Less sneaky rangers?

[Aelfan]

<p>I have played a ranger, assasin, and swashbuckler, and I would have to say I have a great desire for one of my rangers to be more of an <strong><em>archer </em></strong>than a <strong><em>sneak</em></strong>. The master strike, and a lot of others, must be deployed on the opponents back (it is ironic that the devious swashie can just convince the opponent to look the other way, and thereby knife them in the back <em>without </em>sneaking!). Even some of the ranged attacks <strong><em>must </em></strong>be done in stealth. Why?</p><p>Even if it was done with AA's, it would be nice to have a bold upstanding archer, that certainly could not go toe-to-toe with the melee like a knight can, but doesn't <strong>HAVE </strong>to sneak, and stab people in the back. Did Strider knife people in the back? No.</p>

[Brook]

<p>Who is Strider?</p>

[Dareena]

<p><cite>Brook wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Who is Strider?</p></blockquote><p>AKA Aragon, the young king in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  And for the OP, I don't really agree with your assessment.  EQ2 Scouts, particularly the dps class scouts, are based around using the Stealth skill on some level.  At least you're not in a Brigand's boat where almost all of your worthwhile attacks have a rear positional requirement.</p>

[Aule]

<p><cite>Aelfan wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Did Strider knife people in the back? No.</p></blockquote><p>No, he just told Tom Bombadil to stop being a GARP'er and play the dang mana song.</p>

[Jaremai]

<p>Legolas was more of an archer than Strider.</p><p>He was also a lot cuter.  Elf >>> human.</p>

[Aelfan]

<p><cite>Dareena@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>EQ2 Scouts, particularly the dps class scouts, are based around using the Stealth skill on some level.  At least you're not in a Brigand's boat where almost all of your worthwhile attacks have a rear positional requirement.</p></blockquote><p>Sucks to be a brigand, I'd say! Having stealth is a wonderful thing for a scout, but <strong>WHY </strong>do so many of the attacks <strong>REQUIRE </strong>it, if you just want to be an <strong><em>archer</em></strong> (like Legolas, for instance). An archer is an incredibly important class in the history of warfare, why can't our rangers have the ability to become more like <strong>THAT</strong>? Did the English bowmen at Agincourt and Crecy turn invisible before they could deliver their most powerful shot? No! Did the Ancient Egyptians defeat the Sea Peoples by having to rely on standing behind them? No! Did the Parthians annihilate the Romans at Carrhae by doing anything other than shooting vast amounts of arrows at them? Yes! They were also on horses!</p>

[Jaremai]

<p>Out of curiosity, what level is your ranger?</p><p>Most of the ranged abilities come into play as you progress.  If you're only level 15 (for example) then you are going to have far fewer archery-type buttons to push than if you were 50.</p>

[Aelfan]

<p><cite>Jaremai@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Most of the ranged abilities come into play as you progress.  If you're only level 15 (for example) then you are going to have far fewer archery-type buttons to push than if you were 50.</p></blockquote><p>Actually, i find that to be another problem with the ranger! My highest is 40, and needs to have four hotbars open to fight, more than any other class I have. I really don't want more buttons, I want to be able to shoot as many arrows as fast as possible, before the other guy can get to me! Or, if I'm in a group, to just lay down as much dps as possible. Other dps classes don't seem to need to go invisible to deliver death from a distance!</p>

[Sanati]

<p>I don't think we need "less sneaky rangers," more like a few new classes, one of them being a straight up archer. I know the game has a lot of classes, but many of them fill the same role with a different flair, which don't get me wrong is awesome, but there's some gaps that could be filled in where none of the classes really touch on. I mean I could probably think of 2 classes for each type that plays completely differently than any existing class. A real physical ranged class is one of them. I think rangers already have their place though, and it makes sense for them to remain sneaky.</p>

[Neiloch]

<p><cite>Sanati wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I don't think we need "less sneaky rangers," more like a few new classes, one of them being a straight up archer. I know the game has a lot of classes, but many of them fill the same role with a different flair, which don't get me wrong is awesome, but there's some gaps that could be filled in where none of the classes really touch on. I mean I could probably think of 2 classes for each type that plays completely differently than any existing class. A real physical ranged class is one of them. I think rangers already have their place though, and it makes sense for them to remain sneaky.</p></blockquote><p>the only thing rangers do have is ranged to separate them from other scouts. Making a pure archer class would be redundant. Would be a different story if rangers depended heavily on using a pet like a Hunter, which I am most definitely not in favor of.</p><p>Right now out of roughly my 9 top performing CA's, 5 of them are melee attacks. My worst attacks besides ones both preds get are ranged CA's. Doesn't seem quite right for a ranged class. If it's such a balance concern there are several ways to balance out ranged CA's other than just making their DPS performance sub-par.</p><p>I still think they should convert some of the ranger melee attacks into ranged variations, or possibly provide alternatives that share the same timer. If they never plan on doing something to give rangers more 'ranged' it makes me wonder exactly how long I will be using the scout MPS charm.</p><p>Last thing we need is more classes, what is need is to make the 24 we have more distinct. Making ranger's more ranged based in terms of CA's would most definitely do that.</p>

[Aelfan]

<p><cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I still think they should convert some of the ranger melee attacks into ranged variations, or possibly provide alternatives that share the same timer. If they never plan on doing something to give rangers more 'ranged' it makes me wonder exactly how long I will be using the scout MPS charm.</p><p>Last thing we need is more classes, what is need is to make the 24 we have more distinct. Making ranger's more ranged based in terms of CA's would most definitely do that.</p></blockquote><p>I really don't want to lose any melee ability! Archers have to fight sometimes, too, you know! But I'd really like to not <strong>NEED</strong> to be in stealth to use some of my best ranged attacks (in particular). It would also be nice if that hard-won master strike was not a stab in the back, too, but another ranged attack, or something you can do to their face! I don't think we really NEED another class of archer, less requirements for stealth merely makes the ranger more distinct from other scouts, which is a good thing. But my main beef is the sneaky ranged attacks. They do nothing but waste your time for no real benefit (unless there was a ranged attack you could do <em>and remain in stealth</em>).</p>

[Xiucoatli]

<p>I made a ranger and then deleted her just because I found it extremely tedious to have to put on sneak and then shoot the arrow.  I just wanted to shoot arrows a la EQ1 ranger.  Oh well, back to my bruiser I guess!</p><p>Xiu</p>

[Jaremai]

<p>Since the thread has been moved into the black hole (aka ranger forum), you might as well send your wishes up to the stars cause no dev will read them now.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>There aren't so many stealth attacks to make it a horrible horrible nuisance.  It makes some sense that the bigger bangs require stealth.  First, you're a scout base, and stealth is the big thing for scouts in general.  Second, if you want to apply a little tiny bit of realistic thought to this.. you're an archer and you're wanting to strike at a very specific spot on your target's body (to inflict the massive damage) - it requires a bit more effort and, usually, your target being unaware of you aiming a pointy stick at them.</p><p>If you're just running about wildly shooting arrows, you don't have time to aim for their jugular or crotch or wherever does the mega damage you want to do.  The extra time to slip into stealth makes up for that concentrated effort, while ignoring that you're able to even disappear right before someone's eyes in an open field...</p><p>*shrug*  I would agree with making Master Strike into a ranged attack for rangers, buuuut.. it's currently the same attack for all scouts, which is why it's a backstab type thingy.  The other three archetypes get their own version.  If they were to revamp it down to the subclass-level,  then definately rangers should get a special bow shot that hits their target in that oh-so-special spot that does big damage for that creature type.</p>

[Raahl]

<p>I do not agree that Rangers should not have a sneak aspect to some of thier abilities.   To me Rangers are adept at sneaking around and making the most to gain advantages over their enemies.  However I do not see Rangers as assassins who sneak around and kill for money.</p><p>What Rangers need is more ranged abilities and abilities to keep targets at range (more snares/roots).  Sure they should have up close abilities, because it's not always going to be a ranged fight.  But the bulk of their abilities, IMO, should be ranged.  Probably 75% ranged and the rest Melee.</p><p>Now given the current mechanics of the game, this may not be possible.  But that is what I would like to see.</p>

[Ranja]

<p><cite>Xiucoatli@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I made a ranger and then deleted her just because I found it extremely tedious to have to put on sneak and then shoot the arrow.  I just wanted to shoot arrows a la EQ1 ranger.  Oh well, back to my bruiser I guess!</p><p>Xiu</p></blockquote><p>You must have not gotten past level 20. Rangers have about 3-4 attacks out of about 12-15 that require stealth. Sniper, veil, blue aoe (all the range ones that take stealth). Ember stricke and ranger's blade are the melee ones that take stealth. I might have missed a couple of but my point is you made an erroneous decision based on limited facts.</p>

[Jaremai]

<p><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What Rangers need is more ranged abilities and abilities to keep targets at range</p></blockquote><p>Blunt Arrow (lev 55 or so):  Low damage, 30m knockback.  120 second reuse.</p>

[Xiucoatli]

<p><cite>Ranja wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Xiucoatli@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I made a ranger and then deleted her just because I found it extremely tedious to have to put on sneak and then shoot the arrow.  I just wanted to shoot arrows a la EQ1 ranger.  Oh well, back to my bruiser I guess!</p><p>Xiu</p></blockquote><p>You must have not gotten past level 20. Rangers have about 3-4 attacks out of about 12-15 that require stealth. Sniper, veil, blue aoe (all the range ones that take stealth). Ember stricke and ranger's blade are the melee ones that take stealth. I might have missed a couple of but my point is you made an erroneous decision based on limited facts.</p></blockquote><p>For me there was definitely no point in getting to 20 as I found game play stilted by the stealth requirements.  Shouldn't the 1st 20 lvls be an enjoyable prelude to what is to come as your character matures?  I certainly have found that the 1st 20's of bruiser or fury or shadowknight to be just fine!</p>

[Ranja]

<p><cite>Xiucoatli@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Ranja wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Xiucoatli@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I made a ranger and then deleted her just because I found it extremely tedious to have to put on sneak and then shoot the arrow.  I just wanted to shoot arrows a la EQ1 ranger.  Oh well, back to my bruiser I guess!</p><p>Xiu</p></blockquote><p>You must have not gotten past level 20. Rangers have about 3-4 attacks out of about 12-15 that require stealth. Sniper, veil, blue aoe (all the range ones that take stealth). Ember stricke and ranger's blade are the melee ones that take stealth. I might have missed a couple of but my point is you made an erroneous decision based on limited facts.</p></blockquote><p>For me there was definitely no point in getting to 20 as I found game play stilted by the stealth requirements.  Shouldn't the 1st 20 lvls be an enjoyable prelude to what is to come as your character matures?  I certainly have found that the 1st 20's of bruiser or fury or shadowknight to be just fine!</p></blockquote><p>I still don't understand whhy you are saying stealth requirements. Yes we have stealth attacks but at that level it is only 1 or 2 and you dont even need to use them.</p><p>Back at the beginning of the game, Assassins and Rangers shared abilities to level 20. So fo the ranger, no you do not get a good prelude of the character until you are out of your 20s since you don't get all your ranger abilities until post 20.</p><p>It's okay that you don't like the class. I have no problems with it. I just want to clarify your stealth remarks. You can play a ranger without ever going into stealth (or very minimal) yet you seem to intimate that every CA we have requires stealth.</p>

[Carpediem]

<p>They need to give shorter recast timers on the ranged CA's and make a couple of the melee CA's that do a lot of DPS ranged.</p><p>If we always had something ranged to cast, we wouldn't need to use melee.</p>

[Aelfan]

<p><cite>Jaremai@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Since the thread has been moved into the black hole (aka ranger forum), you might as well send your wishes up to the stars cause no dev will read them now.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p><p>*shrug*  I would agree with making Master Strike into a ranged attack for rangers, buuuut.. it's currently the same attack for all scouts, which is why it's a backstab type thingy. </p></blockquote><p>Apparently that is not true, the head moderator told me that ranger devs certainly DO read the ranger forum, so you got me upset for nothing!</p><p>My swashie, who is an annoying yet charming character, is a devious little git, and when he wants to stab you in the back with his master strike, he just asks you to look the other way. Yet my poor upstanding ranger does not have that ability. They are about the same level (40 - although the ranger has almost twice as many AA's now), and the swashie's much easier to play, and never goes stealth unless he is <strong><em>really </em></strong>trying to avoid someone (probably someone he owes money to).</p>

[Jaremai]

<p><cite>Aelfan wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>ranger devs</p></blockquote><p>I almost spit my coffee.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p><p>One of my 90s is a swashie.. he pops in and out of stealth quite a bit to play with his various backstabs.  Thankfully though there's enough ways for him to do so that it's not a problem and simply part of the keyboard dance that my fingers have learned to do over the years of playing him.</p><p>Ranger stealth isn't quite as fluid, but it's still not a reason to ask for those to be de-stealthed.  I explained why previously.  Personal opinion.</p>

[FearDiadh]

<p><cite>Aelfan wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jaremai@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Since the thread has been moved into the black hole (aka ranger forum), you might as well send your wishes up to the stars cause no dev will read them now.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p><p>*shrug*  I would agree with making Master Strike into a ranged attack for rangers, buuuut.. it's currently the same attack for all scouts, which is why it's a backstab type thingy. </p></blockquote><p>Apparently that is not true, the head moderator told me that ranger devs certainly DO read the ranger forum, so you got me upset for nothing!</p><p>My swashie, who is an annoying yet charming character, is a devious little git, and when he wants to stab you in the back with his master strike, he just asks you to look the other way. Yet my poor upstanding ranger does not have that ability. They are about the same level (40 - although the ranger has almost twice as many AA's now), and the swashie's much easier to play, and never goes stealth unless he is <strong><em>really </em></strong>trying to avoid someone (probably someone he owes money to).</p></blockquote><p>1. You should not have to use your stealth ability in combat because you have sneak attack which is an attack that puts you in stealth.  There is also a deagro that putsyou in stealth much faster and reduces hate at the same time (the name of it escapes me atm)</p><p>2. If you aren't killing the mob before it gets to you while you are soloing, try upgrading from those apprentice combat arts.</p><p>3. You have 2-3 very good stuns (cheap shot, hilt strike and point blank shot) that will allow you to circle around behind the mob and 'sneak attack' + the stealthed attack of your choice before the mob can even react.  I used to get by with just one stun very well before the others were added.</p><p>4.  You seem to be very determined to change basic ranger mechanics before you have even experienced a level 50+ ranger.  I hate that ranger doesn't work the way you want it to, but in most games you have to learn to play your character not convince the designers to make the character work the way that it would be better for you.</p>

[Aelfan]

<p><cite>ck@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>4.  You seem to be very determined to change basic ranger mechanics before you have even experienced a level 50+ ranger.  I hate that ranger doesn't work the way you want it to, but in most games you have to learn to play your character not convince the designers to make the character work the way that it would be better for you.</p></blockquote><p>You are quite right, of course. The problem is that I have been a traditional archer for 12 years, a swordsman for longer, a martial artist for yet longer, and a student of warfare for even longer. Somehow I feel the archer should be as important a part of Norrath as it has been in the history of the Earth, as seen at Crecy, or Carrhae, or in the depictions at Medinet Habu. Clearly that is irrational.</p><p>I must say I don't have a problem with my berserker gnome (he just hits things, as one would expect), or even the magical classes I have tried (in which I would include SK and pally). I don't even have a problem with my sneaky ratonga ranger (he's a <em><strong>rat</strong></em>, it's a part of who he <em><strong>is</strong></em>). But my bold, noble, and upstanding gnome <em><strong>archer </strong></em>I would like to never see invisible, and never see stab someone in the back. Silly, I know.</p><p>My one justification for it, apart from the support that I have seen from others, is that it would actually make the ranger more distinct from the other scouts. I still also feel that it is an injustice that the devious swashie can use the master strike <em><strong>after </strong></em>shooting someone!</p>

[FearDiadh]

<p>How would a sniper fit into that idea?  Are they supposed to be seen?  What about a deer hunter?  Should they let the game see them before they shoot it?  What about a special ops type ranger?  Instead of sneaking into enemy territory and taking out a target, they could just walk up and point a bow at the enemy camp. </p><p>Not being seen fits with a lot of different versions of a ranger.  Being a long bow man on a castle wall only fits yours I think.</p>

[cawalton]

<p>I like the idea of a "less sneaky ranger", I only solo, have never grouped, and have never used the behind/side attacks and never bother to upgrade those CAs.  I've had a blast using all the other CAs, ranged/melee, and don't think I've been held back at all, at any level, but I've always wished a few more could be used straight-on.  By the time you reach 90/250 100% crit/multi there's really no time left to use every CA since the mobs go down quickly enough as it is.</p>

[Ranja]

<p><cite>Jaremai@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What Rangers need is more ranged abilities and abilities to keep targets at range</p></blockquote><p>Blunt Arrow (lev 55 or so):  Low damage, 30m knockback.  120 second reuse.</p></blockquote><p>hmmmmm afraid to say i never heard of this skill.  Is this a ranger CA?</p>

[EQ2Magroo]

<p>Never thought (or dared to hope) I would find myself saying this...but at the moment Rangers are pretty much spot on*</p><p>As Ranja has said though, as a class it doesn't come into its own until at least level 50 I would say. Once you get the extra snares and maybe Raincaller, it transforms into an almost totally ranged class.</p><p>I don't even think about "sneaking" when attacking and there are only 2 ranger stealth attacks you use with any frequency. With PFT you actually remove all the stealth requirements from these skills anyway.</p><p>It's really not a big deal.</p><p>*the obvious exception being hardcore end-game raiding where they are still lacking DPS or any real reason to have a Ranger in the raid, but for the other 90% of the population the Ranger class works brilliantly.</p>

[Hisvet]

<p>Class concept is a tricky thing in a game that has that "rpg" on the end.  My rpg definitely isn't a lot of other people's rpgs and thats why your view of a ranger is going to be different.  You should respect that.</p><p>Changing class mechanics is not tied to our individual concepts of that "rpg".  You are talking about a game defining archetype that Sony put in, the flavor of which is supposedly grounded with npc examples and in-game lore but left generic enough for you to be able to "rp" with should you desire to do so.</p><p>My ratonga scout was created nov 12, 2004 I'm sure other scouts here are from then too.  Had a lot of rp'ing with it, had a lot of different concepts for rangers, but when I come to THESE forums its about class mechanics and balance, i.e. do things WORK in game, are we balanced for combat in the way the developers told us we should be?  Are rangers appreciated.  Why the h**** are we the only class that pays to even do their dps and we can't even get some bennie for it? Are we doing T1 damage comparable to other T1 damage producers?  That sort of thing.</p><p>Although its going out on a limb I can probably argue convincingly if the longbowman at Crecy or Agincourt or Poitiers *COULD* have invis'ed and been safer to do so they would have, esp seeing how they weren't beholden to the code of chivalry themselves anyway.  And I can guarantee the Romans would have, they both tried to "hide" their archers whenever they could.  Archers were not seen as noble, just necessary in those contexts.  Real war is about winning and making the other b**** die for his country.  And that is a more valid/realistic take on archery (excusing fantastic elements for logical choices) than your noble gnome. (logical argument for class changes only, I'm sure your rp is as valid as anyone else's.)</p><p>It does get annoying for someone who hasn't maxed out ranger to ask for radical changes though.  Because justifications for your rp concept CAN be reinforced with 250 AAs and 90 levels of experience.  As others above have stated.  You don't want to be sneaky then *Don't* put AAs in stealthed abilities for your gnome.  Don't upgrade the abilities, don't use them in game.  Go ahead and invest in that hook arrow and overland run speed and hunter's pet and non stealth multishot abilities.  Go Stamina line, avoid int or wisdom.  Get that final ability in the Predator tree so you can do normally stealthed abilities WITHOUT STEALTHING.  Have at.  You will have created an archer whose strengths are not in stealthing, who shoots many arrows fast and doesn't get much from backstabbing.  Truly.</p><p>But do not expect to be on par with a scout who uses what are arguably real world strategic advantages (like ambushing, stealth, suprise, non-chivalric sneak attacks) to get ahead, which is what you'll find in grouping/raiding/ min-maxing dps oriented other rangers.  You have chosen a harder moral rp route, you will have to sacrifice for it.  Maybe the angst will make a better story.  You could also take something like a Swashbuckler or a Troubador and just call yourself an archer.  They can use bows.  Their abilities will be more forthright dps, and maybe fit your concept better. </p><p>Its a fantasy game.  Take responsibility for your own fantasy and don't expect SOE to always be the one trying to prop up your fantasy when they've already given you race, class and world  and optional AA lines to express yourself in.</p>

[Attomsk]

<p><cite>Jaremai@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Aelfan wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>ranger devs</p></blockquote><p>I almost spit my coffee.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Why? They hang out with the Brigand devs all the time.</p>

[GussJr]

<p>I skimmed the thread and didn't find this mentioned anywhere...but just fyi, once you get to your end-line AA we have the ability to turn off stealth. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /></p><p>edit: woops, Hisvet already said it!</p>

[beezel69]

<p>Yes that is the reason I deleted my Ranger also, I loved his other moves but the idea of a Ranger having to use the moves of a Rouge is plain silly and too much trouble to execute. My son spends over 3min trying to kill something just because he doesn't want to have to go into stealth with every move, also it's not like a Ranger to sneak up on everything and Stab it in the back....</p>

[GussJr]

<p>Granted it feels slow being a ranger at low levels, but now I have so much fun with my level 90!</p>

[Seiffil]

<p><cite>beezel69 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yes that is the reason I deleted my Ranger also, I loved his other moves but the idea of a Ranger having to use the moves of a Rouge is plain silly and too much trouble to execute. My son spends over 3min trying to kill something just because he doesn't want to have to go into stealth with every move, also it's not like a Ranger to sneak up on everything and Stab it in the back....</p></blockquote><p>That has to be at a low level then.  View it this way, if you're just learning to use a bow, you're not as proficient and have fewer tricks or skills that you can do with your bow, as you level more you abilities get more powerful and you learn newer things you can do.</p><p>I originally played a ranger at release, from 1-9, all scouts were identical.  From 10-19, all predators were identical, so your assassin and ranger would play the exact same way.  At 20 is when everything started splitting off and you gain more and more abilities that separate the two classes.  Since then, things have changed to some degree, but the comparisons are still there at lower levels.  The classes start growing farther apart as they level up though.</p><p>BTW, it bothers me whenever someone uses Rouge.  Rouge is makeup, Rogue is the word you're looking for.</p>

[Ranja]

<p><cite>beezel69 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yes that is the reason I deleted my Ranger also, I loved his other moves but the idea of a Ranger having to use the moves of a Rouge is plain silly and too much trouble to execute. My son spends over 3min trying to kill something just because he doesn't want to have to go into stealth with every move, also it's not like a Ranger to sneak up on everything and Stab it in the back....</p></blockquote><p>Gave up pretty quick did ya<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. Looks like your son is low level as well.</p><p>At higher levels, this is what a ranger does to solo mobs.</p><p>Click autoattack, loot.</p><p>Done.</p><p>Never have to use stealth, never have to use melee.  I cannot remember the last time I used stealth fighting solo mobs with my ranger. Get into your 30s adn then come back here and comment<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>