Petition for a pet-less ranger option

[Alaris]

Here it is, I want a pet-less option for my ranger in GW2. I'm thinking the best (and easiest) way would be via the trait system, e.g. "extra damage while not using a pet" or "extra damage, cannot use a pet".

Why not just play thief, you ask? (1) I don't always want to play without a pet, just sometimes. (2) Ranger has different skills, abilities, etc. (3) I like bows, not guns.

I understand that pet is a major part of being a ranger, but I'm sure many players will enjoy playing ranger without a pet, even if not all the time.

Thanks.

[MaximumSquid]

Alaris:

You're too fast! I couldn't catch you in time. . .

From the other Thread:

Alaris:

Maybe you could have the best of both worlds. . .

What if you had the option of getting pets that were useless for combat?
They would still follow you around or have their head sticking out of one of your pouches (or whatever)

Just add some runes or other skills that take advantage of your non-aggressive companion

I'm sure the Norn would love to tell tales of an Indomitable, Ranger Berserker who never once received help from his pet

Spoiler

It's like we're already half way there!

-

The only problem I see is trying to get people to join a guild named "Justice Fist"

-

[Supreme Dragon]

Alaris:

You're too fast! I couldn't catch you in time. . .

From the other Thread:



The only problem I see is trying to get people to join a guild named "Justice Fist"

-

I'm sorry. If he's trying to say Minsc never got help from Boo he's wrong!

Especially when he loses Boo, his stats PLUMMET.

[sorudo]

i never use a pet simply because i like to play the bow master rather then the beast master, i just fancy bows over pet fights.(i still don't like guns in fantasy games, but with fable 3 sometimes rules can be bend......but barely in GW)

[Leohan]

I see your point, if the pet becomes an annoyance I'm just going leave it dead...lol
I do like using heroes NPC's in GW1, so having some kind of NPC to control is what I want, in this case in form of a pet.

It would be cool if there was an option so we are not forced to take/use a pet, after all GW2 is about choice in which you want to play the game.

[Alaris]

@Leohan: Exactly... except leaving the pet dead leaves you gimped. I'd rather an option to not take it at all, and get a small buff even if it's not as good as having a pet.

I'd probably still play with a pet 80% of the time though. I'd leave the pet at home only for special cases, or for variety.

@Sorudo: well, not much to choose from in terms of bow user without pet. Thief has shortbow only. Warrior has longbow only. And ranger is gimped without pet.

[Cyberman]

Shouldn't you add a poll or something?
I'd vote "yes". The more options, the better.

[Akirai Annuvil]

Already in.

[Leonora Windleaf]

I'm not against Pets per se, I just don't like the fact that the main class feature of the Ranger is something you don't have 100% control over. Sure, you'll have more options and control over your pet than in GW1, but that doesn't change the fact that the Pet is still AI controlled. Unless that feature is being tweaked to work flawless, I don't see it being on par with the other classes special features.

Having the option to go with a pet or not would be great.... but what would the Rangers special feature instead?

[Alaris]

Nah that's just it. If you forgoe the pet, you get a buff but no special feature.

And no, not interested in thief for reasons mentioned in the OP.