Guild Wars 2 Elite Specs are a Dual Class Simulator. Charted

[Knighthonor.4061]

https://imgur.com/a/FlkkqdX

 

Elite Specs seem like Guild Wars 2's version of Dual Class.

This is my theory. I have updated the chart with some of the new EoD elite specs.

I have a few of my own ideas mixed in. Whats your thoughts on this?

[mindcircus.1506]

Yes but...
Your Berserker, Untamed, Virtuoso, Soulbeast, Renegade, Catalyst, Vindicator, Deadeye, Holosmith, Chronomancer and Firebrand entries are in the incorrect dual class spots.
And technically Warrior/Warrior or Ranger/Ranger would be core warrior and core ranger.

Edited July 8, 2022 by mindcircus.1506

[Danikat.8537]

I'm not following the logic here. If I've understood the table correctly you're saying an engineer with the scrapper spec and an elementalist with the tempest spec are the same as choosing guardian as a secondary profession, but to me they seem very different, and different from each other. Likewise I'm not sure what the weaver spec has in common with warrior other than getting a sword as a weapon.

The ones where I can imagine some sort of similarity also seem inconsistent with each other. For example saying untamed is ranger/revenant sort-of fits thematically in that it's about channeling external power and spirits, but then saying druid is ranger/ele only makes sense to me if it's because druid gives ranger more support skills, nothing to do with the theme. So while both comparisons sort-of stand on their own they're inconsistent with each other.

The fact that most of the table is filled in with hypothetical elites with nothing but a name makes it very hard to interpret as well. I have no idea what a gloom stalker or rune priest or prophet spec would be like, so it's impossible to comment on whether they fit where you've put them. (Unless the idea there is to work backwards and assume that a gloom stalker would be whatever I personally imagine a ranger/necromancer to be?)

In a basic sense yes it's true that some things elite specs add were already seen in other professions rather than being totally new to the game, but I'm not sure you can map it 1:1 like this without being very inconsistent in the comparisons you're making.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Danikat.8537

[Gibson.4036]

Wouldn’t Firebrand fit better as Ele secondary? Tomes are a lot like attunement swapping.

And didn’t ANet pretty much outright state that Untamed was Ranger/Warrior by saying it was based on bunny thumper?

[James Saulot.4851]

The existing specs don't make sense with all of your combinations, and I don't see the point in the fan-made things in there.

[Knighthonor.4061]

5 hours ago, Gibson.4036 said:

Wouldn’t Firebrand fit better as Ele secondary? Tomes are a lot like attunement swapping.

And didn’t ANet pretty much outright state that Untamed was Ranger/Warrior by saying it was based on bunny thumper?

Bunny Thumper is a spec based on old Guild Wars 1 Secondary class, the Warrior. GW1's Warrior is pretty much the grand father of the Soldier archclass which all three Soldier classes in GW2 fall in.

 

GW1 Warrior plus itself is GW2 Warrior pretty much.

GW1 Warrior plus Ritualist is the GW2 Guardian

GW1 Warrior plus Dervish is the GW2 Revenant 

 

So this why I theorize the Untamed is Ranger plus the Soldier class Revenant. 

[LyraOrpheo.8450]

4 hours ago, Chrysaliss.8720 said:

How TF did you come to a conclusion that Deadeye is a cross with Elementalist? Were you high when making this? Half of the things make no sense.

 

I think it was due to the utility. Cantrips are from core elementalist. Same with Daredevil who got Warrior's Physical utilities. 

 

Thing is that Deadeye's Cantrips don't even work how Ele's does thematically or in gameplay. They're just in name, the Cantrips are just spells that work very closely with Deadeye's mechanics, in offensive, defensive and supportive ways. I guess thats also why they gave Mechanist the Elementalist due to Signets, when the obvious is Ranger due to the pet mechanic....

Edited July 8, 2022 by LyraOrpheo.8450

[Kodama.6453]

Holosmith is the Engineer/Warrior dual class.

Mechanist is the Engineer/Ranger one (how can anyone not see this?).

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

Devs have stated that Spellbreaker is their interpretation of Warrior/Mesmer. Also Berserker is Warrior/Elementalist.

 

[The Boz.2038]

Yo, that's some lazy work, OP.

[Kodama.6453]

On 7/9/2022 at 1:27 AM, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Devs have stated that Spellbreaker is their interpretation of Warrior/Mesmer. Also Berserker is Warrior/Elementalist.

 

Why are you booing him? He's right.

[Kodama.6453]

Ok, I made my own cross class chart for the elite specs: Tada

Now let me explain some of the "odd" choices. One major aspect for the dual classing system, which the Anet devs admitted to have used to design at least some elite specs (like spellbreaker being mentioned as a warrior/mesmer) is thematics.

A spellbreaker plays nothing like a mesmer. The important part is it's thematic and lore. A spellbreaker is a warrior who has trained to such a level that he is able to see through illusions and dispell them with the power of his will. And one thought process that has lead to this has been "how would a warrior do mesmer things".

Adopting this thought process, here are some explanations for some combinations which might seem strange at first:

• Holosmith: Warriors are weapon masters, so how would an engineer try to copy that? They create something that gives them access to any weapon they wish on a whim, the photon forge! Now they can have a sword, or staff, or hammer, or rifle... they have any weapon they could possibly need always available. Additionally, the heat system is imitating the adrenaline system of the warrior.
• Firebrand: I know, many people consider this the elementalist hybrid because of all the fire. But I think mesmer is more fitting. What is a firebrand? They are basically a skald, telling the stories of old historical battles to inspire their allies. Inspiration is an aspect of mesmers and they are also the class most associated with the arts, which this bibliophile story teller could easily fall into.
• Virtuoso: This one was the hardest for me to decide, I would love some imput from others about it. I put it into elementalist for now, since I thought that it's power to create matter through magic in form of blades kinda fits for an elementalist. But I could also see arguments to put this into warrior, tbh.
• Druid: I think that druids kinda thematically tap into the elemental magic with their celestial avatar. Elementalists are using their environment in magical ways (earth magic, water magic, air magic), druids do kinda the same, but on a cosmic scale.
• Soulbeast: Many people probably consider this the thief hybrid, because of the dagger. But honestly, it doesn't share alot with thieves when it comes to thematics. Meanwhile fusing with the spirit of your pet feels very much "revenant", who are also fusing with souls from the mist for their powers.

[The Boz.2038]

^this one is better, yeah

[Dadnir.5038]

I don't really agree with the various charts suggested. (not to say that I disagree with every single duo but there is always a few that I feel are out of place)

I believe it's a matter of point of view

For example I see scourge as a "necromancer/mesmer" since he got up to 3 proxy and 4 "shatters" like skills to exploit these proxy. I see Firebrand as a "guardian/elementalist" or "guardian/engineer" because he rely on conjured skillset/kits. I see virtuoso as a "mesmer/warrior" as it's shatters are now very similar to "bursts"... etc.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Dadnir.5038

[Kodama.6453]

26 minutes ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

I don't really agree with the various charts suggested. (not to say that I disagree with every single duo but there is always a few that I feel are out of place)

I believe it's a matter of point of view

For example I see scourge as a "necromancer/mesmer" since he got up to 3 proxy and 4 "shatters" like skills to exploit these proxy. I see Firebrand as a "guardian/elementalist" or "guardian/engineer" because he rely on conjured skillset/kits. I see virtuoso as a "mesmer/warrior" as it's shatters are now very similar to "bursts"... etc.

I can see what you mean.

Personally, I try to see the dual classing system from a thematic point of view, while it seems that you focus more on gameplay patterns.

Anet mentioned that spellbreaker is their version of the warrior/mesmer fusion, even if spellbreaker has very little in common with mesmer when it comes to gameplay (imo). The points they brought up why it is a mesmer fusion were mostly thematically.

"How would a warrior do mesmer stuff" was the leading question and their answer has been that a warrior would train really hard to be able to see through illusions and break them with their power and will.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Then I try to apply the same thought process to other specs. "How would x class do y class things".

Firebrand, thematically, is someone who inspires allies around them with heroic ancient tales. That feels very much like a mesmer thing to do for me, considering that mesmers are the class which can be associated with "arts".

Then there are classes where we both will absolutely agree, simply because they check both boxes, a similar gameplay and a fitting thematical fusion. Mechanist is a great example. It directly takes the pet mechanic from ranger (and improved it), so it is a gameplay fusion of these 2. But my leading thematical question also gets answered correctly.

How would an engineer do ranger things? Rangers befriend wild animals to fight at their side. Instead of befriending a wild creature, an engineer would simply BUILD their own companion and the jade mech is the result.

[Dadnir.5038]

20 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

How would an engineer do ranger things? Rangers befriend wild animals to fight at their side. Instead of befriending a wild creature, an engineer would simply BUILD their own companion and the jade mech is the result.

I'm not sure I totally agree. Thematically, I wouldn't give engineer a pet to make him do what rangers do. But, again, that's a difference of point of veiw. I do not see the ranger as someone that "befriend a wild creature" (or should I say that I do not perceive it as only doig that?), I see ranger as a character that love nature and is close to be "one" with it. And thematically I see many paths for an engineer to be closer to a ranger: as a trapper, a bioengineer with a focus on plants, an apothecary... etc.

Yet again, maybe I'm the one who's wrong and the way I'm picturing things is how a ranger would be closer to an engineer.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Dadnir.5038

[HowlKamui.5120]

The first thing you did wrong was not to block the center diagonal... The intersection of a mesmer, and a mesmer..... is a mesmer, not a "mystic". Which leads to the second thing... Your ideas arent ideas, but just... names.
 

Fun idea though, I expect you had fun doing it.

[Kodama.6453]

19 minutes ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

I'm not sure I totally agree. Thematically, I would give engineer a pet to make him do what rangers do. But, again, that's a difference of point of veiw. I do not see the ranger as someone that "befriend a wild creature" (or should I say that I do not perceive it as only doig that?), I see ranger as a character that love nature and is close to be "one" with it. And thematically I see many paths for an engineer to be closer to a ranger: as a trapper, a bioengineer with a focus on plants, an apothecary... etc. In fact I personally find that going the golem path doesn't really fit enough the ranger thematic (yet again, it's a matter of point of view).

Most classes have several thematics going for them. The thematical fusion I speak of usually then focuses on just some of these multiple aspects.

Engineer copies the beast master aspect of the ranger thematic, just that instead of taming a beast they build their own companion.

But there are ranger fusion classes which tap into other thematical aspects! Deadeye and dragonhunter are both using the hunter aspect of the ranger thematics, yet still in a slightly different way.

Deadeyes are mentioned in the lore to kill big beasts (hydras) from afar with their rifles. They are also working as head hunters in the desert. So they are using the hunter thematic with a focus on marksmanship.

Dragonhunters also hunt big time, but focus on the "big bad evil" of the world, the dragons. Instead of having an additional focus on marksmanship, they focus on the trapper aspects. They have their own traps infused with light and even their bow is used alot to keep the enemies in the traps through CC.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Or let's take a view on engineer fusions like harbinger and bladesworn (we both agree they are engineer fusions, right?).

Engineers also have multiple aspects you could draw from thematically. They are builders of mechanical devices (turets and gadgets). Wielders of advanced weaponry (kits). They are alchemists (elixirs).

Harbinger focuses primarily on the alchemist aspects of the engineers. Instead of just using chemicals and other stuff for their elixirs, necromancers started to infuse their own elixirs with magic to strengthen their effects.

A bladesworn draws from another aspect, the advanced weaponry. Now bladesworn have access to a very unique weapon, which is a fusion of a katana and a gun, the gunsaber. Very technology themed and combining 2 weapons with each other like that feels thematically very "engineer", yet bladesworn has very little to do with the alchemy thematic which harbinger taps into.

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Kodama.6453

[Dadnir.5038]

10 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

we both agree they are engineer fusions, right?

To be fair I'm not sure for harbinger. Beyond the elixirs it take nothing from the engineer and from my point of view, weapons and utility skills are superficials as they aren't things that you are forced to bear with. One could say that Harbinger is a "necromancer/ranger" or "necromancer/elementalist" whose shroud is corrupted by the ambiant blight that can be found in nature/local elements. So the harbinger would simply be a necromancer whose method bring him closer to a "nature spirit" than to a "death spirit" (it even give him an "aura" while in "spirit form").

On another hand I won't disagree with bladesworn, the gun saber itself being a product of technology.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Dadnir.5038

[Kodama.6453]

1 minute ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

To be fair I'm not sure for harbinger. Beyond the elixirs it take nothing from the engineer and from my point of view, weapons and utility skills are superficials as they aren't things that you are forced to bear with. One could say that Harbinger is a "necromancer/ranger" or "necromancer/elementalist" whose shroud is corrupted by the ambiant blight that can be found in nature/local elements. So the harbinger would simply be a necromancer whose method bring him closer to a "nature spirit" than to a "death spirit" (it even give him an "aura" while in "spirit form").

Fine, even if we exclude harbinger from the examples I made, the overall point still stands. The thematical fusion of classes doesn't try to grab ALL the thematical aspects of a class.

A ranger has multiple aspects for their thematics. Beast tamer, hunter, trapper, nature magic, etc. But a class which tries to go for the "how does this class do ranger things" doesn't need to tap into all of those.

In fact, trying to tap into too many aspects of another class would make it too messy and busy. It's better to pick just one of these themes and interpret it in the framework of the other class. And I think mechanist does exactly that, it is the beast tamer aspect of rangers interpreted through the lense of the engineer.

[Dadnir.5038]

6 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

Fine, even if we exclude harbinger from the examples I made, the overall point still stands. The thematical fusion of classes doesn't try to grab ALL the thematical aspects of a class.

A ranger has multiple aspects for their thematics. Beast tamer, hunter, trapper, nature magic, etc. But a class which tries to go for the "how does this class do ranger things" doesn't need to tap into all of those.

In fact, trying to tap into too many aspects of another class would make it too messy and busy. It's better to pick just one of these themes and interpret it in the framework of the other class. And I think mechanist does exactly that, it is the beast tamer aspect of rangers interpreted through the lense of the engineer.

But I don't disagree with what you say, it's just that based on the point of view and what each focus on, the conclusion and understanding can be different. Only the creator of the e-specs can say for sure what their true intent was and I don't have much hope that our curiosity will ever be sated. (A bit of mystery is a good way to keep people interested)

[Xaylin.1860]

53 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

Firebrand, thematically, is someone who inspires allies around them with heroic ancient tales. That feels very much like a mesmer thing to do for me, considering that mesmers are the class which can be associated with "arts".

Well, Guardian itself inspires allies by default... From a thematic point of view, you could also argue that Tomes are the way of Guardians to attune to history with F1 being comparable to fire, F2 to Water and F3 to Earth. To me, it is more about the intentions of each Tomes theme rather than the art of story telling. I'm inclined to see FB as Elementalist hybrid just like Dadnir. 

Still, there clearly is merit to different views on e-specs. And there are also blurred lines between them.  I think in some cases more than one class could be associated with an e-spec while others are pretty obvious, at least to me (e.g. Spellbreaker and Mirage).

[Kodama.6453]

12 minutes ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

But I don't disagree with what you say, it's just that based on the point of view and what each focus on, the conclusion and understanding can be different. Only the creator of the e-specs can say for sure what their true intent was and I don't have much hope that our curiosity will ever be sated. (A bit of mystery is a good way to keep people interested)

Very true, how we interpret different elite specs can vary alot from the perspective and what we focus the analysis on. I don't claim that what I presented is an absolute truth, I just provided an explanation why I interpreted the specs in the way I did with my thematical approach to the elite specs.

Also there is still the factor that not every elite spec needs to have been designed as a fusion of classes in the first place. We know that some specs are designed that way (spellbreaker being mentioned directly), but that doesn't guarantee that they all are.

8 minutes ago, Xaylin.1860 said:

Well, Guardian itself inspires allies by default... From a thematic point of view, you could also argue that Tomes are the way of Guardians to attune to history with F1 being comparable to fire, F2 to Water and F3 to Earth. To me, it is more about the intentions of each Tomes theme rather than the art of story telling. I'm inclined to see FB as Elementalist hybrid just like Dadnir. 

Still, there clearly is merit to different views on e-specs. And there are also blurred lines between them.  I think in some cases more than one class could be associated with an e-spec while others are pretty obvious, at least to me (e.g. Spellbreaker and Mirage).

Also a very legit interpretation, I won't deny that. I was just explaining why I personally have chosen to see it as the mesmer fusion because of the thematical aspect of story telling, but that is no absolute truth.

And a fair point about the blurred lines vs obvious specs. I had a really hard time to pin down specs like renegade or virtuoso down as a class fusion, meanwhile some specs like mirage or mechanist were just extremely obvious for me.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Kodama.6453

[Lincolnbeard.1735]

ANet already said elite specs are professions viewed from the scope of others, so this is nothing new. 

As for your table a lot of stuff doesn't make sense. 

[Angesombre.4630]

If the vindicator is revenant and thief they forgot the DPS side.