised where I was going with it. As for your alternative template examples, true they are options, but not realistic ones, and this is why you will hardly ever find players using such combinations.

The most logical step forwards for my money is to broaden the use of traps. Make them usable in any situation. From a roleplay point of view, it is simply illogical to have traps that only work on wild animals, but not humanoids or even pets. Just think what the combat medics would say if they were limited on how many types of targets they could use their poisons on!

Furthermore, we should have our defences beefed up (similar to doctors but better since being a doctor doesn't have to involve combat, whereas being a ranger does). Talking of defences, this is another way to think of why we should be able to use our traps on everything: traps don't deal damage, only state effects which reduce the targets combat effectiveness, i.e. traps are a defensive measure, not offensive.

I would say traps are offensive combat support but that is a matter semantics. At any rate I agree with everything u say here. Spending 140 sp does not justify getting a weapon (imo). It does justify us getting SOMETHING. So far it seems that our lack of useful skills is the only real argument as to WHY we should get a weapon. Personally I just don't see that being a good reason for a weapon SPECIFICALLY. Again we need something but I do not see it in the devs vision for us to have a weapon. That is some EQ ish not SWG.

I agree. The other problem with the dedicated weapon is that there isn't anyway you can do it without replicating/emulating some other form of combat, for which the people will complain that the dedicated weapon isn't different enough from their ordinary combat. (For example, riflemen like myself would find little attraction in using some sort of bow/crossbow).

To summerise, to think of Ranger as anything less than a quasi-combat profession is naive. In everyday life, being a ranger means you have to be a combatant. Therefore, to justify the 140 skillpoint cost, the ranger profession should augment whatever combat profession the player chooses far more than it does now. It would do this by means of increased innate defences and unilateral use of traps. Further perks such as more useful camps, and other things which have been discussed (natural remedies to poisons/diseases, etc) should be considered too.

Please as I said to Rooks, lets stick to SWG. I agree that in RL a ranger is generally is a combatant although if u really want to go there, no not all RL rangers are combatants... [snip]

I'll stop you right there because you thougth I was talking about real life. I was not, I meant "everyday life in SWG". I'll restate my assertion that thinking of ranger as less then a quasi-combat profession is naive. In particular, your example or ranger/bio-engineer. Given the risks a bio-engineer undertakes to get his/her samples, not choosing a combat class to go with the BE profession would be a rather naive thing to do (given the detection rate and ferocity of some creatures). In everday [SWG] situations, ranger needs a combat class to go with it, hence my use of the prefix 'quasi'. The major ranger skills imply combat, those being harvesting, creature to hit bonus, ranged defence and trapping.

Therefore, given that we are sinking 140 skill points into being masters, we should get some augment to our combat profession, in the form of better defences and better trapping to name but two (then Ranger will really be a combat support, in terms of supporting our own combat skills).

---

---

---

steveiulaw wrote:

To be a real ranger, a survivor, I think we should be able to craft a basic bow or dagger. One of our titles is frontiersman or something like that. Now, if I go to Endor, and my weapons break, how long could I survive? I wouldn't even be able to make a basic camp. But, if I could forage a small amount of wood, make a basic bow, go kill a couple jax's, then I could make my camp, and be a true frontiersman. Just my thinking.

Adak

---

Well beyond the question if we should ranger weapons yes or no, PLEASE DON'T GIVE US A BOW!!! Although I'm a great fan of fantasy games, this is Star Wars meaning that besides Ewoks no one probably uses bows (wookies do use bowcasters, but i was getting the picture of a wooden bow with bone arrows).

Should we get weapons? I think not. with 140 sp we have more than enough to take an additional combat proffession if you like. The fact that we are the best creature fighters is not through our combat skills, but because we know the weakness/strenght of creatures, we know where they are, how many, and we can be invisible to them. And yeah in most book/tv/games/blabla the ranger is a combat class, but he is the one who needs a decent amount of roleplaying. A ranger is someone who respect nature and lets it grow as it must, that means no massacre of wild life. A ranger only kills when he needs to, when he needs food or is attacked.

If something should be improved than it is the trapping and camping skill (of course the bugs should be fixed). Our traps should affect npc as well. Camping should be usefull. If that's fixed the ranger will find that he's more usefull in a group. And that's how I see the ranger. A leader who helps others travel through the wild.