Talk:Secondary professions for a Ranger

Rewrite
BULL SHIT I think this whole page needs to be rewritten, and this time by some1 who actually knows what there talking about, and i removed the dervish part(what 6 year old kid wrote that??) Kurd 10:22, 14 January 2007 (CST)
 * Ok i corrected some stuff:
 * The R/W runner part isnt correct as the energy cost of non-ranger-shout isnt reduced
 * Removed the EoE bomb under the R/Mo section
 * Corrected the paragon section
 * Removed these example builds:
 * R/W Bunny Thumper, has been nerfen and has a unfavor template
 * R/Me Melandru's Arrows Ranger, has been nerfen and has a :unfavor template
 * R/Me Cripshot Ranger, has been nerfen and has a unfavor template
 * R/A Repeat Expertise Assassin, removed as it has a unfavor template, added Build:R/A_Burning_Arrow_Ganksman
 * We still need to fill the dervish section but overal i think its accurate now ---> Kurd 11:27, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Preliminary information: good or bad? I made a reasonably effective Ranger/Dervish during the Nightfall PVP preview, and the R/P Pack Hunter was a big favourite among the newly introduced builds. I'm against speculation in article-pages, but I don't think it'd hurt much in these cases, given that we already have some information to work with. --Black Ark 04:52, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
 * It might be good, but you'll have to add a { {c3} } tag to the page that warns people that some of the information may not apply when Nightfall is officially released.
 * Best not do it. Who needs the info if you can't even create one yet? It would just mean that we need to do a lot of updating later. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

The R/P section ought to be partially rewritten to address the Expertise nerf. --Desme 04:22, 27 November 2006 (CST)

Shouts/Chants
In the R/P section it says that Expertise Lowers paragon's shouts and chants. This is not true as far as I know. Is this a mistake? Lionfire


 * It got changed, they used to work on all non-spells &mdash; Skuld 18:10, 4 January 2007 (CST)


 * That wasn't my point. The point was that the R/P section of the article is wrong. Lionfire


 * You could fix it if you know it to be wrong? :) &mdash; Skuld 19:00, 4 January 2007 (CST)


 * I wouldn't know what to do be delete it. That wouldn't be constructive would it... Lionfire


 * Okay, I did it. Doesn't like much better. And I NEED to work on typos. Lionfire