Guild Wars 2

TexZero.7910:

Sartharina.3542:

TexZero.7910:

Why do we even have Swords ? Clearly the Greatsword is superior. Let’s just replace all swords with greatswords. Give mesmers something else for it because it would be silly for them to dual wield greatswords.

Swords are one-handed, while Greatswords are two-handed, for starters. Their skins are also radically different. Also, they have completely different gameplay across all classes (And both have uneven distribution across the classes. Reapers can use Greatswords, but not Swords. Revenants can use Swords, but not Greatswords. A guardian with a sword doesn’t play anything like a Guardian with a Greatsword. Swords and Greatswords are both seen on Warriors for radically different uses, and in different combinations with other weapons.

:O

You dont say. I would have never guessed that 2 distinctly different classes use weapons differently. I would have also never guessed that the short bow on ranger plays entirely different than the longbow on ranger.

Look we all get you hate the “Legendary Snafu” but gutting classes for this sorta logic…if one can even call it that is silly.

Also, to the people who didn’t get the joke….I’m sorry in future i will write all responses that have a joke or sarcasm with a /s. I’m told this is how reddit does it.

Ranger shortbow doesn’t play differently enough from Ranger Longbow compared to how Warrior Sword+Shield plays differently from Warrior Greatsword, and far differently than Warrior Mace+Sword. And Greatswords and Swords look and animate differently.

And yes, two classes can be wildly different with the same weapon. So why is the Thief barred from using the same bow skins Warriors and Guardians can use, and vice-versa?

Sartharina.3542:

TexZero.7910:

Sartharina.3542:

TexZero.7910:

Why do we even have Swords ? Clearly the Greatsword is superior. Let’s just replace all swords with greatswords. Give mesmers something else for it because it would be silly for them to dual wield greatswords.

Swords are one-handed, while Greatswords are two-handed, for starters. Their skins are also radically different. Also, they have completely different gameplay across all classes (And both have uneven distribution across the classes. Reapers can use Greatswords, but not Swords. Revenants can use Swords, but not Greatswords. A guardian with a sword doesn’t play anything like a Guardian with a Greatsword. Swords and Greatswords are both seen on Warriors for radically different uses, and in different combinations with other weapons.

:O

You dont say. I would have never guessed that 2 distinctly different classes use weapons differently. I would have also never guessed that the short bow on ranger plays entirely different than the longbow on ranger.

Look we all get you hate the “Legendary Snafu” but gutting classes for this sorta logic…if one can even call it that is silly.

Also, to the people who didn’t get the joke….I’m sorry in future i will write all responses that have a joke or sarcasm with a /s. I’m told this is how reddit does it.

Ranger shortbow doesn’t play differently enough from Ranger Longbow compared to how Warrior Sword+Shield plays differently from Warrior Greatsword, and far differently than Warrior Mace+Sword. And Greatswords and Swords look and animate differently.

And yes, two classes can be wildly different with the same weapon. So why is the Thief barred from using the same bow skins Warriors and Guardians can use, and vice-versa?

You’re joking right ?

Ranger SB play is entirely different than that of longbow. Longbow is literally range dictation the game. SB is positioning and evasion the game. One is a Condi weapon, the other power. They have distinctly different play patterns…..Something you really should be aware of before making such a baseless claim.

The reason, because apparently this is lost somehow is because a SB != LB.
The more you know.

Because a weapon is unpopular and underused it should be removed? What kind of logic is that?
By that logic we should get rid of rangers once and for all. No one likes rangers anyway.

Seriously though, Longbow and Shortbow are different types of weapon just like some comments mentioned before. Although there aren’t really a term “Shortbow”, which we can say it was created by GW2 devs, the usage of a big Longbow and other shorter bows are still not the same. I don’t know why people assume there are just one type of bow.

And even if shortbow is not the “best” option, it doesn’t mean that no one use, or love this weapon. Some rangers use shortbow in pvp, and it’s a very viable option for condi ranger. The statement that OP made is like "I don’t like shortbow. You all shortbow lovers should just go kitten yourself. " and this kind of opinions would never be acceptable.

While “short” bows and longbows are different types of weapons IRL, I do agree that its kind of odd that they added both to GW when the differences between them don’t really come through in a video game (or at least not this one). Visually they’re extremely similar, and while the different skill sets themselves are different enough, it doesn’t really reflect the real life differences particularly.

I think using regular bows and crossbows would have been the better call for visual variety, if two bow types were desired.

That said… what’s done is done at this point. Shortbows are a thing and removing them or combining them with longbows would be pointless now. The devs spending time removing things from the game would be a waste.

Sartharina.3542:

[…]The “Nature Theme” is only really strongly present in the new Elite Spec. […]

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Nature_Magic

Yeah. Let’s ignore one of the 5 pillars of the ranger’s core theme.

I’m not saying ‘rangers should never have guns’.

I’m saying that if they ever get guns, they won’t be rangers.

They’d be something else. We could not have that before, but now we can thanks to elite specializations.

A ranger with a rifle could become a sniper, or a hunter. But he would no longer be a ‘ranger’.

MithranArkanere.8957:

Rangers can’t have firearms, because they go against their nature theme, hence having two bows instead a bow and a rifle. Remember they are not WoW’s ‘hunter’. They re closer to D&D’s rangers and druids, and so there’s things they can’t do or they’d go against their connection to nature, reducing or losing their powers altogether.

Also, each bow has a different weapon strength. Shortbow is weaker, and fits better fast attacks, while longbow is stronger, and first better longer range stronger but slower attacks.

Why do guns conflict with “nature”?

As long as I keep my shortbow-based Sinister’s build and my Chaos Shortbow, Fused Shortbow, Royal Ascalonian Shortbow, Aether, Corrupted Shortbow, Dwayna’s Shortbow, and Immortal Shortbow; I don’t care what you do with it.

Wait…

Necromancer could have a short bow that applies AoE bleeds, fear or a real stun, and boons like protection under 300 distance as a sort of front-line support weapon.

Edit: I still want a land spear for that role, though.

MithranArkanere.8957:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Nature_Magic

Yeah. Let’s ignore one of the 5 pillars of the ranger’s core theme.

I’m not saying ‘rangers should never have guns’.

I’m saying that if they ever get guns, they won’t be rangers.

They’d be something else. We could not have that before, but now we can thanks to elite specializations.

A ranger with a rifle could become a sniper, or a hunter. But he would no longer be a ‘ranger’.

They have traps, but they aren’t called “trappers”. Rangers “range about” in a travel sense, and the only real reason they don’t use guns is because the origin in D&D doesn’t have access to guns. There isn’t much reason for them not to use guns in a world in which they exist. As for the idea that rifles are “unnatural”, would you care to explain why greatswords are a “natural” weapon?

MithranArkanere.8957:

A ranger with a rifle could become a sniper, or a hunter. But he would no longer be a ‘ranger’.

Even Colonel Benjamin Church had a gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Rangers

I use shortbow on my Ranger, only in WvW though, not PvP.

I only use Short bows, but i’m PvE ranger.. And yeah i’d never bother with the Dreamer either, who ever thought that legendary was a good idea should be moved on from Gaming Design in my opinion.

Dante.1508:

I only use Short bows, but i’m PvE ranger.. And yeah i’d never bother with the Dreamer either, who ever thought that legendary was a good idea should be moved on from Gaming Design in my opinion.

I like the Dreamer. I just wish it were a longbow so my Guardian and Warrior could use it to send unicorns majestically galloping across the battlefield.

But who decided to not let Mesmers be able to use it?

Demented Sheep.1642:

[…] Why do guns conflict with “nature”?

For the same reason dredge and their machines and guns conflict with nature.

They are noisy, they disrupt the environment, startle animals.

With a bow a ranger can take out a poacher without bothering the animal they were stalking. With a rifle the poacher and his friends get a warning, and the animal gets startled and may hurt itself.

On top of that, a ranger can make bows with sticks and stones. But gunpowder and bullets aren’t something you can make just about anywhere when you have been ranging deep in a forest for months.

If the only reason to not have a ranger use a gun is that it “goes against nature”, than they need to remove our use of torches. Nothing destroys more of “nature” than fire (other than real world humans…and I live where this has happened and it’s not pretty). What “nature conscious” person runs around setting fire to things? (sure, you can use fire to fight fires, but the game doesn’t employ any firefighters that I’ve seen)

The idea that “rangers” MUST conform to D&D is also just silly. Does no one remember the mission in Orr to use a giant “robot” battle suit to save a “tank” crew? (just one example) I think it’s safe to say that we are beyond the simple guidelines set forth in D&D.

I get that some people have fixed views of what it means to be a ranger in a fantasy setting, but if those opposed are so dead set against a ranger wielding a long gun, they can choose to not use one if they ever gave it to us. For me, the weapon I refuse to use is a shortbow…because it’s horrible. We have much better choices. If they give us a long gun, and it was decent and balanced…I might use it.

Actually, I quite like the merge idea. You essentially trade off a single set of skills (Ranger shortbow) for the sake of doubling the available skins for builds on three and a half classes (Warrior, Guardian, Thief and non-shortbow Rangers).

That said, I don’t use shortbow Ranger, so I only really gain from that scenario. Having Kudzu on a thief would be awesome though. As would a general increase in skin options for the other classes.

I would change the shortbow animation instead, to make it more unique. Maybe the toon can handle the shortbow in a 45% while shooting?

I can truly understand, if you want to go after a legendary, wishing that the special effects that went along with it conformed to your aesthetic, but to expect any company to satisfy all the different taste buds out there is really asking a bit much, IMO, so I won’t even address that except to say that Legendaries’ effects are some of the pure fluff of the game. I say, let the designers have some fun, since they’re giving us so much.

However, on the issue of the different bows…to say that the short is ineffectual probably means that you (as I did for almost two years) have never really investigated its possibilities. I run several rangers (I like creating characters and have one of each species and at least one of each profession) but ran them all as power/crit rangers. Then…I really got into my condi-necro and began to appreciate the power of condi, when well-traited. I’ve switched one of my rangers over to over to condi, and she mows stuff down in HoT and fractals, and I’ve not really begun to investigate skill rotations—-just seat of the pants key punching. Her bar breakers are more effective than the power knockback in many instances. She’s basically midrange, which is really effective in HoT. Before you diss it, try a true condi build. I wish I’d known two years ago what I know now. I’d play her far more effectively.

I also like the fact that playing the different types requires different strategies. Keeps me on my toes! It also means I have options in WvW and Fractals, depending on the party/squad makeup. The Power Ranger LB/GS is probably the most versatile profession in the game, with true sniping capacity and real melee damage. Running with the axe/warhorn rather than the greatsword means less melee damage, but better midrange. But a power traiting isn’t really taking advantage of the poison in the axe. That’s where the condi-ranger can blossom.

Basically, they’re trying to differentiate between mindsets and body types. A ranger that works long range, with the power to pull that longbow, has to have the muscle to wield a greatsword effectively. One that’s based on poison and fire damage can be lighter and quicker. The poison weapon does less damage initially, but just watch those little green numbers add up and you’ll realize what’s really going on.

I carry both a long and a short on every ranger now. Sometimes you just need that sniping distance. But the traiting and armor and weapons are very different. Both are killer, and I really don’t understand the animosity toward rangers in the game. (Now…for my druid…)

Ubi.4136:

If the only reason to not have a ranger use a gun is that it “goes against nature”, than they need to remove our use of torches. Nothing destroys more of “nature” than fire (other than real world humans…and I live where this has happened and it’s not pretty). What “nature conscious” person runs around setting fire to things? (sure, you can use fire to fight fires, but the game doesn’t employ any firefighters that I’ve seen)

Wildfires are a common natural phenomena and they are extremely necessery for the sake of maintaining the status quo in Nature, as it burns down old and possibly dying fauna from which new life can spring (In the most simplest of terms). You don’t see nature suddenly starting to shoot lead everywhere through complicated contraptions made from metal and wood, ignited by naturally existing gunpowder.

The core reason why the Rifle isn’t a staple in the Ranger weaponry is because they represent Industrialization and Progression away from a Hunter-gatherer society towards a Settler society. It is in every way the anti-thesis to what the Ranger is supposed to represent, which is Naturalism and to some extent, Regression back to Nature and the Roots of creation and all that hippie mumbo-jumbo.

Rangers have changed almost nothing from their GW1 Counterpart and I’m fairly certain this is a deliberate move from ANet’s side. They use the same Traps, Spirits, Weapons and Survival Skills in 1328 AE as they did centuries ago, and excel at it. They’re the complete opposite to Engineer, who represents Industrialism and Utilitarian Progressiveness.

Also, the whole “Rifle vs Longbow” as a Hunting weapon thing? Lemme put it this way: The Rifle was designed as a weapon of war (Which is why Warrior has it) and wasn’t adapted for hunting purposes until the more Accurate and reliable Rifles of the 19th century were introduced. Meanwhile, the Bow is the archetypical Hunting weapon alongside the Spear and Skinning Knife, having been around since humanity learned to tie a piece of rope between two ends of a slightly flexible stick. Clearly, the Bow is the better representative for Hunting.

Could there be an Elite Specialization for Ranger that uses Rifle? Oh heck yeah there could be! The whole idea of Elite Specializations is to take the Core Profession and completely flip its theme on its head, and a Rifle would work wonders for that. But Core Ranger will never and should never have a Rifle as their weapon, because as has been stated several times before, it clashes with the thematics of the Ranger itself.

Actually – when I made this thread, I didn’t even have a ranger. I just have a warrior, guardian, and rogue (of the bow-wielding classes), and saw:
1. The shortbows have cooler legendary skins than the longbow for Guardian (Dreamer!) and Warrior(Okay, so I’m just speculating that Champawat will look good on a warrior)
2. The longbow has a cooler legendary skin on the Rogue (Kudzu)
3. Apparently, nobody runs Shortbow Ranger, except for one or two utility skills that could be moved to another weapon (This was where I was mistaken).

TheSwede.9512:

Could there be an Elite Specialization for Ranger that uses Rifle? Oh heck yeah there could be! The whole idea of Elite Specializations is to take the Core Profession and completely flip its theme on its head, and a Rifle would work wonders for that. But Core Ranger will never and should never have a Rifle as their weapon, because as has been stated several times before, it clashes with the thematics of the Ranger itself.

I’ve already thought of two! One is rifle, one is pistol. The pistol elite spec was actually thought up as a (gag) response to a request for a martial artist class.

Elite Specialization Rifle: “Commando”
This spec is based on the myths/legends surrounding Army Rangers and other special forces units (And in Hollywood, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Commando” or “Predator” characters, and Sylvester Stallone’s “Rambo”. But with a dog, too! Stealth, ambushes, and close/medium-range combat (Range 900 max instead of the rifle’s normal 1200, and most effective at less than 300)

Elite Specialization Pistol: “Walker” – It uses a pistol 2-handed, and always keeps it sheathed.
Pistol 1: Right Punch>Left Punch>BEARDFIST (Damages and confuses foe)
Pistol 2: Uppercut – Damage+Daze foe.
Pistol 3: Haymaker – Damage+Stun foe.
Pistol 4: Roundhouse Kick: Sweeping Knockback attack
Pistol 5: “Warning Shot” – nondamaging AoE fear effect.
And Downed 2 becomes a pistol shot that deals massive damage.

But honestly – I’d have loved to play a charr ranger with just a trusty rifle and devourer at her side.

Pookii.4583:

I wish I’d known two years ago what I know now. I’d play her far more effectively.

Two years ago? You are forgetting about the condi cap.

I carry both a long and a short on every ranger now. Sometimes you just need that sniping distance. But the traiting and armor and weapons are very different. Both are killer, and I really don’t understand the animosity toward rangers in the game. (Now…for my druid…)

That is pretty simple. Mainly comes down to stupid uses of LB4 and not bothering to control pets.

Why does this game even have “Shortbows”?

Silly you, it has them for us thieves of course, so we can spam 5 while roaming — oh wait, with daredevil and Dash, there is suddenly a good alternative for our darling SB.

Crise.9401:

Why does this game even have “Shortbows”?

Silly you, it has them for us thieves of course, so we can spam 5 while roaming — oh wait, with daredevil and Dash, there is suddenly a good alternative for our darling SB.

Well, with what I was suggesting, Rogues would keep their bows. But would be able to slap the Kudzu skin on it.

Just kind of wish they’d get nice skins and not smaller version of longbow skins.

TheSwede.9512:

Wildfires are a common natural phenomena and they are extremely necessery for the sake of maintaining the status quo in Nature, as it burns down old and possibly dying fauna from which new life can spring (In the most simplest of terms). You don’t see nature suddenly starting to shoot lead everywhere through complicated contraptions made from metal and wood, ignited by naturally existing gunpowder.

The core reason why the Rifle isn’t a staple in the Ranger weaponry is because they represent Industrialization and Progression away from a Hunter-gatherer society towards a Settler society. It is in every way the anti-thesis to what the Ranger is supposed to represent, which is Naturalism and to some extent, Regression back to Nature and the Roots of creation and all that hippie mumbo-jumbo.

Rangers have changed almost nothing from their GW1 Counterpart and I’m fairly certain this is a deliberate move from ANet’s side. They use the same Traps, Spirits, Weapons and Survival Skills in 1328 AE as they did centuries ago, and excel at it. They’re the complete opposite to Engineer, who represents Industrialism and Utilitarian Progressiveness.

Also, the whole “Rifle vs Longbow” as a Hunting weapon thing? Lemme put it this way: The Rifle was designed as a weapon of war (Which is why Warrior has it) and wasn’t adapted for hunting purposes until the more Accurate and reliable Rifles of the 19th century were introduced. Meanwhile, the Bow is the archetypical Hunting weapon alongside the Spear and Skinning Knife, having been around since humanity learned to tie a piece of rope between two ends of a slightly flexible stick. Clearly, the Bow is the better representative for Hunting.

Could there be an Elite Specialization for Ranger that uses Rifle? Oh heck yeah there could be! The whole idea of Elite Specializations is to take the Core Profession and completely flip its theme on its head, and a Rifle would work wonders for that. But Core Ranger will never and should never have a Rifle as their weapon, because as has been stated several times before, it clashes with the thematics of the Ranger itself.

That still doesn’t explain swords or greatswords.

“Modern” steel swords are not hunting weapons, nor are they really old technology (excepting bronze/iron ones that were soft). In order to make such a length of steel that doesn’t shatter or bend out-of-shape on impact requires a high metallurgical understanding, such is only possible in more “developed” societies.

Greatswords are the renaissance era equivalent of carrying a Barret .50 cal. Not much specific documentation about use, but were used to guard bannermen in mercenary groups and sometimes were used for dueling. They aren’t convenient to carry. They aren’t ideal for trekking through the bush. In reality they can’t even be kept in a scabbard to draw quickly; the only way to carry them is with one hand holding it on one’s shoulder. They are purely for war, and like most 2-handed swords were designed in an era where body armor was well-developed (less need of the other hand for a shield), and when forging had reached new heights.

Rangers generally aren’t about being completely at harmony with nature, that’s given to druids. Rangers’ nature-based knowledge and magic places them near nature, but their use of modern technology is what means they are separated from a purely “primitive” style. To contrast, engineers are completely separated from nature but utilize a plethora of modern inventions.

As an aside you also don’t see nature propelling wooden sticks by means of elastic force through animals and people.

Who is using short bow ?
- Thieves :
For only one ability (5) so yeah basicly a weapon to one skill, pretty usefull tho.
Actually the 5 is pretty useless now, with the “dash dodge” of daredevil, so the ONLY use of shortbow for thieves is in PvP to kite or roam.

- Rangers :
Used only by special snowflakes, who likes to kill mosquitoes in Queen’s Dale.

Mmmmh yea Anet ? No more legendary ? mmkay but wait .. MMhh mkay one last ? Wich is the sb right ? Mkay but wait i can’t earn golds on mosquitoes.

I’d Rather See:
1) Ranger Shortbow getting a rework. If you don’t own HoT it makes sense to run Short Bow. If you do own HoT it makes more sense to go Axe or Sword /Torch + Staff.

2) Thief Shortbow getting a couple small tweaks, out of the two professions that can currently use shortbow… thief by far is superior. Condi + Evade + mobility + auto cleave.

3) Giving 1-2 more classes access to shortbow. Maybe Ele & Revenant?
Ele could be a fun one,
based on your attunement = chance to deal type of condi
based on your attunement= chance to apply buff to you and X-ammt of allies.

Revenant would be a little complex…
You can’t do Eir Legend for it since her bow is LB and Braham is supposedly a Dragon Hunter.

If you go back to Guild Wars 1 (calm down WoW kids, put your torches down and remember GW2 is based on GW1) you could go back and chose:
-Reyna
or
-Zho

Personally, I think Zho as a Revenant legend would be amazing.

Ubi.4136:

If the only reason to not have a ranger use a gun is that it “goes against nature”, than they need to remove our use of torches. Nothing destroys more of “nature” than fire (other than real world humans…and I live where this has happened and it’s not pretty). What “nature conscious” person runs around setting fire to things? (sure, you can use fire to fight fires, but the game doesn’t employ any firefighters that I’ve seen)

There’s entire families of plants that can’t complete their reproductive cycles without wildfires.

Many areas also use controlled burns to clear grassland and replenish the soil.

Wolfey.3407:

If you go back to Guild Wars 1 (calm down WoW kids, put your torches down and remember GW2 is based on GW1) you could go back and chose:
-Reyna
or
-Zho

Poor Aiden…

“Why does this game even have shortbows?”

Because not everything is about maximizing every number. Sometimes it’s just about fun. Or looks. Or some preconceived roleplaying preference. Or any number of other things.

And if eliminating non-maximum/efficient gear was the prevailing mentality, then why doesn’t the game just assign whatever the meta is to each character when it reaches level 80 and make it simple on everyone? Kinda like skills 6+ for Revenant.

DeanBB.4268:

“Why does this game even have shortbows?”

Because not everything is about maximizing every number. Sometimes it’s just about fun. Or looks. Or some preconceived roleplaying preference. Or any number of other things.

And if eliminating non-maximum/efficient gear was the prevailing mentality, then why doesn’t the game just assign whatever the meta is to each character when it reaches level 80 and make it simple on everyone? Kinda like skills 6+ for Revenant.

u must be playin a new class that has become quite forgiving class while playing.

On topic: all they need to do is bring how Bow worked on the real Guildwars game.

besides damage and skill range

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Bow

King Cephalopod.7942:

TheSwede.9512:

Wildfires are a common natural phenomena and they are extremely necessery for the sake of maintaining the status quo in Nature, as it burns down old and possibly dying fauna from which new life can spring (In the most simplest of terms). You don’t see nature suddenly starting to shoot lead everywhere through complicated contraptions made from metal and wood, ignited by naturally existing gunpowder.

The core reason why the Rifle isn’t a staple in the Ranger weaponry is because they represent Industrialization and Progression away from a Hunter-gatherer society towards a Settler society. It is in every way the anti-thesis to what the Ranger is supposed to represent, which is Naturalism and to some extent, Regression back to Nature and the Roots of creation and all that hippie mumbo-jumbo.

Rangers have changed almost nothing from their GW1 Counterpart and I’m fairly certain this is a deliberate move from ANet’s side. They use the same Traps, Spirits, Weapons and Survival Skills in 1328 AE as they did centuries ago, and excel at it. They’re the complete opposite to Engineer, who represents Industrialism and Utilitarian Progressiveness.

Also, the whole “Rifle vs Longbow” as a Hunting weapon thing? Lemme put it this way: The Rifle was designed as a weapon of war (Which is why Warrior has it) and wasn’t adapted for hunting purposes until the more Accurate and reliable Rifles of the 19th century were introduced. Meanwhile, the Bow is the archetypical Hunting weapon alongside the Spear and Skinning Knife, having been around since humanity learned to tie a piece of rope between two ends of a slightly flexible stick. Clearly, the Bow is the better representative for Hunting.

Could there be an Elite Specialization for Ranger that uses Rifle? Oh heck yeah there could be! The whole idea of Elite Specializations is to take the Core Profession and completely flip its theme on its head, and a Rifle would work wonders for that. But Core Ranger will never and should never have a Rifle as their weapon, because as has been stated several times before, it clashes with the thematics of the Ranger itself.

That still doesn’t explain swords or greatswords.

“Modern” steel swords are not hunting weapons, nor are they really old technology (excepting bronze/iron ones that were soft). In order to make such a length of steel that doesn’t shatter or bend out-of-shape on impact requires a high metallurgical understanding, such is only possible in more “developed” societies.

Greatswords are the renaissance era equivalent of carrying a Barret .50 cal. Not much specific documentation about use, but were used to guard bannermen in mercenary groups and sometimes were used for dueling. They aren’t convenient to carry. They aren’t ideal for trekking through the bush. In reality they can’t even be kept in a scabbard to draw quickly; the only way to carry them is with one hand holding it on one’s shoulder. They are purely for war, and like most 2-handed swords were designed in an era where body armor was well-developed (less need of the other hand for a shield), and when forging had reached new heights.

Rangers generally aren’t about being completely at harmony with nature, that’s given to druids. Rangers’ nature-based knowledge and magic places them near nature, but their use of modern technology is what means they are separated from a purely “primitive” style. To contrast, engineers are completely separated from nature but utilize a plethora of modern inventions.

As an aside you also don’t see nature propelling wooden sticks by means of elastic force through animals and people.

You’re missing my point. Rifles marked the end of an era, not only in terms of warfare but also in terms of industry and technology. They came around during a time when Enlightenment was taking baby steps and the era of the Dark Ages was running towards a close. Coincidental, perhaps, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Rifle is the weapon of the new age, one that has little room for Naturalism and the wonders of Nature in favor of science and progress.

I’m just reiterating my earlier point here, but the above is why Core Rangers aren’t given Rifles, because they represent those old-fashioned Values and the Respect for Natural elements in face of an insurmountable wave of new technology and inventions sweeping across civilization.

The difference between a Core Ranger and a Druid is that the Core Ranger is connected to the Naturalist aspect of Nature; basically what you see with your eyes, smell with your nose and feel beneath the sole of your feet; while Druids are connected primarily to the Mythical and Celestial aspects of Nature; the turning of the tides and cycles, the movements of celestial bodies, of life and rebirth. Seriously, Druids only gain a total of 4 Skills connected to Plant-life (Vine Surge, Sublime Conversion, Mystic Seed and Glyph of Alignment), rest are Celestial-based skills.

TheSwede.9512:

Wildfires are a common natural phenomena and they are extremely necessery for the sake of maintaining the status quo in Nature, as it burns down old and possibly dying fauna from which new life can spring (In the most simplest of terms). You don’t see nature suddenly starting to shoot lead everywhere through complicated contraptions made from metal and wood, ignited by naturally existing gunpowder.

The core reason why the Rifle isn’t a staple in the Ranger weaponry is because they represent Industrialization and Progression away from a Hunter-gatherer society towards a Settler society. It is in every way the anti-thesis to what the Ranger is supposed to represent, which is Naturalism and to some extent, Regression back to Nature and the Roots of creation and all that hippie mumbo-jumbo.

Rangers have changed almost nothing from their GW1 Counterpart and I’m fairly certain this is a deliberate move from ANet’s side. They use the same Traps, Spirits, Weapons and Survival Skills in 1328 AE as they did centuries ago, and excel at it. They’re the complete opposite to Engineer, who represents Industrialism and Utilitarian Progressiveness.

Also, the whole “Rifle vs Longbow” as a Hunting weapon thing? Lemme put it this way: The Rifle was designed as a weapon of war (Which is why Warrior has it) and wasn’t adapted for hunting purposes until the more Accurate and reliable Rifles of the 19th century were introduced. Meanwhile, the Bow is the archetypical Hunting weapon alongside the Spear and Skinning Knife, having been around since humanity learned to tie a piece of rope between two ends of a slightly flexible stick. Clearly, the Bow is the better representative for Hunting.

Could there be an Elite Specialization for Ranger that uses Rifle? Oh heck yeah there could be! The whole idea of Elite Specializations is to take the Core Profession and completely flip its theme on its head, and a Rifle would work wonders for that. But Core Ranger will never and should never have a Rifle as their weapon, because as has been stated several times before, it clashes with the thematics of the Ranger itself.

I’d reply but I think King Cephalopod.7942 summed it up quite nicely. Scroll up.

TheSwede.9512:

You’re missing my point. Rifles marked the end of an era, not only in terms of warfare but also in terms of industry and technology. They came around during a time when Enlightenment was taking baby steps and the era of the Dark Ages was running towards a close. Coincidental, perhaps, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Rifle is the weapon of the new age, one that has little room for Naturalism and the wonders of Nature in favor of science and progress.

I’m just reiterating my earlier point here, but the above is why Core Rangers aren’t given Rifles, because they represent those old-fashioned Values and the Respect for Natural elements in face of an insurmountable wave of new technology and inventions sweeping across civilization.

The difference between a Core Ranger and a Druid is that the Core Ranger is connected to the Naturalist aspect of Nature; basically what you see with your eyes, smell with your nose and feel beneath the sole of your feet; while Druids are connected primarily to the Mythical and Celestial aspects of Nature; the turning of the tides and cycles, the movements of celestial bodies, of life and rebirth. Seriously, Druids only gain a total of 4 Skills connected to Plant-life (Vine Surge, Sublime Conversion, Mystic Seed and Glyph of Alignment), rest are Celestial-based skills.

Tangent on swords

hide spoiler

Where did I mention swords and greatswords? I never tried to explain their place among the Ranger’s weaponry, nor did I argue for or against them.

If we’re gonna get into why Rangers use swords, then we’ll have to dig all the way back to the Archetypical Ranger, the Ur-Ranger: Aragorn, of Lord of the Rings Fame. He popularized the idea of a Sword-wielding lonewolf with cool threads, from which countless copies (Including the well-known drow Drizzd Do’urden or however you spell it) sprung up in just about every fantasy setting ever created.
It’s basically the rule of cool.

Gameplay-wise, they needed Melee weapons because the Ranger, as a profession, was designed to be a Skirmisher that could weave in and out of any range with almost seamless fluidity. So it just made sense to go with the one Melee-weapon that is commonly associated with Rangers, namely swords.

I’m not missing anything. Greatswords and long guns (arquebus) were both weapons of the renaissance, as were rapiers (which are exist as skins) and to an extent arming swords. The fact that rangers use modern swords and greatswords (weapons of war) shows that using modern weapons is not against them, so there isn’t a reason for them not to use rifles beyond “because it would be too much effort for the devs to change now besides elite specs”-which I consider a valid reason. It’s not like guns mark the difference between the dark ages and industrial era, they came about in the time in between. It’s also not like they were made in factories on assembly line, they were forged much like anything else back then.

DeanBB.4268:

“Why does this game even have shortbows?”

Because not everything is about maximizing every number. Sometimes it’s just about fun. Or looks. Or some preconceived roleplaying preference. Or any number of other things.

And if eliminating non-maximum/efficient gear was the prevailing mentality, then why doesn’t the game just assign whatever the meta is to each character when it reaches level 80 and make it simple on everyone? Kinda like skills 6+ for Revenant.

Did you not read my opening post? It had nothing to do with eliminating weapons because they’re ‘subpar’, but instead mostly about maximizing class access to legendary bow skins. Because I agree – The game is mostly about looks. So why do we have an almost-useless distinction between weapons (Longbow and Shortbow) that really only exists for a single class (Ranger). Instead of locking out Guardians and Warriors from using The Dreamer and the upcoming Champawat, and preventing Thieves from using Kudzu, I was wondering why not make them all the same weapon? It’s not like there are any differences between the long and shortbow non-legendary skins aside from unnoticable scale differences

… and on the whole “Rangers shouldn’t use Guns” debate… well, one of the most legendary rangers from the Real World strongly disagrees:

King Cephalopod.7942:

I’m not missing anything. Greatswords and long guns (arquebus) were both weapons of the renaissance, as were rapiers (which are exist as skins) and to an extent arming swords. The fact that rangers use modern swords and greatswords (weapons of war) shows that using modern weapons is not against them, so there isn’t a reason for them not to use rifles beyond “because it would be too much effort for the devs to change now besides elite specs”-which I consider a valid reason. It’s not like guns mark the difference between the dark ages and industrial era, they came about in the time in between. It’s also not like they were made in factories on assembly line, they were forged much like anything else back then.

The biggest difference to take into note is that while Greatswords made their advent into Warfare at roughly the same time as the Arquebus, it nonetheless faded into obscurity over time whereas the Rifle prospered and quickly ended up superior through technological advancement. I’m not gonna argue that you’re wrong about the historical impact of Swords, cause you’re not, but I will argue that the Rifle most definitely represents the Industrial evolution of human society much more so than Swords do.

While my previous point only adressed the Thematical issues with giving Core Rangers rifle, that doesn’t mean I believe it to be the only reason. However, it was the subject of which it was argued that they should’ve been given Rifles back when I entered the debate, as such I focused on that aspect alone which may have made it look like I was arguing as if thematic reasons would be the only ones for the lack of Rifles on Core Rangers. While I’d argue that it’s possibly the chief reason, I won’t argue that it’s the only one.

From a Mechanical Point of View, the Rifle wouldn’t add anything to the Ranger that isn’t already covered by the Longbow (Extreme Long Range, Power Damage), Shortbow (Medium-Long Range, Condition Damage) or Axe (Medium Range, Hybrid). From a mechanical stand-point, adding Rifle is quite redundant as it stands now.

In the same vein, the reason that the Ranger has Swords and Greatswords in their weaponry is because they, as I stated above, needed Melee weapons. And thanks to Aragorn and Lord of the Rings (Which basically shaped Fantasy as we know it), Rangers and Swords have proved a favored combination (Even if the Rangers of other settings vary greatly in terms of visualization, thematic focal points and overall design).

If shortbow should be removed because only two professions can us it then mace should follow suit and be removed too.

Or you know, its a reason to put in elitespecs that use a shortbow. And maces.

There is 2 kinds of bow because it is easier to remember that *short*bow have a short range of 900 while *long*bow has a long range of 1200 (or more).
Also during development (until first demo I think) you were rooted while firing longbow. They were supposed to do more damage while losing mobility (like true shot now).

TheSwede.9512:

The biggest difference to take into note is that while Greatswords made their advent into Warfare at roughly the same time as the Arquebus, it nonetheless faded into obscurity over time whereas the Rifle prospered and quickly ended up superior through technological advancement. I’m not gonna argue that you’re wrong about the historical impact of Swords, cause you’re not, but I will argue that the Rifle most definitely represents the Industrial evolution of human society much more so than Swords do.

While my previous point only adressed the Thematical issues with giving Core Rangers rifle, that doesn’t mean I believe it to be the only reason. However, it was the subject of which it was argued that they should’ve been given Rifles back when I entered the debate, as such I focused on that aspect alone which may have made it look like I was arguing as if thematic reasons would be the only ones for the lack of Rifles on Core Rangers. While I’d argue that it’s possibly the chief reason, I won’t argue that it’s the only one.

From a Mechanical Point of View, the Rifle wouldn’t add anything to the Ranger that isn’t already covered by the Longbow (Extreme Long Range, Power Damage), Shortbow (Medium-Long Range, Condition Damage) or Axe (Medium Range, Hybrid). From a mechanical stand-point, adding Rifle is quite redundant as it stands now.

In the same vein, the reason that the Ranger has Swords and Greatswords in their weaponry is because they, as I stated above, needed Melee weapons. And thanks to Aragorn and Lord of the Rings (Which basically shaped Fantasy as we know it), Rangers and Swords have proved a favored combination (Even if the Rangers of other settings vary greatly in terms of visualization, thematic focal points and overall design).

If they were to get rid of shortbow and replace ranger shortbow with rifle (which they shouldn’t), they’d just make it fill the same role. Like how engineer rifle is a mobility weapon while warrior rifle is just ranged power damage. Rifle would take that medium range/condi spot (blunderbuss/scout rifle I guess).

The reason rifles are still around is because they’re nothing like older flintlocks. If you look at bolt-actions onward, yes they’re very industrial. But pre-lever action they were basically just another tool made by a specialist that served a good purpose. What I’m saying is that the only reason rifles seem to represent human industry is because we came about past that age, so when we envision rifles we think of the modern versions. Compared to pre-renaissance those swords and rifles of the era were the pinnacle of human industry. Nobody in renaissance Europe used bronze weapons by choice. In Tyria rifles should be fairly old-ish/antiquated considering we have tanks, giant robots, that monsterous smelter in the Black Citadel, etc. This is not a world where rifles have superseded all else, this is a world where they’re just as effective as any other weapon despite being relatively new. And that you can argue that rangers get swords because Aragorn and mechanics means rifles can’t be denied because modernity. Aragorn used the weapons of his time. GW2 Tyria isn’t Middle-Earth, there are newer toys and shinier metals.

FrizzFreston.5290:

If shortbow should be removed because only two professions can us it then mace should follow suit and be removed too.

Or you know, its a reason to put in elitespecs that use a shortbow. And maces.

Stylistically mace is the one-handed counterpart to the two-handed hammer. Shortbow is the two-handed counterpart to the two-handed longbow. All professions (2+rev) that can use a mainhand mace can also use a hammer. Warrior can also use offhand mace. The only profession that uses both short and longbows is Ranger. It’s not a valid comparison. But I agree it’s too late to undo now, so might as well up the SB user numbers with elite specs.

TheSwede.9512:

Ubi.4136:

If the only reason to not have a ranger use a gun is that it “goes against nature”, than they need to remove our use of torches. Nothing destroys more of “nature” than fire (other than real world humans…and I live where this has happened and it’s not pretty). What “nature conscious” person runs around setting fire to things? (sure, you can use fire to fight fires, but the game doesn’t employ any firefighters that I’ve seen)

Wildfires are a common natural phenomena and they are extremely necessery for the sake of maintaining the status quo in Nature, as it burns down old and possibly dying fauna from which new life can spring (In the most simplest of terms). You don’t see nature suddenly starting to shoot lead everywhere through complicated contraptions made from metal and wood, ignited by naturally existing gunpowder.
%
The core reason why the Rifle isn’t a staple in the Ranger weaponry is because they represent Industrialization and Progression away from a Hunter-gatherer society towards a Settler society. It is in every way the anti-thesis to what the Ranger is supposed to represent, which is Naturalism and to some extent, Regression back to Nature and the Roots of creation and all that hippie mumbo-jumbo.

Rangers have changed almost nothing from their GW1 Counterpart and I’m fairly certain this is a deliberate move from ANet’s side. They use the same Traps, Spirits, Weapons and Survival Skills in 1328 AE as they did centuries ago, and excel at it. They’re the complete opposite to Engineer, who represents Industrialism and Utilitarian Progressiveness.

Also, the whole “Rifle vs Longbow” as a Hunting weapon thing? Lemme put it this way: The Rifle was designed as a weapon of war (Which is why Warrior has it) and wasn’t adapted for hunting purposes until the more Accurate and reliable Rifles of the 19th century were introduced. Meanwhile, the Bow is the archetypical Hunting weapon alongside the Spear and Skinning Knife, having been around since humanity learned to tie a piece of rope between two ends of a slightly flexible stick. Clearly, the Bow is the better representative for Hunting.

Could there be an Elite Specialization for Ranger that uses Rifle? Oh heck yeah there could be! The whole idea of Elite Specializations is to take the Core Profession and completely flip its theme on its head, and a Rifle would work wonders for that. But Core Ranger will never and should never have a Rifle as their weapon, because as has been stated several times before, it clashes with the thematics of the Ranger itself.

Which hunter-gatherer cultures produced steel weapons such as greatswords?

Guns do not represent progression away from hunter gatherer societies toward settler societies because humanity, for the most part, made that move thousands of years before the invention of the gun.

The processes to produce a decent steel weapon such as a greatsword is more technologically advanced, complicated, and generally requiring of a higher tech base than that for producing gunpowder.

We know that early man used the bow to kill animals. We know that early man used the bow to kill other men. We do not precisely know who invented the bow or which of the two was his original intent (or if he made a distinction since every hunting weapon he possessed prior to the bow was used for both). We do know that, as near as we can tell, the bow has been used for both for as long as it has existed.

There is precisely one reason why rangers dont use guns in GW….because the designers wanted it that way. It was an arbitrary decision based on personal preferences, and nothing more. And that is okay. Their game, their decision to make.

Ashen.2907:

There is precisely one reason why rangers dont use guns in GW….because the designers wanted it that way. It was an arbitrary decision based on personal preferences, and nothing more. And that is okay. Their game, their decision to make.

And then they made Charr, which are not only the most awesome fantasy race ever, but also culturally defined by their love of guns. And they made the Charr have a surprisingly close bond with Devourers, but then forbade us from playing characters that emphasized both sides of Charr culture

Oh yeah… and they added “Juvenile Devourers” to be tamed to the game after having all the Charr starting areas talk about how you need to train a devourer from as soon as it hatches and not a moment later. They really should replace those with “Near-hatched Devourer Eggs” for Rangers to use instead.

… at least my Ranger can still use a bazooka for 30 seconds every 5 minutes.

Well first, short bows and long bows did fulfill different combat rolls in medieval warfare so it only makes sense to have both lest there be design conflicts in future class content.

Second, I love the shortbow on the ranger and think it makes for one of the games most underrated condition builds. But the longbow is awesome as well. I’m personally glad that rangers have both and would love to see the LB on the thief.

The one I really question is the scepter and mace, which are literally the exact same thing, save one is meant for practical use and the other to be decorative. And then the focus, which is… apparently… anything you can fit in one hand that doesn’t fall under the other weapon classes.

Oh man, you’d be really upset with the number of bow types in the first game.

PopeUrban.2578:

Oh man, you’d be really upset with the number of bow types in the first game.

If I remember, in the first game every class could use almost any weapon (Even if it requires subclassing), making my complaint against the distinction between bows (Identical skins until Legendary) irrelevant.

Sartharina.3542:

PopeUrban.2578:

Oh man, you’d be really upset with the number of bow types in the first game.

If I remember, in the first game every class could use almost any weapon (Even if it requires subclassing), making my complaint against the distinction between bows (Identical skins until Legendary) irrelevant.

Good news then. Apperantly, elite specs replaced subclassing, so at some point in the future every class will be able to use every weapon in this game too. You’ll have to take it on faith the game will be around for 10+ expansions though.

On a serious note, shotbow/longbow is a distinction in range, and the lack of difference between skins is down to arenanet getting lazy on weapon skins after launch. I don’t see any more reason to merge shrtbow and longbow than to merge mace and sword. They have varying skillsets and avaliability. I’d in stead wonder why there are so many lazy shortbow skins that look identical to longbow skins.

Sarrs.4831:

Idk if you want to swap out shortbows with something I’d say swap them with crossbows.

Personally I actually really like that there’s a distinction between longbows and shortbows because they’re very different weapons.

yeh actually is good to have crossbow :p for the caster – light armor user

I like my short bow. And I like my longbow. Not entirely convinced a crossbow would be “ranger” style – and they’re a pig to reload; you shoot one short range bolt and wham, the slightly scratched elite champion veteran turbo nutter kitten is all over you like a bad smell.

Although, in game terms, the weapon would magically reload.

King Cephalopod.7942:

FrizzFreston.5290:

If shortbow should be removed because only two professions can us it then mace should follow suit and be removed too.

Or you know, its a reason to put in elitespecs that use a shortbow. And maces.

Stylistically mace is the one-handed counterpart to the two-handed hammer. Shortbow is the two-handed counterpart to the two-handed longbow. All professions (2+rev) that can use a mainhand mace can also use a hammer. Warrior can also use offhand mace. The only profession that uses both short and longbows is Ranger. It’s not a valid comparison. But I agree it’s too late to undo now, so might as well up the SB user numbers with elite specs.

I was being sarcastic. Removing any weapon because only x profession use it is a silly argument. It would mean introducing any new types of weapon would need to be used by multiple professions to be “good”. Uniqueness and originality are not something to be shunned in any game.

DeceiverX.8361:

I never understood why shortbows are even a class of weapons in games. There is no such thing as a “shortbow.” It’s a small bow, and the only time this mattered was if the person was on a mount. Frankly, proficiency with one is the same as the other. Unlike swords, there were no effective classifications. Cultures used different lengths of bows for different military approaches. Never in history has there been a distinction between a shortbow and a longbow.

Why they never implemented the crossbow is beyond me. It’s one of history’s best ranged weapons and a staple weapon among the rogue-like classes going all the way back to the early days of Dungeons and Dragons.

Are you serious? Never in history there was a distinction between longbows and shortbows? The distinction was present in the past and still is today. You had to train years and years to be able to use a longbow at the maximum power, and it was used when big armies were fighting from long distances (english archers devastated every enemy army they fought with them). Shortbows where used by mounted archers (asians and eastern europeans mostly) or during skirmishes. Long and short bows were completely different weapons.

You ask why anet never implemented crossbows? well, they had a little bit longer range than a longbow, but in the time a crossbowman reloaded his weapon, an archer could have planted 5-6 arrows in his chest. Crossbows were really slow weapons, and in battle, every crossbowman needed another man to protect him with a large shield when reloading his weapon. So why should crossbows be used in this game when there are already pistols and rifles?