Expanded Weapon Proficiencies: Dual-Wielding Mace Ranger

[Elricht Kaltwind.8796]

16 minutes ago, ChronoPinoyX.7923 said:

Since when?

Literally from GW2's website what part does it say "Hunter"?

Since it has a good number of skills, traits, mechanics etc that refer to hunting explicitly or thematically.

[ChronoPinoyX.7923]

Just now, Elricht Kaltwind.8796 said:

Since it has a good number of skills, traits, mechanics etc that refer to hunting explicitly or thematically.

So basically every profession is a hunter because they all have traits that even remotely references hunting... 

[Elricht Kaltwind.8796]

1 minute ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Arenanet has defined ranger more by being close to nature, and in fantasy settings where 'nature' has a magical presence (such as, say, there being some variety of nature spirit that close-to-nature characters can invoke), there's often a tension between maintaining a good relationship with that spirit or those spirits, and using weapons that are overly technological in nature. There's also a bit of a tension between using weapons where replacement ammunition can be reasonably easily fashioned in the wild, and those that can't.

Now, I'm not saying 'no rifle ever', but they have established a reason why, in their setting, it's not an obvious choice. There's also not a clear function for it - outside of filling modern hunter fantasy - for it. It would likely behave very similar to what longbow already does. In the real world, everyone switched to guns because after technology had developed beyond a certain point they were just better... but in Tyria, magically augmented bows are able to keep up, at least so far.

I honestly feel bad arguing against this since typically, I would be able to appreciate very much what you're saying. But in this world, rifles don't even use ammunition, not just as a gameplay mechanic but also as lore. They're operated magically. Rifles are not necessarily any more mechanical / less magical than a staff is.

[Elricht Kaltwind.8796]

1 minute ago, ChronoPinoyX.7923 said:

So basically every profession is a hunter because they all have traits that even remotely references hunting... 

Except they don't lmao

Traps, using animals as a weapon, Hunter's Gaze, Hunter's Shot, wilderness survival, the name itself, etc. The only other class with explicit hunting references is Dragonhunter and they can't even use rifles either.

[Oahkahmewolf.6210]

31 minutes ago, Elricht Kaltwind.8796 said:

The (core) ranger thematically is a hunter. That's the theme. A firearm is as in-tune with nature as a greatsword or a mace is, particularly a rifle, which is the implement used more than any other by hunters — people who by definition spend a lot of time in nature — not to mention actual, IRL rangers. I can't imagine any possible explanation for why rangers still can't use the primary weapon of a hunter archetype other than they said 12 years ago that they chose not to give us rifle because of basically aesthetic reasons and now they have to stand by that for some unexplainable reason. 

My ranger's aesthetic is a 17th-century noble hunter. I use a bloodhound and traps to hunt my enemies. This fits both the class and the world to a tee, and I'm puzzled by why anyone feels otherwise. To make things even more ironic, not a single one of the classes that does have access to rifle is thematically suited to a hunter theme. The game has hunters and rifles yet it's impossible to be a hunter with a rifle.

Personally I'm not opposed to rifle ranger to decent extent there is alot of truth about ranger both in real and fantasy setting, how would you as person develop a rifle to be unique in a game in guild wars 2 that both has its own identity compared to the rest of the weapon selection, that isn't similar or copy pasta from another class and how would you differentiate it role to something like Longbow? There has to be a unique idea that sprawls out of a designers mind when it comes to introducing a weapon that isn't clichéd or copy/similar to other game.

That what I personally think ANET is trying to avoid, and haven't figured out what would make rifle different.

Example i can simply give you is something like Mesmer and it's greatsword, I can go on list of uniqueness of it design as a greatsword and its honestly looks pretty fun to play. it being a beam weapon that can spawn raging clones that spin to win at you.

That is the point of direction I am coming from,  as stated before I feel ANET is trying to make ranger very nature and primitive like, not only by archetype or thematic but with the philosophy of one solely relying on the resources of nature, being attuned with nature and utilizing primitive/spiritual magic way to solve problems. A gun isn't primitive, and its definitively not easy to maintain in the wilderness, resources would be difficult if not nearly impossible to acquire unless your going to get batshit and mix it with crap to get gunpowder, then you have to ether use lead or stone bullets..... stone bullets aren't reliable.

At the end of the day, If they do introduce a Rifle to ranger at some point it better be condition based weapon.

[Elricht Kaltwind.8796]

1 minute ago, Oahkahmewolf.6210 said:

Personally I'm not opposed to rifle ranger to decent extent there is alot of truth about ranger both in real and fantasy setting, how would you as person develop a rifle to be unique in a game in guild wars 2 that both has its own identity compared to the rest of the weapon selection, that isn't similar or copy pasta from another class and how would you differentiate it role to something like Longbow? There has to be a unique idea that sprawls out of a designers mind when it comes to introducing a weapon that isn't clichéd or copy/similar to other game.

That what I personally think ANET is trying to avoid, and haven't figured out what would make rifle different.

Example i can simply give you is something like Mesmer and it's greatsword, I can go on list of uniqueness of it design as a greatsword and its honestly looks pretty fun to play. it being a beam weapon that can spawn raging clones that spin to win at you.

That is the point of direction I am coming from,  as stated before I feel ANET is trying to make ranger very nature and primitive like, not only by archetype or thematic but with the philosophy of one solely relying on the resources of nature, being attuned with nature and utilizing primitive/spiritual magic way to solve problems. A gun isn't primitive, and its definitively not easy to maintain in the wilderness, resources would be difficult if not nearly impossible to acquire unless your going to get batshit and mix it with crap to get gunpowder, then you have to ether use lead or stone bullets..... stone bullets aren't reliable.

At the end of the day, If they do introduce a Rifle to ranger at some point it better be condition based weapon.

Exactly, I would definitely start by making it a condition-focused weapon. I would make it shorter range than the bows. Then I would give it different loads, like you would use in actual hunting. You could have one load that does a big AoE, one that does dazing, one that makes your pet teleport to the target (player if soulbeast), maybe one that ignores barrier or something. Add lots of bleeds and cripple on top of everything. I think the key would be to give it some cool mechanics that haven't been done yet, like a reload mechanic after using all the ammunition in a load. Something like that. There's endless things you could do with it.

[Oahkahmewolf.6210]

4 minutes ago, Elricht Kaltwind.8796 said:

Exactly, I would definitely start by making it a condition-focused weapon. I would make it shorter range than the bows. Then I would give it different loads, like you would use in actual hunting. You could have one load that does a big AoE, one that does dazing, one that makes your pet teleport to the target (player if soulbeast), maybe one that ignores barrier or something. Add lots of bleeds and cripple on top of everything. I think the key would be to give it some cool mechanics that haven't been done yet, like a reload mechanic after using all the ammunition in a load. Something like that. There's endless things you could do with it.

I'd honestly focus on the now of things than just trying to conceptualize, the best ways to get ANET attention imo just constantly make a seperate topic about rifle, put your idea there so that way when they see it they can probably glance, save/archive the topic for themselves and use it as reference. Regardless I am currently eager to try Mace as it fulfill some of the lacking things rangers were missing.

Something completely defensive, and a main hand that design for supporting.

[ChronoPinoyX.7923]

3 minutes ago, Elricht Kaltwind.8796 said:

Except they don't lmao

Traps, using animals as a weapon, Hunter's Gaze, Hunter's Shot, wilderness survival, the name itself, etc. The only other class with explicit hunting references is Dragonhunter and they can't even use rifles either.

Having a few skills with the word "Hunter" on it doesn't make it a hunter, that's not how a theme works. If we followed that logic then every profession would still be a hunter, a hunter is merely someone who seeks and kills creatures as part of their activity, the means can be whatever they want. An engineer's toolkit is just as viable for hunting, same with mesmers and their illusions and Revenants with their Legendary Stances.

That said, since one key element of Weapon Proficiency is to do away with E-Spec limitations, they can make Rifle Ranger fit with any of the existing E-Specs so long as the skills can fit the theme. In the case of Dual Mace, they're maintaining the whole "Power of Nature Heals" thing. Dunno how they'd do Rifle but it can be done 

[Elricht Kaltwind.8796]

1 minute ago, ChronoPinoyX.7923 said:

Having a few skills with the word "Hunter" on it doesn't make it a hunter, that's not how a theme works. If we followed that logic then every profession would still be a hunter, a hunter is merely someone who seeks and kills creatures as part of their activity, the means can be whatever they want. An engineer's toolkit is just as viable for hunting, same with mesmers and their illusions and Revenants with their Legendary Stances.

That said, since one key element of Weapon Proficiency is to do away with E-Spec limitations, they can make Rifle Ranger fit with any of the existing E-Specs so long as the skills can fit the theme. In the case of Dual Mace, they're maintaining the whole "Power of Nature Heals" thing. Dunno how they'd do Rifle but it can be done 

Aight, the fact that you literally have to straight-up pretend that hunter isn't a major theme present in the game's core ranger class says a lot about how disingenuous your position is.

[ChronoPinoyX.7923]

Just now, Elricht Kaltwind.8796 said:

Aight, the fact that you literally have to straight-up pretend that hunter isn't a major theme present in the game's core ranger class says a lot about how disingenuous your position is.

I just know exactly what ANet is making in terms of their core theme for Ranger. I'm not being disingenuous, I'm going by what the creators of the game are going with, I'm not shoehorning my personal take on a profession they built up lel

[Elricht Kaltwind.8796]

20 minutes ago, Oahkahmewolf.6210 said:

I'd honestly focus on the now of things than just trying to conceptualize, the best ways to get ANET attention imo just constantly make a seperate topic about rifle, put your idea there so that way when they see it they can probably glance, save/archive the topic for themselves and use it as reference. Regardless I am currently eager to try Mace as it fulfill some of the lacking things rangers were missing.

Something completely defensive, and a main hand that design for supporting.

Don't get me wrong I'm 100% in favour of all new weapons we get, I'm stoked for mace as hammer has surprisingly become my secondary weapon since weaponmaster, I'm glad for everything we get. It was never my intention to say that I dislike mace, I was only saying that I kind of can't believe we got even mace, which has nothing to do with nature or hunting, before rifle.

[kiwituatara.6053]

Move on guys. The mace looks interesting, forget the imaginary rifle.

My current expectations for mace is 7/10.

•  skills and the new 6 stack mechanic that refreshes CD, increase outgoing damage/heals, and stability is really cool, just wondering if only the 2 skills mentioned gives stacks
•  skill aesthetics and animations seems quite bland and boring. Low style points

Was hoping to get earth themed ground-breaking condi maces, but this is a nice surprise as well. Reminds me a bit of dredges though.

[Eekasqueak.7850]

2 hours ago, kiwituatara.6053 said:

Was hoping to get earth themed ground-breaking condi maces, but this is a nice surprise as well. Reminds me a bit of dredges though.

I did see a skill that seemed to be slamming the ground and making cracks in it though.

[draxynnic.3719]

3 hours ago, Elricht Kaltwind.8796 said:

I honestly feel bad arguing against this since typically, I would be able to appreciate very much what you're saying. But in this world, rifles don't even use ammunition, not just as a gameplay mechanic but also as lore. They're operated magically. Rifles are not necessarily any more mechanical / less magical than a staff is.

Sure, the game doesn't make you track every arrow or bullet fired (or axe thrown...), but that's gameplay/lore segregation at work. It's still assumed that characters with ammunition-using weapons would have some downtime in which they'd acquire or fashion new ammunition, we just don't see that in-game because it would be even less interesting than crafting already is. And I don't think anyone pushing for ranger rifle is visualising a magical staff that happens to have a stock.

At which we get to the situation where arrows are a lot easier to replace in the wild than bullets. You don't need gunpowder for arrows. Everything you need to fashion new arrows can be found in the wild (it does help if you are able to recover arrowheads, but a stone arrowhead will serve in a pinch). Heck, even bows can be replaced from natural materials in a pinch. Rangers are probably the profession that's most likely to spend long periods out in the wilderness where being able to independently resupply yourself is important.

Doesn't mean that every ranger does this, but self-sufficiency fits the theme.

Ultimately, the important thing was probably that ArenaNet saw a specific gap in ranger capabilities that they wanted to fill, and mace/mace was the best way they saw to fill that gap. Pro-rifle arguments tend to start with the premise of "I want rifle", followed by trying to imagine a role for it. Now, "I want rifle" is a valid argument, it just might not be as strong as "We've identified this specific weakness ranger has, and we've come up with these skill ideas that would fill it, and the weapon that would make the most sense with these skills would be -----"

3 hours ago, Elricht Kaltwind.8796 said:

 I was only saying that I kind of can't believe we got even mace, which has nothing to do with nature or hunting, before rifle.

If you think specifically of metal maces used in armoured warfare, perhaps...

...but the 'mace' category covers every one-handed blunt implement (there are even some 'mace' skins that are really hammers). There are a lot of weapons used by pre-metalworking cultures formed from natural materials that would be classified as maces in GW2.

[Frozey.8513]

8 hours ago, Oahkahmewolf.6210 said:

 

depending on how you view ranger, generally speaking the way ANET design ranger was to be attuned with nature and that can be seen in anyway. Archetype wise and thematic wise, a ranger generally live and make use of the wild, fashion tools with wood or some other material in the environment. There's a reason why Dagger, Axes and even swords make sense for a ranger to have in the wild. Its a handy tool that helps cut, shave and carve material into things you need. A mace is a club, like a hammer that can smack and wack things in the ground, break thing apart easily.

Being a ranger doesn't mean you exclusively use range weapons, you have the option but you don't live up to the literal definition of the name of the class.

So its a pretty Ranger thing to have and  that is not an opinion.

GW2 took Ranger, an original GW1 class, towards a very different direction than it was in the original game. In GW1 as Ranger your main weapon proficiency allowed you to achieve higher results with bows than any other class, making Ranger the king of physical ranged combat. And you even had 4 different kinds of bows to choose from. Back then you neither had to have pet around, as it was rather something you could choose to do investing points into beast mastery. Now Ranger getting maces in GW2 is, alas, another sign of how developers are disregarding the original design of Ranger in Guild Wars by slowly redesigning it towards a druid or shaman archetype.

All of this is ultimately the reason why Ranger is drifting into something that is very different than it was originally intended to be, and it makes a lot of original Guild Wars players infuriated with how the Ranger is getting pushed away from being the physical ranged class it was always meant to be.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Frozey.8513

[kiwituatara.6053]

1 hour ago, Eekasqueak.7850 said:

I did see a skill that seemed to be slamming the ground and making cracks in it though.

I’d be pleasantly surprised if they’re giving us a support kit that also does condi dmg though. I’m quite satisfied with the mace preview right now.  Honestly, the stacking mechanic of mace feels more elite spec than soulbeast and untamed… those elite specs feel more like ranger bandaids

[Serephen.3420]

9 hours ago, Flapjackson.1596 said:

Another unique stacking buff. 
 

Adding a mechanic to a weapon is interesting, and I hope that doesn’t backfire, but I can’t support adding more bloat to an already messy boon bar.

Can we get proper UI customization some point this lifetime before we pile more on? GW2’s resistance to adjustable UI with its myriad of boons, dozens of non-combat buffs, and dancing buff positioning is frankly absurd.

Worried it could get gutted like hammer was for catalyst 🥲 stacking buffs tend to lead to that even if they carry the weapon.

[draxynnic.3719]

13 minutes ago, Frozey.8513 said:

GW2 took Ranger, an original GW1 class, towards a very different direction than it was in the original game. In GW1 as Ranger your main weapon proficiency allowed you to achieve higher results with bows than any other class, making Ranger the king of physical ranged combat. And you even had 4 different kinds of bows to choose from. Back then you neither had to have pet around, as it was rather something you could choose to do investing points into beast mastery. Now Ranger getting maces in GW2 is, alas, another sign of how developers are disregarding the original design of Ranger in Guild Wars by slowly redesigning it towards a druid or shaman archetype.

All of this is ultimately the reason why Ranger is drifting into something that is very different than it was originally intended to be, and it makes a lot of original Guild Wars players infuriated with how the Ranger is getting pushed away from being the physical ranged class it was always meant to be.

So, how many ranger builds did YOU see using rifle in GW1?

Ranger already has both bows, which is what they were known for in GW1. I think they're the only profession that uses both bows, in fact (rev and the other adventurers have shortbow, soldiers apart from rev have longbow, and scholars don't have bows). That archetype is covered. More broadly, ranger is currently equal first when it comes to the variety of ranged options available (mesmer is probably going to pull ahead with rifle) - having four ranged autoattack-capable options, even if one is support-oriented, is a luxury that, currently, only mesmer, necromancer, and thief share.

More broadly, profession design in GW2 is different. It was a selling point, in fact. GW1 professions were designed to be fairly narrow, on the principle that you used the dual-profession system to make a more well-rounded character. Melee rangers absolutely existed in GW1, they were just R/Ws or R/As or R/Ds, using Expertise to receive discounts on attack skills that cost energy. Meanwhile, at least in theory, the more 'druidic' or 'shaman' style could be achieved by combining ranger with a spellcasting profession. 

GW2 did away with secondary professions in exchange for making the professions broader and more versatile to begin with. Rangers aren't just archers - they can also be melee fighters at home in the wilderness like Aragorn or Driz'zt, and they can be wardens of the wilderness that don't just understand survival, but can draw on the powers of nature as well. D&D rangers didn't even have anything special to support ranged combat, at least in core rules, until 3.5... but they did have nature magic, dual wielding, and the ability to befriend animals.

Since there is no secondary profession, that range of themes that ranger can draw from has to come entirely from, well, the ranger profession itself. They recognised the past and got the archery theme in early - so it makes sense that later additions will explore other themes. But unlike elementalist, they managed to do so in a manner where the additional themes represent additional options rather than eclipsing the core fantasy. I don't think there's ever been a time when bows have completely left the ranger meta.

As for pets - having to balance between pets being present and not present was a PITA in GW1 by all reports, so I think the intention was to balance ranger with the pets, and that other professions would offer similar playstyles without the pet. Soulbeast seems to be their approach for people who really want to have the ranger skills without having to deal with a pet, but it does so by essentially giving the pet's skills and damage to the player directly. 

[Frozey.8513]

23 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

So, how many ranger builds did YOU see using rifle in GW1?

Ranger already has both bows, which is what they were known for in GW1. I think they're the only profession that uses both bows, in fact (rev and the other adventurers have shortbow, soldiers apart from rev have longbow, and scholars don't have bows). That archetype is covered. More broadly, ranger is currently equal first when it comes to the variety of ranged options available (mesmer is probably going to pull ahead with rifle) - having four ranged autoattack-capable options, even if one is support-oriented, is a luxury that, currently, only mesmer, necromancer, and thief share.

More broadly, profession design in GW2 is different. It was a selling point, in fact. GW1 professions were designed to be fairly narrow, on the principle that you used the dual-profession system to make a more well-rounded character. Melee rangers absolutely existed in GW1, they were just R/Ws or R/As or R/Ds, using Expertise to receive discounts on attack skills that cost energy. Meanwhile, at least in theory, the more 'druidic' or 'shaman' style could be achieved by combining ranger with a spellcasting profession. 

GW2 did away with secondary professions in exchange for making the professions broader and more versatile to begin with. Rangers aren't just archers - they can also be melee fighters at home in the wilderness like Aragorn or Driz'zt, and they can be wardens of the wilderness that don't just understand survival, but can draw on the powers of nature as well. D&D rangers didn't even have anything special to support ranged combat, at least in core rules, until 3.5... but they did have nature magic, dual wielding, and the ability to befriend animals.

Since there is no secondary profession, that range of themes that ranger can draw from has to come entirely from, well, the ranger profession itself. They recognised the past and got the archery theme in early - so it makes sense that later additions will explore other themes. But unlike elementalist, they managed to do so in a manner where the additional themes represent additional options rather than eclipsing the core fantasy. I don't think there's ever been a time when bows have completely left the ranger meta.

As for pets - having to balance between pets being present and not present was a PITA in GW1 by all reports, so I think the intention was to balance ranger with the pets, and that other professions would offer similar playstyles without the pet. Soulbeast seems to be their approach for people who really want to have the ranger skills without having to deal with a pet, but it does so by essentially giving the pet's skills and damage to the player directly. 

>how many ranger builds did YOU see using rifle in GW1?
None because the weapon didn't exist as Guild Wars is high fantasy game, rather than Guild Wars 2 which is set on fantasy/steampunk setting.

>melee rangers absolutely existed in GW1.
They did, however they were a small niche while 90%+ of the Rangers opted for bow. You could also pick bow on other classes, but you could never use it to an extent that Rangers could.

>D&D rangers didn't even have anything special to support ranged combat.
D&D Rangers are not Guild Wars Rangers.

>intention was to balance ranger with the pets.
What ever reason was, it was weird to force it on the physical ranged class as it started to drive the class further away from the original Ranger design. 
 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Frozey.8513

[Nuldric.1239]

9 hours ago, Elricht Kaltwind.8796 said:

The (core) ranger thematically is a hunter. That's the theme. A firearm is as in-tune with nature as a greatsword or a mace is, particularly a rifle, which is the implement used more than any other by hunters — people who by definition spend a lot of time in nature — not to mention actual, IRL rangers. I can't imagine any possible explanation for why rangers still can't use the primary weapon of a hunter archetype other than they said 12 years ago that they chose not to give us rifle because of basically aesthetic reasons and now they have to stand by that for some unexplainable reason. 

My ranger's aesthetic is a 17th-century noble hunter. I use a bloodhound and traps to hunt my enemies. This fits both the class and the world to a tee, and I'm puzzled by why anyone feels otherwise. To make things even more ironic, not a single one of the classes that does have access to rifle is thematically suited to a hunter theme. The game has hunters and rifles yet it's impossible to be a hunter with a rifle.

GW2 Rangers are nature tenders and rifle/pistol is the most unnatural weapon.

Think of a mace as a cavemen's club, cavemen were hunters, they used clubs to hunt millennia before bow or rifle were inveted. So I don't see why mace/club is so off for, as you said, "hunter" class? 

They may not fit your 17th century hunter role, but they'll surely fit my giant Norn savage/beastmaster/brawler Untamed ranger.

[Frozey.8513]

7 minutes ago, Nuldric.1239 said:

GW2 Rangers are nature tenders and rifle/pistol is the most unnatural weapon.

Think of a mace as a cavemen's club, cavemen were hunters, they used clubs to hunt millennia before bow or rifle were inveted. So I don't see why mace/club is so off for, as you said, "hunter" class? 

They may not fit your 17th century hunter role, but they'll surely fit my giant Norn savage/beastmaster/brawler Untamed ranger.

If Ranger is supposed to avoid unnatural weapon, then what are we doing with Sword or Greatsword? Those are literally only designed to kill other humans, and have nothing to do with surviving in the wilderness. Same argument applies to Maces and Hammers too, cause undoubtedly they are not hunting weapons even for cavemen as spears would have been their weapon of choice.

[Nuldric.1239]

3 minutes ago, Frozey.8513 said:

If Ranger is supposed to avoid unnatural weapon, then what are we doing with Sword or Greatsword? Those are literally only designed to kill other humans, and have nothing to do with surviving in the wilderness. Same argument applies to Maces and Hammers too, cause undoubtedly they are not hunting weapons even for cavemen as spears would have been their weapon of choice.

Rifle is technically more advanced than any sword (sharp metal stick), in rl rifle is an engineering product and since in game we can use spear only underwater, it can't be a weapon of choice for new weapon proficiency. I agree that in rl it is logical to use weapon with longest range and your cunning to be safe from animal's fangs and claws, in fantasy setting you can fight beast with brute strength face to face. 

[Dadnir.5038]

Even thought the thread is about the upcoming Mace/Mace skillset, the rifle crew is relentless...

First of all, let's keep in mind that what's shown in a promotion video don't necessarily translate in what we end up getting. (For the skeptical one, you can go look at the older promotion videos and compare them to what you currently have.)

Now, what I see from the video. A slow AA typical of the maces skillsets of the game (it's gonna be frustrating) and skills that look like they've been taken from the sword skillset. I must say that it douse my expectations. Still, the leap powercreep seem to bring out a lot of potential from a competitive point of view.

Just now, Frozey.8513 said:

If Ranger is supposed to avoid unnatural weapon, then what are we doing with Sword or Greatsword?

The ranger isn't supposed to avoid "unnatural weapons" but "technological weapons". Else they wouldn't even have bows. You can carve a sword/GS out of a piece of wood with a stone afterall.

That said, I do think there is room for both pistol and rifle in the futur. After all, they could be used to thow various kind of seeds to your foes (exploding seeds, parasiting seed that torment foes like warrior's sword off hand skill impale, Seeds blooming into a plant fence to block/trip foes... the possibilities within the thematic have a lot of potential). And, if the issue is gun powder, they can easily cheat and say that the gun are airgun or magicgun. It's just not for this round of new weaponsets.

[Frozey.8513]

Just now, Nuldric.1239 said:

Rifle is technically more advanced than any sword (sharp metal stick), in rl rifle is an engineering product and since in game we can use spear only underwater, it can't be a weapon of choice for new weapon proficiency. I agree that in rl it is logical to use weapon with longest range and your cunning to be safe from animal's fangs and claws, in fantasy setting you can fight beast with brute strength face to face. 

If real life logic doesn't apply due to it being a fantasy game, surely it invalidates nature connections too from keeping Ranger having rifle. Besides it's not like Rangers are some sort of boomers samurai who refuse to use gunpowder weapons out of principle. 

 

3 minutes ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

The ranger isn't supposed to avoid "unnatural weapons" but "technological weapons". Else they wouldn't even have bows. You can carve a sword/GS out of a piece of wood with a stone afterall.

Again, Rangers aren't boomers refusing to utilize latest technology. If literal Walking Salads can be Engineers, then surely Rangers can also be allowed to use guns.

[Silvoshipnos.2089]

I find it really weird that maces are coming into the game with its own nature's strength and force of nature, particularly considering that the force of nature seems like a remake of the active effects of signet of the wild. It would be nice if you could get traits that interacted with the mechanic, some of the ranger traits and lines could use a rework.

It's funny that the maces seem to have had more effort put into them than the entirety of the untamed did in the first place.