ranger/hunter beginer class why?

[jarl]

off-topic:
Sanga do you dislike reading topics or something?... you always want to see them closed

lol! so true!!

and kireek, they DO have low ata, FO's have lower ata because they (well most) dont melee, so dont need the ata.
and if you do it your way, any calss can becoe good(ish) as you have just made clear- i mean, HUmars are crap at everything, they cant shoot because of the appalling ATA, they cant melee because of the appalling ATA and lack of s/d, and they cant cast spells because.. well, rhetorical question isnt it....

but if you compare HUmars to classes that specialise in a specific way of fighting, (and so sacrifice other areas) instead of being all round and shite then of course the all round class will win because the all round class has no strengths, and no weaknesses. if you want a better example here you go:

caster, get a FO as they have waay more mst (and mostly) more EVP than the HUmar
melee'er get a HUcast as they have waay more atp, dfp and hp than HUmar
ranger get a RAmar as they have waay more ATA than a HUmar.

there you have it, turned your arguement around, proving it worthless. if the same arguement can be used to argue 2 different points of view then its pointless.
got a real reason a HUmar is any good? didnt think so.....

p.s sanga- there is NO WAY i will ever say HUmars are in the least bit better than appalling. why? because they are absolutely crap.