Guild Wars 2

He’s a warrior too.

Bubbleblower

Big McLargeHuge

Alasteir.7031:

It still gives you an indication of what they’re doing, like Chronomancer, or hell, yes even Druid. Druids are not often linked with Rangers, are they not usually distinct, yet sometimes associated? Druid immediately invokes the idea that Nature Magic would be its thing. Same with Chronomancy and Time Magic.

Yes, this supports what I am saying.

Avenger does what? Dragonhunting, although poor, invokes the hunting aspect better than Avenger, while distinguishing it from just a general hunter; Crusader, or Inquisitor, or Sentinel aren’t any better.

The Avenger avenges at achieve justice. This guardian specialization should not be evoking anything involving “big game hunting.” That’s not an off-branch concept of a guardian; that’s a ranger.

Dragon-hunting in this game seems to involve large battles of flying vessels, armies, and magitech lasers. I don’t see how a light-pewing bow will be taking down dragons any time soon.

JNetRocks.3652:

It was decided via Reddit that the new specialization is the Arbiter. There is no such thing as a Dragon Hunter.

I could get behind that movement.

Or “Any thing other than ‘Dragonhunter.’”

bigbobpataki.4796:

Which is an incredibly dumb thing to do, considering that we’ll know most of the mechanics tomorrow.

Then can I complain about the name? Or will you be moving the goal posts to some other date?

PlatinumMember.5274:

maybe because you people will probably complain about how Arena net is simply copying the name?

Or not.

Leo G.4501:

I’d say we still need more and more varied. While some of those alternatives are good, again, most have nothing to do with the flavor of the spec. While generic is good, it wouldn’t hurt coming up with more options that actually have a flavor.

As a counterpoint, I would argue that the name ‘druid’ is incredibly generic as far as fantasy goes. It simply evokes ‘nature priest/mage.’ It says nothing about the profession mechanics, unless you come with the D&D and WoW assumption that druids shapeshift. Same is true for many professions: e.g., thief, warrior, engineer, ranger, etc. ‘Guardian’ is also a generic term that gives us little sense for the profession mechanics only assumptions that it may be more defensive in its playstyle. That is why I lean towards a generic term for a more proactive, justice-minded holy warrior.

Alasteir.7031:

It’s more of the fact that Avenger is a generic term often associated with the Holy Warrior archetype found in fantasy. Still doesn’t relate to why it uses traps, and stuff.

The guardian name says nothing about using virtues, consecrations, shouts, meditations, or any of its mechanics either.

Alasteir.7031:

You can bet your kitten that the dragonhunters in other fantasy settings are not the Paladin archetype. At least for the most part.

Since when have knights and holy warriors fighting dragons not been done to death? In D&D – the granddaddy of all tabletop RPG and computer/video gaming – dragon-hunting paladin archetypes are exceptionally common.

Alasteir.7031:

Avenger, and Crusader are some of the most unoriginal, and unimaginative names one could possibly come up with for a holy warrior in an extremely popular genre that is filled with holy warriors. No fantasy world goes without mentioning some variation of Avenger, Crusader, or something involving a name originating from historical events related to Judeo-Christian influences.

That’s how I feel about the Dragonhunter. The benefit of the name ‘Avenger’ or ‘Crusader’ is that they are broad enough to encompass other archetypes and concepts than the far more narrow Dragonhunter allows.

PS: ‘Crusader’ already exists as a rank within the Vigil. While I admit that works against its use as the specialization name, it also works against your premise that ArenaNet would want to avoid using such historically contentious terms.

RabbitUp.8294:

“So far” means absolutely nothing, because so far we know next to nothing.

Then it’s my prerogative to vent based upon what we do know.

Alasteir.7031:

I did. In fact, Chronomancer was going to be an entirely different class in gw1, not a mesmer attribute line. Sounds similar to the Ranger Guardian debate going on with this.

My point being that the mesmer has been more than just an illusionist from the get go. Illusion was only one line even back then in GW1, along with domination and inspiration (aka enchantment). The old mesmer also had fast casting, which is something that ANet is trying to bring back with the chronomancer.

How very rational to assign intent to a stranger on the internet. Yes, yes. Anyone who disagrees with you MUST love anet. There couldn’t possibly exist any other reason over matters of subjectivity.

It’s a basis of an individual’s posting habits.

So they should copy from somewhere else? Inquisitor has other connotations associated with it, none of which imply a hunter of evil monsters.

It’s not about copying from somewhere else. It’s pointing out that what Devil was describing does already exist as an archetype in gaming.

See the Burden of Proof. Until the ready up, and further information is released, the people saying it has no lore basis must be the ones to provide evidence, since they’re the ones making the initial claim.

Is there any suggestion in the article that there is a convincing lore basis?

Alasteir.7031:

And all of those examples are either excruciatingly overdone in anything fantasy, ever. While things like Inquisitor are a largely mixed bag, like Crusader.

Thankfully ‘Dragonhunter’ has never been done to excruciating death in anything fantasy, ever.

Frightlight.3796:

Feed back is good if it is done in the right way rather than just complaining about it without giving reason why it doesn’t sound acceptable.

People have provided feedback on that aspect of the name.

RabbitUp.8294:

Because they can channel Glint?

We only know 1 Dragonhunter ability (the heal). And no Glint abilities. Yet, you are confident enough to pass your hasty judgement as fact.

“So far it seems.” Read please. Thank you.

Leo G.4501:

All I’m saying is, sure come up with ideas that might have a better ring to it but don’t just pick one and think that anyone in charge should be inclined to change it to that. Providing a list of alternatives is far more likely to produce something worthwhile.

There are a lot of viable alternatives out there, IMHO: Arbiter, Avenger, Inquisitor, and Vindicator all readily come to mind as proposed alternatives.

RabbitUp.8294:

The new elite is called Dragon’s Maw.

And? So far it seems that the Revenant has more dragon-themed abilities than the dragonhunter.

Alasteir.7031:

The mesmer, all the way down to its name and its style of gameplay is based on illusion. The only time related skill is Time Warp, afaik. Chaos Magic is the in-lore description of its “element”.

Play the Guild Wars 1 mesmer and get back to me.

DevilLordLaser.8619:

And the Guardian can be said to be about righteousness or virtuous battle.

Hence why you are doing a terrible job playing apologetics for the terrible name ‘Dragonhunter.’ But imagine that if this specialization had been called ‘crud-eater,’ you would still be defending ArenaNet to the death.

DevilLordLaser.8619:

…Photonbuster.

Yep. You sure showed me, man. That is such an amazing choice I can’t believe it hasn’t come up before. Absolutely. *That is the 100% perfect name for a righteous hunter. * Going to go preach it to the rest of the forums right now.

.
..
…
….#sarcasm.

Inquisitor. Again, check out the Pathfinder ‘Inquisitor’ class, which is precisely a bow-wielding divine/defensive magic-using hunter of big scary monsters.

coglin.1867:

Have any evidence of that? Either present the lore that backs up your claim or ditch the disingenuousness. You are confusing your subjective opinion, with that of subjective fact.

Do you have evidence that it does?

Alasteir.7031:

Time Magic =/= illusion magic for example.

The mesmer is about chaos magic and both illusion and time magic are aspects of chaos magic.

DevilLordLaser.8619:

Should we just call it the Marvel, while we’re at it? Or perhaps the Cap?

No need for your crassness. Avenger works.

I get that some names are going to have already been used for other things. That happens a lot. But you cannot believe anyone would take “the Avenger!” seriously. Not when that name is so widely, thoroughly, and infamously associated with a Marvel superhero group. Just doesn’t work.

‘Avenger’ is used in D&D often for a more offensive paladin type as well as a class of starships in Star Trek. I suspect that people will take ‘Avenger’ as a name more seriously than ‘Dragonhunter,’ and ultimately that’s what matters most.

This new specialization is a big-game hunter who fuels his archery and his traps with righteous light manifested as burning energy/constructs. Ya know what? There is no good one-word name for one of those. “Dragonhunter” is honestly about as close as we can realistically get to a single word which tries (and does partially fail, but less so than anything else I’ve seen) to make what the thing does intuitively understandable from its name alone.

Until you can find me a one-word title that says “Light-manipulating hunter of large angry animals”, we’re probably going to have to stick with Dragonhunter as the best they can do.

Check out the “Inquisitor” class in Pathfinder. That’s exactly what you are describing to a T.

Leo G.4501:

Lol that feels like it’s reaching worse than Dragonhunter though.

Also, has nothing to do with traps or any kind of aspect of the build.

And this specialization has little to do with dragons.

Leo G.4501:

Well what if the lore behind the new spec has nothing to do with Eir, Braham or any particular people dying?

Then it’s still generic enough to work while evoking the spirit of the elite specialization.

So they are basically Avengers? Then why not just call the profession ‘Avenger’?

DevilLordLaser.8619:

I get that it’s not good English, and I would’ve preferred Dragon Hunter myself. However, ArenaNet has had a very long-standing tradition of one-word class names they’re clearly unwilling to break. Give me a better idea for a proactive, righteous hunter of bad things – an actually better idea, not just Guardian with different letters – and we’ll talk.

I have yet to see one.

I have already proposed Avenger, which suggests something more offensive and proactive than Guardian while still evoking the sense of justice, righteousness, and fury against the dragons.

I prefer Avenger, but Arbiter works for me.

Stop pushing ‘valkyrie.’ There are better alternatives.

Shadelang.3012:

Gah. Keep in mind the vocal minority is usually the group thats already upset. By the nature of it more people that dislike it are going to actually take the 10 seconds to vote. So im not sure how accurate this is going to be.

The vocal minority may be upset, but all of the major video bloggers with clout, including AuroraPeachy and WoodenPotatoes, are scratching their heads and expressing a tremendous amount of reservation about the name and specialization.

Harvest.2506:

Out of fear of being considered a copycat too close to recent movies. In this day and age Names and words are Copyrighted, and the lawyers are hungry.

The “Avenger” was used as a name in D&D 4th edition for the offensive striker ‘paladin.’ It works. The lawyers would not exactly have a case for a game’s use of Avenger that in no way would infringe on the Avengers franchise.

Clearly, if the Dragonhunter is any indication, the Necromancer elite specialization will be called “Shouting Guy.”

If the core concept of the elite specialization is that Braham is picking up his mother’s bow to avenge her, why not call the guardian elite specialization the Avenger?

Nike.2631:

Because its NOT A GUARDIAN?

Fundamental issues here. New profession icon. New weapon. New utility skill set. If you choose to you can make your entire skill tray have ZERO overlap with any guardian ever.

It’s not the same profession and that they’ve come up with something people think is so far from the base by swapping 1/3 of their trait lines that is a monumental resounding success in design.

I get what you are trying to say, but I think you misunderstand my gist. Yes, the chronomancer is not a mesmer; it is a chronomancer. Yes, the tempest is not an elementalist; it is a tempest. Yes, the dragonhunter is not a guardian; it is a dragonhunter. At the same time, however, these are elite specializations of a base professions and work largely off of these base professions. They branch off from these base classes, but they are still connected, at least conceptually.

The chronomancer is not a mesmer, but the chronomancer builds off of the mesmer’s ability to create phantasms, alter time, and chaos magic. The chronomancer name connects conceptually with this aspect of the mesmer.

Likewise, we get that the dragonhunter is not a guardian, but it does not seem to conceptually build off from the guardian, at least in terms of its name. The name feels disconnected from the elite specialization’s mechanics apart from the superficial aspects of using a longbow and traps. Conceptually, there is nothing about the guardian core profession that would suggest, even remotely, that “big game hunter” would be an archetype that branches off from the guardian.

The chronomancer’s name and abilities feel conceptually like an outgrowth of the mesmer. IMHO, the dragonhunter does not. I could guess that a ‘tempest’ is the elite specialization belonging to the elementalist. I could guess that a ‘chronomancer’ is the elite specialization belonging to the mesmer. I could not do anything of the sort with the ‘dragonhunter,’ which sounds evocative of a ranger or warrior elite specialization rather than the guardian.

Okhu.7948:

Demon Hunter is a stupid name too. FYI

Pretty much this. The OP is just trading one bad name for another.

Manimarco Devil.1790:

Honestly, this entire thing is just sadly confirming how casual/brain-dead the gw2 community has become. Almost no one is attempting to discuss the changes occurring but everyone is in an uproar over a NAME. I really hope anet doesn’t change it since it literally has no effect on the game and they should not be cowing to nonsense rage like this.

Because it’s a label you are stuck with. It’s like getting stuck with a terrible name in real life. You can’t shake it unless you legally change it, but we don’t have that option.

The name also feels very disassociated from the core concepts of the ‘guardian’ profession. Why is the ‘guardian’ even being imagined as a ‘big game hunter’ in the first place?

Since ArenaNet evidently likes names that are a mouthful, how about naming it the “Squandered Potential” elite specialization?

Ragnarox.9601:

I must say…thank you for this Dragonhunter. I will use it only for Claw of Jormag, Tequatl and the Shatterer and nothing more 50€ to be very well spent

Don’t forget Glint’s egg. See? A little extra value for you.

Advent.6193:

I’ll borrow one from an earlier post of mine:
Avenger

I like that one.

I’ll just wait for the new guardian elite specialization in two years.

bigbobpataki.4796:

I like the name Dragonhunter. Considering that dragon’s are the great evil of the world, and guardians have the justice/smiting evil theme going on, whats wrong with combining the two and saying “I smite the great evil, dragons”?

You’re not the only one who likes it, but you are certainly on the margins.

The problem is that the ‘Dragonhunter’ does nothing to evoke the core concepts of the ‘Guardian’ baseclass. The name sounds like it should be a ‘Warrior’ or ‘Ranger’ specialization, but not one for the ‘Guardian.’

Pitched Reason: “Being stuck with the name ‘Dragonhunter’ for your specialization.”

Guhracie.3419:

If you make it a mastery, anyone who doesn’t buy heart of thorns loses access to it.

And? People who play the game in most cases buy the expansion if they want to keep playing. Saying that it will cut out the non-expansion buyers is just an empty threat.

Sorean.5379:

You guys must at least watch the video before you say something about the name.

It is a trapper.
He is a hunter.

“Zealot”,“Paragon” and the likes dont fit him. Dragonhunter is perfect.

‘Avenger’ or ‘Crusader’ for the more pro-active ‘Guardian.’ ‘Dragonhunter’ is neither inspiring, evocative, nor imaginative as a name.

MattyP.6954:

It’s a completely optional trait, and the game is completely playable without it. If it’s worth it to take the trait, then take it. If it’s not, then don’t. Taking it out of traits just makes it de-facto baseline.

Not if it’s put into the mastery system, which will likely require some grind.

I saw a great idea floated around of removing the falling damage traits and turning them into some form of mastery traits. That, IMHO, would go a long way for a lot of professions, and be a good thing in strengthening the Guardian’s Honor Adept traits.

I’m hoping the elite specialization provides more guardian mobility and speed options.

Orpheal.8263:

Fall Damage Traits should become part as like many other passive effects of this Game of the Mastery System, so that these thigns don’t waste potential space for better and more combat related useful Specializations.

Simple. Elegant. Beautiful. I agree with this post.

It’s a PvE beta. Having these drops in the Maguuma Wastes ensures that beta invites go to active (enough) players who have characters that are at least level 80. As you can be level 2 or higher in WvW, beat testing level 80+ PvE content is probably not the best idea.

Honor Adept Traits are less than ideal. If you don’t use a mace, you are relegated to picking the trait for reduced falling damage or for reviving others.

Maybe a better adept trait would actually increase the effect range for shout skills.

Knighthonor.4061:

With the limited number of them, they should be useful for all parts of the game. Not just falling from keep walls.

And in PvE for exploration, some vistas, and jumping puzzles.

DevilLordLaser.8619:

Beginning, and end, of Tengu personal story.

How awesome would that be, huh?

Meh.

A new race would be nice. I was expecting a new race. But I would have preferred a new profession over a new race, and I feel excited that we are getting a new profession instead.

Argon.1563:

Disappointed about Ventari. Obviously ArenaNet’s way of carrying on SylvariWars2

They could have picked any other character, and they pick some meaningless fodder NPC who only appears twice, and is known for planting a tree. The two kids who used to play behind the LA bank are more worthy of being legends, due to actually doing something with their life (encouraging racial tolerance).

Jora, Pyre, Gwen, Kalla, all would have been more meaningful than Ventari.

Did he even plant the tree? Was it not Ronan who planted the tree atop the graves of his family?

I hope not. Kinda tired of greatsword, especially for cloth.

Cherokeewill.7504:

I’ve read many posts asking for a Class story and those arguing for one. They all seem to boil down to “Rytlock’s the first Revenant! How do you explain 2 year old content and the Revenant?”

The answers all seem to come down to,“Story line only cares about race.” or “No other class has had a story so STFU!” or other less polite replies.

I don’t care about Rytlock or his role as “First Revenant” as hypothesized on the forums. That said, please consider the following;

1. I have not played Guild Wars 1.
2. I have no clue who these Legends are.
3. I have no idea why the powers of the Legends are associated with them.
4. No other class is based so exclusively upon story.

I’m not saying that Revenant should be removed/excluded from the racial class lines but I would recommend a novel approach to the class; lock traits behind story quests. Rather than paying for them or waiting for some Open World event, force the player to follow a quest chain to learn about the five legends. The more they learn, the more powerful they are.

I am excited about the new class and I find the history Anet has chosen to reveal so far very interesting, but I feel their will always be something missing from the class if only Guild Wars 1 players can truly appreciate how complex Revenants are.

ArenaNet is not giving the Revenant their own unique personal story. That said, ArenaNet has expressed a desire to actually show more lore regarding their professions in the game. The revenant may not get their unique story, but all players will likely learn about the origins, powers, etc. of the revenant in the Heart of Thorns story.

BrettM.9062:

Why does bringing cooking up to 500 mean an increase in the stats of food buffs? Why couldn’t it just be an increased duration for the buffs, or a reduction in the amount of ingredients?

More dyes too. I like Toepac’s idea of “dye effects.”

Celtic Lady.3729:

I seriously doubt they’ll permanently keep an imbalance for 2 out of 8 crafting professions. Besides, why is ascended food silly? That’s just an opinion, and who says the food for 400-500 has to be ascended using bloodstone dust, etc. materials, anyway. It could be something else entirely.

An ascended cooking pot. Elonian wine. Or INFUSED VEGETABLES!