Ranger spells

[Timo Pietilä]

And you don't seem to get that many of us think they are not boring, and that they have their own niche. For me, rogue is the great combo of utility magespells + more fighting ability.

What is that "own niche" you mentioned? All I see is mixture and combo of someone else arsenal.

[ewert]

Well how about that, imagine that some of us like to play a class that is a mixture of two or more base classes ... You like specialized classes okay we/I get it, I like also multitalented and more spread out classes ... The hybrids, whether multiclassed or their own multifaceted own classes have been a staple of rpg's near forever. Repeating this again and again, but for me and probably many others, the rogue is a nice warrior/mage with some minor unique perks.

[fizzix]

I'm of the opinion that rogues are the most fun class to play. Many of the other classes can become very monotonous, rogues are very versatile.

[Magnate]

I'm of the opinion that rogues are the most fun class to play. Many of the other classes can become very monotonous, rogues are very versatile.

They're the best class for me because I'm such a bad player that I simply cannot survive without a ton of stealth. None of my dwarf paladins ever makes it past stat gain.

[Timo Pietilä]

They're the best class for me because I'm such a bad player that I simply cannot survive without a ton of stealth. None of my dwarf paladins ever makes it past stat gain.

Try hobbit or high-elf ranger. Easier in all categories than rogue and has that ton of stealth. Difference between rogue and ranger is only two points of stealth. Both of those races have high stealth-bonus, 4 for hobbit and 3 for hi-elf with 3 from ranger add up to 7 and 6 respectively. Both have excellent shooting skills. Rogue would have 9 and 8 stealth respectively, but much worse combat skills and weaker set of spells.

Hobbit ranger is in fact so easy that when I played my first "crazy" challenges which was bookless artifactless hobbit ranger it felt like cheating, it was so easy. Only pains in that were lack of artifact lightsources and (pre-3.1) incredibly slow pseudo-ID.

One time in that challenge I was outside of a DLV which had several monsters that, if they are in LoS at the same time, could kill me, I was unable to wake them up to deal with them one at the time. I actually needed to hunt down some aggravation item to get those monsters moving.

If you can't win with that you can't win. Period.

[Timo Pietilä]

Well how about that, imagine that some of us like to play a class that is a mixture of two or more base classes ... You like specialized classes okay we/I get it, I like also multitalented and more spread out classes ... The hybrids, whether multiclassed or their own multifaceted own classes have been a staple of rpg's near forever. Repeating this again and again, but for me and probably many others, the rogue is a nice warrior/mage with some minor unique perks.

I'm still wondering what are those unique perks. It's just boring. But fine, don't do anything to it.

In fact that attitude explains a bit about why people are trying to ruin Rangers. They are trying to make them as boring as rogues are by making it "balanced" IE. grey mass without any special abilities by weakening the only specialty it has above all others.

Lets give 5% failure from spellcasters while we are at it and give them five blows. And why not give warriors some spells too and remove that one extra blow. Lets level up hit-dies too. That way you have six classes to choose without any specialty with "minor unique perks". That must be improvement.

[ewert]

However, stealth is an exponential effectiveness stat, not a linear one, so a single point of difference is significant, and two points difference is a big one. Only until you get to ridiculous stealth values (which are so much easier with kobold rogues for example with a few items) will the return of investment start to get so small, that the extra +2 stealth or so is not so necessary anymore.

[Timo Pietilä]

However, stealth is an exponential effectiveness stat, not a linear one, so a single point of difference is significant, and two points difference is a big one. Only until you get to ridiculous stealth values (which are so much easier with kobold rogues for example with a few items) will the return of investment start to get so small, that the extra +2 stealth or so is not so necessary anymore.

After you have around +7 stealth more doesn't matter much. Those that I mentioned are very close to that. You need one item to get hi-elf over that, which means cloak/boots of stealth or elvenkind armor, hobbit is already there without any boosting.

I currently have half-orc warrior with two items giving it stealth and it is in excellent. That's more than enough stealth for survival. I actually carry one item with aggravation to wake things up when I want them to wake up. Of course if you don't know how to play no amount of stealth is going to help you.

[Magnate]

After you have around +7 stealth more doesn't matter much. Those that I mentioned are very close to that. You need one item to get hi-elf over that, which means cloak/boots of stealth or elvenkind armor, hobbit is already there without any boosting.

I currently have half-orc warrior with two items giving it stealth and it is in excellent. That's more than enough stealth for survival. I actually carry one item with aggravation to wake things up when I want them to wake up. Of course if you don't know how to play no amount of stealth is going to help you.

I was using a little bit of poetic licence - I'm not quite that bad. Yes I have played both hobbit rangers and high-elf rangers, precisely for the combination of good stealth and better shooting than rogues, and yes they are great. My only win was a ranger, not a rogue.

It is true that the current setup in V means that items can completely make up for any lack of intrinsic race and class stealth. But the RNG teases, of course - I once found an elven cloak with +5 stealth (+3 from ego property, +2 from base item property) but I was a high-elf rogue so didn't really need it. The RNG would never give me that with a dwarf.

If we introduce rings of stealth, as discussed recently, that might make me have another try with warriors and paladins.

[Timo Pietilä]

It is true that the current setup in V means that items can completely make up for any lack of intrinsic race and class stealth. But the RNG teases, of course - I once found an elven cloak with +5 stealth (+3 from ego property, +2 from base item property) but I was a high-elf rogue so didn't really need it. The RNG would never give me that with a dwarf.

My two items are Aman Elvenkind cloak (+5) (shards IIRC) and Barahir. Have been using that Barahir for some time now hoping for better ring.

If we introduce rings of stealth, as discussed recently, that might make me have another try with warriors and paladins.

I think we should make stealth increase with level like most other skills do. Make warrior bad at start, but very stealthy at the end (stealth if something is a combat skill).

[Magnate]

I think we should make stealth increase with level like most other skills do. Make warrior bad at start, but very stealthy at the end (stealth if something is a combat skill).

I like this idea, though making the warrior more stealthy would, er, make it less different from the rogue.

[Timo Pietilä]

I like this idea, though making the warrior more stealthy would, er, make it less different from the rogue.

Warrior doesn't have spells, rogue does. That affects inventory space, device usage, boosts, detection methods, escapes...pretty much most things. I think warrior is the most unique class in entire angband, giving them some more stealth affects that so little that it practically doesn't affect it at all.

Ranger is already pretty close to rogue, and IMO ranger should have higher stealth than rogue, while rogue should be much better than ranger in combat with spells to match that. Ranger doesn't need the combat spells. Remove them and then Rogue suddenly becomes something else than weaker version of Ranger.

[ewert]

I'm still wondering what are those unique perks. It's just boring. But fine, don't do anything to it.

In fact that attitude explains a bit about why people are trying to ruin Rangers. They are trying to make them as boring as rogues are by making it "balanced" IE. grey mass without any special abilities by weakening the only specialty it has above all others.

Lets give 5% failure from spellcasters while we are at it and give them five blows. And why not give warriors some spells too and remove that one extra blow. Lets level up hit-dies too. That way you have six classes to choose without any specialty with "minor unique perks". That must be improvement.

Missed this, but anyways no need to go full speed ahead with strawmen or red ad absurdum ...

For me, rogues have: best stealth (minor perk), best detection (arguably with detect treasures early on, perk). They do share the "nonunique" hybridclass melee ability, and while not exceptional they are neither sucky at ranged combat. Most importantly for me, the lack of archery superpower like rangers makes them more alluring, since I don't like to play stuff with clearly overpowering abilities (yes yes, matter of opinion, but I have said for a long time +shots needs to be changed to +might, or +shots changed to a lesser energy cost reduction than -50%/-66%/-75% etc.).

But I'll remove rangers soon anyways from iVanilla, so I don't have a problem with them soon!