if no new elites...

[fenrir.4532]

Sadly for ranger that they receive a really kitten and useless untamed. The most lazier elite design I have seen, not even in wow i saw that. I hope One day the create that one from scratch, but actually i don't think so.

[draxynnic.3719]

On 6/8/2023 at 5:01 PM, Raarsi.6798 said:

IF for some odd reason that ANet decided that we need a 10th profession, it helps to bear in mind that each profession draws from a unique power source.  Warrior draws from raw personal power, guardian draws from light & morality, revenant draws from the mists, ranger draws from nature, engineer draws from technology, thief draws from shadows and subterfuge, necromancer draws from the undead, elementalists draw from the four classic elements, and mesmers draw from illusion.

I don't think it's actually that clear-cut. A lot of thief abilities, for instance, feel like they're essentially mesmer-light, except that they've focused on the teleportation and stealth side of things in order to support an agility-based fighting style using conventional weapons, while mesmers have focused more on developing a full understanding of the magic. A similar relationship could be drawn between elementalist and ranger, which summons elemental spirits, sets traps that invoke elemental powers, and invoking the elements for some weapon attacks and utility skills, but also emphasising martial skills and affinities with plants and animals. Are they really that different, or are they both drawing from the natural world but focusing on different aspects?

Or to look at professions between games: if you ignore the trees for the forest, revenant and ritualist both draw from "the mists". But despite what some people seem to think, they're not the same. Revenants are martially oriented and, while they have some ability to employ the energies of the Mists directly, most of their power comes from tapping into reflections of powerful entities and copying their powers by channelling those reflections through their own bodies. Ritualists, on the other hand, take a more scholarly and independent approach, focusing more on mastering the energies of the Mists directly themselves and on summoning weaker spirits that are bound to items or locations rather than the ritualist's own body.

So, theoretically at least, there is space for two professions to share a power source, as long as they take different approaches with them (often including a split between a martial approach supported by magic and a more magical approach). The bigger issue is that with the introduction of elite specialisations, a lot of these distinctions can be, and in many cases have been, achieved through elite specialisations instead. But I could see cases where it might be better to achieve such distinctions through a new profession rather than an elite specialisation of an existing profession, due to the existing profession's mechanics being incompatible with what they're trying to do.

[Raarsi.6798]

11 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

I don't think it's actually that clear-cut.

Except it usually is in games.  Yes, you can pick at things like the differences between mesmers using magic vs. thieves making someone think they're using magic (how ninja made their reputation, and specter being the sole exception to the rule) or the debate when it comes to the use of natural powers between elementalist and ranger when the general perspective tends to separate the concept of elemental forces from aspects commonly associated with "nature" themes (see WoW: druid vs. shaman).

At the end of the day, GW2 seems to have strived for that clear-cut distinction as a means of distinguishing professions, moreso than most other games.  Ultimately, you can nitpick all you want, but if it's not genuinely different enough to the point where you could see an ability and think "oh, it's from that new profession" without knowing about it, then it may as well be subsumed into a current profession like all the other ideas from GW1 so far.

[Batalix.2873]

My two second ide: Weaponless armor-based class:

Monk

Light armor - Chanter - bard/dancer support, maybe some enemy charm/control features and some ranged spells

Medium armor - Brawler - Monk/Swashbuckler type, melee DPS

Heavy armor - Sentinel - shieldy tank/tactician with group support and a lot of movement and warding options. Maybe some additional flavor.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[draxynnic.3719]

2 hours ago, Raarsi.6798 said:

Except it usually is in games.  Yes, you can pick at things like the differences between mesmers using magic vs. thieves making someone think they're using magic (how ninja made their reputation, and specter being the sole exception to the rule) or the debate when it comes to the use of natural powers between elementalist and ranger when the general perspective tends to separate the concept of elemental forces from aspects commonly associated with "nature" themes (see WoW: druid vs. shaman).

At the end of the day, GW2 seems to have strived for that clear-cut distinction as a means of distinguishing professions, moreso than most other games.  Ultimately, you can nitpick all you want, but if it's not genuinely different enough to the point where you could see an ability and think "oh, it's from that new profession" without knowing about it, then it may as well be subsumed into a current profession like all the other ideas from GW1 so far.

Except that it usually isn't in games. Just to go with the most obvious and common examples, paladin and cleric (or equivalents such as priest) are usually both drawing from the holy/divine source, while ranger (or equivalents such as hunter) and druid are usually both based on the nature source. D&D 4E aimed for 4-5 classes per source, each interpreting it differently.

Your list is also pretty fallacious in that it presents the professions as incredibly narrow in order to remove the massive overlaps that are there if you look at the entire professions. Thief, despite your claim, always had magic - ArenaNet has said so (indirectly, in that they've said that all professions use magic to some degree except engineers, and engineers use it in their technology). If something looks like it's using magic in GW2 - such as teleporting, putting up a field that stealths allies, or the preparations that create a portal or bubble - it's probably magic. And most such abilities that you find on thief you also find on mesmer, which is far more than just 'illusions'. Mesmer is a broad spread of capabilities that is difficult to define in a single word but which based on the terms used by other games can probably be best defined as 'arcane'.

Necromancer, meanwhile, is (also) far more than just 'undead'. In fact, it's possible to make necromancer builds that don't use undead. It's death magic in general. But when stated that way, it starts to overlap with ritualist and revenant. In GW1, you could separate them by saying that necromancer deals with death in Tyria while ritualist deals with the afterlife and spirits, but GW2 erased that line.

You say that skills would have to be immediately recognisable as coming from a new profession, but to present a counter-example: when a bubble goes up, is that coming from a mesmer, guardian, thief, engineer, revenant, spellbreaker, or untamed? There are a few technical differences, such as whether they reflect or whether they can be moved, but the difference is usually graphical. Not to mention that elementalist and necromancer get their own projectile destruction that aren't bubbles, but are still doing effectively the same thing. And that's just one of many examples where the main difference between skills is graphical, and often the main method of recognition is simply colour. Purple? Mesmer. Indigo? Thief. Blue? Guardian. Green? Mechanist. Gold? Spellbreaker. Don't get me wrong, these do have graphical differences that aren't just colour, but if the Feedback bubble was blue instead people would probably think it was from a guardian.

The biggest argument against new professions that overlap in theme or source is that often the same effect can be done with an elite specialisation... but not if they stop making those. I think there are also some themes that cannot be achieved by elite specialisations because the core profession mechanics of the existing profession of the same source are just too different. You can't make ritualist by just slapping a ritualist-like legend on revenant (they tried). Elementalist is so committed to the attunement mechanic that any concept that uses elemental magic that isn't built around swapping between them cannot be built on the elementalist chassis (hello ranger).

Or, of course, one could do what you did and define the sources so narrowly that the space is there. Revenant's power source isn't the Mists, it's legends. Ritualist is spirits. Maybe if we thought hard enough about it, there'd be a space for another profession that uses the Mists in some capacity that isn't legends or spirits.

[Lionfernot.8650]

I want hammer and bow Mesmer.