Should there be a Medium Armor High Health class? — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Professions

Should there be a Medium Armor High Health class?

Before you say "go look for past post"... I did. I notice that there a trend with professions alternating between armored types and health levels. Warriors are the most protective and durable and elementalist are the least protective and least durable. But with the medium armored classes, there seems to be only moderate durability and the least durable Thief. I know that Ranger has a pet and Engineer no real justification to have more health, but could either of them change to be the high health bearer?

<1

Comments

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Tbh this has annoyed me a bit for years after I realised it was a thing.

    Yes there should be a high HP medium armour class and while many say it should be Engineer I say it should be Ranger due to the fact that Engineers are already capable of making highly durable and slippery builds.
    Engineer would be too OP with a health buff, Ranger would not alas Ranger deserves it more.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If anything it should be
    Ranger high
    Thief middle
    Engineer low

    Engi is way too tanky and slippery to warrant high hp, go fight them in pvp and wvw if you need proof of that, they are almost equally as durable as all those super revenants running about soloing small groups.

  • DeanBB.4268DeanBB.4268 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I always assumed engineer was originally planned to have high health, but by the time Anet finished designing them decided they would be OP.

    X__________________________
    (Signature Required)

  • MrForz.1953MrForz.1953 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 24, 2021

    @DeanBB.4268 said:
    I always assumed engineer was originally planned to have high health, but by the time Anet finished designing them decided they would be OP.

    They were meant to be heavy armor medium health for a gap that revenant now fills. To be frank it matters very little nowadays.

    Disgruntled Charr Engineer and Pirate - Jade Quarry

  • Hannelore.8153Hannelore.8153 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 24, 2021

    Engineer. Tanking is their entire purpose (though maybe add a Toughness malice to Holosmith).

    Hannah | Daisuki[SUKI] Founder, Ehmry Bay, NA | 24 charas, 18k hours, 29k AP | ♀♥♀
    No need to be best, only good and kind.

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I am not sure that there really is a need for symetry.
    Thief is mainly about damage avoidance so I think his health pool being low is thematically ok.
    Between ranger and engineer, I'd say ranger would thematically be the one with the highest health pool thanks to being "invigorated by nature". Engineer is an odd one, I wouldn't have found it strange to see him wearing an heavy armor, for me he would have suited the heavy armor/medium health pool slot while revenant could probably have taken a medium armor slot and even a high health pool slot (having it's vitality pumped up by it's bound to the mists).

  • Smoosh.2718Smoosh.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 24, 2021

    If engineer was made to have High Health many of its easy button escapes need to disappear.

    However many of the medium armour classes would be tricky to balance around High health. Ranger is instantly a no no due to having a pet, Thief can put out high damage and be very hard to hit even once in some instances so they cant have high health. Engineer is an odd one. The class can recover its health very quickly and escape better than most other classes by use of elixers and tonics.

    So if a class was to gain high health in medium armour, they would need to lose sustain in another area.

    @DeanBB.4268 said:
    I always assumed engineer was originally planned to have high health, but by the time Anet finished designing them decided they would be OP.

    Originally when the game was being made, there were to be 3 heavy classes and 2 medium classes. Yes Engineer was going to be a heavy armour class till they decided to make it Medium armour.

  • VocalThought.9835VocalThought.9835 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 24, 2021

    @Lonami.2987 said:
    I think it should be this way:

    • High: Necromancer, Engineer, Warrior.
    • Medium: Elementalist, Ranger, Guardian.
    • Low: Mesmer, Thief, Revenant.

    For reference, here is the current setup: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Health

    I disagree. I think it should be:

    • High: Necromancer, Ranger, Warrior.
    • Medium: Mesmer, Engineer, Revenant.
    • Low: Elementalist, Thief, Guardian.

    Guardian has on going regeneration where as Revenant doesn't. Ele has access to a healing attunement where Mesmer doesn't have ample healing options. I think Rangers should be mored hardy compared to Engineer.

    I even think they should change the profession choosing screen to reflect this so you would have armor classes going from heavy to light and hip going from high to low.

    • Warrior, Revenant, Guardian
    • Ranger, Engineer, Thief
    • Necro, Mesmer, Elem.

    I think this really reflects the difference between classes.

  • InsaneQR.7412InsaneQR.7412 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lonami.2987 said:
    I think it should be this way:

    • High: Necromancer, Engineer, Warrior.
    • Medium: Elementalist, Ranger, Guardian.
    • Low: Mesmer, Thief, Revenant.

    For reference, here is the current setup: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Health

    I would agree with that line up.
    It would balance out some problems with guardian, elementalist buildcraft and mesmers would be a bit more squishy.
    High health engineer could be problematic though.

  • @InsaneQR.7412 said:

    @Lonami.2987 said:
    I think it should be this way:

    • High: Necromancer, Engineer, Warrior.
    • Medium: Elementalist, Ranger, Guardian.
    • Low: Mesmer, Thief, Revenant.

    For reference, here is the current setup: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Health

    I would agree with that line up.
    It would balance out some problems with guardian, elementalist buildcraft and mesmers would be a bit more squishy.
    High health engineer could be problematic though.

    So how about

    • High: Necromancer, Ranger, Warrior.
    • Medium: Elementalist, Elem., Guardian.
    • Low: Mesmer, Thief, Revenant.
      ?
  • Buran.3796Buran.3796 Member ✭✭✭✭

    There's 0 relation between armor, health, class and sustain in this game due the main factor of being durable in combat is more linked to skills and traits than to armor class or even stats. Also, the outfits entirely ended any sort of coherence in that regard (but I won't blame medium armor players for wearing outfits looking like plate armor or bikinis, I would also be mad if almost every skins for my favs would been butt capes and trenchcoats).

  • Yasai.3549Yasai.3549 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 24, 2021

    I think Ranger should have a higher health.

    Rangers are like "wildmen" yu know, they should have way higher physical ability vs Engineers which just hammer machines all day or Thief which skulk around.
    Rangers brave the wild, tame beasts and draws a LONGBOW.

    If yu have drawn a longbow before, yu know that it's no easy feat to draw that and fire of several shots back to back (Rapidfire)

    If I play a stupid build, I deserve to die.
    If I beat people on a stupid build, I deserve to get away with it.

  • InsaneQR.7412InsaneQR.7412 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @InsaneQR.7412 said:

    @Lonami.2987 said:
    I think it should be this way:

    • High: Necromancer, Engineer, Warrior.
    • Medium: Elementalist, Ranger, Guardian.
    • Low: Mesmer, Thief, Revenant.

    For reference, here is the current setup: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Health

    I would agree with that line up.
    It would balance out some problems with guardian, elementalist buildcraft and mesmers would be a bit more squishy.
    High health engineer could be problematic though.

    So how about

    • High: Necromancer, Ranger, Warrior.
    • Medium: Elementalist, Elem., Guardian.
    • Low: Mesmer, Thief, Revenant.
      ?

    Ranger has also quite the sustain plus a pet, it is not a better candidate in those regards sadly.
    Without hampering other aspects of survivability it is quite problematic to give rangers a health buff for just symmetry.

  • Smoosh.2718Smoosh.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @InsaneQR.7412 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @InsaneQR.7412 said:

    @Lonami.2987 said:
    I think it should be this way:

    • High: Necromancer, Engineer, Warrior.
    • Medium: Elementalist, Ranger, Guardian.
    • Low: Mesmer, Thief, Revenant.

    For reference, here is the current setup: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Health

    I would agree with that line up.
    It would balance out some problems with guardian, elementalist buildcraft and mesmers would be a bit more squishy.
    High health engineer could be problematic though.

    So how about

    • High: Necromancer, Ranger, Warrior.
    • Medium: Elementalist, Elem., Guardian.
    • Low: Mesmer, Thief, Revenant.
      ?

    Ranger has also quite the sustain plus a pet, it is not a better candidate in those regards sadly.
    Without hampering other aspects of survivability it is quite problematic to give rangers a health buff for just symmetry.

    I honestly can understand everyones reasoning to give the ranger high health. They currently are one of the easiest professions to play, easy to get health back, two attack damage sources and the best downstate skills for sustain. (not to forget they can still command their pet to attack when downed). If anything Ranger should be borderline low health to medium health.

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Smoosh.2718 said:
    I honestly can understand everyones reasoning to give the ranger high health. They currently are one of the easiest professions to play, easy to get health back, two attack damage sources and the best downstate skills for sustain. (not to forget they can still command their pet to attack when downed). If anything Ranger should be borderline low health to medium health.

    It's mostly from a thematical point of view.
    Engineer focus on technology, he basically live in a polluted environment, it feel like it's a given for him to have less health than the ranger which have close ties with nature, living in a good environment and being empowered by it.

    If you look at it from a balance perspective, it might be easier to push the high health pool to the engineer but he would have to sacrifice something for that (maybe have it's current blocking skills give him barrier instead of blocking attacks).

    From a GW1 player point of view some of the profession's health pool are simply nonsense. The bigest example being the necromancer with it's high health pool when in GW1 the profession tend to try to have the lowest possible health pool in order to abuse %age health sacrifice (it's like the profession did a 180 from GW1 to GW2). Guardian which is more or less a successor of both the monk and the paragon should probably have had a high health pool (because monk 600HP).

    Imo, thinking about it, offensive runeset should reduce defensive stats (reduce vitality and toughness by 2.5% per rune for a total of 15% on a full runeset) and defensive runeset should reduce damage output by a %age (2.5% condi and power damage reduction per rune equiped). Support runesets should both reduce damage output by a %age and reduce defensive stats (same %age but both at the same time).

  • I've always wanted a high health, medium armor choice as ... a tenth profession. It probably won't ever happen though.

  • Being as all three of those classes can be slippery with the right build I think the next question to ask is which ones can be tanky right now. Both Ranger and Engineer can be built very tanky, especially with certain E-Specs. The same cannot be said for Thief. Slippery yes, but tanky no.

    If I had to rank them by the Health pool they should all have based on that it would be.

    Engi - Low HP, but with Scrapper's Vitality penalty removed. Would go pretty far in balancing Holo as well as a bonus.
    Ranger - High HP, but a lot of the boons via traits would need to be scaled back.
    Thief - Medium HP.

  • High hp ranger would be fine but they would need to reduce some damage and access to regen and protection

  • @FrownyClown.8402 said:
    High hp ranger would be fine but they would need to reduce some damage and access to regen and protection

    You can perma maintain protection on ranger right now as it is, so unless you have boon removal it is a pseudo Heavy armor medium HP class. That in and of itself needs to be nerfed at this moment. But yeah, if Ranger got the High HP then things like Rapid Fire, Maul, and Worldly Impact would have to be nerfed along with reducing several boon uptimes that the class has.

  • The Boz.2038The Boz.2038 Member ✭✭✭

    This has been a splinter in my mind, yes. Please buff Ranger or Engineer to high health, coupled with compensations elsewhere. Personally? A full engineer rework including Just One Kit, high health, polarized weapon options, and scaling turrets is the answer. Ranger needs no HP buffs, honestly.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Nothing needs hp buffs, honestly. Lobbying for buffs for the sake of fulfilling some symmetry fetish while it's not needed at all is just silly.

  • otto.5684otto.5684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 27, 2021

    @Lonami.2987 said:
    I think it should be this way:

    • High: Necromancer, Engineer, Warrior.
    • Medium: Elementalist, Ranger, Guardian.
    • Low: Mesmer, Thief, Revenant.

    For reference, here is the current setup: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Health

    I think the low HP pool should be eliminated entirely. Though, this needs work. And Anet devs are lazy. We did not have a balance patch for.... 6 month? I do not agree with Mesmer and reverent low HP pool. As for large HP pool for medium class, both engi and ranger have good sustain.

  • Bish.8627Bish.8627 Member ✭✭✭

    I don't think any medium prof especially ranger needs more health.

  • I think Armor Rating is very important, so these tiers should stay what they are or maybe even make them further apart. BUT, the base health pool differences has been imo such an arbitrary decision of ANet and is also highly overrated by a lot of people here (and on Reddit, etc.), and make for some terrible stigmas. I actually think every single class should get the same (medium) health pool.
    It also opens up some opportunities for getting some of these stigmas out of the way.
    Like the Ele seen as one of the most beginner UNfriendly classes out there, maybe that little bit of extra health will finally set them free!!
    Or the Necro, not allowed to get high dps (consistently the lowest in the PvE endgame) because of that health pool (in combination with shroud), maybe some dps buffs could get them into (high level) raids more often.
    Or the warrior, literally the only class in the game that hasn't fell out of meta in PvE (endgame) since launch: highest innate survivability of them all AND big DPS (options) AND the most sought after support (read: banners) in the game! What is not to like. Maybe some base health loss will level it down a little bit.

    Only Thief or especially Daredevil will get a mostly thematic hit when you boost its health, but maybe that can be corrected in the trait line via a small Vitality penalty? Somewhat similar to Scrapper??!?

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 27, 2021

    @Smoosh.2718 said:

    @InsaneQR.7412 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @InsaneQR.7412 said:

    @Lonami.2987 said:
    I think it should be this way:

    • High: Necromancer, Engineer, Warrior.
    • Medium: Elementalist, Ranger, Guardian.
    • Low: Mesmer, Thief, Revenant.

    For reference, here is the current setup: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Health

    I would agree with that line up.
    It would balance out some problems with guardian, elementalist buildcraft and mesmers would be a bit more squishy.
    High health engineer could be problematic though.

    So how about

    • High: Necromancer, Ranger, Warrior.
    • Medium: Elementalist, Elem., Guardian.
    • Low: Mesmer, Thief, Revenant.
      ?

    Ranger has also quite the sustain plus a pet, it is not a better candidate in those regards sadly.
    Without hampering other aspects of survivability it is quite problematic to give rangers a health buff for just symmetry.

    I honestly can understand everyones reasoning to give the ranger high health. They currently are one of the easiest professions to play, easy to get health back, two attack damage sources and the best downstate skills for sustain.

    That's a good point, I completely overlooked that trend as well.

    Although personally I don't think Ranger's healing is all that great, not compared to Warrior and Necromancer's
    Ranger relies a lot on the regen boon which is pretty garbage as a form of sustain.

    Warriors Might Healing is vastly superior to Regen as is Necromancers multi source Lifesteal.
    Factoring in that I'd say Ranger is definitely on the bottom as far as sustain goes compared to the other easy to play classes.

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    Being as all three of those classes can be slippery with the right build I think the next question to ask is which ones can be tanky right now. Both Ranger and Engineer can be built very tanky, especially with certain E-Specs. The same cannot be said for Thief. Slippery yes, but tanky no.

    If I had to rank them by the Health pool they should all have based on that it would be.

    Engi - Low HP, but with Scrapper's Vitality penalty removed. Would go pretty far in balancing Holo as well as a bonus.
    Ranger - High HP, but a lot of the boons via traits would need to be scaled back.
    Thief - Medium HP.

    I don't think Ranger is that tanky tbh.. maybe druid if it invests heavily in healing and defence but i've never managed to build a tanky Ranger build that I considered "good" tbh.

    I don't think tanky is really a factor to consider though, Warriors can be really tanky as well yet they have high health.. and Necro's.. Necro's I know from personal experience can become near unkillable in PvE with the right setup lol
    I think PvP is the better deciding factor in this debate which is why I'd say Ranger deserves it more as Engineers are far better scrappers than Rangers are in this game mode due to their great healing potential, tankyness and access to slippery skills that give them far more survivability than Rangers imo when fighting other players.

    In regards to the thief though, it's true they can't tank for kitten.. but they can get a significant amount of self sustain via traits which combined with their evasiveness can make them very formidable to anything that can't down them in a single shot.. or a very small period of time.

    @FrownyClown.8402 said:
    High hp ranger would be fine but they would need to reduce some damage and access to regen and protection

    I wouldn't be against this if those boons were buffed slightly.
    Less access to regen but slightly better healing from it and less access to protection but better duration.
    This would make rangers more vulnerable to boon stripping and corruption.

  • Smoosh.2718Smoosh.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    That's a good point, I completely overlooked that trend as well.

    Although personally I don't think Ranger's healing is all that great, not compared to Warrior and Necromancer's
    Ranger relies a lot on the regen boon which is pretty garbage as a form of sustain.

    Warriors Might Healing is vastly superior to Regen as is Necromancers multi source Lifesteal.
    Factoring in that I'd say Ranger is definitely on the bottom as far as sustain goes compared to the other easy to play classes.

    To address the tankiness of ranger, yes they are. From the PvP background a ranger is able to put out an insane amount of self sustain through boons that seem to be endless in duration. They are able to do this while still maintaining a source of reliable damage. Warrior by comparison is not able to do so, to have the same sustain the warrior loses all sources of damage (almost becomes a tickle fight).

    Boons should not be underestimated in this game, there is a huge connection between the hardest to kill and the ones with the most boon uptime. Not to forget Ranger with soulbeast does also have the poison heals trait (Making the ranger stupidly hard to take down in the PvE enviroment).

    If the class was to be made into a high health class, much of its sustain would need to be chopped away, be it boons, heals or even overall stats (pet or class).

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Smoosh.2718 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    That's a good point, I completely overlooked that trend as well.

    Although personally I don't think Ranger's healing is all that great, not compared to Warrior and Necromancer's
    Ranger relies a lot on the regen boon which is pretty garbage as a form of sustain.

    Warriors Might Healing is vastly superior to Regen as is Necromancers multi source Lifesteal.
    Factoring in that I'd say Ranger is definitely on the bottom as far as sustain goes compared to the other easy to play classes.

    To address the tankiness of ranger, yes they are. From the PvP background a ranger is able to put out an insane amount of self sustain through boons that seem to be endless in duration. They are able to do this while still maintaining a source of reliable damage. Warrior by comparison is not able to do so, to have the same sustain the warrior loses all sources of damage (almost becomes a tickle fight).

    Boons should not be underestimated in this game, there is a huge connection between the hardest to kill and the ones with the most boon uptime. Not to forget Ranger with soulbeast does also have the poison heals trait (Making the ranger stupidly hard to take down in the PvE enviroment).

    If the class was to be made into a high health class, much of its sustain would need to be chopped away, be it boons, heals or even overall stats (pet or class).

    In PvP maybe sure.. but that can easily be fixed with skill and trait splits, much as they have with other classes.
    I've not seen it so much in PvE, i've yet to find a really good modern Ranger build that can outsustain a lot of damage.. they seem to be more alike with thieves there and rely more on evading damage or manipulating the aggro onto their pets etc to boost their survivability.
    I don't think i've ever seen a proper tank ranger build in PvE, I'll have to give it another try sometime.

  • @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Smoosh.2718 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    That's a good point, I completely overlooked that trend as well.

    Although personally I don't think Ranger's healing is all that great, not compared to Warrior and Necromancer's
    Ranger relies a lot on the regen boon which is pretty garbage as a form of sustain.

    Warriors Might Healing is vastly superior to Regen as is Necromancers multi source Lifesteal.
    Factoring in that I'd say Ranger is definitely on the bottom as far as sustain goes compared to the other easy to play classes.

    To address the tankiness of ranger, yes they are. From the PvP background a ranger is able to put out an insane amount of self sustain through boons that seem to be endless in duration. They are able to do this while still maintaining a source of reliable damage. Warrior by comparison is not able to do so, to have the same sustain the warrior loses all sources of damage (almost becomes a tickle fight).

    Boons should not be underestimated in this game, there is a huge connection between the hardest to kill and the ones with the most boon uptime. Not to forget Ranger with soulbeast does also have the poison heals trait (Making the ranger stupidly hard to take down in the PvE enviroment).

    If the class was to be made into a high health class, much of its sustain would need to be chopped away, be it boons, heals or even overall stats (pet or class).

    In PvP maybe sure.. but that can easily be fixed with skill and trait splits, much as they have with other classes.
    I've not seen it so much in PvE, i've yet to find a really good modern Ranger build that can outsustain a lot of damage.. they seem to be more alike with thieves there and rely more on evading damage or manipulating the aggro onto their pets etc to boost their survivability.
    I don't think i've ever seen a proper tank ranger build in PvE, I'll have to give it another try sometime.

    Durability Runes, Protective Ward, and Protect me. The concentration boost from Nature Magic and a concentration utility or food would allow you to more or less perma maintain Protection, especially with use of Heal as One. Beyond that make use of GS blocks and interrupts to fill the gap along with proper dodging.

  • Smoosh.2718Smoosh.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I also played around with a viper build on ranger for a bit with the main intention to never use the pets

    Every bit of poison you do is 170 health, every 3 seconds is 375 health without having to do a thing. Gains 240 Ferocity from having the axe equiped so despite being vipers, you're doing a high level of power damage while still doing high damage from conditions as well.

    From what I recall, i barely touched the heal skill.

  • Opopanax.1803Opopanax.1803 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 29, 2021

    @VocalThought.9835 said:
    Before you say "go look for past post"... I did. I notice that there a trend with professions alternating between armored types and health levels. Warriors are the most protective and durable and elementalist are the least protective and least durable. But with the medium armored classes, there seems to be only moderate durability and the least durable Thief. I know that Ranger has a pet and Engineer no real justification to have more health, but could either of them change to be the high health bearer?

    Ranger IS the medium armor high HP... it's just that it's HP is separated out to it's permanent pet.

    No changes needed.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Smoosh.2718 said:
    I also played around with a viper build on ranger for a bit with the main intention to never use the pets

    Every bit of poison you do is 170 health, every 3 seconds is 375 health without having to do a thing. Gains 240 Ferocity from having the axe equiped so despite being vipers, you're doing a high level of power damage while still doing high damage from conditions as well.

    From what I recall, i barely touched the heal skill.

    This sounds like my kind of build tbh, I very much enjoy sustain based play hence my bias for my might heal warrior, zealot thief and mostly life siphon Minion builds.

    I haven't played around much with SB.. mostly because I dislike the fuse mechanic and now the restriction to 1 pet.. however this poison healing interests me quite a bit.
    I'm going to have to play around with this trait sometime and see if it works out for me.
    It's something I hadn't considered before as a backup for regen.
    I also like the idea of a Ranger built around poison, could be fun.

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    This sounds like my kind of build tbh, I very much enjoy sustain based play hence my bias for my might heal warrior, zealot thief and mostly life siphon Minion builds.

    I haven't played around much with SB.. mostly because I dislike the fuse mechanic and now the restriction to 1 pet.. however this poison healing interests me quite a bit.
    I'm going to have to play around with this trait sometime and see if it works out for me.
    It's something I hadn't considered before as a backup for regen.
    I also like the idea of a Ranger built around poison, could be fun.

    You can focus more on poison than the build showed. I mean, the trap trait increase trap's condi duration by 60% and reduce their CD by 20%. If you add alacrity on top of it, your viper nest end up with a 12 second CD... Light on your feet double the number of poison stack you inflict while flanking your target (making it to up to 10 poison stack per foe hit and you can hit up to 5 foes for a maximum of 50 poison stacks applied) and, with alacrity again, it's on a 5 second CD. for example.

  • Arheundel.6451Arheundel.6451 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 29, 2021

    @Smoosh.2718 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    That's a good point, I completely overlooked that trend as well.

    Although personally I don't think Ranger's healing is all that great, not compared to Warrior and Necromancer's
    Ranger relies a lot on the regen boon which is pretty garbage as a form of sustain.

    Warriors Might Healing is vastly superior to Regen as is Necromancers multi source Lifesteal.
    Factoring in that I'd say Ranger is definitely on the bottom as far as sustain goes compared to the other easy to play classes.

    To address the tankiness of ranger, yes they are. From the PvP background a ranger is able to put out an insane amount of self sustain through boons that seem to be endless in duration. They are able to do this while still maintaining a source of reliable damage. Warrior by comparison is not able to do so, to have the same sustain the warrior loses all sources of damage (almost becomes a tickle fight).

    Boons should not be underestimated in this game, there is a huge connection between the hardest to kill and the ones with the most boon uptime. Not to forget Ranger with soulbeast does also have the poison heals trait (Making the ranger stupidly hard to take down in the PvE enviroment).

    If the class was to be made into a high health class, much of its sustain would need to be chopped away, be it boons, heals or even overall stats (pet or class).

    When you face somebody built for dmg...boons mean nothing at that time you will need dmg avoidance like blocks or hard heal burst and as a matter of fact...I fail to see how high HP professions in this game lack sustain compared to ranger and how low sustain specs excel in sustain over high HP professions.

    Low HP professions(ele-guardian) must invest heavily into healing power to have any sort of serious self-sustain where professions like warrior (core and spellbreaker) and necro( core -scourge ) can be naturally high sustain, both necro and warrior can "facetank" dmg literally speaking where a ranger will survive solely if he manages to avoid dmg and stay at distance , something ranger excel at and something players always hate

    Warrior and Necro don't lack sustain...that's a lie and you know that....what they lack is a proper Ranged Option and that should come with a drop in facetanking ability ofc.

    Many war players refuse to run something like this:
    http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PKAEmA4Y9A8gB-w

    The build has a defensive trait line, a sub-defensive line and a strong elite trait line and can be compared to typical "sustain" ranger running : Wilderness-Beastmastery and whatever; on the other hand war players running :
    http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PKAEmA4YdB8gB-w

    Don't have any right to complain because you're running the equivalent of a Beastmastery-markmanship-X ranger in terms of sustain....

    Look I am not stating that warrior is easy to play on the contrary of it...I played it for a little over 1k hrs where I spent 4k hrs on ranger and then other professions, what I am trying to say that ranger now is not like before : much sustain and dmg has been taken away, the class is still very good if you know how to play to an average level but there is nothing more (good riddance) like Boonbeast and the one shot meme builds...can be replicated on basically many other specs, you can make a full zerk rifle warrior with Defiant Stance and Endure pain then play hide and seek in a tower like the meme 1 shot rangers.....or you can make a zerker deadeye with double rifle....a zealot DH True shot and so on....

    The protection boon simply add a 33% multiplier to armor value and therefore a medium armor target would simply have 400 more armor than a warrior and we're talking with no toughness applied in both cases.. for example .a glass light armor with protection doesn't automatically become more tanky than a warrior with no toughness that's impossible

    The regeneration boon is healing over time requiring both healing power and boon duration to amount for something

    In the end rangers survive by avoiding dmg and add value with healing over time where warrior while facetanking has access to healburst to a moderate level...you can't facetank on ranger like you can do on necro or warrior...maybe in PvE but that's it

    P.S in PvP only de-cap druid exist...in average MAT teams who never reach the final stages, any other ranger spec get blown off in secs by heralds/renegade/holos/reapers etc etc etc...you can try to perma prot all you want ...if you can't avoid dmg properly you die rather quickly on ranger

    -A wise man once said- "Fight cheese with cheese or be cheesed in return, mind not those who will accuse you of being a cheese as they like cheese themselves"

  • @Arheundel.6451 said:

    @Smoosh.2718 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    That's a good point, I completely overlooked that trend as well.

    Although personally I don't think Ranger's healing is all that great, not compared to Warrior and Necromancer's
    Ranger relies a lot on the regen boon which is pretty garbage as a form of sustain.

    Warriors Might Healing is vastly superior to Regen as is Necromancers multi source Lifesteal.
    Factoring in that I'd say Ranger is definitely on the bottom as far as sustain goes compared to the other easy to play classes.

    To address the tankiness of ranger, yes they are. From the PvP background a ranger is able to put out an insane amount of self sustain through boons that seem to be endless in duration. They are able to do this while still maintaining a source of reliable damage. Warrior by comparison is not able to do so, to have the same sustain the warrior loses all sources of damage (almost becomes a tickle fight).

    Boons should not be underestimated in this game, there is a huge connection between the hardest to kill and the ones with the most boon uptime. Not to forget Ranger with soulbeast does also have the poison heals trait (Making the ranger stupidly hard to take down in the PvE enviroment).

    If the class was to be made into a high health class, much of its sustain would need to be chopped away, be it boons, heals or even overall stats (pet or class).

    When you face somebody built for dmg...boons mean nothing at that time you will need dmg avoidance like blocks or hard heal burst and as a matter of fact...I fail to see how high HP professions in this game lack sustain compared to ranger and how low sustain specs excel in sustain over high HP professions.

    Low HP professions(ele-guardian) must invest heavily into healing power to have any sort of serious self-sustain where professions like warrior (core and spellbreaker) and necro( core -scourge ) can be naturally high sustain, both necro and warrior can "facetank" dmg literally speaking where a ranger will survive solely if he manages to avoid dmg and stay at distance , something ranger excel at and something players always hate

    Warrior and Necro don't lack sustain...that's a lie and you know that....what they lack is a proper Ranged Option and that should come with a drop in facetanking ability ofc.

    Many war players refuse to run something like this:
    http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PKAEmA4Y9A8gB-w
    The build has a defensive trait line, a sub-defensive line and a strong elite trait line and can be compared to typical "sustain" ranger running : Wilderness-Beastmastery and whatever; on the other hand war players running :
    http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PKAEmA4YdB8gB-w

    Don't have any right to complain because you're running the equivalent of a Beastmastery-markmanship-X ranger in terms of sustain....

    That strength line of traits is stapled to every warrior build FYI. Defense was gutted with 300s cd traits and isn't worth taking over Tactics now which is why warriors don't take it anymore. I am pretty sure every non Bubblebot Spellbreaker takes MBT, but then that also got gutted. Warrior sustain got hit extremely hard last year and only recently did they get some of it back. All this is from a Competitve play perspective mind you.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Thief should always be low due to their easy access to stealth.

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    All classes should have medium armor and medium health its kind of silly that the vary of hp / def is still in the game even though the reason for such effects are long gone as in the old trait point system that had hp def build into it to where some classes would get more from there hp line that where low hp and high hp classes would get a lot less.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • Smoosh.2718Smoosh.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jski.6180 said:
    All classes should have medium armor and medium health its kind of silly that the vary of hp / def is still in the game even though the reason for such effects are long gone as in the old trait point system that had hp def build into it to where some classes would get more from there hp line that where low hp and high hp classes would get a lot less.

    Does that mean I have to wear the trenchcoat now?

    Buuut ultimately you are right here, all classes health should be rebalanced to a simular level and their skills/traits balanced around the new medium. the concept worked back in 2013, however lesser so now with the newer additions to the game.

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Smoosh.2718 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    All classes should have medium armor and medium health its kind of silly that the vary of hp / def is still in the game even though the reason for such effects are long gone as in the old trait point system that had hp def build into it to where some classes would get more from there hp line that where low hp and high hp classes would get a lot less.

    Does that mean I have to wear the trenchcoat now?

    Buuut ultimately you are right here, all classes health should be rebalanced to a simular level and their skills/traits balanced around the new medium. the concept worked back in 2013, however lesser so now with the newer additions to the game.

    I am all for removing armor classes and let ppl use any skin they want. More room for fashion wars and more room for gem store skins.

    Over all it would make balancing easier as you could let classes with high hp / high armor now get more dps if there hp / armor where at the same level as other classes. It could be more of an balancing of range and cd and utility then an balancing of hp / def vs dmg.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 29, 2021

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    This sounds like my kind of build tbh, I very much enjoy sustain based play hence my bias for my might heal warrior, zealot thief and mostly life siphon Minion builds.

    I haven't played around much with SB.. mostly because I dislike the fuse mechanic and now the restriction to 1 pet.. however this poison healing interests me quite a bit.
    I'm going to have to play around with this trait sometime and see if it works out for me.
    It's something I hadn't considered before as a backup for regen.
    I also like the idea of a Ranger built around poison, could be fun.

    You can focus more on poison than the build showed. I mean, the trap trait increase trap's condi duration by 60% and reduce their CD by 20%. If you add alacrity on top of it, your viper nest end up with a 12 second CD... Light on your feet double the number of poison stack you inflict while flanking your target (making it to up to 10 poison stack per foe hit and you can hit up to 5 foes for a maximum of 50 poison stacks applied) and, with alacrity again, it's on a 5 second CD. for example.

    Maxing the poison output was pretty much my first thought to maximise the lifesteal benefit.
    I expect i'll have to take a hit in dps among others things but im fine with that trade off, I don't need the poison to hurt.. i'd be using it as a healing tactic along side regen for max sustain potential.
    It's an interesting trait that I hadn't given much thought to in the past.. curious how a Dagger Dagger Ranger may work out.. not sure i've ever even seen a Ranger running duel Daggers before.
    No CD on Predators Cunning too so I imagine the combo of Whirling Defence in a Poison Field could end up being a significant heal.. Sword Axe secondary set perhaps.

  • @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    This sounds like my kind of build tbh, I very much enjoy sustain based play hence my bias for my might heal warrior, zealot thief and mostly life siphon Minion builds.

    I haven't played around much with SB.. mostly because I dislike the fuse mechanic and now the restriction to 1 pet.. however this poison healing interests me quite a bit.
    I'm going to have to play around with this trait sometime and see if it works out for me.
    It's something I hadn't considered before as a backup for regen.
    I also like the idea of a Ranger built around poison, could be fun.

    You can focus more on poison than the build showed. I mean, the trap trait increase trap's condi duration by 60% and reduce their CD by 20%. If you add alacrity on top of it, your viper nest end up with a 12 second CD... Light on your feet double the number of poison stack you inflict while flanking your target (making it to up to 10 poison stack per foe hit and you can hit up to 5 foes for a maximum of 50 poison stacks applied) and, with alacrity again, it's on a 5 second CD. for example.

    Maxing the poison output was pretty much my first thought to maximise the lifesteal benefit.
    I expect i'll have to take a hit in dps among others things but im fine with that trade off, I don't need the poison to hurt.. i'd be using it as a healing tactic along side regen for max sustain potential.
    It's an interesting trait that I hadn't given much thought to in the past.. curious how a Dagger Dagger Ranger may work out.. not sure i've ever even seen a Ranger running duel Daggers before.
    No CD on Predators Cunning too so I imagine the combo of Whirling Defence in a Poison Field could end up being a significant heal.. Sword Axe secondary set perhaps.

    Don't forget vulture stance.

  • @Jski.6180 said:
    All classes should have medium armor and medium health its kind of silly that the vary of hp / def is still in the game even though the reason for such effects are long gone as in the old trait point system that had hp def build into it to where some classes would get more from there hp line that where low hp and high hp classes would get a lot less.

    If every class had the same health and armor, than that would change the theme and balance of the classes, wouldn't it?

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    All classes should have medium armor and medium health its kind of silly that the vary of hp / def is still in the game even though the reason for such effects are long gone as in the old trait point system that had hp def build into it to where some classes would get more from there hp line that where low hp and high hp classes would get a lot less.

    If every class had the same health and armor, than that would change the theme and balance of the classes, wouldn't it?

    How would that change the theme? A class is tankly or glass though its gear combo build more then any thing else. By letting all classes have the same hp / armor you would get away from class just simply getting free hp / armor over other classes that done there by letting them build more glassly. In an odd way the high tankly classes though the current hp / def system are more able to go glassly then the lower hp / def making them more likely to build tankly.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • @Jski.6180 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    All classes should have medium armor and medium health its kind of silly that the vary of hp / def is still in the game even though the reason for such effects are long gone as in the old trait point system that had hp def build into it to where some classes would get more from there hp line that where low hp and high hp classes would get a lot less.

    If every class had the same health and armor, than that would change the theme and balance of the classes, wouldn't it?

    How would that change the theme? A class is tankly or glass though its gear combo build more then any thing else. By letting all classes have the same hp / armor you would get away from class just simply getting free hp / armor over other classes that done there by letting them build more glassly. In an odd way the high tankly classes though the current hp / def system are more able to go glassly then the lower hp / def making them more likely to build tankly.

    Changing Armor, would definitely change the theme of a class imo. It also stems back to GW1, where it played a significant role in gameplay (and thematically as well).

    But again, those base health pool differences in GW2 has been a really strange and arbitrary decision from ANet and imo, I can't see any real thematic and/or lore reasons why there are differences between classes like that. (Except for maybe one class: the Daredevil). It only somewhat affects the gameplay, and imo is far less of a factor now, than it it used to be back in 2012.
    A good time to level those health pools to one and the same base pool! Obviously, combined with a well extensive balance patch which most of us have been waiting for, for a long time now.

  • The Boz.2038The Boz.2038 Member ✭✭✭

    I'd miss it, thematically, but "crunching" the differences to +/- ~2k, instead of 5k health? That'd be neat.

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    All classes should have medium armor and medium health its kind of silly that the vary of hp / def is still in the game even though the reason for such effects are long gone as in the old trait point system that had hp def build into it to where some classes would get more from there hp line that where low hp and high hp classes would get a lot less.

    If every class had the same health and armor, than that would change the theme and balance of the classes, wouldn't it?

    How would that change the theme? A class is tankly or glass though its gear combo build more then any thing else. By letting all classes have the same hp / armor you would get away from class just simply getting free hp / armor over other classes that done there by letting them build more glassly. In an odd way the high tankly classes though the current hp / def system are more able to go glassly then the lower hp / def making them more likely to build tankly.

    Changing Armor, would definitely change the theme of a class imo. It also stems back to GW1, where it played a significant role in gameplay (and thematically as well).

    But again, those base health pool differences in GW2 has been a really strange and arbitrary decision from ANet and imo, I can't see any real thematic and/or lore reasons why there are differences between classes like that. (Except for maybe one class: the Daredevil). It only somewhat affects the gameplay, and imo is far less of a factor now, than it it used to be back in 2012.
    A good time to level those health pools to one and the same base pool! Obviously, combined with a well extensive balance patch which most of us have been waiting for, for a long time now.

    No... the theme of the class comes from its wepon effects and its F1-5 if armor played that big of an roll then it would of too been changed with the trait line update.

    And that thing thing the armor / hp system is an hold over from an much older system where you got most of your power hp armor etc.. from your build not your gear. This was balanced for what the class would use (some classes would have a hard time getting hp from the trait lines and good dmg but they had high base hp / def to start with.) Now we lost all of the theme base for trait lines in way of hp / def but we still have this out dated hp / def armor class system.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • VocalThought.9835VocalThought.9835 Member ✭✭✭

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    All classes should have medium armor and medium health its kind of silly that the vary of hp / def is still in the game even though the reason for such effects are long gone as in the old trait point system that had hp def build into it to where some classes would get more from there hp line that where low hp and high hp classes would get a lot less.

    If every class had the same health and armor, than that would change the theme and balance of the classes, wouldn't it?

    How would that change the theme? A class is tankly or glass though its gear combo build more then any thing else. By letting all classes have the same hp / armor you would get away from class just simply getting free hp / armor over other classes that done there by letting them build more glassly. In an odd way the high tankly classes though the current hp / def system are more able to go glassly then the lower hp / def making them more likely to build tankly.

    These class didn't start with nor will end with GW2. All of these are traditional archetypes throughout the fantasy lore. Warrior/Fighters or Paladins always had Heavy Plate or Chainmail, Thieves or Rangers / Rouges wore medium/ Leather Armor, and Scholars/Mages wore robes/ Light Armor. One doesn't just and change a whole 100 years of story telling and mythical lore for nothing without expecting a major shift in continuity. Even in games that allow changes, its explained and put in a slightly different box.

  • @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    All classes should have medium armor and medium health its kind of silly that the vary of hp / def is still in the game even though the reason for such effects are long gone as in the old trait point system that had hp def build into it to where some classes would get more from there hp line that where low hp and high hp classes would get a lot less.

    If every class had the same health and armor, than that would change the theme and balance of the classes, wouldn't it?

    How would that change the theme? A class is tankly or glass though its gear combo build more then any thing else. By letting all classes have the same hp / armor you would get away from class just simply getting free hp / armor over other classes that done there by letting them build more glassly. In an odd way the high tankly classes though the current hp / def system are more able to go glassly then the lower hp / def making them more likely to build tankly.

    These class didn't start with nor will end with GW2. All of these are traditional archetypes throughout the fantasy lore. Warrior/Fighters or Paladins always had Heavy Plate or Chainmail, Thieves or Rangers / Rouges wore medium/ Leather Armor, and Scholars/Mages wore robes/ Light Armor. One doesn't just and change a whole 100 years of story telling and mythical lore for nothing without expecting a major shift in continuity. Even in games that allow changes, its explained and put in a slightly different box.

    You both are absolutely right that it's a very old concept, indeed thematically tied to the classic archetypes you described.
    But gameplaywise there's imo some real big flaws on how ANet has implemented an arbitrary system tied to both AR and HP! Sure, you'd obviously expect more Armor Rating / Defence on a full plated body armor worn by a frontline archetype (like a warrior) than a mesmer in the backline wearing nothing more than a nightgown. But Health, well, I don't see any thematical or even logical reasoning behind the system that is in place now (i.e. it's not like something far more logical like: if you wear Heavy Amor, you move slower: I'm happy that's not in the game, btw. It would hurt the game a lot!).
    I mean take the Guardian, by new people often seen as a Paladin archetype. Yes you would expect them to have sturdy armor, but no, I would never expect them to have the lowest base health pool out there ... Or a Necromancer ... it's in the name even: death should be it's specialty, and it is the furthest away from it with the largest health pool out there!

    There's only gameplay reasons why they have set differences in Health Pools, which leads to lesser choice once you've chosen your class, and the stigmas that come with it in the community. So, I'm a real advocate of removing those base health pool differences. (Again, combined with an extensive balance pass!).
    Armor Rating is a different story. Yea, you could set those to one and the same AR for all classes, I don't think it would actually hurt the game that much (probably even improve it), but like mentioned above, this one is thematically far more tied to these classic archetypes. It's somewhat comparable to the whole idea of wielding a shield, but not getting extra defence from it. It just feels a bit weird.

  • VocalThought.9835VocalThought.9835 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 3, 2021

    @Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    All classes should have medium armor and medium health its kind of silly that the vary of hp / def is still in the game even though the reason for such effects are long gone as in the old trait point system that had hp def build into it to where some classes would get more from there hp line that where low hp and high hp classes would get a lot less.

    If every class had the same health and armor, than that would change the theme and balance of the classes, wouldn't it?

    How would that change the theme? A class is tankly or glass though its gear combo build more then any thing else. By letting all classes have the same hp / armor you would get away from class just simply getting free hp / armor over other classes that done there by letting them build more glassly. In an odd way the high tankly classes though the current hp / def system are more able to go glassly then the lower hp / def making them more likely to build tankly.

    These class didn't start with nor will end with GW2. All of these are traditional archetypes throughout the fantasy lore. Warrior/Fighters or Paladins always had Heavy Plate or Chainmail, Thieves or Rangers / Rouges wore medium/ Leather Armor, and Scholars/Mages wore robes/ Light Armor. One doesn't just and change a whole 100 years of story telling and mythical lore for nothing without expecting a major shift in continuity. Even in games that allow changes, its explained and put in a slightly different box.

    You both are absolutely right that it's a very old concept, indeed thematically tied to the classic archetypes you described.
    But gameplaywise there's imo some real big flaws on how ANet has implemented an arbitrary system tied to both AR and HP! Sure, you'd obviously expect more Armor Rating / Defence on a full plated body armor worn by a frontline archetype (like a warrior) than a mesmer in the backline wearing nothing more than a nightgown. But Health, well, I don't see any thematical or even logical reasoning behind the system that is in place now (i.e. it's not like something far more logical like: if you wear Heavy Amor, you move slower: I'm happy that's not in the game, btw. It would hurt the game a lot!).
    I mean take the Guardian, by new people often seen as a Paladin archetype. Yes you would expect them to have sturdy armor, but no, I would never expect them to have the lowest base health pool out there ... Or a Necromancer ... it's in the name even: death should be it's specialty, and it is the furthest away from it with the largest health pool out there!

    There's only gameplay reasons why they have set differences in Health Pools, which leads to lesser choice once you've chosen your class, and the stigmas that come with it in the community. So, I'm a real advocate of removing those base health pool differences. (Again, combined with an extensive balance pass!).
    Armor Rating is a different story. Yea, you could set those to one and the same AR for all classes, I don't think it would actually hurt the game that much (probably even improve it), but like mentioned above, this one is thematically far more tied to these classic archetypes. It's somewhat comparable to the whole idea of wielding a shield, but not getting extra defence from it. It just feels a bit weird.

    Think of it as training and efficiency. If you're a mage in heavy armor, not only are you not trained to Fight in that armor, you don't have the prowess need to cast your sophisticated spells. Warriors don't fight in non heavy armor because it makes no sense not to.

    Plus, the class with more close combat experience seems to be hardiy and durable. Thieves don't get touched.

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    All classes should have medium armor and medium health its kind of silly that the vary of hp / def is still in the game even though the reason for such effects are long gone as in the old trait point system that had hp def build into it to where some classes would get more from there hp line that where low hp and high hp classes would get a lot less.

    If every class had the same health and armor, than that would change the theme and balance of the classes, wouldn't it?

    How would that change the theme? A class is tankly or glass though its gear combo build more then any thing else. By letting all classes have the same hp / armor you would get away from class just simply getting free hp / armor over other classes that done there by letting them build more glassly. In an odd way the high tankly classes though the current hp / def system are more able to go glassly then the lower hp / def making them more likely to build tankly.

    These class didn't start with nor will end with GW2. All of these are traditional archetypes throughout the fantasy lore. Warrior/Fighters or Paladins always had Heavy Plate or Chainmail, Thieves or Rangers / Rouges wore medium/ Leather Armor, and Scholars/Mages wore robes/ Light Armor. One doesn't just and change a whole 100 years of story telling and mythical lore for nothing without expecting a major shift in continuity. Even in games that allow changes, its explained and put in a slightly different box.

    Right but evasion is part of armor class high armor would also make you have less ability to make hits less impactful. As well as wepon classes do very the dmg they do plate vs leather vs cloth.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.