Guild Wars 2

So the rangers are fun, I’m not complaining about functionality or lack of content… What I’m wondering is that if a ranger can be so versatile so as to use the great sword to get up close and personal, chuck single handed axes from a distance and still be able to go the traditional bow-route, then how come we don’t get the ability to use rifles? I mean… in all seriousness, what’s holding a ranger back from this technological advancement in the world of Tyria?

This mainly stems from the problem of having really cool looking gun skins, and yet not being able to use them on my main character. It’s an annoying dilemma.

personally i would like to see the ranger get a staff and take a more druid/monk like fighting style

OT not really sure why they can’t.
maybe they tried but couldn’t make it feel unique compared to the other rifle wielding classes?
maybe thematically the rifles felt to industrial for a skill/nature class?
maybe it will come out in an expansion?
no way to know.

Another gun thread. Yawn.

I heard it has to do with the lore of the ranger. Supposedly they didn’t want to use technology or something like that. But wouldn’t the invention of anything (i.e. bow and arrows) be considered technology? Then again the same could be said of Amish who use buggies which could be a form of technology. I guess it just depends on how you want to look at it.

Because professions need to be balance – that includes weapons and skills each class can possess. On another note, I wonder why people can’t just use the search bar?

I think ranger is designed to use “old school” weapons, so a gun probably wouldn’t fit despite I want to play my ranger with a pistol or rifle :p

But a staff would be nice.

Qixilver.3784:

I heard it has to do with the lore of the ranger. Supposedly they didn’t want to use technology or something like that. But wouldn’t the invention of anything (i.e. bow and arrows) be considered technology? Then again the same could be said of Amish who use buggies which could be a form of technology. I guess it just depends on how you want to look at it.

But rangers can use spearguns. Those aren’t technology?

A staff ranger? really? I disagree. It just doesn’t suit the profession. The weapon itself revolves around magical skills, which is clearly not the way of the Ranger.

Sigh…. this thread again.

Answering some questions first:

@Dispari
The best explanation we’ve got so far is that the Harpoon Gun is powered by compressed air, while rifles/pistols are black powder-based, which has a more significant effect on the environment.

@YumCHA
Back during the pre-Alpha days, A-Net announced some professions (like the Thief) would be moving more towards the new technological advancements, while others (like the Ranger) would “cling” to old traditions like magic. That’s why Rangers have a larger emphasis on Nature Magic (it’s got a whole trait line) and a lack of rifles.

As to the OP:
Rangers can’t use rifles because A-Net said so. They chose the Ranger weapons for what fit their interpretation of the Ranger theme. For them, that means more “traditional” weapons (swords/axes/bows) and less “newer” weapons (pistols/rifles).

@YumCHA (i don’t get why the forums wont let me quote properly)
rangers are very much capable of nature magic, we can summon spirits and 2 of our elite skills are nature magic, but i wouldn’t want the staff to be completely magic, i would want the staff to attack in melee range, and have some magic skills like making a ring of thorns around the ranger which cripple and bleed, and other physical attacks like a pole-vault attack. it would give the feeling of fighting alongside nature rather than manipulating nature.

Um… usually the fact that the ranger already has access to 3 very diverse styles of ranged attack and has some very capable melee options is an argument against giving them more weapons.

Anyway, the reason they don’t use firearms is because some of their pets rely on sensitive hearing, and the others are a bit jumpy. If a Ranger used a firearm they’d risk deafening their pets, and seriously risk being mauled by their own startled arctodus.

Munrock.3092:

Anyway, the reason they don’t use firearms is because some of their pets rely on sensitive hearing, and the others are a bit jumpy. If a Ranger used a firearm they’d risk deafening their pets, and seriously risk being mauled by their own startled arctodus.

War horses and dogs and other combat animals are typically trained to tolerate the loud noises of gunfire and other sounds so they don’t spook. I might accept that answer though, if we assume rangers never go near other players or enemies using firearms. In which case you’d wonder why they aren’t running away as soon as an engineer runs by.

Please, search the forums first… this has been beaten to death.

If this new implemented staff weapon were to be attached to the ranger class/prof, as long as it doesn’t revolve around elemental type magic skills, then the ‘Nature magic’ is completely fine.

It just does not suit as a ‘usual’ weapon for a traditional Ranger. (in my opinion anyways)

As for the Gun restriction issue, I completely agree with the OP as I also have wondered why the rangers are not able to equip ‘All’ the ranged weapons because well… we are ‘Rangers’ after all.

There’s a clear reason why the profession is named the way it is. But I guess the whole ‘sticking to the nature’s lore and ranger’s traditional and nontechnical’ ways is more important than having the diversity to use multiple if not all Ranged weapons.

Oh but wait! Most Bows and Shortbow skins show a tonne of ‘Advanced looks’ and ‘Mechanical Features’ much that the other Races would normally use so…. that totally defeats the purpose of saying Rangers are so attuned with their ‘Nature Magic’ ways.

’Cause animal hugging. spirit loving people dont use weapons that pollute the environment

YumCHA.8706:

As for the Gun restriction issue, I completely agree with the OP as I also have wondered why the rangers are not able to equip ‘All’ the ranged weapons because well… we are ‘Rangers’ after all.

The ‘range’ in ‘ranger’ does not come from ranged weapons. It comes from someone who ranges.

The fact that this has to be explained time and time again is dumbfounding.

There’s nothing dumbfounding about what I just stated.

Let me ask you this: What defines a Ranger in this game most? Is it the weapons the profession uses or its background history and lore and such?

Because I’m 99.9% sure every other profession is defined by what weapons they can use and its skills relating to the usable weapon.

“It comes from someone who ranges”? By what means does this statement justify your opinion to be factual? It doesn’t even make sense. Please do explain further because I’m not convinced.

Well, why should rangers use guns? Why don’t we use staves? Anet defines what weapons each class has and if they can get the player base to buy-in that’s fine. You are likely basing your opinion upon the other experiences you have from other games or lore but it is just an opinion which everyone else has their own interpretation of. I wouldn’t say its dumbfounding, but baseless and the fact you put ‘range’ implies that you are linking it with the word ‘ranger’ in which arcane made his assessment.

Because a gun is a Ranged weapon. Because a staff does not define what a Ranger is of its Skills and Ability, regardless its relation as a ‘Ranged’ weapon. Shooting a bullet from a gun is no different than shooting an arrow from a bow.That is my biggest point.

What other ways can you define a “Ranger” if its so far from just the word Range. Why must people complicate its meaning when its simply put as “A person that is skilled with the use of ranged weapons.” What else is there to define a Ranger of other than that?

Sure there’s the Pet to consider, but wasn’t that just implemented to split the rangers damage in half?

I couldn’t care less if ranger’s are restricted to not using Guns because as of now, im rocking the Long Bow and Short Bow to the best of its capabilities. No staff will ever compare to the enjoyment of shooting an arrow from a bow. After all… We ARE a ranged class.

But meh. Seems im not getting through to many people, might as well just give up and move on.

I tried supporting the OP but oh well. Each to their own opinion I guess.

The Forest Ranger arch-type is often depicted as wielding a shortbow, an axe, and a torch (for mostly a source of light), and is pretty much a tree-hugger.

Seeing as the GW2 ranger fits that arch-type perfectly, and has a host of skills pertaining to naturalistic themes, it’s pretty obvious that “Ranger” in the context of GW2 does not refer to a person who attacks from afar.

I agree with Rott, does seem to all fit in, except for the greatsword, which I love anyway. Somehow doesn’t feel like there is enough tree hugging, just need more trees to hug…

YumCHA.8706:

“It comes from someone who ranges”? By what means does this statement justify your opinion to be factual? It doesn’t even make sense. Please do explain further because I’m not convinced.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

A person who or thing which ranges.
1. a. Originally: a forester, a gamekeeper. Subsequently: a keeper of a royal park (also as an honorary title). Now esp.: a warden of a national or state park or forest; cf. park ranger.

Its first usage was in 1327 in a list of occupational terms.

What’s better for hunting; a silent bow or a loud rifle? I’d prefer a Staff that utilises nature magic to another ranged offensive weapon. A Staff would also make sense considering hikers often use poles to give them support when walking on rough terrain.

Then the profession should not be called just a ‘Ranger’ and infact something else that fits the description of a “Tree Hugger”.

The word Ranger itself misleads alot of people into thinking they are skilled in opposing foes from ‘a far’. That’s the basic understanding of a Ranger.

Any other excuse to define a Ranger otherwise, is irrelevant and does not relate to my argument.

Moving on. I’ll let the OP handle this.

What are you basing this “skilled in opposing foes from ‘a far’. That’s the basic understanding of a Ranger.” statement on?

“Any other excuse to define a Ranger otherwise, is irrelevant and does not relate to my argument.”, lets talk ‘fact’ about that sentence:
1. definition of ranger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger, no where does it state it is a person or object skilled in shooting from afar
2. is it not an excuse, you are trying to define something that is subjective and stating other opinions as an ‘excuse’
3. your argument relates to the definition of a ranger in which you provided no base

You are blinded to believe that your opinion is the correct opinion, lets detail what ANET has depicted:
1) Nature associated being

Now from the definitions of wiki for instance it would fit under the broad definition of “Parkland occupations”
- Forest ranger, a person charged with protecting and preserving protected forestlands
- Park ranger, a person charged with protecting and preserving protected parklands
- National Park Service Ranger, an employee of the U.S. National Park Service

In short, your argument is baseless and you are ignorant to facts.

YumCHA.8706:

The word Ranger itself misleads alot of people into thinking they are skilled in opposing foes from ‘a far’. That’s the basic understanding of a Ranger.

no. what misleads ppl is 1) a lack o knowledge/education -ranger has ZERO to do with ranged weapons like explained before and 2) prejudices derived from a certain comic-styled mmo and its hundreds of clones how a “ranger”-class has to be. btw, there r other mmos out there where a “ranger” is also not usually a bow-huntard.

I would love to see the inclusion of a Staff weapon in the form of a Quarterstaff. That would be a classic Ranger weapon (ranger as in protector of nature). Two handed weapon with skills like Whirling Bonebreaker, Earthshaker (smack ground to get AOE stun and interrupt).. I can think of loads..

GregulasMaximus.6538:

So the rangers are fun, I’m not complaining about functionality or lack of content… What I’m wondering is that if a ranger can be so versatile so as to use the great sword to get up close and personal, chuck single handed axes from a distance and still be able to go the traditional bow-route, then how come we don’t get the ability to use rifles? I mean… in all seriousness, what’s holding a ranger back from this technological advancement in the world of Tyria?

Bows are closer to nature. You could perhaps invoke the whole ‘Off in the wilderness for yonks, arrows easier to make/replace’ but really, the fundamental reason is ‘Because the devs say so.’

In terms of game-play, guns are redundant. You have the longbow for long ranged fighting, the shortbow for skirmishing, and axes for multi-hitting short ranged fighting.
Rangers are the only class to get access to both bows too.

edit: since we’re on the subject of ranger and it’s origins, the ‘fantasy ranger’ is based of Aragon from LoTR… and he spent more time running around with his sword out that a bow, so following that line of thought means you should be charging into melee.