Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Schliems

Rangers: Animal Companions

Rangers: Animal companions  

342 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Rangers have a specialization to tame animals?



Recommended Posts

Off course yes! Pet is an iconic feature of the ranger/hunter stereotype, not giving the option of having them is really stupid, it's like not allowing warriors to use swords or not allowing a paladin to use shields. Really dumb. 

 

Ok if some people want to be a lone ranger, it should have a specialization, like WoW has now (The Lonewolf which buffs his attacks to compensate the loss of the pet damage) but NOT HAVING PETS is idiotic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be pets. We should also be able to choose what kind of pet, and maybe switch them out depending on what their skills are. It would make the ranger archetype a lot cooler. 

This is based on discipline, which I would assume effects the type of pets you can tame. Rangers wont get pets by default (since pet discs was a stretch goal), but we might get certain ranger/druid only tame discs. I mentioned this in an earlier post, but pets needs to be balanced around other discs, it needs to be equally beneficial to take a different disc and not a pet as it is to take a pet.

 

I would also like to point out that the iconic ranger does NOT use pet. A ranger... well ranges, they are scouts and explorers. If a ranger does have a pet, its more of a companion, something to aid in stalking prey (for hunting, not combat) and to provide companionship while being alone out in the wilderness. Sure this pet will protect its master, but its not the kind of thing where he sends it off to attack the skeleton over there while he plinks with arrows. Would you want to put your pet in harms way and risk it being injured or dying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is based on discipline, which I would assume effects the type of pets you can tame. Rangers wont get pets by default (since pet discs was a stretch goal), but we might get certain ranger/druid only tame discs. I mentioned this in an earlier post, but pets needs to be balanced around other discs, it needs to be equally beneficial to take a different disc and not a pet as it is to take a pet.

 

I would also like to point out that the iconic ranger does NOT use pet. A ranger... well ranges, they are scouts and explorers. If a ranger does have a pet, its more of a companion, something to aid in stalking prey (for hunting, not combat) and to provide companionship while being alone out in the wilderness. Sure this pet will protect its master, but its not the kind of thing where he sends it off to attack the skeleton over there while he plinks with arrows. Would you want to put your pet in harms way and risk it being injured or dying?

I agree on this one.

These do not seem to be the type of rangers that are hunters.

To me they seem far more like the more military rangers, far more heavily armored and weaponized.

 

A pet seems to be something that would fit a Stalker more, if it even were a skill to begin with.


"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

A solid quote, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but NOT HAVING PETS is idiotic. 

 

because wow said so? nope

 

Stalker seems more of a Wow-Hunter then Ranger

Edited by mazh

2whf87a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because wow said so? nope

 

Stalker seems more of a Wow-Hunter then Ranger

 

Because the stereotype of the class said so. Pet is not a wow thing, the ranger class is known for the bow and pet. Don't take it away from them, just make sure to create a viable spec that not relies on them so the lone rangers can play too. But not having pets is IDIOTIC, period. 

 

Stalker seems more like a ranged rogue/assassin, a scout. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the stereotype of the class said so. Pet is not a wow thing, the ranger class is known for the bow and pet. Don't take it away from them, just make sure to create a viable spec that not relies on them so the lone rangers can play too. But not having pets is IDIOTIC, period. 

 

Stalker seems more like a ranged rogue/assassin, a scout. 

 

That's where I think you are wrong, I think Ranger is more of a Scout, Stalker more of a Hunter. And for me, having pets is IDIOTIC, period.


2whf87a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the stereotype of the class said so.

 

Why does the class HAVE to be stereotypical, and what makes you assume that it will be.


  "This is no place for the noble or young, born with the taste of blood on our tongues"

3 years SWTOR - 7 years LOTRO - Beta tester ESO - 4 years WoW - Beta tester RIFT

6TfiDku.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where you are coming from for "a stereotypical ranger" but I have to ask, who made up that stereotype? Think of the rangers you know in lore, two basic example are are Aragorn and the Rangers of the north and Gondor, none of whom use pets. The nights watch rangers, who dont use pets. (John Snow isnt a ranger, hes a steward! He also had the pet before joining) Now where did the stereotype come from? Well the simple answer is dungeons and dragons, rangers would get pets at 4th level in 3.0 and 3.5. There was also a variant in 4e for a pet. Though the more iconic class that uses pets is druid, who got them at lvl 1. Ranger pets were more fodder than anything. Drizzt had Quenwyver, but she wasnt really a pet, since she was summoned from a figurine... wait does that sound familiar in CF?  In the beginning of MMOs rangers didnt have pets. EQ, EQ2, WoW.... Yes, wow RANGERS do not use pets. (Ranger is a high elven class which isnt available in wow) Hunters are not rangers, think Slyvanas (Ranger) vs Rexxar (Hunter).

 

Hmm I think I had a point lined up..... uhh.... There are more good example of rangers NOT having pets than ones with rangers having pets. Lets go with that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually kind of excited about the idea of non-permanent pets, with friendly-fire in place, etc. As long as you have to give up a discipline's worth of capability to have a combat pet (Beastmaster rune, etc.), I'm okay with it. And as long as you give pets a lot more utility, instead of JUST making them an additional allied entity with HP and DPS, they could be very interesting. Maybe they can smell Stealthed people you can't see, and/or help you hunt. In fact, maybe you can train them specifically for non-combat applications, as opposed to combat. Doesn't mean they couldn't still fight if they had to (It's not like a wolf can't attack something), but they'd be like a dedicated crafter who has to pick up a weapon and defend a city/outpost; they wouldn't last very long.

 

*shrug*. A pet auto-attacking has always been a bit silly. Like, when you go out into the woods, if you come upon a wolf, it's just going to jog up to you, stand there, and bite at you once every few seconds, consistently. Instead of, say, stay the hell away from you and circle you until it decides now would be a good time to leap onto your neck from behind and attempt to tear your throat out. I'd be happy to see even combat pets with only active-use, functional (more than JUST damage) abilities. Maybe your bear can maul a foe and knock them down/cause bleeding. Maybe your hawk can distract an archer's aim, etc. But then, they're all safest when you don't send them into harm's way, so you wouldn't just constantly say "MAUL MAUL MAUL! EYE PECK, EYE PECK, EYE PECK!", or they'd die in 4 seconds. You'd have to actually tactically use them in conjunction with your champion. And if they died, you'd have to raise a new young, untrained animal.


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I prefer the switch (Strider) Ranger or a dual-blades build. But the Falconer Discipline looks interesting. I could see Ranger having a promotion archetype that focuses on animal companions. Of course, it's so early in the development cycle we don't even know if pets will be a damage-dealing source or just for utility. (the falcon seems to imply scouting utility)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35a87eb.jpg

 

This thread depresses me.

 

When I first read about Rangers in Crowfall, my immediate reaction was NOT "Sweet, a pet class." The fact that you have to lump Rangers as beast masters puts a bit of a bad taste in my mouth because I am suddenly reminded why I could never really gel with Rangers in other MMOs and that was largely due to pets feeling underwhelming, clunky, or just in the way and involved so much more work.

 

"B-but y-you can't just micro it like I can."

 

Good on you. (Insert high five or a coupon to one pat on the back here) And maybe not, but that's not my preference. When they were describing the initial phase of a campaign world map, and how you would be plunged into unknown territory. My initial thought was NOT "Sweet, I'll take my pet and kill some mobs and players xD". I had a daydream of being a scouter slowly making my way through a wooded area and coming upon a lake, only to kneel down at the base of a tree, watching the outline of the area like some sort of observer seeing if I could spot resources, or enemies. Why would I spend that moment of time organizing my pets and having to worry about that when I want to roam the areas unbound and free as I please.

 

"Y-yea well, yo-you're not doing it right then."

 

And what would you base that on? Stereotypes? Really, you want to recycle old things into something that could be potentially new and innovative? Isn't it kind of tiring to have an expectation of a class and only to have it be underwhelming? I could say the very thing about GW2 Rangers. I stayed so far away from them. So so far away from them, and it was SO unfair that they had the best greatsword skills in the game and I couldn't do anything about it because I HAD to rely on pets.

 

You want your pets, fine. But give the lone striders their chance to fill out some niche. I just don't want them to be a core part like most mmos because of some misguided popularity/obligation and the "W-well, that's just the way it should be, idunno why but it just is!!!1 xD" like it's some halfassed afterthought without actually thinking "WHY is it that way, and WHY should it have to be?" (D&D is not a bible, sorry for the blashempy)

 

I really like the idea of disciples and how they're executed in that any archtype can pick that up, regarding the falconry tidbit.

 

What I expect of Rangers is that they have their own skills and weapons of choice, be the uninspired bow, or sword/axe and some other potential specialty as it is listed as a specialty class. As long as these skills are not constricted or bound to an additional AI and are solely the Ranger's. God what a mess that would be in PVP.


The most important thing is to enjoy your life - to be happy - it's all that matters. - Audrey Hepburn “:♡.•♬✧⁽⁽ଘ( ˊᵕˋ )ଓ⁾⁾*+:•*∴
Read more at brainyquote.com/search_results.html#KTJ4dHyeiltlKOTM.99

mz_Yr9k_I.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Didn't the fantasy ranger archetype/class originate with D&D to begin with though? Seems to me the ranger+pet thing has been with us since the get go.

 

 

Yes and now those stupid hipsters want to change that because their brains can't hold a complex thing such turn pet attack on/off.

 

Let's change everything so, Templars will be evil now, Assassins will tank and Warriors will cast spells!!! LOL 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did like how guild wars 1 handled pets. For those that didn't play it: pets were equipped as a skill, taking up one of your limited skill slots. (You had ten) You also had to spec for it, putting points into beast mastery. This left you less points for dps, traps, ect so it balanced out. It was a great system, I just wish more games used it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and now those stupid hipsters want to change that because their brains can't hold a complex thing such turn pet attack on/off.

 

Let's change everything so, Templars will be evil now, Assassins will tank and Warriors will cast spells!!! LOL 

 

can't discuss with you, you are too much in your own head. Even your nickname is idiotic (I know portuguese)

 

You didn't even answered anybody here, because you can't even process it.

Edited by mazh

2whf87a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can't discuss with you, you are too much in your own head. Even your nickname is idiotic (I know portuguese)

 

You didn't even answered anybody here, because you can't even process it.

 

You're really don't know how to read, because i said Rangers could have a non-pet, lone-ranger viable playstyle for those who don't like pets, but you're so selfish you want to ruin the fun for everybody, removing them completely. You argue like a kid (trying to bash my nickname) and don't answer nobody here too. 

 

What i have to process here? 

 

 

That's where I think you are wrong, I think Ranger is more of a Scout, Stalker more of a Hunter. And for me, having pets is IDIOTIC, period.

 

"Thats where i think you are wrong" (But didn't said why)

"I think ranger is more of a scout, stalker more of a hunter" (BUt didn't said why again) 

"And for me, having pets is IDIOTIC, period." (The angry stubborn kid attacks) 

 

Nice arguments mate. Hahaha 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys are missing the point. Regardless of whatever you guys want we are getting pets, its a thing, its a stretch goal. What is really being discussed is whether Rangers should have a promotion class dedicated to having a pet. No one will be FORCED to have a pet. If you want one, great go out and find that discipline and equip it. If you dont? Well dont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're really don't know how to read, because i said Rangers could have a non-pet, lone-ranger viable playstyle for those who don't like pets, but you're so selfish you want to ruin the fun for everybody, removing them completely. You argue like a kid (trying to bash my nickname) and don't answer nobody here too. 

 

What i have to process here?

 

Did I said no one could have pets? Did I said I wanted to remove them completely for Rangers?

Yes I don't like pets, yes, I would prefer not to have them at all. But I'm not making the game, in my opinion go ahead, have pets.

 

You can have pets through a discipline, you don't have to be a Ranger. Go read the Faqs.

 

 

The only thing I said was ask why do you associate Rangers with Pets? Hunters with Pets?

That's what you cannot process, you can't process others people opinions and thats why you deserve your own nickname.

 

 

"Thats where i think you are wrong" (But didn't said why)

"I think ranger is more of a scout, stalker more of a hunter" (BUt didn't said why again) 

"And for me, having pets is IDIOTIC, period." (The angry stubborn kid attacks) 

 

Nice arguments mate. Hahaha 

 

 

 

You just quoted my own answers, if you can't process it, then don't.

When someone who does not agree with you, uses the term "Idiotic" is by default a stubborn kid. When you use it because you can't argument, it's an opinion. Ok.

 

 

Off course yes! Pet is an iconic feature of the ranger/hunter stereotype, not giving the option of having them is really stupid, it's like not allowing warriors to use swords or not allowing a paladin to use shields. Really dumb

 

Ok if some people want to be a lone ranger, it should have a specialization, like WoW has now (The Lonewolf which buffs his attacks to compensate the loss of the pet damage) but NOT HAVING PETS is idiotic

 

But not having pets is IDIOTIC, period.

 

Yes and now those stupid hipsters want to change that because their brains can't hold a complex thing such turn pet attack on/off.

 

 

Let's change everything so, Templars will be evil now, Assassins will tank and Warriors will cast spells!!! LOL 

You're really don't know how to read, because i said Rangers could have a non-pet, lone-ranger viable playstyle for those who don't like pets, but you're so selfish you want to ruin the fun for everybody, removing them completely. You argue like a kid (trying to bash my nickname) and don't answer nobody here too. 

 

 

"And for me, having pets is IDIOTIC, period." (The angry stubborn kid attacks

 

Nice arguments mate. Hahaha 

 

 

I see who's the kid

Edited by mazh

2whf87a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...