How many professions do you think would make a good GW game?

To get straight to the point, I think 10 is WAY too much for a future game.

Take a second and think about all of the classes that have complained over GW's lifespan about rarely finding their way into groups. I have seen them all complain at some point depending on the flavor of the month EXCEPT monks (notice this includes PvP and/or PvE groups).

Why is this? Was it that any of those classes were bad classes on their own? No... it was because there was at least one, if not two other classes that filled a particular role better than another.

Let's look at Assassins, Dervishes, and Elementalists. Now, obviously these all have some unique features that make them play differently and have different potential benefits on a team. However, despite their differences, they do all share one incredibly important trait... they are normally COUNTED ON for the damage in a group.

I think we see especially in PvE that the differences that separate these classes usually do not play as large a role in determining who gets the slot on a team as which one does the most damage for the current patch.

To give you an example, when SF was in its pre-nerfed state I could rarely, if EVER get a team as an assassin because the damage role was ALWAYS covered by a SF elementalist. I won't pretend that is the only reason (most people are scared to take assassins to begin with because of their squishiness) but it IS an important one.

Personally, I think that future GW games would benefit more from having fewer classes with MORE playstyle options. Wouldn't it be easier to have three warriors in a group and then have the three choose roles on the fly? One could choose to be the tank, another could use scythe mastery to spread conditions and inflict AoE damage, while the last could choose to use daggers for spiking an individual. Or, those same three warriors could be three tanks. Or, those same three warriors could abandon tanking completely and just focus on damage!

The problem with this of course is that you lose "class flavor" and could potentially "bloat" a class with TOO MANY options.

So what do you think would be a good number for total professions?

I would suggest six to eight classes are enough.

Hmm, the only professions needed are really elementalists, monks, and warriors (in PvE). More than that causes professions that noone wants in their group (except necros and rangers), as the new ones only are cheap copies of those three..
But I still love my dervish and ritualist, and I personally think they are very very useful and fun to play ^^

I would have to say that the original six was all there was needed to make a great GW game and it might be more balanced on both side of the fence pve/pvp.

yep there are too many. Some classes become undesirable and uninvitable. Also, the sheer amount of skills cause overpowered builds leading to heavy-handed nerfs, and unpredictability on anet's behalf. A natural metagame where if a build becomes too popular, it naturally rebalances with counterbuilds never happens. Basically, what has been the status quo for a year and a half.

I could live without the newest 4.

I think 6 is about right for the reasons already listed above. If more classes are added then personally I'd like to see something different like a Merchant class.

Think about it. A merchant class would be fun to play. First take out all merchant NPCs everyplace except the starter towns. The player merchants wouldn't have battle skills like the other classes. Instead they would have to rely on other adventurers to "run" them from town to town. Since of course a merchant wouldn't survive well on his own. (Unless of course he was a Level 20 merchant with a high attribute in Weapons Dealing).

That's ok though, because merchants have more money and would be expected to pay their way into a party.

Merchants would also have the ability to open up shops in towns and sell 1 particular type of merchandise at a time. Other characters would be dependent on the merchant class much like we are dependent on the NPC merchants now.

Just something I thought about last week. I know it will never be implemented in GW....but perhaps it could have a place in GW2.

6
love my assassin,dervish and rit tho but for assassin and dervish getting in a party aint easy so =/

As much as I love my dervish, I would have to agree with everyone and say the original 6.

However that being said, I think it would be cool if those 6 classes could break into different branches. Take the warrior. If you use a hammer you would get different armor, titles and skills that a warrior using a sword wouldn't get.

Love all but derv and para.

My personal vote would be for 12-20 professions. I like veriety. I like having alternative mechanics available for accomplishing similar goals. I like quirky (and usually unpopular) professions that get things done in indirect and roundabout ways.

And quite frankly I couldn't care less how many professions end up being popular with cookie cutter groups. If someone wants a to play a popular character, they can reroll and leave the more interesting but harder to use professions to people like me. I've done just fine in this game completely ignoring cookie cutter nonsense and making my own groups, and I see no reason that I couldn't do the same in a new game.

As many as Anet can provided they can still make it fair and balanced.

Somewhere in the article/interview stack is the statement that ANet was looking at changes for the existing professions, possibly combining some. A quick glance at the GW2 page on the Official Wiki http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2 shows this: "The professions are being designed so that they are all viable for both solo and group play."

4 is too little, 8 is too many. 6 is enough.

My guess is 6, the perfect amount.

1. Warmaster who does shouts, axes, swords, all melee equipment, including daggers, like a master of weapons sorta guy.
2. Necromancer that is simply a mix of ritualist and necro currently.
3. Monk, which is the same, with a mix of ritualist, and paragon shouts...something like that.
4. Ranger, which doubles with a spear for throwing, as well as throwing axes, or anything dealing with throwing....
5. Mesmer, with more of a twist. Would include curse spells, and all mesmer skills, but include AoE effects and be able to wield swords and stuff, like a stronger dervish. Sounds werid, but I'd play it....
6. Druid, can control the powers of the world (elementalist) as well as tranforming into bears and stuff.

Obviously I just wrote this up in a few minutes, but I doubt Anet will have more than 6 professions, instead they will add on to what those 6 can do.

10 is fine.

The problem with Guild Wars' 10 is that the original core 6 are much more versatile and well rounded. The next 4 are much more specialized and do not have as much options or variations.

If all 10 classes were equal in their options, it would be fine.

I like Elementalists, Ranger, and Dervish.

Warrior was ok. Monk and Mesmer just didn't fit my playing style.

Necro, Rit, Paragon, and Assassin..I didn't find interesting enough to keep as primary.

Combining/Cutting out some professions MAY be an option...

but I don't want to be the one to make that decision...

Day one of GW2 beta:
player 1: THEY CUT OUT THE ..X.. Profession?!?!?!?

Six. They should turn the Ranger into the traditional DnD ranged-melee hybrid.

12 variety, diversity, many options, more possibilites, blahblah

Current 10 is fine, some are better at more niche builds and areas, but are very good in those areas, much better than anything else trying to replicate it

But, maybe combinations of these things together, thus reducing the number of builds, who knows. So, as people above said, putting ritualists into monks and necros, sins into warriors, derv's into warriors, possibly partially monk for a few skills, paragons into warriors, monks, rangers. Nothing much goes into Ele's

If the first chapter had been balanced for 10 classes, that would be an acceptable number. As it stands, the new four classes are significantly less robust than the original six.

Six imotbh.