Why are Rangers a melee profession? -.-

[Levetty.1279]

10 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

And nobody said rangers -or aragorn- don't have or shouldn't have bows, your response was irrelevant to anything anyone said.

Except the post I was responding to literally did. Please learn how to read and stop insulting people.

[Axelteas.7192]

Anet have the nonsense logic since day one that ranged weapons dont deserve to do more DPS than melee, because melees are more exposed to die.

Stupid logic and arguments because in other mmos there are backline ranged glass cannons like mages that cast powerful fireballs, and archers that shot powerful arrows...

[Gotejjeken.1267]

4 hours ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

Nope, it was to the point that we had 8 rangers in a raid along with a mesmer and a banner slave. Spotter had nothing to do with this "meta".

Seems to make no sense in HoT when all that was available for ranger was Druid--and no one needs 8 supports.   Especially when Tempest also came out then and were fighting for raid slots with them in the support category.  

Spotter used to give precision and from what I remember ranger was pretty much only taken in raid groups for that (to help other classes critcap) / healing druid could output, not sure how shortbow played into that when no significant changes have been done to it since the range nerf in 2013.  

If shorttbow was meta, it seems like Skrimish/Nature Magic/Druid or something would have been meta for a bit with shortbow because  spotter got moved from marks to skirmishing right before HoT, so you could take it and the shortbow GM for the first time.  Also, Frost Spirit gave bonus damage on hit, so could see a spotter/spirits druid being an appealing thing at that time.  

Would have fell out later when Soulbeast came along because power soulbeast gave ranger entirely new role.  

Edited January 6 by Gotejjeken.1267

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

Ah yes, the Ranger. You must look at it's cousin class the Melee'er whos prowess in melee dictates that even with typical ranged weapon they have must be used at melee range for full effectiveness...

Even in DnD and Pathfinder, the premier table top RPGs, Ranger has more options as a melee class. Cool factoid, the three highest DPR builds in Pathfinder all use bows but none of them are Rangers. All three use a Fighter profession mechanic, with the vanilla Fighter with a Longbow taking the second spot with Arsenal Chaplain Warpriest first and Inquisitor (I forget the archetype used) last. If you did not know the Fighter would be the GW2 Warrior equivalent.

Back to GW2, Rangers range the land and use the weapons at hand to do that job. That includes melee and range. I will say that they have probably the best projectile based ranged weapons in the game as well as some very solid melee weapons.

No class in this game is 100% ranged or melee, though Warrior is giving that a run for the money...

[voltaicbore.8012]

4 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Ah yes, the Ranger. You must look at it's cousin class the Melee'er whos prowess in melee dictates that even with typical ranged weapon they have must be used at melee range for full effectiveness...

Now I feel cheated by Anet no longer making new elite specs, what a lost opportunity! Welp, in my head I'll make my warriors all Melee'ers instead.

[Sobx.1758]

12 hours ago, Levetty.1279 said:

Except the post I was responding to literally did. Please learn how to read and stop insulting people.

The post directly above your talks about "Famous rangers from fantasy that use melee over bow" -and it is true, aragorn did use swords way more than bows. The same post said also this: "Rangers are competent with multiple weapons ie sword, shield, dagger, bows and even spears, generally combat AND hunting weapons(...) Thinking of ranger as just a archer is a huge disservice to the archetype", all of which clearly acknowledges the use of many types of weapons, while pointing out it's by far not bows exclusively. Nothing to do with saying that they're not using or shouldn't be using them at all.

I didn't insult anyone and my reading is fine, thank you.

[draxynnic.3719]

On 1/5/2024 at 1:27 AM, Levetty.1279 said:

And?

And therefore Aragorn having a bow doesn't mean that all rangers have to be bow specialists or even ranged specialists. Melee-focused rangers are perfectly valid, while the option to play an archer ranger remains.

[draxynnic.3719]

On 1/6/2024 at 1:10 PM, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Ah yes, the Ranger. You must look at it's cousin class the Melee'er whos prowess in melee dictates that even with typical ranged weapon they have must be used at melee range for full effectiveness...

Even in DnD and Pathfinder, the premier table top RPGs, Ranger has more options as a melee class. Cool factoid, the three highest DPR builds in Pathfinder all use bows but none of them are Rangers. All three use a Fighter profession mechanic, with the vanilla Fighter with a Longbow taking the second spot with Arsenal Chaplain Warpriest first and Inquisitor (I forget the archetype used) last. If you did not know the Fighter would be the GW2 Warrior equivalent.

Back to GW2, Rangers range the land and use the weapons at hand to do that job. That includes melee and range. I will say that they have probably the best projectile based ranged weapons in the game as well as some very solid melee weapons.

No class in this game is 100% ranged or melee, though Warrior is giving that a run for the money...

I'd probably say that GW2 core warrior is a mix of fighter and barbarian.

But yeah, generally speaking if you want to really specialise in doing damage with a bow in Pathfinder and the D&D editions I'm familiar with, the core of your build was generally fighter levels and feats that specialised in ranged combat. Rangers had a lot of trouble keeping up with that, and before 3.5 when the archery combat style was introduced, rangers in D&D focused more on two-weapon fighting styles (although a fighter built for that would at least match, and likely beat, them at that too). Playing ranger instead of fighter in D&D and Pathfinder was usually a matter of giving up some of your direct combat capabilities in exchange for wilderness survival skills, a bit of nature magic, and having an animal companion.

Which is pretty much what we see with the ranger in GW2 as well - a martial combatant with wilderness survival skills, varying amounts of nature magic depending on build, and an animal companion. Unlike tabletop, though, that's all directly related to combat, rather than the tendency of certain tabletop editions to balance being good at noncombat problem-solving with being worse in direct combat and vice versa.

Edited January 8 by draxynnic.3719

[Ehecatl.9172]

I really don't get threads like this. Ranger has the best longbow in the game, and the longbow is a meta weapon in all game modes except maybe high-end PVE I think? That isn't a flaw in class design, it's a flaw in content design that doesn't favor ranged weapons in general.

The fact that Ranger can be built as a ranged or melee specialist is a good thing. The fact they can be a hybrid and perform both effectively with the same build is even better. Why would anyone want to nerf the ranger class to be pure ranged?

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

42 minutes ago, Ehecatl.9172 said:

Why would anyone want to nerf the ranger class to be pure ranged?

Because people bought into the lie that Legolas is a ranger and all rangers must be proficient in Bow-fu.

[draxynnic.3719]

5 hours ago, Ehecatl.9172 said:

I really don't get threads like this. Ranger has the best longbow in the game, and the longbow is a meta weapon in all game modes except maybe high-end PVE I think? That isn't a flaw in class design, it's a flaw in content design that doesn't favor ranged weapons in general.

The fact that Ranger can be built as a ranged or melee specialist is a good thing. The fact they can be a hybrid and perform both effectively with the same build is even better. Why would anyone want to nerf the ranger class to be pure ranged?

This, really. When I see a thread title like this, the immediate thing I think is... well, who's better? If you want to go full ranged, you're pretty much looking at virtuoso, ranger, scourge, rifle deadeye (but don't bring one of those to raids unless you're kiting one of the Qadim encounters), and maybe engineer. Taken across all modes, I don't think there's ever been a time when ranger wasn't at least one of the better ranged professions. Elementalist, now, elementalist players who bought into the idea that it would be a long-range nuker have reason to complain.

I think a large part of it is that games that DO pigeonhole classes into roles, including GW1, usually classify ranger as ranged physical DPS. GW2 doesn't do that, however. As long as the ranged DPS role is something that ranger can realistically do (which it is!), I really don't see a problem with ranger being able to fight in melee as well. It's not an either-or situation unless you're optimising a raid rotation to the point where I hope you have perfect gear, and even then you're probably fairly safe switching that hammer to a longbow if there's anything in the encounter at all that makes staying in melee complicated. 

[Oahkahmewolf.6210]

6 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

hammer to a longbow if there's anything in the encounter at all that makes staying in melee complicated. 

This is very true, I do pve alot as a melee range but at time you just have to ranged some encounters when melee gets tough... though I pefer condi ranger better than power ranger easier to manage for more simpler and easier dps.

6 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

I really don't see a problem with ranger being able to fight in melee as well

Neither do I, especially in the game mode I play I just bored and cobble a build together... I've recently started to toy around with Core again and wanted to see where that goes

Here's sample 1 - an ambush against 3 unaware players

here's Sample 2  - a duel

Here's Sample 3 - a Roam

I really find it fun and rewarding to just hit hard with melee.

 

Edited January 9 by Oahkahmewolf.6210

[Beddo.1907]

This post refuses to die, huh?

[Oahkahmewolf.6210]

40 minutes ago, Beddo.1907 said:

This post refuses to die, huh?

its the fact that after Maces were announced people want to protest were not melee class so this forum would forever have someone complaining about it. To be honest, Personally don't mind.... I think melee is fun.

[kharmin.7683]

42 minutes ago, Oahkahmewolf.6210 said:

its the fact that after Maces were announced people want to protest were not melee class so this forum would forever have someone complaining about it. To be honest, Personally don't mind.... I think melee is fun.

Not me.  I protested maces because I didn't find them thematic enough for me.  I would have loved an off-hand shield!

[Beddo.1907]

30 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Not me.  I protested maces because I didn't find them thematic enough for me.  I would have loved an off-hand shield!

Any weapon can be "thematic enough" with the right sparkles and paint.

[Oahkahmewolf.6210]

1 hour ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Not me.  I protested maces because I didn't find them thematic enough for me.  I would have loved an off-hand shield!

Look when I GM a pathfinder game where the setting took place in a prehistoric times, I pretty sure you got your very few primitive weapons. Ur ungabunga spears or your Ungabunga clubs.

Jokes aside I still think realistically atleast maces, and clubs are thematically correct depending on how you look at it. You need a mallet or something blunt to pitch a tent, set some traps up you get the picture. It can also be used as a backup weapon to knock out animals or put them in game over mode without making them bleed.

again, people see things differently and I don't expect to convince you that maces thematically fit.

[kharmin.7683]

16 hours ago, Oahkahmewolf.6210 said:

Look when I GM a pathfinder game where the setting took place in a prehistoric times, I pretty sure you got your very few primitive weapons. Ur ungabunga spears or your Ungabunga clubs.

Jokes aside I still think realistically atleast maces, and clubs are thematically correct depending on how you look at it. You need a mallet or something blunt to pitch a tent, set some traps up you get the picture. It can also be used as a backup weapon to knock out animals or put them in game over mode without making them bleed.

again, people see things differently and I don't expect to convince you that maces thematically fit.

I have no argument with these kinds of examples.  They just don't fit within my own opinion, and that's fair.  Main hand mace/club, sure, but dual handed?  No thank you.

I would have just preferred an off-hand shield instead.

I, also, don't adhere to the "ranger must be ranged only" points that have been made.  As a ranger main, especially when I'm playing core, I almost exclusively camp in melee to get the most benefit from my pet.  Usually, I will take down as many as I can at range while my pet is engaged, and then weapon swap and move in to finish things off.  That's the playstyle that I often prefer and enjoy.   I just don't see me using dual maces.  /shrug

[Bantad.9286]

Ranger implies a scout, or one who "ranges." Patrolling a given territory. It has nothing to do with weapon selection.

[Bastrii.3047]

For a long time, the most meta PvP build on Druid was Longbow/Staff, and just outranging everything because of balanced and fun class design, cough cough. It was kitten to play against because you'd be glued down almost constantly due to the snare, and the Druid would be pecking away at you from 1200+ units away.

Nowadays, Druid can use Shortbow/Axes and do crazy damage with Astral Form. It's an improvement because they're actually viable DPS, not just kitten healers.

And 90% of the game's content can be done strictly with just a longbow. If you pick up the Rage and Celerity rune, and run Lead the Wind, you could have essentially 24/7 uptime on Quickness. Your off weapon could be a staff for quick get aways, and you can run Thunder/Sun spirit for AoE CC and damage on top of your Volley.

You *can* be viable with a longbow, you just won't be viable for content that's built around clumping up by a tight group of players. Which... is a lot of group content, sadly. Nor will your damage be amazing.

Edited January 18 by Bastrii.3047
Wanted to tack on a thing.

[draxynnic.3719]

15 hours ago, Bastrii.3047 said:

You *can* be viable with a longbow, you just won't be viable for content that's built around clumping up by a tight group of players. Which... is a lot of group content, sadly. Nor will your damage be amazing.

From what I hear, even then the damage loss from trading the hammer for a longbow isn't high. It's probably worthwhile against bosses where range is particularly useful.

[CafPow.1542]

On 1/8/2024 at 6:27 AM, draxynnic.3719 said:

And therefore Aragorn having a bow doesn't mean that all rangers have to be bow specialists or even ranged specialists. Melee-focused rangers are perfectly valid, while the option to play an archer ranger remains.

Duuno if somebody already mentioned it and i just do it cause I’m a lotr nerd. Aragorn had only a sword in the book. No bow. He states that he can hunt tho, but this can also be done with traps or whatnot.

anyways, is all ^^

Edited January 19 by CafPow.1542

[Dadnir.5038]

On 1/9/2024 at 7:43 PM, Beddo.1907 said:

This post refuses to die, huh?

The topic of the thread never die.

Edited January 19 by Dadnir.5038

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ranger

[ZeftheWicked.3076]

OP you need a healthy dose of ranger lessons.
Longbow is a very powerful long range weapon and prior to SoTo was part of meta raid builds for soulbeast (where damage is king).
If your damage stinks that's a you problem, not the profession itself.