Talk:Profession

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki

Contents 1 Professions Rebooted 2 Paragon! 3 Shapeshifting Profession 4 Class Specifications 5 Number of Character Slots 6 Mesmer 7 Blacksmith 8 Profession Predictions 9 Alchemist? 10 Guns and Bows 11 Two Professions with Pets 12 Am I the only one... 13 Sandwichmancer 14 Descriptions Section Possibly Grasping at Straws 15 Schools of Magic 16 Professions Have Been Found 17 Reveal in August 18 Professions 19 Necro footage in this video! 20 Pets 21 "6 returning" 22 Profession For Those Who Played Monks 23 So.. the last 4... 24 Not a speculation for once on this talk page 25 Deleting the "Descriptions" section 26 Archive 27 "No profession will be named 'Gunner'."

[edit] Professions Rebooted

• On the page, it currently says: "at least one profession which can use bows but not guns[2] (This description fits the ranger.)" There is a Charr ranger clearly shown using a rifle in the gameplay footage released so far.
• I believe that most of the six original GW1 professions will return in GW2: Elementalist, Mesmer, Monk, Necromancer, Ranger, and Warrior.
  • The Elementalist and Warrior have been revealed.
  • The Ranger and Necromancer are all but confirmed.
  • The Mesmer has appeared in the GDC 2010 Concept Art videos.
  • I'm convinced that the Monk will become the second Soldier class, and be much more like D&D's Paladin. (As to what it will be called, I'm unsure.)
    • • On the GW2 FAQ page, it states that the monk will most deffinitely not be a proffession.
    • My reasoning being that in GW1, besides being a dedicate healer, the most common solo use of a Monk is the 55 Monk build for farming. Converting it to a Paladin-like Soldier would be about the only way to have the Monk in GW2. (The Armored female holding a shield and mace, with the monk's light blue wash comes to mind.)
• I'm also confident that Faction's Assassin will also be in GW2, possibly more like the D&D Rogue.
  • The Assassins' daggers have been announced as weapons in GW2, and several assassin/rogue-like characters have appeared in the GDC 2010 Concept Art videos. (With & Without daggers and rifles I might add.)
• The eighth profession, I believe, will be a shape-shifting profession, a bit like D&D's Druid.
  • The short character to the right of the Elementalist, below the Warrior, in the Professions Reveal Image appears to be a fur covered character with a tail. Considering it's size, it's not a Charr, and the images are of the various professions, shapeshifting must be a professional skill, a bit like D&D's Druid.
• As the original six professions are shared between the three GW1 Campaigns, I can't help but think that they will be shared with GW2 also.--Warzog Watch your six! 02:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, although personally I think that the third Explorer proffesion will be an Engineer. Zolann The Irreverent 02:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering, what will happen when a Norn Druids goes into Norn Raven Form, and then it uses it's Profession skill to transform into it's eh... Owl form? I dunno. I feel like the Norn covers the druid in a way. AsuranSylvari 04:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with that, but I can see no other explanation for a Charr, six Humanoids, and a small fur covered creature with a tail in a Profession Reveal image. BTW: IMHO, Shapeshifting would be your Racial/Profession Elite skill, or possibly your self-heal/buff skill. So you could only transform into one form at a time.--Warzog Watch your six! 13:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

All forms change your skills in GW2. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit.) Oh, and the thing about being elite and only being able to bring one is probably right, also. An example of a shape-shifter. By the way, forms aren't exclusive to norn, asura already have a confirmed form and the other races probably have their share as well. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 00:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I think that you don't get the Druid idea. Remember that ANet is inspired by MTG rather than D&D. Moreover, I've seen many druids in fantasy novels, where they can NOT shape-shift, but are rather people sharing a special bond with the nature. On the other hand, I am pretty sure there is a "Gunner" Class, you can check the shadowed Charr near the warrior in the Profession Page. I can clearly see a massive gun pointing towards the Warrior's head. Finally, I don't think there will be a Monk, but a Protection Prayers based class with some Offensive abilities to be able to solo on his own. LeopoldL 18:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC) I believed this picture to be a beast master, because that fits the description at least 2 professions will be able to control pets. And since all classes can really have a gun, it doesnt make sense.

I think you may be confused about what I said. "The eighth profession, I believe, will be a shape-shifting profession, a bit like D&D's Druid." I specified like D&D's Druid, not that it would actually be a Druid. Fact is, IMHO, I think it'll be a Ritualist-like profession that can shape-shift.--Warzog Watch your six! 22:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understood what you've said and I've just expressed my opinion. Now, if there is shape-shifting profession, the form they take will probably be Elite Skill and it looks strange to me having racial shape-shifting Elite Skills and Profession shape-shifting Elite Skills. I highly doubt about this, but who knows. :) The Ritualist idea is cool, spirit summoning has been a successful feature in GW, so I believe it may come back in GW2. We will see the new class in a week or two. =) LeopoldL 13:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, then the confusion was on my part, sorry about that. I agree, it seems strange to have racial & professional shape-shifting, but I find it hard to come up with another explanation for the fur-covered being with a tail in a profession-reveal image.--Warzog Watch your six! 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Charr. --Odal talk 15:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Female charr* (Does it have an A or an E in it?) xD - Infinite - talk 16:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the fur covered creature with the tail is to small to be a charr. If one looks at the profession's reveal image, the hulking form to the left is obviously a charr, while the other is almost a third the size of the charr. Unless we will be able to play as juveniles, it is likely that the smaller creature is an Asura or Sylvari that has shape-shifted. Another thing to consider is the tail, the charr have rough fur on the tail, with one of the sexes having a tuft at the end of the tail, much like a lion's tail. The aforementioned creature's tail is completely smooth it's entire length, much like the tail of a panther.--Warzog Watch your six! 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered crouching, or a pose like the Male Ranger on the Aion Wallpapers? - Infinite - talk 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It could easily be an asuran ranger with a pet. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 22:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wich has already been said a lot of times XD XP, About the shape-shifter... yuo got 3 casters:ele,necro,mesmer (your guesses) 2 soldiers:Protter pala, warrior and then you got adventurers, is a druid-like in any wat an adventurer?--Sierra Echo84.196.119.34 22:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As to it being an asuran ranger with a pet, IMHO, the character is to small to be a ranger and pet in the same image, and the tail is almost as long as the character. (again, very much like a panther) As to the adventurer classes, I believe they will be the ranger, assassin, and the shape-shifter. IIRC, the scholar classes have light armor, adventurers have medium armor, and the soldiers have heavy armor. IMHO, a druid-like shapeshifter is not a spell-slinger like the scholar classes, and doesn't need a soldier's heavy armor to survive. Their primary offensive and defensive ability would be their ability to shape-shift into a creature based on their needs.--Warzog Watch your six! 01:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly not too small. Looks like a female asura, at that. A problem with having a druid as the third adventurer: who uses the guns? It would really be a waste if they didn't make a profession that has a focus on guns, and that profession won't be the ranger (see the page on uses of guns and bows, though it doesn't really mean a whole lot, it is something). They may make a profession or more that has forming capabilities, but none that is entirely or primarily based on forms, imo. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 02:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk about blowing it! I was sure it was a shapeshifted character. But I did get the panther's tail right. (Hard to forget once you've been attacked by one. ;p )--Warzog Watch your six! 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the assassin would be the profession that only uses guns and not bows. In the GDC 2010 concept art there is a female dressed as an assassin carrying a rifle.--Warzog Watch your six! 11:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In GW1, the War in Kryta has just ended, and oddly enough, while there are Oppressor Weapons for every profession, the Commemorative Weapons only have Assassin, Elementalist, Mesmer, Monk, Necromancer, Ranger, and Warrior items. Whether that indicates anything, or not, I'm not sure, but it is interesting none-the-less in our speculation of GW2 professions.--Warzog Watch your six! 14:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it, Rangers (archers?) are in my eyes a sure profession. Vald [Citation Needed] 14:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oooops! somehow forgot to put them in-edited it--Warzog Watch your six! 14:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And no dedicated healer class like the GW1 monk. -- Cyan 15:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still convinced that the Monk will become the second soldier class, combining the Paragon and Monk professions into the condition remover that has been mentioned. And, as I've stated before, combined with the commemorative weapons link above, I think that all of the original six professions will return in GW2 as they did in every campaign of GW1. (Albeit in revamped forms.)--Warzog Watch your six! 16:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Necromancer is a given, but Mesmer could perhaps be merged with Necromancer, since they both deal with hexes and the like. As for the small creature that is apparently furry with a tail, I thought that may well just be part of the ground detailing or if it covered in a spell effect like the Elementalist is. --Aissa 23:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Mesmers are more like rangers than necromancers. Which should definitely not be merged. Yeah, the two asura seem the most mysterious, nobody really knows what they are. :( -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 23:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'mma say the short one is an Asuran Ranger...WITH A PET. SO HAH. AHAHAHAHAHAHA~... OK, I'm done now. Zolann The Irreverent 00:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The devs said, "Currently there are three scholar professions, three adventurer professions and two soldier professions." So I'd guess the three scholars include Elementalist, Mesmer, and Necromancer. The three adventurer include Ranger, Gunner/Engineer, Assassin. The two soldier include Warrior and Cavalier/Knight.

[edit] Paragon!

I personally think the second soldier class will be like a paragon (if you look at the weapon pics you'll see something like a spear). the Paragon could be the paladin/monk that some of this talk page are talking about... the paragon has high armor (just as in GW1) spear maybe a Mace (the woman in armor with the mace and shield) the para will support the party just like in GW1 making not a offensive soldier class but a Defensive! (srry if this is in the wrong talk page :/ )The Holy Dragons 12:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Spears are not in the game... yet. It is possible that they will arrive in future expansions, however. It is also my guess that the "Mace woman" is the defensive/support soldier class. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 17:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mace woman... I think it should be mace person. It would be silly to say that we will be creating male mace women. But I agree, I don't think spear wielder's will make an appearance at first, perhaps in an expansion Venom20 20:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Mace woman" is the name of the artwork. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 00:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, The Paladin-like Monk I spoke of above, a.k.a. Mace Woman, would probably use adrenaline skills, chants, shouts, and echos much like a Paragon. But, at the same time, have many of the GW1 Monk's defensive skills. This leads me to believe that Mace Woman will be the condition removal profession spoken of. The fact that her concept art is washed in light blue like GW1's Monk is makes me believe she is the new Monk of GW2. (The Elementalist, Warrior, Ranger, and Mesmer concept art images are all done in the same colors as their GW1 counterparts.)--Warzog Watch your six! 22:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Or it could be that the Mace woman is an Air Elementalist.

Don't go forgetting the White Mantle way of doing things! A F K When Needed 13:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let y'all know, "Mace woman" is an unofficial name.-- Shew ♠♠♠ 15:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop being a wet blanket, imo.

It's likely a great deal more interesting to speculate on than anything even remotely official. A F K When Needed 21:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This PC Gamer page has an image where it states, "Paragons are now just poncy, shiny Warriors." I guess that means that the second soldier class is the Paragon.--Warzog Watch your six! 03:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't really need to mention the same thing twice. And the same article calls a Charr a "Lava Tiger", so it's not exactly a good source of information. Erasculio 09:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That, and it could mean the opposite. As in, paragons literally are just warriors. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 18:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Shapeshifting Profession

OMG maybe there IS something to this "shapeshifting profession" you were talking about! As seen here, "Race has no effect on the skills provided by a profession. The racial abilities, however, have similar functions to certain occupations, while being profoundly influenced by this race. For example, the Norns have the racial ability to change into totem animals. " Are they implying that this ability to change into animals holds close similarity with a profession? :D Anyone native to that language who could provide better translation? --Amannelle 14:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

e.g. a Frenchie, 'cause I'm finding it hard to get that worked out properly. --Odal talk 14:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't really get anything extra from reading it in French, accurate enough. Doesn't really say anything for certain, though I still do expect a profession to have form skills, but not very many, similar to how dervishes have forms. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Although unlikely, I had wondered if maybe Mesmers would be focusing on their illusion ability more, such as the ability to create multiple controllable illusions (similar to minions, but 1-hit killed). Having 5 identical clones could distract enemies, or making yourself look like another profession could catch enemies off-guard. I know this is far fetched, but do you think that could pass as a sort of "shape-shifting"? I know there's a difference between shapeshifting and illusions (as seen here), but still... I can't think of any other profession that would use shapeshifting other than Dervishes, and we know that Dervishes aren't in GW2 (or at least their Scythe abilities aren't).

Speaking of Mesmers, people are saying Mesmers may be the profession that "uses guns, not bows", and Assassins may "use bows, not guns" (the stealth factor). I can see Mesmers using pistols, but rifles? --Amannelle 15:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would personally say that assassins would likely be able to use both or just guns. As for mesmers using rifles, pistols and rifles are two different weapons, and could easily be restricted to one or the other (the warrior can use rifles, but not pistols). That is an interesting idea that mesmers will have actual illusory capabilities, though. Kinda like what was tried in GW1, along with generating environmental weapons and maybe messing some display things up. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 16:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe (psuedo-)assassins will be able to use pistols for sure (maybe silenced?), and perhaps rifles, in a sniper-ish manner. Vald [Citation Needed] 16:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I just remembered, one profession has a confirmed shape-shifting skill (even though the name is not confirmed). -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 19:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah Amanelle, I said that on GW2G (I'm Short) and I'd imagine it'd be just pistols, like the Warrior only uses the rifle and Assassin's only get shortbows, whilst Rangers get all bows and guns. --Odal talk 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, assassins would use rifles only (for range,) and daggers only (for up close and personal.) Much like a sniper would. And, IMHO, Rangers should only use bows. (guns just don't fit the sterotypical ranger.)--Warzog Watch your six! 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a stereotypical GW ranger, anyway. Pretty much every other MMO I've played that includes guns lets their archer/ranger equivalent use them. As for assassins, *shrug* --Kyoshi (Talk) 21:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

quote: "at least one profession which can use bows but not guns" A shape-shifter could be limited to bows, but of all the professions, the ranger seems the most likely to be limited to bows. IMHO--Warzog Watch your six! 02:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic, but.. You use your honest opinion waaaay too often. :3 - Infinite - talk 04:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite true... I have a bad tendancy of putting my foot in my mouth and upsetting people unintentionally. IMHO has kinda become my secondary signature. ;p --Warzog Watch your six! 20:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Ihate the idea of a shapeshifting profession and think that guns fit Rangers perfectly for the Renaissance type era the team appears to be going for. They're called Rangers, they do stuff at range IMO. --Odal talk 08:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, the title "ranger" has nothing to do with distance. Think park ranger. Guns do not fit well with a nature warden, imo. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 20:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the word comes from the word range, which kinda insinuates blowing shit up from a distance if you get my meaning. Of course it can ahve other meanings and that was reflected in GW1'S BM and WS, but I did work experience as a 15 year old ^^ with some rangers and they had guns for shooting pests. So, you know. --Odal talk 20:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the word comes from range (as in a lot of grassy land). Rangers are people who protect land, which is why rangers have so much to do with nature, wilderness survival, and animals. If their aim was blowing shit up from a range, they probably wouldn't be worshiping the goddess of nature. Also, I'm sure A-Net wants to avoid r-spike in GW2, which is probably going to become gun-spike. :P -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 21:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the name, I see no reason for them to not use guns. And if ANet can't avoid a gun version of RSpike in GW2, they should give up now. I'm pretty sure they can avoid RSpike through proper balancing more than restricting weapons, they're not THAT bad at balancing. --Odal talk 21:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, one major problem with r-spike is that rangers are invincible. Giving the gun specialty to a less invincible profession will allow rangers to keep most of their survivability. I'mthat gu not saying that rangers with guns is impossible to do, just ns are not very nature-like, and bows have already been seen using ranger-like skills (Arcing Shot being a fusion of gw1:Arcing Shot and gw1:Ignite Arrows). (Note: Yes, I know they haven't shown any gun skills. I'd prefer that high damage be kept away from rangers if they're anything like they are in GW1.) -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 21:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Think of it this way: Bows take a lot more skill to use than guns. A ranger, being in tune with nature and survivability, would probably be more skilled than the average gun-toting civillian. I would assume they will have a ranger (bows) and a gunner (guns) as both require a very diverse set of skills to use. Take it from someone who hunts with both bows and rifles ;) -- Zahra: 02:19:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Class Specifications

I really hope they are consistent on the classes from the original GW. I really don't see how the game will do without it. ---The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Mysticque (talk).

Well, tough luck. We'll probably be losing 4 classes (at least) from GW1. --Naoroji 13:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that no matter what the classes are, everyone will find at least one suitable. I believe in ANet. =)LeopoldL 13:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The profs that are mainly assured are as follows,

Ranger

Warrior

Necromancer(,Now part spirit master too)

Elementalist

Assasin (May be renamed Rouge, D&D'nd stuff. Stealth was also mentioned in an interview)

Mesmer can go write in my carebook >_>, And it's been said there are no dedicated healer classes. the other three i have no clue about. but Paragon may be coming back.--Neil • 15:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You're insane. 15:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Elaborate? xD - Infinite - talk 16:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Because how can a piece of make-up be a profession? But other than that, Mesmers are pretty much sure to return. --Naoroji 16:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In the new newsblog on Guildwars2.com it is mentioned that "people in our studio that enjoyed playing monks in Guild Wars 2" --Mann 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have tweeted it on to RB, got a anwser that it is not correct what is mentioned. [1] [2]--Mann 17:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, it was a typo. That meant to say 'Guild Wars 1'. --Naoroji 10:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested by necro being part spirit master... do you have a source or is that a guess? Also, lol @ Rouge vs Rogue =D ,,"Klumpeet",, 19:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's completely baseless speculation. --Odal talk 19:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Odal, there are MANY factors that point to the existence of Necromancers, so please, don't be rude. If you find it difficult to locate these factors, I would be more than happy to point each one out for you. No, neither Necromancers nor Rangers are confirmed, but they are heavily implied (Necromancers much more so than Rangers). --Amannelle 20:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Odal meant that 'Necro's being part spirit master' is speculation. Not that the Necro is in, Amannelle :). --Naoroji 21:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What Naor said. --Odal talk 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies, I misunderstood. --Amannelle 02:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Shaman if u read the article about the beta at level one you fight a earth elemental summoned by a enemy shaman so.... shamans?

Could u put ur signature after writing something please--Icyyy Blue 03:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Those elementals could be summoned by a pickled banana, but it would still be irrelevant. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 07:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Character Slots

(Apologies if this is in the wrong place)

I've been thinking about how many character slots we will get when GW2 is released. In the original we got free slots equal to the number of professions available minus 2. Now with the addition of different races will we get 4 slots to begin with? (=#Races-1?)

Also factoring the number of slots is whether expansions give extra slots/professions and if they do, how many they will give.

Any information or ideas on how many slots we'll get would be most appreciated. --Abbess Katherine 03:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Heya Abbess. There has been absolutely no word as yet as to how many slots we're going to get. My guess is 3-5 with additional slots available to purchase from the store from when the game goes live and perhaps an extra slot in the collectors edition. -- Aspectacle  05:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Or we may not have slots at all? --hnzdvn 06:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

People who are expecting enough slots to be able to play all possible profession/race combinations are likely going to be severily disappointed. Erasculio 08:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As all possible Race x Prof combo would take 40 characters, that seems completely unrealistic (and economically stupid, very few would have any need for extra slots, something that is easy to sell with minimum effort). I would guess something around 5 or 6, with extras purchasable from the start, as opposed to GW1. 83.251.193.118 08:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"that seems completely unrealistic (and economically stupid": oh, I couldn't agree more. You are going to be surprised by how much whinning we will see, though, when Arena Net announces that they won't give people fourty character slots as part of the game. Erasculio 09:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Expecting massive QQ on the slot announcement... I know I'd consider buying slots to make up a full complement of the professions so it is the perfect way to earn money on top of the box. They're doing a great job of making even professions I'm ho-hum on look different & potentially interesting to play. I'm such a gorram fan girl... :) -- Aspectacle  10:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine as long as we can re-roll our PvP slot as easily as they eventually made it in GW1. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 17:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Mesmer

Well it seems there is a strong chance that the Mesmer will be in game. Words really don't describe how relieved I am. --Odal talk 17:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually,... The guy who reviewed the book, talks about how Gwen was talked about. Gwen, being a Mesmer. Nowhere did he state that the Mesmer was actually still a profession D: It could be that the characters in the book were talking about Gwen.

... But yeah, they're probably in xD. --Naoroji 17:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm, read through the article again. --Odal talk 18:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the article says that there are strong mentions of Necromancers and Mesmers :P --hnzdvn 18:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "we also see specific mention of both the necromancer and the mesmer. ",... Specific mention. Specific,... So it could still be Gwen :P. --Naoroji 18:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Shhhh! Lets us enjoy our speculation!  ;-) --hnzdvn 18:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you dare try to quash my hopes Naoroji. *threatening look* --Odal talk 18:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, just check my speculation on my userpage; I'm rooting for the mesmer too. I'm just teasing :P. --Naoroji 18:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, without mesmers, GW2 will be a sad place. :( -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 18:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Very, very sad place. In fact, it's the main thing I'm looking forward to, what their new take on the Mesmer is... If they have it... --Odal talk 18:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, they do already have the physical version, but I don't see any interrupts on it yet... -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 18:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

They did talk about Gwen a bit (and I laughed at "Gwen the Goremonger"), but they didn't mention her being a mesmer at all. The mention the article talks about is later on, when Dougal is telling the sylvari Killeen that most people think raising the dead is really creepy. "Not irritated," said Dougal, "disturbed. Necromancers among the humans have been considered rather unsettling for centuries, even though they work in magic like elementalists, mesmers, and other practitioners." Killeen then tells him that the sylvari consider death magic just like normal magic, listing divination and golemancy as other types of magic. Fabala011 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope Mesmers get better skill animations than I'm expecting, as my expectations are unfortunately quite low. A F K When Needed 21:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't blame you for that. Mesmers were supposed to be reworked in GW1, look how that turned out.(Xu Davella 03:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

I wouldn't call the ranger a "Physical version" of the mesmer. The mesmer is actually closer to the assassin then a Ranger in that sense. seeing as both Mesmer and assassin use Hexes, copy skills, were mainly focused on single targets for the longest time, and even worshiped the same god in Guild wars 1. And also, The warrior and assassin both have interruption skills at there disposal. Not as much as the ranger and not NEARLY as much as the mesmer but hay. We can compare professions on more then 1 level right?--Yozuk 07:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Blacksmith

3 references are made in this interview. Might not be a profession, but seeing as this gave no results, I thought i'd bring it up. ,,"Klumpeet",, 09:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they were talking about NPCs. --Naoroji 09:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I saw the Kristen Perry interview awhile back, maybe the other soldier? Eive 23:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly be an interesting profession. However, considering she mentioned specific armor designed, I don't think it can be a profession. To contradict myself, they will probably have armor designs for all professions as well as more generic designs, even though other professions can wear the armor designed for them. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 01:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Profession Predictions

The Scholars, I have a feeling, will be Elementalist, Necromancer, and Mesmer. The Adventurers will probably be Ranger, Gunner (I do not know the proper name), and Assassin. The Soldiers are most likely Warrior and Paladin, although a different name should be used for the profession of Paladin, as it is used far too often (Crusader is great). Does anybody else have any predictions to make? - Kroff 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If so they have a userspace. A F K When Needed 09:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If interested, I have one on mine. (Since today. You made me want to put it up. =] ) - Infinite - talk 00:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think these professions you talk about are on the spot only two comments: 1. Don't use the word crusader if you don't know the meaning of the word, a crusader is 'someone who participated in the crusades' and that is not really profession linked as far as I see it. 2. What do you mean with gunner? I think you mean something Rambo like? Prince Grazel 23:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Less Rambo, more flintlock. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 23:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the character to the far left looks a bit like [3] that, which makes me think it might be a bit more Berserker like, also specializing in environmental weapons, I could really imagin something like that swining a tree in your face. Oh and btw, I wouldn't assume that whatever is mentioned in Ghosts of Ascalon will also make the game, for ANet has told us repeatedly we shouldn't. Malice 09:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemist?

Should it go among the unconfirmed professions? It's mentioned in the Ghosts of Ascalon as can be seen here:[4]. Also, it is rather prevalent in asuran lore, with the Eternal Alchemy and all, but also indirectly referenced with cases such as Herbalist Makala concocting potions for Koss, which could be linked to alchemical practice. It would also be in line with the charr's discovery and embracing of blackpowder. Gmr Leon 08:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We can't just start jutting down every noun onto the list. Remember, there will be NPCs. Eive 08:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Leon, but if we did that, we'd have to make a page for Blacksmith as well. --Naoroji 08:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It could be part of the crafting system too. Manifold 15:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You DO now Alchemist has absolutely nothing to do with The Eternal Alchemy right? Prince Grazel 23:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Guns and Bows

I believe that with the recent reveal of the Ranger as a bow only profession and the Warriors ability to use rifles and longbows, IMO i believe the new "assassin" archetype profession will be able to use the pistol and short bow while the "engineer" profession will be able to use only guns. My reasoning is that the warrior being a heavy weapons profession will be using the big one hit weapons while the nimble assassin profession will favor the small quick weapons. anyone agree? --- Beggerboy 19:29 7/23/2010

Must everyone create a new section to voice his/her own opinion on profession reveals? --Kyoshi (Talk) 05:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kyoshi. Also why do people think there is going to be an Engineer type profession? - Giant Nuker 15:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably has to do with the charr in the upper left corner of the professions page wielding what looks to be a gun. Themastermoo 16:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

About the engineer thing-- http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Golem ... ... Artisan class.

As Manifold said above. It could be part of the crafting system . --Neil • 00:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Two Professions with Pets

First off all: This is just my opinion. OK. I think having two Professions with pets kinda kills the Rangers originality. So unless the other one is a new Profession that really fits having a pet, I'm gonna be slightly dissapointed. Torak Starblade 10:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to understand that by 'pets', they mean NPCs that follow you around, doing your bidding. By this definition, Necromancer minions are pets as well. --Naoroji 10:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you got a point :) but I'm still not convinced. Torak Starblade 14:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It was fine in GW1, Necromancer's minions worked entirely differently to Ranger's pets. I wouldn't worry. (Odal - forgotten my password... and use all attempts >.>) --87.113.217.60 14:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, with my main being a ranger, I always felt pets were lacking a little bit of something. If having to have another profession use them just so they can be sort of decent, then I don't mind the copyvio. Eive 19:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Rangers are the only ones with good pets in GW2, just like GW. If anything, it would make more sense if everyone could have a pet. That would just get annoying and laggy, though. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 19:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We have been told that rangers will be the only ones with extensive control over their pets and the ability to name them, so no other pet class will really step on ranger territory. The idea of minions being called pets just sounds silly. However, Killeen did summon rats (live ones, not undead ones) during GoA. If this is a true reflection of the abilities of necromancers and if necromancers are in the game, that might qualify them as the second class that uses pets. BrettM 18:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the GoA spoiler. No irony intended :). Torak Starblade 18:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Killeen didn't summon those rats they came by themselves as after she said she was fascinated with the body afterward, implying that she didn't know what the outcome would be. And it's not much of a spoiler I believe it says that she's a necromancer in the first chapter which was released free. Also because I knew there might be spoilers here I waited until I read the whole book before coming back to this website. - Giant Nuker 00:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that the second profession with pets does NOT use them as a primary mechanic. CelleyBear 00:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlike rangers, which must use pets to be effective. There may even be a drawback for the other profession(s) to not make having a pet purely better than not having a pet, they might be debuffed or have to equip a certain skill on their bar (like in GW). -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 06:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Giant Nuker, but you're wrong there. She was fascinated by the dead bodies simply because she is a silvari and on top of that a necro. She most certainly did summon the rats. It would be insane for a mass of rats to come instantly to the smell of blood and I think we should give the writers more credit than to be that stupid.96.19.134.175 01:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Guess what, they were in a sewer and rats came and started to eat a dead body, sounds like a coincidence to me. - Giant Nuker 01:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

She summoned the rats. It doesn't matter though, necromancer is confirmed as the second 'pets' race. Leina 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I remember somewhere (interview or something... :S) that ANet considered the Necromancer's minions as pets. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 14:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Am I the only one...

Expecting/wanting something like [5] as the third adventurer profession? (an assassin-like rogue being the second). Also, the male on the left in [6] seems to resemble what i'm talking about. Actually I even think they will be called Corsairs =D. ---~=Ѧϫϯѧӂϵϫӂϵϧ (Talk) 10:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

But we already have Corsairs in Guild Wars, the pirate people.--Icyyy Blue 11:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Im hoping for some kind of druid.--Neil • 12:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What I think. Reaper of Scythes** 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The term 'buccaneer' comes to mind. --69.196.139.208 13:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Sandwichmancer

<sexism> Finally! A profession for women! </sexism>

But really, the article had some good info. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Artaxerxes (talk).

Please sign your comments with four tildes. ( ~ these things!) -- Bow | 23:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it actually seems like the best profession so far, I think I will play a Norn Sandwichmancer. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, just gonna sit in the gh, with a sandwichmancer in my party, who is making sandwiches for me :)--Markisbeest 13:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Descriptions Section Possibly Grasping at Straws

• In the description section it says:
  • 1. at least one profession which can use bows but not guns
    2. at least one profession which can use guns but not bows
    3. at least one profession which can use both bows and guns

This does not quite follow from the referenced article. The article in question says: "There are indeed professions that use guns, bows, or both, as well as some professions that can use neither" Notice the word "or" in that sentence instead of AND. That does not necessarily mean that there is one of each. The use of and would guarantee these three statements to be true; but or only says that it is possible that all 3 exist, but at least 1 of the 3 exists. Now is it possible that an unrevealed class can use bows? Sure, but that sentence doesn't say absolutely for sure one way or the other.

Also, to put in my 2 cents about what the classes are going to be, I would say: Ranger, Necromancer, Elementalist, Mesmer, Assassin, Warrior as the pretty much/completely guaranteed. That leaves 2 classes with 1 being a soldier class and one an adventurer. I would say that a possible combo class is the paragon and protection monk though I really have no evidence for this. As for the adventurer class, there has been a decent amount of concept art that has characters with outfits similar to dervish. Now since scythes aren't in the game, it could be possible that this is old art or that the dervish is going to get a reinvention as looking similar but with a different feel to it. I am sad to see the ritualist go if this does happen to be the case. Many are speculating that the ritualist will now be folded into the necromancer as they both deal with death/spirits, but in my mind they have very different feels to them.76.107.77.58 17:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That does mean there is one of each. If it said "professions that use guns, bows, and both," that would literally mean "more than one profession that uses guns and bows and guns and bows." That just doesn't make sense. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 17:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit: warriors actually can use maces, but a sword is the weapon of any self-respecting "holy" soldier. :P -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edited to reflect your observation about maces. Well actually with "and" it could be said to literally mean "There are indeed professions that can use guns, professions that can use bows, and professions that can use both." You have discovered how horribly contradictory the English language is. Either way though I suppose for that very same reason it is impossible to say definitively one way or the other if there will be a class that can use guns but not bows.:)76.107.77.58 18:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, English is confusing and stupid sometimes, but you can't replace "or" for "and" because "and both" as part of a list doesn't make sense. Also, it is "and/or" that implies at least one, while "or" implies exactly one. Since it wouldn't make sense if exactly one of those were true, the only possible answer is that each of the multiple professions mentioned are considered in the list separately. In this case, it implies that all items in the list are used at least once. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 20:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I do agree that it most likely means that there is a character class for each despite the ambiguity of the use of "or," I still feel that "and" would make sense for precisely the reason I gave in my previous comment. In other words, although "and" would probably lead to even more ambiguity than "or;" it would still be grammatically correct to use it. In summary, I would prefer if it were said with the use of and/or: There are classes that use guns and/or bows. Or, even more so, I would prefer if English weren't such a bastardized language.76.107.77.58 04:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol, aren't all languages bastardized by now? :P -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 23:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well to an extent yes; but of the several other languages I've studied, nothing really comes close to English in that respect.96.19.134.175 01:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That's true. English is pretty much a confused jumble of every other Latin language. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 01:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just frustrated at the fact that our source of information comes from four words.. But just to clarify, if there are any languages that have been bastardized, English probably had something to do with it. (Xu Davella 02:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

Nah, I'm referring to them being really bastardized forms of Latin (in the case of Europe and the Americas). I'm not too educated in the histories of other languages, but I can assure you that all languages that have been used for a long time have changed significantly from their initial conception. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 02:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

English's lack of rigid standardization is its greatest strength. It affords the language a vastly greater degree of dynamism and malleability in creating neologisms and new modes of speech, in comparison with languages that slavishly follow arbitrary rules laid down centuries before. Arshay Duskbrow 03:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I cannot argue, a dynamic language never dies. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 06:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it is more like its greatest strength and weakness at the same time. Although I don't know of a specific language that I can point to as an example, it is very possible for a language to be both expressive and logically sound at the same time96.19.134.175 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Phaha Epic Fail of the one who put that first post up, The sentences say that there will be at least ... That means definitly one but could be more xD Time for him/her to go back to english class. Prince Grazel 18:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Schools of Magic

I was looking around GW Wiki and I found the following at

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Magic

"Magic has four principle schools to it

Preservation

Destruction

Aggression

Denial

The four schools are linked to the four core caster professions – Monk, Elementalist, Necromancer, and Mesmer respectively."

Now we do not know for sure what professions will be, but we do know there is no dedicated healer. So there goes the monk. Although if you consider the possibility of a Paladin/Cleric type class, this continues the Preservation line.

The Elementalist has been confirmed so thats Destruction filled.

Currently there are rumors of the Ritualist and Necromancer being merged into a Summoner type profession so that could be part of the Aggression school.

Now the Mesmer, it has been strongly suggested as being included in GW2 (as well as being a rather unqiue class in a RPG) would fill the Denial slot.

Also the page mentioned how the creation of the Bloodstones limited the use of magic in Tyria.

"Thus in current times, beings on Tyria are unable to harness all the potential power that magic offers. Instead they must work together to make the most use of it and accomplish anything large."

Now I don't know if A-Net was thinking of Guild Wars 2 when writing the lore on magic but this ties in nicely with the unite the races and fight the dragon story of GW 2. What I am trying to ask is whether GW 2 would have a profession for the four schools of magic as it did in the first game. --Abbess Katherine 06:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds pretty intresting, hope they did merge the Necromancer and Ritualist. - 74.171.163.219 07:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well lets be honest. The GW2 Artbook and GoA pretty much confirmed Necromancer and Mesmer. So that covers Agression and Denial respectively. As you noted, Elementalist has already been confirmed, which covers Destruction. And then there's the supposed Paladin-like 2nd soldier, so no, I don't think Anet messed up anything lore-wise in GW2. Eive 08:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That particular bit of lore has probably been long forgotten/discarded. I don't think it's going to have any relevance to GW2. Manifold 16:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Professions Have Been Found

Hi, I'm Mistah Yebba, Guild Wars addict and game fanatic. Like most of you, I cannot wait for Guild Wars 2 to come out, and with all of this teasing with the professions slowly being released, I could not help myself but to research closely and carefully at anything and everything that the Guild Wars devs have given us so far. Upon about 5 hours of looking I found a lot of evidence to support my profession predictions. So here they are!

In one of the videos, it shows a group of Sylvaris, one of which is wearing ritualist armor. There is concept art of a girl with an arm on her side, which fits perfectly with the outline in the unfilled professions picture. Who is the girl next to? Logan Thackeray, who is stated to be a "knight" on the website. The left hand side is clearly a Charr race, and charrs are stated as hunters. There is then a crouched image next to the elementalist, which is clearly something sitting on roots, which is where I think the Ritualist will be that I stated earlier. Above the Ritualist is an Assassin, as shown in GDC screenshots. There was also a picture of a mesmer in the GDC, fitting in above the Ranger. So all together you have this

Scholars: 1. Elementalist (Confirmed) 2. Mesmer (Pictures in GDC) 3. Ritualist (Clearly shown Ritualist styled armor in official video on Slyvari)

Adventurers: 1. Ranger (Confirmed) 2. Hunter (Large Norn, Remember, it's just a race, so size doesn't determine it to be a soldier. A human Hunter would be a much better example) 3. Assassin (Shown in GDC and clear daggers in professions picture)

Soldiers: 1. Warrior (Confirmed) 2. Knight (Perfect fitting image in Wallpaper on official website near Logan Thackeray)

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I feel pretty good about these predictions! Please check out my YouTube page at www.youtube.com/pianomanyebba if you enjoyed my predictions! Feel free to copy and paste this onto any website you would like to, as I want the word to spread! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.214.192.35 (talk).

You posted the exact same thing months ago, and you are still quite mistaken in several ways. Manifold 16:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In order (top to bottom): Ritualists are merged into Necromancer and armor is now just light, medium and heavy, not profession specific. Hunter would be redundant with Ranger (for several reasons including presence of pets...). Knight is probably a description of role, not a profession (though I might be wrong here.) Hunter also seems that it could be a description of a role. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 19:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Ritualists are merged into Necromancer": not really. There is nothing of ritualits on the necromancers. Even the support abilities the GW2 necromancers have are far more similar to the support abilities of GW1's necromancers than of ritualists. It was just a common misconception among players that necromancers and ritualists would be merged together in a "dark priest"-like role, while such thing had never been mentioned or even hinted at by Arena Net. Erasculio 22:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

See also the last answer in this interview of Eric Flannum by Kill Ten Rats. pling 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Reveal in August

Whens the next reveal?--Icyyy Blue 02:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Professions

What do you think will be the next profession revealed?--Icyyy Blue 03:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it will be the "Wiki is not a forum" profession, with skills such as "Take discussions to a fansite forum like GWG" and "Talk pages are about articles, not a place where to discuss the game". Erasculio 03:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well who went potty on ur cheerios--Icyyy Blue 03:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Im hoping itll be a necro >___< and hopefully we get to see some sylvari or asura in action. 69.171.172.171 01:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping its not a necro because we already saw one as a playable profession in the gamescon demo -_- Same with the mezmer, its anti-caster and its original so you know Anet will put them in, not to mention we've also seen humans with mezmer armor. I want Anet to announce one of the new professions they have planned. xD 72.77.109.206 08:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Necro footage in this video!

http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/30947

The human character on the far left could clearly be a Necromancer using some sort of evil magic. In the commentary you can hear things like "suck life". And last but not least, at 00:38 you can clearly hear the man saying "Necro".--Sihvahn 09:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

regina confirmed necro on gw2 guru : Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra Now that you've seen some of the coverage from gamescom, we're happy to confirm that press at the show got the first look at the next profession, the necromancer. More information about the necromancer will be coming in the future.

84.196.205.90 11:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

He's wearing cloth armor Shadowed Ritualist 11:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

so is the ranger --The Holy Dragons 11:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cloth armour isn't a distinction GW2 makes. GW2 makes these distinctions; light, medium & heavy, scholar, adventurer & soldier respectively. The necro is a scholar, the ranger is an adventurer. --Naoroji 11:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

well then shouldn't the profession info box get update? atm necro is sitting as unknow, and main page need to be update with the newest info, although i doubt it is the right place to mention this Tech Wolf-Talk 12:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the main page isn't updated because necromancers haven't been officially announced yet, seeing as they made it seen in Gamescon as a "promotion" type of thing to those who went, they are probably going to release the info on the GW2 main page some time this week, soon. Zungx 19:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Pets

That definition is ...? -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 22:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Anything controlled by the character pretty much. If those weren't a pet, then nothing is. It's been blatantly obvious from the start that necros have pets, they've been called pets, they've been mentioned with pets before, they have pets. Shadowed Ritualist 22:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can get a source on even one of those statements, it would be nice. I've never seen any of that. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 22:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Necro minions were not pets in original game. Pets are permanent, not summoned creatures that fade away. Only rangers had pets in original Guild Wars. Ramei Arashi 16:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think necromancer's minions can be considered pets, as they are summoned. I also think that the character has to be somehow attached to his pet and doesn't blow it up or consume it for health. I think the second soldier profession will have a pet, because this sure doesn't look like a ranger armor to me (Too heavy...Eir is a Norn ranger and her armor is lighter. Also, rangers don't wear helmets.) and this guy is running around with pets in the manifesto video here and here (it's more obvious that they're his pets in the video, the pictures don't show it as much). The mace woman could be a picture of this profession (there are some birds behind her). This charr could be an unknown adventurer profession as she has medium armour and shoots a rifle. --Yenneffer 02:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not exclusive...it says atleas, which could mean anywhere between 2 and 6...(we know that elementalists and warriors do not have pets.) We can probably say that a mesmer would not have pets, an assassin wouldnt have pets, and engineer/gunner/third adventurers probably couldn't have pets for the sake of not being a tech-y ranger. That leaves, ranger (confirmed, pet), necromancer (confirmed, minions) or 2nd soldier. I think we need to know if they count minions as pets (as they make distinction for minions in the profession listings).Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 15:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Minions should definitely be considered pets, they are allied NPC companions. And who knows? For all we know in GW2 necromancers could have undead pets (not temporary minions). I think you all are confused as well with the meaning of "at least 2 professions with pets" as stated on [[7]], that means there is going to be more than one profession with pets, not exactly only two. 72.77.109.206 08:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confused about what everyone is saying, 72.77 because nobody has said there will only be two. Also, with the official release of the necromancer profession, the word "pet" gets a total of, drum roll, zero mentions (they even describe the minion mechanic). That means that it would be a true statement if I were to say, "Necromancers can not have pets." I don't think it's a violation of 1RR if I remove false information or obvious speculation. It was pure speculation from the start, either way (because apparently nobody can cite their "sources"). Removing. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 04:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to remind everyone that we will not see another profession with the pets the ranger has. Remember that this customizable companion pets are the ranger's specific mechanic (like the warrior's adrenaline, the ele's attunements and the necro's life force). And that was what they said in an interview: rangers would be the only ones to have pets customizable to this degree. I don't have any sources for stating that the necro's minions are considered pets, but I think it's highly unlikely that any other profession will have an ability to tame wild animals (as that is the ranger's unique mechanic which fits their "nature-connected" personality) and therefore, the other professions' pets won't be animals. It seams to me that the minions fit the non-animal and non-customizable pet description (and that's the point of that part of the article, saying what professions fit the description). I just wanted to say, as a sidenote, that necros also fit the support character type, as per the official page and the interviews from GamesCom. --217.129.133.230 03:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that any other profession will have an ability to tame wild animals? If GW2 were at all realistic, every profession would be able to. You don't need any connection to nature to steal a baby animal and raise it. Minions do not fit the non-customizable pet description because minions are not pets. I wouldn't know for sure about necromancers fitting the support role, but from looking at their weapon skills, I don't see any way to specialize into support. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 16:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If GW2 were at all realistic, we would have to pee, eat and sleep, magic would be a myth, plants would not assume the form of humans and dragons would only belong to the imagination of storytellers. Plus, that's not a topic that can have much discussion, since that is the ranger's unique mechanic (as an example, everyone should get adrenaline from a fight, and still warriors are the only ones with that mechanic). I might not have seen a place where the necro's minions get called pets, and yet I haven't seen any that says the oposite either. We can't say for sure that minions are not pets if we don't fully understand the definition of pet; however, since we do know that other professions' pets won't be as customizable as the ranger's pets, we may notice that, coincidentally, minions fit the description of such. I'm not declaring that minions are pets, I'm saying that minions fit the description of pets (not the ranger's ones, obviously, but non-customizable and belonging to another profession). So, if they fit, I believe they should belong to that part of the article (seeing how it states what professions fit the descriptions). About the support role, you might have noticed that eles don't have much healing skills in their weapon sets either; the fact that one can specialize in support only confirms that those supportive skills are customizable and belong almost entirely to the utility slots (with only a few in the weapons). Necros can rez allies (which means they have rez skills instead of just doing that kneeling thing we saw in the demos), they can give health regeneration to allies through wells, they can give regen boons to allies through marks and (according to GoA, that could be taken cautiously serious in terms of skills) they can also directly heal allies [Killeen healing Gullik in p.256]. --217.129.133.230 19:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Minions do not fit the description of a pet. If necromancers could have pets, then it would have been mentioned in the official reveal. It is a unique and important-to-know attribute. If you haven't seen anything that calls minions pets, that means that it is speculation, which never belongs on an article.

You might have noticed that elementalists do have many support skills in their weapon sets, as well as many support skills available otherwise. Unless you think that warriors and rangers should also be listed in the support role, because they can use banners and shouts and spirits and snares and knock backs and knockdowns. Oh wait, that would mean every profession can specialize in a support role. We might as well change the section to read, "All professions can specialize in support." -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 21:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to remind you that we don't have a complete definition of what a pet is, so saying they don't fit without any evidence besides the lack of mentioning is more speculative than saying--and referring in a noticeable way in the article--that they fit the definition we have so far. Plus, the official reveal mentioned minions several times, but that's completely unrelated to whether or not they are pets (since their name doesn't really matter, the function does). Being named a pet is not a unique and important-to-know attribute. A name isn't even an attribute, it doesn't affect their function in any way. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." So minions can very likely be a type of pet, since they fit and nothing has been said or even hinted otherwise. While it has some speculation tied to it, it is very noticeably stated in the article that they *fit*, not that they *are* the profession Anet meant. Besides, saying that they aren't pets just because the other pets we've seen are different (and, may I remind you, unique to rangers) is more speculative, because we have to expect to see different pets from the ranger's ones (since, again, those are unique to them).

Yes, every profession can have some kind of support. The difference is that rangers can't heal their allies effectively (AFAIK, only one of their skills can even heal allies, and are only the ones around the ranger), their spirits and warriors only buff allies. Knockdowns, knock backs, and snares defend allies (or, more likely, themselves), it's not support, it's defense (like an ele's fire wall or a necro's doom and poison cloud). Elementalists do not have many support skills in their weapon sets, nor would that make sense because it would oblige those who liked a certain weapon to submit themselves to a support role. Water, the element everyone refers when talking about supportive eles, has only 4 weapon skills that may be used in a support role, and that's in all of the weapons. The focus has 1, Geyser, that doesn't even have to be used as support since it also knocks enemies. The staff has 3, 2 of which also damage/affect enemies (Water Trident, Water Blast and Healing Rain). Necro has at least a well, a mark, an un-named skill (that from GoA, which is very likely to be an in-game skill), all of them healing/regenerating their allies' health. They also have a rez skill, the first mentioned so far, AFAIK, and that not even those awesomely-supportive eles have. Necros are also good at removing conditions, which, again, is related to support. So, gathering all of these informations, we can see that necros can really focus on support, unlike the buffing warrior and the self-healing ranger.

In a brief conclusion, I would just like to say that the key word to the pet problem is FIT. Minions fit what we know so far about pets (which includes knowing that there are not pets like the ranger's linked to any other profession). About the support role, I can't really see why you have so much difficulty in accepting the necro, but we've seen that they can effectively heal their allies, remove conditions and rez them with a dedicated skill, and that's pretty much equivalent (if not better) than the ele, which has been officially stated to have a support role. --217.129.133.230 23:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Okay, you like to use a lot of words, so I will have to break it up for you. I will not go over every little thing you said, only nearly every little thing you said in the last post.

"... saying they don't fit without any evidence besides the lack of mentioning is more speculative than saying ... that they fit the definition we have so far."

No, it is not. Our definition of a pet does not include them being created and destroyed from skills, rather obtained by finding a juvenile form.

"... the official reveal mentioned minions several times, ..."

That would be a modest way to say that they put them in one of the profession's limelighted skill types where their functions were described.

"Being named a pet is not a unique and important-to-know attribute."

I said that necromancers having pets would be an important attribute because very few professions do. You can not argue that the reveal would have mentioned pets because that would have made necromancers the first non-ranger profession to have pets. Though, I suppose, whether something is classified as a pet is also a fairly important attribute.

"A name isn't even an attribute, ..."

Attribute: "a property, quality, or feature belonging to or representative of a person or thing" ^{[original page]}.

"So minions can very likely be a type of pet, since ... nothing has been said or even hinted otherwise."

So minions can very likely be a type of fruit, since nothing has been said or even hinted otherwise. Apart from never being mentioned that they were fruits (or pets) when their mechanics were officially revealed? Remember when pets were nerfed to no longer leave a corpse to prevent necromancers from using them? Did you notice how summoned creatures were not pets in GW? Yes, those are hints.

"... that they *fit*, not that they *are* the profession Anet meant."

Okay, so if they did not mean to include the necromancer in their count of "at least two," then their speculated fitting of "having pets" is irrelevant either way.

"... we have to expect to see different pets from the ranger's ones (since, again, those are unique to them)."

Now the same quote, repeated: "... we have to [speculate] (since, again, those are [speculation])." I would advise against basing speculation off of speculation, especially speculation that comes from misinterpretation.

"Yes, every profession can have some kind of support."

Very true.

"... can't heal their allies effectively ..."

This can be said about every single profession.

"... buff allies. Knockdowns, knock backs, and snares ... it's not support, ..."

Those are great examples of support.

"Elementalists do not have many support skills in their weapon sets, ..."

Only counting the confirmed water and air attunement (the support attunements) skills: Frozen Ground, Freezing Gust, Geyser, Frozen Burst, Static Field, Healing Rain, Ice Shards, Water Blast, and Water Trident. Granted that not as many necromancer skills are available and that some of their weapon skills have not been described (all have been confirmed, however) and that we do not know how Weakness or Dazed work in GW2, they only have Mark of Blood, Feast of Corruption, Doom, and Grasping Dead.

"... it would oblige those who liked a certain weapon to submit themselves to a support role."

Because GW never forced anyone who liked swords to inflict bleeding, someone who liked hammers to inflict knock down, or someone who liked axes to inflict deep wound. What, you come to tell me that those were the only effective ways to use those weapons? Beside that, there is a special case for elementalists. They have four sets of bound skills for every single weapon set, each with a different theme.

"... Geyser, that doesn't even have to be used as support since it also knocks enemies."

Translation: "... Geyser, that doesn't even have to be used as support since it also [supports]."

"... also damage/affect enemies."

The attribute of damaging/affecting enemies is irrelevant to the subject. Support skills may or may not damage/affect enemies, thus is not a defining feature.

"Necro has at least a well, a mark, an un-named skill ..."

You mean Mark of Blood? They have no unnamed or well skills bound to a weapon. Oh, it even damages/affects enemies and is only one, in contrast with the four that you defined for the elementalist.

"[Necromancers have support options in their utility skills.]"

I will let you argue, "Yes, every profession can have some kind of support."

"So, gathering all of these informations, we can see that necros can really focus on support, unlike the buffing warrior and the self-healing ranger."

I do not see it. Warriors are much more support-oriented than necromancers - warriors can provide snares, knock downs, knock backs, rallies, increased armor/damage/speed/healing/etc., and the list will likely grow as more warrior skills are revealed. Saying that rangers are self-healing is rather irrelevant, as every profession has a dedicated spot for self-healing. A similar list of support could be made for rangers, but not enough of their skills have been revealed.

"About the support role, I can't really see why you have so much difficulty in accepting the necro, ..."

There has to be a line drawn somewhere, I am trying to define that line. You can see that I have not removed necromancers from the support part because I do not know for sure.

"... we've seen that they can effectively heal their allies, ..."

No, we have not.

"... pretty much equivalent (if not better) than the ele, which has been officially stated to have a support role."

I disagree.

That was a lot. As you probably know, I do not mean anything personally. Sorry for the ridiculously long post and the small text that I used to slightly shorten it. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 01:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

>You are recurring to GW1 definitions. GW2 is a whole new game, many things have changed, so the the definition of pet/summoned creatures you used in quotes #1 and 5 is completely useless in this context. "Did you notice how summoned creatures were not pets in GW? Yes, those are hints." --> This is an argument you used. Please, refrain from speculating that everything we know from GW1 will still apply to GW2, since we already saw many things that didn't go that way. (See a few points below for an official "kind-of-definition" of a pet--or, better, what it can be)

>I said that "being named a pet is not a unique and important-to-know attribute" because, even if the Deep Sea Dragon is named Glint 2.0, that wouldn't change anything at all about it. It would affect the lore (which, in the analogy, can be considered the pet-affecting skills), but the DSD would still be the same evil Elder Dragon. They didn't say minions are summoned creatures either, only that they are summoned by the necros, which, with the information we have atm, doesn't exclude the possibility of them being pets. They haven't said anything about them being pets, which as you say would be kind of a big deal because rangers are the only ones we know that have pets so far, but they haven't still said the DSD name either, and that doesn't mean it doesn't have a name.

>Minions could be a kind of fruit, actually, and they might have some resemblances to certain pieces of fruit, but our definition of fruit doesn't include undead servants of fictional professions in a videogame. GW2's definition of pet, however, isn't that complete, and there is the possibility that minions are pets. However, as sad as that may make us all, we can't say that when we eat minions we are having a nutricional and healthy meal.

>Something I do not take lightly is someone speculating about my eventual speculation with no argument whatsoever, just plaining declaring my speculation. As seen here, stated by Eric Flannum himself, "Much like adrenaline for Warriors and attunements for Elementalists, pets are the Ranger's special profession mechanic." and "There are other professions that have pets, but each profession utilizes pets in a different way. Rangers are the only profession with nameable, fully customizable and controllable pets.". What does that mean? It means that other pets won't be used in the same way as the ranger's, won't be nameable, won't be fully customizable and won't be (fully) controllable pets. Again, this just shows how different the definition of pet is from GW1, since all GW1's pets were as the GW2 ranger's. So, yes, ranger's pets are in fact unique to them, just as I said in the sentence you quoted from me. Plus, the minions actually FIT the description that Eric gave about other profession's pets. This makes me think why all this discussion is happening, if that part of the article is just saying what professions fit and necros obviously do (unlike, for example, the eles, that don't have any NPC companion at all).

>Actually, there will be professions that can effectively (in terms of GW2 efficiency)* heal/support others. The difference from GW1? The healing/support class will be able to be fully independent from nukers and do significant damage too (not only with RoJ).

>"... buff allies. Knockdowns, knock backs, and snares ... it's not support, ..." "Those are great examples of support." "support consists of boosting the abilities of allies." ^source So, yep, I was wrong about the buffs. Still, the warrior is still far from being as supportive as you were painting it.

>With the exception of the skills I had already mentioned in my previous comment, none of those ele's skills you enumerated say they affect allies (with the exception of Static Field, that is only explaining the possible combo anyway, not the direct effect of the skill on allies). So... do you have any source for saying they also heal/support allies? I'm thinking that most of them you chose because they slowed/freezed the enemies, but see the above point for that.

>"... Geyser, that doesn't even have to be used as support since it also knocks enemies." This statement that I made is true. Since Geyser also affects enemies, you could very well be soloing with no allies around and use it on an enemy. The skill would make it's effect, so it's not just supporting the allies, which means that supports less so it can do some damage/knock away to enemies (or it should, if they balanced it right). Saying that, I really don't understand if your comment is to be taken seriously or you just didn't understand my point. This also affects your next comment, since skills that do two things do each of them a little worse than they would if they only focused on one aspect. Example: "Heal as One heals both the ranger and his pet, but is a weaker heal as a trade-off".

>In the next quote you misquoted me. My full sentence was: "Necro has at least a well, a mark, an un-named skill (that from GoA, which is very likely to be an in-game skill), all of them healing/regenerating their allies' health.". The un-named skill refers to that seen in the GoA, not the mark, otherwise I would have said "an un-named mark" (but I still didn't know its name, hence saying just "mark").

>As I see it, the necromancer does have a considerable amount of support, enough to compare it to an ele. Plus, it's good at removing conditions and has at least one rez skill. Eles also heal, warriors also remove conditions (w/ 1 skill only, AFAIK, but I'll let it be) and buff. Necro does all of that and still revives fallen allies (if you're thinking of "I Will Avenge You", it rallies downed allies, which is different and arguably less powerful).

>When I said "... we've seen that they can effectively heal their allies, ..." I didn't mean we literally saw it, I was saying something along the lines of "with all that I've wrote, we've understood that they can effectively heal their allies".

Sorry about the amount of words I write. While I don't find them "empty" enough to dislike them, I know I sometimes write something twice to make it really clear. Since English is not my mother language, I have a bit of fear that my words won't be understood or will be misinterpreted. I write a lot as a way to (try to) make my point clearer.

*Just before you quote me on that, I would like to clarify that whereas a GW1 monk that healed allies to 30-50% health was kind of not efficient enough, a support profession that does the same in GW2 will be very efficient since the other 50-70% can be self-healed by the allies themselves. I know that no profession will focus on healing, but that doesn't mean they can't heal efficiently. Look at a GW1 ritualist as an example. --217.129.133.230 04:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I will try to keep this one short because it is getting dark and I know that things I say may not make sense at this hour. I am breaking it up by responding to each of your bullets with each of my bullets, in order.

• You said they weren't even hinted at, so I mentioned GW based on many things coming over from GW. I know that they will not necessarily move over to GW2, but they do slightly hint.
• My point was, like I tried to clarify, that the ability to have pets is an important attribute. I never said their name was. Minions could be renamed to Tacos and I would probably like them (a lot) more.
• This one made me laugh, I will admit.
• The part about utilization was a very good point for minions being pets. However, the original statement is still speculation because Eric Flannum did not say that other professions must use different pets altogether. I would still doubt that minions are now considered pets because that would be a very lame thing to do (in reference to the announcement of multiple professions with pets, not actually changing anything).
• The strong support abilities are supposed to be reactive protection rather than healing. Obviously there will be one that will be the most efficient, but it is supposed to be weaker than protection.
• Okay, I guess they aren't, according to ArenaNet. Fair enough.
• Yes, most of them are actually under the ArenaNet defined "control." Once we get more than one air attunement skill, I assume that there will be more Blind, which counts.
• This was under the false assumption that knock back was classified as support.
• I was talking about weapon skills, all of which have already been named for the necromancer. There is no more room for another weapon skill. I meant that you could have just said "Mark of Blood."
• Well, all professions have a considerable amount of support so far. Once there is some sort of definition for support, control, and damage capable professions, we can answer this. It may turn up that all professions can specialize in any of the official categories.
• I know, I did not mean it literally either. I meant that I do not think we can say that they are effective healers with the information we have. Until we literally see necromancers use their healing skills (assuming they can be effectively used together), I don't think we can say that they can be effective healers beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is fine to use a lot of words, it just makes the page longer and less convenient for other people to use. It does, sometimes, help to repeat yourself. Clarity is rather important and especially hard to convey through text. The unfortunate thing is that there are so many ways that text (especially English, it is a mess) can be read, that you would probably have to write a very repetitive novel, which would take years to read and fully understand, to clearly convey a single statement. I think I am starting to ramble, so I will stop here. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 06:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that considering the necro a support profession has some subjectivity tied to it and there is barely anything we can argue about. However, since the "descriptions" part of the Profession article is just saying what professions fit each of the roles, I would say that even if it is not 100% certain, the necromancer could be stated as fitting if the majority agreed. Hence, I would suggest that we should let other people have their saying (maybe create a new headline at the bottom only about that? Noone will read this wall of text) and then do whatever the most people agree on.

I would just like to clarify one thing. According to the Profession article, there are two professions that can specialize in support, so there will obviously be some that support more than the others. As I said above, necros have so much or even more support than the eles (proven by the amount of support skills and their effects--healing, condition removal, buff and rez), and those [the eles] were officialy said to have a strong support role in the water attunement.

About the minion thing, there isn't enough evidence for us to say that they are pets. But we do know that the definition of pet has changed (which could be interpreted as a way to let other servants being considered pets now). You said that "Eric Flannum did not say that other professions must use different pets altogether.". True, but "each profession utilizes pets in a different way" implies no profession uses pets in the same way that any other profession does. How do rangers use their pets? As full-time, revivable companions that help in the fight with certain skills. I don't see wild animals being charmed by a non-ranger profession, and even more not showing their health/name/skills. So to me, the other pets won't be wild tameable animals. Yes, this isn't confirmed, and yet anyone can honestly say "minions fit the description of GW2 pets" since atm they are included in Eric's definition. If there is no evidence at all indicating that minions aren't pets, then we should accept that minions fit the description of a pet, and hence necromancers fit the kind of profession that has pets. Until confirmed otherwise, I'd say we have no reason to not include it in the article. I know you "doubt that minions are now considered pets because that would be a very lame thing to do", but if they fit--which they do--they belong to the article. --217.129.133.230 15:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, I remember recently an anet person called them a pet, in a q&a or forum post, wasn't the source I was looking for... but it's something, except I can't find it. But tell me this. If the customization of pets is part of the rangers thing, then therefore no pets can be the same. And by your defintion, no other profession can thus have a pet. So therefore the necromancer must be the only applicable profession because it is as likely as any other profession, so therefore is one as there must be at least two.Shadowed Ritualist 13:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's great to know they called them pets; now not only do minions fit the description, but they really are pets. If they definitely belonged to the page before, now there isn't even the slightest doubt possible. --217.129.133.230 15:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we don't know that they called them pets yet. Without Shadowed Ritualist providing an official source, this will continue to be speculation.96.19.134.175 19:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Still, even not having a confirmation, minions do fit the description of pets as I said several times above, and so they should be in the article (since the article states which professions fit the descriptions). To end the discussion about either the necros are or not a support profession: they are. --217.129.133.230 22:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"If the customization of pets is part of the rangers thing, then therefore no pets can be the same. And by your defintion, no other profession can thus have a pet. So therefore the necromancer must be the only applicable profession because it is as likely as any other profession, so therefore is one as there must be at least two.Shadowed Ritualist 13:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)" It's called logic, and they're pets because of that. By your definition, no other class can have pets, therefore, the necro is currently the only possibility. So I will put it, and argue with me here if you disagree, but this is the only possibility.Shadowed Ritualist 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that was dumb, I was gonna go put it in but necros are already listed... Shadowed Ritualist 01:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I will accept that minions fit Eric Flannum's definition of a pet. I will also say that there must still be another profession with a pet, regardless of whether minions are official pets. Also, 217.129, that is an invalid source, I had to check and remove it from something earlier. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 01:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a summary of a Q&A, that I saw during GamesCom (and likely many other people did). I didn't find the Q&A, hence putting this instead. It is accurate though. I was not certain if it was possible to put that as a source, since it's official info rewritten by another person. Thanks for removing it then. --217.129.133.230 10:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I watched video of the entire interview to check it. The summary was pretty inaccurate (and still a secondhand source). -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 03:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you count a Minion as a pet you must also count the Hounds of Balthazar, Golems and the sylvari summoned druids as pets as well. I've never considered a Summoned creature a pet and I don't understand why this is even a issue.--Yozuk 02:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "6 returning"

There's a thread on Guru that says ArenaNet has stated that 6 of the original professions are returning. I'd like to add this to the page, but I can't find the source. Manifold 04:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...well, we know Monks are out and Mesmers are pretty much certainly in. I can't really see Assassins returning under that same name, more like "Rogue" or something. No scythes or spears, so forget Dervish or Paragon. That only leaves...RITUALIST!? NO WAI! Actually though, the second soldier profession might be called "Paragon", but if so, it probably won't function much like the GW1 version... (Or so we can hope.) Arshay Duskbrow 05:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

GWG isn't exactly the most reliable source of information. If there's no source, I wouldn't believe it. Erasculio 05:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere it says that in at least one case, they renamed a preexisting profession because it didn't feel enough like the gw1 version. We also know that there will be at least 1 unique class from that same article (whichever one it is). That being said, I am putting my bets on the assassin and paragon returning with the paragon being the one renamed. This would leave 1 adventurer slot, which the Ritualist could not fill. As for what actually fills it, I have no idea. I was really hoping that everything returned except for the monk and dervish (just because the dervish is probably the least unique class idea from gw1). That being said, there are several instances of concept art that have characters with armor that looks very much like the gw1 dervish.96.19.134.175 20:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Profession For Those Who Played Monks

I agree with this decision! Given that your party will no longer have a dedicated healer, I think the monk class should be a support class with Protection Prayers, Smiting Prayers, and martial arts. In this sense, they would be like Elementalists, except that they have slightly less offensive power in exchange for having more support and can hold their own for some time if the fight turns physical. Instead of vanilla healing spells, they can buff combat skills like armor, damage reduction, chance to block, damage output, etc. Whether they are called Monks or not, Dwayna needs to give her blessing to a profession, and a Shaolin style monk would be most deserving. Forgot to sign! FleshAndFaith 03:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well all the classes have already been made so you won't be seeing one in GW2. Maybe there will be class like that in an expansion or something, though. ~ Bow | 03:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm kinda hoping that there will be a Druid profession. They disapeared into the Maguma Jungle years ago and now the Sylvari are being born there, perhaps with their closeness with nature they will find a way to ressurect this long forgotten profession. Me and my crazy dreams... -- Broodling 04:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I dunno about not getting a class very similar to that... They did say that they would be revealing a class for those who play monks. I wouldn't be overly surprised if it was a kind of battle ready holy warrior who gives a lot of support to their party. FleshAndFaith 09:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As amazing as a druid would be... My bets are still with the paladin/knight. Which is a shame, because paladin is unoriginal and usually flavorless, and knights are usually little better. I am not happy about my monk and restro rit getting canned, I'm much less happy with the idea they're likely getting replaced with a heavily armored holy nimrod. Rangers are really close to a proper druid in GW, and in my experience when both are an option in a game (sometimes under different names) the Ranger variation gets severely underplayed. The Druids are listed as rangers by class for GW1 though, I've always figured they're meant to be close enough. As for Dwayna? Well, she's still got air ele's, the "monk replacement" profession, wintersday, and the general populous of all humans (since when are they really out of war?). Lillium 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] So.. the last 4...

Assassin, Mesmer...

and something like.. a druid and a paladin(/paragon?) --Neil • 12:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most people agree that the last four will be a mesmer, paladin (supportive melee character), rogue (assassin) and the last one is a bit controversial, some people think it will be an engineer, some think an alchemist, some a druid etc. Reaper of Scythes** 12:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think mesmer (mentioned in Ghosts of Ascalon, so if they died in like, 10 years or something, they'll be in I think), paladin (I love the name), Assassin and the Gunner/Engineer. I don't think there'll be a Druid or Alchemist (but I wouldn't mind seeing mesmer disappear and being replaced by one of these, but I dont think so) because it would need to be a Scholar type, and the mesmer is the last scholar, and the engineer/gunner or paladin would be the third adventurer or soldier (they can be changed). If you think about it, they only came up with one new profession. Elementalist, necromancer and (possibly) mesmer already existed, ranger and assassin too and warrior and paladin (which is sort of a paragon/little bit monk) too. Dilum2444 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. im srsly getting pissed with people saying Engineer or Alchemist, i mean srsly. this is a RPG. NOT gears of war. people need to make up thier mind of what timezone they're in. i mean cmon. if anything, those'ly be Jobs. Not proffessions.--Neil • 14:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I donno if if the assassin will be in it. My guess is that he won't. I also gess that there will be same form of supporting char with maybe a gun, anyways with golems and stuff. Druid also sounds fitting because of the Sylvari fact and the trailer stuff with them bringing a tree like thing to life. -- † Roach Talk 14:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that professions are not race specific. I really don't see a "druid" profession, because that would mean charr could animate ancient tree-like beings... extremely doubtful. If that concept art is to be taken literally, then it would either be a racial skill, a special power only Caithe has or a certain action unique to the sylvari storyline. As many of you, I'm pretty sure the mesmer is coming back, and also the assassin and a paragon-ish profession. I agree with Neil, Engineer and Alchemist are really unlikely to be professions, they'll probably be part of the crafting system instead. Since necros didn't get fused with rits, and dervish-loving players are still looking for a suitable profession, I think that either of these has some probability of coming back in some form... (although medium armor rits and non-scythe dervishes would be kind of completely revamped professions) --217.129.133.230 02:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the last 4 will be a mesmer, assassin/rogue, a paragon/monk type, and a gunner which i think will be the other profession that will have a pet. Victor6267 16:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Has it not been frequently stated that the ranger and necro are the ones with the pets?

Other than that, mesmer, assassin/rogue and some sort of buffer/healer plus a gunner (perhaps something along the lines of explosives since the name "gunner" wont exist) seem most likely. Zungx 13:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

is it official that the necro is the other profession with pets? because i dont really see minions as pets Victor6267 13:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. They have mentioned that one pet class will have a lot more control over their pets, and in Guild Wars 1 minions were often labeled as 'pets'. Leina 14:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Not a speculation for once on this talk page

Ok, so… How does the necromancer fit the "condition removal" description ? Has this been confirmed by anyone ? 'Cause I Can't see any skill relating to condition removal (well, I can be misreading of course). -Alarielle- 17:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was confirmed, part of a q&a I think. Shadowed Ritualist 18:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting the "Descriptions" section

The "Descriptions" section was a bit forced from the beginning - it took a somewhat vague statement ("There are indeed professions that use guns, bows, or both, as well as some professions that can use neither") and made it into a description for at least three different professions, although such descriptions were not really the point of the statement. Since then, it has only become worse - now we have descriptions that as much speculation as content from an actually reliable source. Considering the mess it has been (as seen on the sections above), I believe the Descriptions section has outlived its usefulness and should be deleted. Erasculio 02:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

/agree--Emmisary 02:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think making it a smaller part of the page would be good, at least. Some of the information in the section is still relevant to the article. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 03:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of filling the Resquests for comments with one more entry, I'll remove the section and see people's opinions about it, since those who spoke here were at least moderately favorable to the idea. Erasculio 10:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Please list any active discussion other than pets to be left unarchived.--Emmisary 03:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "No profession will be named 'Gunner'."

Source?--72.194.109.166 06:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's an official source; it's sort of a consensus opinion, due to the simple fact that GW2 professions are not defined by their weapon use, because their weapon choices are very diverse. Having a profession called "Gunner" would imply a focus on those specific weapons, which wouldn't be consistent with GW2's design philosophy. Arshay Duskbrow 07:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In other words, it's speculation. Erasculio 10:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And Rangers focus on range, yes. I can totally see the valid argument in that speculation. :) - Infinite - talk 14:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "ranger" is a great argument in this discussion. People could speculate that "ranger" comes from "range" as in "distance" (considering the fact that both words are very similar), so a ranger would focus on ranged weapons. However, as was discussed elsewhere and is being discussed elsewhere, the word "ranger" does not mean someone who focuses on ranged weapons, rather someone who patrols a region. Which means, if we had assumed that the speculation was right and documented it here, we would be documenting something false, despite how the speculation was based on something which is a fact (as most good speculations tend to be). Erasculio 16:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know we had more than just a handful of proper speculators about, forgive my obliviousness. - Infinite - talk 20:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Actually, just saying "no profession will be named 'Gunner'" is to me speculation/assumption. We don't know what the other four professions will be named. I'm glad that Erasculio removed the description that had it and other speculations there. It's not good to have speculations that aren't supported in one way or another - in my opinion. Ariyen 20:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to apologize, my last two comments were utter sarcasm intended at the "speculation part" (thus not directed at anyone in particular). Sarcasm doesn't always transfer properly in text, though. But either way, I found out that it was speculation only a couple of days ago *?* when I renamed my profession prediction to Gunner. I must've forgotten to apply edits to any pages such as this one, probably because I seemed alone in thinking it. :\ - Infinite - talk 20:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It was said by an anet person in an old post I remember it. "There isn't any gunner." or something like that. It was a really simple phrase that said only that there was no profession named gunner. It's pretty old, so if someone wants to go look for that, they can, but I do happen to know that that one is true. Shadowed Ritualist 22:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)