Talk:Profession/Archive 2

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)

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 Arrow 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 24.214.192.35 (talk • contribs).

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)

Reveal in August

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Archive

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

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)

I think I'll do my part to shoot this down in flames. As we've been given no "official" definition of pet, let us look, dear children, to the internet! Definition of "Pet"

• a domesticated animal kept for companionship or amusement
• darling: a special loved one

Minions are not domesticated, nor are they particularly animal. As I see it, they aren't technically summoned, they are animated from whatever remains lie beneath the ground, although this is disputable under the new mechanic, where they do seem to appear from little portals, though this may simply be to remove the need for nearby corpses. Down to the cold hard facts of Mechanics, Minions don't have skillbars. They will not be permanently acquired, and once they die they will not be resurrected, but you may summon/animate a replacement. Drawing upon the second definition of "pet", no matter how much you love their combat capabilities, you wouldn't press your face up against the hide of an animated pile of bone, flesh and fecal matter, would you? Err... Would you...? I'll pre-empt the "But I DO summon minions in GW to accompany and amuse me!" by repeating again, they are magically animated flesh, bone, and fecal matter, not domesticated animals. After all, I don't think i'd want to spend 4 years taming a tiger, only to make it explode mid battle because an ogre got too close. Darke 06:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"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)

So....does that qualify the note to stay with the citation request tag? Or should it be removed until we actually find the source? (Xu Davella 22:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

You might want to check the page... Eras wiped the entire section. :) I kind of liked the section because it felt a little like a logic puzzle - but I don't mind that it has gone far too much bickering about it. -- Aspectacle  22:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Doh. Yeah that might have helped. Good riddance to that section. (Xu Davella 22:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

Actually, it is not really speculation to say that "ranger" has nothing to do with attacking from a distance. Not only is the ranger Q&A called Eric Flannum Fields Your Ranger Questions (pun!*), but it implies that the greatsword fits the ranger profession well (would contradict a long-distance profession) and the word "ranger" has nothing to do with range^[entries]. *For those of you who don't understand; "to field" a question is to answer it skillfully and "a field" is a large tract of grassy land (also known as a range). -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 02:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Greatest speculation ever: Paladin?

Think about it:let' s start off considering the Races of tyria trailer; there were 5 different NPCS belonging to 5 different races, and they was

-Caithe(obviously a sylvari necromancer)
-Zoija(presumably a mechanic/engineer/assassin asura)
-Eir Stegalkin(obviously a norn ranger)
-Logan Thackeray(an heavy armored human)
-Rytlock Brimstone(an heavy armored charr).

Now let' s assume that like in the first GW, each of the main NPCs belongs to a different profession; we all know that there will be only two heavy-armored soldier class, and presumably Rytlock Brimstone is the warrior (because he' s a member of the Blood Legion, the melee-fighters charr tribe); the other remaining heavy armored guy would be Logan Thackeray, who MUST be of a different profession... could it be maybe that Logan possesses a sort of Holy power, like paladins or clerics in the D&D lore? ....no, seriously, look at him, he' s wearing a crusader-like cloth on his armor, and his soldiers are named "Seraph".... do you need more clichèè? :D CaiusTheBig 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Zojja is an Elementalist. :P. She's seen using fire and water spells in the trailer :P --Naut 17:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I wont lie, this speculation seems sound, and Naut's comment just makes it more convincing, not to mention that one picture floating around of him with a staff and heavy armor, you just might be onto something. Oh and its "they were," not "they was," just saying. Zungx 18:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, i'm Italian and i must admit that bad grammar is bad grammar ... i think i ll not edit my previous comment in order to leave evidence of my ignorance.. tnx for pointing out.

Seriously, man, don't be so serious when reading my speculations,hurts my poor ego :D CaiusTheBig 22:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The second soldier profession will not be called "Paladin", even if it functions in a way that is similar to that archtype. The reason for this is simple: all races have access to all professions, and the Paladin, with its faith/divinity based thematics, is incompatible with the non-human cultures of the game. It will probably be called something much more general, such as "Knight" or perhaps, a heavily re-engineered "Paragon". Arshay Duskbrow 22:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with a profession using "holly power" is that it only fits the humans. The charr are atheists, the asura believe in the eternal alchemy wich doesn't have anything to do with holy power and saints, while the Norn have tribal believes in the spirits of the wild (and who knows what have the sylvari's on this weird super-dream) so a monk/clerical/holy profession doesn't make sense for them (in fact I think that it's possible that the idea of eliminating the "MMO Trinity" came in part after realizing this fact). Sure in GW1 you see monk members of this races being monks, but hey, you can see the white mantle zealots that hate the 6 gods transforming themselves into the avatar of grenth, so this is obviously only a way to fit the fighting style of the game (like when you see a monster using monks skills with the name of dwayna). I think the second soldier type will be some type of paragon (don't use the term "support warrior" everybody can support now, including the warrior with the warnhorn and the banners wich seems to me one of the best support skills from the demo). I think that this profession will be able to wield a gun (main hand only) and a shield for a "counter-strike-videogame-like" combination style now that he can't throw a spear :P but I'm not really sure about the mechanics it would have since he needs something really different now that everybody can wield a lot of different weapons, maybe some sort of motivation ballads chain or something like that (maybe a massive boon spammer through chants and ballads? it could be the new dervish in the form of a gun wielding paragon :P).Lokheit 10:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is not the only meta-problem whith having any race coupled with any class... Just think about a Norn Mesmer: hypnotizing the enemy to death is not definitely the honorable fight any Norn is looking for. CaiusTheBig 10:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't see any reason as to why the Paragon would be renamed. The second soldier will be a Paragon, minus the spears, plus the mace and shield combo. I don't know why people want it renamed to "Knight" or "Paladin" so badly. - Infinite - talk 16:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Most people associate the word "paragon" with the Guild Wars 1 profession, and that is perhaps why they have a need to rename it, as the Guild Wars 1 paragon with spears is sure not to return. -- Kings & Queens | T | C | 16:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Then answer me this: The Ranger now no longer primarily uses bows and to counter the rename they defend themselves with range depicting other types of "range". The Paragon, I quote: "is a person of preeminent qualities, who acts as a pattern or model of some given (especially positive) quality." Basically the minor buffs and minor support profession that would fit the "knight" and "paladin". It does not require a name change, hence I believe there won't be. (Also, Logan Thackeray is a Seraph and obviously this profession.) - Infinite - talk 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see it necessary to change the name of this profession, but the majority of the players seem to think that the paragon is indeed the one from Guild Wars 1 and therefore "have to" be changed. -- Kings & Queens | T | C | 17:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean... but maybe keeping in mind the totally different lore the paragon will no more wear leather armors resembling roman army suits, maybe paragon wont need to sing anymore to create the boons, and maybe he wont be able to use ranged weapons too... considering all these presuppositions, would you consider strange a name change too? (I' m not saying it has to be Knight or Paladin, was just a guess.) CaiusTheBig 17:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Paragons were one of the worst professions in GW1. Not that they weren't fun to play, but they were very badly designed, which is seem on how the made PvP imbalanced (I'm sure you people remember the GvG and HA teams filled with paragons we had for months after the release of Nightfall) yet were very weak in PvE, and still now only have a couple of really viable builds (which relly on one or two extremely overpowered PvE only skills). Changing the name of a slightly similar GW2 profession (which has as its only similarities the fact that it's a heavy armored buffer profession) would be a good idea in order to avoid all the baggage that comes with the name "paragon". Erasculio 17:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Uhm when i started a paragon in GW1 in PVE i realized thet it was useful like a mesmer in heavy armor :D I totally agree with you. (Ok any class is viable if a pro player is using it, but it needs to be also funny-to-use after all...) CaiusTheBig 17:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Every profession is potentially overpowered, it depends on what you focus on. Maybe the fact Paragons weren't very dominant in PvE is the exact reason why they'll stick with the name and improve their effectiveness in GW2. Both approaches are equal speculation, though. If you'd ask me, renaming is unnecessary. - Infinite - talk 18:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rangers have nothing to do with range, paragons have nothing to do with spears. There's no reason to change either of their names if a similar profession is created. Not to mention, despite spears not existing, a "paragon" could still easily use another martial throwing weapon instead. The reason it is more likely to use ranged martial weapons (and maybe caster-like weapons) is the same reason why they used ranged weapons to begin with, having multiple heavily armored, melee professions is redundant. Even moreso in GW2, where the warrior literally covers everything. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 02:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"having multiple heavily armored, melee professions is redundant." Then where do we stand with the blue mace lady?

I very much doubt they'll call it a paladin or knight, seeing as they're trying to assert GW2 as completely revolutionary, and any cliche reference to other MMOs would probably be too normal. It's probably going to be a more support-oriented martial class or a battlemage. That's the extent of the "accurate" speculation we can make, I think. --Kyoshi (Talk) 04:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

From the PAX demo, we have seen that the different armor types have bonuses to different attributes: light armor has bonus to Intelligence, medium armor to Dexterity and Heavy to Strength. Which means, the second soldier profession will have a strong focus on melee, or its own armor would be rather useless.

I don't think paragons are that similar to a melee based profession which may use spells to buff allies. IMO, ArenaNet is as likely to call that profession "paragon" as it is to call it "monk"; while monks were not heavily armored in GW1, paragons were not melee based and did not use spells either. Erasculio 09:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I always considered shouts and chants as an overpowered category of spells, as they did ignore dazed condition and spell-related interrupts (i.e. Choking Gas), they did mostly affect the whole party and thus didn t require to be targetted. Even if a Chant is often only support-related, can't you consider it a player-friendly minor spell? CaiusTheBig 15:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

About the demo armors, I think that on the final release you there will be different options of atribute boosting, mostly because an assassin/rogue profession would be an adventurer and it could focus on melee, the same way, warriors can focus on ranged attacks and it's said that every option will be a good option for each proffesion. About the name ranger, it doesn't imply range, it refers to forestal guard, in fact in the spanish version this proffesion is named "guardabosques" wich means forestal guard and doesn't imply anything about ranged attacks(guarda = guard, bosque = forest). Think of this profession as aragorn from the lord of the rings (at least the first book). Lokheit 20:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This "ranger comes from range" argument is very funny. English isn't my mother tongue, but I can do a very small etymology research. According to wikitionnary, it comes from "range", like, the verb "to range". Which means "travel across lands" also according to them (that verb wasn't part of my vocabulary before, sorry). So… yeah, stop that nonsense. As previous post said, it's translated by words not related to "range" (distance) at all. In french it's Rôdeur, coming from Rôder, which means… to prowl ? (not sure of the translation). So yeah. I also agree with previous poster about the fact that demo armo bonuses aren't probably very solid evidence of anything. And a second melee heavy-armored guy would be redundant, even if he's more support-oriented. -Alarielle- 20:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If the second soldier uses spells, the damage focus throughout professions would be 50/50. 4 casters (as we all know/can assume that the Mesmer will be in the game and it'll use spells) and 4 physicals (assuming the two remaining adventurers focus on physical damage mostly). Then again, GW1 didn't have a proper break-down on damage focus either, so it does not conclude towards any speculation. (Also, before that argument is used, who says spells on the second soldier cannot be Strength-based? Maybe such spells will enhance melee performance or simply deal melee damage.) - Infinite - talk 04:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Spells relying on Strength seem unlikely, but why not indeed (not like it matters since… there could be intelligence-improving armors for all professions). Though if they are to have a 4/4 breakdown like you say, I would rather see an Adventurer caster. -Alarielle- 10:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we're all neglecting to realize one major aspect of guild wars here: its' payment model. The guild wars 1 series used campaigns, and I have good faith that guild wars 2 shall follow suit, one for each dragon perhaps, maybe include a range of nonprimary enemy races. Zhaitan and the White Mantle remnants for Kryta. Kralkatorrik and Palawa Joko for Elona. The Deep Sea Dragon for Cantha. Jormag and the Kodan for the Northlands. Primordus and perhaps the Dredge, or something not unlike them, for the Depths of Tyria. This is of course, speculation, but it has been said somewhere (I forget where) that the Paragons and Dervishes of the Sunspears still existed, corrupted by Palawa, or roaming in exile. What's to say all the professions will be revealed in the first release? I also doubt you'll be able to create a Charr in the sands and marshlands of modern Elona, or a Sylvari on the distant shores of Cantha, far away from the Sylvari Tree. As for the issue of Norn Mesmers, hasn't it occurred to anyone the significant impression a 15 foot giant of a person has on an enemy? Watching the sheer power their totem spirit has gifted them with, due to some immense deed or other? I imagine the Norn Mesmers would utilise this as the theme for their magicks, as a Charr Elementalist would to conjure a sky of searing flames, or a human Warrior would call to Balthazar for strength. Sylvari Rangers whispering to trees "Bind my foe in your roots, and he shall trouble these woods no more!" I'd carry on here even more here, but for making a lorenerd out of myself in public, and an excessively long post, I shall refrain :) Darke 07:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Kodan are actually friendly and Norn are 8-9 feet not 15 feet tall. - Giant Nuker 11:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you proving anyway ? There'll be 8 professions on release, and they have to fit in Tyria and with the 5 races, they also have to feel unique. What's your point in speculating about other campaigns (I agree there'll probably be one for each dragon, but it's out of topic here…). -Alarielle- 19:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember in a somewhat recent interview one of the designers said "The problem with Guild Wars balance was we introduced entire new professions in the campaigns. That would be like introducing a new color in Magic the Gathering. It made balancing a nightmare." (paraphrase from memory) It kinda led me to believe they don't plan on making new professions in expansions. I guess now I have to go dig up that interview. --Emelend 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can agree that the balance argument does hold quite some weight, but I have good faith in that eventually, there may need to be another profession of sorts. To not even consider it due to reasons of balance sounds to me like shooting oneself in the foot. After all, where are we going to draw our metagame from? If we don't have a skill meta (which comes around from a slight skill imbalance) What would be the point of having different skills at all? A prettier way to kill something? In the lands of Elona, we'd probably end up facing very different challenges from those of Tyria, thus calling for new advantages and weaknesses, to keep the Elona expansion fresh and different from Tyria. In my personal opinion, new professions are an integral part in preventing the "same stuff, different wrapper" attitude. Sure, you can add more skills, but you'll eventually run out of creative license. If I was to be openly personal about it, they should have kept the professions limited for now to 5. This keeps an easily maintainable balanced number of professions, reduces the amount of time they need to spend right now in getting the game up and out there, and still leaves a lot of anticipation for the potential expansions. Not to mention the fact that the party limit is apparently going to be 5, many times have I said to myself so far in GW1 something along the lines of "We shouldn't have brought the Dervish, his skillset would work against <type of elonian creature>, but here's just not working out too well." You end up getting redundant party members. Truly, this does depend largely on player skill, but in a "balanced" environment, each party member would have their "role" in terms of skill usage, and placement (frontline, midline, backline). I'll pre-empt the quotes of skill adaptability and not having to play DPS/Tank/Heal by saying, yes, thats all good and true, but when you're mid combat, you'll have your mind and skills set towards a specific combatitive goal, which won't change until it's completed. All in all *pauses for breath* I feel that, as rich and detailed and fantastic as Guild Wars 2 is going to be, I think there may be a little too much thrown at us at once to grasp, GW1 player or not. From experience, high learning curves at the beginning of a game don't bode too well for the first-in-line playerbase, leading to early frustrations along the lines of "would it be better if I'd started as a Ranger? I've put all this time into this Elementalist, but it doesn't perform like I thought it would based on my GW1 experience. Should I keep playing? Or use another one of my precious number of character slots?" apologies for the small text, reducing the large size of my blabbing :) Darke 01:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, and I really hope they introduce more professions later. At least I think I hope that. But I do think you are using too much of a Guild Wars mindset. This is another game that will function much differently than its predecessor. --Emelend 01:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In a (couple of) word(s), Upped-Paragon with a sword.--Neil • 10:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad. I sure prefer it with a rifle, motivating people with HEADSHOTS!--Qral 11:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

remaining classes

"According to a recent post on Twitter on the Guild Wars 2 account, it has been revealed at a panel in New York City Comic Con (NYCC) that of the remaining four professions: at least one is a returning profession, at least one is similar with a different name, and at least one is new. This is an interesting point to note as many speculated that both the Assassin and Mesmer would be making a comeback due to the released artwork, but it seems that only one of the above-mentioned profession will make it through while the other will be revamped." Can I has source link please? I don't have a twitter account and don't want to begin navigating. Venom20 05:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

http://twitter.com/guildwars2/status/26864709145 (was on the Professions reveal page) --ஸ Kyoshi 05:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Who made the quote of only the assassin or the mesmer returning without being revamped? Because the twiter said, one returning AT LEAST, one changed AT LEAST, and one new AT LEAST, meaning another one wich could be returning, changed or new. If it wasn't said from somebody at ANet, then we could still have both the Mesmer and the Assassin. Maybe one of them would be changed(in this case probably the assassin as they actually said "mesmer" in the book and the term assassin maybe sound too criminal in a social way) but it doesn't confirm anything. My thoughs as I said on the other thread is that the assassin and the paragon are the two that while returning both have posibilities of receiving a change of name, but at least one of them could return without any change. Lokheit 08:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying anything for certain. The note only mentions that the Assassin and Mesmer are expected by most fans to be returning, which with a quick look at talk pages and guru makes that undeniable. Your own speculation even supports that, as the Mesmer could fit in as being that "At least" factor if you are right by assuming that the Assassin and Para are returning. So why are you disagreeing? Eive 08:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well with all of the hints, art work out there, we can make educated guesses. My take is that both the mesmer and the assassin will be returning, although one of them might have had their name changed (which is more likely to be the assassin out of the two). I think the new one will be a medium armor gun-wielding ranged type fighter, and the last one a paladin/templar type heavy armor warrior which may either be labeled new or reworked as it may or may not have mechanics inspired by GW1 monks. --78.92.3.88 18:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@eive My point is that the quate states that one of them WILL change name for sure, when nobody knows it for sure as we still have the possibility of 2 proffessions returning without changes on their names. Lokheit 21:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In GoA, it is said that mesmers still exist. I know it is not a real confirmed source, but it is a good hint indeed. --Qral 21:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In my option I think that Ghosts of Ascalon is a good hint not so much a confirmed source though. Considering that I remember listening to a interview about one of the books stating that it is part of the cannon. --anzenketh 00:49 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In the Gate of Anguish? I think people should really consider abbreviating less frequently... --78.92.3.88 22:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In Ghosts of Ascalon. I think people should really consider using context clues more frequently... –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 23:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@IP, no one ever abbreviates the Gate of Anguish, why bother? @Lokheit But we also must be careful not to speculate too much. There could be 2 new professions, 2 coming back with name changes, or 2 returning. To say which are doing what would be wrong. Eive 23:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well believe it or not, that context gave me no clue at all. Guess my wits are not up to par. Sucks to be me. --78.92.3.88 00:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Gate of Anguish is in GW1 and not in GW2 should be a big enough clue. Victor6267 00:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Gate of Anguish doesn't "say" anything about mesmers should be a big enough clue. --ஸ Kyoshi 05:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we really arguing about this? I had no idea what GoA stands for, so I went ahead and typed the first thing I associated it with. Of course I knew he wasn't talking about the Gate of Anguish, on the other hand, I didn't know what he was talking about precisely. I think we can drop this topic, there is nothing else to discuss about it. --78.92.3.88 08:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also most people called Gate of Anguish DoA for Domain of Anguish. - Giant Nuker 11:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Of the returning, similar, new professions, the Mesmer, referred to in the Ghosts of Ascalon, IMHO, will return pretty much intact, and qualifies for the returning position. The much-loved Assassin, on the other hand, is similar to other mmorpg's Rogue, and may even be renamed as a Rogue. (Other mmorpg's have a Rogue subclass called an Assassin, so it seems fit.) Two features of a Rogue, that GW1's Assassin lacks, are a long-range attack, and the ability to hide/move silently. This image, [[8]] is what I see the GW2 Rogue as being; a rifle/pistol/dagger-toting death dealer. As mentioned elsewhere, one profession will specialize in condition removal. All of the concept art for the announced professions, including the Mesmer [[9]] follow the color coding of GW1, except for the concept art of the Assassin-like character [[10]], which is black. (Which makes me believe that the Assassin has had a major change made to it, but basically is returning the same/similar as it was in GW1.) The mace wielding armored woman's conept art [[11]] is done in GW1 monk-blue. To me, I believe that she will be GW2's 55-Monk, and the condition remover, quite similar to a Paladin. (without the religous baggage.) The fourth, unrevealed profession, by my reckoning, would be an adventurer class, and would be the second profession to have a pet. (Sorry, I don't consider golems, or minions, by any definition, to be a pet.) My holdout is for the Druid, which several other games have, RoM & DDO come to mind, but I'm unsure as to what form it would take. --Warzog Watch your six! 16:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see the assassin profession renamed to something like "duelist" with a good range of weapons optiones (like dual swords -I need a medium armor profession with dual swords :P- handguns, daggers and rifles), maybe with some sort of combos mechanic specializing on damaging really heavily a single opponnet at a time or something like that. But I don't see them named just "rogue" that's very typical and anet is traying to break the molds with this game.Lokheit 23:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The other soldier

Will be Wammo. He only has health regeneration skills, as well as an IAS that makes him take double damage. He also has very reduced intelligence in return for these awesome abilities. --Teisei 「ページ」 「会話」 08:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If there was a Like button I would click on it. ---Alarielle- 12:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting that half of his skill bar is hex removal. Eive 00:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you mean conditions, there aren't any hexes in GW2. Let's not be foolish, please. -Alarielle- 16:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, he definitely meant hex removal. Conditions are for noobs. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 21:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What Sparky says is true. Only Warriors feel fear and bleed. We Wammos are superior in all aspects. Eive 23:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

lol.. best part is they actually mentioned a profession based on condition removal :D~Reez 04:26, October 19 2010 (UTC)

I remember being told on this very page that this was the Necro, but I guess… reason… just leaved this page… -Alarielle- 11:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Utopia classes?

Has anybody mentioned the possibility that at least one of the remaining professions could be something from Utopia? My 0.02$: the expansions always added one front-line class and one support class, which likely means that Utopia's additional profession was more akin to the Dervish or Ranger than the Necromancer or Ritualist. This could fit in very well for an Adventurer profession. 67.161.169.29 18:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The only possibility would be the Summoner because Anet already said the Chronomancer would not be in GW2 and the Summoner sounds more akin to the Necromancer or the Ritualist because they both summon creatures. - Giant Nuker 19:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

TBH Rangers were the first spirit spammers :P --The Holy Dragons 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bummer. I'm somewhat disappointed yet hardly surprised. I do realize the fact that a summoner class would indeed "summon" things, and would be not unlike the Necro and Rit based on its presumed type of skills, but we have no idea how it would have played. (E.g. Dervish: take the enchantments away and it's still a soldier; take the scythe away and it still need to be close to deal damage via spells.) Regardless, the summoner class could still happen and I'd reckon that if it did it'd replace the Ritualist (supposing that Ritualists were to ever come back). I'd like to see some of the ideas from Utopia reworked for GW2 or a future game. 67.161.169.29 05:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that necromancers already summo their minions out of thin air in gw2, so a summoner would be redundant and it would break the "professions have to feel as unique as possible" stuff always mentioned. -Alarielle- 06:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was a Summoner it would be a scholarly class, and I'll be damned if I let some flimsy little conjurer take the spot of my Mesmer, :P (Xu Davella 09:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

Summoner Doesn't have to be a 'Scholarly' class. --The Holy Dragons 09:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say it wouldn't make much sense for them to be adventurers. Eive 15:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A Strange thought, with regards to the Summoner. What if, instead of summoning minions or spirits, out of thin air, a Summoner simply summons local flora and fauna to assist you? It definately would be different! Overall, the Summoner could be a nature loving class, so attuned to nature, that it could summon nature to aid you.--Warzog Watch your six! 00:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It was never said that there was a Summoner profession in Utopia. They had a single picture of armor called "Summoner". and for that matter. The Ranger and necromancer in GW2 are both summoners. And Humans, Asura, and Sylvari have summon skills as it is thus far. A profession that can only summon things would be a waste of a profession and wouldn't feel original at all.--Yozuk 19:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: Utopia had even more art work of something called a Bard with instruments and everything. But Every one seems to forget about that fact...--Yozuk 19:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

profession auras

Perhaps someone has mentioned this before, but has anyone noticed that most of the gray-ish outlines on the gw2 profession page (http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/) actually have a subtle color? The left-hand charr one with the gun(?) looks like magenta, the smaller one next to it with the daggars(?) actually looks gray, the one to the right of the warrior with no discernable weapon looks yellow, and the one on the far right holding the sword(?) looks blue. (All weapons are speculative of course, but that's what they look like to me.)

If you look back at the original image with all of them grayed out [12], the necromancer is pretty obviously green and the elementalist obviously red, which both correspond to their actual auras; the warrior looks yellow-ish which is close to orange; the ranger looks brown-ish to me which is farthest off its actual yellow-green. If we take the artwork to be any indication of aura/profession combinations, then the blue one with the sword will indeed be the 2nd warrior class, gray with daggers will be the assassin-like adventurer, but might magenta with the gun actually be a mesmer??

http://izziebytes.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/blog_gw2_seraph.jpg

http://izziebytes.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/blog_gw2_sin.jpg

http://izziebytes.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/blog_gw2_mes.jpg

http://www.guildwars2.com/global/includes/images/professions-necromancer.jpg

http://www.guildwars2.com/global/includes/images/professions-ranger.jpg

http://www.guildwars2.com/global/includes/images/professions-warrior.jpg

http://www.guildwars2.com/global/includes/images/professions-elementalist.jpg

Dyre fate 05:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is pretty much the basis for everyone's profession predictions. Eive 05:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the only thing I thought I might be adding was that the charr with the gun could be a mesmer, since I've only heard speculation that that one will be a "gunner" class and that mesmer will be the one to the right of the warrior. (ps this is my first time posting so I'm not sure how to do the indent thing to show I'm responding to you)Dyre fate 06:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's ASSUMED that there will be a "gunner" profession but that doesn't mean only that one profession will use guns (it's already known that the warrior can use a rifle and it's assumed the "gunner" will use rifles and pistols while the "assassin" adventurer and mesmer will use pistols). Also, your sentence is more than a bit confusing; I don't know what exactly (aside from the gun comments) you're trying to say about the Charr and Mesmer. 68.144.97.124 06:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dyre fate, indenting is done by putting in one more colon (: the two points on top o' eachother :) in front of your post than the person you're responding to. --Naoroji 18:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And @ IP: He meant that he thinks that the big charr on the left might in fact be a mesmer, while the woman everyone thinks is a mesmer, is something else. I'd like to point Dyre fate towards this, though. As you can see, the female is depicted with a floating, maybe illusionary sword of sorts, which would fit a mesmer much more than any gunner type. --Naoroji 18:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point, though after watching the image you posted, i now tend to think the woman is actually a soldier, or at least adventurer. Her clothes seem pretty... thick, for a Mesmer. Lools more like a piece of armor to me. -Alarielle- 08:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Naoroji, thank you for the clarification of the point I was trying to make (sorry for making my first post into a bit of a ramble!), and thanks as well for the link to the pic. I hadn't noticed the sword before, and you certainly make a good point that a mesmer with a sword seems more reasonable that a mesmer with a big gun. if that's the case though, I wonder why she doesn't have a corresponding (albeit low saturated) magenta aura? will the new mesmer's aura be yellow?Dyre fate 08:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Proof for paragon like class

probably been seen before but here you go: http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/07/08/exclusive-guild-wars-2-to-scrap-healers-and-tanks/ First picture->Paragons are now just poncy, shiny warriors.--77.61.129.90 13:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This article has already been quoted as "proof" but, again, it should be noted that they call Charr "lava tigers" and they quote the skill "Grasping Earth" as "Drafting Earth" (Drafting? Come on, even a child can see that name is silly). It is full of inaccuracies and was posted long before many of the other features (such as blog posts, demos, more professions, etc.) were released. They may have meant that, considering spears are no longer in game and Warriors have so many shout skills available, Warriors can be considered the new Paragons. PC Gamer is not the most reliable source out there, sad to say. >.> 136.159.72.4 14:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not gonna argue with the "drafting earth" bit I always assumed the Lava Tigers was done tongue-in-cheek. At least...I really hope so. xD; Ruse (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Spears aren't entirely removed from the game, in the weapon concepts there are some "pole arm" drawings, indicating possible inclusions of bardiches/halberds/pikes/javelins/scythes and spears. On a more speculative note, it would be cool for the next soldier class to be able to not only use a pole arm much like a scythe in close range combat, but also to be able to hurl it at an enemy, essentially combining the Dervish and Paragon into one "Shock Troop" type profession. Lots of damage output, not so great defensively. Darke 09:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

All the invincibility of TNTF/SY combined with all the immunity of avatar of melandru... I like it. -Auron 10:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@Darke Yes, there were some concepts of pole arm weapons, that's because they were a weapon type that Anet eventually decided to remove from the game. Also, I forget where Anet said this. - Giant Nuker 12:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Speculation

The girl at the right end of the picture is a Monk. The girl next to her is a Mesmer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vily97 (talk • contribs).

Totally okay for the mesmer, but monk ? Did you miss the "no dedicated healer" part, or the "3 scholars" (spellcasters) part ? Oh, wait, why am I even answering. -Alarielle- 23:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The second figure from the right does indeed look slightly visible (my guess is that profession is about to be revealed) and appears to be female wearing some sort of dress; a mesmer is not a bad guess. I might have guessed ele but the ele has already been revealed so mesmer seems like the most likely choice (especially given non of the other siluettes really look like mesmers). The figure on the far right looks to be holding some sort of weapon - possibly this speculated "templar" class? I guess we'll just have to wait and see. 81.159.121.80 00:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, the very fact that this section is labeled "speculation" means it shouldn't be here. Please take it to a user space page if you intend to continue discussing it; when you put it here, it clutters up the posts which are relevant to the page itself (which is what these talk pages are for). --ஸ Kyoshi 01:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally think this is indeed relavent to this page. They're talking about professions. :P - Lucian Shadowborn 16:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh, he means relavent to the page content as opposed to the topic. But nice try :D ShadowRunner 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. It's for discussing "the page itself", not what the page documents (unless there's some dissent over whether the content is factual, but even then it's about the page itself). --ஸ Kyoshi 20:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)