Jack Jarvis Esquire
Well-known member
This is the way.I never grab it for the doubleshot. I use it for the insightful sneak bonus. There are other ways to get i.sneak, but tetris often blocks those, leaving the quiver slot empty and lonesome.

This is the way.I never grab it for the doubleshot. I use it for the insightful sneak bonus. There are other ways to get i.sneak, but tetris often blocks those, leaving the quiver slot empty and lonesome.
Yup. This item is used for the insight sneak attack in both ranged and melee toons.I never grab it for the doubleshot. I use it for the insightful sneak bonus. There are other ways to get i.sneak, but tetris often blocks those, leaving the quiver slot empty and lonesome.
It's good, but I think it's time to make a coherent decision about this slot. It doesn't make sense for it to be a quiver-only slot. Use this slot for quiver, scarab, wands/staves/scrolls case.No. It's trade-off: -50 Concentration for 8 DS, normal available much later, at ML27 raid gear or ML28 non-raid, and some other nice effects. Without drawback it must be just another mandatory BiS item, convert all other quivers exclude Epic Purifying into useless garbage.
So... it's a completely ridiculous trade-off that a couple of your characters use because they don't have any need for concentration?
Seems balanced.
![]()
It was, but read my post above yours.At the time it was there monkcher was the strongest build in the game and they presumably put in the -50 concentration specifically for that reason.
Yep, the general problem with ranger spells is their utter pointlessness. They either buff non-combat, give heals too tiny to bother using, or require a high DC (which requires a non-combat primary stat and non-combat gear to reach).high-level ranger spells that gave active attacks and maybe alacrity to the bows would have evened the two builds,
Yes, the problem is that at first the developers only used the 3.5 ranger and paladin spells that appeared in the core book. But go to the spell compendium and other manuals, and you can find very good martial ranger & paladin spells. In PnP, it soon became clear that the ranger's control spells were never going to work because rangers wouldn't have the DC of a caster, so WOTC designers gave him buffs for his weapon and active attacks. They did the same for the paladin.Yep, the general problem with ranger spells is their utter pointlessness. They either buff non-combat, give heals too tiny to bother using, or require a high DC (which requires a non-combat primary stat and non-combat gear to reach).
Yeah, the spell list looks very much like the 3.5e list right down to the heal dice, but it badly needed to be completely rewritten to be actually useful in game. Keep the feel, punt the details.
Paladin spells are a huge win because they are direct buffs to combat stats -- DC is not involved. Ranger has one v.weak buff via Ram's Might, and D+3~6 is pretty bad by comparison with Paladin's MPRR, MP, Double, and Profile buffs. The profile buff is absurdly OP because it saves 11~33 AP and 3~12 splash levels to get the same effect elsewhere.
The Ranger equivalent to Holy Sword would be something like TWF OH chance+45% and Bow DS+20% (for roughly 8~9% dps increases) and it would still need more to match the other AP-saving buffs, like a buff to Dodge+Cap+MDB in the 5~10% range. Sounds "wow, OP", right? That's how nice Paladin is and why you see sooo many Paladins and no Rangers these days.
Yes, the problem is that at first the developers only used the 3.5 ranger and paladin spells that appeared in the core book. But go to the spell compendium and other manuals, and you can find very good martial ranger & paladin spells. In PnP, it soon became clear that the ranger's control spells were never going to work because rangers wouldn't have the DC of a caster, so WOTC designers gave him buffs for his weapon and active attacks. They did the same for the paladin.
Later, DDO added to the paladin list those types of improvements, but not to the ranger list. But the ranger definitely needs them. The only improvements the ranger gets after level 11 are spells. Well, those spells should make it worthwhile to take more levels of ranger.
I'm not sure I understand this. Can you please explain to me how ranger spells were ever OP in DDO?It's worth remembering at the time that Ranger spells were considered completely OP, and eventually, Paladin got a bunch of insane spells added, while rangers got Ram's Might.
Then again... part of the problem is that Paladin spells keep getting altered to new systems. Angelskin gets changed from DR /- to PRR and Zeal gets changed from alacrity to doublestrike... but barkskin is still giving a couple natural AC bonus like that's helpful to the majority of Rangers.
I never grab it for the doubleshot. I use it for the insightful sneak bonus. There are other ways to get i.sneak, but tetris often blocks those, leaving the quiver slot empty and lonesome.
Please add some named quivers, or revamp archer builds. AA (the original 'imbue') build falls far behind many classes/builds/trees in the imbue aspect. I do not think I have ever heard 'I add a few levels of ranger or spend 14+ points in elf/H-elf for access to the ranger imbues'.This is the way.![]()
I think he's talking about 3.5. There, the ranger had some strong spells. There were some that were perhaps too strong. Others were good, but people overrated them, like Hunter's Mercy, which made the next attack critical, but it was a standard action spell, so the turn you cast it was a turn you weren't attacking with a weapon.I'm not sure I understand this. Can you please explain to me how ranger spells were ever OP in DDO?
IIRC, when imbue was first added, a number of builds would chase into AA for extra imbues. I don't think any current popular builds still do that, though. I never liked it myself; I always found other ways to gain more with less AP.I do not think I have ever heard 'I add a few levels of ranger or spend 14+ points in elf/H-elf for access to the ranger imbues'.
I'm not sure I understand this. Can you please explain to me how ranger spells were ever OP in DDO?
I think you may be right for a brief period of time when AA imbues were 1d8. My point was more about how the initial tree for imbues (and IMHO, the one it makes the most sense for) is now around a C class rather than an A, or S, as it should be.IIRC, when imbue was first added, a number of builds would chase into AA for extra imbues. I don't think any current popular builds still do that, though. I never liked it myself; I always found other ways to gain more with less AP.
Rangers still have access to Barkskin which, (by the time they can cast it) their armor already has a higher + than the spell.Looong time ago. Like 2006, Rangers had access to barkskin (which was a massive boost in 2006). Paladins basically only got bless. The forums were constantly going on about how Paladins were useless compared to rangers who had better spells, more passive feats, etc.
You know how forums work.
The neverending threads comparing the DPS increase from favored enemy + ram's might vs divine favor... And then being pointed out that a ranger's barkskin is the only way to achieve +5 nat armor in the game.
When Ram's Might was released, you would have thought Paladins were removed from the game by the outcry. Not too long after, Holy sword, zeal, angelskin, and a bunch of other paladin spells were added to the game.
I said nothing about D&D I specifically mentioned DDO, which is FAR removed from D&DI think he's talking about 3.5. There, the ranger had some strong spells. There were some that were perhaps too strong. Others were good, but people overrated them, like Hunter's Mercy, which made the next attack critical, but it was a standard action spell, so the turn you cast it was a turn you weren't attacking with a weapon.
In any case, there's no need to include the same spells as in 3.5, or if they do, they should adapt them, as they did with Holy Sword, Zeal, or Angelskin, which have been updated to the current DDO mechanics. The important thing is that the developers grasp the concept and add weapon buffs and active attacks to the ranger as spells. That could make a substantial difference by giving utility to a class feature, spellcasting, that is currently useless.
DDO also needs an update to the buffs and debuffs on all lists. They should scale at the same rate as item bonuses and sometimes be retrofitted to new mechanics.
Finally, DDO needs to look at some of the utility and movement spells in PNP, as that would also add utility to the classes.
Wow really ancient times. Too early for me.Looong time ago. Like 2006, Rangers had access to barkskin (which was a massive boost in 2006). Paladins basically only got bless. The forums were constantly going on about how Paladins were useless compared to rangers who had better spells, more passive feats, etc.
You know how forums work.
The neverending threads comparing the DPS increase from favored enemy + ram's might vs divine favor... And then being pointed out that a ranger's barkskin is the only way to achieve +5 nat armor in the game.
When Ram's Might was released, you would have thought Paladins were removed from the game by the outcry. Not too long after, Holy sword, zeal, angelskin, and a bunch of other paladin spells were added to the game.
IIRC, peeps tried it and it didn't have enough bonus dice to compare with an Alc or EK base.now around a C class rather than an A, or S, as it should be.
Now yes, but items didn't always give such a big bonus. At first, spells were better than bonuses. Powercreep has ruined almost all buff spells. That's why they need to be upgraded.Rangers still have access to Barkskin which, (by the time they can cast it) their armor already has a higher + than the spell.
I wasn't talking about your comments, but about Bobbryan2's post. The comparison to D&D is more than justified.I said nothing about D&D I specifically mentioned DDO, which is FAR removed from D&D