User talk:Mgrinshpon/Touch Ranger replacement

Interesting hypothesis, but I disagree it would be any stronger. The lack of defensive stances is a big minus, not to mention the sacrifice from CF would lower the healed amount. Having said that, I have no beef with the touch rangers. :) --Ufelder 08:50, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, if you take a gander at the touch ranger talk, lots of touches should be spells have been flying around. The power in this is the beastly power of a group of them healing each other. If not that, how about a roundabout circle of 4 bonds moving in concert and lots of prot spells? Guardian, RoF, etc? I say that's where it's at. The point is, in terms of DPS, this would decimate touch rangers with a group of 4 doing 320DPS. --Mgrinshpon 09:47, 21 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I like this. Touches being spells would kill more than touch rangers though, I use a ranger wth lightning touch, conjure lightning, and barrage. There is no way I could use my close range defense (lightning touch) without ecpertise on the touch.--Coloneh [[Image:Coloneh.png]] 00:41, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
 * First of all, they buffed Lightning Touch, it's 5 energy now (I think). Second, if touches became spells, this build wouldn't be any stronger. Strip Cultist's Fervor, no more toucher. Backfire, Soul Leech, no toucher. Debilitating Shot, no toucher (normal toucher's OoB at least gives some resilience). Scourge Sacrifice, no toucher. Melee, Rangers, no toucher (less armor, no stances). Last point could be arguable, but in the overall, it seems much more fragile, plus this build might take skill to play, therefore removing the point of being a toucher :) <>Spark 16:50, 15 January 2007 (CST)