Ranger

#1 suggestion - Un-nerf the ranger at least a little bit.

I think rangers themselves are fine for the most part, but I think that pets are underpowered. Past ascension, there is almost no reason to keep a pet in place of other skills and/or attributes.

This is contradictory. With the exception of Soul Reaping and Beast Mastery, there are no useless attributes in the game.

Why have an attribute that, in theory, accounts for HALF of the Ranger's damage output (requiring 2 stats at 12 points to get full damage, 194 points) be as bad as Beast Mastery? If I have to spend twice as many Attribute points, shouldn't I have a significant advantage over a Warrior or Ele who put 12 into a single attribute?

If I play a Ranger who has 100% damage from both Beast Mastery and Marksmanship, I'm sacrificing almost everything else to focus on two stats directly linked to damage. It REQUIRES you to focus your build on, but it's not worth it because the damage is so low.

Because you have such a huge energy cut frome expertise, and don't have to fight to gain adrenaline. You can sit back and spam bow attack skills all day to your heart's content.

Neither soul reaping nor beast mastery are useless.

I admit what I said seems contradictory, however, you are not forced to use pets (in the same fashion an air elementalist is not forced to use water magic.) What I meant by my statement was that as the game progresses, pets become less and less useful, and at about ascension, the benefits of a pet no longer outweigh the penalties. I currently have beaten the game with a high DPS barragebot (which is why I don't beleve that a pet should be considered as an essential component of your damage output), and I don't feel that doing so as a ranger was any more difficult than doing so as an elementalist. For PvP, I used my ranger for wilderness support, and he was about as effective as any other support class.

I do think that pets should be beefed up because they are almost useless towards the end of the game. Even though rangers aren't forced to use them, it does really limit the variety in terms of builds that rangers can choose from.

As Tellani Artini said, rangers are far from useless (in fact, I did exactly what he said, spam barrage in PvE ), however I still believe they have a very limited selection of viable builds due to the ineffectiveness of pets (not necessarily beast mastery since not all of these skills are pet-related.)

When 194/200 points are in Marksmanship/Beast Mastery?

Adreneline is an ADVANTAGE. Warriors can use their mana sparingly because most of their skills are effectivly free. It's not like you're ever not attacking as a warrior.

If you take a Beast Mastery/Marksmanship but you're pretty much comitted to damage, because you won't have enough points for Expertise and a 4th attribute. Runes or no runes, you can't do everything.

Speaking of Expertise, how come every other classes' Primary is an added bonus to having that primary, whereas the Rangers is a necessity just to be viable?

I really hate to be a bitch....but I am.

Perhaps there was something wrong with your build? Very few combinations can specialize in only 2 attributes and still be competitive; elementalists are one of the few professions that can do this (I'm saying they should), and even then, it's almost always better to spread your points across 3 or 4 attributes. I personally went Marksmanship/expertise/illusion magic and I had a very solid build.

Yes, requiring at least some expertise does apply in most cases, but given how many possibilities there are in Guild Wars, there are most definitely some builds out there that do not require it. This is part of what I meant about rangers having limited options, though. Most ranger builds need marksmanship/expertise and one or two other attributes, not exactly the most space to experiment with.

I don't actually run a Beast Master build, I'm just pointing out that Rangers have to spend 2X as many attribute points to get "100% damage," but doing so doesn't gain them a significant advantage. You're still downright weak, despite the fact that you spent 2X as much as a Warrior on building up your "attack."

Think of it this way: if this were another RPG, and you spent all kinds of money getting your dual-weilding character two awesome weapons, then you found out that someone else had spent half as much to get a better weapon. Before you respond with "lol you stpid fer make that trade," it's an analogy.

Aside form that, you're sidesteping the issue. Why is Beastmastery useless after Ascention? No other attribute for any other class suddenly becomes useless after a certain point. It's not all of the sudden Domination Magic or Swordsmanship will just stop being useful. So why does Beast Mastery?

#1 suggestion - learn how to play at least a little bit.

My my, aren't we high and mighty. Care to tell us poor fools what we're doing wrong? No, I doubt it. If you respond at all I'm willing to bet you'll just rant about how you've held the HoH single-handedly and done 700 damage with a regular bow shot.

Well mister expert, what should our friend here be doing to be as awesome as you are? Care to share your limitless knowledge with us?

The most unique thing about a ranger is beast mastery.. so I agree that pets are underpowered. You have to use two skill slots just to run around with a pet, and then only have room for maybe one pet skill anyway, because you're filling up your other slots with "less-cool-but-definitely-more-effective" skills.

1. I have no idea what you're talking about with requiring to use 2x the attribute points to get 100% damage. Rangers do not have to spent 2x as many attribute points to get 100% damage. My ranger pumps out about the same damage per second as a fire nuker elementalist.

2. You aren't forced to concentrate on damage. There are many viable support builds for rangers, just look at wilderness survival.

It's a misleading analogy. Pets are not supposed inflict anywhere near half of your damage. And again, you aren't forced to use a pet. There are plenty of high dps builds out there that do not require a pet. If this were another RPG, it would be like insisting on dual wielding a sword (your bow) with a rusty dagger of weakness (your pet) when you have a godly two-handed sword of annihilation (a proper bow build) sitting around in your inventory.

I never said beast mastery suddenly stops getting useful. Actually beast mastery is always useful. Pets gradually become less and less useful as you progress in the game (not that I said pets suddenly become useless either). They're great in pre-searing, but go downhill from there, and by about the time you get to ascension, the pros no longer balance the cons. This has all to do with the issue. A competetive level 20 ranger cannot use a pet, which, as Xinaya mentioned, is one of the ranger's most unique traits. Powering up pets allows rangers to use them competetively, making rangers more diverse. In short, pets need fixing; rangers do not.

ComMan, before this turns into a flame-fest, what is your point? I'm simply stating that rangers are not underpowered. Pets are, but you aren't forced to use pets, if you go around them, you can still have a great character on par with all the other professions.

Rangers are not underpowered.

Pets may be underpowered to those who expect them to be a free henchmen, but they're not, they're simply pets. If you don't know how to form a tactic or stratedgy with them then you basically have two options:

1. Learn how to use them.
2. Abandon pet.

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Rangers are an exceptional class, they have the ability to produce the most sustained damage. They have the ability to be a first class interupter, they have the ability to spread conditions throughout another party and drive a monk insane. And dont overlook thier target priority in pvp either, they are extremely versitile characters and when someone knows how to use them right they are lethal.

They also have some unique skills that can be tactically used as a huge advantage to a group of smart players.

Care to rain down your 'holier than thou' additude some more?

I thought the analogy made sense, but I'll try to go point by point in this:

Marksmanship increases the DAMAGE you deal with a bow.

Beast Mastery increases the DAMAGE your pet does with every attack.

Now, that's TWO attributes that directly affect how much damage you do. In order to do "100%" damage you need to get BOTH of those 12 (in addation to leveling pets to 20, which I hadn't even thought about).

This does not apply to other classes. Everything else can maximize damage with only ONE stat (Warriors are arguable, but a secondary warrior can still hurt you a lot).

The Ranger, therefore, can easily commit ALL of his attribute points to stats that do nothing but increase their damage output. Doing so gives them less damage output than another class who spent a third of their points on their damage output.

If you mastered two weapons that you can use together, you should (rightfully) expect to be better than someone who has only mastered one weapon. That's not the case.

I don't know how much more I can clarify the point. If you still don't get what I'm saying, please shoot me in the head.

1. No. Let's think logically, you do less damage PER HIT than most warriors, but you attack once every 2 seconds and they attack 2 or 3 times every second.

If you're talking about poison on every person on the field:
8 dps * 8 people = 64 dps. Congrats, combined with your bow, you've almost leveled the playing field. Except that other classes have skills too.

2. Mesmers are better interruptes. They don't have travel time on their interrupts, they have more interrupt spells than you, and when they interrupt they also make bad stuff happen.

3. Have you played monk against a Ranger?

4. Yeah, they have SOME unique skills, but every class has SOME unique skills. They can be an advantage, I'll grant you that. Knights can do stuff no other chess piece can, does that make them better than Queens?

I'm getting really tired of being part of this same argument:

-Ranger suck...every other class does everything better.
-lol, no they don't. u jus suck.
-...well what do they do.
-I'm way better than you! You just don't know what you're doing! I do amazing DPS and win battles single-handedly.
-How?
-lol you noob!

I'm very American, I'm not going to just take your word for it. I've never seen a super ranger, I've never heard a super ranger say anything to back up his claims other than say "I'm right, you're wrong!" I've never, as a Ranger, seen anything to suggest that Rangers are on equal footing with other classes.

I admit that I suck at this game. I'll grant you, it's very easy to outdamage me. It's easy to outthink me. You could probably kill me easily in the arena. I still don't believe you or anyone like you when you make these kinds of outrageous claims.

I understand what you're saying. I don't understand the point you're getting to. You aren't forced to use a pet, and can in fact inflict much more damage without one. You're describing it like having two equal swords, when in fact, it's really like having a sword and a tiny knife. Like UberRusty said, I think you're expecting too much out of a pet. They're not designed to contribute anywhere near half of your damage output, and again, you can always abandon them.

Unfortunately, pets just don't survive in some places because it uses an automated AI. Have you ever tried bringing henchmen to the Mineral Springs? They're just BOUND to die from those huge mobs of Avicara.

Beast Mastery sure is useful. Tigers Fury plain rocks

I do agree that pets are not the greatest thing and generally aren't worth the points/skills invested, but that definitely does not mean that Rangers aren't good enough.

The only issue with Rangers is that they *have* to have a superior expertise rune. The flexibility with 10+1+3 is just so much better than 12+1+1 or w/e and if you don't have 13-14 expertise your Ranger probably isn't going to be worth much. That also means that in pve before ascension, Rangers are absolutely terrible. Beginning Rangers simply can't do anything worthwhile without sufficient expertise and it's not till they get Tigers Fury that they can really pump out strong bow damage. Once you get to draknors, get TF and 200/200 attribute points and start picking up elites, the Ranger jump in potential is absurd.

You can search the forums if you don't believe me: at 12 Beast Mastery, pets do the same DPS as bows. They are half of your offense. However, you take huge risks and sacrifice several skills lots for them, all to gain the benefit of not even equaling other classes damage wise. Why? Does that make any sense?

The point is that you shouldn't have to abandon them. They shouldn't suck so much. For the risk of having your skills disabled, the loss of 2+ skill slots, and the attribute points needed to get them up to par, they should be worth something. You don't get your money's worth on pets, which is why nobody uses them. This is BS, since they're supossed to be a major part of the Ranger class. Now please don't try to argue that last point, since they wouldn't have their own attribute if they weren't meant to be used.

As for the knife/sword thing, look up Musashi Miyamoto. He's considered (by the Japanese) to be the greatest swordsman to ever live. His style of swordsmanship revolved around using his Wakazashi (short sword) in tangent with his Katana.

IMO, Tiger's Fury and Fertile Season are like consolation prizes for picking the wrong attribute for the wrong class.

Pets at 12 Beast Mastery do 100% of their damage, which is lower than 15-28. Now, pets attack faster than bows, so let's just assume that their dps is the same as bows. Of course this only applies if you're just standing there only using your normal attack. That's why rangers have skills. Sure, an air spike elementalist has very low dps too if he's just standing there shooting things with his wand the whole time. Overall, a pet still does not match up to your primary attack, and they aren't designed to, and they certainly aren't meant to act as an extra henchman. They're there to support you.

This I agree with you on. As I said since my first post, pets are underpowered, but rangers are not. In my second post, I was stating how it sucks that you can't use a pet at higher levels, but rangers are by no means underpowered as they are not forced to use pets.

I was using a video game context, but realistically, polearms are better than swords, so the Musashi Miyamoto thing doesn't work anyways.