Guild Wars 2

I see a lot of players complaining that the Ranger isn’t good at range. As such I am providing you with this. It is not my “work” though it is entirely relevant and intended to help people come to terms with the fact that Ranger does not imply “ultimate ranged class.”

Link http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=174432

This thread is not meant to flame, just providing some info for people.

I see a lot of people misusing the word “ranger” on some other threads, and thought a quick little insight into the class origins/word definition would be helpful. A lot of people try to argue that the ranger is an archer b/c they’re used to people saying “range that mob over there”, and they see “ranger” and automatically assume the class is about ranging things from distance. This is inaccurate.

Let’s take a look at the word historically (b/c the creators of D&D drew on a multitude of references, including the medieval period), and how it applied to D&D.

First, let’s look at the historical definition of the word:

The word has been used as long ago as the 13th century:

The term “Ranger” was first noted in England in the 13th century when these special units were used as anti-poaching forces across the countryside.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_4570876_army-rangerkittenml

In the 16th and 17th century, it applied to someone that policies an area.

ranger 1388, “gameskeeper,” from range (n.)). Attested from 1670 in sense of “man (often mounted) who polices an area.”
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none

As noted, the root “range” from the verb meaning “move over a large area” (1477)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none

When we think of rangers in modern times, we can look to the US army rangers, which is a light infantry, rapid response force. This follows the tradition of the “ranger”, as the modern US army rangers are meant for rapid deployment over an area.

So as we can see, historically, and in modern times, a “ranger” does not suggest one who attacks a target from a distance. Throughout time, a ranger has been a lightly armored patrolman of an area. This was done through a number of means. Could attacking targets from a distance have been one of those means? Sure. But it was not exclusive, nor the defining characteristic of what was meant by “ranger”.

Now, in the pen and paper game, Gary Gygax acknowledged he drew upon Tolkien a decent bit for D&D:

“How did it influence the D&D game? Whoa, plenty, of course. Just about all the players were huge JRRT fans, and so they insisted that I put as much Tolkien-influence material into the game as possible. "

http://archives.theonering.net/featu...ml#maincontent

And on the ranger in particular:

Ranger class Based primarily on the character of Aragorn from Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien.
http://www.geocities.com/rgfdfaq/sourcekittenml

Also in the D&D game, rangers do not get “bow strength” as they do in DDO. So, in the pen and paper game, if one wanted to be an archer, it would be just as viable, if not more so, to do so through the fighter class, as the fighter can take all the archery related feats, and take them faster than any other class. This only makes sense, as a fighter, who is a highly trained combatant, should be as lethal with a bow if that’s what he dedicates his training to, as any other.

You do realize that the pet-haters will now have found ammo to throw at us due to your revelation that the historical ranger was in no way a beastmaster?

You have doomed us all, TJV. Truly, you have doomed us all.

history doesn’t mean anything, you look at A-nets definition of a ranger which is this:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/

“Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.”

That’s all very nice and well but the ranger we know in GW2 relies on broken pets, and I am not hauling my medium armor sylvari in melee range how accurate it might be. I’d be dead in 4 wild swings!!

I am all for the original Ranger though, I love that concept. I like bows sure, but I like the idea of the scouter, ranger, surviver a lot.

Plus yeah, also what Flubble said. You might want to shut a lot of people up but Anet’s statement clearly says they weren’t designed to be historically accurate.

it doesn’t matter what a class is called . ranger, archer, woodsman, scout, beast master , hell you can call it a lumberjack for all i care. But in the world of GW2 the only thing that matters is how anet defines them.

Flubble.8093:

history doesn’t mean anything, you look at A-nets definition of a ranger which is this:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/

“Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.”

I think A-net did a good job keeping to that definition, now that I look at it.

Star Wars Galaxies had the best Ranger class so far in any game :|

Creature Scouting (later even Player Scouting), Camps, creature harvesting, better terrain negotiation, trapping (though traps were nothing like one would imagine a “trap” in this game) and that was about it.

and this discussion is so old … i agree anets definition of their own class should overweight what a word actually derives of. However i dont think that much players actually even read these descriptions, and im pretty sure almost everyone here has seen the lotr movies and thinks of aragorn, and not of legolas when hearing “ranger”.

Majik.8521:

it doesn’t matter what a class is called . ranger, archer, woodsman, scout, beast master , hell you can call it a lumberjack for all i care. But in the world of GW2 the only thing that matters is how anet defines them.

This. It doesn’t matter how the “Ranger” plays in other games, or the conventional definition of the role, all that matters is Anet’s definition of the profession in GW2. And they botched it up.

In the interests of accuracy, I move to re-word the definition of Ranger as follows:

“Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled Mediocre archers, rangers are capable of bringing down PvE foes from a distance with their bows. With traps in the wrong trait lines, ineffective nature spirits, and a stable of loyal dysfunctional pets at their command, rangers can adapt succumb to any situation.”

Joking of course, but sadly this does reflect the state of the ranger profession right now pretty accurately.

Daemon.4295:

In the interests of accuracy, I move to re-word the definition of Ranger as follows:

“Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled Mediocre archers, rangers are capable of bringing down PvE foes from a distance with their bows. With traps in the wrong trait lines, ineffective nature spirits, and a stable of loyal dysfunctional pets at their command, rangers can adapt succumb to any situation.”

Joking of course, but sadly this does reflect the state of the ranger profession right now pretty accurately.

Excellent rewording, Daemon!

A Ranger in any other world can be a melee or whatever class, that’s fine. When ArenaNet gives a paragraph statement of what they define as a “ranger” and people try to argue that, that just frustrates me. Its like they’re covering their ears and shouting, “LA LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU! RANGER ISN’T RANGED! LA LA LA LA LA!”

It just smells like denial.

IMO a lot of the dis-satisfied Rangers in GW2 are people who have played Ranger/Archer in other games where they are 1 shot monsters; whereas in GW2 it can be hard work to down a player, let alone finish them.

Of course OP is correct about origins of “Ranger” . In Shaiya for example they had Archers , and Rangers were the Light faction Assassin class.

It’s all a case of adapting to what we have, and ever hoping for some small improvements. Not least of those would be dealing with condition removal. 90second CD on Shared Anguish is worse than useless when targeted by multiple enemies

I played a Hunter in World of Warcraft, and while that class beats Guild Wars 2’s Ranger by miles, it was in my time never a ‘one shot monster’.

The class was just much better designed, that’s all.

Even in Guild Wars 1 they were far far away from “one shot monsters”.

Daemon.4295:

“Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled Mediocre archers, rangers are capable of bringing down PvE foes from a distance with their bows. With traps in the wrong trait lines, ineffective nature spirits, and a stable of loyal dysfunctional pets at their command, rangers can adapt succumb to any situation.”

Joking of course, but sadly this does reflect the state of the ranger profession right now pretty accurately.

So much win

Meryt.9823:

IMO a lot of the dis-satisfied Rangers in GW2 are people who have played Ranger/Archer in other games where they are 1 shot monsters; whereas in GW2 it can be hard work to down a player, let alone finish them.

I disagree, I think the main cause of frustration is simply the notion that rangers are not functioning as ArenaNet intended, at least in PvP. Our core game mechanics, as defined by Anet (pet damage and arrow damage), are severely flawed when fighting intelligent players. You can’t help but think that critical issues with core mechanics should take precedence over lesser fixes and new content, hence all the raging in this forum every time other classes receive minor tweaks and adjustments and the ranger is overlooked.

Flubble.8093:

history doesn’t mean anything, you look at A-nets definition of a ranger which is this:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/

“Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.”

Well, they have more bow ability than any other class, they can do considerable damage from distance with the 2 skill alone on longbow (downing someone at 1500 is OP, I wouldn’t expect to do it), people use traps, spirits, and pets effectively enough to win, and I have a strategy in my build against each class. Yep, matches up just about right. Isn’t perfect, but it’s not way off.

Agadar.4931:

You do realize that the pet-haters will now have found ammo to throw at us due to your revelation that the historical ranger was in no way a beastmaster?

You have doomed us all, TJV. Truly, you have doomed us all.

Its kinda true tho. Beastmasters are stupid, and are rarely ever successful in a game. Its w/e tho, Ill just wait and hope they do something worthy with the class or move on to a different game.

Krugan.7901:

“Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled Mediocre archers, rangers are capable of bringing down PvE foes from a distance with their bows. With traps in the wrong trait lines, ineffective nature spirits, and a stable of loyal dysfunctional pets at their command, rangers can adapt succumb to any situation.”

I love this so much I’m thinking about making it my Sig, LOL

Dante Dragonhand.2538:

Agadar.4931:

You do realize that the pet-haters will now have found ammo to throw at us due to your revelation that the historical ranger was in no way a beastmaster?

You have doomed us all, TJV. Truly, you have doomed us all.

Its kinda true tho. Beastmasters are stupid, and are rarely ever successful in a game. Its w/e tho, Ill just wait and hope they do something worthy with the class or move on to a different game.

My beastmaster Hunter in World of Warcraft owned face. Back in the day, they had an ability similar to Rampage As One, only much stronger and with a much more intelligent pet. It was glorious.

Agadar.4931:

Dante Dragonhand.2538:

Agadar.4931:

You do realize that the pet-haters will now have found ammo to throw at us due to your revelation that the historical ranger was in no way a beastmaster?

You have doomed us all, TJV. Truly, you have doomed us all.

Its kinda true tho. Beastmasters are stupid, and are rarely ever successful in a game. Its w/e tho, Ill just wait and hope they do something worthy with the class or move on to a different game.

My beastmaster Hunter in World of Warcraft owned face. Back in the day, they had an ability similar to Rampage As One, only much stronger and with a much more intelligent pet. It was glorious.

Well quite. The WoW hunter outshines GW2 Ranger in every conceivable aspect, sadly. As for Anet’s definition, I’m all for them throwing it out, and using a more traditional style. It wouldn’t make much difference to the game, the lore is hardly enshrined since GW1 rangers had pets optional and in many ways played far better and frankly they missed many of the marks on the present definition anyways.