Petition for a pet-less ranger option

[raspberry jam]

A true petless option would require some means of not penalizing the ranger for failure to use his professional mechanic.

You might as well petition for a weaponless warrior or a magicless elementalist.

[BrettM]

I would say more like a warrior with only energy-based skills, or an ele that has four weapon sets but is only allowed one attunement while in combat. Or perhaps weapons for the thief that do not have any skills requiring initiative.

If profession mechanics were optional, they would seem kind of pointless, as well as creating a balance nightmare. Learning to use the mechanic well is part of the challenge of playing any profession, and the reward is a significant enhancement to the survivability and damage-dealing ability of the character.

Should rangers be the one exception to the rule? I'm not sure this is a good idea, even if I see the appeal that the ranger archtype has aside from pets.

[Alaris]

Ranger without pet? Go play warrior longbow

Ranger has many ranged options, including options that allow him to move while attacking.

Also, I said "if not all the time". I plan to use my pet, but not all the time.

Poor advice. A ranger isn't just about doing damage with a bow. Rangers are more mobile in melee than warriors and work with traps and nature rituals, neither of which is available to a warrior. Rangers have camouflage abilities, while warriors do not. There are a number of reasons why someone might be attracted to the ranger's style of play aside from pets.

This.

However, given that the pet is the special mechanic for the profession, I don't think there's much hope of a workable petless option.

Traits would be a fairly easy way to do it. Doesn't hurt to ask.

Question: Can't you fill your skillbar with petless skills and work on traits that improve traps and/or bow accuracy and crit rate?

If we can get a viable build by doing that, then I'm happy with it. My impression is that we'd be gimping ourselves seriously if we played petless, so a *small* buff like a trait that slots in the pet line (do they have a pet line?) or pet skills that buff you but remove the pet... I'm sure ANet can figure out (1) how to make it happen, and (2) how to balance it.

In GW2, the ranger is a guy with a pet. It's who the ranger is.

I've only rarely played ranger with a pet in GW1. Granted, there was not real need for it... but ranger is a guy with excellent ranged attacks for me... and this remains what he does best.

But, a ranger who does not bring a pet will not reach his full potential, as we have been told. (...) A true petless option would require some means of not penalizing the ranger for failure to use his professional mechanic.

Or at least, not penalizing him much. I'd be fine if he's a bit less effective, and I'd have to compensate by playing better.

You might as well petition for a weaponless warrior or a magicless elementalist.

Feel free to start your own thread.

I would say more like a warrior with only energy-based skills, or an ele that has four weapon sets but is only allowed one attunement while in combat. Or perhaps weapons for the thief that do not have any skills requiring initiative.

If profession mechanics were optional, they would seem kind of pointless, as well as creating a balance nightmare. Learning to use the mechanic well is part of the challenge of playing any profession.

Alternatively, could you have a pet that can't be targeted and that buffs you? Swarm of bees, for example... it could do extra damage but not as much as regular pets, and it can't be targeted. It dies / disappears if you die.

Mechanically, it's the same. Sure you need to balance pet against petless, but you already have to balance far more difficult things to balance like Warrior ranged+melee vs Thief mobility vs Necro summons. Surely petless ranger is easier to balance, no?

[raspberry jam]

I've only rarely played ranger with a pet in GW1. Granted, there was not real need for it... but ranger is a guy with excellent ranged attacks for me... and this remains what he does best.

Yeah well, GW2 won't be GW1, and the GW2 ranger won't be the GW1 one.

[sorudo]

Yeah well, GW2 won't be GW1, and the GW2 ranger won't be the GW1 one.

they both use a bow, they both have traps, they both can have a pet, they both have evade skills.
yep, still the same.

[Alaris]

Honestly though, jam, that's a poor excuse for being against petless rangers. Balance, I can understand. Lore is iffy at best, as that can go either way. But what you are doing is just going blindly with what ANet devs tell you the new ranger is like... blindly, in the face of viable alternatives proposed here.

If it can't be balanced, then so be it. Otherwise, I believe that giving players a choice would be a good idea here.

[Lady Rhonwyn]

I've only rarely played ranger with a pet in GW1. Granted, there was not real need for it... but ranger is a guy with excellent ranged attacks for me... and this remains what he does best.

But in GW1, the only one with a decent ranged melee weapon is the Ranger (that is, until the spearchucking paragon arived). But in GW2, ranged weapons aren't exclusive to rangers anymore.

[Alaris]

So? Does that make petless ranger a fundamentally bad idea?

Surely, if petless ranged is already viable and balanced for warrior, thief, etc... why can't it be for ranger?

[Skyy High]

I refuse to believe that a pet-less ranger and a ranger with a pet can be balanced together in the same game. GW1 tried, and they've pushed and pushed and pushed to get players to take pets with them, and it's just not happening, because no matter what you do, you have to give something up to take your pet: at least 1 skill slot and a couple of attribute points, in GW1. If they ever make it a choice between "petless" or "pet" in GW2, you will again have to give up something to get your pet, namely whatever buff or extra skill that a petless rangers gets to "make up for" their lack of a pet....and one side will always be better than the other.

No. The only way to make pets viable is to make them an integral part of the class. Rangers should, on their own, be capable fighters; pets should be their additional mechanic, like adrenaline is for warriors. They're not essential, but they help a lot. You'll get a full trait line to buff your pet, so you won't be giving up any traits to help them. Your pets get their own evolution levels and skills on their own bar, so you don't give up anything there either. The only thing you will give up, possibly, is utility skills to help your pets; that's going to be the main difference between a "beastmaster" and a normal ranger, and it's small enough that there shouldn't be significant balance issues.

If you don't want a pet class, pick a warrior for the longbow or a thief for the skirmishing playstyle, or pick a buff pet and set them on heel. Simple. The only change I want to see for pets is the ability to activate their skills on demand. No other professions' mechanic introduces randomness into the fight, and I don't think pets should either. Rangers aren't "the ranged physical class" anymore. There are a ton of ranged physical classes now to choose from. Rangers are "the physical skirmishers with pets". If that's not what you want, pick something else.

[Alaris]

I should add to the debate that I just read up a bit on pets, and some of their skills may be support / ranged. I wonder if it's possible to have pets that stay pretty much by your side, yet help you out with damage and support... A pet without melee skills would essentially do that.

If that's possible, I could be happy with that too.

I refuse to believe that a pet-less ranger and a ranger with a pet can be balanced together in the same game.

And yet, the same game offers a warrior and thief, both of which are ranged without pet.

What I like about GW1 ranger is the ranged attacks, but also the *option* of a pet. I also like GW2 pets, but I would like it to be an option rather than a forced choice (in the sense of gimp-if-you-don't).

GW1 tried, and they've pushed and pushed and pushed to get players to take pets with them

Enough people take pets now... but yes, it's hard to balance summons/pets well. See also necro and ritualist.

no matter what you do, you have to give something up to take your pet

Yes, there should be a tradeoff.

and one side will always be better than the other.

Maybe, but they could be pretty close in efficiency. Or as I said, I'd be ok if petless would be slightly worse, given the higher control you have with it.

or pick a buff pet and set them on heel.

If that's a viable option, then I'd be happy with that too.