Page 1 of 7
1
2
3
... LastLast
  1. #1

    Can somebody explain what Demon Hunters have to do with Rogues?

    Other than the fact that they dual wield glaives - which to my mind, being swords, has as much to do with Rogues as it would with Warriors, or any sword using class, as 2 out of 3 Rogue specs do not use swords.

    It's bothering me lately because 4th spec has been a popular topic of discussion and Demon Hunter keeps coming up as a 4th spec for Rogues, which I not only don't want, I just don't see how it makes sense. Rogues are, you know, thieves and assassins and stuff, not magic adepts that can metamorphose into their inner demons - right?

  2. #2
    It would be completely illogical to have Demon Hunter be the fourth spec for rogues. http://www.wowpedia.org/Demon_hunter

    Becoming a Demon Hunter requires you to make a pact, that's not something you can just undo.
    Also "Other cultures share the night elves' distrust of demon hunters, and the shadowy individuals are not welcome in cities throughout the Alliance or Horde-controlled lands".
    Quote Originally Posted by Rugz
    Holes means you have less of a food to plate ratio, you can get more net weight of pancakes into the same volume and area as you could with waffles. Therefore pancakes win.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaoskadosk View Post
    It would be completely illogical to have Demon Hunter be the fourth spec for rogues. http://www.wowpedia.org/Demon_hunter

    Becoming a Demon Hunter requires you to make a pact, that's not something you can just undo.
    Also "Other cultures share the night elves' distrust of demon hunters, and the shadowy individuals are not welcome in cities throughout the Alliance or Horde-controlled lands".
    Can't say it would be that hard for Blizzard to change the lore around a little!

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaoskadosk View Post
    Also "Other cultures share the night elves' distrust of demon hunters, and the shadowy individuals are not welcome in cities throughout the Alliance or Horde-controlled lands".
    It didn't take that long for them to accept large groups of death knights wandering around.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaoskadosk View Post
    It would be completely illogical to have Demon Hunter be the fourth spec for rogues. http://www.wowpedia.org/Demon_hunter
    That's my takeaway too, yet it keeps coming up. It must just come down to the fact that "Rogue = dual wield = Rogue" in most players' minds.

  6. #6
    The Lightbringer leaks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    I don't even know anymore.
    Posts
    3,375
    You'll never see either one?
    "Terror, darkness, power? The Forsaken crave not these things; the Forsaken ARE these things."

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Klavier Gavin View Post
    Can't say it would be that hard for Blizzard to change the lore around a little!
    I'm not a huge lore buff, so I have to ask, what has Blizzard actually changed in their lore? As in completely rehaul something already canon, not adding things that actually make sense canonically whether you agree with it or not.

    Warcraft is an evolving world, so obviously they have every right to expand that world, but have they actually completely changed something lorewise? I'm really curious.

    Don't take it the wrong way, I'm actually curious about it and would like to know. There seems to be a lot of people that can't distinguish between changing canon lore and adding new elements.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rugz
    Holes means you have less of a food to plate ratio, you can get more net weight of pancakes into the same volume and area as you could with waffles. Therefore pancakes win.

  8. #8
    perhaps not with them...but they can do alot TO them...

    and no, DH as rogue spec will never work. it's like saying Spell-Warrior should be a warrior's fourth spec... Warriors lack the capacity to become arcane fighters. and rogues lack the capacity to become powerful chaotic-magic (fel-magic) warriors.
    Last edited by banestalker; 2013-05-07 at 05:20 PM.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by hablix View Post
    Other than the fact that they dual wield glaives - which to my mind, being swords, has as much to do with Rogues as it would with Warriors, or any sword using class, as 2 out of 3 Rogue specs do not use swords.

    It's bothering me lately because 4th spec has been a popular topic of discussion and Demon Hunter keeps coming up as a 4th spec for Rogues, which I not only don't want, I just don't see how it makes sense. Rogues are, you know, thieves and assassins and stuff, not magic adepts that can metamorphose into their inner demons - right?
    Not a lot. There are a number of players who see the Demon Hunter as having a Rogue like playstyle, suggest that they wear leather armor and so on.

    Why? Because they get info and develop a belief in how they should play from the way DHs are portrayed in game, in WC3 and from the RPG. There is also one DH lookalike in Silithus....he appears to be wearing leather armor and has a blindfold, but its unknown whether or not he actually is a DH.

    Truth is...Blizzard could develop the DH as wearing plate or try a workaround where they don't benefit from armor at all should they decide to do so. The in game playstyle, if and when DHs are introduced, may or may not bear any relevance to the DHs already in game or players pre-conceived conceptions. There are even those who will insist the DH is a DPS class and ignore the fact they have tanking moves and they do appear heavily in a tanking role. Are they right? Don't know.

    Personally? I think there is a high chance we will see DHs in the game, and I think I'd welcome that. Where I differ from others, is that I think Blizzard has unified the DH theme with the Warlock too much for them to easily disentangle. As a result, I think we will see the DH as a Warlock offspec or stance. The first cloth tank. While that wouldn't be perfect and the pure DH class would offer certain advantages and it's far from impossible we'll see a pure version, I just think there has been too much crossover that can't be undone.

    EJL

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaoskadosk View Post
    I'm not a huge lore buff, so I have to ask, what has Blizzard actually changed in their lore? As in completely rehaul something already canon, not adding things that actually make sense canonically whether you agree with it or not.

    Warcraft is an evolving world, so obviously they have every right to expand that world, but have they actually completely changed something lorewise? I'm really curious.

    Don't take it the wrong way, I'm actually curious about it and would like to know. There seems to be a lot of people that can't distinguish between changing canon lore and adding new elements.
    What has Blizzard completely changed? See Deathwing's ENTIRE story. Start with the Warcraft II Hero and see what he became.
    "You will bend to my will... with or without your precious sanity!

  11. #11
    Scarab Lord ViridianWRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rainbow Road
    Posts
    4,073
    Quote Originally Posted by hablix View Post
    Rogues are, you know, thieves and assassins and stuff, not magic adepts that can metamorphose into their inner demons - right?
    Shadowstep.

    Shadow Blades.

    Cloak of Shadows.

    Shadow Dance.

    While I wouldn't call Rogues a "Magical" class, nor even as "Magic" as a Retribution Paladin or Enhancement Shaman or any other "Melee Caster", I would say that your average Rogue has pretty reasonable magical talent to supplement their martial abilities.



    As far as Demon Hunter level? Not a chance. But the reason Demon Hunters are compared to Rogues is that they are essentially the same, short of magic.

    A dual wielding, leather armored, light stealth class with an emphasis on trickery, preparation, getting the first hit, and one on one combat.

    Demon Hunters are, basically, Assassins who have focused solely on Demons.

  12. #12
    The Insane Slowpoke is a Gamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Twitch & Youtube
    Posts
    18,210
    Demon Hunter being a 4th spec of Rogue? That's new. Most people say it should be a 4th spec of Warlock. Which if you know anything about the lore, is an impossibility. Warlocks are in it for power, DHs are in it for revenge.
    Unsubscribed as of 03/10/2014.

    If you dislike where WoW is headed in your mind, quit. Really. Sitting around complaining about "promises" that may or may not have been made isn't doing anything to help your cause. It's just making you look more and more like the constantly complaining and perpetually offended.

  13. #13
    Like what was said above, I've seen more ideas for DH's being Warlock 4th spec more than for Rogues. Even then, they're different enough from Warlocks to be their own class, not a specialization. They're as different as Paladins are to Priests; both use magic in very different ways. Demon Hunters aren't rogues or warlocks, they're demon hunters.

  14. #14
    Bloodsail Admiral DonQShot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Guimaraes
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by hablix View Post
    Other than the fact that they dual wield glaives - which to my mind, being swords, has as much to do with Rogues as it would with Warriors, or any sword using class, as 2 out of 3 Rogue specs do not use swords.

    It's bothering me lately because 4th spec has been a popular topic of discussion and Demon Hunter keeps coming up as a 4th spec for Rogues, which I not only don't want, I just don't see how it makes sense. Rogues are, you know, thieves and assassins and stuff, not magic adepts that can metamorphose into their inner demons - right?
    yes my friend, its the balance freakzoids that wanna force the game into mediocracy stating that balance is more importante than fun. As long Blizz doesn't give in to that I will keep playing the game!. Which leaves me with na answer for another thread I just saw made =).
    you see, that's how awsome speaking the truth and opening your mind to new possibilities can be! WOW FTW! =P

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by hablix View Post
    Other than the fact that they dual wield glaives - which to my mind, being swords, has as much to do with Rogues as it would with Warriors, or any sword using class, as 2 out of 3 Rogue specs do not use swords.

    It's bothering me lately because 4th spec has been a popular topic of discussion and Demon Hunter keeps coming up as a 4th spec for Rogues, which I not only don't want, I just don't see how it makes sense. Rogues are, you know, thieves and assassins and stuff, not magic adepts that can metamorphose into their inner demons - right?
    To directly answer your question, the early association between demon hunters and Rogues comes from BC because though several classes could loot and use the warglaives, the blindfold 'Cursed Vision of Sargeras' to match was leather.

    To answer the broader question of 'why rogues' I would say the idea is that the spec would be an arcane trickster/spellthief/mage-theif flavoured spec- which have long been popular fixtures in pen and paper and video game RPGs. To rephrase, why must rogue be limited to 'non-magical stealthy assassin' themed builds? Indeed, the problem Rogues have more than any other class is the sameyness of their specs, though partly this comes from the sameyness of each spec's gameplay, I think that in turn can be chalked up to an insufficiently diverse thematic foundation for the different specs. Combat is swashbuckler- cool, though it should play even more piratey than it does. Subtelty and Assassination are basically the same thing, with the latter adding poison and having a slightly different rotation. Fan outrage aside, I would be happy to see these two specs merged into the 'stealthy assassin' spec with strengths in poison DoTs and stealth (I'd also perhaps colour it with 'shadowdancer' type mystique... so not quite magic, but sort of supernatural and bathed in quasi-occultic shadow mysticism- more so with certain racial traditions than others). Then I'd mix Demon Hunter and Runemaster into a 3rd rogue spec which would be more broadly a tattooed arcane trickster spellthief.

    Just like how Tauren pallies are 'Sunwalker' sun druids whereas Belf Pallies are Blood Knights, I'd just have demon hunters not as a full class, but as factional representation of a rogue spec. So probably Nelves and Belves would each have their own Demon Hunter subfactions, tied into outland lore and NPCs. Play a dwarf and want to RP him as a Demon hunter too? Cool, take the spellthief spec and grind rep with the Demon hunter faction.

    Anyhow, this game is dying for some fresh playstyles, so I'd do this spelltheify character as the ultimate anticaster. Passives which add combo points when hit by powerful spells, or when they are interrupted, sucking enemy mana for rogue energy, a temporary buffed state that allows the use of 'stolen' magic- possibly as a way to go temporarily 'ranged' on cooldown. Resistance to arcane and fel. Maybe a 'mimic' ability which replays your selected enemy's last cast-time spell- or a 'reflect' which if timed well can shoot bolt attacks back at enemies. This is just off the top of my head, never even thought of this before, obviously it'd need to be considered and balanced.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by composemail View Post
    Then I'd mix Demon Hunter and Runemaster into a 3rd rogue spec which would be more broadly a tattooed arcane trickster spellthief.

    Just like how Tauren pallies are 'Sunwalker' sun druids whereas Belf Pallies are Blood Knights, I'd just have demon hunters not as a full class, but as factional representation of a rogue spec. So probably Nelves and Belves would each have their own Demon Hunter subfactions, tied into outland lore and NPCs. Play a dwarf and want to RP him as a Demon hunter too? Cool, take the spellthief spec and grind rep with the Demon hunter faction.
    I feel like what you're describing is more of a Spellbreaker than Demon Hunter

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Thimagryn View Post
    Like what was said above, I've seen more ideas for DH's being Warlock 4th spec more than for Rogues. Even then, they're different enough from Warlocks to be their own class, not a specialization. They're as different as Paladins are to Priests; both use magic in very different ways. Demon Hunters aren't rogues or warlocks, they're demon hunters.
    It comes up a lot in the WoW forums moreso than here. Here's the particular example that spurred this post: https://twitter.com/nemo2501/status/328463280412700674

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by hablix View Post
    Other than the fact that they dual wield glaives - which to my mind, being swords, has as much to do with Rogues as it would with Warriors, or any sword using class, as 2 out of 3 Rogue specs do not use swords.
    Truth. A rogue is currently your "best fit" for a demon hunter, but it's not a very close fit. Basically, a demon hunter spends most of his time in melee dual wielding, and that's also a thing a rogue does. The demon hunter is lightly armored and relies on evasion for defense. But beyond that...

    The immolation aura and of course meta are now warlock things. That's pretty great, but it's definitely not very demon huntery.

    It's bothering me lately because 4th spec has been a popular topic of discussion and Demon Hunter keeps coming up as a 4th spec for Rogues, which I not only don't want, I just don't see how it makes sense. Rogues are, you know, thieves and assassins and stuff, not magic adepts that can metamorphose into their inner demons - right?
    It depends on how the fourth spec goes. I definitely feel that adding extra specs would be wiser than a new class, but if you stop and think, it's way more effort to do so- 11 specs versus 3, and then they have to maintain it. On the other hand, if folding in hero classes as specs was a thing, demon hunter would be PERFECT for rogues. But using the current paradign of what a spec is, hell no. Demon Hunter would need to be its own class. If warriors get "mountain king" though, then yea, go for it. It would require a pretty big change.


    The big argument in favor is practical- at some point, you don't want a million classes, and it would solve the "rogues are unpopular" issue. I think it's a kludge though. I'm in favor of it, but only if they add similarly lore-rich spec options to other classes- and that doesn't seem very likely.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by composemail View Post
    To directly answer your question, the early association between demon hunters and Rogues comes from BC because though several classes could loot and use the warglaives, the blindfold 'Cursed Vision of Sargeras' to match was leather.

    To answer the broader question of 'why rogues' I would say the idea is that the spec would be an arcane trickster/spellthief/mage-theif flavoured spec- which have long been popular fixtures in pen and paper and video game RPGs. To rephrase, why must rogue be limited to 'non-magical stealthy assassin' themed builds? Indeed, the problem Rogues have more than any other class is the sameyness of their specs, though partly this comes from the sameyness of each spec's gameplay, I think that in turn can be chalked up to an insufficiently diverse thematic foundation for the different specs. ...

    (snip snip...)
    Great post, thanks for that.

    ---------- Post added 2013-05-07 at 06:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Verain View Post
    It depends on how the fourth spec goes. I definitely feel that adding extra specs would be wiser than a new class, but if you stop and think, it's way more effort to do so- 11 specs versus 3, and then they have to maintain it. On the other hand, if folding in hero classes as specs was a thing, demon hunter would be PERFECT for rogues. But using the current paradign of what a spec is, hell no. Demon Hunter would need to be its own class. If warriors get "mountain king" though, then yea, go for it. It would require a pretty big change.

    The big argument in favor is practical- at some point, you don't want a million classes, and it would solve the "rogues are unpopular" issue. I think it's a kludge though. I'm in favor of it, but only if they add similarly lore-rich spec options to other classes- and that doesn't seem very likely.
    That's what I thought too, until I read this tweet - which makes it sound like 4th specs are a very real possibility, so I want to at least do my part to keep the forum buzz alive: https://twitter.com/Ghostcrawler/sta...23266185551872

  20. #20
    Demon hunter could be a 4rth shared spec between warlocks/hunters/rogues... I don't really like the idea , but it could be shared...

Posting Permissions

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