Anyone else feel that ranger still not good enough for melee build?

"

draygourn wrote:

I don't believe you are forced to take any keynodes. There are many many many builds out there.

I am a duelist but I take the ranger nodes up to the ranger starting 18% evasion and life, no reason ranger cannot do the same.

Exactly, I have a build that can either be a Ranger or a Duelist, whatever suits you best. If you want to be pure Ranger I recommend using a bow. If you want to be a melee ranger I recommend being a Ranger/Duelist hybrid. If you want to be a more Int oriented ranger I recommend going for a Shadow/Ranger hybrid.

Simple as that.

"

wiggin wrote:

Ranger is the dexterity class. We have pure dexterity melee weapons group (and pure evasion shields). There is no pure strength caster weapon or pure intelligence melee weapon. It seems like skill tree reflects that well. Ranger was always a class to wield bow or one handed melee weapons naturally.

and bows + 1 handed melee weapons naturally favour elemental damage builds, shame the tree doesnt reflect that, or even acknowledge it, nor do the quest rewards.

"

zakariusqc wrote:

i have a melee DW sword ranger(physical cleaver) as my main and im playing/testing this build since end of CB and i made several change on the build for the past few month that i have been playing it and i can tell you,yes ranger as a melee is viable and even really good with the right build/gear/skill setup.

Id be interested to know what dps you get from a physical cleave ranger? Physical has massive advantages in leech etc but you need some pretty amazing swords in my experience.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

and bows + 1 handed melee weapons naturally favour elemental damage builds, shame the tree doesnt reflect that, or even acknowledge it, nor do the quest rewards.

Eh, the bows don't do that. You are just describing unfinished process of balancing phys dmg vs ele dmg here. Phys dmg has its perks already, ranger is not "magic class" like templar/witch shadow, that's all. And yet we have the three +8% ele dmg with weapons in ranger area.

Quest rewards are whole another issue as well. I personally think it's rather silly design to make the game "everyone can do everything" and then restrict access to "something" via quests.

"

wiggin wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

and bows + 1 handed melee weapons naturally favour elemental damage builds, shame the tree doesnt reflect that, or even acknowledge it, nor do the quest rewards.

Eh, the bows don't do that. You are just describing unfinished process of balancing phys dmg vs ele dmg here. Phys dmg has its perks already, ranger is not "magic class" like templar/witch shadow, that's all. And yet we have the three +8% ele dmg with weapons in ranger area.

Quest rewards are whole another issue as well. I personally think it's rather silly design to make the game "everyone can do everything" and then restrict access to "something" via quests.

bows are all about elemental damage. What are you going to use that can compete with a wed gem? Even a huge phys bow like Lioneyes, people either use lightning arrow (convert phys to ele) or a blackgleam quiver (phys to ele) and then use a wed gem + build all the way to the templar to get catalyse. You dont need to be a magic class to use elemental damage, the most powerful bow and dual weapon rangers/duelists are, for the most, elemental damage builds.

However much phys you stack on a bow, whatever amazing quantity of phys damage nodes you take, because its all coming from the tree you just then convert to ele and suddenly you have 80% wed gem + 30% wed belt kicking in that are not only multiplying 50% of your phys but theyre multiplying your auras and the ele damage on your gloves/rings/amulet and suddenly you have up to twice the dps you did before. Everything that increases Phys also increases ele, the same is not true in reverse, and there is no way to get 3-50 + 12-25 phys damage stats on both rings and ur amulet, or get 3x added phys auras, or an 80% phys damage gem, or a 30% phys prefix on a belt. Phys damage doesnt get in on any of that, yet every single thing you can list that increases phys damage for bows also increases ele damage and hence will be worth more dps in the setup I describe.



Gankstaboo is an example of someone using a lion phys bow with a phys skill (RoA) and isnt using a gleam to convert. Surely this completely disproves that bow users are ele? So whats his gems? Weapon elemental damage. Why? Cause he has an absolute ton of added elemental damage on his quiver, gloves, rings and amulet, and wed on his belt, and wed on his quiver, and guess what, a trip to the templar for catalyse which is worth so much more than the sad little wed cluster in the ranger area, and 3x elemental damage auras. So much for bow phys, and so much for a new player levelling a ranger today who doesnt get wed support as a quest reward.

@Snorkle
Exactly - you are talking about conversion from physical damage, which is ranger designed to be good at. WED is OP, everyone knows that. That's not ranger or bow problem, rather the gem's problem and the 'phys vs ele' balance in general as I said. This "natural" favour is just an imbalance, not a design choice. Design choice is the quest reward thing, though. But it's all kinda off topic, since this was supposed to be about melee rangers.

RANGEr for MELEE ?

"

wiggin wrote:

BTW I hate when people confuse rangers for someone using a bow. Those are called archers. If we are to stay in fantasy world, Aragorn was a ranger. In PoE even a girl can do that. Being a ranger is not a weapon choice.

cheers
w.

But in the case of PoE, what would you want them to use ? Crossbows ? ;o

"

wiggin wrote:

@Snorkle
Exactly - you are talking about conversion from physical damage, which is ranger designed to be good at. WED is OP, everyone knows that. That's not ranger or bow problem, rather the gem's problem and the 'phys vs ele' balance in general as I said. This "natural" favour is just an imbalance, not a design choice. Design choice is the quest reward thing, though. But it's all kinda off topic, since this was supposed to be about melee rangers.

I agree, but the imbalance in the gems, ele/phys, the lack of phys support for bows etc effects a rangers viability which is what we are discussing in part.

Also, what I said about ele bow being better is double true for cleave, the dual wield aoe go-to skill. Theres no convert going on there, it isnt even needed, elemental cleave absolutely rapes physical cleave. I have done them both a few times each with different builds in endgame and I can get nearly double the dps I have on phys cleave with ele cleave, while taking less damage nodes and using far more common swords by going to templar and taking catalyse + amplify. While Im over there I get more health, and more resist, and 5.4% life regen per sec, and more endurance charges, and res technique is there if I want it, and more armour. Need we say more about dual wield melee for rangers?

Im not saying thats the only way to build a dual wielder, but imo its the most effective in terms of damage, resist, armour, endurance, life and life regen, if that is what you are after. I think ranger is totally viable as a melee start. Is is as optimal as a duelist/marauder for life base? No, I honestly dont believe it is. Is it as good as a shadow/duelist for ci melee? I dunno, I cant answer that Ive not tried it.

"

Zemel wrote:

RANGEr for MELEE ?

"

wiggin wrote:

BTW I hate when people confuse rangers for someone using a bow. Those are called archers. If we are to stay in fantasy world, Aragorn was a ranger. In PoE even a girl can do that. Being a ranger is not a weapon choice.

cheers
w.

But in the case of PoE, what would you want them to use ? Crossbows ? ;o

range (rnj)
n.

6. An extensive area of open land on which livestock wander and graze.
7. The geographic region in which a plant or animal normally lives or grows.
8. The act of wandering or roaming over a large area.


v. ranged, rang·ing, rang·es
v.tr.

4. To pass over or through an area or region in or as if in exploration.
5. To wander freely; roam.

Don't act like english is a real langage buddy. Only French, Russian, Arabic, Chinese and Japanese are real langage. Everything else is a dialect. :D

/trolling over

@Snorkle
I was looking at it more as how I feel it should be in the spirit of the recent changes and lore rather than the actual possibility of minmaxing ranger builds, but I see your point now.
I also have one elmental cleave character, but I'm not playing it any more, it's pre-anarchy one. I still look at it as a cleave gem thing rather than passive tree thing. If they made it properly reduce the elemental damage like it does with physical...
Anyway the thing is you are supposed to go evasion&life route as a ranger, melee or not. I say 'supposed' but what I mean is that it should be good choice to make a ranger when you want eva/life defenses. How good or bad are they is whole another thing. I play them since I joined and evasion is definitely better than I have ever experienced in PoE.

@Zemel
Various weapons, really. I would like them to use one handed swords (not rapiers though), daggers and bows, edit: or even axes, totally forgot about axes. You know, ranger as someone tied to nature, forests and mountains. Hunting, scouting, tracking, surviving using the environment; making traps, using herbs. The bow is just one way to do it. It's a good one but not the only way.
In this community many people think ranger=archer and they even refer to archer builds as ranger builds regardless the actual class choice but it's not the right way to look at it imo.