Guild Wars 2

In the trailer you can clearly see a guardian unarmed doing some acrobatics to grab and toss away an ally from danger (when the dragon come AND spit fire, after the engineer part ) … So some type of monk, lets just hope have offensive meaning too, or another defensive tree that we dont need :/

I would really like to know if there is something more than just a fancy name about those specializations… because if you get new weapon, skills and some traits, it doesn’t mean it’s any different, there should be something what makes the druid different from ranger, a reason not to specialize… otherwise they could just add new weapon and skills without a need to call it specialization… specialization implies you get something in a trade for something else so I expect more than just unlocked 1 weapon, few skills and few traits…

MaXi.3642:

I would really like to know if there is something more than just a fancy name about those specializations… because if you get new weapon, skills and some traits, it doesn’t mean it’s any different, there should be something what makes the druid different from ranger, a reason not to specialize… otherwise they could just add new weapon and skills without a need to call it specialization… specialization implies you get something in a trade for something else so I expect more than just unlocked 1 weapon, few skills and few traits…

Colin hinted that the profession mechanic undergoes some changes if you specialize.
I would have to rewatch the video, it was something about Druids not relying on pets the same way Rangers do…

MaXi.3642:

I would really like to know if there is something more than just a fancy name about those specializations… because if you get new weapon, skills and some traits, it doesn’t mean it’s any different, there should be something what makes the druid different from ranger, a reason not to specialize… otherwise they could just add new weapon and skills without a need to call it specialization… specialization implies you get something in a trade for something else so I expect more than just unlocked 1 weapon, few skills and few traits…

it probably means that in ther future we’ll get new specializations and you can pick 1 to spec for, which means if you want skills X you can’t pick weapon Y.

—
As for the quote that says every class gets 1 new weapon, that doesn’t rule out a MH pistol for mesmers since it wouldn’t be a new weapon, they’d just learn how to use it differently.

You’ll also have to consider the PvP balancing nightmare that comes with just one specialization/weapon per existing profession AND a whole new profession. The amount of work to ensure everything stays in (relative) balance is HUGE. And it grows exponentially every time you add something more.

I really don’t envy the task of those responsible for balance for the classes and all the new toys they’ll get in the x-pac.

according to description on HoT page, I would rather agree with Maxwell, so I hope it will change the class mechanic, this would open more options and also change the way both ranger and druid play even if they share many parts

Tom Gore.4035:

I really don’t envy the task of those responsible for balance for the classes and all the new toys they’ll get in the x-pac.

And the kitten storm they might receive, when players fidured out the meta and the “new OP thing”.

@Topic:
I’d like to see it work with a new trait line, that replaces another trait line. So that with one spezialization there are technically already 2 specializations: The base setup and the specialization setup^^.

DeceiverX.8361:

Which makes me inclined to believe that there will need to be more than one specialization available to each class, otherwise it’s either just a straight-up upgrade or alternative, which could have also just been defined by adding in new traits and allowing for the existing classes to get new weapon options with no additional layer of complexity.

If you think about it some more, specialization instead of “just adding in new traits” does make perfect sense. By calling it specialization, they get the chance to do something they wouldn’t be able to with just new traits/utilities/weapons: They can (and from the sound of it will) restrict the combinations of traits, utilities and weapon(s) within a class to a subset of all things available to that class, thus giving them more freedom to add new things.

With specializations, they are able to make traits for a class that, if used together, would synergize to something totally imbalanced, but assign each of the traits to a single specialization. This way, players have two (hopefully useful) overlaping trait sets to choose, but won’t be able to combine them at will to create a balancing nightmare. It will be much easier going forward to introduce new weapons, traits and utilities to classes by introducing new specializations that conveniently restrict the class from those already available ones that would combine in unintended ways with the new abilities.

Personally, I see this as a welcome way to expand on the existing classes while at the same time keeping a lid on power creep and class/skill bloat.

Am I the only one who thinks Rytlock’s “polearm” might actually be the hammer, “The Punisher” http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Punisher

I hate to be the downer, but I think they are just giving different classes new weapons already in game.( with the new mastery skills)

Yay sword for ele! I can use my Fiery Dragon sword on her and have, more fire weapons!

Tom Gore.4035:

I really don’t envy the task of those responsible for balance for the classes and all the new toys they’ll get in the x-pac.

I’m more concerned about the players, in particular the non-pvp players. I’ll hold of with fully gearing my Revenant for a while. Else I run the risk of getting a fun build and than have everything nerfed into oblivion because pvp. And unlike pvp I can’t just hobble over to a vendor and get a free everything.

UnDeadFun.5824:

Am I the only one who thinks Rytlock’s “polearm” might actually be the hammer, “The Punisher” http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Punisher

I hate to be the downer, but I think they are just giving different classes new weapons already in game.( with the new mastery skills)

Not the same weapon (trailer has pointy end and 4 crossed spikes), but could be along those lines. Personally I think it is a new staff skin. Would love to see the staff used as a melee weapon.

The animations and the sound certainly don’t appear to support the “spear” theory though. It is being wielded as a blunt weapon. If it were a spear it should be using a piercing animation.

Astralporing.1957:

i see no attunement effects

Minor note: the attunement effects only appear when weapons are drawn. She never does that. While it would be good for clarity, not having the attunements visible does make sense.

As an aside, does she even have an offhand weapon? I’m looking at the linked video, and it doesn’t seem like it. There’s a part that kinda looks like one, but that’s a part of her pants. I know only one weapon is a conjurer thing, but that’s doesn’t make much sense when applied to actual gear.

Astralporing.1957:

You see ele with sword and dagger, i see no attunement effects, so i guess it is just a double sword mesmer (the second weapon is not so clearly visible, and can just be a differently skinned sword – there are some with short blades).

Assuming that she is an elementalist, there’s no way you’d see attunement effects. They don’t persist for more than a handful of seconds after stowing a weapon, and we never see her with it drawn.

That said, I looked more closely at the video and embarassingly enough, it turns out that she doesn’t wield an off-hand at all. The ‘dagger’ was actually an optical illusion caused by the skirt.

Even so, I would still take it as evidence, because the general appearance of incarnate armour is far more consistent with elementalist than with mesmer. But it’s not as much as I originally thought.

EDIT: Silly Fenrina, didn’t you know that it’s forbidden to ninja my posts? :P

from a new interview at mmorpg, this should clarify some of the guessing on how specs will work

<<<<<MMORPG: You compared specializations to secondary professions from Guild Wars. Would I be a ranger/druid in the same way I might have been a warrior/elementalist? Can I use powers from both, or do I press a button to switch from being a ranger to being a druid?

CJ: When you are a druid, you have the capacity to use powers that a ranger cannot use, but while you’re a druid, you can still take advantage of the abilities that a ranger has available to it and use those to mix and match. There are some key fundamental differences [from GW secondary classes], but the concept is very similar.

MMORPG: That’s a one-time thing, correct? I’m a ranger, I do my stuff and bam, I’m a druid, I can use druid powers?

CJ: Correct, and then you can swap back and forth, you can say “My character’s a druid, but I’m going to play as a ranger today.” It’s very similar to changing out your skills and traits, you can go in and change whenever you want, as long as you’re out of combat.>>>>>

My favourite so far is the druid. I’ve been wanting something like that pretty much since the game first released. The elementalist with a sword could also be interesting, though they kind of already have ‘specialisations’ and melee ones at that with conjured weapons.

Really curious to see what guardians will get. They already have melee. They already have magic. They already have ranged. The only thing they don’t have is firearms.

evilunderling.9265:

Astralporing.1957:

You see ele with sword and dagger, i see no attunement effects, so i guess it is just a double sword mesmer (the second weapon is not so clearly visible, and can just be a differently skinned sword – there are some with short blades).

Assuming that she is an elementalist, there’s no way you’d see attunement effects. They don’t persist for more than a handful of seconds after stowing a weapon, and we never see her with it drawn.

That said, I looked more closely at the video and embarassingly enough, it turns out that she doesn’t wield an off-hand at all. The ‘dagger’ was actually an optical illusion caused by the skirt.

Even so, I would still take it as evidence, because the general appearance of incarnate armour is far more consistent with elementalist than with mesmer. But it’s not as much as I originally thought.

EDIT: Silly Fenrina, didn’t you know that it’s forbidden to ninja my posts? :P

Replying just to add picture confirming no-offhand-girl.

Edit. Added two more pictures. Look how Rytlock carries his “staff”. It is on his back while he has sword on his hip… and how he uses it as melee weapon.

Aedros.1439:

from a new interview at mmorpg, this should clarify some of the guessing on how specs will work

Well that’s a bit confusing. Druid has everything Ranger has, but you can switch back if you want? Why would you ever switch back if Druid has everything Ranger has, but with added options? Or did they not mean to imply they have access to literally everything?

I mean, once there are more Specializations that would be fine, but right now that seems like a really odd thing to point out if that’s what they meant.

1. For people still confused, I think it’s all easier to digest if you think of the current versions of each profession as Spec#1, and the HoT versions as Spec#2. It’s not so much additional abilities, as it is different abilities. The HoT specs will likely excel at what the current specs fail at most. For example, the mesmer currently fails at fighting multiple targets, (especially short-lived ones), and the chronomancer spec looks to excel at (literally) dropping whole groups of mobs.
2. As for polearms and other new weapon types, they allegedly said no, if you trust the Redditors who were at the after-party. However, they hinted that the artists have been designing polearm look-a-likes, which could possibly be melee-themed skins for staves. That would be a much more elegant solution than introducing a whole new weapon type to the economy, so kudos if they’re actually doing it.

Warrior > Vanguard > Spear ……………….

Just to continue the discussion here I saw someone post on their thoughts and they came up with the fact that each trait line can lead to a spec..now would you like a profession to have 5 specs in total?

Also interview for the confirmation for one spec at this time
http://www.shacknews.com/article/87848/guild-wars-2-director-discusses-heart-of-thorns-revenants-guild-halls-and-more

Jokubas.4265:

Aedros.1439:

from a new interview at mmorpg, this should clarify some of the guessing on how specs will work

Well that’s a bit confusing. Druid has everything Ranger has, but you can switch back if you want? Why would you ever switch back if Druid has everything Ranger has, but with added options? Or did they not mean to imply they have access to literally everything?

I mean, once there are more Specializations that would be fine, but right now that seems like a really odd thing to point out if that’s what they meant.

From what I read out of that MMORPG.com interview
Specs work by granting unique abilities to the class while locking out SOME of the parent class abilities.

So a Druid and Ranger will share some skills together, but some skills that a ranger has will not be available to the Druid and vice verse.
That’s what make them unique but still part of the same.

Also mechanics suppose to change as well in some way.

Example below:

So if Rangers have 12 skills in all
And the Druid has 12 skills in all
Then maybe 6 of those skills are both shared between both meaning each class only has 6 unique skills.
Making the parent class have a total of 18 skills all together between specs.
(Numbers made up)

Gulesave.5073:

1. For people still confused, I think it’s all easier to digest if you think of the current versions of each profession as Spec#1, and the HoT versions as Spec#2. It’s not so much additional abilities, as it is different abilities. The HoT specs will likely excel at what the current specs fail at most. For example, the mesmer currently fails at fighting multiple targets, (especially short-lived ones), and the chronomancer spec looks to excel at (literally) dropping whole groups of mobs.
2. As for polearms and other new weapon types, they explicitly said “no” in the Massively interview. However, they hinted that the artists have been designing polearm-like skins, which could possibly be for staves used in melee. This is a much more elegant solution than introducing a whole new weapon type to the economy, so kudos if they’re actually doing it.

Where did they say no to new weapon types?

Also new Spear like skins for Staffs would be meaningless when you consider the way the Wardrobe system works, as well as the fact that many non-spear like staffs would be made.
So how would a Melee staff Revenant look with one of the magic themed staffs in e game’s wardrobe?

Knighthonor.4061:

Gulesave.5073:

1. For people still confused, I think it’s all easier to digest if you think of the current versions of each profession as Spec#1, and the HoT versions as Spec#2. It’s not so much additional abilities, as it is different abilities. The HoT specs will likely excel at what the current specs fail at most. For example, the mesmer currently fails at fighting multiple targets, (especially short-lived ones), and the chronomancer spec looks to excel at (literally) dropping whole groups of mobs.
2. As for polearms and other new weapon types, they explicitly said “no” in the Massively interview. However, they hinted that the artists have been designing polearm-like skins, which could possibly be for staves used in melee. This is a much more elegant solution than introducing a whole new weapon type to the economy, so kudos if they’re actually doing it.

Where did they say no to new weapon types?

Also new Spear like skins for Staffs would be meaningless when you consider the way the Wardrobe system works, as well as the fact that many non-spear like staffs would be made.
So how would a Melee staff Revenant look with one of the magic themed staffs in e game’s wardrobe?

On the first point, I was wrong to say it was a Massively interview. That was my memory being bad. The info is second hand and off the record, coming from someone who spoke to Colin at the after-party. It’s in the first post on this Reddit thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/2tk5t2/woodenpotatoes_expansion_confirmed_heart_of/

Feel free to take that source with a grain of salt, but also don’t assume that it being off the record means we will have spears. As for using non-stabby staff skins to beat people with: who cares? Most of the staves still look like they would hurt to get smacked with, as much as most of the other weapons in the game. Who am I to tell people what they can and can’t use as a beating stick?

Gulesave.5073:

1. For people still confused, I think it’s all easier to digest if you think of the current versions of each profession as Spec#1, and the HoT versions as Spec#2. It’s not so much additional abilities, as it is different abilities.

Well, that’s what I assumed at first, but the MMORPG.com interview is worded as to imply the Ranger is locked out of Druid stuff, but the Druid isn’t locked out of Ranger stuff. It could easily just be vague wording though.

Just to continue the discussion here I saw someone post on their thoughts and they came up with the fact that each trait line can lead to a spec..now would you like a profession to have 5 specs in total?

Well, they aren’t going to right now. Personally, I much prefer how it looks like it’s going to be. Each new Specialization is a new idea, not tied down to something current. We don’t have very many details, but just consider the idea of the Ranger getting a Staff all on its own. That will not be affected by any current Traits, thus can easily do something divergent from what’s currently established. That’s much more exciting to me than a finite checklist tied down to the initial class ideas.

As for using non-stabby staff skins to beat people with: who cares? Most of the staves still look like they would hurt to get smacked with, as much as most of the other weapons in the game. Who am I to tell people what they can and can’t use as a beating stick?

I care, because the whole idea of weapon types and weapon skills in Guild Wars 2 was so that each weapon type can feel distinct and echo how different weapons might be different from each other in real life, instead of an overarching set of abilities you slap enemies with no matter what you’re wielding.

That’s not to say I wouldn’t accept some compromises, but this isn’t one of them. I wouldn’t mind swords getting axe skins, because with the abilities I’m used to using, the difference between them isn’t that important. A staff and a spear though? They may both involve poles, but they’re nothing alike. Staves tend to channel magic, or used in martial arts as a blunt weapon at the very least. Spears and polearms are weapons of war wielded by soldiers to stab or chop. Certainly some of the existing staff skins look like they’d be brutal to be smacked by, but they’re distinct concepts.

Not to mention, there’s still a lot of potential for more weapon types and skills just thinking logically, without even having to start getting creative. I don’t want to see the game starting to merge disparate weapon types before it even does obvious ones.

If each profession is only given one specialization to choose then this make it obvious choice. Anet will probably add more specializations in the future along with the ability to switch in between those specs (I hope).

To enable hammer for my engi do i need to sacrifice my mechanic (toolbelt) and some traits?

guildabd.6529:

To enable hammer for my engi do i need to sacrifice my mechanic (toolbelt) and some traits?

You’re going to sacrifice something, we just don’t know yet what that something actually is. From what’s been said so far, it seems like you get a new weapon, and they remove one. New traits, and they remove some old ones. And new skills, while some are removed. It’s suppose to be like a trade-off from what I’ve read, and isn’t suppose to outshine the core class by having everything it has plus more.

guildabd.6529:

To enable hammer for my engi do i need to sacrifice my mechanic (toolbelt) and some traits?

Yes very probably instead having turrets to use as utility i suspect you will get these small hover bots we see in the picture instead same with belts.

To clarify if you chose to specializing it will lock most probably lock some of your old traits, utility and weapon choices, but will unlock an entirely new set of traits, utility and add one new weapon previously not usable by your class.

changing up your play style drastically

Just saying that an offhand mesmer weapon (shield) would be pretty lackluster (considering mes already has 4 offhands and only 2 mainhands). Don’t be surprised if the classes that get a 1-handed weapon unlock may get 2 weapons at once (1 main, 1 off).

Would also mean mesmer gets 2 new weapon skills where as others, ranger and friends get 5. That’s pretty uneven.

I’m thinking mesmer mace. Cause mace is pretty underutilized.

Bubi.7942:

Just saying that an offhand mesmer weapon (shield) would be pretty lackluster (considering mes already has 4 offhands and only 2 mainhands). Don’t be surprised if the classes that get a 1-handed weapon unlock may get 2 weapons at once (1 main, 1 off).

Would also mean mesmer gets 2 new weapon skills where as others, ranger and friends get 5. That’s pretty uneven.

I’m thinking mesmer mace. Cause mace is pretty underutilized.

Thats actually a good point. If one class gets a two hander weapon, they get 5 skills. That would mean to even it out that a class that gets an offhand item would also have to get a main hand weapon too, so that they get a total of 5 skills too.

Not necessarily even if there only give a new off hand weapon that they could not normally use the first 3 skill on the main hand weapon will also be change to new ones.

I don’t see the part where the devs suggest you lose abilities when taking up a specialization.

When you are a druid, you have the capacity to use powers that a ranger cannot use, but while you’re a druid, you can still take advantage of the abilities that a ranger has available to it and use those to mix and match.

This part seems clear to me. Druid is specialization, adds skills that the base profession cannot use. But it can use the skills from the base profession.

Correct, and then you can swap back and forth, you can say “My character’s a druid, but I’m going to play as a ranger today.” It’s very similar to changing out your skills and traits, you can go in and change whenever you want, as long as you’re out of combat.

This quote muddies the waters again. But can really be read several ways, and if you assume the devs do not have an alternate example (or don’t want to give one) of a specialization for Rangers, it makes more sense aswell.

Here’s a thought that came to me.

Back in GW1, when you selected a secondary profession you now had access to all the skills of that profession. (This gave the player access to ~7 traitlines of both professions.) In order to really make skills powerful, you had to distribute “attribute points” into select traitlines.

So lets say your a Ranger/Mesmer and wanted to have a strong pet and have strong “illusions” from the Mesmer secondary. You would distribute those attribute points into Beastmastery and Illusion traitlines. Making those skills more powerful.

So if we take a similar idea here in GW2 and the new “Specializations”, I see each profession getting a new Traitline based on the specialization. But because ANet said that these specializations would grant a new “class mechanic”, I see this new traitline as being mutually exclusive to an existing traitline.

For instance, the Ranger/Druid would have a new traitline called “Druid”. But that traitline would be tied to Beastmastery, in that enabling one would disable the other.

So if a player wanted to be a druid, they would select the Druid traitline and still have access to Nature Magic, Wilderness Survival, Skirmishing, and Markmenship. (5 total traitlines) If they went back to Ranger, they would have access to BeastMastery again, but NOT the new Druid traitline.

And so as new “specializations” get added, they would be new traitlines that would lock out existing traitlines. At any given time, the player could only distribute points in 5 traitlines. (as it is now). Thus no need to raise the level of the class.

This is what I think it might be like.

After reading the Reddit about the afterparty, i’m a bit disapointed in this. I mean if you’re specializing you should have a choice where to specialize, i mean if not its just, like some one said, a extra “spec” or just extra skills that you’ll have available, not a actual specialization as we know them from other games.
To specialize means you have to forgo some things to focus on others, with just one specialization (at least if that’s confirmed) it won’t feel like a specialization at all. Just extra skills.
I really hope they get time to crunch at least a second specialization per profession to give it an actual meaning.

I’m a bit iffy on the specialization system from what little we have. It seems all or nothing which is kinda boring if a person isn’t interested in a new specialization. Alternatively, if a person doesn’t like the tradeoffs (I play ele because of the attunements, if a spec removes attunements, but unlocks a weapon I like… I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place.) I hope it turns a 2-phase system where getting a spec unlocks some stuff (like the weapon) and going into the specialization proper turns that up to 11.

Terrahero.9358:

I don’t see the part where the devs suggest you lose abilities when taking up a specialization.

[….]

Correct, and then you can swap back and forth, you can say “My character’s a druid, but I’m going to play as a ranger today.” It’s very similar to changing out your skills and traits, you can go in and change whenever you want, as long as you’re out of combat.

This quote muddies the waters again. But can really be read several ways, and if you assume the devs do not have an alternate example (or don’t want to give one) of a specialization for Rangers, it makes more sense aswell.

I think it’s a mix of quotes like that one and like this one:

and they get new profession mechanics that fundamentally change the way a Ranger plays when they become a Druid

Whatever that ultimately means.

Edit:

EDIT: Silly Fenrina, didn’t you know that it’s forbidden to ninja my posts? :P

I specialize in the forbidden.

Fenrina.2954:

I’m a bit iffy on the specialization system from what little we have. It seems all or nothing which is kinda boring if a person isn’t interested in a new specialization.

Doesn’t seem so. They said that we’d be able to “revert” back to the base class whenever we wanted, and implied that in some circumstances we might want that. That doesn’t sound like a specialization that only adds to the base class, without taking anything away. As i understand, in effect we will have two specializations per class – one we already have (the “base”), and a new one. And we’ll get new specializations later on in future xpacs.

Fenrina.2954:

I play ele because of the attunements, if a spec removes attunements, but unlocks a weapon I like… I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place.

LOL

Why would they remove attunements? That makes no sense haha

Astralporing.1957:

Fenrina.2954:

I’m a bit iffy on the specialization system from what little we have. It seems all or nothing which is kinda boring if a person isn’t interested in a new specialization.

Doesn’t seem so. They said that we’d be able to “revert” back to the base class whenever we wanted, and implied that in some circumstances we might want that.

I’m not sure what that has to do with that. If a person doesn’t like the specialization added and never uses it, they get nothing out of this system. There doesn’t seem to be any reason for that person to get excited about the change. Maybe there will be a new spec in the future that the person would get excited about. Maybe not.

shadowpass.4236:

Why would they remove attunements? That makes no sense haha

I’m referring to the whole “fundamentally change the way” a class plays. Big changes may not be desirable for what a given player wants.

has nobody thought that they may add NEW weapons to the game ?
necro/warriors with scythes seems realistic.
maybe some of the caster classes loose ‘weapons’ entirely and just cast, with a dual wield ‘focus’ of some form.
Polearms /spears seem a no brainer since they already allow us those for underwater combat, but does that mean they may just cross over some of these skills ?

ALSO,
has anybody thought about how ‘flying’ might impact fighting, are they going to let us do both at the same time? because that opens up a whole new can of worms.

joeag.1862:

has nobody thought that they may add NEW weapons to the game ?

Actually, people were hoping spears were going to be added as a land weapon. Pretty sure it’s been confirmed that there aren’t any new weapons this time around.

Fenrina.2954:

Astralporing.1957:

Fenrina.2954:

I’m a bit iffy on the specialization system from what little we have. It seems all or nothing which is kinda boring if a person isn’t interested in a new specialization.

Doesn’t seem so. They said that we’d be able to “revert” back to the base class whenever we wanted, and implied that in some circumstances we might want that.

I’m not sure what that has to do with that. If a person doesn’t like the specialization added and never uses it, they get nothing out of this system. There doesn’t seem to be any reason for that person to get excited about the change. Maybe there will be a new spec in the future that the person would get excited about. Maybe not.

But isn’t that the same as not liking a base class? The way I read what little info we have on specializations, they actually sound like new classes that have a lot of overlap with the old ones, with the added benefit of being able to switch between the two on the fly. You not liking the specialization and sticking to the old class would be no different to me not liking thief class but going into the new specialization full-time instead.

Every class gets the added possibility to play as one of two (supposedly distinct … see mention of new traits and even class mechanics) different specs. Whether you play just one of them, or both, or none at all (because you prefer other classes in this game) is your own choice, but doesn’t detract from the fact that we will have 9 classes with two distinct playstyles each available when the expansion hits.

x Charlie.4820:

Snowball.3497:

Medium:

• Thief – Uses a rifle (proof)

This isn’t proof. I think a lot of people are forgetting that engineers use rifles and are medium armour.

Also he has some sort of flying machines tagging along with him, so I’m betting that was an engineer.

Fenrina.2954:

Astralporing.1957:

Fenrina.2954:

I’m a bit iffy on the specialization system from what little we have. It seems all or nothing which is kinda boring if a person isn’t interested in a new specialization.

Doesn’t seem so. They said that we’d be able to “revert” back to the base class whenever we wanted, and implied that in some circumstances we might want that.

I’m not sure what that has to do with that. If a person doesn’t like the specialization added and never uses it, they get nothing out of this system.

That’s true, but that would be true with two new specializations as well. If someone already says that they are not interested in the specialization (when we don’t really know anything about them yet), then having more of them is not going to change anything.

Has anyone though about the reason someone would prefer ranger to druid is because they are different instead of druid being better?
I mean druid may get access to Staff but loose the ability to use Greatsword or Longbow?
they get 1 ellite, 1 healing, some utility but loose too 1 ellite and 1 healing and some utility?
That would made perfect sense why its called specialization, you can keep being a ranger or change to druid, but that doesn t mean the druid is better, it is simply different and has a different role!
They always talked about specialization not upgrade!

I think within druid they will add more sustain and group support to the ranger. That class is seriously lacking that abilities.
However i’m not convinced with this new system.

Wanderer.3248:

x Charlie.4820:

Snowball.3497:

Medium:

• Thief – Uses a rifle (proof)

This isn’t proof. I think a lot of people are forgetting that engineers use rifles and are medium armour.

Also he has some sort of flying machines tagging along with him, so I’m betting that was an engineer.

I’m sorry to tell you this but that is not the same character as the one we are talking about your talking about the one wilding the hammer with hover drones following him. they are totally different characters. and i will explain why i believe the character we are talking about is in fact a thief not an engineer.

1. We know the engineers new specializations lets them wilding a hammer in this trailer with the drones buzzing around him so are there two very different engineers in this trail?

2. If that is indeed a engineer in the picture ,Anet have some funny ideas as to what a engineers should look like considering they put the hammer wilding engineer in the scene before in magitech armor http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Magitech_Medium_Armor_Skin with is a perfect fit for any engineer but are we really suspected to believe they filmed a different engineer in the same trailer wilding a guild sharp shot rifle http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Guild_Sharp_Shot.jpg and totally different armour? Which im all most 99% certain is Heritage armour. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Heritage_armor_

why would they go to all the trouble to have two totally different looking engineers in different equipment in the same trailer? I could understand if it was showing of new armour we can unlock in the maagma jungle but its not. Unless this is not an engineer but in fact is a thief wilding a rifle.

3. we know from the interveiw with Colin Johanson http://www.shacknews.com/article/87848/guild-wars-2-director-discusses-heart-of-thorns-revenants-guild-halls-and-more

Quote:
Each of the professions will be getting one of these Specializations and this also is a framework that we’ll use to grow the professions in the future. This will be the way we add more skills, traits, and abilities to the game moving forward. That’s how we’re growing our existing professions.

all profession at the launch of heart or thorns will be getting one specification and accesses to one weapon that chosen profession could not not use with out specializing first.
we already know the rangers specialization the Druid which unlocks the staff weapon.
we also know that the engineers new specialization even if we don’t yet know the name will give the engineer accesses to the hammer.
so from this we know that the character in this picture https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/179455/gw2_new.jpg can’t be a ranger but there is a very slim chance it could be a classic engineer kitted out in different gear with i doubt.

4.
If this readdit post http://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/2tk5t2/woodenpotatoes_expansion_confirmed_heart_of/ is in fact true it give us yet more informant about the trailer.

Quote:
Only combos he would confirm was ranger and necro weapons already shown. Though he hinted at looking closely at the trailer for others.

Colin Johanson here seam to hint at the likelihood that there are other specializations in the trailer with would also mean they are very probably wilding weapons not native to there profession. Like the engineer with its hammer which was never confirmed as a specialization but is the only open it can be because of all the other info we know.

The mesmer http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu274/grayskull8/mesmer_zps1bca34a4.png with her shield and this character which most believe to be a elementalist http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu274/grayskull8/ele_zps1d40b664.png with a main hand sward.
Would it not then make perfect scene to hide all the NEW specializations in the trailer kind of like a ester egg i know if i was designing a trailer i would hide them in the back ground with out pointing them out and see if people could spot them.

5. Final point If you where designing new specification for all the professions would you not wan’t to use all the weapons in game? what i mean here is give each profession a different weapon they could not normally use one per profession.
Why would you give two profession the use say the staff other give each profession there own new weapon perversely unusable by them, make scene right?

So to me its clear all of those points make me believe wholeheartedly this is indeed a thief wilding a rifle we are looking at which is super exciting, sniper profession =D

But its really is up to your if you chose to believe or not.

Only time will tell.

After looking throw the trailer once more i fount this little Gem i misted.

This picture shows both the megitech armoured engineer and the Heritage armour wearing other characters on the same screen, so are we really saying these are both engineers in different armour in the same party why?
Do thief’s not get any screen time in this entire trailer seams fair right, or are thief in this trailer but hidden behind a specialization?

So, I’m wondering if they’ll let party members see specializations. Right now when a Ranger joins my group, I know they are a Ranger. With specializations, will I know for example, if the person is a Druid, or straight Ranger? My initial thought is that I won’t, but am wondering.

Invictus.1503:

So, I’m wondering if they’ll let party members see specializations. Right now when a Ranger joins my group, I know they are a Ranger. With specializations, will I know for example, if the person is a Druid, or straight Ranger? My initial thought is that I won’t, but am wondering.

The way Colin talked about it, it sounds like your specialization has a large impact on how you play. The phrasing seemed to indicate that your class name itself would change, so at the very least I would expect some updated labels and icons.