Pros & cons discussion of professions released so far

[CHIPS]

My guess is thief have to be very stealthy and close range in their play. Their damage will be very high but they also die pretty fast. Their duel pistol also have very short range.

Ranger uses bow to give damage support at range but can hold their own at close encounters.

Warrior can use sniper rifle. So they will snipe mobs before finishing them off at melee range. Rifle is also useful in finishing mobs that are running away. Rifle attack rate will probably be super slow but hits hard; An extra option for warriors to play with.

Of the 3 range classes so far thief will probably be the hardest to play, just like assassins was in GW1. You can tell from the fact that the thief player died during the demonstration video. Don't expect them to tank much.

[Thalanor Thornhale]

I have no doubt whatsever that I will play both...why chose when nobody is forcing you to?

To answer your question, time for me is/and will remain limited. Additionally, given the time constraints, I will also have to choose between being ok at all professions vs really good in only a few, and I prefer the latter choice.

Generally, I like playing classes that are harder to play. In the beginning of GW1, the mesmer was considered a class that was harder to play. It is for that simple reason that I picked the mesmer as my first profession, and I haven't looked back since.

For me, the Mesmer (once officially confirmed by Anet) will be my first choice. Then, there is a difficult second choice to make:

1.) Ranger or Thief - I like the more agile fighting styles.

(But I also like the Guardian's strategic movement and placement of ground-targetted buffs...argh the choices :-))

Who knows maybe in the end I will have 3 characters after all :-)

[BrettM]

From the day GW2 was announced I was committed to rolling an ele and a ranger as my first two characters, as they were two of my first three in GW1. The third was a smiting monk, and that slot is now committed to guardian. (There had better be some double-damage against undead there, or I will weep bitter tears. )

While I have always played my GW1 ranger as a full-bore, staff-carrying beastmaster, I have to admit that what I've seen of pets in the GW2 videos is not impressive. I have my fingers crossed that this is just a false impression given by demo players who either don't like pets, don't care about them, or don't know how to play with GW-style pets. Or perhaps the AI just hasn't been finished for the pets yet. Still, I will be rolling a ranger.

Thief I will at least try with a test character to see if I like it and have what it takes to play one. I have not been at all interested in GW1 sins, but the thief looks like a class that might be interesting to add to the lineup after I start to get jaded with the characters I already have planned.

It looks like the thief is more dependent on mobility and stealth than the ranger, and will require faster reflexes and quicker judgement. Ranger play looks as if it won't be quite as fast-paced, and is probably more my speed.

[Tru Reptile]

Thief all the way simply because I don't have to put up with my special mechanic being a retarded ai controlled lolcat.

I partially agree with this. I say partially because a good pet system can be made (WoW) rather than a horrible one (GW1). That's not to say pets in GW2 won't be worthwhile, but considering their previous efforts, I'm a little skeptical.

Has anyone really seen how well pets performed in any of the Pax East vids? Does anyone know if the improved pet AI they said they were working on has been implemented in that demo?

[upier]

The thief was the class I was waiting for.
And now, I am finding myself more and more in favour of rolling a ranger.

The biggest problem is the fact that weapons come with pre-set skills. Not only that, the thief comes only with a few weapons and he also comes with the most moronic mechanic we have seen up to now - the whole stealing thing. There is just nothing the thief offers that would excite me as much as ranger's Sword/Warhorn combo does.
Except for the "no-cooldown on weapon switch"-mechanic. And that's probably one of the coolest mechanics we have seen. So then it boils down to - do I want to use fun skills with a cooldown when I switch or do I want to use boring to medium interesting skills with no cooldown?

Lucky for me - they both share the same armours, because those armours are really sweet. Seriously, the Charr assassin picture that was posted in the blog made me re-think my initial plan that everyone of my guys will be Norn.

And of course, I fully expect the pet to suck.


And keep in mind that these two guys are the guys that interest me the most.
Gosh, I wish we'd see GW2 instead of GWoW.

[Wisley]

The problem that I have with the Ranger is that I don't want a PET. Not in GW1 or in GW2.

In GW1 you could get away without a Pet and focus on bow skills, but with GW2 I find this from a blog entry by Eric Flannum last July

Q: I want to play a ranger without a pet. Are pets mandatory for the profession to be effective? Can you have a non-pet ranger like in GW1 and not sacrifice a lot of your effectiveness?

Eric: Rangers must use their pets to achieve maximum effectiveness. A ranger could choose to mostly ignore his pet and leave it on “auto-pilot” so to speak and still be very effective, but a ranger who doesn’t even have a pet out will be a good deal less effective than one who does. There are many other professions in Guild Wars 2 that have effective ranged damage or ranged utility like the ranger for players who don’t want to use a pet.

I don't want a Pet so therefore I won't be playing a Ranger. I do want to dual wield pistols so I will be playing a Thief.

[Akirai Annuvil]

Don't want a pet. So for now I'm resigning myself to Thief, despite liking the Ranger's skill set more.

(@upier, why sword+warhorn? Sword me getteth, warhorn, not so much.)

[kokabel]

Screw pets. Sure they look nice, but it's something I've never cared for. Damn shame that a Ranger without a pet is basically useless.

Besides, Thief gets dual pew-pew and it looks cool.

[upier]

(@upier, why sword+warhorn? Sword me getteth, warhorn, not so much.)

Completely and utterly irrational, but summoning a flock of birds to attack one's target sounds like one of the most fun things about GW2.
I am guessing that this, combined with a pet will make for one seriously crappy character, but ... having fun sounds like fun.

[BrettM]

From what I've seen in the videos, there is a short word for pets that are ignored and left on autopilot: corpse.

From what I've read about WoW hunter pets, it sounds like GW2 will be somewhat similar to the WoW system. I don't see any difference between "a hunter with a starter pet is certainly more powerful than a hunter without one" (WoW) and "a ranger who doesn't even have a pet out will be a good deal less effective than one who does" (GW2). Except that hunters appear to have no control over their pets at all when starting out, which does not sound good to me.

Later, it looks like hunters get the same degree of control that GW2 gives: attack/follow/stay and aggressive/defensive/passive. WoW pets get four unique abilities. GW2 pets have four skill slots. In both cases the owner has no control over what skill is used at any given time.

Both seem to make pets much more autonomous than is the case in GW1, which takes away some of the appeal for me, and forces a particular balance of power between weapon and pet. You can't forgo the pet and put the power into your weapon skills or vice versa, as you can in GW1. Your direct control of the power of the pet is removed.

Despite the sad implementation of the pet AI in GW1, I really like the idea behind that system. I hope I end up liking the GW2 approach as much.