Rangers? Rangers! Rangers.

[loobusk]

Originally Posted by Supaskillz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Rangers dps about the same as warriors, if you want dps you will always pick a rogue or monk over them for sure, and most likely would also take a necro/mage/wizard/warrior since they will all do comparable dps without bringing the nasty shared hybrid xp penalty.

If you need a tank, you will always take a paladin, warrior, or sk over a ranger. For that matter I would take a bard first also since they tank about the same and their utility is greater in other aspects than a ranger.

I have grouped with rangers who are outstanding at snaring and root parking for ghetto CC, but of course if you have an ench or bard they can do CC in a much better way that also deals with casters, and in some camps this strategy is very limited because of the tight quarters.

Tracking is nice to have but matters little when camps are well established. I will take a ranger or bard pulling for me in a crowded KC where everyone fights over every pull, but most places tracking is simply not needed in a group.

Basically being the jack of all trades is not something that is useful in a group, b/c any roll you might fill is done better by someone else. People also are biased against them because they bring an exp penalty and will often prefer to fight with 5 until someone else is lfg.

Wow, after reading this, what's the point of playing a ranger besides wanting to be a sadist?

[Aadill]

Originally Posted by loobusk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wow, after reading this, what's the point of playing a ranger besides wanting to be a sadist?

I don't like playing games on Easy.