I'm all for One handed crossbows and guns.
A dark ranger would indeed be similar to a hunter, but not more similar than a paladin is to a warrior or a death knight, and those are distinct enough to fit in the same design space. Tinkers as well, would probably use ranged weapons, including bows with trick gadget arrows ala Hawkeye or somesuch, and they are one of the more requested potential classes.
A comparison to hunters is inevitable in such a class, but a melee class would inevitably be compared to the existing melee classes, a healer would inevitably be compared to the existing healers, and so on. That comparison in no way means that hunters have fully plumbed the depths of what is possible in a physical ranged class.
tinkers could in a ranged dps, or dark rangers
I'm a bit disappointed that Shuriken Toss can't be glyphed to use a gun model and firing for it's animations.
Tinkers would be really quite difficult to implement - there's a whole host of issues to resolve in regards to weapons/armour/stats/specs and compatibility etc.
If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.
Dark Ranger class ftw?
Originally Posted by Naphta
I can imagine them removing MM and Surv from the Hunter Class. In their place add a Pet based tank spec and a pet based melee spec.
Add a new class with the removed MM and Surv with Healer spec as the third( something that uses herbs and bandage like spells to heal)
If we can have shadow priests, warlocks and mages, yes of course
I'm pretty sure next class in WoW is going to be some kind of ranger.
my PSN ID - Kobold_Rider
Could have a spec that combines them both in a way. Have Dark Ranger and Demon Hunter actually be specs. the class will use mail, Dark ranger could be a ranged spec, demon hunter be ranged I would like another class that can be both ranged dps and melee besides shaman/druid though lore wise that would be extremely difficult / stupid
Honestly I will likely be happy with whatever blizz does because I know they will find a way to make it somewhat unique at least, and i'll likely play it
WoW doesn't need more classes - the only thing it needs is for the existing classes to actually be balanced.
I would MUCH rather they spend effort making pre-90 (or pre-95, I guess) content engaging and meaningful, rather than "slog through this to get to level cap so you can start playing the actual game."
And then they can go back through and figure out what they want to do with PvP so there's an actual design direction for it, rather than it just being tacked on as an afterthought to PvE.
Also, why the hell would you make a Tinker class? The only races who would make sense as tinkers would be goblins and gnomes, and Engineering already has the silly gadgets you'd associate with such a class.
demon hunter, or 4th spec for warrior or rogue
and 2 different kind of weapon:
2H ( bow/gun)
1h X 2 ( pistols/ crossbows)
to make different gameplay specs
Some version of tinkers would be great :
-Uses range weapons
-Uses plate int armor
Most of the gear problems are solved, possibly add 1 spec that uses daggers.
But I'm not sure it actually requires another class.
The D3 version of the DH could be integrated into one of the existing Hunters specs. This would create some much needed variety in gameplay, I think. Marksmanship would be a good place | think, but Survival could also work.
Then there is the Ranger archetype. I could see this as being a sub-class of the Rogue. Again, doing this would allow for an AGI based leather wearing physical ranged DPS which would also create competition for bows and AGI ranged weapons.
But that brings us back to the core problem. If we want a mail wearing AGI based class that makes use of ranged weaponry....we already have the Hunter, and that argues more for a revamp of that classes specs. Is that an insurmountable issue? No.
If the game did get a new class, a Mail user does seem likely. But there isn't really any obvious archetype for that armor.