Guild Wars 2

its just me or someone thinks that the fact of rangers cannot use rifles are so sad? ):

It’s not just you. This thread already exists.

Rangers dont use rifles coz rifles are anti nature.
They’re called Rangers not Hunters or Texas Rangers.

They run in the wild and commune with nature spirits and hunt only what they need to survive.

Also they’re elitist about their weapon choices, and believe rifles are for skilless peasants who cant pull the draw weight of a bow.

This is why rangers DONT use rifles.

Thieves on the other hand the fact they dont use rifles when it befitting them, is a conundrum

Rizzy.8293:

Rangers dont use rifles coz rifles are anti nature.
They’re called Rangers not Hunters or Texas Rangers.

They run in the wild and commune with nature spirits and hunt only what they need to survive.

Also they’re elitist about their weapon choices, and believe rifles are for skilless peasants who cant pull the draw weight of a bow.

This is why rangers DONT use rifles.

Thieves on the other hand the fact they dont use rifles when it befitting them, is a conundrum

But rangers use spear guns.

Spear guns dont use black powder, they use compressed air.

I just don’t think its necessary. I’m not sure what purpose another range weapon would fulfill. We already have longbow doing burst short bow for conditions and axe for aoe. I’m not sure rifle is really needed besides for aesthetics.

Rangers don’t need more ranged weapons – a bit of attention to the melee weapons would be good though as currently you don’t really get any compensation for the increased risk of being in melee range.

I am sad about this It would save me the trouble of having to play a Warrior every time I want to use a rifle. Also, rifles look amazing with medium armor!

I still think it’s funny that some are trying to fight this, like it’s going to have huge impact on the profession and it’s “nature aesthetic”. Giving a rifle to the Ranger can only ever make it better. You are only adding something, not taking anything away.

An option for medium armor and rifles already exists with the Engineer =D

For me personally I feel that we have plenty of ranged options. Adding a rifle or even pistols at this point would move us into the same place Hunters were in WoW. Every weapon is a Hunter weapon because we can equip it. =P

It’s not like I am dead set against having rifles, i just do not understand why people feel that we need them.

Wulfsbayne.8401:

An option for medium armor and rifles already exists with the Engineer =D

For me personally I feel that we have plenty of ranged options. Adding a rifle or even pistols at this point would move us into the same place Hunters were in WoW. Every weapon is a Hunter weapon because we can equip it. =P

It’s not like I am dead set against having rifles, i just do not understand why people feel that we need them.

Not really. We dont roll on loot in this game so it’s a non-issue. Like it was said above, it wouldn’t take anything away from Rangers or any other class.

Kasama.8941:

I am sad about this It would save me the trouble of having to play a Warrior every time I want to use a rifle. Also, rifles look amazing with medium armor!

I still think it’s funny that some are trying to fight this, like it’s going to have huge impact on the profession and it’s “nature aesthetic”. Giving a rifle to the Ranger can only ever make it better. You are only adding something, not taking anything away.

Because rangers are elitists who uphold the old way.
Rifles are weapons of industry and destruction, which is against the way of the ranger who is intune with nature.

Lol, i agree, but i don’t think we should be talking about the natural ness, even though it may be true. But why are we complaining about such a small thing? lol Just because it looks cool? It’s still a ranged weapon and we have ranged weapons doing what we need it to do already. plus its a fantasy game after, imo, bows are what this game should be and they’re cool for this game and time period/world, if we really wanted guns, then theres like fps games and other stuff lmao XD though the longbow should have a damage buff, but… thats another story

I was surprised and disappointed to see we couldn’t use rifles. The ranger ideally dh old be able to utilize most, if not all ranged weapons. It only makes sense.

I’d use a rifle on my ranger if the option were there, but I also want to use pistols and staves. How am I supposed to go ranger hiking and poke wasp’s nests and ranger vault over streams without a staff? As for the pistol, I need it for ranger scouting flares.

I want my Necro to use rifles too, because Necros need more melee weapons and using a rifle as a club seems like something a Necro would do.

And I want my Mesmer to use a short bow to fire illusionary arrows that do imaginary damage, which actually makes more sense than rangers somehow shooting real arrows without having a quiver or anything.

In fact, since I’m pretty sure that there is someone, somewhere who wants any given profession to have any given weapon for any given reason, they should just let every profession use every weapon.

In GW2 weapons are just place holders for sets of skills. Mesmer greatsword could just as easily be a staff, for instance. So, it makes no sense to say rangers need a rifle; rather you need to come up with 5 useful synergistic skills that would make the class more fun to play without making existing ranged options redundant. And why would Arenanet add another ranged skill set when bows already work well, (with a perhaps a few small tweaks only needed).

rangers are just in touch with nature and don’t need all that techno-gear.

I really dont think rangers need rifles… im more than happy pew pew’ing away with my bows. Having said that if they DID give rangers rifles I can almost GUARENTEE the other classes will start QQ’ing that were OP because we have more weapon sets than them. its more than likely a balancing factor over everything else.
Also, theres 3 underwater weapons, each class gets 2 depending on what they are (magic classes get tridents etc etc) so theres the excuse for the harpoon guns.

Rizzy.8293:

Because rangers are elitists who uphold the old way.
Rifles are weapons of industry and destruction, which is against the way of the ranger who is intune with nature.

I have already had a long discussion about this in a similar thread, so I’ll just make it as short as possible:

• There is absolutely nothing anti-natural about a rifle. A rifle can be made of materials that are all found in nature (wood and metal). Even gunpowder is made of elements found in nature (sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter). And the fact that a rifle is loud does not make it anti-natural on its own. Animals can also be trained so they aren’t scared of the gunfire sound.
• Whatever the “original ranger” is suppose to be like, has no meaning in Guild Wars 2, as it’s a completely different fictional universe, with its own rules to write. Implying that fantasy has some kind of rule set, that’s suppose to be carried over from one story to another, is just ridiculous.
• It makes sense that Rangers, in Guild Wars 2, realized the benefits of a rifle, just like we did in the real world when rifles were first created. Why would Rangers be stubborn about it and go “oh, I can’t use this weapon to my benefit, because I like nature magic”?
• Hunters in real life use both rifles and bows for hunting. Each weapon has it’s own advantages and disadvantages. What you choose is simply a matter of preference.
• If we only had weapons in the game because we needed them, it would be a pretty boring game. Why have daggers when we have torches, or greatswords when we have the swords, then?

What I was trying to say with “all weapons becomes hunter weapons” has been touched on in the thread after, but for clarity’s sake that’s what I meant. A warrior has access to a HUGE amount of weapons because of being a martial specialist. Adding rifle (or pistols) to a ranger at this point to me would feel tacked on and would take away from the reasons for having other classes that have access to those weapons that we do not.

There are valid reason for adding it sure, the same that I see for giving Thief a “sniper set” with rifle or having an engineer with a shortbow that is similar to the thief’s that could launch nets or flashbangs etc. However, at some point adding weapons to classes becomes redundant, and I for one feel that the Ranger has PLENTY of ranged options without adding in another one.

i dont see why we have to discuss and nitpick about what is eco-friendly and natural enough for a ranger, or what the concept of a ranger is, how good a rifle looks and arguing about all the specifics between classes… this is the way our ranger is, why complain so much about everything? just deal with it. we have enough ranged weapons to do what we need and be effective with it, so thats it. if you’re asking for bug fixes on our ranged weapons or a buff or something i can understand… but just because of personal preference, people want to argue for a change to the entire class’s weaponry, find new unique skills that aren’t already covered with bows and therefore also affecting other classes because of their choice of weapons as well? but i guess if you’re just saying it’d be nice to have a rifle thats fine, no need to convince everyone that we ought to have rifles

It would be nice to have a burst damage ranged weapon given that our Long Bow is more of a vulnerability/long range weapon and our SB is more of a DPS weapon.

Its strange that as a class we have very little long range burst.

Stop confusing the name “Ranger” with the word “range”. Do a tiny bit of research on this class before spewing.

Ranger is a “fighter” class. Not a “uses ranged weapons” class.

Not according to ANET.

“Rangers are proficient with the bow. 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.”

Thats from ANET, not me.

It should also be noted that unlike out melee classes, our melee primary weapons are mostly avoidance weapons, not damage weapons. sANET did not make a D&D ranger.

We need:

Rifles for looks

Staff for Nature Magic

Hammers for bunny thumping.

I would prefer

Pets being more useful. Its hard to look at BM hunters in WoW and not be jealous. It pets could attack faster and land more hits that be the bees knees.

If I wanna use rifle , I would go engineer. But I just have a obsession in bows , so I choose ranger because of the description I read when I make my charc.
Faytte post above say it all.

Leogolas.6941:

Faytte post above say it all.

I’m kind of like Clarissa in that sense.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/Clarissa_Explains_it_All_Season_1.jpg/220px-Clarissa_Explains_it_All_Season_1.jpg

ANet doesn’t want rangers using guns, most likely because it doesn’t mesh with the “nature” theme. Of course, we can debate semantics about how guns are natural and so on and so forth, but that’s a pointless debate. Whether or not guns are natural is beside the point: even if they are, they are a symbol, they represent the progress of technology in the Guild Wars world.

Regardless, I don’t think rangers need any form of gun. The two bows work just fine. If anything, I would rather see them be given staff for nature-magic, but even that is really not necessary. The only weapon I really think needs to be added to a class is hammer to engineer, since it’s a little odd that they are the only class to not have a melee weapon available to them, kits excepting.

Kasama.8941:

Rizzy.8293:

Because rangers are elitists who uphold the old way.
Rifles are weapons of industry and destruction, which is against the way of the ranger who is intune with nature.

I have already had a long discussion about this in a similar thread, so I’ll just make it as short as possible:

• There is absolutely nothing anti-natural about a rifle. A rifle can be made of materials that are all found in nature (wood and metal). Even gunpowder is made of elements found in nature (sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter). And the fact that a rifle is loud does not make it anti-natural on its own. Animals can also be trained so they aren’t scared of the gunfire sound.
• Whatever the “original ranger” is suppose to be like, has no meaning in Guild Wars 2, as it’s a completely different fictional universe, with its own rules to write. Implying that fantasy has some kind of rule set, that’s suppose to be carried over from one story to another, is just ridiculous.
• It makes sense that Rangers, in Guild Wars 2, realized the benefits of a rifle, just like we did in the real world when rifles were first created. Why would Rangers be stubborn about it and go “oh, I can’t use this weapon to my benefit, because I like nature magic”?
• Hunters in real life use both rifles and bows for hunting. Each weapon has it’s own advantages and disadvantages. What you choose is simply a matter of preference.
• If we only had weapons in the game because we needed them, it would be a pretty boring game. Why have daggers when we have torches, or greatswords when we have the swords, then?

We’re using Blackpowder and flintlock technology in here from the looks of the weapons in Gw2.

Shooting arrows is faster than reloading a blackpowder gun.

And if you’re going to use a real life comparison of Hunters using Bows and Rifles

Shooting a bow also requires more skill than it does from pointing and shooting a rifle.

Archers spend years mastering their skills to be able to pull the draw weight of a longbow and to shoot a short bow with deadly accuracy and speed from horse back

Black powder rifles and crossbows were invented so that ANYONE can use them with relatively little training.

And the original rangers from Guildwars2 aka the Rangers in Guildwars will explain to you how intune they are with nature and how they harness her powers and spend years in isolation in the wilds hunting and taming wild beasts.

Guns are a product of industry, the destruction of Nature, look at the charr homeland, its this industrial fort of steel and smoke, its not fitting to the ranger lore.

If you want to use a rifle because rifles are cool, by all means use a warrior they get to wear heavy armour and have way cooler rifle skills or wait till anet comes to a realization that it makes sense for thieves to hold a rifle as well.

Rangers and Guns dont mix
Just as Hippies and guns dont mix.

The only rangers that are allowed to hold rifles and pistols is Chuck Norris.
Texas Ranger’d

The reason: sometimes, lines just needs to be drawn! Unlike GW1, where you can gain a 2nd profession and just use the skills in that profession, GW2 profession has their own job unique skills to their weapons. A Ranger with a LB skill bar is different from a Warrior’s LB skill bar. I imagine ANet just said, “Look, we’re not going to give EVERY weapon and EVERY profession unique weapons skills. Lets just choose a limit set of weaponset for each profession and work it out that way.”

I’d like for my Ranger to use a stave and/or spear. Since they’re intune with nature, I wouldn’t mind a focus item that can call on nature spirits. An ability to track moving mobs wouldn’t hurt either. I’d also like to have them be able to equip shields and opt to wear heavy armor. I’d also like to see them have some low/medium level elementalists magic. Would like to have my Ranger be able to stealthy, go invisible or disguise themselves are bushes, and use daggers. Heck, give me the Thief’s hood while we’re at it! As a Ranger, I should also be able to have a craft ability to “Skin” animals – we can get certain meats from them already.

Just for the fun of it, I’d like to have four Halflings following me around along with a Dwarf, an Elf, and a Wizard!

All these explanations about what the Ranger is “suppose to be” go down the toilet as soon as a Greatsword-wielding Ranger walks through the door.

I don’t care what you guys got against rifles, but as soon as I saw that they could use Greatswords, a big “wtf” light turned on inside my brain.

Let’s be honest.

Theme-wise, the Ranger is just a totally inconsistent profession.

Again, I don’t get why people exist on fighting this? If someone suggested to add a staff to the Ranger, I would be more the happy to see that happen. I would never play with a staff, though, because I have no interest in playing a druid Ranger. But why I should stand against something that only adds more versatility to the profession, just because I don’t like it? I hated the greatsword for the Ranger at first, but now it’s one of my favorite weapons. I think you guys need to be more open minded, and stop being so overprotective about a weapon that you don’t even have to use.

Also, it’s pretty much a given that all professions are going to get more weapons at some point (probably in an expansion). No one here is suggesting that they give the Ranger a rifle tomorrow.

DreamOfACure.4382:

All these explanations about what the Ranger is “suppose to be” go down the toilet as soon as a Greatsword-wielding Ranger walks through the door.

I don’t care what you guys got against rifles, but as soon as I saw that they could use Greatswords, a big “wtf” light turned on inside my brain.

Let’s be honest.

Theme-wise, the Ranger is just a totally inconsistent profession.

So you’re telling me a person who can pull the draw weight of a longbow, which is about 45 – 55kg or 90 – 110pounds cant wield a great sword with an average weight of 1 – 2kg or 2-4 pounds.

Right…. :|

DreamOfACure.4382:

All these explanations about what the Ranger is “suppose to be” go down the toilet as soon as a Greatsword-wielding Ranger walks through the door.

I don’t care what you guys got against rifles, but as soon as I saw that they could use Greatswords, a big “wtf” light turned on inside my brain.

Let’s be honest.

Theme-wise, the Ranger is just a totally inconsistent profession.

There’s nothing inconsistent about a ranger using a greatsword. The profession, as it was made now, is a naturalist that fights using a mixture of martial skill and nature magic. Greatsword doesn’t contradict that at all, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not rangers should use rifles.

Nothing wrong with greatswords, technically like in LOTR or whatnot when you have rangers with swords, most fantasy and middle ages swords were two handed longswords (course you could also swing with one hand and use both hands if necessary etc, but in terms of size), in this game greatswords are the only two handed sword so I guess we’re stuck with those. Makes sense to me in that sense?

Rizzy.8293:

So you’re telling me a person who can pull the draw weight of a longbow, which is about 45 – 55kg or 90 – 110pounds cant wield a great sword with an average weight of 1 – 2kg or 2-4 pounds.

Right…. :|

Someone knows how to read wiki. How cute.

Except the strength necessary to swing a greatsword effectively is entirely different.
So, you really don’t know —-- about what you’re talking about.

And I wasn’t even suggesting the Ranger can’t lift a greatsword.
Just that, in my own opinion, Rangers wouldn’t choose to use Greatswords. It doesn’t fit from what I’ve gotten from the advertisements, lore, etc..

Grakor.3450:

There’s nothing inconsistent about a ranger using a greatsword.

The Ranger’s selling point is the whole longbow ‘Barrage’ skill and ranged tactics. Stuff like wielding axes or swords aren’t what they show off or tell about when talking about the Ranger.
It just happened to be there. (And before you mention it, most people thought the whirling axes defense was a Warrior skill when I showed it to them. Funny, eh?)

The Ranger using melee-weapons at all doesn’t even make much sense. (Aside from the dagger, cause what kinda hunter/ranger doesn’t carry a knife to cut meat or mark checkpoints with.)

A majority of newer players I met who have yet to play the Ranger don’t even know this profession can use Greatswords. Why?
Because it’s not consistent with the image of a Ranger from other literary works and games.

You are just seeing what you want to see. Subjectively so, I might add, the entirety of your post is your personal “interpretation” without any serious basis from the game’s advertisements or other players’ genuine first-hand input.

Now whether or not this needs changing, is up to ANet.

I, for one, am in support of the former – It totally needs changing.
But if they decide to “break the mold”, so be it. However, that means they intentionally being inconsistent, in order to be unique. That’s how uniqueness is done.

That doesn’t change the fact that the Ranger is terribly inconsistent with the concept of a “Ranger”.

Whats wrong with every class having access to every weapon? LB warrior and LB ranger are very different, same with SB ranger to SB thief. I want to see my ranger use a Staff, maybe give it some nature type spells to go with it or perhaps a defensive type weapon with various blocks and such. Staff on warrior and he could use it to smack people would be fun too. GS on a Elementalist would look cool too.

No reason every class cant make use of every weapon, they just have to make each one do its own thing and fill a roll or style.

Also need Great Axes please.

DreamOfACure.4382:

Rizzy.8293:

So you’re telling me a person who can pull the draw weight of a longbow, which is about 45 – 55kg or 90 – 110pounds cant wield a great sword with an average weight of 1 – 2kg or 2-4 pounds.

Right…. :|

Someone knows how to read wiki. How cute.

Except the strength necessary to swing a greatsword effectively is entirely different.
So, you really don’t know —-- about what you’re talking about.

And I wasn’t even suggesting the Ranger can’t lift a greatsword.
Just that, in my own opinion, Rangers wouldn’t choose to use Greatswords. It doesn’t fit from what I’ve gotten from the advertisements, lore, etc..

Grakor.3450:

There’s nothing inconsistent about a ranger using a greatsword.

The Ranger’s selling point is the whole longbow ‘Barrage’ skill and ranged tactics. Stuff like wielding axes or swords aren’t what they show off or tell about when talking about the Ranger.
It just happened to be there. (And before you mention it, most people thought the whirling axes defense was a Warrior skill when I showed it to them. Funny, eh?)

The Ranger using melee-weapons at all doesn’t even make much sense. (Aside from the dagger, cause what kinda hunter/ranger doesn’t carry a knife to cut meat or mark checkpoints with.)

A majority of newer players I met who have yet to play the Ranger don’t even know this profession can use Greatswords. Why?
Because it’s not consistent with the image of a Ranger from other literary works and games.

You are just seeing what you want to see. Subjectively so, I might add, the entirety of your post is your personal “interpretation” without any serious basis from the game’s advertisements or other players’ genuine first-hand input.

---

Now whether or not this needs changing, is up to ANet.

I, for one, am in support of the former – It totally needs changing.
But if they decide to “break the mold”, so be it. However, that means they intentionally being inconsistent, in order to be unique. That’s how uniqueness is done.

That doesn’t change the fact that the Ranger is terribly inconsistent with the concept of a “Ranger”.

Ohhh RIGHT.
Because one can carry a sword doesn’t mean one knows how to use a sword.
Logic much?
Being sarcastic by the way.

You’re under the assumption that rangers are RANGE-rs .

Rangers are not RANGE-rs, rangers are people who cover a lot of RANGE as in lands, hence RANGErs.

A guy who owns a cattle range is called a Ranger, does that make him a superb range tactician?

Xenos.1072:

Whats wrong with every class having access to every weapon? LB warrior and LB ranger are very different, same with SB ranger to SB thief. I want to see my ranger use a Staff, maybe give it some nature type spells to go with it or perhaps a defensive type weapon with various blocks and such. Staff on warrior and he could use it to smack people would be fun too. GS on a Elementalist would look cool too.

No reason every class cant make use of every weapon, they just have to make each one do its own thing and fill a roll or style.

Also need Great Axes please.

I think it has to do with two reasons: The time it would have taken them to create all the skills, and removing the possibility to add a wide variety of weapons to the game later on. But yes I agree, all professions should be able to use all weapons, as long as it fits within their respected playstyle. For instance, a Warrior with a scepter or staff would be very weird, since Warriors don’t use magic from a skill description point of view.

it would be really cool if rangers could equip a staff and become a nature mage, i would be stoked.