Poll: Which class deserves a 4th spec?

Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
12
... LastLast
  1. #21
    High Overlord Cafua's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Massachusettes
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    Names aside, they already are like that, with a little overlap in every area.
    Yeah but if they really made it more simple and tuned to each element i think that people would be drawn to shamans more, but I get what you mean.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by proteen View Post
    Stop with these worthless discussions. Druids' are unique because they are and always have been a hybrid class.
    Monks and Paladins say hi.

  3. #23
    Rather than adding more specs, they should improve the ones that already exist and allow tri-spec.

  4. #24
    I think realistically if any class were to get another spec it should be warrior, they could break out a spec for TG and one for SMF, that way you would'nt have to keep getting 2nders from LFR when you really wanted the 1hnders

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Regennis View Post
    I want a real caster DPS spec for Paladin.
    Test this out (I wouldn't call it competative for raiding, but try it with a Druid friend in a 5-man):

    Ret Spec + Symbiosis + Glyph of Harsh Words (and later gear Hit Cap > Exp Cap > Haste > Crit >>>>>>>> Mastery), and be a ranged caster. On a like 5min dummy test, I managed to get up to about 42k DPS, and that was at least 10 ilevels lower than I am now.

    Though I agree somewhat, that someone using all the int plate instead of JUST Holy Paladins, would be nice (Though, to be fair, same issue exists really for caster mail, just that is on 2 specs instead of 1)
    Games are not necessarily "easier" today. You are just a better player.
    It takes more now to impress many gamers than it did 2-5 years ago, because so much has already been seen and done.
    Many players expect to be wow'd with every release of a beloved franchise.
    These are generally NOT the fault of the developers, but the fault of many players over-hyping and/or setting expectations too high.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfootbigd View Post
    Monks and Paladins say hi.
    Paladins are a hybrid, yes. But you already have 3 specs for each roll, and a 4th? it would be unnecessary since I cannot see another useful spec for the class. (aka - Paladins don't need a caster-DPS spec. It'd be silly.)
    Monks? Yeah, they haven't always been hybrids since they haven't always existed. If people are already unhappy that Monks don't have a 4th spec, they should go re-roll another, worthwhile class.

  7. #27
    That you can't think outside the box doesn't mean the outside doesn't exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by proteen View Post
    There are no reasons to make a 4th type of spec for everyone for various reasons:
    What?

    Aside from that, your reasons are pretty bogus.
    "They would be cheesy", well, so could a new class. That's neither here nor there.
    "You'd all start complaining", what do you mean start? People are complaining all the time, that's no change in behaviour.
    Every class becoming a hybrid would probably be an improvement, as it stops people from complaining that "pure" DDs do not do vastly more damage than hybrids. It wouldn't make individual classes any more or less relevant, though. The hybrids are, if anything, a more diverse bunch than the pures.

  8. #28
    Warrior 'fury' could be split into 2h and 1h variants with a little work. or i suppose another tank spec could be thrown in. healing seems unlikely
    paladin caster dps is requested often enough that it could be created. also the shockadin specs from tbc provide a basic template
    hunters could..... tank with pets? ehh hunters would need some work
    rouge dodge tanks are pretty frequently talked about and have been used in some format since tbc.
    priests could.. could. have discpline split into holy dps and shield healing? maybe
    dk healers seems to be getting a lot of backing these days. using melee monk as a basis could provide a method of splitting blood up to be healer.
    shaman earthwarders are probably the most frequently thing brought up when these threads are born and have a lot of history on their side
    mages.... i've heard people suggest a healing spec for them. i suppose it'd help balance all the "4th spec is a tank" ideas that get tossed around for other classes
    warlocks have some definite portential in a demonology styled tank spec
    monks could get a ranged dps format i suppose, or split healing officially into melee healing and spellcaster healing
    druids have theis

    so there are kinks to work out, but most classes have some solid potential to get a 4th spec up. some clearly need a lot of work.
    “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

    Quote Originally Posted by BatteredRose View Post
    They're greedy soulless monsters for not handing me everything for my 15 moneys a month!

  9. #29
    High Overlord Cafua's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Massachusettes
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Hypnozis View Post
    I think realistically if any class were to get another spec it should be warrior, they could break out a spec for TG and one for SMF, that way you would'nt have to keep getting 2nders from LFR when you really wanted the 1hnders
    This would make warriors have 3 dps specs....kind of confusing considering two of them would be fury with like ONE ability difference. And the getting 2handers when you're SMF, that is more of a problem blizz has with not recognizing that little difference in fury specs

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    That you can't think outside the box doesn't mean the outside doesn't exist.


    What?

    Aside from that, your reasons are pretty bogus.
    "They would be cheesy", well, so could a new class. That's neither here nor there.
    "You'd all start complaining", what do you mean start? People are complaining all the time, that's no change in behaviour.
    Every class becoming a hybrid would probably be an improvement, as it stops people from complaining that "pure" DDs do not do vastly more damage than hybrids. It wouldn't make individual classes any more or less relevant, though. The hybrids are, if anything, a more diverse bunch than the pures.
    I guess the jist of my post was, if you want a hybrid class that can cover all grounds, then roll a druid. If you want to be a caster DPS, you know to roll a mage or lock. If you want to be a healer, go roll a priest or pally. Tanks: warrior, DK, pally. Physical DPS: rogues, hunters. Not sure? Roll a druid.

    I would never log on a rogue and expect to heal; on a hunter and expect to tank (that's why you have pets.); on a mage and expect to pull out 50k physical dps; on a paladin and conjure demonic pets... its common sense.

    It's just how the game has always worked, so now - after 4 expansions - why would Blizzard decide to rework their entire system on which the game was made? Its a lot of work and rework, and its seemingly unnecessary from a design aspect.
    Last edited by proteen; 2012-12-07 at 05:18 PM.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by evdawg6543 View Post
    This would make warriors have 3 dps specs....kind of confusing considering two of them would be fury with like ONE ability difference. And the getting 2handers when you're SMF, that is more of a problem blizz has with not recognizing that little difference in fury specs
    I agree with your second part, but it would also make balancing warrior dps easier cause they could nerf or buff SMF with out it impacting TG

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by evdawg6543 View Post
    This would make warriors have 3 dps specs....kind of confusing considering two of them would be fury with like ONE ability difference. And the getting 2handers when you're SMF, that is more of a problem blizz has with not recognizing that little difference in fury specs
    could get a barbarian style tank that doesn't use shields i suppose. bring Blademasters back. it's a stretch, but so is splitting up SMF and TG into 2 specs.
    “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

    Quote Originally Posted by BatteredRose View Post
    They're greedy soulless monsters for not handing me everything for my 15 moneys a month!

  13. #33
    Immortal Luko's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Danger Zone
    Posts
    6,994
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfootbigd View Post
    Monks and Paladins say hi.
    What does this even mean? In his post, he explained how druids have always had 4 completely separate specs, it's only recently that they've literally been divided into their own option choices.

    In your scenario, however, you're asking them to completely pull something out of their ass to add a forth spec to a class who's obviously never had one and I'm not even entirely sure why. Boredom, maybe?
    Mountains rise in the distance stalwart as the stars, fading forever.
    Roads ever weaving, soul ever seeking the hunter's mark.

  14. #34
    Deleted
    Imo give tank specs to shaman, lock and hunter and a ranged dps spec for pallies. Maybe blood dps for dks.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by proteen View Post
    I guess the jist of my post was, if you want a hybrid class that can cover all grounds, then roll a druid. If you want to be a caster DPS, you know to roll a mage or lock. If you want to be a healer, go roll a priest or pally. Tanks: warrior, DK, pally. Physical DPS: rogues, hunters. Not sure? Roll a druid.

    It's just how the game has always worked, so now - after 4 expansions - why would Blizzard decide to rework their entire system on which the game was made?
    that's an excellent example of the logical fallacy of traditional wisdom.

    they'd want to change it to keep the game fresh and possibly working better.
    “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

    Quote Originally Posted by BatteredRose View Post
    They're greedy soulless monsters for not handing me everything for my 15 moneys a month!

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfootbigd View Post
    We know there's a possibility now. Dividing the old feral spec seemed long overdue, now the question is if any other class deserve a 4th spec in a future expansion? i.e. rogue or warlock tank spec, ranged dps monk, holy dps priest, etc.
    I don't think it was long overdue, and it was in fact part of the reason I didn't return in MoP. My input is, 4 specs is just getting silly, WoW players complain about balance far too much for them to bring in any more specs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lugo Moll View Post
    Consider this philosophical question: If Blizz fails, but noone is there to see it. Will there still be QQ?

  17. #37
    If they add a fourth spec it should be all classes get one or no one else.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryngo Blackratchet View Post
    In your scenario, however, you're asking them to completely pull something out of their ass to add a forth spec to a class who's obviously never had one and I'm not even entirely sure why. Boredom, maybe?
    Exactly. Which is why the new specs would likely be extremely cheesy. "90 Rogue LFR, can heal," say what???

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert the fish View Post
    that's an excellent example of the logical fallacy of traditional wisdom.

    they'd want to change it to keep the game fresh and possibly working better.
    Or possibly ruin their entire foundation for the game. Seems risky, eh?

  19. #39
    High Overlord Cafua's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Massachusettes
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert the fish View Post
    could get a barbarian style tank that doesn't use shields i suppose. bring Blademasters back. it's a stretch, but so is splitting up SMF and TG into 2 specs.
    Yeah so you're thinking like 2 tank/2dps specs. It would be a tough decision to make regarding TG and SmF because you have so many fury warrior who love both of them, people would get pissed if they made TG or SmF a tank only spec and be stuck with the one they dont like, but I do like the idea of a 2h warrior tank, using parry as your main defense stat

  20. #40
    I voted for Shaman and Warlock, both of which would be tank specs. A demon hunter tank spec for warlocks and an earth tank spec for shaman, as their is some history to each one. I think you could add a 4th spec to every class if you really wanted to given the way they currently do the specs, some examples:

    Warriors - a Ranged DPS spec using bows
    Hunters - a melee DPS spec or petless spec
    Rogues - a ranged DPS spec using thrown weapons
    Mages - a shadow or lightning spec
    Death Knights - a blood rune focused dps spec
    Paladins - a holy caster DPS spec using int gear
    Priests - a Holy caster DPS spec
    Monks - a ranged DPS mana/chi spec

    Going from 34 specs to 44 specs is a huge change though, and likely not something that could be fit in until a new expansion, and even then would likely consist of much of class development for that expansion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •