Celtic Heroes

Shouldn't mages have better armour than druids? O.o

A frozen meteoric curiass should have
400 armor
.5 weight
50 cold dmg
:3

In some ways I do think Rangers should have better armour. However, with the game the way it is now, I think it would just give rangers that extra boost over Rogues to make many want to convert. Reasons:

1. Rangers already have the same armour.
2. Rangers can attack from distance, so their Armour gets put to the test nowhere near as much.
3. When arrangers do get hit, they have Light Heal to get back to full health.
4. The DPS gap between Rangers and Rogues is not currently great enough in favour of Rogues, to have another thing benefit Ranges over them.

I could sort of agree if a Rogue could deal considerably more damage than a ranger, but they can't.

In some ways I do think Rangers should have better armour. However, with the game the way it is now, I think it would just give rangers that extra boost over Rogues to make many want to convert. Reasons:

1. Rangers already have the same armour.
2. Rangers can attack from distance, so their Armour gets put to the test nowhere near as much.
3. When arrangers do get hit, they have Light Heal to get back to full health.
4. The DPS gap between Rangers and Rogues is not currently great enough in favour of Rogues, to have another thing benefit Ranges over them.

I could sort of agree if a Rogue could deal considerably more damage than a ranger, but they can't.

So just to follow original post

The only way this will make sense is if rogue armor comes with less armor then rangers.
Because rogues and rangers have spoken about their 2 classes askig given more dps to rogues

but heavy armor in rangers will be put close to the warriors deparment and only thing warriors have well is armor so what will be the boost for warriors? Not change ?


Thats what i love about only 2 classes In The game .....

In some ways I do think Rangers should have better armour. However, with the game the way it is now, I think it would just give rangers that extra boost over Rogues to make many want to convert. Reasons:

1. Rangers already have the same armour.
2. Rangers can attack from distance, so their Armour gets put to the test nowhere near as much.
3. When arrangers do get hit, they have Light Heal to get back to full health.
4. The DPS gap between Rangers and Rogues is not currently great enough in favour of Rogues, to have another thing benefit Ranges over them.

I could sort of agree if a Rogue could deal considerably more damage than a ranger, but they can't.

All the way, +1

Rogue armor is actually used if anything they should be the ones with better armor. Everyone is forgetting Rangers higher survivability rate (light heal) why make it even further away from rogues than it already is (survivability, not damage)?

Fromen, understand that Rangers having more armour than Rogues, doesn't neccasarily mean that they will have more armour than they already do. It could mean Rogues having less armour.

Please stop turning everything vs Warriors, this is simply not about them.

Has anyone read my post on the first page?

rogues should have more armour. we take the most damage (apart from tanks)

I'm surprised this question is even being discussed.

I'm surprised this question is even being discussed.

Same.

It makes perfect sense to fit the class archetypes into armor archetypes. Doing anything else is over thinking it.