Forum:New GW2 info/The Professions

'''This is the section of the New GW2 info forum dedicated to new releases and information about Professions. To read the entire forum, please visit Forum:New GW2 info'''

The Professions
This section covers the profession introduction articles posted on www.guildwars2.com. Other articles posted there are covered in above.

Profession 1: Elementalist
http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/elementalist/

Sounds very interesting. I like the idea of Attunements being constant buffs that you can swap on-the-fly. And the revamped Phoenix is quite spiffy. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 03:58, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * They should rename it to Boomerang Bird. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 05:52,  April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Ele's always been "my" chosen class, back-line  nuking > everything IMO. The attunement system seems to make the ele  more versatile (but does that mean that we have to trade off 3 of the 10  skills for the attunement spells, not sure. The spells look awesome,  and many seem to focus on not only backline nuker, but backline  controller (Static feild looked like it kept people in position for a  few seconds, allowing the ele to shield themselves from melee inherentl,  water trident looked like it had a knockback) This may well be  important if GW2 is going to be completely solo-friendly. From  what I can gather, then - the new ele is backline nuker/anti fighter much more  than the current ele is. Random Time  06:20, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, is that a female Charr? Random Time  06:21, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is, my living-up-to-his-name friend! --Gimmethegepgun 06:38, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, yes, Water Trident gets a knockback, it says so in the design manifesto when describing fire wall+water attune+smack them into fire wall --Gimmethegepgun 06:46, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, we've seen screen shots of her before, look at the charr page on the main siteAkbaroth 07:06, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly happy with the presence of knockback in GW2. You'll notice that in GW1 they were wise enough to never give players a skill or ability to alter an opponent's position. In fact, only very hard and challenging pve areas can forcibly move a player- The Aspect of Scorpions in The Deep, and Mallyx. The fact that they state how important positioning is in the design manifesto and then give players all sorts of options to fuck it up is disappointing. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 07:41, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * "Signets provide an ongoing benefit to the Elementalist, but can also be activated for a greater effect." Complete skill function revamp? Also, I'm quite sure you wouldn't need to manually bring the attunements, but it'll probably be a "change attunement" button or something instead of the "switch weapon set" one. Knockback doesn't seem too bad. From the skills article, it seemed like positioning gets a lot more important, so disrupting the enemy positioning could turn into a whole new dimention in the gameplay. Also, first time someone actually DELETED the page while I was typing :S --[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 15:03, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry. ^^; Blame it on RT for not moving it to the right place to begin with. :P
 * Oh, and I already commented about the attunement-instead-of-weapon-swapping above. If accurate, I like that idea a lot better than having to worry about finding/crafting a perfect weapon set for every different element that you use.
 * I'd think that knockback would actually be necessary if positioning is going to be that important in combat. The people who rely most on said positioning, probably warriors, will likely have access to "stability" skills that prevent knockback (similar to Balanced Stance/etc.).  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 15:33, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ow dam thats cool :P. It looks so dinamic and reall. They sure want it to look like a RPG. It seems so real. Can't wait to see what they did with the Necromancers :D. Maybe they kill Asura and reanimate them and then kill them again! Hooray! -- F1Sig.png  † F1 ©  Talk  16:21, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * No F1: You kill Asura, then raise them, and use them to kill others and let others kill the asura again for you. Talk about a laidback profession ^.^ Also, after seeing the water trident movie, I don't think that's knockback. It's just knockdown, but the animation is that they fall backwards. You can see that when they get back up they're still on the same place as where they were before. Too bad :/ --[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 16:59, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Slightly clearer explanation from an interview.
 * "In Guild Wars 2 an elementalist can attune to one of the four elements. The attunement they are in combines with their choice of weapon to change the first five skills on their bar. For example an elementalist attuned to fire and wielding a staff will have access to five skills including the Fireball skill. An elementalist attuned to fire and wielding a scepter and focus will have access to a completely different set of five skills including Dragon’s Breath. When that elementalist attunes to water he has five new skills."
 * "Attuning to the different elements will also provide the elementalist with an ongoing passive effect. Fire attunement will damage any foes striking the elementalist. Water will heal nearby allies. Earth will protect the elementalist giving him additional armor. Air attunement will cause bolts of lightning to randomly strike nearby enemies."
 * --Evenfall 17:42, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * So based on that, are we correct to believe that if you attuned to water, and equipped that same exact staff, you'd get 5 water skills? That is, the staff is not tied to any one attunement?  I think that's what the quote there is implying, and I hope that's the case.  It's going to suck enough as it is to have to hunt down and carry around a dozen different staves just to get the set of 5 skills you want for one attunement (assuming each staff gives a different set of 5 skills), doing it for four would be obnoxious. 65.207.54.194 17:55, May 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Weapon-linked skills will be the same for all weapons of the same type. All water-attuned elementalists wielding any staff will have the same set of staff/attunement-linked skills.  All warriors wielding any sword and any shield will have the same set of sword/shield-linked skills.  There are not going to be any ultra-rare weapons that grant super-powerful skills or anything like that.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 18:12, May 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't rule out the possibility of some variation between weapons that give some passive effects, though. Maybe put in some extended information boxes, then you can put in what exactly it does for each profession and attunement or whatever others might end up with, but only show the ones relevant to your current profession unless you extend it --Gimmethegepgun 08:09, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Profession 2: Warrior
http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/warrior/

Still gotta read, thought you all might be interested.--El_Nazgir 19:01, June 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems nice. Eviscerate makes him charge to the target, and that stomp showed us that there is indeed knockback. New stance stuff is cool too.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 19:08, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Built in skill chaining may well be good. Perhaps 2 chains can be used at the same time, for some strange build combos. Not sure how I like the tank class dealing long range AOE, but it might work. I don't like playing warrior, or fighter classes in general, they bore me in any game. This may change that, but I'm much more interested in the magic/ long range classes.  Random  Time   19:39, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also. The quips. Stop with the quips  Random  Time   19:41, June 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoo, I called it! I knew they'd release warrior second since they'd already been using it for examples in other articles.  Anyway, now that I'm done gloating...
 * Pretty sure there's only 1 chain per weapon set: "Chains effectively give a warrior two extra weapon skills on a weapon set." *Two* extra skills, thus only one chain.  It sounds and looks like they'll function similar to assassin attack chains, where you have to keep hitting the same target to progress through the chain, and it resets if you switch targets.
 * "Hold that pose." I actually lol'ed at that one, but yeah, they're already getting old.  And we have 6 more professions to go.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 20:07, June 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * The quips were probably just added in the "trailer" thingy and are most likely not ingame... Also, yeah, the chaining is interesting, and also: there will be no more dedicated roles of 1 profession, as has been said a lot now. Yeah, warriors will tank well, but that doesn't prevent them from dealing long range damage.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 20:09, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm positive someone from Anet is glancing through our comments once every two days or so, to see what people want. They'll likely add an option to turn the quips on or off. Or they could add voice chat, so we can have our own quips! Interrupt spell -> "Bitch please". Also note that Anet is taking a very different direction with this(No dedicated healer makes that pretty clear), I don't think the warrior is the "tank", I doubt they'll have any profession dedicated to that, and the AI in GW2 will likely cause enemies to go for whoever, whenever, therefore making a tank useless. It's just 8 different professions with 8 different ways of doing stuff.--99.225.28.182 20:45, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I totally called it on the warhorn being a profession-specific offhand instead of being a bundle item. Not in this subject, some other one... somewhere.--99.225.28.182 20:48, June 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure it's War-only, though. Who says my Ele can't hold a warhorn? The skills will probably be less effective, but hey, same as a secondary profession in theory (where in practice secondaries can overshadow primaries (see also: Ele spells)) . --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  20:53, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

This might seem biased since I like to play rangers/casters but... They don't seem that great. Its not like they got some awesome mechanic that can completely change how they are played, like the ele did with attunement switching on the fly. Some neat stuff in there, like the one-slot chains and a very impressive 19 weapon combos but other than that...I'm sure they'll be markedly better than they sounded on the interview because we don't know what they're capable of (not knowing the skills and all) but apart from the longbow/rifle thing they seem like the same thing that they've always been: a tank. Except from the way they've been describing things tanks won't be quite as useful in GW2. I dunno. They sound fun, and I'm not quite sure what I was expecting from warriors in GW2, but as of now they seem pretty meh. Someone please tell me I'm wrong lol. 151.196.189.61 04:24, June 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * The war got a lot of AoE damage, with the longbow, greatsword and hammer. For the rest, party buff skills (like that banner they mentioned). Seems like they threw the paragon and warrior together, with a brush of AoE in it.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 09:49, June 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * ~Pure tanks are terrible in GWO as well. The only tanky thing any of my Warriors ever took was their armor, some a shield. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  14:27, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

@151.196, Warriors can also knock people into the air, and impale them while in mid air, according to the GW2 website. @Vipermagi, What I meant by "Profession-specific" was that it was intended for a certain profession(s). Kind of like how the shields in Gw1 are "profession-specific" to Paragons and Warriors. I expect the Warhorn and Torch to be the same. Torch will likely go to a mid-armor professions. One of the "Adventurers". That's just my guess.--99.225.28.182 23:01, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Additional - interview with Eric Flannum about the warrior class at massively.com - clarification, mostly  Random  Time   23:11, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * For quips "There are limits put on it to make certain it doesn't happen too often and players always have the option to disable it if they want."


 * For the use of ranged attacks "We want every weapon that a profession can equip to be a valid choice for that profession. That means that if I choose to, I could make a warrior that does nothing but stand back and rain fiery arrows or rifle shot upon my enemies"

- torches are similar  Random  Time   23:15, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * For warhorns "A warhorn is simply an offhand weapon so what it does is different in the hands of different professions. Some professions use the horn solely to buff allies while others have found more aggressive uses for it."


 * I can already see groups inviting a warrior because they need some melee for some purpose, and then once it's too late to kick him, the warrior saying that he's a ranged warrior and doesn't have a melee weapon at all. Though I guess that's not really any different from the elementalists and assassins in this game who imagine themselves as pure damage dealers and don't carry any viable PVE gear at all, and die in about three seconds and then blame the healer for not miraculously saving them.  Quizzical 03:01, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well your first mistake is PUG'ing in PvE. =P I always had more of a problem with eles telling me how I should play my build, regardless of what profession I was. And Assassins simply refusing to change their 7-attack combo chain that has to use palm strike every other hit. If GW works out how I think it will, we won't have the two problems I mentioned(as much), and there won't be a need for a tank(I'd assume they'd make the AI smart enough to ignore tanks). However, I'm sure we'll have all sorts of new idiots to deal with in GW2.--99.225.28.182 03:45, June 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well your first mistake is PUG'ing in PvE. Not really.  I'd always insist on checking builds and max health, and I'd catch and filter out the people who were going to run something incredibly stupid, or at least make them change it.  I certainly hope that Guild Wars 2 gives us the means to do the same, as we won't be able to rely on heroes to fill in holes.
 * It's not necessarily a need for a tank. Sometimes it can be convenient simply to have a couple of melee characters, in order to make the group's natural spacing something that works better against mob AI.  Regardless, there are always creative ways to be an idiot, so worrying about this particular one is kind of dumb.  It was just my initial thought when I read the post.  Quizzical 06:09, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I should really pay more attention to these updates. Regardless, Warrior seems to be interesting. Sounds like they're mixing in a little Ranger, a little Paragon, and a little Assassin to make them less all tank all the time. Entrea   [Talk]  09:11, June 25, 2010 (UTC)