High Elf Ranger?

[Raccoon]

Hello, forum! I'm a long time Angband player, been playing for about fifteen years now. Well, an irregular player. I tend to pick it up and run a few times a year but I've yet to beat the game. I used to play a lot as a kid, but I was terribad at the game, and made all the classic blunders, such as trying to clear every vault by meleeing through the uniques, and grinding for exp rather than hunting for treasure. Yeah, I was terrible!

I've gotten considerably better lately, between a combination of just being older/smarter, and also skimming through online forums every so often to pick up tips and tricks. I don't really like just being told what to do, though. I enjoy seeing how the experts *think*. I want to learn to think like an expert!

One thing I noticed while skimming through a forum is that somebody referred to High Elf Ranger as a "newbie trap", and so I'm here to ask why that is? Is it because of their severe experience point penalty? The way I see it, ranger is a solid class (they're good for detection, stealth, and shoot'n'scoot!) and High Elf is kind of the easy starting race because of see invisible, and sky high starting stats.

But then, I'm not an expert, so I may be totally misjudging it. Please educate me! Thank you!

[Estie]

I dont know who called ranger a newbie trap, but I assume whoever did was referring to the xp penalty. Archery is somewhat of a hassle compared to "keep the direction key pressed" melee, and past lvl 30 or so it takes considerably more kills for a high elf to level up. Getting all those kills with archery is a tedious prospect.

Rangers work best when you focus on high value targets and newbies tend to kill everything in sight.

[Derakon]

Yep, that was me.

Both High-Elves and Rangers look like good picks: High-Elves have great stats and innate see invisible, rangers can shoot, cast spells, and do a bit of melee. The problems you run into, as I see it are: first, yes, high-elves level extremely slowly. Maybe this isn't a problem for you if you don't mind playing slowly (so the tedium isn't a problem for you), but the longer any given game goes on, the more chances there are for things to align and put you into a really awful situation. Plus, newbies should be playing durable races, and high-elves only have +1 CON and a d10 hit die, barely above average. Of course the high-INT races tend to be flimsy in general, but you can do better. Combine that with the slow leveling and your HP will be even lower than it "should" be.

But probably more importantly, rangers are not good spellcasters (better than rogues, but that's not saying much), and they're pretty awful at melee. And while they are indeed amazing archers, archery is not something you can lean on for every encounter, because of ammo limitations. You need backup plans, and that requires some degree of expertise with the game. I'm not saying that ranger is a bad class (it's easier than mage, for example). But all it really excels at is taking down single high-valued targets, which is not generally what newbies are going to spend most of their time doing.

Cue the flak in three, two, one...

[Raccoon]

Cue the flak in three, two, one...

Not at all! It's great to hear the reasoning right from the horse's mouth.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

I enjoy seeing how the experts *think*. I want to learn to think like an expert!

Give Fizzix's "Let's Play Angand" series on YouTube a look-see. I found them *Enlightening*.

[AnonymousHero]

Give Fizzix's "Let's Play Angand" series on YouTube a look-see. I found them *Enlightening*.

Seconded!

(Granted, I already knew most of it, but there were some little details that I'd missed. I'm still a little too OCD to dive quite as fast as fizzix, but it's very interesting to see what others do in the game.)

[Bogatyr]

Cue the flak in three, two, one...

I die with rangers, and win with warriors/mages/rogues, so yeah, ranger is definitely not a slam dunk. Besides, if you find a nice Sling of Buckland in the endgame, anybody can "play at" ranger for a bit. I actually did at least half of the damage vs. Morgoth as a gnome mage with a SoB and HM shots...

[Raccoon]

Incidentally, I had been reading this let's play during my breaks at work for the last few days. I think it's not only very enlightening, but a lot more convenient than watching a Youtube video, since the author summarizes the more tedious events and mostly talks about the highlights and his strategies.

http://lparchive.org/Angband/

[debo]

Is ranger melee worse than rogue melee?

I still think a strong-race + rogue combo is the easiest way to break the game. Most everything stays asleep, and you get a trillion amazing buffs in your spellbooks. Melee is good also, and you can shoot or device well enough in a pinch.

[Raccoon]

Is ranger melee worse than rogue melee?

By a surprisingly large margin.

[Derakon]

Is ranger melee worse than rogue melee?

Since they can both get 5 blows/round, this basically boils down to their innate accuracy gains. Rangers get a base 56 skill and +3 per level; rogues get a base 60 skill and +4 per level. For comparison, paladins are 68/+3.5, warriors are 70/+4.5, priests 48/+2, and mages 34/+1.5.

So yeah, rogues have slightly better melee than paladins do (eventually), and certainly better than rangers. Rangers also only get +4 to their hit die, while rogues get +6, for an average 1 more HP per level.

But really the key I think is that players are far more likely to play rogues as "slightly weaker warriors who can eventually learn to cast spells" while they try to play rangers more as true hybrids from the get-go. That means allocating your stats poorly: having high STR, DEX, and INT at the beginning of the game is impossible, so they end up deficient in all three and being bad casters and bad melee fighters.

[Raccoon]

But really the key I think is that players are far more likely to play rogues as "slightly weaker warriors who can eventually learn to cast spells" while they try to play rangers more as true hybrids from the get-go. That means allocating your stats poorly: having high STR, DEX, and INT at the beginning of the game is impossible, so they end up deficient in all three and being bad casters and bad melee fighters.

Oh yeah, that's how I used to play them, too. Back when I was young and stupid and tried to melee vaults to death with a high elf ranger. :P

[fph]

Derakon suggested recently to change the ranger bonus from additional shots to additional multiplier. This would help also with making rangers more newbie-friendly, since it reduces the impact of arrow management.

[zog]

I die with rangers, and win with warriors/mages/rogues, so yeah, ranger is definitely not a slam dunk. Besides, if you find a nice Sling of Buckland in the endgame, anybody can "play at" ranger for a bit. I actually did at least half of the damage vs. Morgoth as a gnome mage with a SoB and HM shots...

What's so good about a Sling of Buckland versus, say, Bard or a nice Heavy Crossbow of Extra Might? The multiplier is only x3 and the shots weigh like bricks.

The only time I've ever used a sling as my main missile for a prolonged period was in a recent game when a paladin stumbled upon a Sling of Extra Shots at 500'; it was immensely helpful at that level, but having to carry a lot of shots really weighed me down (literally).

[Derakon]

What's so good about a Sling of Buckland versus, say, Bard or a nice Heavy Crossbow of Extra Might? The multiplier is only x3 and the shots weigh like bricks.

The only time I've ever used a sling as my main missile for a prolonged period was in a recent game when a paladin stumbled upon a Sling of Extra Shots at 500'; it was immensely helpful at that level, but having to carry a lot of shots really weighed me down (literally).

You can find Buckland slings with +2 shots; 3 shots/round makes up for a lot of downside. Potentially you can find x4 Buckland slings with +2 shots, which is just ridiculous.