Going to be making a ranger

[Enxienty]

Uh Oh.

Gear tips?

[nymphloa]

Budget mate?

[Enxienty]

hm... around 15k

[SupaflyIRL]

Anything that will help you in praying for luclin.

Half warrior, half druid. All terrible.

[Enxienty]

Now im confused in making either a ranger, or some type of class thats welcomed in guilds lol

[Harrison]

Rangers are glorified trackbots that do a little bit of dps

[SupaflyIRL]

Little known fact, rangers can't solo because they don't even want to group with themselves.

[PurelyElf]

some of my best friends are rangers

[Vermicelli]

o hay its this thred again

http://wiki.project1999.org/index.php/Ranger

Item list near the bottom

[Rasah]

some of my best rez customers are rangers
Fixed

[stormlord]

Word of caution: Don't focus too much on the advice tanking or dps zealots give you.

Anybody who sums up this class as "Fair dps, and a bit of magic," is oversimplifying it. The key thing to take with you is that this is a hybrid class. It gives you lots of buttons and things to do. If you like to do experiments, this is a nice choice. Compared to a warrior or a rogue or a monk or even a cleric, you will feel like MacGyver. Compared to a druid or a chanter or a bard or one of the other deep classes, you will feel more humbled and less able. And that's really what this class is all about. It's not the double attack or the trueshot or the attack bonus (was this in pre-luclin?) or the damage shields or the snaring. It's rather the feeling that you can strike out on your own and search the jungle for something shiny. It's empowering.

I'm not casting any shadows on classes not mentioned. I know every class has its interesting points. But some classes have a more defined role than a ranger does. I'm merely pointing out that a hybrid is a hybrid for a special reason: options. If you hate doing the same thing over and over, the hybrid might b4u.

Granted, these options aren't always the most effective. For example, a ranger can kite, but the need for that, in a group setting, rarely comes into play. So if all you ever do is group then that option isn't going to be something on your mind, even though it's there. And another example: tanking. Ya, your parry and riposte is higher than a bard and you have double attack and damage shields and an attack bonus to shorten the fight, but you can't wear plate and a bard has a higher defense cap - all in all, they're not much different. But a warrior or a shadowknight or a paladin will leave you far behind. So any latent tanking ability you might have won't be used either. Most of the things that make your class shine in a solo setting are hard to appreciate in a group environment unless the content itself is shaky and puts a high value on flexible response.

I played a ranger in 1999. I played one off/on from 2001 to 2010.

Lastly, don't assume everquest is perfect. The game is full of flaws; new or old. There're some things about the old version of everquest that're good and some things about the new everquest that're good, and there're many things left out completely. In these discussion, everything has context. Anything that might not be optimal reflects on what is said here, even without knowledge or mention. Much of that is swept under the rug, never to be discussed or brought out into the light. This, in part, discourages me a lot. Nothing is simple. There're a million and 1 things I'd love to talk about, but it's pointless because of context. With that, I will stop.

[Marglar]

it's unfortunate that bow dps is a little low until end game velious equipped, and it's not good dps until AA's came along and gave you endless quiver/archery mastery.

don't let it discourage you though, if you like playing a ranger, play a ranger. you can make due just fine.

[Bubbles]

key to the ranger:

in a 6man group, you're less than impressive because you're essentially specializing and filling a gap at that point.

In a 3man group you are far, far more effective.

If 5 people are already there, most of your talents are going to be wasted/overridden by specialists.

In a 3 man group you'll be needed to snare, tank, spot heal between fights, dps.. pull.. crowd control.. damage shield. harmony split pulls, SOW, invis.. Track... whatever..

A ranger really shines in smaller bands of adventurers, even more so in outdoor zones/dungeons. But if your group has 5 people already, adding a ranger is never, ever going to be the desired choice, unless you're after the person behind the avatar you know to be a good player.

Which is why most people will tell you to create your own groups instead of running around LFG trying to 'be the 6th'.. You aren't the 6th.. You're the 3rd or 4th.

[stormlord]

key to the ranger:

in a 6man group, you're less than impressive because you're essentially specializing and filling a gap at that point.

In a 3man group you are far, far more effective.

If 5 people are already there, most of your talents are going to be wasted/overridden by specialists.

In a 3 man group you'll be needed to snare, tank, spot heal between fights, dps.. pull.. crowd control.. damage shield. harmony split pulls, SOW, invis.. Track... whatever..

A ranger really shines in smaller bands of adventurers, even more so in outdoor zones/dungeons. But if your group has 5 people already, adding a ranger is never, ever going to be the desired choice, unless you're after the person behind the avatar you know to be a good player.

Which is why most people will tell you to create your own groups instead of running around LFG trying to 'be the 6th'.. You aren't the 6th.. You're the 3rd or 4th.
Add to that this caveat: large groups tend to move slower. It's more boring that way. They find their campsite and then grind into the ground. If you like to move around, it's always better to be in a small band of adventurers. It's easier to control and for that reason more fluid. Funny that many people don't bring this up. And like you say, a ranger uses more of their abilities this way and so they don't go to waste.

I've always thought a paladin and a ranger play well together because they build on each others strengths. A bard might be another good duo for a paladin, but it depends what you're doing.

I know it's an opinion but I think that staying in one place hitting assist gets boring really fast. I would find myself not doing anything remotely ranger-like or exciting. Again, it feels a lot like being a 3rd-rate rogue.

[stormlord]

it's unfortunate that bow dps is a little low until end game velious equipped, and it's not good dps until AA's came along and gave you endless quiver/archery mastery.

don't let it discourage you though, if you like playing a ranger, play a ranger. you can make due just fine.
You're right that in luclin we got the endless quiver aa and the archery mastery aa, both of which brought us into a special era that set us apart especially so. This also changed how they played the game. Since they were bowing a lot, it gave them a chance to really survey the situation well. This actually increased their ability to keep track of roots/snares/etc and made them better at CC. But I think it got drowned out after that and melee once again assumed front and center stage for most of us. We still used trueshot, though.

But you know, even in hte beginning, the class symbol for a ranger was a quiver and bow. From the start, we get criticals with our bow at level 13 or something. Tolans Bracer gives us summoned arrows. With snare, our bow can actually be used to kite rather than as a pulling agent. Combined with our dots, it allows us to take a target down from a distance if the need presents itself. We're naturally drawn to outdoor envrinments because of our skills and we're best able to kite in an outdoor envrionment as well.

I still wish they had thought more deeply about the ranger and figured out a way to make our bows more worthwhile while not making us too powerful in the different fields of battle.

I also think there're two groups: Aragorn and Legolas. One group thinks we're meleer's that carry big swords, and the other wants to use a bow and two shortswords for close combat. But legolas was actually an archer, even though he displays many of the things we relate to the ranger class. He could see far away and had a strong tracking sense. He used his bow to thwart the enemy from a distance. He could fight up close and dual wield his two short swords with deadly accuracy. He had a strong sense of magical things, elven things, evil things from mordor, etc. He and Aragorn had many of the same traits, except that Aragorn almost always used his two handed sword. Like Legolas, he could track a prey and hunt it down. His eyes are not as far seeing as Legolas, though. But I got a sense from the novels that he made up for that because of his knowledge, skill and intuition from his long years crisscrossing middle earth. To be honest, I think that the conventional ranger fits Aragorn very well, but the ranger class in EQ is best fit by both. Another thing that suggests this to be true is that neither Aragorn nor Legolas used any magic; other than a magic sense ability. This tells me that the ranger class should not be confused with its conventional D&D counterpart nor the historic ranger we know of that patrolled the wilds for the king. We have to be willing to bend with it and see that it's an evolving matter.

I do think that classes have distorted our thinking. Skill-based games don't do this. If this were a skill-based game, ranger-esque players could split into these two groups freely without pain or hassle. I feel and have long felt that it would be great if they could allow players to subclass or something. Perhaps rangers could have a archery subclass. If each class had them then players would have more choices and be freer to experiment. The way things went, the company just got things too mixed up and they had to put everyone in the same slot.

[Estu]

You're right that in luclin we got the endless quiver aa and the archery mastery aa, both of which brought us into a special era that set us apart especially so. But I think it got drowned out after that and melee once again assumed front and center stage for most of us. We still used trueshot, though.

But you know, even in hte beginning, the class symbol for a ranger was a quiver and bow. From the start, we get criticals with our bow at level 13 or something. Tolans Bracer gives us summoned arrows. With snare, our bow can actually be used to kite rather than as a pulling agent. Combined with our dots, it allows us to take a target down from a distance if the need presents itself. We're naturally drawn to outdoor envrinments because of our skills and we're best able to kite in an outdoor envrionment as well.

I still wish they had thought more deeply about the ranger and figured out a way to make our bows more worthwhile while not making us too powerful in the different fields of battle.

I also think there're two groups: Aragorn and Legolas. One group thinks we're meleer's that carry big swords, and the other wants to use a bow and two shortswords for close combat. But legolas was actually an archer, even though he displays many of the things we relate to the ranger class. He could see far away and had a strong tracking sense. He used his bow to thwart the enemy from a distance. He could fight up close and dual wield his two short swords with deadly accuracy. He had a strong sense of magical things, elven things, evil things from mordor, etc. He and Aragorn had many of the same traits, except that Aragorn almost always used his two handed sword. Like Legolas, he could track a prey and hunt it down. His eyes are not as far seeing as Legolas, though. But I got a sense from the novels that he made up for that because of his knowledge, skill and intuition from his long years crisscrossing middle earth. To be honest, I think that the conventional ranger fits Aragorn very well, but the ranger class in EQ is best fit by both. Another thing that suggests this to be true is that neither Aragorn nor Legolas used any magic; other than a magic sense ability. This tells me that the ranger class should not be confused with its conventional D&D counterpart nor the historic ranger we know of that patrolled for the king. We have to be willing to bend with it and see that it's an evolving matter.

I do think that classes have distorted our thinking. Skill-based games don't do this.

LOTR isn't really the best class reference anyhow since barely any of the characters used magic of the kind that you see in D&D, EQ, and various fantasy RPGs. They've clearly deviated a lot from the Tolkien universe in that regard, which is good since magic makes these games a lot more fun.

[Doors]

Get a silver swiftblade. 500p-700p and its awesome till dual wield/double attack get high enough.

Other than that shit like:

mithril BP
Crested Helm
Executioner's hood
Ivy etched looks cool
Hero bracers
Sebilite Scale anything
5ac 55hp rings etc.