Guild Wars 2

Honestly, I could see thrown daggers before firearms. After all, we can look to how Rangers use Axes for an obvious example. For that matter, how does a “Nature/Hunter” class lack MH Dagger, anyway? Hell, that kind of setup, yer packing the Tyrian equivalent of Ka-bars, for crying out loud. (Too bad Spear’s only underwater, it’d fit in well as a mixed melee/range for Rangers on land.)

As for Rifles in general, I’m extremely shocked (especially considering the concept of Kill Shot) that they aren’t on Thieves. “Sniper” attack, not on the “Stealth” class? Odd, to say the least.

RoyalPredator.9163:

Sirendor.1394:

No they don’t. A ranger isn’t a shooter class, it’s a “nature” class. The bow has always been the main weapon of rangers. Rifles are for ‘developed’ classes, such as the engineer.

LoL at you…. Its *RANGE*r. Not “nature” class, even if some hippie or arenanet thinks that.
It would be good if we can “snipe” with rifles. Only problem is that it requires no skill at all. Bows neither

You are wrong. Ranger is exactly wat ArenaNet thinks it is, says it is etc. If they say it’s nature class then it is nature class. Period. They design the game and apply their ideas to the game, not you. The sooner you accept that this is their vision come true and not yours the sooner you will feel better.

Also it’s not “RANGE’r”. This has completely zero relevance. Just because some word is in another does not mean anything. Read up on who a ranger was/is in RL.

Just because there is “Straw” in “Strawberry” does not mean Strawberry has Straws or is about them.

Killyox.3950:

RoyalPredator.9163:

Sirendor.1394:

No they don’t. A ranger isn’t a shooter class, it’s a “nature” class. The bow has always been the main weapon of rangers. Rifles are for ‘developed’ classes, such as the engineer.

LoL at you…. Its *RANGE*r. Not “nature” class, even if some hippie or arenanet thinks that.
It would be good if we can “snipe” with rifles. Only problem is that it requires no skill at all. Bows neither

You are wrong. Ranger is exactly wat ArenaNet thinks it is, says it is etc. If they say it’s nature class then it is nature class. Period. They design the game and apply their ideas to the game, not you. The sooner you accept that this is their vision come true and not yours the sooner you will feel better.

Also it’s not “RANGE’r”. This has completely zero relevance. Just because some word is in another does not mean anything. Read up on who a ranger was/is in RL.

Just because there is “Straw” in “Strawberry” does not mean Strawberry has Straws or is about them.

The sooner we accept their nonsensical class design and failure to meet the requirements of their own definition of Ranger, shut up, log off the forums and buy more gems, the sooner we will feel better. Am I doing it right?

ONE WORD…

YEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

Actually me and my guild mates were discussing this just last night. I think that rifles would be a great edition to Rangers in future expansions or content updates

Rangers have more room (lore wise) for crossbows.

Id like too see a rifle on my thief though, gw2 is lacking a long range single target dps weapon set – ie a sniper!

I think it would detract too much from the Engineer profession if Rangers were to get rifles. As it stands I think there’s a lot of overlap between the two professions. My friend (a Ranger) and I (an Engineer) are in a situation currently where we are debating which crafts to take up so that we can help each other. There’s too much similarity; we both use leather and we both need either guns or bows which are made through the Hunstman craft (which we both want). In gameplay, we both use ranged abilities. The only thing that separates us is pets and turrets… which I don’t use because I prefer an elixir build for my Eng. So in many ways I already feel like I’m playing a Ranger, minus the pet and AoE. The guns vs. bows thing just helps add some separation, at least in terms of look & feel.

Plus the guns ago along with the ‘steampunk’ kind of theme that the Engineer is centered on.

These rifles are most likely themed around war, and industry. The Warrior and the Engineer are both directly connected to the war theme.

Parlourbeatflex.5970:

Rangers have more room (lore wise) for crossbows.

Id like too see a rifle on my thief though, gw2 is lacking a long range single target dps weapon set – ie a sniper!

You have them, it’s called Rifle Engineer (for the most part) and Rifle Warrior. Have fun.

Anyways, as many have pointed out, they won’t add existing weapons to any class. Instead I think they will bring new weapons in expansions together with new classes, maybe allowing the existing classes to use these new weapons, maybe not.
Also new race (tengu).
We can count on a few favorites of most players I think: greataxes, crossbows, gauntlets.

When I made my ranger the idea I had for him was the guy from Last of the Mohicans. Lighter armor, the Beetleton coat would work great, a rifle and two axes in melee. My options are to have the physical appearance and none of the weapons, or the weapons but in heavy armor so it doesn’t look right at all.

Short of the animal companion that guy was a Ranger. So yes, I want a rifle for my Ranger. All of the huntsmen in the entire game use a rifle exclusively. So why can’t the only class that represents that role?

I’m reading that ANet wants them to be more natural. That’s cool, but what about Charr Rangers? Charr invented guns, and are all about technology and industry before the environment. Charr Rangers favor giant bugs that don’t care how many trees are left standing, they would use a rifle. How about Asura? They’re more likely to warp the very fabric of nature than care about it as a thing. They would not choose to be restricted to something as primitive as a bow, they would use a rifle.

I think classes/professions should be thought of independently from race. If you start thinking about what an Asura hunter would be like as compared to a Charr hunter or a Human one, then the combinations are endless. For reasons of practicality you have to say a hunter is this… and apply that definition to all races.

You could give them a crossbow, and that’s as technological you canget when it comes to ranger weapons.

They set traps, not mines. They shot arrows, not bullets.

If anyone could use rifles that’s thieves. I can’t count how many times I wish I had a single-target weapon some with some more range against some bosses and on top of WvW keeps.

MithranArkanere.8957:

If anyone could use rifles that’s thieves. I can’t count how many times I wish I had a single-target weapon some with some more range against some bosses and on top of WvW keeps.

Doesn’t that go completely against the melee/stealth concept of a thief? I didn’t think they were meant to snipe, also. A thief can already hide, steal, and do considerable melee damage. Enough is enough, IMO.

dinominator.9862:

Doesn’t that go completely against the melee/stealth concept of a thief? I didn’t think they were meant to snipe, also. A thief can already hide, steal, and do considerable melee damage. Enough is enough, IMO.

Yes it does, but well, it’s written ‘ASSASSIN’ on their faces so they also want the top end sniper weapon. Doesn’t matter if the whole concept is action, reactivity, initiative, thrill.

dinominator.9862:

MithranArkanere.8957:

If anyone could use rifles that’s thieves. I can’t count how many times I wish I had a single-target weapon some with some more range against some bosses and on top of WvW keeps.

Doesn’t that go completely against the melee/stealth concept of a thief? I didn’t think they were meant to snipe, also. A thief can already hide, steal, and do considerable melee damage. Enough is enough, IMO.

The concept o the thief is not “melee”. Otherwise they would not have pistols and longbows.

The themes of he thief are “trickery”(stealth, stealing, etc), “mobility” (stealth again, evades,shadow jumps, etc) and “assassination” (high burst damage, high synergy with critical hits).

As each weapon is balanced on its own, you can perfectly add a rifle for thieves that won’t be too strong in their hands as, for example, the warrior’s rifle, but that they could use in situations in which pistols and shotbow are not quite what would do it and more range would be better.
Like, for example, during a WvW siege, to take out single key targets in the crowd of enemies without having to walk right between the enemy, or against bosses with PBAoE attack with a radius over 900 units.

Well the fact of the matter is there are no “Crossbows” in GW2. Until they add it keep dreaming. Its a nice thought but not something they can make readily available at the current moment. Now on the FACT that Rangers ARE HUNTERS. My statement is this, Go to any Norn area and look at the Hunters, they all have Bows and Rifles as do and should Rangers. Leading me to believe that even though Rangers are nature oriented that they focus primarily on USING NATURE to HUNT FOR PREY. Now a ranger not having the ability to use Rifles to HUNT is preposterous. All those that are fussing about it most likely don’t even Ranger main. But for ME and MYSELF, I have made my Rangers 1st and foremost on the front of my list in almost EVERY RPG and MMORPG. Now it has always been the focus for a Ranger/Archer/Marksman/Hunter/Survivalist to always have the most current advantages to ranged weaponry not because its in the name but because that is their primary focus. In GW1 for those of you who haven’t played and are basing your UNINFORMED OPINION on the fact that they are nature wanderers you think they are, GW1 said this about the rangers “The Ranger is the master of the targeted distance attack and Rangers get the most out of ranged weapons like bows.” also “In a party, the Ranger is often called upon to pull foes toward the group with a well-aimed arrow. Rangers combine effectively with any secondary profession that performs well at a distance.”. Not to mention “The Marksmanship attribute adds damage to basic bow attacks and is the base attribute for most bow skills.” And the in game description, “An agile and wily survivor, the Ranger specializes in ARCHERY, beast mastery, and attunement to nature” So with that being said their PRIMARY focus is being RANGED. Yes they can use the abilities of the natural world surrounding them, but they are still HUNTERS and RANGED and as such should be given Rifles due to the evolution of the world of Tyria. I’m not asking them to add a new weapon. I’m asking them to Give the Ranger an already conceived weapon in the game. I’m not asking them to change a WHOLE LOAD OF coding. Just more simply just add a little bit of coding into the Ranger to make them more versatile. I really don’t care if they take the Greatsword away as if they were really really really nature based they wouldn’t be wielding a HUGE CHUCK OF METAL! Because if ANYTHING doesn’t fit, its the Greatsword!

Oh and as far as bullets go. There is no Reload feature or ammunition in GW2 so asking where they would get the bullets is dumb. They would do the same thing every other hunter does. Take what they need with them. Where does the warrior keep his rounds, up his bum with his GS, Shield, 2 Maces, 2 Axes, Sword, etc.? so that needs to stop being said like now! Now if they are masters of Nature then im assuming they could do the same thing Captain Kirk did when he was fighting the Lizard guy on that barren planet where he used what was in nature to make a Highly combustible shot to kill it, from ROCKS not Poo.

No, actually, the ammunition argument is entirely valid, and is probably one of the strongest points.
If you plan on staying away from civilization for years on end, what do you bring with you? You bring things you can rely on for a long time. Bladed weapons can be maintained without too much trouble, arrows can be recovered after being fired and more can be made if needed. But you’re not going to be able to make more gunpowder.

Yup. The argument against ammo is not mechanical, but from lore viewpoint.

And most weapons are visual. ANet could make a bow act like a hammer if they wanted.

Once you have the lore down, you see what the profession could do, and what weapons would visually fit that.

Safer Saviour.9685:

They aren’t ranged specialists. They are specialists in survivalism.

If that’s true it’s a shame they are very poor at surviving pretty much anything, really non existent condition cleaners and very limited at breaking stuns etc…

I don’t think they need Rifles to make them more viable though… they need team orientated skills and better survival (wvw) skills…more stuns and AoE also..

Safer Saviour.9685:

They aren’t ranged specialists. They are specialists in survivalism.

GW2 profesions are not that unidimensional.

Rangers are survivalists, yes. But they are also beasts masters, skirmishers, friends of nature AND marksmen (ranged specialists).
The can trait their longbow to go all the way to 1500 units, and have two 1200 unit weapons.
They use axes as mostly mid-range weapons (400-600). Their greatsword and spear skills have long melee range too (150 instead 130) and their sword skills have high mobility too, with skills with 430 and 600 range.

Still, being marksmen is no excuse to give them all ranged weapons, as staves, scepters, tridents, rifles and pistols do not match their ‘nature’ theme.
You can simply give them some other weapon that does go well with the nature theme, and put for it the skills you’d put for the rifle or a pistol. Like a crossbow or a blowgun.

My, a blowgun would be kind of fun to use. If hylek can use them, why can’t we? I can imagine the Toy version on wintersday: peashooters.

I’d rather the Devs improve existing skills than adding more skills which will make balance more nightmarish than it already is.

Ok on the topic of Rangers being survivalists. Any GOOD survivalist would know how to make black powder in the wilderness. Also with black powder and the ball rounds that they shoot, people during the Civil War would go to trees which were in the direction in which they were shooting, take a knife to the tree and extract the ball round. They would also pull the ball round out of the wound it created on the prey and or enemy, and reuse it. Another thing a true survivalist would know how to do is, how to melt ores that all professions know how to extract. So again tell me why the ranger wouldn’t know how to make ammo? Oh and the combo for Black powder is Saltpeter, Coal, and Sulfur. All of which can be found in nature.

Radio Isotope.3045:

Oh and the combo for Black powder is Saltpeter, Coal, and Sulfur. All of which can be found in nature.

So you’re telling me that a survivalist carries a cave and a hot spring/volcano around with them so they can gather materials to make gunpowder.

Neither of those ingredients are very common in nature.
Not to mention how difficult it is to combine them in the right proportions so as not to get subpar powder.

You know what’s common? Trees made of wood. To make wooden arrows.

Saltpeter, coal, and sulfur are more common than you think.

Saltpeter could be extracted from poo yes but also urine, and dead carcases. Also saltpeter commonly occurs as a crust on the soil and on the surface of rocks in dry climates and in the soil of limestone caves. Coal or charcoal and be gotten relatively easy seeing as there is normally a ton just lying around on top surfaces. And coal/charcoal can also be attained from burning wood. And sulfur is present in virtually all plants and animals. Any good survivalist would always carry a mortar and pestle and know how to best use the “nature” around him/her.

From a scientific, survivalist, and evolution stand point the rifle is perfect for the needs of a ranger. But another thing to remember is the ranger is many things not just one specific thing. You could have a ranger that you specialized in nature spirits and swordplay, while I have a ranger that specializes in ranged attacks and survival skills. So for people that choose to play the ranged survival aspect the rifle is perfect. Because the lore for my ranger is different than the lore for your ranger. My ranger is a hunter and survivalist, while yours is a tree hugging hippie. See where I am going with this. My ranger would know how to make gunpowder and seeing as he is around a volcano ALOT it would make sense. As my ranger likes to hunt around mount maelstrom. Now my ranger is smart enough to where he carries just enough ammunition for what he needs. And while bows are primary he would like to pull a rifle out for the bigger game.

But what I don’t get is according to some of the posts in this thread, some of you seem to think the Warrior is more capable of making ammo than a survivalist/nature expert. How do you assume the Warrior gets his ammo? The Engineer I understand making ammo, but the warrior?

I’ll support the idea of giving the ranger a rifle on the condition that, should they be added in an expansion, the engineer gets a cross-bow (I see them being used with “trick arrows” to form a kind of rapid-fire grenade launcher).

haha that would be awesome Arkham! kinda like the rapid fire crossbows they used in the middle ages where the bolts stacked one on top of the other and it had a lever on the side to rotate and draw the bow?

For every weapon, there must be a skill set to go with it. And they’ll need to be balanced. Too much work for the devs.

You’re really just focusing on the wrong argument here. The ‘they wouldn’t have ammo always ready’ reasoning was a weak excuse to reinforce their own biases against the gun concept. The idea that arrows are more easily acquired than bullets, while true, is a silly argument for a game with infinite ammo.

It’s not like rangers are hermits. Going years without reaching a place that supplies ammo is an extreme.

The argument here (that will not be resolved) is simply “I think guns fit rangers” vs. “I don’t want guns to fit rangers.” The argument is entirely based in preconceived notions of what a ranger is or isn’t. That’s a difficult position for someone to change, and arguing over minute details like ammo acquisition aren’t going to do it.

So again I’ll bring up the potential of the rifle being a pet-centric weapon like no other, because a hunter and his pet hunting companion is the entire concept behind rangers having pets. Duck hunt, guys. That’s a classic hunting archetype, the crux of a ranger profession.

I know one of the counter arguments will be that ‘they aren’t hunters, they’re protectors of nature’ or something, but… that’s absurd to think the two concepts are at all exclusive to one another.

I also think the ‘there can’t be rifles because no new weapons will be added’ is a weird outlook. Of course there will be new weapons. It’s the easiest way to expand the game. It’s the whole draw, as a game designer, to have preconstructed sets of skills— it makes them more modular and easier to introduce.

Radio Isotope.3045:

Saltpeter could be extracted from poo yes but also urine, and dead carcases. Also saltpeter commonly occurs as a crust on the soil and on the surface of rocks in dry climates and in the soil of limestone caves. Coal or charcoal and be gotten relatively easy seeing as there is normally a ton just lying around on top surfaces. And coal/charcoal can also be attained from burning wood. And sulfur is present in virtually all plants and animals. Any good survivalist would always carry a mortar and pestle and know how to best use the “nature” around him/her.

Making potassium nitrate (saltpeter) from urine takes months.
And where is there any dry climate in the GW2 playable zones? A small sliver of Brisban Wildlands?

Neither saltpeter nor sulfur could be found with any degree of reliability in the wilderness, while trees are quite common. And when there aren’t trees, you’d get the same limitation with trying to make gunpowder since you need the trees for charcoal. Except that the arrows can be recovered while gunpowder cannot.

AstralDusk.1670:

You’re really just focusing on the wrong argument here. The ‘they wouldn’t have ammo always ready’ reasoning was a weak excuse to reinforce their own biases against the gun concept. The idea that arrows are more easily acquired than bullets, while true, is a silly argument for a game with infinite ammo.

It’s not like rangers are hermits. Going years without reaching a place that supplies ammo is an extreme.

The argument here (that will not be resolved) is simply “I think guns fit rangers” vs. “I don’t want guns to fit rangers.” The argument is entirely based in preconceived notions of what a ranger is or isn’t. That’s a difficult position for someone to change, and arguing over minute details like ammo acquisition aren’t going to do it.

So again I’ll bring up the potential of the rifle being a pet-centric weapon like no other, because a hunter and his pet hunting companion is the entire concept behind rangers having pets. Duck hunt, guys. That’s a classic hunting archetype, the crux of a ranger profession.

I know one of the counter arguments will be that ‘they aren’t hunters, they’re protectors of nature’ or something, but… that’s absurd to think the two concepts are at all exclusive to one another.

I also think the ‘there can’t be rifles because no new weapons will be added’ is a weird outlook. Of course there will be new weapons. It’s the easiest way to expand the game. It’s the whole draw, as a game designer, to have preconstructed sets of skills— it makes them more modular and easier to introduce.

Obviously this post wasn’t read, which I think says it all. You still seem to be stuck on the aspect of making ammunition. In a MMO that has infinite ammo, and no NEED to reload, the argument isn’t really relevant. If that is your only reason for rangers not needing rifles, then I’m sorry, but I think you still need more backup. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but when bringing up irrelevant information you aren’t really helping to get your point of view across.

^Agree with this. +1

Feoriee.4698:

AstralDusk.1670:

You’re really just focusing on the wrong argument here. The ‘they wouldn’t have ammo always ready’ reasoning was a weak excuse to reinforce their own biases against the gun concept. The idea that arrows are more easily acquired than bullets, while true, is a silly argument for a game with infinite ammo.

It’s not like rangers are hermits. Going years without reaching a place that supplies ammo is an extreme.

The argument here (that will not be resolved) is simply “I think guns fit rangers” vs. “I don’t want guns to fit rangers.” The argument is entirely based in preconceived notions of what a ranger is or isn’t. That’s a difficult position for someone to change, and arguing over minute details like ammo acquisition aren’t going to do it.

So again I’ll bring up the potential of the rifle being a pet-centric weapon like no other, because a hunter and his pet hunting companion is the entire concept behind rangers having pets. Duck hunt, guys. That’s a classic hunting archetype, the crux of a ranger profession.

I know one of the counter arguments will be that ‘they aren’t hunters, they’re protectors of nature’ or something, but… that’s absurd to think the two concepts are at all exclusive to one another.

I also think the ‘there can’t be rifles because no new weapons will be added’ is a weird outlook. Of course there will be new weapons. It’s the easiest way to expand the game. It’s the whole draw, as a game designer, to have preconstructed sets of skills— it makes them more modular and easier to introduce.

Obviously this post wasn’t read, which I think says it all. You still seem to be stuck on the aspect of making ammunition. In a MMO that has infinite ammo, and no NEED to reload, the argument isn’t really relevant. If that is your only reason for rangers not needing rifles, then I’m sorry, but I think you still need more backup. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but when bringing up irrelevant information you aren’t really helping to get your point of view across.

The OP tried to make a lore argument for having rifles on ranger, and so I used the most obvious lore reason why they would not get them.

And, consider this, OP:
The prospect of rangers having rifles, when rifles are in the game, is immensely obvious. There is no possible way that the devs would not have thought about the possibility, yet they launched without it, and describe the class as experts with a bow, not just ranged weapons. Thus, they must have explicitly decided NOT to put it in. Now, there’s really only 2 good reasons not to do it: The existing ranged weapons cover a large scope already and another one would just be covering old ground, and/or the rifle goes against the lore of the profession.

Not necessarily true. Being a ranger just infers the meaning of ranged weapons. Yes, to some degree they are ‘nature lovers’ but, that does not cover all aspects of the ranger. I understand that the devs decided to not add the rifle as a weapon for this class, but the greatsword doesn’t really group with the “ranged” weapons aspects, and in my opinion doesn’t really have a place amongst their weapons of choice. I agree with the fact that the rifle is a ranged weapon, and has significance towards the ranger in that perspective.. But, I can also see your point on the lore aspect. BUT, nature isn’t the only lore relevant to a ranger. At this point, I think we are all going to be continuously running in circles with this argument. I agree that the rifle would be an enjoyable addition to the rangers arsenal, while others, like you, would disagree.

No, actually, ranger does not mean a user of ranged weapons.
Think of a park ranger. They won’t even necessarily use weapons, but they earn the name very well.

Now, rangers have a great tendency to use ranged weapons, because their lore, that of the wilderness survivor, makes them almost always be hunters, which requires ranged weapons. However, it’s fairly common for rangers to use swords as well. For instance, DnD ranger either uses the bow or will dual wield, Aragorn uses a sword.

Anyway bottom line is, the Guild Wars Ranger lore is that of a survivalist, attuned with nature, that kind of thing. Which guns strongly contradict.

Parlourbeatflex.5970:

Rangers have more room (lore wise) for crossbows.

Id like too see a rifle on my thief though, gw2 is lacking a long range single target dps weapon set – ie a sniper!

Warrior rifle = long range single target dps weapon set. There is your sniper.

Ranger doesn’t need any new weapons for anys pecific reason, as has beens tated already…axe is med range multi-target, shortbow is flanking and condition based dps, and longbow is long range (using axe and lb and swapping abck and forth is one way to just trash people or mobs by knowing your skills and using what you need for the time rather than what you want to use for looks).

Everyone arguing for rifle is doign so for the looks of it, not to solve any missing function…which is the primary reason it will NEVER happen. Stop arguing for rifles…argue to fix the longbow instead.

Longbow is fine and does what it is meant to do. but I think high damage very slow shots from a rifle with emphasis to pet boons could do really good. Its not for looks but more less for more versatility and hunter like abilities.

Im am just simply stating that I see how a rifle would benefit a ranger. I already said that all of us aren’t going to share the same opinions. So lets just agree to disagree. But, please explain to me how you draw the connection to a GW2 Ranger and a Park ranger. Comparing an IRL occupation to a fictitious gaming character is absurd. Park rangers are armed, and not with a bow and arrow. How is a park ranger supposed to protect a specific reserve from poachers and the like? By throwing rocks and shooting arrows? I think not, sir. That isn’t even relevant though, this isn’t a conversation about Park Rangers, this is about the GW2 Profession. Please stick to the topic at hand.

Gimme, your making people’s toe hurt. Please troll somewhere else.

Radio Isotope.3045:

Gimme, your making people’s toe hurt. Please troll somewhere else.

Yes, disagreeing with someone is trolling.

gimmethegepgun.1284:

Radio Isotope.3045:

Gimme, your making people’s toe hurt. Please troll somewhere else.

Yes, disagreeing with someone is trolling.

Only if you have no arguments to counter the point of the one who disagrees.

Give Rangers rifles and you push Engineers even further in to obscurity/irrelevance than they already are.

A rifle can’t directly benefit a ranger because a weapon by itself has no characteristics other than visual.

You could make a pistol have greatsword skills if you wanted. The weapon on a professions hand is the skills the profession gets when they equip it.

It’s not like in other games, in which the behavior of a weapon is set, and anyone who equips it gets that behavior.

Suggesting a weapon for a profession means that you want a certain set of skills for them, and that weapon would fit with that set of skills for that profession.
No skill set would fit a ranger with firearms, because firearms do not fit rangers from the start.

Any skill you could put for a ranger rifle, you could put in some other weapon like a crossbow, working exactly the same, yet fitting better the profession’s lore.

Auesis.7301:

Give Rangers rifles and you push Engineers even further in to obscurity/irrelevance than they already are.

Ok as far as weapons go for Engineers you have, flamethrowers, elixir guns, rifles, pistols, shield, grenades, the list goes on. Engineers are actually the one class that has the most weapons. Alot of people forget that though.

Radio Isotope.3045:

Auesis.7301:

Give Rangers rifles and you push Engineers even further in to obscurity/irrelevance than they already are.

Ok as far as weapons go for Engineers you have, flamethrowers, elixir guns, rifles, pistols, shield, grenades, the list goes on. Engineers are actually the one class that has the most weapons. Alot of people forget that though.

No, actually, that’s about the entire list, just bomb and tool kit added on there. Medkit too, but that’s not a weapon anyway so…
Plus, they don’t really count since they have to burn a utility slot to get most of those.
Warrior have more even if you don’t count offhand sword/mace/axe.

And, in fact, ranger has more than engineer already.

And, if you’re counting utility skill weapons, elementalist has more than engineer, even without taking attunements into account.

I totally get why you guys want crossbows now. You all came from WoW and played hunters. Ok, so you guys are now agreeing with my statement that rangers are hunters then yes? But I want you guys to remember this is not WoW and as such you should stop trying to make it as such. This game is about evolution of the MMORPG world not de-evolution. Now as far as rangers being hunters, as I and many others have stated that some of you fail to realize, is that hunters have used Rifles since they were created. And as others have said they don’t need to make ammo as our characters don’t go years without seeing a town. As far as the Lore goes if you want to discuss that then hop on over to the Lore forums and get schooled by people who chose to play GW1 over WoW. Now lets all stay on the topic here and if anyone has any suggestions pertaining to the Rangers having rifles such as a skill set, or any viable input besides trying to go off topic, then please post.

Now with that being said lets tally up those Thumbs ups. Before you make yourself look like a fool with your pants on the ground again.