Guild Wars 2

i need some guns!!!!!!!!!! Gotta roll with my bear and shot gun…

We don’t need any guns! And i would pay with gems not to implement any of them! Ranger is not meant to use any either, go play thief u have plenty of styles to play with guns! Close this topic!

Guns don’t fit the ranger theme. Sorry to disagree with you.

I think rifle fits ranger. Pistols do not.

Firelysm.4967:

We don’t need any guns! And i would pay with gems not to implement any of them! Ranger is not meant to use any either, go play thief u have plenty of styles to play with guns! Close this topic!

Are you for real?

I definitely want to be able to use a rifle, as a ranger. I think it’s more than appropriate. Sorry, but creating a ranger in this game doesn’t involve religiously subscribing to this untouchable “ranger theme” cult as some of you might like. What are you people even talking about?
Where in your totally made-up Ranger Code of Conduct does it state a requirement to swear off firearms? Why should one kind of ranged killing machine, made of wood and string, be more “acceptable” than another kind, made of wood and metal?

“Ranger” is a profession, like any other — not a philosophy for luddites. You know Tyria has tanks, flying machines, and robots, right? If you don’t want to use guns, no one is going to force you.

The problem is the introduction of guns(and all of those tanks, robots, etc. you mentioned) into the game in the first place. There was no need for it, and it creates an odd oxymoronic situation with different technologies/crafts/philosophies all existing in the same time period.

It’s like ANet wanted to appeal to the steampunk and techno-magic crowd, while still somehow having the simple “D&D” setting remain relevant. Traveling to each of the capitals you feel like you are using Asuran “time” gates, every city is in a different time period. :/

GW2’s Ranger class is the result of ANet’s desire to keep some of those “classical D&D style elements” in the game. I doubt they will let them have rifles.

Fyrebrand.4859:

Are you for real?

“Ranger” is a profession, like any other — not a philosophy for luddites. You know Tyria has tanks, flying machines, and robots, right? If you don’t want to use guns, no one is going to force you.

I totally agree with Obsidian.1328!
ArenaNet designed class Ranger, and they gave them, you won’t believe a bow!
If you like guns, you have plenty of options engineer, warrior, thief they all have ability to use them. Even thief, lost their original way of having daggers.. and gave them a gun, but that’s ok i don’t mind it let them have it, but they almost sound like a pirate aren’t they?…

YES ! Fyrebrand let’s give every one a gun and rifle, let’s turn this game into first personal shooter game.. this is what we all want right? Let’s play Guild of Duty yeah!-.-

WTF?

Rangers might get a crossbow in the future, but surely no guns of any type.

Oh this discussion again, and I don’t have any popcorn

I couldn’t care less if they introduced it or not to be honest, I wouldn’t use it if they did, wouldn’t cry if they didn’t (goes for rifles and crossbows).

Have to say one thing though, the whole pointless “shaman druids vs modern hunters” discussion is quite entertaining (more the fact that the same argument is iterated so many times), so please keep up

Obsidian.1328:

The problem is the introduction of guns(and all of those tanks, robots, etc. you mentioned) into the game in the first place. There was no need for it, and it creates an odd oxymoronic situation with different technologies/crafts/philosophies all existing in the same time period.

The thing is, when someone asks for Rangers to use guns, they’re really just asking for the profession to fit the setting of the game and make use of weapons that are completely appropriate in terms of both lore and game mechanics. There is no rational reason to decry or snub such a change, and to do so is to make references to an invisible rulebook that apparently only you can see.

If you feel that strongly against the use of guns in a fantasy setting, you are playing the wrong game — and your issue isn’t specific to Rangers. Why is it okay for a warrior, or a thief? I don’t know what personality you have arbitrarily ascribed to those professions in your mind, but don’t go telling me that a perfectly available and widespread weapon doesn’t suit my character, especially when my character leans heavily toward ranged combat.

Sorry you feel Tyria is an “oxymoronic situation” — and maybe it is. I agree that it is jam-packed with anachronisms, and conflicting technologies that would seem to render each other obsolete in many instances. If anything, maybe Rangers should only use guns, and everyone should leave bows behind. You may have to be technically-minded to design and build a gun, but it’s definitely not a requirement to use one.

Obsidian.1328:

It’s like ANet wanted to appeal to the steampunk and techno-magic crowd, while still somehow having the simple “D&D” setting remain relevant. Traveling to each of the capitals you feel like you are using Asuran “time” gates, every city is in a different time period. :/

GW2’s Ranger class is the result of ANet’s desire to keep some of those “classical D&D style elements” in the game. I doubt they will let them have rifles.

All of that must sound very insightful and incisive to some people, but it has no grounding in evidence. Those Asura Gates link different races, not different professions. Every race can choose any profession. Even the Asura and Charr, the most technologically-advanced cultures in Tyria, can be Rangers. If you don’t agree with this, then your beef is with ArenaNet’s handling of racial restrictions in general, and not with Rangers having guns. Heck, World of Warcraft gave Hunters guns — and that setting was about as technologically advanced as Tyria (maybe even less).

Imagine this scenario:

Charr Warrior: “Hey, I noticed you tend to favour a ranged style of combat. Why stick to that flimsy bow all the time? Ever think of trying a rifle, like a real Charr?”
Charr Ranger: “No way! That would shatter my classical D&D style elements!”
Charr Thief: “Ha ha, what a dork. Now be quiet. I’m trying to fire a subtle barrage of STEALTH bullets from my booming STEALTH pistols!”

There are inconsistencies and anachronisms in this game. We are going to have to deal with it. Picking this one profession to forcibly stagnate in some medieval time capsule isn’t doing anyone any favours, and it’s not in service of the setting ArenaNet has written (as opposed to the secret one you say they were really trying to write).

ranger needs staff and spirit spamming like an old fashioned ritalist ahahahahh and rifle, why not?

Fyrebrand.4859:

Firelysm.4967:

We don’t need any guns! And i would pay with gems not to implement any of them! Ranger is not meant to use any either, go play thief u have plenty of styles to play with guns! Close this topic!

Are you for real?

I definitely want to be able to use a rifle, as a ranger. I think it’s more than appropriate. Sorry, but creating a ranger in this game doesn’t involve religiously subscribing to this untouchable “ranger theme” cult as some of you might like. What are you people even talking about?
Where in your totally made-up Ranger Code of Conduct does it state a requirement to swear off firearms? Why should one kind of ranged killing machine, made of wood and string, be more “acceptable” than another kind, made of wood and metal?

“Ranger” is a profession, like any other — not a philosophy for luddites. You know Tyria has tanks, flying machines, and robots, right? If you don’t want to use guns, no one is going to force you.

Yeah I don’t know why people think Rangers are suppose to be like Aragorn or from D&D, I wouldn’t mind having the ability to use rifle an pistols I think it would be pretty cool shooting some lead around.

Here’s the webster definition of Ranger: 1) Forest Ranger 2) one of a body of armed guards who patrol a region. 3) a soldier trained for making surprise raids.

The easiest explanation why a Ranger wouldn’t use guns is because Rangers are supposed to be self-sufficient, capable of living out in the wild for extended periods of time without assistance.
If you run out of arrows you could make some more yourself, but you’re not going to be able to make more gunpowder for a gun.

Fyrebrand

Erm…I think you took my post the wrong way. I didn’t say I like Rangers not having guns, I just think ANet won’t change it. If it were up to me, the ranged options should reflect the setting. And even though the GW2 setting is all over the place in terms of tech advancement, rangers should probably be allowed to use rifles like others can.

I’m not sure why you mentioned the Asura gates, I never hinted at them being class-links instead of race-links. I merely said they each tend to reflect time-periods that are incongruent with one another, and not slightly but heavily. The different settings gives ANet a lot of breathing room when it comes to profession design and mechanics. I mean, if the races can be all over the map in terms of advancement, why can’t the professions too?

Syx

If anything, the modern ranger is probably the closest thing we got to a good representation of midieval archetypes. The webster definition describes forest rangers. The thing is, not every class does that. Modern warriors and thieves use guns almost exclusively. Engineers use computers and tools…so this one is halfway there. Guardians, Necro’s, and Ele’s don’t exist. Mezmers…Megan Fox clones? Making the link to modern counterparts doesn’t make sense in a game that is not, well, modern…or real for that matter.

Anyway, my whole point is since the game doesn’t ascribe to any one particular fantasy context, but rather to many, ANet has all sorts of leeway with sticking certain professions into certain stereotypes. Even if it doesn’t really make all that much sense.

-Ok lets RP a bit Thief sit in shadows waiting to kill target, after a while target shows….so thief finally pull out hes weapon and BAAAAAAAAAANG!!!!! kills the target alerting every guard around so thief is running for hes life
-Or
Thief sit in shadows waiting to kill target, after a while target shows….so thief finally pull out hes weapon and….guards feel only soft wind breeze, target is dead with arrow in the head while thief is long gone by the time guards even know what happened

-So please don’t say thief is more suitable for gun than ranger <.< or do you imagine your thief to be from wild west period? tho i think they did use knifes back then <.<

I see no reason for any class not to have access to firearms.

Once I found the Charr Helicopter I really quit caring about tech immersion. And for that matter, my Ranger keeps a 200mm mortar in a backpack so really, what justification would I have to tell a Ranger they can’t have a musket?

gimmethegepgun.1284:

The easiest explanation why a Ranger wouldn’t use guns is because Rangers are supposed to be self-sufficient, capable of living out in the wild for extended periods of time without assistance.
If you run out of arrows you could make some more yourself, but you’re not going to be able to make more gunpowder for a gun.

Like the fur trappers did, in 1700s North America.. oh wait.. they had Flintlocks. And the bow using Native Americans gladly traded for same as soon as they could.
If you play the RL cards, check your deck please.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

gimmethegepgun.1284:

The easiest explanation why a Ranger wouldn’t use guns is because Rangers are supposed to be self-sufficient, capable of living out in the wild for extended periods of time without assistance.
If you run out of arrows you could make some more yourself, but you’re not going to be able to make more gunpowder for a gun.

Like the fur trappers did, in 1700s North America.. oh wait.. they had Flintlocks. And the bow using Native Americans gladly traded for same as soon as they could.
If you play the RL cards, check your deck please.

Yes, and those same rangers were cleaving people in half with greatswords.
Wait, no they weren’t.
It’s not a realism argument, it’s an archetype. And the archetype is being wholly self-sufficient with no real need to rejoin civilization, which you couldn’t accomplish with a gun unless you owned a saltpeter mine and a sulfur field.

-So wait a second….it is ok for ranger to use short bow, long bow, torch, dagger, 1H sword, axe (more like a boomerang <.<) and greatsword, BUT do not ever never ever use gun or rifle? Please explain why would Ranger who can use all those weapons fail at using gun or rifle?

Rangers can use the most weapons am I right? Why not give them the whole shebagn, rifles, pistols, hammers, mace…make em weapons experts too. That would be kind of neat.

-Mesmer can use gun but ranger can’t….oh the irony lol….GW2 is really neat with caster using melee weapons and all that, but they limited some common sense stuff…

Disig.7169:

Rangers can use the most weapons am I right? Why not give them the whole shebagn, rifles, pistols, hammers, mace…make em weapons experts too. That would be kind of neat.

No, Warriors have the most weapon options.

gimmethegepgun.1284:

Disig.7169:

Rangers can use the most weapons am I right? Why not give them the whole shebagn, rifles, pistols, hammers, mace…make em weapons experts too. That would be kind of neat.

No, Warriors have the most weapon options.

Oh? Well I just made a warrior so lol, guess I didn’t catch on to that!