Guild Wars's classes suck

[mercanucaribe]

I'm disappointed by the simplicity and restrictions. I've bought the game to play with a friend who has yet to even install it, and it's lame. Six classes, each restricted.. very little customization. Only one race, bodies restricted by class.
I'm playing a ranger and I HAVE to use a bow. Melee sucks, even with warrior 2nd class. Who ever heard of a game restricting rangers to archery?

Should have bought a D&D based game instead.

 

[Looney]

um take a warrior class as well and you can melee.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
I'm disappointed by the simplicity and restrictions. I've bought the game to play with a friend who has yet to even install it, and it's lame. Six classes, each restricted.. very little customization. Only one race, bodies restricted by class.
I'm playing a ranger and I HAVE to use a bow. Melee sucks, even with warrior 2nd class. Who ever heard of a game restricting rangers to archery?

Should have bought a D&D based game instead.

Why would you be a ranger if you wanted to melee? That's like picking a priest to nuke people

 

[jaedaliu]

of course your melee will seem like it sucks, your warrior class is just secondary.

 

[mercanucaribe]

1) I want to "roleplay" a ranger. 2) I don't want to play an archer. 3) This is the first game I've seen where ranger = archer. Hell, Aragorn is a "ranger" and he never touches a bow in LOTR!

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
I'm disappointed by the simplicity and restrictions. I've bought the game to play with a friend who has yet to even install it, and it's lame. Six classes, each restricted.. very little customization. Only one race, bodies restricted by class.
I'm playing a ranger and I HAVE to use a bow. Melee sucks, even with warrior 2nd class. Who ever heard of a game restricting rangers to archery?

Should have bought a D&D based game instead.

Why would you be a ranger if you wanted to melee? That's like picking a priest to nuke people

Because Rangers are supposed to be skilled swordsmen, in addition to skilled archers. You shouldn't even know a ranger is lurking in the trees until the arrow goes through your throat or they drop from above and slice up your entire party in seconds.

 

[Malak]

I dunno, evertime I"ve ever played a Ranger in the game it's been to use a bow, not a sword. Warrior obviously is the class you want to be if you want to melee.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
1) I want to "roleplay" a ranger. 2) I don't want to play an archer. 3) This is the first game I've seen where ranger = archer. Hell, Aragorn is a "ranger" and he never touches a bow in LOTR!

I knew a ranger about 5 years ago, and he never carried a sword. All he had was a flashlight, first aid kit, and a multitool that had a few small blades.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
I'm disappointed by the simplicity and restrictions. I've bought the game to play with a friend who has yet to even install it, and it's lame. Six classes, each restricted.. very little customization. Only one race, bodies restricted by class.
I'm playing a ranger and I HAVE to use a bow. Melee sucks, even with warrior 2nd class. Who ever heard of a game restricting rangers to archery?

Should have bought a D&D based game instead.

Why would you be a ranger if you wanted to melee? That's like picking a priest to nuke people

Because Rangers are supposed to be skilled swordsmen, in addition to skilled archers. You shouldn't even know a ranger is lurking in the trees until the arrow goes through your throat or they drop from above and slice up your entire party in seconds.

Are you sure you aren't think of Ninjas ? 8)

 

[fishbits]

Because Rangers are supposed to be skilled swordsmen, in addition to skilled archers. You shouldn't even know a ranger is lurking in the trees until the arrow goes through your throat or they drop from above and slice up your entire party in seconds.

Oh, you wanted best-in-game stealth, ranged *and* melee. Now I understand your disappointment.

 

[Lord Zado]

Uhhh...why don't you come back and complain about the game AFTER you get out of the newbie area. For one, you must dual class in this game, so there aren't "just 6 classes", there are 30 different options. Secondly you can be a ranger and melee, you just have to put points into the "Swordsmanship" skill. You can be a ranger and a spell caster if you want by taking an elementalist secondary. I hate people that play a game for 5 min, understand nothing about it, then complain.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
I'm disappointed by the simplicity and restrictions. I've bought the game to play with a friend who has yet to even install it, and it's lame. Six classes, each restricted.. very little customization. Only one race, bodies restricted by class.
I'm playing a ranger and I HAVE to use a bow. Melee sucks, even with warrior 2nd class. Who ever heard of a game restricting rangers to archery?

Should have bought a D&D based game instead.

Why would you be a ranger if you wanted to melee? That's like picking a priest to nuke people

Because Rangers are supposed to be skilled swordsmen, in addition to skilled archers. You shouldn't even know a ranger is lurking in the trees until the arrow goes through your throat or they drop from above and slice up your entire party in seconds.

LOL!

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
I'm disappointed by the simplicity and restrictions. I've bought the game to play with a friend who has yet to even install it, and it's lame. Six classes, each restricted.. very little customization. Only one race, bodies restricted by class.
I'm playing a ranger and I HAVE to use a bow. Melee sucks, even with warrior 2nd class. Who ever heard of a game restricting rangers to archery?

Should have bought a D&D based game instead.

Why would you be a ranger if you wanted to melee? That's like picking a priest to nuke people

Because Rangers are supposed to be skilled swordsmen, in addition to skilled archers. You shouldn't even know a ranger is lurking in the trees until the arrow goes through your throat or they drop from above and slice up your entire party in seconds.

LOL!

I heard that there was this ranger who was eating at an inn. And when some dude dropped a flaggon of mead, the ranger killed the whole village! My friend Eomer said that he saw a ranger totally knife some waif just because the waif opened a window!

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Lord Zado
Uhhh...why don't you come back and complain about the game AFTER you get out of the newbie area. For one, you must dual class in this game, so there aren't "just 6 classes", there are 30 different options. Secondly you can be a ranger and melee, you just have to put points into the "Swordsmanship" skill. You can be a ranger and a spell caster if you want by taking an elementalist secondary. I hate people that play a game for 5 min, understand nothing about it, then complain.

Except I researched it before posting. According to a forum, rangers suck at melee because of their dodging or something... I wouldn't know the details because the skills and character attributes aren't directly visible.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: fishbits

Because Rangers are supposed to be skilled swordsmen, in addition to skilled archers. You shouldn't even know a ranger is lurking in the trees until the arrow goes through your throat or they drop from above and slice up your entire party in seconds.

Oh, you wanted best-in-game stealth, ranged *and* melee. Now I understand your disappointment.

Didn't say best melee, I said skilled swordsman. A ranger would not be able to take a warrior covered in full battle armor, but then, they wouldn't be in such a fight. A ranger's stealth isn't the same as say a Rogue or Assasin. The stealth skills of those classes are geared to conceal against people, and are in an urban environment. A ranger focuses on stealth and survival in a wilderness area. (There are urban ranger prestige classes that do exist however)

Obviously, you've never played PnP D&D. The first real 'ranger' was Aragon from LOTR, and he never even touches a bow. He knew all manner of forest lore, camping skills, and sword skills.

Go pick up a D&D 3.5e Players Handbook and read the chapter on Rangers.

 

[fishbits]

Obviously, you've never played PnP D&D. The first real 'ranger' was Aragon from LOTR, and he never even touches a bow. He knew all manner of forest lore, camping skills, and sword skills.

I wasn't aware this was a licensed D&D game that adhered to D&D rules and conventions.

I wasn't aware that it was a licensed Tolkein/Middle Earth game that lets you play its characters.

I wasn't aware that it let you start out with "Aragorn" or Aragorn-leveled characters.

I wasn't aware that because Aragorn didn't use a bow it means he couldn't, nor could any other ranger.

I wasn't aware that the mages can't do jack squat when it comes to casting spells and mainly talked to animals instead, because they all must be "Gandalf" (am I following the logic correctly here?)

I wasn't aware that game developers had to implement the carbon-copy sameness you find essential.

That's what I like about these forums, you really learn a lot!

 

[mb]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
I'm disappointed by the simplicity and restrictions. I've bought the game to play with a friend who has yet to even install it, and it's lame. Six classes, each restricted.. very little customization. Only one race, bodies restricted by class.
I'm playing a ranger and I HAVE to use a bow. Melee sucks, even with warrior 2nd class. Who ever heard of a game restricting rangers to archery?

Should have bought a D&D based game instead.

Why would you be a ranger if you wanted to melee? That's like picking a priest to nuke people

Because Rangers are supposed to be skilled swordsmen, in addition to skilled archers. You shouldn't even know a ranger is lurking in the trees until the arrow goes through your throat or they drop from above and slice up your entire party in seconds.

The game has to be balanced for PvP. You can't have a character who is strong with a sword and with a bow. You can have one that is strong with the sword and ok with a bow, or strong with bow and ok with sword... not both.

 

[Looney]

Didn't say best melee, I said skilled swordsman. A ranger would not be able to take a warrior covered in full battle armor, but then, they wouldn't be in such a fight. A ranger's stealth isn't the same as say a Rogue or Assasin. The stealth skills of those classes are geared to conceal against people, and are in an urban environment. A ranger focuses on stealth and survival in a wilderness area. (There are urban ranger prestige classes that do exist however)

Obviously, you've never played PnP D&D. The first real 'ranger' was Aragon from LOTR, and he never even touches a bow. He knew all manner of forest lore, camping skills, and sword skills.

So when hunting, a ranger would run up and stab a rabbit or deer with a sword?

Go pick up a D&D 3.5e Players Handbook and read the chapter on Rangers.

Yeah, AD&D is the only word on classes :roll:

 

[Micah]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
1) I want to "roleplay" a ranger.

I think this is the heart of the problem. From what I've read, GW has very little to do with role-playing. It's always being compared to Magic: The Gathering. It's a strategy game with some action thrown in.

It sounds like GW just decided to add an "archer" class and call it "ranger". It sounds like their definition of ranger is just different than yours.

Perhaps you should choose warrior as your main class and just call yourself a ranger for role-play purposes. If you've played table-top RPGs then you know that no one goes around referring to themself by class ("I'm Zaragorn, the level 12 ranger..."). They choose a race/class combo for stats and skills, then role-play it how they want ("I'm Zaragorn, protector of the King's Forest...").

If you're really looking for role-playing, I don't think GW is the game for it. From what I've read, it's all about team-deathmatch skill contests.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: supafly

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
I'm disappointed by the simplicity and restrictions. I've bought the game to play with a friend who has yet to even install it, and it's lame. Six classes, each restricted.. very little customization. Only one race, bodies restricted by class.
I'm playing a ranger and I HAVE to use a bow. Melee sucks, even with warrior 2nd class. Who ever heard of a game restricting rangers to archery?

Should have bought a D&D based game instead.

Why would you be a ranger if you wanted to melee? That's like picking a priest to nuke people

Because Rangers are supposed to be skilled swordsmen, in addition to skilled archers. You shouldn't even know a ranger is lurking in the trees until the arrow goes through your throat or they drop from above and slice up your entire party in seconds.

The game has to be balanced for PvP. You can't have a character who is strong with a sword and with a bow. You can have one that is strong with the sword and ok with a bow, or strong with bow and ok with sword... not both.

Rangers in other games can be strong with either melee weapons OR bows. Look at D&D games like NWN for example. A ranger has a choice of bows, knives, rapiers, short swords, long swords, katanas....

And about a ranger stabbing a rabbit with a sword.. That has nothing to do with being a ranger. You could hunt animals with a very low archery skill, sharpened sticks, tomahawks, etc.

 

[Chompman]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: supafly

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
I'm disappointed by the simplicity and restrictions. I've bought the game to play with a friend who has yet to even install it, and it's lame. Six classes, each restricted.. very little customization. Only one race, bodies restricted by class.
I'm playing a ranger and I HAVE to use a bow. Melee sucks, even with warrior 2nd class. Who ever heard of a game restricting rangers to archery?

Should have bought a D&D based game instead.

Why would you be a ranger if you wanted to melee? That's like picking a priest to nuke people

Because Rangers are supposed to be skilled swordsmen, in addition to skilled archers. You shouldn't even know a ranger is lurking in the trees until the arrow goes through your throat or they drop from above and slice up your entire party in seconds.

The game has to be balanced for PvP. You can't have a character who is strong with a sword and with a bow. You can have one that is strong with the sword and ok with a bow, or strong with bow and ok with sword... not both.

Rangers in other games can be strong with either melee weapons OR bows. Look at D&D games like NWN for example. A ranger has a choice of bows, knives, rapiers, short swords, long swords, katanas....

And about a ranger stabbing a rabbit with a sword.. That has nothing to do with being a ranger. You could hunt animals with a very low archery skill, sharpened sticks, tomahawks, etc.

Or look at other games with rangers like FF11 and such where they suck in melee.

This is a game and doesn't have to go by what you think is right.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Micah

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
1) I want to "roleplay" a ranger.

I think this is the heart of the problem. From what I've read, GW has very little to do with role-playing. It's always being compared to Magic: The Gathering. It's a strategy game with some action thrown in.

It's NOTHING like MTG. The only reason why people say it's like it, is because you can pick up as many skills as you want, but you have to choose 8 for missions/pvp. But the skills you choose are absolutely NOTHING like MTG, and they don't play anything like MTG.

 

[mb]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: supafly

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
I'm disappointed by the simplicity and restrictions. I've bought the game to play with a friend who has yet to even install it, and it's lame. Six classes, each restricted.. very little customization. Only one race, bodies restricted by class.
I'm playing a ranger and I HAVE to use a bow. Melee sucks, even with warrior 2nd class. Who ever heard of a game restricting rangers to archery?

Should have bought a D&D based game instead.

Why would you be a ranger if you wanted to melee? That's like picking a priest to nuke people

Because Rangers are supposed to be skilled swordsmen, in addition to skilled archers. You shouldn't even know a ranger is lurking in the trees until the arrow goes through your throat or they drop from above and slice up your entire party in seconds.

The game has to be balanced for PvP. You can't have a character who is strong with a sword and with a bow. You can have one that is strong with the sword and ok with a bow, or strong with bow and ok with sword... not both.

Rangers in other games can be strong with either melee weapons OR bows. Look at D&D games like NWN for example. A ranger has a choice of bows, knives, rapiers, short swords, long swords, katanas....

And about a ranger stabbing a rabbit with a sword.. That has nothing to do with being a ranger. You could hunt animals with a very low archery skill, sharpened sticks, tomahawks, etc.

The fact is, it would still make the game unbalanced that way! You can change weapons during missions/battles, but you can't change characters or skills. If a ranger was to be made strong in both swords and bows in GW, a player could switch between the two weapons depending on the sitation to give them an unfair advantage. Everyone would want to choose ranger as their main profession that way. That's why the game has secondary professions... as a warrior, you can choose to be a ranger as the second profession, and be skillfull with a bow, but not so much as you could be with an axe, hammer, or sword. If you are a ranger first, you can still pick up a sword and attack people with it, but it won't be as effective. The game creators did a really good job in keeping the balance of things. And not only are there multiple professions, but each profession as numerous skills, so it's all about trying to find the perfect combination to defeat your enemies.

My character I am using now is a Warrior/ranger. Some enemies can pin you down so you can't move or use speels to slow your movement a lot. Using a sword in this sitation isn't the best option, but you can pull out your bow while hindered by movement and still attack.

Anyway.. I hope that makes sense.. I've had some :beer: tonight.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Hell, Aragorn is a "ranger" and he never touches a bow in LOTR!

Is that a fact?

 

[mb]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Hell, Aragorn is a "ranger" and he never touches a bow in LOTR!

Is that a fact?

I know statements like this belong in ATOT, but:
PWNED!