Talk:Guardian

Archive

---

• 2011

Monks just got sick of healing idiots

...and took matters into their own freekin hands! I myself felt like some people shouldn't get healed in GW1 and felt I should be able to be more proactive in a battle (so did Alesia and Kihm). 250 laters seems Monks got tired of all that peace crap. Time to break some skulls! Draconik666 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Protting > Healing. Even in GW1. - Infinite - talk 15:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why heal if you're also able to prevent the damage. --The Holy Dragons 16:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

gw1:Life stealing --'Mai Yi' talk 16:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There'll always be exceptions... --The Holy Dragons 16:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

life stealing isn't one of those exceptions. There are skills that prot against life stealing and there are skills that give spell immunity. Or people can stop relying on a monk so much and interrupt/knockdown the necro. In gw1 healing was the last line of defense when all else failed.99.1.41.126 16:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First, originally none of them included life stealing, and the "or life steal" part was added later. Second, There are more than one profession that has a skill that does life stealing. Third, not all life stealing skills are spells that can be blocked by using one of the six spells that give spell immunity. --'Mai Yi' talk 17:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How would you be protting against PvE-only skills, exactly? Necromancer is the only profession that isn't always a gimmick when life stealing or direct life loss is involved. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 17:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable guardians

I propose we add a "notable" section to each of the profession pages to list famous or notable characters who are of a particular profession. It's something they do on the WoW wiki and it adds an interesting bit of depth to the class pages, allowing wiki users to explore the scenarios and standings of characters of each class, painting a vivid picture of that class in the world.

At the moment we only really know of Logan Thackeray (unless I'm missing someone) but it would be a nice thing to begin working on for when the wiki progresses at a break neck speed. 122.104.161.162 14:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not the WoW wiki. --'Mai Yi' talk 15:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, it seems like a fine idea to me. Manifold 16:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A list of important <profession>s doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. I wouldn't go past just a list of links, though. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 00:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it. Would it go in the trivia section or be a new section by itself? ~ Reez 00:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems trivial, also will keep with other profession pages. - Lucian 1:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I question adding a random list of famous "profession x's" to the bottom of the page. I feel that it might be necessary if we didn't have as much information as we do. But right now, adding a list of famous people not only brings up the "what defines famous/notable" problem (in which case random people will add any <profession x> to the list, just creating a ton of removal and forcing us to define "notable"), but also seems like a bunch of, quite honestly, unnecessary and "I am trying to artificially elongate the page" kind of info. Aqua (T|C) 01:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In an interview Jeff Grubb, the lore guru at ArenaNet, said, "One of the turning points in the "look" of the Guardian is when we decided Logan Thackeray would be a Guardian as opposed to a Warrior. Logan's own protective nature and the fact that the humans have been knocked back into defensive positions informed a lot of what the Guardian became." The point I'm making here is that notable characters of a particular profession help flesh out the themes and ideals of that profession. They represent how that profession exists in the game, the roles they play and how the world interacts with them. If a notable guardian is significant enough for ArenaNet to solidify their image of a profession around the attributes of that character, it stands to reason that noting them on the wiki could do the same for the readers. The wiki records lore as well as gameplay information - some people really enjoy reading this kind of stuff. I don't believe difficulty in doing something is ever a good reason to not do it, all the more reason to do it now before the game launches. 114.78.26.246 08:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Aqua's post above pretty much states why to not add this, and it is not just take the easy way out. The info in your latest paragraph (IP) could possibly be a note/trivia on the page, but not every profession is based off a character in lore, making this not necessary on other profession pages. On the GWW there are so many IPs that change articles with either wrong or useless information which wastes time for other users to revert it and hopefully not have the original editor revert your revert and have everyone keep reverting each other. As Aqua said, it wold force us to define notable because they could add any guardians, and argue to how they're notable, creating long and useless arguments or revert wars. This would also increase the vandalism with people adding their own guardians to the notable guardians pages which would inevitably happen if this was implemented. So the paragraph shortened; I do not agree. --'Mai Yi' talk 15:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think having a notable guardians section is extremely beneficial for people wanting to read up on lore. Doesn't even have to be a large section as it could just be bullet points hyperlinking to the character page eg.

• Logan Thackery — human guardian, commanding officer of the Seraph at Divinity's Reach

--The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.35.134.236 (talk).

I oppose, this contributes little to nothing to the page itself and if someone wants to find guardian NPC's they should use the Category:Guardian. --The Holy Dragons 22:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Lore

As seen here, there is lore behind the origins of the Guardian. Should we add it? Most notably is this:

"With the turmoil in Elona and the spread of the Order of Whispers into other lands, more Paragon teaching showed elsewhere in Tyria. These teachings melded with other traditions, and over time, the Guardians and their abilities can be found throughout the world and among all the races. They are not tied to a particular race, philosophy, or group of gods but rather to a larger concept of proactive defense, of taking the fight to a foe and protecting those you fight alongside while appealing equally to humanity's defensive nature and the Charr's desire to rule the battlefield."

--Amannelle 04:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I think it is worth while adding in the information, but exactly how I don't have any good ideas. I added it to the media watch project the other day - I'll get to it eventually if there is no-one else around willing to take on the task. -- aspectacle  04:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A lore quote would be a lot more informative and interesting to start with than "I'll guard you. Let them come through ME first!". Otherwise, its own section, perhaps titled "background", "lore", or "formation", either at the beginning, or right before notes. Manifold 05:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm for what Manifold suggests. I am getting extremely tired of these unattractive, uninformative quotes we're using at the beginning of each profession article. They also look stupid. And ugly. /rant Eive 06:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Put it in a section at the bottom of the page. The quote is not at all suitable as a lead in to the topic. We need to have and finish the discussion on quotes somewhere else without starting another round of "I hate - I like" here. -- aspectacle  07:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew that the guardian was some how related to the paragons. i saw the guardian as a better version of the paragon, a more complete version.--Exelion18120 02:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

"In the early stages of creation, this profession was referred to as "Knight" by ArenaNet. This term was never actually released to the public."

That isn't entirely true because it was released that it was referred to as "Knight", but not until after the Guardian was revealed. - Giant Nuker 12:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'll add in the redundant note stating (until people read the interview where I got this from). >.> - Infinite - talk 12:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandals

Purely out of curiosity, does anyone know what the vandals were saying? ~Ekko (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is German, but that is about all I can tell :P. Aqua (T|C) 06:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It said something like:

holded voll nieder und so..! lass ma mehr perverse vids reinziehen altaaaaaa - Can't hold it and stuff..! Let me watch more perverted videos (alta?)

DENNIS GAYLORD NR.1 - Dennis, Number 1 Gaylord. (lol)

deine muttaaaahahahaha - ur mom

und SIE war Gut!!! - And she was GOOD!!!

Ye, she was.. - Infinite - talk 11:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Top image

The Blue Mace Lady at the top of the page seems like a "mirrored" image... As in she is holding a shield in her right (main) hand, and a mace in her left hand (offhand). So... are we leaving the image like this ? 213.166.217.219 09:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

yes we've already had a discussion about this. --The Holy Dragons 12:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

W/Mo?

whammmooooooooooooooo~, real men run infuse on their frontliners 82.73.104.149 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Just no. Guardians are really frail if you go carelessly onto the frontline like the stereotypical wammo. - Infinite - talk 18:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

guardians aren't warriors.(@ IP) --The Holy Dragons 18:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well in this video the guy playing did no dodging yet survived pretty easily. Guardians have warrior grade armor, natural hp regen and possibly the most/best defensive skills in the game. They are most certainly not frail even if you play them like a wammo. [1] 99.1.41.126 20:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A wammo has nothing to do with defense. Just regeneration. - Infinite - talk 21:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, they have bloody Mending as a class specific ability. A F K When Needed 22:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Weapons

Do we have any source which confirms that the mace is a defensive weapon or is that just pure speculation? I know that the warrior uses the mace as a defensive weapon but that doesn't have to count for the guardian, as the ranger uses axes as a ranged weapon as opposed to the warrior using them as a melee weapon. Furthermore how do we know that the torch is an offensive weapon when we don't even know a single skill? Please indicate the source. I can't find anything on the main page about it. --79.255.138.91 23:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There was an interview with a developer shortly after reveal that went over these. I'll try to find a link. ~Ekko (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Found it: here. ~Ekko (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Spirit weapons and spirits

I like the new write up for the guardian, but the line "The spirit weapons are similar in appearance and function to the ritualist's spirits" is wrong. The spirit weapons are as much similar to minions as they are to spirits, perhaps more; saying that they are similar to the ritualist is false. The guardian doesn't really share anything with the ritualist, other than the similarities that the GW1 monk had with the Canthan profession. Erasculio 22:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. With Anet's weird logic they might even be considered as pets (and therefore the guardian may be one of the non-ranger professions that have pets, the other being necro). Chriskang 22:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

i think somewhere (anet page) said they act LIKE pets but arent pets themselves Getefix 22:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

To explain my interpretation of the quote, the editor tried to phrase that the spirit weapons share the translucent appearance with the spirits and function in the same AI --> Attack what summoner is attacking manner. It was never said they were similar to the ritualist, but rather the ritualist's spirits. As per all minions/spirits/pets, they attack what the animator/summoner/master attacks (in gw1 requires a call to ensure/force them to do so). The quote requires a rewrite to reflect the points individually, as the "concise" quote is incorrect in execution. - Infinite - talk 23:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Spirits don't work like that in GW1, neither do minions. You cannot force them to attack something, as they don't follow calls on targets. Erasculio 00:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

They do actually, I am running ritualist's spirits right now, in fact. - Infinite - talk 00:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I need help from other people here. Someone please tell Infinite how spirits and minions don't follow called targets in GW1. Erasculio 00:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Then why are my spirits targetting my calls after they decided to attack something else first? Seriously, is it even possible to deny what someone else is seeing? - Infinite - talk 00:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I'm not going to try to counter-argument this; whatever you think you are seeing, just don't use that as the basis for a comment on this article claiming spirit weapons are like ritualist spirits. Erasculio 00:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So I asked Tane instead of listening to borderline trolling on how I got unlucky in getting lucky; yes, I claim on what I know; in my gameplay, it is most unusual for spirits not to follow my calls. In fact, for many/most/almost all other players, spirits do not follow target calls. I saw that my spirits do follow target call almost all the time, but indeed, it does not necessarily reflect the experience of the rest of the player base. My mistake is a very easy one to make, mind you, as one trusts what they played with for over a year now (and how that functions for them). So they do not follow target calls, but you can be a fortunate bastard and then this exceptional rule most commonly does not apply to you. - Infinite - talk 00:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Take it easy guys. As the original author of the statement I included it after agreeing with Ravious' blog on some of the inspirations of the guardian profession and agreeing with him. I do think they share some things in common with the ritualist spirits but as it is tenuous and something of a personal assertion I am not particularly attached to keeping the statement. -- aspectacle  00:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) erm, I thought spirits did follow their master's target? Only time they wont is if they're getting attacked, or if the target is too far away from them, in which case they'll attack the next closest target? But as far as these spirit weapons go, Anet have said that they function similarly to pets. (Xu Davella 00:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

EDIT: Also, we should come up with a proper theme for this profession. I agree that they aren't necessarily spiritual but all of the scholars are magically-themed as well.--Xu Davella 01:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually liked the magically themed exactly because of what you mentioned - the guardian is a caster soldier, of sorts, something like a hybrid between a scholar and a warrior. But as long as it's not "spiritually themed", whatever is fine by me. Erasculio 01:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I see where you're coming from. I was thinking more along the lines of protection or defensive themed, but that's just dumb. -- Xu Davella 00:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC):::;;

I'de also prefer magically-themed over spirit as the only skills which actually are to some extent spiritual are the spirit weapons. The big majority is magically-themed. To comment on the fact that you can't controll the target of your spirits in GW1 you actually could. Granted not through calling but if you hit the opponent with a longbow while not being attacked then your spirits would all attack the same target. MQSCers do that every day. --91.97.60.187 18:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well from my observation the guardian is definitly not a spiritual themed soldier but a soldier with supportive magic with the key word on magic. As with the spirit weapons you can say they have similar AI as offensive binding spirits attacking the same target as the user but lack a criteria as functioning as pets as they cannot be attacked as well as the can only attack when the user attacks unlike pets like animal companions, minions (rituals both nature and binding are excluded as they do not travel with the owner). You can say they function like attacking binding spirits that are not aggro'd. But summing it up, the guardian is a magic using soldier with a supportive theme to his magic, and also not a pet user because it's spirit weapons do not meet all of the required criteria to be concidered a pet, being able to attack on they own and being able to be attacked. Damysticreaper 12:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've read somewhere where ANet described the Guardian as a spiritual thingamabob iirc. --AdventurerPotatoe - 07:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup: Eric Flannum says; "The Guardian also doesn't feel particularly religious, but he does feel spiritual. What I mean by that is that the Guardian embodies certain ideals without ascribing to any one faith in particular, which is also a bit different than your typical Paladin archetype." -- aspectacle  07:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Faith, philosophy, religion, ideals.... thier all the same to a paladin; it just has to be something they can champion. --108.38.126.227 19:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

But contrary to the paladin's archetypes, the guardian is none of those things. His abilities represent virtues (literally) and protection, not the other way around (as in ideals a guardian steps up for to protect). They are in the same ship in terms of battle, but they originate from opposite concepts. - Infinite - talk 20:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal story section

Is bullshit? 88.85.131.101 10:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

it isn't bullshit as you call it. There are people who wear specific things to show their dedication to something in many different cultures, in-game and in real life. (think: Muslimms, Dervishes also the Christian Crucifix is an example for this.) Would you please reply to this topic if I haven't answered your question? Thank you. The Holy Dragons --31.151.75.38 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"As a symbol of my dedication, I wear a _." See the biography options here. I don't know where you pulled the idea from about it being unsourced bullshit, but it's not. - Infinite - talk 12:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no mention of it on the official page though. Technically, it's already part of the game, as proved by many guardian character videos on YouTube for example, but should there still be a ref? Mediggo 13:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

true form of monk

← moved to User talk:151.199.34.243

I am furious

← moved to User talk:67.181.180.101

The source of a Guardian's power

I'm pretty sure that :loyalty in their allies" is not the only source of their power, should the article be changed to reflect this? My source (18:57 of the audio): http://www.wartower.de/artikel/data/TowerTalk_GamesCom_2011_Tag_1.mp3 --KirbyGotenksabsorbed 12:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's in game description. Mediggo 14:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So a Guardian is...

Based on my weak analysis, a Guardian is (in GW1 terms) a Paragon / Warrior / Assassin / Dervish / Monk. A sort of little bit of this, little bit of that, and able to breathe twenty feet of (bad word) fire! (Equip a torch, use skill 4...) When using a sword, G gets a shadow step to foe, like an assassin. There's plenty of laying about you damaging lots of foes, like a Dervish does, or like a Sunspear-skilled Warrior. Add some group heal stuff (Monk), an equivalent of Anthem of Flame (Paragon), and you're in business. The spirit weapons aren't really like anything in GW1, except maybe Asura summons, but it's useful that they attack what I'm attacking, not some random beastie they don't like.

Overall, though, based on BWE2 and after, I'd have to say that I like Guardians very much. Cynique 17:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Teleport is not exclusive to guardians. It's a core game mechanic available to many classes. I'd say it's a mix of Paragon (Shouts), Monk (protective magic) and Ritualist (spirit weapons). — Gnarf ~ El Psy Congroo ~ 17:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say the teleport (not shadow step, my mistake, although that weakens the link to Assassin) was exclusive to guardians. The spirit weapons aren't like Ritualist spirits, though, principally because they move around. I did say it was a weak analysis... Cynique 04:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question. A guardian is... equally Warrior/Monk/Paragon. Not so much Ritualist, since the spirit weapons are beyond any comparison to spirits. Assasins? not at all. 33% Warrior, 33% Paragon, 33% Monk, 1% Ritualist. ;)--DIVA 15:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's about right, The guardian has skills primarily from those 3 professions from GW1. There are also some GW1 elementalist based skills, the wards but it still remains a supportive warrior/monk with some elementalist/paragon skills added to it. Da Mystic Reaper 17:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Detecting Stealth

Shouldn't the Guardian be able to detect stealth? I mean, if you gonna guard something, gotta be able to detect stealth too. Whether it is by a mace symbol or a hammer ward or something. Could be wards prevent foes entering stealth and symbols can remove stealth. I can see Engineers with a similar ability like goggles are able to see stealth foes. Can't keep it up constantly because that would take away the purpose of stealth but ya gotta have a way to counter stealth too. I'm not talking about WvW stealth traps because they aren't character abilities. It just makes sense to me and I'm just throwing out ideas.

Here is a funny: We were knocking on a tower gate in WvW. Had 2 catapults in the rear and 2 rams knocking. A few of us were near the gate. I'm using my staff to heal my boys and doing the occasional wanding to the gate. Next thing I know, a mate beside me died. I was like, what hit him that hard and that fast? They didn't have arrow carts. Hmmm. I rezzed. Moments later he died again. I rezzed again. At this point, I backed up a tad so I can get a better view about why this dude is dying. Moments later, I can see what happened. A foe unstealthed and killed him again. That was like in two seconds this foe killed him. There were like 20 of us around and this Thief pulled off 3 kills without retaliation. There was no time to react. He dodged back into the gate door while they still owned it. I was laughing but still, there is no counter to stealth. It's not balanced hence my post. 75.191.166.135 00:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

References

The link to Martin's post, whatever it was, is invalid as there is no longer a guildwars2guru site. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Changed the link to a Wayback Machine snapshot. -- kazerniel (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)