From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


"Professions have multiple professions and can only have one specialization at a time. A specialization provide access to a new weapon, elite skill, healing skill, and set of utility skills."
Where is it stated that: a profession will have multiple professions, one specialization at a time, and have specifically only one new weapon? – Valento msg 20:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

They certainly never said that during the HoT announcement or on the page. - Felix Omni 23:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It's still unknown if they're limited to only one weapon per specialization. My guess is that it's limited to 5 weapon skills, obtainable through a two-handed weapon or mainhand+offhand. The other two information were confirmed (one specialization in HoT launch but more to come), and one active at a time. – Valento msg 10:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Mesmer + Shield = Chronomancer[edit]

It seems the profession to be introduced in the cancelled GW1 expansion Utopia is pulling the ideas into this combination. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pathaugen (talkcontribs).

Please, do not speculate on names. Mesmer's specialization may or may not be a "chronomancer", add only trustworthy information. – Valento msg 04:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


If the Ranger (confirmed by ArenaNet) gets to use a staff, they get 5 nice new shiny skills. The necromancer gets to use a great sword (confirmed) they get 5 new skills, the Engineer can use a hammer (unconfirmed so far) is 5 new shiny skills for them too, and the mesmer gets a shield (unconfirmed), and only gets 2 new skills! :( that's not fair. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir Grockalot (talkcontribs).

It's far too soon to say what all the mesmer will get, or that other classes will be getting more than two. For all we know, all of the weapon skills might change after specialization. Just be patient until we know a little more about how dramatic the changes o a profession will be. --Rognik (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
As far as we know, warrior, guardian, thief, and elementalist aren't get ANY new skills! OMGWTF! ...srsly, calm down, like Rognik said we don't know everything yet. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 15:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I am extremely upset about this and want to express my feelings. Elementalists should get a flail as their new weapon and a whole set of skills where I can run around flinging ice balls at people.--Relyk ~ talk < 16:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
As I main an ele, I fully support the statement above. Also -> Geomancer and Arcanist specializations. – Valento msg 16:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Same, I'd kill for a sword on my ele. Anywho, mesmers could end up dual-wielding shields for all we know, it's simply too early to rage about it. Ventriloquist 22:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe a dev said that professions who only get an off-hand will get something in compensation. What this "compensation" is, I have no idea. --KirbyGotenksabsorbed (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Necromancer Specialization Spotted![edit]

Around 02:54 in WvW's new borderlands fight preview video, a necromancer was spotted near the door. I've added a brief description of their spells. This screenshot shows the two-chained attack during motion:

Necromancer Spec Swinging GS.png

Three facts:

  1. Uses light armor
  2. Channeling a skill during first animation much like Spatial Surge (could be mesmer, but...)
  3. Two-chained attack, and green effect while swinging the sword.

Valento msg 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Elementalist Specialization Rumours[edit]

That_shaman data-mined skill tooltips that suggests elementalists will get swords as their weapons. In-game codes are: [&Bw5rAAA=][&B8VsAAA=][&B5FvAAA=][&B6ZvAAA=][&B8ZoAAA=][&B2NrAAA=] [&B1lpAAA=][&BxBqAAA=][&BwltAAA=][&BzJpAAA=][&B+JuAAA=][&B2RtAAA=][&BzdsAAA=][&B41tAAA=][&B7JpAAA=][&B6FvAAA=][&B29rAAA=][&B7tqAAA=][&B5JqAAA=][&B15oAAA=]

For easy viewing, here's a screenshot (I've greyed out which seem to be placeholders, ie. same name as dagger skills):
Elementalist New Skills (Speculation).jpg

Source. – Valento msg 13:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Time to rename the article[edit]

Now we know "specializations" are what replaces trait lines. And what this article describes are "elite specializations". MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 14:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Specialization would act as a single page for "Core specialization" and "Elite specialization". The content suggests treating specialization as its own entity apart for traits, we don't want to simply stick core specialization on the trait article.--Relyk ~ talk < 14:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess we could tweak this article and create a separate Elite specialization page, since there are core differences between what a spec is and what an elite spec is. Specialization is a general term to describe a build's focuses, while Elite specialization describes a specific type of specialization that changes your profession mechanics along with a specific trait line. On a related note, every reference to "trait line" should be more appropriately renamed to "specialization", since this is an official term to each of those lines, regardless if they're elite or not. – Valento msg 12:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Creating an elite specialization page is silly, stick it on specialization. Give a brief note on core specialization being the representation of trait lines, then commit the rest of the article to elite specialization. Create a minor section on Trait detailing how core and elite specializations relate to traits.--Relyk ~ talk < 19:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That works. – Valento msg 23:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice template[edit]

Is the "Heart of Thorns content" template really appropriate, since the system will be rolled into the game before the expansion and only the Elite specialization will be HoT-exclusive? User I Elite Starchild I Monk-tango-icon-200.png-Alarielle- (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. These things are fundamentally different too. – Valento msg 12:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Source? —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 13:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
From the stream, apparently. I didn't watch it, but it looks like its release was confirmed there. —Ventriloquist 13:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


dibs on Thief tango icon 20px.png Hitman, Warrior tango icon 20px.png Trollslayer, Revenant tango icon 20px.png Ritualist... -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 14:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Warrior elite spec is mostly accurate. – Valento msg 14:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting choice for the guesses there Alex and think you will be spot on with Revenant tango icon 20px.png Ritualist. My guesses would have to be Thief tango icon 20px.png Assassin and Warrior tango icon 20px.png Berserker. I also noticed that there was a thief pic in the .dat file that seemed to show part of a staff. Lady Elyssa (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

About tables[edit]

I think it would look better if we don't use them here. See, I love tables @_@, but I think it looks better as you've left them now. – Valento msg 19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? I liked the tables much better because the color coding and saving space makes navigation easier.--Relyk ~ talk < 20:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I liked the space-saving, but not the loss of quick info about elite specs, which is more important than space. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 21:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

My Theory, Elite Specializations seem to be modeled after Diablo 1-3 classes[edit]

This not a far fetched theory, since Arena Net originated from the staff that created Diablo 2 and Early World of Warcraft(pre 2004)..

So there is a legit connection there. They fans of their own work I would assume.

So makes the most sense for this theory.

  • Thief Staff = Diablo Monk

  • Guardian Longbow = Demon Hunter

  • Ranger staff = Druid

  • Warrior (assume torch) = Barbarian

  • Elementalist Warhorn = Wizard

  • Necromancer Greatsword = Necromancer

  • Engineer Hammer = Warrior

  • Revenant Shield = Witch Doctor

  • Mesmer Shield = I say this comes from GW1 utopia instead

But what's your thoughts on this theory?--Knighthonor (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The guild wars and diablo classes are pretty much based on existing archetypes that have been around forever in games and media.--Relyk ~ talk < 05:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Page's Layout[edit]

It's been almost a week since specialization came out, so why does Specialization page looks like something to come out yet? I have to say, I tried to change (My version), but I guess someone has to point out what is coming for each elite spec, since by clicking on that elite spec detailing all about that specific spec is not enough... or perhaps "we" like to stay stuck in the past. – Keltztalk 03:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tables are probably ok, I toyed with the formatting a bit + cobbled User:Chieftain Alex/sandbox together. It was probably primarily reverted for the removal of the references/descriptions as you say - but the elite spec pages give the details. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 09:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Tables! Tables everywhere! – Valento msg 11:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Tables aren't necessary because the data is not tabular - there's only 1 column of data, which means it's simply a list. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 12:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
While I agree that tables aren't necessary, I think it would be awesome to have the spec icons! – Valento msg 13:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


Are they functionally similar or identical to gw1's Attributes? -- 23:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No. GW1 skills were each linked to a single attribute, and putting points into that attribute would improve the stats of the skill. GW2 specializations are nothing like that. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 00:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Berserker and Forge[edit]

According to the Reddit thread, Warrior elite is the Berserker and Engineer elite is the Forge. -- 18:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I avoided that thread purposefully. 00:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Speculation doesn't belong in the wiki. ;p – Valento msg 00:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Tango Icons[edit]

Per the latest beta, there are new tango icons for each profession once they take on the elite spec. Should those be added somewhere? Lysander (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"Tango" refers to a set of style guidelines. The in-game icons are definitely not tango. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 15:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah sorry. Working off the terminology on the icon page. At any rate, should the new icons be added somewhere? Lysander (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, sorry about that page. It needs a bit more editorial oversight. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 19:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, Guild_Wars_2_Wiki_talk:Community_portal#Elite_specialization_iconsDr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 19:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"only one elite specialization"[edit]

There is only one elite specialization for each profession. Unless I missed something---- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruine Eternelle (talkcontribs).

That's the plan for the future when there are more elite specs per profession, but you're right that it doesn't really make much sense to mention it yet so I removed it for now. User Noxx Sig.png 14:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Honor's icon not showing up.[edit]

The icon for Honor Honor isn't showing up, instead displaying the default icon. I can't figure out where the issue is stemming from. --Lamarius (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's because it's the wrong template. Honor is a Trait Line, not a Trait. This template looks to see which line the trait is from, and the line is not a member of itself. Someone with some experience will have to verify. SarielV 20 x 20px 20:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
That shouldn't be the issue. The other specializations listed use the same template as honor, and their icons show up properly. From what I gather, the template only uses the trait's trait line to generate the alt text for the icon. Lamarius (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Most of the properties for Honor aren't generating (compared to Zeal) including Property:Has game icon, which is what the template is looking for. Mora 00:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah didn't know about those pages. Whenever I go to edit honor and hit preview, it shows all the missing properties. I just re-saved the page and the specializations page without making any edits and it's all fixed. Thanks for your help Mora. Lamarius (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent merge with trait[edit]

I don't think I like merging the two, they are distinctly different. Anyone else wish to offer an opinion one way or the other? -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 22:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Against it as well. To me, traits are parts of specializations, not trait = specialization. —Ventriloquist 22:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Usage of the word trait is almost fully deprecated ingame, you only see it used still in two places. In addition it causes a lot of duplicate information on the wiki, eg. the trait page had information about hero points, the trait page explains how to equip a specialization but the specialization page does not, and more. Keeping it in one place helps the wiki get fully up to date again, a lot of pages have old info but on a duplicate page it has been updated already. It's impossible to have traits without a specialization anyway, so at most Traits should be a glossary page. Keeping it together also helps new users who may not know which of the pages has what information. Furthermore there also were significant rewrites of information that should be on this page either way that now have been fully reverted.Neok (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Even if the trait page is kept which is fine by me, I'd like to keep the improvements to this page. But I can't seem to revert to those (intermediate edit) and then make that page just link to Traits as normal instead of giving the definition here. Neok (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Future in-game lore[edit]

Responding to this RfC: Formats and conforming to them is really only important for things like templates, where if you don't format properly, they can break. There are no strict rules about where or how to put information onto the wiki, nor should there be. We have practices and processes, which purposefully speaks in generalities rather than specifics. If one contributor thinks information should be in one location, and another contributor disagrees, they start a conversation.

tl;dr: Put the information where you feel it can best help the readers and document the game. ; ) G R E E N E R 16:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Feedback 2018/04/02[edit]

Warrior 'Tactics' no longer deals with Banners. -- 06:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, removed. Thanks for the feedback! —Ventriloquist 09:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Specialization Revealed[edit]

I noticed a thing.

Subjects of specializations are same between professions. Like that in order; direct damage, critical chance, defense, health, mechanism, first elite, second elite. If condition damage, it is in second row mostly.

Should write to the page.

Bug: Ordering of specializations has written mistake for revenant in those places; big table in bottom of page of specialization, and small tables in bottoms of pages of professions.

Thingist (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)