Talk:Ranger/Archive 1

I think this should just go on Profession - there's currently not enough info for a whole article. -- pling 16:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I hasnt been said that it is going to be called "ranger" anywhere, all we know is that we can use bows (might not even be profession bound) Jonny10 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The newest interview (MMORPG) implied that the ranger will be a profession: "For example, in the past Rangers had to wear armor that tended to have a long coat and mask. They can still choose to wear an outfit that looks like that, but they now also have a much greater diversity of appearances to choose from."-- Shew 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoever said that is talking about Rangers from GW1 obviously Jonny10 19:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we had this discussion with Warrior too. Until they actually say "Ranger is a profession for GW2" I am not willing to accept the profession as confirmed. Perhaps if we have the professions article we can say that warrior, ranger and whatever else have been mentioned in examples given in interviews, but not officially confirmed? -- Aspectacle  19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"...[Rangers] have a long oat and mask. They..." I don't think you can really get more explicit than that. We also know Necromancers exist from the art book, and assassins because Caithe weilds blades and because a charr is seen dual-wielding in the new video. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that stuff and use in an example referring back to GW1 might only be for familiarities sake. Necromancer could be a title, warriors (or the equivalent) might be able to duel wield. I don't deny they have been mentioned and the parallels are obvious, they could be valid, but I would much rather be 100% clear that it has not been confirmed by ArenaNet, only used in examples. -- Aspectacle  20:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

They might be just referring back to it for familiarity's sake, and Necromancer could just be a title, and the equivalent of warriors might be able to dual wield - but that's all more speculative than assuming that by using the word "Ranger" in the context of professions, that they actually might mean a profession called "Ranger". --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In the article it refers to Rangers in the past but overall he was talking about the ranger characters in Guild Wars 2 on how they can have different styles of armor or use the same style. - Giant Nuker 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

@Santax - yes it seems pretty obvious that rangers are going to be in the game. I'm just hesitant when everything they've been saying up to now is "we're not announcing professions yet" and they just let it slip? I'm just concerned that as I said above it isn't confirmed enough for my taste, but as it seems most agree with your assessment of confirmation I will not argue the point further. -- Aspectacle  21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ehh, I tried. -- pling 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty obvious that they wouldn't answer that question =). Cress Arvein 03:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

I think Knighthonor just went on a slight rage because his articles such as Crowd Control, Role playing game, and Massive multiplayer online game are being deleted for being pointless. This isn't however, as both this and Necromancer are highly implied to return, Ranger more so. So I disagree with the deletion. -- Konig/talk 02:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any need for this page now? Agreed, alot of classes will be carried to GW2, but for something like this. Surely we should wait. And no doubt GW2G will have this up once the game and info comes out--Knighthonor 03:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ranger, and Necromancer, have both been named a lot. This one just as much as Warrior has, it just hasn't been confirmed. This is far more likely to exist than, say, a "Cleric" or "Druid" profession. If it isn't a name of a profession we can either move it or delete it (move it if it is just renamed, which I doubt). There is no need to delete it for now, especially since it is highly likely to be a profession due to being used in multiple interviews. -- Konig/talk 19:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What interviews have had the necromancer and ranger in them? --IcyyyBlue(: 04:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The necromancer was mentioned in the art book and the ranger was mentioned here.-- Shew ♠♠♠ 04:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you(:--♥Icyyy♥ 23:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Change

I saw that this here was changed back because it was speculation. Technically this whole article is speculation, so I think it should be edited back in but instead saying it's likely it would be an Adventurer profession if it returns due to the previous armor range the Ranger had in GW1. AsuranSylvari 00:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There in, from what I see

look at the sillohette on the main page 2nd from the left, to me that looks like a Ranger doing a preparation Zachariah Zuan. 10:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats a Salvary warrior; like the other warriors in GW2 that were discussed wielding bows as well as having traits for them. The Salvary have "slim" elf/plant people bodies. -- 74.171.163.219 22:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have a source for it, concept art proves there might as well be a Ranger class, justifying Zach's suspicions of that being a ranger. - Infinite - talk 23:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

On the list of weapons used by the profession Warrior bows are on the list, as well as shown using a specific bow skill that delt AoE dmg in the skills preview on [1]. It would be pointless to make two ranger classes when the warrior already has the skills now called "Traits" already to wield a bow. Unless your meaning "ranger" by someone with ranged weapons *hint hint* dual guns, its that. -- 74.171.163.219 23:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely voiding the 5 types of bows in the original GW, the Warrior traits specifically use the term "Longbow". No one should be disregarding the other 4 types GW has in relation to GW2. - Infinite - talk 01:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Longbows are very common and are shown in the video, people can relate to them very easily. It does not mean that the warrior cant wield the other types as well. -- 74.171.163.219 04:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The video doesn't, but this does. By the way, there are only two bow types returning. --Kyoshi (Talk) 05:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the Warrior wields a longbow and a rifle does not stop there from being a Ranger profession, just because the Elementalist wields daggers, does that stop there from being an Assassin profession? Rangers will most likely be able to use both types of bow and gun, with probably daggers as well, due to the idea that every profession will have a melee weapon. Just because one profession uses a weapon, it doesn't prevent another profession from existing, that's just bad logic. --Odal talk 10:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

i just loled at Salvary Zachariah Zuan. 09:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit

Sharks. Sharks. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I love Hunter's Call. Rofl. Birds + face = win! -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 17:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can apply a laser beam skill!!! Venom20 20:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Now if only we could get an amphibious shark.......And when I read that line, I opened up GW and repeatedly typed SHARKS! Eive 21:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I love rangers now if they get Necromancers and/or Mesmers then Im going to die since they will have all me favorite professions(spellcaster 4life)--Icyyy Blue 11:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So, good. I am not the only one that thinks the skills are amazing. This game is going to be one Hell of an experience! - Kroff

Ranger Armor

From what I have seen so far in the vidoes and pictures, the armor looks really plain and boring for rangers. Hopefully this will change. The armor in GW1 for rangers was pretty good. Let's hope they make elite armor for each profession, and make it worth while. 96.42.76.247 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I thought the armor for the rangers were all quite dull in GW1. But I agree with the hopes that GW2 will have some flashy new looks. Venom20 20:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Venom, the current armors rangers have suck. Ive played ranger for almost 4 and a half years and the best armor I can say is Norn or Krytan. I mean, Ancient. If you're gunna be running around all agile-like, you wouldn't be wearing shiny stones >.> Death By An Arrow 05:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You should try Luxon armor dyed yellow/green/silver with the Granite Citadel skirt dyed green/silver, (on a female) ditch the mask and use sunglasses. But, as to the GW2 ranger armor, the recently released images show an odd coat, while concept images also show a halter top with slacks which look much better. IIRC, (racial?) armor can be used by any profession, so our options should be greater than in GW1. All of which brings up a burning question: What effect will prestige armor in our Hall of Monuments in GW:EN have on GW2's armor?--Warzog Watch your six! 00:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Chain Skills

Seems these aren't unique to warriors...

The Ranger, on the other hand, is very, very mobile with a sword – a lot of the Ranger’s attacks with swords move him in some way. So his three part combo with the sword is; he has a basic attack, and then he has a kick as the next part which kicks the opponent away from him, and then his third one is a follow-up leap attack Quoting that from here http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/07/14/interview-meet-guild-wars-2s-acrobatic-ranger/

Shadowed Ritualist 18:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I would hate to see Rangers charging into the fray and swinging their swords or greatswords full-time like Aragorn-wannabes, but I guess that may eventually happen as Rangers now have melee skill chains too. I really like how all of the classes can utilize different kinds of weapons and still be effective in combat, but this means they lose some of their uniqueness. Based on what I read about Guild Wars 2 so far, the Ranger and the Warrior are very competent in both range and melee combat. I am fine with that, as the Warrior should not be a melee-only character and the Ranger should not be a range-only character; however, I think there has to be a line drawn between the Warrior and the Ranger. Otherwise, we might as well combine the two professions into one to eliminate redundancy. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.182.202 (talk).

Shadowed Ritualist's point was that rangers have access to chains, you seem a bit off-topic. However, warriors and rangers are very different classes. Rangers use bows differently than warriors and have the shoot+move shortbow, while rangers use melee weapons very differently differently than warriors do (who have blunt and axe weapons as well). The professions' armor and utility skills and profession mechanics (pet with skills vs. adrenaline + burst skill) are also very different. It's not just black and white, they are both good in long and short range, but they are not similar. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 03:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Adventurer?

Unless I missed a link, we still don't have an official confirmation that the ranger is an adventurer. Chriskang 18:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Armor is universal to grouping, they don't wear cloth or plate, therefore they are an adventurer Shadowed Ritualist 18:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chriskang. I prefer to wait until we have a confirmation of what class they are in. All we know is of the profession it's self. Ariyen 18:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We can be 100% certain they are adventurers. Reaper of Scythes** 18:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that speculation though? Ariyen 18:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be shocked if they weren't an adventurer, but I haven't seen it mentioned in any article that they are. Manifold 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly well supported speculation, they don't really fit the Scholar mould, possibly the Soldier, but that is doubted due to 'Blue Mace Lady' and it makes sense for ANet to release a Soldier, a Scholar and then, an Adventurer. --Odal talk 19:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is fair to assume that it is an adventurer class, but the fact that it doesn't fit the mould or that they appear to be wearing certain types of armor are still just guesses. It's not fact until it can be supported with documentation. Venom20 20:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just say it is 'presumed' to be an Adventurer due to the reasons stated above. --Odal talk 20:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Kyoshi (Talk) 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

good idea Odal Venom20 20:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. After all, I thought that we wouldn't put up speculation as facts without any official word, etc... Kinda would be like false advertising, if it turned out different... you know? I do believe it could be adventurer, but I prefer not to speculate... :-S just my thoughts. --Ariyen 05:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a fairly safe assumption, and you can always ask a dev on GW2G if you want some solid evidence. --Odal talk 09:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

[2] just an fyi. --hnzdvn 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking and ending the idiocy. -- Aspectacle  01:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Weapon Sets

I think it may be safe to say that the ranger will be able to have multiple weapon sets. In the animation of spread shot the ranger clearly starts with a sword and torch, but then changes to the shortbow for the actual shot. Venom20 20:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There's also an article which talks about the ranger using a sword attack with a kick to get away from the target then switching to shortbow. I'll add it. --Kyoshi (Talk) 20:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, it's there. --Kyoshi (Talk) 20:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, now we just need confirmation on the number of sets. Venom20 20:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah, I missed it as well. Venom20 20:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's two, Emily has confirmed it on GWG. Erasculio 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

cba to find link, but it is confirmed as two ,,"Klumpeet",, 20:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. --Kyoshi (Talk) 20:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"A master of ranged combat," yet rifles are unusable? Whatever, I guess. --71.95.46.36 22:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well apparently this is the profession that can only use bows, but not guns. At least these are finally getting narrowed down. Eive 22:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A master of ranged combat and also a tree-hugger. --Kyoshi (Talk) 23:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I, for one, am glad that they kept GW2's ranger as a standard rpg ranger, and didn't turn it into some gungho miltary type. The Warrior can easily fill that role. --Warzog Watch your six! 00:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In my mind, this further sets my vision of a class that will be able to use weapons (dagger, sword) and guns (pistols/rifles), therefore an assassin like character. Vald [Citation Needed] 00:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

an assassin with mesmer illusion magic?!! Venom20 01:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No Firearms?

A bit disappointing considering how firearms (at least pistols) are range weapons. --Ravencroft0 04:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

i'm actualy glad they don't use guns tbh, how would someone who spends their time using bows (a weapon that takes quite a bit of skill to use even decently) have time to use guns --AlbinoAce 05:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Im glad they're keeping guns away from rangers, that way its not a battle for bow vs gun on one character, where now it can be considered as do you want to use bows? be a ranger! do you want to use guns? be a... gunslinger! keeps things easier to balance. Death By An Arrow 05:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally, the word ranger refers more to the range as a place ("Home on the Range") than as distance from a target. (Heard that somewhere on this very wiki, actually.) --Kyoshi (Talk) 14:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This just means that there will be a profession for guns ;) --Naut 14:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really, it just means there will be at least one more profession that can use guns. Definitely not one that focuses on guns, ANet stated there would be no 'Gunners' in an early interview I cba to source. --Odal talk 14:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Could be a different name. Using only guns, though? That would be kinda dull tbh. --Kyoshi (Talk) 15:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the assassin will be the gun "specialist." I'm also very happy to see that rangers do not use guns, as guns just aren't very nature-like. Though, I still don't understand why longbows and swords don't OHKO people. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 17:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ranger/Assassin

Have they combined the Ranger and Assassin of GW1? I see throwing daggers, attack chains and shadow stepping combined with bows, traps and pets. Alleycat 18:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that they've given every profession attack skill chains, a high-speed movement skill, and that every profession can throw daggers, and other offhand weapons. I'm also convinced that of the GW1 professions that might make it into GW2, the assassin would most likely be the one that could only use guns, and not bows.--Warzog Watch your six! 20:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Most books that I have read and some movies that I have seen of Assassins, have used guns, etc. I have not seen a movie or anything where one used a bow. Ariyen 21:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, Ninja Assassins used bows, amongst other things, and D&D's rogue assassins use bows as well.--Warzog Watch your six! 01:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Bows are generally quiet, assuming you hit your target. Still, at least one profession that can use guns, but not bows. I think any gunslinger profession is going to be merged with the assassin profession with traps and other explosives to make a saboteur. Also, I don't think ninjas had bows (though it is reasonable that they could have taken bows from the samurai they killed, they would not be as skilled with a bow as a samurai). -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 03:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, Ninja used bows for sharpshooting, with some Ninjas having smaller than normal bows made for them (see the weapons' section.) Presumably for times when a melee, or shuriken were out of range due to security. Many of GW1's assassin skills are based on Ninjas, the happo (metsubushi) (a.k.a. Blinding Powder,) and Caltrops, and their ability to poison, come to mind. --Warzog Watch your six! 20:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well then, that pretty much concludes that assassins won't use bows in GW2. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 21:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

When I first saw it, I felt that this is our new GW2 assassin:

She's clearly not carrying a bow!--Warzog Watch your six! 23:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey wait. This is not GW2 concept art. Why was it even uploaded to this wiki? Chriskang 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is from Guild Wars 2: GDC 2010 - YouTube Edition - Part 2 time hack: 1:04-1:13 the image pans up from the feet to the head.--Warzog Watch your six! 01:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ninjas and assassins use bows don't you ever watch ninja movies? they use shortbows to kill 5 enemys at a time like the spread shot with the ranger. It's used as a silent way to kill enemies from a distance. The difference between rangers and assassins is the ranger uses the whole nature thingy(that's why they don't use guns, Ranger does not equal Rambo), and assassins have dark arts and stealthy weapons to kill stuff. That's why Ranger and assassin will not be merged, it are 2 entirely different styles. They just use some of the same weapons. Prince Grazel 22:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because ninja movies are an accurate historical representation of true ninjas. Spreadshot just isn't possible, because if your arrow isn't straight, it spins like crazy.--Gerroh 22:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the Name

I'm seeing a lot of people on this wiki and on GW2Guru, getting mixed up about the origin of the name Ranger. A lot of people are taking it comes from the word 'range' as in 'distance' and thus should not use greatswords, sword etc. But it has been stated on an interview (I think?) and on GW2Guru that it in fact comes from the word 'range' as in a plain, or grassland and that the profession can be comapred to a modern park ranger, or say, Aragorn from Lord of the Rings. If you look it up on Wikipedia or in a dictionary you'll probably get a clearer meaning of what I'm saying. Do you think it is worth mentioning this in a note? --Odal talk 10:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you could find the interview, then it'd be a definite yes, I'm still for adding that in anyways, as it makes sense. Not so sure about other users' opinions however. Eive 10:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I can find the Guru post at least, I'll look through the interviews as well, just give me a while, it's buried in a very long thread about Rangers... --Odal talk 10:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Interview that mentions it being nature based and here are three guru posts (you have to look at the quote in the third post). It's not as clear cut as I remember, but it is true that the word Ranger is not derived from the word 'range' as in 'distance', as shown if you look it up in a dictionary. Still worth mentioning? --Odal talk 10:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a note, but trivia perhaps. I wouldn't mind. --Kyoshi (Talk) 12:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Note or trivia then, if we could get some more opinions on this it would be welcome. --Odal talk 12:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely trivia. Maybe a "wikipedia describes 'ranger' as..." kind of phrase i'd think. ,,"Klumpeet",, 12:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I've never thought of the name coming from the word range but I can definitely see why this issue would occur and including it would be good. As for the heading I would go with trivia, firstly because that feels right and also I think if its put as a note it could come off as very condescending if written wrong. --RaGingIMP 13:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "Ranger" was first noted in England in the 13th century when these special units were used as anti-poaching forces across the countryside. In the 16th and 17th century, it applied to someone that policies an area. The root "range" from the verb meaning "move over a large area". The modern US army rangers are meant for rapid deployment over an area. So as we can see, historically, and in modern times, a "ranger" does not suggest one who attacks a target from a distance. Venom20 14:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To add, a ranger is not necessarily an archer. It does prove easier to manage a large distance with a bow though. Perhaps an archer class is yet to be revealed and this ranger class is a ranger/assasin hybrid from GW1 Venom20 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ranger is defined as "A wanderer, A rover," or, what in GW2 is called an "adventurer." Granted, the use of any specific type of weapon is not included in the definition, but the standard rpg ranger always uses a bow for long distance combat. D&D's ranger uses hand weapons for melee.--Warzog Watch your six! 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on guys, everybody knows that the term "ranger" comes from Walker, Texas Ranger. Chuck Norris aside, the origin question also came up here. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 21:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that you've said that, there's going to be an NPC named "Walter, Tyrian Ranger", or some crap.--Gerroh 11:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

source? --The Holy Dragons 11:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Greatsword?

Why would a Ranger have a greatsword? A large two-handed weapon is cumbersome, and I can think of no reason why a profession based on tracking/bets/bows and arrows would have such a burden to carry around? It could only slow a ranger down, and has nothing in common with what a ranger is anyway. If it had a sword, I could only think about a small machete-like weapon to cut shrubs or whatever in the off-hand.

Venom told me that it would not have the same abilities as other professions with the greatsword, but that still does not cover my confusion over why an adventurer would carry a weapon weighing at least 10 lbs, would make running harder, and it overall just doesn't make sense to me. If you look at history, the adventurer (light cavalry or infantry) rarely had any heavy-duty weapons, and those weapons were assigned to the heavy-cavalry or infantry. There's a reason for that: light-infantry needs to move quickly, and can't be burdened, while heavy-infantry can. Also, archers in the middle-ages didn't carry swords (they were not allowed to, unless they were nobles or knights), they carried war-hammers, which weighed something along the lines of 5-7 lbs. Dartship 13:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that Guild Wars is trying to be an accurate representation of the Middle Ages. I'm pretty sure people couldn't reflect a bunch of arrows and other projectiles with just a pair of axes. --Riddle 14:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I have said, a ranger is not necessarily an archer. If you need a pop-culture reference, think of arragorn from LoTR. He is, for all intensive purposes, a ranger. And he has a greatsword. A greatsword is excellent for close quarter combat when you want to dish out some decent damage. Venom20 14:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that he is an only archer unit (otherwise he wouldn't have axes), but I think if a unit who is designed for adventuring were to use a close-quarter weapon, it would be a lighter weapon that would not weigh them down, like a smaller machete-like sword, as I have said. Just my two cents.

Hammer space. — Raine Valen 17:17, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

HOPEFULLY great sword's skill set will have a totally different purpose from the warrior's one (that was an Aoe weapon skill set... let's hope for something allowing tanking/crowd controlling) CaiusTheBig 17:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

<- hopes for ranger with katana as greatsword :D --The Holy Dragons 18:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Greatswords are not neccesarily huge and heavy. Like it was mentioned above, take Aragorn from LOTR as an example. A ranger is not only a scout or an archer. The ranger is a fighter profession, he's pretty much like the warrior only that he wears a lighter armor and focuses on stealth, agility and tracking. That means a ranger can also be someone who wields melee weapons only, but because of his stealthy/ambushing nature the bow seems to fit him more in a symbolic way. --Majere 18:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In Guild Wars 1, characters had much larger inventories than is realistic, but this is partially explained by Runes of Holding. Tyria is a world of magic--suppose the ranger is keeping her greatsword in an enchanted bag. 71.70.141.159 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

you just don't get it.. ofcourse rangers are able to have greatswords but it doesn't feel ranger-like (though I love it as ranger being my primary :3)--The Holy Dragons 16:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Traits

I don't see it there as the page is empty. In fact I couldn't find such info anywhere on the wiki. So what is your point? ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 21:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why she removed that info, when IP added it was new info for me. I like the sentence format to describe things so I'll go ahead and add it back in. -- Aspectacle  21:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's new info for me as well, I just didn't want to get into a revert war.. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 21:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So, no interrupts in evidence...

Not that surprising given the new combat direction, but still, it's going to be a bit odd playing a Ranger that can't interrupt. I wonder if Mesmers will get any. Arshay Duskbrow 19:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Concussion Shot, hopefully. :\ — Raine Valen 17:16, 7 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Oh well consider that (as far as i ve noticed examining in the demo) you get also no penalties from fighting with your bow at melee range (you' re not easily interruptable and you dont get extra melee attacks when aiming at one melee fighter close to you) so the lack of interrupts is countered by the fact you can use ranged weapons against close foes... This reminds me my epic battle with recurve bow and broad head arrow against Rotwing standing 1 foot away from him.... epic...

Also remember there are 100 traits per profession... maybe one is interrupt related. CaiusTheBig 17:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I remember Anet stated in one article that interrupts will have much less importance in GW2. Which means that maybe we won't have interrupts as we know them anymore. Especially when considering the new combat system which is based much more on positioning and movement --Majere 18:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, hence "the new combat direction". :P Arshay Duskbrow 23:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, well said. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 00:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a possibility that perhaps interrupts will come from other conditions, such as stun (from Concussion Shot) and perhaps fear (with the Necromancers), making an interrupt more of a result of something else. Leina 03:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Worried about Pet Artificial intelligence...

I wonder if our pets will be smart enough to automatically self/position to the side of our foe, thus not obstructing our arrows... CaiusTheBig 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no friendly fire. Projectiles can only be intercepted by foes in front of other foes, not allies. Arshay Duskbrow 01:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I just wonder about pets cause the only birds are moas and they cannot fly why not flying pets like in gw1. Azertah

1) New pets can - and almost certainly will - be added after the initial release. They're one of those things most expect with expansions.

2) Pet AI can be updated at any time, AI was often tweaked in GW1, so it's far from being one of my biggest concerns regarding GW II. A F K When Needed 15:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, remember that unlike in GW1, you and your pet will be able to jump and climb, thus meaning you will move in a tridimensional world. So in the first gw flying pets were "floating", not letting em to avoid incoming attacks by flying upwards.

On the other hand, when you say "flying" in GW2 you don' t mean the ability to float, and instead you mean the ability to "dodge melee attacks at will" by flying 6 feet above the ground. That s why it will be so hard to put in "real" flying pets. CaiusTheBig 17:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ranger Armor Possibilities

http://i433.photobucket.com/albums/qq60/eclipse_143/GW2ARMOR.jpg

Look at the Second and Fourth one going from left to right. Anet says they wanted to keep themes between professions right? Well notice that there is a shoulder that is more fortified than the other (left shoulder). Also, notice that the legging for the left leg is more covered thn the right. For GW1 reference images: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Ranger_Norn_armor_f.jpg AND http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Ranger_Elite_Studded_Leather_armor_f.jpg. Both those armors and many more have a shoulder that is more fortified for the other. Also for images for uneven leg coverage: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Ranger_Vabbian_armor_f.jpg AND http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Ranger_Istani_armor_f.jpg but meh, istani armor is istani armor. not the best looking. Thanks! I LOVE RANGERS. --Eclipse143 17:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Personaly, i wouldn't just put the plain links on the page. the amount of them made me think it was an Ad-bot. anyway; they're anet. they need ideas from somewhere, even if that means their older armour (so Google chrome is English? wow.), and thanks for pointing that out, i love rangers armour alot :3 --Neil • 16:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)