Guild Wars 2

I would immensely enjoy it if Rangers were given the ability to use swords in the off-hand. Lore everywhere and in every game I’ve played, Rangers have had the ability to dual-wield swords. I don’t see why, in Guild Wars, this is an impossibility. Warriors are masters of martial skills, so it’s natural for them to dual-wield swords, though they are a heavy-armor class and less suited to the dextrous dual-wield style. Mesmers may also dual-wield swords, even though they are casters.

My proposal: Grant Rangers an offhand sword ability with the following abilities(Or general ideas, anyhow.).

4 – Some sort of rapid burst of attacks, similar to the Mesmer 2(I think.) and the Warrior’s Adrenaline Mainhand Sword skill and Thousand Blades Greatsword skill, having them slash rapidly using both blades. This gives them the ability to more properly burst in melee for those melee Ranger builds.

5 – A cross-bladed block for two to three seconds, much like the Warrior’s shield block. This would give them a better ability to tank in dungeons and exchange blows in melee combat, both PvE and PvP.

I’m not entirely sure how difficult this would be to implement, or if my request is much too out-of-this-world for ANet to consider, but I do hope they at least take a look at this thread and give me their feedback. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to be able to hold a sword in my offhand.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?

Bump, because this is important to me.

They need offhand swords and also the ability to bump forum threads. Apparently mods delete self bumps for threads because it’s against the rules, but it is impossible to bump your threads from page 20…

I agree, I use sword and axe now but its way more awesome(imho) to have two of the same weapons. And I really like swords so it would be very nice if this is coming in future patches.

As for the skills, seems right to me.

and dagger main hand.

Agreed @Natsu.

I honestly don’t see why they can’t. If they were able to, I might swap to a full-melee Ranger build. That’s just how much I’d like the idea.

Yes. If Rangers are going to get a new weapon in any future content expansion, an offhand sword to dual-wield would be a dream.

I fell in love with the ranger greatsword because of the spirit animals that happen to be summoned for the attacks. I would swap to sword/sword in a a heartbeat though.

I’d also love an off-hand sword for my ranger.

Oh, nice to see this got a little more attention. Anyone have any other thoughts?

It makes sence for the ranger to be able to dual wield a sword since they can use great swords

so im for off hand swords

Fully agree with this – I just started playing a couple of months ago, and love the Ranger class, but it seems like a fundamental miss that Rangers can’t dual wield swords – especially when you’ve done such a fantastic job with Bolt! dual wielding Bolt with another sword (or another Bolt for those hardcore players) would be amazing.

It’s a crime that only warriors can dual wield swords, when Bow /DWS seems to be a quintessential part of the Ranger persona

woah ,woah, woah, ….. woah.

Before ranger gets off-hand sword, give it to theif. Thematically thief should of had dual swords at the start. Sword main hand is plain odd and offers nothing really useful other than to be an annoyance (I 1v1 a sword/pistol thief before, god aweful. They do nothing but stun with 500dmg and think they’re “effective”)

Not sure I agree – thieves get dual daggers.. which is kind of the staple weapon for that type of class. Aside from a bow, dual swords just seems to make sense for Rangers.

dbgamer.3407:

Not sure I agree – thieves get dual daggers.. which is kind of the staple weapon for that type of class. Aside from a bow, dual swords just seems to make sense for Rangers.

I run thief, ranger, warrior (geared in that order) and I agree, dual dagger seems fitting for ranger. But for how thief mechanics work, I think dual swords for them before ranger is necessary. They are “nasty” fighters and considering how weak sword is atm for thieves it seems more important to me. Dont get me wrong, ranger needs better off-hand (and 1h main hand tbh) weapons.

I, too, would like this.

NinjaEd.3946:

dbgamer.3407:

Not sure I agree – thieves get dual daggers.. which is kind of the staple weapon for that type of class. Aside from a bow, dual swords just seems to make sense for Rangers.

I run thief, ranger, warrior (geared in that order) and I agree, dual dagger seems fitting for ranger. But for how thief mechanics work, I think dual swords for them before ranger is necessary. They are “nasty” fighters and considering how weak sword is atm for thieves it seems more important to me. Dont get me wrong, ranger needs better off-hand (and 1h main hand tbh) weapons.

This makes no sense. Rangers are sword fighters. Thieves are dagger fighters. It stands to reason and precedence.

Kal Spiro.9745:

NinjaEd.3946:

dbgamer.3407:

Not sure I agree – thieves get dual daggers.. which is kind of the staple weapon for that type of class. Aside from a bow, dual swords just seems to make sense for Rangers.

I run thief, ranger, warrior (geared in that order) and I agree, dual dagger seems fitting for ranger. But for how thief mechanics work, I think dual swords for them before ranger is necessary. They are “nasty” fighters and considering how weak sword is atm for thieves it seems more important to me. Dont get me wrong, ranger needs better off-hand (and 1h main hand tbh) weapons.

This makes no sense. Rangers are sword fighters. Thieves are dagger fighters. It stands to reason and precedence.

That and thief getting offhand sword would allow them to go D/S, which makes all kinds of no kittening sense.

Kal Spiro.9745:

NinjaEd.3946:

dbgamer.3407:

Not sure I agree – thieves get dual daggers.. which is kind of the staple weapon for that type of class. Aside from a bow, dual swords just seems to make sense for Rangers.

I run thief, ranger, warrior (geared in that order) and I agree, dual dagger seems fitting for ranger. But for how thief mechanics work, I think dual swords for them before ranger is necessary. They are “nasty” fighters and considering how weak sword is atm for thieves it seems more important to me. Dont get me wrong, ranger needs better off-hand (and 1h main hand tbh) weapons.

This makes no sense. Rangers are sword fighters. Thieves are dagger fighters. It stands to reason and precedence.

Rangers live off the land and know how to use a dagger in the mainhand with deadly precision and use it for skinning animal hide.

Why woudlnt they be able to use dual daggers.

Even in Dungeons and Dragons because of the rangers traits they’re better off with dual weapons than a bow and arrow and a rogue is better off with a bow.

Rizzy.8293:

Kal Spiro.9745:

NinjaEd.3946:

dbgamer.3407:

Not sure I agree – thieves get dual daggers.. which is kind of the staple weapon for that type of class. Aside from a bow, dual swords just seems to make sense for Rangers.

I run thief, ranger, warrior (geared in that order) and I agree, dual dagger seems fitting for ranger. But for how thief mechanics work, I think dual swords for them before ranger is necessary. They are “nasty” fighters and considering how weak sword is atm for thieves it seems more important to me. Dont get me wrong, ranger needs better off-hand (and 1h main hand tbh) weapons.

This makes no sense. Rangers are sword fighters. Thieves are dagger fighters. It stands to reason and precedence.

Rangers live off the land and know how to use a dagger in the mainhand with deadly precision and use it for skinning animal hide.

Why woudlnt they be able to use dual daggers.

Even in Dungeons and Dragons because of the rangers traits they’re better off with dual weapons than a bow and arrow and a rogue is better off with a bow.

Seriously, if you’re going to bring up DnD you can’t not bring up the most famous ranger of DnD. I’ll give you a hint, has a pet panther and duel wields scimitars (those are swords by the way.) There is no classical, nor literary Rangers who favor daggers, but there are more than enough who duel wield swords.

Rangers = swords and bows, Thieves (rogues) = daggers and more daggers. That’s just how it goes down.

Kal Spiro.9745:

Rizzy.8293:

Kal Spiro.9745:

NinjaEd.3946:

dbgamer.3407:

Not sure I agree – thieves get dual daggers.. which is kind of the staple weapon for that type of class. Aside from a bow, dual swords just seems to make sense for Rangers.

I run thief, ranger, warrior (geared in that order) and I agree, dual dagger seems fitting for ranger. But for how thief mechanics work, I think dual swords for them before ranger is necessary. They are “nasty” fighters and considering how weak sword is atm for thieves it seems more important to me. Dont get me wrong, ranger needs better off-hand (and 1h main hand tbh) weapons.

This makes no sense. Rangers are sword fighters. Thieves are dagger fighters. It stands to reason and precedence.

Rangers live off the land and know how to use a dagger in the mainhand with deadly precision and use it for skinning animal hide.

Why woudlnt they be able to use dual daggers.

Even in Dungeons and Dragons because of the rangers traits they’re better off with dual weapons than a bow and arrow and a rogue is better off with a bow.

Seriously, if you’re going to bring up DnD you can’t not bring up the most famous ranger of DnD. I’ll give you a hint, has a pet panther and duel wields scimitars (those are swords by the way.) There is no classical, nor literary Rangers who favor daggers, but there are more than enough who duel wield swords.

Rangers = swords and bows, Thieves (rogues) = daggers and more daggers. That’s just how it goes down.

Oh okay no Literary rangers who favour daggers.
I guess Belkar Bitterleaf a Halfling Ranger from Order of the Stick is a figment of my imagination then.

http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Belkar_Bitterleaf

Rizzy.8293:

Kal Spiro.9745:

Rizzy.8293:

Kal Spiro.9745:

NinjaEd.3946:

dbgamer.3407:

Not sure I agree – thieves get dual daggers.. which is kind of the staple weapon for that type of class. Aside from a bow, dual swords just seems to make sense for Rangers.

I run thief, ranger, warrior (geared in that order) and I agree, dual dagger seems fitting for ranger. But for how thief mechanics work, I think dual swords for them before ranger is necessary. They are “nasty” fighters and considering how weak sword is atm for thieves it seems more important to me. Dont get me wrong, ranger needs better off-hand (and 1h main hand tbh) weapons.

This makes no sense. Rangers are sword fighters. Thieves are dagger fighters. It stands to reason and precedence.

Rangers live off the land and know how to use a dagger in the mainhand with deadly precision and use it for skinning animal hide.

Why woudlnt they be able to use dual daggers.

Even in Dungeons and Dragons because of the rangers traits they’re better off with dual weapons than a bow and arrow and a rogue is better off with a bow.

Seriously, if you’re going to bring up DnD you can’t not bring up the most famous ranger of DnD. I’ll give you a hint, has a pet panther and duel wields scimitars (those are swords by the way.) There is no classical, nor literary Rangers who favor daggers, but there are more than enough who duel wield swords.

Rangers = swords and bows, Thieves (rogues) = daggers and more daggers. That’s just how it goes down.

Oh okay no Literary rangers who favour daggers.
I guess Belkar Bitterleaf a Halfling Ranger from Order of the Stick is a figment of my imagination then.

http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Belkar_Bitterleaf

Halflings don’t count. Half-sized person wielding half-sized sword = person wielding sword.

I know GW2 isn’t following other games or stories, so it has no obligation to implement something like this – I just think that most people (or lets just say many) who play the Ranger class really look forward to dual wielding swords as part of the experience.

It’d be like not giving a sword and board to a warrior, even if they get a greatsword. The two sets are iconic to a warrior – just like a bow/ dual swords combo is iconic to a ranger.

gimmethegepgun.1284:

Rizzy.8293:

Kal Spiro.9745:

Rizzy.8293:

Kal Spiro.9745:

NinjaEd.3946:

dbgamer.3407:

Not sure I agree – thieves get dual daggers.. which is kind of the staple weapon for that type of class. Aside from a bow, dual swords just seems to make sense for Rangers.

I run thief, ranger, warrior (geared in that order) and I agree, dual dagger seems fitting for ranger. But for how thief mechanics work, I think dual swords for them before ranger is necessary. They are “nasty” fighters and considering how weak sword is atm for thieves it seems more important to me. Dont get me wrong, ranger needs better off-hand (and 1h main hand tbh) weapons.

This makes no sense. Rangers are sword fighters. Thieves are dagger fighters. It stands to reason and precedence.

Rangers live off the land and know how to use a dagger in the mainhand with deadly precision and use it for skinning animal hide.

Why woudlnt they be able to use dual daggers.

Even in Dungeons and Dragons because of the rangers traits they’re better off with dual weapons than a bow and arrow and a rogue is better off with a bow.

Seriously, if you’re going to bring up DnD you can’t not bring up the most famous ranger of DnD. I’ll give you a hint, has a pet panther and duel wields scimitars (those are swords by the way.) There is no classical, nor literary Rangers who favor daggers, but there are more than enough who duel wield swords.

Rangers = swords and bows, Thieves (rogues) = daggers and more daggers. That’s just how it goes down.

Oh okay no Literary rangers who favour daggers.
I guess Belkar Bitterleaf a Halfling Ranger from Order of the Stick is a figment of my imagination then.

http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Belkar_Bitterleaf

Halflings don’t count. Half-sized person wielding half-sized sword = person wielding sword.

True, in fact the series starts out with the swap to 3.5 where he gets annoyed because his weapons got smaller.

Even the wikipedia page references dual weilding swords!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_

thought that was kinda funny actually