Guild Wars 2

Can we please get this right? I feel a topic dedicated to this is in order.

People keep pointing at the name and thinking “See? They shoot stuff!” when that is obviously not what they actually are, currently and in the past.

The only game I can currently think of that treats ‘Range-r’ with the definition of ‘Horizontal Distance of a Projectile-r’ is probably the Final Fantasy JRPGs where they were literally the best users of bows and guns…but they still aimed to capture the nature side of the theme as well.

But I feel JRPGs are in the minority when depicting rangers as the concept is western to begin with.

…so post your sources, your beliefs about what this concept is and how that translates to GW2.

My opinion is as follows:
Ranger is a guy who wanders around wilderness. He may be protecting some area or just passing through who knows. Rangers prefer the life of solitude mostly since they are in their element while they are in the wilderness. They travel light so they carry only what they need = what is usefull. Some rangers that would come to my mind would be Aragorn from lord of the rings and rangers from books of R.A.Salvatore (the serie that has the book “demon awakens” or something like that. Have not red the english version of those books)

In Guild Wars 2 I would say that the feel of the ranger fits to my description. (ofcource since I’m writing…) traitlines are named after skills you might need in wilderness.

Marksmanship: explains itself. If you need to hunt or fight some hostiles it is good to know how to strike from afar.
Skrimishing: you should be able to defend yourself in close range aswell since missed ahot might mean that your enemy (be it wolf or bandit) gets too close.
Naturw magic: you are going to spend lots of time in the wilderness so you might get attuned with nature and spirits thus the wilderness is with you and not against you.
Wilderness survival: if wilderness is not with you you dont have a problem.
Beastmastery: you dont need to be alone all the time since you can commune with the animals.

I wont say anything about the traits since I dont know them all…

Even the weapons ranger uses are good picks in my opinion. Why no pistols and rifles? They need maintanence more than a sword or bow (I think…). If you run out of ammo you would have to go to city to buy more. Arrows could be crafted with some skills without the.need to leave wilderness. Swords can break but broken sword can still be dangerous and sharp. Broken rifle is pretty useless unless you use it as a club… Which will probably just brake it more.

Would like to write more but writing with phone is tireing. So sorry for typos and bad english if there was some. All of this is my opinion ofcource so feel free to disagree or agree with me.

For me a ranger is a scout/commando. The fantasy version of SAS or special-ops. They should be proficient in various weapons, both ranged and melee, they should have survival and camouflage skills, be able to blend into various environments. They should be able to operate solo, know how to use terrain, set traps and ambushes.

Not sure where the notion of pets came from. This seems to be a hang-on from D&D rangers that were warrior/druids with some nature type spells.

bri.2359:

For me a ranger is a scout/commando. The fantasy version of SAS or special-ops. They should be proficient in various weapons, both ranged and melee, they should have survival and camouflage skills, be able to blend into various environments. They should be able to operate solo, know how to use terrain, set traps and ambushes.

Not sure where the notion of pets came from. This seems to be a hang-on from D&D rangers that were warrior/druids with some nature type spells.

Well I think you’d have to pinpoint a reference to your belief. You say the pets are a hang-on from D&D and that’s sort of a reference to why they are like they are.

Again, picking on FF, the Ranger was the typical archer as very few other jobs could use bows but they also used axes, daggers and a few other melee weapons (along with guns/balls/whatever the heck those crazies at SquareEnix will fling through the air). They also tended to be the ‘fastest’ shooters as they tended to be the ones with ‘Rapid Fire’ skills.

FF also has another job called Beastmasters which are basically what some would consider Rangers here…except Beastmasters didn’t use bows/guns and weren’t proficient in any sort of ranged combat. They used axes (single and two-handed) and charmed monsters to fight for them.

…and then you had another job called Geomancers which used what we’d call ‘nature magic’ as their magical abilities were affected by terrain…they also had some randomish side benefit of being able to watch out for traps because they could sense terrain, I guess.

Maybe I’m not giving enough credit to posters around here, but I have a feeling people are expecting the Final Fantasy Ranger when they looked up this class when, in essence, that is only a fraction of what a Ranger is and was.

I’ve never really been a fan of Ranger in other fantasy games (although I dabbled a lot in any sort of summoner/beast taming class), so I can’t express what I was expecting when looking to the profession.

Well, one thing people should understand is that rangers are not “the” archers. For that there should be a profession called “Marksman” or simply “Archer”. Rangers are basically “Warriors of the wilds” I would consider them as the counterpart of the paladins which are the “Warriors of the order” or holy warriors. Now if you consider the classic AD&D rules, rangers should indeed be as tough or close to what we call "fighter class " and when paladins come with powerful offensive and defensive abilities, rangers should come with more tactical abilities like a fearsome pet, poisons, stealth, traps and long range weaponry to initiate combat and when things get up close and personal, they use their dual wielding swords or greatsword or any of the “martial” weapon kits. Now, we know that in an mmorpg especially a dynamic one such as GW2, tactics and preparations are hard to implement. So what I suggest is that rangers get buffed furthermore to match the toughness of warriors and guardians in certain areas (considering pets too), because hey, GW2 was supposed to give you the opportunity to build your class they way you see fit and for that you need some backbone to rely on.

Leo G.4501:

Well I think you’d have to pinpoint a reference to your belief. You say the pets are a hang-on from D&D and that’s sort of a reference to why they are like they are.

Dungeons & Dragons (1974–1976)
The ranger was introduced in The Strategic Review Volume 1, Number 2.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition (1977–1988)
The ranger was one of the standard character classes available in the original Player’s Handbook.⁵ The first edition rangers were a subtype of the fighters,⁶ using any weapon and wearing any armor.
High level rangers gained followers, ranging in type and power from classed player character races, to such fantastic creatures as pegasus mounts, pseudodragons and werebears, and even to copper dragons and storm giants.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition (1989–1999)
The ranger, as part of the “warrior” group, was one of the standard character classes available in the second edition
High level rangers also gained followers, which could include various woodland animals, mythical creatures (like the treant, pegasus, and pixie), or even classed characters like druids, clerics, or other rangers (presumably low-level rangers wishing to train under a more experienced one).

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition (2000–2007)
The nature of the ranger’s companions also changed significantly. Instead of gaining multiple followers the ranger gains a single animal companion, and at an earlier level than in previous editions.

Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition (2008–)
The Martial Power supplement introduces the Beast Mastery alternate class feature which replaces Fighting Style and Prime Shot and gives the ranger a beast companion.

Is that reference enough??

Dirus.8941:

Well, one thing people should understand is that rangers are not “the” archers. For that there should be a profession called “Marksman” or simply “Archer”. Rangers are basically “Warriors of the wilds” I would consider them as the counterpart of the paladins which are the “Warriors of the order” or holy warriors. Now if you consider the classic AD&D rules, rangers should indeed be as tough or close to what we call "fighter class " and when paladins come with powerful offensive and defensive abilities, rangers should come with more tactical abilities like a fearsome pet, poisons, stealth, traps and long range weaponry to initiate combat and when things get up close and personal, they use their dual wielding swords or greatsword or any of the “martial” weapon kits. Now, we know that in an mmorpg especially a dynamic one such as GW2, tactics and preparations are hard to implement. So what I suggest is that rangers get buffed furthermore to match the toughness of warriors and guardians in certain areas (considering pets too), because hey, GW2 was supposed to give you the opportunity to build your class they way you see fit and for that you need some backbone to rely on.

I’m so sick of this definition. I’ dont want another melee class with “fancy” name ranger. We have thiefs, warriors, guardians and absurdly clother GS melee (mesmer). We need archer, real one (e.g. Demon Hunter from Diablo). I don’t need useless pets and kittenty dps (because I would be “OP” with good dps and pets). Remove pets and improve ranger’s (archer’s) DPS. Or make last trait in BM trait line that you can tame and use pets, but have to sacrifice massive DPS from other trait lines. Basically, that you can’t have decent ranger’s dps and pets at same time.
But if you all so inlove with these “amazing” pets, give them 75% resistance to aoe dmg, 50% resistance to direct BOSS dmg. Is it hard to code that pets would have diferrent stats in dungeons and open world.
PVP… hmmm… I can’t say anything about this, never been in wvw or pvp. And actually, I hate pvp. All profession balancing problems is because of pvp. If ranger would do decent dps in dungeon, he would be OP in pvp because of range abilities and etc. I was allways curious how hard would be have dual spells like press 1 and shoot pve mob for X dmg (e.g. 1000 dmg) or another player for Y dmg (e.g. 200 dmg).

Please, make ranger more like archer but not like another melee with less survivability, dps and utilities than warrior.

Dirus.8941:

Well, one thing people should understand is that rangers are not “the” archers. For that there should be a profession called “Marksman” or simply “Archer”. Rangers are basically “Warriors of the wilds” I would consider them as the counterpart of the paladins which are the “Warriors of the order” or holy warriors. Now if you consider the classic AD&D rules, rangers should indeed be as tough or close to what we call "fighter class " and when paladins come with powerful offensive and defensive abilities, rangers should come with more tactical abilities like a fearsome pet, poisons, stealth, traps and long range weaponry to initiate combat and when things get up close and personal, they use their dual wielding swords or greatsword or any of the “martial” weapon kits. Now, we know that in an mmorpg especially a dynamic one such as GW2, tactics and preparations are hard to implement. So what I suggest is that rangers get buffed furthermore to match the toughness of warriors and guardians in certain areas (considering pets too), because hey, GW2 was supposed to give you the opportunity to build your class they way you see fit and for that you need some backbone to rely on.

Well said.. spot on.. every word!

I would love to see the Ranger skills adjusted to be more in line with this definition. The Ranger should have a great deal of versatility to make up for the durability that’s lost in the fact that they don’t wear heavy armor. I do believe this was the intent on design with things like traps and some of the skills the class has, the problem is the skills either fall short of other classes or just don’t work right.

I actually believe the GW2 Ranger is just a few tweaks away as opposed to requiring a complete re-work.

Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.
Also watch the “state of the game” video where the devs say “Rangers are our long range masters and potent skirmishers”
I think the fact that they are described by Arenanet as unparalleled masters of long range archery is where players get the idea the Ranger in this game shoots stuff and shooting stuff was part if not the focus of the classes effectiveness.
Its why I rolled initially. When I felt like playing a class that had good skills with mele weapons I rolled a war and gaurd to try em out.

The term Ranger, as is known in fantasy books and games, was first created in the French and Indian War, by a man named Robert Rogers. He created a company that came to be known as the Rogers Rangers; “a rapidly deployable light infantry force tasked mainly with reconnaissance, as well as conducting special operations, against distant targets”. Robert Rogers was inspired by indian warfare, and used his knowledge of nature to survive, while traveling across long distances. Unlike other soldiers at that time, he change his company’s uniform to dark green and browns, to better blend in with the forest. He also used a musket with a cut down barrel, to allow for better movement in between trees.

You can read more about Robert Rogers and his company here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rogers_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers'_Rangers

Or just watch this 6 part video (it really starts of at part 3): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvspXmia6bQ

As I already posted,

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/A-Brief-Look-into-The-Ranger-Class/first#post1718105

bri.2359:

Is that reference enough??

Well, it’s A reference…or a collection of related references.

Bembis.8957:

Please, make ranger more like archer but not like another melee with less survivability, dps and utilities than warrior.

Well the profession you want in this game is Warrior.

There aren’t any ‘Archers’ in the game because that implies they only use bows (i.e. archery) and with the way the game is implemented, your weapon choice determines your skills and capabilities. You can’t have a profession with only 10 maximum possible skills where that is the minimum available skills for other professions.

As ‘archers’ Warrior accomplishes the feel of powerful attacks but they trade off flexibility and utility for their ranged prowess.

bigsal.7061:

Also watch the “state of the game” video where the devs say “Rangers are our long range masters and potent skirmishers”

Did you listen to their other ‘descriptions’ of professions? It felt like they were scrambling to think up words throughout the portions involving the professions (although the parts about leaderboards or whatever seemed to flow quite well).

Kasama.8941:

-snip-

Nice reference.

I think another point about defining the Ranger might also have some answers to helping them as well….but to also shape expectations so one isn’t trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, so to speak.

Uh – Chuck Norris!!!!!! Nuf said.

@Bembis.8957

Well my friend, I don’t know where to start … but here we go: First of all, GW2 is about the flexibility of classes, meaning you don’t pick a class to be the classic stereotype for it, you can pick one and be tanky or DPS, you can also be an archer, condition damage dealer, healer, etc. So far many of the classes allows you to pick most of these specs’ for it and play it successful. You are saying you like archery, that’s good, not only the game gives you 2 bow types, but also 3 classes (if I am not mistaken) ready and able to use at least one of them. On the other hand you say you don’t like or don’t need fancy pets to do the DPS for you, that’s ok too, but you see, it seems that your problem is the class choice, maybe you should try out the warrior or thief with some ranged combat you might find it to your liking. And as far as PVP is concerned, GW2 tends to be a game that highly encourages this aspect and if you don’t like it well … Anyway I don’t want to be rough, it does seem that ranger is kind of screwed at the moment, but maybe in some future patches things will get even for all weapon type lovers.

Really? Do we seriously need another thread on this?

I mean, I guess if there are still people out there that think rangers are a ranged exclusive class just because the word “range” is in their name, then I guess so. That being said, this is a myth that’s been busted to hell.

Yes, the word “ranger” is a derivative of the word “range”, but that’s because it’s regarding a person who watches over a range of area and has nothing to do with using a ranged weapon.

Look, just read what this guy posted and let’s be done with this thread:
http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=174432

Finally someone who knows and appreciate this class, thanks Dahkeus.8243 you made my night!