Guild Wars 2

So, the rationalization behind Robert Hrouda and the devs with Rangers right now seems to be that they nerfed some stuff (quickness) and buffed some stuff (greatsword) and that they don’t want to buff anything else because they want to wait and see what builds the community comes up with.

Here’s the problem though: Even after the buff, the greatsword still does less dps than the shortbow.

I spent some time testing out several types of glass cannon builds to see if there was any way to deal more dps with the greatsword than with the short bow and here’s what I found:

- In a full Marks/Skirm (30/30/0/0/0) glass cannon build, the short bow deals more dps unless you stand in front of the enemy the whole time.

- In a 10/10/20/20 build with the traits to increase GS damage by 5% and to reduce GS cooldowns by 20%, the short bow is equal to GS dps and the GS dps in this build is less than GS dps in a Marks/Skirm build.

So, if you’re running a build with the aim of maximizing dps, the short bow is still the clear victor.

And if you doubt any of this, feel free to step into the mists for a few minutes and test for yourself.

Dahkeus.8243:

So, the rationalization behind Robert Hrouda and the devs with Rangers right now seems to be that they nerfed some stuff (quickness) and buffed some stuff (greatsword) and that they don’t want to buff anything else because they want to wait and see what builds the community comes up with.

Here’s the problem though: Even after the buff, the greatsword still does less dps than the shortbow.

I spent some time testing out several types of glass cannon builds to see if there was any way to deal more dps with the greatsword than with the short bow and here’s what I found:

- In a full Marks/Skirm (30/30/0/0/0) glass cannon build, the short bow deals more dps unless you stand in front of the enemy the whole time.

- In a 10/10/20/20 build with the traits to increase GS damage by 5% and to reduce GS cooldowns by 20%, the short bow is equal to GS dps and the GS dps in this build is less than GS dps in a Marks/Skirm build.

So, if you’re running a build with the aim of maximizing dps, the short bow is still the clear victor.

And if you doubt any of this, feel free to step into the mists for a few minutes and test for yourself.

You need to be using sword/dagger if you want to reach max dps.

bandgeekdp.4651:

Dahkeus.8243:

So, the rationalization behind Robert Hrouda and the devs with Rangers right now seems to be that they nerfed some stuff (quickness) and buffed some stuff (greatsword) and that they don’t want to buff anything else because they want to wait and see what builds the community comes up with.

Here’s the problem though: Even after the buff, the greatsword still does less dps than the shortbow.

I spent some time testing out several types of glass cannon builds to see if there was any way to deal more dps with the greatsword than with the short bow and here’s what I found:

- In a full Marks/Skirm (30/30/0/0/0) glass cannon build, the short bow deals more dps unless you stand in front of the enemy the whole time.

- In a 10/10/20/20 build with the traits to increase GS damage by 5% and to reduce GS cooldowns by 20%, the short bow is equal to GS dps and the GS dps in this build is less than GS dps in a Marks/Skirm build.

So, if you’re running a build with the aim of maximizing dps, the short bow is still the clear victor.

And if you doubt any of this, feel free to step into the mists for a few minutes and test for yourself.

You need to be using sword/dagger if you want to reach max dps.

Even if the 1h sword could outdps the short bow (which it doesn’t), the dagger wouldn’t really do much of anything to help. The dagger is a survival/PvP weapon.

Anecdotal and situational, but it seems the sword ends up allowing me to do more damage overall because engaging something in melee, thereby (more often than not) acquiring its aggro and keeping it crippled/slowed by sword #1, allows my pet to actually get most, if not all of its hits in.

Ranger melee is designed to be defensive + utility with a lot of pet support . Also u have condition appliers if you go condition builds . For better or worse the ranger is stuck with the pet so any weapon damage must account for its hits as well .

The rangers melee is generally supplementary to their Range.
Hence how both feature evades, and movement. Giving you defense for someone closes the difference. Though if you want to do dual melee I suppose that is an option…

bandgeekdp.4651:

Dahkeus.8243:

So, the rationalization behind Robert Hrouda and the devs with Rangers right now seems to be that they nerfed some stuff (quickness) and buffed some stuff (greatsword) and that they don’t want to buff anything else because they want to wait and see what builds the community comes up with.

Here’s the problem though: Even after the buff, the greatsword still does less dps than the shortbow.

I spent some time testing out several types of glass cannon builds to see if there was any way to deal more dps with the greatsword than with the short bow and here’s what I found:

- In a full Marks/Skirm (30/30/0/0/0) glass cannon build, the short bow deals more dps unless you stand in front of the enemy the whole time.

- In a 10/10/20/20 build with the traits to increase GS damage by 5% and to reduce GS cooldowns by 20%, the short bow is equal to GS dps and the GS dps in this build is less than GS dps in a Marks/Skirm build.

So, if you’re running a build with the aim of maximizing dps, the short bow is still the clear victor.

And if you doubt any of this, feel free to step into the mists for a few minutes and test for yourself.

You need to be using sword/dagger if you want to reach max dps.

Here’s the thing.

Lots of people signed up on a ranger as it is traditionally a RANGE class. Melee capabilities are meant to be a bonus.

As it stands a ranger does remarkably well in melee. In that case, why not roll a thief, delete the ranger profession as a whole.

Give thieves a pet. Nerf stealth. There, 2 birds with 1 stone.

Enough about melee. Where’s ranger’s dominance in range? Unless the devs plan to change the world’s perspective that rangers are meant to be melee classes and J.R. Tolkien should’ve given Legolas a slingshot and some pellets.

Like others have said I think the GS for rangers is meant to be more of a defensive weapon, although that said withthe recent changes to Maul it has the biggest burst for rangers. Can easily clear 8-9k damage with just swoop+maul, whereas the SB really is purely for doing consistant high damage. None of its abilities will spike your damage at all (obvious except quickness, but that can be applied to any weapon so you can ignore that for comparisons).

Uncle Salty.6342:

Here’s the thing.

Lots of people signed up on a ranger as it is traditionally a RANGE class. Melee capabilities are meant to be a bonus.

As it stands a ranger does remarkably well in melee. In that case, why not roll a thief, delete the ranger profession as a whole.

People with this mentality I feel are just wrong and bad.

Signed up to be range on a Ranger? Well newsflash: everyone can go range and that’s sort of the point of strategy in combat. It’s not about who can use range or how effective ranged combat is, but who can utilize it properly and that doesn’t get shoehorned into one profession but to the player with the proper skills.

Enough about melee. Where’s ranger’s dominance in range? Unless the devs plan to change the world’s perspective that rangers are meant to be melee classes and J.R. Tolkien should’ve given Legolas a slingshot and some pellets.

And this is another wrong and bad mentality. People see ‘range’ as DPS. That’s it.

The whole point of ranged combat is to…use it at range. So answer me this: who’s best at keeping someone at range? You keep someone at range, then you can use ranged combat to its fullest. Just having the biggest numbers don’t mean much when someone will charge you hammer your face in.

Cufufalating.8479:

Like others have said I think the GS for rangers is meant to be more of a defensive weapon, although that said withthe recent changes to Maul it has the biggest burst for rangers. Can easily clear 8-9k damage with just swoop+maul, whereas the SB really is purely for doing consistant high damage. None of its abilities will spike your damage at all (obvious except quickness, but that can be applied to any weapon so you can ignore that for comparisons).

But why would the greatsword do less damage than the shortbow which is far superior at avoiding damage? If I want to avoid damage on a ranger I’ll use a shortbow – an evade on three with bonus swiftness, a stun on five and a cripple on four. The weapon was built for mobility and control so it helps you keep out of range of your target’s attacks (assuming they aren’t ranged). The great sword has an evade on it’s third hit for the auto-attack, a block on the fourth skill followed by a knockback (either one block for a melee attack or it blocks all projectiles for the duration) and a stun on give.

The problem is, if the shortbow is still doing more damage, why bother going into melee at all? Why risk getting closer to the target if you can do superior damage while staying away from them? What is the advantage of the great sword? You don’t need to block or evade when your target can’t even reach you.

Leo G.4501:

Uncle Salty.6342:

Here’s the thing.

Lots of people signed up on a ranger as it is traditionally a RANGE class. Melee capabilities are meant to be a bonus.

As it stands a ranger does remarkably well in melee. In that case, why not roll a thief, delete the ranger profession as a whole.

People with this mentality I feel are just wrong and bad.

Signed up to be range on a Ranger? Well newsflash: everyone can go range and that’s sort of the point of strategy in combat. It’s not about who can use range or how effective ranged combat is, but who can utilize it properly and that doesn’t get shoehorned into one profession but to the player with the proper skills.

Enough about melee. Where’s ranger’s dominance in range? Unless the devs plan to change the world’s perspective that rangers are meant to be melee classes and J.R. Tolkien should’ve given Legolas a slingshot and some pellets.

And this is another wrong and bad mentality. People see ‘range’ as DPS. That’s it.

The whole point of ranged combat is to…use it at range. So answer me this: who’s best at keeping someone at range? You keep someone at range, then you can use ranged combat to its fullest. Just having the biggest numbers don’t mean much when someone will charge you hammer your face in.

I won’t bother going into a point by point debate with you. Just as you assume I’m bad, I’m gonna assume your mind is as wide as … nevermind let’s just say this much | |

Your post focus is only on PVP/WVW.

GW2 does have a PVE element as well. Which is where the redundance of rangers exist. So rethink YOUR post instead.

Can you hit 3 targets at once with your shortbow? I guess yes if traited but hitting enemies in a line only works in PvE, in massive WvWvW greatsword is more versatile than SB.

Shiren.9532:

The problem is, if the shortbow is still doing more damage, why bother going into melee at all? Why risk getting closer to the target if you can do superior damage while staying away from them? What is the advantage of the great sword? You don’t need to block or evade when your target can’t even reach you.

The Great Sword is superior when you have multiple enemies, especially in close range. You cannot always keep enemies at bay and the Short Bow has nothing for dealing with groups, it’s a single target only weapon. Yes, it has that silly poison spread on #2 that never seems to hit anything anyway, but it’s mostly focused on a single foe.

The Great Sword is nice because you can swing it in a wide arc and damage many foes at once. I normally stick with my SB and let my pet ‘tank’ for me. Once he gets swamped and I believe he’s in actual danger, I swap to GS, swoop in with 3, drop my healing spring and start hacking away with the GS. The Maul ability on #2 will hit multiple foes and the #5 can stun multiple foes when they have their backs to you. Sometimes monsters actually run past your pet and swarm you and when this happens the GS can be the difference between winning the fight and having to respawn.

I probably use my SB 70% of the time and the GS the rest of the time. Both weapons are very useful to me.

A bow will hit multiple targets when traited for piercing arrows and if you are using a bow piercing arrows is one of the most mandatory traits in the game. It will allow your bow to take one groups.

You really don’t need the great sword for that. If you are in a dungeon, you probably have a warrior or guardian acting as anchor, unless your ranger is built a little tanky (in which case you aren’t getting max DPS – important considering ranger max DPS struggles to match warrior average DPS) going melee is going to be tough. If the mobs are focused on either your pet or a melee character in your party (even if they are running towards you) all you have to do is target the farthest mob and position yourself correctly. At the very least you will be able to hit two at all times, usually you can hit most enemy mobs without losing DPS and without going into melee.

If you are having trouble with mobs in open world PvE on a ranger, I don’t know what to tell you.

As far as WvW goes, if you are fighting Zerg vs Zerg it should be easy to hit multiple targets at once. You also need to build for great sword in WvW, glass cannon isn’t going to cut it when it comes to surviving melee.

If you learn how to use the short bow properly, you won’t feel the need to swap to the great sword to hit multiple targets. If three enemies are close enough to be hit by great sword swings, they are usually close enough to be hit by piercing arrows with proper positioning.

Shiren.9532:

If you learn how to use the short bow properly, you won’t feel the need to swap to the great sword to hit multiple targets.

Well, thanks for the incredible amount of condensation and arrogance, that’s very kind of you.

You’re aware that there are such things as different builds and styles of play right? You asked why anyone would use Great Sword, I told you what I use it for, there is no need to be a total kitten about it. I am more then proficient with my build and never said I was having any problems with PVE, in fact the exact opposite is true. I have a different method of dealing with mobs then you do, doesn’t mean I don’t know what I’m doing. I prefer the GS for groups because it doesn’t require me to line everyone up to properly use a penetrating shot, it’s just an alternate way of doing group damage.

I’m so sick of arrogant fools like you that think their way is the only ‘right way’ to play the game. My method works for me, yours works for you. Don’t ask questions if you’re just going to talk down to people when they type a reply and offer any point of view that’s in any way different then yours.

try out this spike.

30/30/5/0/5. GM Traits are SoBM & MoC. SB / GS. Use Signet of the Hunt.

GS has the two highest damaging abilities we get, in Maul & Swoop ( the bugged dmg is still good ). Counterattack also hits like a truck, but that’s not part of the spike.

start fight in shortbow, pepper with shots until you land an interrupt with SB5.

SB5 ( time as interrupt ) → weapon swap → Swoop → GS5 ( time as interrupt ) → Maul.

replace either interrupt with SoHunt activation to guarantee the bonus 50% damage, or save SoHunt for the next Maul attack in 6s.

with guaranteed Opening Strike crits, you can open with Swoop just as easily for a quick 1-2 punch ( SoHunt → Swoop → GS5 → Maul ).

the main problem with GS is that all GS traits are trapped in trees that do not benefit power specs, so this ends up being a glass shortbow spec with intermittent but great GS spike potential.

use canines for this spec since they can still hit for 4-6k with the 50% buffs without any investment in BM tree, & has all the crazy utility & toughness we love canines for already.

Berserker for full deeps, Soldier for balance.

Uncle Salty.6342:

Unless the devs plan to change the world’s perspective that rangers are meant to be melee classes and J.R. Tolkien should’ve given Legolas a slingshot and some pellets.

If you actually paid attention to Tolkien then you would’ve known that it was Aragorn who was the “ranger”, not Legolas. Aragorn was also quite explicitly a far better swordsman than an archer, even though he was adept at both.

As for the rest your opinion, and those of the WoW generation, not everyone has this idea that rangers are ‘archers’ first and foremost. Some of us grew up with real RPG’s, on tabletops (with dice and paper!) where the classic ranger was often a dual wielding melee master who had wilderness survival skills and knowledge. This whole ranger=archer only thing is fairly new.

Darth Llama.9217:

Shiren.9532:

If you learn how to use the short bow properly, you won’t feel the need to swap to the great sword to hit multiple targets.

Well, thanks for the incredible amount of condensation and arrogance, that’s very kind of you.

You’re aware that there are such things as different builds and styles of play right? You asked why anyone would use Great Sword, I told you what I use it for, there is no need to be a total kitten about it. I am more then proficient with my build and never said I was having any problems with PVE, in fact the exact opposite is true. I have a different method of dealing with mobs then you do, doesn’t mean I don’t know what I’m doing. I prefer the GS for groups because it doesn’t require me to line everyone up to properly use a penetrating shot, it’s just an alternate way of doing group damage.

I’m so sick of arrogant fools like you that think their way is the only ‘right way’ to play the game. My method works for me, yours works for you. Don’t ask questions if you’re just going to talk down to people when they type a reply and offer any point of view that’s in any way different then yours.

People were discussing the short bow vs the great sword. One of the strengths someone brought up for the great sword that apparently the short bow doesn’t have was the ability to hit multiple targets. Proper use of the short bow in my experience does not support the assumption that the great sword is superior or has a considerable advantage over the short bow when it comes to hitting multiple targets. I suspect the short bow edges out the great sword in many situations. Not only will you not have to dodge roll or block as often, when mobs are not close together you can still align yourself from your target to hit more than one. A great sword can’t do that.

You yourself said the great sword is superior at hitting multiple targets and the short bow is a single target only weapon aside from poison volley. This is simply not true – the short bow is one of the most potent multiple target weapons the ranger has when used correctly and will often surpass the great sword. This isn’t an opinion – it’s game mechanics.

This isn’t a post your opinion or tell us about your play style thread, people are comparing the two weapons and their DPS. I was putting that into context of what the weapons do and asking why one weapon falls short in two categories compared to another (DPS and survivability) when melee weapons are supposed to gain extra DPS for going toe to toe, even the tankier ones.

I suspect the answer always comes down to sPvP. ArenaNet is consistently falling short of an e-sport and sacrificing PvE skill balance in favour of PvP skill balance is so tempting when they want to keep PvP on life support. It’s why quickness was nerfed (it wasn’t for PvE reasons, most PvE dungeon builds didn’t involve quickness aside from Time Warp which can be dealt with on it’s own without nerfing all quickness) and why warriors keep getting buffs (they are the kings of PvE because their skills are balanced around the idea that players will dodge, dungeons mobs don’t act like players, their PvP versatility struggles so they keep getting buffs). Most of the ranger’s issues show up in dungeons (and they hit hard), as much as pet AI is an issue in PvP, it pales in comparison to how often the pet dies in dungeons.

I honestly consider GS as a disgrace to ranger class and should be removed . Rangers should be allowed ranged weapons and 1h only.
That being said, I’m disappointed that we cannot use pistols/rifles.

I’ve actually picked up GS to try to find SOME kind of redemption in the class.
As it stands, the profession relies heavily on the pet to deal an acceptable DPS by PvP standards. Unfortunately, pets are INCREDIBLY easy to kite and avoid completely. Putting it in perspective, this would -very- similar to making every other profession only be able to hit on every other attack.

As for the person who stated that ranger is included for PvE – that’s absolutely true… and it’s pretty much the only thing they’re all the useful at. There’s a reason why, in many lists, ranger is either last or tied with last in it’s usefulness when stacked against all other professions.

Rangers need a significant buff, or else all they be useful for is supporting another profession… and while rangers are (and should be) support, they’re still not quite as useful as having any other profession watching your back.

I love my Ranger. It’s my main and has been since 1st day of release. I picked the profession because I enjoy playing a ranged class. That said I have consistently used LB/GS. I tried LB/sword/warhorn but the rooted auto is just not something I can get past. I also have since tried LB/SB but I really like using GS defensively when I have to.
The problem I have run into is mostly in WvW and the fact that I have one set of exotic armor ‘zerker + trinkets. The quickness nerf has really affected my dmg with a longbow. If I had invested in something with CD then I would have a viable build. As it is post-patch the LB 1, 2 & 5 are pretty easy to get away from. I want to make it work so I am still considering re-gearing for CD.
The rub; I have enough gold to craft a set of gear for either the Ranger or the Guardian. Honestly I am on the fence whereas prior to the patch I would always take my Ranger and deal with my squishiness because I would get kills & give a small amount of support. Now I just don’t know.
I just got my PvE-only-warrior to lvl 80 and funny enough I find myself using LB or Rifle on it and wondering what happened to a ranged Ranger.
EDIT: for missing a skill & to thank others in another thread who have posted suggestions for alternate builds.

Braxxus.2904:

Uncle Salty.6342:

Unless the devs plan to change the world’s perspective that rangers are meant to be melee classes and J.R. Tolkien should’ve given Legolas a slingshot and some pellets.

If you actually paid attention to Tolkien then you would’ve known that it was Aragorn who was the “ranger”, not Legolas. Aragorn was also quite explicitly a far better swordsman than an archer, even though he was adept at both.

As for the rest your opinion, and those of the WoW generation, not everyone has this idea that rangers are ‘archers’ first and foremost. Some of us grew up with real RPG’s, on tabletops (with dice and paper!) where the classic ranger was often a dual wielding melee master who had wilderness survival skills and knowledge. This whole ranger=archer only thing is fairly new.

So you nitpick at a slight attempt of humor. Wonderful.

Well anyhow, part of the community desires real improvements. The rest of you are quite happy with rangers being successful in “niche” builds and situations. And “getting by” in most other cases.

That is the state of a ranger in PVE.

OK dps.
sub par party synergy
laughable cooldowns on utilities worth noting.

“Getting by”

And if you’re doing some sort of kitten comparison who’s been gaming longer, I’d suggest a little more research that even rangers on tabletops are predominantly ‘ranged’.

Glass GS. Use signet of the hunt. GG.

I’m getting a kick out of people wanting to Melee on a Ranger. If it’s not incredibly obvious what the class name describes their power to be in?

http://powerrangers.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Arsenal_

Just thought it was awesome how a GW2 ranger uses the 5 weapons the original Power Rangers used. Red-sword, black-axe, blue-spear(ish), yellow-dagger, and pink-bow. Now if only there was an ability to put them all together and form a power blaster.

Also: Power Rangers had the greatest pets of all time that could combine to form a giant robot.

Point: rangers don’t have to be ranged bow-only wielders. They can be martial arts-practicing teenagers with attitiude.

DeWolfe.2174:

I’m getting a kick out of people wanting to Melee on a Ranger. If it’s not incredibly obvious what the class name describes their power to be in?

1range
noun, often attributive \?r?nj\
1
a (1) : a series of things in a line : row (2) : a series of mountains (3) : one of the north-south rows of townships in a United States public-land survey that are numbered east and west from the principal meridian of the survey
b : an aggregate of individuals in one order
c : a direction line
2
: a cooking stove that has an oven and a flat top with burners or heating elements
3
a : a place that may be ranged over
b : an open region over which animals (as livestock) may roam and feed
c : the region throughout which a kind of organism or ecological community naturally lives or occurs
4
: the act of ranging about
5
a (1) : the horizontal distance to which a projectile can be propelled (2) : the horizontal distance between a weapon and target
b : the maximum distance a vehicle or craft can travel without refueling
c (1) : a place where shooting is practiced (2) : driving range
6
a : the space or extent included, covered, or used : scope
b : the extent of pitch covered by a melody or lying within the capacity of a voice or instrument
7
a : a sequence, series, or scale between limits <a wide range of patterns>
b : the limits of a series : the distance or extent between possible extremes
c : the difference between the least and greatest values of an attribute or of the variable of a frequency distribution
8
a : the set of values a function may take on
b : the class of admissible values of a variable
9: line 11

rang·er
noun \?r?n-j?r\
a : the keeper of a British royal park or forest
b : forest ranger
2
: one that ranges
3
a : one of a body of organized armed men who range over a region especially to enforce the law
b : a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics

Dictionaries are very useful things, you know.

DeWolfe.2174:

I’m getting a kick out of people wanting to Melee on a Ranger. If it’s not incredibly obvious what the class name describes their power to be in?

Rangers are named after the Range as in ‘Home on the Range,’ not after Range as in ‘from far away.’

The 3 most famous Rangers of legend are Aragorn from Lord of the Rings, Robin Hood, and Drizzt Do’Urden from Dungeons and Dragons Lore. Of those 3 famous Rangers only one of them is known to favor the bow. Rangers are woodsman, hunters, and survivalists, their name has nothing to do with their fighting style or what type of weapon they use.

Wow,. I’d just like to point out that a “Ranger” is based off of Greek Mythology. Every story that has one in it, owes gratitude to Greek Mythology.

Btw… how could you have forgotten the Lone Ranger??? And yes, now I want duel pistols too, ty

DeWolfe.2174:

Btw… how could you have forgotten the Lone Ranger??? And yes, now I want duel pistols too, ty

Well that’s more in the sense of a ‘Texas Ranger’…and now I want a Roundhouse Kick utility skill.

Ugh, seriously? Does this tired old argument have to pop up any time someone mentions a ranger using a melee weapon?

Look, ANet decided that they want rangers to be able to use melee weapons. They also said that they believe melee should generally do more dps than ranged due to the extra risk associated with being up close to enemies. Neither of these points have anything to do with your pre-conceived notions of the word “Ranger”.

ANet could decide that they want Rangers to wield baskets while prancing around wearing bonnets as they drive around on motorcycles and they can do that if they want. They design the game; you don’t.

Also, definitions of words change over time and often mean things completely different than what they used to mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change

^Yes, I understand this is their sandbox. And No, one single game does not represent a semantic change. If another MMO comes along and does a Ranger justice though, people will move toward it.

For the roundhouse kick, OMG… AWESOME IDEA! Yes please!!!! :-) Let’s name just, CN.

DeWolfe.2174:

^Yes, I understand this is their sandbox. And No, one single game does not represent a semantic change. If another MMO comes along and does a Ranger justice though, people will move toward it.

For the roundhouse kick, OMG… AWESOME IDEA! Yes please!!!! :-) Let’s name just, CN.

Rangers as melee isn’t a new concept. Aragorn is probably the most popular example, but see the below additional examples of Rangers that melee in MMOs:

Aion
http://gameguide.na.aiononline.com/aion/Ranger
“Not only can a Ranger expertly wield a bow, but can make good use of a sword and dagger for close combat. "

Age of Conan
http://www.conanmmorpg.com/pages/rogue-archetype/ranger.php
“Skilled at dual wielding clubs, daggers or swords the Ranger can certainly hold their own up close. "

Elsword
http://news.mmosite.com/content/2013-02-14/trapping_ranger_class_arrives_in_elsword.kittenml
“The Trapping Ranger features a flexible set of ranged and close combat skills in addition to these traps.”

Neverwinter Nights
http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Ranger
“Despite popular perception and BioWare’s prestige class tip, the ranger is not intrinsically better suited to archery than melee combat.”

Neverwinter
http://feature.mmosite.com/neverwinter/ranger.kittenml
“Rangers in the 4th edition of D&D retain their ability to specialize in Archery or Two Weapon Fighting (respectively called Archer Rangers and Two Blade Rangers) through the Fighting Style class feature.”

And even the wikipedia definition of rangers includes melee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_
“Archery and (often dual-wielding) swordplay are common to rangers…”

So can we finally put this argument to rest? Rangers can melee and this is nothing new. If you haven’t heard of this, you probably haven’t been following the fantasy genre of books/movies/games/roleplay for long enough.

Umm…. for “long enough” you ask? Your references are how young? A handful of video games aren’t relevant to a couple of thousand years of theology/mythology. From my point of view Aragorn is probably one of the worst example of a Ranger I can think of. Especially when most people, if asked, would probably say Legolas was the Ranger of the movies. When you as the observer have to be told specifically what the character is, it’s a failure. :-)

Why are we even arguing of this? The point is, Archery is a Ranger’s most prolific and well known skill set. It will not change because of some video games. That’s all I’m saying.

DeWolfe.2174:

Umm…. for “long enough” you ask? Your references are how young? A handful of video games aren’t relevant to a couple of thousand years of theology/mythology. From my point of view Aragorn is probably one of the worst example of a Ranger I can think of. Especially when most people, if asked, would probably say Legolas was the Ranger of the movies. When you as the observer have to be told specifically what the character is, it’s a failure. :-)

Why are we even arguing of this? The point is, Archery is a Ranger’s most prolific and well known skill set. It will not change because of some video games. That’s all I’m saying.

Are you a troll? Do you seriously believe this?

And for how long? Lord of the Rings was published in the 50s for christ’s sake. And of course Aragorn is a ranger. He’s specifically named as a ranger. Don’t argue this if you haven’t even read the kitten book.

As for the games, Neverwinter Nights came out in 2002, which is before even WoW (when the MMO genre actually started to get some attention), so that argument doesn’t hold any water either.

Look, you expect a ranger to be ranged because the word “range” is in the name and rangers are often portrayed with bows. That’s fine, but don’t try to rationalize your narrow minded and ignorant perspective that over-extends and this to think that rangers don’t melee, never melee, can’t melee, and/or shouldn’t melee. You’re either decidedly ignorant or new enough to this genre to not know examples of rangers that engage in melee combat and there’s nothing wrong with that, but for pity’s sake, you don’t need to continually reinforce this pitiful argument that has plentiful counter examples, especially if you’re just going to try to reinforce your argument with baseless assumptions that most people agree with you.

Oh lord, another angry lil Tolkienian having to change the world to appease Lord Tolkien. I think you really need to put down the keyboard and read up on actual history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology <—- learn something. Mythology is where Tolkien ripped his idea’s from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis <—- oh look, the original Ranger motif.

Meanwhile, the conversation was about potential’s, not absolutes. Whomever said a Ranger can’t Melee? Did anyone write that? NO….. no one did. This is about what they are BEST at. So get off your high horse. Or just admit, you want to melee on the Ranger and be done with it. Because I’m done with this thread.

DeWolfe.2174:

Oh lord, another angry lil Tolkienian having to change the world to appease Lord Tolkien. I think you really need to put down the keyboard and read up on actual history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology <—- learn something. Mythology is where Tolkien ripped his idea’s from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis <—- oh look, the original Ranger motif.

Meanwhile, the conversation was about potential’s, not absolutes. Whomever said a Ranger can’t Melee? Did anyone write that? NO….. no one did. This is about what they are BEST at. So get off your high horse. Or just admit, you want to melee on the Ranger and be done with it. Because I’m done with this thread.

Where Tolkien got his ideas from is irrelevant since the point was that the example of Aragorn is a clear example of a ranger not being restricted to melee.

Even if it didn’t, neither of your links refer to those concepts being applied to the ranger.

If you think that rangers should have melee only as a supplement to ranged because that’s what you’re more familiar with, then that’s fine. I have no problem with you holding that opinion, even though I disagree.

However, I do hold issue with trying to assert that opinion with flawed logic and use of irrelevant sources:

- This is not the only MMO to highlight rangers as fully melee capable
– Historical and mythological figures such as Artemis are not and were not called rangers, even if they did influence the current archetype of rangers wielding bows.

Let’s also clear up another little myth: The word “ranger” did come from the word range, but it had nothing to do with attacking or fighting at range. It came from protecting an area (range).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ranger
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ranger
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ranger

And this guy sums up the argument better than I do:
http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=174432

And if you want to get back to the original point, then it doesn’t matter if you think that rangers should have less dps doing melee unless you can persuade Jon Peters on this. I started this thread because as it stands, the ranger class does not hold up to what he stated is the case in the game:

Jon Peters:

“Hey all. I wanted to talk about this a bit since it is a hot topic here and also on the internets. The intention is that both styles are viable. Certainly right now Melee is more difficult than ranged. There are some things we will try to do to address this, but I think the more you play you would find they are closer than you think.
First what’s already there:
1) Melee does more damage. Melee damage is simply higher than ranged damage across the board.
2) Melee has more control. With a few intentional exception Melee has a lot more control than ranged.
What Melee needs:
1) defensive tools on more weapons, particularly on lower armor professions.
2) ai needs to favor Melee a bit less than it currently does.
What else:
Finally because of the more action based nature of combat Melee needs to be taught better. Effective Melee requires skills that translate over from FPS games which are notoriously harder on casual players. You have to wasd to move, constantly aim with your mouse camera, and hit skills on 1-5.”

Source: http://www.guildwarsinsider.com/jon-peters-melee-vs-ranged-combat/

Uncle Salty.6342:

Unless the devs plan to change the world’s perspective that rangers are meant to be melee classes and J.R. Tolkien should’ve given Legolas a slingshot and some pellets.

There are people IRL that can fire faster and more accurately than Legolas. According to Tolkein lore, Legolas was an Archer, while Aragorn was a Ranger. Aragorn primarily used swords. Funny, huh?

Coincidentally, my ranger uses the slingshot skin haha.
Also, as time goes on.. I’m finding that I too are gravitating more towards melee. I think this has to do with Melee having some nuance that is not easy to grasp for the most common player. A guildie complimented me the other day for my playstyle using the GS. Reminded him of hoppy warriors in sPvP and the Bunny Thumper Build from gw1.