Ancient Domains Of Mystery, forum overview / ADOM / Rangers = best warrior class??
| Online users ( Unknown) |
| Application object not working properly at the moment, no clue who is online... * Numbers in parentheses are the number of minutes since the user last loaded a page. Logged-in users time out after 40 minutes (unless they manually log out), lurkers and anonymous posters after 20. |
This thread is 2 pages long.
| Go to page 1 2 |
|
saladman Registered user Last page view: 5488 days, 42 minutes and 56 seconds ago. |
I've picked up playing ADOM again, and it seems to me that of all the warrior-oriented classes, Rangers are by far the easiest to move through the early-mid game. Archers, Assassins, Fighters, and Weaponsmiths have to take the healing quest and don't have herbalism to help pump stats. Barbarians, Paladins, Beastfighters, Monks, and Weaponsmiths don't get archery to help with the monsters you really don't want to take in melee. Archers, Assassins, Farmers, and Weaponsmiths don't have swimming to help with the annoying river levels. Rangers have: - All those skills mentioned above, even without the quests - Really good levels of food preservation and survival (to help with food problems) - Several very nice-to-have skills (alertness, athletics, and dodge) Although you could balance out some of the problems with the other warrior classes by picking a good race to go with them, it seems that ADOM really favors the Ranger class for all the good early-mid game skills. |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4245 days, 13 hours, 40 minutes and 59 seconds ago. |
Uh, have you actually put that into practice? I find Rangers look great on paper but just don't seem to hit hard enough or take enough hits to really survive that well and have to rely heavily on archery to survive (making finding ammo critical). Barbarians are way stronger and tougher to smash through everything, monks get some cool abilities, and beastfighters deal huge damage after just a few levels. I find several flaws in many of your arguments. Herbalism is not essential for using herbs effectively (just makes harvesting a lot easier), archery makes little difference apart from getting a couple of extra talents (nice talents, true, but you can't get them till you're already good at archery), swimming is easily attained early and food is not a problem in the game unless you're very careless. Furthermore Rangers don't have Find Weakness (and the only way to guarantee it is with my least favourite class choice). Monks have excellent skillsets too - Concentration especially makes them very versatile in the mid-late game. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
saladman Registered user Last page view: 5488 days, 42 minutes and 56 seconds ago. |
I just got a good gray elven Ranger going last night. I get Good Shot and Keen Shot as my first talents and survive the early dungeons with the archery. If arrows get low, you can usually find rocks and level up the thrown rocks skill; the ants in the puppy dungeon tend to generate lots of rocks, and so do many other things. Arrows don't always get low, though. And maybe it's just me, but I like to level up thrown rocks with all classes that have the archery skill. Once the Ranger is leveled up a bit, found some better melee weapons, an herb level, and an altar level, it can pump its stats and then take on Keethrax without much trouble. Then it can do the small cave to the mountain village and proceed to the west side of the map and plow into the mid-game. Before I did the Ranger, I tried a series of other classes, and they were an absolute pain to get past the early game without some random thing causing an unexpected death. And both orcs and dark elves have find weakness; although they both start chaotic, they don't have to worry about the healer denying them healing if they are the Ranger class. |
||
 littlebrather Registered user Last page view: 4809 days, 14 hours and 8 minutes ago. |
Ranger's level abilities are awful... while monks, barbarians and beastfighters get nice low energy move, archers get overpower low energy shoot and fletchery talent,weaponsmith get huge advantage in smithing and concentration, so they can be "book caster", not a pure fighter, rangers have strange abilities like surviving (never used it) =) Yes Rangers may be better then Fighters, but in compare with other classes their sucks. Rangers in AD&D are jacks of all traders, something like that they are in ADOM too. The only advantages of Rangers are two weapons combat bonuses. Oh, forgot - Archery gives VERY small bonuses to non Archers +5 +2 (do U need this?) OK even with EE it's +8 +5 - misery IMO until it sleep [Edited 1 time, last edit on 2/4/2009 at 23:58 (GMT -5) by littlebrather] |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4903 days, 15 hours, 57 minutes and 55 seconds ago. |
There was a time when I wondered whether or not the entire ranger class was there just for dark elves. The race/class combo just compliments each other so nicely. Other races can be good too, but I think DE's make the best rangers. Dual wielding may be inferior to a spear/shield combo, but it's not a handicap in the slightest. Once they get their swords skill high enough, they are a force. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
vogonpoet Registered user Last page view: 4962 days, 21 hours, 11 minutes and 43 seconds ago. |
Traditionally, i have sucked at melee characters, but I have to say, I am beginning to appreciate beastfighters bigtime... The damage output really is insane, the class abilities are good, and keeping them alive at the start is not too hard... As for Healing, just wait till you roll a Candle, and screw healing. |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4245 days, 13 hours, 40 minutes and 59 seconds ago. |
gut: > There was a time when I wondered whether or not > the entire ranger class was there just for dark > elves. Quite possibly. Drizz't anyone? Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4903 days, 15 hours, 57 minutes and 55 seconds ago. |
If memory serves, nearly all the winning DERa's in the HoF go by that name : ) Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4245 days, 13 hours, 40 minutes and 59 seconds ago. |
The thing I love about role-playing is how it encourages imagination... Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4903 days, 15 hours, 57 minutes and 55 seconds ago. |
Well, I had to check the HoF. To be fair, there was 1 : ) Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Subconscious Registered user Adventurer of the Human Mind Last page view: 5397 days, 12 hours, 54 minutes and 45 seconds ago. |
Yes, in my opinion they are one of the best melee characters. My only victory so far is done with dwarven ranger. "The white baby dragon equips the small shield." WTF :D |
||
|
psy_wombats Registered user Untitled Last page view: 5342 days, 11 hours, 37 minutes and 23 seconds ago. |
I recently a UCE with a dark elf ranger, dual-wielding whips of the snake. Pretty awesome, I must say. But as to the best melee class, I'd say the ranger's absolutely horrible class abilities rule it out. At least monks, beastfighters, and barbarians get useful abilities. WHEN WOMBATS STRIKE! Enjoy your last days... |
||
|
AshenPlanet Registered user Last page view: 3184 days, 3 hours, 4 minutes and 41 seconds ago. |
Actually, imho, rangers are the 2nd worst warrior oriented class. Farmers take top billing as the most challenging class in the game, but rangers are not far behind them (with maybe merchants, thieves and elementalists being the only other classes that are less powerful). Let's take a good look at their ultimate class bonuses (two-weapon bonus at level 32 and 50). For the best non-artifact weapons in most categories, these bonuses do absolutely nothing... For daggers, whips, axes, swords, and polearms, non-rangers and rangers alike can dual-wield the best weapons in each of these classes with practically no penalty (dual swords of sharpness or eternium axes yield -1 penalty which is almost nothing). For clubs/hammers, dual-wielding large eternium hammers for non-rangers gives -5 to hit while rangers have no penalty - a very minor bonus. For maces, dual-weilding maces of destruction yeilds -18 to hit while rangers recieve no penalty - this is really the only place where rangers shine with a very big difference of +18 to hit when they get their 50th level power. For artifacts, the picture expands a little with skullcrusher and jet-black battle axe getting some penalty for non-rangers and rangers having less penalty with them. Most of the other good 1h artifacts don't benefit greatly from the ranger bonuses. Purifier and big punch, however, are hugely affected giving a whopping -94 to hit for non-rangers while rangers only recieve -19 to hit. To summarize, you can come to 2 conclusions from those observations.
|
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4245 days, 13 hours, 40 minutes and 59 seconds ago. |
You somehow fail to recognise all the things *other* than those class powers for making Rangers good. A decent ranger doesn't waste his time with dual-wielding when he's a master in melee already and a deadly shot with missiles. Also I seem to remember that as a Ranger some of those dual-wielding penalites can in fact be reversed into bonuses. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
AshenPlanet Registered user Last page view: 3184 days, 3 hours, 4 minutes and 41 seconds ago. |
A decent ranger doesn't waste his time with dual-wielding If you're not wasting your time dual-weilding, then you are wasting your time being a ranger... Rangers don't have any class powers *other* than duel-weilding that are any good. Rangers get a flat +6 bonus to hit only when duel-weilding. Even farmers, the weakest class in the game, are better masters of non-dual-weild melee since they learn polearms 20% faster and get bonuses to their physical stats. To compare rangers to monks, barbarians, beastfighters, fighters, or paladins is not even close. Deadly shot with missiles... They do the same damage as everyone else with missiles. Their only class bonus to missiles is +4 range, which is meaningless to every missile except throwing tridents or hammer of the gods. Certainly, that doesn't qualify them as any kind of archery specialist... Also I seem to remember that as a Ranger some of those dual-wielding penalites can in fact be reversed into bonuses Nope, penalties can be reduced to 0, but do not flip over to become bonuses. Everybody can dual-weild needle & sting or eternium scimitars with no penalty. A ranger's sole advantage is that he can also duel-weild heavy weapons, like maces of disruption or purifier, with no penalty. |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4903 days, 15 hours, 57 minutes and 55 seconds ago. |
This thread got me curious, so I decided to do a quick comparison. I wanted to see how a few different melee classes compared to each other, right from the start. I used only one race, dark elves, for each class. I evaluated only info from the starting vlg files of a beastfighter, a fighter, and ranger. I generated only 1 PC for each class. Fighter St:16 Le:14 Wi:13 Dx:17 To:12 Ch: 5 Ap:14 Ma:16 Pe:17 C DV/PV: 20/5 H: 20(20) P: 4(4) Beasty St:18 Le: 9 Wi:17 Dx:21 To:16 Ch: 5 Ap:14 Ma:20 Pe:20 C DV/PV: 15/5 H: 25(25) P: 3(3) Ranger St:14 Le:14 Wi:12 Dx:15 To:12 Ch: 6 Ap:13 Ma:16 Pe:21 C DV/PV: 18/5 H: 19(19) P: 4(4) // Beasty wins the stat wars, but man is he dumb. // Due to lack of equipment though, beasty is last // in terms of DV/PV. // Now weapon skills . Now for weapon skills. Fighter: Swords 2 +2 +0 +0 basic 40 Crossbows 1 +2 +1 +0 basic 12 Shields 1 +2 basic 25 Beasty: Nothing Ranger: Swords 3 +2 +1 +0 basic 65 // We'll give this to Fighter, but Ranger is close. // Now for damage output. Fighter: Right hand: +4 bonus to hit, 1d6+2 damage Beasty: Right hand: +4 bonus to hit, 1d4+3 damage Ranger: Right hand: +3 bonus to hit, 1d8+2 damage and.... Left hand: +3 bonus to hit, 1d8+2 damage // Ranger wins the damage round handily. // Now skills. Fighter: Alertness ................ 17 (mediocre) [+4d4] Archery .................. 25 (mediocre) [+3d5] Athletics ................ 31 (fair) [+4d5] Climbing ................. 35 (fair) [+3d5] Dodge .................... 15 (mediocre) [+4d5] Find weakness ............ 24 (mediocre) [+3d5] First aid ................ 25 (mediocre) [+4d4] Haggling ................. 24 (mediocre) [+3d4] Listening ................ 23 (mediocre) [+3d4] Literacy ................. 20 (mediocre) [+3d3] Metallurgy ............... 16 (mediocre) [+3d5] Stealth .................. 25 (mediocre) [+3d3] Swimming ................. 29 (mediocre) [+3d4] Two weapon combat ........ 8 (poor) [+4d5] // 14 overall, 11 skills are rated as 'mediocre'. 6 // of the skills I count as highly valuable. 4 of // these have modifiers I consider to be good (3d5 // or better). Beasty: Alertness ............ 21 (mediocre) [+4d5] Athletics ............ 44 (fair) [+4d5] Climbing ............. 60 (good) [+3d5] Dodge ................ 37 (fair) [+4d5] Find weakness ........ 17 (mediocre) [+4d5] First aid ............ 24 (mediocre) [+4d5] Haggling ............. 22 (mediocre) [+2d4] Healing .............. 47 (fair) [+4d4] Herbalism ............ 52 (good) [+3d5] Listening ............ 57 (good) [+4d4] Stealth .............. 76 (great) [+3d4] Survival ............. 28 (mediocre) [+4d4] Swimming ............. 42 (fair) [+4d5] // 13 overall, 5 skills are rated as 'mediocre', 4 // 'fair' ones, 3 'good' and 1 'great'. 6 of the // skills I count as highly valuable, and all 6 of // these have modifiers I consider to be good. Ranger: Alertness ................ 34 (fair) [+4d4] Archery .................. 23 (mediocre) [+3d5] Athletics ................ 43 (fair) [+4d4] Climbing ................. 45 (fair) [+4d5] Dodge .................... 30 (mediocre) [+4d4] Find weakness ............ 12 (mediocre) [+4d5] First aid ................ 20 (mediocre) [+4d4] Food preservation ........ 18 (mediocre) [+4d5] Haggling ................. 24 (mediocre) [+2d4] Healing .................. 20 (mediocre) [+4d4] Herbalism ................ 28 (mediocre) [+4d5] Listening ................ 34 (fair) [+4d5] Literacy ................. 20 (mediocre) [+3d3] Stealth .................. 44 (fair) [+3d5] Survival ................. 60 (good) [+3d4] Swimming ................. 32 (fair) [+3d3] Two weapon combat ........ 53 (good) [+4d4] Woodcraft ................ 25 (mediocre) [+4d5] // 18 overall, 10 skills are rated as 'mediocre', 5 // 'fair' ones, and 2 'good'. 10 skills I count as // highly valuable (I counted 2wc for Ranger because // they alone would likely dual wield). 9 of these // have modifiers I consider to be good. // To sum it up, I think Ranger dominates the skills // test. 10 highly valuable skills vs. the other // classes lowly 6 means being able to have your cake // and eat it too. You have the flexibility and // convenience of healing+herbalism, and you don't // have to give anything up to get them. Sweet. // Now for some equipment lovin'. Fighter: elven chain mail [+3, +5] short sword (+0, 1d6) small shield [+2, +0] leather boots [+0, +0] hand crossbow (+0, +0) bundle of 2 dark elven quarrels (+3, 1d4+3) dagger (+0, 1d4) bundle of 5 dark elven quarrels (+3, 1d4+5) bundle of 2 dark elven quarrels (+3, 1d4+3) bundle of 3 dark elven quarrels (+4, 1d4+3) Beasty: spider shell armor (+0, -2) [-1, +5] leather boots [+0, +0] Ranger: elven chain mail [+2, +5] light cloak [+1, +0] scimitar (+0, 1d8) scimitar (+0, 1d8) light boots [+3, +0] // Beasty loses BIGTIME, but we knew he would : ) // Fighter wins because he has missiles, shield, // the works. In conclusion of this hastily-put-together mess, I would say that rangers are above average fighters out of the gates for the following reasons: 1. They do not fall much behind any other melee class in areas of, DV/PV, or starting equipment. Their stats are below average though. 2. They excell in terms of damage output do to proficiency in weapon skills and dual wielding prowess. 3. They absolutely DOMINATE in terms of skills. I don't know how much gold they would be up, in terms of my 'sell your skills' thoughts, but it would be a LOT : ) Abundance of skills and excellent modifiers means that rangers are built for the long haul. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! [Edited 1 time, last edit on 2/17/2009 at 08:33 (GMT -5) by gut] |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4245 days, 13 hours, 40 minutes and 59 seconds ago. |
AshenPlanet, you seem to have completely forgotten the existence of skills, which are far far more important than class powers. Rangers have one of the two best skillsets in the game (Monks might beat them) and this is the source of all their power. They're good with missiles because they have Archery, they're good with melee because they have Athletics, Dodge and Alertness, they're flexible at the start because they have Healing and Herbalism and they have no food issues with Food Preservation and Survival (the latter ain't that helpful, but it's nice when hunting for Kranach). Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4074 days, 14 hours, 23 minutes and 9 seconds ago. |
Nice try, Darren. Survival is worthless, and you know it ;) That's just me, notorious Kranach-ignorer, though. That skills are far far more important than class powers is a bold statement, though. By all accounts then, Barbarians should be much worse than Rangers, with them having all the Barbarian skills plus Alertness, Archery and Healing, all very excellent skills! As you said, the skills are the source of all their power, so Barbarians should look out - they are about to get their asses kicked! Am I just stupid, or why do I get the feeling Barbarians are still superior in melee? Is it just the superiority in strength and toughness? I think that especially the mighty blow and the movement discount at the actually meaningful character level of 12 - versus the Ranger's 40 - makes the Barbarian quite a bit more of a powerhouse in the early to mid game. They can deal with any kind of enemy in melee thanks to mighty, later tremendous blow, and they have serious maneuverability. These are very real advantages. Barbarians can kill almost anything starting with level 6, and they can outrun almost anything starting level 12. What can Rangers do? Evade some traps, get the black torc, get a bit more to-hit and damage (As good as Eagle Eye and Lightning Shot are, how many people scramble for these talents?), heal a little bit earlier, and spend less gold on food, and dash full-speed across rugged or swampy terrain. Doesn't look like the skills are far far more important than class powers here. That's early game. In ADOM, however, you can pump your characters to infinity once you've gotten out of the early game, so before that happens is the time for classes to use their starting advantages - after that they can just farm herbs, smith stuff, and what have you to make up for their deficiencies. But in the early game, Barbarians have Rangers beat, thanks to class powers that actually have strategic value against pretty much any kind of enemy, especially those that are trouble. In any case, you can't really compare classes against another except for a comparison of all the r/c combos, since synergy factors count for a lot. Looking at skillsets and saying "This skillset is bettar" doesn't go deep enough. Another way of looking at it is that class powers are only as important as they are good. Ranger skills are of course much more important than Ranger class powers. Archers wouldn't be as godly powerful as they are, however, without their class powers. Likewise for wizards (increased spellbook finding *is* one of their undocumented class powers). Rangers are for those that want to dual-wield, because they are best at it, hands down. Dual-wielding is super cool - many players will pursue it for that benefit alone, and for that, they can't do better than Rangers. On their own - I'd rate them in the medium tier, depending on their race even in the good tier. You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! [Edited 1 time, last edit on 2/18/2009 at 08:04 (GMT -5) by Silfir] |
||
|
gut Registered user Painted this one too. Last page view: 4903 days, 15 hours, 57 minutes and 55 seconds ago. |
I also get the feeling that rangers are just there for players that want to dual wield. I can honestly say I wouldn't play a ranger that bothers with a shield for anything less than Protector. Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4245 days, 13 hours, 40 minutes and 59 seconds ago. |
My first ULE was a Ranger that got Protector from a precrown at level 8 - never bothered dual-wielding with him :) They're a nice all-round class - a wish for Concentration meant I could use spells, missiles and melee all to extreme effectivity (though I mostly stuck with melee after finding Serpent's Bite). As for barbarian class powers, they are indeed much better than rangers and make a big difference. However no other melee class beats rangers, apart from monks (who are arguably already better with skills) and maybe beastfighters (who require their own playstyle). Class powers make a difference for a few classes, but most have pretty pathetic ones. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4074 days, 14 hours, 23 minutes and 9 seconds ago. |
By my assessment it looks somewhat like this: Top tier: Barbarian, Monk Middle tier: Beastfighter, Paladin, Ranger, Fighter, Assassin Low tier: Weaponsmith Tier of suck: Farmer You can make compelling cases for all the middle tier classes to rank above Rangers in power. Depending on play style, Rangers are the third best class, or the third worst. There are quite a number of players who would rather die than suffer Assassins being ranked below Rangers though. You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! |
||
|
AshenPlanet Registered user Last page view: 3184 days, 3 hours, 4 minutes and 41 seconds ago. |
AshenPlanet, you seem to have completely forgotten the existence of skills, which are far far more important than class powers. Not forgotten, and couldn't disagree more strongly with class powers vs. skills. First off, anyone can get any skill - quests, NPC trainers, pots of ed, scrolls of ed, wishes (your winner wished for concentration)... Congrats on the ULE, but you may probably have had an even easier win with a fighter, paladin, etc. with those same circumstances. Nobody can get tremendous blow, or instant kill, or +crit chance, or +stun chance, reduced corruption, etc... No skill even comes close to any of those class powers. Even so, let's take a look at what rangers do get for skills compared to barbarians, beastfighters, farmers, fighters, monks and paladins (the other warrior classes):
So, do those skills make rangers the best warriors? Imho, rangers are still the second worst of the warrior classes. I won't even bother to list pros and cons vs. barbarians, beastfighters, fighters, and monks. It should be clear that those classes are far superior in pretty much every way. Let's compare the magic, missile, regular melee, and duel-weild capabilities of the bottom 3 warrior classes: farmers, paladins, and rangers.
In summary, Paladins lead in 1.5 combat categories, Farmers lead in 1 category, and Rangers lead in only .5 categories. An argument can be made that rangers should be at the bottom of the warrior list, but I believe farmer spellbook reading penalty drops them below rangers. Paladin > Ranger > Farmer - these are the bottom 3 warrior classes. Note: I separated the duel-weild category to illustrate that with commonly used weapon pairs, even while duel-weilding, Rangers are at the very bottom of the warrior classes in melee. Heavy weapon duel-weilding is the only very small section of the game where rangers do well... |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4245 days, 13 hours, 40 minutes and 59 seconds ago. |
Getting both Healing and Herbalism is not meaningless - gives more freedom at the start, and better use of herbs early on, whilst also allowing the player to nab the useful wand and book from the druid. I would personally say Barbarians are clearly better than Rangers at straight melee, but straight melee is technically the worst form of attack in ADOM. Rangers offer better archery skills and hugely better chances at spellcasting. If you want straight-out melee choose barbarians, but if you want more freedom then Rangers may be a better choice. Vs Fighters I really see no reason not to choose rangers. Rangers get slightly better class powers and a couple of extra skills. What do fighters get to put them above in any way? They are bland and generic I find. Okay, okay, find weakness is damned nice to have, worth a wish even, but I still say rangers are at least even. Vs Beastfighters there's no easy comparison, since beastfighters are a very individual class. You play a beastfighter to play a beastfighter, not to play a warrior. If you want a warrior that uses melee weapons then obviously ranger is a much better choice. If you want a bare-handed mountain of muscle then choose a beastfighter. Vs Farmers... I can only laugh really. Farmers are weak, dreadfully weak. They are hard to keep alive at the start, their class powers are overall poor, they suffer low hp throughout the game and the polearms bonus is barely noticeable. Fletchery is nice, but arrows can be abundant anyway. Vs Paladins I'd say they're on roughly the same level, but Rangers get the very nice Alertness (which can save your ass a lot). Obviously the spellcasting bonus for paladins is very big though. The paladin DV bonus doesn't kick in till after the Tower, is alignment and piety dependant, and doesn't hit +25 till you reach level 50. It's nice, but more adds to a defence that should already be very high. You fail to mention Healers, Assassins, Weaponsmiths, Thieves, Mincrafters, Bards and Merchants - all of these are technically warrior classes (as much warriors as Farmers anyway). Healers and Assassins definitely rank alongside Rangers, though are much weaker at the start, and maybe Weaponsmiths could be considered almost as good. Mindcrafters and Bards are simply different, whilst Merchants and Thieves are much much weaker (though obviously can still be very fun). As for the points on class powers vs skills I really disagree most profoundly. The vast majority of class powers in the game are useless. Only a handful of classes have powers that are worth really shouting out about, and many of them don't hit in until late levels (and if you can get to such high levels then you can obviously win the game without those powers!) Skills are there from the very start, helping all the way through the game, and some of them offer unique things. Healing from the get-go can make the difference between life or death. Herbalism gives big stat rewards, extra precrown opportunities and an excellent healing source. Alertness can easily save your life against the ACW or Nuurgy, and reduces the annoyance of traps troughout the game. Archery opens up 10% faster missile attacks and an early +3/+3 to hit/damage on missiles. Food Preservation gives intrinsic and stat rewards throughout the game. Of course if you choose Monks you get the best of both worlds :) Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
AshenPlanet Registered user Last page view: 3184 days, 3 hours, 4 minutes and 41 seconds ago. |
Re: Healers, Assassins, Weaponsmiths, Thieves, Mincrafters, Bards and Merchants. That's basically every class other than pure casters... I didn't consider these "warrior classes", but if they are to be included, I'd only place thieves and merchants below rangers. All of the others are stronger. Vs Farmers... I can only laugh really. Farmers are weak, dreadfully weak. I agree actually - farmers are weak, dreadfully weak. And yet, they are stronger in archery and stronger in melee than rangers (even, in many cases, while dual-weilding)... Magic is the only area where rangers are stronger. So, what does that say about rangers? By my assessment it looks somewhat like this: Top tier: Barbarian, Monk I agree - these guys are definitely the top 2. There are quite a number of players who would rather die than suffer Assassins being ranked below Rangers... Count me in that list. Assassins are pretty cool - I'm currently playing a human assassin. :) Low tier: Weaponsmith Out of curiousity, why so low? Out of the classes you listed, I'd only rate barbarians, monks, and fighters higher than weaponsmiths. You know that smithing message "Despite your best efforts..."? Don't believe it - you can go higher than that, and weaponsmiths can go further past that than others. Stuff like +14/+14 helms, +10/+10 girdles and gloves, +12/+12 boots, +12/+20 armor, and +20/+16 shields can turn you into a walking tank. Not to mention the weapons and xbows you can get nasty high also. With rangers, playing in a generic manner, you could objectively observe that they are simply weaker than most classes. With weaponsmiths though, I understand that it can be a rather subjective judgement to conclude that they are weaker or stronger than other classes. Without taking advantage of their abilities, a weaponsmith will be weak. Playing them with a plan based around their special features, like taking beast of burden, stacking SoA, smelting down every single weapon and piece armor you find, smithing till the cows come home, etc. will foster a dramatically different experience. I'm curious, since if smithing is too boring or tedious, weaponsmiths would not be a good class. Do you rate weaponsmiths low because you find smithing to be a tedious, laborious process? Or, is it that you don't feel that higher DV and PV compare to other warrior's class powers? |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4245 days, 13 hours, 40 minutes and 59 seconds ago. |
I agree actually - farmers are weak, dreadfully weak. And yet, they are stronger in archery and stronger in melee than rangers (even, in many cases, while dual-weilding)... Rangers start with far better equipment, making them hugely preferable for the first 10 levels or so. After that if Farmers find (or plant) some herbs they might be able to build themselves up a bit, but will still have less HP (which makes a big difference early game). Throughout the mid-game they could be reasonably even, with strength determined more by item finds than anything else. Late game the L40 Ranger power would give them quite an advantage, much more than any of the Farmer's abilities (the corruption bonus is pretty much non-existant). Even if Farmers could end up better than Rangers in the long-run only about 1 in 20 initial characters will survive that start without extremely careful play. There's no point thinking about theoretical characters when the real ones keep dying! With regards to Weaponsmiths, the fact is *anyone* can smith. Weaponsmiths just have an easier time getting to extreme heights, which quite frankly are unnecessary. They also don't have to mine as much thanks to their melt-down ability. Smithing in general is laborious and boring, and just isn't *needed* in any game. Concentration and Find Weakness are nice to have though. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
AshenPlanet Registered user Last page view: 3184 days, 3 hours, 4 minutes and 41 seconds ago. |
Rangers start with far better equipment, making them hugely preferable for the first 10 levels or so...There's no point thinking about theoretical characters when the real ones keep dying! I don't get it... Those look like theoretical comments, I don't see much practical basis for them. I've completed ultimate endings for multiple farmers and rangers. There's no way a ranger is more survivable than a farmer. Let's look at starting equipment: Human ranger:uncursed leather armor [+0, +2][150s], uncursed long sword (+0, 1d8)[40s], uncursed hand axe (+0, 1d6)[50s],uncursed light boots [+0, +0][20s], uncursed short bow (+1, +0)[20s], bundle of 20 uncursed arrows (+0, 1d6)[40s], heap of 2 uncursed torches [20s], uncursed box with flint and steel(46)[5s], uncursed tinderbox(8)[3s], uncursed iron ration [100s], 62 gold pieces[0s] Human farmer: uncursed hood [+0, +0][3s], uncursed clothes [+0, +0][40s], uncursed scythe (+1, 2d6+2) [-1, +0][80s], blessed sandals [+0, +1][6s], heap of 2 uncursed torches[20s], uncursed box with flint and steel (39)[5s], uncursed tinderbox (24)[3s], uncursed fletchery set (8)[70s], uncursed cooking set[100s], heap of 6 uncursed iron rations[600s], heap of 6 uncursed herb seeds[12s], heap of 2 blessed plant seeds[4s], heap of 6 uncursed plant seeds[12s], 44 gold pieces These were rolled test characters with the same st (14) and to (14) - they both have the same starting hp (20hp) as well. For an additional 197s of equipped weight, rangers get 1 extra PV; they attack at +2(1d8+1)/+0(1d6+1) for 1560 energy (at 14 st). Farmers attack at +5(2d6+3) for 961 energy (at 14 st), which is a better chance to hit for the same damage attacking 10 times for every 6 attacks the ranger makes. How that equals "far better equipment" escapes me... Also, farmers start with a large dog, which can help them kill stuff, and dispatch any cats you come across. As far as being preferrable for the first 10 levels or so... First level hp is the same for farmers and rangers. After that, rangers get like a base 1d8 hp per level, and farmers get like 1d6 - that's a difference of 1 or 2 hp each level starting at 2nd. A farmer can start the game, go to any one of the puppy cave, village, or druid dungeon, kill a few bats (they gain levels much faster than rangers), dump skill advances into gardening, and plant 3 herb sprouts to start an herb square right away on the first level of whichever starting dungeon you chose. So, at 2nd level, a farmer could have unlimited healing & dex (spenseweed/moss) or unlimited healing & to & will (pepper/morgia). If you have a hard time surviving with the unlimited healing of either choice, you're doing something wrong... Certainly the extra 1 or 2 hp at each level from 2nd up won't help you anyway, especially since you could have more hp and better saves vs. casters with the morgia to/will or more DV, speed, to hit, and missile damage with the moss dex. With 6 starting herb seeds chances are good to start that herb square. If you are the type to let fate choose your character and play to completion whatever you get, you could wait till you've advanced gardening some more in order to play it safe. If you are the type to roll until you get a birthsign or some other thing you want, then go ahead and plant at level 2. If you get unlucky and don't get your 3 sprouts, well then, you've only spent a few min. on this character - you can roll another. As for the class powers, that's a rather subjective call either way. For me, since you will have seven league boots by the time you get to 40th level, I'd take either the level 32 or level 50 farmer power over the level 40 ranger power. 30% less corruption means more time in deeper DLs, more uses of orbs, more hits you can absorb from nasties, etc... When going for an ultimate, that's a big deal. Heck, even the level 6 farmer power isn't too far behind that ranger level 40 power for me. One can complete an ultimate with a ranger or farmer as you can also complete an ultimate with any class. Not to belabour the obvious, but if it seems like I'm extolling the wondrous powers of the farmer, I'm not. I DO think farmers are weak and near the bottom of the list of classes. They are still, however, more survivable, better at archery and better at melee than rangers with only their spellbook weakness putting them slightly behind rangers. The very idea of us debating farmer vs. ranger kind of emphasizes where rangers belong on that list as well... |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4245 days, 13 hours, 40 minutes and 59 seconds ago. |
I'm impressed that you've completed multiple ultimate endings with farmers - I've personally only closed the gate with one, found it to be a laborious chore, and put his success down purely to the fact he was a drakeling (but then it was a rather special game). As for the starting equipment debate, I must admit that I was thinking more of elves, who are my favourite ranger race to play as. Their elven chain makes a big difference in the early game. Having missiles from the beginning is also very useful. You should know full well that farmers normally start with 0 PV, whilst rangers always have at least 2 from equipment - this makes a big difference. The 30% corruption reduction is really worthless when you consider that it almost never applies to background corruption (since it's never high enough) and only has a big effect on corrupting melee hits from powerful monsters (which are best avoided anyway). I almost never use the orbs so I don't see this as a big advantage. My point on farmers having far too low hp is from experience, not theory (I didn't know those numbers you quoted). Maybe I've had some bad luck with them if the difference isn't that great. [i]The very idea of us debating farmer vs. ranger kind of emphasizes where rangers belong on that list as well...[/i] It's not a debate I'd normally expect to have :P Perhaps shows more about how wildly different everyone's experience with ADOM can be, thanks to both procedural generation and varying playstyles. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
AshenPlanet Registered user Last page view: 3184 days, 3 hours, 4 minutes and 41 seconds ago. |
Iirc, class bonus -30% corruption does apply to background corruption. I don't recall if the code keeps track of fractions during corruptions or if the time between background corruptions is extended 30%, but playing through, you'll see a difference even without getting hit by corrupters or carrying/using corrupting items. The unicorn anti-corruption bonus is what seems to be bugged and not working (as well as their lawful tendencies, which actually works in reverse keeping you towards chaotic alignment). If you want to try an easy success with a farmer, try a raven farmer for a stronger dog, early +10 speed bonus, and blup's trident at 16-18th level... Plant a garden at 2nd-3rd level, and right around the time you are walking out of the pyramid, you'll have stats in the 30s, and be weilding an undead and demon slaying weapon of mass destruction... ;) You're absolutely right about varying playstyles garnering different experiences. If you don't care for smithing, weaponsmiths are gonna be weak; if you don't care for pets, bards are gonna suck; if you don't care for pickpocketing, thieves will be lame. As for merchants, well, I'm puzzled by that one too... I still haven't figured out how to make merchants competitive. But, who knows; maybe some day... :) |
||
|
Silfir Registered user Writer of Overly Long Guides Last page view: 4074 days, 14 hours, 23 minutes and 9 seconds ago. |
Personally I've never gotten the hang of monks. They don't feel particularly powerful to me. Same for healers, though. That might be because I you have to scum to get the spellbooks to make them shine. I can do better with Fighters than I can with Monks. Rangers? My best Ranger died after he picked up a wand of wishing with 5 charges. I don't think I've played many of them since that time. You drop the golden ball. You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west. Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?" Which direction? (123456789) 4 Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated. You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4245 days, 13 hours, 40 minutes and 59 seconds ago. |
if you don't care for pets, bards are gonna suck; Not true, not true! I hate pets and bards are still my favourite class :) They have that extra random element to make the game more fun. As for merchants, they can become just as powerful as everyone else later on (let's face it, with high stats and good equipment every class starts to look the same). Early on the blinging is rather fun. They're not really good at anything in particularl, but they are a nice novelty class. Some other classes, such as Healers and Monks (as mentioned by Silfir) seem very weak at the start, and only really start to shine heavily when they get to around level 20. And pretty much any class seems good if you're a drakeling... Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
| Go to page 1 2 |