(Opinion) Rangers / Physical Classes Are Too Limiting

asheaustaire

In my opinion, Intrepid's vision for archetypes should have a very narrow and specific path, creating a rock, paper, scissors style of gameplay. When combined with a sub-archetype giving the player flexibility to expand passed the archetypes limitations. I understand this to also be Intrepid's vision. When combined with another archetype, it creates a more robust and varied gameplay through class combinations.

So I posit, why can't a ranger simply be a bow-wielding physical damage dealer who is acrobatic and dexterous? A class that focuses on auto attacks, kiting, and empowered physical attacks. Why does it have to be also feeling like it's using magic to cast many of its abilities (crazy effect visuals) and casting large-scale roots (like something a druid might do)? For example, replacing the crazy vines ability, which seems like something a druid would cast, with some sort of physical style trap.

This unclear delineation between physical damage dealer and magical caster is why I stopped playing the archetype.

I'd rather see them refocus the ranger archetype on being physical-based and then allow rangers that decide to move into a magic-based secondary archetype to include more magical feeling elements into their kit.

I think we should be able to play a purely physical or magic class, and allowing us to hybridize through our sub-archetype. The same purely physical experience should obviously also apply to rogue and fighter. This, I suppose, would be closer to making everyone happy and providing the opportunity for players to explore the class fantasy that they want to play, rather than forcing people into this very unfamiliar-feeling archetype.

I understand people like it as is, and I respect that, but I just don't think it really makes sense in principle given the current intention of the system.

Dezmerizing

While I do not entirely disagree with the point of your post (that said, I do not entirely agree either), I believe I have the answer at least in Intrepid's case.

1. "bow-wielding physical damage dealer who is acrobatic and dexterous? A class that focuses on auto attacks, kiting, and empowered physical attacks." - remove "bow" and you got the description of rogue. Rogues are the pure physical, quick and dexterous archetype. There is no point having an archetype which is literally copy/paste rogue, but with a bow....
2. "using magic to cast many of its abilities (crazy effect visuals) and casting large-scale roots (like something a druid might do) - because we do not have druids, or any nature-themed magical casters in AoC. And looking at the classes (aka, archetypes + secondary archetypes) it does seem like ranger intends to be the one the secondary archetype for those who wish for a more magical nature-themed class. (Side note: I do firmly believe that druid will be the first additional archetype added in a expansion at a later date.)

Veeshan

After recent ranger changes i actualy dropped it as a main and leveling up a rogue focused on ranged combat and it already feeling so much more ranger than the ranger we currently have, The current iteration of ranger feels and plays like a spell casters (Everything has cast times and everything make you walk it literaly mage gameplay) it doesnt play at all like a ranger where then rogue with a shortbow feel so much more like a ranger

honestly after playing rogue (lvl 13 so far) this would be my request for rangers

1 - Change disengage to be like the agile passive feint that doesnt need a target however if they have a target within 15m of them using the skill have them fire an arrow off mid back flip for like 70% dmg and gain guile
Give it a passive option: If the skill crits regain a charge
Passive 2 : Gain guile when used (20% evasion)

2- Change Vine field to rogue caltrops (i dont see why they both cant share this skill it makes sense and both works well) the aoe root ranger currently have feel a bit sluggish with the cast time and a little too strong in large scale this would bring ranger in line in zerg v zerg and allow u to give them power elsewhere to make up for the change (You can keep the nature theme but just have it function the same as caltrops)
passive option: Disables dodging/mobility skills while in caltrop field can still block though

3 - Range skill with exception of 1 or 2 should allow pretty much full movement feeling like your playing with toggle walk on the whole fight as a ranger feels bad and make it feel like a mage playstyle and not ranger) So please give us more snappy short cast skills that dont hinder movement at all or very little and keep 1 or 2 like snipe where it a long cast that hits hard but the majority of ranger skills should be relativly quick or atleast mobile while using them

4 - tbh a couple of melee skill options would feel nice too liek rogue has a couple of ranged skills but mostly melee ranger should be the reverse mostly ranged with a couple of melee, rogue kick would actualy be a nice one to give them aswell just a quick trip skill for melee so they can get distance again for example

5 - Range bonus would be nice for class fantasy could have a passive in skill tree that gives +10m range or something with bows

devmage

I thought that was going to be the point of the subclass system to specialize the class more. I agree with OP I'd rather lean into a Ranger doing all kinds of cool stuff with a bow attacks but that is just a preference. I was assuming that if you went Ranger/Ranger you'd be something like that. I wish there were more options in the base tree to specialize that way if you like starting off. Right now I don't like the design of the talent trees in general. The decisions are not very impactful or varied for the most part.