Guild Wars 2

Sebrent.3625:

I don’t care what anything things or believes about Staff. We know nothing about it so no one should really be even trying to use it in this discussion to make any points as the only points we know are that it is the new Ranger Druid weapon and it is a Staff.

It had nothing to do about making any points, I was simply pointing out that there is a possibility that we’re getting ranged attack not based on projectile attacks. A minor sidenote.

We’re not struggling with reflects at the moments. That’s the main argument. Adding a couple of additional sources of reflects shouldn’t change that.

Aomine.5012:

Well, I believe that Staff would not be a dps weapon, so even if it’s not projectile, I doubt it’d be a good source of damage. I’m guessing it’d be like Guardian’s Staff, with even worse auto-attack damage. (Because Anet says we have pet to compensate the damage lost. lol)

Neither do I, and it doesn’t matter. As long as it got some skills that do respectable damage and adds pressure in team fights. I don’t think we will see a straight up copy of an existing weapon for an elite specialization. That would be lame, and we haven’t seen anything like that for any of the new weapons they have showed us so far. They could mix it up, hopefully that’s what they’re doing.

Regardless, reflects aren’t really something we’re struggling with at the moment anyways, I don’t thinking adding some more will change that.

I don’t see the need for a counter to something that is so easily avoidable and greatly telegraphed as projectile defense. People aren’t even bothered to bring dozens of reflects to counter LB rangers because they are easily countered in other ways without having to make sacrifices to builds.

I also think our staff will have ranged attack not revolved around projectile finishers. So while they’re adding more reflects (I don’t get where people are getting “tons” from) to the game, perhaps we’re also getting some options that aren’t heavily based on projectiles.

Sebrent.3625:

Honestly, I want Natural Healing to scale off of my healing power … unless they are going to make some change that let’s my pet have more than a fraction of the healing power I can get. It’s one of those mechanics that I make use of but am not happy with the implementation.

Yup. But it’s getting merged with compassion training, so it seems like that’s the route Anet is taking. It kinda makes sense with the trait belonging to beastmastery, especially when BM won’t grant us healing power anyways.

They could switch stuff around and put invigorating bond in BM, merge it with compassion training and make it scale of the pet’s stats, and then put natural healing in NM and make it scale with the ranger’s stats.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Natural Healing would be amazing if they just added the 125/s for the pet to the 133/3s for the Ranger and divided by two to have 85/s each and had the pets healing power scale with it.

That would be a nerf, it already scales with the pet’s healing power.

Natural Healing heals the ranger aswell, that it something you should be familiar with when talking about our sustain/healing options.

Wondering if it will still heal the ranger when they push out the trait changes. It’s weird that they didn’t change the description of the skill already, it would make it a lot more tempting for people not aware.

snow.8097:

a bigger whirling defense radius would be nice

Radius/range from off-hand training is becoming baseline, so we’re getting that.

kiwituatara.6053:

Needs to be 600 range instead of 360.

Same goes for any other trait/skill with similiar behavior, like Nature’s Voice, for that matter.

Wuselknusel.4082:

That is certainly true, the thing I don’t like is that the pet could be as useful as a deathshroud, if the focus of the pet would move from dealing damage to supporting the Ranger. The pet could CC a target, more than it does now, it could give boons, vision, actively block projectiles, keeping the enemy away from the Ranger. It could stack conditions like weakness or vulnerability or cripple, things that set up the Ranger, not things the Ranger is already capable of doing, like dealing damage.

They could have designed some more variations between the different pets than what we have now. But that isn’t what makes the current implementation bad in my opnion. In my opinion there are other problems like general AI problems and how we control our pets that are more essential to our current use of pets. Better control of our pets also opens some alternatives to be able to have pets more designated into certain roles without having major balancing issues.

But, I would rather have them focusing on our terrible utility skills before they start toying around with pets designated to certain roles, more so than they already are.

Wuselknusel.4082:

Did you just said that the pet compared to the deathshroud is bad? Because it certainly sounds like it and that’s the whole point I’m trying to make here.

I’m saying that it is different. What you don’t seem to understand is that you could make a guardian build just like I mentioned and it would suffer the same fate as the ranger did against a necromancer, because DS is a usefull mechanic in a 1v1 no matter how bad the build is.

The pet has it problems, more problems than any other profession mechanics. But this video doesn’t point out what these problems are. It only proves how useful DS is in a scenario like this, against any profession. Necromancer was probably one of, it not the worst profession to pick in a video like this.

Wuselknusel.4082:

So WP didn’t win that fight only because of the pet being so bad, but it certainly was a huge aspect. While WP has able to utilize Death Shroud multiple times, the pet simply stayed useless.

The fact that you even think the pet was a huge aspect of it, and that it is comparable to the death shroud almost makes me giggle.

The ranger couldn’t do anything with his utility skills. That was the ONLY aspect of it from the ranger’s point of view. It would be like giving the guardian healing breeze, signet of mercy, merciful interventon, sanctuary and a tome as an elite, coupled with a trash compilation of trait choices. The virtues wouldn’t save it.

Does this guy even realize that playing a ranger for the first time affects his MMR? He wrecked some equally bad players on a power ranger, what else is new?

Wuselknusel.4082:

Well Sebrent, you do realise that you give me all the arguments I need. Do you think the other classes would find their AIs more enjoyable when they could control it like thee Ranger can? Would they enjoy it that much that they want to trade their current profession mechanic for this AI? I don’t think so. Which brings us back to the point that every other class mechanic is more potent than ours.

Our pets, lackluster or not, have nothing to do with anything that was shown in WP’s video. He used shouts. Our shouts are laughable. He used an untraited Water Spirit, the worst spirit out of them all.

If your so called point was to argue that our pet sucks, this video didn’t do anything for you. It just pointed out some of our stupidly subpar skills that we all are very well aware of, mashed together with a build that I wouldn’t even call a build – it has no synergy with anything, it’s nothing like what a new player to the game might had come up with.

IMO, WP did a poor job at actually making a “bad build”. It wasn’t a build, it was just a pile of trash mixed together. That being said, with WP seemingly being a popular guy at Anet, hopefully they paid some attention to his comments about “Guard” and S&R.

Sebrent.3625:

We’ll have to wait and see …

The only way I think you could possibly test this was if you somehow set it up so that as soon as someone proc’d it they had two nearby ranger teammates blow their horns. If the mist wolf was summoned, then we’d have our answer. If it wasn’t … then probably not.

Shouldn’t a rune proccing Call of the Wild, as in the actual skill and not only mirroring its effect, do a blast finisher aswell? Or get its recharge reduced by off-hand training? Because rune of the pack doesn’t do that.

In that case we already know the answer. BTW, does cantrip traits proc on rune of vampirism?

Serraphin Storm.2369:

GS and Axe are have great synergy with other lines.

Actually, unless I misunderstand what you’re saying, axe has perfect syngery with BM, the benefit our standard xx66x condi builds with axe get from being able to improve our pet in addition to get a decent axe trait while at it is huge.

If you don’t wanna spec into BM, you could always just leave it untraited like everyone currently does anyways. The ferocity trait in skirmishing is garbage.

What they could have done though, is removing one of our two revive traits (having two is stupid regardless) and create an off-hand axe trait similar to our other off-hand weapons. Or something along those lines. Two-handed training could obviously apply fury to our pet aswell, or even all allies within radius for that matter to add some support to it.

Tragic Positive.9356:

I remember the time when I got… Oh… SO disappointed when I got into GW2 and found out that my ranger cannot play dual dagger setup.

Me too. I remember picking up a dagger while leveling, and the disappointment was huge when I realized I could only wield it as an off-hand. I like sword and axe, but I do agree that it would be awesome with a third choice when we have such good off-hand weapons.

I actually do think we’re getting a mainhand dagger with a future specialization. Either that or an off-hand sword. IMO, it only makes sense to expand the ranger archtype by adding a second dagger.. not only thematically, but we’re seriously lacking a steady main hand weapon to fight on point with. It’s a perfect match, more so than most other weapons – unless they wanna reintroduce the hammer and bunny thumper

Ben Delat.8415:

What do I need to look out for with regards to pet, anything I should know about managing them?

For starters, keep them passive and remember to manually make them attack. It will benefit you later both in pve and pvp. And learn their attack animations.

Tragic Positive.9356:

Did everyone else forget double Rapid Fire barrages?
How can anyone even think of it being weaker?

Some people just seem to be unable to see that ranger builds are mostly getting buffed across the board, as if they don’t even bother to do some simple theorycrafting and compare it to the current builds.

It’s pretty evident when people are questioning the axe trait placement.

Sebrent.3625:

@Lazze:
You could argue that if we got even more cooldown reduction per point in Beastmastery with the current trait setup, but we don’t. Your point is akin to saying that for some classes that same specialization contained a trait that lowered some other cooldown(s) so that should be how they do it now and ignore the actual class-specific “stat” that was being given before.

As I said, Devil’s advocate. I was just trying to look at it from Anet’s point of view and their reasoning behind doing it. We’re currently only got shorter pet swap cooldowns with BM, not pet skill cooldowns unless we take two adept traits for it. It would have made more sense if we could actually activate the pet skills on our own, but we don’t, so that’s another argument against it unless that is something they’re also changing.

I’m very aware of the logic you’re following because I fully agree with you. From what we know now, the remaining 150 pet stats should be given from BM traits. But I also think they’re gonna do some pet rework, so I’m just gonna wait it out before making up my mind about it. At this pont we don’t even know if the pet stat trait in NM still exist when they push out the changes. Maybe they will clarify stuff when they show us the druid specialization.

Sebrent.3625:

If you look at every class’s specialization with some class-specific “stats” (usually a cooldown reduction on their class mechanic), they are getting the remaining +15 from their Grandmaster minor trait from that Specialization

While I do agree that the pet attribute trait possibly should be moved to BM, we do get recharge on pet swap and pet skills from speccing into BM. If you wanna be the Devil’s advocate you could argue that this is more in line with the cooldown reduction other profession gets from speccing into their mechanic traitline.

They also mentioned on the stream that they are still not sure about the NM adept trait that gives pet extra stats. They also briefly mentioned something about reworking pets, unless they were just jokingly saying that bears will get buffs.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

HotHit.6783:

Providing allies with our opening strike so we can coordinate a spike would be a perfectly good Ranger style support option.

That would be an amazing druid trait! “Whenever you gain Opening Strike, so do nearby allies.”

Sweeeeet!

The amounts of possible vulnerarbility and guaranteed crits with the new opening strike traits would be stupidly fun.

Noha.3749:

Im not a ranger player, but from my point of view:
Ranger damage is ok both as power and certainly as condition.
Power however is lacking in dungeons because of stack meat doesnt allow you to
sit at max range for most damage.. that and lack of cleave.

http://dulfy.net/2014/07/05/gw2-ranger-pve-class-guide-by-lorek-and-cell/

You’re doing it wrong, and I’m too lazy so I will let someone else do the explaining on how you actually should play it. DO NOT sit at range and pew pew with your longbow and then precede to claim that the damage is lacking. That’s just as frutiful as telling the warriors that their rifles do low damage in dungeons.

HotHit.6783:

Providing allies with our opening strike so we can coordinate a spike would be a perfectly good Ranger style support option.

Welp, giving us the option to reapply opening strike and thus more vuln is supportive as well, for that matter. I like the idea, though.

Tragic Positive.9356:

About Ranger support.
… I don’t know about you guyz, but I can tell that Spirit Ranger is a thing.
The support it provides is pretty noticeable. And it is by no means weak or inferior or what not.

It is, however, unreliable which makes it inferior.

Unreliable, passive. Boring. The only “exciting” part is trying to keep the spirits alive for as long as possible before the clusterkitten of a cele meta melts them. Crossing my fingers and hoping that the druid brings something a bit more active, without that being another source of regeneration which we have an abundance of already (I wasn’t the only one raising an eyebrow when they added yet another source of regen on the warhorn trait, right? Guyzz, staaph, we already full uptime!).

Rangers are fine in dungeons though. Pretty much the closest class to break into the standard War/Thief/Guard/Ele X2 composition. A no-brainer when the guard isn’t needed. High damage and good offensive support, I don’t see what all the fuss is about from all the PvE’ers. Maybe we’re lucky and Whirling Defense becomes a reliable group reflect when they increase the base radius.

McWolfy.5924:

You are wrong. We know (nearly) one thing about druids. They shift shapes. Druids was a wood (oakhearth) and a spirit form.

You’re wrong about me being wrong. Except from leaving out the fact that they shifted from humans to oakhearts as they became closer to the nature before turning into mere spirits, nothing about what I said was wrong. There has never been any established lore about druid shifting frequently back and forth between (the only exceptions being rituals that restore oakhearts spirits to regular oakhearts, but then again, that wasn’t frequent), and there has never been any established lore where this shifting involved animals.

The last part being quit important when speculating about rangers doing some shift-interactions with their pets via the druid specialization. Anet can obviously take the established lore and take it from where it is now to wherever they want by expanding it, thus not ruling out frequent shapeshifting entirely. But from what we know now, mechanic wise and lore wise, shapeshifting as a profession mechanic doesn’t make as much sense as some people want it to do.

Knighthonor.4061:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Focused and meaningful support.

Spirits and Horn doesnt do that for the class?

Yeah, in dungeons, where the ranger probably will be in a very good place when they implement the trait changes.

As far as pvp and wvw goes, though. Nope.

Knighthonor.4061:

Did you not see how Necro vanilla traits interact with Shroud Knight?
Or how Vanilla Guardian traits effect DragonKnight mechanics?

i dont see how pet mechanics cant be folded into transformations skills the same way they did for the two Necro Shrouds.

And did you not see what I wrote? I’m not saying it’s impossible to overhaul the pet mechanic and still make it work (I didn’t even touch upon wether it’s possible or not, just different), I’m saying that a lot of the suggestions people are leaving on the forums wouldn’t work.

You can’t even disagree with that, that’s just how it is.

There is nothing wrong about stating the obvious when a lot of people seem to forget that for one, the ranger mechanic is vastly different from the other mechanics and must be treated with that in mind. Death Shroud was already a transformation, the Reaper Shroud doesn’t make any difference to excisting traits’ functionality because the concept is the same.

And two, we already have an established lore about druids in this franchise, and transforming into pets was never a part of that. People seem to ignore that and just look at other games that did similar things with druid-like classes, as if they forget that druids already exist in the lore – and that the only transformation they did was permanently taking the form of nature spirits.

Call me biased for not wanting shapeshifting partly because I don’t like it, but I’m just basing stuff of what we already know and have, lore-wise and mechanic-wise.

Folkwine Del Mark.2367:

I do not understand why you guys continue to associate pet and Druid.
There is already the trait “Beastmaster” that improves the skills of the pet. In GW lore, the Druid is likely to be more associated with plants and nature. IMHO it evokes the roots from the ground, bushes, tree, seeds, and poisonous things like that, nothing to do with the pet.

Exactly. We’ll probably get some sort of a mechanic change just because that’s how specialization will be, but from what we know, speculating about this whole pet transformation thing or anything associated with that is just full out guessing based on little to nothing except from the fact that we have a pet. Not saying people can’t do that, but then don’t end your argument with “it makes sense” or that it’s “most fitting”.

Dojo.1867:

I like the merge with pet mechanic and find it most fitting for a druid class.

Not necessarily. Druidism in the guild wars lore never had anything to do with shapeshifting into animals. We already know that the specialization is related to the established guild wars lore about druids and not the general fantasy druid.

Tragic Positive.9356:

@Lazze
Ah, that sounds about right, my bad. Point taken.

Yeah, I should have worded myself differently. I guess all this talk about shapeshiftning is just soooo unappealing to me. I would much rather prefer something like the idea the idea you mentioned above.

In fact, I don’t really care if they don’t do all that much to our mechanic (aside from general AI improvements (I also have this feeling that they’re doing a general pet overhaul that isn’t just AI improvements)) as long as they make the staff and our traits worth it. They’re obviously gonna do something to keep it in line with the other professions, but.. yeah.

Tragic Positive.9356:

Lazze.9870:

…
and I don’t see Anet bothering with making it work with all our current traits.

Probably because that would be one way to improve the issues that rangers have been suffering for years. In one go.

Just saying.

That’s not really neither here nor there. But then again, I should have worded myself differently.

Basically, what they need to keep in mind is that we have several traits that proc on pet swap and F2 skills, and then there is traits like Empathic Bond. Whatever they do to our mechanic, these traits still need to work. This is also one of the reasons why our profession mechanic could be less changeable compared to other professions. Our mechanic is vastly different from everyone elses.

A lot of these shapeshiftning ideas and especially mechanics that involve pet stowing that I see people suggest wouldn’t work with these traits. Making a mechanic that makes these traits less usefull is NOT helping the ranger. Making a mechanic that synergies well with these traits on the other hand, that will improve the ranger. I think Anet is fully aware of this and that they will design our mechanic accordingly. Which is good.

Pretty much the meta build but with sinister gear, sharpening edges, possible trap traits if you want those and whatever runes may fit. You’re going hybrid if you want the highest damage output, so rune of the ranger is a solid starting point.

We are talking about dungeons after all, so stacking your own might is gonna be mostly redundant.

Ugh. As long as it isn’t shapeshifting… I really don’t see why that’s so appealing to people, and I don’t see Anet bothering with making it work with all our current traits.

Someone suggested reworking Nature’s Voice, soon to be Resounding Timbre, to apply different boons depending on the shout. I quite like that idea, we got an overload of possible regen application already. Oh, and yes, increase the radius of the trait. Obviously.

Search and Rescue… Scrap it, it’s unsalvageable. Just get rid of it and make it interesting. We already got a revive skill from our elite spirit (which they hopefully will enhance further). We don’t need a second one, and pretty much anything would be an improvement to what it is now. Warriors do great with just their elite, we should aswell.

Guard needs a complete rework, it’s just a trait trigger at this point, and it won’t even be needed for that when they push out the trait changes. Remove the cast time while at it.

I’m not really sure about the two other shouts, other than the general idea that at least a couple of our shouts should have some sort of a party wide support effect (defensive or offensive). I get that ranger shouts were supposed to be some sorts of commands as opposed to the more straight forward guardian and warrior traits, but in practice this idea doesn’t work with the current implementations of the skills. Furthermore, what’s the point of having an obvious support oriented shout trait if our shouts ain’t supposed to be supportive at all? If they wanted shouts to be “commands”, the trait should reflect that. The only rune that enhance shouts are also support oriented for that matter.

Holland.9351:

I think Ranger class mechanic might not be changed at all.

I was thinking the same thing, with ranger having the trickiest profession mechanic to change up. It seems too obvious that if one profession gets left out on all this mechanic change love, it will be the ranger. Not only because of the pet itself, but because of all the traits tied up to pet swap and pet F2 skills. These traits still need to function with a new mechanic.

To be honest though, I would rather keep the current mechanic and get some awesome traits and utitilites to weigh up for that than having some shape shift stuff that doesn’t appeal to me at all.

I don’t mind EB and SotF (that name is much better (so is Read the Wind in MM for us gw1 rangers aswell)) being in the same trait line as much as I hate having to give up Poison Master from my condi build. I never ran double condi clear in the later versions of the meta anways.

What the current trait setup does however is pretty much forcing every ranger pvp build into Wilderness Survival, picking Wilderness Knowledge or EB depending on your utilities, just like pretty much every warrior build spec into Defense for Cleansing Ire.

I’m on the fence at the moment.

Tragic Positive.9356:

Are you sure?

In a 30 second window where the ranger is fully buffed, yes, I’m sure 30 % is too high. And we (as in the ranger itself) got buffed since those numbers were calculated (while the pet only got a slight negligible buff from predator’s onslaught).

There are several variables, but in a lot of cases the pet won’t be doing 30 % of our total dps, not even against stationary single targets. More importantly, that number isn’t a static 30 % on average, it’s way lower (the main reason I cringe everytime I see someone stating that “30 % of our damage comes from an unreliable AI”).

I imagine I will do some tests when they push out the trait changes, as I’m curious about the difference of dps depending on what 3rd trait line you chose.

MrKahwk.9524:

Rangers can use their f2 in their downed state. Is this kittening intended? No, I’m not raging. Just had to try 3 times do stomp a ranger because I got CC’ed so many times and wanted to clear some things. Expect a full on list with pros and cons if it’s intended.

If it’s not intended. Then I don’t know why this has never been brought up/ fixed by Arenanet.

Of course it’s intended. The pet is even a part of our downstate skills.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Without it, your pet gets none except might from companion’s might

Wrong. The sword applies might too. Jungle stalker applies might to itself aswell. And then there is the new GM trait in BM.

Between that and the fact that the pet is just a minor part of our DPS in pve meta build, FB is more prominent in terms of actually keeping the pet alive.

The pet isn’t even close to be 30 % (this number keeps being thrown around all the time) of our damage in the PvE meta build. It was closer to 10 % of the ranger’s dps in a fully buffed group in a 30 seconds window before the September ‘14 patch. That’s with fortifying bond.

The aegis sharing is what makes FB really worth taking in this scenario. Keeps the pet alive against devestating boss attacks if you got a guardian that knows when to pop aegis.

I imagine the pure dps difference between NM and BM will be neglibile, if not in favor of BM. Other factors will be more important to take into consideration. BM offers shorter cooldowns for pet skills, movement speed, Pet’s Prowess, quickness and might on swap (which you may want to do with beastmaster’s bond in MM) and two-handed training for whenever you want to ditch the bow for a greatsword. NM is a bit on the defensive side.

OlliX.1705:

Maybe the Trooper effect will still work on allies within the radius? We’ll have to see.

Rangers need Nature’s Voice trait for that to work. So no, not unless they change it.

Dojo.1867:

I actually could see Muddy Terrain becoming one.

Not sure if I even have to point out why that won’t happen.

For one, you cast mud.

McWolfy.5924:

Every class will gain a huge buff so the gap between ramgers and others will be biger. Now ranger is a mediocare sniper, after the changes it will be less

lol

Just gonna leave it with that.

niconori.7235:

God awful when compared to other classes. Why do we have 3 minor traits doing the same thing in MM, and similarly in Skirmishing, 2 minor traits for weapon swap? Can’t we just merge them together?

No, it’s not “god awful”.

We still have 3 minor traits in MM revolved around opening strike because they finally got off their kitten and added some play to the opening strike mechanic via master and grandmaster traits other than the useless current incarnation of Remorseless. We actually get proper ways of refreshing the minor traits.

There is a difference between “doing the same” and “working with the same mechanic” for that matter, but I’d guess you already know that.

They could have merged the adept and master minors, and added a gm trait that grants you some benefit against foes with vuln. That’s about the only additional improvement I would have wanted. The changes we are getting are an improvement nevertheless.

If there is anything you should be complaining about, it’s the fact that we still have two revive traits. That’s god awful.

Holland.9351:

Also note that it only gives 20% instead of the current 50%.

None of the pets I use have conditions. One gives a boon and the other clears conditons..

I’m aware. And they could definitely boost that duration to match the current trait. The numbers are what makes the trait a bit “meh” imo, not the actual effects and the fact that it is a pet trait.

I can’t think of a single pet giving boons that at least doesn’t do something like vuln or cripple aswell. But yeah, I agree. For some builds it’s very limited. I’m just saying it doesn’t have to be all that build specific.

Edit: just to be clear, I also think two out of the three WS major adept traits are a tad weak, compared to other lines, unless you run condi with off-hand dagger and torch. And the falling damage trait has to go somewhere, so.. might aswell be a line that has a grandmaster it benefits from.

Holland.9351:

I don’t like Wilderness Survival Adept traits, so I’m not happy with a pet trait being there either. They’re all too build specific..

Not necessarily. A boost to the condi duration of pets works pretty well in a power ranger build utilizing wolf’s fear etc. In other words, any builds using pets that applies any type of condi that you wouldn’t mind having a longer duration on.

Yeah, it’s a limited choice and they could have moved it to BM, but at least it won’t be a completely useless trait that is just sitting there doing nothing.

Even the falling damage trait isn’t all that bad from a pvp perspective – coupled with Wilderness Knowledge, you get condi cleanse, fury and leave muddy terrain every time you take falling damage. A potential life saver when disengaging fights from something like the mid point on Battle of Khylo or Forest of Niflhel.

Swagger.1459:

you all should read through the traits and use some common sense.

I just gave you a link to a build calculater. Why don’t you use that so called common sense of yours and show us exactly how these changes won’t benefit several builds of ours.

All of the pet traits in marksmanship benfits the ranger aswell, and NONE of them are pet traits only. It’s called synergy. And it benefits our class mechanic without having to spend points in beasmastery. Same goes for all professions. Warriors have burst traits not directly linked to Dicipline.

Axe works in beastmastery because together with fortyfing bond it is an excelent weapon for buffing our pets (the trait line also buffs the direct damage of our pet, which is a great addition to a condi spec). Spec into Nature Magic, Beastmastery and Wilderness Survival, and you have a condi build setup where having a mainhand axe trait in BM makes perfect sense. That’s not saying it couldn’t have been moved anywhere else, but it works. It’s not “bad”.

Common sense.

http://dulfy.net/2015/05/02/gw2-specialization-calculator-that_shaman/#profession=ranger&traits=“Marksmanship”,3,5,9-“Skirmishing”,2,4,7-“Wilderness Survival”,3,6,8

Here. Make some builds and show exactly how these new traits ain’t working out for you, and how most of our current builds wont’ get a buff out of this.

I like these changes. In fact, I like them so much that I almost don’t feel like playing anymore with our current traits.

Swagger.1459:

Levetty.1279:

Where would you put the Shortbow trait?

Well, for example, they could combine the long and short bow traits.

Why? So that you can run a less optimal double bow build?

Run both lines then. You would probably be doing that anyway. And you will spend less traits optimizing both weapons than what you currently do.

Swagger.1459:

I’m sure I could pick out a few more that do not make sense, but c’mon, at least put things where they belong please. Please?

Your complaints don’t make sense.

Beastmaster’s Bond is hardly a “pet trait”, it add some benefical plays with a mechanic you’re stuck with anyways. Shortbow trait in skirmishing makes perfect sense with trait lines no longer being tied to stats (not to mention the fact that the line got other condi options aswell). One pet related trait in WS is perfectly fine, and is your best adept choice for non-condi builds. You could argue that the GS and axe traits could be moved, but in my opinion they will work just fine where they are.

You get three maxed out lines to chose from, none of them being tied to attributes. I’m sure you will be able to work around these so called problems of yours. These changes are mostly good (except having two revive traits obviously) and straight out buffs. Go and take a look at the necromancer traits if you wanna find something to complain about.

Sebrent.3625:

I think it’s more a result of the Ranger getting more than just the Specialization changes.

In this particular case, I think they’re just making it baseline. Nothing more to it.

As I already said, the new Beastmaster’s Bond procs a Call of the Wild with a 750 radius according to the tooltip. That’s what Call of the Wild currently has when traited with off-hand training. Meaning that this particular skill in fact has it base radius increased from 600 to 750. I don’t see why the other weapons won’t get the same treatment.