Has anyone tested which profession is better for making an archer? Would love to find out everyone's opinion. reg
Warrior vs. Rogue vs. Ranger
I havent done much research but just based on skill costs and the amount of times you can train in a skill per level, it would seem rogues are the superior archers in my opinion. reg
It all depends on what kind of archer you want to be.
If you want to be a hiding sniper, rogue is the best way to go, since they're the only ones that can triple in hiding and perception.
Rangers are a close second since many of their spells assist in hunting like phoen's strength for addition AS.
Doubling ambush along with the hiding and perception aids in aiming your hits. Makes for some fun hunts hiding and killing!
Warriors are good if you want to do several things with your bows and arrows, like stabbing with your arrow, or bashing on the head with your bow. Also good to have brawling in case you run out of arrows.
Bards make good archers, but only from out in the open. Hiding is moot since renewing the songs brings you out of hiding.
Again, it's all about what you want to play and what you will have fun hunting with. reg
Brawling is essential for your defense as an archer reg
Rogues and rangers are the best choice for an archer.
Besides that, it's just a matter of preference. I prefer a rogue since in the long run a rogue will get DFRedux and full plate as well as the ability to hunt from hiding and stay hidden, however a ranger can always get that extra AS when bolting by using 117 and camo as well as wall of force and other DS spells.
Only time will tell empirically which profession has the upperhand, if ever. The oldest fully trained archer I've heard of is 43 trainings and is a ranger.
- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg
There's a lot of Archers older than that Kranar.
There was a mage in the rift that was an archer.
-=Insomniac=- reg
Are they archers?
Or do they simply have ranged weapon use?
I see a big difference in the two. Kranar isn't a locksmith, although he does have training in lockpicking.
- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg
I know for a fact there's a level 50 ranger archer out there (i used to own em, after he left the lands). Fully doubled in ranged and edged and I don't really remember bout brawling. He was kinda fun to fool around with, but was really hard for em to hunt (this was like 2 years ago).
I'd have to put my money on a redux rogue with 2.5-3x hiding and fully doubled perception 
rht reg
It's Cog that has the ranged weapon training.
He's actually fully trained in Ranged/Blunt Kranar.
However...he's missing something like over 20 spells. reg
Rangers as archers rely on spells to make up for what they lack in physical skill. With semi-dux coming someday, choosing between a rogue and a ranger for archery will become an even harder decision. reg
Oh... this info is very interesting.
Thanks for letting me know, I bet this wizard is then the oldest archer in the lands?
- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg
The only difference between a ranger archer and a rogue is that the rogue can get redux.
There is no need to have to double ambush or triple perception -- merely singling in them both is fine. Both can triple in hiding so there goes that. The ranger will be a better hider as they have colors and sneaking up. They will both also have the same attack strength except that a ranger will also have camoflauge which lasts 10 seconds a level or so (I forget), not one cast per swing. If you can remain hidden, you can continue firing off shots with a +30 high attack strength. Let's also not forget they'll know guidance.
Rangers also know Phoen's strength which lower your roundtime with a bow by 1 second which helps when aiming because it adds an extra second. Also they have self control which helps with aiming as well. One of the most important spells they have that many over-look at first, but don't realize the importance until later is mass calm. And of course they also have killer weed if you need to drop a critters defense by 50, and sounds to drop it by another 20.
Also let's not forget that rangers can train high up in armor use as well. Combine their armor with a nice +170 defense from their spells (a bit higher with more ranger ranks), toss in some good armor, and signs, and they have a nice little defense. Of course a sniper's main defense is hiding, but it's a good back-up plan.
I just don't see why people choose a rogue over a ranger. Sure, it looks good due to training costs, but the ranger comes out far ahead of the rogue.
- Pudgee, a cleric archer. reg
Actually in the later years rangers are poor at hiding. They have camoflauge which is autohide, but if you ever see it in the rift in the later years against multiple opponents they get sniffed out pretty fast unless they make their attack.
No to mention rangers have incredibly low DS in offensive stance. I'm going for full self-sufficiency, and it's rough for a rogue in his early years, but it's not in anyway impossible.
My rogue at 11 trainings hides and stays hidden, so against mants and thraks they have no way of sniffing him out to attack him. In the rare event they do, then he may find himself in trouble, but a ranger who can only double in hiding would face the exact same problems.
In the later years it becomes worse, a ranger archers DS will suffer, so once again it becomes a matter of self sufficiency. My rogue will have a 55 percent redux in plate armor vs. the ranger's low DS in chain mail or other partial chain coverage.
The ranger can not wear plate because of spell hinderance. He will have to be 85 trainings fully doubled in armor use to train away spell hinderance for metal breastplate. So that sticks the ranger in chain mail if he wishes to use his spells in combat while the rogue will have 55 percent redux and metal brestplate.
My ideal of a rogue archer at 50 trainings will have the following DS:
15 RE + 20 bowbonus + 5x armor + 35 COL = 95
Kneeling that gives me a DS of 45
A ranger at 50 trainings will have the following:
15 RE + 20 bowbonus + 5x armor + 35 COL + 75 spells = 175 DS.
A critter at 50 trainings has an AS on average of 305 and the AvD we'll use a broadsword for our example against the torso since 70 percent of attacks are aimed at the torso (based on extensive testing).
Ranger:
305 AS - 175 DS + 37 AvD + 50droll = 217
117 * .250 = 29 HP
29 HP / 9 = rank 3 crit = 15 HP and stun
Total final damage = 44 HP and stun
Rogue
305 AS - 45 DS + 36 AvD + droll 50 = 346
246 * .2 * .5 redux = 24
24 / 11 = rank 2 crit = additional 10 HP and no stun
Total final damage = 34 HP and no stun.
This is with my rogue who's KNEELING against a ranger who's STANDING.
As you continue to run the numbers the difference becomes more and more significant in favor of the rogue, heck at 120 trainings the rogue takes 5 HP shots while the ranger will never be able to hunt. The ranger who singles in shield use can't hunt using a sword, so it's doubtful that a ranger with a bow will be able to.
As for using a vine to knock the critter down, the rogue can equally sweep a critter down. He will never have to worry about spell hinderance since his skills will be spell independant.
For these reasons I choose a rogue over a ranger. Until experience and actual living proof dictate otherwise, it's only logical to pick the path of a rogue over a ranger as an archer.
- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg
>>Actually in the later years rangers are poor at hiding. They have camoflauge which is autohide, but if you ever see it in the rift in the later years against multiple opponents they get sniffed out pretty fast unless they make their attack.
How are rangers poor at hiding later on in life? Maybe because not that many rangers triple train in hiding. All I know is that if a ranger is an archer, they're going to triple in hiding. And if not them, I at least do.
>>My rogue at 11 trainings hides and stays hidden, so against mants and thraks they have no way of sniffing him out to attack him. In the rare event they do, then he may find himself in trouble, but a ranger who can only double in hiding would face the exact same problems.
A ranger that can only double in hiding? Nope, I triple with colors up, not to mention I'm also a halfling.
>>15 RE + 20 bowbonus + 5x armor + 35 COL + 75 spells = 175 DS.
Well here's what my defense would be:
35 RE + 20 bow + 40 armor + 35 CoL + 170 spells = 300 defense
Of course that would be at 62, not 50, and then add in chain based armor, and even better. At that age, a 300 defense is plenty, but we'll just use 200 for the heck of it since I'll say "before he learns wall of force".
Hiding is the main defense of an archer, it's not as if critters are going to be hitting them every 5 seconds. I wouldn't be hunting any animal critters or undead so staying hidden won't even be anywhere near difficult.
And as a side comment, any difficulties you mention only occur while solo-hunting, and even then, it's very doable.
- Pudgee
[This message has been edited by Pudgee (edited 01-05-2002).] reg
quote:
Originally posted by LordKranar:
Actually in the later years rangers are poor at hiding. They have camoflauge which is autohide, but if you ever see it in the rift in the later years against multiple opponents they get sniffed out pretty fast unless they make their attack.
A like-trained ranger with spells up can hide just as well as a rogue, if not better. The rogue professional bonus is being/will be lowered significantly soon.
quote:
No to mention rangers have incredibly low DS in offensive stance. I'm going for full self-sufficiency, and it's rough for a rogue in his early years, but it's not in anyway impossible.
Rangers who know both their spell lists have a high self-cast DS. The problem with ranger DS is that there's not enough without some form of redux.
quote:
My rogue at 11 trainings hides and stays hidden, so against mants and thraks they have no way of sniffing him out to attack him. In the rare event they do, then he may find himself in trouble, but a ranger who can only double in hiding would face the exact same problems.
Rangers can triple in hiding, though for a higher cost than a rogue. Most choose not to, however, due to the aid we recieve with spells.
reg
<< How are rangers poor at hiding later on in life? Maybe because not that many rangers triple train in hiding. >>
I just know this empiracally, rangers can't hide in the rift, and they do pretty bad hiding in other older areas as well since camo, natural colors, and sneaking give a fixed bonus, so eventually their bonus doesn't compare to a triple trainer and only a triple trainer can effectively hide 95 percent of the time. A double trained gets burned and infact can never hide after a certain point, they rely on hiding in another room, walking in, then attacking.
If you triple train, you are then the best hider, so yes in regards to hiding you will have the best chance of doing so, but it will cost you quite a bit of training points.
Let's run the numbers out up until the rift since I know exactly what one faces in there.
100 training evaluation:
Halflin Ranger DS: with 150 and 650
601: 10 DS
613: 35 DS
103: 10 DS
120: 25 DS
150: 100 DS
CoL: 35 DS
Bow: 25 DS
Arm: 40 DS 8x
Ref: 40 DS
------------
Tot: 320 DS
Human Rogue DS: No spell ranks
Ref: 25 DS
CoL: 35 DS
Arm: 40 DS 8x
Bow: 25 DS
-----------
Tot: 125
Ranger redux: Not implemented so 0 percent
Rogue redux: 78%
Lunatic's AS = 550
Csetairi's AS = 620
Naisirc's are not worth hunting since they don't crit.
Lunatic vs. Ranger in Augmented Plate:
--------------------------------------
550 AS - 320 DS + 30 AvD + droll 50 = 299
199 * .2 = 39 HP loss
39 / 11 = rank 3 crit = 15 HP + stun
Final = 54 HP loss and a minor stun
Lunatic vs. Rogue in full plate
-------------------------------
550 AS - 125 DS + 33 AvD + Droll 50 = 508
408 * .2 * .22 = 17 HP
17 HP / 11 = rank 1 crit = 5 HP loss
Final = 22 HP loss no stun
So basically you as a halfling ranger can only only take 3 shots before you die and you'll have to cope with a stun.
The more you run the numbers out, the more of a difference you see between the rogue and ranger.
Once again, this is simply based on logic and number crunching, not on actual experience for which I don't think any even exists.
- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard
[This message has been edited by LordKranar (edited 01-05-2002).] reg
I want a halfling archer ranger, if I weren't too lazy to make a new character. I don't know, that just sounds like alot of fun.
------------------
I got no dukes. reg
One thing you're forgetting about all this is that you first have to either do your 5% hiding fumble or a critter has to sniff you out of hiding. Without that happening, all of this is a minor point. Also all of this only happens when you're solo-hunting, not group hunting. If group hunting, you'll be unstunned right away, and you'll also have a 50% higher chance of survival due to the critter choosing to attack your hunting parter rather than you.
Most important thing to keep in mind overall? An archer's ability to keep a critter in a constant stun due to a 3 second roundtime. :) But also forget that hunting as a rogue and ranger will be completely different. A rogue archer will be hunting basic style just hiding and shooting with an occasional trip. With a ranger, you can keep killer weed cast constantly to drag a critter to the ground right away, or you can use other spells such as call swarm and also mass calm.
So while as you're doing the numbers and it looks like a rogue is better in regards to training costs and redux, numbers aren't everything. With tactics and a good hunting style, most problems are void.
- Pudgee reg
Well I'm still pretty convinced that the rogue has the upperhand simply due to redux.
My main interest isn't in attack, or weeding, or thorning or any spells, which I'm sure is fun and all, but what always concerns me most is defense.
I just can't see how a ranger archer is going to defend themselves adequately enough at the older ages. Hiding is fine, but that ranger will practially have to be ALWAYS hiding ALL the time, even when he's walking from room to room. One hit and he goes down at the older ages, if he gets spell hinderance off a cast he dies, if he gets searched out he dies, if he gets knocked out of hiding after making a shot he dies, if he searches a critter while another critter is in the room he dies, if the ground shakes he dies, if an etheral beam of light shines he dies.
Basically he'll be up so many factors working AGAINST him because if ever he gets hit even once... he's gonna go down. That ranger after 85 trainings will NEVER EVER want to see an attack thrown his way because one of them is enough to send him back home.
My rogue won't have to worry about that all the time. If he gets knocked out of hiding he has redux on his side to keep him safe, not to mention he also has stun maneuvers so he can go in defensive and pull out a shield.
I just wouldn't have much fun playing an archer with so many factors working against me and always having to conform to very strict rules in order to hunt such as keeping myself hidden all the time or group hunting, where if one factor in my hunting goes wrong I will more than likely die because of it. That's the beauty of redux, you can make mistakes because you're durable enough to handle them.
All in all, being an archer is plenty fun, and if being a ranger is what interests you most then don't let mechanics or numbers stop you. Play it out and heck... maybe you'll even end up proving the number crunchers wrong. Only time will tell...
- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg
I rolled up a rogue archer and I'm having so much fun with her.
I already had a rogue, but she's the picker. This one is strictly an archer, and as soon as I can get her in the rogue guild, I'm having her master in sweep and stun manuevers. And when rogue gambits are active.. ::drools::..
She's a great sniper already at level 5, and yes her defense is rather low. But as long as I have the mass spells on her, she's fine and can hunt her own age.
I can't wait until she has redux. She's going to be sinfully fun to play when she has redux and is shooting everything from the shadows.
I already made one friend and he's always telling me, "You're so hard to find!" to which she replies, "I was trained that way." ::grins:: Love her! I should have made her ages ago! ::bounces:: reg
<< I should have made her ages ago! >>
I keep saying the same thing. Except replace her with him.
- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg
Anyone have a decent guide for basic generation of a Ranger Archer, rolled one up but got into training and found it to be a bit tight cut. So if anyone could direct me or give me some once over on creating a Ranger Archer and getting them going Id appreciate it.
~Fallen reg
Archers will have problems with TP's, at least early on.
If you'd like to start a new topic for advice on how to train your acher, please do. I know there are a couple topics in here that might be helpful. reg
I presonally like rangers, only because I am one, and I did archry on one of my rerolls, the problem is, is balancing training points for what you need as an archer and also gaining spells, this can really put you into a sacifice position. As for Ranger DS, I think the rouge has the upper hand, the only difference will be if they ever implement semi-redux. Now what I like and what makes a better archer, are two different things. I think a rouge archer is probably the best choice, but the ranger with his spells, can be funner to play. Either or, You're choice is up to you. I haven't seen many warrior archers, and was really curious to how they would perform. If they hadn't changed the Rolling system, I would probably try it. reg
I've had no problems training what I need to as a rogue archer. His training plan layed out is as follows:
0 to 23
------
2x armor
1x shield
2x ranged
1x climb
1x swim
3x stalk
3x perception
2x ambush
1x physical
1x brawling
2x pickpocket
--------------
50/30
24 to 32
------
2x armor
1x shield
2x ranged
1x climb
2x swim
3x stalk
3x perception
2x ambush
1x physical
1x brawling
2x pickpocket
--------------
54/30
33 to 53
------
1x disarm
1x pickbox
2x armor
1x shield
2x ranged
1x climb
2x swim
3x stalk
3x perception
2x ambush
1x physical
1x brawling
2x pickpocket
--------------
56/32
54 to 77
------
1x disarm
1x pickbox
2x armor
1x shield
2x ranged
2x climb
2x swim
3x stalk
3x perception
2x ambush
1x physical
1x brawling
2x pickpocket
--------------
60/34
78 to 123
------
1x disarm
1x pickbox
2x armor
1x shield
2x ranged
2x climb
2x swim
3x stalk
3x perception
2x ambush
2x physical
1x brawling
2x pickpocket
--------------
66/34
124 to x
------
2x disarm
2x pickbox
2x armor
1x shield
2x ranged
2x climb
2x swim
3x stalk
3x perception
2x ambush
2x physical
1x brawling
2x pickpocket
--------------
70/38
I may also replace the 2x in climbing, or swiming, with 1x CM until I get 40 ranks in it. The CM simply being mostly for sweep, and whatever other advantages may come along with it.
- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg
I was just gonna say CM might be good to grab, then I got to the bottom of your post Kranar. Reading about archers here and seeing a few in action I must say they look tempting, but for now my rouge is going to be a major brute with a minor in picking.
Now as far as weapons for archers go any thought yet to what is the best shooter as far as pros vs cons of each i.e. fast shooter weak hitter, slow shoot but hits like a flying bowling ball.
------------------
Anticor Rifling, Giantman Wizard reg
Longbow is the best weapon to use for an archer all around.
In the extreme case that your AS isn't high enough, then a light crossbow is your best bet.
Having worked out the numbers, the following are the average endrolls you need to kill a critter on the head, or neck, wearing the following various armor (skin, leathers, scale, chain, plate)
Heavy Crossbow:
159 177 167 188 243
Light Crossbow:
172 184 177 191 267
Short bow:
177 212 191 200 350
Composite bow:
172 184 177 191 267
Long bow:
163 177 172 184 242
Now... keep in mind there is on average a +/-17 difference in the end roll since crit calculations can be off by +/- 1 then their base.
Most critters in the upperages wear scale armor or leather armor. VERY few wear chain or plate.
Based on the above endrolls, the hardest part of an archers life if from 70-95 trainings, it can be pretty difficult finding a critter to kill that doesn't require a crossbow. However if an archer did make it to the rift, they'd do very... very well in there.
- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard
[This message has been edited by LordKranar (edited 02-06-2002).] reg
I'll be that archer in the rift. I'm currently alternating between a composite bow and a light crossbow at 7th train as a rogue. I can basically rape any creature I come in contact with, but hunt in ocomavale because I can still fry there after only 6-10 kills. Defense is a bit of a problem but realistically with all the spells floating around out there it's not too much of a concern. As far as training goes, I only really had a few goals. Be able to wear hauberk in the not too far off future and to be able to kill from hiding. So I went with a regime of...
2x Ranged Weapons
2x Armor
1x CM
3x Hiding
2x Ambush
2x Perception
2x Picking Pockets
1x Climbing
1x Swimming
1x Physical Training
I didn't think about brawling, but then started doubling up in it to catch up at 4th train. Hopefully It'll level out to singling in it for life.
How I've run everything his redux is looking decent, 50% by 50. Maybe I messed it up. Maybe that's not considered decent. I don't know. Honestly, the best part is being able to get my AS up to 309 without spells at six. Can pretty much hide from most people then pick his moment to strike... And by strike I mean wait till they forget about him and bolt them in the back.
Also, anyone notice the influx of archers? I was recently told it was because of Legolas in Lord of The Rings. reg
I'll admit right now...
After seeing Legolas I knew then and there I needed to become an archer.
That is EXACTLY why I became an archer and I started number crunching and planning my guy the night I came back from the movie.
- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg
Me too me too!
After I saw Lord of the Rings for the second time, I came home and rolled her up! Alright so I rolled up a gal Legolas would want to be with ::wiggles her eyebrows::
As low as her defense is, I keep just mass spells on her and hunt a level or two under her... and she's a blast to play! If any of my characters wind up in the rift (yeah right!) she's the one!
I only wish ranged weapons would be part of redux. reg
Some confirmation is nice. Suppose when I saw a Legelas(or something along those lines) in rats I should have known though. reg
Heh, that's not me.
- Lord Kranar, human Archerwizard who prefers original names reg
Ok...
Here is a new question... which is better for open archery, a bard or warrior?
My money is on the warrior. reg
I'd say warrior.
------------------
I got no dukes. reg
I would say bards since they have songs that distract, improving their aim like Song of Noise. reg
I'd also have to say warrior ..again redux is a major major help...cause as an archer unless you are being spelled up ridiculously, you are gonna be hit, and especially from the open. Song of Noise is great and would help against the deadly bolt attacks but if you got sufficient redux you can take nonlightening bolts easy anyway.
Mike
Zanagan/Zarosa reg
Everything depends on hunting tactics. You could have a super high attack strength, but if you can't hunt worth jack squat, that AS isn't going to do much. And if you have good tactics where you don't even get hit, redux doesn't matter.
With that said, if I were to be very old, I'd rather be the bard than the warrior. The bard will have a much higher attack strength, and can do so much more than a warrior. A warrior will basically be doing the same thing from birth and that's boring. At least the bard has a slew of spells to use.
A bard will be able to stop many spells from being cast at them, and as far as swinging, with a 3 second roundtime and a super high attack strength, you can keep a critter in a constant stun so redux is no problem. E-wave will increase your endrolls as well, being able to sing group songs will be fun to have more company...I could basically go on in regards to a bard.
Heck, the same applies when comparing rogues with rangers. A ranger has so many spells so redux doesn't matter. Phoen's strength which gives you a lower roundtime lets you keep a critter in a constant stun. Killer weed hurts a critter and drags it to the ground so you don't have to come out of hiding to knock it to the ground unlike sweep for a rogue. Swarms? Mass calm. In a sticky situation where ranged weapons does nothing? Spike.
So again, depending on your hunting style/tactics, that's what profession you should choose, but as for me, I'd go with the bard...and then ranger. Squares are boring for me since they don't have multiple things they can do in regards to hunting. It's basically the same since birth. Spells are a must for me because it adds so many more options in regards to hunting tactics.
- Pudgee reg
<< A ranger has so many spells so redux doesn't matter. Phoen's strength which gives you a lower roundtime lets you keep a critter in a constant stun. Killer weed hurts a critter and drags it to the ground so you don't have to come out of hiding to knock it to the ground unlike sweep for a rogue. Swarms? Mass calm. In a sticky situation where ranged weapons does nothing? Spike. >>
I would simply like to point out that once a ranger is forced to hunt on their own merits and abilities (I'm talking about the rift here), they don't swing. None do infact.
If a ranger is unable to swing a weapon, it's 10 times less likely that they will be able to do much with a bow and arrow.
As I've said before... a ranger can only get his DS to a max of something like 400 with all their spells... try using that 400 DS against the 550 AS you'll be facing.
My archer? He'll have a 35 DS kneeling down in offensive stance in 5x armor and he won't give a damn because his 82 percent redux in full plate allows him to take a 600 end roll and only suffer 9 HP of damage (this is based on a lunatics 550 AS on an die roll of 100). Oh... and that's not even a rank 1 crit incase you were wondering, so they can hit him all they want and he'll NEVER even bleed.
- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg
>>I would simply like to point out that once a ranger is forced to hunt on their own merits and abilities (I'm talking about the rift here), they don't swing. None do infact.
>>If a ranger is unable to swing a weapon, it's 10 times less likely that they will be able to do much with a bow and arrow.
>>As I've said before... a ranger can only get his DS to a max of something like 400 with all their spells... try using that 400 DS against the 550 AS you'll be facing.
And why is it they cannot hunt with a blade self-cast? Because they have to come out of hiding to ambush? Because critters can stance dance so you might end up missing an ambush? Well as an archer, you will stay in hiding nearly every single time, and ranged weapons negates weapon parry.
550 AS vs a 400 DS? In a metal breastplate at least. Oh no! Not only that, but this is *if* you even get hit in the first place. If you come out of hiding on a failed snipe, that's still only 3 seconds or so which is plenty of time to rehide or you can end up casting a slew of spells such as spike, call swarm, mass calm, killer weed, or whatever.
Redux isn't the end all be all of hunting..even truer when it comes to archery.
- Pudgee
PS - I'm not saying anything bad about your character or anything at all like that as I'm sure he's a blast to play. I'm only disagreeing with your opinion on redux vs those that do not have it.
[This message has been edited by Pudgee (edited 02-04-2002).] reg
<< PS - I'm not saying anything bad about your character or anything at all like that as I'm sure he's a blast to play. I'm only disagreeing with your opinion on redux vs those that do not have it. >>
Oh please do not worry about offending me or anything, and please don't take offense from me either. I understand that what we're doing is argueing our viewpoints and you're more than entitled to your opinion.
Infact I've said before that only time will be the ultimate judged of this. Empirically however the reason I say rangers aren't viable sword swingers in a self cast environment is because rangers ARE NOT viable sword swingers in a self cast environment.
The ones who are are using their God auctioned armor, like Artistansis, who he himself STILL can't blade swing and gave up on it and he is considered to have some of the best armor in the lands! Aurach entered the rift and was dying nonstop and he quit hunting as well, countless other rangers get to the rift and leave because spike thorn isn't really much of a killing spell. So they pick boxes, or they use spike, or they leave.
One mistake, just one is all it takes to kill a ranger. That's the problem. Blame it on Simu, blame it on GMs, blame it on whoever, but they just can't make a mistake and in the rift you're forced to make mistakes all the time because of the random chaotic nature of the place, you can't even hide nonstop in the older ages, and I'm not talking just rift here, I'm talking fire mages and EN as well. Uska has already announced that the Tower and Aquaduct are too easy and they will also take on a similar nature to the rift (in terms of chaos, randomness and getting caught off guard every 10-20 seconds).
If they can't do it as blade swingers, it's 10 times less likely they will do it as archers.
- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg
>If they can't do it as blade swingers, it's 10 times less likely they will do it as archers.
And this is where most of my disagreements come from; this statement.
Archery is NOT like swinging a sword. You have to keep in mind that we can attack with a 3 second roundtime, and the most important part is that we can remain hidden while attacking...and ignoring weapon parry so that you don't waste a swing against a critter in defensive or if you fumble an aim isn't too bad either.
Why don't people swing their blades? Because they don't want something coming in and swinging at them while in roundtime. As an archer, we stay in hiding, and when we're not in hiding, we have 3 seconds as opposed to 5 to get back in it. And as a ranger, you have spells to increase a critter's roundtime.
- Pudgee reg