Why didn't rangers get dual wield at level 1?

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by Malkavius, Nov 5, 2022.

  1. Malkavius Augur

    This is one of those kind of pointless at the moment topics that is just looking in the past. It doesn't matter now why they don't get it until 17. But as the devs based many of their ideas on D&D it's one of those things that always slightly bugged me. Rangers were the defacto dual wield class and even specialized it for free at level one in old school DND. But monks were the only class that got it at level one and even warriors and rogues got to dual wield before rangers. I always felt like ranger should have a bonus skill to dual wield as well but it might have created balance chaos and rage in old EQ.
  2. Szilent Augur

    there were no rangers in old school D&D.
    Fenthen likes this.
  3. Vumad Cape Wearer

    Warriors do not get dual wield until level 13. I am not familiar with DnD rules, but in EverQuest, Rangers are a Warrior-Druid hybrid. They are not in the strictest of terms their own class. Hybrids almost never get abilities before or exceeding that of their base class. Exceptions occur of course, such as a rangers tracking vs a Druids tracking. I don't know why warriors and rogues did not get dual wield at level 1 other than to include some since of accomplishment in character progression.

    The real question is why Rangers had such poor archery performance for the first decade of EQ and why forage was not more productive for the continuous crafting of arrows in the field.
    Fenthen, Rijacki and Stymie like this.
  4. Iven the Lunatic

    EQ is not D&D even that it is heavily inspired by it. When EQ got released, the monk no longer was an available class in AD&D 2nd edition since 1989. Rangers are fine, bards do get dual wield at lvl 17 also. Original EQ has already been corrupted way to far. Bards can now use all instruments at lvl 1, other players can see rogues stealing stuff, and so on. Rogues and warriors do get it at lvl 13 because they are pure melee classes while the ranger and bard are hybrids.

    Acccording to my AD&D computer gaming experience from the 80s and 90s where the player was often only able to select from the four base classes (Fighter, Magic, Priest, and Rogue) or a mix of up to three of them (multiclassing), the ranger would be a hybrid class like Fighter/Magic/Priest that does level up much slower than a single class. Sometimes the ranger existed as a single class like in Champions of Krynn.


    Brontus and Vumad like this.
  5. Malkavius Augur

    Old school DND if you only count 1st edition yes. But they have existed since 1977 AD&D so I consider that pretty old school.

    You are correct on the dual wield at 13 which I forgot for rogues and wars. The abilities of ranger in DND were that they could dual wield with less penalties and start at level one with that, slowly get druid spells,track better than other classes and had favored enemies they could get bonuses to. Bows were never part of ranger style classes doing damage until much later in rpgs and games.
    Monks have been a class in AD&D since 1985 but they were a pretty hard class to play for many years. I never said rangers weren't fine I just pointed out how it was weird the ranger class never got DW at level 1 or specialised it in the MMO that was heavily inspired by it creators.

    Most of those old games were hit or miss on what they added by the way. Fighter/elf/cleric/thief were the originals but they had already been changed by the time that game came out.
  6. Pentasol Journeyman

    The reason Rangers are so gimped is because they are GOOD and DBG favors EVIL that's why the SK class is so OP in comparison to Ranger because it's an evil class and Ranger isn't..

    They gave their super-evil Iksar race innate OP AC + regen so team evil made better monks (and Necro).

    That's why Druids were just taxi's back in the day, because they're not considered evil so they were demoted to gopher status.

    They don't want good classes shining bright in Norrath, it would make evil look bad.

    That's why evil races have the best racial traits and why humans are blind.

    TL;DR they intentionally buffed evil and nerfed good and Ranger/Druid are good, therefore Ranger/Druid are weak in Norrath. Necro/SK are very strong and versatile. It's done on purpose.
  7. Iven the Lunatic

    Choose an alignment ! SK is...

    Lawful evil • Neutral evil • Chaotic evil

    Look here for help
  8. Brontus EQ Player Activist

    Why don't rangers get a bow at level one?
  9. Cicelee Augur

    One of my saddest moments in EQ began in the first two weeks I started playing in Feb 2000 when my first character was a ranger, a class I previously played in AD&D campaigns with friends. What I was hoping for with a ranged archery focused ranger quickly was realized that archery was beyond terrible to the point it was irrelevant. Add in poor tracking back during that time, and my hopes to play a bow using ranger dissipated.

    I eventually settled on a magician after a couple weeks, and obviously have not turned back. But not a week goes by when I wish I was a ranger main instead of a magician main...
    Vumad and Brontus like this.
  10. Iven the Lunatic

    Low level magicians were so weak back in the days.The earth pet was
    hardly able to tank light blue mobs (other con system without dark blue)
    and an add was nearly always a sure wipe. It was not fun and I remember
    to be running to zone lines the whole time or getting killed. The ranger
    was able to solo very well and could just root rot the mobs if needed
    while firing arrows onto them. A bow was great for solo only until PoP.
  11. Raltar Augur

    Aragorn was the OG ranger and he didn't dual wield. He even used a shield at Helm's Deep. I think rangers should be more like Aragorn.
    Fuzzy likes this.
  12. Deux Corpse Connoisseur

    Rangers don't get dual wield at level 1 because they might hurt themselves. Look what happened to Rangers when they were given Taunt....
    Zunnoab and Svann2 like this.
  13. Pentasol Journeyman

    There is 3rd party software which lets any class track so Ranger track is pointless and they've nerfed headshot. Ranger should be cool but isn't. A Ranger should be able to tank because the Ranger is hybrid druiid/warrior.

    SK is the most powerful hybrid class though and Necro is the most versatile caster class.

    A Necro has evac, fear, slow, snare, root, harmshield, FD, insane mana regen. What has Mage got? Mod rod? Lore?

    Take a Warrior and give it Necro spells and you have Necro with 2HS and plate armour that can tank and taunt as good as Warrior.

    The Warrior's claim to fame is tanking 72 man raid mobs for the 1% but other than that he's useless compared to SK.
  14. Herf Augur

    As in any martial art, rangers have to learn the basics before they are ready to learn more complex stuff :)

    It's like taunting. You have to learn all about the culture and family history of what you're fighting before you can come up with the most effective insults.
  15. Angahran Augur

    All the level 1 rangers that attempted to duel wield killed themselves :p
    Dre., Herf and Nennius like this.
  16. Brontus EQ Player Activist

    For the original release of EverQuest, they hired Geoffrey Zatkin to create the spell system. I think he did a great job. However, I'm not sure if they hired anyone to design the melee classes. It seems like melee classes were an afterthought.

    The ranger and paladin were poorly designed classes at launch. Both these classes are iconic fantasy RPG classes and it's regrettable that SOE dropped the ball on their implementation.

    I've always been a big fan of Blizzard's WoW class design which is selling the fantasy of the class and making all classes feel heroic. The EQ ranger is a great example of the opposite of this philosophy. He's weak, boring, ineffectual, and has no real unique useful abilities that distinguish him from other melee classes. Rangers were so bad and died so often that they were mocked mercilessly by the player base back in the day.

    The fact that level one rangers do not come with a bow is inexcusable.
  17. Herf Augur

    Watch this starting at 2:54 :)

  18. Iven the Lunatic

    The magician has stronger pets so it does not need fear, pet root & stun procs instead of snare, CotH instead of self evac, pet toys for the necro, strongest and multiple stacking damage shields instead of Harmshield, Eye of Zomm (for pet pull and scouting), good mana regen abilities including mod rods and DD clickies. The necro is a coward while the magician is a hero.
  19. Iven the Lunatic

    Its a false stereotype that rangers do always use bows. Its is more typical for elves and basically that is the job of the archer class like in Might and Magic and Wizardry.

    The class system of the Wizardry series. Not sure which part as some classes like the bishop and ninja are missing. The knight is the warrior and rangers are axe grandmasters. Headchop instead of headshot !
  20. Annastasya Augur

    In Gloomingdeep, before you speak to anyone or kill any mobs, open a bunch of barrels. You'll have a bow at level 1. (if you talk to anyone or kill some mobs you very well may ding level 2 on accident)
    Brontus and Gialana like this.