Guild Wars 2

To the OP Please stop arguing for mediocrity as a standard for a class.

Ranger Pets are kitten. Lets just be honest here. Its not that they should be. On paper their damage should be a really good over all balancing point to anything the Ranger class lacks in that department, but because of the basic issues with the pet its self that “balance” simply does not exist.

What are the issues with the pets? Well we could write a short book on the subject, but lets just say Pet tracking and Pet AI were done better in EQ1 than they are in Guild Wars 2.

Part of the issue is with pet combat animations. It is slow, easy to avoid and in effect roots the pet during combat for short periods at a time. What I mean by this is a pet will get locked into a given attack animation and once it starts cannot change its facing. This causes the pet to miss many of its attacks.

Another part of the issue is that the pet is far to easy to kill except in the case of one build. So 1 potential build gets a strong pet and the rest get …… kitten. I always though having the option to have more than 1 build was the point of Guild Wars in general. If i wanted to play the same build as everyone else I would still be playing one of several other games where X class is exactly the same as everyone else playing X class.

Many of these issues could be resolved by speeding up the attack animation and letting the pet travel during the attacks. Another part of the issue could be resolved by giving the pets universal stats that let them survive with out the rangers stats or build effecting that at all.

So a Power build Ranger’s pets would hit just as hard and live just as long as a “bunker” ranger. The only difference would be the Ranger. If the pet is intended to be part of a Rangers damage then only 1 build really gets that benefit. The rest are just kinda screwed.

On weapons. Please for the love of Kitten stop trying to argue over rangers being a ranged or a melee class because they don’t perform as well as any other class at either.

Lets compare them side by side with what could be stated to be the most balanced over all class in the game right now. The Warrior.

Ranged: Lulz… that’s all I have to say there.

Longbow. Warriors win here hands down. Their attacks and options here are better than anything the Ranger has. Warrior longbow has far better sustained damage. It has better attacks and combines not only solid direct damage, but integrated condition damage. Warrior Auto attack has higher consistent damage than Rangers Auto attack. Because of the 2 shots they will average out over 1400 damage a shot with a power spec. Rangers can hit from 700 to 2200. That is a huge range. Testing this with a power based warrior I have had 2800 damage crit’s with auto attack. You can stack more damage on there as well because warriors get traits that increase their damage against a target that is suffering from burning and or bleeding targets.

Then warriors second ranged option. Rifle. Again stronger than Rangers longbow or short bow. Almost a carbon copy of Ranger longbow, but with bleeds added to the attacks. Again integrating both condition damage and power, but with far better synergy than Ranger. Further Unlike ranger short bow Warriors do not have to be flanking or behind a target to apply their bleeds that last more than twice as long.

Long sword. Again Warriors integrate condition damage with damage far better than rangers. Rangers do have more avoidance on this department.

The Ranger Auto attack chain can cause a player to be stuck so to speak. It can be very hard to actually stop attacking and can get you killed because you keep trying to jump back to your target. It can actually interrupt a player trying to use a different ability. Such as spiking a downed player or even using a healing skill.

Axe: This is actually probably one of the few shining points behind the Ranger class. The Axe is probably the most group friendly weapon Rangers have. With the changes to Path of Scars it had some real punch added. Although Whirling defense really needs to have the “root” effect removed from the skill.

Off hand skills are fairly par for the course in all honestly. Except in the case of Torch. In this case I look at the Guardian off hand as they are the closest match. Guardian 4 skill is simply better than ranger 4 and 5 combined. Why? Because a guardian can set 3 targets on fire With out relying on a small ground effect for more damage than Ranger 5 skill AND throw the flame at a target hitting for close to the same damage as the Ranger 4 skill… All on a 12-20 second timer. The Guardian #4 attack hits up to 3 targets for close to 4600+ fire damage over 3 seconds and can be thrown do do another 1500+ over 3 seconds. Compare that with Ranger 4 and 5 combined…

Zuer.2814:

Pretty much in the title. But if you can’t figure out what I’m trying to convey by that then just know that “Ranger” isn’t in reference to the word range. A ranger is a woodsman, outdoorsman, or someone who acts to protect the wild.

Actually the word ranger is in reference to the word range, but not in the sense of distance to target. Ranger refers to a range in the sense that the word means territory.

On the other hand I think that context is rather important and Ranger, in games with a pre-industrial setting, generally refers to the setting’s distance combat specialists, particularly its archer’s.

So, if you take into consideration the word’s common usage, the context of its usage here, the description of the class as presented by ANet, the similarity of the naming of class features/traits to similarly named classes in other games within the genre, and the nature of the class as presented in GW1, it is very reasonable for people to expect rangers in GW2 to be the game’s premier archers. To be a ranged class with a focus, primarily, on bows.

They shouldn’t have to nerf our most common weapon to get us to try new classes.

So you guys don’t believe any longer that Rangers are leaf clothed hippies that only care about the wild and animals?

This case, thanks to the six gods! Finally, players managed to understand. ^^

No, a Ranger to me should be using a bow too. Tolkienian’s are very narrow minded about this. They bring up the D&D again and again. Yet, where did Tolkien’s inspiration come from???

My one Ranger is name Diana. By appearance, she looks like another popular Diana. But, she also represents this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_

But, hey…. those myths are only a couple of thousand years old. Of course, a book someone wrote 75 years ago MUST be the original source of everything, right? Heck, I think he invented paper, ink, even our English language too. It’s all him, right?

Grrrrr….. the problem is, why have a class that needs dividing. I don’t want pet’s to be an ornament or a “big mini”. We also have a Dev that dislikes range. That’s why range sucks across the board compared to melee. Unless you are a thief then by all means, range skills that hit for over 9k, sure… no problem!

:)

Simon.3106:

Just right after I agreed with you on the other post, Einlanzer.

If I want to play a class that shoots fire and creammate the body of my enemies, I’ll not go for a warrior, but an elementalist. If I want to have an army of zombies (inspired by M-Jackson – Thriller), I’ll roll with a necro. If I want to be Legolas… I’ll go for a ranger.

Understand for others. They don’t care about rangers being able to use melee weapons, but they do care that rangers sucks with bows incomparison with other classes (Warrior, thief). But honestly, I’m perfectly fine with the way it is. I like my LB =b

and if I wanted to be Aragorn I would play….
seriously I’m surprised that in two pages of thread nobody used him as an argument

anyway somebody pointed wiki article about what rangers in “fantasy games are”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_%28Middle-earth%29

this is from where they migrated to fantasy games also I advice to read linked there descriptions of both rangers of the north and rangers of ithilien

EDIT: I have no idea from where Tolkien tooked their ranger’s but as for now we can agree that In computer games rangers comes from rpg systems such as D&D which rangers was inspired in tolkien ranger’s and to MMO games they comes from computer rpg’s.

Ranger doesn’t just mean archer, but it doesn’t just mean melee either. Clearly bow use is a major design aspect central to what a ranger is meant to be. That is why rangers can use both bows and has a Marksmanship trait.

The problem is that the implementation of the ranger is now at complete odds to the design of the ranger in that while bow use is central to the design and vision of a ranger, they are now the weakest archers in the game. And pretty much the weakest melee profession too, especially when you consider the defensive capabilities and armour they use.

If you want to play a ranged character, you really don’t want a ranger.
If you want to play a melee character, you really don’t want a ranger.

Enjoy your pet collection, that you can no longer control.

I think almost everyone missed the point of this thread. What OP wanted to say is standing now in my signature.

Nono, the point of this thread is to beat a dead horse. So far it’s on track.

Sarision.6347:

I guess I’m the only one who actually mains a Ranger just so I can melee like Aragorn and Drizzt.

Nope, I prefer meleeing as well, which is why these threads really annoy me.

There’s an assumption that everyone who picked a ranger did so because they wanted to be good with a bow and only a bow. I picked it because I like the lore behind the class and like to feel like a versatile, rugged jack-of-all-trades with a primal flavor.

Sandpit.3467:

Ranger doesn’t just mean archer, but it doesn’t just mean melee either. Clearly bow use is a major design aspect central to what a ranger is meant to be. That is why rangers can use both bows and has a Marksmanship trait.

The problem is that the implementation of the ranger is now at complete odds to the design of the ranger in that while bow use is central to the design and vision of a ranger, they are now the weakest archers in the game. And pretty much the weakest melee profession too, especially when you consider the defensive capabilities and armour they use.

If you want to play a ranged character, you really don’t want a ranger.
If you want to play a melee character, you really don’t want a ranger.

Enjoy your pet collection, that you can no longer control.

I just fail to see how the situation is as dire as you make it out to be. Ranger is unquestionably very strong in the open world, and while they may be on the lower end for dungeons and PvP, this is almost entirely related to the flawed pet design.

However, what I’m trying to express is that people need to get out of the need to think of classes as “melee” or “ranged” and picking them based on that criteria. Games with good design philosophies do not use that as a basis for designing classes. Instead, you should thinking of classes as conceptual archetypes built around broad themes.

Sandpit.3467:

Ranger doesn’t just mean archer, but it doesn’t just mean melee either. Clearly bow use is a major design aspect central to what a ranger is meant to be. That is why rangers can use both bows and has a Marksmanship trait.

The problem is that the implementation of the ranger is now at complete odds to the design of the ranger in that while bow use is central to the design and vision of a ranger, they are now the weakest archers in the game. And pretty much the weakest melee profession too, especially when you consider the defensive capabilities and armour they use.

If you want to play a ranged character, you really don’t want a ranger.
If you want to play a melee character, you really don’t want a ranger.

Enjoy your pet collection, that you can no longer control.

You missed one word from Your dictionary – it’s called “evade” If you will take a closer look to our melee arsenal You will se that is full-packed with evades – also even with medium armor class I have no problem to reach 3k armor – and as for now also I don’t have really problems when it comes to distance fighting – I can beat with my bows without no problem nearly all other class in range duels

If you are lover of skirmishing battles, when You don’t want to be alone in Your effords and when You are determined enought to learn how to play – then You obviously want a ranger.

PS. did You even play ranger?

Lord Trejgon.2809:

PS. did You even play ranger?

Really? Is that how you like to conduct a rational debate?

Fail

I think the OP was referring to Texas Rangers

More like Ranger Rick. Ooo! Maybe the ranger from Yogi Bear! We should play like him. Aragorn is overrated gimme Ranger Rick any day.

Sandpit.3467:

Lord Trejgon.2809:

PS. did You even play ranger?

Really? Is that how you like to conduct a rational debate?

Fail

really. If You want rational debate all sides need have minimal knowledge in the topic.
Your post about our class sugested that You are not even aknowledged with skills description on our both melee options in case of survival – that’s why I ended my previous post with pointed ask, previously explaining you why Your post was incorrect.

Still – You didn’t answer on my question.

Zuer.2814:

Pretty much in the title. But if you can’t figure out what I’m trying to convey by that then just know that “Ranger” isn’t in reference to the word range. A ranger is a woodsman, outdoorsman, or someone who acts to protect the wild.

Just figured I’d post this. It’s annoying reading the forums and seeing people say that we should be the longest range or best range class when to justify how they think the ranger should be played.

umm,

tell that to Anet:
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.”

Unparalleled archers is in the description, in case you missed it.

Rational debate would be, you are not outputting a lot of damage while stacking 3k worth of Armor. I know as I am at 3k armor. And, it’s great and all until any stacked condi based enemy shows up and melts you far faster than you can dish out any damage.

Also, S/D does have a nice grouping of evades. Everything else is on par with other classes. Which is great for all you Melee types. Now, what about a Condi based Longbow for us, the Archers?

Einlanzer.1627:

Aioros.4862:

Einlanzer.1627:

Lol at how my second post addressed the flood of loons citing the description and they’re just incapable of reading/processing it.

Don’t brag, you’re no Nostradamus, it’s only natural that when people are right they mention the one irrefutable evidence that they are right.

Oh, it’s totally refutable. Unparalleled means unmatched. And Rangers are unmatched in archery because they are the only class that uses both bow types, and each type has a different role and skill-set, giving rangers greater tactical options with bows than any other class has by far. Damage is a matter of build.

That’s how you “interpreted” it, but try to make everyone that wanted to play a range class that’s good with bows into your twisted version.

Alright.

But it says they are unparallelled archers right on the main professions page!

It also says warriors are the masters of weaponry. Guess what that includes? Stop using flavor text as your only defense. Especially when its the only source.

GW1 were purely based on archery with pets as a side, why do they suck here?!

Allow me to direct you to here; http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Ranger that and more specifically to this section.

Trivia
At one point in development, according to The Making of Guild Wars 2 book, the ranger profession of the original Guild Wars was split into many different professions, notably the warden and the marksman. Eventually, with only marksman remaining, who only possessed only the aspect of ranged weaponry, was combined with already scrapped elements of warden and beastmaster, [u]and renamed the result as ranger for the sake of the original series.[/u]

The Ranger had many concepts in its design and the games don’t always reflect properly to the origins. In GW1 the name was simply to reflect lore. Otherwise it would have been properly renamed to Marksmen if it were always mean to be ranged.

Well Ranger obviously has the word Range in it, so obviously its meant…

That’s not where it’s origins come from. I do suggest a bit of research before assuming such things.

Guild Wars 2 advertised the Ranger as an unmatched ranged character with the pet! They lied to me!

Are you one of those people that believes every TV trailer they see to the core? If so, you must be highly disappointed in alot of what you watch. Just because something is advertised one way, doesn’t mean its carved into stone thakittens the only way it is.

I don’t care, I want to use a bow! I don’t want to use any of those other weapons!

Then do so.
No one is stopping you. Just keep in mind not every weapon is created equal. If your counter argument is “well they suck”, well, deal with it. Lots of weapons suck for different classes. Either adapt or change just like everyone else.

DeWolfe.2174:

Rational debate would be, you are not outputting a lot of damage while stacking 3k worth of Armor. I know as I am at 3k armor. And, it’s great and all until any stacked condi based enemy shows up and melts you far faster than you can dish out any damage.

Also, S/D does have a nice grouping of evades. Everything else is on par with other classes. Which is great for all you Melee types. Now, what about a Condi based Longbow for us, the Archers?

I know my damage isn’t best – about condi based enemy – sorry I outregen most “condi based” enemies – at least outregen enough of this condition to make properly use of healing spring on the ground or heal as one underwater.
my record is when I have healing spring in the half of cd and sudenly I’ve got 25 stack of bleed from the necro and his friends (something like poof 25 stack of bleed) – I had something like 33% of hp when finally I’ve got a possibility to pop up healing spring – and on the end I’ve survive long enought to win this battle (up to my friends arrival)

but bunker isn’t suppose to deal big damage – bunker priority is to survive – isn’t it?

that condi based longbow is bad bad idea – for condi ranged dmg we have shortbow – longbow was, is and should remain power-based ranged option.

I didn’t say a condi Longbow should be an “or” as I’d rather have it as an “And” I’m forever irked at Engi’s having 1500 grenade range with conditions. 900 range doesn’t cut it when going after or defending a tower/keep.

Trying to argue with the OP might be the biggest waste of time. Clearly he isn’t being objective and presents a very biased point of view.

Your definition of ranger is correct. Something akin to wilderness survivalist. Does this necessarily mean archer? No.
Does it necessarily mean daggers and axes? No.
Does it equate to a beast master? No.
It means nothing other than someone who is adept at living off the land in a non-agricultural way(although this can be debated).

That being said, the most likely class to wield a bow and wield it the best would be a ranger. The most likely class to have animal companions would be a ranger. If you are too blind to reach this conclusion, then you need to reassess your motives.

I would understand posts like this if the forum was filled with posts askign ArenaNet to scrap all the melee weapons the ranger had access to. Fortunately it’s not and posts like the OP’s post look absolutely stupid.

Ranged weapons are weaker than melee to begin with. Dungeon encounters are often designed to punish individuals (and often, entire parties) for using ranged weapons. A lot of people are upset with how weak ranged rangers already are and are increasingly becoming. This is not synonymous with asking for ranged only options. The decision to use only one of the two bows should be up to the individual (and supported by game design), it’s not your business to tell rangers not to use a shortbow or a longbow or both. It’s their game and they should be able to play it how they want, unfortunately balance and design have a two pronged attack on ranged rangers.

qualm like a bomb.6512:

Zuer.2814:

Pretty much in the title. But if you can’t figure out what I’m trying to convey by that then just know that “Ranger” isn’t in reference to the word range. A ranger is a woodsman, outdoorsman, or someone who acts to protect the wild.

Just figured I’d post this. It’s annoying reading the forums and seeing people say that we should be the longest range or best range class when to justify how they think the ranger should be played.

Well kitten, if I knew I was going to be a thief without stealth or a warrior without heavy armor I would have just rolled one of them.

This is exactly how i feel, honestly why have ranged options if everyone’s suppose to be melee, i just don’t get it..

The issue with the OP is his definition is wrong for Ranger in Gw2, his definition of a Ranger fits real world types not mythic fantasy definitions which have sprouted up since, i don’t care if he disagrees with me or not the Fantasy definition of Ranger is vastly different to a real world Definition…

Last i checked Guildwars 2 is Fantasy…

What a pointless topic. Each to their own, but according to everyone who posted here (non-duplicate), it seems that we have more people who AGREES, including myself which is 10+ automatically, outweighs the number of people who DISAGREE that Rangers are suppose to be “archers”.

Let me give you a non-arguable example.
If I want a brute-fighting profession, I’ll play not a Ranger, but a Warrior. If I want a guy with a army full of undead (inspired by MJ – Thriller), I’ll play a necro. If I want to scorch someone and creammate their body and let the ocean have what’s left of them, I’ll play an Elementalist. If I want to play a PALADIN-type character, I’ll play a Guardian. If I want to play an Archer…. who do I play… -_- Good boy, I’ll play a ranger. Anyone with “any logic” would know that.

Love yours truly,

Simon

Zuer.2814:

Pretty much in the title. But if you can’t figure out what I’m trying to convey by that then just know that “Ranger” isn’t in reference to the word range. A ranger is a woodsman, outdoorsman, or someone who acts to protect the wild.

Just figured I’d post this. It’s annoying reading the forums and seeing people say that we should be the longest range or best range class when to justify how they think the ranger should be played.

Ranger doesn’t mean “beastmaster” either, but we’re joined at the hip to our pets.

Quarktastic.1027:

Zuer.2814:

Pretty much in the title. But if you can’t figure out what I’m trying to convey by that then just know that “Ranger” isn’t in reference to the word range. A ranger is a woodsman, outdoorsman, or someone who acts to protect the wild.

Just figured I’d post this. It’s annoying reading the forums and seeing people say that we should be the longest range or best range class when to justify how they think the ranger should be played.

Ranger doesn’t mean “beastmaster” either, but we’re joined at the hip to our pets.

Well said, Ball and chain.

Talonblaze.3175:

I don’t care, I want to use a bow! I don’t want to use any of those other weapons!

Then do so.
No one is stopping you. Just keep in mind not every weapon is created equal. If your counter argument is “well they suck”, well, deal with it. Lots of weapons suck for different classes. Either adapt or change just like everyone else.

Leaving aside all of the time spent leveling ranger which you expect us to accept as wasted, there isn’t anything to change to for those of us who would like to play an archer archetype. I bought this game with the expectation that they would deliver on the claims made about it. They have failed to do so and, just as frustrating, have refused to be open or communicative about the continuing problems.

slingblade.1437:

I agree that the word Ranger in-and-of itself does not mean archer. However, Anet’s own description of the class opens with these words: “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.” This has already been posted a million times. One hand doesn’t seem to know what the other is doing after reading those words, and seeing the reality of GW2 Rangers and their bows.

This one comment should be all the “guidance” that Anet needs.

Why did OUR range get cut from 1200 to 900? That makes no sense!

Sry but, if you can use 2 bows, you are a archer….tbh, the best “ranged” prof now is warrior, LB have really nice skills and rifle too.

Also, since when did “unparalleled” get redefined to mean “can pick up both long and short bows”.

@OP

You are correct, Ranger doesn’t mean archer in its real-world sense.

However, guild wars 2 isn’t the real-world. In the guild wars 2 official wiki, this is the opening gambit:

“Good dog! Hold the enemy down while I shoot them! You get a biscuit!
— GuildWars2.com Ranger”

Implying a range-combat profession. The wiki goes on to say:

“Rangers are flexible and durable—proficient with the bow, yet surgical with the sword. They rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature to slay their targets. Their loyal pets, which rangers tame and train, distract enemies while the rangers strike safely from a distance. As an adventurer profession, rangers wear medium armor.”

While it also states that it is adept with a sword,

In Guild Wars 2 the Ranger profession should predominantly be an archer-type combatant

Omg who cares if this class is called ’’ranger’’ or should be something else.
Its what it is.
And that is a class that deal with: Marksmanship, Skirmishing, Wilderness Survival, Nature Magic and Beastmastery (check trait line).
THAT’S IT.

if ranger is not a expert archer then we should be able to use RIFLES

This thread really contains a lot of dumb posts.

Rangers are archers, but they aren’t just archers, and the flavor text describing them as unparalleled archers is just that- flavor text. That said, they actually are unparalleled archers in the game (or are supposed to be at least) simply because they are the only class who is proficient with bow types and can use bows effectively in a greater variety of situations than any other class (yes, including warriors).

In broader terms, Rangers are a fantasy trope that primarily comes from D&D, where they are a primal, wilderness-flavored class that is keen with both bow and blade. The version of Ranger in this game is clearly reflecting the same trope, as well it should.

GW2 does not create classes as full-melee or full-range, which is good because that’s a horrible and pigeonholing class design paradigm. Therefore, Rangers are not meant to be exclusively ranged anymore than Thieves are meant to be exclusively melee, because in reality a Ranger would need to skirmish sometimes and a Thief might kill from a distance.

This is really nothing more than a semantic argument and there’s just a lot of going back and forth without anything of any substance being stated.

Zorby.8236:

Nono, the point of this thread is to beat a dead horse. So far it’s on track.

It’s not beating a dead horse on the OPs part if saying such a simple fact has three pages worth of people arguing the definition of the word ranger.

I don’t see that OPs repeated themselves regarding the definition. No, what we’re seeing here is called public education.

Maybe some quality trolling, but I believe OP was sincere. Not malicious or trying to get a rise out of folks. Some people on here are just really that dense.

Words don’t mean what they mean! So that said, rant rant rant QQ.

There are different ways to interpret the title.
For Example;
“Ranger (the word itself) does not mean archer.” Basicly saying that the words Ranger and Archer dont have the same meaning.
But another example:
“Ranger (the class in GW2) does not mean archer.” In this example it is stating that the Ranger class isnt a class that, while having access to several weapons both melee and ranged, focus on ranged weapons.

And therein lies the page after page of arguments.
People arguing the definition of the word against people arguing the role/focus/design of the class. With sprinkles of people who just like to argue.

XelNigma.6315:

There are different ways to interpret the title.

Nope.

CETheLucid.3964:

XelNigma.6315:

There are different ways to interpret the title.

Nope.

Says one of the people who just likes to argue

The ranger may not be solely designed for range, but current options have all of our ranged options severely lacking. We are kinda forced into melee if we want to be any sort of effective.

We are not saying that the ranger should only be ranged. We are saying that ranged should be viable as an option.

Sandpit.3467:

CETheLucid.3964:

XelNigma.6315:

There are different ways to interpret the title.

Nope.

Says one of the people who just likes to argue

Hah, point made.

Sandpit.3467:

CETheLucid.3964:

XelNigma.6315:

There are different ways to interpret the title.

Nope.

Says one of the people who just likes to argue

-throws a dictionary at you-

Etyomologically speaking, the word “Ranger” means “a (mounted) man who polices an area”. This is taken from the Germanic word “rengen”, or Old French “rengier”, circa 13th century, which means “to move over a large area, to roam with the purpose of searching or hunting”

And so, while the term does have connotations with regards to being close to nature as scouts and guides (e.g. US Army Rangers that worked with Native American tribes during the American colonial period), there’s really no direct relationship to the word “range” as in the upper and lower limits of a certain distance.

Even if we were to look at D&D for inspiration, it’s important to note that at no point is a D&D Ranger obliged to use a ranged weapon – their trademark is the ability to have Favored Enemies, have an Animal Companion, be able to Track targets and move swiftly and silently through woodland areas. If anything, having to choose between Archery and Two-Weapon Fighting as the D&D Ranger’s preferred combat style allows a player to repudiate bows altogether as an deliberate choice.

Please don’t let this discussion fall into the trap of ‘ranged’ or ‘melee’ only. No, rangers are not only ranged only. No, rangers are not melee only. We all realize that.

But being that ArenaNet did advertise the class as ‘unparalleled archers’ means that they did intend for ranged combat to be one of it’s selling points. That is kinda irrefutable. And it’s ability to use not only swords but also greatswords proves that it is also intended to melee.

We’re not wanting ranged or melee to be removed from the ranger’s repertoire. We simply want it’s ranged capabilities to be be what was originally advertised. ‘Unparalleled archers’. Nothing more.

gradenko.1097:

Even if we were to look at D&D for inspiration, it’s important to note that at no point is a D&D Ranger obliged to use a ranged weapon – their trademark is the ability to have Favored Enemies, have an Animal Companion, be able to Track targets and move swiftly and silently through woodland areas. If anything, having to choose between Archery and Two-Weapon Fighting as the D&D Ranger’s preferred combat style allows a player to repudiate bows altogether as an deliberate choice.

Perhaps an interesting point is that the original incarnation of the Ranger class in DnD was primarily melee focused. Bows did poor damage and the Ranger’s extra hit points (more than a fighter) and ability to dual wield melee weapons made him a top notch melee combatant.

Watch this video.

At 55:30 he talks about the ranger. The first sentence is “rangers are our long range master”. I’m so sick of these threads.

You forgot “and also potent skirmishers,” So let’s just use whole quotation not just the parts that support your stance.

Bran.7425:

You forgot “and also potent skirmishers,” So let’s just use whole quotation not just the parts that support your stance.

Historically skirmishers were generally ranged combatants (though some might have a back up melee weapon as needed).

Bran.7425:

You forgot “and also potent skirmishers,” So let’s just use whole quotation not just the parts that support your stance.

The idea of rangers being optimal long range characters (by intention) was being contested in this thread. The quote I used deals specifically with that issue. Potent skirmishers isn’t relevant, whether they are supposed to do that or not does not change the fact that he said they are the long range masters. I also didn’t quote everything else he said, because it wasn’t relevant to the point I was making, not because it contests my point (it doesn’t).

Ironically rangers are neither long range masters nor are they potent skirmishers. Their most competitive builds are bunkers.