Guild Wars 2

Let’s not beat around the bush. As far as PvE is concerned, Ranger is the weakest class all around, bringing ok utility to others, which is over shadowed almost completly by their complete reliance on pets which account for a massive chunk of their damage, and even when payed attention to carefully, die constantly destroying our damage in its entirety (not to mention they can’t hit moving targets).

Do you think rangers will ever be fixed? Or is this just a pipe dream? I mean, it’s common knowledge what the problem is, even among the other classes, but I doubt a-net will ever say, give a no pet option considering its a class mechanic. It’d be like having a no initiative option for Thieves, or a no adrena~ oh wait, warriors have incentives in their traits for not having adrenaline…

None the less! do you see a fix coming ever? Or will ranger always be on the bottom of the totem pole for group viability?

Also, Pyre Fierceshot didn’t need a pet.

Why should I need one?!

This post is so last December. Ranger is in the current meta fastest dungeon runs as well as a top tPvP profession.

First, and I hate to say this, but rangers aren’t totally unviable. Currently, it is a case of doing it right or wrong. If you aren’t wearing A ) Rabid/Carrion/Rampager gear B ) Apoth/Settler gear then you are doing it wrong. The only viable ranger spec is condi damage atm because our pet (like you said) actually cuts into our damage output (unlike any of the other professions specific class mechanic, ours actually hinders us) making all power based builds innately weak. The issue with this in PvE is the condition cap. What many people don’t know is that the person with the highest condition damage takes priority, so if you are going (what I call) full glass condition damage, then you should be able to deal full dps. You just may override anyone who isn’t when caps are hit.

Honestly, no. I don’t see rangers ever getting the fix we need to bring power builds up to par with any other profession due to two obvious directions the ranger is being pushed in.
1) Anet seems to want us to stack vuln consistently to make up for our lower damage skills. The issue with this solution (not fully implemented yet due to many bugs and weak skills) is that it takes time to apply these stacks of vulnerability, and in that time we have to deal with our enemy. So we start off behind and try to play catch up the entire fight.

2) Anet wants pets to be a critical role of the profession. The problem here is that pets aren’t customizable whatsoever. They inflict fairly weak power based damage and some moderate damage on long cast time/cooldown skills. Very few conditions are on most of their skills, and the damaging conditions they do have are terribly weak because all pets start with 0 condition damage. If only we had more compact traits that gave us more control over how we wanted our pets to be used.

In conclusion, no, I don’t think you will see any significant ranger buffs not because Anet doesn’t want ranger on par, but because of their interpretation of how to get their is flawed (at least from all previous patch notes, maybe they will shock us with a radical redesign).

Not until huge numbers of rangers leave the game, which is hard to ascertain given that this game doesn’t have a subscription fee. It’s what it took for the developers of that other game who thought people would be willing to play a target dummy class forever to wake up. When hundreds of thousands of hunters left that game because of the same exact BS Anet is pulling on us they finally wised up. I am one of them, and I will never buy another product from that company because of this and their utter lack of respect for the time I invested in that game. Ditto for Anet and NCSoft unless they clean up their act.

I didn’t know they weren’t viable. Perhaps it’s best not to care about people not admitting you into their parties-good riddance. No one needs players in their group who will look down on you because of personal bias against your Profession of choice.

In short, it’s a community issue. The well-played Ranger does wonders either solo or in a group, regardless of metas and what elitists would tell you.

Ranger’s are already viable in many game types but large scale fights, particularly ones found in WvW, are not at all a game type suited for the way a Ranger functions. This is largely in part due to how the profession was designed, not just simply iffy skills.

I talk more about it and more here;
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Comprehensive-Ranger-Suggestions/first#post2550550

So many conflicting opinions!
(Ranger viable/not viable, and in X situation but not Y and vice-versa)

Putting any lackluster pet mechanics aside—*as a Ranger player myself, I can testify to being ‘viable’ both in WvW group battles and WvW 1v1, and some 2v1 encounters.*

WvW Group Battles
On several occasions, after arriving at a group battle in its beginning stages and unleashing the Ranger abilities on the enemy group, it has forced them into retreat, soon followed by their complete defeat as we pursued.

WvW 1v1/2v1 Battles
Obviously the success of any fight depends on the skill of your opponent(s), and their own unique build and so many other factors—having said that, I have defeated members of every class, and I believe they were at least of average or better skilled in a 1v1/2v1 situation (whereby I was against 2)

There are some players out there with some awesome gear (stats), a build suited to their play style and some neat skills. If you go up against these kinds of players, either in 1v1 or in group battles, you’ll likely get trounced unless you and your group are similarly outfitted.

Anyway, after getting your kitten kicked, it’s easy to come to forums and suggest that X class isn’t viable. There are so many factors and areas one can tweak to tip the scales in one’s favour.

Having said all this, I guess what some people want is to have a greater freedom of choice in creating ‘viable’ builds.

i swear, if i had a penny for every post like this one, i would be dam rich. the profession is fine, you depend on ur pet and ur pet on u and thats supposed to be. if u cant handle that delete ur ranger and re-roll a warrior and use longbow… done.

Regardless of your personal opinion of the class and what may or may not be flawed about it, we currently have a number of builds that are a part of the meta for both dungeons and pvp. That certainly fits my definition of viable.

Indoles, add carrion, rampager, and valkryie to your list of viable armor sets. Yes, rampager too.

Yeah, seeing a lot of varying opinions on the subject here, and in other threads. Some say good, some say bad, some are middle, some say broke.

I think that no matter what ArenaNet does to the Ranger, at this point, players will continue to say “it’s not viable”. Sure the Ranger is not the best overall profession right now, but it’s defiantly not bottom tier. Condition and bunker builds have always been great with the Ranger, and recently, direct damage and spirit builds have become viable again. The Ranger is actually in a really good spot right now.

I wanted preparations and traps, with bows and melee. We got “condition beastmaster, or gtfo.” I hold no hope left for the ranger ever being what it could have (should have?) been.

In MMO’s, the worth of a class is measured by what they bring to a group and how they bring it. Fact is, that even though there’s no reason to kick a ranger out of a group for anything, what they bring is of no real value because other classes bring much of the same, only better.

Part of the problem is no one can nail down just what this class SHOULD do. Another part of the problem is how disorganized the traits are. And a lot of the problem is how boring and shallow the class is.

As for things improving? Not that we’ve seen yet… the changes this class gets seems entirely random at times (shortbow nerf, longbow buffs, remorseless trait) and have limited/no real value overall.

no, rangers wont be viable until a new expansion comes. Thats simple:
The actual meta is full conditions, and ranger condition build is totality nerfed, why will you use a ranger having a necro? no sense.

Why you dont see “power” ranger? easy, to make dmg with a power build you need to be glass cannon. And only thief can go glass cannon (stealth). That is why mesmers, warriors, rangers cant be in the new meta.

PD: A thief with bow does more dmg than ranger with bow, WTF? please give ranger the “blink” skill on thief bows. thanks.

someone will say: But rangers are in the meta as invaders. Well, i dont call this a ranger, its just a warrior with pet.
This game makes me laugh, rangers full melee, warriors and thiefs with bows, elementalist full melee with d/d. rly, this game needs a full new dev team.

stale.9785:

I wanted preparations and traps, with bows and melee. We got “condition beastmaster, or gtfo.” I hold no hope left for the ranger ever being what it could have (should have?) been.

This. I suppose there are what? One or two decent builds for each aspect of the game? If you don’t like spirits you’re sol.

Apex.9518:

no, rangers wont be viable until a new expansion comes. Thats simple:
The actual meta is full conditions, and ranger condition build is totality nerfed, why will you use a ranger having a necro? no sense.

Why you dont see “power” ranger? easy, to make dmg with a power build you need to be glass cannon. And only thief can go glass cannon (stealth). That is why mesmers, warriors, rangers cant be in the new meta.

PD: A thief with bow does more dmg than ranger with bow, WTF? please give ranger the “blink” skill on thief bows. thanks.

There will be no expansion, a-net has said this.

And yeah, is a tad odd that Thief bow is better than Ranger bow. I imagine Thief will only pull further ahead if the rumors are true and they get a Rifle as a weapon, and the Ranger gets a staff (since a-net has said no guns or pistols for rangers).

As was said, Ranger plays like a Warrior with a pet, and honestly, has more fun melee weapons itself. How does this make sense?

Namica.2951:

There will be no expansion, a-net has said this.

That’s bending the truth. Take another look at what they actually said.

Chopps.5047:

Indoles, add carrion, rampager, and valkryie to your list of viable armor sets. Yes, rampager too.

Already had carrion, forgot rampager (so many armor stats types now it is hard to remember them all), don’t agree with valkyrie. Valkyrie makes a ranger almost viable. If you are running a power build, it is probably the best armor you can equip (mixed with some knights or pvt ofc).

Define Viable.

I’m doing everything wrong as defined by those here who apparently consider themselves the authorities on how to play, but I do just fine. I’ve never impaired my group and am often more capable than those who appear to follow the common view. I will accept that I don’t necessarily do as much damage, so maybe the fight takes longer, but seriously, so kittening what? I don’t speed run. I find the very idea to be bull. I want to run the content because I enjoy the content, not to get the reward at the end and move on. What matters is that we succeed, consistently and on the first try.

I don’t, however, PvP nor WvW. I’m not good at it, so even in the “best” build I’m likely to be unviable because I just don’t do it well.

So please, define viable. It just makes life a lot easier to know what page someone is on.

Kal Spiro.9745:

Define Viable.

I’m doing everything wrong as defined by those here who apparently consider themselves the authorities on how to play, but I do just fine. I’ve never impaired my group and am often more capable than those who appear to follow the common view. I will accept that I don’t necessarily do as much damage, so maybe the fight takes longer, but seriously, so kittening what? I don’t speed run. I find the very idea to be bull. I want to run the content because I enjoy the content, not to get the reward at the end and move on. What matters is that we succeed, consistently and on the first try.

I don’t, however, PvP nor WvW. I’m not good at it, so even in the “best” build I’m likely to be unviable because I just don’t do it well.

So please, define viable. It just makes life a lot easier to know what page someone is on.

If they replaced you with any other class would they miss anything besides your wit and humor? Would they have done better without you assuming similar gear and skill level?

From certain perspectives the class is viable, I went out the other night with a guildy ranger and the two of us had fun in an area battling thieves and other rangers, won some lost some.

From other perspectives like Zerg WvWvW stuff, or keep taking, our viability is sub par. Zerg’s our pets die to fast with all the aoe around, we can’t hit things up on the walls we should be able to. Heck in Zerg’s we die to fast, but atleast have an option of staying out of the thick if it with ranged, even if hampered by a dead pet.

I still believe the best ranger is a warrior with a bow.

Atherakhia.4086:

Kal Spiro.9745:

Define Viable.

I’m doing everything wrong as defined by those here who apparently consider themselves the authorities on how to play, but I do just fine. I’ve never impaired my group and am often more capable than those who appear to follow the common view. I will accept that I don’t necessarily do as much damage, so maybe the fight takes longer, but seriously, so kittening what? I don’t speed run. I find the very idea to be bull. I want to run the content because I enjoy the content, not to get the reward at the end and move on. What matters is that we succeed, consistently and on the first try.

I don’t, however, PvP nor WvW. I’m not good at it, so even in the “best” build I’m likely to be unviable because I just don’t do it well.

So please, define viable. It just makes life a lot easier to know what page someone is on.

If they replaced you with any other class would they miss anything besides your wit and humor? Would they have done better without you assuming similar gear and skill level?

So your definition of viable:
Adjective
Capable of working successfully; feasible

is Optimal:
Adjective
Best or most favorable

Which is the problem I have had with MMO players since Everquest.

If I changed out any of the people in the group with a Ranger, or any other class, of equal skill, I do not feel the outcome would have changed. The outcome being success without a wipe. So, in that regard, no I don’t think it would have made a difference if I were replaced either.

I pray for the day Anet fires the current balance team. I also pray for the day they give us the option to give the pet up and use preparations.

I’m tired of them balancing around spvp and the inefficient ignant npc AI that we are forced to have (and our damage is split with).

Bottom line: get rid of that pet (a la perma-stow) and I will be a lot more viable as a ranger regardless of my build.

Atherakhia.4086:

In MMO’s, the worth of a class is measured by what they bring to a group and how they bring it. Fact is, that even though there’s no reason to kick a ranger out of a group for anything, what they bring is of no real value because other classes bring much of the same, only better.

Part of the problem is no one can nail down just what this class SHOULD do. Another part of the problem is how disorganized the traits are. And a lot of the problem is how boring and shallow the class is.

As for things improving? Not that we’ve seen yet… the changes this class gets seems entirely random at times (shortbow nerf, longbow buffs, remorseless trait) and have limited/no real value overall.

Rangers bring FANTASTIC single target dps. We have ok aoe.

For dungeons, spotter and frost spirit turns you into a warrior banner. More importantly you’re a warrior banner that STACKS with warrior banners. Meaning a ranger and a warrior is higher group dps than a couple warriors. You also turn a 5 man party into a 6 man party. 6 sources of dps > 5 sources of dps.

Rangers are being brought more and more in to team comps in pvp because of spirits as well. Group protection is huge, as is group burning. Spirit of the sun basically turns your whole team into dhuumfire necros.

Don’t forget we also still have the BEST water field in the game. It hasn’t been nerfed. It’s a huge bonus to your team in every aspect of the game.

All this whining every couple of weeks about ranger not being viable. If u think ranger is not viable, go play a “viable” class. Think ranger now is in a much better situation than a year ago. I play this “unviable” class every day and I can do everything with it. This ranger not being viable issue is really getting boring.

Chopps.5047:

This post is so last December. Ranger is in the current meta fastest dungeon runs as well as a top tPvP profession.

The first time I have to agree with you.
One exception: rangers are forced into defensive condition builds (BM/Spirits) and Power rangers are in most cases useless in high level tPvP (although a lot of fun in sPvP)

Ranger are so viable. However one thing we lack is a role in alot of the content. This does not mean we are not viable. I would take 5 ranger over 5 of any class for any dungeon.

Guardians are expected to fill a certain role in a dungeon run get two Guardians and you start to feel it ( not in a good way).

A bad ranger can ruin a run more than any other class. I think this is why we get a bad wrap. Sadly there are alot of bad rangers out there. The main cause is not controlling your pet. Pet death isnt so much of an issue as poor pet management.

Most of those who feel utter disspear are those who can’t or don’t effectivly manage thier pet.

The class is viable. However a bad ranger can turn the simpliest content into a nightmare.

Chopps.5047:

This post is so last December. Ranger is in the current meta fastest dungeon runs as well as a top tPvP profession.

To be fair Ranger is a top TPvP preofession because top PvP players seem to have a melt down and forget everything they know about the game if they have to deal with any kind of pet.

Kal Spiro.9745:

Atherakhia.4086:

Kal Spiro.9745:

Define Viable.

I’m doing everything wrong as defined by those here who apparently consider themselves the authorities on how to play, but I do just fine. I’ve never impaired my group and am often more capable than those who appear to follow the common view. I will accept that I don’t necessarily do as much damage, so maybe the fight takes longer, but seriously, so kittening what? I don’t speed run. I find the very idea to be bull. I want to run the content because I enjoy the content, not to get the reward at the end and move on. What matters is that we succeed, consistently and on the first try.

I don’t, however, PvP nor WvW. I’m not good at it, so even in the “best” build I’m likely to be unviable because I just don’t do it well.

So please, define viable. It just makes life a lot easier to know what page someone is on.

If they replaced you with any other class would they miss anything besides your wit and humor? Would they have done better without you assuming similar gear and skill level?

So your definition of viable:
Adjective
Capable of working successfully; feasible

is Optimal:
Adjective
Best or most favorable

Which is the problem I have had with MMO players since Everquest.

If I changed out any of the people in the group with a Ranger, or any other class, of equal skill, I do not feel the outcome would have changed. The outcome being success without a wipe. So, in that regard, no I don’t think it would have made a difference if I were replaced either.

If the only outcome that matters to you is the fact that you beat something without a wipe then you really aren’t looking at the topic objectively.

jewishjoyride.4693:

Atherakhia.4086:

In MMO’s, the worth of a class is measured by what they bring to a group and how they bring it. Fact is, that even though there’s no reason to kick a ranger out of a group for anything, what they bring is of no real value because other classes bring much of the same, only better.

Part of the problem is no one can nail down just what this class SHOULD do. Another part of the problem is how disorganized the traits are. And a lot of the problem is how boring and shallow the class is.

As for things improving? Not that we’ve seen yet… the changes this class gets seems entirely random at times (shortbow nerf, longbow buffs, remorseless trait) and have limited/no real value overall.

Rangers bring FANTASTIC single target dps. We have ok aoe.

For dungeons, spotter and frost spirit turns you into a warrior banner. More importantly you’re a warrior banner that STACKS with warrior banners. Meaning a ranger and a warrior is higher group dps than a couple warriors. You also turn a 5 man party into a 6 man party. 6 sources of dps > 5 sources of dps.

Rangers are being brought more and more in to team comps in pvp because of spirits as well. Group protection is huge, as is group burning. Spirit of the sun basically turns your whole team into dhuumfire necros.

Don’t forget we also still have the BEST water field in the game. It hasn’t been nerfed. It’s a huge bonus to your team in every aspect of the game.

Do you actually have another class other than Ranger to form a real opinion on this? Or are we looking at the new CoF run that has a Ranger doing half the damage of a Warrior being considered ‘useful’ because of his spirt. Do you think the group could exchange the second or third warrior for a second or third ranger and have the same result? Because they couldn’t…

And conditions in PvE aren’t winning anything. Conditions are viable due to AE damage, not single target in this game unfortunately.

Aeri.5738:

Chopps.5047:

This post is so last December. Ranger is in the current meta fastest dungeon runs as well as a top tPvP profession.

The first time I have to agree with you.
One exception: rangers are forced into defensive condition builds (BM/Spirits) and Power rangers are in most cases useless in high level tPvP (although a lot of fun in sPvP)

The problem with his comment is the fastest CoF run still had 3 Warriors and a single Ranger iirc (I didn’t watch the video, only read the thread). do you honestly think you could swap out a second warrior in favor of a second ranger and still maintain the same speed? Because I don’t think they could.

Atherakhia.4086:

Aeri.5738:

Chopps.5047:

This post is so last December. Ranger is in the current meta fastest dungeon runs as well as a top tPvP profession.

The first time I have to agree with you.
One exception: rangers are forced into defensive condition builds (BM/Spirits) and Power rangers are in most cases useless in high level tPvP (although a lot of fun in sPvP)

The problem with his comment is the fastest CoF run still had 3 Warriors and a single Ranger iirc (I didn’t watch the video, only read the thread). do you honestly think you could swap out a second warrior in favor of a second ranger and still maintain the same speed? Because I don’t think they could.

It actually had 2 thieves, 1 warrior, 1 ranger, and 1 mes, because thief is the actual true top dog of single target dps, which on a cof speed run is all you really need since you skip most of the trash and only ever really fight single targets. That being said there are plenty of classes capable of doing more than sufficient damage given a good team composition, I present exhibit A: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/engineer/PvE-Dungeon-Speedrun-Zerk-Build/first#post2560024. So the argument that warrior is the only viable dps class is sorta moot. Sure will most teams take one yes, but they are certainly not the only class capable of putting out omfwtfwasthatlolwhut damage. I realize that is not a ranger, but the point of my post is that people are starting to figure out that it’s not just warriors and that other classes can in fact be a valuable contribution, to the team despite whether or not they pull top damage, including the ranger.

Ok ima leave a tip here. Run a full melee ranger, you will feel better. Put a zerker set on, run spotter and 70% spirit buff trait with frost spirit, sic em ( or stone spirit) and QZ, use a sword/warhorn and take the attoattack off. It’s a bit wonky but you’ll adapt.. Then you will see ranger is (yes) still bad but much better than you thought.

Someday…over the rainbow…

Atherakhia.4086:

Kal Spiro.9745:

Atherakhia.4086:

Kal Spiro.9745:

Define Viable.

I’m doing everything wrong as defined by those here who apparently consider themselves the authorities on how to play, but I do just fine. I’ve never impaired my group and am often more capable than those who appear to follow the common view. I will accept that I don’t necessarily do as much damage, so maybe the fight takes longer, but seriously, so kittening what? I don’t speed run. I find the very idea to be bull. I want to run the content because I enjoy the content, not to get the reward at the end and move on. What matters is that we succeed, consistently and on the first try.

I don’t, however, PvP nor WvW. I’m not good at it, so even in the “best” build I’m likely to be unviable because I just don’t do it well.

So please, define viable. It just makes life a lot easier to know what page someone is on.

If they replaced you with any other class would they miss anything besides your wit and humor? Would they have done better without you assuming similar gear and skill level?

So your definition of viable:
Adjective
Capable of working successfully; feasible

is Optimal:
Adjective
Best or most favorable

Which is the problem I have had with MMO players since Everquest.

If I changed out any of the people in the group with a Ranger, or any other class, of equal skill, I do not feel the outcome would have changed. The outcome being success without a wipe. So, in that regard, no I don’t think it would have made a difference if I were replaced either.

If the only outcome that matters to you is the fact that you beat something without a wipe then you really aren’t looking at the topic objectively.

Oh, I didn’t realize there was a defined value for viable. Since no one has come forward with a different definition of the word I’ll stick with the one provided. Capable of working successfully. I play a ranger and my ranger is capable of working successfully. The only realistic definition of success is to complete the objective without failure. Therefore beating something without a wipe would be a positive definition of success. Honestly, this seems pretty objective. This is logical reasoning with solid data to support it. Isn’t that objectivity? Not clouding your view point with emotions and opinion?

Any definition about the strength or superiority of the Ranger over or under any other class is not a definition of its viability, but of its optimization. A Ranger may not be the optimal class in all situations, but it’s viable.

I’d say, barring some logical skill-fixes and improved Pet AI/Customisation … Ranger viability is high-end-of-medium. There are some really fun and dangerous builds floating around, but the class mechanic is a double-edged sword. As others have mentioned before, the basis of DPS being split between Ranger/Pet does cut down on straight Power builds somewhat. Condition can work very well, as can BM or Spirit bunkers.

Failing the Great Pet Fix: I wonder if ANet’d be amenable to modifying the % of DPS that Pets count for. Say: if it’s currently 40%, perhaps 25-33% might help build viability a tad? Also, for melee Rangers, that darn Sword AA chain needs unrooted. Yesterday.

Atherakhia.4086:

Aeri.5738:

Chopps.5047:

This post is so last December. Ranger is in the current meta fastest dungeon runs as well as a top tPvP profession.

The first time I have to agree with you.
One exception: rangers are forced into defensive condition builds (BM/Spirits) and Power rangers are in most cases useless in high level tPvP (although a lot of fun in sPvP)

The problem with his comment is the fastest CoF run still had 3 Warriors and a single Ranger iirc (I didn’t watch the video, only read the thread). do you honestly think you could swap out a second warrior in favor of a second ranger and still maintain the same speed? Because I don’t think they could.

2 theives 1 ranger 1 warrior 1 mesmer :p

Chopps.5047:

Atherakhia.4086:

Aeri.5738:

Chopps.5047:

This post is so last December. Ranger is in the current meta fastest dungeon runs as well as a top tPvP profession.

The first time I have to agree with you.
One exception: rangers are forced into defensive condition builds (BM/Spirits) and Power rangers are in most cases useless in high level tPvP (although a lot of fun in sPvP)

The problem with his comment is the fastest CoF run still had 3 Warriors and a single Ranger iirc (I didn’t watch the video, only read the thread). do you honestly think you could swap out a second warrior in favor of a second ranger and still maintain the same speed? Because I don’t think they could.

2 theives 1 ranger 1 warrior 1 mesmer :p

Yup, you’re right. So same question… second ranger over a thief then?

That’s the video for those who didn’t have it btw.

Maybe, ranger is fastest at bursting down gate as far as I know. Also, another untraited frost spirit could be taken.

Chopps.5047:

Maybe, ranger is fastest at bursting down gate as far as I know. Also, another untraited frost spirit could be taken.

Well that’s cheating and will be fixed

Atherakhia.4086:

Chopps.5047:

Atherakhia.4086:

Aeri.5738:

Chopps.5047:

This post is so last December. Ranger is in the current meta fastest dungeon runs as well as a top tPvP profession.

The first time I have to agree with you.
One exception: rangers are forced into defensive condition builds (BM/Spirits) and Power rangers are in most cases useless in high level tPvP (although a lot of fun in sPvP)

The problem with his comment is the fastest CoF run still had 3 Warriors and a single Ranger iirc (I didn’t watch the video, only read the thread). do you honestly think you could swap out a second warrior in favor of a second ranger and still maintain the same speed? Because I don’t think they could.

2 theives 1 ranger 1 warrior 1 mesmer :p

Yup, you’re right. So same question… second ranger over a thief then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWQ-39_C8LI

That’s the video for those who didn’t have it btw.

Second ranger over mesmer ;P

My second 80 is a necro, and I have a couple lvl 40s. If you want to play a class that truly brings nothing to their team for dungeons play necro. They’re pretty good at buffing themselves and nobody else.