Guild Wars 2

Hi guys I was thinking one day about possible changes to rangers unique ability and I came up with this idea that a Ranger can change between three ‘stances’ that would allow him to fill in a particular role better.

Marksman:
-Damage we get from pet added to us in some form or another (power, or flat % buff)

Beastmaster:
-Same as now but with some already mentioned buffs to pets
-Removal of pet

Druid:
-Addition of staves to rangers weapon sets
- improved healing power and boon duration
-Removal of pet

I believe this would cover all the bases with a support stance, raw dps stance and a solo, survivalability stance.
Let me know what you think of this or if it would even be viable!
Thanks

The beastmaster should not be removal of pet but instead should be under marksman

Why do people play rangers if they do not want pets?

Listen, my ranger has a Marriner’s Flask and can barely stand in the first place.

Chopps.5047:

Listen, my ranger has a Marriner’s Flask and can barely stand in the first place.

Chopps! i just realized that i played a cof run with you a week ago i was playing with my guardian (Pala Dino) and you were with your guardian…

Anyway nice suggestion but without pet remove….

You mean, Aspects ? Give me Aspect of the Pack then

My guardian, Skullcrusher, is level 20. :/

Yelloweyedemon.2860:

Why do people play rangers if they do not want pets?

Because Rangers are mostly associated with archers, and with Aragorn, who did NOT have a pet.

RyuDragnier.9476:

Yelloweyedemon.2860:

Why do people play rangers if they do not want pets?

Because Rangers are mostly associated with archers, and with Aragorn, who did NOT have a pet.

+1

Yelloweyedemon.2860:

Why do people play rangers if they do not want pets?

Or they’re guild wars 1 vets and hate being forced into playing a particular way when they used to have an option to do so.

Really though, it’s no excuse to not adapt to the new game. That being said, it goes without saying that the better balance is, the easier it is to get accustomed to how a class functions, and the class balance in the game has needed tweaking for awhile (not implying where the ranger is on the spectrum as I would probably get crucified for it, but still).

Once the game gets a differently balanced meta, rangers will need to reevaluate whether their performance is truly or has always truly been as bad as they perceive it to be, and how the pet handles in the before and after environment.

Gimili wasn’t Aragorn’s pet?

Eurantien.4632:

Gimili wasn’t Aragorn’s pet?

He was Legolis’s pet. Aragorn had applied fortitude, bloodlust, permanent 25 stack might and fury along with perma-stow pet.

Chopps.5047:

Eurantien.4632:

Gimili wasn’t Aragorn’s pet?

He was Legolis’s pet.

Oh… so the dude with the bow had a pet. Interesting.

Rofl

/15char

He didn’t have 100% control over the pet either O.o

jcbroe.4329:

He didn’t have 100% control over the pet either O.o

Does your pet double your bag count though?

Chopps.5047:

jcbroe.4329:

He didn’t have 100% control over the pet either O.o

Does your pet double your bag count though?

Well no, but logically, assuming Gimli’s stature, neither would he lol.

RyuDragnier.9476:

Yelloweyedemon.2860:

Why do people play rangers if they do not want pets?

Because Rangers are mostly associated with archers, and with Aragorn, who did NOT have a pet.

And who wasn’t an specialized archer.

The animal companion Ranger is very old, even if not as old as Aragorn’s Ranger archetype. Was around before video games decided to make Rangers mostly archers.

Not that it’s wrong to dislike the Archer archetype, but it’s not a good argument to say that Rangers MUST be archers because that’s the way I am used to play them. You get to be all in this game, actually-an archer, beastmaster, melee ranger, anything you wish (though I admit melee is stronger, but that’s part of the game’s design for all Professions.)

Yelloweyedemon.2860:

Why do people play rangers if they do not want pets?

what pets?

Chopps.5047:

My guardian, Skullcrusher, is level 20. :/

oh really ò.ò ok so i played with someone with your name but different numbers combination i suppose…

I’d just like to point out that like most works, Tolkien’s writings are a derivative. He didn’t create archetypes, he assembled them from previous works.

Had to say this because for some reason people keep bringing up Aragorn as if has any bearing on this game at all.

Star Ace.5207:

Not that it’s wrong to dislike the Archer archetype, but it’s not a good argument to say that Rangers MUST be archers because that’s the way I am used to play them. You get to be all in this game, actually-an archer, beastmaster, melee ranger, anything you wish (though I admit melee is stronger, but that’s part of the game’s design for all Professions.)

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/
I love to bring that up

“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.”