How does a melee ranger make any sense?

Does anyone else think its dumb that a good percent of people have melee rangers? Doesn't make any sense to me
Its not dumb at all... There are quite a bit of good melee nodes (especially swords) in the ranger area, so not sure why it doesn't make any sense lol.
"
Does anyone else think its dumb that a good percent of people have melee rangers? Doesn't make any sense to me
How does it not? Many archtipical ranger characters in fantasy fiction have been adept at melee combat. Aragon from LotR, for example, was one of the Rangers of the North. He was quite handy with a sword. He was also one of the driving inspirations behind the ranger class in D&D, which traditionally can be played as a melee weapon user, or as an archer or similar.

The term ranger traditionally means someone who ranges through wild terrain or woodlands, often but not exclusively in the context of being paid to do so by the owner of the lands in question.

Nothing about being a ranger implies non-melee, so I don't understand why you feel this doesn't make sense - melee combat is a strong part of the traditional concept of rangers in fiction. I don't see how it would make any sense at all to restrict melee combat from rangers.

Ahhh very well, thanks for the replies. I just typically think of ranger as a bow user, and I was excited to make a straight bow ranger but then people said later in the game the most efficient rangers generally go blood magic and 2h swords or 1h swords etc, so just got kind of disheartened after spec'ing for all bow stuff.
"
Ahhh very well, thanks for the replies. I just typically think of ranger as a bow user, and I was excited to make a straight bow ranger but then people said later in the game the most efficient rangers generally go blood magic and 2h swords or 1h swords etc, so just got kind of disheartened after spec'ing for all bow stuff.



I don't think thats true at all. Bow rangers are very good. If you want to use bows, go for it.
"
Does anyone else think its dumb that a good percent of people have melee rangers? Doesn't make any sense to me


Ranger does not mean ranged. In fact during the old times ranger was the name given to wardens who watched over the woods/forest for the King. These rangers road on horse back and mostly used swords.
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/65586 Kripps LS ranger
"
Mark_GGG wrote:
"
Does anyone else think its dumb that a good percent of people have melee rangers? Doesn't make any sense to me
How does it not? Many archtipical ranger characters in fantasy fiction have been adept at melee combat. Aragon from LotR, for example, was one of the Rangers of the North. He was quite handy with a sword. He was also one of the driving inspirations behind the ranger class in D&D, which traditionally can be played as a melee weapon user, or as an archer or similar.

The term ranger traditionally means someone who ranges through wild terrain or woodlands, often but not exclusively in the context of being paid to do so by the owner of the lands in question.

Nothing about being a ranger implies non-melee, so I don't understand why you feel this doesn't make sense - melee combat is a strong part of the traditional concept of rangers in fiction. I don't see how it would make any sense at all to restrict melee combat from rangers.



^best answer ever ^^ great to see people from GGG first of all take their time to read these and actually provide this kind of input, also proving they are into stuff like Tolkien and D&D ^^ <3 you Mark keep up the great work!
-Martin
Last edited by Zastrow on Jan 11, 2013, 8:28:38 AM
I got trolled. I opened this thread thinking it was going to be (another) thread about how melee (ranger or otherwise) is strictly inferior to ranged. But it wasn't.

P.
"
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/65586 Kripps LS ranger


What does LS stand for?
And this has a bunch of sword spec in it, whats the jist of this build?

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info