Should secondary rangers charm pets?

[Mystic Arrow]

I think only Rangers should be able to charm pets, thats one of the main reasons i choose a ranger over other characters, and now any secondary ranger with the charm animal can get a pet, what do you think?

[Darc.Syde]

why shouldnt they?

they're part ranger after all...

[Dreamsmith]

I think only Rangers should be able to charm pets
I agree that only Rangers should be able to charm pets. And indeed, that's how it works currently. Leave it the way it is.

I don't see any reason why only Primary Rangers should be able to charm pets. It's not like it's an expertise skill, or even ought to be one.

[Mystic Arrow]

I agree that only Rangers should be able to charm pets. And indeed, that's how it works currently. Leave it the way it is.

I don't see any reason why only Primary Rangers should be able to charm pets. It's not like it's an expertise skill, or even ought to be one.

Im saying that only Primary Rangers should be able to charm pets, and not secondary rangers. I saw a lot of ppl with ..../ranger with pets, and i think thats unfair.

[Excel]

Yeah I agree with Darc.Syde when the game has a unique character build I don't think it would be fair to restrict a pet to primary ranger only, I've played wpe & a beta with a w/r and i liked having a pet for backup :)

[Mystic Arrow]

Yeah I agree with Darc.Syde when the game has a unique character build I don't think it would be fair to restrict a pet to primary ranger only, I've played wpe & a beta with a w/r and i liked having a pet for backup :)
I guess you are right...same thing happens...say for example...if a .../Necro cant summon minions...hmm..

[DevilDog]

Does that also mean you shouldn't be able to use the Necromancers undead creatures unless you're primary? (edit, what mystic arrow said, hadn't seen that)

If you want to go secondary Ranger, and get pets, you should be allowed to do so. There already is the Rangers current special attribute "expertise" which IMO, is very good. No need to make, in a sense, two attributes into one.

[Mystic Arrow]

Does that also mean you shouldn't be able to use the Necromancers undead creatures unless you're primary?

If you want to go secondary Ranger, and get pets, you should be allowed to do so. There already is the Rangers current special attribute "expertise" which IMO, is very good.
I know, my bad, didnt think about that..and yes expertise its very useful.

[Dreamsmith]

I saw a lot of ppl with ..../ranger with pets, and i think thats unfair.
Why? What's unfair about it?

I don't see any good reason to nerf half the Rangers in the game, just because they chose a primary attribute other than Expertise. How is that fair? It seems to be it'd be grossly unfair to not allow all these Rangers to have pets. Fairness is about treating people equally (as much as possible), and you're suggesting we treat half the Rangers in the game differently. You ought to have a very powerful reason for introducing that level of unfairness, so, what's the reason for it? Why shouldn't all Rangers be treated equally?

[DevilDog]

I think he just thought it was being used too much.

In my experience though(only been in on the last BWE so far) I didn't see very many people with pets, except for primary Rangers.

I would understand wanting to make it a primary for them only if the pets were super strong death machines and everyone and their mom used Ranger as their secondary profession. But, since they don't, it's fine.

[Mystic Arrow]

Why? What's unfair about it?

I don't see any good reason to nerf half the Rangers in the game, just because they chose a primary attribute other than Expertise. How is that fair? It seems to be it'd be grossly unfair to not allow all these Rangers to have pets. Fairness is about treating people equally (as much as possible), and you're suggesting we treat half the Rangers in the game differently. You ought to have a very powerful reason for introducing that level of unfairness, so, what's the reason for it? Why shouldn't all Rangers be treated equally?
Well half the rangers as u say are not really rangers, not primary rangers at least, besides I already said it was my bad, I didnt think about .../Necros.

[Dreamsmith]

Well half the rangers as u say are not really rangers,

No, that's wrong. All Rangers really are Rangers. Not all of them are Primary Rangers, but they all really are Rangers. If you think otherwise, you fail to understand the game mechanics. All characters in the game have two classes. If a Monk/Ranger isn't a Ranger, then what is she? She can't simply be a Monk and nothing else, that's not possible in this game. So, given that she must have two classes, and you say she's not really a Ranger, then what two classes is she? Monk and ...?

I dare say both the Rangers pictured in my avatar understand what it means to be a Ranger, unlike some people here...

[Mystic Arrow]

No, that's wrong. All Rangers really are Rangers. Not all of them are Primary Rangers, but they all really are Rangers. If you think otherwise, you fail to understand the game mechanics. All characters in the game have two classes. If a Monk/Ranger isn't a Ranger, then what is she? She can't simply be a Monk and nothing else, that's not possible in this game. So, given that she must have two classes, and you say she's not really a Ranger, then what two classes is she? Monk and ...?

I dare say both the Rangers pictured in my avatar understand what it means to be a Ranger, unlike some people here...
Still going at it man? God, I get it all right? I know i made a mistake, I already said im sorry. gosh

[Dreamsmith]

I already said im sorry.
Actually, no, you didn't. And you implied your mistake was not thinking about Necromancers, rather than treating half the Rangers in the game like we weren't.

[Mystic Arrow]

Actually, no, you didn't. And you implied your mistake was not thinking about Necromancers, rather than treating half the Rangers in the game like we weren't.
Well thats how i think it should be, and no im not sry bout what i said.
happy now?

[Xiong Chi]

Yep. Happy Holidays! *leaves a bowl of treats for all those moas, lynxes, warthogs and wolves out there, and a pappermint stick for the lonely snow ettins too*

[Mystic Arrow]

Yep. Happy Holidays! *leaves a bowl of treats for all those moas, lynxes, warthogs and wolves out there, and a pappermint stick for the lonely snow ettins too*
hahahahaha

[Dreamsmith]

Well thats how i think it should be, and no im not sry bout what i said.
That's perfectly understandable, and I never asked for an apology. A lot of people don't like dual-classing. If that's your beef, then just say so. I have no problem with people who disagree with me on matters of opinion. The fact of the matter is, all Rangers really are Rangers right now, and I and a lot of other people like it that way. If you think things should be different, that's fine too, and you have every right to say so. We're all entitled to our own opinions. Just don't get all huffy and throw around statements like "Still going at it man? God, I get it all right? I know i made a mistake, I already said im sorry. gosh" when (a) you don't mean it, and (b) I'm simply stating an opinion that differs from yours, as is my right, and asking for clarification (you said it was unfair, but you never did answer my question about what was unfair about it). You act like I was doing something unusual or wrong by questioning your point of view. If you don't want to discuss your views publicly, why are you posting them in a public forum? If you do want to discuss your views publicly, then why when I start to question them do you say things like the above, or the below?


happy now?
I always was. Disagreeing with someone doesn't make me unhappy, it just makes me of a different opinion.

[Mystic Arrow]

That's perfectly understandable, and I never asked for an apology. A lot of people don't like dual-classing. If that's your beef, then just say so. I have no problem with people who disagree with me on matters of opinion. The fact of the matter is, all Rangers really are Rangers right now, and I and a lot of other people like it that way. If you think things should be different, that's fine too, and you have every right to say so. We're all entitled to our own opinions. Just don't get all huffy and throw around statements like "Still going at it man? God, I get it all right? I know i made a mistake, I already said im sorry. gosh" when (a) you don't mean it, and (b) I'm simply stating an opinion that differs from yours, as is my right, and asking for clarification (you said it was unfair, but you never did answer my question about what was unfair about it). You act like I was doing something unusual or wrong by questioning your point of view. If you don't want to discuss your views publicly, why are you posting them in a public forum? If you do want to discuss your views publicly, then why when I start to question them do you say things like the above, or the below?


I always was. Disagreeing with someone doesn't make me unhappy, it just makes me of a different opinion.

Hmm...well you're right...and I thought it was unfair because Rangers are, say for example, not as strong as a Warrior is, Rangers dont have that many energy points as spellcasters do, I know we rangers have expertise which is awesome, but I just thought pets should be only available to primary Rangers only. I wasn't thinking when i posted that, but i guess you're right, a Ranger is a ranger, primary or secondary is a ranger, as i said so many times, im an Elementalist, even though secondary, still im an Elem., and yes i posted to get some different opinions, and thanks for making me understand that, im just a little hard headed :xmad: .

Mystic Bow

[SquidgY]

While we're on the subject of pets, I think they need to be nerfed a lil, but the supporting shouts need some buffage. This would make awesome pets not available with just two skills.

[Rebelor]

What defines a ranger is his/her bow. Everything else is a perk. Since we are dual chars, with a primary and secondary, we cant have the best of both. so there is no reason not to have the perks secondarily in our builds. A monk with a guard wolf would be cool(hoping they will add pet control).

[Darc.Syde]

While we're on the subject of pets, I think they need to be nerfed a lil, but the supporting shouts need some buffage. This would make awesome pets not available with just two skills.
how so? they arent that great as of now. the shouts/calls are good if you invest enough into them.

[Mo'Kai]

Hmm, Yeah... Can you Command your pet to stay with you and Guard you? Monk with a Guarding Ostritch sounds very cool. Or like a good pet if I can find one.

If attacked you can just tell the pet to attack and run away, and then heal the pet. Or try to use arrows.

I do wish you could be only one profession though. And it should have some advantage, being full blooded or choosing to be partly secondary. Maybe a super ultra skill for those who are only one class.

[Zypher Wynn]

While we're on the subject of pets, I think they need to be nerfed a lil, but the supporting shouts need some buffage. This would make awesome pets not available with just two skills.

Pets right now are uncontrolable and often draw more aggro than a party needs in PvE. Beyond being a weak tank, pets have no skills or ablities. In PvP they are often considered nothing more than a minor annoyance to real tanks and rarely decide the outcome of a battle.
So please explain why you belive they need nerfed? They are not that great now for rangers.
If anything they need to have something added which they are severely lacking which is control commands that a ranger can execute with a pet.

[SquidgY]

My main point was how Beast Mastery does nothing for them… (I do that with my suggestions, imply something else instead of what's just written.)

[Zypher Wynn]

My main point was how Beast Mastery does nothing for them… (I do that with my suggestions, imply something else instead of what's just written.)
I think I understand what you are suggesting now. Instead of nerfing the pet, you want to see some changes to the Beast Mastery skills. That would not be a nerf but rather an improvement.
A nerf is something done to lessen or weaken the power of a skill, attack, item, ect... They are never a good thing and often will result in strong negative feeling by those who have the character class, skill, ect... that the nerf is suggested for.

[Ander Moonshadow]

I agree. Going for all Beast Mastery should make your pet really strong. The skills from that attribute should be improved. As should the skills for the Warrior's Strength attribute, btw. It's kind of the same situation.

[Zypher Wynn]

I agree. Going for all Beast Mastery should make your pet really strong. The skills from that attribute should be improved. As should the skills for the Warrior's Strength attribute, btw. It's kind of the same situation.
Too True. I usually play melee characters such as warriors but the fact that the strength attribute was so poor is the main reason I started playing a ranger. these are but two character attributes which need work. Work is needed in other classes also.
It seems that all classes have at least one(some might say more depending on the class) skill attribute lines which need to be improved to be equal with the rest of the available skill lines.

[Mo'Kai]

Yeah, I really think Rangers Need to be able to control their pets, tell it to stay with you, tell it who to attack. Right now they just run off and fight without a brain

[Gaile]

Actually... I'm not on the design team, so you can all breath easily, but I'm not sure that I wouldn't support having only Primary Rangers with the Charm Animal Skill. It would definitely be something I'd think about, anyway.

I think that charmed animals should be super cool and rare, and right now, there may be just a few too many people are wandering around with a pet. When I know the team's desire is to have every "look" for a profession be uniquely theirs, then having a Warrior with a pet, or a Mesmer with a pet just sort of tears that concept for me, since having a pet is a major component of a profession's appearance.

So yeah, you guys can be happy I'm not a designer, huh? :xsmile:

[Aire]

I'd agree with you on that point, but it would be much better if you gave Primary Rangers more advanced customization options, or some ability which made them far more unique than if they were used as a secondary.

Just my opinion

/Aire :)

[superflyfly]

I'd agree with you on that point, but it would be much better if you gave Primary Rangers more advanced customization options, or some ability which made them far more unique than if they were used as a secondary.

Just my opinion

/Aire :)
yes it would make more sense if primary rangers had more ability to control their animals vs the secondary who wouldn't be as well trained ? then again this would also have to apply to necros

[SquidgY]

I think I understand what you are suggesting now. Instead of nerfing the pet, you want to see some changes to the Beast Mastery skills. That would not be a nerf but rather an improvement.
A nerf is something done to lessen or weaken the power of a skill, attack, item, ect... They are never a good thing and often will result in strong negative feeling by those who have the character class, skill, ect... that the nerf is suggested for.

No actually I did want a nerf to pets in general, because everyone uses them w/o the various shouts and the pets seem to function fine.

[Kirellii]

I think that you should be able to get "Advanced Pet Handling" or some skill which allows a Ranger to have "pet" commands available. It should be one of the 8 skills. That way you could play the "Do as I say" type ranger (Necro/Ranger) or the "Hey, we are just friends and my wolf friend helps as seems most fit to the situation" (Monk/Ranger) without the command skill.

Personally, I want to see the Female Ice Elementalist/Ranger with a frosty wolf friend if that is possible.

:scratch:

[UndeadBehlial]

ok I think I'm going a bit against the grain here. In PvE, pets are amazing. The game actually attacks the pets, and the pets do some nice damage on certain guys. However you must admit many times the pets are running off somewhere you do not want them to be. All in all, pets are nice in PvE to take heat off your team.

I will say I believe pets to be, ATM, useless in PvP (which is my main focus anyway). First, anyone who is decent will realize that the pet does very negligable damage. I have an example: I was a monk, someone's wolf was attacking me, I completely ignored its damage. It was doing about -7 per hit, meaning I took time to heal myself oh about once every 2-3 minutes of fighting - and thats a 1 second spell. I did however attack it with my monk doing about -17 per hit. It took a while, but whenever I didnt have to heal (this was in the gladiator arena not tombs or Guild fight) i would just attack the wolf. I killed it.

So to summarize, the pets do barely any damage(to a monk!) and even a monk can kill a pet. Sounds like a waste of a skill slot - but oh wait, to be even slightly useful everyone argues you MUST have pet resurrect. So thats 1/4 of yur skills devoted to having a pet and being able to resurrect it. Now in later battles there were pets I really couldnt damage, but they still couldnt to any decent damage to me. If I were a warrior and I had a moa attacking me as well as a ranger shooting at me, why would I EVER attack the moa over the ranger?? In PvP, pets are currently useless (then again I havent seen a Petmaster build or anything... haha).

PvE, sure get a pet. Depends if you want 1/4 of your skills devoted to nothing but having a pet and being able to resurrect it.

I do have a ranger, and I go carry around Charm Animal in PvE, but not even pet resurrect. Once it dies, oh well its surved its purpose. In PvP i just unequip the spell altogether.

[Mystic Arrow]

I agree with UndeadBehlial, I usually take my pet on PvE, but they are completely useless in PvP without some Calls and high beast mastery. About that pet you couldnt damage, im sure it was a snow wolf, I tried one of those pre-built-lvl 20 characters, i think it was Beast Master, with 4 or5 calls, and that made the snow wolf very powerfull, able to take elemental damage, and I think there was symbotic bond too, so half the physical damage was redirected to me as well, of course i had 12 points in beast mastery and marksmanship.

[Zypher Wynn]

No actually I did want a nerf to pets in general, because everyone uses them w/o the various shouts and the pets seem to function fine.
I belive you are in the minority on this issue, my fellow gamer. Many people who play a ranger(both primary and secondary) feel that pets are not that great right now. I have yet see any pet do ungodly amounts of damage in PvE or PvP except when facing an extremely lower level foe than themselves. I have seen a high level pet tear thru other players and mobs which were at least 10 levels lower than the pet.
That is the nature of MMOGs combat which still remains in Guild Wars. Higher levels have stronger attacks. And like player characters, pets also level up. So it is very possible for a level 10 primary warrior to face off against a level 20 pet in PvP and get beaten by it. It is not because the pet is too powerful, rather the pet just happens to have more hit points than the warrior.
As it has been pointed out in the previous post, for the most part, pets are useless in PvP.
I have never seen anyone brought down solely by a pet in the arena when they were close to if, not higher in level than it. Often in PvP, pets are killed quickly by casters' AoE spells because they lack control to recall them once they enter combat. They do not have any skills that would allow attacks which would interupt a spell. Most people regard them as nothing more than an annoyance in PvP combat.
In PvE, right now pets are only good for using as a minor tank or a distraction to keep aggro of of the other members of the ranger's party. They are good for a form of crowd control when facing multiple foes by drawing one (and on extreme rare occasions more) and holding it until the party can focus their efforts on that particular mob. Beyond that, they are good to sacrifice when your party needs to buy time to escape.
Pets, like any other party member can be healed by a monk and buffed by a monk. Also there are several spells that are in the Beast Mastery skill line that would allow a ranger to grant special buffs to his/her pet which can increase attacks, ammount of damage, ect..... However when a pet dies, only a ranger can resurect it. So a ranger using a pet must decide if they want to devote skill slots to skills designed only to service the needs of the pet.
For a ranger to even have a pet, they must give up at least one skill slot for the pet to be with them. A second if they want to be able to resurect that pet and a third if they want to be able to heal it. Same with any buff skills they might choose to use for that pet.

[MasterNightfall]

I'd share the sentiment of buffing pets.

When my mesmer sees one... I see it as a free snack for Ether Lord/Energy Tap.

[Tsume]

I actually did get told of a humiliating defeat by a drained down warrior, who was finished off by a pair of warthogs in the Tombs.

I think that a Petmaster could build a very effective ally, assuming the shouts stack. Also I notice some of the shouts do not specify clearly whether they effect only the callers pets, or all the pets in the area. If it is the latter, why you could concievably build an effective 8 allies, with the cost of one player going heavy in those shout skills. I remember some of us wondering about this before, but do not recall ever finding out. Suppose I'll have to do it myself then.

Is it not true that the idea of shouts (both Warrior and Ranger shouts) are based on inspiration and not on command. They inspire teamates/pets. With that in mind, it is only logical that the Ranger shouts should effect all pets in the area. Afterall, the Ranger is the profession which is intune with nature, the argument that other Rangers couldn't direct or speak with the other pets is flawed.

[REI ONRYOU]

I like Tsume's idea of pet shouts affecting all pets instead of just that Ranger's personal pet. It would allow multiple pets without affecting the whole party's skill loadout, and could be quite effective.

On the issue of Secondary, that technically means that secondary monks shouldn't be able to heal, secondary elementalists shouldn't be able to do fire attacks, secondary necros shouldn't have minions and so forth. You could then go on to compare monk healing to ranger pets and say that pets aren't as important as healing, so if you were to remove sec monk healing, you should remove sec ranger marksmanship, and then it's a case of making secondary classes pointless. The drawback of secondary is that you don't get the primary attribute. The fact that secondary rangers don't get expertise's 5%/level less cost to use energy is a drawback enough. Removing pets would just be worsening the situation. It's just something that must accepted. Pet's require a lot of work to make powerful, so if a secondary is willing to, why not?

[Ander Moonshadow]

I agree. My pet is the only reason I'm still a W/R, after being no longer able to go full on in marksmanship, choosing tactics instead, in order to keep a half decent warrior char alive. I don't have the pet because it's so good, mind you, but just because I love the pets. If you want to change it, I guess it wouldn't matter much, would allow me an extra skill slot and a switch to the much better W/Mo or W/N, or I can go Ranger/Warrior, which looks better than any Warrior chars atm anyway.

[goblintrain]

While we're on the subject of pets, I think they need to be nerfed a lil, but the supporting shouts need some buffage. This would make awesome pets not available with just two skills.

Ya, i tend to agree, tho it is something i will be exploring more this weekend. Granted, i entered the December beta as a 100% noob, but in PvP, pets seemed to be a disproportionately strong advantage. Strong pets is a good option imo, but your suggestion that it should require more investment on the heroe's part to make them that way sounds reasonable to me at this point.

[UndeadBehlial]

regarding Tsume's comment about AoE pet commands. I disagree. One ranger affecting all pets is not a good thing.

It really DOESN'T make sense. You say rangers are in tune with all nature, but they still cannot control, say, a snow ettin - even the green ones. If you have a dog that comes when you call, you know that just because you ahve a great and obedient dog doesn't mean when you go to an acquaintences house it will do everything your dog does.

If such a blanket spell is to be made, you want it to be a nature call, thus ally and foe pets alike should get the bonus as pets are not in quite the same state of mind, and you really cant stop the call from reaching everyone.

Something to ponder.

[REI ONRYOU]

regarding Tsume's comment about AoE pet commands. I disagree. One ranger affecting all pets is not a good thing.

It really DOESN'T make sense. You say rangers are in tune with all nature, but they still cannot control, say, a snow ettin - even the green ones. If you have a dog that comes when you call, you know that just because you ahve a great and obedient dog doesn't mean when you go to an acquaintences house it will do everything your dog does.

If such a blanket spell is to be made, you want it to be a nature call, thus ally and foe pets alike should get the bonus as pets are not in quite the same state of mind, and you really cant stop the call from reaching everyone.

Something to ponder.

Symantecs really. I do see your point for accuracy reasons, but for the gameplay side, it would open up the opportunity of a team of pets. Perhaps if it's just a 50% effect on other team pets?

[UndeadBehlial]

Symantecs really. I do see your point for accuracy reasons, but for the gameplay side, it would open up the opportunity of a team of pets. Perhaps if it's just a 50% effect on other team pets?


And what happens when you get a team of those crazy Ranger-only guilds? Let's give them all 2 buffing skills, thats 16 different ones (i'm sure they wont stack in this scenario right) that affect 8 pets. At a point, pets can become warriors....

[REI ONRYOU]

Hmm....considering Mesmers can't debuff pets (and it'd be a waste), then the only way I could see this working is if the effect was 50% effect and duration. If this still leaves things unbalanced (I haven't thought it through fully, my brain has just shut down) then the idea itself wouldn't work and shouldn't be necessary to consider.

[Fa'Rain Shad'a'lain]

Being a Secondary Ranger myself;
Have it like this: Ranger Primary should have the option to charm two or three pets and the Secondary Ranger should only have the one pet thereby making the Ranger Primary balanced. Ranger Primary while having the pet(s) already charmed would not need the charm animal skill taking up one of the 8 skill slots for there pet(s) to be with them in PvP or PvE, being a Secondary Ranger will still need the skill to be equiped in order to have the pet travel with them.

Problem solved :D

[GammaRay]

I think Kirellii was on to something there. As you increase your Beast Mastery, you should open up new commands for your pet (ie: you're more experienced with your pet and know how to control it better). Secondly, it seems that perhaps the pet should get a bit of an attack/defense/HP boost as you increase your Beast Mastery, making it a more effective tool at higher levels. Not so much as to make a dramatic difference, but to give the animal a bit of an edge as the player spends points on it.

This way the person that just wants a quick temporary tank, such as the Monk or Necro, can have it but has little control over its actions, and the animal isn't at its full potential power-wise. For the Beast Master, the pet will be much easier to manipulate with all those extra commands, and it will also receive a bit of a straight bonus for all that effort.

As for the perpetual issue of balance, it seems to work out pretty fairly to me, but that's just me. The pet commands relative to BM's level seems relavant, at the very least. If you're going to be dumping large amounts of points into Beast Mastery, it seems there should be a bit of extra on the HP/Def/Att bit, in addition to just the way skills benefit from it -- nothing overbearing or even near what pet buffs grant, just a pleasant little reward.

Just my two cents, feel free to debunk me. ^_^

[Zvixo]

I think we should be able to dye our pets, and buy them noserings and clothes!!! Or would animal protection such as the WWF and Greenpeace bring up animal brutality? While I understand painting your pet hamster in real life is kina harsh, this is after all a game (that uses pelts anyway)!

[Mystic Arrow]

Being a Secondary Ranger myself;
Have it like this: Ranger Primary should have the option to charm two or three pets and the Secondary Ranger should only have the one pet thereby making the Ranger Primary balanced. Ranger Primary while having the pet(s) already charmed would not need the charm animal skill taking up one of the 8 skill slots for there pet(s) to be with them in PvP or PvE, being a Secondary Ranger will still need the skill to be equiped in order to have the pet travel with them.

Problem solved :D

Two or three pets? Man i wish they do that, and without the charm animal taking up one slot, even better :D .

[Ander Moonshadow]

lol. #1 guild will be 8 Ranger/Monks with their 24 pets+buffing skills.

= aim; kill; aim; kill....

[Feramas]

I agree. My pet is the only reason I'm still a W/R, after being no longer able to go full on in marksmanship, choosing tactics instead, in order to keep a half decent warrior char alive. I don't have the pet because it's so good, mind you, but just because I love the pets. If you want to change it, I guess it wouldn't matter much, would allow me an extra skill slot and a switch to the much better W/Mo or W/N, or I can go Ranger/Warrior, which looks better than any Warrior chars atm anyway.

Pets are awesome with the ranger and as someone said, it kinda takes the heat off your team, allowing you to kill your "enemies" more effectively. I also agree that at the moment that they are not good for PvP. As for allowing an extra skill slot, I dont believe its needed. This game is after all based on skills. Not how many you have, its HOW you use them.


OUR tanks can stay alive pretty well, if you are having problems, get a better team or revise your warrior, just my opinion. :P

[akirakade]

I think only Rangers should be able to charm pets, thats one of the main reasons i choose a ranger over other characters, and now any secondary ranger with the charm animal can get a pet, what do you think?


Well if being able to charm pets is the only reason, you should have picked a different class and chose ranger as your second. Ive had a Ranger and a Necro/Ranger, both avid pet users.

[Excel]

GJ, answering a post that is 1 year old

[Shimz]

LOL :xmas9: I'd say better late than never, but the topic has pretty much been covered. Good reply, though.

[Cyberman]

Even though this topic is old, I´d like to add the following:

If you want to nerf secondary pet rangers, bind the Charm Animal to the Beast Mastery skill.
A Beast Master needs to have a high level of BM, regardless of class order - so it won´t hurt him.
It´ll hurt those who have a pet merely for the looks, or as source of power(IWAY, necros).

[The Experimentor]

As a Beastmastery fan since I started playing this game (my top character is an Elementalist/Ranger)...

To remove the option of pets to non-Primary Rangers is to grossly limit the versatility and flexibility of Guild Wars' unique character creation. That would take just too much away from the game. It's been said that it'd be like 2ndary Monks who can't heal.

Guild Wars' dual-classed system is what makes it so different from so many games that simply lock you into one class. It also allows you to make a unique character of your own.

For example, Drizz't do Urden of Forgotten Realms. If a fan of that character would like to make something like him, or at least a melee machine supported by an animal, dropping Pets from 2ndary characters would mean that attempt is really hard to make. Sure, you could make a melee Ranger/Warrior, but I doubt that would be faithful to the concept. Drizz't may be as agile as a GW Ranger, but have no doubt he's actually a melee tank. Drizz't is a fighter/ranger, wears fighter (Warrior) armor, has fighter (Warrior) skills and tanks by agility- not GW Expertise but GW Tactics. But definitely his magical panther is a big part of him and is one of his biggest edges.

Another example, my own E/R. Gameplay-wise, he's an Earth mage blaster (Stone Daggers + Kinetic Armor) with a pet (high Beastmastery). But going deeper into the roleplaying, he's a Mage of the goddess Melandru, an Earth/Nature wizard, a sage who converses with Melandru's animals and with nature.

Remove Pets from 2ndary rangers, all that would be lost. The game will lose so much, and ultimately it's the players who will bear the most of that loss.



Two or three pets? Man i wish they do that, and without the charm animal taking up one slot, even better :D .

"Charm Animal" is a misleading name for that skill.

It's real name is "Pet" or "Bring Pet Along" or "I Have A Pet Who Fights Beside Me".

That's part of the cost of having a Pet. That's what the skill Charm Animal really does. You put it on, you have a pet with you when you go out.

And if not having Charm Animal on is unbalancing enough, having more than one pet would be game-breakingly crazy. Numbers matter in this game. That's why even high-level guys can be dragged low by lots of weak monsters (or why high-level monsters can be slain- by lots of lower level characters).

But to have 2 or 3 pets auto? Odds wil be too much in your favor. Odds will be you break the game.

Also consider that Necros may be able to make more than one minion, but those minions eventually run out of health and will all inevitably pass away.

Beast Mastery is powerful enough as it is. Not game-breaking, but definitely useful and doubtless fun. PvP people may say it's a liability, but we beg to differ. New players who're interested in it, on the other hand, should know what it really costs:
1. You always have a henchman that does not count against party limits / He wanders around and may attract aggro.
2. He dies, your skills go out / You have a natural bodyguard and auto-damage dealer.
3. You don't invest in Beast Mastery, you have more for your own skills without losing the Pet / You do invest in Beast Mastery, you make your Pet deadlier (deal more damage), harder-to-kill (more HP or AL, IIRC), and (some people say) smarter and less likely to give you trouble
4. You have to use up several slots in your skill bar to make the most use out of it (besides Charm Animal, Comfort Animal is a MUST for serious Beast Masters) / Most Beastmastery skills are incredibly efficient and effective, even for those without Expertise.

There, I've had my say. 2ndary Rangers should always have access to Pets, but no to multiple Pets for both Primaries and 2ndaries.

[Shadowspawn X]

I would like to see the current pets skills stay the same, but for primary rangers a skill that combines charm and comfort animal should be put under expertise. Also while they are at, , it would be great to put in a revive animal type skill with some serious range.

[Zohariel]

I'd like to see Charm Animal do something other than just sit there without an active power, but whatever. I'm fine with it as it is. :)

[The Experimentor]

I'd like to see Charm Animal do something other than just sit there without an active power, but whatever. I'm fine with it as it is. :)

Charm Animal does have an active power. A very powerful one.

Equip it to bring a pet along. Don't equip it, you fight alone.

And it doesn't count against the maximum size of the party. Have a party size of 6, you can go out with 7 characters.

If you go solo, the pet doesn't eat up XP or monster drops the way Henchmen do. Yet, your pet still levels up anyway.

If you think Charm Animal in your skill bar does nothing, of course not. That's the cost you pay to have a Pet by your side. You pay with a skill slot, which is an appropriate cost for something so advantageous.

If anything, I do wish ANet would change the skill's name to something more appropriate, like "Animal Companion". Honestly, "Charm Animal" is so misleading, as it makes people think it's just there to Charm a Pet, when it really functions by bringing that pet along.

[The Experimentor]

Even though this topic is old, I´d like to add the following:

If you want to nerf secondary pet rangers, bind the Charm Animal to the Beast Mastery skill.
A Beast Master needs to have a high level of BM, regardless of class order - so it won´t hurt him.
It´ll hurt those who have a pet merely for the looks, or as source of power(IWAY, necros).

This is a terrific idea.

Though I'm way against secondaries losing Pets, I am on the other hand irked when I see players bring pets along but don't support them. They don't carry Comfort Animal and don't mind when their Pet dies. That's just a waste and (from a role-playing point of view) such a callous way to play. Pets become disposable henchmen that don't eat up a party slot.

However, please don't make the BM requirement too high.

[Dawn Stormborn]

Charm Animal does have an active power. A very powerful one.

I think Zohariel means something more along the lines of "charm animal" and "comfort animal" being combined into one skill.

[Alexia of Durham]

I would like to see the current pets skills stay the same, but for primary rangers a skill that combines charm and comfort animal should be put under expertise. Also while they are at, , it would be great to put in a revive animal type skill with some serious range.

Totally agree with this statement . That would solve lots of problems for ranger primaries who are being serious about being a beastmaster and it would also free up a skill slot ( if you want to be serious about using your pet now , you automatically lose 3, but more likely 4 skill slots , add troll as self heal and a res that makes 6 slots - leaving 2 skills for your bow - think that's a bit unfair )

I understand what the OP is getting at as well. You see a lot of folks walking around with a pet , just because it "looks " cool - not because they are at all serious about utilizing the pet ( not to mention th dreaded W/R using the pet's death - deliberately - to trigger the effect of IWAY ) .

So , even a situation where only primary rangers would have the ability to have a pet would - in my opinion- not be ridiculous . However : having read the entire thread this would pose serious problems for other classes , such as secondary necros ( no more minions for secondaries? ),elementalist ( no more wards , or spells ?? ) etc.

best leave as is , but ADD something special for primary rangers as stated above.

[Dawn Stormborn]

I can tell you one problem I have with beast mastery on a primary monk: pet death = 8 second skill shutdown = extremely undesirable on a monk. Tell somebody you couldn't heal them because you pet died and your skills were recharging... see what they say (not that this has happened to me because I stopped equipping charm animal). When I get my Mo/R ascended I'm going back to the desert to switch secondaries.

I like pets and all, but I don't even go around all the time with my pet on my primary ranger. As much as I like rangers and pets, I just can't see effective pets as a secondary for any class... except Warrior, where they let the pet die for IWAY.

But hey, that's just me.

[Cyberman]

If you think Charm Animal in your skill bar does nothing, of course not. That's the cost you pay to have a Pet by your side. You pay with a skill slot, which is an appropriate cost for something so advantageous.
As I said before, you don´t only pay with the skill slot, but also with attribute points.
Attribute points itself are OK, but I see no reason why I have to carry a skill of its own "just" to have a pet.


If anything, I do wish ANet would change the skill's name to something more appropriate, like "Animal Companion". Honestly, "Charm Animal" is so misleading, as it makes people think it's just there to Charm a Pet, when it really functions by bringing that pet along.
I agree. Also, I think the naming "pet" is wrong too. It sounds derogatory, if you ask me. Like it´s just a trinket of no value, to be replaced when I feel like it.


As much as I like rangers and pets, I just can't see effective pets as a secondary for any class... except Warrior, where they let the pet die for IWAY.
As others said, pets make good tanks.
I´m a Warrior/Ranger, but I´d never do IWAY with my pet. (I consider it "wrong". Not cheating, just wrong.)
OTOH, often the pet takes the beating, instead of me. Leaving me free attack.

I don´t utilize my pet the way a true Beast Master would, as I don´t order it, nor do I use special attacks - I rely on it´s AI to help me.
Still, to do so, I have to have a high level of BM, forcing me to spend points for it.

[The Experimentor]

As I said before, you don´t only pay with the skill slot, but also with attribute points.
Attribute points itself are OK, but I see no reason why I have to carry a skill of its own "just" to have a pet.


I think Zohariel means something more along the lines of "charm animal" and "comfort animal" being combined into one skill.

I've thought about that as well. One problem with running a pet is that if you really want to seriously use and support it, you're going to eat up your Skill Bar. That's the current problem my E/R faces- he's only got 1 offensive skill in his bar and relies on his pet to deal damage with him.

On the other hand, I do wonder if it'll imbalance Rangers too much to their favor. It might seem like a small thing, but tactical versatility can really go a long way... While I'd like to make things easier for myself playing my E/R, I keep thinking having Charm Animal, Comfort Animal and investing a lot of Attribute Points in Beast Mastery is actually the right cost for keeping Beast Masters balanced. We are walking a fine line here...


I think the naming "pet" is wrong too. It sounds derogatory, if you ask me. Like it´s just a trinket of no value, to be replaced when I feel like it.

I´m a Warrior/Ranger, but I´d never do IWAY with my pet. (I consider it "wrong". Not cheating, just wrong.)
OTOH, often the pet takes the beating, instead of me. Leaving me free attack.

Hear, hear! And it irks me when players bring a pet along then just leave him or her for dead (they didn't bring Comfort Animal). I find that callous, from a roleplaying perspective.