Curse

Born · Jun 23, 2005, 09:13 AM // 09:13

Weapons for rangers just like other classes have choices.

1) The Beastmaster : Only one choice here, a whip! this could possibly be used with a shield or other offhand item. [linked to beast mastery attribute]

2) The Wilderness Ranger : A rapier weapon or dagger, possibly a pair of weapons but no advantage over single weapons other than it looks like two weapons. [linked to wilderness attribute]

3) Bow Master : The only choice given to you, the bow [linked to markmanship attribute]

If you look at every other class they have several options, warriors have three paths (sword, axe and hammer) elementalists have four paths and can use weapons based off the (four elements), and same with mesmers, necros and monks all able to switch out to a weapon to benefit the path they take.

I dont play a ranger anymore but this class does need something more than bows.

Aaaaagh · Jun 23, 2005, 09:45 AM // 09:45

It would be a good way to diversify rangers, but of course, then they would need skills to go along with their weapons. As for a wilderness ranger, I think a quarterstaff or sickle would be more appropriate.

GraceAlone · Jun 23, 2005, 09:51 AM // 09:51

While the lack of ranger weapons can be frustrating I would like to see bows that at least have different requirements for the bows. Expertise and Marksmanship are not the only two class skills and really limits putting points in anything else until much further in the game.

Epinephrine · Jun 23, 2005, 01:12 PM // 13:12

There have been 3 threads in the past week on Ranger weapons, ranger foci and ranger bows, to my knowledge. Post in one of those, to keep the discussion going. No point in rehashing the same points again, but fresh eyes on the discussions might help - so please feel free to revive them.

Wilderness and Beastmastery weapons:
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=23550

Ranger Weapons:
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=22572

Expand Weapons for Rangers:
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=21389

Ranger Foci:
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=21640

Born · Jun 23, 2005, 09:20 PM // 21:20

Expertise is an attribute that primary rangers get to reduce skill costs, just like elementalist get energy storage and mesmers get fast casting...

Yes a staff maybe a better choice for the Wilderness Ranger and wouldnt require any new modelling of the ranger since they can hold and use any weapon that exists in the game now.

Rangers do have skills already linked to the other two attributes beast mastery and wilderness survival so no need to change any skills just add weapons to enhance those paths. Example : wouldnt be very effective for a hammer warrior to use a sword.

Yes I should have known that others would have already posted about this, it was late and didnt research enuff.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I now have read through all the posts epinephrine was so kind to link here, and in conclusion to everyones posts including my own, the easist and quickest fix would be:

1)make bows requiring beast or wilderness, not hard to change this.

2)giving rangers a 2 handed staff requiring beast or wilderness making them more "druid like".

ComMan · Jun 23, 2005, 10:37 PM // 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Born

Example : wouldnt be very effective for a hammer warrior to use a sword.

But a Hammer Warrior doesn't have to put points into Sword Master. For a Ranger to do "normal" damage they need 12 Marksmanship, even if they want to focus their build on another attribute.

Ehecatzin FlyingCrab · Jun 23, 2005, 10:48 PM // 22:48

In deed Bow IS the Ranger weapon, and I dont hink there's a need to change that, personally I wouldnt like to see my ranger with a staff or a whip...it doesnt really fits them. But, Rangers do have many other non bow skills, wich are traps and Beast mastery. But here's the problem, Rangers HAVE to spent points on marks to be effective wich really cripples they hability to for example, use a pet...I've seen more secondary Rangers with a pet than primaries...why? because other classes dont have to worry about high mark or expertise to be a good ranger.

A-Net could add Bows related to beast mastry, they wouldnt be as good as marks ones, but they can give you a lot of movement qhen it comes to attribute points...you can go Beast mastery and still be able to use a bow decently.

As a matter of fact, such a decition as creating Bows attached to other atributes wouldnt hurt anyone. Im a ranger and I would like to have a pet...but guess what? I cant afford it ><

Born · Jun 24, 2005, 01:11 AM // 01:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComMan

But a Hammer Warrior doesn't have to put points into Sword Master. For a Ranger to do "normal" damage they need 12 Marksmanship, even if they want to focus their build on another attribute.

To do any real damage at all with the sword yes a hammer warrior(warrior with maxed attribute being hammer mastery) would have to put points into sword attribute otherwise he/she wouldnt do much damage.
I dont know of any warrior(s) that wasted points in two weapons attributes as theres better places to put the remaining points(tactics/strength/secondary).

If there was a bow or other ranger weapon it would only do increased damage if the requirements where met , in this case it would be wilderness survival or beast mastery and not marksmanship.
You dont need 12 points, you need the amount the weapon requires to do full damage. Yes adding points past the requirement does increase damage but not as big a difference as meeting the weapon requirement.

Placing points in marksmanship if there was such said weapon would be equal to what I said above about the warrior.

Think about it.

UsagiNoSenshi · Jun 24, 2005, 02:11 AM // 02:11

I'm all for something to help boost my beast mastery.

ComMan · Jun 24, 2005, 04:41 AM // 04:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Born

To do any real damage at all with the sword yes a hammer warrior(warrior with maxed attribute being hammer mastery) would have to put points into sword attribute otherwise he/she wouldnt do much damage.
I dont know of any warrior(s) that wasted points in two weapons attributes as theres better places to put the remaining points(tactics/strength/secondary).

If there was a bow or other ranger weapon it would only do increased damage if the requirements where met , in this case it would be wilderness survival or beast mastery and not marksmanship.
You dont need 12 points, you need the amount the weapon requires to do full damage. Yes adding points past the requirement does increase damage but not as big a difference as meeting the weapon requirement.

Placing points in marksmanship if there was such said weapon would be equal to what I said above about the warrior.

Think about it.

Does anything in this post make sense? The point is this:

A mage can use their equipment regardless of which attribute they decide to focus on, there are weapons linked to all of their attirbutes.

A warrior can use weapons linked to any of his 3 mastery attributes.

A Ranger MUST have Marksmanship, because that's the only weapon type available to them. Ranger builds can't be a diverse as other builds because they MUST spend 12 points on Marksmanship.

spiritofcat · Jun 24, 2005, 04:57 AM // 04:57

I understand you CowMan.
My Elementalist can focus on any of the four elemental damage lines and get a good weapon with requirements in that attribute.
My Necro can focus on Blood, Death or Curses, and get a good weapon with requirements in that attribute (Though it seems that Blood is harder to find).

The only Ranger attribute that is found as an attribute on weapons is Marksmanship, and this means that if rangers want to use Wilderness or Beastmastery, they need to invest in either Marksmanship, or an attribute of their secondary profession, to be able to use a decent weapon.

The Ages · Jun 24, 2005, 04:59 AM // 04:59

I Think they should do with bows as they do Warriors and Sheilds, The Best Shilds use Tatics but you can still find some good Str ones.

I Think Expertise should be linked to some bow, But yet the best ones needed a high Marksmanship.

It just sucks that in order to do any kind of ranged damage you have to have Marksmanship, Because of that it limits a rangers Diversity alot.

It would much be like telling all the air eles they cant have a +12 nrg focus now because they are not speced fire. or telling a sword or axe warrior he cant use a shield because he has str and not tatics.

spiritofcat · Jun 24, 2005, 05:04 AM // 05:04

More like telling an air ele that he can't have an 11-22 +10 Energy staff because he didn't focus in Fire.

Born · Jun 24, 2005, 09:10 AM // 09:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComMan

Does anything in this post make sense? The point is this:

A mage can use their equipment regardless of which attribute they decide to focus on, there are weapons linked to all of their attirbutes.

A warrior can use weapons linked to any of his 3 mastery attributes.

A Ranger MUST have Marksmanship, because that's the only weapon type available to them. Ranger builds can't be a diverse as other builds because they MUST spend 12 points on Marksmanship.

I think everything Ive said makes sence. If you have played each class you will see they cant switch weapons either and still be effective, but the ranger doesnt have any specialized weapons for beast mastery, wilderness survival or even the primary attribute expertise.

Elementalists can use other weapons but they will not do much damage if you dont meet the requirements of the weapon and if the weapon has an energy bonus you dont get that either UNLESS you meet the requirements.

Yes a warrior can use any three of his/her weapons but if they are say, all hammer and NO sword attributes it does no real damage UNTIL they put enuff points into the sword attribute. For that matter why not hand the ranger the same sword , he will do the same damage as the warrior with no attribute points in swords.

No a ranger only needs as many points in marksmanship that the weapon states. I have had very good bows(15-28+) that only requires 9 marks to use at full damage, leaving you several points for other attributes.

This post was intended to give rangers options for there other attributes, wilderness survival and beast mastery and still be effective with there weapon in hand.

Myodato · Jun 24, 2005, 09:55 AM // 09:55

If I made a Ranger based on Expertise, Beast Mastery and Wilderness Survival (and there's no reason I shouldn't be able to), then I effectively can't use a weapon. How is that right ?

There are skills within Expertise, Wilderness Survival and Ranger-General that are based on using a bow, yet you still need to have Marksmanship to make them worth using. Does a Warrior need Swordsmanship to use Hammer skills ?, does an Ele need Air Magic to cast Meteor Shower ?

Expertise based bows are a must, weapons for Beast Mastery or Wilderness Survival would be a bonus.

DeemosQB · Jun 25, 2005, 12:40 AM // 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ehecatzin FlyingCrab

In deed Bow IS the Ranger weapon, and I dont hink there's a need to change that, personally I wouldnt like to see my ranger with a staff or a whip...it doesnt really fits them. But, Rangers do have many other non bow skills, wich are traps and Beast mastery. But here's the problem, Rangers HAVE to spent points on marks to be effective wich really cripples they hability to for example, use a pet...I've seen more secondary Rangers with a pet than primaries...why? because other classes dont have to worry about high mark or expertise to be a good ranger.

A-Net could add Bows related to beast mastry, they wouldnt be as good as marks ones, but they can give you a lot of movement qhen it comes to attribute points...you can go Beast mastery and still be able to use a bow decently.

As a matter of fact, such a decition as creating Bows attached to other atributes wouldnt hurt anyone. Im a ranger and I would like to have a pet...but guess what? I cant afford it ><

I feel your pain bro >.< lol

Tellani Artini · Jun 25, 2005, 01:01 AM // 01:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Born

No a ranger only needs as many points in marksmanship that the weapon states. I have had very good bows(15-28+) that only requires 9 marks to use at full damage, leaving you several points for other attributes.

You're still doing less damage at marksmanship 9. Read the treatise on combat mechanics.

I don't think marksmanship 12 is required for all ranger builds. Why should it be?

Snipe Kan · Jun 25, 2005, 01:11 AM // 01:11

man a whip for a ranger would be nasty sweet

i could see it now and duel weilding is pretty sweet too i think warrior class would suite that better tho .. duel weilding 2 swords would be pretty pimp