Guild Wars 2

“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.”

I was expecting an archer class, but my Warrior can also use ranged weapons quite succesfully, while being dominant in melee.

It’s not about which class is better, but I am purely talking about class identity. I feel like all classes have very unique kits that make them completely different from the other classes. Except Ranger, which in my opinion doesn’t really fill any niche nor seems to bring anything unique as a class except having a perma pet., which at the end of the day is just some AI

Maybe I had wrong expectations, but the official art and text projected Rangers as the archer class of GW2 and I normally love archer-type classes. Short bow feels very stale, having all my power in AI and auto attack got old really fast..

ur melee dps is higher then a warrior

on topic I was also playing a ranger since i played one in a other game, and Im a little bit unhappy with the few options to control my pet. also I was hopeing i can hunt my pets and tame them in a hard way. getting them is to easy in the game and takes a big fun out

No, otherwise people would QQ Rangers instead of Warriors.

Wethospu.6437:

Is Warrior just a pet without a Ranger?

This made me laugh out loud (I have a cold), log onto the forums, and post this reply to show my appreciation of how funny I found it.

Thank you, my day was made.

Sarision.6347:

No, otherwise people would QQ Rangers instead of Warriors.

Don’t people already do this?

You’re looking at things in terms of mechanics, rather than terms of flavor. The professions exist to give flavor to the game. It’s not about being a warrior without a pet, flavor goes much deeper.

Ranger’s attacks are very mobile. You’re jumping all over the place. Not a big bashing attack but an agile, fleet-footed attack. A mechanics player sees only how much damage you do and the fact that it’s melee. But the melee feels very different to me. Blowing a warhorn as a ranger doesn’t give me a charge…it calls down three birds to attack my target. It’s a mechanic, but it’s the flavor of the attack that makes the difference.

I feel completely different playing a warrior and ranger, because I’m not focused on mechanics.

Warriors can’t be trappers either.

warriors just have better team buffs thats why individual dps of ranger is higher

and guardians out dps warrior too

In a group setting warrior dps is nearly always better. A ranger is conditioned to solo play from the get-go because of his pet that absorbs damage. That’s why he usually has two bears, a longbow, no spotter, and no frost spirit. Rangers need to understand that group play is nothing like solo play. Everything is different: weapons, traits, utilities, pets.

Vayne.8563:

You’re looking at things in terms of mechanics, rather than terms of flavor. The professions exist to give flavor to the game. It’s not about being a warrior without a pet, flavor goes much deeper.

Ranger’s attacks are very mobile. You’re jumping all over the place. Not a big bashing attack but an agile, fleet-footed attack. A mechanics player sees only how much damage you do and the fact that it’s melee. But the melee feels very different to me. Blowing a warhorn as a ranger doesn’t give me a charge…it calls down three birds to attack my target. It’s a mechanic, but it’s the flavor of the attack that makes the difference.

I feel completely different playing a warrior and ranger, because I’m not focused on mechanics.

Warriors can’t be trappers either.

I’m not seeing how my Ranger is more agile than my Warrior that is literally jumping all over the place. Thief is an example of an agile class, Ranger not so much.

I understand that flavor is important but I do believe that classes need to be significantly different. Like the Mesmer and Elementalist. Completely different classes. If Mesmer was just a reskin of the Elementalist with different particles than I think it’s a bad design.

Rangers were marketed as “Unparalleled archers”, but I’m failing to see what makes them unparalled. This was supposed to their niche, but I’m failling to see how they fill this niche.

Anyway, I’m not hating on the Ranger class. I just think that they were poorly designed and don’t really offer anything unique outside of the pet system.

Buttercup.5871:

In a group setting warrior dps is nearly always better. A ranger is conditioned to solo play from the get-go because of his pet that absorbs damage. That’s why he usually has two bears, a longbow, no spotter, and no frost spirit. Rangers need to understand that group play is nothing like solo play. Everything is different: weapons, traits, utilities, pets.

this

everytime i see signet of the hunt I see this person is not interrested in supporting his team.

I also believe that often players who read guides on the internet copy playstyles most popular is warrior atm means people who look up choose that too.
The rest of the player choose what looks fun and Ranger looks more fun then Warrior and in a non dunguon enviroment ranger is more fun

No, a Ranger is a Mesmer without the fabulous.

Gervaise.4163:

Vayne.8563:

You’re looking at things in terms of mechanics, rather than terms of flavor. The professions exist to give flavor to the game. It’s not about being a warrior without a pet, flavor goes much deeper.

Ranger’s attacks are very mobile. You’re jumping all over the place. Not a big bashing attack but an agile, fleet-footed attack. A mechanics player sees only how much damage you do and the fact that it’s melee. But the melee feels very different to me. Blowing a warhorn as a ranger doesn’t give me a charge…it calls down three birds to attack my target. It’s a mechanic, but it’s the flavor of the attack that makes the difference.

I feel completely different playing a warrior and ranger, because I’m not focused on mechanics.

Warriors can’t be trappers either.

I’m not seeing how my Ranger is more agile than my Warrior that is literally jumping all over the place. Thief is an example of an agile class, Ranger not so much.

I understand that flavor is important but I do believe that classes need to be significantly different. Like the Mesmer and Elementalist. Completely different classes. If Mesmer was just a reskin of the Elementalist with different particles than I think it’s a bad design.

Rangers were marketed as “Unparalleled archers”, but I’m failing to see what makes them unparalled. This was supposed to their niche, but I’m failling to see how they fill this niche.

Anyway, I’m not hating on the Ranger class. I just think that they were poorly designed and don’t really offer anything unique outside of the pet system.

Nope, the pet is the niche. Usually the class mechanic is the function keys. Bows are just another weapon set.

I much, much prefer my Ranger to my Warrior. They seem completely different to me.

But, as I’ve been designated a ‘bad’ player for choosing Ranger in the first place, what do I know? Lol.

Playstyle. I’m still a solo roamer. The class shines as a solo hunter. I can control the range and adds far better with a longbow and still switch to a very capable melee up close. I think my Rangers survive more situation than any of my other classes. Underwater we are pretty snarly.

I use krytan Hound a lot. Surprising amout of KD interrupts. the Fearing wolf is my backup.

But I’m a bad player who refuses to GW2 the right way. No interest in the zerg or equipping skills to support them. 3 level 80 Rangers, so I’m pretty committed to not doing it right.

Back to the ranger’s agility, when I use a sword on my ranger, I start in front of a character and end up behind him. That’s the kind of agility I’m talking about. Warriors have rushes and jumps and stomps. Big, huge attacks.

Rangers use finesse….it’s all about the flavor. I don’t see how anyone can play both and say the melee combat feels the same.

Yes, yes it is.

Ranger grew up on the same street that Warrior and Thief did and he saw how cool those guys where and tried his kitten edest to be just like them. Only he was severely crippled and had to go everywhere with his helper dog and was just never as good because of it.

Ranger sword has what I think is the most fun melee animation in game. Even with the drawback associated with using it.

My heavy armor girls don’t dance like that.

Vayne.8563:

Warriors can’t be trappers either.

So you’re saying they have different mechanics…

Lord Krilik.3692:

Vayne.8563:

Warriors can’t be trappers either.

So you’re saying they have different mechanics…

I’m saying there are skills you can do with a ranger that you can’t do with a warrior. HOWEVER, it’s not the profession mechanic. Thieves ckittene traps too.

Again, it all goes back to the flavor of the profession. The ranger is agile, he’s a hunter. So he can trap. That’s part of the flavor, as well as a mechanic.

It sorta goes like this:

In PvP, warriors and rangers are TOTALLY different.

In PvE, essentially a ranger is sort of like a modded warrior with a pet, yes.

The major differences are:

WARRIORS don’t have the accident prone auto-pilot auto attack that is mostly useless in PvE.

RANGERS have to do more work to keep their DPS up (watching pet’s HP and such.)

WARRIORS do not require as much help from their team to reach full potential.

RANGERS work very well with eles and maximize healing and summoned weapon DPS.

Both a RANGER and a WARRIOR are required to maximize team DPS buffs.

WARRIORS have a 5 second weapon swap trait that would be useful to melee RANGERS because the barrage/rapidfire combo on the LB can be applied at point blank range but does not require 10 seconds.

Basically it’s a bunch of little things like that.

OP, google some good warriors and good rangers, you will see their playstyles are very different even though both ckittene the same weapons.

Mesmer and Guardian can both use staff and greatsword, but they are nothing alike.

EDIT: I don’t even know what to edit or why it is censoring “both ckittene”?

EDIT2: OMG because kitten is in between those letters? seriously Anet?

EDIT: A (the letter N) U S

Wethospu.6437:

Is Warrior just a pet without a Ranger?

Haha, my forum laugh of the day. Thanks. +1

A Warrior with a pet would be able to solo world bosses.

Unless they balanced it like a Ranger, in which case it would end up being /kicked from groups accordingly.

Buttercup.5871:

In a group setting warrior dps is nearly always better. A ranger is conditioned to solo play from the get-go because of his pet that absorbs damage. That’s why he usually has two bears, a longbow, no spotter, and no frost spirit. Rangers need to understand that group play is nothing like solo play. Everything is different: weapons, traits, utilities, pets.

This is so stupidly incorrect.

Warriors have one of the worst DPS in group settings actually, as all other classes are able to push ahead when they’re under the effects of perma-fury and banners + might.

The only place in which warriors excell over almost all other classes is solo settings because of their incredible self-buffing capabilities. Warrior is literally the only class capable of reaching 100% crit chance by themselves and one of the few classes capable of maintaining almost permanent fury as well, bar a few seconds of downtime in between cooldowns. As well as that, warrior is also one of the easiest classes to maintain 20-25 stacks of might in a solo setting as well.

If you want a good example/demonstration of this, name one class besides a warrior or a thief that’s capable of soloing Brie at the end of Arah P2 before the terminal is destroyed. Not even an ele can do it anymore, since FGS + LF was nerfed.

Vayne.8563:

You’re looking at things in terms of mechanics, rather than terms of flavor. The professions exist to give flavor to the game. It’s not about being a warrior without a pet, flavor goes much deeper.

Ranger’s attacks are very mobile. You’re jumping all over the place. Not a big bashing attack but an agile, fleet-footed attack.

I would be more inclined to agree that the Ranger is meant to be the agile, fleet-footed, melee combatant if sword <1> did not actively impair mobility and agility. To me Ranger greatsword doesn’t feel any more mobile or agile than any other two handed melee option. Ranger sword feels less mobile/agile than other similar options.

Swap ranger gs with warrior gs and you’ve fixed two classes at once :P

The big problem with Ranger damage is that maximum efficiency is dependent on a pet that is only slightly smarter than my desk lamp.

Okay, I lied. My desk lamp actually does something when I push the right button.

Arena.net’s improved the F2 reaction time and their survivability, but the pet still is awfully dumb, in ways that the Ranger can’t always correct easily (like ranged pets won’t always move if their attacks are obstructed or melee pets won’t always respond to an enemy’s movements, and any F2 attacks have a good chance of catching nothing but air).

On top of that, Ranger has issues in large group settings because much of their weapon damage is balanced around the conditions they cause… which in large open world play is often rendered useless due to the condition caps.

They are both problems that impact EVERY class, but due to the nature of the Ranger class, those problems both combine to hit them the hardest (though Necros would have a pretty strong claim as well).

As a result, there’s really only one or two very narrow builds that allow a Ranger to be effective in group and large scale play, unlike warriors who have a small handful of “viable” builds.

The damage for Ranger CAN be there, so in that sense they aren’t as “broken” as you might hear the cries claim… but it definitely needs a lot of help in order to break the stigma the class has (there is a small legion of bearbows out there that are perfectly capable of ruining the class reputation all by themselves, they don’t need assistance from the game itself).

The unparalleled archer bit is true, as a longbow ranger will crush a longbow warrior AT RANGE. But the pet class mechanic is completely useless. The pet really does not feature at all in high end builds.

I would say the defining characteristics of rangers are highest ranged DPS, and evade spamming. So in that respect they quite different.

Sadly, Rangers abilities in PvE are very similar to a Warrior, considering the Spotter+Frost Spirit setup are essentially Banner of Discipline.

However, in PvP, Rangers possess the largest range in the game, traps, cripple and frost, lots and lots of evades, melee attacks which POWERFUL melee pressure which “stick” to their targets, and spirits which all buff their allies very well.

Rangers also have a neat pull and projectile reflect useful in both game modes.

A Ranger and a Warrior together both buff teams considerably, but the general sentiment of most groups is not to take a Ranger if you don’t already have a Warrior.

Did I read the Frost spirit description wrong? It grants 10% more damage on one hit per 10s. (Ed: Nevermind, I read the wiki 70% chance to hit 10% more damage only when traited) And those things die easily even when buffed and have less range than a banner.

Warrior has the lowest DPS in a group setting? Really? You are telling me a mesmer or necro out DPS with perma fury and banner buffs. Please dont quote numbers from FGS against a wall + minion damage.

Pretty sure Rifle Warrior outDPS longbow ranger. But ranger has a pet of course.

No. Warrior’s are better, and people always ask for nerfing them.
That’s the difference.

Purple Miku.7032

Warrior is literally the only class capable of reaching 100% crit chance by themselves

Nope. Necromancers say hi. They can reach that point much easier than any other class in the game, certainly while solo.

Khal Drogo.9631

Pretty sure Rifle Warrior outDPS longbow ranger. But ranger has a pet of course.

You should include the Pet in the DPS equation though, seems in combat it’s permanently there anyway, and Ranger weapons are deliberately kitten to accommodate pet DPS.

That being said Ranger Longbow has built in AoE-capabilities, unlike Warrior Rifles, though both can be traited to pierce on all attacks. In a group setting, Ranger Longbow is better at stacking high amount of vulnerability (to multiple targets too, with Pierce Trait) than Warrior Rifle, which could lead to more total group DPS.

It also goes without saying that the Ranger Longbow can have more range and does have vastly more utility than the Warrior Rifle, but I would expect the Warrior Rifle to do more-single target DPS seems that’s it niche. Ranged AoE DPS on a Warrior is supposed to come from their Longbow, afterall (which too, has a great deal more utility than the Warrior Rifles, with Firefields, Blast Finishers, et all).

I’m running a soldier build with some clerics on my ranger, close combat more so than ranged. So for me it does feel like a tank at times. But I can tell by having tried to play a warrior specifically that Ranger is defo not just a warrior with a pet. Warrior will always have more survivability for one, for seconds a warrior can squeeze out much more damage, and to make the two feel similar in terms of overall game play takes a bit of effort on the part of making a specific build, tuning the traits ect. But in terms of weapon and utility skills and traits I as an individual just don’t “get on with” the Warrior like I do the Ranger. Thus I am Ranger. They have their different sets of pros vs cons, and which you prefer is subjective. Each to their own.

Sube Dai.8496:

The unparalleled archer bit is true, as a longbow ranger will crush a longbow warrior AT RANGE. But the pet class mechanic is completely useless. The pet really does not feature at all in high end builds.

I would say the defining characteristics of rangers are highest ranged DPS, and evade spamming. So in that respect they quite different.

I disagree, based on what I just said above, the pet when used with the right traits can help boost overall damage output and survivability (“shake it off”, “protecting screech” etc), albeit not to the extent a warrior can on their onesome. The pet mechanic is only “useless” if you can’t personally get on with the idea of micromanaging it along with controling your own skill and trait set~ OR don’t incorporate any beastmastery into your build at all… in which case you can’t really expect the pet to give anything back (except for being a distracting second target for enemies in PVE) when you haven’t put anything into it.
~But again each to their own.

Purple Miku.7032:

Buttercup.5871:

In a group setting warrior dps is nearly always better. A ranger is conditioned to solo play from the get-go because of his pet that absorbs damage. That’s why he usually has two bears, a longbow, no spotter, and no frost spirit. Rangers need to understand that group play is nothing like solo play. Everything is different: weapons, traits, utilities, pets.

This is so stupidly incorrect.

Warriors have one of the worst DPS in group settings actually, as all other classes are able to push ahead when they’re under the effects of perma-fury and banners + might.

The only place in which warriors excell over almost all other classes is solo settings because of their incredible self-buffing capabilities. Warrior is literally the only class capable of reaching 100% crit chance by themselves and one of the few classes capable of maintaining almost permanent fury as well, bar a few seconds of downtime in between cooldowns. As well as that, warrior is also one of the easiest classes to maintain 20-25 stacks of might in a solo setting as well.

If you want a good example/demonstration of this, name one class besides a warrior or a thief that’s capable of soloing Brie at the end of Arah P2 before the terminal is destroyed. Not even an ele can do it anymore, since FGS + LF was nerfed.

Ehhhh, what? Not just incorrect, but stupidly incorrect? Thanks man, nice to meet you, too.

So you consider empower allies builds (group power buffing + vulnerability stacking) or phalanx strength builds (the latter having mediocre personal dps but gives the group 25 stacks of might without real effort) to provide inferior dps to the group as a whole than a ranger’s spotter + frost spirit? Really? Or did you understand me to refer to individual dps within the group only, which makes no sense because we’re talking about which class is better for the dps of the group as a whole? (Which also leaves me wondering, why are you talking about other classes pushing ahead under the effect of banners when we’re discussing the choice between a warrior and a ranger?)

Wethospu.6437:

Is Warrior just a pet without a Ranger?

Not since cleansing ire, berzerker’s stance, and intelligence sigils.

The Ranger gimmick is being in two places at once (our pet)

Problem is, why would we need that in GW2? Unlike GW1, we cannot body block.

Balsa.3951:

ur melee dps is higher then a warrior

sure…

rangers used to have their own thing until their pets were nerfed to hell,
funny how the only class tied to having an AI companion playing a large role in the players effectiveness had that companion nerfed right down while at this very moment there will be MM necros and turret engis running rampant.

A Warrior is just a better Ranger with no bad pet.

Liewec.2896:

Balsa.3951:

ur melee dps is higher then a warrior

sure…

rangers used to have their own thing until their pets were nerfed to hell,
funny how the only class tied to having an AI companion playing a large role in the players effectiveness had that companion nerfed right down while at this very moment there will be MM necros and turret engis running rampant.

The advantage that necros, engis, mesmers, and guardians have over rangers is that their pets are an optional extra, rather than a mechanic around which their entire class is built. In dodge-or-die areas, they don’t need to rely on AI creatures with no evasion (much less the programming required to use it properly) to deal full DPS.

ANet built an entire combat system around blocking and evasion, then tacked 30% of our DPS and utility on a pet which has neither. Then, they wonder why they can’t seem to balance it properly.

Playing melee ranger feels quite different to playing melee warrior. At least to me :P

Gervaise.4163:

“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.”

I was expecting an archer class, but my Warrior can also use ranged weapons quite succesfully, while being dominant in melee.

It’s not about which class is better, but I am purely talking about class identity. I feel like all classes have very unique kits that make them completely different from the other classes. Except Ranger, which in my opinion doesn’t really fill any niche nor seems to bring anything unique as a class except having a perma pet., which at the end of the day is just some AI

Maybe I had wrong expectations, but the official art and text projected Rangers as the archer class of GW2 and I normally love archer-type classes. Short bow feels very stale, having all my power in AI and auto attack got old really fast..

If we are “unparralled archers” why do the KEEP archers have a LONGER RANGE than we do?

The description is not only wrong, it’s mockable and is.

chemiclord.3978:

The big problem with Ranger damage is that maximum efficiency is dependent on a pet that is only slightly smarter than my desk lamp.

Okay, I lied. My desk lamp actually does something when I push the right button.

I honestly just spent the past minute laughing at this comment in all of its truthful glory.

+1’d.

Buttercup.5871:

Purple Miku.7032:

Buttercup.5871:

In a group setting warrior dps is nearly always better. A ranger is conditioned to solo play from the get-go because of his pet that absorbs damage. That’s why he usually has two bears, a longbow, no spotter, and no frost spirit. Rangers need to understand that group play is nothing like solo play. Everything is different: weapons, traits, utilities, pets.

This is so stupidly incorrect.

Warriors have one of the worst DPS in group settings actually, as all other classes are able to push ahead when they’re under the effects of perma-fury and banners + might.

The only place in which warriors excell over almost all other classes is solo settings because of their incredible self-buffing capabilities. Warrior is literally the only class capable of reaching 100% crit chance by themselves and one of the few classes capable of maintaining almost permanent fury as well, bar a few seconds of downtime in between cooldowns. As well as that, warrior is also one of the easiest classes to maintain 20-25 stacks of might in a solo setting as well.

If you want a good example/demonstration of this, name one class besides a warrior or a thief that’s capable of soloing Brie at the end of Arah P2 before the terminal is destroyed. Not even an ele can do it anymore, since FGS + LF was nerfed.

Ehhhh, what? Not just incorrect, but stupidly incorrect? Thanks man, nice to meet you, too.

So you consider empower allies builds (group power buffing + vulnerability stacking) or phalanx strength builds (the latter having mediocre personal dps but gives the group 25 stacks of might without real effort) to provide inferior dps to the group as a whole than a ranger’s spotter + frost spirit? Really? Or did you understand me to refer to individual dps within the group only, which makes no sense because we’re talking about which class is better for the dps of the group as a whole? (Which also leaves me wondering, why are you talking about other classes pushing ahead under the effect of banners when we’re discussing the choice between a warrior and a ranger?)

It is pretty much assured that you will have 1 warrior running EA+2 banners in a premade composition.

After that you also assume 25 might stacks because of eles(PS warriors are never useful outside very disorganized groups).

Now with all that out of the way, yes, warrior running EA+ 2 banners will be more useful than a ranger. But it’s already established that 2 eles and 1 warrior will always be included in an organized group wanting to maximize their dps.

Given a choice between only a warrior and only a ranger, you should take a warrior. Given a choice between a second warrior or a ranger you should take the ranger.

These are for non FGS dps:
2 ele/1 engi/1 warr/1 ranger: http://tinyurl.com/owjq46r

2 ele/1 engi/2 warr: http://tinyurl.com/pvt52we

With FGS, you should just replace the engi with a thief instead. So its 2 eles/1 warrior/1 engi or thief/last slot optional.

Ranger gives the highest dps for the optional slot, now if your party can make use of mob placement/reflects, taking mesmer over ranger will be a good idea, if its more useful to get aegis/reflects, taking a guard over ranger will be a good idea.

I really think that a ranger is a stealthless thief with a warrior damage mixed in.

Substance E.4852:

Yes, yes it is.

Ranger grew up on the same street that Warrior and Thief did and he saw how cool those guys where and tried his kitten edest to be just like them. Only he was severely crippled and had to go everywhere with his helper dog and was just never as good because of it.

And so Ratman and Bobin the Bear was born. “Come, boy wonder! We shall rid the world of crime!” But Bobin had already aggroed all the mobs and wiped the rest of the team and as a result causing “no rangers pls” signs appearing everywhere. Tis the sad end of the story about the kid no one wanted to play with, always the last one to be picked for the team.

Equip a sword and now your Ranger is an NPC along with your pet since it auto plays for you.