Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7526202" data-attributes="member: 6704184">I think the answer is only obviously ranged for a small subset of the player base. Ie, those with the system mastery to see a significant difference between the two, and play experiences that don't challenge the idea of the archer being fairly safe. At least the melee is nearer to the healer. I'm not sure it's accurate to describe it as sacrificing effectiveness. Or, rather, it's misleading to put it that way, even if it is technically correct (which I'm not really convinced of). That is, the melee ranger is very effective (once you get to at least level 3). The team isn't losing anything meaningful by having a melee ranger rather than a ranged one. Thing is, the ranged character is a target. An important target. You don't leave the artillery standing if you can help it. Stopping them is more important than dogpiling the tank, tbh. The Wizard is higher priority if the party has one, but if your own artillery and skirmishers can mitigate the wizard's efficacy, it's worthwhile to send a skulker to try and deal with the archer. The archer is lonely out there, if they keep a long distance, or they're in immediate danger by being within spell range. The sword ranger is right there in the mix. Even better if it's a rogue you're making the melee vs range choice with, since melee rogues are harder to escape from. But, the lack of mobility boosts for most rangers is a ranger problem, not a melee problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 7526202, member: 6704184"] I think the answer is only obviously ranged for a small subset of the player base. Ie, those with the system mastery to see a significant difference between the two, and play experiences that don't challenge the idea of the archer being fairly safe. At least the melee is nearer to the healer. I'm not sure it's accurate to describe it as sacrificing effectiveness. Or, rather, it's misleading to put it that way, even if it is technically correct (which I'm not really convinced of). That is, the melee ranger is very effective (once you get to at least level 3). The team isn't losing anything meaningful by having a melee ranger rather than a ranged one. Thing is, the ranged character is a target. An important target. You don't leave the artillery standing if you can help it. Stopping them is more important than dogpiling the tank, tbh. The Wizard is higher priority if the party has one, but if your own artillery and skirmishers can mitigate the wizard's efficacy, it's worthwhile to send a skulker to try and deal with the archer. The archer is lonely out there, if they keep a long distance, or they're in immediate danger by being within spell range. The sword ranger is right there in the mix. Even better if it's a rogue you're making the melee vs range choice with, since melee rogues are harder to escape from. But, the lack of mobility boosts for most rangers is a ranger problem, not a melee problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification