Ranger in the wild pre wilderness fam = 100%
Ranger in wild + wilderness fam > 100%
Does ranger defense in civilized function at 100%, or is it reduced to below the "regular" levels by being in a civilized area?

Ranger defenses in civilized typically* function normally.

*As far as I can remember they always do, but maybe there's an exception for a particular flavor I'm forgetting. I don't think so but I can't rule it out offhand either.

A ranger out of the wilds is basically an assassin with a few more weapon skills learned and the ability to use staves/scrolls. While assassins certainly have bad matchups they are considered solid melee chars so therefore rangers should be too, just like an assassin you need to be mindful of bash but against most people you should be fine.

In that even if you can't drop their stats, a good kans or kot does something they can't gear for. Rangers have no such options in civilized terrain.

Rangers are basicallyy unspec'ed warriors out of the wilds.

Their main offensive abilities are gone, as is their big defensive abilities.

That being said, I will chase wounded opponents into civilized areas to finish them or if they are already a piss poor match up.

Assassins have so many things going or them it's crazy to compare the two classes.

they still have the same defenses as a non spear/pole/sword warrior out of the wild and only one less attack.

They are really not so much gimped out of the wild as they are enhanced in the wild (and in really not interesting ways I might add). They can pursue several strats outside the wild just as well as a warrior or assasin and in fact better then either if they also utilize the stave/scroll skills to their benefit.

Think of it this way, most rangers in civilized grounds are no more defensive/offensive than a level 20 warrior that hasn't chosen a specialization yet. Plus they won't have bash or trip and some lose shield block nor do they know things like flails or polearms so they won't parry them well. As you get higher, there's no fourth attack, no flourintine or distance or iron hands, etc.. to balance the melee. No spells to speak of that work outside the wild either.

Rangers do get cool skills for fighting in the wilds to balance out this loss of comparative advantage but it's a gimped fight for rangers in civilized areas. Prepping out the wazoo is the only real way to compensate and even then if your opponent has full use of all his skills while you don't, you're going to be on the losing end of the fight most of the time.

The best argument though is to just spend some time fighting out of the wilds vs. in and see the differences for yourself. In my experience, they're usually rather dramatic. The result is they are comparatively gimped vs. most of their opponents in melee relative to their opponents skill sets (i.e. melee skills for other classes aren't affected by wild/non-wild while ranger melee skills are).

I have never played a ranger above mid 30s, so I do not know that I am qualified to answer this. This thread made me ask though.

Who has it worse, in general ( I know certain specs warriors change the answer) a warrior against a ranger in the wilds or a ranger against a warrior in a city?

I am sure this is subjective, but curious what people think.

Ranger against warrior in a city has it worse, no question.

But if you take warrior against a ranger in the wilds you have to know what you are doing, what the ranger is capable of, and avoid panic at all costs. I will gladly chase rangers into the wilds no matter what I'm playing, but I spent 1500+ hours of my life playing rangers, know what they're capable of, and feel like fighting a ranger in the city is just not challenging or fun.

The reasons are pretty simple: a warrior doesn't lose any of his skills in the wild whereas a ranger loses almost every reasonably deadly ability (lag, maledict, hide, snare, entangle,'etc.) in a city.

Who would you take in a city:

unprepped warrior, or ranger jacked up on haste+stoneskin+aura+shield?

Granted, the warrior can always flee, but rangers can very easily set up the above situation...

that while a ranger can prep out the wazoo there is still a fairly decent hurdle to them getting/re-stocking lots of preps and they have a low kill sealing percent so often the time spent gathering/preping is wasteful.

I would take the warrior most of the time.. Especially
if one has a spec that can lag..

The ranger could do well too prepped but would be mostly
limited to dirt kicking and serpent strike..


Regardless, if going up against tribs with special guards,
the warrior should atleast have ethos protection as a
chaotic..

nt

..

The ranger would have absolutely no chance of killing me unless it involved a gang or me being weakened by something else. Because like I said before, what can he do to stop me? He's a mob with fast tracking and the hit points of a greater troll.

And the warrior had better be as good as I if he's going to PK me without any preps, at all. It's not that preps are the end all, but at that point without any preps I think it's purely a matter of experience.

I think either one has about the same chance of surviving (because for both the key factor is how long are they going to stick around - ignoring things like entwine, I think the ranger will have an option to flee at some point).

sdf

no text

I know a few that are usually there.

Rangers are nerfed big time out of wilds..

Also, someone who knows how to play rangers & warriors.. Given
the correct circumstances( specs/preps used) can make a
ranger damn near useless in the wilds.

But I'm also not saying a ranger out the wilds couldn't mess that
warrior up.. It's all so situational.