Why rangers don't suck

[Grizzin]

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

The main strike against rangers is that any group which wants a role filled is not going to want a ranger:

- A group which needs a tank wants a warrior, or at least a paladin or shadowknight.
- A group which wants more dps wants a rogue, or at least a monk.
- A group which wants crowd control wants an enchanter, or at least a bard.

A ranger can perform any of these roles passably. The "rangers are utterly useless and cannot do anything" crowd is way off-base, but it is true that the "perfect" group doesn't have a ranger in it.

In 90% of my pre-50 groups, I was the tank because tank classes are so under-played at lower levels and because rangers are very good at holding aggro. At 55, mobs hit hard enough that durability is more of a problem. I still tank once in a while, especially if the group has both a shaman and cleric. Usually I just DPS, though often I will pull or CC as well. Rarely, I will even be in a group where most of my mana goes to healing.

Rangers aren't horrible; if exp penalties didn't exist, I don't think there would be much ranger hate.

In this ranger's opinion, the most important perks are:

- Tracking! (This is #1)
- You offer a lot to small groups (duo/trio) where versatility is more important.
- Soloing as a ranger is much more pleasant than as a rogue, monk, or warrior.
- Since we have decent DPS, we are never completely redundant. A ranger is more useful to a raid than say a third shaman.
- You can sow/chloro/strength/skin/thorns yourself, or lowbies, or anyone in a group without these buffs.
- There are few other rangers so you get most ranger-only loot uncontested.
- The rangers you do see share a secret ranger bond.
- Rangers have more fun than anyone else.

Well put. My thoughts exactly. Honestly, in some sick twisted way, I prefer the exp penalty, because if we didn't have one, my precious class may become overplayed. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I enjoy the fact that there are now, and always was even back on Live circa 1999, fewer Rangers running around than just about any other class out there. It does bring about that secret Ranger bond you mentioned.

Albeit, it may have taken me longer to get a group back then than other classes, but it was far from the impossible thing some people are trying to say it is. I'm still currently leveling on P1999, but I don't expect to ever encounter a time where a group is looking for something other than a Healer/Tank/CC, and literally tells me that I can't join their group simply because I am a Ranger. I don't remember that ever happening even back in classic EQ, where there was a population big enough to possibly even warrant such a thing. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I played a Ranger on Live from what some have dubbed the 'bad times' in classic all the way through around Omens of War, and I loved every second of it. Call me a masochist. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[YendorLootmonkey]

As rangers, you owe it to every other ranger out there to play your class to the best of your ability. Don't be the ranger that AFKs. Don't be the ranger that just sits there and hits shit. Don't be the ranger that has no situational awareness and dies to lack of aggro control.

You have the tools, you know what to do. You have to work harder than most of the other classes to show off your true potential. The pros are that you have great versatility and you are a fun class to play because your role can change at any moment. You shine in 3-4 person groups because you can serve multiple roles in a pinch. The cons are your hybrid xp penalty and that you are a jack of all trades, master of none, in a min-max environment.

Make sure the pros you provide outweigh your cons. The better we play, the easier it is for all of us to get groups.