I wish Rangers were a pet class

[Araw]

<DIV>Rangers and pets just go together naturally. Taming a pet..hunting with it. Sure wish tthe devs would strongly consider this.(note the popularity of this class in WOW)</DIV>

[Fennir]

I actually agree to an extent. While I don't think we should have the type of pets or control that the summoners get <b>at all</b>, I do think that our pets (currently classified as fun spells) should have one ability: Get the mobs attention for a short span of time. Naturally they wouldn't have many HPs or much taunting ability, but the end result would be to allow us to get in one more positional attack than normal during soloing before our pet bites the dust. Actually, from a RP standpoint, that would be quite horrible, as I don't know of any Ranger that would allow his trusty companion to die so often and easily... but damnit... <div></div>

[Davilan]

<DIV>no thanks, I mean, its a cool idea, but that would only deplete our skills in DPS, and Id rather have high damage and a hawk that just sits there than a pet that distracts and takes my DPS away. Cause you have to balance it out. </DIV>

[Fennir]

Well, that was sort of my point.... that this WOULD be a balance. i.e. scout solo skills are already mediocre compared to tank/healer/mage classes (especially now that mages are getting some roots that work), so this would be a way to give us some extra solo ability that would be completely useless in groups. <div></div>

[CyahLaytar]

<DIV>Hehe ...  A neat thought!  Our "fluff" pets actually tank when we are solo and do nothing if we are in a group!  That would solve the solo problem, and not change our class in groups.....though I fear all rangers would do is solo if this happened...we tend to be loners (ie. to scout out alone the dangerous lands and denizens.)  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Kthaara]

<P>Indeed.  Why bother grouping when you can get the solo bonus?  </P> <P>I like it just how it is.  It would be better if we could name our pets and they would keep their names.  The way it is, I don't feel that guilty when I zap my pet and tell him to leave.</P> <P> </P> <P>Kwent</P>

[Fennir]

lol, please don't misinterpret my idea.  this 'solo bonus' would most likely work once per fight... and depending on what you pulled the mob with, your pet may not even get enough agro to give you a shot at a backstab you could have started the fight with anyways. a possiblity could be... your pet spell stays the same as it is, but you receive a pet buff spell at X level.  this spell would add a buff to your pet that would start it taunting immediately, but dispatch the pet after 6 seconds if the mob didn't already. that way you would be able to pull, debuff, buff the pet, backstab, and then go back to doing whatever it is we rangers do when we solo (which usually looks funny to everyone else lol) (oh yeah and the pet would probably have a recast of 2-3 minutes to prevent overuse) <div></div>

[Araw]

I love what WOW has done with hunters and really wish EQ2 would follow and do it even better! Pets are tamed...trained to fight better ....can be named....are true fighting partners(a hunter without a pet to help him would be truely gimped...in the same way a summoner without a pet would be).The pet allows the hunter/ ranger to be a true ranged fighter and meles only when/if the pet looses aggro or you get adds.Armor is restricted to leather initially then chain later in a persons development.WOW has no bow and arrow crafting though..something I really like as a ranger craft.

[gossi]

<P>When I think of my ranger, I think of the predator from which we came from.  We share the same background as assassians, only they use their knowledge and abilities for "dark" purposes.  Ranger's are the same, but travel the land solo, living off of what they find and using their skills for "good" purposes.  </P> <P>Quoted directly from the EQ2 page:</P> <DIV>"Predators are relentless hunters who use stealth and cunning to stalk their prey. At home in the shadows, predators use the element of surprise to give their allies the upper hand."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Like I said earlier, Rangers are a more "solo" mentallity class, therefore the need for a pet isnt really necessary.  By solo I do not mean that Rangers should be out by themselves, not in groups.  That couldnt be further from the fact, I dislike soloing and leveled my Ranger quickly to 50 in groups.  I am just pointing to the fact that Rangers are conceptually viewed as the good scout/predator.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If any classes had pets, you'd think it would be along the Druid line.  They are more in touch with the skills used to control nature etc.  Do they need them, no in my opinion.  Just my 2 cp.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Linyen</DIV> <DIV>50 Ranger Permafrost</DIV> <DIV>Fires Of Heaven</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>P.S. The pets we DO have come in handy when out by yourself foraging, etc...give me someone to talk to.<BR></DIV>

[gossi]

<P>my regards... dual post<BR></P><p>Message Edited by gossin6 on <span class=date_text>04-14-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:02 AM</span>

[Sulas]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, but I *can* use my pet (I'm 25 rt now) in combat. First off, he saves my back if I have to run. Second, if you want to open with a backstab you can pull with Trick Shot and then Evade/ stealth and repostion.  I don't really do that though since I do more damage with the bow. Third, and I haven't actively tried to do it, but it feels like I could shake aggro enough to reposition for a backstab (maybe even stealthed) by giving aggro to my pet. The message here is: If you haven't experimented, don't make the mistake of thinking your pet is useless.  I can understand the desire to be able to send them in to attack, but frankly, we pull at range with our bows and do more damage that way anyway.  I'm in the camp that is happy with it the way it is.  Caveat: I'm just 25.. things could change later. <div></div>

[sjaste]

Their have been many posts in the past about our pets if you need/want to know why they take argo when your running it's something about how far the mobs will chase; every mob has a maxium distance that they will chase and when you cross that line the mob will then go for another member of your party in this case the pet. That is why he appears to take argo from you when your running.

[Jay]

<P><FONT size=2>Personally, I'm not bothered by the lack of functional pets in EQ2. I've played more than a few games where ranger CAN have pets, and I don't go that route unless it's a crucial part of that class. I don't play a ranger to be a zookeeper. I don't really like stuff following me around, and I don't want to have to depend on some poorly-implemented AI as a serious part of my effectiveness. I don't even necessarily play my rangers as nature-lovers or fruity little protectors of Gaia. I'm repeating myself, but I think one can interpret the ranger class as a stalker who is trained in woodland arts like wilderness survival, tracking, foraging, trapping, etc. I don't think a particular regard for Nature is a required part of the concept, but that's just my interpretation. </FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>Come to think of it, the last time I really played a ranger with a pet was back in PnP AD&D. No faulty AI there. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT></P>

[Sulas]

sjastein, I've seen those posts.  My larger point is that you can pass aggro to your pet in combat.  Since I'm running, I can't say whether or not my pet engages the MoB before I reach some invisible line.  I can tell you that I've fought bears in Antonica (before the bridge keep) and had them chase me very far toward Ant zone, but other times, stop and engage my pet. But that's beside the point.  Don't dismiss your pet as useless.  Just last week I got jumped by one of those bears when I had low health.  I dumped any initial aggro to my pet, stealthed and got a backstab in that probably saved my life by shortening the fight. <div></div>

[loraph]

though alittle more control of my pet woud make me happy. I wouldn't say that it was useless. when the mob uses an area of effect my pet has "attacked"  i would guess defending itself.  and has pulled agro without my having to be running away.  This has helped whether grouped or not grouped.  I have seen the same thing happen with one of my wizard friends using his familiar. Tallis lvl 37 ranger <div></div>

[Ren]

I don't know about you, but my solo skills are amazing, I will drop a solo mob of 2 lvls higher, or lower usually to more than half health before it gets there, or its completely dead. I actually scared my groups enchanter today, we were camping a named mob, and he spawned, and was dead before he got to the tank, the enchanter thought he despawned on us, because I did over 1k of damage in 2 moves.. I haven't played in a few months, and rangers still are amazing to me.. <div></div>

[Davilan]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Arawon wrote:<BR>I love what WOW has done with hunters and really wish EQ2 would follow and do it even better! Pets are tamed...trained to fight better ....can be named....are true fighting partners(a hunter without a pet to help him would be truely gimped...in the same way a summoner without a pet would be).The pet allows the hunter/ ranger to be a true ranged fighter and meles only when/if the pet looses aggro or you get adds.Armor is restricted to leather initially then chain later in a persons development.WOW has no bow and arrow crafting though..something I really like as a ranger craft. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is exactly my point, without pets those classes are gimped. I like not having to rely on a pet to not be gimped, Id rather rely on my DPS skills. I think SOE should have a animal based pet controller class like beastlord but rangers are perfect the way they are.

[Thesp]

If I wanted to play a pet class I would have been a summoner.

[Plexar_Vari]

I like to have a pet, even if it would only increase maybe my dodge or parry rate.  I don't know, I always picture a ranger with a mountain lion as it's friend.  I don't want it to be a major part of our DPS, just maybe to add a little somethin somethin

[Thesp]

Theres always the hawk we get as our lvl 20 fluff spell and theres another in the 40s IIRC.

[Flust]

<P>Bear at 40. </P> <P>Tiger at 50.</P>

[Morro Twistedbriar]

Personally, I don't think pets would be a great thing for rangers, as in pets that fight by your side. Pets, like a familiar, however would be great. Instead of getting just a hawk you get a list with the ability to choose a particular woodland creature to be your familiar. Maybe something like they get one special ability. Say with a hawk pet you can use his eyes to see out of and take a look around. Perhaps a bear grants you a bit more stamina, a wolf can grant you with a run speed bonus, a lion grants you added agility. Maybe even make em of limited use. Say like they can only run around with you for awhile then they must go off on their own to hunt food or whatever. A pet that fights with you, I can't go for that. <div></div>

[Jay]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size=2></FONT> <HR> Morro Twistedbriar wrote:<BR>Personally, I don't think pets would be a great thing for rangers, as in pets that fight by your side. Pets, like a familiar, however would be great. Instead of getting just a hawk you get a list with the ability to choose a particular woodland creature to be your familiar. Maybe something like they get one special ability. Say with a hawk pet you can use his eyes to see out of and take a look around. Perhaps a bear grants you a bit more stamina, a wolf can grant you with a run speed bonus, a lion grants you added agility. Maybe even make em of limited use. Say like they can only run around with you for awhile then they must go off on their own to hunt food or whatever. A pet that fights with you, I can't go for that.<BR><FONT size=2></FONT> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT size=2>Now THAT sounds interesting. First pet-related ideas that I might actually like. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Essentially they'd be a buff that happens to have a physical manifestation. Guild Wars has a similar feature where rangers can summon "Nature Spirits" that essentially provide a certain condition to those w/in their effective radius. It's basically an area buff that can be 'dispelled' if you do enough damage to the spirit. Spirits can't attack, move, or effect direct action in combat, but the buffs can be a big help if used properly.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Good thinking, Morro...interesting possibilities there.</FONT></DIV>

[Davilan]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Morro Twistedbriar wrote:<BR>Personally, I don't think pets would be a great thing for rangers, as in pets that fight by your side. Pets, like a familiar, however would be great. Instead of getting just a hawk you get a list with the ability to choose a particular woodland creature to be your familiar. Maybe something like they get one special ability. Say with a hawk pet you can use his eyes to see out of and take a look around. Perhaps a bear grants you a bit more stamina, a wolf can grant you with a run speed bonus, a lion grants you added agility. Maybe even make em of limited use. Say like they can only run around with you for awhile then they must go off on their own to hunt food or whatever. A pet that fights with you, I can't go for that.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Dude apply to work for SOE! That would be awesome to have a utility pet :smileyhappy:

[RangerCalis]

<P><BR></P> <HR> Davilan77 wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Morro Twistedbriar wrote:<BR>Personally, I don't think pets would be a great thing for rangers, as in pets that fight by your side. Pets, like a familiar, however would be great. Instead of getting just a hawk you get a list with the ability to choose a particular woodland creature to be your familiar. Maybe something like they get one special ability. Say with a hawk pet you can use his eyes to see out of and take a look around. Perhaps a bear grants you a bit more stamina, a wolf can grant you with a run speed bonus, a lion grants you added agility. Maybe even make em of limited use. Say like they can only run around with you for awhile then they must go off on their own to hunt food or whatever. A pet that fights with you, I can't go for that.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Dude apply to work for SOE! That would be awesome to have a utility pet :smileyhappy: <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Brilliant idea, probably the best "skill introduction to rangers" idea I've heard.</P> <P>The thought of a pet giving attributes/stat bonuses to the entire group instead of a self only, heck, even better.  We do, afterall, lack  heavily in the group utility department. </P> <P>Perhaps if we did have a couple of "familiars" to choose from, only being able to have one at a time of course, you could select to activate that familiar based on the needs of yourself (ie tracking with the hawk, self only) or your group (stamina boost with a bear, group wide).  Haste, resistances, mitigations, heck, it could be anything!</P> <P>I dunno, this thread woke up the good idea fairy for me.  Implementing something such as this could really balance our class in the department of utility and soloing.  Sorry, it got me excited, I'll stop rambling now.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

[Araw]

Some nice ideas here. Actually I really prefer the idea of a fighting pet...like hunters have in WOW. Taming one..fighting with them...dieing with them. People can form a close bond with them....much more so than a summoned pet. Was hoping a dev might read these posts and actually implement some of these thoughts.