The best approach would likely be to separate weapon skills and class skills. Technically, a
class is the combination of two archetypes. So, a fighter, rogue, or mage isn’t a fully defined class until combined with a secondary archetype, forming something like a beast master or paladin.
Class skills could use augments to enhance abilities, though the application of augments to weapon skills is less clear. Ideally, they should avoid implementing a system like Throne and Liberty, which feels clunky and confusing. The user interface (UI) is poorly designed, to the point where you need a build guide just to figure out how things work.
Yes, this is very much part of it. Any archetype that subs fighter is more likely to want a greatsword (the mage showcase where the dev played with a greatsword talked about how this is the starting point for the feel of the battlemage), and any archetype that subs ranger is probably going to want a bow, even if they don't use it normally.
Likewise any archetype that subs mage might fight synergies open up with wand elemental procs that would encourage them to use a wand more than any other primary archetype.
Artificial limits are unnecessary. Let people experiment and gravitate to what works or doesn't organically.
Freedom for folks to experiment and play what they want & how they want without silly restrictions for armor or weapons.
You don't get it right? Right now there is no incentive to play something else than your standard weapons. There is no mechanic to play as an melee wizard. You would downgrade yourself massively
Hehe. Well, on what basis are you claiming there is no incentive? The reason why “there is no mechanic to play as a melee wizard” is that Intrepid has literally released no practical information about secondary archetype augments such that you could make an informed decision about the benefits and drawbacks of a melee wizard.
Any class any weapon gives you the freedom to opimize your mage to whatever min/max asymtote you like. It also gives me the freedom to not be bound by your path.
5
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
locking weapons to classes would really help with visual clarity during fights. i really hate not knowing what i'm facing. but they are alternative was to do that.
Why would there be no visual clarity when you see a Tank/Mage wielding a Wand or Bow?
You will recognize the Active Skills of the Tank and the Weapon Skills of the Wand or Bow.
What's not clear about that?
Yes, this is very much part of it. Any archetype that subs fighter is more likely to want a greatsword (the mage showcase where the dev played with a greatsword talked about how this is the starting point for the feel of the battlemage), and any archetype that subs ranger is probably going to want a bow, even if they don't use it normally.
Likewise any archetype that subs mage might fight synergies open up with wand elemental procs that would encourage them to use a wand more than any other primary archetype.
Artificial limits are unnecessary. Let people experiment and gravitate to what works or doesn't organically.
Hehe. Well, on what basis are you claiming there is no incentive? The reason why “there is no mechanic to play as a melee wizard” is that Intrepid has literally released no practical information about secondary archetype augments such that you could make an informed decision about the benefits and drawbacks of a melee wizard.
Any class any weapon gives you the freedom to opimize your mage to whatever min/max asymtote you like. It also gives me the freedom to not be bound by your path.
I'm of the opinion that Battle Mage just being a mage with a sword is a terrible design and showcases like that were part of the general fear of classes being lame and unimaginative if they are thinking of a class as being a strait frenkenstein of the surface level features of two archetypes. For one it gives us no distinction between a Fighter/Mage and a Mage/Fighter.
A Fighter/Mage should have an elemental inflused weapon hits linked with combat stances, and a Mage/Fighter should be using spells like Burning hands aka short range quick cast AoE's to litterally 'Pyro' the enemy with. That's how you properly blend the two archetypes into a gestalt while keeping them two inverted classes distinct. Obviously a Mage/Fighter could still weild a sword but it should not be a prerequisite of their skills or abilities, while for the Fighter/Mage dose require a melee weapon because most of the fighter ability set already works that way.
As weapon types are not archetype restricted (with the anoying Ranger dependency on bow which should be removed by making most skills able to be used in melee) the classes should not either. For example Ranger secondary archetypes should not be introducing bow dependency onto a class. They should focus on things like integrating the Mark/Hunt mechanics, and things like traps, camoflage etc. Where ranged abilities already exist they can be made longer range etc but direct bow dependency should be avoided at all costs.
I envision a battle mage as a character who wields a polearm, which fits perfectly as it combines both the physicality of a weapon and the similarity to a two-handed staff. This weapon choice complements their role—blending magic and melee combat—while allowing them to maintain a dynamic fighting style. They’d wear medium leather armor for agility and protection, engaging in close-range combat with a mix of physical prowess and magical abilities.
However, it’s important to draw a clear line between a fighter/mage hybrid and a mage/fighter. For example, a Spellsword might enchant their weapons and use a great sword, emphasizing the “fighter” side of the hybrid, but I don’t see this approach fitting a battle mage. Instead, I see the battle mage more like a high-fantasy, Western version of a monk, incorporating bojutsu-like skills and martial arts along with their magic.
Ultimately, I hope the developers have the vision to ensure each class is distinct, vivid, and exciting. It’s key to strike a balance between unique class identity and combat dynamics while keeping the gameplay balanced and fun.
locking weapons to classes would really help with visual clarity during fights. i really hate not knowing what i'm facing. but they are alternative was to do that.
Why would there be no visual clarity when you see a Tank/Mage wielding a Wand or Bow?
You will recognize the Active Skills of the Tank and the Weapon Skills of the Wand or Bow.
What's not clear about that?
the fact that you took 3 spells before having any clue of who is who? then ur brain has no way of making proper decisions. do you even pvp ?
Freedom for folks to experiment and play what they want & how they want without silly restrictions for armor or weapons.
You don't get it right? Right now there is no incentive to play something else than your standard weapons. There is no mechanic to play as an melee wizard. You would downgrade yourself massively
Hehe. Well, on what basis are you claiming there is no incentive? The reason why “there is no mechanic to play as a melee wizard” is that Intrepid has literally released no practical information about secondary archetype augments such that you could make an informed decision about the benefits and drawbacks of a melee wizard.
Any class any weapon gives you the freedom to opimize your mage to whatever min/max asymtote you like. It also gives me the freedom to not be bound by your path.
The best answer I read in this thread as of now.
0
nanfoodleMember, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
locking weapons to classes would really help with visual clarity during fights. i really hate not knowing what i'm facing. but they are alternative was to do that.
Why would there be no visual clarity when you see a Tank/Mage wielding a Wand or Bow?
You will recognize the Active Skills of the Tank and the Weapon Skills of the Wand or Bow.
What's not clear about that?
the fact that you took 3 spells before having any clue of who is who? then ur brain has no way of making proper decisions. do you even pvp ?
When you target a player you will see the icon beside their name plat that will let you know you are fighting a "Fighter" "Bard" "Tank" What you wont know is how they are spec-ed. How is that any different in RL. Martial Arts, Boxer? Pick a fight, you never know anything till they swing their first punch.
This weapon diversity is mostly allowed because secondary class augments might change some of your skills from ranged to melee or from melee to ranged. There is no world where a mage will do good with a huge double-handed melee weapon like an axe or mace instead of a wand or staff. But a Battle Mage (mage + fighter secondary) for example might need a strong melee weapon if you augment many of his spells to require a melee weapon to cast. They were also talking about ranged characters swapping to a melee weapon when engaged in melee range but I don't know if that idea still stands or if they will change it until launch. (I think they gave an example for archer not being allowed to use his bow melee and instead auto-swap for a melee secondary weapon)
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
I'm of the opinion that Battle Mage just being a mage with a sword is a terrible design and showcases like that were part of the general fear of classes being lame and unimaginative if they are thinking of a class as being a strait frenkenstein of the surface level features of two archetypes. For one it gives us no distinction between a Fighter/Mage and a Mage/Fighter.
Uh. What??
The primary distinction is that a Fighter/Mage uses Fighter Active Skills while a Mage/Fighter uses Mage Active Skills.
The Fighter/Mage can do a little bit of Mage stuff and the Mage/Fighter can do a little bit of Fighter stuff.
And, yeah, they both could choose to wield a Sword, or the Fighter/Mage could also choose to use a Bow while the Mage/Fighter chooses to wield Daggers.
A Fighter/Mage should have an elemental inflused weapon hits linked with combat stances, and a Mage/Fighter should be using spells like Burning hands aka short range quick cast AoE's to litterally 'Pyro' the enemy with. That's how you properly blend the two archetypes into a gestalt while keeping them two inverted classes distinct. Obviously a Mage/Fighter could still weild a sword but it should not be a prerequisite of their skills or abilities, while for the Fighter/Mage dose require a melee weapon because most of the fighter ability set already works that way.
They should use whatever they prefer to use.
And Enchant their weapons however they choose to Enchant their weapons.
As weapon types are not archetype restricted (with the annoying Ranger dependency on bow which should be removed by making most skills able to be used in melee) the classes should not either. For example Ranger secondary archetypes should not be introducing bow dependency onto a class. They should focus on things like integrating the Mark/Hunt mechanics, and things like traps, camoflage etc. Where ranged abilities already exist they can be made longer range etc but direct bow dependency should be avoided at all costs.
Probably already the case. Yes.
0
nanfoodleMember, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Dragon's Dogma 2 has a great battle mage that uses a bow. Should YouTube it.
0
nanfoodleMember, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Little side note. If you don't like how weapons and armor work. You won't like crafting as well. Just about every bit of gear you can make, you can unlock the same item with every kind of stat you want. This is designed to also support player builds.
Little side note. If you don't like how weapons and armor work. You won't like crafting as well. Just about every bit of gear you can make, you can unlock the same item with every kind of stat you want. This is designed to also support player builds.
My point is not about liking it, it's about " there is no information or example about anything". Of course it would be cool to be able to play a battle mage, but right now there is zero proof or intend visible until now.
0
nanfoodleMember, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Little side note. If you don't like how weapons and armor work. You won't like crafting as well. Just about every bit of gear you can make, you can unlock the same item with every kind of stat you want. This is designed to also support player builds.
My point is not about liking it, it's about " there is no information or example about anything". Of course it would be cool to be able to play a battle mage, but right now there is zero proof or intend visible until now.
No this has been the plan from the start. We did learn many little things as time went on. Some changed over time and we were told. People asked question at the end of streams. If you goto just the end of each steam you can learn allot. All that info is on the wiki if you just want to get to the info.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Because - my unknowing friend ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
I admit i really like how flexible and hence, "real and down-to-earth" Sir Steven and his mighty Team want to keep the Possibilities ingame.
You can safely bet, Garrtok - > if we would have something like Essence and Magic in Real Life - You wouldn't just see People of the more magical Talent and Ability run around with Staffs and Wands.
You would see some running around with Daggers,
Shortswords,
probably even Bows or Crossbows - so they have even more Firepower between their Spells.
If someone is very gifted and capable of Magic but STILL physically incredible strong - it would make Sense that You can see "Mages" run around even with heavy Maces or Warhammers.
It is just the Logic of what People are capable to do.
Who said a " Mage " with a Sword or Axe or Mace or whatever has any " realistic " Chance to be as good or flexible or powerful than a Mage with a Wand or a Staff ?
No one. Who knows what will be the best Choice. After all we haven't even tested it yet.
A problem might be, that you can always roll for need on a rate items cause it could fit your super creative build and no one could argue about that.
Oouuuh. A very good Point right off the bat. That could indeed become a Problem. If a Party Member who uses a Sword or Axe or so gets an Item which is a better, superior Version of what that Player has already,
of Course that Player should get the Item "before" the Mage has any Right to have this Item. At least if it is more important for a Melee Class Player. Which will most likely be the Case.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
1
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
The real question is why not allow everyone to use anything?
Especially since most gear is supposed to be crafted anyway.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
The real question is why not allow everyone to use anything?
Especially since most gear is supposed to be crafted anyway.
Iam not questioning why it should be possible, iam questioning why you should do it / what the game is actually giving you to create different builds.
Giving a ranger the option to wear a sword, doesn't make it automatically fun to play, meaningful or deep. There have to be some some mechanics to specialise or alter, our class into a different roll. Iam also not getting this by having a weapon skill tree that increased my crit chance etc.
1
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
That's a fair enough question.
We know skills come only from the primary archetype and we have yet to see any skills above level 15 or so, unless some of the skills shown so far get pushed to higher levels.
It has been stated that even though you can use any gear certain stuff will be better for certain archetypes and some stuff will be better than other stuff based on this.
I don't think we know enough yet about gearing and if some things will be stat sticks. Like a ranger equipping a sword and it provides only stats or if you will be able to duplicate a special dark elf and dual wield scimitars with sword skills and all.
Might be an interesting question for the monthly live stream.
Ranger equipping swords just stat sticks or will they get a skill set to use them in melee?
As long as skills are NOT strictly tied to gear like GW2? (And whatever other game fails in this way)
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
There have to be some some mechanics to specialise or alter, our class into a different roll.
Secondaries are going to be a big factor in that. Ranger/Fighter will probably want a greatsword more likely than any other ranger. We don't know enough about secondaries at this point to be able to form a strong opinion on this.
Ranger equipping swords just stat sticks or will they get a skill set to use them in melee?
I am adamantly opposed to slotted weapons that aren't being used as 'stat sticks'. Weapons should only provide their enhancement when they are wielded. At the end of the day this isn't my call (It's Steven's and the combat team) but this is a glaring flaw I see in a lot of MMO development.
We know skills come only from the primary archetype and we have yet to see any skills above level 15 or so, unless some of the skills shown so far get pushed to higher levels.
It has been stated that even though you can use any gear certain stuff will be better for certain archetypes and some stuff will be better than other stuff based on this.
I don't think we know enough yet about gearing and if some things will be stat sticks. Like a ranger equipping a sword and it provides only stats or if you will be able to duplicate a special dark elf and dual wield scimitars with sword skills and all.
Might be an interesting question for the monthly live stream.
Ranger equipping swords just stat sticks or will they get a skill set to use them in melee?
As long as skills are NOT strictly tied to gear like GW2? (And whatever other game fails in this way)
Riffing off this a bit. If I were to take an ideal any weapon any class system, it would be an extreme version of GW2. I’d have all weapons have basic skills / abilities, these are augmented by the first archetype, then further augmented by the second archetype, and finally polished by skill point distribution in the fighting style / approach for each player. Then a ranger is decoupled from the bow as much as a warrior from the sword. In pnp a fighter specialized in a bow can be a devastating archer.
This would give players a TON of freedom.
2
nanfoodleMember, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
edited October 6
I have never seen such a simple concept met with such confusion. If this is a game breaker for you. There is only 2 options, find a way to make a class you like or find a game you like. This is built with this from the ground up. From combat to crafting. They are not rolling this back.
Riffing off this a bit. If I were to take an ideal any weapon any class system, it would be an extreme version of GW2. I’d have all weapons have basic skills / abilities
The weapon combo is the basic attack. Guild Wars 2 uses those skills as the attacks.
Weapon combos are specced with points for procs or additional chains. Though I agree, it'd be nice to tack an augment onto it.
I have never seen such a simple concept met with such confusion. If this is a game breaker for you. There is only 2 options, find a way to make a class you like or find a game you like. This is built with this from the ground up. From combat to crafting. They are not rolling this back.
I suspect people who are against this one are people with no creativity for different builds and don't want other people to be able to have that creative freedom so they know exactly w hat they are up against in PvP...
..which is exactly NOT the target demo for this game.
I have never seen such a simple concept met with such confusion. If this is a game breaker for you. There is only 2 options, find a way to make a class you like or find a game you like. This is built with this from the ground up. From combat to crafting. They are not rolling this back.
It would be helpful to understand the threat before gatekeeping kicks in..
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
I am not questioning why it should be possible, iam questioning why you should do it / what the game is actually giving you to create different builds.
Do it because you want to do it; not because you should do it.
The people who want to do it are those who don't want to be stuck playing cookie-cutter builds.
Giving a ranger the option to wear a sword, doesn't make it automatically fun to play, meaningful or deep. There have to be some some mechanics to specialise or alter, our class into a different roll. Iam also not getting this by having a weapon skill tree that increased my crit chance etc.
If you don't want your Ranger to wield a Sword, don't have your Ranger wield a Sword.
Combat role is primarily defined by Active Skills. Weapon Skills offer some variety in the details of how that role is performed.
Comments
Yes, this is very much part of it. Any archetype that subs fighter is more likely to want a greatsword (the mage showcase where the dev played with a greatsword talked about how this is the starting point for the feel of the battlemage), and any archetype that subs ranger is probably going to want a bow, even if they don't use it normally.
Likewise any archetype that subs mage might fight synergies open up with wand elemental procs that would encourage them to use a wand more than any other primary archetype.
Artificial limits are unnecessary. Let people experiment and gravitate to what works or doesn't organically.
Hehe. Well, on what basis are you claiming there is no incentive? The reason why “there is no mechanic to play as a melee wizard” is that Intrepid has literally released no practical information about secondary archetype augments such that you could make an informed decision about the benefits and drawbacks of a melee wizard.
Any class any weapon gives you the freedom to opimize your mage to whatever min/max asymtote you like. It also gives me the freedom to not be bound by your path.
You will recognize the Active Skills of the Tank and the Weapon Skills of the Wand or Bow.
What's not clear about that?
I'm of the opinion that Battle Mage just being a mage with a sword is a terrible design and showcases like that were part of the general fear of classes being lame and unimaginative if they are thinking of a class as being a strait frenkenstein of the surface level features of two archetypes. For one it gives us no distinction between a Fighter/Mage and a Mage/Fighter.
A Fighter/Mage should have an elemental inflused weapon hits linked with combat stances, and a Mage/Fighter should be using spells like Burning hands aka short range quick cast AoE's to litterally 'Pyro' the enemy with. That's how you properly blend the two archetypes into a gestalt while keeping them two inverted classes distinct. Obviously a Mage/Fighter could still weild a sword but it should not be a prerequisite of their skills or abilities, while for the Fighter/Mage dose require a melee weapon because most of the fighter ability set already works that way.
As weapon types are not archetype restricted (with the anoying Ranger dependency on bow which should be removed by making most skills able to be used in melee) the classes should not either. For example Ranger secondary archetypes should not be introducing bow dependency onto a class. They should focus on things like integrating the Mark/Hunt mechanics, and things like traps, camoflage etc. Where ranged abilities already exist they can be made longer range etc but direct bow dependency should be avoided at all costs.
However, it’s important to draw a clear line between a fighter/mage hybrid and a mage/fighter. For example, a Spellsword might enchant their weapons and use a great sword, emphasizing the “fighter” side of the hybrid, but I don’t see this approach fitting a battle mage. Instead, I see the battle mage more like a high-fantasy, Western version of a monk, incorporating bojutsu-like skills and martial arts along with their magic.
Ultimately, I hope the developers have the vision to ensure each class is distinct, vivid, and exciting. It’s key to strike a balance between unique class identity and combat dynamics while keeping the gameplay balanced and fun.
the fact that you took 3 spells before having any clue of who is who? then ur brain has no way of making proper decisions. do you even pvp ?
The best answer I read in this thread as of now.
When you target a player you will see the icon beside their name plat that will let you know you are fighting a "Fighter" "Bard" "Tank" What you wont know is how they are spec-ed. How is that any different in RL. Martial Arts, Boxer? Pick a fight, you never know anything till they swing their first punch.
The primary distinction is that a Fighter/Mage uses Fighter Active Skills while a Mage/Fighter uses Mage Active Skills.
The Fighter/Mage can do a little bit of Mage stuff and the Mage/Fighter can do a little bit of Fighter stuff.
And, yeah, they both could choose to wield a Sword, or the Fighter/Mage could also choose to use a Bow while the Mage/Fighter chooses to wield Daggers.
They should use whatever they prefer to use.
And Enchant their weapons however they choose to Enchant their weapons.
Probably already the case. Yes.
My point is not about liking it, it's about " there is no information or example about anything". Of course it would be cool to be able to play a battle mage, but right now there is zero proof or intend visible until now.
No this has been the plan from the start. We did learn many little things as time went on. Some changed over time and we were told. People asked question at the end of streams. If you goto just the end of each steam you can learn allot. All that info is on the wiki if you just want to get to the info.
Do you even know anything about the Ashes game design??
But there are no 1 handed weapons ranged. Or maybe spears ?
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Polearms
Give me the shrunken head offhand!
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Spell_focuses
Because - my unknowing friend ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
I admit i really like how flexible and hence, "real and down-to-earth" Sir Steven and his mighty Team want to keep the Possibilities ingame.
You can safely bet, Garrtok - > if we would have something like Essence and Magic in Real Life - You wouldn't just see People of the more magical Talent and Ability run around with Staffs and Wands.
You would see some running around with Daggers,
Shortswords,
probably even Bows or Crossbows - so they have even more Firepower between their Spells.
If someone is very gifted and capable of Magic but STILL physically incredible strong - it would make Sense that You can see "Mages" run around even with heavy Maces or Warhammers.
It is just the Logic of what People are capable to do.
Who said a " Mage " with a Sword or Axe or Mace or whatever has any " realistic " Chance to be as good or flexible or powerful than a Mage with a Wand or a Staff ?
No one. Who knows what will be the best Choice. After all we haven't even tested it yet.
Oouuuh. A very good Point right off the bat. That could indeed become a Problem. If a Party Member who uses a Sword or Axe or so gets an Item which is a better, superior Version of what that Player has already,
of Course that Player should get the Item "before" the Mage has any Right to have this Item. At least if it is more important for a Melee Class Player. Which will most likely be the Case.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Especially since most gear is supposed to be crafted anyway.
Iam not questioning why it should be possible, iam questioning why you should do it / what the game is actually giving you to create different builds.
Giving a ranger the option to wear a sword, doesn't make it automatically fun to play, meaningful or deep. There have to be some some mechanics to specialise or alter, our class into a different roll. Iam also not getting this by having a weapon skill tree that increased my crit chance etc.
We know skills come only from the primary archetype and we have yet to see any skills above level 15 or so, unless some of the skills shown so far get pushed to higher levels.
It has been stated that even though you can use any gear certain stuff will be better for certain archetypes and some stuff will be better than other stuff based on this.
I don't think we know enough yet about gearing and if some things will be stat sticks. Like a ranger equipping a sword and it provides only stats or if you will be able to duplicate a special dark elf and dual wield scimitars with sword skills and all.
Might be an interesting question for the monthly live stream.
Ranger equipping swords just stat sticks or will they get a skill set to use them in melee?
As long as skills are NOT strictly tied to gear like GW2? (And whatever other game fails in this way)
Secondaries are going to be a big factor in that. Ranger/Fighter will probably want a greatsword more likely than any other ranger. We don't know enough about secondaries at this point to be able to form a strong opinion on this.
I am adamantly opposed to slotted weapons that aren't being used as 'stat sticks'. Weapons should only provide their enhancement when they are wielded. At the end of the day this isn't my call (It's Steven's and the combat team) but this is a glaring flaw I see in a lot of MMO development.
Riffing off this a bit. If I were to take an ideal any weapon any class system, it would be an extreme version of GW2. I’d have all weapons have basic skills / abilities, these are augmented by the first archetype, then further augmented by the second archetype, and finally polished by skill point distribution in the fighting style / approach for each player. Then a ranger is decoupled from the bow as much as a warrior from the sword. In pnp a fighter specialized in a bow can be a devastating archer.
This would give players a TON of freedom.
The weapon combo is the basic attack. Guild Wars 2 uses those skills as the attacks.
Weapon combos are specced with points for procs or additional chains. Though I agree, it'd be nice to tack an augment onto it.
I suspect people who are against this one are people with no creativity for different builds and don't want other people to be able to have that creative freedom so they know exactly w hat they are up against in PvP...
..which is exactly NOT the target demo for this game.
It would be helpful to understand the threat before gatekeeping kicks in..
The people who want to do it are those who don't want to be stuck playing cookie-cutter builds.
If you don't want your Ranger to wield a Sword, don't have your Ranger wield a Sword.
Combat role is primarily defined by Active Skills. Weapon Skills offer some variety in the details of how that role is performed.