Epic Quiver of Alacrity

[Jack Jarvis Esquire]

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.

 

[Anurakh]

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.

 

[Anurakh]

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.

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.

On the other hand, -50 conc is a really dumb penalty. It only ruins the quiver for monks; for everyone else, it's just a minor annoyance using scrolls (which mostly ruins teamwork by making resurrections harder, because no one sane heals at epic levels with scrolls). Is it really necessary to penalize monks over other classes for using this item these days? And penalize teamwork by penalizing resurrections?

Even when this item was created, when it made sense to favor pure rangers over monks, I thought this was a really dumb way to go about it. The dominant build was monkchers, that is, a multiclass monk/ranger (manyshot + 10K was a lot of burst), and yet a bow in the hands of a pure ranger was trash (only manyshot was poor). So the problem wasn't the bow, but that the ranger enhancements were pure garbage. Wasn't it more logical to improve ranger in a way that didn't synergize with the monk's style*?

* (ranger class is devoid of useful features past lv 11, so multiclass is really cheap. For example, new level 4 ranger offensive spells and a better capstone could have made a pure ranger more attractive; that said, the paladin now has some really good spells, but the ranger never received this update.)

 

[Sarlona Raiding]

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.

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.

 

[Anurakh]

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.

It was, but read my post above yours.

Even back then, handling that problem with that penalty was a really clumsy solution. The problem with the bow was (and I'd argue still is) that it was very slow outside of burst. So the monkchers, who had two bursts with manyshot and 10K, were king. This quiver certainly wasn't going to solve the rangers' problems. Adding high-level ranger spells that gave active attacks and maybe alacrity to the bows would have evened the two builds, since the monkcher needed at least 6 monk levels.

 

[Bjond]

high-level ranger spells that gave active attacks and maybe alacrity to the bows would have evened the two builds,

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.

 

[Anurakh]

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.

 

[Bobbryan2]

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.

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.

 

[Buddha5440]

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'm not sure I understand this. Can you please explain to me how ranger spells were ever OP in DDO?

 

[Buddha5440]

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.

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'.
Quivers with 'AA only' or 'bow only' could be worth looking into.

 

[Anurakh]

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you please explain to me how ranger spells were ever OP in DDO?

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.

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.

 

[Bjond]

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'.

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.

 

[Bobbryan2]

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you please explain to me how ranger spells were ever OP in DDO?

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.

 

[Buddha5440]

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 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.

 

[Buddha5440]

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.

Rangers still have access to Barkskin which, (by the time they can cast it) their armor already has a higher + than the spell.

 

[Buddha5440]

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.

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.

I said nothing about D&D I specifically mentioned DDO, which is FAR removed from D&D

 

[Anurakh]

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.

Wow really ancient times. Too early for me.

Yes, although I don't think the problem is that the devs created spells for the paladin; this was good for the game. The problem is that there are many lists that have never been updated, or have only been partially updated.

Aside from the gear's savage powercreep that has made so many spells obsolete, of course.

 

[Bjond]

now around a C class rather than an A, or S, as it should be.

IIRC, peeps tried it and it didn't have enough bonus dice to compare with an Alc or EK base.

Kinda glad it is considered "obviously bad". Threat issues with imbues are bad enough already. I'd rather not see any imbue build in game until AFTER they fix threat.

 

[Anurakh]

Rangers still have access to Barkskin which, (by the time they can cast it) their armor already has a higher + than the spell.

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.

I said nothing about D&D I specifically mentioned DDO, which is FAR removed from D&D

I wasn't talking about your comments, but about Bobbryan2's post. The comparison to D&D is more than justified.

 

[Mindos]

instead of nerf inquis why not just let us make monkchers again? some competition for the overpowered